40 bodies have been recovered in the search for the missing AirAsia plane

[F430murci]

Yet the beacons failed to activate?

Hearing there is now 19 foot seas causing a lot of noise and interference. I dunno, but to think you could ditch a plane successfully in9 foot waves and monsoon type conditions is a bit illogical..

Looks like the spotted tail is a different location. No chance of controlled ditch is verticals stabilizer separated which is not a completely unheard of occurrence during a crash.

Check this, but I believe the 320 slides have gas canisters connected and could potential activate themselves upon impact.

Look, I don't know what happened, but maybe best not to rush to conclusions based on really inaccurate or see releases and so called experts in the media that are not even pilots before trashing SAR or anyone.

[Robby nz]

Yet the beacons failed to activate?

That's right, and I thought they had pinpointed the plane on the bottom but it was being moved around by the sea?

It would seem as yet they have not had the correct gear to pick up the signals from the boxes and the beacons may well have activated for they only have a range of 2000 to 3000 M so they may well be outside the current search area where the things they have picked up so far have been carried by wind and currents :

Given Flight QZ8501 crashed in shallow seas, experts say finding the boxes should not be difficult if the beacons, with a range of 2,000 to 3,000 metres (6,560 to 9,800 ft), are working.Tatang Kurniadim, the head of Indonesia's National Committee for Transportation Safety, said late

Thursday that rescuers would use five ping locators - two from Indonesia, two from Singapore and one from Britain - once bad weather had eased and the waters had calmed as expected within five days. - See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/airasia-flight-8501-acoustic-equipment-to-search-for-black-boxes/article1-1302465.aspx#sthash.6ayKSq9F.dpuf -

[Tywais]

Graph of path of QZ8501, Altitude of other aircraft that prevented a clearance to climb on initial request, Search effort patterns, sea patterns effecting drift of wreckage, and explanation of data recorders. See link below.

Reuters Graphics

[F430murci]

Unbelievable.

----------

AirAsia flight QZ8501: Families of victims 'evicted from their hotel on New Year's Eve'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/airasia-flight-qz8501-families-of-victims-evicted-from-hotel-on-new-years-eve-9952635.html

[khaosai]

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.

[jpinx]

Graph of path of QZ8501, Altitude of other aircraft that prevented a clearance to climb on initial request, Search effort patterns, sea patterns effecting drift of wreckage, and explanation of data recorders. See link below.

Reuters Graphics

Interesting information, Shame they didn't put in the weather chart showing the thunder-cells around the area at the time of the incident.

[F430murci]

Report saying pilots did not request a weather briefing before leaving and that AirAsia had no permit to fly SUB - SIN on Sundays, only Mon, Tues, Thurs, Sat. The 28th December flight was the first Sunday flight for the carrier, and it was unlicensed.

More press releases that may or may not be accurate, but the weather issue is a bit unsettling.

----------

Google translation:

By virtue of a DGCA No. AU.008 / 30/6 / DRJU.DAU - 2014 dated October 24, 2014 regarding permission Foreign Flight Period Winter 2014/2015 , Surabaya - Singapore route given to Indonesia AirAsia is Monday, Tuesday , Thursday and Saturday .

http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/2015/01/02/205840526/Izin.Rute.AirAsia.Surabaya-Singapura.Dibekukan

Google translation:

Head of Data and Information BMKG Juanda , Bambang Setiajid , confirmed information that Air Asia QZ8501 not ask weather briefing . Though BMKG data showed growth cumulonimbus cloud remarkable since 02.00 .

http://m.tempo.co/read/news/2015/01/02/078632491/AirAsia-QZ8501-Surat-BMKG-Ini-Picu-Kesal-Johan

[chrisinth]

As a general question, do these aircraft carry EPIRBs, and if not, what sort of distress signaling devices do they carry?

The reason I am asking is that every EPIRB I have dealt with has automatic activation on immersion, ie, when the paper gasket gets wet (saturated) it will then allow the radio beacon to transmit. The EPIRB can of course be activated manually. Others I have worked with were on a hydrostatic release and would release at a depth of 15 meters (depth can vary) to free-float and indicate the 'lost' area.

In other words, we have an aircraft down in the sea yet no distress frequencies activated. How can that happen?

Edited January 2, 2015 by chrisinth

[F430murci]

As a general question, do these aircraft carry EPIRBs, and if not, what sort of distress signaling devices do they carry?

The reason I am asking is that every EPIRB I have dealt with has automatic activation on immersion, ie, when the paper gasket gets wet (saturated) it will then allow the radio beacon to transmit. The EPIRB can of course be activated manually. Others I have worked with were on a hydrostatic release and would release at a depth of 15 meters (depth can vary) to free-float and indicate the 'lost' area.

In other words, we have an aircraft down in the sea yet no distress frequencies activated. How can that happen?

Could background noise and interference impact ability to detect signals caused by huge waves and weather conditions?

