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 13th Jan 2015, 19:08
  #1941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,959
Until we get the data we do not know the chain of events which led up to this accident.

It's possible this accident may not be weather related or weather may be a small factor along with other factors which currently we are not aware of.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 19:09
  #1942 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 89
Anyone who wants to see radar freq. vs. rain can take a look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvTkVj5-uv0
This isn't POWER, it is FREQUENCY.
island_airphoto is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 19:51
  #1943 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,830
Ice pack :
It is worrying then that ATC are now putting aircraft at risk. I wonder if this fact will be a factor in this instance.
Again , you do not seem to understand that ATC is not there to put aircraft at risk regarding weather. ATC has another function , proactive weather avoidance is not their task. Also you have to realise that most ATC centres do not have weather radars superimposed on their radar displays.

In this case, ATC allowed the crew to deviate horizontally, as requested. The climb was delayed , but for the correct reasons. If the crew percieved a risk, they could easily have overuled ATC and climb, (and maybe they did) .

From what I have heard so far, I am not sure weather alone is the reason of this crash . But a bit of patience, with both recorders recovered now we probably will know soon enough .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 19:51
  #1944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Midpines, CA
Posts: 56
It is also things like FTC and STC to reduce clutter and I am sure lots of digital processing now.

"Sensitivity Time Control (STC). This feature reduces the impact of returns from sea state. It reduces the minimum SNR of the receiver for a short duration immediately after each pulse is transmitted. The effect of adjusting the STC is to reduce the clutter on the display in the region directly around the transmitter. The greater the value of STC, the greater the range from the transmitter in which clutter will be removed. However, an excessive STC will blank out potential returns close to the transmitter.

Fast Time Constant (FTC). This feature is designed to reduce the effect of long duration returns that come from rain. This processing requires that strength of the return signal must change quickly over it duration. Since rain occurs over and extended area, it will produce a long, steady return. The FTC processing will
filter these returns out of the display. Only pulses that rise and fall quickly will be displayed. In technical terms, FTC is a differentiator, meaning it determines the rate of change in the signal, which it then uses to discriminate pulses which are not changing rapidly."

Radar Systems


island_airphoto
Anyone who wants to see radar freq. vs. rain can take a look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvTkVj5-uv0
This isn't POWER, it is FREQUENCY.
ACLS65 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 20:27
  #1945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
The military currently have developed an integrated battlefield radar picture that takes all radar sources painting any target and integrates them into a composite 'objective' picture. Any fighter can then switch their radar off if necessary for stealth purposes and still get an accurate presentation via data link of the targets computed 'as if' from their individual perspective.

Similarly with TCAS we share our info on relative positions.

The recent extreme storms in Brisbane Australia demonstrated that extreme cell pictures vary, dependent on the relative direction of the radars. The weather radar North of BNE showed a quite different picture to the one South of BNE especially regarding the all important gaps between major cells.

It would seem not to difficult to integrate ground and air weather radars into a composite picture, particularity relating to dangerous cells. This is even simpler than the battlefield situation because we fly on narrow air routes in ideal, reciprocal directions.
RifRaf3 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 21:02
  #1946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 467
Just a thought about the ejectable CVR/FDR issue. How about having a duplicate copy of the memory modules stuck into the vertical stabilizer. It seems that this is the first thing to be shed from the plane, and also seems to float -- not to mention that it is big enough to identify in a search.

Think of the AA A300 crash out of JFK, the AF 447 crash in the Atlantic, and now this Air Asia crash. The first thing found was the floating VS section.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 21:04
  #1947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 340
On seach costs .. answer to John in YVR

John, all the points that you mention are valid. They show part of why it is complex.

In my view there is no such thing as 'true' costs. In all cost calculation (and its foundation on costs collection and allocation) there is a lot of subjectivity.

Subjectivity returns at the beginning of the 'top' search costs calculation. P.M. Tony Abbott used a 'common' (common in both government and industry) statement early on in MH 370 when he said something like "we have these (navy) ships anyway, so there is no (extra) cost". That is a different viewpoint from what I would take, that is starting with the statement that all activities and all asset uses carry costs.

