Missing Plane Air Asia

originally posted by: charlyv
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.

The atc should have at least warned the pilots, as even the radar summary report would have shown areas of heavy pptn.

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. Risks are the same for thunderstorm penetration, but the atc in the us always warn the pilot ' it is not recommended, sir'.

Some new reports appearing saying it behaved ''bordering on the verge of logic'', climbed like a fighter pilot then nose dived. Also that it could have landed 'safely' on the sea then sunk in a storm hence the lack of ELT ping on impact.

Landing 'safely' on the sea sounds unlikely, there would be impact due to weight /size /velocity.

www.dailymail.co.uk... vers-continue-pull-bodies-water.html

The captain of AirAsia flight 8501 (inset) may have performed a successful emergency water landing only for the aircraft to then be overcome by high seas, aviation experts have said. 'The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) would work on impact, be that land, sea or the sides of a mountain, and my analysis is it didn't work because there was no major impact during landing,' said Dudi Sudibyo, a senior editor of aviation magazine Angkasa, adding the pilot could have managed to land it on the sea's surface. The black box from the Airbus that was carrying 162 people from Indonesia to Singapore when it came down over the Java Sea on Sunday has yet to be located. Meanwhile, two analysts examining flight data leaked from the Indonesian investigation into Flight 8501 say the plane behaved in ways 'bordering on the edge of logic' before it plummeted from the skies. They say the AirAsia jet rose up as fast as a fighter jet and then dropped almost vertically into the water as if being thrust down by a giant hand.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Just about everywhere falls under the oversight of the IATA. There are multiple treaties in place under the IATA that cover everything from English as the international aviation language, to air traffic control procedures.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The scattered wreckage and bodies that have been found so far are not congruent with the "landed intact and therefore no ELT activation" reports at all.

The steep climb reports you mentioned are much more likely based on the reported altitude radar hits that have been investigated.

Reported leaked information from the investigation.

Efforts by dive teams to recover the plane's black box, which will contain vital data on how the tragedy unfolded, have been hampered by poor weather as search teams warn it could be a week before the device is located and brought to the surface.

But today Mr Soejatman said the jet climbed at a speed that would have been impossible for the pilot to have achieved - and then plunged straight down ‘like a piece of metal being thrown down.'
‘It’s really hard to comprehend…the way it goes down is bordering on the edge of logic.’

Australian aviation expert, Peter Marosszeky, from the University of NSW, told the Sydney Morning Herald that, in contrast, he was baffled by the extremely low speed of the descent - as low as 61 knots - which would suggest the plane was heading almost straight down, explaining why it has been found in water just 10km from its last point of radar contact.

Both experts are in agreement that the jet went down almost vertically - and also concluded that a freak weather pattern that placed the aircraft under extraordinary forces was to blame for its plight.

Earlier in the week, AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes - who vowed today to fly home with the body of 22-year-old stewardess Khairunnisada Haidar once she has been formally identified - suggested the jet had encountered ‘very unique weather.’

Mr Soejatman meanwhile remains convinced that the reason for the crash, while officially a mystery, is possibly because the aircraft was caught in a severe updraft, followed by an equally severe ground draft.

He said that leaked figures showed the plane climbed at a virtually unprecedented rate of 6000ft to 9000ft per minute and ‘you can’t do that at altitude in an Airbus 320 with pilot action.’

The most that could normally be expected, he said, would be 1000ft to 1500ft on a sustained basis, gaining 3000ft in a burst.

But then the aircraft fell at an even more incredible rate of 11,000ft a minute, with extraordinary bursts of up to 24,000ft a minute - figures higher than the Air France A330 Airbus that crashed into the Atlantic in 2009, killing 228 passengers after attaining baffling ascent and descent rates.

Mr Marosszeky agreed that a climb rate of at least 6000ft a minute would indicate a ‘severe weather event,’ because that rate of climb was a ‘domain for jet fighters.’

