Tail of missing AirAsia plane discovered in Java Sea

[Moonlover]

Sometimes I wonder in which century we live...

Why are we always looking for a stupid Black Box (FDR & CVR) when an airplane got into some problem.

These FDR and CVR is technology of 1940's. Some of them are even based on a tape recorder!!

But yes, they are 'waterproof' and can resist a heat of 1000 Celcius. But what the heck, if we can stream in real time all data to the ground?

Currently we can and use live streaming of voice and video using TCP/IP (Internet). So, when we stream data (voice and video) in real time to a server somewhere on the ground, we are able to know exactly, what is happening in an airplane and what has happened when the airplane is gone / lost.

We deliver this kind of technology for an Air Force (cannot mention which country at this time...). Our technology makes Aircraft tracking and tracing possible in real time together with streaming of real time data to servers on the ground. Interested? Check www.sme-erp-it-consulting.com

Yes, this a very valid comment. If one were to study the investigation of the Air France crash, (a rather quirky hobby of mine by the way) you would see that investigators knew quite a lot about the unfolding drama long before the orange boxes were recovered. Notably the fact that there was a problem with the air speed detectors. That was because the ACARS (now well known from the MH370 incident) transmitted this data at regular intervals. The technology is certainly available as jakhoeblal has indicated. What is needed now is the will and the money of course.

[gchurch259]

Ok well at least they have the black box now, that's what we all wanna hear.

Never knew the box was located back there, but I suppose it would be the least impacted part of the plane.

Yes, They are all located in the Rear of the aircraft. Some inside the Cabin and some in the Aft Cargo Compartment. You are right it is because when an aircraft breaks up in a crash the last section generally remains intact. The airframe is built in sections and then assembled. Where the two Aft sections come together it will split apart on impact. The other thing aircraft generally impact nose first or sideways, so again the Tail is safest place to put the boxes.

Based on 60 years in aviation, commercial and military.

[metisdead]

Some posts containing conspiratorial content have been removed as well as a reply.

[media]

I didnt realise that GPS trackers DONT WORK IN THE SKY on planes.

The recent 2 missing airplanes (1 that still has not been found) could have been located easily if the planes were fitted with GPS trackers (multiple in different parts of the planes so that there is failsafe backups that can not be switched off by a pilot or terrorist) GPS trackers in different parts of the planes. you can buy them on ebay. I have one on my car and motorbike.

IS ANOTHER PLANE CARRYING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLES LOVED ONES GOING TO GO MISSING NEVER TO BE FOUND???????

THIS IS 2015! WAKE UP AIRLINES SORT YOUR TECH OUT.
VOICE RECORDINGS AND FLIGHT DATA SHOULD BE INSTANTLY UPLOADED IN REAL TIME TO THE AIRLINE, NOT STORED ON THE PLANE IN A BLACK BOX THAT GETS LOST UNDER THE SEA.
My CCTV system does this surely a plane can do it. the Technology is Old and Out of Date!

[F430murci]

Last ADS-B messages from 8501.

https://mobile.twitter.com/flightradar24/status/551669337023840256

Edited January 7, 2015 by F430murci

[ekkamai]

Regards the FDR and CVR, are these devices placed in the tail to minimize the risk of destruction based on a nose first impact? Just wondered, since they are recording what goes on in the cockpit and couldn't be further from it. Curious as to the reasoning since a lot more engineering, cabling and interfacing over a relatively long distance is needed I'd have though, where as the avionics and apparently the flight data acquisition unit are up forward.

It must be because most crashes go nose first and tail is least damaged and surely gets a lot less G's upon impact. Thinking about that, they should fit the cockpit back there as well! All avionics, recorders and even the pilots in one safe place. You could then even fit the tail with a parachute. If things get really bad, separate the tail and let it go down on the chute. As a passenger sitting up front I don't think I would fly them though...

Was that supposed to be funny?

[ekkamai]

Sometimes I wonder in which century we live...

Why are we always looking for a stupid Black Box (FDR & CVR) when an airplane got into some problem.

