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 9th Jan 2015, 22:10
  #1641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A number of posts earlier in this discussion have mentioned that an angle of attack instrument would help the pilots make a better assessment of a possible stall condition. I noted with interest that in the AF447 final report that is readily available on the web, in section 4.2.2 it says, "Information on angle of attack is not directly accessible to pilots", and a couple of lines later, "it is essential in order to ensure flight safety to reduce the angle of attack when a stall is imminent. Only a direct readout of the angle of attack could enable crews to rapidly identify the aerodynamic situation of the aeroplane and take the actions that may be required". That seems a clear enough recommendation concerning the A330.
Having read the entire AF447 thread, if memory serves, AoA gauge was an option on the 330, one that AF didn't buy.
Organfreak is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 23:43
  #1642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Organfreak


Perhaps the BEA was making the point that while the AOA is read and recorded on the aircrafts records... there is/was no display for a pilot to use in flight.
(AF did not fit the BUSS display. Apparently this becomes less useful above FL 25.0.)
Linktrained is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 23:48
  #1643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: auckland, nz
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
other photos ...

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/285810

very small photos, but a couple I have not seen on here thus far. Plus, local TV reporting says one body found strapped in recovered seat is from the cockpit ... so what wreckage have they found ?

and very clear new video:

http://www.kinitv.com/video/14462O8

Last edited by sopwithnz; 10th Jan 2015 at 00:09. Reason: adding video url and edit
sopwithnz is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 00:59
  #1644 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
edut:

Afaik, lightening of whatever type is not a significant threat to airplanes. The bolts travel through the outside of the metal body and the charge is leaked off through trailing wicks.
TWA sold several of its 747s to the Shaw of Iran circa 1974.

One of them exploded on approach to Madrid. It was determined that it was lightening that hit the wingtip and went into one of fuel tanks through the tip vent.

After that TWA, and I presume other airlines, installed lightening suppressors in all those wing tip vents.
aterpster is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 01:06
  #1645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"No divers were involved in the retrieval of AF447 and its black boxes. Can the same technology not be employed in the Java Sea?"
Technically it is possible. But it is much cheaper and efficient to send down human divers. Especially in conditions like that, with strong currents and bad visibility. Relatively shallow depth with plenty of daylight available on the bottom makes it easier for divers.
Prada is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 01:36
  #1646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WSJ article with some updates: Bodies found in wreckage, impact injuries found, pathologist(s) requested analysis of lung contents, autopsies being done on foreigners.


AirAsia Flight 8501: Official Says Black Boxes May Not Be in Tail Section - WSJ
Excerpt:
Search teams on Friday also recovered the bodies of two victims still in their airplane seats from the tail section, bringing the total number of recovered bodies to 48. The two bodies were the only ones to be found so far in the wreckage.

Autopsies carried out on several victims from AirAsia Flight 8501 have revealed impact injuries such as broken legs, but no burns, early clues that may help investigators figure out what happened in the crash.

Air-safety experts said that means there likely wasn’t any fire or explosion that tore through the plane on its way down, and the jet probably hit the water at a shallow angle.

“It was most likely a flat impact,” according to Michael Barr, a senior accident-investigations instructor at the University of Southern California. Based on four decades of experience, Mr. Barr said, “the flatter the impact, the less trauma damage to the body.”

The impact of a vertical or near-vertical descent, according to Mr. Barr and other experts, probably would result in the plane breaking into smaller pieces than the wreckage suspected of being on the bottom. The broken legs of victims are more consistent with a scenario of a plane pancaking into the water, Mr. Barr said, which likely would have resulted in the fuselage or seat assemblies buckling or breaking apart. That, in turn, could transfer huge stresses to the limbs of passengers strapped in their seats.

Lung samples from the first few autopsies have been sent to an Indonesian laboratory for signs of seawater and plankton following a request from pathologists, said Budiyono, the commander of East Java’s disaster-victims identification service, who goes by only one name.

“If there’s sea water or plankton in their lungs, then we can say that they were still alive when the plane crashed into the sea,” he said.
Pathologists have been able to speed up their investigation after more bodies have been recovered during the past few days.

They are focusing on trying to conduct post mortems on foreigners who don’t have the same cultural sensitivities to the procedures as many Indonesians, Mr. Budiyono said. Indonesian authorities have decided to conduct autopsies on all foreigners recovered from the crash, unless families expressly reject the procedures.
MsCaptain is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 02:01
  #1647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 4,520
Received 282 Likes on 137 Posts
Several regulations were added in the 1970s and on regarding lightning protection (at least one in direct response to the 707 accident barit1 listed). In the 1980s, flight critical avionics were pretty new and novel (FBW and FADEC) - on the 747-400 the FAA issued a special condition for lightning (and HIRF) protection of the FADEC systems (later codified into FAR 25.1316). I presume the A320 had similar JAA requirements for the FADEC and FBW systems.


