AirAsia flight QZ8501 was not cleared to fly route, says Indonesia

[hhinhh]

How could they fly without permission?

Of course not. This is only politics and has nothing to do with the accident.

[how241]

What will the stock price due tomorrow ? I'm guessing down, but you never know.

[Lite Beer]

Focus turns to AirAsia's alleged missteps
THE JAKARTA POST

JAKARTA: -- As more than 30 bodies from AirAsia Flight QZ8501 were recovered from the Karimata Strait this weekend, leaked official documents have given rise to allegations that AirAsia Indonesia violated procedures that lead to the disaster.

The first allegation came to light in a leaked document that was originally sent by the Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) to Transportation Minister Ignatius Jonan on Wednesday, revealing that the pilots of the flight had not received a required weather report from the agency.

"AirAsia took the [bMKG] weather report at 7 a.m.," on Dec. 28, the day of the crash, BMKG head Andi E. Sakya said. The time was after the plane's departure from Surabaya's Juanda International Airport at 5:35 a.m.

An AirAsia flight operations officer (FOO) received the report only after the plane lost contact with Jakarta air traffic control at 6:17 a.m.

Former National Transportation Safety Committee (KNKT) investigator Ruth Hanna Simatupang said that pilots were required to obtain weather reports from the BMKG at least 10 minutes before takeoff.

"According to standard procedures, every time pilots chart flight plans, they must consider [bMKG] weather reports," she said. "So how could the plane fly without a weather report from the agency?"

Hanna said one factor might be the early-morning departure.

"The flight departed really early in the morning and the crew had to get ready at least 2.5 hours before that because it was an international flight. Did Juanda airport prepare the crew at 4 a.m.? That may be why the FOO didn't take the weather report from the BMKG. Or it could be the BMKG did not have its officials [ready]," said Hanna.

Sunu Widyatmoko, the president director of AirAsia Indonesia, an associate carrier of Malaysian budget airline AirAsia, denied the allegation.

"AirAsia Indonesia really considers and is very careful in evaluating weather reports from the BMKG before every flight," he said.

Sunu said the BMKG's station at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport sent reports via e-mail four times a day to the AirAsia Indonesia operations center.

"These reports are accepted by the operations control center at all AirAsia Indonesia hubs, which are Jakarta, Medan, Surabaya, Bandung and Denpasar, where they are printed out and kept by pilots," he said.

The agency's weather map shows that the Surabaya-Singapore route taken by the flight on that day was very cloudy, lending support to the theory that thick cumulonimbus clouds contributed to the crash.

The Transportation Ministry also grounded AirAsia flights from Surabaya to Singapore because the airline allegedly did not have permission to fly on Sundays.

The suspension, effective from Jan. 2, will be in place until the KNKT completes its investigation.

AirAsia Indonesia safety and security director Achmad Sadikin denied the flight had been illegal.

Hanna said that AirAsia Indonesia might have obtained a license to fly outside its regular schedule, considering the high demand for yearend travel.

"There must have been a new license proposed by AirAsia to the ministry. We must check how it could obtain such a permit and what did it take to get it?" Hanna said.

Transportation Ministry acting director general for air transportation Djoko Murjatmodjo said on Saturday the ministry would investigate any irregularities.

"We know [someone] must have given the permit. We're looking into the who and why," he said, adding that those responsible for possible violations might be suspended.

Responding to the allegations, Transportation Minister Ignasius made an unannounced visit to the AirAsia Indonesia office in Cengkareng, Tangerang, on Friday.

Jonan reportedly expressed anger after learning some AirAsia Indonesia pilots had not been directly briefed by the FOO on weather conditions.

The minister was said to have been disappointed with a statement from AirAsia officials that said pilots could download information from the BMKG's website.

"You should abide by the regulation. Don't even try to break the rules. I can revoke your license," Jonan said.

Meanwhile in Surabaya, some family members of passengers on the AirAsia flight said they had not considered filing a lawsuit following the allegations.

"We're focusing now on finding information about Adrian," said Ronny Tanubun, a relative of 13-year-old Andrian Fernando, one of the passengers on the plane. Following requests from the families of those on ill-fated AirAsia flight QZ8501, police will not allow media to cover the transfer of bodies identified by its Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) team.

