khaosai

the head line as stated "Crashed AirAsia flown by co-pilot" there seems to be a lot of emphasis put on the fact the co-pilot was flying, this is really at this stage of the investigation to be of very little consequence, probably more to the point he was not Indonesian...

The captain is the senior pilot and at any stage could have just said "I have Control" and taken control, there is no suggestion that he did so, certainly not on the CVR recording unless the Indonesians are hiding things.

I wonder who is responsible for monitoring the weather radar? Pilot flying or Pilot monitoring?

Both would be responsible for monitoring the weather radar. Weather can be selected on the Captains and First Officers navigation display.

This crash was caused by

1. Sensor failure

2. Pure Pilot error

3. Pilot error linked to (1.)

4. Auto pilot error linked (1.)

or a very unlikely mechanical failure - although in saying that - it is interesting to note that several reports have already indicated an urgent call to revise maintenance procedures which could be a hint that they already know why the aircraft got out of control

So with this statement you've ruled out what, alien abduction?

if you want to go with that up to you

One thing that I mentioned a couple of weeks ago was that this may prompt a rethinking of the use of the AP to make altitude/course adjustments during severe weather, punching numbers into a screen instead of flying the plane may no longer be recommended, I'm actually and always have been convinced that this was caused by the AP and pilots having too much confidence in it's capabilities especially in adverse weather, so I'll add one more 5. Auto pilot trying to fly the plane outside of it's program capabilities and pilots unable to recover the error in time

You don't punch numbers into a screen to avoid weather.

It's a simple task in the flight deck carried out by a pilot engaging the heading select switch with the autopilot remaining engaged throughout the maneuvre unless pilot intervention is required. What is important is a healthy respect is maintained for thunderstorm activity and ensure adequate lateral deviation, not vertical deviation as has been mentioned.

Autopilots and flight director systems on modern aircraft are exceptionally good, however they need proper monitoring and a good understanding. If they are not performing as expected then early pilot intervention will be required.

Looks similar to a 787 but with a380's noisy flap actuators

I was waiting for it to stall because of its faulty pitot tubes.

Airbus passengers are either clapping at the end of the ride because they're surprised they made it OR THEY are screaming in sheer terror whilst their pilots fight the planes computer for control.

?

You show a real lack of class sir.

Hopefully they find the flight data and cockpit voice recorder soon so to get a definitive answer on what caused an experienced crew to come unstuck. I don't have the answers and can speculate like everyone else. What I can offer is a professional input with as much accurate information as possible on the job and potential threats involved.

Weather may have played a part in the accident. Other aircraft in the region were close on 100 miles off track.

You can get ice crystal icing which is a fairly new phenomenon and is still not fully understood. It can happen in any part of the world but is more prevalent in tropical regions. The ice does not stick to the aircraft structure in any real form but can affect the temperature probes on the aircraft and also affect the parts of the engines which are not heated and protected by engine anti ice. This can lead to engine issues and/or total air temperature (TAT) probe issues. This may prevent the auto throttle of being able to maintain the desired speed. On the aircraft I fly we now have a specific checklist to cover this encounter.

You also have the potential for severe turbulence which may be related to thunderstorm activity or could occur in clear air. Pilots have a specific procedure on how to manage a severe turbulence encounter. If the aircraft is mishandled it could lead to loss of control. A high altitude stall could occur and needs a positive input to ensure recovery. The emphasis needs to be on a reduction of the angle of attack first and foremost.

Why no pan or mayday call ? It has all the hallmarks of something that developed quickly. Time will tell.

In an ideal world you would get the met briefing package from flight dispatch. If you know that might be a problem based on departure time then some prior prep at home via the Internet would give you an idea of the weather conditions to be expected. I can personally download the up to date flight plan, weather and Notam package I will need onto my ipad prior to leaving home.

Another source of information would be via air traffic control who will be able to provide at the very least the actual conditions at destination.

You also have the crews experience, particularly the captain who spent a career flying in that region and who would have a good awareness of the en route and destination weather to be expected for that time of the year.

