That's all great and well if you know where to look. It also adds the requirement for equipment on board of a ship/land that can transmit a (powerful) pulse on yet another frequency, rather than just listening with any device.

What we really need is longer lasting batteries AND a stronger pulse. The arbitrary spec requirement from the past has well and truly been proven inadequate. Fix it!

http://www.pprune.org/members/440631-a0283
AO283


I think you are confused...

Spittfire tails did not come off. Perhaps you mean Hawker Typhoon
or Tempest? (which did lose tails during development).

the Spitfire in all it's guises over a 10 year development period
was considered incredibly strong and it had to be, having the highest
Critical Mach No of any piston/prop powered fighter, demonstrated repeatedly
post war from altitudes as high as 50,000.

From the picture of the tail section, it is obvious that the heavy APU was torn out of its position. Maybe it caused the nibble to the lower part of the rudder.
Are the black boxes bolted to the pressure hull, forward of the unpressurised tail section?

The exit door frame appears almost completely doubled over. Wonder about the forces needed.

Registration characters
 

No one has mentioned it yet, but it appears that the various in situ photos included both left and right side registration numbers. Comparison of all in situ regis# photos to date suggest there are differences between letters re bends/folds. The raising of the tail section also shows that many clues as to shape and event sequence observable underwater will be lost when raised, with the raised debris having been further deformed and then flattened during recovery into more of an origami puzzle.

RE LOCATION OF FDR/CVR
 

Normally they are AFT of the pressure bulkhead. I have yet to see a photo of the bulkhead or fragments. It seems to be pobable that the location of the CVRFDR is/was on the bottom aft of the bulkhead and was torn off at the same time. Which does raise a question as to why near the bottom which hits first normally instead of near top of bulkhead ?

I'm surprised that the CVR/DFDR is exposed to the elements outside the pressure bulkhead like that (temperate extremes, hydraulic fluid, moisture, etc). Of course, I'm talking about the electronics external to the fireproof section.

Is this common for Airbus?

The water is reportedly only about 100 feet / 30 metres deep.
The currents are reportedly only up to about 6 knots.

If one assumed that the aircraft pancaked, or even broke up attempting to ditch, you would expect that the remainder of the aircraft, particularly all the concentrated mass components, ie, the dense and heavy bits, like engines, apu, mlgs, nlg, and if they separated from their mounting trays, the cvr, fdr etc, and the other larger major components like ths, outboard wing panels, and centre section, would be, indeed must be, immediately proximate, regardless of currents.
So far, that does not seem to be the case.

There is no evidence, at this stage, of any other major component wreckage, anywhere, let alone anywhere near the location of the tail.

It has been reported that a suspected pinger is over a mile away.

The reported condition of the recovered bodys (at this stage less than one third) suggests relatively low "g" conditions.

The leaked mode "s" data showed high rod at much below cruise level.

Taken together therefore, these observations suggest strongly to me, the high probability of an in flight breakup, not a whole aircraft experiencing surface induced structural disruption.

My viewing of the recovered upper empenage and fin, and lower rudder, suggests to me, that the ths, and it's mounting structure (including apu mounting structure and apu) most likely separated from the upper empenage by downward bending with pitch down torsion.
If that is the case, it would have taken tremendous downward ths loading of the support structure to do that, which suggests to me, probable breakup during pull-up, attempting recovery from a significantly pitch down attitude, at high speed (high dynamic pressure), probably at a relatively low altitude, ie, between FL200 - FL100.

Under such conditions, if the ths separated first, with the aircraft otherwise still "whole at that instant", the remainder of the aircraft would immediately, and violently, "tumble in the pitch down direction", with high angular velocity. The weakened empenage would "immediately" tear off, and the remaining fuselage aft of the wing, and the fuselage forward of the wing, would then both rapidly separate from the wingbox, probably before the pitch axis had even passed through the vertical. In the same timeframe, the pylons would fail, the engines would separate, and the outboard wing sections would fail in downward bending and torsion overload, and separate, probably at or just outboard of the pylons.

The schredded wreckage would then descend.

If that be the case, the greater the altitude of the breakup, the greater the dimensions of the resulting debris field.

The foreward section of the fuselage, and the remaing aft section of the fuselage, may have remained relatively intact, and may still contain most of the occupants.

If you've seen a video of the tail section being pulled onto the ship, I doubt there's very little you can deduce from any photos of the retrieved wreckage

Can anyone hazard a guess as to what would happen if a small explosive went off in the rear toilet?

Just who decides the level of recovery and investigation and for what reason?

The answer is the public decides, that's why the funding should come from the pubic sector.

If it was the industry alone, their needs only need to satisfy the regulator along the lines of continued airworthiness of their part of the product, be it design/manufacture, operation or maintenence.

The major barrier has always been the inability or unwillingness of the public to pay for questions to be answered. If it was left to some portions of the public, nothing would be done and only speculation would result.

