Quoting 777Jet (Reply 147): So I wonder if the divers were pressured to stay down for longer or take extra risks???

Could well have been multiple dives/multiple days, something they probably don't normally do or were cautioned about.

Clarification:

It's only the Indonesian military that halted their involvement in the recovery efforts. The Indonesian SAR agency will carry on with their efforts, but they won't be able to use equipments owned by the Indonesian military (ships, planes):

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...ch-for-qz8501-victims/1620538.html

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 138): The plane hit the water and broke apart on impact.

So, can we assume that all passengers and crew were alive just before impact?

The plane did not break apart before impact. There was no loss of consciousness due to lack of oxygen in flight.

Quoting hivue (Reply 134): My amateur's guess is "no." I would think any significant FBW system issue on a FBW airplane would mean no-go. The control laws are not MEL-able items since they aren't even items. They're functionality.

That would be my amateur guess as well...but not quite what I was getting at.

To be more blunt: ignoring the MEL and amateur guesses, if a pilot stepped aboard an A320 incapable of operating in normal law due to an FAC/ELAC mismatch/issue (as some have alluded to due to component swapping), would the A320 allow him or her to achieve takeoff power and get airborne?

My reason for asking is that I'm curious if they could have taken off with little or no protections (alpha floor, flight envelope, etc.) for whatever reason (management pressure as one possibility); and then become distracted/saturated shortly after reaching cruise altitude - distracted by the ECAM messages, possibly talking about them or trying to figure them out; looking at the weather radar (which some comments seem to indicate they were perhaps more worried about the weather than they should have been), maybe the rudder issue that has been mentioned occurred as well... and the crew became distracted or saturated, and just lost situational awareness and the (still degraded) aircraft got away from them.

I realize that's just a crazy guess as much as any other crazy guess; but so much seems to hinge on the simple question: why did the aircraft stall? It seems like the ongoing discussion is centered around an in-flight loss of normal law; I was looking at it from the perspective of "what if they never had normal law to start with."

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 146): There is much to    about here, from the 90 minute delay in ATC reporting the aircraft missing, to the constant "poor diving condition" reports in lieu of every other marine weather service calling it optimal, to the manufacturer engineers on board the "recovery" boat while the tail section was mangled, to the head spokesman shaking his head in confidence that the cause of this accident was easily apparent from the CVR, yet now the so-called easy cause is being kept hush with no prelominary being made public after 30 days .... God, it all stinks.

More conspiracy theories?

It's not the recovery of the entire AC that bothers me so much, although I think it should eventually be recovered. It's the remaining victims. They should raise the fuselage sections gently, with as much care as possible, not dragged onto a boat like a prized fishing catch. That includes the cockpit section, which I think may well also contain part of the forward fuselage. The wings and other large pieces should at least be floated to see what might be underneath. This would be to preserve, as much as possible, any victims remaining in/outside the AC making identification and return to family as quick and easy as possible.

Overall the way this recovery has been handled is appalling. I hope the FDR and CDR have enough information to pinpoint the cause of this crash, because the wreckage recovery looks thoroughly botched. As a lifelong software engineer I could never have performed my job in the same spirit as this recovery and hoped to remain employed.

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 153): My reason for asking is that I'm curious if they could have taken off with little or no protections (alpha floor, flight envelope, etc.) for whatever reason (management pressure as one possibility); and then become distracted/saturated shortly after reaching cruise altitude - distracted by the ECAM messages, possibly talking about them or trying to figure them out; looking at the weather radar (which some comments seem to indicate they were perhaps more worried about the weather than they should have been), maybe the rudder issue that has been mentioned occurred as well... and the crew became distracted or saturated, and just lost situational awareness and the (still degraded) aircraft got away from them.

At this point, all suppositions and 'what ifs', loosely tied together with the English language.

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 156): At this point, all suppositions and 'what ifs', loosely tied together with the English language.

Essentially correct! i'm not proposing it as an explanation; I was just trying to explain the context of my inquiry about whether or not the aircraft could be operated in this manner.

