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 11th Jan 2015, 12:23
  #1741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 348
Airbus and Boeing could join together and demand high minimum standards to operate their equipment, and perhaps review and admit interface flaws
bud, keep on dreaming ....

Did Audi and Toyota join together to resolve the "sudden acceleration" problem? Never. It took the pressure from many lawsuits to have both companies redesign their products. No regulators were involved, just the lawsuits and dwindling sales, because the customers no longer bought their products due to the flaws.
In aviation there are similarities, like impotent regulators, but even more differences. Mainly because there are not many choices to buy, factually a duopoly, and because it's never the direct user (pilot/passenger) who buys the product, but some remote beancounter who rarely expose his bum to the product. He only cares about the price tag and for a lesser one takes cynically into consideration some losses.

Redesign of known flaws happen very rarely in aviation. Mostly these glitches are simply handled with some badly written bulletins to pilots, thus cheaply handing the responsibility down the food chain.

There needs to be a hell of a lot more pressure from passenger associations via lawsuits, the press and their chosen politicians before anything changes.
But then again: Those same politicians nominate the regulators .....
Gretchenfrage is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 12:28
  #1742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hong Kong SAR
Age: 76
Posts: 292
BBC reporting that "Black Box" has been located but not yet retrieved owing to being buried in wreckage.
Not stated whether FDR or CVR.
CISTRS is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 12:30
  #1743 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,812
Ian W and Air Scotia :
ATC do precisely that.
Maybe in the USA where there is an old " CB avoidance" culture and ATFM ( Flow management) organised through a single command centre which has direct access to the US Air Force areas .
Europe is also equipped with an advanced centralized ATFM system , but does not have the same weather pattern as in the equator/tropics or continental US. and there are 40+ airforces around to deal with.

A totally different picture that what is going on the rest of the world unfortunately , and definitively in South East Asia , where each Sate has its own air force and where countries are suspicious of one another and do not cooperate.

ATC is there to separate aircraft from one another also aircraft from penetrating reserved or restricted areas, and to comply with restrictions and demands made by teh next sectors( control centres) .

There is no standard " Miles in trail " separation applied by all. They vary depending on location and surveillance capabilities. , it can be 5 NM . can be 100 Miles (15 minutes) . It can be 5 NM in one sector , and 10 minutes at the transfer point for the next sector in a different Control Centre no equipped with same capabilities. Once established controllers have to follow that.

But, once again , the pilot has the decision on weather avoidance, not ATC . The pilot(s) can see in real time what the actual weather is , ATC cannot. If a request for deviation ( laterally or vertical ) cannot be approved by ATC ( due e.g. restricted or dangerous areas penetration or simply other traffic ) the PIC can deviate on his own bu just declaring on the R/T , " unable, turning or climbing now ". This then becomes an emergency situation , and ATC will help clearing the way. The PIC is always ultimately responsible for the safety of his flight.

To come back to this Air Asia case, I have seen no indication so far that the Pilot of this flight did not jut do that, but he did not tell ATC, so for me I think there must be something else, or the initial request to deviate came much too late.
ATC Watcher is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 12:38
  #1744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Which I believe was largely what the first poster was trying to say, albeit he has turned out to be wrong in 2 specific cases
Which happened to be the two specific cases (AF447, MH370) most relevant to this crash, yes -- in addition to the Adam Air accident which showed an actual precedent for SAR funding in Indonesia (funding which was central to recovering the black boxes). And addressing the larger point he was trying to make, re-read my last paragraph.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 12:47
  #1745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
To come back to this Air Asia case, I have seen no indication so far that the Pilot of this flight did not jut do that, but he did not tell ATC, so for me I think there must be something else, or the initial request to deviate came much too late.
Late, I might agree, but I think there was something more (or more subtle) than that?

E.g., perhaps they unknowingly deviated into more severe weather, or got caught in a newly developing cell -- and then an still-unknown event (pilot error? systems error? structural failure?) became the probable cause of the accident.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 13:01
  #1746 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,295
News reports coming through that the blackbox has been located, but not retrieved..

