Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51): Or simply prolonged immersion of a corpse. It does not necessarily have to be drowning.

Offhand, how long would it take for lungs to fill in that manner? And would a detailed look be able to discern 'water by drowning' vs 'water by immersion'?

Singapore is preparing two so-called AUVs (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle) , type Remus 100 in the search for the missing AirAsia plane.

Same type of Equipment was used back in 2009. A Remus 6000 played a crucial role in finding the wreckage and the black boxes of Air France Flight 447 after wo years.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/ur...tes-inn-i-AirAsia-sok-7845054.html

Quoting EMAman (Reply 48): 3. If the plane did soar like this, is a possible scenario broken control surfaces? I am unsure just asking a question.

The only way for control surfaces to be involved with a steep climb is if they were commanded by pilot/ap, and actuated by hydraulics. Going up takes energy and the force laws dictate an equal reaction onto the control surfaces, so they cannot go ANU by themselves if broken. The Trimmable Horizontal Stabilzer, along with it's elevators, form one surface of a certain area. If any part of that surface departs, like an elevator or two, that results in less surface area, which means less total force on the surface, which means nose down (unless THS is adjusted more ANU to compensate).

Without control surfaces you are a temprarily motorized projectile. following the path all projectiles take .. a parabolic arc toward the source of gravity (not up)

[Edited 2015-01-02 13:37:54]

IMO the exclusion of weather as a contributing root cause (major or minor) at this point by some posting here is unusual.

The major question lingers, why did the flight crew request a climb to FL380, and then without ATC’s approval to do so initiated that climb (which is legal to do as a pilot in emergency conditions), and according to some preliminary data that climb rate was 2-3 times beyond the capability of the A320 at the flight level they were cruising at. IMO two situations come to mind….TCAS warning for conflict or severe turbulence, etc. due to possible t’storm encounter, the latter being absolutely weather related.

Therefore those who assert at this point that weather wasn’t or likely wasn’t a factor should explain why AirAsia 8501 climbed without ATC approval unless it was a sudden emergency to do so, and what other inflight emergency besides TCAS conflict or severe weather effects would precipitate that emergency decision.

If they needed to do an emergency climb due to severe turbulence (or avoidance of storm conditions), it is not out of the question that they may have encountered a very high updraft velocity that was superimposed on their emergency climb rate ending with an actual climb of 2-3 times the actual, maximum aircraft climb capability.

BTW I’m getting concerned about the “sense of urgency” (just as in MH 370) in finding the fuselage and CVR/FDR related to constant weather reasons and the clock ticking with the ELT life. There are holes in the weather; it isn’t a constant storm condition. Drop a manned exploration sub to scan the area, and when needed wait till another weather hole to bring it up as needed, especially in only 100 ft. of water. Underwater exploration can be done with divers AND/OR manned subs.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 52): Offhand, how long would it take for lungs to fill in that manner? And would a detailed look be able to discern 'water by drowning' vs 'water by immersion'?

A few days in the water is enough time certainly. Corpses do not guard their airways to prevent water entry. I'm not sufficiently versed in forensic pathology to tell you what signs would indicate drowning vs water by immersion, but probably the presence of other injuries would suggest a different cause of death.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 52): And would a detailed look be able to discern 'water by drowning' vs 'water by immersion'?

I am not sure but I think a medical examiner is able to see the difference between if someone
drowns or dies from another reason.

[Edited 2015-01-02 13:47:15]

I was thinking about the shallow water and possible close to vertical high speed impact with the sea.

In this case would you expect the aircraft to be shattered into pieces at the impact or the nose+front to hold it together and have significant penetration?

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 55): why did the flight crew request a climb to FL380, and then without ATC’s approval to do so initiated that climb

They were told to stand by (normal to coordinate other traffic) and then cleared to FL340. The clearance was not acknowledged. At this stage, we don't know if the climb was initiated before or after the clearance.

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 55): If they needed to do an emergency climb due to severe turbulence (or avoidance of storm conditions), it is not out of the question that they may have encountered a very high updraft velocity that was superimposed on their emergency climb rate ending with an actual climb of 2-3 times the actual, maximum aircraft climb capability.

All pilots understand that you do not try to outclimb a cb. Avoidance (including urgent avoidance) is lateral. Given the WX (see Part 5), it is more likely that they had seen potential cb activity ahead and wanted (1) to avoid it laterally and (2) to climb out of the crud so they could better see it. Please note that I'm not excluding a (huge) velocity updraft / temperature inversion from a rapidly developing cb that may not have been visible on active tilt WX radar.