Lastly, and assuming it's working, you have the onboard weather radar which gives you a real time picture of the weather up to 320 miles ahead of the aircraft.

people keep going on about the weather having caused this and to a certain extent that might be true, but I still say that modern aircraft can pretty much deal with what ever any weather can throw out there unless extreme or close to the ground, diverting - altering - changing is purely in the interests of passenger comfort, it is quite possible that in trying to find a less bumpy ride through a cloud formation so nobody spills their coffee that a pilot might look for a less turbulent path (radar)

- the key here is how he performs that task and the reliance of the systems on the plane to carry out possible course changes

- I'm still with the opinion that this was an autopilot error were the pilot relied on the computer to make some simple course changes that went wrong for whatever reason, it could be that in the future pilots should turn the auto pilot off in adverse weather and take manual control.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread - it is very easy to punch a few figures in on a screen to get the computer to do your bidding and make flight adjustments but you are not actually flying the plane - the computer is, when there's a problem in the sensors or some sort of mechanical problem with the plane (which I very much doubt unless someone forgot to tighten a nut somewhere during maintenance) it then becomes a race for the pilot to drop his comfort zone and realise there is something not right and do something about it, by that time (seconds) it is probably too late and the plane is already well out of control with the AP having made a serious - next..........

after that the very experienced pilot tries to regain control but does or doesn't quite make it and either way the plane hits the water hard (or soft depending how you look at it) breaching the hull which causes the plane to take on water very quickly, some people may have been able to open emergency doors (under very traumatic conditions) as it was sinking but were unable to actually exit because of the inrush of water so they were trapped, once filled with water and sinking fast the plane now filled with water and sinking reached a depth of more than 20 meters or 60 feet (probably less) at a depth which nobody can exit and swim to the surface and survive - some may have tried

That is what I think went on here - the ultimate blame IMO is with training and not understanding the limitations of systems and computers to fly aircraft in adverse conditions and also the fact that older pilots might be a little too reliant on modern technology without understanding it has limitations

My recommendation - if you are flying into weather - turn the autopilot off and fly the plane until the danger is passed

Just thinking out loud

We don't actually know what has happened to these poor souls.

Modern aircraft are very strong but there will only be one winner if one is foolish enough to fly through severe weather. Pilots deviate from weather for flight safety reasons, not for comfort.

Assuming no weather radar failure then the weather threat is depicted on your navigation display. The task of deviating to the left or right of that weather is a very simple task. Engage the heading mode and turn it left or right.

Most turbulence encounters will be manageable with the autopilot remaining engaged. That combined with the auto throttle do a very good job on most occasions. If severe turbulence is encountered and if required you would then disconnect the autopilot and set the appropriate thrust level and fly the correct pitch attitude first and foremost.

I don't fly the Airbus 320 aircraft but on the aircraft I fly we have 4 ELT's onboard. 2 are located in the door slide/raft, one forward and one aft of the aircraft. They will work when the door slide/raft comes into contact with water. 2 more are located in stowage areas, one forward and one aft of the aircraft.

We also have a fuselage mounted ELT. It is located in the top centre of the fuselage overhead the passenger cabin area and transmits on frequencies 121.5, 243, and 406 MHz. It will automatically transmit when it senses a high deceleration or when the switch is positioned to on.

@ArvinTunas they said Air Asia flew more than it was permitted to and didnt ask for changes or extra flights."

http://twitrpix.com/c7pmu

If they took off without filing a flight plan and getting permission, I'd say they are screwed. I hope that isn't true.

Based on my experience If you call air traffic control for your departure clearance and there is no flight plan filed then it be will highlighted to the crew who will then have to contact their flight dispatch to get it filed/re filed.

I can't imagine being cleared to cross borders to a major international city with fair paying passengers.

I would think that if there was any sort of control over the aircraft in the final stages then a mayday call would have been made.

There is another theory now that the discovery of an exit door and some fully clothed bodies and the lack of an emergency beacon signal indicates there was no impact, and perhaps the pilots attempted a water landing, and some may have escaped before a wave submerged the plane.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/airasia-plane-landed-on-sea-before-being-swamped-by-huge-wave/story-e6frg6so-1227172177981?from=public_rss&utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=29711941

I would imagine the crew would have made a mayday call if they had any form of real control over the aircraft.