AirAsia QZ8501 black box found, say Indonesia authorities - Channel NewsAsia
training wheels is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 13:01
  #1747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: US
Posts: 64
Divers identified the location of the black box and marked the area for retrieval, Transport Ministry spokesman J.A. Barata said today, without specifying the exact location.

But they failed to retrieve it because it was stuck under debris from the main body of the plane, it added.

“The navy divers in Jadayat state boat have succeeded in finding a very important instrument, the black box of AirAsia QZ8501,” said Tonny Budiono, a senior ministry official, adding that it was at coordinate 03.37.21 South/109.42.42 East at a depth of between 30 to 32 metres.

"The black box is trapped under parts of fuselage. We will slowly move these obstacles out of the way, but if it does not succeed, we will lift the fuselage parts using a balloon like what we did to the plane's tail," Budiono said, adding that a small buoy marker had been placed at the location to make retrieval on Monday easier.

Strong ping signals were being picked up by three vessels involved in the search in the Java Sea, S.B Supriyadi, a director with the National Search and Rescue Agency, told reporters.

If weather conditions are conducive, “hopefully the vessels will recover the black box tomorrow morning,” said National Transportation Safety Committee investigator Santoso Sayogo.“The coordinates show the bottom of the sea (in that location) is sand so the divers should easily be able to see it.”

If and when the recorders are found and taken to the capital, Jakarta, for analysis, it could take up to two weeks to download data, investigators said, although the information could be accessed in as little as two days if the devices are not badly damaged

Those signals are coming from the seabed less than one kilometre from where the tail of the plane was found, Malaysian Navy chief Abdul Aziz Jaafar said in a post on Twitter. Malaysia’s Navy is helping in the search for flight QZ8501 that crashed into the sea two weeks ago, killing all 162 people on board.

But Supriyadi said powerful currents had again frustrated military divers in their search and they had to call off their efforts before sunset without reaching the origin of the signals, about 30m underwater.

“We sent divers to three spots, and they went down twice, but there is no result. They couldn’t find anything. The undercurrent was very strong,” Supriyadi said.
BG47 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 13:11
  #1748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Reisterstown, Maryland USA
Age: 65
Posts: 6
This makes good sense:

[E.g., perhaps they unknowingly deviated into more severe weather, or got caught in a newly developing cell -- and then an still-unknown event (pilot error? systems error? structural failure?) became the probable cause of the accident.]

Discussing meteorology for a moment, convection is often fueled by daytime heating. The AirAsia event happened at sunrise. Was the convective system particularly unusual/the monsoon process particularly energetic? It seems that the AirAsia flight may have self-diverted into a rapidly developing thunderhead that blossomed up into the flight path at a rate that wasn't evident on the plane's radar. Unusual to have so much convective energy at sunrise but not impossible. It seems that recorded images of weather radar for this event merit further scrutiny.
winterymix is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 13:25
  #1749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: France
Posts: 88
Weather Radar..., the number of crew unable to interprete weather radar picture is simply scary.
ItsMeFromEarth is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 13:31
  #1750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
I keep hearing that allegation. These modern radars are pretty impressive compared to the crap we worked with 30 years ago, so please explain what you mean by that. The only problem I see is the rote adherence to SOPs to 'set gain to CAL right NOW' whatever the conditions ahead! Just more robo-pilot training.
Algol is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 13:38
  #1751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: British Isles
Age: 68
Posts: 9
Winterymix - convection intensity over the open ocean doesn't vary much day/night since sea surface temperatures have very little diurnal variation. However convection over the land not far from the LKP would decrease overnight leaving more 'airspace' over the adjacent sea for CBs to develop and peak towards dawn (without going into the broader scale MET dynamics). Also, the developing phase of CBs is the most active in terms of turbulence/hail/lightning/vertical motion so it's the brand new (towering CU/CB) cell which has just become visible to radar which is often the most dangerous.
Triskel is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 13:42
  #1752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Reisterstown, Maryland USA
Age: 65
Posts: 6
Thank's, Triskel

Nice clarification about convective threats in the environment of interest. So...what did the other several flights in the area at the time of interest know or did they simply get lucky?
winterymix is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 13:51
  #1753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hell
Age: 43
Posts: 14
Wave action

"Boomtown

Quote:
With regards to the twisted and crushed metal we are seeing - early reports cited gale force winds and waves up to 5 meters high. Is anyone able to comment what those sort of storm conditions would do to a (temporarily) floating airframe?

