Quoting cheeken (Reply 96): I guess then there's a possibility that's the right wing we're seeing.

Yes, you can see the over wing exit arrows meaning the wing is facing up

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 100): Yes, you can see the over wing exit arrows meaning the wing is facing up

Exactly. The left wing is pictured as well, but general consensus says it is upside down and detached from the fuselage, in the 'vicinity' of the rest of the wreckage we see. I hope we get a clearer picture of how these items are arranged on the seabed.

I find it odd that there are no pictures of the port side are available.

Also, no apparent word on the engines, though the engine mounts are designed to give way in the event of large lateral forces.

Quoting Buyantukhaa (Reply 99): The dispersion of the wreckage remains puzzling.

Another thought: if the h.stabiliser would break away in flight, the remainder of the plane would immediately nosedive, and fly pretty much straight down into the ocean, which would produce damage to the fuselage not seen here. Therefore the inflight separation of the horizontal stabiliser and/or the rest of the empennage is not likely. Even if there would be a further breakup of the fuselage on the way down, then the aerodynamic forces on the wing would make it align with the direction of falling, again not consistent with the observed damage.

The accident scenarios that I can think of that can produce this type of damage is either a stall/loss of control à la AF447, or a flat spin - that could have been caused by a separation of the engines (have those been located already?) causing CG to go too far aft. There might be more though. In all scenarios the question remains: how did they end up there?

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 101): The left wing is pictured as well,

Is it ?

I believe what you are looking at is only the top of the STBD wing, with some of the spoilers semi detached, and a failure where the ailerons should be. There seem to some continuity between the two photos when looking at the trailing edge.

The visibility is limiting what can be seen.

Quoting zeke (Reply 103): Is it ? I believe what you are looking at is only the top of the STBD wing, with some of the spoilers semi detached, and a failure where the ailerons should be. There seem to some continuity between the two photos when looking at the trailing edge. The visibility is limiting what can be seen.

On second viewing, I think you are right. The portion with the reg visible is so much further out. It does appear possible to 'screen match' the apparent flap panel that has detached from the trailing edge, and which appears in both pictures: lower right in the pic w/fuselage, and lower left on the section with the reg.

If this is correct, then where is the left wing, and does this open up the possibility of inflight detachment and some sort of breakup after all? This issue is an ongoing controversy.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 104): If this is correct, then where is the left wing, and does this open up the possibility of inflight detachment and some sort of breakup after all? This issue is an ongoing controversy.

This is from the GF072 report, do not underestimate the amount of damage that can occur when an aircraft comes into contact with water.

"1.12 Wreckage and Impact Information

The debris field was centered approximately 4 kilometers northeast and on a 030 degree radial from Bahrain International Airport. The wreckage was located in the Arabian Gulf in about 3 meters of water. Estimated surface temperature at sea at the time of the accident was about +33°C. The beginning of the debris field was located near 26°17’51” North/50°38’49” East. The debris field was oriented on a heading of about 030 degrees and was about 700 meters in length. The end of the debris field included portions of the cockpit and lower avionics bay. The width of the debris field varied but was approximately 800 meters at the widest point. The majority of the right and left hand structural pieces were found on their respective sides of the debris field. A broad search of the accident area and the approach to Runway 12 revealed no additional wreckage.

The majority of the airplane was recovered along with all significant airplane structural and flight control surfaces and both engines. No evidence of pre-crash failure and no evidence of fire damage were observed on any of the recovered parts. All examined fracture surfaces were consistent with overload failure. Damage to circuit breaker panels precluded proper documentation of pre-impact circuit breaker positions or conditions.

The fuselage had fragmented into numerous sections. The wings were sheared from the centre box structure near the same location on both sides. Both engines had separated from the pylons and were heavily fragmented. A large section of the empennage was found in one piece. Portions of the nose gear and both main landing gear (MLG) assemblies had separated. The right hand MLG retraction actuator was found in the extended position, which corresponds to a "gear retracted" position; the retraction actuator for the left hand MLG was not located.

Most of the horizontal stabiliser was recovered separate from the empennage and was substantially fragmented. The horizontal stabiliser actuator screw was broken with the lowest part remaining connected to the ballnut. The length of the screw from the ballnut corresponded to an estimated 2 degrees nose down attitude. The left side pitch trim control
wheel was recovered in good condition; the right side was found fractured and jammed. The pitch trim index showed approximately 1.5 degrees nose down. "

Quoting zeke (Reply 105): This is from the GF072 report, do not underestimate the amount of damage that can occur when an aircraft comes into contact with water.

