Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montreal
Age: 53
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FACT: 15+ degrees nose high above FL300 is not sustainable, e.g. suicide...which means pilot error. You lose. Good day, sir.
You should get out from that armchair and loose some weight, sir
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is this AF447 stuff popping up again? There was so much discussion on every possible channel and so much more further education on the topic that I assume not a single pilot flying Airbus is not aware of what happened.
From the first reports of bodies and debris and how they seem to be arranged I tend to suspect the plane made a water landing more or less intact. I admit, this would be one the worst for the relatives - smashing into the ocean and then to drown.
From the first reports of bodies and debris and how they seem to be arranged I tend to suspect the plane made a water landing more or less intact. I admit, this would be one the worst for the relatives - smashing into the ocean and then to drown.
Something that's grinding my gears about the media reports I've been hearing:
"Air Asia jet crashed after being denied permission to climb to avoid weather by ATC"
ATC can only know what a pilot tells us. If the captain feels the weather ahead poses such a significant threat to his/her aircraft, he/she should have say in the first transmission "need immediate left turn 120 degrees and climb to FL380 due weather". If the ATC response was not to their satisfaction, say the magic words and do it anyway. If you are in conflict with another aircraft, it's my job to get it out of your way in those situations. You are my number 1 priority and nobody is getting in your way.
The aircraft was approaching handover to another center from what I've read. The next sector is expecting that aircraft at FL320, and is planning their separations and crosses based on that fact. It varies from place to place but normally if the climb is being initiated within 10 mins of an FIR boundary, I have to pick up the phone and get permission for a climb BEFORE giving it to the aircraft.
Also, if the aircraft is crossing an FIR boundary, it needs to meet certain conditions for silent handover, IE to be handed to the next sector e.g. 10 nm at boundary behind traffic ahead if same speed or slower, 20 nm if faster. Not to mention coming at the next sector off route. Also, in this instance, you would warn the next sector about the weather reported so they will expect subsequent aircraft off route and warn any aircraft they are sending your way. Anything that does not meet silent handover criteria must be manually co-ordinated over the phone and approved by the giving and receiving sectors.
That little rant is just to give you an idea of some of the criteria that we need to meet to give climbs or re-routes in non emergency situations, and how important it is that the magic words are used if you aren't getting what you need
"Air Asia jet crashed after being denied permission to climb to avoid weather by ATC"
ATC can only know what a pilot tells us. If the captain feels the weather ahead poses such a significant threat to his/her aircraft, he/she should have say in the first transmission "need immediate left turn 120 degrees and climb to FL380 due weather". If the ATC response was not to their satisfaction, say the magic words and do it anyway. If you are in conflict with another aircraft, it's my job to get it out of your way in those situations. You are my number 1 priority and nobody is getting in your way.
The aircraft was approaching handover to another center from what I've read. The next sector is expecting that aircraft at FL320, and is planning their separations and crosses based on that fact. It varies from place to place but normally if the climb is being initiated within 10 mins of an FIR boundary, I have to pick up the phone and get permission for a climb BEFORE giving it to the aircraft.
Also, if the aircraft is crossing an FIR boundary, it needs to meet certain conditions for silent handover, IE to be handed to the next sector e.g. 10 nm at boundary behind traffic ahead if same speed or slower, 20 nm if faster. Not to mention coming at the next sector off route. Also, in this instance, you would warn the next sector about the weather reported so they will expect subsequent aircraft off route and warn any aircraft they are sending your way. Anything that does not meet silent handover criteria must be manually co-ordinated over the phone and approved by the giving and receiving sectors.
That little rant is just to give you an idea of some of the criteria that we need to meet to give climbs or re-routes in non emergency situations, and how important it is that the magic words are used if you aren't getting what you need
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RPVK and Air Asia
B2560/14 - RWY 05/23 CLSD DUE DISABLED ACFT AT THE END OF RWY 23. 30 DEC 10:45 2014 UNTIL 30 DEC 23:59 2014 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 30 DEC 10:46 2014
"When it rains it pours"!
Un-stabilized approach? Runway long enough even with BA Medium.
