Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

Old 3rd Jan 2015, 22:38
  #1141 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the graphic p.j.m.

This is very interesting information, it gives the location for these big pieces as: 3.9241948672 s 110.5252477224 e

which is very close to where the bodies and debris has been said to have been found - and which is 70 miles SE of the first given last known position: (3°22'1.58"S 109°41'28"E)

or 60 miles SE of a "corrected last known position" given at GeorgeHatcher.com (3°36'31.0"S 109°41'46.0"E)
Propduffer is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2015, 22:41
  #1142 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bud Leon #1088 and others: ICAO has a handy tool for comparing air safety capabilities of different states at Safety Audit Information. It’s based on very thorough, independent audits.

Before making sweeping comparisons between Asian and “Western” safety regimes just note that Singapore is one of the few States with a near perfect score and China is almost as good. Malaysia is much on a par with Australia and well above the international norm. Sadly Indonesia lags badly and theirs is very recent audit. So I fly on AirAsia’s Malaysian registered planes but not on those of its associates.

Interestingly AirAsia X Indonesia was due to start direct flights between Melbourne and Bali on 26 December but postponed the service at very short notice. Does anyone know if there were problems with the airline’s technical readiness?
osaub, as the tool explains the audit is of a country's oversight not an individual airline's safety performance. I'm not in the least bit surprised Indonesia gets this kind of score. If you read my post in its entirety you will see I make the point about a country's developmental progress. Indonesian systems do lag those of many other countries particularly with respect to corruption.

While good regulation is preferential, poor regulation does not necessarily mean an individual operator does not have good safety standards. On that basis, you would then argue that the only reason particular airlines have strong safety systems is strong regulation. It's always more complicated than that.

I agree with you about the mistake of making sweeping statements, that is my general point. It's also a point made well by Irate Alien.

I'm not arguing that regional factors are not relevant, I'm arguing let's not presume they are relevant.
bud leon is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 00:25
  #1143 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding Air Safety Audits, the only Indonesian airline to have IOSA accreditation is Garuda. Surprisingly, Air Asia does not appear on the list despite being approved to operate in the EU.
training wheels is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 00:40
  #1144 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My experience in Indonesia btw is that bribery and police extortion are entirely accepted if they protect the poor from the rich but highly prosecuted if it goes the other way. These are effectively mechanisms of collective social control ad not primarily by elites. In essence it is easy for Westerners to cry "corruption" and assume that the systme isn't working.

My reading is different. I think this is a demand by Indonesian regulators for a lot more money as punishment for losing the plane.
I would disagree with you, if you thought this is a form of punishment from the regulators for a lot more money. AirAsia just f*cked up, and fly without a route permit. Its just plainly wrong. AirAsia doesnt follow the rules.

Ever since our new president, Jokowi has been in office, he has been trying very hard to repair the system with each and everyone in the government to become more professional. The simple truth might be, they (transportation minister) have just known that AirAsia does these kind of practice. Changing schedules without asking permit to the authorities.

AirAsia has just endangered all their passengers on the doomed flight.

1. Insurance Coverage would be denied. I took this paragraph from the AirAsia Insurance.

Commercial flights scheduled by AirAsia Berhad, it being always understood that by AirAsia Berhad has at all times the requisite and valid licences or similar authorisations for scheduled air transportation and landing rights for fare paying passengers as issued by the relevant authorities in the country in which it operates, and that in accordance with such authorisation, maintain and publish schedules and tariffs for passenger service between named airports. In addition, departure times, transfers and destination points shall be established by reference to the Insured
Person’s Scheduled Flight ticket.

Since it does not have the appropriate authorisations (i.e. Route permit) than the insurance company can decline to pay.

2. There are regulations about preflight weather briefing that each and every pilot has to take before they fly. But AirAsia doesn't do that. They expect their pilots to download the weather forecast them self and print it out them self. Its just plainly wrong to break every rules that we have, in the name of cost efficiency.
cj8124 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 00:56
  #1145 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,397
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
There is an interesting development with huge legal and financial ramifications for Air Asia - Indonesia in the loss of the Air Asia A320.

Air Asia - Indonesia did not have legal flight approval for the flight that has been lost. They were not authorised to fly SUB - SIN that day.

The reasons are not 100% clear at this stage but Air Asia - Indonesia are no longer flying the SUB - SIN route.

Having some knowledge of the Indonesian system I suspect there is a flurry of paperwork behind the scene with many documents and approvals being backdated by the DGCA. (All being done with God's approval)

If there had been Americans, Japanese or Australians on board there would have been a lawyers picnic in the making.

Ps. Air Asia Indonesia is 49% owned by Air Asia and 51% by the former
Indonesian carrier Air Wagon International. The name Abd Wahid (Gus Dur) may be familiar to some old timers.
B772 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 01:30
  #1146 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by B772
There is an interesting development with huge legal and financial ramifications for Air Asia - Indonesia in the loss of the Air Asia A320.

