|
Long time reader, first time poster, PAX.
As someone with a relative and friends on this flight I thank you all for the interesting discussion and quick links to new information. It has been enlightening to read informed, professional opinion and theory on what might have happened, rather than the pap dished up by CNN and 'experts' such as Richard Quest. Regarding ELTs/location methods that actually work, I'll echo previously aired views when I say that the faster a lost aircraft can be found the better it is for the loved ones of those on board. If the case of survivors, rapidly pinpointing the crash site increases their chance of surviving the entire ordeal, especially at sea. If there are no survivors, as may be the case here, quickly locating the crash site speeds up the timeline and allows grieving to start. I thank $DEITY this was not another MH370. --Brad |
Originally Posted by slats11
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.
If it can be turned off, then what is the point? If MH370 was caused by malicious agent(s), the only reason inmarsat tracking worked was because it was a new thing that has not been done before. If anyone wants to vanish an aircraft now, you can be sure that they will pull the breaker to the sat comms. |
Oh dear, mix messages and miscommunication
Indonesia's National Search and Rescue Agency chief said that just three bodies had been recovered so far in the search for the AirAsia plane which crashed in the Java Sea, after another official said 40 had been found. "Today we evacuated three bodies and they are now in the warship Bung Tomo," Bambang Soelistyo told a news conference in Jakarta, adding that they were two females and one male. Navy spokesman Manahan Simorangkir told AFP earlier that according to naval radio a warship had recovered more than 40 bodies from the sea. But he later said that report was a miscommunication by his staff. |
Funny (not) Airbus in normal law is not supposed to be stallable. (Well according to check airmen, who wouldn't believe Mother Nature is a bit quicker than mere computers) So if it somehow ended up in alternate law "again" methinks Airbus need to re-evaluate their design.
Again speculation is futile, but I'm sure other crews would also have been caught out so I believe respect to the crew is called for as they were just doing their job, using their peers skill set that was/is deemed adequit. RIP |
Update: The SAR mission will continue into the night using floodlights provided weather improves. Divers to be used tomorrow.
@Xeque Agreed. But most of the incidents can lead to damage and loss of lives. All I am saying is we shouldn't call it a bad day for aviation. Everything seems compounded by the loss of qz8501. |
I know it's way too early to be speculating what happened, but if the aircraft is reasonably well intact on the bottom of the sea floor, then an inflight break-up due to weather is most unlikely.
However, the possibility of a double engine flameout due to heavy and intense rain from TS cells in the area at the time, can not be ruled out, as a possible cause. Such an occurrence has happened before in Indonesian airspace to a Garuda 737-300 flight from Lombok to Jogjakarta which suffered a double engine flameout after passing Surabaya flying in intense thunderstorm conditions. The crew glided the aircraft down from cruising level, whilst trying to relight the engines, but were unsuccessful and they ended up ditching the aircraft in the Solo river. Surprisingly, all aboard survived, except one flight attendant who slipped and fell during the emergency evacuation and later drowned. This incident was discussed on PPrune some years ago here, for those interested. http://www.pprune.org/questions/2203...g-details.html |
If I were to be gliding in from FL360 or so, I think I would have time to mention it to ATC .
ELTs can beep away underwater, but they work just as well as your cellphone does at the bottom of the pool. Ever wonder why it takes a huge and very powerful radio on a very low frequency to talk to a submarine? Normal radio frequencies do not penetrate water ;) |
@training wheels
engine flame-out can also be caused by high ice water content weather which is generally associated with convective weather, something which is believed to be present. High ice water content may not show up on properly on a weather radar and is more likely the reason than rain in the TS as rain can be detected by the wxr. water particles are five times more reflective than ice particles. http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/d...ort_4-2011.pdf |
The ELT, why is the ELT not bleeping? |
The ELT, why is the ELT not bleeping? That's my question/concern if the a/c is in tact and in relatively shallow waters. This article explains the problem of attenuation underwater very well. http://users.tpg.com.au/ldbutler/Und...munication.pdf Of course this is why the CVR or FDR will have an Underwater locator beacon attached which should make finding the wreckage straight forward. That operates at a low frequency of 37khz . Also it takes about 60 seconds for the ELT to activate once the switch or Gswitch is activated. So it could have been submerged in that time. Maybe they should look at making the signal activate instantly on G switch activation. |
As I see it the search, and identification of the crash remains for QZ8501 has been conducted professionally and well within the normal time frame for any crash in any remote place, land or sea.
We have a thread for MH370 issues, this crash has absolutely nothing to do with that incident and it's resolution had nothing to do with intelligent ELTs, burst data transmissions or whatever. Things might have gone marginally quicker if the airline had paid for EICAS but why are people discussing satellites when the AC was in VHF range? Please take this stuff to the MH370 thread - or start, or use, a suitable generalised technical thread. Possibly links to AF447 are perhaps understandable, if premature, but bad mouthing Airbus might have more to do with the 787s problems than this crash or 447. One thing occurs to me though is whether 14,000 hours flying oldish fighter planes is likely to make one a better or worse pilot for fly by wire 'busses. Maybe we should be giving the seats to proficient gamers instead. |
Any/everyone can forget any possible live transmission of CVR data or video. The industry will never accept it, as its denies the rights of privacy to the crew.
FDR data however is a distinct possibility, although I belive the airlines will never pay for it! And we all know the airlines control the regulators.... Not v.v. |
Yes, sorry, brainfart, I was of course thinking about the locator beacon associated with the recorders.
|
And how does the device snug in its little box tell the difference between the transponder being off in a parked aircraft or the transponder losing power during level flight or after a gentle ditching. Seriously however, I do take your point. This needs to be thought through very carefully. As you say, simply adding a new device without thinking through all the issues will lead to unintended consequences. But many people think we need to do better. Given all the double and triple redundancy on aircraft today, it seems very odd that geolocation remains so primitive and so fallible. Given current technology, is it acceptable that an aircraft disappears when out of range of secondary radar (AF447), or gets into trouble and disappears off radar when it descends below the horizon (Air Asia) or disappears after a transponder is turned off (MH370)? Is any of this acceptable? |
why would the searchers even mention the fact that the ELT is broadcasting, since they have already found the aircraft!?
in this day and age everyone thinks they are entitled to every minuscule detail, and there is a massive cover up/incompetence if it isn't given to them. |
I think you are barking up the wrong tree, Slats11. AF447 "disappeared" because it ended up in the Atlantic ocean. It was found 6 miles from it's last known position. Similarly, MH370's probable track is also known.
In both cases the real issue is the limited availability and capability of deep water search and locator technology. |
No one knew AF447 had crashed until many hours had elapsed. It is true that a last known position was established, and the wreckage was eventually found close to the last known position. But I doubt many people think it is optimal that it crashed around 0200 and ATC started asking questions at 0400.
There are many possible tracks for MH370. These generate an impossibly large search area. Some reasonable assumptions have been made, which mean the search area is reduced to merely "enormous." We don't have the option of rapidly improving inderwater search capability. We do have the option to track aircraft should we so desire. Or the option to not bother. |
Originally Posted by slats11 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.
Originally Posted by cee cee
(Post 8802613)
If the device cannot be turned off, what if it malfunctions and catches on fire, or shorts out the main power bus, taking out all the other equipment?
If it can be turned off, then what is the point? If MH370 was caused by malicious agent(s), the only reason inmarsat tracking worked was because it was a new thing that has not been done before. If anyone wants to vanish an aircraft now, you can be sure that they will pull the breaker to the sat comms. Aircraft leave the factory with adequate tracking/position reporting capability. Widebodies all have FANS 1/A which provides for ADS-C, CPDLC and ACARS messaging. ADS-C links could have been set up to Air France from AF447 but they were not by human decision as the Senegal system did not have ADS-C. (ADS-C can be active to up to 5 ground agencies). So all that was available were ACARS reports which are through a message switch with no prioritization so the reports can come in at random times. It was a human decision not to provide tracking information the aircraft itself had tracking capability with ADS-C. All narrow bodies leave the factory with ADS-B. MH370 had the capability to be tracked using ADS-C and ADS-B and it was also in (albeit poor) secondary radar cover. ADS-C and SATCOM were turned off by human decision at the airline. It had Rolls Royce engine tracking capability but this was turned off by human decision at the airline. It had Boeing continual health monitoring capability but this was turned off by human decision at the airline. MH370 had ADS-B and secondary radar transponder - but these transponders were apparently turned off by someone in the cockpit who was unaware of the INMARSAT handshake to a SATCOM on standby. 8501 had ADS-B and was using it along with SSR, both these appear to have worked adequately to identify the likely crash site. It is arguable whether a SATCOM, ADS-C capability should be fitted to such relatively short water crossings as this one and the Gulf of Mexico. But as we have seen the wreckage is where it was expected from the last known ADS-B position report - so there is no real benefit from ADS-C. In short. there is no need for clever devices, new avionics, gizmos from Radio Shack... 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. Guess what - mandates are already in place for use of ADS-C, ADS-B and SSR. Indeed expect these mandates to require retrofit to all the older airframes within the next 5 years. Tracking exists, it works, aircraft can be tracked with an accuracy of a runway width if necessary anywhere in the world. So please stop trying to propose more expensive** hardware be fitted aircraft to replicate what is already completely adequate tracking capability. /rant ** Yes it may be available for $5 from Radio Shack and on every smart phone on the planet. But if you want to put it in an aircraft it is expensive as it has to be certified as not interfering with anything else on the aircraft. Multiply its cost by at least 1000 possibly 10000 if it is radiating radio signals and linked to the aircraft power or <gasp> has a rechargeable battery. |
2 very different issues:
1 - ATC "losing" airplanes 2 - Crew stealing airplanes #2 can only be dealt with by a device no one can turn off. I suspect most of us do not want anything that can't be turned off on an airplane. |
In short. there is no need for clever devices, new avionics, gizmos from Radio Shack... 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. Do the pPrune arguers for "real/live tracking" really want to spend hours grounded, or even diverting, because the system will not work/logon? The moment this gets elevated to "compulsory" this becomes a serious concern. If a satellite or 2 are lost, or find a more lucrative market for their bandwidth, are all airliner flights limited to times/areas covered by remaining capacity? NoD |
A professional SAR operation, dismisses any Asian SAR doubts anyone may have had.
