Missing Plane Air Asia

a reply to: Nochzwei

And if you're an hour or more away from landing then you have plenty of time to deal with that AFTER dealing with your problem. Communications with the ground, including the transponder are step 47 of a 47 step checklist.

The ground can wait. Either they're going to have plenty of time to prepare, or you're not landing anyway. Worrying about the transponder or radio is just one more distraction you don't need when dealing with an emergency.

So I'm trying to get a timeline in my mind. Here is what I put together so far.

The pilots know there is a storm/turbulence ahead and request a deviation.

Most likely they didn't have computer problems at this time because I'm guessing they would have mentioned it to the ground? After all, if you have issues with your indicators, you want to be given priority for a deviation.

Control responded, which I think must have been a few minutes later, and no answer was given.

Three minutes later, the wild ascent started

It must have been within 5 minutes that they computers went out, the pilot disconnect the computer and then the alleged up draft happened.

Either this was a super bad coincidence or perhaps it wasn't a coincidence.

Maybe someone can disrupt the computer system and did so at a very critical time? (or the pilots lost control and decided to disconnect the computer to gain control)

Maybe a transponder was hacked just as a plane was flying over a known war zone?

a reply to: Daughter2

Something happened to upset the computers. Pitot tubes freezing for example. Once that started the chain began.

originally posted by: Daughter2
Maybe a transponder was hacked just as a plane was flying over a known war zone?

Or maybe, like usually happens in any perfect storm when the human element is involved , something benign happened which cascaded from there into a catastrophic result.

It happens in the IT world all the time.. Some guy 5 years ago forgot to configure a port right , some new guy plugs a switch in trying to help a customer, loop occurs and 40 computers go down. Nothing about that involves hacking or anything nefarious it just proves that computers + machines + humans = not infallible

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Daughter2
Maybe a transponder was hacked just as a plane was flying over a known war zone?

Or maybe, like usually happens in any perfect storm when the human element is involved , something benign happened which cascaded from there into a catastrophic result.

It happens in the IT world all the time.. Some guy 5 years ago forgot to configure a port right , some new guy plugs a switch in trying to help a customer, loop occurs and 40 computers go down. Nothing about that involves hacking or anything nefarious it just proves that computers + machines + humans = not infallible

OK, You have scored employment in the IT sector, still doesn't qualify you to fly a Kite never mind a Advanced Aircraft system. Basically....Burned!!

a reply to: Soloprotocol

One small event sets off a chain. Asiana is a good example. They set the autopilot to FLCH thinking it would hold speed and started a chain of events that ended in a crash.

I am sticking to an EMP as the cause,it all fits into place given the evidence (as it did with mh370) and this was also predicted many years ago and I'm sure there will be another thread on plane crashes the next time this happens (unfortunately it will)

Here are the links for those that may be interested.


survivingthepoleshift.com...

poleshift.ning.com...

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
OK, You have scored employment in the IT sector, still doesn't qualify you to fly a Kite never mind a Advanced Aircraft system. Basically....Burned!!

Okay you don't know what an analogy is, still doesn't qualify you to disregard what I said..
Basically..Burned!!!!

That mature response on my part being said..

How does what I posted have anything to do with flying a plane, oh wait it doesnt.

a reply to: EndOfDays77

No it doesn't. An EMP would have killed all power to the aircraft, on ALL aircraft in the area, not caused problems with one specific system on one specific aircraft.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by a chain of events that get worse and worse and which eventually lead to the crash of the airplane.

IMO these airplines getting lost could have two purposes:
1. They serve as a worldwide ritual where something is implemented in the subconscious of those who are not aware it is a ritual. Something dissapearing of the planet without any trace has a big impact.

2. To create fear among people. This is combination with terrorist attacks, diseases, global meltdown etc creates an incredible amount of fear in people.

originally posted by: Elisa24
IMO these airplines getting lost could have two purposes:
1. They serve as a worldwide ritual where something is implemented in the subconscious of those who are not aware it is a ritual. Something dissapearing of the planet without any trace has a big impact.

2. To create fear among people. This is combination with terrorist attacks, diseases, global meltdown etc creates an incredible amount of fear in people.

Or it just might be.

Once in a blue moon, a high tech airframe with millions of little parts has a part that breaks.

It can also be that once in a while, Mother Nature reminds us of Her power.

Either way, they are (mostly) accidents of one kind or another.

P

a reply to: Elisa24

It didn't disappear though. It crashed and was found right where it should have been.

It is easy making armchair assumptions though the experts are saying it is too early for determining the incident exactly as it happened.

Reports are that the FAC was intermittently faulty on the plane and the pilot had encountered it before on a previous flight.

It was an odd decision for the pilot getting off his seat in such a situation and more so that he pulled a circuit breaker which removed the flight envelope protection.

www.reuters.com...

Details emerging of the final moments of Flight QZ8501 are likely to focus attention partly on maintenance, procedures and training, though Indonesian officials have stressed publicly that it is too early to draw any firm conclusions.

The Airbus A320 jet plunged into the Java Sea while en route from Surabaya, Indonesia, to Singapore on Dec. 28, killing all 162 people on board.

It had been suffering maintenance faults with a key flight control computer for over a week, and one person familiar with the matter said the captain had flown on the same plane with the intermittently faulty device just days before the crash.

AirAsia said it would not comment while the matter was under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) of Indonesia.

Reuters reported this week that maintenance problems on the Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC), and the way the pilots reacted to them, were at the heart of the investigation.

After trying to reset this device, pilots pulled a circuit-breaker to cut its power, Bloomberg News reported on Friday.

People familiar with the matter told Reuters it was the Indonesian captain Iriyanto who took this step, rather than his less experienced French co-pilot Remy Plesel, who was flying the plane.

The outage would not directly upset the aircraft but would remove flight envelope protection, which prevents a pilot from taking a plane beyond its safety limits, leaving the junior pilot to fly the jet manually in delicate high altitude conditions.

The decision to cut off the FAC has surprised people following the investigation because the usual procedure for resetting it is to press a button on the overhead panel.

"You can reset the FAC, but to cut all power to it is very unusual," said one A320 pilot, who declined to be identified. "You don't pull the circuit breaker unless it was an absolute emergency. I don't know if there was one in this case, but it is very unusual."

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
It was an odd decision for the pilot getting off his seat in such a situation and more so that he pulled a circuit breaker which removed the flight envelope protection.

Odd to say the least.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Not if he thought it would solve the problems.

a reply to: Zaphod58

As you asked earlier, though, why were the computers acting up? Was it unlucky timing of errors/faults or something more sinister?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

There were previous problems with it apparently. Simple computer failure.

a reply to: Zaphod58

When you look at the computer fault in isolation it doesn't seem that significant. When you consider the computer fault coming at the time it did in combination with the pilot's odd decision-making and something seems fishy.