Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 46): and we 'know' from reports to the media

That strikes me as a contradiction in terms.

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 48): (while these constant critics literally know nothing about an individuals/members direct relevant degrees, formal education, long term professional experience, knowledge, etc. of engineering, meteorology, management, and direct aviation knowledge and experience, etc.)

Likely correct. But they do know what the poster says in his post, and the poster is going to be judged on that.

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 28): A spin, even fully developed, is a relatively low-G maneuver.

Quite right. The overspeed that is likely to develop in the dive following spin recovery, however, can rip parts off your aircraft even at 1 g.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 47): Citing radar data, Mr Jonan said: "The plane, during the last minutes, went up faster than normal speed... then it stalled."

Again, that is an SSR transmission subject to corruption if on-board electronics are compromised.

This happened about ~200 nm from Pontianak radar station (with 90 nm PSR and 240 nm SSR range) ie., outside PSR coverage area.

Investigators have to look at other corroborating evidence to prove it really climbed that fast or just erroneous data.

So minister shouldn't be making any statements now, wait for investigators to complement their work.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 39): The only generic definition of deep stall is: A Deep Stall, sometimes referred to as a Super Stall, is a particularly dangerous form of stall that results in a substantial reduction or loss of elevator authority making normal stall recovery actions ineffective. HOW elevator authority is lost is not important, and t-tail is just one common way.

I touched on this in reply 30, modern aircraft have horizontal stabilizers which have a large range of movement which in effect is a surface which can interfere with the effectiveness of the elevator.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 40): AirAsia flight QZ8501: Plane climbed at speed 'beyond normal' then stalled, minister says

I am going to dismiss that until we have the prelim report.

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am not suggesting that the following is the cause of this accident, but the circumstances put the thought in my head to consider from a "is it possible?" standpoint. So I am not shouting the theory from the grassy knoll from atop my chemtrail spouting UFO piloted by bigfoot...

Early in the story, it was reported that a large number of passengers on the flight were from a particular church. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE that if a church/cult/cell decided to go "Heaven's Gate/Jonestown" and meet their maker, they could at once rush to the rear of the plane and shift the CoG to the rear and cause a National 102 type upset?

Again, not only am I not suggesting this happened, but I can state without doubt that it did NOT happen. I know nothing about flying and am curious about if it is possible.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25): Wasn't there previously confusion about that name? I believe it's nowhere near as far away as you're suggesting.

If you just do a simple Google search for "Sembilan island", you'll probably get the one in Malaysia. Here is the relevant Sembilan Island on Google Map, you can measure the distance yourself.

Quoting 4holer (Reply 54): they could at once rush to the rear of the plane and shift the CoG

I have never been on an airliner where a bunch of people in an aisle can rush to do anything.  

Quoting Pihero (Reply 41): One has to define low-G. It depends on the rate of thurn and could be quite high.

Forgive my probe, but how can you over-G in a stalled condition?
We you referring to the recovery, as jollo noted in reply #51?

Quoting jollo (Reply 51): Quite right. The overspeed that is likely to develop in the dive following spin recovery, however, can rip parts off your aircraft even at 1 g.

Yes, that is the second problem then (although it should only be a problem at high altitude).

Quoting s5daw (Reply 44): Well, one example -albeit not the best- of deep stall could be National Airlines Flight 102

Give it up. National 102 did not "deep stall".
Deep stalls occur when the wake of a stalled wing shadows the H-stab and renders it ineffective.
It has nothing to do with exceeding control authority due to load shift, icing, etc...

Quoting 4holer (Reply 54): Again, not only am I not suggesting this happened, but I can state without doubt that it did NOT happen. I know nothing about flying and am curious about if it is possible.

If enough load (people) is shifted to the back, you could possibly induce control problems. But it'd have to be a large group of people. At 80kg per person, 12.5 ppl = 1 ton. I'm sure you'd need at least 30 people far aft.
Someone with A320 load data could do some math here maybe.

Hi world.
A-net is a reflection of the world...all types, all views, all personalities - impatient as well as saintly, critical as well as pacifying, literal, idiotic, playful, and ... well all sorts... and that's what makes A-net so rich and enriching... would be boring without all the back n forth, between stubborn and rude, against angry and self-righteous... lets accept that some posters will rile others, will hurt others due to their being insensitive, even stupid... but that's the people of the world...let them say their piece... ignore or move on, or patiently explain again, and again.... its life!
So to one and all... quoting from Star Wars Part III? : Be patient, my friend!

To provide some entertainment, from this lay person, here's a view of what happened - take it as a fictional story of how the crash unfolded - using the info we know (yeah, yeah, its not fact, its not proven, its hearsay even if its leaked..blah blah):

1. Aircraft ran into Turbulence Extremis, unheard of before, but maybe, its only now that we have extreme weather caused by climate change...
2. Aircraft was swept by an air mass (updraft?), up several thousands of feet, then slam-dunked down even more thousands of feet (refer to Mandala's first leak of radar info)...
3. This slam-dunk of the aircraft causes the left wing to deform (structural integrity is lost), bending upwards resulting in the left wing "stalling". Centre line through left engine is now 15 degrees up relative to fuselage... Horizontal stabilisers(?) are snapped off....
4. The plane starts to bank left due to lift on right wing... and also noses up due to bent left wing and engine hauling it upwards...after a slow turn of nearly 180 degrees, the nose is pointing 45 degrees up relative to horizontal, and the right wing also stalls. Pilots attempt to control the aircraft [i am surprised anyone is still conscious enough to do this, as i had expected the slam dunk to knock all dead or unconscious...perhaps pilots are made of sterner stuff; more on people later]
5. The aircraft now appears to execute a tight "turn" (pirouette?) on its tail while speed drops to zero...
6. Aircraft falls like a stone, tail first...but the deformed wing luckily (??) produces drag and slows the descent..a little
7. Plane hits tail first, and tail cone snaps off; this produces a pivot moment snapping the nose down towards the water, converting some vertical energy into horizontal force, at the same time, the rear end of the fuselage entering the water also creates a bow wave in the water, that carries the front of the fuselage, literally surfing the fuselage forward away from the broken off tail...drifting of the tail causes further separation of the wreckage.
8. People from the rear of the cabin fall out with the tail... many are from the front of the cabin, as these are the ones who were not properly strapped in when the slam dunk hit, and when the plan turned onto its tail, they fell to the rear of the cabin, to be thrown out with the tail section when it snapped off....
9. If anyone were still alive after the mid-air slam dunk, they would have died on the final slam into the water...

RIP all. May the families and friends find strength, and closure.

Quoting nav30 (Reply 5):

I have to say that the report is a mumbled set of incoherent comments. Because there was "no threat on the voice recording so it is not terrorism". Why would that be so ? I am more likely to believe it isnt because no one has claimed responsibility

"We heard no gunfire nor explosions". So what about a small explosion at the aft of the plane which would cause an upward movement ? That would not be heard in the cockpit either ?

"It is unlikely there was an explosion. If there was we would definitely know." so is it unlikely or definitely not ????

A load of jumbled wishwash just to get air time.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 36): Wouldn't Airbus want that data? Could they recover it on their own?

If the FDR/CVR don't yield conclusive results, and there remains safety questions, my hope is that the international community/governments/Airbus/whomever would (publicly and/or behind closed doors) persuasively "encourage" the recovery of the card in order to retrieve the data from it.



[Edited 2015-01-20 09:14:49]