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

[fvw53]

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

Brilliant service ? Air Asia even invited two teen Aussie girls to ride with them in the cockpit from take off to landing ! Not an airline I would fly with !

This comment illustrates the quality of the contributions to the Forums of Thaivisa : there has been indeed an incident whereby two Aussie girls were invited to the cockpit but that was NOT on Airasia but on Malaysian Airlines ....my goodness !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSAMSZhCfXY

[Tham1]

Air Asia suck have not flown them for years. Cheap penny pinchers with no interest in the customer.

[MobileContent]

The engine of an AirAsia plane, which was bound for Bandung, had died after two to three metres of taxiing before a take-off at the Juanda, Surabaya International Airport on Saturday (Jan 3). The passengers were then told to get down from the aircraft for repair works. Can you imagine if the engine would have died when they are one hour into a flight????

Including the Khon Kaen, Philippine and now Bandung flight I would almost say that Air Asia is going through a tough ride.

I think Air Asia has many incidents but they are just not reported. Rest assured that every incident will now be reported for the next 3-6 months.

As for me I still will fly them if I have too.

BTW I know many MNC management personals in Southeast Asia that are not permitted to fly AirAsia or any LCC or Indonesian Airline, including Garuda.

[GAZZPA]

This cannot be true, or there are missing details. As far as I am aware it is not possible to get clearance from air traffic control to take off unless the flight is authorised.

I wish that people would just hold off with these BS headlines or at least give the full story. All this does is raise questions, it doesn't provide answers at all.

[kokesaat]

Hopefully the victims of the crash won't die in vein. This could be the catalyst for big changes in the airline industry, especially after all the issues such as Pilot experience, Training, employment conditions, P2F, maintenance short cuts, Automation of flying, Pilots lack of 'hand flying' experience, dangerous SOPS which place saving money over airmanship and all the other little dodgy practises come to light.

.....in the meantime the masses will still line up to save $10 or $20 in a flight.

I've flown Air Asia several times......not because I save money, but because either they have the more convenient flight or because given a choice between Nok Air and Air Asia from Udon-Don Muang, I'll take Air Asia.

[simondan]

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.

Good comment!

How did this contribute to the plane flying out of the sky?

How does this make everyone who flies AirAsia a 'dummy'?

This reflects more on the standards of Indonesia and their authorities than on AirAsia.

I know this is TV but a bit of common sense every now and then would be welcome.

[neverdie]

Hopefully the victims of the crash won't die in vein. This could be the catalyst for big changes in the airline industry, especially after all the issues such as Pilot experience, Training, employment conditions, P2F, maintenance short cuts, Automation of flying, Pilots lack of 'hand flying' experience, dangerous SOPS which place saving money over airmanship and all the other little dodgy practises come to light.

.....in the meantime the masses will still line up to save $10 or $20 in a flight.

I've flown Air Asia several times......not because I save money, but because either they have the more convenient flight or because given a choice between Nok Air and Air Asia from Udon-Don Muang, I'll take Air Asia.

Fair enough mate. I wouldn't jump on Nok air either and haven't been placed in that situation you describe. I'd probably rather fly myself than ride either of them.

People in this thread keep focus'ing on this one issue surrounding flight clearance, but there's a whole lot more than this one little issue that concerns me. Most people are oblivious to what's going on and to how some of these budget carriers were the catalyst to some of the serious issues facing the commercial aviation industry as it stands.

[neverdie]

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.

Good comment!

How did this contribute to the plane flying out of the sky?

How does this make everyone who flies AirAsia a 'dummy'?

This reflects more on the standards of Indonesia and their authorities than on AirAsia.

I know this is TV but a bit of common sense every now and then would be welcome.

Hint. My first four words in the quoted post.

Enjoy your flight.

[cookee68]

This could have very serious implications for Air Asia.

It already has, but somebody must have cleared it, lets not just blame Air Asia, the airport has to take responsibility too FOR LETTING IT TAKE OFF

[Xircal]

Another Indonesian AirAsia incident took place yesterday apparently when the plane experienced an engine flameout while taxiing to takeoff. Passengers reported hearing a loud bang after which an engine wound down and the aircraft returned to the terminal. A number of passengers refused to reboard the aircraft after the flight was cleared for departure fearing that the engine might fail again during the flight.

