User avatar
American 767
Topic Author
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:29 am

Please continue the discussion here.

Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 10 (by American 767 Jan 12 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Ben Soriano
Ben Soriano
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:36 am

I still would like some opinions on this area of the fuselage. Is it the place where the tail broke off?

http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/st.../20150115/underswterairsi1501e.jpg

http://localtvwiti.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/s041959482.jpg
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:54 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1):
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1):
I still would like some opinions on this area of the fuselage. Is it the place where the tail broke off?

IMHO it's a bit hard to tell.

But...

The latest pics I can find of the plane show the whole tail area except for the horizontal stabilizer as being red in colour. That pic could show the metal coloured right horizontal stabilizer and the red APU but it's just a guess...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:06 am

From the first pic. I'd say that's a good guess based on the Everyone Can Fly script.

Has there been any word on the cockpit?

I suppose this is all very sensitive pending retrieval of the bodies/remains. I suspect, but have no proof, that there are many pics that have been withheld since remains are shown.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:57 am

http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7171/13898312031_ce4e862cf1_z.jpg

I now think it is the top of the white stripe around the rear of the fuselage, with the bottom half of the stripe being with the tail.

[Edited 2015-01-15 18:01:11]

[Edited 2015-01-15 18:01:43]
 
rusti999
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:56 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:01 am

FWIW, I made a chart of the seats of the passengers who have been identified. This is based on the manifest and AirAsia's Facebook updates. Greens are occupied seats, crosses are seats whose passengers have been identified (as of 15 Jan). Who knows, somebody might find it helpful.

[Edited 2015-01-15 22:10:27]
 
yaps30
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:02 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:13 am

This has been posted on pprune. It is supposedly the CVR.

It's horrific. I feel crappy posting it but it'll make the rounds soon enough regardless.

It sounds like something, maybe multiple things, broke off the plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8agL0N9Hcvs


EDIT - and it just got booted from pprune as not legit. My bad.

[Edited 2015-01-15 23:18:56]
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:32 am

Interesting factoid that all the long pieces of wreckage seem to be facing ~320 degrees heading, judging by the submersible's indication of direction. I wouldn't doubt it if ~320 is the magnetic heading of the local underwater current in the area, and these pieces "weathervaned" to that heading as they sunk to the bottom. That tells me that the plane had to have made at least a single 270 degree left turn off the flight planned course in order for the pieces to be in a position to be pushed by the current into the heading they were found, upon entry into the water.

The sinking tail section would also be subject to these currents, and once settled on the sea bed would probably tumble a little way until the cross section incident to the current was minimized (also called "weathervaning"). I don't think physics would allow for the tail to tumble for an hour before eventually coming to rest with the VS facing the current, any more than a standard weather vane would turn a dozen times before finally coming to rest facing the wind.

Since the VS couldn't support the weight of the wreckage, and any tumbling had to have been short lived ... the tail section, along with the THS, most likely departed while in flight.
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:41 am

Quoting yaps30 (Reply 6):
This has been posted on pprune.

Not the most reliable source (and that's an understatement).
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:49 am

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 7):
Since the VS couldn't support the weight of the wreckage, and any tumbling had to have been short lived ... the tail section, along with the THS, most likely departed while in flight.

Someone posted an interesting piece on how the composite pieces of an aircraft are constructed in an earlier thread. There is actually a lightweight, honeycombed, part that forms the core of the VS, etc. There were pictures of the AF447 VS floating days after the incident supporting 800+ pounds of rescue divers. Also the fact that a piece can partially submerge and still take hours to sink completely. Once sunk, when the honeycomb is water saturated, it would take a great deal more floatation to raise the piece because of the added, now imbedded, water weight. So, no, there is nothing that dictates an in flight breakup as of yet as it is well in the realm of possibility that the VS/aft fuselage section floated and drifted before being deposited on the bottom.
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:01 am

Floatation ability does not depend on the material, but the amount of water it displaces.

A320 VS is around 35% of the surface area of an A330 VS, and is much thinner. This means it displaces less water when sitting on the surface, thus can support less weight, proportionally. If you think the attached wreckage of the 8501 tail was around 0.35 x 800lbs, or around 300 lbs ... then you would be right, it would float.

I, on the other hand, think the fractured bulkhead alone weighed in excess of 300 lbs ... so right to the bottom the whole section would have went.

[Edited 2015-01-16 00:19:42]
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:35 am

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 10):
I, on the other hand, think the fractured bulkhead alone weighed in excess of 300 lbs ... so right to the bottom the whole section would have went.

