AirBoat
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:58 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:16 pm

My take on the different debris positions.
Looking at the photos of debris brought up so far.
the airplane hit the water slightly nose up and a bit left wing down in a pancake landing.
Looking at forces at work here: the most mass is in the middle 2/3 of the fuselage. That means that the
projecting parts such as wings and nose and tail will be bent upwards, due to the even spread of water pressure.
the top half of the tail fuselage probably flew up a 100 ft. and got carried away. same with nose and left wing.

The surface water currents can be influenced by the wind, and can be in any direction.
Tidal action can affect currents as well. Some river estuaries. flow backwards with the incoming tide
 
astuteman
Posts: 6959
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 39):
Ocean bottom currents don't just change like the wind, or by the hour, day, or even month. Huge changes are seasonal, or even annual.

I would have thought that "Ocean Bottom" and "100ft deep" are two completely different things in this context.
I would have thought it was eminently possible for bottom currents to change with either tides or storms in 100ft deep water between islands

Rgds
 
aerodog
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:48 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:41 pm

From the Strait Times (Singapore)

"We were not successful today. The sling snapped off so the main body fell back to the sea floor," S.B. Supriyadi, an official at state rescue agency Basarnas, told AFP, adding several bodies fell from the fuselage when the piece of wreckage sunk once again.

The operation to lift the main body will resume Sunday.

The rescue agency official also said a sonar scan had detected an object "suspected to be the cockpit" of the plane about 500 metres away from the fuselage.

But the search teams will prioritise floating the main body before verifying the object suspected to be the cockpit, Supriyadi added.
 
CO953
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:10 pm

Basic big-picture restatement question then, based on the chart in Reply 46. Why is every turn in the same direction? And why does each left turn on the chart seem to roughly correspond to a change in vertical velocity - up or down - are we looking at a repeated series of partial recovery of control but then losing control again?

Looking at the chart,

A stall seems to begin between 23:17:29 and 23:17:43, when the plane is going relatively straight ahead but vertical velocity whipsaws from +12,675 fpm to -894 fpm at the same time the speed falls from 312 kt to 169 kt. This is roughly a 13,000-fpm change in 14 seconds.

Then a wide left turn begins, as vertical velocity suddenly goes from -894 fpm to -20,031 fpm. That's just over 20,000-fpm change in 20 seconds. So the CHANGE in downward velocity is pretty linear, but the forward speed steadily drops. So almost exactly at the point where the vertical velocity goes from positive to negative - that's where a left turn begins (at 23:17:43) .

Given the steady drop in forward speed during this sequence, would this seem to indicate a nose-up attitude during this sequence... or nose-down - or is it impossible to tell?

What interests me the most is the wide ~90-degree left turn after 23:17:43. Could a nose-up stalled plane make a turn like this, or would it have to have transitioned into a dive to get the control-surface authority to do this? Meaning, is there some degree of control being exhibited, in view of the NW-SE straightaway after that wide left?

Because then, without my typing a bunch more data points at the end, look at that last 180-degree hairpin turn to the left. The vertical velocity had been reduced from -20,031 fpm to -15,681 fpm. During that straightaway the vertical velocity was slowly improving - maybe the pilots restoring a bit of control (though maybe this is just a reflection of increased wind resistance at FL235, vs FL327?). But suddenly another left turn and the fall steepens, with forward speed continuing to drop, down to 65 kt at the last recorded point.

I'm wondering if the left turns are caused by the plane's attitude, or causING the plane's attitude. Why does the plane keep turning left?

[Edited 2015-01-24 07:12:00]
 
hivue
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:17 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 14):
"Modern" and "Progressive" are words that don't always mean "better".

And "better" is a word that doesn't always mean "traditional," "old school," and "by gosh that's the way we used to do it back in my day."
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:19 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 53):
Why does the plane keep turning left?

Have you read post 164 and the following discussion in the last thread?
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:36 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 54):

when you are a md80-fan and like mechanical controls it probably does.
 
flightsimer
Posts: 1052
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:02 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 39):

Wow, you are jack of all trades knowing metallurgy, aerodynamics and now how the currents will and will not flow and act in an area you have no clue about during a massive storm system.


I am beginning to believe you must have a split personality as you have posted some very informative post in these threads and then you go and flip 100% and make some of the most outlandish posts I have ever seen on this site that are dead opposite of your previous opinion and then say you did not make such posts.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 28):

I really do not understand why you are so confused by their locations. Obviously, the vertical stabilizer drifted in the water before finally coming to rest on the bottom. If you have something that was located at the breaking point between the main fuselage and tail, then wouldn't common sense say they should be found either slightly before the fuselage section or in between the fuselage and vertical? The only position that would not make sense is if the were found well past the vertical stabilizer.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 48):

I think it is a lost cause in trying to explain it to him.
Commercial / Airline Pilot
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3487
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:23 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 53):
Why is every turn in the same direction?

