I wrote this meteorological analysis, which contains the SigWx and upper wind charts in question.

Indonesia Air Asia 8501: A Meteorological Analysis | Irish Weather Online

Fireflybob : What ICAO says is a recommended practice, not the Country regulation .

I do not know what Indonesian AIP is saying , no time/will to check.
But what is in that AIP is what should have been done.

In most States the term " MET briefing " is not a mandatory one as you can depart from airport which do not have a Met office, or even ATC, therefore you normally have " as far as practicable " in there but again I do not know what Indonesia has written .

What everybody normally has is a rule that before any flight you must inform yourself of relevant weather en route and carry the appropriate Wx charts with you.(paper or electronic). If this has not been done then you indeed have a problem . As I understand from locals ,the Surabaya airport met office prepared the paperwork for that flight and delivered it after the aircraft had departed , as it took off well ahead of shedule. That is apparently one of the issues .

Proof
 

I'm a little fed up of the constant drip feeding from the local authorities. It seems every day they've located yet another large piece of the jet, first it was with the mk1. eyeball, now it is with sonar.

It is reminiscent of the constant press gatherings of MH370 which were half truths and lies just to make it look like they had been busy and we're making progress. When I see proof, I will believe them. However I have a feeling they know only a very general area of where the jet is based on floating debris, and nothing more.

A culture where saving face and looking all knowing is not conducive to a professional and accurate recovery mission nor subsequent investigation.

Five minutes of research reveals the following:

*Indonesia has ratified the Warsaw Convention but not the more modern Montreal Convention
*Malaysia has ratified the Montreal Convention
*Limit of liability under the Warsaw Convention is about $24,000 USD.
*Limit of liability under the Montreal Convention is about $170,000 USD
*An airline can be sued at its principal place of business under both conventions. There are good arguments for this being either Indonesia or Malaysia. The airline would certainly seem to be run from Malaysia.
*The carrier is prima facie liable for a death from an incident on its airplane unless it has taken all necessary measures to avoid the death under both the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions.

The Telegraph is reporting that the tail section of the aircraft may have been found.

Search for AirAsia QZ8501: Indonesia navy 'finds tail section of missing plane' - Telegraph

Maybe Air Asia re-scheduled their flight to 0530 LT on that sunday morning, specifically to depart before 0000Z. Therefore they could claim to have actually departed on a saturday, Zulu time.

Have you any idea how stupid the quoted post is? They are releasing info as it comes to hand - this isn't drip-feeding, it's being as open as is reasonable. They cannot release info they don't have :ugh:

It's really sad to read the level of drivel that so many posts have sunk to :yuk:

Not a lawyer, but as far as I know there is no requirement to prove negligence under the Montreal convention. All you (or your family) have to prove is you were a passenger and suffered a loss. The convention serves as a global safety net to cover people who may not be able to access legal representation. There are a number of trade offs in return for this waiver from the usual requirement to demonstrate negligence - the cap, and a 2 year statute of limitations.

It is only for claims in excess of this cap (USD $170000 approx) that negligence has to be established.

Not sure about the details of the earlier Warsaw convention.

Presumably AA have cover to meet Montreal convention payments, and presumably also cover for negligence claims in excess of this.

However I wonder if authorities may be concerned there may be sufficient grounds for Allianz to deny (or at least seek to deny) cover. This could explain the finger pointing which otherwise seems unusual. The comment about wanting people to sue AA seems particularly odd.

CNN reports:
 

“...Divers searching in the depths of the Java Sea for wreckage from AirAsia Flight QZ8501 say big waves on the surface aren't the only difficulty they're facing. They also can't see in front of them down on the sea floor.The diving teams who made their way to the bottom of the sea Sunday encountered muddy waters with zero visibility, according to officials.The Indonesian Navy has sent special equipment to try to tackle the muddy conditions, Indonesian military chief Gen. Moeldoko said Monday.U.S. Navy divers assisting in the search have already been using side-scan sonar gear, which is designed to map the sea floor and capture accurate images for analysis.

When they find submerged wreckage, divers could also face challenges like "jagged edges, torn fuselage, things hanging all over the place," said Geno Gargiulo, an experienced commercial diver in the United States."It's going to be dark inside -- a lot of things for a diver to get snagged on, for its umbilical to get caught up on, to get disoriented," said Gargiulo, who says he's helped in the aftermath of recent catastrophes, including the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

***Highlighting the complexity of the challenge, Moeldoko said Monday that one large piece of wreckage initially believed to be part of the aircraft turned out to actually be from a ship.

Objects obscured by waves

The ships and aircraft looking for remains from Flight QZ8501 have so far recovered 37 bodies and detected several large pieces of wreckage believed to be from the commercial jet, according to Indonesian officials. But they still haven't located the main body of the plane and the all-important flight recorders....

The bad weather conditions brought about by Indonesia's monsoon -- including strong winds, thick clouds, heavy rain and big waves -- have hindered the teams' efforts during nine days of searching....."As soon as you see something in the distance, it disappears behind a wave -- and then it's very difficult to try and spot it again," said CNN's Paula Hancocks, who spent 15 hours out on a search vessel Sunday....

