AirAsia flight QZ8501 from Indonesia to Singapore missing

[NeverSure]

Asking for a different altitude and asking for "an unusual route" are two different things. Maybe something is lost in the translation.

Those things do have a history of pitot tube icing. You'd think they would have fixed that with better heat to them.

[draftvader]

Registration PK-AXC with 138 adults, 16 minors and 1 infant. 7 crew including engineer onboard.[/size]

It's one of their oldest but still only 6.3 years old.

It's one of their oldest but still only 6.3 years old.

Fact vs fiction

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Airbus average - .44625

Boeing average - .41133

I'd say that is fairly marginal. Once you factor in the reasons behind the crashes I would expect (with the law of averages on numbers this big) for those crashes that are manufacture fault based for those numbers to level out.

Given the number of flights made in the world each day by passenger number and the number of aircraft in flight at any time I think you should probably spend the time you spend looking at aircraft type for booking looking at the safety and maintenance records for the airlines you are choosing between. Also bear in mind the differences between international and domestic services. Aeroflot, as an example, has a VERY poor record if you include their domestic figures but international alone they fare much better. This is simply down to them having to pass inspections in other countries to run those services. Internally there aren't these pressures so they can forgo such stringent maintenance and save money.

Making a decision based of manufacturer is very arbitrary compared to safety and maintenance records. I certainly have less interest in flying the 787 Dreamliner than I did before it took to the air, as an example, but am delighted to find myself on an A320. I am 99% convinced that this situation will turn out to be a poor human decision based off commercial pressures (that last bit will be left out of any report) rather than it being an Airbus.

--EDIT--

That should have said "a well maintained A320".

[Commerce]

Exactly,

I could have missed it amongst all the posts, but the authorities have not stated why the pilot asked for the unusual route, right ?? I mean they have not stated it was asked due to bad weather??

Reports from Australian news 5 minutes ago..

Pilot asked to change course because of bad weather. He wanted to climb higher.

They do know the plane was travelling way to slowly to climb so a stall is possible scenario.

In saying that even if the plane stalled all the pilots need to do is drop the nose and the stall is fixed.

Not necessarily true as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulkovo_Aviation_Enterprise_Flight_612 explains. This flight entered a flat spin which is, according to everything I've read about it this morning, much more difficult to recover from. The similarities between flight 612 and the information that has emerged, so far, about this flight are quite scary.

----EDIT----

Please note that the simulation video of this flight and the translated transcript have been posted earlier in this thread. You will note in the transcript that they did get out a mayday....just about. There is not a lot of time available between 38,000 and 0 if you are battling to save everything.

There are huge differences between the Pulkovo and A320-200 - the major one being fly by wire which, if you seem to understand, would not permit the aircraft to by pass any of the aircraft's limits... i.e. altitude, climb rate, angle of attack and speed, etc. and would override them automatically if anything were wrong. As a result, it's virtually impossible to go into a flat spin with such technology and adjustments were immediately made to all 320-200 pitot tubes after the Air France issue. People seem hell bent on a flat spin decent - if that were the case the aircraft would be easiy to locate, as there would be carnage covering a wide area below the area of last contact!

[draftvader]

Exactly,

I could have missed it amongst all the posts, but the authorities have not stated why the pilot asked for the unusual route, right ?? I mean they have not stated it was asked due to bad weather??

Reports from Australian news 5 minutes ago..

Pilot asked to change course because of bad weather. He wanted to climb higher.

They do know the plane was travelling way to slowly to climb so a stall is possible scenario.

In saying that even if the plane stalled all the pilots need to do is drop the nose and the stall is fixed.

Not necessarily true as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulkovo_Aviation_Enterprise_Flight_612 explains. This flight entered a flat spin which is, according to everything I've read about it this morning, much more difficult to recover from. The similarities between flight 612 and the information that has emerged, so far, about this flight are quite scary.

----EDIT----

Please note that the simulation video of this flight and the translated transcript have been posted earlier in this thread. You will note in the transcript that they did get out a mayday....just about. There is not a lot of time available between 38,000 and 0 if you are battling to save everything.

There are huge differences between the Pulkovo and A320-200 - the major one being fly by wire which, if you seem to understand, would not permit the aircraft to by pass any of the aircraft's limits... i.e. altitude, climb rate, angle of attack and speed, etc. and would override them automatically if anything were wrong. As a result, it's virtually impossible to go into a flat spin with such technology and adjustments were immediately made to all 320-200 pitot tubes after the Air France issue. People seem hell bent on a flat spin decent - if that were the case the aircraft would be easiy to locate, as there would be carnage covering a wide area below the area of last contact!