When the search took longer, the costs came 'out in the open', because part of the search was outsourced (costs published). And part of the naval assets had to return to the missions/activities they were on when it all started. If not, then they would have to add a line item in the navy budget for new assets and for certain deepwater search systems.

One of the easy parts of this is, that many or most of the costs are known or familiar. In aerospace design that can be different, there you sometimes have to calculate with 'technical costs' because the systems or components have never been manufactured before.
A0283 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 21:47
  #1948 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 743
... this idea that every single step anyone takes or nut & bolt wasting away in a store always needs costing and charging (to someone or some budget or other) irks me..

really, not exactly proactive forward thinkkng govt. And what better exercises
and real life experience & training is there than being out there and doing stuff..
rather than twiddling fingers in offices, docks barracks.

if Tony Abbott is happy then let them get on with it... if the British Govt.
hadn't sanctioned the (novel) recovery of the Comet Papa India and
given Sir Arnold Hall & Farnborough a blank cheque in the early fifties and then
paid for a fully Public Enquiry... it could have been many years for
the full facts of metal fatigue's random scatter to be fully accounted for
in design. Plus all the other spinoffs... tank testing etc.
Doubt anyone was wasting time cost counting back then when all those facilities
and staff existed
bean counters eh? How much do they cost to house & feed

Last edited by HarryMann; 13th Jan 2015 at 22:45.
HarryMann is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 22:19
  #1949 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 914
ATC watcher
I was replying to Algol.
What part of :
Quote:
In extremis, yes of course, a PAN or even MAYDAY may be your last resort. But most pilots are reluctant to do that, rather than attempt to negotiate a compromise with ATC.
Because 'going nuclear' might cost you your job and/or your freedom in some parts of the world. Hard choices for sure. That's why we get paid such BIG BUCKS.
Un Quote
Didn't I understand.
IcePack is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 23:08
  #1950 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Furthermore, major Cb cells containing lightning are easily tracked from above by satellites and could be fed into an integrated dangerous weather picture.

(Another major advantage in the military use of data integration is that strike aircraft can track multiple targets behind them and release multiple missiles that quickly loop overhead after release to take care of following bogies. The aircraft in front have a missile range advantage then because their missiles are travelling with the relative 'wind' giving a missile major drag advantage.)

For a long time we have relied on doppler radar to sort static rocks from moving clouds on descent into terminal areas. The airfield radar has an advantage in that it's looking up away from the terrain. Even this level of integration in the terminal areas would be a great help, especially in low wind velocity conditions.
RifRaf3 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 23:31
  #1951 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia & USA
Posts: 1
Can anyone explain the (what looks like) scorching marks on the separation line just aft of the door ?

woora to ypph is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 23:45
  #1952 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 46
The constant reference to "beancounters" as a threat to airline safety is a bit fanciful. It's not the accountants' fault if safety standards are insufficient.

If there are failings (the evidence isn't convincing) then the problem is regulation and enforcement. From food to finance, we have seen constant pressure on funding to regulators during the past few decades (not to mention the busting of unions). It wasn't beancounters who did this it was right-wing ideologues.
oblivia is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2015, 00:03
  #1953 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by ACLS65 View Post
It is also things like FTC and STC to reduce clutter and I am sure lots of digital processing now.

"Sensitivity Time Control (STC). This feature reduces the impact of returns from sea state. It reduces the minimum SNR of the receiver for a short duration immediately after each pulse is transmitted. The effect of adjusting the STC is to reduce the clutter on the display in the region directly around the transmitter. The greater the value of STC, the greater the range from the transmitter in which clutter will be removed. However, an excessive STC will blank out potential returns close to the transmitter.