I completely agree with you about the recovery of the aircraft. It's interesting in some academic sort of way to kick around the "what if's", but the real tragedy is what the families are going through and the lack of expertise being brought into the recovery effort. It's almost unbelievable.

Salvage or recovery ?
There are a few aspects that have been misunderstood or overlooked on this forum :
- The rough treatment and the eventual destruction of the tail section : although seemingly barbaric it will not affect the investigation. One would not believe how little the structure samples are needed for a metallurgy specialist to analyse ( fatigue, stress, shearing etc...) in order to determine the deceleration forces borne by the aircraft.
A few pieces in determined areas plus photographs will be quite sufficient for the investigators.

-The salvage of the center fuselage / wing box and wings could allow more details to be known, but I think that the pics speak by themselves.
I am of the * grave / memorial... school* of thought and I'd like it to remain where it is...ed the place, out of respect to the victims, although these crashes are the first reason I became interested in accident investigation.>>

- But on the other hand, the front part of the fuselage - and the cockpit - would be useful, if only for the retrieval of the CMC / QAR data.

Now for the divers :

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 148): Diving to 30 meters for a few minutes in calm and clear waters while doing nothing much down there is easy for a recreational diver. I've done it.

Correct. Bottom times are not for very physical activities and exertion.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 150): Could well have been multiple dives/multiple days, something they probably don't normally do or were cautioned about

   Which is apparently the case, here.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 146): There is much to    about here, from the 90 minute delay in ATC reporting the aircraft missing, to the constant "poor diving condition" reports in lieu of every other marine weather service calling it optimal, to the manufacturer engineers on board the "recovery" boat while the tail section was mangled, to the head spokesman shaking his head in confidence that the cause of this accident was easily apparent from the CVR, yet now the so-called easy cause is being kept hush with no prelominary being made public after 30 days .... God, it all stinks. Now the search operation is called off, with 3 of the 4 corners of the plane that -every- investigation strives for are being left on the ocean floor, on purpose.

Please stop the conspiracy theories. Almost all the information you've put forth so far has been inaccurate. We don't need more horribly false rumors like your previous posts on AA191, the CVR being switched out (and not noticing the Russian writing on it,) etc

Quoting Pihero (Reply 158): Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 150): Could well have been multiple dives/multiple days, something they probably don't normally do or were cautioned about Which is apparently the case, here.

Assuming that the Indonesian military divers are at a competence/knowledge level required for sport divers elsewhere, this can not be the case. All they had to do was refer to repetitive dive tables to find the necessary decompression times. http://www.rescuediver.org/physics/divetabel.htm

If they didn't have enough divers to conduct the rate of operation they desired, the solution was to get more divers, not make the ones they had make unsafe dives.

There are layers of incompetence revealed in this SAR episode, back to the first days when they were searching the bottom 60 miles away from the LKP (and where the fuselage later turned up.) The attempts to bring the fuselage aboard was worthy of a Three Stooges skit.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 119): From the other side. When it rises up, I believe I see the markings for where to walk on the wings during an emergency exit.

I stopped the video at the still where most of the part is visible and you are right, that is the wing.

Not to add to the speculation, but I cannot help notice the remarkable similarity in the last known manoeuvres of this A320 and that of the XL888T A320 off the coast of Perpignan. Its investigation was overshadowed by that of AF447, so I’m not sure how many of you are aware of its findings.
In a nutshell: During a low speed test, the plane pitched it’s nose higher and higher and began to climb, it eventually stalled and fell into the water below. The pilots had firewalled the throttles and tried to bring the nose down but it didn’t help.

It was found that the AOA sensors had probably gotten water into their inner shafts, this froze at altitude and locked both AOA sensors into one position, so that the as the nose up pitch increased, the computers thought the nose was still level! As the computer did not perceive an issue, the stall protection did not kick in.

Looking at the final flight paths of XL888T and that of QZ8501, they are remarkably similar. From level flight to sharp nose up and climb, then stalling and falling.

QZ8501 obviously had more altitude to affect a recovery (hence a lazy spiral descent) and from the state of the wreckage, I suspect they were on the cusp of regaining control when they hit the water.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 158): Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 150): Could well have been multiple dives/multiple days, something they probably don't normally do or were cautioned about    Which is apparently the case, here.

