PDA

View Full Version : Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

training wheels
28th Dec 2014, 02:28
There are reports this morning that an Indonesia Air Asia A320 has lost contact enroute from Surabaya to Singapore QZ 8501. Let's hope for the best for crew and passengers.

Machinbird
28th Dec 2014, 02:41
Still very skimpy information:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2014/12/28/AirAsia-flight-from-Indonesia-to-Singapore-missing.html

jack schidt
28th Dec 2014, 02:45
From RT (Russia Today)

Air Asia flight number QZ8501, bound from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore, has reportedly lost control with air traffic control. The missing flight is an Airbus A320-200 with 155 people on board, Reuters reports.
The plane lost contact with the Jakarta air traffic control on Sunday, Indonesian media said, citing a Transport Ministry official Hadi Mustofa.

Mustofa said the contact was lost at 6:17am local time (23:17 GMT) after the crew asked for an unusual route.

training wheels
28th Dec 2014, 02:47
Registration PK-AXC with 138 adults, 16 minors and 1 infant. 7 crew including engineer onboard.

mickjoebill
28th Dec 2014, 02:55
Transport Ministry official Hadi Mustofa told Metro TV that the Airbus 320-20 lost contact with the Jakarta air traffic control tower at 6.17 am local time. The plane lost contact somewhere between Kalimantan and Belitung island, he said. - See more at: Air Asia flight bound for Singapore lost contact with air traffic: Report - South-east Asia News & Top Stories - The Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/air-asia-flight-bound-singapore-lost-contact-air-traffic-report-2014#sthash.ouZMkhLA.dpuf)


Mickjoebill

RiSq
28th Dec 2014, 02:58
If that RT report was to be remotely accurate, the fact the plane went missing after a request for an unusual route will have the media jumping to conclusions, that's for sure :(

Also, that's been missing for a hell of a long time. That is out of the A320s range is it not, even if it was filled to the brim.

MG23
28th Dec 2014, 03:00
If that RT report was to be remotely accurate, the fact the plane went missing after a request for an unusual route will have the media jumping to conclusions, that's for sure :(

The BBC are reporting the same, but not explaining what 'unusual route' actually means.

musicalaviator
28th Dec 2014, 03:03
The area over, and south of Singapore (aka Indonesia) is currently on the SIGWX chart as having ISOL CB FL450 - XXX.

"Unusual Routing" could be "deviate off course to avoid weather".

Just a speculation.

RiSq
28th Dec 2014, 03:07
AirAsia Indonesia regrets to confirm that flight QZ8501 from Surabaya to Singapore has lost contact with air traffic control at 07:24hrs this morning.

At the present time we unfortunately have no further information regarding the status of the passengers and crew members on board, but we will keep all parties informed as more information becomes available.

The aircraft was an Airbus A320-200 with the registration number PK-AXC.

At this time, search and rescue operations are in progress and AirAsia is cooperating fully and assisting the rescue service.


AirAsia has established an Emergency Call Centre that is available for family or friends of those who may have been on board the aircraft. The number is: +622129850801.

AirAsia will release further information as soon as it becomes available. Updated information will also be posted on the AirAsia website, AirAsia | Cheap flights to Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong, Siem Reap, Taipei | Book online now (http://www.airasia.com).

https://mobile.twitter.com/AirAsia/status/549048915429830656

underfire
28th Dec 2014, 03:08
It is a 2 hour flight, so 5+ hours overdue...

Lots of thunderstorm activity...

Hope for the best.

p.j.m
28th Dec 2014, 03:15
Another Malaysian airline....

PK-AXC - Indonesia AirAsia - Aircraft info and flight history - Flightradar24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/pk-axc/#5240449)

http://i.imgur.com/i7yheZ8.jpg

tiger9999187
28th Dec 2014, 03:19
Unconfirmed pax:
149 Indonesians, 3 Koreans, 1 Singaporean, 1 Briton, 1 Malaysian.


Interesting side note - Air Asia have greyed out all logos on social media in the last few minutes.

Blind Squirrel
28th Dec 2014, 03:27
According to the New Straits Times, its last known co-ordinates were at 3 09'15" S, 111 28'21 E. That would put it about five miles offshore, some 25 nm SW of Pangkalanbuun in Borneo.

training wheels
28th Dec 2014, 03:27
Looks like they were diverting left then right just before RAFIS on M635

http://i.imgur.com/1lw0wW2.jpg

Dynamite1
28th Dec 2014, 03:28
Nothing significant visible in the weather radar pic from changi

rtpilot1
28th Dec 2014, 03:28
Faa issued emergency AD on aircraft Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-51 is sent to owners and operators of Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD #:
2014-25-51. An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle of Attack (AoA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flightcrew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.

ramble on
28th Dec 2014, 03:30
Large TS return in vicinity of the last position that is shown on the above post

See BOM Full Disk Satellite image here:

Recent Satellite Images (http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/satellite/?tz=AEST&unit=p23&domain=15&view=34&satSubmit=Refresh+View)

Low Flier
28th Dec 2014, 03:38
Wssr20 wsss 280249
wsjc sigmet 1 valid 280300/280700 wsss-
wsjc singapore fir embd ts obs entire fir nc=

p.j.m
28th Dec 2014, 03:43
https://www.facebook.com/RadarBox24/photos/a.250514485077361.57504.226612787467531/605884999540306/?type=1&fref=nf

Transport ministry official Hadi Mustofa said flight QZ8501 lost contact with the Jakarta air traffic control tower at 6:17am local time (9:17am AEDT).

The official said the aircraft is an Airbus 320-200 with 155 people on board and the plane had asked for an unusual route before it lost contact.

Flight: QZ 8501
Aircraft Type: A320
Aircraft: PK-AXC
Lost contact after waypoint TAVIP at FL320.
155 passengers + 6 crew onboard

CodyBlade
28th Dec 2014, 03:45
TV Online Indonesia | MetroTV (http://www.tvonlineindonesia.net/tvlokal/metrotv)

CISTRS
28th Dec 2014, 03:57
Very harrowing watching the TV link.

The A/C went missing just after dawn local time, so SAR resources have maximum daylight.

glendalegoon
28th Dec 2014, 03:59
as you know, most big thunderstorms are in need of energy from the sun and form in the afternoon...BUT

if you have a thunderstorm in the early AM it may have quite a bit of energy. A HUGE AMOUNT of energy.

wondering if ELT signals have been received by SAR

Blind Squirrel
28th Dec 2014, 04:09
An unconfirmed report from Jakarta says that the aircraft is down in the sea near Belitung island.

http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/12/28/10400961/Ada.Pesawat.yang.Jatuh.di.Perairan.Belitung.Timur

JakartaDean
28th Dec 2014, 04:09
But Singapore has dispatched two C-130s for SAR. I am confident they are much more capable than their Indonesian counterparts.

CodyBlade
28th Dec 2014, 04:14
http://www.reddit.com/live/u5bkiqteljl4

My goodness the radar pic is chilling.

https://twitter.com/thatjohn/status/549063597087653889/photo/1

Ichiban
28th Dec 2014, 04:18
From the radar plot submitted by training wheels, if the 353 is ground speed, it would be slower than expected at FL363.

See the nearby Emirates 777, UAE 409, MEL-KUL. The 777 is at FL360 with a ground speed of 503 knots.

An A320 is not 150 knots slower than a B777.

Toruk Macto
28th Dec 2014, 04:25
A thunderstorm like that you can go from FL320 to FL 360 very quickly .

Karbine
28th Dec 2014, 04:28
Updated Statement by Air Asia (https://www.facebook.com/notes/airasia/updated-statement-qz8501/10152667884908742)

Non-facebook link of statement (https://i.imgur.com/tt6vrId.png)

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 04:32
@SATCO

You can't trust the ADS-B data from flight trackers.

Local ATC reported that due to weather, QZ8501 requested to deviate left of the M635 airway and climb from FL320 to FL380.

There's good civilian and military radar coverage in the area as there's a regional airport at Belitung Island.

training wheels
28th Dec 2014, 04:34
It was nowhere near FL360, it had established and was maintaining FL320

Local news reports saying that the last communication with ATC was a request to climb to FL340.

The last communication between QZ8501's pilot and air traffic control was when he requested to increase his altitude to 34,000 feet due to bad weather, Indonesia's Metro TV reported.

Read more: AirAsia flight from Indonesia to Singapore with 162 people on board loses contact with air traffic control minutes after asking to take an 'unusual' flightpath | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888862/AirAsia-flight-Indonesia-Singapore-loses-contact-air-traffic-control.html#ixzz3NASjG1X3)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Capt Claret
28th Dec 2014, 04:39
as you know, most big thunderstorms are in need of energy from the sun and form in the afternoon

Numerous, frequent even, evening thunderstorms during my 20 years in the tropics.

Karbine
28th Dec 2014, 04:40
Wreckage reportedly been found. (http://rt.com/news/218155-missing-airasia-flight-updates/)

Old King Coal
28th Dec 2014, 04:51
Wrt the suggestion that they asked to climb in order to avoid 'clouds'.

Imho, it's a very foolish thing to try and out-climb a thunderstorm.

Even if there is no cloud above a Cb, that should not be taken to infer that the air above the Cb is free from severe turbulence, and all that climbing would do is put one even closer into coffin-corner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics)), at a time when (if sever turbulence occurs) one needs as much airspeed margin as possible.

Hempy
28th Dec 2014, 04:53
Given that turbulence penetration speed for the A320 is 275kias, giving a TAS at FL340 of about 460kts, and the forecast winds were WSW, if that 360kt GS is accurate it is way too slow.

WhisprSYD
28th Dec 2014, 04:54
"Ichiban:

From the radar plot submitted by training wheels, if the 353 is ground speed, it would be slower than expected at FL363.

See the nearby Emirates 777, UAE 409, MEL-KUL. The 777 is at FL360 with a ground speed of 503 knots.

An A320 is not 150 knots slower than a B777."

Yeah a fair bit slower than expected.. but still not impossible when you consider that they may have been hitting best rate of climb to try and clear the weather and possibly pushing into 130kts of headwind.

KrispyKreme
28th Dec 2014, 04:56
Link to the Load and Trim sheet, found on Reddit.

http://jansaviation.com/files/QZ8501-LoadTrim.pdf

Grogmonster
28th Dec 2014, 04:57
Ichiban,

If the aircraft was in fact climbing the LOWER airspeed would make sense to some extent. It's also possible the pilot reduced speed due to expected turbulence in CB. Finally if you have reduced IAS and you are climbing you would have a reduced margin above the stall in clean configuration. This can be a trap in extreme turbulence where IAS fluctuates wildly.

Now I am not speculating at all just answering Ichiban,s question about the reduced speed.

Groggy

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 04:58
From Indonesia National SAR official briefing:

(all times local)

05:36 QZ8501 departed Juanda airport, Surabaya

06:12 Contacts Jakarta center 125.70 at FL320, requests weather deviation left of M635 airway and climb to FL380

06:16 QZ8501 still observed on radar

06:17 Radar contact lost. Radio contact lost. Only ADS-B signal remained.

06:18 All contact lost. Only flight plan view on radar screen.

07:08 ATC declares INCERFA (aircraft position uncertain)

07:28 ATC declares ALERTFA (emergency alert)

07:55 ATC declares DETRESFA (emergency distress)

Hempy
28th Dec 2014, 05:02
Shades of MAS370....that INCERFA would have been declared by 06:26 in any western country :rolleyes:

fullforward
28th Dec 2014, 05:02
"Imho, it's a very foolish thing to try and out-climb a thunderstorm."

Very well said, mate!

You simply cannot out climb them, I've seen some with tops at FL500 on the tropics.
Secondly you put the acft very close to the flight envelope limits if you climb 2,000 or more above the optimum, so any turbulence will put you on a high or slow speed stall. It's a very marginal situation.
Best way to avoid weather: steer away!

Capn Bloggs
28th Dec 2014, 05:04
possibly pushing into 130kts of headwind.
He was over the equator +/-. Let's keep the discussion sensible. Have a look at NAIPS for the current jetstreams over the area... :cool:

Metro man
28th Dec 2014, 05:10
Air Asia says missing jet asked to 'deviate' due to weather - Channel NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/air-asia-says-missing-jet/1553204.html)

JAKARTA: Air Asia said the pilot of flight QZ8501 that went missing between Indonesia and Singapore early Sunday (Dec 28) had requested "deviation" from the its flight plan because of bad weather.

"The aircraft ... was requesting deviation due to enroute weather," the Malaysia-based carrier said in a statement posted on its Facebook page.

"Communication with the aircraft was lost while it was still under the control of the Indonesian Air Traffic Control (ATC)."

UPDATED STATEMENT FROM AIRASIA AT 1.23PM:

"AirAsia Indonesia regrets to confirm that flight QZ8501 from Surabaya to Singapore has lost contact with air traffic control at 7.24 (Surabaya LT) this morning. The flight took off from Juanda International Airport in Surabaya at 5.35am

90"The aircraft was an Airbus A320-200 with the registration number PK-AXC. There were two pilots, four flight attendants and one engineer on board.The captain in command had a total of 6,100 flying hours and the first officer a total of 2,275 flying hours
"There were 155 passengers on board, with 138 adults, 16 children and 1 infant. Also on board were 2 pilots and 5 cabin crew.

"Nationalities of passengers and crew onboard are as below:
1 Singapore
1 Malaysia
1 France
3 South Korean
156 Indonesia

"At this time, search and rescue operations are being conducted under the guidance of The Indonesia of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). AirAsia Indonesia is cooperating fully and assisting the investigation in every possible way.

"The aircraft was on the submitted flight plan route and was requesting deviation due to enroute weather before communication with the aircraft was lost while it was still under the control of the Indonesian Air Traffic Control (ATC).

"The aircraft had undergone its last scheduled maintenance on 16 November 2014. AirAsia has established an Emergency Call Centre that is available for family or friends of those who may have been on board the aircraft. The number is: +622129850801.

"AirAsia will release further information as soon as it becomes available. Updated information will also be posted on the AirAsia website, www.airasia.com."

- AFP/CNA/by

White Knight
28th Dec 2014, 05:17
Wrt the suggestion that they asked to climb in order to avoid 'clouds'.

Imho, it's a very foolish thing to try and out-climb a thunderstorm.