These FDR and CVR is technology of 1940's. Some of them are even based on a tape recorder!!

But yes, they are 'waterproof' and can resist a heat of 1000 Celcius. But what the heck, if we can stream in real time all data to the ground?

Currently we can and use live streaming of voice and video using TCP/IP (Internet). So, when we stream data (voice and video) in real time to a server somewhere on the ground, we are able to know exactly, what is happening in an airplane and what has happened when the airplane is gone / lost.

We deliver this kind of technology for an Air Force (cannot mention which country at this time...). Our technology makes Aircraft tracking and tracing possible in real time together with streaming of real time data to servers on the ground. Interested? Check www.sme-erp-it-consulting.com

You'd most likely get all pilot unions in the entire world into a frenzy. Interfering in their private conversations. Ouf!

[ekkamai]

I find it odd there is never mention of these boxes sending out locating signals. Surely if they found the tail section the black boxes would sending out a strong signal.

Have a look at post 3. The pics of the recorders show a small cylinder with supports at each end, this is a water activated pinger. With quite simple equipment you can located the signal from the pinger.

I understand how how they work. My point was, all the articles about this crash and said having located the plane, but there never a mention of locating or identifying the plane by its emergency locator transmitter. Is this thing not pinging away at the crash location? As far as I am aware they found this wreckage using sonar.

I have been wondering about the "good old" ELT for a while. Why is there no mention of it?

[tigermonkey]

I find it odd there is never mention of these boxes sending out locating signals. Surely if they found the tail section the black boxes would sending out a strong signal.

Have a look at post 3. The pics of the recorders show a small cylinder with supports at each end, this is a water activated pinger. With quite simple equipment you can located the signal from the pinger.

I understand how how they work. My point was, all the articles about this crash and said having located the plane, but there never a mention of locating or identifying the plane by its emergency locator transmitter. Is this thing not pinging away at the crash location? As far as I am aware they found this wreckage using sonar.

I have been wondering about the "good old" ELT for a while. Why is there no mention of it?

All ELT's transmit a radio signal which can be picked up by aircraft, ships, and even satellites -- however, radio waves do not transmit through water. So, you can only hear an ELT if it is above water .

[tigermonkey]

That is a large portion of the tail which they have discovered, although we have no idea of how complete it is. The photos show the "A" and the "i" from the base of the left side of the vertical stabilizer, and they also show the "AX" from the aircraft's registry number which is just below the rearmost windows on the port (left) side. It is upside down and the vertical stabilizer may be buried in the mud.

This is quite close to the area where the 'black' boxes are mounted - of course, provided that they are still there.

Below is a link to a picture the AirAsia aircraft involved in the crash, so that you can see the locations of the white "Ai" and the black "AX"

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=556151&from=flightradar_200

Edited January 7, 2015 by tigermonkey

[harrry]

That is a large portion of the tail which they have discovered, although we have no idea of how complete it is. The photos show the "A" and the "i" from the base of the left side of the vertical stabilizer, and they also show the "AX" from the aircraft's registry number which is just below the rearmost windows on the port (left) side. It is upside down and the vertical stabilizer may be buried in the mud.

This is quite close to the area where the 'black' boxes are mounted - of course, provided that they are still there.

Below is a link to a picture the AirAsia aircraft involved in the crash, so that you can see the locations of the white "Ai" and the black "AX"

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=556151&from=flightradar_200

and providing they have not been switched off.

[dcutman]

That is a large portion of the tail which they have discovered, although we have no idea of how complete it is. The photos show the "A" and the "i" from the base of the left side of the vertical stabilizer, and they also show the "AX" from the aircraft's registry number which is just below the rearmost windows on the port (left) side. It is upside down and the vertical stabilizer may be buried in the mud.

This is quite close to the area where the 'black' boxes are mounted - of course, provided that they are still there.