Could be mechanical, but it's also been the pattern of most crashes involving loss of spatial awareness and/or instrument failure. Thinking you're flying straight when you're in a turn.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 55):
Have you read post 164 and the following discussion in the last thread?

IIRC, Mandala said that was of interest, but not a confirmed cause of anything. He can of course correct me if I'm wrong. But in every accident there are coincidences and red herrings; I don't think we definitively know yet that there was a rudder fault.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
User avatar
eisenbach
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:44 pm

To me it looks like that the plane came into an updraft region of the CB, these climb rates are otherwise very strange. As the updraft regions are vera active areas of a thunderstorm (changing winds horizontally and vertically (turbulence), high chances of liquid water, ice crystals) it is in my opinion possible that the plane came into a not recoverable state. Sometimes if you have a lot of ice crystals you don't see it on the onboard weather radar, only if you use some "tricks" like monitoring the lower regions of the CB (tilting the radar beam downwards).

So in my (not very professional) opinion it is possible that the flight entered a nasty area of a thunderstorm ... but the report will tell us.
DC-6, DC9, Do228, Saab340, Twin-Otter, C212, Fokker50, AN24, MD90, MD83, EMB120, A380, A300, A343, A346, B721, B742, B744, B748...
 
therealswede
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:51 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:59 pm

Quoting eisenbach (Reply 59):
To me it looks like that the plane came into an updraft region of the CB, these climb rates are otherwise very strange. As the updraft regions are vera active areas of a thunderstorm (changing winds horizontally and vertically (turbulence), high chances of liquid water, ice crystals) it is in my opinion possible that the plane came into a not recoverable state. Sometimes if you have a lot of ice crystals you don't see it on the onboard weather radar, only if you use some "tricks" like monitoring the lower regions of the CB (tilting the radar beam downwards).

So in my (not very professional) opinion it is possible that the flight entered a nasty area of a thunderstorm ... but the report will tell us.

Perhaps you should read through the last weeks posts regarding the accident  
You could start with the posts from Mandala499, Pihero, Kaiarahi, Zeke and a few others.

[Edited 2015-01-24 14:01:25]
 
User avatar
eisenbach
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:20 pm

Quoting therealswede (Reply 60):
Perhaps you should read through the last weeks posts regarding the accident  
You could start with the posts from Mandala499, Pihero, Kaiarahi, Zeke and a few others.

OK, you are right, but I fear I won't have the time 

(I have to admit I have no idea if they found already a technical fault or something else)

I just have now the flight path information and the information from the first weeks. So just ignore my post.
DC-6, DC9, Do228, Saab340, Twin-Otter, C212, Fokker50, AN24, MD90, MD83, EMB120, A380, A300, A343, A346, B721, B742, B744, B748...
 
KD5MDK
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:05 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:43 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 55):
Have you read post 164 and the following discussion in the last thread?

I've only been able to read about every other thread, there's far too much going on to understand everything.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:29 am

I think it's high time we did away with the *stall after severe updraft* nonsense:
Contrarily to general thinking, an updraft adds a lot to the airplane energy balance.
I wrote in an earlier post that the updraft in itself does not affect the flight path but, by combining with the airplane horizontal - in this case - movement, looking at the kinetic energy alone, the squares of the horizontal velocity and the gust add to each other : If "Vt" is the aircraft speed and "Vg" the gust value, the kinetic energy goes from 1/2m.Vt^2 to 1/2m.(Vt^2 + Vg^2), and this at a constant pitch attitude.
Of course, the normal reaction of a pilot, be it auto or human, would be to pitch down, increasing airspeed... Sometimes needing speedbrakes to prevent entry into overspeed.

So. Stall after updraft is unlikely. As someone said, physics are not there.
Of course, if the updraft is strong enough - and I mean *ENOUGH*, the change it could bring to the apparent AoA could be past stall incidence, in which case, a simple stick down will bring back things to normal.
That situation was not either visible on the weather charts or likely in that low intensity ITCZ activity.
And remember, the crew didn't even bother to reduce their cruising Mach to turbulence penetration.

We have to look somewhere else.

[Edited 2015-01-24 16:32:18]

[Edited 2015-01-24 16:33:23]
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:14 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 46):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 6):
Is there always or usually an engineer on that specific flight for the reasons you mentioned?