Quoting PacificBeach (Reply 58): I was thinking about the shallow water and possible close to vertical high speed impact with the sea. In this case would you expect the aircraft to be shattered into pieces at the impact or the nose+front to hold it together and have significant penetration?

Ocean water is about 880 times more dense than air, so it would be about the same as crashing vertically into a field. Lots of broken stuff everywhere.

Quoting EMAman (Reply 48): Is it possible for the pilot to command such a rate of climb even if he wanted to do, or do the flight protection laws prevent this?

I believe it is not physically possible for an A320 in controlled flight to climb at the reported vertical speeds at that altitude. See the link to the SMH article in post 117 of part 6 of this thread.

Quoting EMAman (Reply 48): Is it even a remote possibility that the pilots attempted to avoid collision with some other small/unidentified or private type aircraft which did not have a functioning transponder and therefore evaded SSR?

Not at the reported vertical speeds. See above.

Quoting BruceSmith (Reply 21): the Google translation isn't that good.

  

If you want an accurate translation Google Translate is one of the last translation sources you should use...

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 30): Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 23): I noticed all the cargo was in bay #3 near the wings. Any chance of a a sudden shift in CoG owing to a failure in the nets caused by heavy turbulence resulting in a loss of control? Similar to US 5481? I had the same thought, but the numbers don't bear this out. The 1.3 tonnes of baggage could move at most 8 meters aft, shifting the CG of the 60+ tonne aircraft by about 1/6 of a meter, a tiny amount that is well within the range of acceptable trim. It would certainly not result in a rocket climb.

  

Such a tiny shift in CG would most certainly not have resulted in a rocket climb alone...

Having said that, and since US 5481 was mentioned, National Airlines Flight 102 is another result when a CG shift exceeds limits (but National 102 had several extremely heavy vehicles shift; flight 8501 only had a potential of 1.3 tonnes of baggage to shift... Still an interesting read and the Youtube videos show the sad result...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._Airlines_Flight_102#Investigation

""On 2 June 2013, investigators from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation of Afghanistan confirmed the load shift hypothesis; three armoured vehicles and two mine-sweeping vehicles came loose and rolled backwards onto the rear bulkhead, damaging the aircraft and pushing the center of gravity outside its rear limit. Consequently, the aircraft became uncontrollable, pitched up sharply and stalled, and crashed moments later.""

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 55): IMO the exclusion of weather as a contributing root cause (major or minor) at this point by some posting here is unusual.

We know that Tony Fernandes has already claimed it was a contributing factor. He does not seem to be avoiding the issues of the crash so far, but has appeared to be open about them. He should know all the details from the inside on this event.

As I suspected last night, it now seemingly transpires that the paperwork behind daily services on the Surabaya Singapore route has not caught up with the authority granted, and Air Asia were operating the route with all necessary authorities, less the actual signed document.

This happens everywhere around the world. Trust me - one route approval I did was approved - documentation to follow - and the documents took six months by which time the unprofitable route was dropped. And that (from memory)was Swiss efficiency!

In my opinion, and borne out from theast minute cancellation of widebody A330 services from Denpasar to Australia air Asia don't flaunt rules.

(Note my 'seemingly transpires' above, just incase im accused of being an ANe sidekick - if gleaned this from two sources, one of which I trust and posts here when he has time!)

[Edited 2015-01-02 17:26:47]

[Edited 2015-01-02 17:28:18]

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 34): Asetiadi, could you provide links to your posts? If possible, could you check the English for big mistakes as sometimes what you are posting is not accurate due to translation problems? I'm my opinion, and having worked on international route licence approvals at an airline before, is that the Sunday flying mistake was an admin oversight rather than flagrant breach of rules and had nothing to do with the accident

here's the link:
http://news.detik.com/read/2015/01/0...s-lapor-ke-kemenhub?991101mainnews

sorry for the google auto translation.

I just don't understand how a plane can take off without flight/license approval. I thought that's a serious breach of security/violation.I'm sure it has nothing to do with the accident, but still...

