It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 53
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 12:36 AM
Biggest aircraft is but like a leaf in a severe thunderstorm. Cannot afford to mishandle the pitch
a reply to: justwanttofly

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 12:41 AM
I also read about that latest radar analysis that said that the aircraft "pitched up to an unbelievable amount" before they lost radar contact.

The stall that this might create, especially in extreme turbulent weather, could have caused that aircraft to lose complete aerodynamic control, flip or roll over violently and perhaps rip off a wing and/or horizontal/vertical stabilizers. An uncontrollable cartwheel or spin to the ground if that happened. Horrible to think of and hard to get out of my mind.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 05:16 AM
a reply to: charlyv

I saw a episode of air crash investigation a couple year back. It was about an Russian flight from Moscow to Beijing. So basically, the pilot went to the cabin to rest at night. A friend of the FO brought his children to meet his friend at the cockpit. So the FO let the 2 children try "tilting" the aircraft a few degrees and back. So when the second kid- a teenager tried it, the aircraft pitched head up violently and then stalled. Only the teens hand was on the controls.The pilot woke up and tried to get to the cockpit but was too late. The aircraft crashed with all hands.

Could this be similar? I may be wrong so if you spot any mistake , please forgive me.

edit on 1-1-2015 by AnnoyingNipples because: spelling error

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 05:32 AM
a reply to: charlyv

It is the most feasible possibility and from the evidence so far most probably cause.

I have said since way back in the thread, after showing calculations from ATC screens that the deceleration whilst climbing was an indicator of a potential stalling incident. The factors to consider are deceleration, weather such as possible updraughts / downdraughts, altitude and climb. It all adds to a very high probability of a stall incident.

There are experts saying the same thing.

Hopefully the flight recorders will be found and further analysis will be possible to put measures in place to decrease the potential for such incidents.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 05:51 AM
Sounds like another Air France incident to me. Basically the plane was falling arse first into the ocean. A spirit level could and should fix that problem.
edit on 1-1-2015 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: deadeyedick

Sometimes details are simply unavailable when an event first occurs. You cannot fault the journalist for not providing information that has not been discovered yet.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. It was a simple weather related crash nothing more.And as far as I knew the pilot was not denied permission to change course.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 08:39 AM
a reply to: AnnoyingNipples

That one, the boy pushed the stick so far over the roll control on the autopilot disengaged. At the time it just lit up a single small light on the instrument panel. The crew was fairly new to Airbus aircraft and didn't notice.

The moving track indicator went into what appeared to be a holding pattern, further confusing them.

The aircraft had already started a roll at that point, but being dark with no references they couldn't tell. Eventually they rolled over, pitched down and slammed into the ground.

There were three pilots in GBE cockpit, but the captain was the senior captain for the airline, and had a habit of letting his kids in the cockpit, because no one would stand up to him.

Crew Resource Management at its finest. Heh.

But that's exactly what we were talking about earlier when we brought up CRM.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:12 PM
a reply to: Nochzwei

No kidding. I read a story in a book written by a F-16 pilot about one of the author's friends getting caught in a thunderstorm over Iraq. He entered the storm in the mid 20s and got spit out about 3,000 feet agl. He did everything he could to get out and was in full burner the whole time but the storm threw him down and around like a rag doll before eventually letting go of the airplane at a few thousand feet.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 04:05 PM

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Loopdaloop
Conspiracy stakes increase

@trevorw1953: AirAsia CEO Dumped Shares Days Before Flight Disappeared - via @grtvnews

Just like other planned 'events' such as Sept 11, those in the markets always manage to cover themselves. The chinese blogger suggested the design was to hurt Malaysia - anyone know potential reasons?

And just like with 9/11, people keep sharing "facts" that simply are not true, imputing motives that do not exist for crimes that were not committed.

Fancy being specific or just enjoy being vague?

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 05:08 PM

originally posted by: wulff

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: auroraaus

Clouds create vertigo. Vertigo is fun, and dangerous as hell.

Here's a fun experiment we used to do to demonstrate it.

Take a broom stick and cut it down to a comfortable length. Tape it to the foot rest of an office type chair (make sure it's one that has a bar type footrest).

Put a blindfold on that you can't see through on, and have someone spin you 8-10 times then stop you. Once you stop, keep the "stick" centered for 30 seconds. At the end of that time freeze exactly where you are and take the blindfold off.

That's vertigo.

Simple explanation is that with no outside references your body loses the ability to tell up from down. An experienced instrument pilot SHOULD know better than to look outside, but it's bitten many pilots in the ass over the years. We used to have a requirement that without a waver, all fighters on ferry flights had to be on the ground before local dark.

They only had one person on board, so there was no one to check them if they started to lose the plot, and they weren't familiar with the place they were landing so were more susceptible.

There are other possible causes, but that is one.