They have engineers in SIN that are authorized to do work on QZ aircraft, but they are not allowed to work on QZ aircraft in Indonesian territory, hence they carry engineers on this one when there is the SIN-SRG-SIN tag-on.

Thanks for that.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 46):
the airline industry in Indonesia is now under attack by the minister, who seems to want to turn the industry back to the stone age...

Back to the stone age... Hearing that makes me think of CASA et al. regarding the restrictions on twins operating deep Southern routes... Hello CASA et al. - It's 2015  
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
 
User avatar
EK413
Topic Author
Posts: 5295
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:18 am

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 1):
Any chance of having a "facts that we know so far" message at the top of these threads, so one doesn't have to wade through a dozen pages of speculation and arguing to get up to speed, while also possibly cutting down on the amount of duplicate information being posted (which further drives up post counts and the need for new threads)?

I copy that, the previous thread was well beyond 300 responses and collecting the vital information and putting in dot point is time consuming.

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:27 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):

So please feel free to go ahead and do it.

[Edited 2015-01-24 18:28:10]
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:27 am

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 57):
Wow, you are jack of all trades knowing metallurgy, aerodynamics and now how the currents will and will not flow and act in an area you have no clue about during a massive storm system.

Don't forget physics.
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
CO953
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:33 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
So. Stall after updraft is unlikely. As someone said, physics are not there.

So Pihero, your command of physics is truly intimidating, and impressive. I'm glad that guys like you are up there thinking their way through the skies. This means that you're probably the guy for me to ask to clarify something about the following segment of my comment #53, in which I was trying to discuss the chart in comment #46, which mandala has vouched for as a legitimate chart.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 53):
A stall seems to begin between 23:17:29 and 23:17:43, when the plane is going relatively straight ahead but vertical velocity whipsaws from +12,675 fpm to -894 fpm at the same time the speed falls from 312 kt to 169 kt. This is roughly a 13,000-fpm change in 14 seconds.

Then a wide left turn begins, as vertical velocity suddenly goes from -894 fpm to -20,031 fpm. That's just over 20,000-fpm change in 20 seconds.

Just to make sure I wasn't misunderstood, my comment was not addressing whether it was a weather-induced stall or mechanical one. But could you confirm for me, (my not being trained in aeronautics) first, that the recorded vertical velocity data between the above times, combined with the sudden reduction in forward speed, does reflect a stall (as media reports of "screaming warnings" seem to indicate)?

And secondly, I am especially interested, does any of the data give you any indication as to whether the plane was likely nose-up or nose-down during this drastic 13,000-fpm change in vertical velocity between 23:17:29 and 23:17:43? And the same question further down the flight path as altitude data is finally lost, with horizontal speed continuing to decline as low as 65 knots: Nose-up stall, nose-down dive, neither, or both?

I am trying my best to keep up with all the threads but some of the key data in the middle threads (regarding the weather vs. stalling question) is over my head.

Thanks, if you get a chance.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:40 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
I think it's high time we did away with the *stall after severe updraft* nonsense:
Contrarily to general thinking, an updraft adds a lot to the airplane energy balance.
I wrote in an earlier post that the updraft in itself does not affect the flight path but, by combining with the airplane horizontal - in this case - movement, looking at the kinetic energy alone, the squares of the horizontal velocity and the gust add to each other : If "Vt" is the aircraft speed and "Vg" the gust value, the kinetic energy goes from 1/2m.Vt^2 to 1/2m.(Vt^2 + Vg^2), and this at a constant pitch attitude.

Guilty as charged. I started that one, way back.

I'm still trying to understand the ELAC / FAC programming though. If you've got both an ELAC and FAC issue, can you counter "runaway" rudder issues with aileron - I'm trying to understand the electronic "topology", but not having a lot of success.

Largely irrelevant, but my training on the C130 was to counter rudder / rudder trim jam with differential thrust - easier on a 4 engine turboprop, I know.

Did you get any answers from your sim contacts on how easy it is to overcome rudder trim with pedal pressure? On the transports I flew, it was impossible (without differential thrust).

[Edited 2015-01-24 18:42:00]
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:53 am

Is Pihero saying there was no stall, or is he questioning the reason for the stall?

I think the latter?
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:19 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 70):
I think the latter?

That is also my thought as I remember he said in an earlier thread that he thought there had been a stall (cause unknown).
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:01 am

He's questioning . . .

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 70):

. . . the reason for the stall?