This could have easily been another hull loss with many dead!
"When it rains it pours"!
Un-stabilized approach? Runway long enough even with BA Medium.
This could have easily been another hull loss with many dead!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact = THS is rotated to max NU while stall warning online
Based on elevator vs THS area ratio+SW malfunction+sidestick design... The pilot error falls below 25%, first minute after AP disc
AF 442
THS nose up because that's where the stick was held....by the pilot...why? because the AFDS was commanding nose up in an attempt to "correct" the "overspeed" that was erroneously sensed...root cause, frozen pitots..pilot fixated on PFD...bad ergonomics..perhaps...incorrect pilot response..apparently so, faults in training responding to airspeed unreliable/high altitude stall?..most definitely..organizational anomaly most assuredly...lack of basic flying skills/situational awareness..yes..this latest one we have no idea, although data available shows rather large altitude excursions over a short period...not a good sign
Based on elevator vs THS area ratio+SW malfunction+sidestick design... The pilot error falls below 25%, first minute after AP disc
AF 442
THS nose up because that's where the stick was held....by the pilot...why? because the AFDS was commanding nose up in an attempt to "correct" the "overspeed" that was erroneously sensed...root cause, frozen pitots..pilot fixated on PFD...bad ergonomics..perhaps...incorrect pilot response..apparently so, faults in training responding to airspeed unreliable/high altitude stall?..most definitely..organizational anomaly most assuredly...lack of basic flying skills/situational awareness..yes..this latest one we have no idea, although data available shows rather large altitude excursions over a short period...not a good sign
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Miles from where I want to be.
Age: 39
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's safe to say any impact would have been severe and people would have died instantly.
If it was a controlled descent it would have taken quite some time to meet the water, would have been visible on radar and would likely to have time to get a call out.
This was a sudden, catastrophic failure resulting in a high energy impact with the water.
I would find the Twitter posts of people claiming victims have been found dead holding hands laughable if it were not such a tragedy.
If it was a controlled descent it would have taken quite some time to meet the water, would have been visible on radar and would likely to have time to get a call out.
This was a sudden, catastrophic failure resulting in a high energy impact with the water.
I would find the Twitter posts of people claiming victims have been found dead holding hands laughable if it were not such a tragedy.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirAsia flight QZ8501: Plane crash in Java Sea
MORE than 40 bodies from the missing AirAsia flight QZ8501 have been found along with debris, authorities have confirmed.
rumours some in life jackets? if they had time to put them on why no mayday! also reports of the plane under the water all intact
MORE than 40 bodies from the missing AirAsia flight QZ8501 have been found along with debris, authorities have confirmed.
rumours some in life jackets? if they had time to put them on why no mayday! also reports of the plane under the water all intact
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iridium and INMARSAT both have sufficient connections for every passenger aircraft in the world with more than say 80 seats to have their own 'private' connection to the satellites. They could give that bandwidth to low sample rate DFDR/CVR recording but although the bandwidth is available it would be a waste of bandwidth as the number of times it would be needed is extremely small. Not only that in line-of-sight of land the aircraft would more sensibly use higher bandwidth protocols such as WIMAX to ground communications stations.
From a commercial point of view there is more benefit in provision of streaming broadband Internet to the pax. (Note this streaming broad band internet is what is planned; there is lots of bandwidth).
Therefore, the most likely commercial and engineering option is for the bandwidth to be used to allow pax to use the Internet in flight but with an emergency capability for that bandwidth to be taken by the live streaming of DFDR/CVR data if the aircraft automatics sense a probable emergency condition or if the pilot selects to stream. Probable emergency conditions could be extreme turbulence or g above a certain level, extremes of climb/descent or speed, unusual positions, pressurization failures, fire of engine(s) and/or fuselage, some avionics failures etc., etc..
This approach would also remove the concern often expressed by crew that they don't want management electronically watching 'over their shoulders' in real time; it's bad enough with FOQA.
Bandwidth is not an issue, using it for something else for the more than 99.999% of the time that makes the company money and only allocating it for emergency use in the 0.001% of the time that use is actually needed is an engineering solution.