Fast Time Constant (FTC). This feature is designed to reduce the effect of long duration returns that come from rain. This processing requires that strength of the return signal must change quickly over it duration. Since rain occurs over and extended area, it will produce a long, steady return. The FTC processing will
filter these returns out of the display. Only pulses that rise and fall quickly will be displayed. In technical terms, FTC is a differentiator, meaning it determines the rate of change in the signal, which it then uses to discriminate pulses which are not changing rapidly."

Radar Systems


island_airphoto
Anyone who wants to see radar freq. vs. rain can take a look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvTkVj5-uv0
This isn't POWER, it is FREQUENCY.
These approaches will reduce the clutter in the returned signal but they do not change the attenuation of the radar outbound or reflected signal as it passes through rain. If the rain is heavy enough the radar signal will literally not get through. There are things that can be played with like changing the polarization of the radar signal but they don't solve the attenuation problem. An analogy is dense fog - To radar rain is like dense fog you can play with yellow headlights or blue headlights but if the fog is dense enough you will not be able to increase the visibility by a lot.

The approaches suggested in research are variants of multisensor tracking where a complete 4D picture is built up using ground radars. See NSSL Projects: Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor System (MRMS). These pictures may then be sent to the flight deck through Aircraft Access to SWIM (System Wide Information Management). This is in the Continental United States. It may be that other areas could do the same but it is expensive.
Other approaches have looked at taking all the aircraft radars and mosaicing them into a 4D picture. But again someone has to do it and then find someone willing to pay for it. Guess what the beancounters won't hear of it.
Ian W is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2015, 00:19
  #1954 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by oblivia View Post
The constant reference to "beancounters" as a threat to airline safety is a bit fanciful. It's not the accountants' fault if safety standards are insufficient.

If there are failings (the evidence isn't convincing) then the problem is regulation and enforcement. From food to finance, we have seen constant pressure on funding to regulators during the past few decades (not to mention the busting of unions). It wasn't beancounters who did this it was right-wing ideologues.
The major problem in aviation is that often the people paying are not the ones that benefit. So if the AT Service provider upgrades its equipment at a cost, the airlines benefit not the ATSP. If the airlines equip with ADS then the ATSP need not maintain heavy primary radar, the aircraft see little benefit unless the airspace concepts of operations are changed.

In consequence, the accountants do not see any ROI for their area in what is being suggested and advise strongly against the proposals. As someone said upthread - in reality money always comes before safety its pointless spending so much money that the airline fails. The result is that the use of ROI for some aviation aspects has to be trumped by mandate from the authorities. The accountants (aka beancounters) will then look around for savings and an easy area is training. This is why highly automated aircraft were sold based on the reduction in training. It is why there is pressure for unmanned or single manned aircraft.
Ian W is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2015, 01:22
  #1955 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Midpines, CA
Posts: 56
Iain_W
These approaches will reduce the clutter in the returned signal but they do not change the attenuation of the radar outbound or reflected signal as it passes through rain. If the rain is heavy enough the radar signal will literally not get through. There are things that can be played with like changing the polarization of the radar signal but they don't solve the attenuation problem. An analogy is dense fog - To radar rain is like dense fog you can play with yellow headlights or blue headlights but if the fog is dense enough you will not be able to increase the visibility by a lot.

The approaches suggested in research are variants of multisensor tracking where a complete 4D picture is built up using ground radars. See NSSL Projects: Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor System (MRMS). These pictures may then be sent to the flight deck through Aircraft Access to SWIM (System Wide Information Management). This is in the Continental United States. It may be that other areas could do the same but it is expensive.
Other approaches have looked at taking all the aircraft radars and mosaicing them into a 4D picture. But again someone has to do it and then find someone willing to pay for it. Guess what the beancounters won't hear of it.
Earned a bookmark for the next time we get weather here. Another promising option would be space based RADAR eliminating the need for additional RADAR equipment on the planes.