Even if there is no cloud above a Cb, that should not be taken to infer that the air above the Cb is free from severe turbulence, and all that climbing would do is put one even closer into coffin-corner, at a time when (if sever turbulence occurs) one needs as much airspeed margin as possible.

Too true...

I've flown with many F/Os who suggest 'we' climb to avoid a CB... That's not happening on my flight! A good speed margin is vital in severe/extreme turbulence!

CISTRS
28th Dec 2014, 05:25
Once again, we rely on outdated technology. No ELT transmissions received. This will only increase the pressure for industry wide deployment of REAL TIME FLIGHT DATA TELEMETRY.
And not before time.

Blind Squirrel
28th Dec 2014, 05:26
National Search and Rescue Agency spokesman now giving the crash site as 3 degrees 22'46" S, 108 degrees 50' 07" E, or about 145 km E of Belitung.

AirAsia plane downed in Belitung waters: Reports | The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/12/28/airasia-plane-downed-belitung-waters-reports.html)

p.j.m
28th Dec 2014, 05:29
Once again, we rely on outdated technology. No ELT transmissions received. This will only increase the pressure for industry wide deployment of REAL TIME FLIGHT DATA TELEMETRY.
And not before time.

Even if this was in place today, there is no guarantee that the signal could have got through anyway. Satellite communications are OFTEN disrupted by weather, especially heavy weather.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 05:30
Once again, we rely on outdated technology. No ELT transmissions received. This will only increase the pressure for industry wide deployment of REAL TIME FLIGHT DATA TELEMETRY.
And not before time.
Let's not confuse the issue here. This isn't MH370. The AirAsia flight was actively being tracked both on primary radar and via ADS-B. And the plane was communicating with ATC just 1 minute before contact was lost.

formulaben
28th Dec 2014, 05:47
Once again, we rely on outdated technology. No ELT transmissions received. This will only increase the pressure for industry wide deployment of REAL TIME FLIGHT DATA TELEMETRY.
And not before time.

Pray tell, how would this "REAL TIME FLIGHT DATA TELEMETRY" work during and after an inflight breakup? And many lives would this save again? :rolleyes:

CISTRS
28th Dec 2014, 05:47
http://[IMG]http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee422/pimlican/ITCZ_zpsaa24a837.gifhttp://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee422/pimlican/ITCZ_zpsaa24a837.gif

despegue
28th Dec 2014, 05:47
Does Indonesia Air Asia use "Pay to Fly" First Officers to crew their aircraft?

For those unfamiliar: Pay to fly means that the second in command aboard a jetliner PAYS between 20.000 and 50.000. $ to have the "priveledge" to fly as a copilot onboard commercial passenger and cargo flights.

Some Asian companies now even do "pay to upgrade" where you BUY your Captain position...

Maybe CNN should report on THAT...:ugh:

Capn Bloggs
28th Dec 2014, 05:48
talking about AF and freezing pitoTT tubes
Not beyond the realms of possibility...

Climbing (apparently 4k plus above planned), slow (353 is ~ M0.6 at 36k ignoring wind), and end up in the ocean.

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 05:48
Load and trim sheet shows 1258 kg. It's quite low for Pax=158.

p.j.m
28th Dec 2014, 05:52
Load and trim sheet shows 1258 kg. It's quite low for Pax=158.

for baggage..
http://i.imgur.com/lRunM4K.jpg

Air Asia passengers often have more carryon than checked in baggage.

ironbutt57
28th Dec 2014, 05:54
looking at the radar plot available on a previous page, it appears he was about mid-flight...it never ceased to amaze me in my time on the 'Bus or Boeing, how many people were keen to climb high into thin air in an attempt to be clear of weather...:ugh:

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 06:02
Air Asia passengers often have more carryon than checked in baggage.

...i don't see cargo added in TOW of 63624 kg, then only 8kg of carryon average per passenger

ironbutt57
28th Dec 2014, 06:02
http://jansaviation.com/files/QZ8501-LoadTrim.pdf

fuel looks about right for one-way trip..

ekw
28th Dec 2014, 06:06
Severe turbulence inducing slow speed stall? Loss of spatial awareness resulting in excessive control inputs and possible loss of a control surface? No further communication due to extreme stress and physical forces?

m-dot
28th Dec 2014, 06:12
formulaben

Pray tell, how would this "REAL TIME FLIGHT DATA TELEMETRY" work during and after an inflight breakup? And many lives would this save again?


It wouldn't help there and then but the last few minutes of data would give you a bloody good idea as to what the 'holes in the Swiss cheese' were and therefore where to deploy SAR assets.

Indirectly (culturally) the system would 'save' lives in the future by identifying the threats and errors that contributed - that's if they were appropriately managed. (and to tack on my two cents - if an airline's objectives focussed on managing those threats by 'clear and true' implementation of a safety oriented culture that isn't bounced by commercial priority)

Screaming_Emu
28th Dec 2014, 06:19
I'm not sure that real time would greatly increase safety. The only advantage of the expediency in viewing the data would be in SAR.

Otherwise, it isn't like a dispatcher will be monitoring and able to send them an ACARS message saying "hey, watch your speed." Everything else, FOQA and related safety programs should help control.

Ichiban
28th Dec 2014, 06:22
Ground speed of 353 at FL363.

Unlikely to have a 130 knot headwind in the tropics.

Airspeed/Mach No, very slow.

Mahatma Kote
28th Dec 2014, 06:22
Assuming you recognise everything is going to hell in a hand-basket, at reasonable altitude is the option of simply switching off the auto-pilot and any other automatic systems and stopping supplying control inputs a better option than trying to fly out of the situation? I.e. let the aircraft fly itself.

I get the impression that in the case of Air-France Flight 447 that would have been a good choice. In general, or at least with Airbus aircraft, is that a good choice? Or are there envelopes outside of which a pilot is required to regain stability?

Carjockey
28th Dec 2014, 06:27
According to the Malaysian press the flight was roughly halfway through it's journey when the pilot requested a change of course, no distress signal had been sent.

Kompas.com reported that the flight was piloted by Captain Irianto with Emmanuel Plesel as the first officer. - See more at: AirAsia flight was halfway to Singapore when it went missing, says official - The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/singapore-bound-airasia-flight-loses-contact-with-surabaya-atc#sthash.02QVUrse.dpuf)

(http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/singapore-bound-airasia-flight-loses-contact-with-surabaya-atc#sthash.02QVUrse.dpuf)

p.j.m
28th Dec 2014, 06:29
Ground speed of 353 at FL363.

Unlikely to have a 130 knot headwind in the tropics.

Airspeed/Mach No, very slow.

last aircraft ADSB reported airspeed was 469 kts. If the ground speed reported by primary radar of 353 is correct, then headwinds are 116 knots.

http://i.imgur.com/wvO6Io5.jpg

JCviggen
28th Dec 2014, 06:32
That (last) ADS-B data point does show 32,000 feet, so it was before the climb, hence it's no surprise to see a normal speed in those normal conditions. If speed decayed it would've been later than this point.

Yaw String
28th Dec 2014, 06:32
Lets put this climbing higher when there is weather around,to bed!
We all know there are times when it is sensible,and others when it's not.,20k of Worldwide ops teaches you that kind of thing...
Or maybe not!

Flightradar24 means that CNN knows where the aircraft is,before anyone else!

His trimsheet is already out there...I must smarten up my signature..Cripes!

p.j.m
28th Dec 2014, 06:37
That (last) ADS-B data point does show 32,000 feet, so it was before the climb, hence it's no surprise to see a normal speed in those normal conditions. If speed decayed it would've been later than this point.

As far as we know, ATC never gave permission to climb, so the aircraft was still at 32,000 feet, until whatever happened, happened.

fender
28th Dec 2014, 06:38
There is usually a lot of traffic around that area, unusual that there is not Distress Radio Beacon signal, IF the worst has occurred!

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 06:40
As far as we know, ATC never gave permission to climb, so the aircraft was still at 32,000 feet, until whatever happened, happened.
That's not correct. Per official briefing, the flight requested (and was granted) permission from Jakarta center to deviate left and climb to FL380.

JCviggen
28th Dec 2014, 06:42
As far as we know, ATC never gave permission to climb, so the aircraft was still at 32,000 feet, until whatever happened, happened.

It's true that we don't know anything for sure at the moment, but the radar pic (if it was not incorrectly interpreted) did suggest the AC was above FL360 at the very end. Not necessarily intentionally of course.

p.j.m
28th Dec 2014, 06:45
That's not correct. Per official briefing, the flight requested (and was granted) permission from Jakarta center to deviate left and climb to FL380.

thanks for the update. Who gave the briefing, and is it documented somewhere on the www?

Dog Star
28th Dec 2014, 06:48
I haven't flown in that part of the world for a few years now but is it all VHF comm on that route? Were the crew loaded up with HF position reports etc. In those conditions the weather radar returns can be daunting and it looks as if a huge diversion was in order to "get around" the Cumulo Nimbus build ups. The Captain may have felt that by climbing higher he would have gained visual cues as to a best route through the CBs. The SigWx chart would have left the crew in no doubt that they could not have climbed above (max FL390 for A320) the thunderstorms in that general area. Hopefully the crew were given plenty of fuel on board for the necessary weather diversion. Some airlines have the capability to give weather advisories from their operations department while others do not. It's often times down to the pilots to use the weather radar to the best of their ability to thread their way through.

Detecting CBs on radar in this part of the world (ICTZ) is not as straight forward as in higher latitudes in my experience.

If this doesn't end well my sincerest condolences and sympathy to all concerned.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 06:48
Briefing by BASARNAS (Indonesian National SAR).

Some info from Reuters:

AirAsia flight carrying 162 people goes missing in Southeast Asia: officials | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/28/us-indonesia-airplane-idUSKBN0K601C20141228)

Flight QZ8501 was between the Indonesian port of Tanjung Pandan and the town of Pontianak, in West Kalimantan province on Borneo island, when it went missing, Atmodjo told a news conference in Jakarta.

The aircraft had been flying at 32,000 feet and had asked to fly at 38,000 feet to avoid clouds, he added.

bud leon
28th Dec 2014, 06:49
p.j.m I don't think there are winds anything like that in that area right now.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 06:49
I haven't flown in that part of the world for a few years now but is it all VHF comm on that route?

All VHF, in active radar contact with Jakarta center.

The Old Swedish
28th Dec 2014, 06:54
http://up.picr.de/20516010cr.jpg

training wheels
28th Dec 2014, 07:13
I'm surprised there are no reports of debris sightings or ELT signals at the moment. M635 is usually quite a busy airways with traffic coming through from Australia and Bali to Singapore and Kuala Lumpur.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 07:25
Adam Air 574 was found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Air_Flight_574).

And ELTs are NOT designed or expected to work under water.

Carjockey
28th Dec 2014, 07:25
@training wheels
There is one report here: Indonesian portal reports of plane crash in Belitung Timur - The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/reports-of-plane-crash-in-belitung-timur-says-indonesian-portal)

But no verification available from other sources...

cdeanda
28th Dec 2014, 07:34
To clarify the winds question here's a cropped pic of the winds aloft chart for FL340 on Dec 28th, 00Z.:

http://i.picresize.com/images/2014/12/28/zrxf.gif

If both the ATC Radar and the L&T sheet pictures are true, using a speed calculator we can get the following info:
GS: 353 kts
Average Tailwind according to the chart: 20 kts
TAS at 36,300ft: 333 kts
Computed MACH: 0.58
Computed equivalent airspeed: 180 kts

Now, from the A320 QRH with an actual TOW of 63.6T the calculated Green Dot speed would be around 223 kts at that altitude (The corresponding VLS and V alpha prot would be quite close to that number).

All these numbers are just a rough guess using ISA Standard conditions (Usually in this part of the World we have ISA +10 to +15 at cruise FLs)

manflexsrsrwy
28th Dec 2014, 07:34
ELT activate on water contact

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 07:38
ELT activate on water contact

But ELT might take up to 50 seconds to transmit... and will not successfully transmit if submerged at depth.

(Assuming the ELT survived the crash and the antennas weren't sheared off).

Ollie Onion
28th Dec 2014, 07:41
^^^^ Not ours. We have the ELT that comes with the aircraft which is activated by 'g' force and a model onboard the aircraft that will only activate in water if the actual beacon is removed from the latches in the aircraft (designed to take in the life raft). We have already established after MH370 that transmission of the ELT signal is extremely limited if the wreckage has sunk in the water.

This is shaping up as an Air France Part II.

WingNut60
28th Dec 2014, 07:44
Activates in water however signals attenuate rapidly in said same water.
One positive factor (if there is such a thing in this case) is that water depths are "generally" quite shallow in all of that area.
But then, an aircraft entering the water vertically at high velocity, or most of that aircraft, might well end up buried in mud because of the shallowness of the water.

MrMachfivepointfive
28th Dec 2014, 07:47
I had a look at the wind block on EK409's OFP. The flight preceding 8501. Forecast for RAFIS:

FL350 101/17
FL380 103/20

Hence he was very slow indeed.

WingNut60
28th Dec 2014, 07:56
Carjockey

I would be very cautious about any unofficial, unverified and also, probably, most verified reports of "findings".
This area has a really poor record of such findings turning out to be completely bogus (refer Adam Air incident) or a burned out bus with four families living in it.
The SAR people are probably the best source, but I think they were the ones who got it wrong with Adam Air

BlankBox
28th Dec 2014, 07:59
http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/406054B5610ObCYAAgeGB.jpg

CodyBlade
28th Dec 2014, 08:07
4pm local they finally accept Singapore SAR assets.

threemiles
28th Dec 2014, 08:09
I had a look at the wind block on EK409's OFP. The flight preceding 8501. Forecast for RAFIS:

FL350 101/17
FL380 103/20

Hence he was very slow indeed.

GS of UAE409 was 503kts on the radar picture. This is a tailwind component of about 40-50 kts.

353kts as a GS would be about 300kts TAS at FL363, certainly less than minimum clean IAS. But then it is an Airbus.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 08:13
4pm local they finally accept Singapore SAR assets.

Indonesia has sophisticated surveillance equipment in the area, including three specially modified B737s. The last known position is also just 35nm from an Indonesian Navy base which apparently had the plane on its radar.

haughtney1
28th Dec 2014, 08:14
Three miles, errrGS of UAE409 was 508kts on the radar picture. This is a tailwind component of about 40-50 kts. No, tailwind of 20 kts or so.