"Elite Indonesian military divers...."

Agreed ....apparently not the case, but unbelievable that that they weren't. Guys that just got their PADI certification would not have made these mistakes .... and I'm not kidding.

Elite military divers don't normally do (or train) multiple dives over multiple days, doing exercises underwater that require work ....lol


Jimbo

In case anyone is interested, I've added groundspeed to my graph of altitude, again using the unofficial data posted previously, wirh Mandala499's report of approx time of impact...

QZ8501 altitude & groundspeed against time

Riv'

DeltaMD90 ... what can I say, you seem oddly focused on me (are you stalking me?) whose use of the MD avatar I consider an outrage. You seem to have a difficult time reading my posts, by claiming I issued a conspiracy theory about AA191 ... it's so preposterous its silly to even have to correct you, once again. The engine pylon is bent, its in THE PHOTOGrAPH for God's sake. The "official" report states the engine stayed attached until impact which I never denied, not once. So you argue with a historic photo? Maybe you can take your argument to Kodak, or Polaroid?

Nothing unusual about Cryllic text on recorders that operate in proximity of Russia ... do you think everything aviation is all about 'Murica?

The folks that think that this dive is a piece of cake are forgetting some basic facts:

a.) It's monsoon season in the area; stormy weather and rough seas have been a constant thorn in the side of the salvage crews, as proven by the videos, although the weather has improved in recent weeks.

b.) Diving 30m is one thing. Diving into a damaged fuselage with exposed metal, cables, and other hazards is very different, no matter what one heard from their Scuba 101 instructor. Doing the same dive while attempting to attach a series of slings and harnesses during a 20 minute window adds yet another layer of complexity and hazard.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 165): Nothing unusual about Cryllic text on recorders that operate in proximity of Russia

Proximity... well... AirAsia does not serve any destination where Cyrillic is used, nor does it overfly any "Cyrillic airspace".



No Cyrillic text here, but English. Must be a complot, right?

[Edited 2015-01-28 07:54:29]

Quoting georgewall42 (Reply 166): Diving 30m is one thing. Diving into a damaged fuselage with exposed metal, cables, and other hazards is very different, no matter what one heard from their Scuba 101 instructor. Doing the same dive while attempting to attach a series of slings and harnesses during a 20 minute window adds yet another layer of complexity and hazard.

None of that excuses a large number 'elite divers' from getting DCS (the bends).

Let's be honest, the whole operation appears from what we see at least, to be less than professional.

Jimbo

According to Indonesian news sources and AirAsia Facebook post, two bodies (one might be of the engineer, based on the ID cards found on the bodies) and some debris were found in the waters around Majene regency on Sulawesi island, around 1000 km from the crash site:

AirAsia Facebook post

Here is the location:

Google Map

[Edited 2015-01-28 08:07:08]

Quoting georgewall42 (Reply 166): The folks that think that this dive is a piece of cake are forgetting some basic facts: a.) It's monsoon season in the area; stormy weather and rough seas have been a constant thorn in the side of the salvage crews, as proven by the videos, although the weather has improved in recent weeks. b.) Diving 30m is one thing. Diving into a damaged fuselage with exposed metal, cables, and other hazards is very different, no matter what one heard from their Scuba 101 instructor. Doing the same dive while attempting to attach a series of slings and harnesses during a 20 minute window adds yet another layer of complexity and hazard.

Re (b), yes, wreck diving is very hazardous, which is why even some pros won't do it. Diving inside an A320 full of crash debris and corpses while wearing at least one tank and other diving equipment that can easily catch on things (regulator hoses, BCD, even weight belt and snorkel when inside a confined space) is extremely risky. Add to the fact that it would be pretty much pitch black inside, and there's not a lot you could learn from such a dive. The basic function of those dives should have been solely to prepare the fuselage to be raised, which should not have been difficult for a reasonably competent salvage team. As salvable vessels go, this one is not particularly large considering that it is in pieces, and the water is not deep.

