It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missing Plane Air Asia

page: 30
94
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
If instrumentation was wrong, the pilots could have thought their speed was correct or normal. As mentioned earlier, the recorders would shed much light on that issue.


Since AF447 Airbus pilots have been trained how to recognize unreliable airspeed, and recovery (pitch and power)
I guess the potentially faulty pitot tubes have been replaced by now.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: WideOpenSpace
Flying too slow... Is that even possible to fly "too slow" for an experienced pilot? They should have developed a certain sense of speed for lack of a better word. It's not like they're flying in outer space where one cannot really judge their speed. My uninformed impression that the pilots should feel something, I don't know, shaking or,nose dropping or any other signs of an imminent stall.

I am not a pilot of course, however even in commercially available flight sims it's not easy to miss the plane stalling. Could pilots on the forum please chime in?


I think another problem is that most commercial airline pilots these days are "push button pilots" and don't have a lot of experience flying the plane manually.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

I am aware of how it works.

Are you disagreeing the experts opinion calculating that it was potentially 100 knots too slow?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

The problem brought up earlier was CRM issues in Asian culture. One pilot here was French, but if the other pilot didn't say something it could have led to trouble.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen


Are you disagreeing the experts opinion calculating that it was potentially 100 knots too slow?


Based on groundspeed, yes i do.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

The problem brought up earlier was CRM issues in Asian culture. One pilot here was French, but if the other pilot didn't say something it could have led to trouble.


Culture might have been a major contributing factor here.
I know because i've spent several years flying in that part of the world.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Depending whats on the insurance contract. Some insurers pay out for future loss earnings and the full purchase price of the aircraft depending on the nature of the cause. I'm sure the family can't sue the airline due to the fact that its not the airline fault but i'm pretty certain they will receive compensation from the insurance company.

I'm not saying it is a insurance fraud but the possibility is there.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: takers888

I'm sure the family can't sue the airline due to the fact that its not the airline fault but i'm pretty certain they will receive compensation from the insurance company.


The families can sue whoever they want and we do not know whose fault it is until the data recorders are recovered.


I'm not saying it is a insurance fraud but the possibility is there.


There is always a possibility of everything but I would rank that pretty low down the scale.




edit on 29-12-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer because his part time job only pays enough for Zima



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: takers888
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Depending whats on the insurance contract. Some insurers pay out for future loss earnings and the full purchase price of the aircraft depending on the nature of the cause. I'm sure the family can't sue the airline due to the fact that its not the airline fault but i'm pretty certain they will receive compensation from the insurance company.

I'm not saying it is a insurance fraud but the possibility is there.



If insurance fraud was the motivation for ditching a flight, why not a cargo flight with an allegedly valuable cargo? There would be less public interest and a less intensive search. The pilots could even ditch the plane and escape on a life raft, telling a harrowing story and becoming heroes. Too much potential loss of human life for it to be insurance fraud.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: takers888

The family can't sue because it isn't the airline's fault? First, when was that determined?

Second, when has that stopped lawsuits in the past?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

I didn't mention groundspeed.

The fact is the ceiling height for the A320 is 42000 and at 34000 and climbing during possible updraughts, storms, high winds, whilst losing velocity it could easily have lost thrust and stalled. We know it was losing velocity as there are ATC and flight radar readings.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: takers888
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Forgot to add the insurance pay out that's going to be worth millions.


The insurance payout is - AT BEST - a wash. There is no financial gain to be made.

You have made vague noises about the insurance company shareholders benefiting, now this is about the airline benefiting from crashing it's own plane...which is it? One pays the other. It cant be both.

Please be specific.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

I didn't mention groundspeed.


The article you linked to did.
However the real problem here isn't airspeed, or lack thereoff, but the fact that they might have tried to "climb on top" of the stormcell, a very bad decision IMO.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Oh dear, currently have a Virgin Atlantic plane with failed landing gear circling over Newhaven: www.flightradar24.com...

news.sky.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: fill0000

And a United flight out of Brussels diverting to London.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Hopefully this hasn't been posted yet but I found this on Reddit. The claim is that someone on a Chinese forum posted this prophetic message two weeks ago. I'm not sure if someone just posted something two weeks ago and edited the post so the timestamp stood out or not, but it should still be investigated.

