Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: OK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Standard Toaster
I love the Airbus, best office by far. The Ergonomics are top notch, however...............as a pilot, I want to pitch the nose down in a Stall, not have to rely on the airplane to do it automatically. Its not a good feeling to get the ADs where Airbus says, "Hey, in case this thing decides to nosedive for no good reason, no problem, just turn of 2 of the 3 major computers", are you kidding me?
I have also been privy to a lot of ASAP reports (not sure if Europe participates) where the Airbus has done some very strange, very scary things for no good reason. Thats all I am saying. I would rather rely on my training and skill to save the day, not some computer that has a tendency to try and kill me
I love the Airbus, best office by far. The Ergonomics are top notch, however...............as a pilot, I want to pitch the nose down in a Stall, not have to rely on the airplane to do it automatically. Its not a good feeling to get the ADs where Airbus says, "Hey, in case this thing decides to nosedive for no good reason, no problem, just turn of 2 of the 3 major computers", are you kidding me?
I have also been privy to a lot of ASAP reports (not sure if Europe participates) where the Airbus has done some very strange, very scary things for no good reason. Thats all I am saying. I would rather rely on my training and skill to save the day, not some computer that has a tendency to try and kill me
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training wheels, Lost in Siagon
In post 1228 I provided a link to a KML file that has a plot of the last 20 FR24 data points. I also included placemarks where the earlier reported last known positions had been said to have been. There is a discrepancy of 60 or 70 miles between the earlier release of data and the FR24 information and it sure appears that the earlier information releases were wrong. These information releases came in the same time frame as the radar plot you are showing, so I question the validity of the screen shot too.
It seems that a better course would be to plot the speed decay seen in the FR24 data points against what was the reported altitudes for QZ8501. If they match, the earlier geographical coordinates can be completely discounted.
FR24 raw data:
23:12:37 3.990 s 110.225 e
23:12:01 3.992 s 110.227e (1,189 ft in 36 sec) = 19.8 kts)
23:11:58 3.996 s 110.232 e
23:10:55 4 s 110.237 e
23:10:51 4.005 s 110.243 e
23:10:49 4.01 s 110.248 e
23:10:42 4.02 s 110.254 e
23:10:42 4.02 s 110.260 e
23:10:38 4.026 s 110.267 e
23:10:35 4.031 s 110.273 e
23:10:31 4.037 s 110.281 e
23:10:28 4.041 s 110.284 e
23:10:21 4.050 s 110.296 e
23:10:18 4.053 s 110.299 e
23:10:16 4.056 s 110.303 e
23:10:14 4.061 s 110.308 e
23:10:09 4.065 s 110.314 e
23:10:07 4.070 s 110.318 e
23:10:04 4.075 s 110.325 e
23:10:00 4.079 s 110.330 e
23:10:54 4.083 s 110.335 e
23:10:51 4.091 s 110.344 e
The average speed for the time logged was 326kts, but the speed shown between the last two points was only 19.8kts.
In post 1228 I provided a link to a KML file that has a plot of the last 20 FR24 data points. I also included placemarks where the earlier reported last known positions had been said to have been. There is a discrepancy of 60 or 70 miles between the earlier release of data and the FR24 information and it sure appears that the earlier information releases were wrong. These information releases came in the same time frame as the radar plot you are showing, so I question the validity of the screen shot too.
It seems that a better course would be to plot the speed decay seen in the FR24 data points against what was the reported altitudes for QZ8501. If they match, the earlier geographical coordinates can be completely discounted.
FR24 raw data:
23:12:37 3.990 s 110.225 e
23:12:01 3.992 s 110.227e (1,189 ft in 36 sec) = 19.8 kts)
23:11:58 3.996 s 110.232 e
23:10:55 4 s 110.237 e
23:10:51 4.005 s 110.243 e
23:10:49 4.01 s 110.248 e
23:10:42 4.02 s 110.254 e
23:10:42 4.02 s 110.260 e
23:10:38 4.026 s 110.267 e
23:10:35 4.031 s 110.273 e
23:10:31 4.037 s 110.281 e
23:10:28 4.041 s 110.284 e
23:10:21 4.050 s 110.296 e
23:10:18 4.053 s 110.299 e
23:10:16 4.056 s 110.303 e
23:10:14 4.061 s 110.308 e
23:10:09 4.065 s 110.314 e
23:10:07 4.070 s 110.318 e
23:10:04 4.075 s 110.325 e
23:10:00 4.079 s 110.330 e
23:10:54 4.083 s 110.335 e
23:10:51 4.091 s 110.344 e
The average speed for the time logged was 326kts, but the speed shown between the last two points was only 19.8kts.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the information, but it looks like only limited data has been retained. This is hardly surprising as most of the time it is of no interest. Even so as you show there is useful information on the ground speed (derived from GPS position reports and time of reports). Considering the altitude the aircraft was at the ground speed would imply that the aircraft trajectory had a significant vertical component between those positions.