That said, the complexity or high stress level of a dive doesn't cause you to get decompression sickness. Too much time at too much depth with not enough time to decompress is what causes it. Exposed wires, cables, and darkness due to a roof over your head don't do it. Exertion at depth is a factor, yes, but that's why you train and modify your dive tables and computers (using shorter bottom times or longer stops and dry periods) if you're going to be working hard at depth.

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 167): Proximity... well... AirAsia does not serve any destination where Cyrillic is used, nor does it overfly any "Cyrillic airspace". http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tlm2j_0n8u...s1600/mediaislamia-%2BBlackbok.jpg No Cyrillic text here, but English. Must be a complot, right?

I'm sure this post will be ignored since it is far too logical. Much like the many posts detailing how the photograph could contain the illusion of the pylon being bent if one didn't know what to look for, or the post with the clear photo showing it unbent, or the actual FACT that the report made no mention of the No. 3 engine doing anything other than operating and being attached normally, all the way until the time of impact.

Far be it for logic, science, and fact to get in the way of some conspiracy sensationalism.

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, has there been an actual timeline posted regarding when they will be releasing preliminary or interim reports? I know according to regulations they are supposed to release the preliminary after 30 days, however that isn't necessarily to the public, correct? It's just to the State of Registry, State of Occurrence, State of the Operator, State of Manufacturer, and the ICAO.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 165): Nothing unusual about Cryllic text on recorders that operate in proximity of Russia ... do you think everything aviation is all about 'Murica?

The picture you posted was the FDR from the Sukhoi Superjet crash.

http://nasional.news.viva.co.id/news...nemu-fdr-sukhoi-terima-penghargaan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Salak_Sukhoi_Superjet_100_crash

[Edited 2015-01-28 09:37:12]

Re: scuba diving -

...a slight derail on the scuba divers...

there is a great deal we don't know - unless I missed an article some place. Personally, I highly doubt these guys were using air - thus mixed gases were involved. It's the only way they would be able to work at ~90 feet of depth and have any real time to do something.

I don't know how professionals could suffer the bends, especially 19 of them. The only aspects to this I would like to hear more about - what type of mixture were they running in their tanks, who reported the bends (because I would believe exhaustion first) and did someone goof up the mixture and report to them the wrong mix, and thus they calculated their dive tables off the wrong mix. Sloppy but possible.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 165): Nothing unusual about Cryllic text on recorders that operate in proximity of Russia ... do you think everything aviation is all about 'Murica?

It was already explained that your 'conspiracy black box' was a photo of the one from the SSJ crash in Indonesia in 2012. Or did you miss that?

http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealti...-contributed-to-russian-jet-crash/

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 165): by claiming I issued a conspiracy theory about AA191 ... it's so preposterous its silly to even have to correct you, once again.

By definition, it is a conspiracy theory. Either that or you think you're smarter than the investigators based on your poor interpretation of one low-resolution digitized photograph. The final report does not support your interpretation of that photograph, so either you're claiming the investigators are liars (a conspiracy), or stupid.

I don't think many of us really care which meaning you're intending, because your opinion about the AA191 crash is unimportant - the mechanism and cause of that accident was determined long ago. But you can't complain when someone brings your own recent statements about it up to compare with your statements about this accident.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 175): Either that or you think you're smarter than the investigators based on your poor interpretation of one low-resolution digitized photograph. The final report does not support your interpretation of that photograph

Nor does the final report specifically reject that interpretation.

But I thought it had been agreed to not pursue that topic in this thread.

Quoting cialome (Reply 173): there is a great deal we don't know - unless I missed an article some place. Personally, I highly doubt these guys were using air - thus mixed gases were involved. It's the only way they would be able to work at ~90 feet of depth and have any real time to do something.