Speaking as a pilot of 30 years plus experience let me give you my take.

First I should explain that no commercial airline pilot is allowed to hand fly the aircraft above 5,000ft.

Entering a storm cell is like riding a bucking bronco.

The instruments will be useless and the pilot has no outside reference.

Over the sea at night there are no visual references.

By the time the aircraft enters a stall spin the chances of recovery are zero if in cloud.

Just to clear up some points on the above discussions:

Commercial Airline Pilots are most certainly allowed to hand fly the aircraft above 5000ft. They are pilots first and foremost. Some may choose not to hand fly the aircraft and there will be many occasions where use of the autopilot is more appropriate, busy airspace for example.

Airlines around the world do employ many ex military pilots. There is no reason not to employ them. Airline pilots are made up from many different backgrounds.

On occasion the first officer may have more experience on a particular aircraft type than the Captain and on occasion the First Officer may have much more total flying hours than the Captain.

I wonder if this crash will raise any questions about P2F airlines and the stupid rules/laws that allow airlines around the world to employ 'low hour' pilots to form part of a two crew flight deck on commercial passenger flights?

Captain Iriyanto may have been an excellent and well experienced pilot, however, even fantastic pilots make mistakes. I'm not saying that this Captain was responsible for what occurred on THIS OCCASSION, I don't know that at this point, nobody knows exactly what was going on in that flight deck, AT THIS POINT IN TIME. But I will say, during a phase of emergency in a cockpit, it's really benificial to have EXPERIENCED FLIGHT CREW, not one but two of them ,AS A MINIMUM. Of course the more experienced people you have around when one makes a mistake, the greater chance you have of the other people picking up on that mistake.

In years gone by, aircraft commonly use to fly with with a flight crew of three, usually two pilots and a flight engineer. Over the years flight engineers became redundant and most commercial planes out there now fly with two crew. The planes have changed and technology has reduced workload DURING NORMAL OPERATION allowing two pilots to easily fly the aircraft. BUT...

...BUT, when a flight encounters problems and then turns Into an emergency situation, it's very easy for task saturation to overwhelm two pilots, heck it's even possible for these situations to overload a team of pilots, such as the well publicised incident involving the Qantas A380 above Singapore.

Anyway, what I'm trying say (& be brief about it) is that pilots really start to earn their money when things start to go wrong. Even the worlds best pilot with 25,000 to 30,000 hours will really need help when all the holes in the cheese start to line up and the alarms and bells start ringing. These situations are really stressful, stressful beyond what most people understand and often just seconds in time and a few basic decisions and actions may result in the loss of hundreds of lives. Most pilots with barely 2000 hours wouldn't be the guy you would want sitting next to you when and if one of these situations occurs, although I accept there's always exceptions to the rule.

Anyway, that's what you can get with so e of these budget airlines, is low hour pilots with considerably less experience. Again, I'm not saying that's what caused this Air Asia crash but what I am saying is Experience is invaluable during emergencies. I cringe to think what might have occurred in that cockpit leading up to this crash.

What is P2F ? (I hear you say)

P2F, takes these issues to an even lower level. I'm not saying that Air Asia Indonesia has P2F piloting schemes, I'm not sure but there's quite a few budget airlines out there that do.

P2F is where the first officer on the flight has actually paid the airline to have his position on the flight deck. Commonly these P2F pilots sign a contract with an airline where they work with an airline for say 2 years and they pay the airline $70,000 to $100,000 (plus) to obtain the F.O. Position and occupy the first officers seat on the flight deck. These Pilots work unpaid and usually only have their uniforms and lay over accommodation supplied by the airline. In exchange for all this money and time they get to build their flight hours.....obviously with the hope of securing a paid position with either the airline they P2F with or another airline once they've built their hours.

So, it's entirely possible, that with P2F airlines, you may have a Captain with say 6-7000 hours flying the aircraft and his mate in the right hand seat has only several hundred hours, maybe 1000-2000 hours flying experience. I am talking TOTAL flying experience here. YOU WILL NOT find this with airlines like Emirates, Singapore, Qantas <insert airline name>. A 2000 hour pilot will not get a F.O. position with these major airlines.....but the budget airlines rely on these guys.