Capn Bloggs
28th Dec 2014, 08:17
last aircraft ADSB reported airspeed was 469 kts. If the ground speed reported by primary radar of 353 is correct, then headwinds are 116 knots.

You're the second Aussie that's come up with this. Call up NAIPS and check out the jet streams in the area! :=

butterfly68
28th Dec 2014, 08:23
I don't understand this headwind issue..that's not a problem ever.. the tailwind could be but not the headwind , even in cruise or in climbing.:confused:

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 08:27
Airbus statement:

Airbus regrets to confirm that an A320-200 operated by AirAsia Indonesia lost contact with air traffic control this morning, 28th December 2014. The aircraft was operating a scheduled service, Flight QZ 8501, from Surabaya to Singapore.

The aircraft involved is MSN (Manufacturer Serial Number) 3648, registered as PK-AXC and was delivered to AirAsia from the production line in October 2008. Powered by CFM 56-5B engines, the aircraft had accumulated approximately 23,000 flight hours in some 13,600 flights. At this time no further factual information is available.

In line with the ICAO Annex 13 international convention, Airbus will provide full assistance to the French safety investigation authority, BEA, and to the authorities in charge of the investigation.

The Airbus A320-200 is a twin-engine single-aisle aircraft seating up to 180 passengers in a single-class configuration. The first A320 entered service in March 1988. By the end of November 2014, over 6000 A320 Family aircraft were in service with over 300 operators. To date, the entire fleet has accumulated some 154 million flight hours in some 85 million flights.

Airbus will make further factual information available as soon as the details have been confirmed and cleared by the authorities.

The thoughts of the Airbus management and staff are with all those affected by Flight QZ 8501.

Statement | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer (http://www.airbus.com/crisis/statement/)

NigelOnDraft
28th Dec 2014, 08:34
I cannot really see what relevance the Wind Charts have if you are trying to establish GS / IAS / TAS relationships near CBs?

Almost by definition, the CB will significantly alter the local W/V, and in severe cases by 100K or more.

Carjockey
28th Dec 2014, 08:36
@WingNut60 (http://www.pprune.org/members/344658-wingnut60)

Thanks for your message.

FYI, I've spent over 20 years in SE Asia and I have a good understanding of the nature of the place in which I live...

I have not formed and nor have I stated any opinion on this forum regarding the fate of this flight, I have simply posted links which may, or may not, be relevant.

Like everyone else here, I just want to know and understand exactly what happened to this flight.

RoyHudd
28th Dec 2014, 08:38
Usual rubbish being posted. Usual rubbish on the media. Nothing wrong with educated speculation, but not nonsense like "requested climb from FL320 to FL380".

The 3 likely possibilities seem to be; 1 catastrophic structural failure caused by an on-board explosion, 2 loss of control due to mishandling following pitot/AOA/ static source icing and subsequent Unreliable Speed Indication, or 3 pilot suicide, Tiger-Airways/Egyptair/etc style. None of these events would cause the crew to immediately issue a Mayday; that would not be a priority.

Presumably these a/c were not fitted with ACARS. All will be revealed if the FDR/CVR are recovered intact.

How deep is the water where the a/c presumably went down?

I also wonder just how much (if any) training for high altitude upsets has been given to the pilots in this particular carrier. It has been a major area for study and sim practice in many Western airlines. Airbus has put much information out to airline safety departments following the reports of the AF447 accident.

I also wonder how experienced the pilots were. PTF FO's are all too common in the Far East, where flying conditions can be very challenging. And how much additional gas was the aircraft carrying? Fuel policy issues can come into play too when it comes to route deviations.

But climbing 6,000 is no recognised way to deal with CB's. The A320 with the given passenger load would not have had the legs to climb straight to FL380. Just refer to the QRH for the type. FL360 maybe, but lateral deviations are the standard means of avoiding nasty weather.

BlankBox
28th Dec 2014, 08:41
...here's a depth chart for the Sunda Shelf...you can see the area in question is quite shallow...

http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/655569sunda.png

Proline21
28th Dec 2014, 08:46
Reminds me of the Swiftair MD83 earlier this year. Wrong interpretation of weather radar or poor judgement about what action to take to avoid massive CBs.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 08:48
@RoyHudd

Nothing wrong with educated speculation, but not nonsense like "requested climb from FL320 to FL380".

Do you have an issue with factual information given by official sources? :confused:

mixture
28th Dec 2014, 08:50
Usual rubbish being posted.

Says the armchair investigator who's apparently already identified "The 3 key possibilities" ......

A case of do as I say but not as I do RoyHudd ? :E

On a more serious note. Please guys, lets not turn this one into a rampant MH370 thread full of whacky armchair theories .... how about just allowing the good old fashioned SAR and subsequent investigation by to take its course.

All the armchair theories here do is to feed the devil that is the media .... and I don't think any of us want that !

Teddy Robinson
28th Dec 2014, 08:51
proline, the final report is not even issued and you know the cause of Swiftair ?
It is way too early to make assumptions.

onetrack
28th Dec 2014, 08:54
The average depth of the Java Sea is just 46 metres. Wreckage of an A320 would be surely be easily spotted in this sea by now?
I'm amazed, that with the huge population in this region, both working on the water and on land, that reports of people seeing an aircraft coming down haven't started to surface? Vast numbers of Indonesians have mobile (cell) phones.

Carjockey
28th Dec 2014, 09:01
Latest report from the Malysian Insider:

QZ8501 believed crashed near Belitung, boats despatched, says Indonesian SAR - The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/qz8501-believed-crashed-near-belitung-boats-despatched-says-indonesian-sar)

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 09:03
I'm amazed, that with the huge population in this region, both working on the water and on land, that reports of people seeing an aircraft coming down haven't started to surface? Vast numbers of Indonesians have mobile (cell) phones.

There's low visibility (< 3 miles at times) in the area presently.

There have been unconfirmed reports of fishermen hearing noises & spotting debris.

beamender99
28th Dec 2014, 09:04
BBC states
"British national was on board missing AirAsia flight QZ8501 and next of kin have been informed, says UK Foreign Office."
This does not match the previously published pax list.

GroundScot
28th Dec 2014, 09:10
pretty common in this part of the world to have dual Indonesian/British or maybe other British dual national

rog747
28th Dec 2014, 09:13
one of the first posts in this thread say one missing briton amongst the passengers - the one french national is believed to be the f/off

not all rubbish on here thankfully
the wx info that has been posted here has been a revelation that of the extreme TS activity and i am interested in the winter ITCZ

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 09:15
Reports now say the Captain has over 20,500 total time, with 6,100 hours with AirAsia. This is different from earlier information from AirAsia.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 09:26
Updated info from Indonesian National SAR:

06:12 local time: QZ8501 in contact with Jakarta center at FL320 and requested deviation left from M635 and climb to FL380.

ATC approved left deviation, but the climb to FL380 had not been approved, pending conflicting traffic.

NigelOnDraft
28th Dec 2014, 09:34
Nothing wrong with educated speculation, but not nonsense like "requested climb from FL320 to FL380". FL320 is way below "Econ Cruise FL" IMHO... there was a reason for FL320 e.g. Flt Planning (Level CAP), head/tailwind, MEL. The FL380 request "for weather" might even have been "tactical" ;) So I see not issue with that request, and indeed have made it myself for genuine weather reasons.

"Outclimbing a CB", as stated, is not usually a great idea - however, climbing may well make navigating a multitude of CBs easier. The PF on AF447 also had a repeated desire to "climb" for weather avoidance...

Jockster
28th Dec 2014, 09:43
Air France repeat? - blocked pitots (ice) during attempted climb above Cb. Static pressure falls with altitude causing over reading airspeed. Raise nose to contain erroneous speed indication = stall hence the slow reported groundspeed.
Actions: -
1. Ignore speed - press EMER CANC to kill the o/speed warning noise.
2. Fly power / attitude - Best is 2 degrees nose up and 78% N1 or my favorite Thrust idle and level attitude or just below and decent. Going for 5 degrees nose up and climb power iaw QRH won't work that high.
3. Turn off all ADRs to bring up BUSS (Back-up speed scale) if fitted on PFD to show AoA.
4. Do nothing else until clear of weather.
5. Companies have been hammering unreliable airspeed to death (no pun intended) in every sim since Air France.

NigelOnDraft
28th Dec 2014, 09:49
3. Turn off all ADRs to bring up BUSS (Back-up speed scale) if fitted on PFD to show AoAIf your pure desire is to "see" AoA, what is wrong with just flying a bit above Alpha Prot? Which IMHO is just an AoA gauge?

me myself and fly
28th Dec 2014, 09:53
AviationSafety ‏@AviationSafety
#QZ5801 dispatch info shows it took off with 8296 kgs of fuel; minimum sector fuel is 7725 kgs; planned fuel consumtion: 5211 kgs.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B57_gApCAAAVKLG.jpg:large

Downwind Lander
28th Dec 2014, 09:57
Jockster suggests: "Air France repeat? - blocked pitots (ice) ..."

Can someone say whether the pitot tube heater would be automatic or manual? The idea that the lessons of AF447 have not been learned seems ludicrous.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 10:01
BBC states
"British national was on board missing AirAsia flight QZ8501 and next of kin have been informed, says UK Foreign Office."
This does not match the previously published pax list.
There's a correction from AirAsia: http://on.fb.me/1vjWooS

"AirAsia Indonesia would like to issue a correction on the nationality breakdown of passenger and crew on board QZ8501 as follows:

Nationalities of passengers:
1 Singapore
1 Malaysia
3 South Korea
1 United Kingdom
149 Indonesia

Nationalities of crew:
1 France
6 Indonesia

AirAsia will release further information as soon as it becomes available. Updated information will also be posted on the AirAsia website, www.airasia.com."

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 10:17
It's now a few minutes past sunset over the area and major SAR activities will be winding down until tomorrow morning, 6am local time (23:00Z, 6pm EST).

National SAR has updated the aircraft's last known position as: 3°36'31.0"S 109°41'46.0"E. See Google Maps (http://bit.ly/1taOBdb).

The are gearing up for an initial search which may last up to one week, at which time they will re-assess the situation.

Air and sea assets from Malaysia and Singapore will also be arriving overnight to take part in the search starting tomorrow. Australia has also offered assistance.

Local fishermen are also helping to search, and a Susi Air aircraft chartered by one of the families.

rog747
28th Dec 2014, 10:19
13 hours since a/c missing and its dark now there - nothing found is all we know

plenty of today in daylight to try and find some wreckage but has the weather been too bad for a decent SAR?

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 10:26
The weather has been mixed.

Near Belitung Island (the nearest "big" island) the weather was relatively good (light rain). But closer to the last known point, there has been lower visibility, with 3+ meter swells in light thunderstorms which added to the difficulties.

There might be some air assets which may be able to continue to search tonight, but for the most part they will have to wait until tomorrow to re-start.

Sop_Monkey
28th Dec 2014, 10:44
Seems to be a sad event indeed.

Haven't read all the posts but trying to out climb a thunderstorm for e.g., is foolish in the extreme due to reduced G protection/coffin corner, as stated in earlier posts. Contemplating doing so is a sure sign of inexperience and or poor training. We must not forget, that a sudden ascending air mass (parcel of air) would be a lot warmer than ambient, making the safety margins even narrower still, for a given altitude. "Optimum altitude" may even be too great for adequate G protection in these conditions. Aircraft are very strong and will most likely hold together provided an attitude is maintained and the A/S is keep within the margins required in an extreme situation. Therefore a lower altitude is more preferable, as a stall/departure will have a very high chance of resulting in in flight break up or non recovery.

After MH370 was lost a certain airline boasted in their in-flight reading material "we don't lose aircraft" or words to that effect. Even more dangerous.

rog747
28th Dec 2014, 10:55
its been mentioned before an ELT will not be picked up if submerged or not work if not G activated/damaged -

it seems the current ELT design and format is certainly not helping with the recent losses

too early in the stage for a sub to pick up an underwater ELT transmission unless there is one around the area already

Jockster
28th Dec 2014, 11:01
All probes (pitot included) are permanently heated in flight The air / ground logic sees to that. There is a manual ON available on the ground but it does nothing in the air.

Alpha Prot is AoA driven but presented in relation to speed on the speed tape. The pilots will see the Prot band (amber and black) at the bottom of the speed tape and the RED overspeed at the top. Red beats amber hence pitch up to get out of the red. Turning off the ADRs gets rid of all erroneous speed indications whereupon the BUSS activates to show ONLY AoA fed from vane information which has a GREEN band (very comforting) when flying a safe AoA.

Even if no BUSS fitted on this aircraft, the power / attitude drill trumps everything and the aircraft will fly perfectly well. An FO colleague I flew with recently carries a small laminated card with him that he sticks by his PFD with all the power / attitude settings on them. I only remember the two settings to get me out of trouble but maybe not a bad idea as a permanent feature?

RHINO
28th Dec 2014, 11:12
Jockster, would you like to clarify your second sentence?

727forever
28th Dec 2014, 11:15
Does anyone have any information on the ELT fitted by Airbus?
This is one of the models fitted to the Boeing's, link below.

The B406-4 has been modified to interface with Boeing's Master Caution System in conjunction with the DZUS mounted cockpit remote panel (P/N 453-0161) for the B737 and is furthermore approved for use on all models of the B747, B757, B767 and B777.

http://www.acrartex.com/media/1374844/560-5004_specification.pdf

captplaystation
28th Dec 2014, 11:15
Whilst not wishing to hijack the thread with an agenda, does this company utilise P2F for FO's ?

I noticed the FO was reported as French & just wondered whether we had a likely scenario of very inexperienced guy in RHS, Capt pops out to take a leak (or worse, not unheard of in that part of the world) FO doesn't manage to avoid a big one . . . total speculation on my part, but a plausible scenario "if" they crew their aircraft with paying guests.

rog747
28th Dec 2014, 11:15
indonesia's Search And Rescue Services were briefed that the aircraft contacted Jakarta Center at 06:12L (23:12Z) while enroute at FL320 and requested to deviate left of airway M635 and to climb to FL380.
At 06:16L the aircraft was observed normally, radio contact occurred. At 06:17L radio contact was lost, the transponder (ADS-B) remained available-
however, at 06:18L the transponder was lost as well, the last recorded position was S3.3708 E109.6911 (about 110nm east southeast of Pulau Belitung). 50 minutes later INCERFA (aircraft position uncertain alert), 70 minutes later ALERTFA (emergency alert) and 98 minutes later DETRESFA (distress alert) was declared by ATC.
source avherald

50 mins to declare a/c not reporting and 98 minutes to declare missing when transponder went off 2 mins after radio contact was lost - why all so slow?