But without the facts, such as actual weight vs. displaced water volume, neither view (floated vs sank) is more than conjecture.
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:43 am

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 10):
Floatation ability does not depend on the material, but the amount of water it displaces.

I have no idea about floatation dynamics, but doesn't the air in the structure provide buoyancy?
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
namezero111111
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:53 am

Quoting liquidair (Reply 12):

I have no idea about floatation dynamics, but doesn't the air in the structure provide buoyancy?

Yes, but that's because it displaces water and is lighter.
 
flightless
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:57 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:56 am

Are the honeycomb cells vented? It would seem like they should be - if they're not, the pressure of the air trapped in the cells might cause the surface of the unit to deform. Non-vented would float for a long time; a vented material would lose buoyancy as it became waterlogged.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14067
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:08 am

Quoting yaps30 (Reply 6):
EDIT - and it just got booted from pprune as not legit. My bad.

I feel sorry for the families when people disrespect the persons lost in the accident by making a hoax like that. From what I understand the real CVR and FDR have been successfully downloaded. I doubt the Indonesian investigators will release the data for some time.

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 11):
But without the facts, such as actual weight vs. displaced water volume, neither view (floated vs sank) is more than conjecture.

What we do know is that with the XL Airways, Armavia, and Gulf Air crashes the tail does float, and all the accident reports say the debris from all 3 of those A320s that impacted the water were spread over an area, not in one spot. That snippet, plus the drift model and complaints from divers of strong currents, one can expect components to travel some distance.

Quoting flightless (Reply 14):

Are the honeycomb cells vented?

Not by design. If they were they would absorb water, and as the water freezes from +4 deg to zero it expands, and this would delaminate the surface from the core. One of the maintenance procedures for honeycomb sandwich components is to inspect the aircraft periodically with a thermal camera after landing, areas with frozen ice in the honeycomb show up as black areas.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:10 am

Quoting flightless (Reply 14):
a vented material would lose buoyancy as it became waterlogged.

yes, but even then it would take some time since air may be trapped inside.
My gut feeling is that the fin could not hold all the attached wreckage over water. Too much weight for too small a displcement.
In case of AF447 nothing was attached to the fin.
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:27 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):
What we do know is that with the XL Airways, Armavia, and Gulf Air crashes the tail does float, and all the accident reports say the debris from all 3 of those A320s that impacted the water were spread over an area, not in one spot. That snippet, plus the drift model and complaints from divers of strong currents, one can expect components to travel some distance.

  

Absolutely. The only reason I used AF447 as the example was because the picture of the tail showed it supporting 800+ pounds in addition to any attached debris, and that several days after the accident. My thought is that the strongest probability is that the QZ tail floated for a while. Also there is nothing so far in the debris field or associated currents that would rule out floating (even if partially submerged).

[Edited 2015-01-16 01:29:15]
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:42 am

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 13):

I understand the water displacement, but surely the key is that it's lighter?

"Floatation ability does not depend on the material, but the amount of water it displaces"

Does the material not change the amount displaced?

My brain is farting and it's not even 10am here!
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:52 am

Quoting yaps30 (Reply 6):
It sounds like something, maybe multiple things, broke off the plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8agL0N9Hcvs

This video is fake, the audio comes from Adam Air Flight 574 Crash.

In my opinion such recordings shouldn't be released only a transcript.
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2319
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:53 am

Quoting liquidair (Reply 18):
"Floatation ability does not depend on the material, but the amount of water it displaces"

Does the material not change the amount displaced?

If you put an empty 1 litre plastic bucket fully into water, it displaces 1l of water, giving a buoyancy of 1kg*9.8m/s2 = 9.8N. At the same time the weight of the plastic and the weight of the air in it push down but this is much less, so the net upward force is close to 9.8N.

An empty steel bucket of 1l would displace the same amount of water but be heavier, thus having a smaller net upward force. It would still float (otherwise how would steel ships float?). If you let go of it, it will come up (and displace less water) to the point where the buoyancy and gravity are in equilibrium, and the weight of the amount of water then displaced will be equal to the weight of the steel and the air in the pan.

Mind you I ignore the weight of all air above the water level, as this has no effect on the buoyancy (all water around it feels the same air pressure).

Edit:typo

[Edited 2015-01-16 02:16:35]
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:03 am

Quoting Buyantukhaa (Reply 20):

Thank you for that explanation- I get that. But if you take two objects, let's say a bar of soap size- one is solid metal, the other is a plastic coated honey comb structure- if you submerge them both, they both displace the same amount, but the honeycomb will then float because the material is lighter and the air provides buoyancy (thus displacing less), no? And the metal will presumably sink?

Can somebody tell me where my donkey hat is?
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2319
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:24 am

Well yes, if they have the same outside volume and let's assume the honeycomb structure is sealed and waterproof, they displace the same amount of water and thus experience the same buoyancy/upward force (there is always buoyancy when you displace water, regardless of the material of your object. This is because the water pressure at the bottom is higher than at the top, giving an upward force). What is different is the object's weight. In case of the metal object the weight is bigger than the buoyancy so the object goes down, in case of the honeycomb object the buoyancy is bigger so the object goes up.
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:40 am

Quoting liquidair (Reply 21):

The simple formula determines buoyancy:

A body displaces water. Take the weight of this water...

minus the weight of the body (also including the air inside - but is negligible at 1.7 kg/m³).

If your calculation returns a positive value, the body floats.

This also explains how airships and balloons fly. It also explains how submarines work. A submarine dives by flooding tanks with water, and emerges by filling these tanks with air (and thus expelling the water). The overall volume of the sub does not change, but the weight of the submarine's body does - by exchanging water with air and vice versa.

It also explains the maximum altitude a balloon can reach. If a balloon weighs three tons (basked, balloon hull, everything on board of the basked, the gas inside the balloon's hull) and it displaces at least three tons of air, it goes up. But when the air gets less dense, the balloon displaces the same volume of air, but not anymore the same mass of air. As soon as this mass arrives at three tons, the balloon stops climbing.

In reality, the calculation is much more difficult, though. As you climb, the gas inside your balloon also expands, changing the equation. The gas might escape the balloon (if it is open at the bottom, as in hot-air balloons), or it might not escape (as in the high-altitude gas balloons).


David

[Edited 2015-01-16 02:50:55]
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1818
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:49 am

So.....I guess we're all just waiting for the results of the CVR and FDR data,
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:32 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 24):

So.....I guess we're all just waiting for the results of the CVR and FDR data,

Yes ...!
That's why there is nothing better to contribute than all that kids stuff about buoyancy.
 
2175301
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:07 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 21):
Thank you for that explanation- I get that. But if you take two objects, let's say a bar of soap size- one is solid metal, the other is a plastic coated honey comb structure- if you submerge them both, they both displace the same amount, but the honeycomb will then float because the material is lighter and the air provides buoyancy (thus displacing less), no? And the metal will presumably sink?

Can somebody tell me where my donkey hat is?

The key concept you are missing is the average density of the material. IF the average density of an object is less than water, it will float in water. Same rule holds true based on different fluids. Coal sinks in water. But modify the water with very fine magnetite particles creating a slurry - and coal floats in the slurry; but rocks or pieces of steel from mining equipment sinks (this is a standard technique for cleaning up coal from certain mines). Solid steel will sink in water but float in mercury.

Materials can be modified by adding air bubbles for various reasons: steel with air bubbles in it will have an average density less than that of solid steel; and if fact at a certain point it's average density is less than that of water - and it floats.

It is not the weight of the base material. It how it is fabricated and assembled into an object - and then the average density of that object; and in this case compared to the density of water.

Hope that helps,
 
s5daw
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 8:15 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:37 pm

I find new airbus stall procedure interesting: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1048360...0Procedure.pdf

1. there are commercial pilots out there who don't understand stall is AOA issue and nose down is the cure? Should I be afraid of flying?

2. Would this actually work in case the airplane stalls say during landing? nose down and no toga?

3. Wouldn't stowing flaps / extending slats also reduce AOA? Of course, not as an universal solution.
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:00 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 26):
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 23):
Quoting Buyantukhaa (Reply 22):

Thank you all, I appreciate the input!

In the case of the VS here, I believe it likely the buoyancy and density of part of the structure would have kept it suspended in water long enough to drift.


Which was the original point, coming back on topic- that just because that section was separated from the main fuselage doesn't directly entail break up.

[Edited 2015-01-16 05:03:03]
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
Rivet42
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:17 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 26):
It is not the weight of the base material. It how it is fabricated and assembled into an object - and then the average density of that object; and in this case compared to the density of water.

But any science pupil at school knows

density = mass / volume,

so actually, relative density (i.e. relative to the fluid, in this case water) is directly proportional to mass (mis-represented as weight, as weight is dependent upon gravitational acceleration, and therefore increases as the gravitational 'effect' increases, whereas mass of an object is constant if the object doesn't change).

Just wanted to clarify that. Coffee!!

Riv'
I travel, therefore I am.
 
Rivet42
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:24 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1):
I still would like some opinions on this area of the fuselage. Is it the place where the tail broke off?

You can match almost exactly the 'N' of the 'Now' in the titles from the part of fuselage connected to the tail to the part of the fuselage on the sea floor. So, 'yes', is the answer. The only section still 'missing' is the section forward of the wing box to the nose...

Riv'
I travel, therefore I am.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:47 pm

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 30):
You can match almost exactly the 'N' of the 'Now' in the titles from the part of fuselage connected to the tail to the part of the fuselage on the sea floor

So the white area is the top skin of the fuselage laying over to the left?
 
BruceSmith
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 10:35 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:55 pm

Using extremely rough numbers for the VS, 6m high, 4m at the base tapering to 0m at the point and 0.75m wide, you have a contained volume of 9 cubic meters. Fully submerged in seawater, 9 cumecs displaced will support 9.25 tonnes at neutral bouyancy. I'm not sure of the weight of the tail structure on the A320, but given the max zero fuel weight of 60 tonnes, the tail structure can't be more than 10% of the weight. Until the structure fills with sea water, it will definitely float.

There doesn't seem to be gaping holes in the static part of the VS, only on the rudder. It should take a while to become waterlogged, not instantly fill up.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:14 pm

I ignored the material in my example because I was comparing two different VS from the same manufactuer, same materials just different size. It's a case similar to having two beach balls, one is one meter in radius and the other is three meters ... now one can easily determine displacement by calculating volume when fully inflated.

Volume being 4/3 x pi x radius cubed ... the smaller ball displaces 4.188 cu. meters of water while the larger ball would displace 113.10 cu. meters, That's an astounding difference in lifting capacity for a ball just 3 times bigger than the other.

Since VS are not terribly thick, the difference between the A330 and the A320 won't be as pronounced. However the other two dimensions cannot be ignored. Let's consider two flat disc shaped objects 1 meter thick, the first being 2 meters in radius and the other being 6 meters.

Volume in this case, in cu meters, would be the surface area x the unit thickness (1meter). Surface area is calculated by pi x radius squared.

For the smaller disc, volume would be 12,566 cu. meters, and the larger disc would be 113.10 cu. meters. That is 10 times more displacement for a disc that is only 3 times larger in surface area.

[Edited 2015-01-16 06:51:27]
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:31 pm

BruceSmith, that number seems a little on the large side. The VS tapers not just vertically, but side to side as well. The average thickness I could estimate as perhaps 0.2 meters over the entire surface, which is a liberal estimate. That would lower your contained volume from 9 cu meters down to perhaps 2 or less.
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:49 pm

Quoting rusti999 (Reply 5):
FWIW, I made a chart of the seats of the passengers who have been identified. This is based on the manifest and AirAsia's Facebook updates. Greens are occupied seats, crosses are seats whose passengers have been identified (as of 15 Jan). Who knows, somebody might find it helpful.

Thanks. What's interesting is the relatively random distribution of found bodies relative to the seating layout. I would have expected a bias towards the rear, close to the tail break.

I do not yet have a good concept of other breaks in the fuselage, or how and when they occurred. Has anyone seen photos taken at the front end? Cockpit? Another rupture there?
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:36 pm

Many of those identified were seated in the section of fuselage pictured the other day, which looked not too terribly damaged from the right side anyway. The left side view must be another matter entirely. This also does not bode well for an intact meeting with the ocean.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:44 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 35):
Thanks. What's interesting is the relatively random distribution of found bodies relative to the seating layout. I would have expected a bias towards the rear, close to the tail break.

To my tired and old brain, this tells me that the fuselage broke up when impacting on the ocean (a single "point source" of bodies), but the relatively intact wing (no buckling or so) says that it must have broken off while up in the air.

If there were two point sources of bodies (e.g. two parts of the fuselage with their passengers in it), the rescue organization would retrieve a higher percentage of bodies from one source than the other.


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
aerodog
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:48 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:13 pm

The random nature of the seat locations vs the bodies identified led me to conclude that those found to date were either not buckled in tight or not buckled in at all. And then there was the row of seats with bodies obviously buckled tight.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:19 pm

Here's the motion stabilized view of The Ethiopian 767 ditching i was unable to find on last thread. My apologies for the "smearing" of the right wing which "magically" appears when it experiences negative g, which resulted in breakage at the spot where the pylon attaches. Some say the smearing is ocean spray/mist ... I say it's intentional obfuscation. YMMV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYnqHfeJ1Lo
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:29 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 36):
This also does not bode well for an intact meeting with the ocean.

This what has me stumped, because if the breakup occurred at altitude, I would have expected greater dispersal of debris and bodies. Perhaps there are bodies 'out there' that were not found.

Alternatively there is the concept of breakup at impact - splitting the left side of the fueslage at seal level, and bodies being ejected during the impact or subsequent sinking.

Some news: divers have found the currents too treacherous for entering the fuselage. They plan to raise the whole wreck to the surface ASAP.
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:30 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 37):

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 35):
but the relatively intact wing (no buckling or so) says that it must have broken off while up in the air.

When are people going to get away from the fact that an inflight breakup is extremely unlikely? It's as if people on this forum want that to be what happened. The amount of force that would be required to snap just a section of wing off Inflight would have to be enormous. IMO the only way this would be possible is with a collision with something else in the sky. Otherwise I'm still sticking to my guns that this plane was intact hitting the water. Just like most other crashes.
Ever see the wing stress videos when the manufacturer deliberately pulls on a wing to see how much it takes before it snaps? It's insane how strong these aircraft structures are, until ofcourse it hits something.

I like Aerodogs idea above about why bodies were recovered that were seated in all sorts of different locations of the aircraft even though there appears to be a large section of somewhat intact fuselage with atleast one wing still attached. It's actually crazy how many people do not buckle up while cruising along.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:33 pm

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 41):
When are people going to get away from the fact that an inflight breakup is extremely unlikely?

I suppose no one wants to envision another AF447 incident, so alternatives.............
 
CF-CPI
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 12:54 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 41):
It's actually crazy how many people do not buckle up while cruising along.

Given the type of ride they must have been getting, it almost boggles the mind.
 
Rivet42
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:44 pm

Quoting aerodog (Reply 38):
The random nature of the seat locations vs the bodies identified led me to conclude that those found to date were either not buckled in tight or not buckled in at all.

More than likely.
However, if you look very closely at the main photo, you can see that the fuselage appears to be split right open from underneath; however that occurred, and we just don't know where or when, yet, it's likely that the interior of that section is literally all over the place. Given the currents, the dispersal of anything even only partially buoyant is likely to be very extensive by now... As I said above, I'm praying that they haven't given up yet on the search area from where the first floating debris was recovered, and if anything have by now extended that search. If they didn't set drift markers in the sea when they first arrived, they certainly have enough data now to be able to plot the likely dispersal trail outwards.

Riv'
I travel, therefore I am.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:58 pm

An Indonesian search official said Friday that the crashed AirAsia jet's fuselage will be lifted to the surface after sea conditions again prevented divers from examining the large chunk of wreckage.

...

Earlier Friday, chief of operation of the agency, Suryadi Bambang Supriyadi said the wreckage that appears to be the cockpit was located by sonar imagery about 500 meters (yards) from the fuselage and partly embedded in the mud.

http://news.yahoo.com/airasia-fusela...rface-divers-foiled-140215089.html
 
rj777
Posts: 1799
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:08 pm

Let's just hope they take extra care with the fuselage. Wouldn't this be the first time a commercial airliner has been completely removed from underwater? (Assuming they get everything)
 
Flaps
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:30 pm

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 41):
When are people going to get away from the fact that an inflight breakup is extremely unlikely?

Because it isn't unlikely. In fact it is entirely possible. Research some in flight breakups of the past. There are several that would compare to what we are seeing here (the BN 111 in Nebraska and the BN Electra at Dawson TX) just as there are several that did not break up in flight that are comparable to what we have seen so far (BEA Trident at LHR is a good one). Right now everything is speculation and a lot of it by amateurs. I can see this going either way.

Mother nature is incredibly powerful and to think she could not break an airliner is naive (see the BN 111 in Nebraska for a perfect example). I have seen diagrams of that breakup that would fit what we have seen so far. On the other hand a flat spin hitting the water left wing down could also fit the pattern.

My point is that it is far too early do draw any firm conclusions either way. I'm sure that the investigating authorities have some idea right now but......even with the FDR and CVR on hand the wreckage itself may well have to pieced together and analyzed to draw the full picture.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:37 pm

Quoting rj777 (Reply 46):
Let's just hope they take extra care with the fuselage. Wouldn't this be the first time a commercial airliner has been completely removed from underwater? (Assuming they get everything)

After SR 111 (the MD-11 that crashed near Halifax), more than 98% of the aircraft (measured by weight) was collected from the sea floor.

I think there are also other examples...


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 11

Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:37 pm

Quoting rj777 (Reply 46):
Wouldn't this be the first time a commercial airliner has been completely removed from underwater?

No. Think Hudson River. There are many others.
Do you have Google on your computer?
Empty vessels make the most noise.

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