This fellow is reporting the wreck has been found, using sonar in 29m of water.

https://twitter.com/mbachelard

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 64):

From BBC:

: "Two large objects found" in search for AirAsia flight QZ8501, Indonesian search chief says http://t.co/9KVgvHYwfT

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49): I can see how loss of engines would cause an aft CG and a nose-up attitude to occur. HOWEVER, while the aircraft might climb as much as a few hundred feet, thousands of feet would violate laws of physics. And then, the RAT would be deployed, the APU started and the aircraft would probably remain controllable (although now a glider) and would head downwards over a period of several minutes. That would give plenty of time for the flight crew to radio a distress call.

I agree.
Engines or no engines, a shift of COG would primarily result in a change of pitch. That is a long way from a rocket climb.
Inertia makes a mass continue in its direction. To make this idea work, the climb has to be started first.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 66): I agree. Engines or no engines, a shift of COG would primarily result in a change of pitch. That is a long way from a rocket climb. Inertia makes a mass continue in its direction. To make this idea work, the climb has to be started first.

An increase in pitch will cause a climb.

Quoting QF29 (Reply 65): Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 64): From BBC: : "Two large objects found" in search for AirAsia flight QZ8501, Indonesian search chief says http://t.co/9KVgvHYwfT

I wonder why it takes a submersible to get pictures where the mean depth is only 46m for the entire Java Sea. Storms or no storms, 10m underwater there isn't much "storm" left, and hardly a reason why even a modest diver can't immediately identify plane parts from 5 days ago. Seems kinda strange to me.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 68): 10m underwater there isn't much "storm" left, and hardly a reason why even a modest diver can't immediately identify plane parts from 5 days ago. Seems kinda strange to me.

I take it the storm issue is launching and retrieving the submersible (or dive boat) with the reported sea state.

There will be all sorts of safety rules about divers and unexplored wreckage, and then the submersible probably has a longer underwater working time.

I would hope this is the start of the main debris field assuming the plane was intact when it hit the water. I don't think it will be long until we have pictures from the submersible

Quoting seat55a (Reply 69):

Even though the divers are underwater, they probably technically need surface support in the form of a stable operating platform. I'm not a diver but would imagine this is just best practice

While Bambang Soelistyo, the head of the agency, said he was still awaiting photographic confirmation, he told reporters at a news conference in Jakarta, "I can assure you these are the parts of the AirAsia plane we have been looking for."

Even if this is translated properly, its still difficult to interpret the true meaning. Does this definatley mean its the tail section containing the FDR/CVR? I'd say its safe to assume nothing given the conflicting reports and translation issues we've seen so far

Sounds more like the plane may be spread out in lots of pieces, if they have only found two relatively small ones.

It was said the depth of these parts was around 30m. A320 tail section would stand 10m tall, and 12m wide. It would be hard to hide such a huge piece of white, even under 3m swells. If there was an intact section of fuselage it would also be obvious from the air.

I think you're right, LTC8K6.

This Australian ABC story, utilising AFP input, quotes the search and rescue agency head as saying the first object measured 9.4 metres by 4.8 metres by 0.4 metres, while the second was 7.2 metres by 0.5 metres.

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 2):

The FDR will also show erroneous information then, as it doesn't have a "magic" way of determining altitude. It may, however, also record GPS altitude to correlate.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 43): Predicting/forecasting/interpreting weather is not black and white even for world renowned meteorologists.

This is, why I posted this link:

http://www.weathergraphics.com/awq8501/

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 53): IMO the exclusion of weather as a contributing root cause (major or minor) at this point by some posting here is unusual.

It is not excluded. But it is considered as unlikely. Except they might have been icing. But strong updrafts are basically excluded. There is a difference.

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 53): The major question lingers, why did the flight crew request a climb to FL380, and then without ATC’s approval to do so initiated that climb (which is legal to do as a pilot in emergency conditions), and according to some preliminary data that climb rate was 2-3 times beyond the capability of the A320 at the flight level they were cruising at. IMO two situations come to mind….TCAS warning for conflict or severe turbulence, etc. due to possible t’storm encounter, the latter being absolutely weather related. Therefore those who assert at this point that weather wasn’t or likely wasn’t a factor should explain why AirAsia 8501 climbed without ATC approval unless it was a sudden emergency to do so, and what other inflight emergency besides TCAS conflict or severe weather effects would precipitate that emergency decision. If they needed to do an emergency climb due to severe turbulence (or avoidance of storm conditions), it is not out of the question that they may have encountered a very high updraft velocity that was superimposed on their emergency climb rate ending with an actual climb of 2-3 times the actual, maximum aircraft climb capability.

All of your observations are kind of correct, if consider each of your points by itself. But if you consider the whole picture, you probably will get different results.