East Java Police spokesman Sr. Comr. Awi Setiyono announced on Saturday that the press would no longer be permitted to cover such transfers, as happened with the first four bodies.

"We plead with our journalist friends: There's no need for the transfer to be covered. The families have objected. This is a private matter, let's respect this," Awi told reporters on Saturday.

The spokesman said the objections were mainly aimed at live television coverage.

On Saturday in Surabaya, the bodies of two more victims — The Meiji Thejakusuma, a 44-year-old woman from Kupang Indah, and Hendra Gunawan Syawal, a 23-year-old man from Bubutan — were returned to families without a ceremony.

"In both cases, we have a match between ante mortem and post mortem data," Awi said.

Six bodies have been returned to families as of Saturday, seven days after contact with the plane, which was en route from Surabaya to Singapore, was lost.

Separately, 12 more bodies arrived at Bhayangkara Hospital for identification on Saturday, flown in from Pangkalan Bun, Central Kalimantan, where bodies and debris found at the crash site in the Karimata Strait have been taken.

A total of 30 bodies have been flown to the hospital, including the six returned to families. Awi said two more bodies would soon be returned to families, with two others at the final stage of identification. The rest were still undergoing identification.

Awi said the police were collecting DNA data from victims' families.

East Java forensic team member Sr. Comr. Hery Wijayatmoko said the team was relying on DNA data. "After being in the water for [seven days, it's difficult to obtain fingerprints]," Hery said.

He said that the bodies were first labeled and separated based on gender and nationality.

The latter stages involved examining the bodies for post mortem data, including dental documentation, property found on the bodies, as well as fingerprints and DNA data.

"It's not easy, but we have many experts on the team to help speed up the process," he said.

A number of forensic experts have joined the team, including those from Brawijaya University in Malang, East Java; Gajah Mada Univeristy in Yogyakarta and the University of Indonesia (UI) in Jakarta.

UI forensic expert Budi Sampurna said that police would autopsy the bodies of the pilot, co-pilot and some of the passengers for their investigation.

"Not all the passengers' bodies will be subject to autopsy. We're taking only a sample, because not all the families approve [of this method]," Budi said.

Earlier on Friday, hundreds of family members of pilot Iriyanto gathered at his parents' home in Sleman, Yogyakarta, to pray.

"The family prays that God will give Iriyanto help and goodness," said Iriyanto's cousin Daru Lalito Wistoro.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/aec/Focus-turns-to-AirAsias-alleged-missteps-30251150.html

-- The Nation 2014-01-04

[MaxYakov]

Anyone remember the Sukhoi Superjet that crashed in Indonesia? They were cleared by ATC to descend to an altitude far below the highest peaks in the area and ended up crashing into one of them.

I don't have the greatest respect for Indonesian ATC and I am a pilot.

Sent from my ASUS_T00I using Tapatalk 2

Do you have a better example of Indonesian ATC deficiencies than the Sukhoi Superjet 100 Crash on Mount Salak?

From the, above, Wiki link:

"The final report, released 18 December 2012, indicated that the accident was caused by crew members ignoring terrain warnings that they had incorrectly attributed to a database problem. The crew had turned off the terrain warning system and were unaware that they were operating in close proximity to mountains. The crew, including the captain, were engaging in conversation with potential customers as the aircraft impacted the ground."

At what point does ATC take responsibility for crew actions over which it has no control or even knowledge? Or was the accident report a conspiratorial coverup to protect ATC? Do you have any other examples of Indonesian ATC incompetence?

Update:

From the NTSC Final Investigation Report, ATC deficiencies were a factor in the Superjet crash:

b. The Jakarta Radar service had not established the minimum vectoring altitudes and the system was not equipped with functioning MSAW for the particular area surrounding Mount Salak.

I should have gone to the final report instead of relying solely on Wiki. My paperwork was NOT in order. I and, I'm sure others, would like to see more examples of Indonesian ATC deficiencies from you and other pilots.