Air Asia - Indonesia did not have legal flight approval for the flight that has been lost. They were not authorised to fly SUB - SIN that day
Little more than a beatup by some petty Indonesian official.

AirAsia Didn?t Have Permission to Fly Route on Day of Crash, Indonesia Says - WSJ

AirAsia used to have permission to fly the route daily, but the number of slots was cut for the period Oct. 26 to March 28 because the country was nearing its quota for flying people to Singapore
Transport Ministry spokesman J.A. Barata said the airline was only permitted to fly the route on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays
Mr. Murjatmodjo added that AirAsia had been flying the route on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays rather than the four days designated by the Transportation Ministry
p.j.m is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 02:07
  #1147 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: US
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Posted on Times Strait via ST Foreign Desk:

Before take-off, the pilot of Flight 8501 had asked for permission to fly at a higher altitude to avoid the storm, but the request was not approved due to other planes above him on the popular route, according to AirNav, Indonesia’s air traffic control.
BG47 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 02:32
  #1148 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This particular area of water contains vast amounts of WW2 wreckage and debris from numerous engagements, both air and sea.
That debris comprises large chunks of metal such as torpedoes, large shells, sea mines, and sizeable parts lost from ships that weren't sunk, but only badly damaged.

The Battle of the Java sea over 26-28th February 1942, was a huge battle between Japanese, American, Australian, British and Dutch warships that resulted in the loss of 6 known ships.

Another sea battle between the Japanese and U.S. and British ships on 1st March 1942 saw another 4 ships go to the bottom.
Then there are the numbers of WW2 aircraft losses in the Java Sea, both Japanese and Allied, from numerous dogfights, and just simple accident losses.
Add to that, civil wreckage such as ferries and local shipping lost over numerous decades.

The bottom line is, that this area is a recreational divers paradise, strewn with wreckage. Add in poor visibility in numerous areas caused by storms and strong currents, and you have wreckage search conditions that can best be described as "difficult".

Until a positively-identified section of the QZ8501 flight aircraft can be produced, there will be a large amount of "false alarms" produced in the wreckage search.
The fact that the current items reportedly found - that are immediately being identified as parts of QZ8501 - are listed as being found 100kms from the LRP, seems to me to be a somewhat unlikely location.

onetrack is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 03:22
  #1149 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: US
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi LcySlicker, I think you should reread my post as I made it clear that the article I sited was "not specific to AirAsia but to the country of Indonesia as a whole”. I also used “low cost airline” in quotes as this is what newspapers articles/TV are stating and it is also AirAsia’s own PR marketing campaign wording.

My only observation with regards to the wording “low cost airline”... does AirAsia push planes out the gate when possibly they should be delayed or cancelled ie due to wx etc. It is very costly for an airline to delay or cancel a flight especially if they do not have additional scheduled flights on the same day like this Sunday AirAsia flight (this sunday flight was the only flight that day for AirAsia).

In this case if a flight is cancelled the airline will still need to move the pax to their destination, there are several options 1) wait till the next scheduled flight and book them on that one. With regards to this Sunday AirAsia flight the pax would have had to wait till Monday or other flights that week, and I am sure the pax would not be too happy and AirAsia could loose a future customer plus if only there are any seats available and/or 2) sell the tickets to another competition airline who had open seats still. With the first case AirAsia could possibly loss out on a walk up customer because now all the seats are filled with the cancelled flight pax. Meaning no additional new revenue from walk up customers or last min bookings = loss of new income. The second option is very expensive as the competition airline buying the tickets can set the price very high (as a walk up price or higher). Airlines do not like to sell their customers tickets to another airline for the addition reason now that customer is exposed to another airline and may possibly purchase further tickets on the rebooked airline instead of say AirAsia.

My original post was more in the direction should this AirAsia flight been cancelled or delayed due to weather. It is fact that this flight was moved up 2 hours from the originally scheduled time...who moved it up and why? was it because the wx was going to be worse as the day progressed (which is fact). Not to mention the ripple effect of that plane delayed and not able to flight the next leg trips.

LcySlicker stated:
I know that this is a rumour network, but can one of the very few facts relevant here be made clear, BG47 and Jehrler?
62 Indonesian airlines are indeed banned from the EU airspace due to the failure of local regulatory oversight.
But 5 are approved. Presumably, that means that the EU finds their internal processes make up for the regulator's weakness.
And guess what? Indonesia Air Asia is one of those few Indonesian airlines approved by the European Union to fly to the EU if it chooses, along with Garuda (which does).
Because it meets EU standards.
Fact. Not rumour.
The links proving this are very early on in this thread, if our posters had read them rather than just smearing all low-cost airlines.

