I have posted earlier on the pages and I stand on my thoughts:

The bank of 120 degrees he was doing abruptly with an increasing altitude is panic break away from a squall line storm cells - to me it looks that way. There were the cases in which hard banking of, let's say, 25 degrees in HDG mode could lead close to stall margins on low speed hi-altitude maneuvers like this on Airbus. Also, from my experience, some modern WX radars can be wrong - sometimes it will display and scan - nothing. Several cases are noted on 737-800 (but I do not know exactly which equipment is on Airbus) that radar was not displaying (or detecting, call it as you want) a storm cells or squall line storm. One of my friends (a captain on 737-800) was badly shaken because of WX radar malfunction. Aircraft was saved with proper CRM and procedures.
From my point of view this is a possibly stalled AC due to maneuvering in poor WX conditions. But you know that air crash is a combination of errors and events so every little piece of evidence must be carefully observed.

To introduce myself I was in former Yugoslav state ministry aircraft accident bureau of investigation (and ATC).

Racist and patently ill-informed comment from Australian 'expert' reported on New Straits Times

""Neil Hansford said that either the Indonesian captain or French first officer had plotted a “dangerous flight plan"

“Whether they read the meteorology right they were given in Surubaya...And how well did they communicate? One whose basic language is Bahasa and the other guy’s basic language is French.”


Don't allow your political correctness to rule out inter language problems in the heat of a dire distress situation.

I bet all those impatient people demanding the industry spend un-necessary amounts of money on tracking gadgets for such rare events won't come back here praising the SAR for locating it so quickly.

Good job SAR. Given the poor weather on day one, I think they did a good job of making up for lost time in the last couple of days.

Hope all goes well with the salvage ops.

wow, the "160 kilometres southwest of Pangkalan Bun" 24 hours ago, was pretty much spot on, the reference to Nangka island was a bit of a furphy tho...

So cozmo, you have an ATPL?
With some time as an airline captain?
On high speed heavy jet a/c?

Mixture, yes it was a good job given the circumstances as described however as a pax it isn't good enough overall. If you don't agree then OK, but if the industry wants to improve the over all system responsiveness how can SAR assets be aided? Agree continuous realtime tracking isn't the answer but if you wanted to be able to get medical assistance where it was needed within say 18 hrs how could it be achieved? Seems little point in having rapidly deployable resources if it takes so long to identify where they are needed. As a pax I'll shut up now but the next time I read the safety card information on the slides utility as a raft on a transatlantic flight I'll be more sceptical than even now!

Yes Cozmo, no one has mentioned banking 120deg.... Nor would anyone likely survive it in an airliner!

You are an idiot not a specialist... Just like 50+% of posters here

indonesian
 

(I think cosmo actually referred to a 'turn' of 120 degrees.... cut him some slack}
Is it daylight at 0617 local time

In other words: You don't consider AF447 Pilot error?
Wow!
Just wow.
I could never fathom someone would esteem the profession of ATP so low.

That said, chances are high the THS will indeed be found in full NU.
All the bits and pieces we have so far seem to point into that direction.
Reason for that: Let's wait for FDR and CVR.
The Emergency AD points rather in an opposite direction and would lead to a high speeed dive and impact. The bits and pieces of Information (including alleged state of retrieved bodies) don't really seem to fit that Scenario atm.

Final report:

• the crew made inappropriate control inputs that destabilized the flight path;
• the crew failed to follow appropriate procedure for loss of displayed airspeed information;
• the crew were late in identifying and correcting the deviation from the flight path;
• the crew lacked understanding of the approach to stall;
• the crew failed to recognize that the aircraft had stalled and consequently did not make inputs that would have made it possible to recover from the stall.

I would call that "pilot errors".

I look forward to your explanation about being on the wrong side of the facts. :ok:

Mixture, I certainly congratulate the Indonesia SAR and the authorities there, for their efficiency and above all, for their transparency.

The Industry can still do more in locating downed aircraft in a timely manner. I agree that full telemetry of all flight data in real time is not the answer, but this thread has discussed sensible low bandwidth alternatives.

I'm glad that there can be some closure for the relatives and families.

The boxes will be found, no doubt about that.
With the aircraft largely in one piece, I smell AOA probes from far away.
"Low speed" impact after a stall in an aircraft that can't stall.

Did someone just mention the elephant in the room?

The elephant being another Airbus crew in an abnormal situation that has met their end wondering what the hell the aircraft is doing and why it doesnt respond as expected to inputs?

It is a terrible feeling when every muscle memory learnt over thousands of hours is only digging you deeper into the hole.