It's really neither black nor white, but only a gentlemens handshake in the end as to who pays.

It looks like a belly flop. The horizontal stabilizer hit the sea surface, then under the impact force the tail is torn apart like a banana peeling.
See in imagine below: half of the pressure bulkhead is compressed, the accordion skin aft of LHS door, buckled structure at the bottom of leading edge of the vertical stabilizer
http://abload.de/image.php?img=2628x2471219u9b.jpg

I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
Detection Range At least 25 nautical miles in open ocean
Battery Life At least 6 months, possibly by reducing number of pulses and using smart transponder that does not go into regular short location signals until it receives a search request sonar signal
Encoded Location Signals The signals from the ULBs should be encoded with airframe ID, their position (last GPS position of the aircraft) and their depth in the water.

These requirements appear to be asking too much and all that is being offered is a slightly longer life battery.:oh:

Well then you will need a unit that's about 4 times as large to give more power output and longivity. But 25NM range: dream on unless you're talking of equipment capable of transmitting to submarines which is massive i.e Rugby.

Bulkhead
 

RE Phoenix pic...thanks for the higher res. Previous searcher comments were of impact as left wing low. But pic shows greatest impact force to left of center (looking aft) on the bulkhead meaning right wing low. Large impact on tail bottom (and probably fwd of that as well) with the bulkhead shearing bottom skin in tension seems suggested. Still nothing that clearly disallows pre-impact airframe failure.

RE PRESSURE BULKHEAD PHOTO
 

That photo is excellent. Note the little white rectangular strips, tabs around the periphery - which when taken with the major ' folds" and the ' grey" color looks to me more like insulation blanket(s) on the aft side of the aft bulkhead rather than bent aluminum. ON the outer ' rim" of the " [ bulkhead or blanket] " I also note the impression of rivet heads or buttons. This also leads me to infer what is seen is a blanket- since with that amount of deformation, rivets would be sheared or torn from the surrounding formed or extruded " ring " structure. [ e.g a circular "stringer" ]

In either case, it does look like a major downword force on the empenage/tail bending the whole mess upwords **perhaps* due to a nose high position at impact. :confused:

@ventus45

Thanks for the excellent photo. If we're looking at the aft side of the pressure bulkhead, are we also looking at the place where the FDR/CVR should be mounted? Or is the mounting on the bottom section which seems to be missing?

http://www.mediafire.com/view/grguqy...e-Bulkhead.png

Machinbird's suggestions have merit. There are already inflatable slides in aircraft. Perhaps toughening the material in them, and adding the supplementary recording/pinger devices to them, and ensuring they break free and inflate upon impact, could be one way of adding further location-finding assistance?

Not a scuba diver I guess?

100ft isn't significantly deep, but 'only' 6 knots? That's a *ripping* current.

Some good perspective in this news story video.

BBC News - AirAsia QZ8501: Plane tail is lifted from the sea bed

They are completely sealed units designed for massive G load, water, fire etc.

It is normal for these to be located here in many Airbus and Boeing planes;

http://asasi.org/papers/2007/The_Evo...l_Campbell.pdf

I am amazed at how many great ideas are coming out of people who know nothing about planes.

They insist things should be different, yet they don't cough up the money, or actually design stuff. They don't make prioritization decisions like...spend billion dollars on new gadgets when it might be better to spend money on avoiding the situation in the first place.

Most planes are pretty good. Stuff happens. IF you want to prevent all accidents are you prepared to pay 4 times current ticket prices to get even half a percent safer travel?

are you truly amazed ?
 

this used to be a forum for considered analysis of known facts from an industry perspective, all awaiting official data.
This changed and we have to read through hundreds of posts from ms flight-sim users and press trolls to read any relevant posts.
We signed on to prune to escape redtop mentality, yet here we have knee jerk after knee-jerk filling the pages.

Yes you can track an object to the fri**ing moon and back but it will not provide the answers which are, quite probably :

1) handing the management of flight ops to the accounts department on a plate
2) treating recruitment as a revenue source) see point 1)
3) denuding simulator sessions to the bare minimum required to stay legal, again see point 1

These apply even more so in developing aviation environments around the ITCZ. Companies for example drafting in pilots from temperate climes without a sim check / OPC, and minimal line training.

None of these apply to the airline in question here unless proven otherwise, however, flight sim users and hacks take note

And the airline owners are ....?
 

Not pertinent at all to the incident cause, but does anyone know who has the other 51% of Indonesia Air Asia?

Yes, I know the early history of the company and "possible" owners but current ownership seems to be very difficult to confirm.
This in itself suggests sensitivity over majority ownership which further suggests some VERY high flyer(s) who wish to remain out of the limelight when, in fact, they should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Tony Fernandez.

