AirAsia flight QZ8501 from Indonesia to Singapore missing

[NeverSure]

Doesn't matter if you've been sitting in a tower for six or twelve years. You're no more qualified than I.

[HeijoshinCool]

Doesn't matter if you've been sitting in a tower for six or twelve years. You're no more qualified than I.

.

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

Thanks for responding in a way I could not.

[wooloomooloo]

Doesn't matter if you've been sitting in a tower for six or twelve years. You're no more qualified than I.

It's fair comment. We weren't there and very few airliners go down in a storm.

Hindsight is a wonderful phenomenon and makes experts of us all.

[NeverSure]

Doesn't matter if you've been sitting in a tower for six or twelve years. You're no more qualified than I.

Friend, do you even know what a controller does? Did you see him mention "Center?" Do you know what Center is? I didn't think so.

Center controls traffic for a certain wide area. When a pilot radios any kind of request while enroute he begins it with "Center..."

When the plane is leaving that Center's area, that Center hands it off to the next Center and the pilot is notified of it and asked to change frequencies on his radio. He's given the frequency. He then checks in with the new Center.

No pilot may deviate from the altitude or heading that is assigned by Center without asking for permission. Center is maintaining separation between planes.

Center watches the weather. Center is getting reports from planes in the area about weather, turbulence and passing the information on to incoming planes. Center advises about weather.

When a plane wants to taxi for takeoff, he files his flight plan with Center. Then he asks Ground for permission to taxi to a runway. As soon as he is airborne Ground hands him off to Center which is expecting him due to his flight plan.

Center is responsible to "follow" the flight all the way until handoff to the next Center or until handoff to the landing airport. Center will ask the plane to change altitudes or headings to maintain separation with other traffic.

The pilot is the commander of the plane, but he couldn't live without Center.

[wooloomooloo]

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.

[smedly]

everybody is making the assumption that these modern aircraft can be downed by rough weather, I'm not so sure about that, like I said in an earlier post, granted if landing or taking off near the ground when the plane is exposed with little margin for error there can be issues with wind sheer birds etc, but this plane was cruising in a stable condition at altitude with a general huge margin of error

I would question the general belief on here right now that weather conditions can cause a modern aircraft to crash no matter what the conditions, yes it might get uncomfortable for passengers if the pilot doesn't make adjustments to avoid turbulence but honestly I can't see how weather is what caused this, I don't believe it possible for a cruising modern aircraft to just ......................................nothing, these aircraft at cruising altitude will take anything that is thrown at them and more, I believe there is more to this than just weather, just my humble opinion

Edited December 28, 2014 by smedly

[HeijoshinCool]

Doesn't matter if you've been sitting in a tower for six or twelve years. You're no more qualified than I.

It's fair comment. We weren't there and very few airliners go down in a storm.

Hindsight is a wonderful phenomenon and makes experts of us all.

.

The reason few airliners go down in a storm like the one we are talking about, is because they don't attempt to engage it. Not only because it is foolish, but it is also against both government regulations, and the internal regulations of every airline.

[wooloomooloo]

We can't be certain that the aircraft was downed by bad weather. We'll have to wait and see.

[NeverSure]

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.

All of the information about the weather is past tense. It's in the satellite photos and in the can with the weather agencies.

Weather doesn't change in the blink of an eye. It changes as fronts move through. Hurricanes and Thunderstorm conditions give warning before they appear.

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.

If he was approaching those thunderstorms his own radar on his instrument panel would have shown it in plenty of time to divert away from it. One would expect that other planes would have been reporting it and he can hear the other planes. Look at the pictures. The air was full of planes.

This is my last reply to you and it's made in good faith for your information. If you want to learn something, listen up.

Edited December 28, 2014 by NeverSure

[wooloomooloo]

Like I said, NeverSure, until the investigation is complete, the rest is speculation. Could be anything and we weren't there.

[HeijoshinCool]

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.

.

It is speculation only for the layman. Weather like this does not spring up from nowhere. There is substantial warning.

But as Smedly mentioned, modern aircraft are exceptionally durable. And I'm not claiming the aircraft went down because of weather, or that it was even a contributing factor. I'm only saying, given what is known about the weather, the pilot should have turned back.