So it's not just the food, cheaper plane interiors and reduced level of service you get with the low cost carriers but it's also things which IMO are so what very serious, especially when it comes to emergency situations.

Anyway, it's slightly off topic,as there has been no suggestion that P2F has played a part in this Air Asia tragedy.....but I'm Not surprised that a guy with only 2000 hours was in the F.O.'s seat.....I might not be surprised BUT A FEW OF YOU should be worried.

It may be the case where something caused this crash other than the pilots actions and something completely isolated to their respective experience....but the PAX of the world out there should probably reconsider what is important about flying.

There's no sky hooks out there people, when push comes to shove, gravity always wins. Sadly aviation laws arnt protecting the general flying public. The aviation industry has been speeding down a very ugly road for many years now, it's come at a time when planes (apparently) have been made safer through technology but at the same time, certain airlines attempt to cut costs to compete, in order to acheive those low airfares....something has to give.... And the money is saved somewhere. THINK about it.

I could also talk about 'Automation' too but maybe I will save that for another time.

RIP Captain, RIP First Officer and RIP to all your crew and passengers.

Hi,

Pay to Fly I don't agree with. It is purely driven by airline executives minimising expenditure, but it does not necessarily end up with incompetent crews in the skies overhead.

Pilots with low hours are perfectly capable of flying large commercial aircraft. If they turn up with a good attitude to learning and have been given the proper training the end result is a safe competent operator.

You would not try and climb over any sort of thunderstorm activity. You would deviate left or right of track. That track deviation decision would include the location of the weather cell and which direction the upper wind is coming from so to try and remain upwind.

Ideally you would get permission to deviate off track to avoid the weather but if that's not possible you would deviate to ensure the safety of the flight.

Lateral deviations are easier to approve. Vertical deviations are a little more challenging, particularly in busy airspace where you will have other aircraft above and below.

I don't know about other countries, but in the US you won't even get your first private pilot's license until you demonstrate proficiency in recovering from a stall. In a real airplane. In the air. In a real stall. Over and over until it's automatic. It's part of your flight exam too for the license. You have to show how to enter the stall to prove you know what can cause one, and then you have to recover in such a time and manner as to convince the examiner.

Indeed. When I was getting my license I had gone through countless number of stalls, both departure (full power) and approach to landing stalls (power off). You need the experience to be able to detect when you are in a configuration that is approaching that point as the most critical and likely points of stalling are taking off and landing.

Also, unusual attitudes were part of my training such as closing your eyes as the instructor takes control and puts the aircraft into a variety of maneuvers and gives you back the controls to recover. Also did it under 'the hood' that is simulated instrument conditions. You learn to trust the instruments and not your feeling. Also was required to practice spins. On my 2nd solo flight I went up and practiced departure (aka full power stalls). Something went wrong and found myself pointed straight to the ground and spinning. That was a change of underwear experience as I wasn't taught spins yet. Came back and landed still shaking and discussed it with my instructor and he explained secondary stalls.

When I was getting my license, in the first couple of hours of training time, the instructor

looked over at me and said he was going to show me a spin. Which he then immediately

did.........As we were spinning to the ground in what appeared to me to be complete loss

of control, I remember asking him if he knew how to recover..... :-) He finally did.....

So when I got my license, there was no training for spin recovery. Due to the large number

of private pilots who have died due to entering a spin after perhaps a brief interlude into

a cloud, I believe that it is now part of the training.

With so many pilots nowadays getting a significant part of their training in a simulator,

am starting to think their real life response to unusual attitudes is not so good...AF 447

should have been a wake up call for the entire industry.

The facts of this situation are pretty slim at this point, but it sure looks like weather could

be a factor. So lets say your plane is flying straight towards a thunderstorm. You then make

a command decision to either fly over the top of it , or go to the sides of it. You then contact

air traffic control to ask for a course change. Let say they refuse.......Do you continue to

fly into the thunderstorm, or do you make a course change and blow off air traffic control??