No more updraft/weather theories.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14155
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:29 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
Contrarily to general thinking, an updraft adds a lot to the airplane energy balance.
I wrote in an earlier post that the updraft in itself does not affect the flight path but, by combining with the airplane horizontal - in this case - movement, looking at the kinetic energy alone, the squares of the horizontal velocity and the gust add to each other : If "Vt" is the aircraft speed and "Vg" the gust value, the kinetic energy goes from 1/2m.Vt^2 to 1/2m.(Vt^2 Vg^2), and this at a constant pitch attitude.
Of course, the normal reaction of a pilot, be it auto or human, would be to pitch down, increasing airspeed... Sometimes needing speedbrakes to prevent entry into overspeed.

This what a typical turbulence encounter could look like

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/anet/Capture_zpsebt12of0.png


Phase 1
• A fast vertical gust. is met (downdraft) which progressively reaches -700ft/mn.
• The angle of attack and the g-load factor decrease in response to the downdraft
• The pitch attitude remains unchanged.
• No AP activity is observed. This conforms to the AP control law design which responds only to pitch or altitude variations.

Phase 2
• A second vertical gust (updraft) builds up, within one second, up to +2,000 ft/mn.
• This updraft results in an immediate increase of the angle of attack and, correspondingly. of the g-load factor.
• The pitch altitude starts to increase.
• A horizontal gust (horizontal wind-shear) associated with the large updraft leads to an MMO exceedance (Mach increases up to 0.85).

Phase 3
• The updraft starts to decay resulting in a corresponding decay of the angle of attack and g-load factor.
• The AP activity (elevator "aircraft nose down" order) is consistent with the pitch attitude increase (and the associated 100 ft gain relative lo the initial altitude).

Phase 4
• The updraft further settles. Perceiving Lhe aircraft to be "sinking" as well as the overspeed condition, the pilot applies (quite understandably) a "nose up" elevator order. However, the corresponding force on the control column exceeds the preset threshold and results in the AP disconnection.
• As a result of the manual "nose up" elevator input, the pitch attitude, the angle of attack and - correspondingly - the g-load factor increase again.
• The pitch attitude continuing increase is counteracted by the horizontal stabilizer "aircraft nose down" deflection (angle of attack protection, known as the a-trim function).

Phase 5
• The updraft completely settles and turns into a downdraft reaching -1,600 ft/mn.
• The angle of attack and g-load factor decrease in response to the downdraft.
• Under the combined effect of the downdraft and the "aircraft nose down" trimming (ex-trim) the g-load factor reaches temporarily 0 g.
• The AP is re-engaged, although the flight parameters arc still significantly affected.

Phase 6
• The elevator order and horizontal stabilizer deflection return to normal values, while the downdraft starts to settle.

Phase 7
• The turbulence encounter is over, all flight parameters return to stabilized values.

The use of spoilers at altitude in response to an overspeed needs to carefully applied, there have been many cases over the years of aircraft approaching the stall, or being stalled in response to spoiler activation in cruise. Spoilers typically do not retracts immediately, they generally take a few seconds, and engine spool up is slow at altitude. I have always been more inclined just to select a lower speed, let the autothrust command idle thrust, and let the aircraft decelerate gradually.

I have tried to find a public report for an incident in early September 2009 which illustrates this further, however I have not been able to locate it.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 69):
I'm still trying to understand the ELAC / FAC programming though. If you've got both an ELAC and FAC issue, can you counter "runaway" rudder issues with aileron - I'm trying to understand the electronic "topology", but not having a lot of success.

The rudder cannot runaway as the rudder stops at the travel limiter, which would be around +/- 5 degrees in cruise. Likewise rudder pedal movement is limited by the stops.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 69):
Largely irrelevant, but my training on the C130 was to counter rudder / rudder trim jam with differential thrust - easier on a 4 engine turboprop, I know.

That would be explained as being the difference between civil and military certification. Rudder trim is not a tab on the rudder, it is better thought of as being a bias/offset, the rudder movement is still available with the pedals. We use the same trim for ground operations, if there is a slight nose wheel offset, you use the trim to bias the system one side to the other, the rudder pedals and tiller still gives you full range.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mandala499
Posts: 6591
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:33 am

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 47):
Does that mean that you actually have the raw ADS-B data?

I do not have the actual raw ADS-B data, even if I do, me telling you, would break the law here.
All I can say is that the depiction is of reasonable accuracy as I know first hand the depiction is based on the plot made by the ADS-B replay. That depiction, in my personal and professional opinion, is the one we can use to disect this accident. The one released by the minister, is in fact, illegal, even if correct. (one of those legal issues).

