Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8189
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:32 pm

Any info on ACARS. Was it equipped and subscribed at least for engines.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3124
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:34 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 148):
I don't believe "distress signals" are sent for any of these conditions.

None of those things - bad turbulence, icing, other bad weather - would generate a distress signal/call. If they resulted in some major deviation from flight path, I would report it, but otherwise, about all you would do would be to offer a Pirep (Pilot Report) to ATC so they could pass along the information to other flights in the area.

Quoting hivue (Reply 149):
I think (1)aviate, (2)navigate, (3)communicate applies to all flight deck crew.

If I'm the "other dude" up front, I'm going to be doing everything I can to help the pilot flying to recover the aircraft, I'm not worrying about talking to ATC.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2164
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:35 pm

Quoting wardialer (Reply 133):
I really thing that the aviation industry should make un-sinkable planes. So they would not sink down at the bottom of the ocean and have them be equipped with waterproof strobe lights in which recue ops can see them from miles

You must be kidding. Please be kidding. Let's make airliners that are unsinkable, and while we are at it let's have a ballistic recovery chute for the airplane, and let's have ejection seats for each passenger, and life boats too. Now the airplane is so heavy it can't fly economically.. or at all, and it will be so expensive that no airline can afford it, and no passenger can afford to fly on it if they did buy it. A little bit of reality, sh*t happens and it's unfortunate, but you can't engineer everything into perfection.
 
KCmike
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:13 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:40 pm

Quoting wardialer (Reply 140):
Apparently, these were not skilled pilots if that were the case.

This used to be a great website. But pollution like this from fanboys who have ten hours in a skyhawk has slowly been killing these forums.

Things happen fast, very fast and a distress call will be the last thing on your mind while you are trying to save the aircraft. If you were spinning off the road in your car would your first reaction be to pick up your phone and call 911?
Cleared for the option...
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:41 pm

Quoting wardialer (Reply 133):
I really thing that the aviation industry should make un-sinkable planes.

I'll see that and raise you one: I really think that the aviation industry should make un-crashable planes.  
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:42 pm

Pilots here, is it really possible that flying into a surprise thundercloud would disable/destroy an A320 like this? One thinks that if the thundercloud were that serious, they would have planned around it. Is this a dispatch mistake?
 
krisyyz
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:04 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:44 pm

Just came across this article from the Toronto Star, comparing MH370 and QZ8501. It makes some good points on how and why the two incidences are very different (so far, at least).

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/20...sing_airasia_flight_and_mh370.html

Krisyyz
 
aw70
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:20 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:46 pm

Quoting moose135 (Reply 151):
If I'm the "other dude" up front, I'm going to be doing everything I can to help the pilot flying to recover the aircraft, I'm not worrying about talking to ATC.

Since we don't have any hard news about the unfortunate flight QZ8501 at the moment, I suppose we can go off topic a tiny bit: what would the second pilot be doing in such a scenario? In that instant, the PIC is handling all actual aircraft controls, right? Which hands-on emergency tasks does that leave for the second pilot?

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, as I only fly very small single pilot aircraft that naturally do not have any CRM procedures whatsoever. If I manage to stall a crate where I am in the driver's seat, I of course have my hands full all of a sudden - but anyone in the second seat would be free to talk on the radio. As all that can be done, is being done by the PIC in that moment. Obviously, there are worlds of difference between small craft and airliners - but which of those matter during stall recovery?
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:46 pm

Quoting wardialer (Reply 140):
There should of been a distress signal or a distress radio call no matter if its really bad turbulence, icing, or other bad weather.
Esp. at those upper altitudes were pilots have the time to recover from an incident and make there radio calls to rescue or to the ATC centers.

Apparently, these were not skilled pilots if that were the case.

Your posts are really way off-base here, sorry.

Air France 447 fell for 3 minutes and 30 seconds and the crew had NO time to issue a mayday. We could probably find 50 instances where Pilots were unable to make a mayday call, simply because they were too busy trying to save their ship.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If your ass is upside down while the plane is in an unrecoverable state, the LAST thing on your mind is going to be "hey, maybe I should let someone on the ground know..."

You need to sit back and let the people who are professionals figure this one out.. You've gone from terrorism, to unprofessional pilots in the span of 5 posts...