BristolScout
28th Dec 2014, 11:18
Second sentence perfectly clear to me, Rhino.

Sop_Monkey
28th Dec 2014, 11:19
Jock

That is a very good idea. Back to basics. There are three (plus altitude) cruise parameters/indications. If we lose one we should be able to get out of trouble with the remaining two that are available to us. This also provides a good cross check should we suspect something is amiss.

NigelOnDraft
28th Dec 2014, 11:21
Alpha Prot is AoA driven but presented in relation to speed on the speed tape. The pilots will see the Prot band (amber and black) at the bottom of the speed tape and the RED overspeed at the top. Red beats amber hence pitch up to get out of the red. Turning off the ADRs gets rid of all erroneous speed indications whereupon the BUSS activates to show ONLY AoA fed from vane information which has a GREEN band (very comforting) when flying a safe AoA.Thanks - was not thinking straight re my question.

My lack of knowledge re BUSS is most of our aircraft do not have them, and might have seen it in the sim once. But more importantly, IMHO if you survive the "diagnosis" of "Loss of Airspeed Indications" the subsequent handling is relatively "easy". I think the "total loss" events have never really even carried out the IAs?

My favourite, as seems yours (and not in the IAs) is the idle / 0deg pitch, in Cruise.

cozmo
28th Dec 2014, 11:25
My first post here.

A320 has a very bad reputation on FBW system and stall characteristics on altitudes above 35.000 feet. Stall margin is reduced and even the bank of 25 degrees in HDG mode is very dangerous and can induce a stall. Judging by the last radar picture of aircraft position, pilot has deviated 120 degrees of course very abruptly, asking to climb to 38.000 feet, and that is NOT the way you do it in Equatorial region with the tops of Cb in that area that are very high and also when you have a squall line you should plan well before 20Nm from the storm. In this case he was literally running away.
Stall margin is VERY close for A320 on that altitude and with that kind of maneuvering and weather. Also, the last data says that crew added 800kg (because of the weather) of additional fuel and that makes them even heavier and reduces stall margin even more. Captain has only 6000 hrs.

Heathrow Harry
28th Dec 2014, 11:28
"50 mins to declare a/c not reporting and 98 minutes to declare missing when transponder went off 2 mins after radio contact was lost - why all so slow?"

you've never worked in Indonesia?

They were hoping it was all OK, that it was something electronic, or human error or that it wouldn't happen on their watch

Not every culture automatically assumes the worst.........................

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 11:40
50 mins to declare a/c not reporting and 98 minutes to declare missing when transponder went off 2 mins after radio contact was lost - why all so slow?
These are formal declaration points. But ATC wasn't sitting on their bums doing nothing for 98 minutes.

As soon as contact is lost, procedures are followed, which includes coordinating with other ATC facilities, communicating with the airline, talking with various nearby airports, checking with military / other agencies, SAR, increasing separation from other aircraft from the area, etc.

A4
28th Dec 2014, 11:42
A320 has a very bad reputation on FBW system and stall characteristics on altitudes above 35.000 feet.

Really? Care to back that up? As others have stated here, if you suffer loss of IAS the first rule is DONT PANIC! It's just an indication you've lost. If the thrust is the same and your pitch attitude is the same then you will continue to fly- you will not fall out of the sky. The idle/0 degrees pitch for a gentle descent will give time to grab QRH for drills.

Stall margin is VERY close for A320 on that altitude and with that kind of maneuvering and weather.

I think you'll find that being close to stall margin at altitude is not unique to the A320 - it's basic physics/aerodynamics.

Greenlights
28th Dec 2014, 11:46
Whilst not wishing to hijack the thread with an agenda, does this company utilise P2F for FO's ?

I was wondering the same... :rolleyes:

jcjeant
28th Dec 2014, 11:50
Hi,

catplaystation
I noticed the FO was reported as French & just wondered whether we had a likely scenario of very inexperienced guy in RHS, Capt pops out to take a leak (or worse, not unheard of in that part of the world) FO doesn't manage to avoid a big one . . . total speculation on my part, but a plausible scenario "if" they crew their aircraft with paying guests.


Rémi Emmanuel Plesel a été inscrit sur la prestigieuse liste des pilotes certifiés les plus qualifiés et les mieux entraîné de la FAA en septembre 2013. « Plesel fait partie des pilotes qui ont dépassé le haut niveau d’éducation et de résultats médicaux établis par la FAA ».
Rémi Emmanuel Plesel, premier officier de bord, ayant 2.275 heures de vol à son actif, était un des membres de l’équipage selon Jakarta News.

Rémi Emmanuel Plesel was inscribed on the prestigious list of certified pilots the most qualified and best-trained FAA in September 2013. "Plesel is one of the pilots who exceeded the high level of education and health outcomes established by the FAA ".
Rémi Emmanuel Plesel first officer aboard, with 2,275 hours of flying time, was one of the crew members as Jakarta News

JamesGV
28th Dec 2014, 11:58
P2F

I believe Air Asia (Malaysia) do.
But they can not recruit a foreign pilot as F/O.

Jetjock330
28th Dec 2014, 11:58
What are the chances of the slow speed being due to unreliable airspeed? A blocked pitot will over read in the climb, hence the pilot or autopilot will continue to raise the nose to bring the speed back, before identifying the problem. The over speed comes quickly and the autothrust will bring thrust to idle.

Which aircraft could accelerate on the speed tape with thrust at idle for the climb?

None, hence the unreliable airspeed being identified requires, a autopilot off, autothrust off, flight directors off.
Then set a reliable thrust setting with about 3 degrees nose up, wings level and all will be fine, survival wise.

I never flew A320, but instructed on A330/A340.

On the other hand, if there is a rapid climb before disappearance, this would indicate the blocked pitot, translating into a rapid climb trying to hold the speed back, thus giving a low ground speed read out. Not sure where the ADS picks up the TAS, but if speed is unreliable, surely this read out could be unreliable to.

Metro man
28th Dec 2014, 12:03
You would need to consider what kind of experience the total times of the crew consisted of. If his 6000 hours is mostly on the A320 this would make the Captain relatively well experienced, particularly if mainly in that region. Same with the F/O, mostly jet time or first airline job with only a few hours on type and the rest in Caravans ?

There was a case in Australia not too long ago of an F/O climbing above the recommended max alt and nearly losing control.

nombody
28th Dec 2014, 12:07
First Officer:
FAA recognizes Remi Emmanuel Plesel (http://aviation-business-gazette.com/A38/B59/Pilot-Remi-Emmanuel-Plesel-Paris-.html)

Passenger Manifest:
Un pilote français parmi l'équipage du vol AirAsia QZ8501 (http://www.dreuz.info/2014/12/un-pilote-francais-parmi-lequipage-du-vol-airasia-qz8501/)

An astonishing 23 no-shows for this flight.

B772
28th Dec 2014, 12:10
23 noshows is not unusual for a LCC carrier in S.E Asia especially for an 0530 Lt departure.

Ps. I recognise the Captains name. May be ex the B742 at Garuda.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 12:17
First Officer:
FAA recognizes Remi Emmanuel Plesel
Sorry but as far as I can tell, this actually means nothing.

It is a "spam" Search Engine Optimization (SEO) page automatically generated by "Aviation Business Gazette" for nearly everyone in the FAA's pilot certification database (containing over 640,000 entries).

Plesel is listed in the database only because he has an FAA Private Pilot license issued on the basis of his foreign license.

Sadly a few press articles have now been quoting from this bogus page.

rtpilot1
28th Dec 2014, 12:26
To answer Jetjock
DATE: December 10, 2014
AD #:
2014-25-51
Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-51 is sent to owners and operators of Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.
Background
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0266-E, dated December 9, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle of Attack (AoA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flightcrew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.
When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AoA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AoA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus *** [has] developed a specific Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) procedure, which has been published in AFM Temporary Revision (TR) No. 502.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires amendment of the applicable AFM [to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot].

cozmo
28th Dec 2014, 12:28
Really? Care to back that up? As others have stated here, if you suffer loss of IAS the first rule is DONT PANIC! It's just an indication you've lost.Pilots don't thing like you do about A320 on high altitudes. You won't hear that in the "news". In this case, the crew did panic. You have a squall line of 100Nm. You don't do it like this, turning sharply 120 deg and climbing abruptly to 38.000 feet. The procedure is not the best.

I think you'll find that being close to stall margin at altitude is not unique to the A320 - it's basic physics/aerodynamics.Well, yes you are right, but still A320 has very narrow stall margins in that altitudes (if you compare it with, for example, an 737), and there has been some of cases with sharp banking and almost stalling above 35.000 in simple heading mode.

Combine it with the company and crew where profit is above safety and you will have this situations sooner or later.

despegue
28th Dec 2014, 12:32
This FAA recognition only means that the FO had an American licence, nothing more. ALL commercial pilots have this licence, it is the most basic of Commercial licences, and are not recognized in Europe by the way.
This however does not mean that the FO does not have an EASA licence.

Metro man
28th Dec 2014, 12:35
Possibly similar to this ?

Incident: Jetstar A320 enroute on Mar 12th 2014, alpha floor activation (http://avherald.com/h?article=47196b94)

Incident: Jetstar A320 enroute on Mar 12th 2014, alpha floor activation

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Mar 18th 2014 18:27Z, last updated Tuesday, Jun 17th 2014 14:50Z
A Jetstar Airways Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VQY performing positioning flight JQ-7991 from Melbourne,VI to Darwin,NT (Australia) with 2 crew, had just cleared from FL360 to FL380 and had just reached FL380 abeam Mildura,VI (Australia) when the crew noticed the airspeed was increasing. The crew reduced thrust to idle, extended the speedbrakes and disengaged the autopilot in order to reduce the airspeed, which resulted in speed warnings and a brief activation of flight envelope protection function. The aircraft continued to Darwin for a safe landing without further incident.

Australia's TSB reported an investigation has been opened into the flight envelope protection event (later adding more detail about the sequence of events).

On Mar 18th 2014 the French BEA reported in their weekly bulletin that the aircraft was climbing from FL360 to FL380, after the climb was completed the airspeed increased and the crew disconnected the autopilot in order to control the speed. The speed then decayed resulting in Alpha Floor Activation. Australia's TSB is investigating the occurrence rated an incident.

On Jun 17th 2014 the ATSB released their final bulletin releasing the safety message:

This incident provides a reminder to pilots of all aircraft types regarding the potential for an aerodynamic stall. The stall occurs at a critical angle of attack. The airspeed associated with the stall angle of attack varies depending on the aircraft weight and load factor (such as angle of bank), and the configuration of flaps, slats and spoilers.

The Golden Rules for Pilots article in Safety First - The Airbus Safety Magazine, Issue 15, January 2013, states that on highly automated and integrated aircraft, several levels of automation are available to perform a given task; and the ‘appropriate’ level of automation depends on the situation and task. It advises flight crew to understand the implication of the intended level of automation. Being able to anticipate the reaction of the automated response is important in deciding whether to proceed to rule 4 and change the level of automation.

In this incident, understanding the automated response to a potential overspeed situation may have given the first officer more time to analyse and resolve the situation. Disconnecting the autopilot and autothrust led to a rapid increase in workload and the aircraft changing from a potential overspeed to a slow speed state.

The ATSB reported that the captain briefed the first officer of the next suitable aerodrome in case of an emergency, then left the cockpit temporarily. The aircraft was enroute at FL360 on autopilot in managed speed mode at 0.78 mach. Abeam of Mildura the first officer received clearance to climb to FL380, the first officer selected the new altitude into the autopilot maintaining managed speed mode. The aircraft climbed through FL373 when the first officer noticed the speed had increased to 0.81 mach and had engaged in a 3000 fpm climb, the speed trend indicator suggesting the aircraft would accelerate beyond the maximum mach number operating (MMO) of 0.82 mach. The first officer attempted to arrest the speed by selecting the speed back to 0.76, however the speed continued to increase and the speed trend continued to indicate acceleration. Taken the Airbus golden rule "take action if things do not go as expected" the first officer reduced the thrust levers to idle, which effectively disconnected autothrust, in order to reduce speed, extended the speed brakes and disengaged the autopilot in order to level off and maintain the assigned flight level 380. The aircraft however climbed above FL380. At FL383 ATC queried to confirm altitude, the first officer radioed they were descending back to FL380. The first officer subsequently engaged autothrust and returned the levers to the climb detent and momentarily engaged the autopilot but disconnected again and pushed the nose down in order to re-acquire the assigned flight level.

The aircraft began to descend and the airspeed dropped to below the lowest speed that autothrust would permit to select. The first officer applied nose up commands in order to level at FL380 and moved the thrust levers back close to but not to idle position, which reduced the maximum thrust available from the engines. The nose up inputs increased the angle of attack beyond the alpha floor, the alpha floor protection activated, the speed brakes were automatically retracted and the TOGA lock was activated.

At that time the captain returned to the cockpit, scanned the primary instruments, noticed the aircraft pitch at 0 degrees, the speed in the yellow band about half way between stall and lowest selectable speed, the speed trend accelerating and the aircraft at FL365. There were no indications of any other aircraft in the vicinity that could have been affected by the altitude busts, the captain spotted the Thrust Lock indication. The captain took control of the aircraft, double clicked the autothrust disconnect button to disengage the thrust lock and moved the thrust levers to the climb detent, noticed the speed brake lever was extended and moved it to the retracted position, set a pitch attitude of about +5 to +7 degrees corresponding to a climb of 700-1000 fpm.

ATC noticed the aircraft was now below FL380 and queried to confirm the altitude again, the first officer radioed they were now climbing to FL380, operations were normal.

The captain, cognisant of a gentle recovery to avoid a secondary flight envelope event, levelled the aircraft at FL380 and re-engaged automation.