1. The crew requested a heading change. This is a strong indicator, that they where aware about the weather ahead. Changing course/heading laterally is normally done to circumnavigate CBs.

2. They requested an altitude change. The reason for that is still unclear. I doubt they did that to climb overhead a developing CB. Because they knew (very likely; see above; they fly in this area a lot) the wx conditions.There are several reason to request a climb. Performance, turbulence, …

3. CBs producing very strong updrafts should be visible on the on board weather radar screen (navigation display). They must have turned in on. Otherwise they would not have asked for a heading change.

4. All the so called ATC radar display screenshots are highly doubtful in my opinion. I do not (yet) consider them reliable. If they have been reliable, they would have known where to look for the aircraft pretty soon. Almost no forward speed with a huge descent rate should give the SAR team a relatively small search area.
But they established a large search are right from the beginning. They might not have known those "ATC radar screenshots" initially, but it took them quite long getting them. And see here: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=47f6abc7&opt=0
Scroll down to the comments section. Simon did some explanations as well, why to consider the screenshot unreliable.

5. Therefore all those steep climb and descent scenarios are kind of lame. As others have pointed out, the data transmitted by the aircraft may have been corrupt (for whatever reason).


In the end we don't know very much at all. The airplane crashed. That's about it.


Cheers,

Michi



Edit: Explanation added

[Edited 2015-01-03 01:10:31]

Quoting rwessel (Reply 67): An increase in pitch will cause a climb

oh yes. But a climb so fast and steep that it is doubtful the plane can perform it under normal circumstances ?

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 75):

It will have measured accelerations in all directions, from that they can determine velocity and displacement in 3 axis.

Quoting michi (Reply 76):

Keep in mind their flight plan had them planned at FL380. With the crossing airways they were restricted on levels.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 77):

Normal TAS for an A320 is around 475 kts, which is around 800 ft/s or around 48000 ft/min. A pitch change of around 9 degrees will result in a climb of around 8000 ft/min.

Quoting zeke (Reply 79): Keep in mind their flight plan had them planned at FL380. With the crossing airways they were restricted on levels.

I did not know that any flight plan details have been released. One more reason to request climb. As far as I know level restrictions due to crossing airways are quite common in that area.

So I don't give the level change request that much weight in regard of avoidance of whatsoever.




Edit: Wording

[Edited 2015-01-03 03:41:52]

Quoting zeke (Reply 78):

   Very true!

The more I think about it, This doomed Air Asia plane should not be able to take off in the beginning. This company clearly breaking a serious violation by taking off without valid/proper license. I don't understand why they let the plane take off without valid license. This is like driving a car without having driver's license.

But guess what, this is Indonesia, where all the corruption/personal agenda/money gain are more important than human life. I'm pretty sure there's a fishy play between Indonesian Air Asia and the authorities,

Can you imagine if this happened in the USA? Everyone will sue this airline company to death and I hope they will do the same thing over here.

Yes, i'm from Indonesia and many times I feel shame against our own government. Luckily we have a new president now.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the accident but the crash would not have happened if the plane didn't take off in the beginning.

Air Asia = love to change schedule / time / leaving passenger behind without telling anyone.

This is why I never take air asia, I had so many bad experience with them. i always take garuda since last year and never got let down by GA.

[Edited 2015-01-03 03:28:31]

Quoting michi (Reply 80):

Page 4 of the PDF linked in reply 288 of the first thread

Quoting zeke (Reply 83): Page 4 of the PDF linked in reply 288 of the first thread

Thank you. I must have overlooked it somehow.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 82): This doomed Air Asia plane should not be able to take off in the beginning. This company clearly breaking a serious violation by taking off without valid/proper license

They did not have traffic rights for a Sunday frequency. That has nothing to do with safety. Just a Violation of regulatory rules

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 85): They did not have traffic rights for a Sunday frequency.

Scheduled departure was on a saturday (22:20 UTC).

I don't know the traffic rights time zone however  

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 82): Air Asia = love to change schedule / time / leaving passenger behind without telling anyone.

As per that logic, Lufthansa = Love to strike, leave everyone stranded. Yada yada....

It bears not an iota of relevance as to why the airplane crashed. The alleged violation of the permit is an administrative slip. As others have commented, this isn't the first time this has happened, and it has happened to "renowned" carriers, too. In Europe, Asia, and also North America; not sure it has anything to do with corruption, etc.