Not being facetious, just curious. Would those systems factor in the pilot intentionally trying to fly over a storm rather than round it?

[kannot]

Registration PK-AXC with 138 adults, 16 minors and 1 infant. 7 crew including engineer onboard.

It's one of their oldest but still only 6.3 years old.

I have a friend who is a aircraft engineer in the air force many years and from what he told me about air bus planes and the amount of them that have gone down I will never ever fly on one.

Granted he's an engineer, but it's just one mans opinion.

My mechanic wouldn't buy a Mitsubishi, but he drives a Saab.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/plane-crash-nepal-safety

[NeverSure]

Please guys. The topic is about the crash, not Boeing vs Airbus whatsoever.

Please don't put off topic junk in here for people to wade through. I'm following this topic very closely for news. It's a news event.

Cheers

[F430murci]

Exactly,

I could have missed it amongst all the posts, but the authorities have not stated why the pilot asked for the unusual route, right ?? I mean they have not stated it was asked due to bad weather??

Reports from Australian news 5 minutes ago..

Pilot asked to change course because of bad weather. He wanted to climb higher.

They do know the plane was travelling way to slowly to climb so a stall is possible scenario.

In saying that even if the plane stalled all the pilots need to do is drop the nose and the stall is fixed.

Not necessarily true as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulkovo_Aviation_Enterprise_Flight_612 explains. This flight entered a flat spin which is, according to everything I've read about it this morning, much more difficult to recover from. The similarities between flight 612 and the information that has emerged, so far, about this flight are quite scary.

----EDIT----

Please note that the simulation video of this flight and the translated transcript have been posted earlier in this thread. You will note in the transcript that they did get out a mayday....just about. There is not a lot of time available between 38,000 and 0 if you are battling to save everything.

There are huge differences between the Pulkovo and A320-200 - the major one being fly by wire which, if you seem to understand, would not permit the aircraft to by pass any of the aircraft's limits... i.e. altitude, climb rate, angle of attack and speed, etc. and would override them automatically if anything were wrong. As a result, it's virtually impossible to go into a flat spin with such technology and adjustments were immediately made to all 320-200 pitot tubes after the Air France issue. People seem hell bent on a flat spin decent - if that were the case the aircraft would be easiy to locate, as there would be carnage covering a wide area below the area of last contact!

Structural failure of some sort could feasiy result in a flat spin. Perhaps software or electrical systems failure? I dunno, just speculating here.

[RigPig]

Well I've read this thread from start to finish and it doesn't matter what caused this we will either find out or we won't.

What REALLY scares me is that it took 24 hours to begin to mount a REAL search and rescue operation in an area that is close to land and a virtual air plane super highway. I can't imagine having to try to survive in seas so rough the rescue boats they (eventually and tokenly) sent out had to turn back, in a rubber raft.

What is it with this asking permission to help BS (and not getting it), the area isn't a security risk it is an area used by so many commercial liners it is almost traffic congested. Why would you not want ALL the assistance you can get to locate and save anyone that may have survived as quickly as possible?

I believe the airlines themselves put into effect everything they can safety wise (I guess everything can be improved but in reality it comes down to money, as does everything), but what is the point if you can't rely on the authorities to carry out their part?

If this is a problem with "the system" then it needs to be corrected ASAP, if it is because someone dropped the ball they should be held responsible.

I do not understand why there wasn't at least one plane sent out to have a look, to see what had happened within a couple of hours of the flag going up.

For me it isn't the flying that is the danger it is the stalled or lack of response when it does. If it turns out that nothing is found almost immediately this will turn out to cost someone millions so surely it's not a financial issue.

What the dickens is going on here? Something is not right.....

[lil fluffy clouds]

That video will keep me in nightmares for a long time to come.

For the first time in my life, I am starting to get seriously spooked about air travel. Does anyone else feel the same way or is my imagination in overdrive because of the recent tragedies?

The older i get the more scared i get about flying.

I took an Air Asia flight at 2pm today and it was not easy. I had to keep reminding myself that travelling by road is much more dangerous. I have a fear of heights which adds to my fears.

I am not at the point yet where i will not fly anymore and travel by road. I keep reminding myself that if i stay off the roads i will live longer.

It doesn't scare me at all. As said, it's the safest way to travel. It's just big news when it happens. There were thousands of planes in the air, day after day before this happened. I'm more afraid to walk in a crosswalk.

I'm relieved when that plane takes off and I know I don't have anything to do until we get there, unlike driving or riding a scooter. I usually fall asleep.

Ask a doctor for a beta blocker. It's a heart medicine that won't hurt you but it blocks the body's ability to release adrenaline. You'll stay calm without feeling tranquilized. I'm a musician (pianist) and I once developed a horrible case of stage fright. I couldn't play due to mental and physical reactions. My doctor gave me a beta blocker and all of those symptoms disappeared. I needed the med only a few times until I regained confidence.

Emotion is what I want see at a gig, not some zombie pumping out tunes on beta blockers. Same everywhere, even in the air.

[Commerce]

Not necessarily true as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulkovo_Aviation_Enterprise_Flight_612 explains. This flight entered a flat spin which is, according to everything I've read about it this morning, much more difficult to recover from. The similarities between flight 612 and the information that has emerged, so far, about this flight are quite scary.

----EDIT----

Please note that the simulation video of this flight and the translated transcript have been posted earlier in this thread. You will note in the transcript that they did get out a mayday....just about. There is not a lot of time available between 38,000 and 0 if you are battling to save everything.

There are huge differences between the Pulkovo and A320-200 - the major one being fly by wire which, if you seem to understand, would not permit the aircraft to by pass any of the aircraft's limits... i.e. altitude, climb rate, angle of attack and speed, etc. and would override them automatically if anything were wrong. As a result, it's virtually impossible to go into a flat spin with such technology and adjustments were immediately made to all 320-200 pitot tubes after the Air France issue. People seem hell bent on a flat spin decent - if that were the case the aircraft would be easiy to locate, as there would be carnage covering a wide area below the area of last contact!

Not being facetious, just curious. Would those systems factor in the pilot intentionally trying to fly over a storm rather than round it?

They could, if the pilot intentionally tried to override FBW. However, he had 22k hours apparently, so it would be very unlikely he went fully manual. He was also, AFAIK, not given permission at that time to ascend, as there was an apparent flight above him. If he chose to ascend on his own, he would have violated so many rules in the book he could be posthumously granted a manslaughter charge, if he is no longer with us. I doubt he actually tried to fly over the storm, but was merely looking to ascend a few K to find less turbulence, and ease the flight - as somebody mentioned earlier - to give greater comfort to his passengers - which is very normal, and not out of the norm.

I personally believe he flew off path to the west, to try to skew around, and may have flown into a worse part of the storm, or eye, at he lightly raised altitude and met with something different than electrical probs - maybe an up-down draft which caused some structural, but minimal damage, and he certainly had more than enough fuel to abort his path and issue a call. Why one was never issued is beyond me, unless structural damage tore into the craft as he desended rapidly to regain his last altitude (I believe L34). That, however, is my guess work, and we won't know anything until flight recorders are located.

[Tchooptip]

155 passenger and 7 crew according to BBC.

1 Brit, 3 Koreans ,1 Singaporean, 1 Malaysian and the rest Indonesian.

The copilote is a Frenchman.

[Patsycat]

It was already announced on the French TV today that the co-pilot is French.

[Credo]

Discussing all the things that could have gone wrong with the plane and how the pilot handled it might be fine, but we have to remember that whatever they tried to do, it was being done in a very, very strong and dangerous storm.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been removed and will continue to be removed. We will not be posting removal notices. If your post disappears or you have quoted one that is removed, please do not repost.

Your cooperation in keeping this breaking story on track is appreciated.

We do have members who have more than a passing interest in this situation.

[kotsak]

Simply put, the pilot should have turned back.

Easy to be general after the battle is over.

Imagine this. You're on a trip to Singapore. 3 quarters of an hour into the flight, the pilot decides to make 180 and go back to Surabaya. You look out of window... yes, it was a little shaky, but just a few clouds, <deleted>?

On landing, you'd raise hell over how dares the b*stard in cockpit ruin your holidays by turning around.

Airline would be flooded with complaints, maybe even lawsuits.

How many of these complaining passengers would think that pilot just saved their lives? Right. None.

Unfortunately the usual "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

[NeverSure]

Discussing all the things that could have gone wrong with the plane and how the pilot handled it might be fine, but we have to remember that whatever they tried to do, it was being done in a very, very strong and dangerous storm.

With all due respect, we don't know that. We don't know he got anywhere close to those storms. It's reported that he requested a higher altitude and was denied due to traffic. It's reported that he requested to change to "an unusual" route just before contact was lost.

They don't know where he was and didn't for about 50 minutes before they reported the plane missing. They lost contact with the plane right after he requested a different route.

[krisb]

Too much speculation.

Better to wait for the facts.

