Missing Plane Air Asia

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Granite

a reply to: theabsolutetruth



I haven't read the entire thread, but a thunderstorm occurs in afternoon and evening's in subtropical regions. The sun was just rising at time of the disappearence.



How solid is the report of the pilot requesting avoiding a thunderstorm?

Seems fairly solid. The communication has been released in full on several sites. The weather report confirms that, whenever they are "usually" to occur, the weather sucked where and when this plane went down. This one really does not seem like much of a mystery beyond the "what exactly happened to cause the crash itself" end of this. What I mean by that is that a plane flew into very bad weather, requested permission to change course specifically because of the weather, and then it went down. I'm not saying to close the case just yet, but if it walks like a duck...

do you have proof that there was a crash?
do you have any proof besides conjecture that the coarse change was due to weather? You make many assumptions here while mocking everyone else for their assumptions.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Granite

a reply to: theabsolutetruth



I haven't read the entire thread, but a thunderstorm occurs in afternoon and evening's in subtropical regions. The sun was just rising at time of the disappearence.



How solid is the report of the pilot requesting avoiding a thunderstorm?

Seems fairly solid. The communication has been released in full on several sites. The weather report confirms that, whenever they are "usually" to occur, the weather sucked where and when this plane went down. This one really does not seem like much of a mystery beyond the "what exactly happened to cause the crash itself" end of this. What I mean by that is that a plane flew into very bad weather, requested permission to change course specifically because of the weather, and then it went down. I'm not saying to close the case just yet, but if it walks like a duck...

do you have proof that there was a crash?
do you have any proof besides conjecture that the coarse change was due to weather? You make many assumptions here while mocking everyone else for their assumptions.

Give me a break. It is well established WHY he asked for the course correction. And as to there not being a crash...are you kidding me?

originally posted by: RyleeNator
So you have ignored the points in the post I replied to you and just spoke gibberish then tryed to bully me to to leave the site that about sums up a debunker thank you for showing your threw colours now if you don't mind stay on topic and try not to Obviously derail the thread like a good lada reply to: jaffo

It's sad that you consider everyone and anyone who refuses to run with idle speculation instead of proofs to be a "debunker." The motto of this site is "Deny Ignorance." let's stick with THAT, shall we?

Funny. You are going to use "The MSM" as your source for this story at all, since THEY are the ones who reported it. But when I show you this link where the people involved CONFIRM the request to change course, you will ignore that, lol. Selective much?

www.nbcnews.com...

Or maybe AlJazeera is in on it to, right? My goodness...THEY seem to control EVERYONE, don't they?! Apologies if this seems like mocking, but you clearly couldn't be bothered to do like forty seconds of Googling...

www.aljazeera.com...

a reply to: justwanttofly

If the ATC screens are correct, it looks like deceleration of velocity was not a good idea whilst climbing and the velocity was low for the altitude and cimb.

www.cockpitseeker.com...

As to the request to change course:

"An official from Indonesia's Transport Ministry said the pilot asked to ascend by 6,000 feet to 38,000 feet to avoid heavy clouds." --www.aljazeera.com...

"The pilot had earlier requested permission to change course to avoid a storm cell. He wanted to climb to 38,000ft (11,000m). He failed to gain permission." --au.ibtimes.com...

"The Indonesia AirAsia plane, an Airbus A320-200, disappeared after its pilot failed to get permission to fly higher to avoid bad weather during a flight from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore on Sunday." --www.reuters.com...

a reply to: jaffo

You're already assuming the plane has crash where there is no tangible evidence available yet. You are no different from any other conspiracy theorist. Everyone has the rights to provide facts and clues to what happened and you're trying to attack debunk everyone and saying it already crashed without providing any proof and asking everyone else to provide proof.

There is no place for hypocrite debunkers here.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Granite



a reply to: theabsolutetruth







I haven't read the entire thread, but a thunderstorm occurs in afternoon and evening's in subtropical regions. The sun was just rising at time of the disappearence.







How solid is the report of the pilot requesting avoiding a thunderstorm?

Seems fairly solid. The communication has been released in full on several sites. The weather report confirms that, whenever they are "usually" to occur, the weather sucked where and when this plane went down. This one really does not seem like much of a mystery beyond the "what exactly happened to cause the crash itself" end of this. What I mean by that is that a plane flew into very bad weather, requested permission to change course specifically because of the weather, and then it went down. I'm not saying to close the case just yet, but if it walks like a duck...

do you have proof that there was a crash?

do you have any proof besides conjecture that the coarse change was due to weather? You make many assumptions here while mocking everyone else for their assumptions.