Thanks for posting these specifics, especially a case of the same aircraft type. I agree that a 'pancake' style impact, with aircraft largely intact, is a good possibility.

This won't be settled until the left wing and both engines (bound to sink more readily) are located, or until such info can be gleaned from flight data.

Quoting zeke (Reply 103): I believe what you are looking at is only the top of the STBD wing, with some of the spoilers semi detached, and a failure where the ailerons should be.

Ditto.
The right engine - with pylon - is missing.
The wing tip was shorn just past the right aileron attachment.
So far, all points to a contact break-up : three major parts : tail section / wing box section / forward cabin and nose ( still missing ). All points to a downward trajectory in a more of less level attitude.
The crumbling of the center fuselage to the right, the absence of the wing fairing also point to the same event.
We could even surmise that the initial impact was left wing down, then a reaction to a right roll shearing the right wing tip.

Question : when did the right engine detach ?

We need the port wing ( or the engine... ) to be more accurate.

I'm buying less and less the tail-shearing scenario presented to Mandala by the SAR services.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 83): I have been trying without sucess to determine what radar provided the tracking data on QZ8501. If it was a primary radar, your above premise is valid and would lead us to think that the plane probably didn't break up in the air;

The primary radar is located in Pontianak, Kalimantan Province, Borneo, some 200 nm from that screen position.

[Edited 2015-01-14 07:02:00]

[Edited 2015-01-14 07:07:02]

Without the tail, and without one wing .... the scenario Mandala described (large radius 180 left turn followed by a tighter turning left), might result in something like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsBhE20Y1sY

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 69): One of the reasons I've been told the stall warning is inhibited below 60 kts is to keep it from droning on while on the ground, which is understandable. All there needs to be is a separate stall warning for the traditional AoA stall (with normal flight envelope airspeeds) and the oddball case below

Or just tell the stall warning to not sound/activate when the landing gear's down. Seems pretty darn simple to me. I find it very hard to believe that they engineered rules into the plane's system just because a stall warning would be irritating if it were to sound constantly on the ground. You need to engineer systems to protect the aircraft at speed and altitude, not engineer systems to provide comfort while taxiing. -_-

Quoting rwessel (Reply 85): There was plenty of information in the cockpit to identify the stall even without the stall warning, but having the stall warning go away when they pitched up could *not* have helped.

You're probably engaging in futile discussion. In previous threads on this AirAsia disaster, I have painted similarities between AF447 and what we know happened to this flight, and also strongly and lengthily criticized the AF447 equipment's reactions to the high-altitude stall, and I wasn't exactly met with enthusiasm. That, coupled with the fact that I am not a pilot, aviation engineer, or professional with any letters after my name pretty much invalidates my opinions here (it seems).

From what I've heard landing gear "squat" switches are notorious for failure (weight on wheels). Cockpit irritation/distraction was not the only reason it was designed that way, but it was a consideration. It wouldn't take long for a human to tune out that sound if it happened every flight, and that definitely would not be a good thing.

Quoting Trin (Reply 109): You need to engineer systems to protect the aircraft at speed and altitude, not engineer systems to provide comfort while taxiing.

Actually you do need to take the latter into account, because alarms that irritate during taxi have a tendency to get switched off. See Northwest 255.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 33): but what is your profession?

He's a desk pilot.  

Quoting Trin (Reply 109): Or just tell the stall warning to not sound/activate when the landing gear's down.

No stall warning on final? I don't want to ride on that airplane.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 107): The primary radar is located in Pontianak, Kalimantan Province, Borneo, some 200 nm from that screen position.

Which puts line of sight range for radar/ADS-B being 26400 ft (range=1.23*sqrt(alt))

Quoting Trin (Reply 110): I have painted similarities between AF447 and what we know happened to this flight, and also strongly and lengthily criticized the AF447 equipment's reactions to the high-altitude stall, and I wasn't exactly met with enthusiasm. That, coupled with the fact that I am not a pilot, aviation engineer, or professional with any letters after my name pretty much invalidates my opinions here (it seems).

It is far too early to rule out mishandling the aircraft.

Glad that the bulk of the wreckage has now been located... and those pictures are quite eerie...

A picture of what actually happened should start forming so will be interesting to see, im surprised the fuselage is as intact as it appears to be with the wings still attached too....