[NanLaew]

I thought exactly the same thing. And it was reported that 1 person had a life jacket on, the exit door was off and the escape ramp deployed (unlikely to be from the impact). As I said before Singapore had a C 130 ready to and never got permission till the following day!!!

It basically took 3 days to find an aircraft 10 Km from where the last point of contact was. This stuff ALWAYS happens in bad weather, whether it is a boating accident or air. They searched for 2 hours the first day and went home because it was rough and going dark....... Doesn't say much about their equipment or priorities does it! If it was rough in the boat what would it have been like without one?

I am not sure if RigPig means you work on fixed offshore installations or not. I work on boats all over SE Asia.

Most boats of the size deployed on SAR would have limitations on what they can SAFELY do. If they had greater than 3 meter seas, there's a very high likelihood that crew are not permitted to work outside on open decks or over the side of the vessel. Chances are if a SAR boat had been there at the right time, there would still have been bugger all they could have done to recover the unlikely survivors. With the restricted visibility at sea level, they could have motored over the top of any bodies in the water.

No SAR boats at sea 'went home' after a few hours. Aircraft stopped flying but boats already deployed stayed on station to resume search at first light.

Edited January 2, 2015 by NanLaew

[smedly]

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

Edited January 2, 2015 by smedly

[Robby nz]

I thought exactly the same thing. And it was reported that 1 person had a life jacket on, the exit door was off and the escape ramp deployed (unlikely to be from the impact). As I said before Singapore had a C 130 ready to and never got permission till the following day!!!

It basically took 3 days to find an aircraft 10 Km from where the last point of contact was. This stuff ALWAYS happens in bad weather, whether it is a boating accident or air. They searched for 2 hours the first day and went home because it was rough and going dark....... Doesn't say much about their equipment or priorities does it! If it was rough in the boat what would it have been like without one?

I am not sure if RigPig means you work on fixed offshore installations or not. I work on boats all over SE Asia.

Most boats of the size deployed on SAR would have limitations on what they can SAFELY do. If they had greater than 3 meter seas, there's a very high likelihood that crew are not permitted to work outside on open decks or over the side of the vessel. Chances are if a SAR boat had been there at the right time, there would still have been bugger all they could have done to recover the unlikely survivors. With the restricted visibility at sea level, they could have motored over the top of any bodies in the water.

No SAR boats at sea 'went home' after a few hours. Aircraft stopped flying but boats already deployed stayed on station to resume search at first light.

I have been following this and it seems there are some who are on here just to try to apportion blame to those doing the searching.

They would seem to have no experience or idea of what it is like attempting to find something in a rough sea and bad weather where radar is completely useless in trying to find even a reasonable sized object because of wave clutter, rain makes things even more difficult.

Looking for something in these conditions is completely visual and trying to see something from the deck or bridge of a ship moving in rough sea of an aircraft where a limited number of crew are looking out of small windows is very difficult.

As for EPIRB's they only work above the surface and if in a submerged plane or boat can not be heard.

The fact that a plane part has been recovered that resembles an emergency door and an emergency slide only shows that parts of the plane were detached, whether by force of break up or not we wait to see, the fact that bodies have now been recovered still in seats would indicate break up, whether in the air or on impact remains to be seen.

And yes I have had experience in SAR as I was the coastguard for many years where I lived before coming to TL and responded to many mayday calls.

[F430murci]

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

That is way too long winded to read, but weather cap rip apart a modern plane.

[chrisinth]

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

As a general question, do these aircraft carry EPIRBs, and if not, what sort of distress signaling devices do they carry?

The reason I am asking is that every EPIRB I have dealt with has automatic activation on immersion, ie, when the paper gasket gets wet (saturated) it will then allow the radio beacon to transmit. The EPIRB can of course be activated manually. Others I have worked with were on a hydrostatic release and would release at a depth of 15 meters (depth can vary) to free-float and indicate the 'lost' area.

In other words, we have an aircraft down in the sea yet no distress frequencies activated. How can that happen?

Could background noise and interference impact ability to detect signals caused by huge waves and weather conditions?

From what i understand with the newer EPIRBs, these will squawk on 406/121.5 Mhz, they are float free devices, and are automatically activated and detectable by satellite anywhere in the world. Part of their acceptance i would assume is to be able to transmit in any conditions, as this is the likely scenario they would be deployed in.

But, as implied by the very name, Emergency Position Indicating, they obviously become useless unless there is a method to successfully deploy them when needed.

There is of course the possibility that they will be destroyed on high impact, but my initial question was probably more towards the deployment methods than the distress devices carried on modern civil aircraft.

Note: The hydrostatic releases i mentioned in the previous post are more used with the deployment of the liferafts (which should have EPIRBs onboard).

[Basil B]

Firstly, ELT/EPIRBs...