The ATSB reported that the flight data recorder revealed that during the climb a tail wind component of about 20 knots turned into a head wind component of about 15 knots beginning at FL365, an effective windshear of 35 knots which resulted in 3005 fpm climb rate and a CAS increase from 256 to 262 knots. The Alpha Floor activated when the aircraft descended through FL370 at a CAS of 226 knots with a rate of descend of 4500 fpm.

The ATSB rehearsed the flight crew operating manual procedures, renewed by Airbus mid 2013, stating that the autopilot should be kept on in case of a climbing/descending overspeed event.

The operator revised their standard operating procedures. Their SOPs did not require both crew members to be on the flight deck during cruise. The operator introduced that during altitude changes both flight crew should be present on the flight deck.

jcjeant
28th Dec 2014, 12:42
Hi,

Search Underway for AirAsia Jet Carrying 162 People; Reported Missing on Way from Indonesia to Singapore | Video | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/27/jet-carrying-162-passengers-reported-missing-on-way-from-indonesia-to-singapore)
UPDATE 3:15 a.m.: Fishermen reportedly heard a loud bang over Belitung Island between 7 and 8 a.m., the International Business Times reported (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/air-asia-qz8501-loud-bang-heard-by-fishermen-over-belitung-island-1481094), citing Indonesian website Bangka Tribun News.
Belitung is an island on the east coast of Sumatra, Indonesia, in the Java Sea, IBT noted.
The fishermen who were at sea engaged in their regular fishing activities near Coconut Island also claimed that the explosion was quite powerful, the outlet added.

Yankee Whisky
28th Dec 2014, 12:43
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJM
last aircraft ADSB reported airspeed was 469 kts. If the ground speed reported by primary radar of 353 is correct, then headwinds are 116 knots.
You're the second Aussie that's come up with this. Call up NAIPS and check out the jet streams in the area!




I realise the desire by armchair pilots to start speculating on the cause(s) but please bear in mind this aircraft was flying in an area of the Inter Tropical Conversion zone (big red blob on weather radar) and rapid Cu development is a distinct probability to envelope an aircraft and, we should all know, the air currents in these clouds can reach exceptionally high velocities ! Please wait for the facts.

CDN_ATC
28th Dec 2014, 12:46
After 15 years in this profession, and avidly studying plane crashes, it's truly painful to read these threads early on.

First off all eyewitness accounts shouldn't be posted, or posted with a massive disclaimer that they are almost certainly and wildly inaccurate


Professional note: The ground speed on the radar is an estimate calculated by the radar position server, used often with Mosaic radar, but can be less accurately ascertained by a single sourced radar

Unless they have encoding ground speed display, not likely, the ground speed is not directly indicative of the ground speed of the airplane....

physicus
28th Dec 2014, 12:46
If the ground speed in the ATC screenshot is correct, that would put them at an estimated IAS of 190kts. If we take the nearby UAE ground speed to indicate they had a ~20kt tailwind while heading to same direction roughly, that further drops their IAS to about 170kts, well within stall range of the A320 at MTOM in clean config.

Does anyone know what the transponder's source is for the reported altitude? This very much is looking like a pitot/static induced problem at this stage. Alpha protection wouldn't let the crew go near the ground speed shown on the ATC screenshot. If it's true...

AreOut
28th Dec 2014, 12:46
if it exploded at cruise altitude fishermen could hardly hear it (provided their story is genuine), if it crashed debris should be all around so it will be found quickly

CDN_ATC
28th Dec 2014, 12:48
Yes

The altitude on the radar display, the encoded mode c can be different than what the pilots see, however it is far more likely the radar display is more accurate than the pilots report

CDN_ATC
28th Dec 2014, 12:50
It's been 12 hours in constant day light on a busy route both shipping and air, I immediately refute an explosion theory based solely on those facts, until proven otherwise.

The fact wreckage is not found yet, is immensely troubling after this much time.

I'm not insinuating it's MH370 again, simply puzzling, perplexing and disappointing because any survivors may be running out of time should they exist

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 12:59
One thing to also keep in mind is that aircraft performance data is based on density altitude, but we fly flight levels based on pressure altitude.

This difference can be important when operating near service limits (see for example, the infamous Pinnacle Airlines crash). But it's all just speculation at this point.

bobdxb
28th Dec 2014, 12:59
Yeah, I have flown with few Capt's also who would fly above the storm rather than around....

UAV689
28th Dec 2014, 13:04
Someone asked about if air asia do p2f? They may do in malaysia, but here in indo you cannot (as a non-indo) work in a cockpit unless you have 250hrs already on type. This rule only applies to foreigners, dont know if they do p2f for locals, I would suggest not.

As an aside, on my last air asia flight, there was an article in the inflight mag, about how their crews were superior, and do not be alarmed if you see a young captain as it is because their training is so much more advanced than the west, which is why there are so many older fo's in the west..it was quite staggering to read this arrogrance in their in flight mag, but this mind set is not surprising in this part of the world...

I witnessed one of our company pilots renew his IR with a DGCA inspector, by performing one visual approach...i kid you not. The level of oversight of the DGCA is unbelievable...you dont even require a me-ir to get a job on an airline in indo....

AreOut
28th Dec 2014, 13:04
"It's been 12 hours in constant day light on a busy route both shipping and air, I immediately refute an explosion theory based solely on those facts, until proven otherwise.

The fact wreckage is not found yet, is immensely troubling after this much time."

I don't think anyone would try something similar as authorities there are much more aware now than before.

But I agree it's strange nothing has been found yet in a very shallow sea full of traffic.

captplaystation
28th Dec 2014, 13:06
john smifff (3 f's I assume ? )

you seem to be intent on confrontation on this thread.

What cozmo has suggested, is in essence correct, his conclusions may not be, certainly a 6000ft climb & 120 degree heading change would suggest that a lack of forward planning was present here (or maybe simply that the higher level was previously unavailable. )

As Despegue has pointed out to you, my comment Re P2F is (as I said ) not thread hijack (but is interesting given the content of the Jetstar incident, wouldn't you say ? )

What I think Ccozmo hasn't grasped, is that the A320 stall margin is (aerodynamically speaking) no less than (say) a B737, merely that Airbus (in their usual cocksure fashion) have (possibly to exaggerate the efficiency/economy of the machine) chosen to leave a smaller margin when flying at Optimum/Maximum than Boeing have with the 737. This has nothing to do with aerodynamics & is a choice by the manufacturer , not corrected by the certifying authority I would suggest.

As a serial Airbus basher, I find deeply disquieting the reports about Alpha Prot etc above, I have never been a great believer in having to reach up to the overhead panel & fumble for switches to regain manual pitch control (I assume that is the Airbus drill for that ? ) , god knows how they get that one past the certifiers .

Sunamer
28th Dec 2014, 13:07
"ADS picks up the TAS, but if speed is unreliable, surely this read out could be unreliable to"

If I am not mistaken, it is GPS speed or GS that gets reported, and not TAS "velocity" word that is used, not airspeed. (there is a capability to transmit airspeed too, but that's another story)

http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/WG3_Meetings/Meeting30/1090-WP30-21-Appendix_A%20Mods.pdf

upd. In this particular case - I don't know what is the source of ground speed value that gets received by the ADS-B Out equipment. I mean - it could be GPS receiver or IRS + sufficient data processing.

joema
28th Dec 2014, 13:08
it's a very foolish thing to try and out-climb a thunderstorm.

Even if there is no cloud above a Cb, that should not be taken to infer that the air above the Cb is free from severe turbulence, and all that climbing would do is put one even closer into coffin-corner, at a time when (if sever turbulence occurs) one needs as much airspeed margin as possible.

To illustrate this, on 10 May 1970 an SR-71 from Kadena was lost when trying to out-climb a thunderstorm. It had just come off a tanker and was returning to operational altitude in afterburner climb. Upon penetration the turbulence caused engine flame-out and the vehicle broke up. Both crewmembers ejected safely.

While different from Cb activity, a 1966 CAT accident illustrates all a/c (regardless of type) can encounter structural and control limits in flight. BOAC flt. 911 (a 707-436) flew into a mountain rotor near Mt. Fuji and broke up in flight. A U.S. Navy A-4 was sent to search for wreckage and flew into the same turbulence. The A-4 went out of control and nearly crashed. Its peak-reading g-meter was pegged at +9 and -4 g, and the plane was grounded for repairs.

Lost in Saigon
28th Dec 2014, 13:22
Yeah, I have flown with few Capt's also who would fly above the storm rather than around....

Climbing 38,000' doesn't necessarily mean they wanted to fly above the storm. I can think of lots of reasons for the climb:

1) turbulence at lower levels
2) more fuel efficient altitude
3) better visual reference to maneuver around the weather

Maybe it was a combination of all three.

slats11
28th Dec 2014, 13:36
It would be interesting to know the maximum possible range from the last known potion. Probably only 3 or so hours - they had perhaps 90 minutes scheduled flying to reach Singapore plus various reserves. An earlier post suggested they had slightly more fuel than the minimum required.

No wreckage after a full day in a fairly crowded area close to shore. Agree that is concerning. I guess Inmarsat are checking for handshakes.

ZAGORFLY
28th Dec 2014, 13:57
Responding to Red Bull GMW: Write to that excellence in aviation Knowledge of Richard Quest..
and a question for the board:
do you think this unfortunate incident has anything to do with the crew's capacity/understanding to manage properly the weather radar?

Curlew2012
28th Dec 2014, 13:57
I guess Inmarsat are checking for handshakes.

I hope they are - will make useful calibration for MH370 estimates

Flyright12
28th Dec 2014, 14:05
Irrespective of the cause of this event, why was there no rescue/search aircraft/ship on site within a short space of time? If last contact was at 0724, that leaves at least 12 hours of daylight.

safelife
28th Dec 2014, 14:14
Inmarsat on an A320? Unusual.

bunk exceeder
28th Dec 2014, 14:22
Last winter, I wrote here wondering why we don't just put one of those little $100 Spidertracks or Spot GPS things in airliners that GA planes, sailors, etc. use as an interim measure in the wake of MH 370. With no further reference to that flight, it seems absurd that we don't know where hundreds of people are in a quarter billion dollar piece of metal at all times. Now here we are a year later wondering where a plane is, although they'll find this sad flight very quickly, but n the age of tracking your spouse's phone to determine if they are having an affair, the airline industry is still writing SOS on a beach somewhere. Come to think of it, if airline pilots are increasingly getting iPads, can Apple track Capt X's or FO Y's ipad?

mseyfang
28th Dec 2014, 14:30
@ZAGORFLY You're implying an inadvertent thunderstorm encounter with an ensuing inflight breakup, which is certainly within the realm of possibility. The crew's ability in operating the weather radar is something an investigation would likely look into if that indeed turns out to be a cause, but given the region in which they fly, I'd be disinclined to presume that they were less than competent in operating it.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 14:32
Last winter, I wrote here wondering why we don't just put one of those little $100 Spidertracks or Spot GPS things in airliners that GA planes, sailors, etc. use as an interim measure in the wake of MH 370. With no further reference to that flight, it seems absurd that we don't know where hundreds of people are in a quarter billion dollar piece of metal at all times. Now here we are a year later wondering where a plane is, although they'll find this sad flight very quickly, but n the age of tracking your spouse's phone to determine if they are having an affair, the airline industry is still writing SOS on a beach somewhere. Come to think of it, if airline pilots are increasingly getting iPads, can Apple track Cpat X's or FO Y's ipad?

Umm, this plane had ADS-B which was transmitting GPS data in real-time to ATC. Not to mention it was being actively tracked on primary radar, and the pilot was communicating with a controller less than a minute before contact was lost.

andrasz
28th Dec 2014, 14:39
why we don't just put one of those little $100 Spidertracks or Spot GPS things in airliners

We do. They are called Mode-S transponder...

In most cases last known position is a pretty good indication on where to start looking for the wreckage. LKP in this case is 150kms from land and a good 350km from Jakarta, closest main S/R base. With stormy weather a/c are of little use, and it will take a day for dedicated surface vessels to reach the site.

bobdxb
28th Dec 2014, 14:49
Qoute:
Climbing 38,000' doesn't necessarily mean they wanted to fly above the storm. I can think of lots of reasons for the climb:

1) turbulence at lower levels
2) more fuel efficient altitude
3) better visual reference to maneuver around the weather

Maybe it was a combination of all three.

with respect to your view I might add few things here:
1/ I have flown in this area for about 15 yrs and wx is known to be as severe as it could be for monsoon season
2/ Crew was probably briefed before the flight about it
3/ Sophisticated glass cockpit environment
4/ Captain probably flying most of his career in the same area


I can't justify your answers as best option to do mainly coz:
a/ FL380 is very close to Max FL for A320,
b/ what kind of fuel efficiency would you expect for a flight of below 2 hrs and would as PIC think of efficiency when you have severe wx conditions
c/ Visual reference in IMC???

Airbubba
28th Dec 2014, 14:50
The crew's ability in operating the weather radar is something an investigation would likely look into if that indeed turns out to be a cause, but given the region in which they fly, I'd be disinclined to presume that they were less than competent in operating it.

I fly that area fairly often. Due to the amount of moisture, droplet size or whatever, down low everything can look red and just be rain with little turbulence. And, up at altitude, huge buildups can sometimes paint very little. I often climb not to get above the cells but to get on top of the layers to visually assess the structure of the 'isolated embedded CB's' and their overhangs which can be extensive.

One peek is definitely worth a thousand radar scans on the way to Singapore in my experience. Then, safely on the ground, follow the greens...

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 14:53
There is no way a plane can crash into the sea from FL360 in 'less than a minute', which seems to indicate a mid air break up.

I didn't write that the plane 'crashed' in a minute.

ATC was in contact with the flight and observed it on radar at 6:16.

At 6:17, radar contact was lost, and radio contact was also lost.

mach92
28th Dec 2014, 15:01
I also have flown in this area often. It does appear a solid line of storms probably topping 50,000 was in the path to Singapore. My guess the boys got into something and said "oh shit" they tried to climb to FL380 and turn 120 degrees. By that time it was too late! The plane broke a apart inside a monster storm.

bille1319
28th Dec 2014, 15:05
To loose contact so fast suggests mid air break up with no time to declare an emergency. Hopefully data from ACARS continued transmitting engineering telegrams as in AF447 to give some intial clues until confirmed by recorders when recovered.

highflyer40
28th Dec 2014, 15:15
in the Asian mindset might it be that they are apt not to declare an emergency to "save face" if they think they have a chance of recovering the situation?

rog747
28th Dec 2014, 15:27
inmarsat has stated they have no equipment on this a/c

flt001
28th Dec 2014, 15:31
This flight was on primary radar when lost. Hence this is nothing like MH 370.