****Initial compensation offers

Details emerged over the weekend of initial compensation packages from AirAsia to the families of the victims. Many family members have been waiting anxiously for news of their loved ones in Surabaya, where officials have set up a crisis center to keep them updated as bodies are gradually recovered from the waves and identified on land.

Several relatives told CNN on Sunday that families of those on board the plane were presented with a draft letter from AirAsia outlining details of preliminary compensation of about $24,000 for each family member who was on the plane. While some families signed the letters, others requested revisions to the wording. This compensation money is for any "financial hardships" during this period of the search, and in the letters AirAsia stressed that it was not a confirmation that the people on the plane were deceased...."

As noted above, $24,000 is not coincidental. It is Air Asia's limit of liability under the Warsaw Convention (if it applies - which is a very big if at this time).

Call me cynical but I would postulate that the letter will seek to limit Air Asia's liability in return for this payment.

AirAsia QZ8501: mentions of crash being removed from Wikipedia sites - News - Gadgets and Tech - The Independent

I think the 'Incidents and Crashes' bit has gone now too.

Really, the wiki at Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is pretty comprehensive...

A320 Flight Controls - stall or no stall?
 

Dear all. For all non pilots and those who do not know the Airbus, please let me shed some light on its built-in automation:

The Airbus is different from conventional aircraft by having two flight augmentation computers (FAC) which prevent the plane from leaving its normal flight envelope. This includes over- and under speed, g-load, bank angle and the angle of attack (AOA). If all works normally, the aircraft is in “normal law". It cannot be deliberately overbanked, flown at a higher or lower than certified speed and this excludes a stall by definition. And it really doesn’t. Should two flight relevant systems such as a FAC and an air data computer fail simultaneously, the flight control system degrades to “alternate law”. This is true for the A320, the A330 is slightly different in this respect. In “alternate law”, only a g-load protection is retained. The aircraft can be stalled. Adding certain other failures or lowering the landing gear will engage “direct law”, where stick deflections translate directly into proportional surface movement. No protection whatsoever. The Airbus then behaves like a conventional airplane again, but is a bit more difficult to fly in this mode.

The flight augmentation computers do a good job when fed the right information by the sensors. Problems start, when these fail: malfunctioning pitot tubes, for example, might suggest an over speed condition where there is none. In this case, the Airbus is programmed to lift the nose slightly, should the pilots take no corrective action by reducing the speed. This cannot be overridden in “normal law” by pushing the “magical red button”, as has been suggested in an earlier post. The instinctive action of reducing the speed though would definitely be the wrong action at FL 360 and at normal cruising speed. So it doesn't take too much imagination to see how much confusion even such a relatively simple malfunction of automation could potentially cause. There are quite a few other examples as well.

Flying an attitude on the stby-adi and a power setting which together produce an expected airspeed is the initial fix to most problems. Then, diagnosis can start. That's why more basic flying skills are needed with these new generation airplanes, not less. Although the new flight control system was – and probably still is – seen as a bridge to full automation without any human intervention at all, Airbus have recognized the problem and recommend to airlines to increase the training of basic flying skills. Training costs a lot of money, though, and I’d very surprised indeed if many cash-strapped airlines would heed a manufacturer’s recommendation and train more than is required by the regulators.

And yes, I personally have come across quite a few young colleagues who have never flown anything else than the Airbus and for whom interpreting a VOR needle poses a major problem. Not their fault, they just weren’t taught. And sadly, many airlines just seem to accept the remaining level of risk. As long as the whole rest works as it should, no problem… !?

This is not a culture due to local tradition in Indonesia, this is completely standard political activity sloping shoulders and trying to avoid any blame settling on them by claiming failures on other people's part. You see the same political maneuvering for 'blame avoidance' in large public incidents anywhere in the world. The noisier the behavior of the politicians/ministers involved the more likely they believe that they have some blame to avoid. There is then the overwhelming feeling of politicians that they need to DO something. In UK and USA this leads to a flurry of knee jerk legislation after an incident and political point scoring. In this case some unfortunate uninvolved minions may have lost their jobs - so politicians can be seen 'doing something'.

1+

I know a few colleagues that have done the last stall and deep stall training on their training aircraft during their basic flight formation. Today they are captains on A320/A330/A340. They simply have no clue about how it would be with an Airbus, as there is no training being done.

Sadly, most airlines say, it is the pilots obligation to ask for such training.

Last 3 posts have hit the nail on the head.

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.

After reading University's great post I'm now beginning to wonder if fly-by-wire was such a good idea afterall...:ugh:

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry after reading that. How can anyone call themselves a professional pilot if they don't know the basics, such as how to interpret a VOR needle? Makes you wonder what they do during their cyclic PPC checks.

yup...some cars "accelerator by wire" went to TOGA uncommanded when moisture had penetrated somewhere when it shouldn't have...like the AOA vane shaft seal failing and moisture entering the mechanism and freezing, thus failing the AOA vane on position,,,wreaking havoc.on the 320 anyway...full back stick, no help..requires QUICKLY reaching overhead and switching off ADR 1&2 before control can be regained...there are many benefits to FBW, and of course, some pitfalls as well...usually discovered by some poor crew in less than ideal weather conditions...