Quoting Pihero (Reply 49):
The last braodcast GEO Alt is 24 025 ft for an FL 235, and disappeared, meaning that somehow the IRS output was interrupted... reason unknown... Mandala499 posted that long time ago.

There are several questions raised over here in Jakarta regarding to why the Baro Alt ceased. IRS output is continuous, ADR output is the one questioned, and the GEO Alt being stuck at 24025ft does pose the question, did the aircraft orientation became such that the GPS reception became troubled, and that the positions from there is based on reversion to RADNAV over IRS basic FMC POS or pure IRS POS if GPS is troubled. Whatever it is, we can only assume that from where the 24025ft became stuck, the position trend is usable if all else fails.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 53):
A stall seems to begin between 23:17:29 and 23:17:43, when the plane is going relatively straight ahead but vertical velocity whipsaws from +12,675 fpm to -894 fpm at the same time the speed falls from 312 kt to 169 kt. This is roughly a 13,000-fpm change in 14 seconds.

As far as I am concerned, an accelerated VSI change can be caused by a constant pitch rate change when the aircraft still had adequate speed.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 53):
Given the steady drop in forward speed during this sequence, would this seem to indicate a nose-up attitude during this sequence... or nose-down - or is it impossible to tell?

Lack of nose-down is the likely explanation based on no other information available.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
I think it's high time we did away with the *stall after severe updraft* nonsense:
Contrarily to general thinking, an updraft adds a lot to the airplane energy balance.
I wrote in an earlier post that the updraft in itself does not affect the flight path but, by combining with the airplane horizontal - in this case - movement, looking at the kinetic energy alone, the squares of the horizontal velocity and the gust add to each other : If "Vt" is the aircraft speed and "Vg" the gust value, the kinetic energy goes from 1/2m.Vt^2 to 1/2m.(Vt^2 + Vg^2), and this at a constant pitch attitude.
Of course, the normal reaction of a pilot, be it auto or human, would be to pitch down, increasing airspeed... Sometimes needing speedbrakes to prevent entry into overspeed.

So. Stall after updraft is unlikely. As someone said, physics are not there.

I agree, the updraft argument is questionable at best because we are talking about FBW with load factor demand. You can correct me on this, but the understanding is that the load factor would chase 1g with no stick input if there is an updraft (assuming AP off and reverted already to ALTN LAW), therefore an updraft would see a nose down command made by the FBW, and if A/T is off already, ground speed should have increased if not constant or only a slight reduction. This makes the stall unlikely if it was an updraft.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 64):
Back to the stone age... Hearing that makes me think of CASA et al. regarding the restrictions on twins operating deep Southern routes... Hello CASA et al. - It's 2015

Well, where do I start...
1. Allegations that Air Asia didn't pick up the weather information was leaked to the media quite early on, where the Met Office wrote to the ministry saying that an Air Asia dispatcher visited the airport met office at 7am to pick up the latest weather brief, this caused a major stirr, and the minister visited Air Asia Ops Center, to which they explained to the minister that the weather information was given to the pilots based on the flight brief and flight planning software used.

Of course, everyone missed the fact that the brief produced at 7am would not be valid for the aircraft as it would be valid for 1pm, for use for flights between 10am and 4pm. The one for the flight was issued at 1am, valid for 7am for use between 4am and 10am... Local times.

The head of aviation meteorology also stated publicly that the "fixed time prognosis" was generated and disseminated automatically, with email briefs sent to the airlines as a back up... but this was largely ignored.

The minister ended up insisting that the weather from the Met office be picked up and be used before flights, ignorant of the systems already in place. Luckily he didn't turn this into a new rule.

2. Allegations that Air Asia didn't carry emergency documents, related to the latest service bulletins and airworthiness directives for the aircraft, solely on the reason that the aircraft didn't carry the "Emergency Response Manual" which is not used for the aircraft, but for the ground. The necessary changes made in relation to the bulletins and directives were put into the Quick Reference Handbook, which the aircraft carried. This took a few days with the ministry trying to throw a fuss over this, but eventually died down when everyone realized what it meant. (Took me a lot of talk time to the media to explain what the hell it was)

3. Minister didn't like what he saw with the now world standard "self-briefing", where the pilots would pick up the prepared flight briefs when they arrived at the airline dispatch office, then check through all the documentations, etc, then if here are discrepancies or if the crew wanted some changes, they would ask the dispatcher on duty to make the changes prior to signing it off. The minister was ignorantly insisting that face to face briefing be made with regards to the whole content of the flight brief, saying that "it was safer"...
When others raised concerns that face-to-face briefing may lead to safety risks because of the lack of dispatchers, instead of asking what's the best practice in the industry, he said, "well, get more dispatchers. If you don't, I'll revoke your AOC."