Sop_Monkey
28th Dec 2014, 15:52
Airbubba

"One peek is definitely worth a thousand radar scans on the way to Singapore in my experience."

Couldn't agree more! Mark one eye ball is still a good piece of kit.

Downwind Lander
28th Dec 2014, 15:57
Apols if anyone has commented on this - MH370 taught the world that there is merit in flight data going to the FDR and CVR, but ALSO to an Internet based repository (- just in case). Can it be, almost a year on, that nothing has been done about this?

lomapaseo
28th Dec 2014, 15:58
To loose contact so fast suggests mid air break up with no time to declare an emergency ....

Other possibilities are that they ceased to use their working radio after the last communication.

Much information still to be released, like radar returns from altitude to sea floor

ATC Watcher
28th Dec 2014, 16:05
It would seem many here do not understand how an ATS system works . In general erratic behaviors / mode S SSR extreme returns are filtered out . So that could explain why the aircraft was maybe not " visible " but the data is in the system and can be retrieved . It just takes time .
Recordings to be recovered and evaluated also take time and need specialists . Their first action is generally not to call the press . So a bit of patience before going into establishing " facts " and deducting wild theories .

Hotel Tango
28th Dec 2014, 16:19
So a bit of patience before going into establishing " facts " and deducting wild theories .

So true ATC Watcher. Sadly, most of these people wouldn't have a life if they couldn't do that. The wilder the theory the more they get off with it. Sad.

blue_ashy
28th Dec 2014, 16:20
Apols if anyone has commented on this - MH370 taught the world that there is merit in flight data going to the FDR and CVR, but ALSO to an Internet based repository (- just in case). Can it be, almost a year on, that nothing has been done about this?


Much can very easily be done but the problem of course comes down to cost and a justification of what actual benefit such a thing provides. In terms of actual safety it provides no benefit at all bar letting investigators know what was happening to the aircraft before finding the flight recorders.

It costs a huge amount of money to maintain a satellite link and to therefore transfer flight data in real time, I really doubt it is possible to do so economically. Factor in how many aircraft are in the sky and all of them maintaining satellite links... That is serious bandwidth.

I hate to mention the worst but this plane will be found and occurances like MH370 are thankfully extremely rare to almost unheard of. Engineering a hugely expensive comms link for real time flight data transfer is just not necessary.

Caygill
28th Dec 2014, 16:29
Apols if anyone has commented on this - MH370 taught the world that there is merit in flight data going to the FDR and CVR, but ALSO to an Internet based repository (- just in case). Can it be, almost a year on, that nothing has been done about this?

The Internet repository at FL350 is called satellite transmission. Lack of bandwidth and/or huge costs is your answer.

AreOut
28th Dec 2014, 16:38
"This flight was on primary radar when lost. Hence this is nothing like MH 370."

so what else than midair breakup could happen to get lost from the primary radar? (provided it was not on the limit of radar coverage area)

mixture
28th Dec 2014, 16:44
Downwind Lander,

Pretty much as blue_ashy & Caygill have told you.

The limited number of scenarios, and the rarity of the instances in which said scenarios have/would/could occur is what makes is a pointless endeavor to have live data.

As blue_ashy & Caygill say, its not just the underlying technology, because its 2014 and so the technology is there. The problem is with the associated opex and capex.

The opex of building and certifying the system, the cost of the airlines to acquire and install such systems etc.

The capex of maintaining such systems, and of paying all those expensive satellite comms bills etc.

And of course, probably the fact that the limited number of satellites "up there" could probably not cope with the combined volume of data that would be generated by all the aircraft "up there". Its not like they can launch new satellites on a whim without yet more vast expenditure.

I suspect the manufacturers and satellite operators would find it easier to sell pork in a Kosher butchers than to convince their airline customers to roll out such technology across their fleets. Airlines are not exactly rolling in money, its a highly competitive business on wafer thin margins.... and I very much doubt the SLF will be willing to pay higher ticket prices. :E

Calapine
28th Dec 2014, 16:51
"This flight was on primary radar when lost. Hence this is nothing like MH 370."

so what else than midair breakup could happen to get lost from the primary radar? (provided it was not on the limit of radar coverage area)Low height. Electromagnetic waves as used to by radar follow quasi-optical rules, so limits imposed by the earths curvature ("below the horizon") apply here as well.

Downwind Lander
28th Dec 2014, 16:52
Caygill says: "The Internet repository at FL350 is called satellite transmission. Lack of bandwidth and/or huge costs is your answer".

Don't forget that the repository entry for each flight can be wiped and space recycled at the end of each flight.

An important point is that when something happens, the data is needed VERY QUICKLY INDEED or the exercise becomes one of salvage.

Question: What would be the percentage increase in overhead costs to the industry? [You may use the exponential notation]

mixture
28th Dec 2014, 16:57
Don't forget that the repository entry for each flight can be wiped and space recycled at the end of each flight.

Three people have just spelled it out to you .....:ugh:

Data storage would the cheapest part of the whole solution, infact it verges on irrelevant in the context of the other costs.

The main problem in terms of operational expenditure surrounds the use of satellite communications. Which isn't cheap, and will probably suffer from capacity issues if all airlines used it.

Pile the operational expenditure on top of the capital expenditure and you can see why your dream is destined to remain a dream. It simply is not workable from a financial point of view given the highly limited number of rare circumstances where it would be useful.

SimonS
28th Dec 2014, 16:58
I would imagine there is a slight difference between a Cessna 206 and a commercial airliner flying at 35,000 feet across multiple countries.

mixture
28th Dec 2014, 17:04
This idea of "huge cost" of satellite tracking is surely nonsense,

Read what Downwind Lander is proposing.

He wants live streaming of telemetry data.

RetiredF4
28th Dec 2014, 17:05
oflt001

This flight was on primary radar when lost. Hence this is nothing like MH 370.


I'm sure you mixed primary and secondary radar. ATC works with secondary radar, which is the interaction of ground station with aircraft transponder, what you see on the scope is the signal information of the aircraft transponder.

Primary radar is an active ground radar and its reflected energy displayed on a radar scope.

The time where radar contact was lost points only to the point, where the aircraft transponder stopped transmitting. There are multiple reasons for such an occurance.

blue_ashy
28th Dec 2014, 17:07
Caygill says: "The Internet repository at FL350 is called satellite transmission. Lack of bandwidth and/or huge costs is your answer".

Don't forget that the repository entry for each flight can be wiped and space recycled at the end of each flight.

An important point is that when something happens, the data is needed VERY QUICKLY INDEED or the exercise becomes one of salvage.

Question: What would be the percentage increase in overhead costs to the industry? [You may use the exponential notation]


As already mentioned, data storage would be the cheapest part and therefore is not the problem.

Getting live data from the aircraft down to a hard drive somewhere else in the world is the problem.

In remote locations, only satellite can be used to transfer this data and maintaining a constant satellite link for every aircraft in the sky is next to impossible to do economically and maybe even practically.

And of course this problem is one of salvage, having a live data stream would not deter the fact that this aircraft has crashed so it does nothing really for aviation safety bar solve a problem rarely encountered.

last747fe
28th Dec 2014, 17:10
Was in 747-100 cargo from syd-hkg same time frame nothing was painting on radar I went back to galley to get coffee as I came back up the captain said to strap in we hit a cell rising fast went from fl33 to fl39 in seconds and wild airspeed swings then back down to fl33 all three of us looked at each other and said what the hell was that? As a side note this aircraft was number 3 off the production line !
:=

JoeMcGrath
28th Dec 2014, 17:10
I flew just a few hours before this flight took off from Surabaya. Our radar was nothing but,skull and crossbones over most of Indonesia and the Java sea. Also to not. Jakarta radar does not depict weather. There ATC is 30 years behind at best. Coverage is intermittent. So, the likelihood of an airplane vanishing in this area is extremely high.

mixture
28th Dec 2014, 17:25
And UPS/FedEx seem t track their trucks. Having found "trackyourtruck.com," tracking seems possible on a large scale

Oh please !! :ugh::ugh:

If you're going to quote an example at least quote a decent one in a similar environment (i.e air, sea ... or somewhere in deepest darkest Antarctica or whatever).

Quoting a ground based solution to an aviation problem is totally irrelevant and pointless.

Fedex, UPS, taxi operators .... they track their vehicles using M2M. And typically these days this operates over mobile/cellular networks. Maybe with failover to satellite, but not normally, because .... yep, you guessed it ... satellite ...is... EXPENSIVE ! So you'll probably only find that on those armored cash-carrying trucks etc.

TwoHeadedTroll
28th Dec 2014, 17:28
... any country losing 3 major aircraft ENR in a year is so vanishingly small as to be statistically impossible.

There have been 15 ENR losses of aircraft with more than 50 passengers in the last decade, and with 150 countries flying, that means each country had a 1% chance of losing an aircraft in any given year. That means one chance in a million of losing three.

caiman27
28th Dec 2014, 18:02
... any country losing 3 major aircraft ENR in a year is so vanishingly small as to be statistically impossible.

There have been 15 ENR losses of aircraft with more than 50 passengers in the last decade, and with 150 countries flying, that means each country had a 1% chance of losing an aircraft in any given year. That means one chance in a million of losing three.

Except the aircraft that has gone missing is Indonesian. Air Asia is a franchise business.

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 18:02
because .... yep, you guessed it ... satellite ...is... EXPENSIVE !
Nonsense mixture!:=

The idea is live streaming of telemetry data ONLY in case of an emergency or suspect deviations from planned route, altitude, heading, speed, flight law, g factor etc. It would provide the exact coordinates of last transmission!
That's not expensive, just a tiny bit in comparison to the search effort already spent.

physicus
28th Dec 2014, 18:05
on the A320, what's the data source for the Mode C altitude response? One of the ADIRUs or a single encoding altimeter? I see the control panel allows switching between two XPDR unit, presumably they are each fed from different altitude sources?

fireflybob
28th Dec 2014, 18:20
we hit a cell rising fast went from fl33 to fl39 in seconds and wild airspeed swings then back down to fl33 all three of us looked at each other and said what the hell was that?

So all you can say is the indicated altitude/level changed (same probably goes for airspeed).

Within a CB as well as the turbulence the pressure variations will affect readings on the pressure instruments.

Hence the advice to fly attitude and set power.

Intruder
28th Dec 2014, 19:12
Once again, we rely on outdated technology. No ELT transmissions received. This will only increase the pressure for industry wide deployment of REAL TIME FLIGHT DATA TELEMETRY.
And not before time.
Wouldn't matter. We still need reasonably intelligent PEOPLE to make reasonable decisions in a TIMELY manner.

Indonesia ATC lost radar and radio contact at 6:17, ADS contact at 6:18, and didn't call out an alert until 7:08. The VERY SIMPLE answer is that they should have sounded an alert as soon as contact was lost, so any of those military facilities, Coast Guard, merchant ships, and anyone else in the area would have been immediately alerted to a potential problem. If they regained contact a few minutes later, they could cancel the alert.

If the military radar operators don't know there's a problem, there's no reason for them to closely track EVERY airplane in their airspace. If other facilities & ships don't know there's a problem, there's no reason to post more watches or divert toward the problem area.

glendalegoon
28th Dec 2014, 19:50
fireflybob is right

maintain constant pitch

maintain constant power


take whatever altitude or speed you get unless you are

1. sure you are stalling

2. running out of altitude and ground contact imminent.



so many questions...oon th e bus you can imagine both pilots hitting the stick and doubling or fighting over who is controlling.

oh well. God Bless them all


I do say that if all electric power is lost the ELT should be triggered. Also the ELT should be set with a timer to start transmitting at fuel exhaustion minus 10 mins.

aa73
28th Dec 2014, 19:52
I once hit a "dry" cell in the Caribbean in a 757 at FL350. It was night time...radar was on max manual gain tilted down -2, nothing ahead or in immediate vicinity, some stuff on either side about 80 miles abeam. Suddenly flew into a cell that caused severe turbulence for 10 seconds, over speed, and +/-500ft. Once out of it immediately ascertained everyone was ok and notified atc. Not 30 seconds later Speedbird (BA) 747 hit the same type of stuff well off to our right. There were dry cells all over the Caribbean that night. They do not show up on radar no matter how much gain (sensitivity) you have it on: not enough moisture to show on radar but plenty of punch!

Blacksheep
28th Dec 2014, 20:16
The radio bands allocated to aviation are very limited and are being constantly eroded at every International bandwidth allocation meeting. Some years ago we were forced to reduce our VHF Communications to 8.33 KHz channel spacing to enable us to have enough available VHF frequencies. That is not a misprint - radio channel separation is about a third of the audio bandwidth of a decent Hi-Fi system. Imagine how tricky it is to prevent cross channel interference in such a tight channel space - the audio modulation is reduced to around 6.7 kHz! Meanwhile, global telecomms companies are after even more of the "under-utilised" frequency bands allocated to aviation.

All these people proposing real-time data telemetry of aircraft really have no comprehension of the technical difficulties involved in airborne communications. Bandwidth is limited and allocation is a regular bun-fight with everyone wanting to earn profits from grabbing a share. We already lost one entire band to cable television, for broadcasting Pap to the mass market. The frequency band currently used for Mode S/TCAS is being demanded for commercial use by telecomms companies.

Real time telemetry would involve something like a constant stream of 30 Mbs for each of possibly 400 aircraft in a ground footprint on the channel in use. Where do we get the bandwidth for that? Propose such a thing at the next international radio band allocation meeting and you'll be laughed out of the room. It's hard enough holding on to what we've got.

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 20:20
In a crisis like this, the data is needed very rapidly indeed. Had that been available, fast jets could have been dispatched to the GPS location to survey, and shortly after, assistance dropped as necessary, hopefully long before nightfall.

These days the airplanes are highly automated. History of LOC accidents and incidents shows that an FBW aircraft can accouter a panoply of flight laws and an endless stream of ECAM messages that can overwhelm any crew, as happened for an A380 over Singapore. Luckily, in A380 case, in addition to the normal crew of Captain, First and Second Officer, there were two additional check captains, all together did a great job in saving the plane.