Quoting Trin (Reply 110): That, coupled with the fact that I am not a pilot, aviation engineer, or professional with any letters after my name pretty much invalidates my opinions here (it seems)

Most of the professionals have refrained from making any scenario.
Most of us are just correcting - trying to correct - some misconceptions or pointing at facts or conclusions derived from observation of the published details or pictures.
The example above given by Zeke is that below an altitude of 26 000 ft, give or take 2000 ft due to the precision of the given position,; the aircraft would be below *contact* with that radar... which means that the interruption of the data stream from the aircraft could be explained by reasonable physics of airwaves propagation ... and not an in-flight break-up - which is still possible, of course.
Zeke doesn't go any farther than just emitting that fact of physics, and neither do I

On the other hand, I'd really like to know where the engines and the left wing are and the position of the forward fuselage.
It's only then that we could be a bit more accurate on our assessment of the state of the aircraft ( its structural integrity to be precise ) upon impact.

So please, do not take it bad that we don't answer to every scenario : It's far too early to have one and they are too numerous. Some are outright outrageous, but we do not rule any factor. To do otherwise would be dishonest and disrespectful to the crew and passengers of Flight 8501. (btw, that's the reason I've left the Fight 370 thread ).

I know this was probably asked after MH370, but:
Seeing those eerie pictures, do you think a livery change will be in order?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 107): The primary radar is located in Pontianak, Kalimantan Province, Borneo, some 200 nm from that screen position.

As per ICAO data Pontianak PSR has range of 90 NM and SSR has range of 240 NM. So PSR seeing four separate targets is questionable.

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/edocs/fasid/cns4a.pdf

I notice that they are cutting the tail apart with torches and crowbars. Is that normal?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...3163/airasia-wreckage_3163123b.jpg

[Edited 2015-01-14 08:47:14]

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 121): I notice that they are cutting the tail apart with torches and crowbars. Is that normal?

Actually, I've been viewing the images of them recovering the debris for the past few days now, and I thoughts that something seemed really odd about the touchy-feely way they were photographed treating the wreckage - i.e. standing on it, toying with bundles of wires, holding bits here and there to show reporters etc. etc. Do they realize that they are tampering with the wreckage of a fatal accident? That will be painstakingly reconstructed in a hangar to determine the cause of the tragedy?

Quoting Trin (Reply 122): Do they realize that they are tampering with the wreckage of a fatal accident? That will be painstakingly reconstructed in a hangar to determine the cause of the tragedy?

I find it extremely odd!

There is barely enough evidence to even rule out foul-play at this time. We are mostly assuming it was weather related, but it could be anything.


Jimbo

"The fuselage section that was found is 30 meters (yards) long and 10 meters wide with a height of 3 meters, Indonesia's National Search and Rescue Agency chief Henry Bambang Soelistyo said.

"The fuselage with a wing still attached on it was found in the priority search area and has been confirmed as part of AirAsia plane," Soelistyo said.

He added it was some 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) from the tail, which was found earlier, and 800 meters (2,625 feet) from the black boxes, at a depth of about 28 meters (92 feet)."

http://meredith.worldnow.com/story/2...elage-of-airasia-plane-in-java-sea

Fuselage is 3km from the tail, and 800m from the black boxes.

The black boxes were not with the tail debris, but were apparently under a wing, which must be the port wing? We can see the starboard wing is with the fuselage.

I think it must be the port wing, because if the black boxes had been found under the starboard wing, we would have had the announcement of the fuselage at the same time as the black boxes, and I don't think we did.

So the port wing must then be about 800m from the fuselage?

[Edited 2015-01-14 10:02:26]

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 124): I think it must be the port wing

Could be, but might also have been the H Stab. To the recovery crew it could look like a wing. The black boxes under the H Stab makes a little more sense, if it came off with the lower part of the rear fuselage, but it is still just a guess.

The sequence would then be, Upper portion of tail with V Stab - 800 meters further on, the lower portion of tail with the H Stab and black boxes - and 2200 meters further on the fuselage. That would leave the port wing and the nose still missing.

[Edited 2015-01-14 10:17:14]

Look at the picture in this link:

http://twitter.com/JoeNemo3/status/555120058184503296/photo/1


It shows the idea of the tail being dragged away from the partially inflated emergency slide, which was found early in the SAR process.

Quoting Trin (Reply 122): That will be painstakingly reconstructed in a hangar to determine the cause of the tragedy?

That doesn't usually happen except as a last resort. It's incredibly expensive and time consuming to do it, for one thing. Not having to do that sort of thing (which often isn't even possible) is one of the reasons why we have flight recorders that measure so many parameters these days. The AF447 accident, for example, was conclusively solved without much physical evidence at all. The airplane itself was not reconstructed.