Knowing what we know about the rest of the operation, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were using standard air. That said, this:

Quoting cialome (Reply 173): The only aspects to this I would like to hear more about - what type of mixture were they running in their tanks, who reported the bends (because I would believe exhaustion first) and did someone goof up the mixture and report to them the wrong mix, and thus they calculated their dive tables off the wrong mix. Sloppy but possible.

makes a lot of sense. If you're diving on air or a relatively more nitrogenous nitrox or trimix than you thought you were, the bends are an obvious consequence. Either way, someone messed up big time.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 176): Quoting spacecadet (Reply 175): Either that or you think you're smarter than the investigators based on your poor interpretation of one low-resolution digitized photograph. The final report does not support your interpretation of that photograph Nor does the final report specifically reject that interpretation. But I thought it had been agreed to not pursue that topic in this thread.

Occam's razor suggests that if such damage had occurred in the course of that accident, it would have been detailed in the report. Especially with how much focus was put on the engines, the pylons, and that photograph during the course of the investigation.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 165): it's so preposterous its silly to even have to correct you, once again. The engine pylon is bent, its in THE PHOTOGrAPH for God's sake. The "official" report states the engine stayed attached until impact which I never denied, not once. So you argue with a historic photo? Maybe you can take your argument to Kodak, or Polaroid?

You must be looking at a different pictures than just about everyone else. The famous picture of AA191 right before it hit the ground does NOT show a 'bent' engine pylon. It might appear that way to an untrained eye because of the reflection of the sun, but the engine is exactly where it's supposed to be, as is the pylon. No bending going on. Let it go.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 165): Nothing unusual about Cryllic text on recorders that operate in proximity of Russia ... do you think everything aviation is all about 'Murica?

Proximity of Russia? Going by that logic I hope they make emergency announcements in Samoan on AS flights....

Speaking of scuba divers - I notice that there are "high altitude" dive charts for dives where you decompress to a surface altitude of 300 meters or higher. It caught my eye because I've spent most of my life above 2200 meters, and didn't think of 300 meters as a very "high altitude"... but if it does make a difference that quickly, it makes me wonder: Would a diver need to adjust their decompression if they were going to, for example, get in a helicopter (unpressurized) for the trip back to shore?

[Edited 2015-01-28 11:34:54]

Quoting flightless (Reply 181): Speaking of scuba divers - I notice that there are "high altitude" dive charts for dives where you decompress to a surface altitude of 300 meters or higher. It caught my eye because I've spent most of my life above 2200 meters, and didn't think of 300 meters as a very "high altitude"... but if it does make a difference that quickly, it makes me wonder: Would a diver need to adjust their decompression if they were going to, for example, get in a helicopter (unpressurized) for the trip back to shore?

If the helicopter were flying to any significant height for less than a non-trivial time, yes. There's a reason you're not supposed to fly for a day after diving, and keep in mind that's in pressurized planes.

[Edited 2015-01-28 11:49:57]

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 179): You must be looking at a different pictures than just about everyone else. The famous picture of AA191 right before it hit the ground does NOT show a 'bent' engine pylon. It might appear that way to an untrained eye because of the reflection of the sun, but the engine is exactly where it's supposed to be, as is the pylon. No bending going on. Let it go.

Thank you. Jeez. If such definitive new ground is going to be broken so insistently on a current accident topic about a different, well-studied historical accident, let me address this one time and try to be photographically correct:

What ASA/ISO was the photo taken at? (It was FILM, not digital.) Unless it was taken at hyperfast ASA/ISO, the light overexposure lens-flare reflection off the rounded engine pylon and engine cowling of a falling aircraft which is rotating during the short duration while the film camera shutter is open is liable to leave a bit of a white smear on the film image, giving a certain degree of distortion and sometimes the illusion of bending as the moving reflection paints its way across the film while the shutter is open.

Though I haven't taken the time to investigate the ASA/ISO and shutter speed of the AA191 image, a candid snapshot taken back in 1979 is almost always going to have an ASA/ISO of 400 or under. No one routinely walked around with color 800 or 1200 ASA/ISO loaded unless for a sporting event because it was more expensive, not as common, and grainy. The comparatively small amount of film grain in the zoomed, cropped, enlarged image posted tells me that this photo was ASA/ISO 400, at fastest. And the lower the ASA/ISO, the more lens-flare distortion will occur. What is seen in the area of the #3 cowling is a white, slightly ellipsoid blur, consistent with rotational motion of the aircraft while the camera shutter was open.