Edited January 4, 2015 by MaxYakov

[xygote]

"The minister was said to have been disappointed with a statement from AirAsia officials that said pilots could download information from the BMKG's website.

"You should abide by the regulation. Don't even try to break the rules. I can revoke your license," Jonan said."

What an example of political grandstanding. Indonesia and Thailand appear to share this disgusting trait.

[David Walden]

Most complaints I've heard about AirAsia from my trips from Perth to Chiang Mia (Northern Thailand) are about leg room from tall Aussies and Yanks. Me I'm only 5'5" quite a good hight for travelling in the small space provided. I've paid $269 Aus return to KL from Perth quite good when price when you compare the $1000 charged by full service airlines. Oh and by the way I did have to pay $8 for a meal.... I hope this disaster sorts its self out...I'm sure this issue is the last thing Airasia wanted...God bless those who came to grief.

[soalbundy]

Looks like the airline is going to pay out more money than they thought.

[xygote]

I've also read that Indonesia Air Transport Ministry is doing an audit of all of AirAsia routes and possible 'unauthorised schedules' across all routes and has mentioned It might be possible to revoke AirAsia's licence in Indonesia.

From: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-04/four-large-parts-of-airasia-jet-qz8501-found-authorities-say/5998888

Plane was flying on 'unauthorised schedule'

Meanwhile, Indonesia's transport ministry said the AirAsia plane was flying on an unauthorised schedule when it crashed, adding it had now frozen the airline's permission to fly the route.

The transport ministry said AirAsia was not permitted to fly the Surabaya-Singapore route on Sundays and had not asked to change its schedule.

"It violated the route permit given, the schedule given, that's the problem," said Djoko Murjatmodjo, the director general of air transport.

"AirAsia's permit for the route has been frozen because it violated the route permit given."

He later added: "We are going to investigate all AirAsia flight schedules.

"Hopefully we can start on Monday. We won't focus on licences, just schedules.

"It might be possible to revoke AirAsia's licence in Indonesia."

Indonesia AirAsia chief executive Sunu Widyatmoko said the company would cooperate with the government investigation but declined to elaborate.

This really is beginning to look like a major "cover your a.r.s.e." attempt.

From post #34:

Singapore’s Civil Aviation Authority issued a directive today saying the airline had been authorized to run daily flights during the winter season under a bilateral air-services accord."

Who's telling the truth? I'd sooner believe and trust the Singaporeans than the Indonesians any day.

[jacksam]

It was already strange that Air Asia changed the flight's departure time to two hours earlier than the original time. I haven't seen any explanation given for that.

One possible explanation could be that at this peak period of the year the flight was overbooked and ground staff preferred to let it take off two hours before scheduled departure (indeed some people missed this flight due to the earlier departure and survived).

What is the meaning of "not cleared" : that this was a flight added before paperwork was done.... to cope with too high demand?

Yes your in the money. Also I think AirAsia are only allowed to opperate from that airport certain number of days. In any event the cause of crash is speculation.

I don't like people posting ideas with no basis....however just as an input.... I rent my home in AU to 3 pilots. We had a chat when I was briefly in AU. They used technical terms but the gist was....in certain weather conditions, water droplets are pushed upward at incredible speed. Less speed they hit plane as ice and just bounce off. In some instances the are still droplets of water and cling to aircraft. They then turn into ice. This process continues. Also this very good aircraft is controlled very much by computer system. They then send all conflicting messages etc. The lads mentioned that this happened with a famous air crash. Think it was air France.

All this is second hand knowledge. Just found it interesting. I have zero background in aeronautics.

If you have sore donk pm me

[Gillyflower]

I hadn't heard that the plane departed 2 hours before. Well there was a VERY LUCKY family of 10. They showed up too late and missed their flight. I believe there were 17 'no shows'.

[MobileContent]

If ATC cleared them , then they had permission , trying to pass the buck ?

Are you saying ATC has copies of all license agreements for every airline departing and landing in a given location. You do realize that ATC has a lot if stress placed on them just trying to keep planes from running into each other and perhaps has no time to try and figure out if an airline is ignoring their license agreement with a given country.