To the best of my knowledge, it's been several decades since a commercial jetliner has been lost due to lightning. While weather may well have been a factor in the loss of Air Asia, it's unlikely to be directly lightning related.
tdracer is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 03:24
  #1648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Luxor
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lightning

I don't believe that lightning can be dismissed as a possible factor in this accident. As a glider pilot, I am well aware of the inherent danger of flying into or near thunderstorms, and the following report from the AAIB on the loss of a glider is of interest, particularly, as recommendations are made in the final paragraph regarding the degree of lightning strike protection in commercial aircraft.
See http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_500699.pdf
mikecsboats is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 04:08
  #1649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands
Age: 74
Posts: 37
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sopwithnz posted a link of a remarkable short video today (Saturday Jan. 10) 00:48 GMT in (permalink) http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8818649.

The Youtube link for that short but remarkable video is http://youtu.be/-ATg1APGVYM .
What you see is divers entering the opening of the RH aft full-size door (normally used as a service door). This part of the structure appears to be laying more or less on its left side.
Clues (at t = 6s) for which door opening it is are the rain gutter above the aft top corner of the door cut-out, as well as the dark external paint on which the last letter of the large “AirAsia” fin and tailcone decoration can just be seen.
At t = 27 s the camera is panning around the door post (or possibly the open door) with what seems to be the typical handgrip that you grab to not lose your footing when handling the door (which rests parallel to the fuselage in the open position).

What this area may look like on an A320 in maintenance:
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/26/35...D2D6993-01.jpg looking across and aft, galley removed
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/26/35...D2D6832-01.jpg looking aft, galley installed.
Plumb Bob is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 08:40
  #1650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There have been a number of speculations about breakup of the fuselage at the point of impact with the sea surface, or whether the aircraft would have remained largely intact if it had not broken up prior to hitting the sea. It is possible to do some ball park calculations that help understand the impact conditions. If the aircraft was descending at 5000 feet per minute, and impacted the sea in a near level attitude, and if the floor area containing the seat mountings in the fuselage area came to a halt uniformly in a distance of 2.5 metres vertically then one can work out the deceleration. Using very basic mechanics the deceleration is the square of the speed divided by twice the deceleration distance. Converting the initial vertical speed to metres per second gives 25m/s, and this leads to a deceleration of a little over 12G. It is quite possible that the deceleration happened in rather less than 2.5 metres and if it was 1 metre this gives deceleration loads of 30G. That is unlikely to be survivable. In addition this implies that the forces on component parts during impact are over ten times the normal forces under 1G loading. Hence deformation and failure of any parts of the structure are highly likely.

Given this kind of consideration it is not surprising that the most likely outcome is to find separated sections of the aircraft. The analysis of the debris field would of course need to include some estimates of the effect of sea currents both during the descent from the surface as well as post accident strong currents in the area. It is positive news today that the tail section has now been lifted from the sea onto a ship.
mcloaked is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 08:42
  #1651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,354
Received 111 Likes on 57 Posts
Originally Posted by Plumb Bob

The Youtube link for that short but remarkable video is http://youtu.be/-ATg1APGVYM .
Interesting Video!
It almost looks as if the entire lower and left half of the fuselage are missing/open, whereas the right side looks rather intact and the intact/remaining on the upper/right half part appears to stretch pretty far forward.
Somewhat weird wreckage pattern. The apparent missing of the lower half (if I saw it correctly) really strikes me as strange in a pancake type of arrival.
henra is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 09:28
  #1652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So now we are back in the 'can-we-find-the-ULB-before-the-cheap-batteries-run-down' game again. All this extra work being proposed for streaming DFDR data is because the existing DFDRs are poorly designed their location systems are only useful in an inland lake or river (and perhaps not even then).

In the 'old days' before solid state memory there were all sorts of survivability issues; but with fast solid state memory with significant capacity this is not a problem. The real problem is the use of batteries that just do not have the power driving ULBs that are unsuitable for crashes in the ocean. Obviously, the beancounters at airlines are not interested, but it is time for an international mandate to have ULBs that actually work.

I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
Detection Range At least 25 nautical miles in open ocean
Battery Life At least 6 months, possibly by reducing number of pulses and using smart transponder that does not go into regular short location signals until it receives a search request sonar signal
Encoded Location Signals The signals from the ULBs should be encoded with airframe ID, their position (last GPS position of the aircraft) and their depth in the water.

These requirements appear to be asking too much and all that is being offered is a slightly longer life battery.
Ian W is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 09:35
  #1653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Comparing the photo of the fin/rudder and the video taken in the rear door area suggests that at least 2 large sections have been found. Concerning the video, it does rather look as if part of the lower shell may be missing in the area under the main cabin, although the diver could be standing on it, the cabin floor being absent. Interesting to note that the overhead bins stop just ahead of a large hole in the skin, which appears not to be the door. Isn't that where a lavatory would normally be?
daikilo is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 09:59
  #1654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
Detection Range At least 25 nautical miles in open ocean
Battery Life At least 6 months, possibly by reducing number of pulses and using smart transponder that does not go into regular short location signals until it receives a search request sonar signal
Encoded Location Signals The signals from the ULBs should be encoded with airframe ID, their position (last GPS position of the aircraft) and their depth in the water.
Current Range seems ~2.5NM, 30days.