Please.. spare us the pain.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19821
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:46 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 149):
Quoting aw70 (Reply 147):
Sure, you as the pilot flying would try to wrestle the plane back to normal. But even while you are busy doing that, the other guy should be available to send out a Mayday, no?

I think (1)aviate, (2)navigate, (3)communicate applies to all flight deck crew.

Indeed. If, for example, the plane is out of control, it is the job of both pilots to fix the problem. Sending out a distress call will not save anyone in such a situation, so the pilots should not waste time on it if they are busy with more important stuff.

Quoting wardialer (Reply 140):
There should of been a distress signal or a distress radio call no matter if its really bad turbulence, icing, or other bad weather.

Pilots are required to report adverse weather conditions, yes. However these are not distress calls because they are simply reporting the weather. Distress calls are only made if there is a danger to the aircraft and/or the occupants. So sure, if the deicing boots on a turboprop have failed and the wings are icing up then a distress call is warranted. But not simply because there is icing.hat stuff...

[Edited 2014-12-29 08:02:23]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:47 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 132):
QF had almost a hull loss with the 747 over run at BKK and were panned for having procedures not approved by the OEM. These carriers except BR have all had accidents, some have had no fatalities for decades.

Thanks, I forgot about QF.
The problem with ill-informed, mis-informed and un-informed posters is that they just bang off the keyboard without thought or taking a few moments to verify what they type. *sigh*.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
Airspeed772
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:54 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:00 pm

CNN needs to re-assign Richard Quest to report on Wall Street crooks instead of covering aviation accidents. This guy has never flown a minute in the left seat of a commercial aircraft but seems to know which aircraft is safe and unsafe…How pathetic this motor mouth can be!!!
Airspeed772
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:03 pm

What is driving me nuts is the talking heads on the news channels. They know absolutely nothing about aviation and they couldn't tell an A320 from a DC-3 but the speculate and then the more they think about these crazy ideas, the more they try to push them on their "experts."

An example. On MSNC they have DECIDED the cause was metal fatigue. On a six year old airplane. What a load of crapola. With somewhere around 6,000 frames in the air, the A320 has proven itself to be a durable and well-built machine but these little fools keep harping on it. At 6, an airliner has not even reached puberty, much less being considered a geriatric jet. While nothing has been ruled in or out at this stage, attributing the cause to metal fatigue is inappropriate. They haven't even FOUND the metal yet!

It just drives me nuts to hear them yammering on about a subject on which they know nothing. I guess they just want maximum face time on the air.

The one thing I am surprised that no one is talking about is how the Airbus fleet constantly communicates with Toulouse and the airline's maintenance base. There should be an immediate record of systems failing if the airplane came apart due to thunderstorms yet no one has mentioned it. With the AF A330 that became a critical part of the investigative process.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2164
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:08 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 162):
An example. On MSNC they have DECIDED the cause was metal fatigue. On a six year old airplane. What a load of crapola.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Yes, and if it the A-320 came to its demise because of turbulence than it's as much due to metal fatigue as was the demise of the Titanic.
 
Airspeed772
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:54 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:08 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 155):
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8778 posts, RR: 3

Reply 155, posted s_lt(1419867728, 'l F j Y H:i:s');Mon Dec 29 2014 07:42:08 your local timeMon Dec 29 2014 07:42:08 UTC (20 minutes 41 secs ago) and read 1320 times:


When the final chapter is written as to the cause of this aircraft going down, Flight Dispatch will be on the hot sit.













Pilots here, is it really possible that flying into a surprise thundercloud would disable/destroy an A320 like this? One thinks that if the thundercloud were that serious, they would have planned around it. Is this a dispatch mistake?
Airspeed772
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18815
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:09 pm

Quoting wardialer (Reply 120):
Its total nonsense!!!!

There is some 'total nonsense' in this thread, but it's only coming from one source.

Quoting wardialer (Reply 133):
I really thing that the aviation industry should make un-sinkable planes.

And there it is again.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
michi
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:18 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:10 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 155):

Pilots here, is it really possible that flying into a surprise thundercloud would disable/destroy an A320 like this? One thinks that if the thundercloud were that serious, they would have planned around it. Is this a dispatch mistake?

- Total destruction by a thunderstorm is unlikely.
- Total loss by a lightning is also highly unlikely.