In this case, I think clearance from the Transport Ministry is not the same as clearance from Air Traffic Control. In many countries, including Thailand and Indonesia Airports, Air Navigation and Aviation Regulation are under the control of different agencies. Airports in Indonesia are owned by the government but operated by a state owned corporate entity PT Ankasa Pura. Air Navigation and Aviation Regulation are under different departments within the Ministry of Transport. In Thailand airports are operated either by AOT Plc or the Department of Civil Aviation (also the regulator) and air navigation is done by a state enterprise called the Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (ART).

The Indonesian bureaucracy is quite vast, complex and quite byzantine. I would like to see more information to be able to establish the correlation between the approval of a route by the relevant department of the Ministry of Transport and the cause of the crash of the Air Asia flight. There may be certification and safety procedures that are required for approval that may turn out to be relevant in this case. Or it might be a case of government officials covering their backsides after allowing dodgy scheduling practices which may have no bearing on the causes of this tragedy.

Regulation in this part of the world is often not consistent with world standards and can also be heavily influenced at the policy and political level. Often we have to trust in operators maintaining high industry standards of safety and service quality because it is in their own commercial interests to do so.

This is a very good point. Air Asia just needs to submit the manifest and they get approval by the ATC to fly. I think the MoT in Indonesia have not given their approval yet but since ATC cleared the flight, AirAsia should be fine I guess.

[gyrosman]

If ATC cleared them , then they had permission , trying to pass the buck ?

Are you saying ATC has copies of all license agreements for every airline departing and landing in a given location. You do realize that ATC has a lot if stress placed on them just trying to keep planes from running into each other and perhaps has no time to try and figure out if an airline is ignoring their license agreement with a given country.

I agree ATC's are in a busy state of mind and have such certifcates handy. But, I think it was an oversight and how long has it been going on?It is only a matter of a license agreement to fly on that SUN? thru that airport which will be handled by the contract layers. Secondly, did that aircraft arrive from another zone that day ie: . Ubon-BKK- Puhket ) to only get addition passengers? But, if it were static it would to be serviced, loaded, toed to the gate, ticket agenies, announcements and much more which requires ground moverment premission to get accross taxi and main runways. Sechuding all of the above also aka: airport manger.

With all that said, it only matters about the incident or what day is flying because it coulld of been another airline which would of encountered that same situation. Sometimes mother nature is stronger that human technologies and skills. Rest in peace!

[neverdie]

Dodgy.

More aspects than 1 make these budget airlines dodgy......meanwhile dummies keep linng up to fly with them....you save a bit of cash though.

Contender for most stupid post. AirAsia safety record is better than most. As for not having authorised flight time. Separate issue. More about self interest. I fly AirAsia OFTEN. Brilliant service. Please come back with sensible stats with sensible post. And yes AirAsia just overflew run way days back in phillipines. So did Thai airways few months back in bkk

I've put a fair bit of information onto this forum regarding Budget Carriers, P2F Airlines and other 'piloting' issues regarding Automation and so forth. I can just keep regurgitating the information over and over.

It's not up to me to educate the greater general public about what is going on in the industry but it certainly would be wise for people to start making informed decisions about who they are really riding with. Can't anyone see that the flight you are on is only as good as the 'pilot' driving the bloody thang?

Perhaps it's beyond some peoples basic comprehension that aircraft are complex pieces of equipment and their complexities keep growing with all this marvellous forms of wizardry and gadgets. The problem is when all this compoentry messes up and control is handed back to the pilots, it seems the newer breed of pilot is incapable of dealing with the issue of flying the aircraft. This isn't entirely the pilots fault, as airlines push Procedures about how much 'stick time' pilots get verses what time the a/c is on auto control. Then there's the issue regarding piloting experience where it's common to see guys get command with 5,000-8,000 hours and at the same time their F.O.'s are riding shotgun on some P2F scheme with just 800 hrs up their sleeves and so on.

It seems people doesn't recognise the importance of having a minimum of at least 2 experienced pilots watching over each other and less experienced crew forming part of a 3 person flight crew. Maybe people just don't understand the workload saturation that can occur during an emergency situation and think that one experienced pilot is enough, afterall, what could go wrong, the plane basically flies itself. Lol.