From a commercial point of view there is more benefit in provision of streaming broadband Internet to the pax. (Note this streaming broad band internet is what is planned; there is lots of bandwidth).
Therefore, the most likely commercial and engineering option is for the bandwidth to be used to allow pax to use the Internet in flight but with an emergency capability for that bandwidth to be taken by the live streaming of DFDR/CVR data if the aircraft automatics sense a probable emergency condition or if the pilot selects to stream. Probable emergency conditions could be extreme turbulence or g above a certain level, extremes of climb/descent or speed, unusual positions, pressurization failures, fire of engine(s) and/or fuselage, some avionics failures etc., etc..
This approach would also remove the concern often expressed by crew that they don't want management electronically watching 'over their shoulders' in real time; it's bad enough with FOQA.
Bandwidth is not an issue, using it for something else for the more than 99.999% of the time that makes the company money and only allocating it for emergency use in the 0.001% of the time that use is actually needed is an engineering solution.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now its offical
Quote:
SURABAYA, 30TH DECEMBER 2014 – AirAsia Indonesia regrets to inform that The National Search and Rescue Agency Republic of Indonesia (BASARNAS) today confirmed that the debris found earlier today is indeed from QZ8501, the flight that had lost contact with air traffic control on the morning of 28th December 2014.
The debris of the aircraft was found in the Karimata Strait in South East Belitung.
The aircraft was an Airbus A320-200 with the registration number PK-AXC. There were 155 passengers on board, with 137 adults, 17 children and 1 infant. Also on board were 2 pilots, 4 cabin crew and one engineer.
At the present time, search and rescue operations are still in progress and further investigation of the debris found at the location is still underway. AirAsia Indonesiaemployees have been sent to the site and will be fully cooperating with BASARNAS, National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC), and relevant authorities on the investigation.
Sunu Widyatmoko, Chief Executive Officer of AirAsia Indonesia said: “We are sorry to be here today under these tragic circumstances. We would like to extend our sincere sympathies to the family and friends of those on board QZ8501. Our sympathies also go out to the families of our dear colleagues.” he added.
Tony Fernandes, Group Chief Executive Officer of AirAsia added: “I am absolutely devastated. This is a very difficult moment for all of us at AirAsia as we await further developments of the search and rescue operations but our first priority now is the wellbeing of the family members of those onboard QZ8501.”
AirAsia Indonesia will be inviting family members to Surabaya, where a dedicated team of care providers will be assigned to each family to ensure that all of their needs are met. Counsellors, religious and spiritual personnel have also been invited to the family center to provide any necessary services.
Quote:
SURABAYA, 30TH DECEMBER 2014 – AirAsia Indonesia regrets to inform that The National Search and Rescue Agency Republic of Indonesia (BASARNAS) today confirmed that the debris found earlier today is indeed from QZ8501, the flight that had lost contact with air traffic control on the morning of 28th December 2014.
The debris of the aircraft was found in the Karimata Strait in South East Belitung.
The aircraft was an Airbus A320-200 with the registration number PK-AXC. There were 155 passengers on board, with 137 adults, 17 children and 1 infant. Also on board were 2 pilots, 4 cabin crew and one engineer.
At the present time, search and rescue operations are still in progress and further investigation of the debris found at the location is still underway. AirAsia Indonesiaemployees have been sent to the site and will be fully cooperating with BASARNAS, National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC), and relevant authorities on the investigation.
Sunu Widyatmoko, Chief Executive Officer of AirAsia Indonesia said: “We are sorry to be here today under these tragic circumstances. We would like to extend our sincere sympathies to the family and friends of those on board QZ8501. Our sympathies also go out to the families of our dear colleagues.” he added.
Tony Fernandes, Group Chief Executive Officer of AirAsia added: “I am absolutely devastated. This is a very difficult moment for all of us at AirAsia as we await further developments of the search and rescue operations but our first priority now is the wellbeing of the family members of those onboard QZ8501.”