4. The face-to-face briefing was put into a "Ministerial Circular" for airlines to follow and obey, and carried out threats of "AOC revocation" if not followed, despite the circular being NOT DATED, and that ministerial circulars by law must not contain "threats of sanction for non-compliance". When this was raised, his answer was, "you do not question me on what I want for safety improvements," or something like that.

5. In addition to the ministerial circular, a safety circular was made where the minister specified that briefing space must now consist of 10 squared meters area per aircraft you have overnighting at the airport, and the number of crew chances you have throughout the day. Again, non-compliance would lead to AOC revocation... Funnily enough, the airports don't have the space to rent out to the airlines. When people criticized about the additional costs of such measures, his answer is again, "safety is not cheap. Do it, or I'll revoke your AOC."

6. A new rules on fares limitations are signed, which made the maximum fare unchanged from the previous 20% increase from 2013, and a new minimum fare of 40% of the maximum fare with no exemption. This, will kill the industry, to which the minister insists that it is to improve safety.
6.1. He ignores the fact that the 20% increase is already inadequate, as the Rupiah has dropped 25%, which in turn automatically made rupiah costs rise by 17-20% for the airlines, added with increased navigation charges of 300% in 2014, and the 50-150% increases in landing and aircraft parking charges at airports, a new "baggage handling fee" being slapped on by the airports, and "fuel throughput fee" charged by the state oil company.
6.2. He insists that the law does not recognize low fares of the LCCs, despite the aviation law clearly stated that the state recognizes the existence of LCCs and allow for their existence on the basis of compliance to the safety regulations which applies to all airlines regardless of LCC status.
6.3. He insists that low fares lead to low safety. He has already publicly stated that it is "illogical" for airlines to claim they are safe if the minimum fares are lower than the train fares (which he rose by 100% during his tenure as CEO of the state train company). "If it's too expensive, don't fly, use the train or the bus."

7. All flights that have had: Return to Apron, Return to Base, or Diversion; cannot continue the flight without a flight approval from the ministry, and that no ministry officials at the airport are to provide a release or flight approval. Guess what, airplanes diverting now have severe delays in continuing because of the ministry's slow response to flight approvals request. He says this is done in the name of safety, but, instead, this is producing the contrary.

Aircraft that RTB'ed due to maintenance now have to wait for days for the Flight Approval to be released... 1 case, the previous 6-12 hours prior to the new ruling, has turned into 4 days... (and 6th now if that plane is still not flying!)

8. The Indonesia Domestic Slot Committee is to be dissolved and end of March. He says this is to reduce "play" among officials in slot approvals. Guess what, IDSC was formed to sort out the mess from the previous centralized system where if you cannot get a slot from the airport, just go to the ministry with an envelope, and the airport gets told to approve of the slot request. Those who flew to/from Indonesia in 2008-2010, knows the hours of holding in the air and on the ground thanks to this "play". The minister, is again, ignorant to why the IDSC was formed in the first place.

So much for the industry's future. Airlines have little choice but to comply and shut up, for fear of "opposition means AOC revocation".

I think however, the points 1-8 should be discussed in a separate topic, but I thought I'd share them here first...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14155
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:46 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 74):
I do not have the actual raw ADS-B data, even if I do, me telling you, would break the law here.
All I can say is that the depiction is of reasonable accuracy as I know first hand the depiction is based on the plot made by the ADS-B replay. That depiction, in my personal and professional opinion, is the one we can use to disect this accident. The one released by the minister, is in fact, illegal, even if correct. (one of those legal issues).

I thought it was courageous for the Singapore military to release photos from their equipment as well, I thought those photos should only have been released b the investigators.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 74):
There are several questions raised over here in Jakarta regarding to why the Baro Alt ceased. IRS output is continuous, ADR output is the one questioned, and the GEO Alt being stuck at 24025ft does pose the question, did the aircraft orientation became such that the GPS reception became troubled, and that the positions from there is based on reversion to RADNAV over IRS basic FMC POS or pure IRS POS if GPS is troubled. Whatever it is, we can only assume that from where the 24025ft became stuck, the position trend is usable if all else fails.