Full story on the incident appears in the StraitTimes But the aircraft in the image with the WOW livery, registration number PK-AXS didn't perform any flights Bandung yesterday according to Flightradar24.com So either the news media has quoted the wrong destination, or they've got the wrong aircraft.

[gchurch259]

There is a very distinct difference between "Filing a Flight Plan" and have the authority to operate a certain number of flights and any given day,

Having said all that, it has nothing to do with flying an aircraft in weather that is too bad for the approved environment for that aircraft to fly into. After it is all said and done I believe the Captain flew into weather the A320 could not or would not tolerate.

The A320 is a good aircraft, but like all aircraft it has it's limitation.

You are asking yourself, How the hell does he know that? Because I have spent over 60 years maintaining and flying, as Engineer, on nearly every commercial aircraft flying today, except the A380. When I was in the USAF we had a cartoon character series called "I can hack it, Jack" It was a safety take-off on all the things pilots believe they can "Hack" which ends up with them having a bloody nose. Plain and simple there are times and places to fly and there are times and places not to fly.

Enough already !!

[xtof2]

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.

Moving up two hours is very strange. Never heard of such a thing in US and fly a lot.

My understanding is that a later flight was overbooked and that they moved pax to this earlier one... telling them your flight schedule has been changed.

Edited January 4, 2015 by xtof2

[Chwooly]

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.

There are imho a few problems with that statement.

1. Lawyers love because it allows them to always assign blame. There by able to claim damages.

2. It assumes everyone is perfect. We are human therefore not perfect.

While everything does have a root cause sometimes the cause is human error due to being human.

[luk AJ]

There is a very distinct difference between "Filing a Flight Plan" and have the authority to operate a certain number of flights and any given day,

Having said all that, it has nothing to do with flying an aircraft in weather that is too bad for the approved environment for that aircraft to fly into. After it is all said and done I believe the Captain flew into weather the A320 could not or would not tolerate.

The A320 is a good aircraft, but like all aircraft it has it's limitation.

You are asking yourself, How the hell does he know that? Because I have spent over 60 years maintaining and flying, as Engineer, on nearly every commercial aircraft flying today, except the A380. When I was in the USAF we had a cartoon character series called "I can hack it, Jack" It was a safety take-off on all the things pilots believe they can "Hack" which ends up with them having a bloody nose. Plain and simple there are times and places to fly and there are times and places not to fly.

Enough already !!

may I ask, is there a difference in maintenance between different airlines? I.o.w. Can a 737 be more or less safe depending on who's logo is painted on the plane? I was convinced maintenance rules are internationally monitored by some kind of safety board? Does it makes sense blaming Air asia for a blown engine before take off?

[F430murci]

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.

Lol, bitter much?

[F430murci]

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.

There are imho a few problems with that statement.

1. Lawyers love because it allows them to always assign blame. There by able to claim damages.

2. It assumes everyone is perfect. We are human therefore not perfect.

While everything does have a root cause sometimes the cause is human error due to being human.

I primarily defend companies and professionals so I am constantly approaching bad outcomes from an accident, standard of care no negligence or cannot judge based on hindsight. I have also defended some small plane, corporate and regional carrier crashes.

My friend is a plaintiffs' lawyer so he approaches bad outcomes from the perspective of always trying to find fault, negligence or blame.

I am intuitively against such a premise as bad outcomes can occur even when everything is done correctly or within the standard of care. I have perhaps tried and won 50+ jury trials making this argument.

[eddie61]

Everywhere in asia, especialy where Chinese hold sway, money in the right palms speaks volumes... its in the genes.You just have to live with it and its consequences

[beechguy]

Hopefully the victims of the crash won't die in vein. This could be the catalyst for big changes in the airline industry, especially after all the issues such as Pilot experience, Training, employment conditions, P2F, maintenance short cuts, Automation of flying, Pilots lack of 'hand flying' experience, dangerous SOPS which place saving money over airmanship and all the other little dodgy practises come to light.

.....in the meantime the masses will still line up to save $10 or $20 in a flight.

I've flown Air Asia several times......not because I save money, but because either they have the more convenient flight or because given a choice between Nok Air and Air Asia from Udon-Don Muang, I'll take Air Asia.

Fair enough mate. I wouldn't jump on Nok air either and haven't been placed in that situation you describe. I'd probably rather fly myself than ride either of them.

People in this thread keep focus'ing on this one issue surrounding flight clearance, but there's a whole lot more than this one little issue that concerns me. Most people are oblivious to what's going on and to how some of these budget carriers were the catalyst to some of the serious issues facing the commercial aviation industry as it stands.