AirAsia Indonesia will be inviting family members to Surabaya, where a dedicated team of care providers will be assigned to each family to ensure that all of their needs are met. Counsellors, religious and spiritual personnel have also been invited to the family center to provide any necessary services.
Mixture, with all due respect it won't matter very much what you or I think. So there is little point you banging on and on that tracking is unnecessary.
The real issues in this debate will be:
1. what the average member of the public wants (yep the public, without whom there would be no industry)
2. whether airlines see a commercial advantage in this capability
3. what 3rd parties (including underwriters) require
In a world where tracking technology is becoming more commonplace and after three recent high profile cases where planes have been difficult to find (AF447, MH370, and now Air Asia), it seems almost quaint (and increasingly unacceptable) to many that large RPT aircraft are not tracked.
If I recall correctly, it was almost 2 hours after AF447 crashed when Senegal ATC started thinking there was anything amiss. So by the time ATC first became concerned, the aircraft had crashed 2 hours earlier and and 1800km "before" its then presumed location! It was longer still until it was appreciated that AF447 must have crashed "somewhere" (at the 2 hour mark Senegal ATC started asking other AF flights to try and raise 447). This in the 21st century? You have to be kidding me.
I completely accept that tracking would not have saved any lives on AF447 (nor I suspect AirAsia). That is not the point.
Then there is MH370. The cost of the search thus far is massive. The human cost to the relatives of not knowing what happened is incalculable. Against this, so what if it is a 1 in a million event. And that is before you consider the possibility that real time tracking (if unable to be turned off) may have prevented MH370 in the first place.
Inmarsat (and possibly others) are now offering this capability to airlines. For free!. Basic aircraft ID, location, track, and speed take almost zero bandwidth. That is why Inmarsat does not need to charge.
We don't need to stream CVR and FDR - although even that may come in time! We can rely on the onboard recorders. But we do need to be able to reliably find them - hopefully in a timely fashion.
If some people feel this is pointless and unnecessary, that's OK. However there is no real downside. It is not harmful in any way. And it is not dangerous. So there does not appear to be any real reason to object. If I am missing something, please explain what this is.
I have spent many hours staring out at sea looking for missing planes or boats or survivors and so I congratulate the SAR teams for their efforts to date, and also acknowledge their grim task ahead. But that is hardly the point either.
The real issues in this debate will be:
1. what the average member of the public wants (yep the public, without whom there would be no industry)
2. whether airlines see a commercial advantage in this capability
3. what 3rd parties (including underwriters) require
In a world where tracking technology is becoming more commonplace and after three recent high profile cases where planes have been difficult to find (AF447, MH370, and now Air Asia), it seems almost quaint (and increasingly unacceptable) to many that large RPT aircraft are not tracked.
mickjoebill
In the eyes of the travelling public the aviation industry is making an ass of itself.
In the eyes of the travelling public the aviation industry is making an ass of itself.
If I recall correctly, it was almost 2 hours after AF447 crashed when Senegal ATC started thinking there was anything amiss. So by the time ATC first became concerned, the aircraft had crashed 2 hours earlier and and 1800km "before" its then presumed location! It was longer still until it was appreciated that AF447 must have crashed "somewhere" (at the 2 hour mark Senegal ATC started asking other AF flights to try and raise 447). This in the 21st century? You have to be kidding me.
I completely accept that tracking would not have saved any lives on AF447 (nor I suspect AirAsia). That is not the point.
Then there is MH370. The cost of the search thus far is massive. The human cost to the relatives of not knowing what happened is incalculable. Against this, so what if it is a 1 in a million event. And that is before you consider the possibility that real time tracking (if unable to be turned off) may have prevented MH370 in the first place.
Inmarsat (and possibly others) are now offering this capability to airlines. For free!. Basic aircraft ID, location, track, and speed take almost zero bandwidth. That is why Inmarsat does not need to charge.
We don't need to stream CVR and FDR - although even that may come in time! We can rely on the onboard recorders. But we do need to be able to reliably find them - hopefully in a timely fashion.
If some people feel this is pointless and unnecessary, that's OK. However there is no real downside. It is not harmful in any way. And it is not dangerous. So there does not appear to be any real reason to object. If I am missing something, please explain what this is.