My friends and I used to have fun at night in a dark field with a tripod and timer, flicking flashlights on and off to magically write words in the air while leaving the shutter open for several seconds on very slow-speed film - producing ghostly photographs that mystified people. The prog-rock band Genesis did this inside the gatefold of their 1978 "And Then There Were Three...." album. Same idea at work here.

I have followed aviation faithfully since many years before I arrived home to see the breaking news reports in '79, and I have never - EVER heard one whisper about #3 engine going sideways. And it's not in the report, unless a coverup is being accused. If there's a specific argument to be made regarding the Air Asia flight, please make it, give direct facts and be done with it, as obviously some aspect of the reported information must have sparked some sort of mental connection with AA191. Otherwise, respectfully, I think it would be more productive if this off-topic discussion were to move to another thread, should folks wish to debate it, unless there's a specific tie or argument to be made linking the Air Asia plane and AA191.

Several posters have mentioned dive computers. They are not that expensive ($300) and are in pretty common use among recreational divers. Usually mounted in tandem with a pressure gage or worn like a wrist watch, they activate on contact with water and track the divers depth and time at depth. Their algorithms are based from known physiological absorption and degassing rates of nitrogen into the blood stream. And they track not only single dives but cumulative dives over several days. After each dive, the computers I am familiar will display "NO FLY" until 24 hours has elapsed from the last dive.

While they display and record depth and water temperature and several time functions, their most important function is to avoid decompression sickness whether on a single dive or a series of dives over a period of several days. Wikipedia has a more detailed description on dive computers.

Quoting aerodog (Reply 184): Several posters have mentioned dive computers.

My, my. How far have we strayed? Flight Augmentation Computers and Elevator Aileron Computers to dive computers.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 174): It was already explained that your 'conspiracy black box' was a photo of the one from the SSJ crash in Indonesia in 2012. Or did you miss that?

I'm afraid he ignored it as it didn't fit with his 'theory'.
Not a very scientific approach, despite everything he claims to be expert in.

In any case the photo he posted wasn't even referring to the QZ incident, it was merely a still of a video link explaining what black boxes are about. A school kid could have figured that out.

Riv'

There was absolutely no reason to dismiss foreign navies when fuselage was found. US/Russia/China/Singapore would have helped with equipment or at least with planning on proper recovery of fuselage.

Now Indonesia's own navy withdrawn, only National SAR team left with the job. Not sure how my divers they have. May be they can hire local fisherman and divers.

Hard to read what is in their minds. Could be just interdepartmental issues or some thing more serious.

Maybe not a FAC failure ? More likely a Rudder Trim Actuator, or even more so, a Rudder Travel Limitation Unit failure which caused the FAC fault. Or both failed causing the FAC Fault. FAC faulting out because of the failure of one or both of those rudder units. Then like it was posted, FAC 2 MEL'ed but the rudder units were getting ready to fail ? Have to look up FAC 1 wiring, but,............if it faulted also because of the rudder components failing......then both FACs would be lost with a rudder problem in flight. Could be scary, especially around weather or in the clouds.

According to "Plane Talking" the interim report is completed, but not released yet. Rumours of automation failure causing the pilots to fly in manual mode.

FWIW, there is a new article in the WSJ (might need subscription) stating that the co-pilot was likely at the control when the aircraft initiated the steep climb. A snippet:

Quote: The flight-data recorder, according to the two people familiar with the probe, indicates the first officer’s control stick pulled the plane’s nose up. But it isn’t clear when those commands occurred in the sequence of events, or why they were initiated.

[Edited 2015-01-28 17:48:59]

Quoting bond007 (Reply 163): "Elite Indonesian military divers...." Agreed ....apparently not the case, but unbelievable that that they weren't. Guys that just got their PADI certification would not have made these mistakes .... and I'm not kidding. Elite military divers don't normally do (or train) multiple dives over multiple days, doing exercises underwater that require work ....lol

When I did my open water, this was the biggest thing they kept stressing.