There is a known ADS-B sync issue between the Honeywell ADIRU HG2030XXXX and the transponder on the A320. That is one of the many reasons why the ADS-B data should be taken with a grain of salt until it can be cross checked with the DFDR data.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
AirBoat
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:58 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:25 pm

Quoting Pihero: reply 63:
The increase in energy you stated is correct if taken relative to ground level.(which is not moving) The increase in energy
will be the updraft acting on the airplane as an external force.
but if you take as your reference frame the moving updraft air mass with the aircraft inside it:
the aircraft's energy stays constant.
Any stall indication would be relative to the air mass surrounding the aircraft .(for a steady state updraft, not the
transition in or out)

Quoting Zeke : reply 73:
the graphs are very good information.
Phase 1
• A fast vertical gust. is met (downdraft) which progressively reaches -700ft/mn.
• The angle of attack and the g-load factor decrease in response to the downdraft
• The pitch attitude remains unchanged.
• No AP activity is observed. This conforms to the AP control law design which responds only to pitch or altitude variations.

Looking at phase 1 and 2 as you remarked the AoA on the wing increases when entering the updraft, but the aircraft
shows no change in pitch attitude, due to its inertia and the high AoA event only lasting approx. 0.5 second.

While in the up draft, as stated by both posters above, it is easy to maintain level flight, and control AoA.

When leaving the updraft, the aircraft will experience a half second of negative AoA.

So stalling due to an updraft, probably did not happen.
The speeds shown on the blue plot 470kts) , are they relative to ground level?.
(The speeds shown on Zeke's example are 290kts IAS)
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:47 pm

Quoting AirBoat (Reply 76):
The increase in energy you stated is correct if taken relative to ground level

Kinetic energy comes from the actual aircraft displacement, not indicated or true. I just didn't specify *
ground* as it could lead - and it did - to misunderstanding.

Quoting AirBoat (Reply 76):
The speeds shown on the blue plot 470kts) , are they relative to ground level?.
(The speeds shown on Zeke's example are 290kts IAS)

Correct on both sentences : It shows that energy is about referring to the earth, aerodynamics refer to the air mass, and in this case with some transients : gusts in particular and inertia.

As a reminder, the main sources affecting the aircraft energy balance are :
1/- Potential energy, which is g x Altitude : the higher yopu are, the more you have in hands
2/- Kinetic energy, depending on actual speed
2/- Chemical energy, from the engines
... balanced by :
4/- drag and lift

So in order to study the behaviour of the aircraft, one has to take all the above into account :
- A nose down straight dive, drag shoud be enough to equal both potential and kinetic... there will be a state of equilibrium, simplistically called *terminal velocity* ( which in this case hasn't obviously not been reached ).
- A falling leaf state will be a lot more complex as one would need to have transient drag values for the aircraft flight path : side slips, effect of fuselage drag and mask... that's waayyy above my pay grade... I just notice that this could be an easy explanation of the vastly differing vertical speeds which were observed during flight 8501 last fall.

Those are the reasons I believe we need more data, which we'll hopefully get on Wednesday.
Contrail designer
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:54 pm

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 67):
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 57):
Wow, you are jack of all trades knowing metallurgy, aerodynamics and now how the currents will and will not flow and act in an area you have no clue about during a massive storm system.

Don't forget physics.

Also would like to add a photographic-level memory, another curse if you ask me.
 
AirBoat
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:58 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:56 pm

Pihero,: thanks for all the useful input.

Just a question?

As a pilot, you have to maintain altitude in your airway but to what accuracy.?
what I am getting at, can you reduce the forces on the aircraft by riding up and downdrafts or do you absolutely have to
stick to your required altitude.

Obviously if an up or down draft puts you at max speed or max AoA you can not comply.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:36 pm

Quoting AirBoat (Reply 79):
As a pilot, you have to maintain altitude in your airway but to what accuracy.?

It's more a question of fitting into the traffic, especially on RVSM - reduced vertical separation : 1000 ft -
The aircraft in cruise has a *soft altitude* mode that allows + or - 50 ft either side of the cleared flight level in order to avoid large thrust variations : good for comfort and fuel saving : it the IAS augments, a slight nose up pitch should bring it back to the FMGC value, the opposite for deceleration.
For higher variations of altitude... well you probably have to change the whole strategy, helped by TCAS and ATC.
The MD-80 had a 300 ft oscillation range... They probably had to change that as it is not acceptable in RVSM.

It is to note that the soft cruise mode exists in all modern jets, of all brands I know of.

[Edited 2015-01-25 07:37:28]
Contrail designer
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7320
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:50 pm

In 49-50 seconds it climbed

FL320 to FL373 (average 6,360 fpm)
(or)
34,000 to 38,850 (average 5,820 fpm)

There is one blip where it climbed 1700 feet in 6 seconds. And all the drama reporting is based on this blip.