You would never endanger the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants by flying into severe weather. Plan well ahead and communicate your request early to ATC. If unable then communicate your intentions to ATC or other traffic on frequencies 121.5/123.45

In certain part of the world there are specific contingency procedures published if you are unable to establish communication and a deviation is required be it for weather or technical reasons. These involve turns off track, deviating a certain distance and climbing or descending by a set amount.

You can squawk an emergency on your transponder and go anywhere you want. ATC has to clear a path for you.

Good point regarding the transponder but in certain parts of the world I fly in I end up squawking 2000 as the transponder is of no use. You could use ADS in emergency mode but for weather deviation that would be a little extreme. A "weather deviation required" or PAN call will do the trick and if no comms then fly the contingency procedure as described.

I would imagine the majority of pilots never learn to fly in a simulator or large aircraft. The basic grounding is on small aircraft and then moving on to larger more complex aircraft as their experience levels increase. Very much the crawl, walk, run philosophy that most flight training organisations should advocate.

I don't know about other countries, but in the US you won't even get your first private pilot's license until you demonstrate proficiency in recovering from a stall. In a real airplane. In the air. In a real stall. Over and over until it's automatic. It's part of your flight exam too for the license. You have to show how to enter the stall to prove you know what can cause one, and then you have to recover in such a time and manner as to convince the examiner.

Indeed. When I was getting my license I had gone through countless number of stalls, both departure (full power) and approach to landing stalls (power off). You need the experience to be able to detect when you are in a configuration that is approaching that point as the most critical and likely points of stalling are taking off and landing.

Also, unusual attitudes were part of my training such as closing your eyes as the instructor takes control and puts the aircraft into a variety of maneuvers and gives you back the controls to recover. Also did it under 'the hood' that is simulated instrument conditions. You learn to trust the instruments and not your feeling. Also was required to practice spins. On my 2nd solo flight I went up and practiced departure (aka full power stalls). Something went wrong and found myself pointed straight to the ground and spinning. That was a change of underwear experience as I wasn't taught spins yet. Came back and landed still shaking and discussed it with my instructor and he explained secondary stalls.

When I was getting my license, in the first couple of hours of training time, the instructor

looked over at me and said he was going to show me a spin. Which he then immediately

did.........As we were spinning to the ground in what appeared to me to be complete loss

of control, I remember asking him if he knew how to recover..... :-) He finally did.....

So when I got my license, there was no training for spin recovery. Due to the large number

of private pilots who have died due to entering a spin after perhaps a brief interlude into

a cloud, I believe that it is now part of the training.

With so many pilots nowadays getting a significant part of their training in a simulator,

am starting to think their real life response to unusual attitudes is not so good...AF 447

should have been a wake up call for the entire industry.

The facts of this situation are pretty slim at this point, but it sure looks like weather could

be a factor. So lets say your plane is flying straight towards a thunderstorm. You then make

a command decision to either fly over the top of it , or go to the sides of it. You then contact

air traffic control to ask for a course change. Let say they refuse.......Do you continue to

fly into the thunderstorm, or do you make a course change and blow off air traffic control??

You would never endanger the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants by flying into severe weather. Plan well ahead and communicate your request early to ATC. If unable then communicate your intentions to ATC or other traffic on frequencies 121.5/123.45

In certain part of the world there are specific contingency procedures published if you are unable to establish communication and a deviation is required be it for weather or technical reasons. These involve turns off track, deviating a certain distance and climbing or descending by a set amount.

Hi,

Light aircraft provide a good training platform for stall indentification and recovery but the environment that large commercial aircraft operate in is very different.

There has been a shift in emphasis from minimising height loss to now performing a positive recovery by reducing the angle of attack to below the wing stalling angle. The recovery is still achieved with smooth control inputs but the pitch change required at high altitude can be quite significant.

As an aside I have heard that an aircraft that was in the region at around the same time was almost 100 miles off track to the west due to the significant weather in the area.

EDIT: Spillchekker

Blimey.

Anyway, my point is we weren't in control of the aircraft and making split second decisions. Doesn't matter if you've been sitting in a tower for six or twelve years. You're no more qualified than I.

What we do have in common is the ability to promote our definition of hindsight. Like I said, easy to say.

.

If he turned back or diverted accordingly in a timely manner, he would not have been making "split second" decisions.