What I do find concerning is that no beacon signal has been received by any COSPAS-SARSAT satellite. That is very strange, borderline inexplicable, and reminiscent of this year's earlier aircraft disappearance.

[HeijoshinCool]

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.

All of the information about the weather is past tense. It's in the satellite photos and in the can with the weather agencies.

Weather doesn't change in the blink of an eye. It changes as fronts move through. Hurricanes and Thunderstorm conditions give warning before they appear.

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.

If he was approaching those thunderstorms his own radar on his instrument panel would have shown it in plenty of time to divert away from it. One would expect that other planes would have been reporting it and he can hear the other planes. Look at the pictures. The air was full of planes.

This is my last reply to you and it's made in good faith for your information. If you want to learn something, listen up.

.

There would have been PIREPS up the ying yang.

[smedly]

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

[NeverSure]

What I do find concerning is that no beacon signal has been received by any COSPAS-SARSAT satellite. That is very strange, borderline inexplicable, and reminiscent of this year's earlier aircraft disappearance.

I don't want to go there. They don't know exactly when or where it went down. No reports of an ELT transmission. Time drags on although it is dark now but they had hours to search. No pilot or ship sightings of wreckage in a heavy traffic area in daylight.

Hard to get a handle on it.

[smedly]

What I do find concerning is that no beacon signal has been received by any COSPAS-SARSAT satellite. That is very strange, borderline inexplicable, and reminiscent of this year's earlier aircraft disappearance.

I don't want to go there. They don't know exactly when or where it went down. No reports of an ELT transmission. Time drags on although it is dark now but they had hours to search. No pilot or ship sightings of wreckage in a heavy traffic area in daylight.

Hard to get a handle on it.

I have to agree with you, surely a fishing boat in this heavily fished area saw something, another plane just vanished ?

I know I'm sounding like a tin foil hat idiot but it is weird

[HeijoshinCool]

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

.

Pilots avoid storms because:

1. flight safety;

2. regulations, both government and internal airline policy, require them to;

3. as you mentioned, passenger comfort

Storms can and do down aircraft. Even the indestructible Hercules Hurricane Hunters, have been downed.

I rode one once. There is not a roller coaster in the world that would compare. And I would never do it again.

[HeijoshinCool]

What I do find concerning is that no beacon signal has been received by any COSPAS-SARSAT satellite. That is very strange, borderline inexplicable, and reminiscent of this year's earlier aircraft disappearance.

I don't want to go there. They don't know exactly when or where it went down. No reports of an ELT transmission. Time drags on although it is dark now but they had hours to search. No pilot or ship sightings of wreckage in a heavy traffic area in daylight.

Hard to get a handle on it.

I have to agree with you, surely a fishing boat in this heavily fished area saw something, another plane just vanished ?

I know I'm sounding like a tin foil hat idiot but it is weird

.

Daytime. Heavily trafficked area on sea and in the air. Shallow waters. Beacons on board activated automatically, (not the same as the "black" box), and not one signal?

How many times have we read that Somalis pirated another ocean going vessel, but that governments could not locate it? Many times. A thousand foot ship on open ocean disappears? I don't think so.

Even $100K tractor-trailers in the USA have hidden GPS for corporate to keep an eye on their drivers, or locate stolen trucks. $50 million dollar freighters/tankers do too. But they disappear? I don't think so.

There are 24/7/365 satellites operated by the NRO, the DIA, the NSA, and others that can see through storms, and into the water below. In waters like these, to the seabed. At night.

Too early to tell. But if a week goes by and nothing, then I will proudly put on my tin hat.

[Publicus]

I fly either AirAsia or Thai (varying by distance) and I've been attentive-concerned about this but waiting to hear something definite.

Presently it's night so the physical asset search and rescue is down temporarily but the investigation and search activity continue, yet still nothing....don't like the implications, that's all I'd say at this point in time and in the non-developments.

Tomorrow is another day so we'll see what may occur.

