AirAsia flight QZ8501 from Indonesia to Singapore missing

[HeijoshinCool]

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.

.

Big coincidence, huh?

[ExPratt]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.)

Thats the flight that went down coming back from Brazil. Isn't that the French Version of events, i though one inquiry found it to be Pilot error

[NeverSure]

OK, tinfoil hat firmly in place.

The pilot asks permission to ascend to 38,000 feet. That's right at the edge of the envelope for that plane's design limits. It's never a good idea to push the envelope whether it's altitude, gross weight, airspeed, angle of attack, takeoff distance...

If I was the pilot and wanted to boogey out, I could ask for an altitude that's above almost all other planes so I wouldn't have much traffic concern. Then I could turn off my radios and transponder and all else I could.

If I took off with full fuel, look for me in a hanger N. Pakistan.

[krisb]

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

A whole 2 hours early!!

That in itself is quite strange.

[impulse]

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?

I look at it this way- flying is still safer than crossing the street. Millions of flights every year- yet we are faced with these tragedies very rarely.

[kksdbk]

Praying for those on that flight as well as the previous flight missing in the general vicinity. Something is going on... Someone knows something !

[krisb]

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?

I look at it this way- flying is still safer than crossing the street. Millions of flights every year- yet we are faced with these tragedies very rarely.

Yeah but you would rather be on the ground wishing you were up there, than being up there wishing you were on the ground.

It's the feeling of having zero control being a passenger in a metal cylinder doing 800km/hr.

[NeverSure]

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?

I look at it this way- flying is still safer than crossing the street. Millions of flights every year- yet we are faced with these tragedies very rarely.

Yeah but you would rather be on the ground wishing you were up there, than being up there wishing you were on the ground.

It's the feeling of having zero control being a passenger in a metal cylinder doing 800km/hr.

It sounds like you're afraid of airplane poisoning. You know what that is right? One drop will kill you.

[Qent]

AirAsia plane carrying 162 lost in stormy weather

Associated Press

2 minutes ago

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - An astonishingly tragic year for air travel in Southeast Asia turned worse Sunday when an AirAsia plane carrying 162 people disappeared over stormy Indonesian waters, with no word on its fate despite several hours of searching by air and sea.

AirAsia Flight 8501 vanished in airspace thick with storm clouds on its way from Surabaya, Indonesia, to Singapore. Searchers had to fight against heavy rain.

The Malaysia-based carrier's loss comes on top of the still-unexplained disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 in March and the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July over Ukraine.

More:

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/27718515/airasia-plane-carrying-162-lost-in-stormy-weather

[kannot]

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.

On 12 October 1974 a WC-130H operated by the U.S. Air Force's 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron and its six crew disappeared during Typhoon Bess. No trace of the aircraft or its crew has ever been found.

[krisb]

OK, tinfoil hat firmly in place.

The pilot asks permission to ascend to 38,000 feet. That's right at the edge of the envelope for that plane's design limits. It's never a good idea to push the envelope whether it's altitude, gross weight, airspeed, angle of attack, takeoff distance...

If I was the pilot and wanted to boogey out, I could ask for an altitude that's above almost all other planes so I wouldn't have much traffic concern. Then I could turn off my radios and transponder and all else I could.

If I took off with full fuel, look for me in a hanger N. Pakistan.

More likely he wanted to fly above the storm rather than try and fly around the width of a massive storm.

If he felt it was a safe option, he would have and probably has hundreds of times before. That would explain him wanting that altitude right?

Then somethings happened, hit by too much lightning, icing, severe winds, who knows. I doubt it's in Pakistan though.

[HeijoshinCool]

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?

I look at it this way- flying is still safer than crossing the street. Millions of flights every year- yet we are faced with these tragedies very rarely.

Yeah but you would rather be on the ground wishing you were up there, than being up there wishing you were on the ground.

It's the feeling of having zero control being a passenger in a metal cylinder doing 800km/hr.

.

They also claim flying is safer than driving. But statistics apply to different people in different ways.

Perhaps the average driver, or bad driver, has statistically more chance of being killed. But the good driver, or excellent defensive driver, has less chance of being in a fatal accident than a passenger in a commercial airliner.

I'm an excellent driver. 45 years without a scratch, over many miles, and not just a few high-speed pursuits.

I agree with you, I'd rather be in control and take my chances, than to give a stranger (especially nowadays) total control of my life.

[krisb]

Sunardi, a forecaster at Indonesia's Meteorology and Geophysics Agency, said dense storm clouds were detected up to 13,400 meters (44,000 feet) in the area at the time.

Sounds like the obvious problem right there.

[HeijoshinCool]

OK, tinfoil hat firmly in place.

The pilot asks permission to ascend to 38,000 feet. That's right at the edge of the envelope for that plane's design limits. It's never a good idea to push the envelope whether it's altitude, gross weight, airspeed, angle of attack, takeoff distance...

If I was the pilot and wanted to boogey out, I could ask for an altitude that's above almost all other planes so I wouldn't have much traffic concern. Then I could turn off my radios and transponder and all else I could.