An automated emergency system not only will alert the nearest rescue team in real time but it would open the possibility of streaming live the aircraft data to a very specialized team on duty, on a ground base station of experienced pilots and engineers . They will grasp the situation and work in real time with crew in distress given more chances of positive outcome.

ams6110
28th Dec 2014, 20:21
Where are you going to get a broadband connection in the middle of the Indian Ocean if not from a satellite?

Without commenting on the overall feasibility of the idea, you would not need broadband for such a system. Sending a simple message containing data such as flight id, current lat/long, altitude, heading and speed would not need much bandwidth at all. Iridium's "short block data" service is one example of a globally available capability.

It's too simplistic to say that's all you'd need. But the data connectivity itself is not the show-stopper.

commsbloke
28th Dec 2014, 20:26
@Blacksheep

30Mb/s for realtime telemetry sounds a little over the top

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 20:39
Real time telemetry would involve something like a constant stream of 30 Mbs for each of possibly 400 aircraft in a ground footprint on the channel in use.

Again, the idea is to open the real time telemetry automatically only for the aircraft in distress, out of course or non responsive.

Downwind Lander
28th Dec 2014, 20:40
commsbloke says:
"30Mb/s for realtime telemetry sounds a little over the top".

I tend to agree. All the data that is absolutely necessary is callsign, GPS location and maybe some sort of status flag. A handful of bytes. More is desirable, certainly but let us distinguish between needing and wanting.

I think some people hate this idea for reasons of their own. One day, it might save their bacon.

Sallyann1234
28th Dec 2014, 20:44
30Mb/s for realtime telemetry sounds a little over the top

It is over the top.
But the principle is sound, that continuous transmission of all FDR data from commercial aircraft would far exceed available satellite capacity. And extending that capacity to the extent required would be extremely expensive. This was discussed at great length in the FH370 threads, and little has changed since then.

Simple position reporting on a continuous basis _is_ feasible, however it doesn't seem that this would provide much additional evidence in the present case since the aircraft was in primary radar coverage when lost.

Sallyann1234
28th Dec 2014, 20:48
Again, the idea is to open the real time telemetry automatically only for the aircraft in distress, out of course or non responsive.

Fine in principle, but implementation would be extremely difficult. How to you reliably define those last two events in reality, and rapidly enough?

hamster3null
28th Dec 2014, 20:52
Are you sure your Maths is correct?
The Chance for the second Event being the same Country is 1/150 (like for any other Country as well). And for the third Event it is again 1/150th.
So even after the first risk materialised with a first incident, the risk for a second one would be 1/150th and a third one 1/22500.
With 1,5 per year you will have to wait for 15000 Years statistically for such a triple event.

Right. That's assuming that accidents occur in all countries with equal probabilities.

However, Indonesia has 250 million people and proportionally more aircraft (and, therefore, incidents) than, say, Nicaragua or Angola. (And it is much more sparse geographically: Nicaragua, contiguous and 500 x 500 km across, could live without airlines altogether - in fact, its airlines don't even own any passenger aircraft with capacity larger than 60. Indonesia is 5000 km across and consists of lots of islands, it can't function without aircraft.)

Indonesia and Malaysia taken together operate 1 out of every 40 777's, 1 out of 30 A320's and 1 out of every 12 737's in the world.

nuclear weapon
28th Dec 2014, 20:52
As a pilot with some engineering background I want to suggest a solution to this problem of locating aircraft after a crash. The fms knows where the aircraft is at any point in time in terms of longtitude and latitude. This changes rapidly during flight I know there's a page on the fms in my previous aircraft for getting this information. Upon impact greater than a particular force(g). This will prevent it being activated during severe thunderstorm. The black box will send out the last position reading in lat and long format to a distress box on any aircraft within say 100 miles. This will continue for about twelve hours. Another aircraft along that route can pick up these details and pass it on. Every point on the ocean surface has a postion in lat and long coordinates.

The technology to do this is out there, they simply need to use it. My junior brother has a $300 phone that figured out without any input after some weeks where he worked and on what days as this was regular to a tee. He started getting a text everyday at five minutes before 9am that it was time to start driving to work. On Thursdays and Fridays that he was always off he never gets a text.

These aircrafts costs tens of millions of dollars and they a really telling us they cant find them after a crash. Iphones and Samsung phone tell you which city or street your friend is calling from! Any input or suggestion will be appreciated.

MG23
28th Dec 2014, 20:54
Without commenting on the overall feasibility of the idea, you would not need broadband for such a system. Sending a simple message containing data such as flight id, current lat/long, altitude, heading and speed would not need much bandwidth at all.

It's called 'ADS', and already supported through satellite-based ACARS.

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 21:03
How do you reliably define those last two events in reality, and rapidly enough?

It does automatically, that means more faster and accurate than humans can do. Simple, based on exceeding of pre-estabilished parameters.

go123
28th Dec 2014, 21:10
Hit by lightning, electrics including FADEC fried. Aircraft glides and ditches outside of the search area

bud leon
28th Dec 2014, 21:10
The discussions on probabilities here are not all that meaningful. When you look at very rare events you don't have enough data to form a conclusion. This could just as easily be a random cluster than will never happen again, the country variable having no actual significance.

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 21:18
The black box will send out the last position reading in lat and long format to a distress box on any aircraft within say 100 miles. This will continue for about twelve hours. Another aircraft along that route can pick up these details and pass it on.

What do you mean? to use the other airplanes on route to transmit data similar to mobile telephony that uses poles ?

CDN_ATC
28th Dec 2014, 21:28
The few of us who are professionals in the field of ATC makes most of this thread unbearable to read

No not even pilots, no matter their flight experience have nothing more than a basic understanding of ATC systems, so please stop purporting an expertise level of understanding because you may be an experience pilot

I would never purport to be an aircraft expert, but due to my profession we have some associated knowledge just like pilots have of ATC.

There is some pure speculative bullshit about how ATC systems work, and it's obvious, outside of the few ATCOs on here, nobody has much of a clue what they are talking about.

I seriously doubt that area is entirely covered with PSR, SSR yes, but PSR has a range of 80-100NM only, and PSR sites are rare in comparison.

Even OTHR didn't find MH370 and I doubt it will help here either.

Pabloako
28th Dec 2014, 21:28
Here are a couple of satellite images from 27 Dec 23:30z. Nothing magical, just MTSat images, zoomed in a bit and false colour added.

Taken from CabooltureWeather (http://www.CabooltureWeather.com/SatPics-MTSat.asp) , more focus on Australia though.

https://cwaws.s3.amazonaws.com/mtsat/27Dec2014_2332zIRFC.jpg

https://cwaws.s3.amazonaws.com/mtsat/27Dec2014_2330zIR.jpg

tartare
28th Dec 2014, 21:34
The suggestion Nuclear Weapon makes is feasible.
It is what as known as a wireless mesh network. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking)
Every aircraft becomes a node in said network.

allthecoolnamesarego
28th Dec 2014, 21:41
23 noshows is not unusual for a LCC carrier in S.E Asia especially for an 0530 Lt departure.

Media reports say it left 2 hours ahead of planned ETD.
A family of 11 didn't get the email/text with the new ETD.

May account for the high number (the other 12 no shows)

terminus mos
28th Dec 2014, 21:45
I work for an oil and gas company. We have several large modern helicopters contracted to fly our workforce offshore, up to 16 passengers at a time, 250nm offshore in tropical weather. We have a Honeywell satellite tracking system fitted to every helicopter. It transmits LAT/LONG, HDG, ALT and GS at 2 minute intervals and shows the track of the flight as a crawling icon. I can track flights in real time from any PC.

Sallyann1234
28th Dec 2014, 21:49
How do you reliably define those last two events in reality, and rapidly enough?

It does automatically, that means more faster and accurate than humans can do. Simple, based on exceeding of pre-estabilished parameters. Ah yes! Automatically - I should have thought of that. Just fit an automatic and we are good to go. :}

In the current case, the flight requested a course change to avoid CB - a routine procedure in the tropics. How does your automatic system deal with this? Does the 'automatic' send out a bunch of FDR data for every course and height change, or do the crew press an 'Ignore' button before they turn?

The aircraft already has many "more faster and accurate than humans can do" systems on board, "based on exceeding of pre-estabilished parameters. " and they have not saved it. But this "simple" system is going to work in an emergency...

As terminus says, basic position data is routine. Anything more takes heavy bandwidth.

mixture
28th Dec 2014, 22:10
It is what as known as a wireless mesh network.
Every aircraft becomes a node in said network.

Satellite, mesh network, whatever nonsense people wish to dream up, the answer is the same.....

Given the limited number of scenarios in which it would be useful, and the rarity of the scenarios, how on earth do you think the manufacturers are going to convince the airlines to (a) pay for the equipment and its installation it across entire fleets (b) Continue paying operational costs to keep the equipment running just incase some rare event occurs given that there are already other mechanisms in place to monitor aircraft.

Its simple, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. The methods in use today to monitor aircraft are perfectly good for 99.9999999999% of however many flights that take place every year on this planet !

Do you really think there is any point expending an inordinate amount of man-power and significant money for the 0.0000000001% that may or may not encounter an issue ?

I mean seriously, compared to the number of flights globally ever the same period how many untrackable instances have we had over the last 10 years ? 20 years ?

And then there's the obvious questions about electrical faults, mid-air breakups etc. putting a great big spanner in these dreams people are coming up with....

There may well be other areas of aviation safety where money and man-power would be well spent ..... but this aint' one of them !

crewmeal
28th Dec 2014, 22:12
It would be good if news agencies showed pictures of the correct aircraft. Tonight's ITN news showed an Air Asia 787.

http://s13.postimg.org/5p58hok6f/10888382_10204162147432705_7760152841617318777_n.jpg

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 22:15
In the current case, the flight requested a course change to avoid CB - by turning the heading knob :ugh: nothing abnormal here, obviously a routine with crew responsive and in control

On the other hand, if the A/C changes speed, altitude, course dramatically due to stall, AOA or pitot tubes malfunctions or departing the normal law then there worth to stream "heavy data"


basic position data is routine.. Car's GPS do more than that.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 22:22
There is some pure speculative bullshit about how ATC systems work, and it's obvious, outside of the few ATCOs on here, nobody has much of a clue what they are talking about.

I seriously doubt that area is entirely covered with PSR, SSR yes, but PSR has a range of 80-100NM only, and PSR sites are rare in comparison.

Even OTHR didn't find MH370 and I doubt it will help here either.
According to an Indonesian Air Force spokesman, at least portions of the flight was tracked by an long-range early warning (E/W) military radar operating on Belitung Island (very close to the flight's last known position).

The radar is part of a network operated by Indonesia's National Air Defense Command. I believe the E/W radar at Belitung is an older Thomson-CSF unit from the 1980s, but even they have an operating range in excess of 200 NM.

Capn Bloggs
28th Dec 2014, 22:22
how on earth do you think the manufacturers are going to convince the airlines to (a) pay for the equipment and its installation it across entire fleets (b) Continue paying operational costs to keep the equipment running just incase some rare event occurs.

Got nothing to do with convincing anybody. If such a system was deemed necessary, it would be mandated by the authorities for all players. Add $5 to the cost of a ticket. So what? If you knew the angst that MH 370 has caused and the cost of the searches (still on-going) others would be more conducive to the idea. We're not talking about HD streaming of a different video to every pax seat here.

It is rather pathetic that in this day and age we can lose a 777...

Sallyann1234
28th Dec 2014, 22:26
Car's GPS do more than that.

And that's receive only :ugh:

You have convinced me to discontinue this discussion.

Blacksheep
28th Dec 2014, 22:43
30 Mbs is too much. It's a typo for 30 Kbs.

As for communications - they only work while the aircraft is flying normally. Once you have an accident they stop. Period. If an ELT survives in operational condition, it will transmit it's location but that's about it after the event. In this incident, ADS-B is reported to have been working up to the time contact was lost.

_Phoenix_
28th Dec 2014, 22:47
Car's GPS do more than that.
And that's receive only

You have convinced me to discontinue this discussion.

out of your knowledge there are products that use 2 way satellite communication through Iridium network as emergency rescue beacon or anti theft

Agree!

NSEU
28th Dec 2014, 22:49
@NuclearWeapon

The black box will send out the last position reading in lat and long format to a distress box on any aircraft within say 100 miles.

Unfortunately, the black box is currently not connected to a radio transmitter.

Read the Malaysian Airlines thread. It's all been discussed before:

ELT (electronic locator transmitter): activated with high g's. Fuselage mounted antenna. Battery powered. Will not work underwater (uses VHF and UHF(satellite) frequencies). More useful for crashes on land. Satellite comms can be impeded by metallic structures (does your mobile phone always work indoors?). Transmissions are generally line-of-sight. If you're in a deep valley, you may not have a clear view of the satellite. Thunderstorms can also interfere with the signal. Can be destroyed by fire or very hard impacts.

Black boxes (CVR/FDR). Located inside the fuselage. Not connected to antennas, but will transmit an ultrasonic signal when in contact with water. Ultrasonics can be detected by sensors placed in the water by search teams. Stop recording when certain aircraft electrical busses are unpowered (doesn't help if aircraft power is lost in flight as would happen in a break up )

Portable beacons: In stowages throughout the cabin). Battery-powered. Usually removed from stowages and activated by crew after a survivable impact with land/water. Automatically activated by contact with water. Will not work underwater (VHF) and won't work very well if stuck in the fuselage (Google Faraday Cage).

Satellite communication systems: Usually found on larger aircraft for various reasons. Can use small antenna (for data transmission), but for reliability and voice transmission, large fuselage-mounted antenna are used. These require aircraft main bus electrical power and, of course, a functioning navigation system, for transmitting position information.

ACARS: Is capable of using Satellite or VHF to send position information (see limitations above). However, for economy reasons, this data is not transmitted continuously.

We don't need transmitting black boxes. We just need passengers to pay more for their tickets and use existing technology ;)

Ian W
28th Dec 2014, 22:54
As CDN ATC has said, some of this thread makes uncomfortable reading.