Imagine if you had the GPS altitudes and aircraft vector states as well
Imagine if you had the GPS altitudes and aircraft vector states as well
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't rely on the information provided by FR 24. I have tried to follow some aircraft, and the position, heading and altitude can vary or jump even in airspace that has good cover. I don't think the Java Sea falls into that category.
FR24 may used as an indication, but certainly not as evidence.
FR24 may used as an indication, but certainly not as evidence.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this information does take us much farther than what is found anywhere else.
Now we have a snapshot of the one minute and forty six seconds of time when it appears that control was lost.
The last FR24 data point was: 23:12:37 3.990 s 110.225 e, which is at (about) the same time that Lost in Saigon informs us:
06:12
- QZ8501 requests left deviation from airway. Deviation approved.
- Pilot then requests climb to FL380
- ATC asks pilot to standby, due to nearby traffic and to coordinate with next sector (Singapore)
Thus we can assume that the plane had converted its forward speed to vertical speed at or near the time the pilot was requesting FL380.
Now we have a snapshot of the one minute and forty six seconds of time when it appears that control was lost.
The last FR24 data point was: 23:12:37 3.990 s 110.225 e, which is at (about) the same time that Lost in Saigon informs us:
06:12
- QZ8501 requests left deviation from airway. Deviation approved.
- Pilot then requests climb to FL380
- ATC asks pilot to standby, due to nearby traffic and to coordinate with next sector (Singapore)
Thus we can assume that the plane had converted its forward speed to vertical speed at or near the time the pilot was requesting FL380.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flagon and JoeyBalls
FBW and Normal Law provide protections that have saved a lot of aircraft, passengers and pilot careers. You need to recognise and appreciate this. Secondary to that, both FBW and Normal Law attempt to achieve flying efficiency. Passengers fly more comfortably, fuel is saved and control surfaces and other components are never over taxed because FBW tries its best to maintain a 1G load. In other words, under normal operating conditions, the aircraft is optimised and constrained to be flown in exactly the way the manufacture intended. 99.99999% of flights take-off and land successfully without issue because of the above feat. This is why despite some recent accidents, it remains one of the safest aircraft out there and why current order lists are double that of the 737! Understand and appreciate this too.
Certain failure cases result in the pilot having to adjust himself from top-gun mode to “Use your brain” mode. Not all acts of heroism involve wrestling with the controls to forcefully decide which trajectory an aircraft will follow. It’s a case of brain over brawn. If one is flying straight and level and suddenly loses 100 kts of airspeed with a stall warning, it’s not because god sucked through a straw and left us in a vacuum. We do not need to pitch down because we are not in a stall. If the aircraft does the same, that doesn’t mean we are exempt from the same requirement to perform a bit of critical thinking. The warning is spurious, regardless if we are in control or the aircraft (at that point). We need to determine the nature of the spurious warnings quickly and to do that we have a whole plethora of inputs and sensors to give an indication of airspeed. Diagnosis is required and suitable action after that. This is what the Airbus AD seeks to achieve.
Granted, the ADs are late, but do again consider there have only been a handful of ADR/AOA related issues in 30 years of operation. More 737s flipped over on their backs as a result of a faulty rudder mechanism back in the 80s/90s before Boeing even acknowledged the problem.
FBW and Normal Law provide protections that have saved a lot of aircraft, passengers and pilot careers. You need to recognise and appreciate this. Secondary to that, both FBW and Normal Law attempt to achieve flying efficiency. Passengers fly more comfortably, fuel is saved and control surfaces and other components are never over taxed because FBW tries its best to maintain a 1G load. In other words, under normal operating conditions, the aircraft is optimised and constrained to be flown in exactly the way the manufacture intended. 99.99999% of flights take-off and land successfully without issue because of the above feat. This is why despite some recent accidents, it remains one of the safest aircraft out there and why current order lists are double that of the 737! Understand and appreciate this too.
Certain failure cases result in the pilot having to adjust himself from top-gun mode to “Use your brain” mode. Not all acts of heroism involve wrestling with the controls to forcefully decide which trajectory an aircraft will follow. It’s a case of brain over brawn. If one is flying straight and level and suddenly loses 100 kts of airspeed with a stall warning, it’s not because god sucked through a straw and left us in a vacuum. We do not need to pitch down because we are not in a stall. If the aircraft does the same, that doesn’t mean we are exempt from the same requirement to perform a bit of critical thinking. The warning is spurious, regardless if we are in control or the aircraft (at that point). We need to determine the nature of the spurious warnings quickly and to do that we have a whole plethora of inputs and sensors to give an indication of airspeed. Diagnosis is required and suitable action after that. This is what the Airbus AD seeks to achieve.