If I took off with full fuel, look for me in a hanger N. Pakistan.

.

But the news says the co-pilot was French.

But I notice while passenger's names have been mentioned, cockpit crew's has not. Now, if his name is Pierre, or Jean Luc, you can probably take off your hat.

But if his name is … well, you know… then keep that hat firmly in place.

Time will tell.

[F430murci]

OK, tinfoil hat firmly in place.

The pilot asks permission to ascend to 38,000 feet. That's right at the edge of the envelope for that plane's design limits. It's never a good idea to push the envelope whether it's altitude, gross weight, airspeed, angle of attack, takeoff distance...

If I was the pilot and wanted to boogey out, I could ask for an altitude that's above almost all other planes so I wouldn't have much traffic concern. Then I could turn off my radios and transponder and all else I could.

If I took off with full fuel, look for me in a hanger N. Pakistan.

More likely he wanted to fly above the storm rather than try and fly around the width of a massive storm.

If he felt it was a safe option, he would have and probably has hundreds of times before. That would explain him wanting that altitude right?

Then somethings happened, hit by too much lightning, icing, severe winds, who knows. I doubt it's in Pakistan though.

Storm clouds were 50 so cannot go over. He was probably just trying to find smoother air and going up a few thousand can sometimes accomplish that.

9 foot seas and horrible storms would seem to make search difficult. They'll find it. Does seem reminiscent of that Russian plane that tried to climb to find smoother air and flat spun it.

Not sure why everyone thinks 38,000 is so dangerous. Didn't pilots flying empty sometimes screw around to join the 41 club ala Pinnacle CRJ that flamed out a few years back.

Edited December 28, 2014 by F430murci

[khaosai]

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.

[F430murci]

I dunno . . . If they don't find an oil slick, ping or something soon, I may start believing some if this alien stuff may be true.

Seems like there shod have been a military primary in that area some where and those should have pretty decent range.

[canman]

Many oilfileds off Surabaya and Jakarta so there should be no shortage of weather capable vessels to throw into the search ontop of the thousands of fishing boats working that coast. Singapore and Indo airforces have more than enough air assets to conduct the search. It will be very suprising if no debris is found today.

[Commerce]

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.

Actually, and Air Asia flight AK6462 did turn back a few hours later, with technical difficulties, whatever they were.

[shaurene]

This is so sad. I fly into BBK on Qantas flight from Sydney Sunday was close to that part around 1pm local time we were around 36k ft and the seat belt sight came on all instructed to sit and stay seated including the crew, little bid of turbulence but not bad I looked out and we were in thick misty cloud, not see this type crowd before at this hight all seated for good 1 hr but no bad turbulence captain probably playing it safe with all the bad weather in the area and heard about the Air Asia flight. Air Saia has a very good safety record.

And the flight asking for unusual change in it's flight plans probably due to the bad weather.

God help them all.

[saltandpepper]

OK, tinfoil hat firmly in place.

The pilot asks permission to ascend to 38,000 feet. That's right at the edge of the envelope for that plane's design limits. It's never a good idea to push the envelope whether it's altitude, gross weight, airspeed, angle of attack, takeoff distance...

If I was the pilot and wanted to boogey out, I could ask for an altitude that's above almost all other planes so I wouldn't have much traffic concern. Then I could turn off my radios and transponder and all else I could.

If I took off with full fuel, look for me in a hanger N. Pakistan.

.

But the news says the co-pilot was French.

But I notice while passenger's names have been mentioned, cockpit crew's has not. Now, if his name is Pierre, or Jean Luc, you can probably take off your hat.

But if his name is … well, you know… then keep that hat firmly in place.

Time will tell.

The French guy is from Guadeloupe or Martinique Edited December 29, 2014 by saltandpepper

[NeverSure]

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.

Edited December 29, 2014 by NeverSure

[bkkjames]

Last week I had a dream that isis took a plane. Do I believe it no, and hopefully they will find some survivors however unlikely that seems today but it's certainly showing signs of another lost plane.

[Straight8]

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.

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??

[Commerce]

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.

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??

Unusal route or deviation to flight path are probably translation equivalents, in all honesty.

[krisb]

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.

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.

[draftvader]

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.

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.

Edited December 29, 2014 by draftvader

[tartempion]

I once sat in the cockpit of a B747/200F (freighter), somewhere around 1995 en route from Dubai to Hong Kong.

We saw a gigantic cloud in front of us, captain and first officer talked it through and decided to contour the gigantic cloud, it was fun to watch their proceedings and the plane avoiding the cloud. I was just a privileged and only passenger on board, have no clue if they needed permission to do so (plane had also a communications officer on board in those days, originally was flight mechanic function)

My thoughts go out to the passengers.

[canuckamuck]

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.

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.

But the air France plots were in a stall and didn't know it because of technical issues.

Not saying that is what happened here though.

If they don't find anything by dark, it's going to be difficult to resist donning the foil.

[Commerce]

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.

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??

Yes they have, and made it clear. You will find ino here - updated - if you're not fully up to date with it all.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30619085