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: 35
94
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: takers888

Where do you expect a plane fuelled for a 2.5 hour flight to be two full days after it went off radar? It went down on sea or land. Period.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Reading through this thread.Do some of you people forget this is a conspiracy website and is made for conspiracy debate.Your allowed to post artciles you find that relate to thnigs like these Asian airliners crashing and missing as mysterious conspiacies.

So far no one has the answers to why these planes realy crashed.Also the one that was shot down in Ukraine remains a mystery as to whom shot the thing down.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Debate implies two sides. What's your problem?a reply to: Jobeycool



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

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...

False it was not that it was not realesed at first but was stated that the request to change coarse came without a reason stated. It was not until much later that other things are being claimed and now you are posting for them. I do not trust your sources because they go against the first official reports. It is clear that the information has been changed to fit a narritive. As i first said just read the first pages of the thread and you will see how the official story has changed.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

A random photo is irrelevant. The readings for that flight are specific to that flight and not some universal standard conditions, altitude etc.

There are factors to consider in each specific flight such as climb, altitude, climb acceleration etc.

ATC GS is calculated using TAS.

ivao.aero...






posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
The news has reported bad weather and a request too change course from the beginning. That's not enough for this discussion? reply to: deadeyedick



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly

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)/.079 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.



Not to hijack (no pun intended) the thread, but that mach number is going to be 0.79, not .079. as in 522knots, not 52knots airspeed. Obviously 52kts would barely keep a Cessna airborne.

I'm still trying to resolve all the numbers you provided though. if the actual ground speed IS 298kts, then the airspeed should be something slightly less than 479kts considering the almost direct headwind of 181kts.


Or if the airspeed is 275kts as you say, then the ground speed should be less than 100kts considering the 181kt headwind....


So something is not adding up. The mach number is clearly listed as .79 which sounds right for most any modern jet aircraft, so which of the other numbers isn't correct ?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: charlyv

Having been airborne for such a short time, they wouldn't get much over 38,000. Ceiling for the 320 is somewhere around 41-42,000.

Hit a big storm wrong at 20,000 and you'll bend the airplane. We used to always have to fix dents and repaint our jets after coming back from Asia. They'd fly through a storm and the rain and hail would strip paint off the leading edges.


Hear that, I flew in P3C's , and with a ceiling of about 26000ft, not much we could fly over. So the pilots flew around 'em and sometimes in them. Tough bird, but we used to lose antennae and paint. I wonder what hit those poor souls.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

I'm not saying that the plane didn't land or crashed but do you have any tangible evidence before making a final verdict?

Its like me crying wolf when there is no wolf to be seen.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Thank you for catching that error.

When at altitude, there is a difference between KIAS and Knots True Air Speed(KTAS). KIAS will always be lower at altitude because the decreased density of air throws off the airspeed indication system. The way I learned it was that the lower density/pressure meant that there was less air to push the airspeed indicator further up the scale. KIAS is a raw reading. KTAS is this raw reading converted for density differences. The KIAS of the picture is 275kts but the KTAS is more like 450-500kts.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: takers888
a reply to: Leonidas

I'm not saying that the plane didn't land or crashed but do you have any tangible evidence before making a final verdict?

Its like me crying wolf when there is no wolf to be seen.


Well, where do you think it is.

It is not up there, is it? It is not still flying somewhere. Therefore, it had to come down.

It requires fuel to keep an aircraft airborne. Without fuel, they tend to fall out of the sky, one way or another.

P



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: takers888

There is no evidence other than the plane stopped flying a long time ago and since it didn't land I feel confident enough to step out on a limb and say the plane crashed. Where is to be determined.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   


Greetings, has anyone heard when the voice communications between the pilots and air traffic controllers is being released by the Indonesian authorities?

That audio and the transmissions of flight performance and maintenance data sent from the computers on the plane periodically, will likely be helpful.




edit on 29-12-2014 by DancedWithWolves because: added art



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

All you're doing is helping to prove my point now. Let's do some math using the equation given in your post.

Let's assume that QZ8501 was at cruise with a TAS of 450(a rough conversion of the A320 turbulence penetration speed over 20,000 feet, 275KIAS).

GS = KTAS + Vw
GS = 450 + (-97)*
GS = 353kts

*The Vw component is negative because it is a headwind. 97kts of headwind is nothing extreme when navigating a thunderstorm.

The airplane is still trueing out at 450kts, nowhere near a stall or other abnormal flight envelope that might cause it to crash.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
The news has reported bad weather and a request too change course from the beginning. That's not enough for this discussion? reply to: deadeyedick



That is correct but in addition to that it was stated that the piolet only asked for a coarse change but did not specify why. Yes the likely answer is the one that says it was because of weather but as far as investigating is concerned the other possibilities have to be eliminated and at this point they can not be completly eliminated. Yes the chance is small but we all know that a coarse change needs to have a reason to get approved?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

It could be anything including and alien abduction or they flew into a wormhole. My argument is that you don't make a final verdict until the plane is found, just like the Malaysian government saying mh370 crashed without any tangible evidence.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Also, the readings for that flight are compliant to universal standards, laws, and principles that are building blocks of aerial navigation, not random and irrelevant.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

If it weren't for the fact that this is the THIRD Malaysia plane this year going down, TWO of them whereabouts still unknown, then yeah the bad weather and pilot request might be enough. That's my take. When they find the black box and the wreckage then we can say with more certainty what happened.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

You cannot postulate actual calculations based on hypothesised data. You do not know 'Vw'.

GS is calculated using TAS true air speed and Vw.

From the ATC screens and released data the velocity was decreasing when it should have been increasing as it was climbing at altitude.

The facts are that GS reading from GPS on ATC reported decreasing GS whilst climbing and that could have induced a stall situation.

As you were not there you cannot comment on the TAS or IAS readings as facts. The fact is it could have stalled due to decreasing airspeed at such an altitude whilst attempting climb at FL363.

You cannot say otherwise as you weren't there.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

According to this quote, the pilot did specify why he was requesting a change. And that he directed the plane left.


Djoko Murjatmodjo

Director General of Aviation, Indonesian Ministry of Transportation

Posted at08:02

said at a news conference in Surabaya: "The plane contacted Jakarta Air Traffic Control at 0612, at the frequency 125.7megahertz. During that contact, the Jakarta Air Traffic Control could still identify the plane on the radar screen."

"The plane stated that it was trying to avoid cloud and directed the plane to the left of M635 route and asked to go up to altitude 38,000ft. We have not received the ELT (distress) signal so our conclusion so far is the plane lost contact at 0617."



Note the early report did not state the request was denied.

Source

Contrast that with the new statment:

State navigation operator AirNav Indonesia overnight revealed the details of the last messages sent between flight QZ8501 and Indonesian air traffic control, saying that the pilot on board had not explained why he wanted to ascend to 38,000 feet.


Source

Someone is wrong.
edit on 29-12-2014 by DancedWithWolves because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join