Give me a break. It is well established WHY he asked for the course correction. And as to there not being a crash...are you kidding me?

really now you ask for a break?
It is conjecture that weather was the reason for the coarse change. It was not stated by the piolet that weather was the reason. For all we know he could have had a box cutter to his throat at the time and him failing to give the weather as reason could have been his way of alerting that there was a problem he could not state. you give me a break.

a reply to: Granite

A long time ago I had to fly around this part of the world several times a week in the biggest four-engine planes around. I can assure that the weather, then as now, was not something to take lightly. It would beat the crap out of the equipment. There was a lot to concern ourselves with back then - in the air and on the ground - but when the weather was in it was always number one on the pucker-list.

There may be a drought where you are but what evidence is there that Southeast Asia has the same conditions?

I posted this earlier in the thread, perhaps a reminder is in order.

Satellite Images of Thunderstorms in AirAsia path

originally posted by: takers888
a reply to: jaffo

You're already assuming the plane has crash where there is no tangible evidence available yet. You are no different from any other conspiracy theorist. Everyone has the rights to provide facts and clues to what happened and you're trying to attack debunk everyone and saying it already crashed without providing any proof and asking everyone else to provide proof.

There is no place for hypocrite debunkers here.

And there shouldn't be any place for crackpots either. I am going with LOGIC AND REASON. You want me to say "disappeared" instead of "crashed?" Fine. The plane disappeared. In terrible weather. Right after the pilot asked for permission to change course to avoid very serious weather. But yeah, I am waaaaaay off my rocker for going with the obvious "the plane crashed and this is a recovery mission at this point" scenario. Let me ask the OBVIOUS QUESTION: Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that the plane is currently ANYWHERE but the bottom of the Ocean? NO? Thanks much. And here's an idea: Stop attacking ME, which is AGAINST T&C, and start LEGITIMATELY trying to tackle my ideas. THAT is how we deny ignorance around here, supposedly, not by plugging our ears ad whining about pesky "debunkers" who persist upon and operate with facts and logic.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: Granite

A long time ago I had to fly around this part of the world several times a week in the biggest four-engine planes around. I can assure that the weather, then as now, was not something to take lightly. It would beat the crap out of the equipment. There was a lot to concern ourselves with back then - in the air and on the ground - but when the weather was in it was always number one on the pucker-list.

There may be a drought where you are but what evidence is there that Southeast Asia has the same conditions?

I posted this earlier in the thread, perhaps a reminder is in order.

Satellite Images of Thunderstorms in AirAsia path

And couple this reality with the fact that this is an EXTREMELY LOW BUDGET AIRLINE and all of the sudden the "mystery" of these crashes disappears pretty quickly. The guy bought the airline on the cheap and built it on the tagline "Now anyone can fly." He did so in an area of the World noted for its rather rough weather. My goodness, who could ever have imagined that an airline operating on the cheap in a corner of the World known for extremely serious storms might eventually start to lose planes? Shocking!!!

originally posted by: jaffo
As to the request to change course:



"An official from Indonesia's Transport Ministry said the pilot asked to ascend by 6,000 feet to 38,000 feet to avoid heavy clouds." --www.aljazeera.com...



"The pilot had earlier requested permission to change course to avoid a storm cell. He wanted to climb to 38,000ft (11,000m). He failed to gain permission." --au.ibtimes.com...



"The Indonesia AirAsia plane, an Airbus A320-200, disappeared after its pilot failed to get permission to fly higher to avoid bad weather during a flight from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore on Sunday." --www.reuters.com...

That was not what was reported at first. I say it was all put out to create a story. just go read the first part of the thread because the officials were not stating any of that in the begining.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Granite



a reply to: theabsolutetruth







I haven't read the entire thread, but a thunderstorm occurs in afternoon and evening's in subtropical regions. The sun was just rising at time of the disappearence.







How solid is the report of the pilot requesting avoiding a thunderstorm?

Seems fairly solid. The communication has been released in full on several sites. The weather report confirms that, whenever they are "usually" to occur, the weather sucked where and when this plane went down. This one really does not seem like much of a mystery beyond the "what exactly happened to cause the crash itself" end of this. What I mean by that is that a plane flew into very bad weather, requested permission to change course specifically because of the weather, and then it went down. I'm not saying to close the case just yet, but if it walks like a duck...

do you have proof that there was a crash?

do you have any proof besides conjecture that the coarse change was due to weather? You make many assumptions here while mocking everyone else for their assumptions.