Putting accountants and bean counters in charge of issues that should be left to competent pilots with 'airmanship' was always going,to be problematic.

If you think I am the only one concerned with such a thing, then run along and check for yourself there's an entire squadron of former and retired pilots that have been voicing these concerns and others for decades. I am just one of these.

Large wide bodies commercial aircraft need to be flown by experienced crew who have had continual training and plenty of manual and continuing 'manual' flying experience. End of story. Of course, what is actually happening is the opposite to that and it's all driven Around saving money.

The Aviation authorities all around the world have dropped the ball, actually the ball was dropped so long ago, none of them can even see where it originally landed.

Edited January 4, 2015 by neverdie

[gyrosman]

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

Anyone remember the Sukhoi Superjet that crashed in Indonesia? They were cleared by ATC to descend to an altitude far below the highest peaks in the area and ended up crashing into one of them.

I don't have the greatest respect for Indonesian ATC and I am a pilot.

Sent from my ASUS_T00I using Tapatalk 2

I agree a person with an aviation background also but I believe pilots have t to be responsible which knowlege of their airspace. Perhaps they were decending thru the peaks where the airport appoarch was ? That jet is a project with Boeing and this aircraft is bascially a new 737NG which would have modern avionics don't you think?

[new2here]

In many cases the process starts with the carrier obtaining a license or route authorization.. Commonly that's now electronic, but can also be paper.

As a part of this, the carrier is usually required to show their current AOC, indemnity insurance and other legality-documents..

Once that is obtained, the carrier can then approach the airport operator to set up slots, gate information, GSE vendor details.. All the "operational" aspects.

A flight plan is an operational instrument - usually made on a DoD basis, and largely is unrelated to the carriers route authorization and other matters.

This doesn't mean there is no connection, but that the two do somewhat operate independently and are dealt with by different departments inside the airline and by different government entities.

I've seen cases where an issue is raised when a carrier must refile the plan, but does do past 23:59L, thus moving the flights operational day to +1.. Those are commonly resolved by amending the former plan and rescinding the newly issued one.

So, operating outside of what was (allegedly) the granted authority is never good for a whole host of reasons - whether or not this is more an innocent (but still wrong ) clerical error, to the willful and malicious malfeasance by one or more parties -- is yet to be seen.

[neverdie]

It was already strange that Air Asia changed the flight's departure time to two hours earlier than the original time. I haven't seen any explanation given for that.

One possible explanation could be that at this peak period of the year the flight was overbooked and ground staff preferred to let it take off two hours before scheduled departure (indeed some people missed this flight due to the earlier departure and survived).

What is the meaning of "not cleared" : that this was a flight added before paperwork was done.... to cope with too high demand?

Yes your in the money. Also I think AirAsia are only allowed to opperate from that airport certain number of days. In any event the cause of crash is speculation.

I don't like people posting ideas with no basis....however just as an input.... I rent my home in AU to 3 pilots. We had a chat when I was briefly in AU. They used technical terms but the gist was....in certain weather conditions, water droplets are pushed upward at incredible speed. Less speed they hit plane as ice and just bounce off. In some instances the are still droplets of water and cling to aircraft. They then turn into ice. This process continues. Also this very good aircraft is controlled very much by computer system. They then send all conflicting messages etc. The lads mentioned that this happened with a famous air crash. Think it was air France.

All this is second hand knowledge. Just found it interesting. I have zero background in aeronautics.

If you have sore donk pm me

It was Air France 447 & exactly some of what I refer to many times. The AF447 crash is a really good example of inexperience not identifying with a basic condition of flight 'aerodynamic stall' . It's also a good example of Automation gone crazy.

Bring back Cables and flight controls, or at least give pilots plenty of opportunities to use the ones they have. No go check airline sops about the manual flying of aircraft.

[jacksam]

Dodgy.

More aspects than 1 make these budget airlines dodgy......meanwhile dummies keep linng up to fly with them....you save a bit of cash though.