My original post:
In May according to the NYTimes the United Nations sent auditors to Jakarta, Indonesia to rate the countries aviation safety record...their conclusion Indonesia's safety recorded was “well below...global average in every category...scoring 61 in airworthness”. (note it was not specific to AirAsia but to the country of Indonesia as a whole).


Another article on the net indicates that the EU bars 62 Indonesian carriers into Europe for safety reasons. This article sites that the biggest issue/concern is proper training with rapidly aviation expansion.

My concerns with this accident is the fact that it is a “Low cost airline” and MAYBE not conclusive the push to get planes in the air vs canceling or delaying a flight as it would disrupt that particular planes day flight legs and the possible loss of revenue/increase cost in revenue that is required to move the pax if a flight is cancelled and the airline needs to sell the seats to another airline to move the pax to their destination.

All accidents are a domino effect as we know and I think the first domino in this case goes back to management wanting to keep airline cost down, then dispatch and obviously the flight crew. There is no discussion on here about dispatch and their role in moving this flight forward by 2 hours...clearly dispatch knew the weather was bad and getting worse...the question is was dispatch pressed to get the fight into the air vs canceling or delaying the flight due to weather. What kind of training and years of experience do AirAsia dispatchers have and how much pressure from management/dispatch in the very early am did the captain of this flight have/feel and/or was he to fatigue to make a proper decision to delay the flight...."

Last edited by BG47; 4th Jan 2015 at 03:38.
BG47 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 03:36
  #1150 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Little more than a beatup by some petty Indonesian official.
Perhaps, but perhaps more than nuisance value too.

If they were technically unauthorised for that flight, that might very well 'technically' invalidate their insurance, might it not...?
Ranger One is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 03:42
  #1151 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ranger One
If they were technically unauthorised for that flight, that might very well 'technically' invalidate their insurance, might it not...?
Seems the authorities were happy to allow it to file a flight plan, and granted it permission to take off on the day.
p.j.m is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 03:44
  #1152 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 312
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I wonder whether the Conventions regarding compensation would be applicable as well, if the flight was not authorised. But I suppose that is the least of Air Asia's concerns.
chuboy is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 03:51
  #1153 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
osaub to be perfectly honest I usually fly Singapore Airlines and a few other premium carriers. I don't fly on LCCs unless there is no other choice.
bud leon is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 04:17
  #1154 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: US
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Allianz Insurance the lead insurer on Mh370, Mh17 and this AirAsia flight:

Reuters news, By Lawrence White and Arno Schuetze

HONG KONG/FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Allianz SE could be exposed to claims of at least $100 million linked to the AirAsia jet missing off the Indonesian coast with 162 people on board, which would be the third major airline accident it has been exposed to this year.

Allianz said on Monday it was lead reinsurer on the flight, having previously been the main reinsurer to Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 which disappeared over the Indian Ocean in March, as well as to flight MH17, shot down in July while flying over Ukraine.

In an emailed statement Allianz confirmed it had lead the provision of aviation hull and liability cover, adding: "It is much too early to comment on reports of this incident ... except to say that our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by this missing flight."

One aircraft insurance broker estimated total costs would depend on liabilities for passengers and could be between $100 million and $200 million, including around $45 million for the plane.

Not all the costs would be borne by Allianz but the insurer declined comment on the extent of its exposure, or to identify others exposed to the missing Airbus A320-200.

Aviation incidents accounted for four of the top 10 major insurance losses not linked to natural catastrophes in the first eight months of 2014, putting pressure on aviation claims that are already rising due to the use of expensive materials and demanding safety regulation, an Allianz report said.

As with the two Malaysia Airlines crashes, Allianz and its co-insurers will have to foot the bill for the cost of the missing aircraft, as well as for payments due to the relatives of passengers aboard the flight.

The Airbus 320 sells for an average price of $94 million, according to Airbus's website. However, according to the age of the aircraft, the hull is likely to be insured for a lower sum.

For passenger liability, an international agreement called the Montreal Convention caps initial payouts at around $165,000 per passenger at current exchange rates, or a total of about $27 million for the 162 passengers aboard the AirAsia flight.

But if the airline is found to have been at fault, such as through pilot error, claims could be much higher.

"This is going be identical to MH370 and MH17 in the sense there are standard minimum insurance obligations which all carriers have to have, but if negligence can be demonstrated the sky's the limit in terms of claims," said John Ribbands, an independent Melbourne-based lawyer expert in aviation insurance.

JLT Group was the insurance broker for the AirAsia plane, the company told Reuters in a separate statement.

In a recent aviation safety study, Allianz said there are currently fewer than two passenger deaths for every 100 million passengers on commercial flights, compared with 133 deaths for every 100 million in the 1960s.