Thunderstorms can grow fast in those regions. 3000ft/min growth rate is possible. You have to use an active tilt management on the radar to detect those fast growing CBs.

The location of individual CB cells is not predictable. You can predict the general area of CB activity, which is done and published by weather agencies (isolated, occasional or frequent CBs in a certain area). Dispatch at most airlines will not plan through areas with frequent CBs. But they will plan through areas with isolated or occasional CB activity, as you can circumnavigate those cells.

Those weather radar images published by weather agencies are mostly satellite based pictures. They do not exactly show CB activity but the aftermath of it.

http://twitter.com/jlangdale/status/549043898908434432/photo/1

Those big magenta clouds have been CBs before. But the big magenta areas you can see on the picture is the (former) anvil of the CB cloud. It is not the part of the cloud that moves upwards with high speed.
The anvil also has some dangerous areas where you not want to fly through. The closer to the updraft part of the cloud the more dangerous it is. Especially when the CB is still growing.
But after the updraft part collapsed the anvil part of the cloud will stay and spread with the wind. It contains mainly ice crystals, that might lead to a more or less rough ride and sometimes St. Elmos fire. But it normally is not dangerous to fly through those old aftermaths of anvils. Sometimes, in rare occasions you might get the ice crystal icing in engines or pitot tubes flying through those cirrus type of clouds.
In ITCZ areas you sometimes fly for hours in this kind of weather.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8189
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:12 pm

Quoting lnglive1011yyz (Reply 158):
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

So why not automate "the least" important task. Let plane send its location (or) at least have a deployable/floatable beacon. Already so many things are automated, one more thing is not going to harm. At least rescue teams can show up quickly if they know where the plane went down.

Quoting Airspeed772 (Reply 161):
CNN needs to re-assign Richard Quest to report on Wall Street crooks instead of covering aviation accidents.

I second that 100%.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:19 pm

Quoting michi (Reply 166):

Thank you for a dose of sanity. As Pihero noted, WX was:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 96):
"OCNL EMBD CBs tops at ~FL 550
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
N757ST
Posts: 961
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:21 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 167):

If the turbulence was that bad, the autopilot would have likely kicked off. You can't automate everything in an airplane... Especially the most crucial factor in a cockpit.. Decision making.
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:21 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 167):
So why not automate "the least" important task. Let plane send its location (or) at least have a deployable/floatable beacon. Already so many things are automated, one more thing is not going to harm. At least rescue teams can show up quickly if they know where the plane went down.

Oh, I agree 120%.

We have systems that can automatically tell a pilot that the plane is getting close to the edge of the flight envelope, but we can't seem to automate a distress signal, etc.

There has to be a way, electronically, to be able to automatically identify that an aircraft is entering an extremely unsafe condition, and display it on an ATC screen, similar to a collision avoidance notification.

Lots of people here are going to say "Well, do you know how often this or that might occur that's outside of the .." I get it, but at least if the plane identifies that it's in an unsafe condition, an automatic signal can notify ATC, who can then attempt to communicate with the aircraft, and quickly take note of the position of the aircraft.

If it ends up being nothing, then clear the message and move on.

The problem is we're dealing with 1960's technology in most places, and Airlines who aren't willing to invest in safety for their passengers due to the cost, as well as the time it would take to refit everything around the world.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
AYVN
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:47 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:29 pm

This forum is now filled with members who want to invent a new plane type... Type would have MTOW of a 777 and payload of a Skyhawk
 
laxboeingman
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:22 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:29 pm

I agree with those above that think a mid-flight breakup is possible. I also believe, second those above, that ATC and the airlines should have taken their own measures of the weather was as bad as the radar indicated. Even if there was only a chance of activity as someone pointed out, I still don't know if it is worth the risk of pax and crew safety. I think that the QZ crew must have either faced something that the other flights did not or they did not know the weather as well as the other crews. That's sort of following a comment above.

As for the descent to FL90, when did we find that out? This is the first I am hearing it.

Typed from my iPhone
The opinions I post are mine and not of any organization I am affiliated with.
 
laxboeingman
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:22 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:34 pm

Quoting lnglive1011yyz (Reply 170):

I agree with there. If not completely automated, then a button that sends the signal.