Contender for most stupid post. AirAsia safety record is better than most. As for not having authorised flight time. Separate issue. More about self interest. I fly AirAsia OFTEN. Brilliant service. Please come back with sensible stats with sensible post. And yes AirAsia just overflew run way days back in phillipines. So did Thai airways few months back in bkk

I've put a fair bit of information onto this forum regarding Budget Carriers, P2F Airlines and other 'piloting' issues regarding Automation and so forth. I can just keep regurgitating the information over and over.

It's not up to me to educate the greater general public about what is going on in the industry but it certainly would be wise for people to start making informed decisions about who they are really riding with. Can't anyone see that the flight you are on is only as good as the 'pilot' driving the bloody thang?

Perhaps it's beyond some peoples basic comprehension that aircraft are complex pieces of equipment and their complexities keep growing with all this marvellous forms of wizardry and gadgets. The problem is when all this compoentry messes up and control is handed back to the pilots, it seems the newer breed of pilot is incapable of dealing with the issue of flying the aircraft. This isn't entirely the pilots fault, as airlines push Procedures about how much 'stick time' pilots get verses what time the a/c is on auto control. Then there's the issue regarding piloting experience where it's common to see guys get command with 5,000-8,000 hours and at the same time their F.O.'s are riding shotgun on some P2F scheme with just 800 hrs up their sleeves and so on.

It seems people doesn't recognise the importance of having a minimum of at least 2 experienced pilots watching over each other and less experienced crew forming part of a 3 person flight crew. Maybe people just don't understand the workload saturation that can occur during an emergency situation and think that one experienced pilot is enough, afterall, what could go wrong, the plane basically flies itself. Lol.

Putting accountants and bean counters in charge of issues that should be left to competent pilots with 'airmanship' was always going,to be problematic.

If you think I am the only one concerned with such a thing, then run along and check for yourself there's an entire squadron of former and retired pilots that have been voicing these concerns and others for decades. I am just one of these.

Large wide bodies commercial aircraft need to be flown by experienced crew who have had continual training and plenty of manual and continuing 'manual' flying experience. End of story. Of course, what is actually happening is the opposite to that and it's all driven Around saving money.

The Aviation authorities all around the world have dropped the ball, actually the ball was dropped so long ago, none of them can even see where it originally landed.

More long winded rubbish from Mel Gibson AKA conspiracy theory. Look at sensible stats regarding air disasters from many years back. Take out terrorism and talk sense...for once

[neverdie]

Jacksam,

That's exactly why I don't bother. You try to give people information but they don't understand it so they throw it in the same pile you just did.

For years now there has been a number of aircraft crashes, runway excursions, near incidents and problems that relate to what I speak of. You just informed the forum earlier that you have no aviation experience yet you classed the information I gave you as, 'Conspiracy theory'.

What part don't you believe? P2F ?

Seriously, take time to educate yourself about the problem before dismissing it.

Obviously, I don't know what happened to the AirAsia flight but I have a feeling it will have large elements of AF447 in it.

There's nothing like flying a fully functional aircraft into the earth.

Anyway, time will tell.

[Ve37]

How could they fly without permission?

From what I understand,...it was a scheduled flight, but left early (for some yet unknown reason),...which was not cleared. Because of the earlier take-off, there was already air traffic above them, and thus did not have permission to go higher. We'll know more by the end of the coming week.

[Basil B]

I still not see why an administrative issue makes this Airline unsafe to fly with???

But there again I am not Narrow minded...

[neverdie]

I still not see why an administrative issue makes this Airline unsafe to fly with???

But there again I am not Narrow minded...

Who said an administration issue ALONE made an airline unsafe to fly with? I must have missed that message.

[Basil B]

"Probe into Air Asia's Flight Schedules"

Why just Air Asia, I am sure it is not that difficult to audit all Airlines flying around Indonesia , or is it just a witch hunt?

[gandalf12]

They must have had flight approval for some route otherwise ATC would have questioned why they were on the taxi way

[Mudcrab]

But the airport or air traffic controllers still let them fly. Seems like very lax procedures. Probably happens more than we know.

I doubt ATC has copies of license agreements with each airline.