Quoting cialome (Reply 173): I don't know how professionals could suffer the bends, especially 19 of them. The only aspects to this I would like to hear more about - what type of mixture were they running in their tanks, who reported the bends (because I would believe exhaustion first) and did someone goof up the mixture and report to them the wrong mix, and thus they calculated their dive tables off the wrong mix. Sloppy but possible.

It could be something simpler, like being ordered back in the water too soon by top brass. When I did my PADI cert, they mentioned that the dive tables were designed highly conservatively to make sure you're ok. It's entirely possible that someone in the command chain thought they could cut some corners and pushed it a bit too far. It's also possible that the story about the 19 is not well verified and we're discussing something that didn't happen. It'll probably be in one of the reports if it's true.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 182): Quoting flightless (Reply 181): Speaking of scuba divers - I notice that there are "high altitude" dive charts for dives where you decompress to a surface altitude of 300 meters or higher. It caught my eye because I've spent most of my life above 2200 meters, and didn't think of 300 meters as a very "high altitude"... but if it does make a difference that quickly, it makes me wonder: Would a diver need to adjust their decompression if they were going to, for example, get in a helicopter (unpressurized) for the trip back to shore? If the helicopter were flying to any significant height for less than a non-trivial time, yes. There's a reason you're not supposed to fly for a day after diving, and keep in mind that's in pressurized planes.

Exactly, this is what they taught me as well. Pressure at 8,000 ft cabin altitude is about 10.9 PSI, roughly 2/3 of the 14.7 PSI at sea level.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/airasia-...ly-at-helm-before-crash-1422493886

Quote: Investigators looking into the fatal crash of AirAsia Flight 8501 believe the co-pilot was at the controls before the jet went into a dangerously fast climb, two people familiar with the probe said. Indonesian authorities, these people said, are delving into what factors may have surprised or confused the first officer—who was much less experienced than the captain—and caused the nose of the Airbus A320 to point upward at an unusually steep angle while the plane’s computerized stall-protection systems either malfunctioned or were disengaged. The Airbus A320 lost forward airspeed during its rapid climb, stalled and then crashed into the water below.

Mandala's Twitter also saying that the NTSB stating aircraft was in perfect working order with no outstanding repairs.

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 180): Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 165): Nothing unusual about Cryllic text on recorders that operate in proximity of Russia ... do you think everything aviation is all about 'Murica? Proximity of Russia? Going by that logic I hope they make emergency announcements in Samoan on AS flights....

Hey, it's only 3270nm from Jakarta to Vladivostok. If they got really really lost and not intercepted by the PLAAF and then crashed that text would come in really handy... They'd have to get lost in a pretty straight line as well since 3270 is at the very outer edge of A320 range. 

Come to think of it, wouldn't Chinese characters be a better idea? And Thai...

But I digress.

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 193): Mandala's Twitter also saying that the NTSB stating aircraft was in perfect working order with no outstanding repairs.

"No outstanding repairs" - can this also mean "Nothing has to be repaired now, because everything broken is not important according to MEL and CDL"?


David

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 193): Mandala's Twitter also saying that the NTSB stating aircraft was in perfect working order with no outstanding repairs.

can you provide a link?

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 193): Mandala's Twitter also saying that the NTSB stating aircraft was in perfect working order with no outstanding repairs.

That was when it took off.

Says nothing about a possible malfunction during the flight, or a possible incorrect repair that showed up in flight.

By your logic ... why wasn't the recorder sticker in Bahasa?

Did anyone consider the possibility that the left side and the right side sticker are in different languages? The "wet floor -caution" sign at the airside Mickey D's is in two languages, Oh but never anything else, that would be counter-productive.   

Maybe Aircraft systems manufacturers should consult this group first before making any engineering decisions in the future? It's clear where all the expertise in arranging the cabin decor, or determining seat/mile costs on your average Monday during a full moon, reside ... perhaps by chance some science talent can be mixed in?   

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 198): Did anyone consider the possibility that the left side and the right side sticker are in different languages? The "wet floor -caution" sign at the airside Mickey D's is in two languages, Oh but never anything else, that would be counter-productive.

Are you able to consider the possibility that perhaps you made a mistake?