Below is a link to a picture the AirAsia aircraft involved in the crash, so that you can see the locations of the white "Ai" and the black "AX"

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=556151&from=flightradar_200

I have asked the question several times now, and the TVF experts wont answer. Apparently I am not using the perfect terminology. These so called black boxes should be emitting a signal (from under water) that can be heard on the surface from boat or search plane. Up to this point I have not read any confirmation that these signals have been detected.

I am just wondering why this aircraft was, allegedly, located using a side sonar, and not by detecting the pinging from these black (orange) boxes? Seems it would be much easier locating a signal than locating an object by sonar mapping at the bottom of the sea.

If not you, can anybody answer this?

I will definitely not be holding my breath as to get a sound explanation why an emergency locating transmitter would be designed as not to work underwater.

Edited January 7, 2015 by dcutman

[outboard]

I didnt realise that GPS trackers DONT WORK IN THE SKY on planes.

The recent 2 missing airplanes (1 that still has not been found) could have been located easily if the planes were fitted with GPS trackers (multiple in different parts of the planes so that there is failsafe backups that can not be switched off by a pilot or terrorist) GPS trackers in different parts of the planes. you can buy them on ebay. I have one on my car and motorbike.

IS ANOTHER PLANE CARRYING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLES LOVED ONES GOING TO GO MISSING NEVER TO BE FOUND???????

THIS IS 2015! WAKE UP AIRLINES SORT YOUR TECH OUT.

VOICE RECORDINGS AND FLIGHT DATA SHOULD BE INSTANTLY UPLOADED IN REAL TIME TO THE AIRLINE, NOT STORED ON THE PLANE IN A BLACK BOX THAT GETS LOST UNDER THE SEA.

My CCTV system does this surely a plane can do it. the Technology is Old and Out of Date!

great theory , doesn't work!

several people have suggested that simply fitting gps in planes like they have in their phones would solve the problem cos they can find their phone anywhere in the world because of this technology.

at a guess there were at least 80 mobile phones on this aeroplane and they cant find any of them

That is a large portion of the tail which they have discovered, although we have no idea of how complete it is. The photos show the "A" and the "i" from the base of the left side of the vertical stabilizer, and they also show the "AX" from the aircraft's registry number which is just below the rearmost windows on the port (left) side. It is upside down and the vertical stabilizer may be buried in the mud.

This is quite close to the area where the 'black' boxes are mounted - of course, provided that they are still there.

Below is a link to a picture the AirAsia aircraft involved in the crash, so that you can see the locations of the white "Ai" and the black "AX"

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=556151&from=flightradar_200

I have asked the question several times now, and the TVF experts wont answer. Apparently I am not using the perfect terminology. These so called black boxes should be emitting a signal (from under water) that can be heard on the surface from boat or search plane. Up to this point I have not read any confirmation that these signals have been detected.

I am just wondering why this aircraft was, allegedly, located using a side sonar, and not by detecting the pinging from these black (orange) boxes? Seems it would be much easier locating a signal than locating an object by sonar mapping at the bottom of the sea.

If not you, can anybody answer this?

I will definitely not be holding my breath as to get a sound explanation why an emergency locating transmitter would be designed as not to work underwater.

3 possible reasons for not being able to here the "pingers"

1. they are not working, either faulty, did not trigger when they hit the water, or broke in the crash

2. they are pinging but the signal is being obstructed, possibly by being buried in mud, or the stirred up sediment has being interfering with the signal

3. they are not with the tail section of the plane, either dislodged in a mid air break up, on impact or in the movement the wreckage has been making in the current

also it is not clear weather the boats that tow the "pingers" have been able to be launched, there was some video release showing the transfer of one of these devices from one boat to another and an attempt to transfer an inflatable that was to be used to tow it, the transfer of the boat was unsuccessful

Edited January 7, 2015 by outboard

[Tywais]

I will definitely not be holding my breath as to get a sound explanation why an emergency locating transmitter would be designed as not to work underwater.

We need to get the terminology correct to identify which technology is applicable for the circumstances.

ELT - Emergency Locating Transmitter is primarily a high impact activated device such as a ground crash and triggers on certain amount of G force which I believe is around 5 Gs. We don't know the entry of the aircraft or more specifically the impact energy at contact with the water of the aircraft or the ELT. However, that is somewhat academic as RF is strongly attenuated by water and the signal will not be detected above surface at any significant distances.