That could be one explanation about the latest data from radar, they said the aircraft pitched up to an unbelievable amount (probably stalling and falling off to the side and went into a spin unrecoverable and dropping off the radar) if avionics failed you might (due to a shear) 'feel' you are dropping (or perhaps it did 'drop') causing pilot to pull the stick (wheel) into his stomach causing a stall, I know the stall warning is hard to ignore with a 'shaker' alarm (shakes the control wheel along with a alarm and lights) that only an unconscious person could ignore. I did 'find' a hole in a storm that felt like the bottom of the atmosphere fell out and actually slammed hard when we 'hit' the 'bottom'!
Of course these scenarios I am spewing are all conjecture as I don't know what happened, I just know sometimes the atmosphere will do incredible things that scare the heck out of ya!

On an Airbus there is no stick or wheel to pull into your stomach. The "Frogjet" has a sidestick controller, a small joystick on each side of the cockpit.
And since the Airbus has a cnventional tail, it does nt have a "stick pusher" function. The fly-by-wire Normal Law flight control software does not allow the aoa to exceed criticality. However, if all three pitot-static systems are lost, say by icing, the flight control mode reverts to Alternate Law, and the aircraft can be stalled, since the sidestick can override the FBW software in alternate law mode.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 06:22 PM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

It also brings up the obvious question as to why this aircraft was allowed to approach a storm like this. I think doppler would have shown the extreme turbulence in that storm, but not sure if the ground radar was so equipped, or even read correctly.

Take an incident like this into the states, would ATC here have taken action sooner, or not even let the aircraft approach this storm? I guess it is a good question for Zaphod, as I wonder if the rules/risks are different globally.
edit on 1-1-2015 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 06:34 PM
a reply to: charlyv

You know there is turbulence near a thunderstorm, but barring another plane reporting it, they still can't identify specifically where turbulence occurs. About 10-12 years ago they flew a plane to different parts of the world seeing if a laser detection system could see turbulence but the experiments failed.

In this case while turbulence probably played a role, the icing was the bigger threat.

One of the most interesting things they identified with AF447 was supersaturated freezing rain. The aircraft was hit by water, but as soon as it hit the plane it instantly froze. That's one reason the pitot tubes froze.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 06:39 PM
a reply to: charlyv

There should be international standards for such things though obviously some ATC are dependent on various resources.

It appears from reports, that the requested altitude and left shift was first denied because of other aircraft in the vicinity, they were asked to wait. When ATC went to give permission they were off radar. ATC has limited resources for specific detection of up and downdraughts and to an extent relies on reports from pilots.

The incident is complicated by the lack of information yet as to specific conditions, updraughts, downdraughts etc though at FL363 in a storm and climbing, it adds to potential instability and hence potential stalling. The decrease in velocity suggest it was affected by up or downdraughts and / or was approaching the climb too steeply without enough velocity.

The thunderstorm threat
The major hazard to an airplane from a thunderstorm is not lightning. Nor is it rain or clouds. It’s the convective motion of the air — the powerful up and downdrafts that can be muscular enough, in extreme cases, to upset an airplane and even damage it or worse. Not even the best-built airplane can defy strong thunderstorms, which ATC grades from Level 1 (“weak”) to Level 6 (“extreme”). ATC helps airplanes deviate around these storm cells with radar.
In a word, radar “sees” precipitation — which might mean rain, hail or snow to ATC, since current radars cannot tell the difference. Radar waves bounce off moisture and some of that energy reflects back to the radar antenna. The radar receiver detects that energy and after computer processing, shows the return on the controller’s screen.
The right radar for the right job
In the world of ATC, there are two general kinds of radar. Those used near airports are called Airport Surveillance Radars and show precipitation as a mosaic of small squares, with the darker ones indicating more precipitation. Approach controllers overlay this quilt-like mosaic atop their aircraft target display and then guide airplanes around darker areas.
Radars that track aircraft at greater distances and at higher altitudes are called Air Route Surveillance Radars. Since ARSRs show only two levels of precipitation, most are augmented by a more helpful weather overlay system called WARP, which stands for Weather And Radar Processing.
WARP gets its information from NEXRAD, or Next Generation Radar. You may be familiar with NEXRAD through its well-publicized tornado warning center in Norman, Okla. and/or its availability on the Internet. WARP processes NEXRAD data into a form useful to center controllers, which they again overlay atop aircraft blips.