Give me a break. It is well established WHY he asked for the course correction. And as to there not being a crash...are you kidding me?

really now you ask for a break?
It is conjecture that weather was the reason for the coarse change. It was not stated by the piolet that weather was the reason. For all we know he could have had a box cutter to his throat at the time and him failing to give the weather as reason could have been his way of alerting that there was a problem he could not state. you give me a break.

Way to move the goalposts. IT IS NOT CONJECTURE!!! I have given you quoted DIRECTLY FROM THE AIRLINE AND THE MINISTRY which state plainly why he asked to change course and tell you EXACTLY how he requested it be changed. Can you refute those without once again moving the goalposts or resorting to wild claims about hijackers with knives? No, you can't. Which is why you result to hand waving, which is for the record a flawed argument technique.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
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.

Where in the world do you get your "facts"? The EASA and FAA serice ceiling on the A320 is 13,000 meters. That is 39,000 feet. And if you are "climbing in an updraft, : your airspeed will increase since the energy from the updraft would reduce the needed angle of attack, thereby reducing induced drag. Trying to maintain a climb rate in a downdraft reduces speed. And you didn't need to mention grounspeed. It's the only speed that ATC knows. A mode C or mode S transponder does encode the transponder signal with the altitude, but no speed is transmitted. Groundspeed is computed by the ATC radar software. Mentioning "losing thrust" is indicative of ignorance in the field. A stall has nothing to do with thrust. It only relates to angle of attack and airflow separation over the top of the wing. In fact, angle of attack is so important that most airliners have 2 indicators for AOA. Our A320s have them but with Airbus generally, they are an option annd not standard equipment.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: jaffo
As to the request to change course:



"An official from Indonesia's Transport Ministry said the pilot asked to ascend by 6,000 feet to 38,000 feet to avoid heavy clouds." --www.aljazeera.com...



"The pilot had earlier requested permission to change course to avoid a storm cell. He wanted to climb to 38,000ft (11,000m). He failed to gain permission." --au.ibtimes.com...



"The Indonesia AirAsia plane, an Airbus A320-200, disappeared after its pilot failed to get permission to fly higher to avoid bad weather during a flight from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore on Sunday." --www.reuters.com...

That was not what was reported at first. I say it was all put out to create a story. just go read the first part of the thread because the officials were not stating any of that in the begining.

Again you move the goalposts. Just because every single bit of information was not released immediately does not at all prove conspiracy. Puh-leez. You are just denying every single thing which does not support your wild and crazy notion that THEY are once again up to something, lol...

The photo and my explanation below is a prime example of why the ATC readout of 353kts ground speed is completely useless for investigation/speculative purposes and should not be brought into the discussion.



This is a picture from a military aircraft's Flight Management System display at cruise.

The white box in the upper left shows that the airplane is cruising at 275 Knots Indicated Air Speed(KIAS)/.79 Mach. This is usual. In fact, it is operating about 20-25 knots under it's maximum operation speed(Vmo) which is just under 300 KIAS.

The yellow box at the bottom indicates a headwind of 181 knots coming from 20-30 degrees to the right of the aircraft. That is a lot, and will significantly slow down the airplanes ground speed.

The red boxes on the bottom and left both indicate that the ground speed is 298 knots. Slow. Slower than Airasia 8501.

This aircrafts ground speed is very low, yet it is in no danger of stalling or somehow otherwise crashing because the KIAS is well within limits and there is still considerable lift being generated by the aircraft's wings.

Stop talking about crashes. There hasn't been found any crash site for now. We can only wait for more information, otherwise it's gone like MH370. Just gone... or some Reapers from outer space cherry pick some planes off earth to devour some human flesh.

originally posted by: C46driver
a reply to: justwanttofly

My FCOM say 39100ft fleet wide.

It's also funny how all the speeds in this manual are in Knots Indicated Air Speed

Max tire speed would be ground speed, no?

I don't know why some posters are hammering on about groundspeed and stall, stall is a matter of AOA and nothing else

And ground speed iurn chats uses for cars, in the air we use airspeed

Exactly. The tire speed charts are in GS. My fuel burn charts use both IAS and TAS, and assume ISA conditions.

a reply to: jaffo

Typical that you need to hide behind the T&C as a debunker and you go around attacking other people opinion and you call this freedom of speech. You want to deny ignorance but you can't take it when someone is trying to debate and debunk your comments so you go use the facts and logic to back up your claim when there is none.