People on this forum complain when posters make claims without qualifying them up with evidence of background experience. I post mine, and I'm still criticized.

No doubt you have qualifications I don't have. But mine do indeed qualify me to fairly state, The pilot should have turned back.

The doppler radar in cockpit can see around 6 miles out. The aircraft is flying good 500 miles per hour. That makes it nearly 10 miles per minute. He had a 40 seconds warning.

And you can't change altitude or heading without approval from the tower. That takes a large chunk out of that as well.

So he could have diverted in timely manner, like 10 seconds earlier?

The weather radar on modern commercial airliners can look hundreds of miles ahead thus route planning based on weather can be achieved well in advance.

I rarely have a problem with WLML's posts, but this one ..

I have no problem with you and your posts, HeijoshinCool.

But mother nature rules and weatherfronts can alter in the blink of an eye. There might have been no opportunity for the plane to return to base.

Without an investigation as to the causes of the crash, and there was a crash, all the rest is speculation.

We've seen the satellite photos from the time and place. We don't know if there was a crash or what caused it. But if the pilot flew into one of those huge thunderstorms that are in the pictures, his chances of survival are slim.

and you base this on what ?

Like in my previous post everyone is making the assumption that pilots avoid storms because it will down the aircraft, I'm not so sure about that, I believe it is to maintain passenger comfort - may I also add that unless you are an experienced pilot in the business of flying modern commercial aircraft there is no point in relying to this post

I would however like to hear from someone that can clarify this point

I don't know the reason for this crash but pilots avoid significant weather for flight safety reasons. Thunderstorms have and will continue to down aircraft if not shown the respect they deserve.

I have personally been 150 miles off track close to this region due to extensive thunderstorm activity. Weather avoidance is a daily occurrence in this part of the world.

Other aircraft were flying in the same region and did not turn back. Respect the elements and deviate far enough off track to ensure the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants.

Crews will often delay departure at an airport that has significant weather that poses a threat. Crews will often deviate large distances whilst en route to avoid significant weather but an inflight turn back due to en route weather experienced in the cruise portion of the flight is not that common.

Terribly sad news, thoughts with all concerned.

Once the wreckage is found they will get all the definitive answers.

Ice Crystal Icing is one potential threat which can lead to engine problems. It's a fairly new discovery and with ongoing development and understanding.

A weather radar failure in this part of the region would pose some real challenges for a crew.

Thunderstorm activity is a threat to airline safety and is one faced by crews on a daily basis. A healthy respect is required when it comes to the challenges posed by weather.

Flight dispatch who generate the flight plan should take into account any potential threat posed by weather en route and plan accordingly. If the crew are not happy then they can request a new flight plan prior to departure. The area on the chart will provide the required information to the crews on the type of cloud and turbulence and icing associated with that area. The area depicted on the chart might be quite large but once airborne the actual conditions might differ.

Best not to try and climb over a thunderstorm. Avoid it laterally by at least 20 miles when at high altitude if possible. This normally involves using the weather radar properly with a good understanding of the area of operation. As an example thunderstorms are much less reflective over water and require an appropriate amount of tilt to ensure you paint the correct picture on your navigation display. The new automatic radars work pretty well but some form of manual intervention is sometimes required.

Safety is first and foremost. Passenger comfort will follow based on logical safe operation.

Weather deviation will require some form of communication with air traffic control. On occasion this may not be possible but the crew will still deviate to avoid flying through a thunderstorm I hope.

The upper winds in this region tend not to be too strong but there are some fairly extensive thunderstorms present both during day and night.

Strange as I heard this was on landing and taxing to the gate when the doors could have been disarmed - would not be possible after doors had been shut and armed after leaving stand.

Emergency doors cant be opened once the wheels are up, this wasn't the case here

That seems very unlikely to me. You really think you're not able to open the emergency doors if the landing gears hasn't deployed - like on a water landing or some other mechanical failure?

The usual stated reason for not being able to open the doors while in the air is the pressure differential between the cabin and outside air. You're simply not strong enough to open the door.

That is true.

Shortly after take off, the aircraft will be pressurized and you will not be able to open the doors.