NEXRAD works through its own set of 158 radars designed specifically to analyze weather. Unlike traffic control radars, NEXRAD uses Doppler-shift technology that takes advantage of the fact that a radar return has a slightly different frequency from the pulse that was sent.
This simple truth allows NEXRAD to derive valuable information of great use to controllers, including:
The highest altitude of the storm
An estimate of how much water is in the storm
The probability of hail, severe hail and the hail’s size
The speed and direction of the storm
Detecting rotating thunderstorms, which can mean the presence of tornadoes
WARP information can be up to 6 minutes old, but even so it is impressively accurate. Next to keeping airplanes safely separated, severe-weather avoidance is a controller’s highest priority.
Ask the weather man
For high-altitude aircraft such as jetliners and for radar coverage in between airports, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operates 21 Air Route Traffic Control Centers across the United States. Each one is staffed with Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) meteorologists. These specialists provide minute-by-minute weather information to aircraft, with special emphasis on hazardous weather. They also advise on weather that might affect the flow of air traffic.
Their briefings can be scheduled or unscheduled as weather conditions evolve. One of the most useful unscheduled briefings is the Center Weather Advisory (CWA), which warns in part about thunderstorms, icing and turbulence. CWAs are broadcast on receipt by both center and approach controllers to all aircraft on their frequencies and serve as a heads-up to aircraft in flight.
Ride reports
Sometimes a controller will simply query an aircraft for a “ride report.” The pilot answers informally as to how smooth or bumpy it is. Pilots can also ask controllers for a ride report. With several reports, the controller can assemble a mental picture of where the bumps are in his or her area. Equally, the pilots can form the same general picture since they get to know where other aircraft are as they listen to one another on the radio.
Airlines will not hesitate to spend fuel — even at today’s prices — if pilots need to deviate for reasons of turbulence. It’s a non-issue. One experienced flight attendant told the author that a co-worker on another flight had been injured because of turbulence. “It’s nothing to fool around with,” she said.
When it's turbulent, perhaps the safest thing we can do is to cinch our seat belts a bit tighter. We might, however, stop short of praying for winter.

edit on 1-1-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 06:50 PM
a reply to: charlyv

A320s are equipped with a weather radar that detects precipitation and turbulence inside storms.

ATC weather radar can be very limited sometimes(varying on location and delay, among other things), and controllers will usually defer to pilots and let them fly through a storm if the crew says they can and will do it.

Like Zaph said, icing was very likely a much bigger issue.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 06:51 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

Really interesting, and more credence to the fact that this may have occurred here, and the sudden vertical climb was the pilot reacting to a low airspeed indication caused by a frozen pitot. I know they have heaters in them, but there are obvious situations where they cannot keep them clear. Amazing when you think about such a small part possibly causing such a major disaster.

edit on 1-1-2015 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught

edit on 1-1-2015 by charlyv because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 06:54 PM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

There are many international standards. The problem is enforcement and a willingness to follow them in different parts of the world.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Real interesting info on NEXRAD and WARP. Wondering if so equipped in Asia...
I guess the info in those flight recorders will be able to tell the sad truth of what really occurred here.
Thanks for the info.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:06 PM
a reply to: charlyv

There have been improvements made to pitot tubes and there are malfunction detection systems, also pilots have training in unreliable airspeed.

The readings were likely accurate at least when ATC was in contact as the request to climb etc would have been given with other reports.

The French Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses pour la s�curit� de l'aviation civile (BEA) has recommended the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to review the certification criteria for Pitot probes in icing environments.
At the time of the occurrence, most of the operator's A330 pilots had not received unreliable airspeed training. Most of these pilots had transferred from the operator's A320 fleet, and the third-party training provider had not included the topic in its A320 endorsement training program, even though it was included in the aircraft manufacturer's recommended program since 2004.

The operator identified the problem and included unreliable airspeed in its recurrent training program for the A320 from May 2009 and the A330 from October 2009.

The training provider included the topic in its endorsement program from July 2010.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:10 PM
a reply to: justwanttofly

controllers will usually defer to pilots and let them fly through a storm if the crew says they can and will do it.

I know through experience that they will do it, and that part seems to be the most uncontrollable and perhaps controversial exceptions to the data from some very sophisticated equipment. Again, I guess the flight recorders will tell the horrible truth.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 08:10 PM
To take a break from the doom and gloom here for a bit, I will share with you an experience I had, way back in the early 70's as aircrew in SP2H right out of radar school and before we transitioned to P3..

We were flying out of Jacksonville,FL on a routine patrol when out of nowhere, this weather front started to develop on the way back to base. I was running an APS20 radar, good for what it was back then.

The pilots decided that they were going to run through it, because we were kind of low on fuel, and they did not want to attempt to skirt it, so they asked me to "Find a hole". Absolute terror for inexperienced me, but there was also this "I can do this" attitude that you kind of adopt when you have no way to jump out of the seat. So, the whole screen is just socked in with clutter, but there was this "less cluttered" area a few miles out about 20deg relative to course, and I vectored the pilots to it. Once we entered it things got nasty quickly.

Holy crap, the plane went every direction but straight, and the pilots were yelling "Do you know what you are doing?" I invited one back to see what I was looking at and he just said "Holy #... well it looks like the best option as far as I can tell as well, so keep your eyes peeled for anything behind it!"

After being tossed around like a basketball for a minute, a big black area shows up on the screen, and instantly we popped through to instant sunshine.

Trial by fire, terrifying and lucky, but an experience not to ever be forgotten. This was a simple, typical thunderstorm as they go, and it certainly makes you appreciate the technology advances since then, but even that could not save those poor souls on QZ8501 when they ran into that monster.

new topics

top topics

<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in