A friend of mine who is a very business savy, rich lawyer recently said (in response to the 2 year old shooting mother incident) that there are no accidents. Just a series of bad decisions leading to a bad outcome. Intuitively, I am very resistant to that premise, but there may be some validity to that observation.

Don't need to be a "a very business savy, rich lawyer" to know that.

Ask anyone who has worked professionally in industry and they will tell you the same. The only difference is that they don't get paid to lie or destroy other peoples reputations.

Intuitively you have no idea about that premise or observation.

It is a fact.

There is no such thing as an accident.

There is always a root cause that could and should have been avoided.

Even the most basic training in risk assessment will deliver this knowledge.

The investigation into this incident will provide the root cause to the disaster.

Do you know the difference between a dead dog laying in the street and a dead lawyer laying in the street?

There's skid marks in front of the dog.

[krisb]

Has this got anything to do with the crash???

Seems to me Indonesia which has a very poor air safety record is creating a smoke screen to hide behind.

I see the final conclusion (report) putting fault at many factors including The Pilot, the Co Pilot, Air Asia, Indonesia, Airbus, ATC, the weather and so on.

Nothing so far would stop me booking a flight with Air Asia again, I have flown with them before and found them to be a decent airline for the price and could see no cutting of corners on safety.

Dodgy.

More aspects than 1 make these budget airlines dodgy......meanwhile dummies keep linng up to fly with them....you save a bit of cash though.

So please do not call me a Dummy, as the only reason I am not booking a flight right now (BKK-URT) for end of April is because I do not know if this airline will survive that long due to the diarrhoeic dribble that is being put about by others.

Half the reason the aviation industry is in crisis is because people that don't understand the implications of lining up to ride with these <snip> and other ones which are even worse.

An overhaul of the aviation industry & it's regulators is long long overdue. I suspect you like others have little understanding of what's really happening.

BasilB, you have contradicted yourself.

One you say you...

Seems to me Indonesia which has a very poor air safety record is creating a smoke screen to hide behind.

Then a sentance later it's this...Nothing so far would stop me booking a flight with Air Asia again, I have flown with them before and found them to be a decent airline for the price and could see no cutting of corners on safety.

[SOTIRIOS]

...huh....???

...so how was it even able to take off.......

[new2here]

I still not see why an administrative issue makes this Airline unsafe to fly with???

I agree ... This is like the old "if they can't keep the carpet clean and in good repair, do you think they can do so with the engines"

I think for a lot of people, a rational distinction can be made in that who, how, when, where and how carpets are cleaned will vary from that of the power-plants.

In the same manner, how the carriers "administrative" side operates can vary from that of the operational side.

Where I do think there is some credence - but it's not something I think one can objectively articulate- is that a carriers "culture" can impact how all groups work ..

[krisb]

Jacksam,

That's exactly why I don't bother. You try to give people information but they don't understand it so they throw it in the same pile you just did.

For years now there has been a number of aircraft crashes, runway excursions, near incidents and problems that relate to what I speak of. You just informed the forum earlier that you have no aviation experience yet you classed the information I gave you as, 'Conspiracy theory'.

What part don't you believe? P2F ?

Seriously, take time to educate yourself about the problem before dismissing it.

Obviously, I don't know what happened to the AirAsia flight but I have a feeling it will have large elements of AF447 in it.

There's nothing like flying a fully functional aircraft into the earth.

Anyway, time will tell.

Thanks for summing it up Nd.

I gave up after his first 5 elongated paragraphs.

[Mudcrab]

Shouldn't they be arresting the aviation officials who allowed Air Asia to fly on an unauthorised schedule?

EXACTLY. Someone has to pay.

This should not have happened if those responsible were doing their job.

Just a wild stab in the dark...you are from a lawyer chasing country??

It may have missed your attention but around 160 people have already paid....with their lives.

[laobali]

The pilot was taking bold evasive action to lose the Indo AF fighter sent to shoot him down due to the flight's unauthorised overfly status. It might even have been brought down by an air-to-air missile. How's that for a conspiracy theory? In any event the lawyers and insurers are going to have a field day with this one – whatever 'truth' comes out.