Granted, the ADs are late, but do again consider there have only been a handful of ADR/AOA related issues in 30 years of operation. More 737s flipped over on their backs as a result of a faulty rudder mechanism back in the 80s/90s before Boeing even acknowledged the problem.
Last edited by Superpilot; 6th Jan 2015 at 14:55.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ManaAdaSystem
I know that FR24 isn't always reporting in real time, it seems to depend on predictive data. But here the FR24 data fits in with what we know pretty well and it has highlighted the fact that earlier position reports were 70 miles off.
I agree that we should be wary, but so far it looks like this FR24 data is more accurate than anything else.
I know that FR24 isn't always reporting in real time, it seems to depend on predictive data. But here the FR24 data fits in with what we know pretty well and it has highlighted the fact that earlier position reports were 70 miles off.
I agree that we should be wary, but so far it looks like this FR24 data is more accurate than anything else.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry but...
PLEASE everybody, Flightradar24 is a nifty little gadget but it is no way useful for investigative purposes.
ManaAdaSystems says approx the same thing as me here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8813007
FR24 bases its flightpaths on some signals from the actual plane and some calculations about its supposed position IF the airplane uses the same heading, speed and altitude as lats actual data point.
This is why you can see big deviatons if you zoom in around an airport - planes going straight that suddenly makes huge sidesteps. Fact is, it never did a sidestep, it flew according to its own plan, not FR24's algorithms.
All you can do with FR24 therefore, is to use it as an app that gives you a possible trend when the aircraft is in cruise. These are too many maybes to be taken as evidence if something truly occurs.
PLEASE everybody, Flightradar24 is a nifty little gadget but it is no way useful for investigative purposes.
ManaAdaSystems says approx the same thing as me here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8813007
FR24 bases its flightpaths on some signals from the actual plane and some calculations about its supposed position IF the airplane uses the same heading, speed and altitude as lats actual data point.
This is why you can see big deviatons if you zoom in around an airport - planes going straight that suddenly makes huge sidesteps. Fact is, it never did a sidestep, it flew according to its own plan, not FR24's algorithms.
All you can do with FR24 therefore, is to use it as an app that gives you a possible trend when the aircraft is in cruise. These are too many maybes to be taken as evidence if something truly occurs.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 62
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superpilot, being limited to 1G flight means the plane can never change airspeed, heading, or pitch ... when sitting at the gate the plane is at 1G. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The rest of your post is down right terrifying IMHO.
The rest of your post is down right terrifying IMHO.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: home
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking today with a person who deals with placing electronic listening devices in oceans all over the world. Once they are in place he "puts them to sleep" so their batteries don't get depleted. When it is time to find them he sends out an encrypted signal and when the device answers he wakes it up.
The batteries will last a very long time that way. Perhaps all commercial aircraft could use this type of technology in the cockpit and for the black box.
The batteries will last a very long time that way. Perhaps all commercial aircraft could use this type of technology in the cockpit and for the black box.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Snuggles:
In this case FR24 is 70 miles closer to reality than anything else that has been made public. Those "jumps" that you speak of are the exception in FR24 reporting, not the norm. I assume their system gets behind in its processing occasionally, there's no reason to throw all their data out because of that.
In this case FR24 is 70 miles closer to reality than anything else that has been made public. Those "jumps" that you speak of are the exception in FR24 reporting, not the norm. I assume their system gets behind in its processing occasionally, there's no reason to throw all their data out because of that.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this information does take us much farther than what is found anywhere else.
Now we have a snapshot of the one minute and forty six seconds of time when it appears that control was lost.
The last FR24 data point was: 23:12:37 3.990 s 110.225 e, which is at (about) the same time that Lost in Saigon informs us:
06:12
- QZ8501 requests left deviation from airway. Deviation approved.
- Pilot then requests climb to FL380
- ATC asks pilot to standby, due to nearby traffic and to coordinate with next sector (Singapore)
Thus we can assume that the plane had converted its forward speed to vertical speed at or near the time the pilot was requesting FL380.
Now we have a snapshot of the one minute and forty six seconds of time when it appears that control was lost.
The last FR24 data point was: 23:12:37 3.990 s 110.225 e, which is at (about) the same time that Lost in Saigon informs us:
06:12
- QZ8501 requests left deviation from airway. Deviation approved.