No, I'm not.
Are you?
Between a Pilot making an (albeit gross) error and being an idiot is quite a difference. It is the task of Training to reduce the risk of making Errors and if Errors are made, to be able to correct them.
Still AF447 is a clear example where a rather minor technical failure (temporary u/s of airspeed reading) led to a disaster due to very unfortunate human/machine interaction and interpretation. To get that right is one of the main Tasks of a Pilot these days and should be trained thoroughly.

I suspect we will discover this aircraft encountered severe/extreme turbulence resulting in an upset/subsequent loss of control situation, where as Air France 442's (data anyway) didn't reflect any significant turbulence encounter, just an incorrect response to airspeed unreliable, due to defective Thales pitot tubes, a situation encountered previously by a Northwest A-330, which the crew successfully handled and continued onward without difficulty...the look of that storm Air Asia appears to have penetrated could very well have have caused the weather radar to attenuate, presenting a false impression the way ahead was only a thin band of weather when in fact it was only reflecting the leading edge of an extreme cell, and being over water it would be impossible to tilt down and verify by looking for a ground return behind the echoes...

Well that developed very quickly - from nothing to 40 bodies found and what is rumoured to be a shadow of the fuselage on the ocean floor.
This situation is incomparable to MH370, simply for the fact that the waters in this region are diveable depths (200m IIRC) as opposed to The depth of the Grand Canyon where MH370 is believed to be.

A couple of things regarding this are interesting, all be it very sad for those involved. Early reports indicate the bodies are in one piece, which is fairly unusual for a supposed "Dive from Fl36" - Does this suggest a somewhat controlled approach / crash, but at a higher velocity than that is survivable? Also, the bodies not attached to chairs is an interesting point raised by someone else.

Secondly, the sudden surge of bodies all in one location, all of a sudden - does this not suggest the plane was in fact largely intact and the bodies have now started floating to the top along with Panels, PAX door etc - Again, does not fit with the dive suggestions or mid air break up.

There was reportedly a trail of smoke from one of the islands in the vicinity of the body locations - Any more news on this?

Finally, Could this be a case of AF again in as such the crew were so overwhelmed with the situation they simply didn't make a distress call for whatever reason. My gut feeling is, they were already in trouble when they made the request for FL38 (ATC comms and tones of voice would confirm this).

Also - I've not had a chance to see the flight plans / routes. It was reported that there was traffic at FL38 which is why the request was denied. If the plane did make a sudden climb to FL36 and was getting thrown around, would TCAS of alarmed of a collision warning to compound an already confused situation in the cockpit?

As we all know, MOST, but not all incidents involve the hole in the cheese effect. I'm not a qualified Pilot (although I am learning), but i appreciate and enjoy discussing things with you guys here.

As a well-travelled PAX and enthusiast, it does pain me to see how this industry has gone in the last few years in the effort to save costs and provide bang for buck for shareholders at the expense of Training, Safety and affectively, UAV Drone pilots rather than hands-on flying.

Keep doing your jobs well and safely. Whatever occurred that night, let's hope we as passengers, Professionals and human beings can learn from it.

My personal opinion is, if the general public were better educated how the training flaws, budget cuts, questionable maintenance, working hours and salaries were affecting the industry, we would have a better Aviation transport system.

Fact = THS is rotated to max NU while stall warning online
Based on elevator vs THS area ratio+SW malfunction+sidestick design... The pilot error falls below 25%, first minute after AP disc.

Ramble On
 

Airbus protections have saved way more than they have killed. An pilots not knowing what their plane isn't doing is not an Airbus phenomona. Just ask Asiana and Turkish and Thomsonfly who very nearly lost a plane in Bournemouth. Sad thing is the boeing guys came to harm in NORMAL operations.

FACT: 15+ degrees nose high above FL300 is not sustainable, e.g. suicide...which means pilot error. You lose. Good day, sir.

Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
 

Another AirAsia jet just overshot the runway at Kalibo.

That's part overcontrol due lack of high altitude flying and surprise. Yes 1st minute is pilot, crew never had the chance to repair from 38k
You should get out from that armchair and loose some weight, sir

Why is this AF447 stuff popping up again? There was so much discussion on every possible channel and so much more further education on the topic that I assume not a single pilot flying Airbus is not aware of what happened.

From the first reports of bodies and debris and how they seem to be arranged I tend to suspect the plane made a water landing more or less intact. I admit, this would be one the worst for the relatives - smashing into the ocean and then to drown.