I have spent many hours staring out at sea looking for missing planes or boats or survivors and so I congratulate the SAR teams for their efforts to date, and also acknowledge their grim task ahead. But that is hardly the point either.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montreal
Age: 53
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THS nose up because that's where the stick was held....by the pilot...
sorry, that's it for me regarding AF 447
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Belgrade
Age: 52
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Ranger One:
Misunderstood.
Turning 120 degrees from course (or sharp turns) increasing the altitude in HDG mode BANKING at 25 (or more) degrees was problem sometimes in A320.
Misunderstood.
Turning 120 degrees from course (or sharp turns) increasing the altitude in HDG mode BANKING at 25 (or more) degrees was problem sometimes in A320.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@cozmo
Your words, again:
You're telling us what the crew did - even as the first bodies are being pulled from the water - AND you're repeatedly dissing Airbus with no justification.
That is not the mark of a professional. Well, maybe a professional troll.
R1
Your words, again:
The bank of 120 degrees he was doing abruptly with an increasing altitude is panic break away from a squall line storm cells - to me it looks that way. There were the cases in which hard banking of, let's say, 25 degrees in HDG mode could lead close to stall margins on low speed hi-altitude maneuvers like this on Airbus.
That is not the mark of a professional. Well, maybe a professional troll.
R1
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time reader, first time poster, PAX.
As someone with a relative and friends on this flight I thank you all for the interesting discussion and quick links to new information. It has been enlightening to read informed, professional opinion and theory on what might have happened, rather than the pap dished up by CNN and 'experts' such as Richard Quest.
Regarding ELTs/location methods that actually work, I'll echo previously aired views when I say that the faster a lost aircraft can be found the better it is for the loved ones of those on board.
If the case of survivors, rapidly pinpointing the crash site increases their chance of surviving the entire ordeal, especially at sea. If there are no survivors, as may be the case here, quickly locating the crash site speeds up the timeline and allows grieving to start.
I thank $DEITY this was not another MH370.
--Brad
As someone with a relative and friends on this flight I thank you all for the interesting discussion and quick links to new information. It has been enlightening to read informed, professional opinion and theory on what might have happened, rather than the pap dished up by CNN and 'experts' such as Richard Quest.
Regarding ELTs/location methods that actually work, I'll echo previously aired views when I say that the faster a lost aircraft can be found the better it is for the loved ones of those on board.
If the case of survivors, rapidly pinpointing the crash site increases their chance of surviving the entire ordeal, especially at sea. If there are no survivors, as may be the case here, quickly locating the crash site speeds up the timeline and allows grieving to start.
I thank $DEITY this was not another MH370.
--Brad
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by slats11
Then there is MH370. The cost of the search thus far is massive. The human cost to the relatives of not knowing what happened is incalculable. Against this, so what if it is a 1 in a million event. And that is before you consider the possibility that real time tracking (if unable to be turned off) may have prevented MH370 in the first place.
If it can be turned off, then what is the point? If MH370 was caused by malicious agent(s), the only reason inmarsat tracking worked was because it was a new thing that has not been done before. If anyone wants to vanish an aircraft now, you can be sure that they will pull the breaker to the sat comms.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, mix messages and miscommunication
Indonesia's National Search and Rescue Agency chief said that just three bodies had been recovered so far in the search for the AirAsia plane which crashed in the Java Sea, after another official said 40 had been found.
"Today we evacuated three bodies and they are now in the warship Bung Tomo," Bambang Soelistyo told a news conference in Jakarta, adding that they were two females and one male.
Navy spokesman Manahan Simorangkir told AFP earlier that according to naval radio a warship had recovered more than 40 bodies from the sea. But he later said that report was a miscommunication by his staff.
"Today we evacuated three bodies and they are now in the warship Bung Tomo," Bambang Soelistyo told a news conference in Jakarta, adding that they were two females and one male.
Navy spokesman Manahan Simorangkir told AFP earlier that according to naval radio a warship had recovered more than 40 bodies from the sea. But he later said that report was a miscommunication by his staff.