- Pilot then requests climb to FL380
- ATC asks pilot to standby, due to nearby traffic and to coordinate with next sector (Singapore)
Thus we can assume that the plane had converted its forward speed to vertical speed at or near the time the pilot was requesting FL380.
1) The aircraft was not cleared to climb.
2) Even if the aircraft was cleared to climb, jet aircraft maintain their cruise speed while in the climb. (at least the ones I fly do)
Because the radar screenshot shows the aircraft climbing without a clearance at very low airspeed, we can assume the aircraft was out of control in a very strong updraft.
What happened next is only speculation:
In flight breakup?
Aerodynamic stall?
Engine flame out?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
md80driver,
I've fixed the description, the aircraft tries to maintain a 1G load factor during all manoeuvres.
I wouldn't be frightened by what I wrote. I and Airbus represent an evolution in thinking. Killing a system that brings so much benefit to the flightdeck and operates perfectly in 99.99999% of situations should not be easy. However, a competent pilot should not be overwhelmed by the steps to do it if the situation arises. Now that the AD is out, defintiely no pilot should have an excuse for not being able to act in good time. Not to say this incident is in any way related, facts are unknown.
I've fixed the description, the aircraft tries to maintain a 1G load factor during all manoeuvres.
I wouldn't be frightened by what I wrote. I and Airbus represent an evolution in thinking. Killing a system that brings so much benefit to the flightdeck and operates perfectly in 99.99999% of situations should not be easy. However, a competent pilot should not be overwhelmed by the steps to do it if the situation arises. Now that the AD is out, defintiely no pilot should have an excuse for not being able to act in good time. Not to say this incident is in any way related, facts are unknown.
Your point on how often it all works as it is supposed to is taken. Perhaps that is part of why anomalies make for such a stark comparison, and even upset. Malfunctions being so rare may lead to complacency by some aircrews ...
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: US
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian W...I’m not sure?.? If you look at Training Wheels ticket from Sunday, Aug 24, 2014 that he posted it shows a departure time of 5:30 am departure landing at 8:30 am in SIN. This in turn became 8501’s schedule once they moved up the flight and all but 23 passengers were contacted about the change.
Could it have been a mix up when AirAsia posted it on their website for customers to buy? Then they realized the error (ie causing issues for getting customs in SIN/fuel/gate/slot time in&out/push back/etc??) and changed it to a 5:30 departure?
Time will tell. But I would not rule out the thought they were trying to make it a saturday t/o to avoid the limitation of them flying on Sundays between Oct & March.
Could it have been a mix up when AirAsia posted it on their website for customers to buy? Then they realized the error (ie causing issues for getting customs in SIN/fuel/gate/slot time in&out/push back/etc??) and changed it to a 5:30 departure?
Time will tell. But I would not rule out the thought they were trying to make it a saturday t/o to avoid the limitation of them flying on Sundays between Oct & March.
That's clearly nonsense, so why should that 19.8 kts be any more reliable ?
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: US
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NBC News Reports:
PARIS — Doomed AirAsia Flight 8501 was likely horizontal when it crashed into the sea and its impact was probably "not very violent," an expert told NBC News.
The size of debris and the state of the victims recovered suggests the jet may have glided into the water, according to Jean-Paul Troadec, who was in charge of the official French air accident investigation agency at the time of the Air France 447 crash.
"The pieces of the aircraft are not so fragmented, it's quite large pieces," he said. "The fact that the bodies seem intact means most probably that the impact was not very violent and that the airplane was probably horizontal when it crashed into the sea."
His comments came as a U.S. Navy ship helping the international search effort spotted objects that could be pieces of debris from the Airbus A320, which crashed off the coast of Borneo on Dec. 28 with 162 people on board.
The U.S.S. Fort Worth found the objects on the sea floor and was attempting to identify them, Indonesia's search and rescue chief Fransiskus Bambang Soelistyo told a news conference at 7 p.m. local time (7 a.m. ET) Tuesday.
The size of debris and the state of the victims recovered suggests the jet may have glided into the water, according to Jean-Paul Troadec, who was in charge of the official French air accident investigation agency at the time of the Air France 447 crash.
"The pieces of the aircraft are not so fragmented, it's quite large pieces," he said. "The fact that the bodies seem intact means most probably that the impact was not very violent and that the airplane was probably horizontal when it crashed into the sea."
His comments came as a U.S. Navy ship helping the international search effort spotted objects that could be pieces of debris from the Airbus A320, which crashed off the coast of Borneo on Dec. 28 with 162 people on board.
The U.S.S. Fort Worth found the objects on the sea floor and was attempting to identify them, Indonesia's search and rescue chief Fransiskus Bambang Soelistyo told a news conference at 7 p.m. local time (7 a.m. ET) Tuesday.