Of course, what evidence is needed to solve an accident is different in every case, so they should be treating the physical evidence with care. However, I haven't personally seen photos where they're not doing that (it's possible there are some that I haven't seen). Simply cutting the plane into smaller pieces doesn't really mean anything; presumably they are cataloging how the pieces were found and what cuts are being made prior to doing that. An investigator is not going to look at those pieces and say "look, somebody had a blowtorch on the plane!"

Here is a drift model of the floating debris:

http://twitter.com/JoeNemo3/status/555376328305037312/photo/1

I do not know how accurate it is. It says the model is from reuters.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 127): so they should be treating the physical evidence with care. However, I haven't personally seen photos where they're not doing that (it's possible there are some that I haven't seen)

Well, I wouldn't classify cutting whole parts of the tail section or fuselage in half with a blowtorch as "treating the physical evidence with care", even if they are documenting what they are doing. Presumably they are cutting through everything else in their way, including cables, hydraulics, etc. etc.

I'm sure it will make no difference, if the answers can be found from the FDR/CVR alone, but that is not known yet.

Jimbo

Quoting michi (Reply 126): It shows the idea of the tail being dragged away from the partially inflated emergency slide, which was found early in the SAR process.

Why are they inventing a scenario where a slide causes the tail to float away, though?

Why do we need that scenario?

Judging by the ratings of the lifting balloons used to make the tail section float, I doubt a partially inflated slide would hold the tail up at all.

[Edited 2015-01-14 11:40:39]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 107): The primary radar is located in Pontianak, Kalimantan Province, Borneo, some 200 nm from that screen position.

That puts the LKP at about the maximum primary radar range for a target at 24,000 feet. When the track was lost, it was probably due to its dropping below the radar horizon.

I've looked for the antenna on the hilltops around Pontianak (using Google Earth), but I haven't found it so far.

Quoting B777fan (Reply 125): Could be, but might also have been the H Stab.

I would think the H-stab has been a high priority for them to look out for...

Finding the H-Stab should be newsworthy.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 101): I find it odd that there are no pictures of the port side are available.

This is just purely a guess on my part, but if the left wing indeed separated, it may have torn the fuselage open and victim's remains could be seen in the photo, hence why they have not been shared.

I think the pictures of the fuselage to me are the most heart breaking as it just about confirms the plane was intact when it struck the water.

Reports on the news here in uk are saying both wings are confirmed attached to the fuselage .

I think there are a few more pieces of the jigsaw coming together.

Hopefully the CVR will add a few more

Quoting lowbank (Reply 134): Reports on the news here in uk are saying both wings are confirmed attached to the fuselage .

I would think it would be visible in the released images. There are two pics of the starboard wing. Some folks thought it was one pic of each wing.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7TT7dBCcAAjVIz.jpg:large

[Edited 2015-01-14 12:33:45]

So either:
- the tail separated midair or
- something similar to AF447, weather and maneuring the storms being the common point or
- something completely unrelated (e.g. mechanical failure, engine failure…)

Since pattern is kinda similar to AF447, my brain tends to think in that direction. Storm, avoidance, mistake, crash. Potentially with too much rudder authority and tail breaking off, as it has happened before. I have nothing to support this scenario of course.

PS: it's very easy to talk mechanicaly about this. If i think about myself being on the plane it get's a bit discomforting. But children… I can't fathom the loss some people are going through. May you all find peace.

"A marker has also been placed on the engine, which was located beside the fuselage, the part of the plane that holds pilots and passengers. “Beside the engine is the fuselage, the wing and a lot of debris,” Mr Ony Soeryo Wibowo, an investigator with the National Transportation Safety Committee, told Reuters."

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...selage-wings-air-asia-qz8501-found

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 133): I think the pictures of the fuselage to me are the most heart breaking as it just about confirms the plane was intact when it struck the water.

I think the fuselage....or most of it...was intact when it hit the water, but not the entire plane.

So what we are hearing from the pattern of debris that has been found is sounding more and more like the plane was largely intact when it hit the ocean. Highly unlikely that this is an in-flight breakup. Given the fact that the entire tail section would be one of the most liable to break off during impact with the water as the rest of the plane splashed-down, and remembering the horrendous weather conditions at sea level during that timeframe, I think it is pretty plausible to imagine that the plane was intact when it came into contact with the water, and the tail section broke off and floated away amidst heavy seas and high winds for a day or so. 1-2km of drift should be entirely feasible under those sort of conditions.

[Edited 2015-01-14 12:56:08]

On the pic with the tail being blowtorched, is anything to make of the rivets coming off on where the vstab is attached, or is this also "revocery damage"?

Ditching implies control, and control implies -some- type of communications during their long descent. I can't see both flight crew struggling to save the plane, then it culminatng in some type of ditching attempt.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 141): Ditching implies control, and control implies -some- type of communications during their long descent. I can't see both flight crew struggling to save the plane, then it culminatng in some type of ditching attempt.