[MaxYakov]

I just went back to page 1 of this thread to the OP. It says

"Transport Ministry official Hadi Mustofa told Indonesian media that the aircraft lost contact with the Jakarta air traffic control tower at 6.17 am local time. He said the plane had asked for an unusual route before it lost contact, Reuters reported."

That's not the same as saying he asked for a deviation for weather or whatever.

What was the original language? If English, how proficient are they with it, etc. etc. I'd say they intended "a deviation from route" or "course deviation" unless they were going on a sightseeing junket.

[canman]

A rather poignant backstory on Singapore radio news this morning. Apparently the Singaporean onboard was an infant, his mother is Singaporean and was engaged to the father who is Indonesian. The Father had taken the baby to Indonesia for a short trip to introduce the bub to the family, the Mother couldn't make the trip. Sometimes it is worth reminding ourselves of the real human tragedy in these disasters.

I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere else, just heard it on the radio driving into work this morning.

[NeverSure]

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?

I believe the radar can see more like 100 miles.

[Gsxrnz]

Asking for a different altitude and asking for "an unusual route" are two different things. Maybe something is lost in the translation.

Those things do have a history of pitot tube icing. You'd think they would have fixed that with better heat to them.

I tend to agree with it being lost in translation, and it amazes me that native English speakers seem to take translations literally with no concept or allowance for word usage in different languages. This applies particularly to us here in Thailand when it comes to strict translations of Thai to English which often contain strange words - and most of us tend to ignore the intent and focus on a specific word.

I'm no expert in Indonesian, but it would appear from a quick google translation that "unusual" in English can be easily construed in Indonesian as not normal/not regular/different than usual, as opposed to the way we English can construe the word as being something remarkably out of the ordinary or even slightly weird.

[F430murci]

Saying plane is on the bottom of the sea. Hope they have good info to support after what they did to the families of MH370.

[NeverSure]

Saying plane is on the bottom of the sea. Hope they have good info to support after what they did to the families of MH370.

I can't find that on google searching Flight QZ8501

[Shot]

Channel NewsAsia ✔ @ChannelNewsAsia

Follow

JUST IN: #AirAsia #QZ8501 likely at the "bottom of the sea", says the Indonesia search chief, according to AFP http://cna.asia/qz8501day2

9:31 AM - 29 Dec 2014

[Commerce]

Asking for a different altitude and asking for "an unusual route" are two different things. Maybe something is lost in the translation.

Those things do have a history of pitot tube icing. You'd think they would have fixed that with better heat to them.

I tend to agree with it being lost in translation, and it amazes me that native English speakers seem to take translations literally with no concept or allowance for word usage in different languages. This applies particularly to us here in Thailand when it comes to strict translations of Thai to English which often contain strange words - and most of us tend to ignore the intent and focus on a specific word.

I'm no expert in Indonesian, but it would appear from a quick google translation that "unusual" in English can be easily construed in Indonesian as not normal/not regular/different than usual, as opposed to the way we English can construe the word as being something remarkably out of the ordinary or even slightly weird.

There was a video on BBC News yesterday in which a very experienced Australian pilot, who has flown this route for many a year, indicated that radar coverage is very good in this area; "excellent in the whole area, in fact", he said. He also remarked that unusual route probably meant a request for deviation from the pre-planned route, due to weather conditions.

[NeverSure]

Channel NewsAsia

✔

@

ChannelNewsAsia

Follow

JUST IN:

#

AirAsia

#

QZ8501

likely at the "bottom of the sea", says the Indonesia search chief, according to AFP

http://

cna.asia/qz8501day2

9:31 AM - 29 Dec 2014

Speculation. Almost as bad as ours, LOL.

[Shot]

^^I thought it strange considering they have not found debris yet.

[kruangfaifar]

It's getting like the Bermuda triangle around this area of air space. Makes you wonder.

Really? There is MH 370 fate unknown and this one fate as yet unknown. Any others that you know of? Seems a bit premature to start drawing comparisons to the Bermuda Triangle

Edited December 29, 2014 by kruangfaifar

[Commerce]

^^I thought it strange considering they have not found debris yet.

It is very difficult to believe 2 similar aircraft to be lost, in similar circumstances and places, for at least one to not offer any debris.

I hope they do find at least something as a guideline this time, for at least the families to know where they are.

If nothing is found today, I would find that very unusual indeed!

[F430murci]

Saying plane is on the bottom of the sea. Hope they have good info to support after what they did to the families of MH370.

I can't find that on google searching Flight QZ8501

CNN said it came from a Jakarta press release.