Allianz shares were 1.5 percent lower by 7.48 a.m. in a 0.8 percent weaker sector <.SXIP>. One insurance analyst said the accident would not change his view on the stock. "Payouts resulting from a single plane crash are usually manageable and by far less dramatic than a winter storm in Europe or a hurricane in the U.S.," he said.

(Additional reporting by Carolyn Cohn and Simon Jessop in London; Writing by Lisa Jucca; Editing by Michael Perry and David Holmes)
BG47 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 06:54
  #1155 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
some interesting presos...

p.j.m is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 07:49
  #1156 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bud leon:8808078
FLEXPWR, I don't doubt your observations. I'm very selective about which airlines I travel on in Asia. I don't doubt that there are many risks to quality in many parts of the world right now. What bothers me is that there is no reliable properly analysed evidence of cause in this incident but people have already arrived at a conclusion which clearly reinforces racial and cultural biases. Even referring to the region as the "Far East" sends a culturally biased message.

There is no doubt safety standards in Asia in many industries fall behind the west. That is a recognised development issue. There has to be some recognition that these are developing economies and standards also are developing. There is also no doubt that western safety standards are under increasing pressure. Whether there is a significant regional difference in aviation safety requires more than anecdotal evidence. This region, and aviation generally, are in a period of significant flux.

The statistical reality is that revenue passenger kilometres are increasing almost exponentially at over 5.4 trillion kilometres per year (doubled in ten years) and a lot of that increase is in Asia. Yet global airline crashes continue to fall.

Anecdotally there is equally sufficient information to suggest lapse standards in other countries… a quick look at this forum reveals pilots accomplishing hands free nose first landings into the runway, taxiing a plane to the gate on smoking rims, undershooting runways by 500 metres, landing at the wrong airport, landing on taxi-ways, stalling airbuses, the list could go on. I can't help think there are some cognitive biases at work here. Maybe there is a difference in standards, maybe the difference isn't as big as people imagine.
Cognitive implies some form of intelligence behind such views. These cultural biases emanate from deep within the soul of the xenophobic. They are also irrational and compare little to the sycophantic bilge produced in support of the BA pilot who parked the wing of his 747 in a building in Johannesburg. This major faux pas posed little in terms of perception on those pilots coming from the UK sub continent. Anyway, back to trying to understand the reasons behind this tragic event.

Last edited by sAx_R54; 4th Jan 2015 at 09:01. Reason: typographic error!!
sAx_R54 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 07:59
  #1157 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chefrp:8808200
they are a cost to be mitigated with things like P2F.
Agreed. There is only one way to fight bean-counters, by making their business model unprofitable.

You could start with this...

Pilots involved in P2F should not be called professional pilots, because the definition of professional is being paid to do a job (in your profession)..."not paying to do your job"!

During in-flight introductions they should be introduced as such. ie... cadet pilot, amateur pilot, or pilot in training.

I think the PAX have a right to know, and just maybe, just maybe it might raise some eyebrows. Or make some feel uneasy, and choose another airline next time.
A better definition for professionalism is not what you get paid.....it is about how you conduct yourself.
sAx_R54 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 08:27
  #1158 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,222
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
QZ 8501 took off from Surabaya for Singapore at 05.35 local time. That ment the crew almost certainly reported for duty at 04.30. They had a double so they were scheduled for an eleven hour day. Their natural body clock would not have permitted them to get eight hours sleep before getting up before 04.00hrs.

Once airborne they were now under pressure to get to Singapore and back, twice, without overrunning their duty hours. When approaching a massive build up their first reaction would have been to go around it but then the time penalty would start to register. The desire to stay inside their time bracket would encourage a 'suck it and see' approach and maybe they tried this.

When it became obvious that this was not going to work that is when they asked for a heading and climb.

It was too late.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 08:59
  #1159 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 82
Posts: 1,301
Received 98 Likes on 41 Posts
Irate Alien
I was so pleased to read your post. The cultural arrogance of so many people from Western backgrounds (I generalise - Europeans, N. Americans, Australians, etc.) towards those from Asian, Indonesian, Indo/Pakistan and African peoples is breathtaking. We are blind to the many difference that you describe. There are more cultural differences across the Indian sub-continent than across Europe, we tend to see Chinese people as all the same when there are so many differences between the different parts of China that we just don't see.
One of my pet dislikes at the moment is the way 'the West' demonises all Muslims as possible terrorists when clearly the vast majority of Muslims are as horrified as we are at what is happening in the name of Islam.
A little more cultural humility would go a long way.
Bergerie1 is online now  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 09:14
  #1160 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YARM
Age: 74
Posts: 136
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
interesting preso...


indeed. can you provide source or some more context for #1169 please?

I'm especially curious as to what part of the a/c will be identified as object 1, and how far away is it from the cluster of wreckage?

unworry is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.