http://cup.aos.wisc.edu/will/im_and_durden2005.pdf

Every new technology faces the cost vs benefit decision, but if accidents prove to have been avoidable the cost has a way of becoming affordable.
ACLS65 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2015, 02:10
  #1956 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,809
let's keep something in perspective, if a pilot does not know you push the stick forward to get out of a stall, he shouldn't be flying a plane.
That's an excessively simplistic and inaccurate explanation of what has happened in many recent aircraft crashes. Yes, there have been some glaring piloting skill deficiencies exposed, but to reduce them to your description is not correct.
There have been failures in instrumentation, quite often information processing overload, and turbulent weather initiation of disastrous events. All of this usually happening in IMC with no references.
There appears to be a need to improve pilot training as regards loss of important instrumentation, and for them to be able to handle degradation of automation. However, to place blame simplistically as in your description, is unreasonable and misleading.
The training areas obviously needing upgrading, is to try and remove any confusion over what the aircraft is actually doing, when the pilots have little reference in severe turbulence, plus a loss of important instrumentation.
I'll wager Captain and FO confusion will be found to be important factors in the crash of QZ8501.
onetrack is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2015, 02:17
  #1957 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 340
To HarryMan - irks and life in the office

this idea that every single step anyone takes or nut & bolt wasting away in astore always needs costing and charging (to someone or some budget or other) irks me.
During the design process you also have budgets of weight. You start with cutting kilo's and end with trying to cut grams. Just another type of beans :-). Designers have to irk quite a lot before they get it right :-).

really, not exactly proactive forward thinking govt.
You can operate pro-actively and count beans at the same time. To survive in business you need to do both. Reminds me of Sir John Harvey-Jones... he would have loved talking to you.

And what better exercises and real life experience & training is there than being out there and doing stuff.. rather than twiddling fingers in offices ...
It is hard to design and manufacture aircraft out in the open :-). Engineers can be quite jealous of pilots :-). That's why quite a few fly outside office hours.

... it could have been many years for the full facts of metal fatigue's random scatter to be fully accounted for in design.
There was quite a lot of knowledge on metal fatique already. Alas, in ship design. You can take a look at Liberty ship hatch design and compare that to Comet window design. Interesting parallels, and of course also a number of differences (thin vs fat plate, riveting vs welding(funny the Liberties were an early change from riveting into welding)).
A0283 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2015, 03:17
  #1958 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
AirAsia SAR Operations to End

After 17-days, news today that the principal Search and Rescue operation will be terminated soon. Gen. Bambang Soelistyo, head of the National SAR agency (BASARNAS), declined to answer when exactly SAR operations will wind down, but it is expected to be in the next 3 or 4 days.

National SAR may continue more limited "day to day" operations out of respect and consideration for the victims' families.

Once the SAR phase ends, any further searches will focus solely on recovery. It is unclear whether the Indonesian Army (TNI) will take over the search effort from BASARNAS, or if it will be conducted under the jurisdiction of Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee.

Until now, the joint SAR team has located only 48 remains (out of the 162 souls on board). Of those, 36 remains have been identified and released to the families. Meanwhile, 12 other remains are still awaiting the identification process.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2015, 04:02
  #1959 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Pasir Ris
Posts: 55
We all know how easy it is to recover from a stall. All pilots learn that before they are released for their first solo. You learn stall recovery in the first 10 hours of your PPL flight training.

What pilots are now experiencing with complex aircraft is a new situation where, due to the complex design nature of their aircraft, they instantly don't know what the aircraft itself is doing. So in an abnormal situation, as in the one which lead to AF447, we have the situation where 3 qualified pilots were baffled with what was happening to the aircraft. You have about 3 to 4 minutes to work out what's going on, and then to deal with it, or else it's game over.

Would I be right in saying, AF447 was the first instance, of a deep stall ever experienced by a FBW Airbus aircraft? No-one has ever been in a similar position before? If the aircraft had been a non FBW A300 or A310, would the outcome have been different?
WSSS is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2015, 04:43
  #1960 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 822
WSSS

I really think the captain on AF447 DID KNOW what was going on, he just wasn't in one of the chairs .

I would not call AF447 a deep stall. Deep Stall has been sort of reserved for T tail planes...though some may have other thoughts.
glendalegoon 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.