ULB - Underwater locator beacon. This is the predominant one for crashes that has the aircraft ending up under water. It is an audio ping that is detected by sonar style sensors and can not be detected on or above the surface. It has a narrow range and can be difficult to pick up due to interference, obstruction or echos so the ship dragging the sensor or the buoy with sensors or submersibles have to be within a moderately close distance. But the ocean, as one oceanographer mentioned, can play tricks on the sound. These are activated by contact with water and located on the data recorders. The range depends on the frequency used and can be 1km to 22km in very good conditions.

[dcutman]

I will definitely not be holding my breath as to get a sound explanation why an emergency locating transmitter would be designed as not to work underwater.

We need to get the terminology correct to identify which technology is applicable for the circumstances.

ELT - Emergency Locating Transmitter is primarily a high impact activated device such as a ground crash and triggers on certain amount of G force which I believe is around 5 Gs. We don't know the entry of the aircraft or more specifically the impact energy at contact with the water of the aircraft or the ELT. However, that is somewhat academic as RF is strongly attenuated by water and the signal will not be detected above surface at any significant distances.

ULB - Underwater locator beacon. This is the predominant one for crashes that has the aircraft ending up under water. It is an audio ping that is detected by sonar style sensors and can not be detected on or above the surface. It has a narrow range and can be difficult to pick up due to interference, obstruction or echos so the ship dragging the sensor or the buoy with sensors or submersibles have to be within a moderately close distance. But the ocean, as one oceanographer mentioned, can play tricks on the sound. These are activated by contact with water and located on the data recorders. The range depends on the frequency used and can be 1km to 22km in very good conditions.

There is my point exactly about not holding my breath getting a sound explanation. You aviation guys sound like politicians.

But from what I understand from the circle talk is neither of these systems mounted to nearly every aircraft on this planet really works if an aircraft goes missing, especially if the aircraft crashes in the water.

[ericthai]

Sometimes I wonder in which century we live...

Why are we always looking for a stupid Black Box (FDR & CVR) when an airplane got into some problem.

These FDR and CVR is technology of 1940's. Some of them are even based on a tape recorder!!

But yes, they are 'waterproof' and can resist a heat of 1000 Celcius. But what the heck, if we can stream in real time all data to the ground?

Currently we can and use live streaming of voice and video using TCP/IP (Internet). So, when we stream data (voice and video) in real time to a server somewhere on the ground, we are able to know exactly, what is happening in an airplane and what has happened when the airplane is gone / lost.

We deliver this kind of technology for an Air Force (cannot mention which country at this time...). Our technology makes Aircraft tracking and tracing possible in real time together with streaming of real time data to servers on the ground. Interested? Check www.sme-erp-it-consulting.com

Comes down to cost. Airlines don't want to pay for the could hosting service. I know one airlines does do this which i think is Emirates, but not positive this is the airline. There has been talk that all commercial aircraft's do this and was submitted to the FAA to consider this to be a regulation but apparently FAA has not chosen to make this a rule yet. Maybe this crash will change things.

[Basil B]

I will definitely not be holding my breath as to get a sound explanation why an emergency locating transmitter would be designed as not to work underwater.

We need to get the terminology correct to identify which technology is applicable for the circumstances.

ELT - Emergency Locating Transmitter is primarily a high impact activated device such as a ground crash and triggers on certain amount of G force which I believe is around 5 Gs. We don't know the entry of the aircraft or more specifically the impact energy at contact with the water of the aircraft or the ELT. However, that is somewhat academic as RF is strongly attenuated by water and the signal will not be detected above surface at any significant distances.

ULB - Underwater locator beacon. This is the predominant one for crashes that has the aircraft ending up under water. It is an audio ping that is detected by sonar style sensors and can not be detected on or above the surface. It has a narrow range and can be difficult to pick up due to interference, obstruction or echos so the ship dragging the sensor or the buoy with sensors or submersibles have to be within a moderately close distance. But the ocean, as one oceanographer mentioned, can play tricks on the sound. These are activated by contact with water and located on the data recorders. The range depends on the frequency used and can be 1km to 22km in very good conditions.

