it is reported however that the item spotted by the Orion is some 700 nm [over 1000kms] away from the last known position....

Due to massive changes in technology, aviation has for sure changed for the better and safer.
For the same reasons, people's expectations have also changed.
It is increasingly intolerable for 100s of souls to be "lost" without trace whilst eyeballs to find them are deployed during daylight only.

SkyNews Australia has reported ...

"An Indonesian official says Australian planes have spotted objects in the area where an AirAsia flight carrying 162 passengers disappeared.

Jakarta's Air Force base commander Rear Marshal Dwi Putranto says he has been informed that an Australian Orion aircraft had detected suspicious objects near Nangka island, about 160 kilometres southwest of Pangkalan Bun, near central Kalimantan, or 1120 kilometres from the location where the plane lost contact.

'However, we cannot be sure whether it is part of the missing AirAsia plane,' Putranto says, 'We are now moving in that direction, which is in cloudy conditions.' ... "


1120 kms away from LKP of the missing aircraft?? Seems like this bloke is grasping at straws to get himself in the news. :(

Both of those numbers can't be right. 160 km SW from Pangkalan Bun isn't 1,120 km from the last known position. I mean, from Pangkalan Bun all the way to Jakarta is only ~ 680 km.

Debris of some sort spotted .... Maybe
 

Or you could take a look for a miss-translation or a typo.


Pangkalanbun is about 300 km EENE of the reported search area.
I doubt that the Orion would be looking 1120km from that area.

That's correct. Seems to me like it should have read, "1120kms from Surabaya airport". Pulau Nangka is certainly in the right area for potential wreckage.

The sea security post location where the report came from, is approx 34NM from LKP of the aircraft. It is also reported that local fishermen reported seeing an aircraft coming down and hearing the crash.
However, it appears those fisherman have yet to be officially interviewed.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...1/1554532.html

looks like the right general location to me, also lines up with the location of unconfirmed wreckage reported yesterday.

http://i.imgur.com/3zV2Osh.jpg

eh ????
 

Pulau Nangka (near Belitung) is about 350 km WWNW of Pangkalanbun
Though it is entirely possible that there are multiple "Pulau Nangkas" (Jackfruit Island) in the vicinity

According to an Air Force spokesman earlier today (Jakarta time), the last known position was bearing 247 degrees, 127nm from Pangkalanbun. So the debris would approximately be in the right area.

Vice President Jusuf Kalla is on TV now saying that they have not been able to confirm the nature of the reported debris.

The aircraft cannot be found instantly, therefore we get demands for all sorts of tracking devices. All of which would not really help in this instance.
Even if there is a locator beacon functioning correctly finding surface wreckage is a painstaking and time consuming task.
Floating debris will move with the currents and tides sometimes very rapidly hence the ever expanding search area.
For debris that is underwater even with functioning locator beacons, you need either helicopter with appropriate equipment or surface assets again appropriately equiped.
All of which again takes time and a painstaking methodical search.
For all the demands for up to the second traking devices not one of the suggestions would in this instance further the search effort beyond the current last known position.

Pure speculation, you can go around weather, there are other things to do besides climbing. And all this assuming weather had anything to do with it.

EAD Applicability
 

EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 2014-0266-E_1 NOVEMBER 2014
Applicability:
Airbus A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231 and A321-232 aeroplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

yes the most recent EAD regarding "frozen AOA" indicators (resulting in spurious speed decrease to close to or below VLS causing the nose to pitch down in Normal Law) does seem likely to be the cause. Maybe the pilots weren't aware of the new procedure ?!?

Another West Caribbean Airways Flight 708?

Guys - given the payload - what is the maximum altitude that aircraft could have safely operated at before getting too close to coffin corner?

"severe thunderstorms can destroy aircraft"
 

Aviation losses from lightning:

Aviation Losses from Lightning Strikes - National Lightning Safety Institute

Thunderstorms "severe thunderstorms can destroy aircraft"

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../AC_00-24B.pdf

Somewhat milder Scientific article:

What happens when lightning strikes an airplane? - Scientific American


Not a pilot, delete if you will

The storm cell was bigger than the crew and aircraft - mother nature wins every time. That's what I suggest! Happened many times before and will again. Rip pax and crew but please prove me wrong even with 1 safe sole.

Well, as an ATC, I still think that the procedure he was doing to avoid squall line of 100Nm was a very BAD choice. Instead of planning and "hoping" above he was avoiding it too late.

Sadly, he DID stall the aircraft, as I pointed out. He was flying 100KTS slower. At that ALT, this is serious stuff he is doing with an aircraft.

Some rules for avoiding the squall line:

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3X/qe/4bqOxGra/doanddont.jpg

I would say that depends on fuel load really in this case. Anything around FL370-380 would be "normal" but as they requested to climb to FL390 (?) then I guess they were able to go to FL390.

ATOW was 63.6 tons, TOF 8.3 tons.

Kementerian Perhubungan Republik Indonesia - Data Pesawat Air Asia QZ 8501 SUB-SIN Beserta Data Penumpang yang hilang kontak

JAKARTA: An object spotted during a sea search for an AirAsia plane was not from the aircraft, Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said on Monday after reports that an Australian surveillance aircraft had found something.

Object spotted in sea not from AirAsia plane: Indonesian VP - Channel NewsAsia

Coffin corner is a left over from yesteryear.
Todays technology has obliterated cc.

If you don't agree, tell us why.

FYI

NTSB Special Investigation Report
Wing Failure of Boeing 747-131
Near Madrid, Spain
May 9, 1976

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online...s/AAR78-12.pdf

On May 9, 1976, an Imperial Iranian Air Force Boeing 747-131 crashed as it approached Madrid, Spain. Witnesses observed lightning strike the aircraft followed by fire, explosion, and separation of the left wing. The report includes fire pattern studies, structural failure descriptions, trajectory analysis, fuel flammability calculations, gust loading analysis, and an analytical treatment of several hypotheses.