Something that's grinding my gears about the media reports I've been hearing:

"Air Asia jet crashed after being denied permission to climb to avoid weather by ATC"

ATC can only know what a pilot tells us. If the captain feels the weather ahead poses such a significant threat to his/her aircraft, he/she should have say in the first transmission "need immediate left turn 120 degrees and climb to FL380 due weather". If the ATC response was not to their satisfaction, say the magic words and do it anyway. If you are in conflict with another aircraft, it's my job to get it out of your way in those situations. You are my number 1 priority and nobody is getting in your way.

The aircraft was approaching handover to another center from what I've read. The next sector is expecting that aircraft at FL320, and is planning their separations and crosses based on that fact. It varies from place to place but normally if the climb is being initiated within 10 mins of an FIR boundary, I have to pick up the phone and get permission for a climb BEFORE giving it to the aircraft.

Also, if the aircraft is crossing an FIR boundary, it needs to meet certain conditions for silent handover, IE to be handed to the next sector e.g. 10 nm at boundary behind traffic ahead if same speed or slower, 20 nm if faster. Not to mention coming at the next sector off route. Also, in this instance, you would warn the next sector about the weather reported so they will expect subsequent aircraft off route and warn any aircraft they are sending your way. Anything that does not meet silent handover criteria must be manually co-ordinated over the phone and approved by the giving and receiving sectors.

That little rant is just to give you an idea of some of the criteria that we need to meet to give climbs or re-routes in non emergency situations, and how important it is that the magic words are used if you aren't getting what you need

Any mention of a bleeping ELT yet? If not, ELT manufacturers/Airbus have a lot to answer for. Unless crew/previous crew/maintenance left it turned off.

RPVK and Air Asia
 

B2560/14 - RWY 05/23 CLSD DUE DISABLED ACFT AT THE END OF RWY 23. 30 DEC 10:45 2014 UNTIL 30 DEC 23:59 2014 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 30 DEC 10:46 2014

"When it rains it pours"!

Un-stabilized approach? Runway long enough even with BA Medium.

This could have easily been another hull loss with many dead!

Its almost dusk. It generally turns dark till 6:45 or 7pm local.

65% of the cargo presumed to be intact under the sea. Source: detik.com

Fact = THS is rotated to max NU while stall warning online
Based on elevator vs THS area ratio+SW malfunction+sidestick design... The pilot error falls below 25%, first minute after AP disc
AF 442
THS nose up because that's where the stick was held....by the pilot...why? because the AFDS was commanding nose up in an attempt to "correct" the "overspeed" that was erroneously sensed...root cause, frozen pitots..pilot fixated on PFD...bad ergonomics..perhaps...incorrect pilot response..apparently so, faults in training responding to airspeed unreliable/high altitude stall?..most definitely..organizational anomaly most assuredly...lack of basic flying skills/situational awareness..yes..this latest one we have no idea, although data available shows rather large altitude excursions over a short period...not a good sign

I think it's safe to say any impact would have been severe and people would have died instantly.

If it was a controlled descent it would have taken quite some time to meet the water, would have been visible on radar and would likely to have time to get a call out.

This was a sudden, catastrophic failure resulting in a high energy impact with the water.

I would find the Twitter posts of people claiming victims have been found dead holding hands laughable if it were not such a tragedy.

AirAsia flight QZ8501: Plane crash in Java Sea

MORE than 40 bodies from the missing AirAsia flight QZ8501 have been found along with debris, authorities have confirmed.

rumours some in life jackets? if they had time to put them on why no mayday! also reports of the plane under the water all intact

Iridium and INMARSAT both have sufficient connections for every passenger aircraft in the world with more than say 80 seats to have their own 'private' connection to the satellites. They could give that bandwidth to low sample rate DFDR/CVR recording but although the bandwidth is available it would be a waste of bandwidth as the number of times it would be needed is extremely small. Not only that in line-of-sight of land the aircraft would more sensibly use higher bandwidth protocols such as WIMAX to ground communications stations.

From a commercial point of view there is more benefit in provision of streaming broadband Internet to the pax. (Note this streaming broad band internet is what is planned; there is lots of bandwidth).

Therefore, the most likely commercial and engineering option is for the bandwidth to be used to allow pax to use the Internet in flight but with an emergency capability for that bandwidth to be taken by the live streaming of DFDR/CVR data if the aircraft automatics sense a probable emergency condition or if the pilot selects to stream. Probable emergency conditions could be extreme turbulence or g above a certain level, extremes of climb/descent or speed, unusual positions, pressurization failures, fire of engine(s) and/or fuselage, some avionics failures etc., etc..