With regards to the ELT, it transmits radio signals, 212.5MHz (Civilian Aviation Emergency & Distress frequency) and 406MHz (Saterlite Distress Frequncy) and these will not work unless deployed from the aircraft as radio waves do not work well under water, I understand the one used on this aircraft had a 48 hour battery life. http://www.kannadaviation.com/elt-for-commercial

The ULB are acoustic pingers that transmit at 37.5 KHz, that is above the hearing range of us mere mortals and requires special hydrophones to detect them, I also think because this wreak is in shallow water it may well reduce the range of the devices.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_locator_beacon

[johndudorn]

I find it odd there is never mention of these boxes sending out locating signals. Surely if they found the tail section the black boxes would sending out a strong signal.

Have a look at post 3. The pics of the recorders show a small cylinder with supports at each end, this is a water activated pinger. With quite simple equipment you can located the signal from the pinger.

I understand how how they work. My point was, all the articles about this crash and said having located the plane, but there never a mention of locating or identifying the plane by its emergency locator transmitter. Is this thing not pinging away at the crash location? As far as I am aware they found this wreckage using sonar.

From the article "The ping-emitting beacons still have about 20 days before their batteries go dead, but high surf had prevented the deployment of ships that drag "ping" locators."

[malt25]

Employment application form for position of "Aircraft Disaster Investigator"

Initial criteria. Must have several years membership with Thaivisa forum.

Experience needed. None.

Abilities required.

[malt25]

Oops.... posted before finished. But i think I made my point.

Cheers..... Mal.

[canman]

I find it odd there is never mention of these boxes sending out locating signals. Surely if they found the tail section the black boxes would sending out a strong signal.

Have a look at post 3. The pics of the recorders show a small cylinder with supports at each end, this is a water activated pinger. With quite simple equipment you can located the signal from the pinger.

I understand how how they work. My point was, all the articles about this crash and said having located the plane, but there never a mention of locating or identifying the plane by its emergency locator transmitter. Is this thing not pinging away at the crash location? As far as I am aware they found this wreckage using sonar.

It's an Indonesian SAR operation, they are not very good. They have been claiming that it has been too rough to launch the tow fish with the pinger locator.

[canman]

I will definitely not be holding my breath as to get a sound explanation why an emergency locating transmitter would be designed as not to work underwater.

We need to get the terminology correct to identify which technology is applicable for the circumstances.

ELT - Emergency Locating Transmitter is primarily a high impact activated device such as a ground crash and triggers on certain amount of G force which I believe is around 5 Gs. We don't know the entry of the aircraft or more specifically the impact energy at contact with the water of the aircraft or the ELT. However, that is somewhat academic as RF is strongly attenuated by water and the signal will not be detected above surface at any significant distances.

ULB - Underwater locator beacon. This is the predominant one for crashes that has the aircraft ending up under water. It is an audio ping that is detected by sonar style sensors and can not be detected on or above the surface. It has a narrow range and can be difficult to pick up due to interference, obstruction or echos so the ship dragging the sensor or the buoy with sensors or submersibles have to be within a moderately close distance. But the ocean, as one oceanographer mentioned, can play tricks on the sound. These are activated by contact with water and located on the data recorders. The range depends on the frequency used and can be 1km to 22km in very good conditions.

There is my point exactly about not holding my breath getting a sound explanation. You aviation guys sound like politicians.

But from what I understand from the circle talk is neither of these systems mounted to nearly every aircraft on this planet really works if an aircraft goes missing, especially if the aircraft crashes in the water.

Nothing at all wrong with the answer from dcutman, it was a clear consise explanation. The ULP is an acoustic pinger. To detect the sound from the pinger requires a hydrophone capable of detecting the frequency of the ping. The ULP units are very robust and bullet proof, very unlikely that it has failed to operate.

