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: 36
94
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

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

You cannot compare a random flight to a specific flight and it's conditions as there are variables.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Smoke spotted on island...just scrolled on CNN

And CNN needs to quit calling the relatives " anxious"... More like devastated
edit on 29-12-2014 by Cosmocow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: DancedWithWolves
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


right on.

I just found it odd how they did not say this at first but in later reports the wording changed to include weather as the reason.
At one point faux news even had some so called expert claiming that not stating a reason for the requesting of direction chane was normal and not a big deal. I still until we get physical proof will point to the wording being changed or clarified as a possibility of something other than weather even though the odds are that it crashed due to weather we still need confirmation or else we have a conspiracy here.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I am seeing the opposite though. The earliest reports did indicate weather...then there was an effort to unlearn the why.


The missing jet had requested a "deviation" from the flight path due to bad weather, the company said.


early source

Why? Why don't they want to acknowledge that 8501 waited 2 minutes for approval to ascend to 34,000. Was the request denied or delayed too long? Why deny/hide that they knew it was a request due to weather now?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It would be super nice of someone to actually run the numbers and calculate the search area based on the speed, the location of the last radar hit and the time it took for someone to notice it was gone.

I'm guessing since it was only five minutes, there couldn't be more than a 50 mile radius search area. Not too bad considering the debris field could span a few miles plus the tone should be able to be heard a few miles away.

I'm also curious to know if the jet did stall would the decent be slow enough to be noted on radar?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Daughter2

If they were within radar coverage, and the transponder was still on then yes, ATC would see the altitude dropping on their screens. It could take two to three minutes to hit the water at that altitude.

If they didn't have the transponder they could still be seen on a Primary radar, if they were in range, but it would be much harder to tell they were dropping.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

I was watching faux at about 12 hrs ago when they were stating a possible debris field found by an aussie plane and that is when i heard them stating the request for change did not include a reason. There is definitly something there but it is hard to say what so far. perhaps cya



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Cosmocow

Do you know which island they are reporting?? Kalimantan/Borneo or Belitung?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Satellite imagery of search area released.



Satellite imagery of the area where AirAsia flight QZ 8501 went missing has been released by Tomnod, the online crowdsourcing arm of satellite service DigitalGlobe, and already users are reporting suspected debris sightings.

It follows the service announcing on Sunday it was "tasking" — or assigning — DigitalGlobe's satellites in order to collect imagery of the area of interest where the missing flight stopped communicating with air traffic control.

As individual satellites don't cover the entire surface area of the globe, they need to be tasked to scour certain areas if they are not covering them already.



sour ce

Help search here
edit on 29-12-2014 by DancedWithWolves because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I haven't read all the posts so maybe this has been covered, you are NOT going to go above a 55K foot storm! I wondered why such an experienced pilot would ask for permission to climb? The higher you go the more the aircraft skids and slides (in other words), LESS control! Why (knowing there was a storm-front ahead you can't overfly, move the aircraft into a position where you will have less control?
This has me puzzled.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: auroraaus

Belitung



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

I think there are a few hills and valleys/crevices there. Would be nice if Tomnod/DigitalGlobe released land images we could look at too.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: wulff

Because the cell he was near may have been less violent a couple thousand feet higher.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wulff

They weren't trying to top it they were trying to navigate through it. It's possible that they got weather radar returns that indicated a better passage by climbing.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
USS Sampson is enroute. She was in WESTPAC on deployment and has been rerouted to aid in the search.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
If there was something suspicious about these Malyasian Flights... what would be the link between them?

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Both good questions coming from family of passengers:


At Surabaya airport, some of the relatives of the 162 people on the flight began to express anger at AirAsia executives over answers they considered inadequate. Relatives wanted to know why the departure time of QZ8501 had been brought forward from 7.20am to 5.20am on Sunday. They were told it was just a routine change.

Some were seen gesticulating during a closed meeting with Mr Fernandes, and parents said outside that they did not know why, in the face of such bad weather, the flight had not been delayed or cancelled.


source

ETA

Not the answer to periodic satellite data transmissions I was hoping for...

Planned AirAsia tracking upgrade comes too late for Flight QZ8501

When Flight MH370 disappeared on March 8, it was Inmarsat’s data that helped pinpoint the possible location that the Malaysia Airlines aircraft had likely crashed — The missing Indonesia AirAsia Flight QZ8501 was not yet upgraded with improved tracking technology that the airline was already starting to fit on some of its short-haul planes.

US newspaper the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday British satellite communications company Inmarsat as saying that AirAsia, which owns 49 per cent of the Indonesian carrier, had begun implementing satellite communications on some of its A320 jets earlier this year to provide position updates every two minutes.

Inmarsat vice-president external affairs Chris McLaughlin was quoted saying that the missing A320 passenger plane carrying 162 people that disappeared early Sunday morning was not yet modified.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Inmarsat provides access to the satellite network on which the tracking service runs.


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



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DancedWithWolves
Both good questions coming from family of passengers:


At Surabaya airport, some of the relatives of the 162 people on the flight began to express anger at AirAsia executives over answers they considered inadequate. Relatives wanted to know why the departure time of QZ8501 had been brought forward from 7.20am to 5.20am on Sunday. They were told it was just a routine change.

Some were seen gesticulating during a closed meeting with Mr Fernandes, and parents said outside that they did not know why, in the face of such bad weather, the flight had not been delayed or cancelled.


source[/quot e]

This is what I want to know, has anyone seen an answer on this?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

The flight didn't need to be delayed or cancelled. The airline (and crew) just had to plan and execute a route to navigate around and through the thunderstorm cells.


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



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

Agreed, although delaying it may have ironically made it an on time departure based on the original schedule. It will be interesting to discover how "routine" it was to move this departure time.

And too an earlier discussion on retiring flight numbers following incidents...


Indonesia AirAsia is planning to retire its QZ8501 flight code following the disappearance of its aircraft en route to Surabaya to Singapore on Sunday.


source

Thanks for your many posts in this thread. The information is appreciated.



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join