Are those loads capable of tearing apart what is an otherwise largely intact airframe?

The short answer is no. Most damage is done when waves push an object against rocks or grind it against a rocky seabed. A loose collection of objects floating offshore can also be ground against one another by wave action causing damage primarily around the edges, but not tearing and compression damage of the sort seen in the pictures currently circulating. All the indications are that the damage was done by a high velocity impact with the sea surface."

I would concur with the no. Having been aboard a 50' boat in such conditions in water equally shallow, for stupid reasons I'm not going to get into, the impacts were severe, but not enough to break bones, bend seats, break glass, of anyone and anything secured. If you take a look at the fuselage of US 1549, it skidded across the Hudson and was bumped and hit by numerous rescue ships with metal hills and banged against the concrete wall at Battery Park, yet does not display the massive accordion crumple that we have seen in the instant incident.
Almostfamous is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 14:26
  #1754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by AirScotia View Post
@Ian W, many thanks. Can I ask if you know how many Miles In Trail would be thought sensible in a popcorn-thunderstorm area that's likely to have a lot of traffic?


BTW, when I googled 'Miles in Trail', I was startled to see that your own post in this thread, from half an hour ago, was one of the top results. Google's ability to track us in real time could give the airlines a lesson.
If you want to see descriptions of flow management - known in the FAA as Traffic Management Initiatives then you could look at:

http://www.fly.faa.gov/Products/Trai...oklet_ca10.pdf

Things have not changed significantly since that was written.
Ian W is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 14:50
  #1755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Winterymix - convection intensity over the open ocean doesn't vary much day/night since sea surface temperatures have very little diurnal variation. However convection over the land not far from the LKP would decrease overnight leaving more 'airspace' over the adjacent sea for CBs to develop and peak towards dawn (without going into the broader scale MET dynamics).
This paper: Analysis of overshooting top detections by Meteosat Second Generation: a 5-year dataset - Proud - 2014 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library shows that, at least in Tropical waters off Africa, convection peaks at around 08 or 09 local time. In the ocean far from land it's around midnight and over land it's in the evening. The same is, at least on the day of the accident, true for the region around Indonesia/Singapore. Because there's so much land over there the sea is never truly isolated so we get the 'coastal' convection system with peak intensity around daybreak.
Nice clarification about convective threats in the environment of interest. So...what did the other several flights in the area at the time of interest know or did they simply get lucky?
I think a better question (assuming that weather was a factor) would be: What made this particular flight unlucky?
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 14:52
  #1756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Ian W and Air Scotia :

Maybe in the USA where there is an old " CB avoidance" culture and ATFM ( Flow management) organised through a single command centre which has direct access to the US Air Force areas .
Europe is also equipped with an advanced centralized ATFM system , but does not have the same weather pattern as in the equator/tropics or continental US. and there are 40+ airforces around to deal with.

A totally different picture that what is going on the rest of the world unfortunately , and definitively in South East Asia , where each Sate has its own air force and where countries are suspicious of one another and do not cooperate.

ATC is there to separate aircraft from one another also aircraft from penetrating reserved or restricted areas, and to comply with restrictions and demands made by teh next sectors( control centres) .

There is no standard " Miles in trail " separation applied by all. They vary depending on location and surveillance capabilities. , it can be 5 NM . can be 100 Miles (15 minutes) . It can be 5 NM in one sector , and 10 minutes at the transfer point for the next sector in a different Control Centre no equipped with same capabilities. Once established controllers have to follow that.

But, once again , the pilot has the decision on weather avoidance, not ATC . The pilot(s) can see in real time what the actual weather is , ATC cannot. If a request for deviation ( laterally or vertical ) cannot be approved by ATC ( due e.g. restricted or dangerous areas penetration or simply other traffic ) the PIC can deviate on his own bu just declaring on the R/T , " unable, turning or climbing now ". This then becomes an emergency situation , and ATC will help clearing the way. The PIC is always ultimately responsible for the safety of his flight.

To come back to this Air Asia case, I have seen no indication so far that the Pilot of this flight did not jut do that, but he did not tell ATC, so for me I think there must be something else, or the initial request to deviate came much too late.
I will pick up a few points from what you say:

Yes FAA, NAV Canada, and the Member States of ECAC - EUROCONTROL, Air Services Australia have fully fledged Traffic Flow Management (TFM) Systems. Under ICAO coordinated flow management is being developed with GREPECAS, the states of Caribbean and South America. The Asian Pacific Region Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) are aware that they do not have a networked TFM system and work is in hand using the auspices of ICAO to put one in place (see http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/20...attachment.pdf )

Miles/Minutes in trail are going to be different as the aircraft moves from surveillance based control to non-radar procedural time based control. In consequence the flow management at boundaries between these sectors becomes complex. As surveillance based control normal separation minima are considerably smaller than procedural.

The statement "The pilot(s) can see in real time what the actual weather is , ATC cannot." is not necessarily correct - and even if true it is too simplistic to just avoid the next heavy rain radar return. Both the pilot and the controller may be able to see weather, their systems are different so they will see different weather. The controller can also see a lot further ahead and can see sucker traps where some flight paths would lead into dead ends, the controller also may have had lots of PIREPS on turbulence. The controller's weather comes from different radars so it will present weather information that is hidden from the aircraft radar by attenuation. It makes real sense for both the controllers and the pilots to work together there is no competition, both want the same outcome and the pilot should accept any help that can be offered.

If the weather is getting a bit too exciting then the pilot should say so early don't wait till things are really bad or until ATC gives you an instruction you can't take. If you can tell the controller that the weather is looking really bad ahead of you or to one side and you may need to take some avoiding action, then the controller will start ensuring that other traffic is kept clear of both you and the weather you are reporting.

The time for 'Communicate' is before things get so bad that all you can do is 'Aviate' then perhaps things won't get to that stage.
Ian W is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 15:01
  #1757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yangon,Myanmar
Posts: 51
chefrp is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 15:29
  #1758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: BTJ, Indonesia
Age: 29
Posts: 5
QZ blackbox has been found on coordinate 03.37.21 S/109.42.42 E with depth of about 30 to 32 meters

Tim Penyelam TNI AL Berhasil Temukan Kotak Hitam AirAsia
Ihsanush Shabri is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 15:50
  #1759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,717
QUOTE:
Winterymix - convection intensity over the open ocean doesn't vary much day/night since sea surface temperatures have very little diurnal variation. However convection over the land not far from the LKP would decrease overnight leaving more 'airspace' over the adjacent sea for CBs to develop and peak towards dawn (without going into the broader scale MET dynamics).
This paper: Analysis of overshooting top detections by Meteosat Second Generation: a 5-year dataset - Proud - 2014 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library shows that, at least in Tropical waters off Africa, convection peaks at around 08 or 09 local time. In the ocean far from land it's around midnight and over land it's in the evening. The same is, at least on the day of the accident, true for the region around Indonesia/Singapore. Because there's so much land over there the sea is never truly isolated so we get the 'coastal' convection system with peak intensity around daybreak.
Quote:
Nice clarification about convective threats in the environment of interest. So...what did the other several flights in the area at the time of interest know or did they simply get lucky?
I think a better question (assuming that weather was a factor) would be: What made this particular flight unlucky?

All the above omits mention of the other driver for rapid high level CB development. That is cooling from above, rather than heating from below. Cold advection [wind backing with height] can and does throw petrol on the fire of a hitherto modest CB. Believe me, it happens.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 16:30
  #1760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

With all the photos of aircraft parts available so far .. my feeling is a flat ditching of those parts .. little forward speed ... (my two cents)
Can't wait the analysis result of "black boxes" .........
jcjeant is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.