As for the auto pilot in bad weather, continuing the points above, won't auto pilot make things worse? If I recall the pilots of the CO commuter jet that crashed in KBUF some years ago were using the auto pilot when they were told not to and it came out that that is what caused the crash, or led to it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The opinions I post are mine and not of any organization I am affiliated with.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 10088
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:35 pm

Quoting laxboeingman (Reply 20):
That's true, but if that were the case, wouldn't they have to know what happened in the case of MH370 - or it would help that they did - so could one then think that there was communication after the event, hence people are alive somewhere?

Maybe...

Quoting laxboeingman (Reply 20):
Speaking of MH370, my aunt just told me that she read that 10 days after the crash, one of the pax wrote a Facebook message saying they are on Diego Garcia Military Base in the Indian Ocean and that they needed help/rescuing. Has anyone heard of that?

I'm going to assign that credibility low.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 46):
That's not fair. CNN researches their theories before putting them on the air.
http://www.rgcombs.com/wp-content/up.../03/airplanes-need-fuel-to-fly.jpg

struggle!

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 47):
the tin foil hat brigade

Ironically the tin-foil was to prevent the govt from spying on your activities, but they have found a way around the tin-foil.

The tin-foil hat people were essentially right. The government is spying on everything you do, everywhere you go, and everything you say. As an Australian govt representative recently said in defense of their new cyber-spying law "we aren't recording every piece of data when you are on the web, we are just recording the meta-data, the web site address." Yuh-huh. Just the URL, not the "data", as if there is a difference. A tin-foil hat won't protect you from that.
 
laxboeingman
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:22 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:36 pm

In the case of the CO RJ, the pilots were instructed not to use auto pilot because of the weather conditions - ice.
The opinions I post are mine and not of any organization I am affiliated with.
 
slvrblt
Posts: 369
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:19 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:39 pm

Aircraft, whether made by Boeing or Airbus, are DESIGNED to withstand terrific forces on the wings and fuselage. I remember watching a documentary of how much force it took before the wings failed on a 777 in a designed test -it took ridiculous amounts of flex before the wings shattered. So what I'm saying is there is a lot of safety engineered into modern aircraft, they can take lots of turbulence and hammering from the weather with no damage or ill effects. So I have a hard time believing this aircraft broke up at altitude. And planes get hit by lightning all day, every day, that doesn't bring a modern plane down.
Seems more likely that it was an AF447-style incident, or an issue with the engines flaming out. All the more reason to find the black boxes quickly.
..everything works out in the end.
 
soulbarn
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:24 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:46 pm

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 152):
Quoting wardialer (Reply 133):
I really thing that the aviation industry should make un-sinkable planes. So they would not sink down at the bottom of the ocean and have them be equipped with waterproof strobe lights in which recue ops can see them from miles

They do make exactly such airliners. They're called "cruise ships".
 
bigz
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:07 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:52 pm

The low airspeeds shown on some of the radar tracks, could be caused by huge shifts of wind speed and direction inside the storm cell. Things like microburst or downdrafts can occur suddenly in heavy storms.

One thing about the A-320 is the computer limits degree inputs as far as bank angle or turn radius is concerned. To me this could limit the pilots ability to recover the aircraft in extreme flight conditions.

A big problem is a lot of todays pilots relay on the FMS to the point, their not very good at "seat of the pants" flying. Such as chasing a bad airspeed indicator and putting the aircraft into a stall, by even pulling the nose ever higher to try slowing the aircraft. Even ignoring the stick shaker warning a stall is happening. Pilots have crashed perfectly good airplanes, because they were not good at "seat of the pants flying"

US 1549 landing in the Hudson River is a example of "seat of the pants" flying!!
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:53 pm

Quoting laxboeingman (Reply 173):
I agree with there. If not completely automated, then a button that sends the signal.

Can't be something that has to be triggered by a human.

You have to assume that the pilots will be completely dedicated to righting/controlling the aircraft, and have NO ability to communicate at the current time.

Keep in mind, most aircraft have a push-to-talk button on the yoke/stick. So, if they are having a hard enough time controlling the aircraft, and they can't move a thumb a few inches to press a button, they're under a LOT of physical pressure trying to keep the plane upright.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
SWALUV
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:43 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:56 pm

Quoting wardialer (Reply 140):
There should of been a distress signal or a distress radio call no matter if its really bad turbulence, icing, or other bad weather.
Esp. at those upper altitudes were pilots have the time to recover from an incident and make there radio calls to rescue or to the ATC centers.

