But ELT might take up to 50 seconds to transmit... and will not successfully transmit if submerged at depth.

(Assuming the ELT survived the crash and the antennas weren't sheared off).

^^^^ Not ours. We have the ELT that comes with the aircraft which is activated by 'g' force and a model onboard the aircraft that will only activate in water if the actual beacon is removed from the latches in the aircraft (designed to take in the life raft). We have already established after MH370 that transmission of the ELT signal is extremely limited if the wreckage has sunk in the water.

This is shaping up as an Air France Part II.

ELT signal
 

Activates in water however signals attenuate rapidly in said same water.
One positive factor (if there is such a thing in this case) is that water depths are "generally" quite shallow in all of that area.
But then, an aircraft entering the water vertically at high velocity, or most of that aircraft, might well end up buried in mud because of the shallowness of the water.

The winds
 

I had a look at the wind block on EK409's OFP. The flight preceding 8501. Forecast for RAFIS:

FL350 101/17
FL380 103/20

Hence he was very slow indeed.

Use caution ...
 

Carjockey

I would be very cautious about any unofficial, unverified and also, probably, most verified reports of "findings".
This area has a really poor record of such findings turning out to be completely bogus (refer Adam Air incident) or a burned out bus with four families living in it.
The SAR people are probably the best source, but I think they were the ones who got it wrong with Adam Air

4pm local they finally accept Singapore SAR assets.

GS of UAE409 was 503kts on the radar picture. This is a tailwind component of about 40-50 kts.

353kts as a GS would be about 300kts TAS at FL363, certainly less than minimum clean IAS. But then it is an Airbus.

Indonesia has sophisticated surveillance equipment in the area, including three specially modified B737s. The last known position is also just 35nm from an Indonesian Navy base which apparently had the plane on its radar.

Three miles, errr No, tailwind of 20 kts or so.

You're the second Aussie that's come up with this. Call up NAIPS and check out the jet streams in the area! :=

I don't understand this headwind issue..that's not a problem ever.. the tailwind could be but not the headwind , even in cruise or in climbing.:confused:

Airbus statement:

Statement | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer

I cannot really see what relevance the Wind Charts have if you are trying to establish GS / IAS / TAS relationships near CBs?

Almost by definition, the CB will significantly alter the local W/V, and in severe cases by 100K or more.

@WingNut60

Thanks for your message.

FYI, I've spent over 20 years in SE Asia and I have a good understanding of the nature of the place in which I live...

I have not formed and nor have I stated any opinion on this forum regarding the fate of this flight, I have simply posted links which may, or may not, be relevant.

Like everyone else here, I just want to know and understand exactly what happened to this flight.

Usual rubbish being posted. Usual rubbish on the media. Nothing wrong with educated speculation, but not nonsense like "requested climb from FL320 to FL380".

The 3 likely possibilities seem to be; 1 catastrophic structural failure caused by an on-board explosion, 2 loss of control due to mishandling following pitot/AOA/ static source icing and subsequent Unreliable Speed Indication, or 3 pilot suicide, Tiger-Airways/Egyptair/etc style. None of these events would cause the crew to immediately issue a Mayday; that would not be a priority.

Presumably these a/c were not fitted with ACARS. All will be revealed if the FDR/CVR are recovered intact.

How deep is the water where the a/c presumably went down?

I also wonder just how much (if any) training for high altitude upsets has been given to the pilots in this particular carrier. It has been a major area for study and sim practice in many Western airlines. Airbus has put much information out to airline safety departments following the reports of the AF447 accident.

I also wonder how experienced the pilots were. PTF FO's are all too common in the Far East, where flying conditions can be very challenging. And how much additional gas was the aircraft carrying? Fuel policy issues can come into play too when it comes to route deviations.

But climbing 6,000 is no recognised way to deal with CB's. The A320 with the given passenger load would not have had the legs to climb straight to FL380. Just refer to the QRH for the type. FL360 maybe, but lateral deviations are the standard means of avoiding nasty weather.

...here's a depth chart for the Sunda Shelf...you can see the area in question is quite shallow...

http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/655569sunda.png

Reminds me of the Swiftair MD83 earlier this year. Wrong interpretation of weather radar or poor judgement about what action to take to avoid massive CBs.

@RoyHudd

Do you have an issue with factual information given by official sources? :confused:

Says the armchair investigator who's apparently already identified "The 3 key possibilities" ......

A case of do as I say but not as I do RoyHudd ? :E

On a more serious note. Please guys, lets not turn this one into a rampant MH370 thread full of whacky armchair theories .... how about just allowing the good old fashioned SAR and subsequent investigation by to take its course.

All the armchair theories here do is to feed the devil that is the media .... and I don't think any of us want that !