Yep you're 100% correct. I have modified my post to reflect that.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 129): Well, I wouldn't classify cutting whole parts of the tail section or fuselage in half with a blowtorch as "treating the physical evidence with care", even if they are documenting what they are doing. Presumably they are cutting through everything else in their way, including cables, hydraulics, etc. etc.

Neither would I. But - I don't have a long experience in following the recovery of crashed aircraft. How unusual (or not) is it for the recovered sections to show signs of blowtorching. Have we ever seen this before?

No. I wouldn't exactly call it "taking care", either, to have taken a blowtorch to the remains.  

[Edited 2015-01-14 12:58:39]

IIRC, wasnt one of the first -major- pieces (other than the galley unit) of AF447 wreckage the vertical stablizer? And it was floating when found. How big is the "tail" section that was recovered in this scrash.

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 143): IIRC, wasnt one of the first -major- pieces (other than the galley unit) of AF447 wreckage the vertical stablizer? And it was floating when found. How big is the "tail" section that was recovered in this scrash.

Oh common, you really could google that: http://blog.flightstory.net/1205/pho...-air-france-flight-447-tail-found/

it really was only the vertical stab. Here we have quite larger part with some of the windows even.
What's even more interesting is that apparently tails float quite well, and MH370's has never been spotted.

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 143): IIRC, wasnt one of the first -major- pieces (other than the galley unit) of AF447 wreckage the vertical stablizer? And it was floating when found. How big is the "tail" section that was recovered in this scrash.

As I recall, that stablizer sheared at the bolt attachments atop the rear fuselage and was one piece thus remaining sealed. It could have floated for a long way.....and did.

In this case large parts of the rear fuselage were attached to the vert. stabilizer which would have caused it to sink quicker....assuming the stab. had holes in it.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 136): Potentially with too much rudder authority and tail breaking off, as it has happened before. I have nothing to support this scenari

I don't think that's the case here and the reason is simple. The vertical stabilizer did not break off as you suggest. The vertical stabilizer was actually pulled out of the water still attached to large sections of fuselage. If a vertical stabilizer is going to snap off I highly doubt the attachment points are so strong that they will actually rip the fuselage off along with it. In the case of the AA A300 crash in NY, that vertical stabilizer seemed to have ripped off cleanly.
Obviously I don't know anymore than anyone se here, but I'm thinking this plane impacted the water 100% intact like AF447. As far as the reasoning behind the distances between the main wreckage and the tail section I don't know, but I would imagine there is a good chance that with the inflated slide, all the composite materials, and a good current, that would be plenty of explanation as to why they were separated so much.

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 146): As far as the reasoning behind the distances between the main wreckage and the tail section I don't know, but I would imagine there is a good chance that with the inflated slide, all the composite materials, and a good current, that would be plenty of explanation as to why they were separated so much.

Hard to disagree with that. Now what it they find the two engines a half mile apart or more?
.

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 146): The vertical stabilizer did not break off as you suggest.

Not suggesting, just trying to match patterns! Your explanation is reasonable. And actually the area - stab being some 800m away and black boxes 2km away even further indicates the plane was in one piece when it hit the water.

When I saw the numbers fur the first time the area seemed rather large. But it might very well be the boxes were catapulted out at the point of impact when the tail separated, and as they are heavy they went straight down. So that's where it happened. Then fuselage had some of the forward momentum (but its stopped really quickly by the water). Then it started sinking, and it moved 2km while sinking 30m. Hm, still that indicates very low rate of sink.

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 146): I don't think that's the case here and the reason is simple. The vertical stabilizer did not break off as you suggest. The vertical stabilizer was actually pulled out of the water still attached to large sections of fuselage. If a vertical stabilizer is going to snap off I highly doubt the attachment points are so strong that they will actually rip the fuselage off along with it. In the case of the AA A300 crash in NY, that vertical stabilizer seemed to have ripped off cleanly. Obviously I don't know anymore than anyone se here, but I'm thinking this plane impacted the water 100% intact like AF447. As far as the reasoning behind the distances between the main wreckage and the tail section I don't know, but I would imagine there is a good chance that with the inflated slide, all the composite materials, and a good current, that would be plenty of explanation as to why they were separated so much.

   Exactly my thinking there. Most folks seem to want to go with the more evocative images of the plane falling to earth in multiple parts - but highly unlikely, IMO. Much more likely will be a VERY similar scenario to AF447. As I have said since day 1 of this investigation.