Apparently, these were not skilled pilots if that were the case.

Flying 101, your job as a pilot is 1) Aviate, 2) Navigate, and then 3) Communicate. That is drilled into you're head from day one of flight training because what's going to help you more, saying that your in a spin/stall, or actually recovering from it. Now, to say that the pilots were not skilled is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard. Especially considering how little we know at this point.

Quoting wardialer (Reply 133):
I really thing that the aviation industry should make un-sinkable planes.

This makes the CNN expert look like the next Albert Einstein.....  
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19821
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:01 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 167):
So why not automate "the least" important task. Let plane send its location

Modern airliners already automatically send their location pretty much continuously, often along with diagnostic data.

Quoting laxboeingman (Reply 173):
f not completely automated, then a button that sends the signal

Not quite a button, but if you set the transponder to 7700 (emergency), alarms do go off at ATC. However in a dire emergency one assumes that the pilots are busy doing other stuff that is more pertinent to saving the lives of those on board. If a plane is out of control, alerting ATC is not a priority.

Quoting lnglive1011yyz (Reply 170):
We have systems that can automatically tell a pilot that the plane is getting close to the edge of the flight envelope, but we can't seem to automate a distress signal, etc.

Of course distress signals can be automated, but what would be the parameters? You have to build a lot of logic into such a system. Now we have yet another expensive system on the plane, and one which arguably does not really make the plane any safer for the passengers.

If there is an accident and some or all the occupants survive, there tend to be communications options available, from cell phones (if in range) down to emergency transmitters in the life rafts. Heck, if most people survive the plane might well be somewhat intact (e.g. SK at Gottröra) and the pilots can just use the radios. If no one survives, finding the wreckage is still important, but it won't save anyone.

Quoting soulbarn (Reply 177):

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 152):
Quoting wardialer (Reply 133):
I really thing that the aviation industry should make un-sinkable planes. So they would not sink down at the bottom of the ocean and have them be equipped with waterproof strobe lights in which recue ops can see them from miles

They do make exactly such airliners. They're called "cruise ships".

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

[Edited 2014-12-29 09:02:12]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8189
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:14 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 181):
Modern airliners already automatically send their location pretty much continuously, often along with diagnostic data.

Well, its not working. Search parties are coming up empty searching extended areas around "Last Known Position".
All posts are just opinions.
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:15 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 181):
Of course distress signals can be automated, but what would be the parameters? You have to build a lot of logic into such a system. Now we have yet another expensive system on the plane, and one which arguably does not really make the plane any safer for the passengers.

Untrue.

You already have systems reporting stalls, unsafe bank and pitch angles, unsafe drops in altitude to the crew. You build a pathway for that same data, once it has reached a threshold, to shoot it out via an electronic signal of some sort (via the transponder or some other redundant system.

You don't need to build an elaborate system - if the plane is clearly unstable and uncontrollable, send an electronic signal. It can't be that difficult..

It may not make the passengers safer, but it gives hope in being able to quickly find a plane whereby it's crew is unable to communicate their situation, and/or the plane is lost at sea... at least giving the families of the victims a chance at some kind of closure.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:19 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 182):
Well, its not working. Search parties are coming up empty searching extended areas around "Last Known Position".

I guess it's just happenstance that all the planes sitting on the bottom of the ocean that have crashed recently don't have those systems because the airlines chose not to go down that route....

Until it's legislated by a governing body, airlines will cheap out as MUCH as they can. If they didn't have to put seats in the plane, trust me, they wouldn't.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:21 pm

Quoting bigz (Reply 178):
US 1549 landing in the Hudson River is a example of "seat of the pants" flying!!

US1549 (an A320, by the way) remained in Normal Law throughout the incident. This allowed the captain to haul back on the stick without fear of stalling the airplane. It arguably contributed significantly to the successful ditching.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:24 pm

Quoting lnglive1011yyz (Reply 183):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 181):Of course distress signals can be automated, but what would be the parameters? You have to build a lot of logic into such a system. Now we have yet another expensive system on the plane, and one which arguably does not really make the plane any safer for the passengers.

Untrue.

You already have systems reporting stalls, unsafe bank and pitch angles, unsafe drops in altitude to the crew. You build a pathway for that same data, once it has reached a threshold, to shoot it out via an electronic signal of some sort (via the transponder or some other redundant system.