Howwever, Dudi Sudibyo, a senior editor of aviation magazine Angkasa, disagreed with that analysis, claiming that the pilot managed to land on the sea before the craft was overwhelmed.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... continue-pull-bodies-water.html#ixzz3NdDH1ww5

originally posted by: Nochzwei

If the pilots were operating their aircraft's weather radar properly for weather penetration then they would've been well aware of the dangers and wouldn't have needed to be warned.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Mr Marosszeky agreed that a climb rate of at least 6000ft a minute would indicate a ‘severe weather event,’ because that rate of climb was a ‘domain for jet fighters.’

Howwever, Dudi Sudibyo, a senior editor of aviation magazine Angkasa, disagreed with that analysis, claiming that the pilot managed to land on the sea before the craft was overwhelmed.

Wow, I don't think you could have much more of a conflict of an opinion by experts as to what really happened here.

If the aircraft was able to ditch at sea, would the ocean be able to rip it apart like that? And, of course, no life vests found on victims as of yet. Does not make sense.

a reply to: charlyv

A ditching that leaves the airplane intact would have to be in calm seas, which was not possible with these bad storms moving through. Impacting rough seas synonymous with storms would not leave the plane intact. See the "Miracle on the Hudson" for favorable conditions conducive to that.

That article sounds like a tremendous attempt to save face. There are falsities in it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Nochzwei

Just about everywhere falls under the oversight of the IATA. There are multiple treaties in place under the IATA that cover everything from English as the international aviation language, to air traffic control procedures.

icao is the regulatory body. I think iata is for pax/ticketing and all other related stuff. but yes English is the language for atc's everywhere.

early reports said that smoke was seen coming from one of the islands..
Some of the wreckage they've pulled in was an emergency slide..
and they've pulled out a small number of bodies..
and apparently the plane is fairly intact on the bottom of the ocean floor, in shallow waters.

So, I sure hope they investigated the smoke reports - as possible survivors who made it to land somehow...

that is a definitely a freak wx. and descent at 11000 ft to 24000ft/min is impossible to say the least. Some bloody other worldly stuff going on here.
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

originally posted by: justwanttofly
originally posted by: Nochzwei

If the pilots were operating their aircraft's weather radar properly for weather penetration then they would've been well aware of the dangers and wouldn't have needed to be warned.

wx radar detects pptn and not turbulence or wind shear

a reply to: Nochzwei

The A320 has a dual mode precip/turbulence radar.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Aren't there life rafts (with a tent thingy over them) on board?? My memory is so hazy these days. However, nearly a week, I suppose anyone drifting would be dehydrated/starved by now unless they made it ashore to an island. Even then...

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: Nochzwei

The A320 has a dual mode precip/turbulence radar.

Lol, so they can also detect cat?

a reply to: Nochzwei

Yeah, you're right. That's what I get for typing that after dealing with a nice winter storm and lots of traffic.

ICAO is the overall umbrella, with IATA under them. But everyone falls under their standards.

a reply to: Nochzwei

No, but it does detect wet turbulence. Nothing detects CAT.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
that is a definitely a freak wx. and descent at 11000 ft to 24000ft/min is impossible to say the least. Some bloody other worldly stuff going on here.
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

An 11,000 fpm descent is achievable, and much more is possible
Thrust levers to idle
Autopilot-disengage
Landing gear and spoilers (dive brakes) deployed
>70 degree bank
Maintain 350 knots or MMO .82
And, put your mask on because you'll lose the cabin pressure .And you may lose an engine so turn the igniters ON.
It's not otherworldly - just an E ticket ride.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Nochzwei

No, but it does detect wet turbulence. Nothing detects CAT.

Wet turbulence is nothing but, at the pptn there is downdraft and surrounding the pptn is updrafts

a reply to: Nochzwei

And it can get pretty rough. The A320 weather radar helps to get around it.