All widebody aircraft are initially equipped with FANS 1/A (Future Air Navigation System [well it was future in 1980]). FANS 1/A provides for ACARS links to FOC, Automated Dependent Surveillance - Contract (ADS-C) to up to 5 recipients both FOC and ATC- who can contract with the aircraft electronics what they want to be sent and when- without the crew knowing. And of course FANS 1/A provides Controller Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) which is a relatively primitive set of control commands and responses over datalink.

ADS-C is normally set to either 4 minute or 10 minute reporting intervals depending on the RNP requirement of the route, or is set to just report at filed waypoints and level changes i.e. top/bottom of climbs and descents. ADS-C will normally provide aircraft ID, altitude, ground speed, Mach no, GPS position and time and other information. INMARSAT has recently announced that use of ADS-C will be FREE for tracking aircraft. INMARSAT is a geostationary set of satellites which have been updated and provide up to 250Kbs for both data and voice over IP - see Swift Broadband SwiftBroadband - Inmarsat (http://www.inmarsat.com/service-collection/swiftbroadband/) Iridium Next is a low earth orbit constellation that gives complete coverage including the poles. ADS-C can be transmitted in the same way over Iridium with each aircraft having a dedicated connection-oriented link (effectively the Iridium satellites are like orbiting cellphone base stations. Iridium next can support burst data up to 512Kbs up and 1.5Mbs down https://www.iridium.com/About/IridiumNEXT/Technology.aspx

Now neither of these systems would support continual streaming of FOQA or DFDR/CVR data but they could be triggered to accept streamed data in an emergency.

There are other systems such as Outerlink, used by helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico (and trucks in North America), that effectively receives a position report and other information every 2 minutes or so for transmission to the FOC, and a continuous stream of position reports if the pilot selects emergency.

Iridium is also hosting a system called AIREON which is an independent payload on the Iridium Next satellite constellation that will receive ADS-B transmissions from aircraft. ADS-B Out is being mandated in most regions of the world and it is expected that at least in the more sparely flown areas AIREON will be able to provide ADS-B surveillance cover otherwise unavailable to ATC/FOC.

It can be seen therefore that there are sufficient enablers being put into the space segment that tracking an aircraft and getting a compressed 'important issues' data stream is completely possible at little cost. The basic tracking is now available FREE and all aircraft either have the capability or can have it cheaply retrofitted. ADS-C and ADS-B are mandated for many FIR/UIRs.

Mahatma Kote
28th Dec 2014, 23:02
I've recently designed a GPS based vehicle locator/safety system for railway use. It uses 3G, Data Radio, voice radio, and satellite interchangeably to report to the control centre and receive alarms and alerts in return.

In my experience satellite is not really expensive. You can buy packages with a per message cost. I can't see how a per-message side-channel on existing aircraft satellite transponders would cost any serious amount at all - especially if it was only used for emergencies.

Asides from that, there is always the option of using normal VHF/UHF radio to squawk current location. Again, only in emergency, but sure to be recorded by any aircraft and ground-stations in range. It could be turned on for instance if the radio was set to the emergency frequency and would append a 'selcall' or DTMF burst containing GPS coordinates at the end of any message. Many land-mobile radios have this feature already.

slats11
28th Dec 2014, 23:16
Without knowing the location and capability of primary radar in that region, it is difficult to know if it was even in range of primary radar.

Even if it was in range, it is pretty unlikely it was being tracked in real time by primary radar. At 0600 on a Sunday morning when there is apparently nothing out of the usual to cause the military to be on a higher state of alert? Who would have been looking?

Capn Bloggs
28th Dec 2014, 23:24
At 0600 on a Sunday morning when there is apparently nothing out of the usual to cause the military to be on a higher state of alert? Who would have been looking?
Radar tapes perhaps... :cool:

ekw
28th Dec 2014, 23:28
In reference to the use of satellite to capture black box data debate:

Actually instead of just using satellite you could have the required data sent to a small onboard processor that performed the function of encrypting it. Then when the aircraft left the flight envelope it would be preprogrammed to pulse the data over multiple existing channels - Acars, transponder, VHF etc. The event could be triggered by altitude/speed readings. To cover inflight breakup the unit should be built in to one of the com relays with its own small power supply.

Airbubba
28th Dec 2014, 23:29
Was in 747-100 cargo from syd-hkg same time frame nothing was painting on radar I went back to galley to get coffee as I came back up the captain said to strap in we hit a cell rising fast went from fl33 to fl39 in seconds and wild airspeed swings then back down to fl33 all three of us looked at each other and said what the hell was that?

I once hit a "dry" cell in the Caribbean in a 757 at FL350. It was night time...radar was on max manual gain tilted down -2, nothing ahead or in immediate vicinity, some stuff on either side about 80 miles abeam. Suddenly flew into a cell that caused severe turbulence for 10 seconds, over speed, and +/-500ft. Once out of it immediately ascertained everyone was ok and notified atc. Not 30 seconds later Speedbird (BA) 747 hit the same type of stuff well off to our right. There were dry cells all over the Caribbean that night. They do not show up on radar no matter how much gain (sensitivity) you have it on: not enough moisture to show on radar but plenty of punch!

Yep, you tell the geniuses back at the training building these sea stories (now, this is no s**t...) and they act like you are making it up. They start talking about tilt angle versus altitude formulas and the spheroid equivolumetric diameter of the rain drops.

Down in the WSJC FIR (it's been a while since I've flown to JKT though) you really do get some buildups, often embedded, that barely paint on the weather radar. In the goo or at night you can be flying along fat dumb and happy and boom, all hell breaks loose. Turbulence, St. Elmo's Fire, airspeed and altitude fluctuations. Then as suddenly as it began, you are back out of it in smooth air.

The sun should have been coming up when QZ 8501 lost contact. The timezones flying SUB-SIN are bass ackwards, as you go west you end up an hour later.

With all the morning traffic in the area it is not uncommon to be stuck lower than you want, especially on a relatively short sector with good altitude performance in a light airliner. With modern aircraft going high is often the most fuel efficient path even on a short route but it might not make sense from an ATC perspective.

That sound bite about 'weather can't cause an aircraft to crash' has been picked up by CNN's Richard Quest and others. It grabs attention, provokes discussion and is usually put in the context that it is the pilots' (sometimes written pilot's) reaction, or lack of reaction, to the weather that can cause the mishap. Fair enough I suppose.

oldman04271940
28th Dec 2014, 23:30
Can someone tell me if the new weather IntuVue 3-D radar is now installed on any airliners.

giggitygiggity
28th Dec 2014, 23:32
30 Mbs is too much. It's a typo for 30 Kbs.

Even 30kbps is probably overkill. I am pretty sure Iridium said they could offer the service for free if the airlines would install the units themselves. 1kb/minute would probably be enough data to cover 2 position reports every minute. Could be less than a megabyte a flight. As someone said, data charges for all commercial aircraft world wide would be significantly less than a SAR operation such as was undertaken for MH370.

A few of the aircraft I trained in had a system called SPIDERTRACKS that operated a little satellite communications thing. It would constantly ping my position to HQ and in the event of an engine shutdown (power failure to the circuit it was on) it would send an Alarm back to Spidertracks HQ who would pass it on to my training provider. This would of course go off all the time as people would forget to inhibit the system prior to engine shutdown on the ground. Such a simple system though so it isn't even new technology.

NSEU
28th Dec 2014, 23:36
Asides from that, there is always the option of using normal VHF/UHF radio to squawk current location. Again, only in emergency, but sure to be recorded by any aircraft and ground-stations in range. It could be turned on for instance if the radio was set to the emergency frequency and would append a 'selcall' or DTMF burst containing GPS coordinates at the end of any message. Many land-mobile radios have this feature already.

Pilots are taught to aviate, navigate and then communicate (their emergency).

Primary activation has to be automatic (with manual backup). Even Scully (Hudson River ditching) forgot to activate the ditching switch on his Airbus. (Correction: Scully didn't have time to run through his checklists)

You need a position reporting system which operates even after main electrical bus failures (as experienced in engine flameouts and mid-air breakups) and in situations in which the pilots are fighting for control (hands busy), etc. If you have electrical bus problems, the aircraft position sensors may not be sending the data to the emergency transmission system.

IMHO, constant or frequent periodic transmission seems to be a much more reliable method.

Advance
28th Dec 2014, 23:38
CDN ATC at #223 suggests there is little primary radar in the area of interest and what there is has only 100 mile range. Elsewhere she suggests that ATC radar is "mosaiced" together to form a composite picture.

Firstly there is a great deal of radar in the area and most of it is both long range primary RSR with SSR on the same rotating radar head. Range of the PSR is sometimes limited to 180 nm but can exceed 200 nm at the levels of interest.

At the very least, WIHH Jakarta, WIPP Palembang, WIIS Semarang, WARR Surabya have coverage in this area as well as some Malaysian stations. Whilst the Indonesian AIP is not currently available on line in English, a quick look at the source data being used by FlightRadar 24 will confirm this assertion - and you will also find a strange radar called TEST1 in operation too - who knows where that one is located.

The combining of radar data from multiple sources by use of a Mosaic tile system is a North American phenomenon. Most radar in this part of the world is of European origin (because French and Italian companies pay the biggest bribes) and Europe does not normally use the Mosaic system but rather a mullti-radar tracking system whereby the weighted average position from multiple sites are combined to give one "average" aircraft position. Regardless, Indonesian ATC is not exactly a paragon of modernity and is more likely to be using single source radar on any given display.

The reason for the continued existence of PRI radar in the area is that unlike Canada where the biggest threat is your neighbour to the south, life is not always so eternally peaceful in Asia. There are many countries very close to each other here. Indonesia has a population of 253 million, over seven times that of Canada with Malaysia only a few miles distant population 30 million, Singapore 5 million etc. Hence the need to maintain PRI radar for defence purposes as well as civil aviation.

So maybe CDN ATC you are not an ATC expert when it comes to south east Asia no matter what your homeland experience may be? But why worry, the amount of misinformation on this site never ceases to amaze me!

slats11
28th Dec 2014, 23:39
Radar tapes perhaps...

Yes there may well be some data that was automatically captured and stored. As with MH370, will be less than 100% transparency regarding this - no one wants to reveal their capability (or lack of capability).

That's assuming it was within range of primary radar anyway. Its last known position was a fair way off shore, and even further away from any major centres.

What is the primary coverage like in the Java sea between Jakarta and Borneo?It may not be that great

Airbubba
28th Dec 2014, 23:46
I work for an oil and gas company. We have several large modern helicopters contracted to fly our workforce offshore, up to 16 passengers at a time, 250nm offshore in tropical weather. We have a Honeywell satellite tracking system fitted to every helicopter. It transmits LAT/LONG, HDG, ALT and GS at 2 minute intervals and shows the track of the flight as a crawling icon. I can track flights in real time from any PC.

Almost all international flights now have ADS-B which does the same thing at two second intervals. And yes, you can track planes with any PC.

See: Flightradar24.com - Indonesia-Singapore Area (http://www.flightradar24.com/-1.39,-254.91/5)

EcoFox
28th Dec 2014, 23:48
Aircraft parameter and position remote monitoring is a reality. A proven technology already exists for this and it is being used.
AFIRS, originally developed by Canadian AeroMechanical Services, a service now offered by Flyht (http://flyht.com), can radiate data for flight following and remote system monitoring to base through the Iridium satellite network at a regular rate. It can be programmed, though, to enter continuous transmission mode in the event abnormal aircraft parameters are detected.
It can at present be interfaced to several aircraft systems to report, for example, engine trend, fuel, exceedance alarms, etc.
The potential is there.

peekay4
28th Dec 2014, 23:51
Without knowing the location and capability of primary radar in that region, it is difficult to know if it was even in range of primary radar.

Even if it was in range, it is pretty unlikely it was being tracked in real time by primary radar. At 0600 on a Sunday morning when there is apparently nothing out of the usual to cause the military to be on a higher state of alert? Who would have been looking?

In normal state of alert, the Indonesian National Air Defense Command operate their Early Warning (E/W) radar network for a minimum of 18 hours a day (presumably the hours are on a rotating basis).

No one has to be "looking at" a particular aircraft as radar data are kept for a period of time.

In this case, we have two radar positions of interest. One is the facility at Belitung Island (at the Hanandjoeddin air force base). The second is the Iskandar AFB radar facility at Pangkalanbun, Central Borneo.

From the last known position, both facilities are well within PSR range of even the older Thompson-CSF radars we know the NADC operates. These E/W radars have a range of over 200nm. The NADC also has newer BAE Commander long range surveillance radars.

According to an Air Force spokesman this morning, the AirAsia flight was tracked to its last known position at bearing 247 degrees, 127nm from Pangkalanbun.

Capn Bloggs
28th Dec 2014, 23:53
Even Scully (Hudson River ditching) forgot to activate the ditching switch on his Airbus.

No, they never reached that item on the Dual Engine Failure checklist. They didn't have enough time.

slats11
29th Dec 2014, 00:17
According to an Air Force spokesman this morning, the AirAsia flight was tracked to its last known position at bearing 247 degrees, 127nm from Pangkalanbun.

Thanks PeeKay4. Unfortunately that word "known" leaves a lot of wriggle room. Those stated ranges are (presumably) for cruise flight levels. They will be much shorter range at lower levels - this systems are not over the horizon capability.

If the aircraft had really been tracked close to its last position, we should have found something yesterday. The Indonesian primary radar data would not have been released to the public. But the Indonesian military and civilian authorities would sure know where to look for an Indonesian aircraft carrying mostly Indonesian citizens.

Hope I'm wrong, but its looking a lot like MH370.
1. Over water. Pretty much equidistant from major centres. Would not have to descend too far to get below the horizon of any operating primary radar.
2. Dark. Early hours of Sunday morning.
3. ATC advised of weather and a request to deviate. So loss of radio, loss of secondary radar and then loss of primary radar not entirely out of the blue. Would look a bit like AF447 with upset and stall.
4. No wreckage found so far.

No one has to be "looking at" a particular aircraft as radar data are kept for a period of time.

By way of clarification, I meant that systems may not even have been operational at that time - not that an operator was siting at a screen monitoring traffic.

Airbubba
29th Dec 2014, 00:28
2. Dark. Early hours of Sunday morning.

Sunrise in Surabaya was about 5:14 local time. The sun was up the whole flight as far as I can tell.