Are you saying you want SAR activated for stalls or unsafe bank angles?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
Airspeed772
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:54 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:27 pm

Quoting laxboeingman (Reply 175):
In the case of the CO RJ, the pilots were instructed not to use auto pilot because of the weather conditions - ice.

This brings us back to Air Asia QZ8501 SUB to SIN Missing Part 1 .
Yesterday I asked all the experts in this forum the following questions:
Do you agree commercial aircraft flying has become too dependable on automation? Are Pilots getting enough hands on flying experience (stick time)?
The mega question here is how the airlines, in cooperation with insurance companies and governmental regulatory bodies like the FAA reinstitute more hand flying (stick time) policies of commercial aircrafts?

[Edited 2014-12-29 09:28:45]

[Edited 2014-12-29 09:31:46]

[Edited 2014-12-29 09:48:04]
Airspeed772
 
WingBuff
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:30 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:29 pm

At first I thought it was just brutally bad luck with MH370 and MH17. But now this? Something is definitely not right, civilian planes don't just fall out of the sky just like that with no trace. Three incidents in one year, all of them involving Malaysia/Indonesia, is too much. I feel we're being kept in the dark about all of this.
 
jcxroberts
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:41 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:32 pm

It's really not acceptable they haven't found any wreckage yet. This is not a remote area, there is a high volume of air traffic. Far too much excuse making going on.

The are already expanding the search area, so the wreckage is not where they thought.

[Edited 2014-12-29 09:37:29]
 
Brewfangrb
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:13 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:35 pm

Quoting wardialer (Reply 140):
There should of been a distress signal or a distress radio call no matter if its really bad turbulence, icing, or other bad weather. Esp. at those upper altitudes were pilots have the time to recover from an incident and make there radio calls to rescue or to the ATC centers.

I typically try very hard not to go "grammar Nazi" because it typically doesn't add much and just makes me look like the bad guy. But in your case, the absurdly poor grammar and spelling makes the already fringe thoughts almost impossible to take seriously. I'm open to just about any suggestion since we're all really just spitballing here, but if you're going to do that, you should leave the 4th grade "should of" Hooked-on-Phonics-worked-for-me stuff out of it.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:37 pm

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 137):
I would say that is a bit crazy, but then the RAF had a A330-MRTT nose dive because a pilot moved his chair after coming back from a toilet break and he had a camera next to his chair which resulted the camera being jammed between the stick and the moving chair....

... and then the other pilot depressed his priority button for more than 30 seconds, locking out the jammed side stick.
A non event on a 'Bus;

Quoting Flighty (Reply 155):

Pilots here, is it really possible that flying into a surprise thundercloud would disable/destroy an A320 like this? One thinks that if the thundercloud were that serious, they would have planned around it. Is this a dispatch mistake?

1/-a *surprise thundercloud* will not happen at these altitudes : You could have close - very close - to the ground a fast forming *supercell* but that dissipates quickly with height.
So : Surprised by a fast forming cell is not likely.

2/- The thunderclouds position depends on local convective qualities and winds... some develop, some dissipate replacing each other and a given zone looks / is certainly different on a 15 minutes' period. That's why prognostic charts just depict the areas that are the most likely affected and append a *scattered* or *occasional* tag to the Cbs in these zones.
One cannot plan around cells

3/- So it is not a dispatch mistake. It's up to the crew to be aware of the presence of forecast thunderstorms and manage their flight accordingly : fly 'round the cells with a 20 nm margin is often the solution... Climbing to an altitude out of the majority of the embedding clouds - generally Ac, As, Ns - allows a better vision of the Cbs that tower above those cloud tops.

[Edited 2014-12-29 09:39:59]
Contrail designer
 
Brewfangrb
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:13 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:41 pm

Quoting KCmike (Reply 153):
Things happen fast, very fast and a distress call will be the last thing on your mind while you are trying to save the aircraft. If you were spinning off the road in your car would your first reaction be to pick up your phone and call 911?

This is actually a fantastic analogy that helps people who aren't pilots understand the importance of aviate->navigate->communicate. Kudos.