The fact that it has not been located then suggests it is buried in the mud and/or they have not been able to deploy a ULP locator. The other possibility is that it is a very noisy acoustic environment and they are not able to "hear" the signal.

[billd766]

That is a large portion of the tail which they have discovered, although we have no idea of how complete it is. The photos show the "A" and the "i" from the base of the left side of the vertical stabilizer, and they also show the "AX" from the aircraft's registry number which is just below the rearmost windows on the port (left) side. It is upside down and the vertical stabilizer may be buried in the mud.

This is quite close to the area where the 'black' boxes are mounted - of course, provided that they are still there.

Below is a link to a picture the AirAsia aircraft involved in the crash, so that you can see the locations of the white "Ai" and the black "AX"

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=556151&from=flightradar_200

I have asked the question several times now, and the TVF experts wont answer. Apparently I am not using the perfect terminology. These so called black boxes should be emitting a signal (from under water) that can be heard on the surface from boat or search plane. Up to this point I have not read any confirmation that these signals have been detected.

I am just wondering why this aircraft was, allegedly, located using a side sonar, and not by detecting the pinging from these black (orange) boxes? Seems it would be much easier locating a signal than locating an object by sonar mapping at the bottom of the sea.

If not you, can anybody answer this?

I will definitely not be holding my breath as to get a sound explanation why an emergency locating transmitter would be designed as not to work underwater.

I think that you are wasting your time asking for answers on TVF.

There are more aviation "experts" here than there are ex "SAS" and "SEALS" in the bars of Pattaya and they know just as much about the subject as my dog does.

[dcutman]

That is a large portion of the tail which they have discovered, although we have no idea of how complete it is. The photos show the "A" and the "i" from the base of the left side of the vertical stabilizer, and they also show the "AX" from the aircraft's registry number which is just below the rearmost windows on the port (left) side. It is upside down and the vertical stabilizer may be buried in the mud.

This is quite close to the area where the 'black' boxes are mounted - of course, provided that they are still there.

Below is a link to a picture the AirAsia aircraft involved in the crash, so that you can see the locations of the white "Ai" and the black "AX"

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=556151&from=flightradar_200

I have asked the question several times now, and the TVF experts wont answer. Apparently I am not using the perfect terminology. These so called black boxes should be emitting a signal (from under water) that can be heard on the surface from boat or search plane. Up to this point I have not read any confirmation that these signals have been detected.

I am just wondering why this aircraft was, allegedly, located using a side sonar, and not by detecting the pinging from these black (orange) boxes? Seems it would be much easier locating a signal than locating an object by sonar mapping at the bottom of the sea.

If not you, can anybody answer this?

I will definitely not be holding my breath as to get a sound explanation why an emergency locating transmitter would be designed as not to work underwater.

I think that you are wasting your time asking for answers on TVF.

There are more aviation "experts" here than there are ex "SAS" and "SEALS" in the bars of Pattaya and they know just as much about the subject as my dog does.

Yes of course you are right Billd. It was a test, met with expected disappointing results.

[biplanebluey]

Oops.... posted before finished. But i think I made my point.

Cheers..... Mal.

Yes you certainly did,and I must agree with you,but it doesn't matter what subject we are on we are indeed lucky to have amongst us some of the finest brains who can soon come up with definitions and solutions that mere mortals the like of us would never dream of.Perhaps that's the problem with "us".Perhaps we should try to dream up something really weird,but make it sound faintly plausible.That way we can make a name for ourselves on TV and spend more time on our PC's,instead of being boreing old twits sitting back and waiting for the slightest bit of official information to come our way.Might give it a try one day when I am bored out of my skull,have run out of throat lubricant,or the self esteem in me is running low--------- Nah can't be bothered !!!!! Have a nice day---Dougal

[Scott]

Actually there are several aviation experts on this forum. They vary in the amount of experience with different types of aircraft and for a few it's been a few years since they left the aviation field.

The big problem seems to be that all our experts are alive and haven't had much experience with either hijacking or crashing a jet.