If anything it highlights just how unusual the MH370 mystery remains. |
Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc
(Post 8802522)
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 I would add that if there is an important reason for a change in your track or level then tell the controller that at the time. Even on CPDLC a free text DM could be added to a climb request. perhaps "DUE WX". If the controller knows that there is a potential reason for concern then the normal procedures can be short-circuited. In this case close to an FIR/UIR boundary instead of asking the next controller the controller could have immediately cleared the climb, then tell the downstream controller that an aircraft in the 'area of common interest' has been given a climb, apologize but the climb was allowed due weather, expect following aircraft to climb too. It happens all the time. Tell the controller about severe weather, it will affect how (s)he reacts to responses for deviation or level changes and sector transit plans may be eased out a little so there is space for you and following aircraft to make deviations. |
I would support this 100%. I would add that if there is an important reason for a change in your track or level then tell the controller that at the time. Even on CPDLC a free text DM could be added to a climb request. perhaps "DUE WX". If the controller knows that there is a potential reason for concern then the normal procedures can be short-circuited. In this case close to an FIR/UIR boundary instead of asking the next controller the controller could have immediately cleared the climb, then tell the downstream controller that an aircraft in the 'area of common interest' has been given a climb, apologize but the climb was allowed due weather, expect following aircraft to climb too. It happens all the time. Tell the controller about severe weather, it will affect how (s)he reacts to responses for deviation or level changes and sector transit plans may be eased out a little so there is space for you and following aircraft to make deviations. "Unable", "declaring an emergency", "PAN, PAN, PAN" should be encouraged in events where there is an issue with the possible safety of the aircraft. Better to deal with some paperwork and maybe a call to the chief pilot's office or a hearing after the fact than winding up in the morgue. This also implies that there are cases where you may need to communicate first in order to aviate. Yes, this goes against the grain of conventional wisdom, but, once done, you have full latitude to aviate. Bottom line: use your legal authority to the fullest extent to get your passengers (and yourself) safely on the ground and don't be reticent about it. |
how can we be sure that the pilot requested change in altitude to avoid weather? He asked to deviate left of the path and requested an altitude change at the same time. IMO the pilot would have asked for immediate climb if he felt that the aircraft was in danger and could be saved by climbing..
|
Java sea crash site
|
Stator-vane...nail hit squarely on the head...i tell them where I am turning and how far...if ATC disagrees, then the "magic word" (and it aint please) is spoken...amazingly enough I have had to use the magic word twice or maybe three times in 17000hrs and a bit worth of flying..
|
how can we be sure that the pilot requested change in altitude to avoid weather? He asked to deviate left of the path and requested an altitude change at the same time. IMO the pilot would have asked for immediate climb if he felt that the aircraft was in danger and could be saved by climbing.. The issue here is assertion of authority, which ultimately rests with the PIC. Working with/complying with ATC is part of the job in normal circumstances as it should be. When things are abnormal, I am responsible and will do what it takes to ensure that I get somewhere safely. In the end, it's my airplane. |
Originally Posted by mseyfang
(Post 8802952)
The key here was that he supposedly asked for a deviation and FL change. If I need a deviation, I will take it and notify ATC after the fact. No different for a FL change; if I deem it necessary, I can invoke the magic words and just do it. Asking implies something desired rather than necessary.
The issue here is assertion of authority, which ultimately rests with the PIC. Working with/complying with ATC is part of the job in normal circumstances as it should be. When things are abnormal, I am responsible and will do what it takes to ensure that I get somewhere safely. In the end, it's my airplane. I agree with the fact that the PIC has the right to make decisions in order to save the aircraft but the PM needs to notify the atc before the decision is carried out or in adequate time. Otherwise their could be risk to other nearby planes. |
I find it "amazing" how this discussion has gone !
We "potentially" have an accident with a "possible primary" factor of "weather". And here, people are discussing "how do we track a downed aircraft" and "how do we get realtime cockpit recordings". Have you guys missed the point here ???? Just in case you've "missed it".... aircraft are suppose to fly. That's what they do best. And that's what people in this profession aim to do. Personally (in private aviation at least) we don't mind p*ssing off a passenger in order that we ALL stay safe. That may mean we don't go. We deviate or we use an alternate. In this case (as far as we know) we have a situation that developed. Why was it allowed to develop....and result in this accident ? |
Since the pilot asked for a change in flightpath can it be assumed that the pilot didn't realize the danger the TS posed? I agree with the fact that the PIC has the right to make decisions in order to save the aircraft but the PM needs to notify the atc before the decision is carried out or in adequate time. Otherwise their could be risk to other nearby planes. If you crash, the controller likely will feel really bad. You won't feel a thing. |
Radar on the airplane is used to see weather and sometimes ground for navigation many years ago. It is not designed for finding other airplanes.
|
Back to Basics
Not inferring anything about cause of crash but we as aviators in the industry have to take a look at ourselves and our standards again. Experience cannot be Taught. Airlines in their rush to expand and reduce cost putting inexperienced crews in advanced aircraft with little relevant experience and training. Basic aerodynamics is lost and aircraft manuals don't contain enough in depth information either because manufacturers are cutting cost, or they think it is not necessary for pilots to know, or they think airlines won't put a novice 1000 hour pilot in a long haul big jet or a combination of all these factors. What controls speed during different stages of flight? Ask and see what answers you will get. It is a sad day. Out climbing a tropical thunderstorm? For those of us who have been flying in the tropics seeing these storm brewing and mushrooming in minutes before our eyes, Buffet onset boundary, etc. the real meaning of Maximum, Recommend and Optimum altitudes, and when to declare mayday or pan pan if needed? Flying into a super cell maybe one of them? We in the industry have a whole lot of questions to ask ourselves and need to start now or we will be seeing more disasters to come. Again not trying to infer anything. Just food for thought as we go out to fly today. Rest in Peace all those lost flying the blue skies. Hope better and safer days come.
|
This is not to make any comment on this flight as we don't know the facts yet but another option as well as deviation off track is a timely 180 degree turn and return to the departure field or divert.
And yet another option is not to depart at all. |
Has anyone seen the exact quote of the deviation request?
Different news sites portray it in different ways, nothing new there, but they range from a routine request to "avoid clouds" to insinuating that ATC is partially blame for not allowing a deviation to avoid immediate danger. |
The wreckage of AirAsia’s missing Airbus passenger jet had in fact been discovered more than 36 hours earlier when Mohammed Taha, a 38-year-old fisherman, saw red and white metal objects in the water but dismissed them as ocean junk. Only when Mr Taha returned to his village on Monday night did he understand the grim significance of what he had seen and report it to police. An aerial search was launched at first light and by 8am, that unexplained debris had been found. First came reports that objects resembling a plane’s door and emergency exit had been spotted, then that a plane-shaped “shadow” had been seen under the surface of the water. Finally came the macabre news that bodies had also been sighted, in waters about 80 to 100 feet deep, some six miles from Flight QZ8501’s last known location. It was only 6 miles from the airplane's last known location and the search authorities only searched there because a fisherman made a report? This does not sound like a competent search organization--where a standard search process would start at the last known location and expand outward. [I had been expecting that the airplane would be found something like 50+ miles away--as one can understand it takes a long time to search large areas] |
I operate around SEA including this particular neck of the woods in my shiny bizjet, and I have found that on a moonless night, my FLIR (Enhanced Vision System) has shown me a couple CB top that I would otherwise have missed with just the WX radar and the eyeball...
Something to think about when the airlines spec out the next generation of Buses and Boeings.... I have heard that CX considered it, and decided against installing EVS for budget reasons, relying instead on the 3D WX-radar with enhanced predictive features.... |
Hold for Cb?
@NAROBS
While Holding may help traffic separation, note that a hold takes place essentially over the ground, while a Cb is in a moving airmass. I'm not entirely convinced the combination of those 2 factors is healthy... |
With the exception of VDL Mode 4 (which I dont think is in common use?) what systems are there that provide a means for the pilot of one aircraft to be aware of the position of others aircraft near his?
|
It was only 6 miles from the airplane's last known location and the search authorities only searched there because a fisherman made a report? This does not sound like a competent search organization--where a standard search process would start at the last known location and expand outward. [I had been expecting that the airplane would be found something like 50+ miles away--as one can understand it takes a long time to search large areas] http://oi62.tinypic.com/wwbwcp.jpg But out of politeness, I held my tongue. I hope this map was just a product of the public relations department and was not representative of where they were really deploying assets. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.