Glendalegoon, the best approach is a two-pronged attack. Yes, try to ensure the situation can't happen in the first place - but also try to ensure the wreckage can be found promptly, and with adequate surviving flight records to enable accurate findings, as to the cause of the crash.
We are faced with ever-bigger mysteries in many recent air crashes, and it's obvious the FDR and pinger areas need to be uprated and improved.

It doesn't take billions, it doesn't need entirely new "back-to-basics" gadgets - all it takes is some clever thinking to modify current systems.
I've no doubt the naysayers were out in their tens of thousands as well, when FDR's were first proposed.
"They'll never be able to get them to survive a crash! They'll cost more than the aircraft! They won't provide any worthwhile information! They'll never be able to find them!"

The same thing applied to airbags in motor vehicles when they were first mooted. They were laughed off scornfully as "fantasyland stuff" - yet some dedicated designers persisted, and I'll wager you now purchase your new vehicle based on its crash safety ratings, and the amount of airbag protection it features.

Oh come on. Say that to the thousands of relatives of those killed recently. AF447 and virtually every other recent prang has been caused by Loss of Control. If you're quite happy for this to continue, good for you. I suspect that most of the travelling public wouldn't be but they accept it because of total ignorance. Chuck a extra couple of dollars onto every ticket to pay for more Sim training. Nobody could care less about the increased cost. Will air travel be decimated? Of course not.

Teddy is partially right: "1) handing the management of flight ops to the accounts department on a plate" but that is a natural consequence of regulators that are obviously happy to accept the status-quo.

Another possible "detection" of black box
 

Very recent new tweet reporting on possible "detection" of black box.

From Jackson Board
"International Reporter & Producer @ChannelNewsAsia's digital newsroom."

"Jackson Board ‏@JackBoard 16m16 minutes ago
Unconfirmed reports specialist search team BPPT has detected #QZ8501 black box at depth of 30 metres, could be lifted today"

https://twitter.com/JackBoard/status/554103967450275840

http://www.news.com.au/world/breakin...-1227181176546

RE: are you truly amazed?

Teddy Robinson, sounds like you've settled on pilot error, LOC, and poor training as the cause. (Not that I'd be surprised.) :suspect:

New pic of tail
 

I found this picture of the recovered tail section, it shows the deformation from a different angle and the accordion like ripples in the skin.

http://media.themalaysianinsider.com...AFP-100115.jpg

"THREE ships equipped with ping detector beacons received pings from the same location," said Ridwan Djamaluddin, from the Agency for the Application of Technology, whose ship was involved in the search on Sunday.
He said the ping came from a location about one to four kilometres from where the aircraft's broken tail section was retrieved on Saturday."

Hopefully it's the black boxes and not that one of the ships left their ping detector's test tone on!

Leightman 957,
See imagine at better resolution and personal presumed forces of impact with sea
http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/27f...vb2la6auzg.jpg

Re the CVR/DFDR

The plugs and wiring at the back of the unit appear to be still exposed. Looking at the type of unit fitted to the A320, only the recorded data section is fire/G-/crashproof. The processing stuff and power supply are in the rectangular section at the rear of the unit (which would still go through extremes of heat and cold). If you see the plugs on engine electronic components in uncompressurised areas, you'll see that, eventually, the rubber plug-seals let fluids in.

On the contrary, (modern) Boeing boxes are all inside the pressure bulkhead (747-400, 737NG, 777, 767,...) away from the elements during normal operation.

And the owners are..
 

Qatar pushes for live aircraft data streaming | Avionics content from ATWOnline

...and more to come most likely... :p

One to four kilometers is still quite a bit of territory to search. Particularly if the FDR is no longer attached to a large piece of the fuselage. Visibility on the bottom appears to be no more than a few meters.

Do the divers have any directional hand held hydrophones they can use when they get nearby?

For those asking about the ownership of Air Asia Indonesia it is 49% owned by AirAsia Berhad (which is the Malaysian AirAsia entity) and 51% owned by PT Fersindo Nusaperkasa (the Indonesian shareholders). Under Indonesia law, all carriers must be at least 51% owned by Indonesians. This 51% rule applies to other industry sectors as well such as mining.

The CEO of PT Fersindo Nusaperkasa is Dharmadi. He was previously the CEO of AirAsia Indonesia. I have not been able to find any information regarding the shareholders of PT Fersindo but note the following:

Source: Indonesia AirAsia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source: AirAsia: No more IPOs for affiliates | theSundaily

Is may be reasonable at this point to assert that the aircraft entered the sea intact based on the following logic: the tail structure that was recovered, had it fallen from altitude, would have oriented itself with the relatively heavy vertical stabilizer on the bottom and the draggy fuselage wreckage on top. The vertical fin would have hit the water first and show damage at the top of the fin. It does not.

Indonesian searchers believe crashed AirAsia's fuselage found