These are stowed inside the aircraft so unless manually deployed or the aircraft broke up enough for it to float free it is likely to be still inside the aircraft, (they do not transmit very well underwater), I am coming to the conclusion that they are a useless piece of junk... or even a greater hazard to aircraft safety than benefit as I recall one caught fire last year.

Edit in: http://news.aviation-safety.net/2014/06/19/aaib-short-circuit-likely-caused-elt-battery-fire-on-ethiopian-boeing-787-8/

Edited January 3, 2015 by Basil B

[siampolee]

Some interesting facts concerning the matter in the link below

AirAsia flight QZ8501: Aircraft's behaviour before crash 'on the edge of logic', according to expert

.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/airasia-flight-qz8501-

[chrisinth]

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

Firstly, ELT/EPIRBs...

These are stowed inside the aircraft so unless manually deployed or the aircraft broke up enough for it to float free it is likely to be still inside the aircraft, (they do not transmit very well underwater), I am coming to the conclusion that they are a useless piece of junk... or even a greater hazard to aircraft safety than benefit as I recall one caught fire last year.

Edit in: http://news.aviation-safety.net/2014/06/19/aaib-short-circuit-likely-caused-elt-battery-fire-on-ethiopian-boeing-787-8/

Thanks Baz B.

It just doesn't seem logical to even have these devices onboard unless there is an automated deployment method to enable them to operate as they should.

Unless this exists, i could easily concur with your conclusion of them being junk, additional weight. Without trying to be morbid, IMHO, it is impractical for these to be manually operated only.

[khaosai]

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.

[khaosai]

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.

[Maestro]

36 hours later a plane spots debris right over the spot where the plane lost communication, mean while 30 ships have been searching 10,000 square miles yet never thought to look in the place it was lost. 36 wasted hours, the mind boggles.

My eyesight is no longer as good as it was at the age of 20 and I need some help. Many posts, not just yours, in this topic make reference to the position of impact or debris zone and the last known position, but I have been unable to find the coordinates of either one in this topic or elsewhere on the web. If anybody comes across the coordinates for the debris zone, I'd be grateful if that person posted it here.

Regarding the last known position, I have seen the coordinates of the position at 23:12 UTC at -3.990410, 110.226000 posted here. That was when Center had the last communication with the plane. I have also seen information here about the position at 23:19:46 UTC at -3.613429, 109.097349. I guess the later position can be considered as the last know position, given that the plane was at 24,000 feet and descending at 11,500 feet per minute.

I can't say if it is of any significance, but I think it might be of of some academic interest to know the coordinates of the impact or debris zone and then to calculate the distance between it and the last know position of the plane.

[Maestro]

Report saying pilots did not request a weather briefing before leaving and that AirAsia had no permit to fly SUB - SIN on Sundays, only Mon, Tues, Thurs, Sat. The 28th December flight was the first Sunday flight for the carrier, and it was unlicensed.

More press releases that may or may not be accurate, but the weather issue is a bit unsettling.

----------

Google translation:

By virtue of a DGCA No. AU.008 / 30/6 / DRJU.DAU - 2014 dated October 24, 2014 regarding permission Foreign Flight Period Winter 2014/2015 , Surabaya - Singapore route given to Indonesia AirAsia is Monday, Tuesday , Thursday and Saturday .

http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/2015/01/02/205840526/Izin.Rute.AirAsia.Surabaya-Singapura.Dibekukan

Google translation:

Head of Data and Information BMKG Juanda , Bambang Setiajid , confirmed information that Air Asia QZ8501 not ask weather briefing . Though BMKG data showed growth cumulonimbus cloud remarkable since 02.00 .

http://m.tempo.co/read/news/2015/01/02/078632491/AirAsia-QZ8501-Surat-BMKG-Ini-Picu-Kesal-Johan

Apparently they did get the weather information, but for the time period of the original flight schedule, whereas Air Asia rescheduled the flight to leave two hours earlier.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Noticed this in the news this past week:

AirAsia captain left seat before jet lost control -sources

By Siva Govindasamy, Kanupriya Kapoor and Tim Hepher

SINGAPORE/JAKARTA/PARIS Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:28pm EST

Jan 31 (Reuters) - The captain of the AirAsia jet that crashed into the sea in December was out of his seat conducting an unorthodox procedure when his co-pilot apparently lost control, and by the time he returned it was too late to save the plane, two people familiar with the investigation said.

Details emerging of the final moments of Flight QZ8501 are likely to focus attention partly on maintenance, procedures and training, though Indonesian officials have stressed publicly that it is too early to draw any firm conclusions.

The Airbus A320 jet plunged into the Java Sea while en route from Surabaya, Indonesia, to Singapore on Dec. 28, killing all 162 people on board.

It had been suffering maintenance faults with a key flight control computer for over a week, and one person familiar with the matter said the captain had flown on the same plane with the intermittently faulty device just days before the crash.

MORE:

Edited February 8, 2015 by TallGuyJohninBKK