Original Chinese Forum Post
bbs.tianya.cn...

English Translation
translate.google.com... dit-text=
edit on CST09America/Chicago920152015122920152014-12-29T09:30:16-06:00 by TheGoondockSaint because: (fixed link)

edit on CST09America/Chicago920152015122920152014-12-29T09:31:08-06:00 by TheGoondockSaint because: fixed link


EDIT: The first link is correct but the Chinese site is down, probably because Reddit is hammering it.
edit on CST09America/Chicago920152015122920152014-12-29T09:32:27-06:00 by TheGoondockSaint because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
You have made vague noises about the insurance company shareholders benefiting, now this is about the airline benefiting from crashing it's own plane...which is it?


The shareholders will not benefit from any of this.
The insurance company will lose out, the value of shares will decline. They will certainly not benefit in any way from this.
The Airline too will not benefit from any of this. If they were already in trouble financially, the loss of a plane would be far more damaging to it than the money from any imagined insurance claim.

I do believe the OP just has a suspicious mind and saw the same insurer involved in all three cases (not unusual given that there are so few insurers in the business of aviation). There really is no logical story here, just suspicion from a conspiracy theorist who wants to see something more than there is - like a lot of conspiracy theorists here do about everything.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: fill0000
Oh dear, currently have a Virgin Atlantic plane with failed landing gear circling over Newhaven: www.flightradar24.com...

news.sky.com...



originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: fill0000

And a United flight out of Brussels diverting to London.


I think it's important to point out that this is all coincidence and media interest.
Indeed both instances would probably get some media attention anyway (a fly farts on a plane these days and it becomes a news scroll) but I think both of these are probably minor, and actions precautionary. One is clearly a technical fault and the other is probably nothing more than a minor fault or a drunk/poorly passenger causing diversion.

I just wanted to interject this before we get the theorists in here ranting about another 9/11 before anything has even happened.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

You are, of course, correct.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

The velocity cannot be denied as a potential factor in such an incident.

Groundspeed is calculated as is airspeed.

ATC use groundspeed as their measure on their radar. It is a measure and a measure that is a factor. People on this thread should stop mentioning it some straw man argument about it because they don't like being wrong. It is on the ATC screens as a measure, including the leaked ATC screens and a comment from the pilot they were leaked to. Calculations from these ATC readings suggest it was going too slow and possibly stalled. FACT.

The fact is that it was losing velocity and at a potentially dangerous level for the altitude and conditions.

If the leaked ATC screens are to be believed, stalling is a highly possibly factor, as is going above ceiling height and breaking apart .

During 6 minutes 4300ft ALT was gained and 116 knots decreased. The IAS would likely be too slow for sustained thrust, hence stalling or getting above ceiling height.

Another flight in the area was cruising at FL360 at 503 knots.

QZ8501

23:18 FL363 353 knots and climbing

23:12 FL320 469 knots and climbing

theaviationist.com...


Flightradar24 receivers have tracked the flight by means of ADS-B until 06:12, when the aircraft was at FL320, 469 knots, 310° heading.

Although any attempt to explain the reason for the disappearance of the AirAsia flight is pure speculation at this time, we can’t but notice at least one apparent similarity with another famous crash: Air France 447.

AF447 was an Airbus 330 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris that plummeted 38,000 feet in 3 minutes and 30 seconds and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009. In that case, pilots responded to a stall, induced by inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements likely due to pitot tubes being obstructed by ice, by pulling the nose up instead of pushing it down to attempt a recover.

Even though a low Ground Speed can be caused by strong head winds, the fact that nearby Emirates was cruising at 36,000 feet at a speed of 503 knots, seems to suggest that the missing Airbus 320 was probably too slow and closer to the stall speed than it should have been.

edit on 29-12-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
94
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join