This approach would also remove the concern often expressed by crew that they don't want management electronically watching 'over their shoulders' in real time; it's bad enough with FOQA.

Bandwidth is not an issue, using it for something else for the more than 99.999% of the time that makes the company money and only allocating it for emergency use in the 0.001% of the time that use is actually needed is an engineering solution. :D

now its offical

Quote:
SURABAYA, 30TH DECEMBER 2014 – AirAsia Indonesia regrets to inform that The National Search and Rescue Agency Republic of Indonesia (BASARNAS) today confirmed that the debris found earlier today is indeed from QZ8501, the flight that had lost contact with air traffic control on the morning of 28th December 2014.

The debris of the aircraft was found in the Karimata Strait in South East Belitung.

The aircraft was an Airbus A320-200 with the registration number PK-AXC. There were 155 passengers on board, with 137 adults, 17 children and 1 infant. Also on board were 2 pilots, 4 cabin crew and one engineer.

At the present time, search and rescue operations are still in progress and further investigation of the debris found at the location is still underway. AirAsia Indonesiaemployees have been sent to the site and will be fully cooperating with BASARNAS, National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC), and relevant authorities on the investigation.

Sunu Widyatmoko, Chief Executive Officer of AirAsia Indonesia said: “We are sorry to be here today under these tragic circumstances. We would like to extend our sincere sympathies to the family and friends of those on board QZ8501. Our sympathies also go out to the families of our dear colleagues.” he added.

Tony Fernandes, Group Chief Executive Officer of AirAsia added: “I am absolutely devastated. This is a very difficult moment for all of us at AirAsia as we await further developments of the search and rescue operations but our first priority now is the wellbeing of the family members of those onboard QZ8501.”

AirAsia Indonesia will be inviting family members to Surabaya, where a dedicated team of care providers will be assigned to each family to ensure that all of their needs are met. Counsellors, religious and spiritual personnel have also been invited to the family center to provide any necessary services.

Mixture, with all due respect it won't matter very much what you or I think. So there is little point you banging on and on that tracking is unnecessary.

The real issues in this debate will be:
1. what the average member of the public wants (yep the public, without whom there would be no industry)
2. whether airlines see a commercial advantage in this capability
3. what 3rd parties (including underwriters) require

In a world where tracking technology is becoming more commonplace and after three recent high profile cases where planes have been difficult to find (AF447, MH370, and now Air Asia), it seems almost quaint (and increasingly unacceptable) to many that large RPT aircraft are not tracked.

:D:D:D

If I recall correctly, it was almost 2 hours after AF447 crashed when Senegal ATC started thinking there was anything amiss. So by the time ATC first became concerned, the aircraft had crashed 2 hours earlier and and 1800km "before" its then presumed location! It was longer still until it was appreciated that AF447 must have crashed "somewhere" (at the 2 hour mark Senegal ATC started asking other AF flights to try and raise 447). This in the 21st century? You have to be kidding me. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I completely accept that tracking would not have saved any lives on AF447 (nor I suspect AirAsia). That is not the point.

Then there is MH370. The cost of the search thus far is massive. The human cost to the relatives of not knowing what happened is incalculable. Against this, so what if it is a 1 in a million event. And that is before you consider the possibility that real time tracking (if unable to be turned off) may have prevented MH370 in the first place.

Inmarsat (and possibly others) are now offering this capability to airlines. For free!. Basic aircraft ID, location, track, and speed take almost zero bandwidth. That is why Inmarsat does not need to charge.

We don't need to stream CVR and FDR - although even that may come in time! We can rely on the onboard recorders. But we do need to be able to reliably find them - hopefully in a timely fashion.

If some people feel this is pointless and unnecessary, that's OK. However there is no real downside. It is not harmful in any way. And it is not dangerous. So there does not appear to be any real reason to object. If I am missing something, please explain what this is.

I have spent many hours staring out at sea looking for missing planes or boats or survivors and so I congratulate the SAR teams for their efforts to date, and also acknowledge their grim task ahead. But that is hardly the point either.

It's automatic, not direct with sidestick position and you missed the point - under stall
sorry, that's it for me regarding AF 447

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

another one

@Ranger One:

Misunderstood.

Turning 120 degrees from course (or sharp turns) increasing the altitude in HDG mode BANKING at 25 (or more) degrees was problem sometimes in A320.

@cozmo

Your words, again:

You're telling us what the crew did - even as the first bodies are being pulled from the water - AND you're repeatedly dissing Airbus with no justification.

That is not the mark of a professional. Well, maybe a professional troll.

R1