(For the record, I'm not a pilot but have come to learn a lot on these forums and while I fully understood that premise, I can also understand how those who aren't pilots would make "why no distress call?!" conclusion.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2580
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:47 pm

Quoting Airspeed772 (Reply 187):
esterday I asked all the experts in this forum the following questions:
Do you agree commercial aircraft flying has become too reliable on automation? Are Pilots getting enough hands on flying experience (stick time)?
The mega question here is how the airlines, in cooperation with insurance companies and governmental regulatory bodies like the FAA reinstitute more hand flying (stick time) policies of commercial aircrafts?

Not being an expert, just from general perspective:
most of the time human is less reliable than machine - if machine can do the job. You can force feed hand flying to pilots. Cost of that would be more mistakes, and more crashes. If machine makes 1 mistake out of 10 million cases, and there is a 50% chance human would save the day - and 1 out of 1 million human mistakes would mean 20x more crashes. On a bright side, that one case where computer failed may be saved by a more experienced pilot. And hand flying in normal conditions does not equate better performance in emergency - you don't get too much driving skills from hours of wheel time on a highway.
With that, manufacturers and airlines came up with a brilliant solution and invented a really remarkable thing called "simulator". That is an experience every pilot has to enjoy once in a while, and that is where emergency response skills mostly come from these days. Airlines, authorities and insurance companies agree that sim sessions are a must for each commercial pilot. That may not be the best way to train pilots, but forcing an actual flight full of pax to simulate landing on one engine - or stall - or what not, with all involved risks, looks like a strange idea...
 
User avatar
ordell
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:33 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:48 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 57):
If the route was really that impassible, they should have turned back to their origin or diverted to a safe diversion airport to wait it out.

Absolutely. My parents recently made a cross-country trip, right around the time that hurricane came through Mexico and into Arizona/New Mexico. I watched on Flightradar24 as they went south from Charlotte, then north all the way to Denver before turning sound to SoCal. And they later told me the pilot informed them of a longer route to avoid the hurricane remnants. Can't believe the AirAsia pilots didn't make similar plans.
 
art
Posts: 3305
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:53 pm

Quoting wardialer (Reply 140):
Esp. at those upper altitudes were pilots have the time to recover from an incident and make there radio calls to rescue or to the ATC centers.

Apparently, these were not skilled pilots if that were the case.

Sorry but you appear to talk uninformed rubbish to me. I suggest you learn a lot more before expressing your opinions about pilot skills.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:55 pm

Quoting ordell (Reply 194):
Can't believe the AirAsia pilots didn't make similar plans.

What makes you think they didn't?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:02 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 186):
Are you saying you want SAR activated for stalls or unsafe bank angles?

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that if it is very clear by a set of computed data that an aircraft is in an unlikely recovery situation, that there should be an AUTOMATIC distress signal broadcast so that ATC should SEE it occurring, versus waiting for very important minutes to go by while they TRY to raise the aircraft via conventional means because it's disappeared off of a scope. Proactive vs reactive. They will KNOW that something wasn't right versus a whole lot of time going by wondering if they are encountering some unknown issue.

I see it as this:

Situation like AF447 is occurring. An automatic signal is sent out via the transponder indicating the plane is in an unlikely recoverable situation, and the ATC's indicator for the flight flashes or a squawk code automatically shows, so they can immediately attempt to contact the plane. If the plane does not respond within a given time, then prudent action should take place.

We've seen HOURS go by for MH370 and hours go by for AirAsia before SAR was called into play. Far too long in my uneducated opinion.

Let's face it - AF447 was found by the stroke of luck. Clearly, MH370 and AirAsia are a demonstration of a need for something better than we currently have. I'm only offering up ideas to further the discussion.

1011yyz

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:02 pm

Quoting ordell (Reply 194):
Can't believe the AirAsia pilots didn't make similar plans.

1/- Where was the hurricane between Surabaya and Singapore ?

2/- Where did you read that they did not make any diversion, apart from the requested clearance out of the airway ?
Contrail designer
 
lowbank
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:10 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Missing - Part 3

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

In thread 1 it was discussed about the systems being developed by Airbus. I mentioned the ejectable recorders and KarelXWB shared a screen shot of the other systems Airbus are looking to build into the planes.

I don't think antone thinks the current situation can continue. Many of the new systems are earmarked for retrofit so fingers crossed by 2020, accidents like this should be found within hours.
Every days a school day.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos