Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know we have found this aircraft, but it still seems the organisation representing 84% of global traffic is in no big rush to come up with a solution to aircraft tracking, looks like as some have said the Govt (US in particular) will make the changes for them. As for the Transponder's I hear you ask?? yep no changes there, we won't be going to automated transponders, so a terrorist who accesses the cockpit (or the pilot) can still turn them off in flight.....seems like we have learn't nothing since 9/11.
The IATA needs to act sooner rather than later I think. Maybe the insurance companies might put some pressure on them to act?
From Wilkipedia:
The International Air Transport Association—an industry trade organization representing over 240 airlines (representing 84% of global air traffic)—and the United Nation's civil aviation body—the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)—are working on implementing new measures to track aircraft in flight in real time. The IATA created a taskforce (which includes several outside stakeholders) to define a minimum set of requirements that any tracking system must meet, allowing airlines to decide the best solution to track their aircraft. The IATA's taskforce plans to come up with several short-, medium-, and long-term solutions to ensure that information is provided in a timely manner to support search, rescue, and recovery activities in the wake of an aircraft accident. They were expected to provide a report to the ICAO on 30 September 2014, but on that day said that the report would be delayed citing the need for further clarification on some issues.
In May 2014, Inmarsat said it would offer its tracking service for free to all aircraft equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection (which amounts to nearly all commercial airliners)
The IATA needs to act sooner rather than later I think. Maybe the insurance companies might put some pressure on them to act?
From Wilkipedia:
The International Air Transport Association—an industry trade organization representing over 240 airlines (representing 84% of global air traffic)—and the United Nation's civil aviation body—the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)—are working on implementing new measures to track aircraft in flight in real time. The IATA created a taskforce (which includes several outside stakeholders) to define a minimum set of requirements that any tracking system must meet, allowing airlines to decide the best solution to track their aircraft. The IATA's taskforce plans to come up with several short-, medium-, and long-term solutions to ensure that information is provided in a timely manner to support search, rescue, and recovery activities in the wake of an aircraft accident. They were expected to provide a report to the ICAO on 30 September 2014, but on that day said that the report would be delayed citing the need for further clarification on some issues.
In May 2014, Inmarsat said it would offer its tracking service for free to all aircraft equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection (which amounts to nearly all commercial airliners)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not had the "pleasure" of flying in that part of the world, however, a couple of very experienced colleagues that did, for some time, intimated to me that if you did not accept to routinely fly through weather that you assuredly would avoid in Europe, you wouldn't operate any flights.
I doubt (knowing the individuals & their experience) if this was too much of an exaggeration, I believe it is quite probably the day to day reality of ops in that part of the world.
I doubt (knowing the individuals & their experience) if this was too much of an exaggeration, I believe it is quite probably the day to day reality of ops in that part of the world.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know we have found this aircraft, but it still seems the organisation representing 84% of global traffic is in no big rush to come up with a solution to aircraft tracking, looks like as some have said the Govt (US in particular) will make the changes for them. As for the Transponder's I hear you ask?? yep no changes there, we won't be going to automated transponders, so a terrorist who accesses the cockpit (or the pilot) can still turn them off in flight.....seems like we have learn't nothing since 9/11.
The IATA needs to act sooner rather than later I think. Maybe the insurance companies might put some pressure on them to act?
From Wilkipedia:
The International Air Transport Association—an industry trade organization representing over 240 airlines (representing 84% of global air traffic)—and the United Nation's civil aviation body—the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)—are working on implementing new measures to track aircraft in flight in real time. The IATA created a taskforce (which includes several outside stakeholders) to define a minimum set of requirements that any tracking system must meet, allowing airlines to decide the best solution to track their aircraft. The IATA's taskforce plans to come up with several short-, medium-, and long-term solutions to ensure that information is provided in a timely manner to support search, rescue, and recovery activities in the wake of an aircraft accident. They were expected to provide a report to the ICAO on 30 September 2014, but on that day said that the report would be delayed citing the need for further clarification on some issues.
In May 2014, Inmarsat said it would offer its tracking service for free to all aircraft equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection (which amounts to nearly all commercial airliners)
The IATA needs to act sooner rather than later I think. Maybe the insurance companies might put some pressure on them to act?
From Wilkipedia:
The International Air Transport Association—an industry trade organization representing over 240 airlines (representing 84% of global air traffic)—and the United Nation's civil aviation body—the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)—are working on implementing new measures to track aircraft in flight in real time. The IATA created a taskforce (which includes several outside stakeholders) to define a minimum set of requirements that any tracking system must meet, allowing airlines to decide the best solution to track their aircraft. The IATA's taskforce plans to come up with several short-, medium-, and long-term solutions to ensure that information is provided in a timely manner to support search, rescue, and recovery activities in the wake of an aircraft accident. They were expected to provide a report to the ICAO on 30 September 2014, but on that day said that the report would be delayed citing the need for further clarification on some issues.
In May 2014, Inmarsat said it would offer its tracking service for free to all aircraft equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection (which amounts to nearly all commercial airliners)
Aircraft already have sufficient tracking. ADS-B and ADS-C and ELTs
The SATCOM companies will provide free comms for tracking. After MH370 the SATCOM companies said that simple ADS-C tracking reporting would be free.
After AF447 the French BEA recommended a reporting rate of close to a minute for ADS-C when aircraft are on flights over ocean or sparsely populated areas.
There is more than sufficient bandwidth for tracking. Both INMARSAT and Iridium (and several other satellite comms companies) have more than sufficient bandwidth for the tracking.
Iridium AIREON plans Space Based ADS-B tracking a hosted payload on Iridium Next low-earth-orbit comms satellites will be looking down and receiving the normal ADS-B transmissions from the mandated ADS-B position reporting systems. This means that aircraft out of Line of Sight for ADS-B will still be seen from the satellites. So in the current case instead of ADS-B disappearing when the aircraft went below the horizon it would have been visible all the way to the surface or until power failed.
Engine Manufacturers Track their Engines The major aeroengine manufacturers have reporting from their engines that tell the manufacturer where the aircraft is amongst a whole host of other data.
Airframe Manufacturers provide Tracked Health Monitoring so that any maintenance problem is pre-declared to the destination airport so first line maintenance can be carried out quickly when the aircraft arrives
It is simplicity itself to track an aircraft the equipment is fitted to all recent aircraft and will be mandated as retrofit to older aircraft in the near future.
The problem is that the aircraft operators switch the tracking off or decide not to use it and in MH370's case the pilot (or someone in the cockpit) appears to have switched off the tracking. EVEN THEN the aircraft was tracked albeit laboriously by looking at the Network layer handshakes between the aircraft SATCOM and INMARSAT.
All this continual galloping on the tracking hamster wheel does is get avionics manufacturers salivating about the profits from providing yet-another-tracking-gizmo for all aircraft at huge expense to the airlines and to their passengers who will have to pay for the unnecessary electronics: it will NOT improve tracking of aircraft.
What would improve tracking of aircraft is mandating that the existing tracking systems are always used. This mandate action and the associated Notices of Proposed Rule Making are all working their bureaucratic way through the system. Mainly to assist in the future airspace ConOps than for the 2 or 3 occasions when aircraft are 'lost' in both meanings of the term.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two local fisherman have been the crucial links in finding the QZ8501 wreck site. One heard the aircraft crash, one other saw the panel wreckage in the water Sunday morning and dismissed it as unimportant flotsam.
Neither knew an aircraft had crashed - although the bloke who heard the 'BOOM!', thought it might have been an aircraft crashing.
Two other fisherman claim they saw an aircraft dropping towards the sea, but it went from their view before it crashed (no doubt due to heavy cloud).
Fisherman crucial factor in locating AirAsia wreckage site
"The missing Air Asia aircraft was discovered by a 38-year-old Indonesian fisherman named Mohammed Taha, who did not yet know a plane had disappeared and assumed the debris was ocean junk.
Mr Taha, from the small village of Belinyu, spent Sunday on his small fishing boat and spotted some metal objects in the water. But he did not return home until Monday night.
When he arrived in his village, he heard the news about the missing Air Asia flight QZ8501. He later said he was familiar with the airline’s red logo and recalled that some of the floating objects had been red.
“I found a lot of debris – small and large - in the Tujuh islands,” Mr Taha said.
“The largest was four metres [13 feet] long and two metres wide [seven feet]. They were red coloured with white silver. It looked like the Air Asia colours.”
Mr Taha immediately called Bagus Rai, his local police officer, and provided an account, including the location.
Officer Rai contacted the search authority, which organised an aerial search for the following morning. At 8.00am, the objects were spotted.
More air searches revealed that the objects included the exit door and were from the plane.
“The fisherman said he saw the debris looked like the body of a plane,” officer Rai said. “He did not bring the debris back. We then planned to do the search.”
Thousands of fishermen along the Indonesian coast have assisted with the search after being contacted by the authorities to keep a lookout for debris.
But Taha, who had not received the advice, was not among them, and had no idea about the multinational search. He subsequently volunteered to assist during Tuesday’s operations."
On that basis, the cheapest and simplest air crash feedback information system, would be to equip all local peasant fishermen with good communication devices, keep them all up to date on missing aircraft, and ensure they relate anything they have seen in that area, when an aircraft goes missing.
After all, aircraft that crash on land are usually found within a short space of time - it's the ones that disappear into large bodies of water that create all the angst, and the huge SAR costs.
Neither knew an aircraft had crashed - although the bloke who heard the 'BOOM!', thought it might have been an aircraft crashing.
Two other fisherman claim they saw an aircraft dropping towards the sea, but it went from their view before it crashed (no doubt due to heavy cloud).
Fisherman crucial factor in locating AirAsia wreckage site
"The missing Air Asia aircraft was discovered by a 38-year-old Indonesian fisherman named Mohammed Taha, who did not yet know a plane had disappeared and assumed the debris was ocean junk.
Mr Taha, from the small village of Belinyu, spent Sunday on his small fishing boat and spotted some metal objects in the water. But he did not return home until Monday night.
When he arrived in his village, he heard the news about the missing Air Asia flight QZ8501. He later said he was familiar with the airline’s red logo and recalled that some of the floating objects had been red.
“I found a lot of debris – small and large - in the Tujuh islands,” Mr Taha said.
“The largest was four metres [13 feet] long and two metres wide [seven feet]. They were red coloured with white silver. It looked like the Air Asia colours.”
Mr Taha immediately called Bagus Rai, his local police officer, and provided an account, including the location.
Officer Rai contacted the search authority, which organised an aerial search for the following morning. At 8.00am, the objects were spotted.
More air searches revealed that the objects included the exit door and were from the plane.
“The fisherman said he saw the debris looked like the body of a plane,” officer Rai said. “He did not bring the debris back. We then planned to do the search.”
Thousands of fishermen along the Indonesian coast have assisted with the search after being contacted by the authorities to keep a lookout for debris.
But Taha, who had not received the advice, was not among them, and had no idea about the multinational search. He subsequently volunteered to assist during Tuesday’s operations."
On that basis, the cheapest and simplest air crash feedback information system, would be to equip all local peasant fishermen with good communication devices, keep them all up to date on missing aircraft, and ensure they relate anything they have seen in that area, when an aircraft goes missing.
After all, aircraft that crash on land are usually found within a short space of time - it's the ones that disappear into large bodies of water that create all the angst, and the huge SAR costs.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a typical distress frequency in the HF range, by broadcasting a simple audible message such as "ABC123 position N50.12345 W020.12345" every 30 seconds during which the "emergency" conditions are being sensed, we'd have a very good chance of being received up to a 1,000 miles away and more at night. Also, other planes in the area will also have the opportunity to listen in and pass any information onto the authorities. Recorded replay of ATC messages another desperately lacking feature within modern airliner avionics (GA has had it for years).
The cost of the retrofit (pre-bureaucracy and certification) would be quite low IMO. We wouldn't need any subscription or ongoing running costs except that to run/man a handful of worldwide stations. Security-wise, i'm not sure if it requires security considerations to be honest. It would only ever be broadcast in an emergency anyway and besides ADS-B already gives the public far more than that!
A lot of re-inventing the wheel is being proposed here. My idea is simple, probably because I'm stupid!
The cost of the retrofit (pre-bureaucracy and certification) would be quite low IMO. We wouldn't need any subscription or ongoing running costs except that to run/man a handful of worldwide stations. Security-wise, i'm not sure if it requires security considerations to be honest. It would only ever be broadcast in an emergency anyway and besides ADS-B already gives the public far more than that!
A lot of re-inventing the wheel is being proposed here. My idea is simple, probably because I'm stupid!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Back onto the hamster wheel again
Aircraft already have sufficient tracking. ADS-B and ADS-C and ELTs
With all due respect Ian, MH370 is still missing so I would not call that sufficient tracking. Tracking devices that can be turned off by crew or other persons and render the aircraft invisible except to ground radar is out of date thinking.
Aircraft already have sufficient tracking. ADS-B and ADS-C and ELTs
With all due respect Ian, MH370 is still missing so I would not call that sufficient tracking. Tracking devices that can be turned off by crew or other persons and render the aircraft invisible except to ground radar is out of date thinking.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Airbus still put a "ditch switch" on their airplanes?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burst data
@Onetrack, There wasn't many Fishermens where AF447 went down.
And yes, MH370 was tracable by INMARSAT, although the tracking was turned off, but it took weeks to calculate last and probably position. If a successful ditch, time matters.
I agree with Superpilot, a burst of data, including position, at upset would certainly be useful, and maybe next time, could also save lives. If a successful ditch, time matters.
And yes, MH370 was tracable by INMARSAT, although the tracking was turned off, but it took weeks to calculate last and probably position. If a successful ditch, time matters.
I agree with Superpilot, a burst of data, including position, at upset would certainly be useful, and maybe next time, could also save lives. If a successful ditch, time matters.
Last edited by MaxJack; 31st Dec 2014 at 13:41. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 31
Posts: 500
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. And Sully Sullenberger did not press it. Some wise cracks claim that the airplane would have been salvageable if he had.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
training wheels
This photo is supposedly that of an evacuation slide that was retrieved from the debris found in the water. Whether it had actually deployed or not is unknown, unless some one can tell from the picture?
https://twitter.com/Malaysia_Latest/...03613365420032
This photo is supposedly that of an evacuation slide that was retrieved from the debris found in the water. Whether it had actually deployed or not is unknown, unless some one can tell from the picture?
https://twitter.com/Malaysia_Latest/...03613365420032
Evacuation slide
Depending on type they often double as a life raft...
Here's a pic of a deflated slide/raft on an A320;
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bangkok
Age: 74
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Airbus still put a "ditch switch" on their airplanes?
Yes. And Sully Sullenberger did not press it. Some wise cracks claim that the airplane would have been salvageable if he had.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: high in the sky....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
200kts IAS
well a 100 Kt/ even higher speeds are encountered in jet streams and often you have strong up/down drafts close to build ups.... why is this speed so important? after it is ground speed not aircraft speed... what have I got wrong?
well a 100 Kt/ even higher speeds are encountered in jet streams and often you have strong up/down drafts close to build ups.... why is this speed so important? after it is ground speed not aircraft speed... what have I got wrong?
2. An updraft/downdraft does not knock 100kts off your groundspeed.
Tracking
Tracking would not have saved any lives here. And so you can argue that tracking is irrelevant.
On the other hand, it seems suboptimal to say 'We lost the aircraft at 24000 (or whatever it was) as it disappeared under the horizon. It could have hit the ocean very close to that point. It could have hit the ocean some distance away. Or something else may have happened." What relatives are going to find this acceptable?
With so many transoceanic flights, it is ridiculous that we repeatedly have the following situation:
1. We don't know exactly where the aircraft went down. The plane wasn't being tracked - although it could easily have been. The ELT should have activated on impact, but the antenna may have been sheared off and anyway ELTs can't be detected underwater.
2. The acoustic pingers are extremely short range, and if in deep ocean we will only hear them if we are directly overhead. In other words, the pingers rely on knowing the precise location of the wreck. That's on top of the inadequate battery life.
I accept that in an AF447 situation (and likely also AirAsia), pilots won't have time to communicate. Their priority is to try and recover the situation. But given this truism, it is equally ridiculous that automated systems are not activated until they are either destroyed by impact or rendered ineffective by sinking into deep water. Even a few hits from a 406 ELT during the final few minutes would be helpful in knowing something was wrong and knowing where the plane was at the time. Surely it is possible to come up with some parameters where this was triggered.
The fact is that the technology used today is really designed to find aircraft that have crashed on land or small bodies of water. They are completely inadequate for finding a plane in an ocean - which cover 2/3 of the planets surface.
I think most of us would agree (at least in principle) that this is suboptimal and frankly unacceptable. Surely we can do better than this.
True, and this will come. All these systems can be turned off however, which I suspect was the thinking behind someones suggestion for an independent system not connected to aircraft power.
Probably a difficult call. On one side we have arguments about electrical faults and fire and needing the capability to isolate all electrical equipment. On the other side we have MH370 and I guess also 9/11.
Whatever we think here, IanW is right. This will happen - and sooner than many people anticipate.
On the other hand, it seems suboptimal to say 'We lost the aircraft at 24000 (or whatever it was) as it disappeared under the horizon. It could have hit the ocean very close to that point. It could have hit the ocean some distance away. Or something else may have happened." What relatives are going to find this acceptable?
With so many transoceanic flights, it is ridiculous that we repeatedly have the following situation:
1. We don't know exactly where the aircraft went down. The plane wasn't being tracked - although it could easily have been. The ELT should have activated on impact, but the antenna may have been sheared off and anyway ELTs can't be detected underwater.