You mentioned maintenance short cuts in another response. I would be interested to know what you think those are, and how they are occurring.

[GOLDBUGGY]

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

I would have thought it has more serious implications for all kinds of officialdom if AirAsia were just able to send up an extra flight without anyone spotting it. I can't believe it's that easy for an airline to slip an extra flight in just because they feel like it.

Why?

What do you think they do when a flight is delayed because of mechanical problems and they send for another jet to come and pick you up? In which nobody can plan for this as nobody knows when this can happen.

Hell! Even if your fight is delayed an hour are you now not later flying at an unscheduled time? Or several flights delayed due to fog?

And why the airport would allow this.

The one thing is for sure. They were given permission to leave from the local Air Traffic Controller.

[GAZZPA]

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.

Very dodgy.

My armchair speculation (and nothing more) is that the airline made a statement that the pilot requested authority to fly at a higher altitude to avoid some bad weather and the request was refused. So now the airport / air traffic control are making a statement that they had no authority to fly to counter act this statement banning them from flying the route in the future. Quite how the plane got clearance to take off and fly in the first place (if this was true) escapes me.

To me it looks like a typical Asian practice of assign blame and run away from it as quickly as possible.

Either way, you're right it always seems to be the cheapo airlines that have problems, it is very rare big, stablished airlines have any major issues.

[GAZZPA]

There is a very distinct difference between "Filing a Flight Plan" and have the authority to operate a certain number of flights and any given day,

Having said all that, it has nothing to do with flying an aircraft in weather that is too bad for the approved environment for that aircraft to fly into. After it is all said and done I believe the Captain flew into weather the A320 could not or would not tolerate.

The A320 is a good aircraft, but like all aircraft it has it's limitation.

You are asking yourself, How the hell does he know that? Because I have spent over 60 years maintaining and flying, as Engineer, on nearly every commercial aircraft flying today, except the A380. When I was in the USAF we had a cartoon character series called "I can hack it, Jack" It was a safety take-off on all the things pilots believe they can "Hack" which ends up with them having a bloody nose. Plain and simple there are times and places to fly and there are times and places not to fly.

Enough already !!

may I ask, is there a difference in maintenance between different airlines? I.o.w. Can a 737 be more or less safe depending on who's logo is painted on the plane? I was convinced maintenance rules are internationally monitored by some kind of safety board? Does it makes sense blaming Air asia for a blown engine before take off?

You would think so wouldn't you but I don't think there is. I think there are different Aviation bodies all of the world that are responsible for settings standards for safety.

However, if you have been in Asia for any period of time it is clear the even when standards are set and do exist they are often ignored or cut short. So, I suspect the safety standards vary everywhere.

I saw an online documentary a couple of years ago about the old crates that fly around the Russian airspace,, very scary and terrible safety records.

If someone knows better, feel free to comment.

[englishoak]

"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?

Of course its a witch hunt, certain interests do not want to take any responsibility so its blame game time.

Flights cannot happen without an awful lot of cooperation from pilots to ground crew etc etc. A schedule is simply that and whether or not Airasia did not technically have permission in the schedule contracts which change all the time that in itself has nothing to do with the plane going down. The only thing that might have an impact is if safety and maintenance checks were reduced along with the changed schedule. I doubt very much if that happened.

More likely the schedule change dates on the days allowed was supposed to have changed ( Oct 26 - March 2015 ) was just on paper whilst the actual flights and everything else carried right on leaving and arriving as before.

Pretty obvious the only ones able to do that would have been those who are supposed to be responsible for informing everyone else of those changes, someone gets a backhander and the schedule although supposed to change is only signed off on paper, in reality however everything and everyone else would carry right on as normal and oblivious to anything else unless told things had changed.

If theres a guilty party here its between AirAsia who would have had to be aware of schedule/contract alterations and those who had/have the power to let the flights continue. I expect money changed hands and palms were greased, now there has been an incident its impossible to cover up so we are now playing the blame game.

Edited January 4, 2015 by englishoak

[F430murci]

There is a very distinct difference between "Filing a Flight Plan" and have the authority to operate a certain number of flights and any given day,

Having said all that, it has nothing to do with flying an aircraft in weather that is too bad for the approved environment for that aircraft to fly into. After it is all said and done I believe the Captain flew into weather the A320 could not or would not tolerate.

The A320 is a good aircraft, but like all aircraft it has it's limitation.

You are asking yourself, How the hell does he know that? Because I have spent over 60 years maintaining and flying, as Engineer, on nearly every commercial aircraft flying today, except the A380. When I was in the USAF we had a cartoon character series called "I can hack it, Jack" It was a safety take-off on all the things pilots believe they can "Hack" which ends up with them having a bloody nose. Plain and simple there are times and places to fly and there are times and places not to fly.

Enough already !!

may I ask, is there a difference in maintenance between different airlines? I.o.w. Can a 737 be more or less safe depending on who's logo is painted on the plane? I was convinced maintenance rules are internationally monitored by some kind of safety board? Does it makes sense blaming Air asia for a blown engine before take off?

You would think so wouldn't you but I don't think there is. I think there are different Aviation bodies all of the world that are responsible for settings standards for safety.

However, if you have been in Asia for any period of time it is clear the even when standards are set and do exist they are often ignored or cut short. So, I suspect the safety standards vary everywhere.

I saw an online documentary a couple of years ago about the old crates that fly around the Russian airspace,, very scary and terrible safety records.

If someone knows better, feel free to comment.

Notwithstanding Areoflot, Russian commercial aviation is downright scary on domestic lines. Lol, their roads and roadways are not much better . . .

[outboard]

A joint statement from Singapore's civil aviation authority (CAAS) and Changi Airport Group said that AirAsia had the necessary approvals to operate a daily flight between Surabaya and Singapore.

[NeverSure]

I have no clue how ground control or tower at an airport would know which days a plane was authorized by another authority to fly.

I have no clue how the tower which gave permission for takeoff would know whether the plane was authorized to fly its route on that day.

I have no idea how Center (enroute air traffic control) would know whether the plane was authorized by another authority to fly on that day. Obviously the plane was in contact with Center enroute because it asked for permission to climb.

I also have no idea how any of this could have anything to do with a crash.

I do see how failing to check weather could be a fail. I see how many other factors could cause a crash. I just don't know why we're drumming on about "permission," even though it is the OP. I think the OP is more about being in hot water for violating something (if true) than it is about any cause of a crash.

Edited January 4, 2015 by NeverSure

[kiwikeith]

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

Still does not explain why the plane crashed, not much attention to the black box, bet we never hear the contents of that , another failed airbus problem is more likely the reason for the crash so there will be many smoke screens, remember the door that flew off a plane I think a Boeing a few years back was covered up until the father of a victim spent his life savings to uncover a faulty door mech.

The aircraft manufacturers blocked him every step of the way it was a good documentary a few years back now but I suspect airbus and the fly by wire planes still have issues.

[HeijoshinCool]

I have no clue how ground control or tower at an airport would know which days a plane was authorized by another authority to fly.

I have no clue how the tower which gave permission for takeoff would know whether the plane was authorized to fly its route on that day.

I have no idea how Center (enroute air traffic control) would know whether the plane was authorized by another authority to fly on that day. Obviously the plane was in contact with Center enroute because it asked for permission to climb.

I also have no idea how any of this could have anything to do with a crash.

I do see how failing to check weather could be a fail. I see how many other factors could cause a crash. I just don't know why we're drumming on about "permission," even though it is the OP. I think the OP is more about being in hot water for violating something (if true) than it is about any cause of a crash.

.

ATC doesn't get involved in that. It's not in their job description.

The airline files a flight plan. The cockpit asks for departure instructions and clearance to depart based on that flight plan. ATC issues the clearance based only on requested departure time, origin and destination, separation of aircraft, and yes, weather.

They don't know or care about what days or routes the airline is licensed to fly. That is the airline's responsibility to hold themselves to those restrictions.

Air Asia violated their license.

The only thing it had to do with the crash, is if they had not violated their route license, then the crash would not have occurred.

Now, I am very curious about these two other facts:

why any flight would leave two hours early, before sunup, at that;

why Tony Fernandez sold almost a million shares in Tune Insurance (coverage for passengers) a day or two before the fight

Put all three oddities together, and it does demand investigation.

[NeverSure]

I have no clue how ground control or tower at an airport would know which days a plane was authorized by another authority to fly.

I have no clue how the tower which gave permission for takeoff would know whether the plane was authorized to fly its route on that day.

I have no idea how Center (enroute air traffic control) would know whether the plane was authorized by another authority to fly on that day. Obviously the plane was in contact with Center enroute because it asked for permission to climb.

I also have no idea how any of this could have anything to do with a crash.

I do see how failing to check weather could be a fail. I see how many other factors could cause a crash. I just don't know why we're drumming on about "permission," even though it is the OP. I think the OP is more about being in hot water for violating something (if true) than it is about any cause of a crash.

.

ATC doesn't get involved in that. It's not in their job description.

The airline files a flight plan. The cockpit asks for departure instructions and clearance to depart based on that flight plan. ATC issues the clearance based only on requested departure time, origin and destination, separation of aircraft, and yes, weather.

They don't know or care about what days or routes the airline is licensed to fly. That is the airline's responsibility to hold themselves to those restrictions.

Air Asia violated their license.

The only thing it had to do with the crash, is if they had not violated their route license, then the crash would not have occurred.

Now, I am very curious about these two other facts:

why any flight would leave two hours early, before sunup, at that;

why Tony Fernandez sold almost a million shares in Tune Insurance (coverage for passengers) a day or two before the fight

Put all three oddities together, and it does demand investigation.

"The only thing it had to do with the crash, is if they had not violated their route license, then the crash would not have occurred."

You are now officially a Thai. "If they hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."

I think you deserve some R&R in Hawaii. I recommend Maui.

[F430murci]

Everyone seems to be s rambling to CYA and who knows what true or false. Didn't Air Asia refused to comment on licensure issue or ding investigation? Huh? If they had a license they would have put that to bed quickly and easily.

My only issue with questions about license, leaving early, weather report and etc. us that seems like a pattern of doing things half arrssee, willingness to cut corners and possible disregard for rules and regulations. What other corners were cut or regulations ignored? Perhaps none, but it does cast a lot of doubt or questions about how things are run.

RE: Blaming Airbus and saying Airbus will cover up true cause

To poster blaming Airbus before any wreckage or boxes are recovered, the Airbus is a good product. There is good chance pieces of the plane were shedded at altitude based on ventricle and horizontal speeds leaked. The data recorded and cockpit voice recorders will reveal what happened.

Aircraft manufacturers don't have the power to cover stuff up and this is why they insurance, especially in US where Feds and Plaintiffs' lawyers more than even the playing field. Boeing obviously did not have much influence on Flight 800 investigation and I actually still wonder if that is really what happened.

[HeijoshinCool]

I have no clue how ground control or tower at an airport would know which days a plane was authorized by another authority to fly.

I have no clue how the tower which gave permission for takeoff would know whether the plane was authorized to fly its route on that day.

I have no idea how Center (enroute air traffic control) would know whether the plane was authorized by another authority to fly on that day. Obviously the plane was in contact with Center enroute because it asked for permission to climb.

I also have no idea how any of this could have anything to do with a crash.

I do see how failing to check weather could be a fail. I see how many other factors could cause a crash. I just don't know why we're drumming on about "permission," even though it is the OP. I think the OP is more about being in hot water for violating something (if true) than it is about any cause of a crash.

.

ATC doesn't get involved in that. It's not in their job description.

The airline files a flight plan. The cockpit asks for departure instructions and clearance to depart based on that flight plan. ATC issues the clearance based only on requested departure time, origin and destination, separation of aircraft, and yes, weather.

They don't know or care about what days or routes the airline is licensed to fly. That is the airline's responsibility to hold themselves to those restrictions.

Air Asia violated their license.

The only thing it had to do with the crash, is if they had not violated their route license, then the crash would not have occurred.

Now, I am very curious about these two other facts:

why any flight would leave two hours early, before sunup, at that;

why Tony Fernandez sold almost a million shares in Tune Insurance (coverage for passengers) a day or two before the flight

Put all three oddities together, and it does demand investigation.

"The only thing it had to do with the crash, is if they had not violated their route license, then the crash would not have occurred."

You are now officially a Thai. "If they hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened."

I think you deserve some R&R in Hawaii. I recommend Maui.

.

You are much more clever than that, NS. I wasn't considering just that one fact, rather the implication of all three facts together.

In the back of my mind, I guess I was also considering 8501's "steep climb" that no pilot in his right mind would ever attempt even in calm weather, as well as the Malaysia Airlines total disappearance, and what is known as "fly-by-wire." Technology that has been out there for better than two decades.

Pass the tin hat if you like, this all stinks. The passenger list needs close scrutiny.