Utter nonsense. Behind the pretty simbols on the PFD the laws of aerodynamics are the same as ever. You tell us how technology has obliterated CC for subsonic aeroplanes.

Confusion abound !

The flight had requested a deviation (due to weather). This was approved.
There was a left turn.

The flight requested a climb (FL320 to FL380). This was not approved.
Subsequently ATC approval was give to FL340
No response was received from the flight.

A radar plot has surfaced in the media showing the flight at FL360 and 353kts.

Clarification please. Is this correct.

Ever heard of something called an FMC?
Or, perhaps an FMGC?

Yes JamesGV, I posted the latest known timeline a couple of pages ago, per briefing from AirNav Indonesia official.

?

You couldn't be more wrong - Two frozen vanes would cause Alpha Prot to erroneously increase up the speed scale. This would cause the stall protection system to kick in and force the aircraft to pitch nose down regardless of any side stick input. In effect the aircraft would be protecting itself from the stall before it needed to - A good thing in the Cb situation but not so good close to the ground.

However, if the pitot tubes became blocked (especially if climbing) then the opposite happens. The aircraft thinks it is going faster than it actually is and either the pilot or autopilot protects itself by pitching up unnecessarily and stalls for real - much worse.

This event, naturally, attracting numerous posts and I apologise in advance for not reading all of the foregoing. Speculation and comments thereof remain classic Pprune Rumours and News and is pleasingly encouraged. My take is on Command Selection, Training and demonstrated ability. IF this was a weather related event, I would be disappointed with a crew's handling. Faced with a wall of severe weather, why not turn back ? If that was not an option, why not divert to another airfield a wait it out ? Ty and out-climb a CB is lunacy. I am astonished by one media commentator (retired Airline Capt) who claimed that, sometimes, there was no option but to secure the cabin, secure the crew, reduce speed and , not kidding, quote,........"just take it on the chin ".............!!!!!

OLASEK, post 341, Excellent.

OLBIE, can YOU tell us how modern technology has made the CC discussion obsolete ? I can imagine that modern technology simply will not permit flight at or around limits but don't know if that is what you are suggesting. Lovely old days we could do that and even exceed limits. It is what gave us grey hair at an early age and made us old but not bold pilots.

Yes, I'd also be interested to read how subsonic aerodynamics has changed :confused:

What we don't know
 

The P2F or not question has been answered at least twice in the negative in this thread.
But one question I haven't seen dealt with is what is the significance of the instant loss of contact at operating height - if that is what the reports mean. If the aircraft stalled, would the transponder continue to signal in descent for a couple of minutes? Isn't that what AF447 did? If that happened, how would it be recorded? If so, when is it likely to be made public. if it didn't, could it mean the aircraft broke up at operating altitude?

@Peekay4

Cheers. Seems like they were "in it" (whatever "it" was) pretty quickly then.
And before the approved climb to FL340.

@Truckflyer

If AirAsia (Indonesia) follow the model of AirAsia (Malaysia), then to a Frenchman F/O, there would NOT be a P2F "option" available to him.

Bilbao Incident
 

The apparent trigger for the narrowbody Airbus AD

Lufthansa A321 near Bilbao on Nov 5th 2014, loss of 4000 feet of altitude | AeroInside

Rob

Outclimbing CB...
Not really sure what you guys are talking about here?
If I approach an area of thunderstorms I would like to get as high as possible while maintaing a margin to maximum altitude.
Why? I get a better view. I get the possibility to fly over the weather, rather than trying to pick my way through the weather at 30000 ft.

It's not unusual to climb and it's not unusual to fly in the vicinity of thunderstorms. Sometimes between, sometimes over. Sometimes I need to deviate 50 - 100 NM because i can't do either. I have never turned back or diverted enroute because of thunderstorms.

This flight was turning and wanted to climb. Nothing unusual about this.

This aircraft will be found, and the cause will be found. This is not an alien abduction, it's an accident.

Indonesian work permits are not easy to access for foreigners. This was one of the issues EageJet suddenly faced with Lion Air, which is a big P2F customer.

I have personally observed training in Europe of Lion Air pilots, and what their TRI's told them to expect when returning to normal line operations with Lion Air.

It's the elephant in the room, everybody who works with these companies knows about these issues, but nobody stands up and speak out!

its a little weird how some people are adamant that nothing can or should be done about tracking of aircraft. the incidence of 447/370/8501 events is rising and joe public must be thinking flying is getting to be a risky business. you can bet that irrational or not, he IS comparing the mobile phone versus aircraft and is not impressed to learn that apparently the desired safety level comes at too high a cost. might not market forces drive a change before long?

i deleted this link - with apologies for the inaccurate details

And that is no wonder.
When flying at ~260kts IAS (turbulence Penetration Speed) with a clean config 1g stall Speed of ~170 - 180 kts you have a stall margin of ~2g.
With 150% structural margin required you will probably need >4g to make the wings fail structurally. That would be a whopping 350kts+.
Thus the wing will stall loooong before it will break in cruise at altitude.
Only by entering a dive and trying to recover at lower altitudes and high IAS you will theoretically be able to shed feathers.

@Landflap
IF this was a 'weather related' event and if the crew flew this route on a regular basis, it's very likely that they had encountered similar weather conditions on many previous occasions.

After all, monstrous storms are fairly common in this area.

Maybe they just adopted their usual procedure for dealing with what they regarded as a routine situation, but on this occasion luck was just not with them...

I posted that radar plot on page one of this thread. There is also traffic UAE 409 at FL360 heading to Kuala Lumpur not too far ahead and left of track on M-635.