Some posts have raised my curiosity about not flying into thunder storms because way back when during four engine propeller airline daze I wuz a passenger in commercial aircraft that several times flew right through electrical storms. It was bumpy and for a kid both indestructively adventurous while also kinda scary, but they flew us right into them and through them, the propeller driven passenger liners. Looking back on it, it was as if we were flying in a hurricane hunter or something like it.

The aversion presented in posts here to flying through electrical storms today seems so acute, so I'm wondering if it's because of jet engines instead of propeller driven passenger aircraft or better awareness of the great risk (probably learned at a great cost of lives) or what....

[HeijoshinCool]

I fly either AirAsia or Thai (varying by distance) and I've been attentive-concerned about this but waiting to hear something definite.

Presently it's night so the physical asset search and rescue is down temporarily but the investigation and search activity continue, yet still nothing....don't like the implications, that's all I'd say at this point in time and in the non-developments.

Tomorrow is another day so we'll see what may occur.

Some posts have raised my curiosity about not flying into thunder storms because way back when during four engine propeller airline daze I wuz a passenger in commercial aircraft that several times flew right through electrical storms. It was bumpy and for a kid both indestructively adventurous while also kinda scary, but they flew us right into them and through them, the propeller driven passenger liners. Looking back on it, it was as if we were flying in a hurricane hunter or something like it.

The aversion presented in posts here to flying through electrical storms today seems so acute, so I'm wondering if it's because of jet engines instead of propeller driven passenger aircraft or better awareness of the great risk (probably learned at a great cost of lives) or what....

.

Yes, turbo-props are far better suited for flying through thunder storms than modern jet engines.

[NeverSure]

If I read it right, the plane was out of contact long enough to go 500 miles (800 kms) before it was reported missing. How would they have any idea where it is?

[NeverSure]

The aversion presented in posts here to flying through electrical storms today seems so acute, so I'm wondering if it's because of jet engines instead of propeller driven passenger aircraft or better awareness of the great risk (probably learned at a great cost of lives) or what....

In June of 2009, Air France Flight 447 crashed and it's believed it was due to a storm. It's believed it was as simple as damage to the pitot tubes which caused the airspeed indicators to "lie" to the pilots and they followed that info into a deadly stall.

Now, every pilot is going to say that airspeed indication is just one thing and that other instruments such as altimeter and even the sound over the airframe should have been indications. But apparently they climbed into an unrecovered stall.

(For non pilots this means a wing lift stall, not an engine stall. The plane lost lift and wild things can happen especially when you can't see the ground and don't know the aircraft's speed.)

[Gsxrnz]

Apparently the departure time of the flight was 2 hours earlier than the scheduled 7:20am (local) departure time, hence the large number of no-shows.

Here's a link to a NZ story about the lucky family that missed the flight by minutes. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/64516291/familys-lucky-escape-from-airasia-flight-qz-8501

[HeijoshinCool]

If I read it right, the plane was out of contact long enough to go 500 miles (800 kms) before it was reported missing. How would they have any idea where it is?

.

Transponder.

Unless it was malfunctioning (unlikely) or turned off. But regular radar can still track the aircraft, if the responsible controller was quick to react.

Shades of Malaysia Airlines MH370.

[F430murci]

The aversion presented in posts here to flying through electrical storms today seems so acute, so I'm wondering if it's because of jet engines instead of propeller driven passenger aircraft or better awareness of the great risk (probably learned at a great cost of lives) or what....

In June of 2009, Air France Flight 447 crashed and it's believed it was due to a storm. It's believed it was as simple as damage to the pitot tubes which caused the airspeed indicators to "lie" to the pilots and they followed that info into a deadly stall.

Now, every pilot is going to say that airspeed indication is just one thing and that other instruments such as altimeter and even the sound over the airframe should have been indications. But apparently they climbed into an unrecovered stall.

(For non pilots this means a wing lift stall, not an engine stall. The plane lost lift and wild things can happen especially when you can't see the ground and don't know the aircraft's speed.)

That particular pitot tube was prone to icing. There were a half dozen or more prior incidents of that pitot tube icing prior to 447. Storm had nothing to do with pitot tube issue or crash. Pilots just flew plane into water because they for some reason could never reconcile the inconsistent airspeed readings.