So you asking for something that lasts 6times as long (maybe a bit less due being "smart"), and is 1000x as powerful? So needing say battery capacity 2000x current kit?

That is a "major" change, and bearing in mind the 'g' / depth / other strict requirements I suspect unrealistic. NB just stuffing big batteries into autonomous kit is hardly flavour of the month right now (787 LHR fire).

Bear in mind these things do not directly save any lives, and assuming they find the Air Asia DFDR / CVR soon, just save some search effort.
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 10:12
  #1655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Henra

FWIW: Add to the musings a report yesterday or the day before that authorities believed then that the aircraft entered the water in a left hand roll, based on what they had inspected at that point.

Also a report a couple of days back that bodies found to that point represented passengers seated in various different parts of the cabin.
Blake777 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 10:25
  #1656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SUSSEX UK
Age: 76
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Slightly bigger photo on this site plus a bit more info.


AirAsia Flight 8501: Tail Recovered - WSJ


The compression damage just forward of the tail section suggests an initial impact on the port side.


With regard to injury damage correlated to G, the US Navy aircraft accident manual gives the following:

Injury sustained Deceleration
Nose - fracture 30G
Vertebral body - compression 20-30G
Fracture dislocation of C1 on C2 20-40G
Mandible - fracture 40G
Maxilla - fracture 50G
Aorta - intimal tear 50G
Aorta – transection 80-100G
Pelvis – fracture 100-200G
Vertebral body – transection 200-300G
Total body fragmentation >350G

Last edited by BJ-ENG; 10th Jan 2015 at 14:46.
BJ-ENG is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 11:15
  #1657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Queensland
Age: 51
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angel

Bear in mind these things do not directly save any lives, and assuming they find the Air Asia DFDR / CVR soon, just save some search effort.

Salvage operations are expensive of course. The AF447 recovery cost around $42 million. More than $100 million has already been spent searching for MH370, making it the most expensive on record.
Source: How crashed planes like AirAsia flight QZ8501 are salvaged | News.com.au
Boomtown is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 11:32
  #1658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft
Current Range seems ~2.5NM, 30days.

So you asking for something that lasts 6times as long (maybe a bit less due being "smart"), and is 1000x as powerful? So needing say battery capacity 2000x current kit?

That is a "major" change, and bearing in mind the 'g' / depth / other strict requirements I suspect unrealistic. NB just stuffing big batteries into autonomous kit is hardly flavour of the month right now (787 LHR fire).

Bear in mind these things do not directly save any lives, and assuming they find the Air Asia DFDR / CVR soon, just save some search effort.
Not necessarily a 1000 times more powerful - choice of a different frequency could easily increase the range. Apparently the frequency was chosen as it was not a 'natural' frequency. Encoding would provide the same 'not natural' effect so the frequency could be one that has longer range in water.

The rate of transmission could be as low as once every 3 minutes instead of (I believe) around once every half second.

BEA also put forward a request for this type of improvement (from the BEA report on search operations for AFR 447 http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....11.2012.en.pdf ):

B.3.1 Enhanced battery life
The use of ULB beacons with 90 days(14) autonomy would have made it possible to
extend the search for the ULB beacons in this vast area. The BEA recommended that
EASA and ICAO extend the regulatory transmission time of ULBs (from 30 to 90 days)
B.3.2 Additional ULB
Using beacons capable of transmitting on lower frequencies (for example between
8.5 kHz and 9.5 kHz) would have facilitated the detection of the wreckage. Indeed,
military resources, typically deployed in the early days to take part in SAR operations,
are equipped with sonar suited to the detection of low frequency signals, and
in addition the use of lower frequencies increases the detection distance. The
BEA has recommended that EASA and ICAO make it mandatory for aeroplanes
performing public transport flights over maritime areas to be equipped with a lowfrequency
beacon.
Ian W is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 11:41
  #1659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

Tail section being raised.

How can they ever say they 'hope' to find the black boxes in the tail. Of course they're not in the tail. They would've detected the pings if they were.
Radix is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 12:51
  #1660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the pings from Channel News Asia:

FRUSTRATING TWIST

But the search took a frustrating twist when authorities realised the pings were likely coming from elsewhere than the tail, and the boxes appeared to be buried deep into the sea floor.

"Last night, our divers had opened the door of the tail cabin, searched around but found nothing," Supriyadi told AFP on Friday morning. "But the boat above detected faint ping sounds believed to be from the black boxes about one mile (1.6km ) southeast of the tail ... and covered in mud."

Supriyadi said the divers, from an elite Marines unit, returned on Saturday morning to the area believed to be where the pings were emanating from.

"They are searching within a radius of 500m from where the pings are emitted. The challenge is that these sounds are very faint. If a ship passes by, the sounds will be drowned out. So we really need calm waters," he said. "So far, our divers still have not been able to determine the coordinates of the black box."
Blake777 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.