[Edited 2015-01-03 04:01:00]

That was an early Sunday morning departure local time, hence a Violation of the traffic rights.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 88): That was an early Sunday morning departure local time, hence a Violation of the traffic rights.

I know. But a mixup might have happened.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 82): This doomed Air Asia plane should not be able to take off in the beginning. This company clearly breaking a serious violation by taking off without valid/proper license.

Its more like authorities covering their backs. Like posted up thread, its probably a common practice to approve first and send actual paperwork later. Bad practice but not a serious violation.

Keep in mind this is an international route, why would Singapore CAA allow the flight and airport allot slot and provide service if this change frequency change was never applied and approved.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 88): That was an early Sunday morning departure local time, hence a Violation of the traffic rights.

In fact it was the delayed departure of the Saturday flight. Air Traffic would be pure chaos, if traffic rights would look at the actual departure day and not the planed. No airline would schedule departures after 22:00.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 82): the crash would not have happened if the plane didn't take off in the beginning

? No crash would ever happen if planes never took off.

They had a flight plan, they had clearance. Unrelated.

Could extreme and sudden fluctuations of atmospheric pressure and/or temperature add significant error to measured dynamic data such as aircraft's horizontal and vertical speed, and height? If yes, it could be that those big vertical speeds reported by SSR weren't actually true.

Regards.

[Edited 2015-01-03 05:16:31]

Quoting Guillermo (Reply 93): it could be that those big vertical speeds reported by SSR weren't actually true.

That is what I am beginning to believe, no body can conceive any mode of failure which would result in that type of steep climb.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 82): The more I think about it, This doomed Air Asia plane should not be able to take off in the beginning. This company clearly breaking a serious violation by taking off without valid/proper license. I don't understand why they let the plane take off without valid license. This is like driving a car without having driver's license. But guess what, this is Indonesia, where all the corruption/personal agenda/money gain are more important than human life. I'm pretty sure there's a fishy play between Indonesian Air Asia and the authorities, [Edited 2015-01-03 03:28:31]

Please take time to reread my earlier post. It seems that approval was granted, but paperwork has not yet followed. There is nothing unusual about this, nor corrupt, as this style of documentation needs to be apostiled usually. Again, air Asia postponed their Denpasar Australia A330 operation because approval wasn't recieved in time, so there is precedence in them not breaking the law.

You should be careful accusing people or companies of corruption on an open forum with zero proof. It can get you into a lot of trouble.

If they aren't allowed the Saturday flight, it begs the question what the Indonesian authorities do? Straight off the Air Asia website:

Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday QZ0678 SUB SIN 05:20 08:30 29 March 2015 24 October 2015
Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday QZ0678 SUB SIN 05:20 08:30 06 January 2015 28 March 2015
Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday QZ0679 SIN SUB 14:10 15:20 29 March 2015 24 October 2015
Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday QZ0679 SIN SUB 14:10 15:20 06 January 2015 28 March 2015

Does it really take a crash for them to notice this "unapproved" schedule as it appears to have operated on Sundays for quite a while? For example 21st December 2014.

However, the idea that operating on the wrong day makes it less safe than flying on a permitted day is laughable.

Quote from the BBC-


'Weather a factor'

An initial analysis by Indonesian weather agency BMKG has found that conditions at the time of the plane's disappearance suggest it likely flew into a storm.

"From our data it looks like the last location of the plane had very bad weather and it was the biggest factor behind the crash," said Professor Edvin Aldrian, head of research at BMKG.

He said there was evidence of extremely icy conditions at the plane's altitude, which can "stall the engines of the plane and freeze and damage the plane's machinery."
CLICKY- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30664604

Thing is, whilst I'm pretty sure it's a contributing factor, unless there was something really extraordinary happening, there were other planes in the area, who were just fine.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 96): Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday QZ0678 SUB SIN 05:20 08:30 29 March 2015 24 October 2015 Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday QZ0678 SUB SIN 05:20 08:30 06 January 2015 28 March 2015 Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday QZ0679 SIN SUB 14:10 15:20 29 March 2015 24 October 2015 Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday QZ0679 SIN SUB 14:10 15:20 06 January 2015 28 March 2015

looks like they didn't waste any time changing the flight number

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 92): Quoting asetiadi (Reply 82): the crash would not have happened if the plane didn't take off in the beginning ? No crash would ever happen if planes never took off.

Right, and taken to its logical conclusion, nobody would have died if they had not been born.
RIP to the unfortunate victims.