2. The acoustic pingers are extremely short range, and if in deep ocean we will only hear them if we are directly overhead. In other words, the pingers rely on knowing the precise location of the wreck. That's on top of the inadequate battery life.
I accept that in an AF447 situation (and likely also AirAsia), pilots won't have time to communicate. Their priority is to try and recover the situation. But given this truism, it is equally ridiculous that automated systems are not activated until they are either destroyed by impact or rendered ineffective by sinking into deep water. Even a few hits from a 406 ELT during the final few minutes would be helpful in knowing something was wrong and knowing where the plane was at the time. Surely it is possible to come up with some parameters where this was triggered.
The fact is that the technology used today is really designed to find aircraft that have crashed on land or small bodies of water. They are completely inadequate for finding a plane in an ocean - which cover 2/3 of the planets surface.
I think most of us would agree (at least in principle) that this is suboptimal and frankly unacceptable. Surely we can do better than this.
IanW
ALL aircraft have tracking capability. All that is needed is regulation that mandates aircraft operators use the tracking capability that is already on the aircraft.
ALL aircraft have tracking capability. All that is needed is regulation that mandates aircraft operators use the tracking capability that is already on the aircraft.
727forever
Tracking devices that can be turned off by crew or other persons and render the aircraft invisible except to ground radar is out of date thinking.
Tracking devices that can be turned off by crew or other persons and render the aircraft invisible except to ground radar is out of date thinking.
Whatever we think here, IanW is right. This will happen - and sooner than many people anticipate.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: high in the sky....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The storm's updraft, with upwardly directed wind speeds as high as 180 kilometres per hour (110 mph),blow the forming hailstones up the cloud."
from Wiki:
Atmospheric convection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
well I have been a turboprop most of my life, but from flying over India I know close to the equator these babies can be nasty.... so one shouldnt discount possibility of an updraft..... and there by downdraft.... in a regenerating CB both can co exist. Any answers?
from Wiki:
Atmospheric convection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
well I have been a turboprop most of my life, but from flying over India I know close to the equator these babies can be nasty.... so one shouldnt discount possibility of an updraft..... and there by downdraft.... in a regenerating CB both can co exist. Any answers?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much lower can humanity go? 20 years ago, we would have quietly kept our thoughts to ourselves about these poor people and waited to hear why such a tragedy happened. Now, their remains are discussed like carrion on the roadside. On newspaper websites, we see pictures of pixilated bodies and on TV, reporters breathlessly describe what might have occurred in dramatic and horrifying detail. What is it going to be like in ten years time?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Lounge
Age: 53
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you talking what on radar or on instrument? The Bus boy way earlier said why bus boys wont comment here. Read between the lines. (sure they all filled forms on this as he said that is why they will not comment). If it turns that way I hope he and others did not wait for many more soles to act on it. Being in training is worse a known or possible defect MUST be reported.
I hope they are wrong and bet they hope too. Inflight break up seems out as per crash site. A stall seems very possible and +20K hours on type/s and training and saying BE Quiet by a bus guys says volumes or is he just a troll?
On here it is simple focus on the pitot system - reality is that alone should not cause a crash. Key is to find all the factors. Lets start with the boss, military training (lots of it) is generally by the book, previous crashes of like type are well known by most that fly type, also weather this time of year is known to this operation.
What was different? I don't know If the ASI's went maybe but a cargo shift in turbulence could throw it all out the window? that floating first photos of a bit of wood certainly has no g rating for restraint.
If your C of G is stuffed so are you! Always more than 1 thing causes a accident.
I hope they are wrong and bet they hope too. Inflight break up seems out as per crash site. A stall seems very possible and +20K hours on type/s and training and saying BE Quiet by a bus guys says volumes or is he just a troll?
On here it is simple focus on the pitot system - reality is that alone should not cause a crash. Key is to find all the factors. Lets start with the boss, military training (lots of it) is generally by the book, previous crashes of like type are well known by most that fly type, also weather this time of year is known to this operation.
What was different? I don't know If the ASI's went maybe but a cargo shift in turbulence could throw it all out the window? that floating first photos of a bit of wood certainly has no g rating for restraint.
If your C of G is stuffed so are you! Always more than 1 thing causes a accident.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: high in the sky....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
:-( we have learnt to live with being intrusive
You and I will become unwilling or willing participants in this nasty public display of private moments. I agree this is despicable
.
.