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, 17:07
  #1941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IcePack ATC refuse deviations que! ATC or CB ? Mayday I'm deviating. Having said that I have never been refused point blank.
Then I assume you never fly in China airspace.

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.
Algol is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 17:33
  #1942 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As reluctant SLF and related to others, I would prefer the money to be spent on better training, so that me/my relatives/friends don't end up in the water in the first instance.
and......
If this accident turns out to be flight deck HF related, as per AF447, then I think that PREVENTION is better than WRECKAGE LOCATION.
Even though this guy is clearly BARKING MAD, I completely agree with him!

Organfreak is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 17:41
  #1943 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,180
Received 377 Likes on 231 Posts
Originally Posted by Algol
As to MH370 - I'm starting to feel they've given up on it and we'll never find out the truth.
Heck, they found AF 447 and there is some question about the entire "truth" of that event due to only parts of the CVR being released (per standard practices).

@ glendalegoon: Amen Deacon! (in re wx radar information flow)

BARKINGMAD:
If this accident turns out to be flight deck HF related, as per AF447, then I think that PREVENTION is better than WRECKAGE LOCATION.
Likewise inclined. Suggest training and cockpit culture is the area most helpful in such prevention efforts.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 18:13
  #1944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Frankfurt
Age: 74
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Likewise inclined. Suggest training and cockpit culture is the area most helpful in such prevention efforts.
In order to help find out that where the problem was, and propose solutions, and possibly adopt them (if not too expensive), and suggest that non EU/US CAAs adopt them too ... and prevent the problem ...

you need to find the wreckage and the data recorders.

Which is why the NTSB recommended deployable data recorders in 1999!
DrPhillipa is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 18:36
  #1945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Barkingmad:
If it helps to reassure a bit, the airline I work for has been focused on stall recognition/recovery for the last six months of recurrent training/checking in the simulator. All our pilots have now been exposed to this and we are acutely aware of the problems that AF447 encountered. I'm sure my Company is not alone in this, I'm sure many others will have taken the same approach, even before this accident (if stalling/unreliable airspeed is involved, of course). The industry is generally good at learning from incidents/accidents.
squeaker is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 18:52
  #1946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Algol, Yep still wouldn't fly through a T/S. & have had no problems (deviating) on the odd occasion (very Few) that I have been in Chinese airspace.
It is worrying then that ATC are now putting aircraft at risk. I wonder if this fact will be a factor in this instance. If only the SLF realised what aviation has come too.
IcePack is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 19:08
  #1947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #1948 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #1949 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #1950 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Midpines, CA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #1951 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #1952 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #1953 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #1954 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
... 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
  #1955 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #1956 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #1957 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia & USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #1958 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #1959 (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 ACLS65
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
  #1960 (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 oblivia
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  

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.