[MaxYakov]

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

Is it possible that any of them remember BOAC Flight 911, a Boeing 707-436 which disintegrated over Mount Fujiyama in 1966 due to severe turbulence, killing 124 passengers and crew and leaving 63 children orphaned? You apparently don't.

From the above Wiki link:

"The aircraft left a debris field 16 km (10 mi) long. Analysis of the location of wreckage allowed the accident investigators to determine that the vertical stabilizer attachment to the fuselage failed first. It left paint marks indicating that it broke off the port side horizontal stabiliser as it departed to the left and down. A short time later, the ventral fin and all four engine pylons failed due to a leftward over-stress, shortly followed by the remainder of the empennage. The aircraft then entered a flat spin, with the forward fuselage section and the outer starboard wing breaking off shortly before impact with the ground."

Also, from This Day in Aviation:

"U.S. Navy Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was sent to look for the accident site. When it approached Mount Fujiyama, it also encountered severe turbulence, to the point that the pilot feared the small fighter would break up in flight. After returning to base, the A-4 was grounded for inspection. Its accelerometer indicated that it had experienced acceleration forces ranging from +9 Gs to -4 Gs."

Edited December 28, 2014 by MaxYakov

[NeverSure]

If I read it right, the plane was out of contact long enough to go 500 miles (800 kms) before it was reported missing. How would they have any idea where it is?

.

Transponder.

Unless it was malfunctioning (unlikely) or turned off. But regular radar can still track the aircraft, if the responsible controller was quick to react.

Shades of Malaysia Airlines MH370.

Transponder.

My understanding was that they lost contact with it.

[NeverSure]

This is starting to get weird. It hasn't been 24 hours and we're starting to use the same terms and ask the same questions that we did with Malaysia Airlines MH370.

I'm not predicting anything. It's just weird.

[HeijoshinCool]

If I read it right, the plane was out of contact long enough to go 500 miles (800 kms) before it was reported missing. How would they have any idea where it is?

.

Transponder.

Unless it was malfunctioning (unlikely) or turned off. But regular radar can still track the aircraft, if the responsible controller was quick to react.

Shades of Malaysia Airlines MH370.

Transponder.

My understanding was that they lost contact with it.

.

Ah.

[MaxYakov]

The aversion presented in posts here to flying through electrical storms today seems so acute, so I'm wondering if it's because of jet engines instead of propeller driven passenger aircraft or better awareness of the great risk (probably learned at a great cost of lives) or what....

In June of 2009, Air France Flight 447 crashed and it's believed it was due to a storm. It's believed it was as simple as damage to the pitot tubes which caused the airspeed indicators to "lie" to the pilots and they followed that info into a deadly stall.

Now, every pilot is going to say that airspeed indication is just one thing and that other instruments such as altimeter and even the sound over the airframe should have been indications. But apparently they climbed into an unrecovered stall.

(For non pilots this means a wing lift stall, not an engine stall. The plane lost lift and wild things can happen especially when you can't see the ground and don't know the aircraft's speed.)

That particular pitot tube was prone to icing. There were a half dozen or more prior incidents of that pitot tube icing prior to 447. Storm had nothing to do with pitot tube issue or crash. Pilots just flew plane into water because they for some reason could never reconcile the inconsistent airspeed readings.

I agree with you, but would the crash have occurred had the chain of events not been initiated by an unusual (or maybe not so unusual) TCZ weather condition that caused the pitot tubes to ice-up?. I believe the crew made statements about hearing hail hitting the aircraft before the flight controls lost IAS (Indicated Air Speed) and the flight control system dropped it out of autopilot.

Hail damage to jet engines can also bring an aircraft down as the crew of Southern Airways Flight 242 discovered. Pay attention, smedly.

Edited December 28, 2014 by MaxYakov

[NeverSure]

Didn't they lose contact with it and wait about 50 minutes to report it? If it kept flying, it could have flown out of transponder range but I'd think someone else would have picked it up. That's a busy area. With MH370, there was speculation that someone turned the transponder off because it just disappeared.