For smoke evacuation in case of a fire, the pilots can depressurize the cabin and the door seals will deflate allowing some smoke to escape out the now not completely sealed doors.

This will normally be done at lower altitudes and speeds.

Cabin pressure will also go to match the outside air pressure during landing for making it possible to open the emergency doors in case of an emergency evacuation after landing.

regards

Hi,

The guy should have used the spit bag.

The cabin crew will arm the evacuation slides, generally prior to or during pushback. This does not lock the doors.

The aircraft will pressurise slightly during the take off roll. The door flight locks automatically engage at 80 knots.

The doors can be opened after take off when there is a low differential pressure of approximately 1.5 PSI but only when the flight locks are not working.

Smoke evacuation on an aircraft is not via the door seals. There are large valves fitted to the front and rear for that purpose.

A blown slide will result in that slide being removed and if unable to repair will result in that door not being usable for passenger evacuation. That may have an impact on how many passengers can be carried depending on which door is affected. Less seats at the front of an aircraft due to first class may result in no change to the passengers carried. If it is a door at the rear of the aircraft you may have to block off a large amount of seats depending on the aircraft configuration !

I think research must be continue but near Diego Garcia island

And why would that be pray tell?

By the very fact that they are denying it.

The most advanced listening post in that part of the world and they don't pick up even a trace of a heavy off course. If it is true then the senior officer should now be a private.

The aircraft was potentially up to 1500 miles plus East of Diego Garcia at an unknown level. That in itself would pose challenges even for the most robust system on earth I reckon. That is the approx distance from Bangkok to Jakarta or Christchurch to Melbourne for comparison.

Here is the image of the offending beast ...

Might get him for no registration.

No mud guards, no bumpers, no mirrors and no reverse gear. No big deal.

Funny story !

I am pretty sure there are commercial flights operated from the Maldives to Gan.

Hi,

Just watched a fairly good programme on the subject.

Can be found on you tube as follows:

PBS Nova, why planes vanish.

Worth a watch, with good information provided throughout.

The Emirates CEO seemed to strongly imply that the aircraft was stolen by remote. At the very least, his comments are a strong confirmation that this is possible. He does own more triple 7's than anyone else.

And he still doesn't seem to understand why pilots need control over electrical systems.

Hi,

I interpret his interview differently.

He fully understands how aircraft work. He understands that the transponder can be switched off easily by pilots but emphasises that the aircraft still needs to be tracked.

He understands ACARS and that it is difficult to disable. He understands that pilots are not trained to do that as there is no reason for them to do so.

He wants to know who was on the aircraft and what cargo was carried. He thinks the aircraft was under someone's control and finds it unusual that no debris has been found. I don't think he means it was flown remotely as another poster mentioned.

I think it's good that a guy in his position running an airline with 140 Boeing 777's will query and challenge theories and push for more answers.

The passengers were all screened (remember, they found the two dodgy Iranians?), and the cargo manifest was released (Who thinks a fire made it do what it did anyway?).

Sounds to me like a guy with 140 777's doesn't want to be told he's got to pay for satellite tracking on them all because it might come out of his entertainment budget.

Tracking exists in his airline already, and he in his role as airline manager seems to be a big advocate for enhanced flight safety which is healthy to see.

Fair points on the passenger and cargo clarification, assuming no major withholding of information of course.

It will continue to be a huge mystery, with lots of speculation until they get the flight data recorders.

The Emirates CEO seemed to strongly imply that the aircraft was stolen by remote. At the very least, his comments are a strong confirmation that this is possible. He does own more triple 7's than anyone else.

And he still doesn't seem to understand why pilots need control over electrical systems.

Hi,

I interpret his interview differently.

He fully understands how aircraft work. He understands that the transponder can be switched off easily by pilots but emphasises that the aircraft still needs to be tracked.

He understands ACARS and that it is difficult to disable. He understands that pilots are not trained to do that as there is no reason for them to do so.

He wants to know who was on the aircraft and what cargo was carried. He thinks the aircraft was under someone's control and finds it unusual that no debris has been found. I don't think he means it was flown remotely as another poster mentioned.

I think it's good that a guy in his position running an airline with 140 Boeing 777's will query and challenge theories and push for more answers.