I think authorities decided what they want in final report, and working backwards. Meanwhile releasing official leaks to work media. We have to appreciate their strategy though.

It would be nice to see all ADS-B data points at regular intervals, not handpicked ones.
 
aerodog
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:48 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:00 pm

Singapore's Strait Times Sunday Update (which pretty much repeated the Saturday effort (reply 52). Maybe three times will be a charm):

Indonesian salvage teams failed again Sunday to retrieve the fuselage of AirAsia Flight QZ8501 from the seabed after a sling snapped during a sudden change in the weather, officials said.

In the past two days the teams have been using giant inflatable bags to raise the fuselage, which lies in the Java Sea at a depth of around 30 metres, to make it easier to find bodies believed trapped inside.

On Sunday they managed to lift the fuselage to the surface for only two minutes before the sling snapped, a navy official overseeing the search and rescue operation told AFP.

"We managed to float (the fuselage) and we were about to move it to the tugboat when the rope snapped due to an extreme change in the weather,"
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:32 pm

If we just look at aircraft total energy (kinetic+potential in an earth frame), the a/c is at cruise at 23:16, geo alt 34,000ft (10,360m). The a/c's energy is about 131kJ/kg.
Around 23:17 the a/c starts a steep "ballistic climb", trading kinetic for potential energy.
At 23:17:29, it has reached 11,300m with 96% of its total energy left.
At 23:17:43 it passes 11,800m with still 92% of its total energy.

Question: is that a catastrophic situation then?

I do not know whether the a/c is flyable/controllable at that point, but the energy decay shows that the a/c starts losing energy rapidly at a rate that evolves towards what looks like a quasi steady state. Roughly speaking, the a/c ends up moving forward (with respect to ground) about as fast it is falling. Its absolute speed vector is pointing roughly 45 degrees down.

Between 23:17:43 and 23:18:45 its absolute vertical speed seems to be a steady -73m/s, as confirmed by the intermediate data at 23:18:03.

At 23:18:45, only one minute after it reached its peak altitude, the a/c now only has 42% of its initial total energy left.
At 23:19:46 and with the above vertical speed assumptions, I find the a/c at an altitude of only 2,840m with only 23% of its initial energy.
If this model holds, then the a/c has only about 40sec left...
 
hivue
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:52 pm

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 1):
Any chance of having a "facts that we know so far" message at the top of these threads
Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
I copy that,

I can't do that but I can provide my (imperfect) understanding of events. I don't really have the time or inclination to document this with references to posts in previous parts of this thread. Feel free to shoot down any of the following that you wish.

Information from the investigation has significantly downplayed weather as a primary cause. If corrct, to me this tends to discount huge updrafts, icing (pitot tubes, AoA vanes, structural, engine), and severe turbulence as possible primary causes.

No notices to operators have come from AB, EASA, or anyone else, which to me indicates that a basic fault with the airplane (design or maintenance) is not likely to be a primary cause, nor is any basic mishandling of the airplane by the crew prior to the problems.

The request to deviate laterally to avoid weather and to climb (to get out of turbulence?) was made by the crew at about 23:16Z. It thus appears that the left turn commencing at about 24:16:52Z (see plot in reply 46 above) was the start of the requested lateral deviation. Something subsequesntly went wrong and the airplane essentially continued this left turn, with a significant and rapid increase in altitude followed by a significant and rapid decrease in altitude with large fluctuations in airspeed and with the radius ever tightening, until contact was lost. To me this sounds like a high altitude jet upset (cause either unknown or not yet revealed by the investigation) resulting in the airplane departing from controlled flight from which the crew (for whatever reason) was not able to recover.

[Edited 2015-01-25 10:53:40]

[Edited 2015-01-25 10:55:28]

EDIT: The investigation has also ruled out terrorism, which to me indicates, among other things, that there was no significant on-board explosive event.


[Edited 2015-01-25 11:05:13]
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:53 pm

Hmm, this must be the -other- CVR (you know, the undamaged one), unless some nice person took a rubber mallet to it ... for the cameras of course.  http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w497/bestwaterpossible/8501CVR_zpsv53nnop1.jpg

Image lifted, shamelessly, from ...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/air...gs-screaming-crash-reports-n290251
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:20 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 85):
Hmm, this must be the -other- CVR

The Russian writing didn't bother you?
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:29 pm

The flight data recorder, or black box of a crashed Russian passenger jet is displayed during a press conference in Jakarta on May 31, 2012. Indonesian searchers found this second black box three weeks after the Sukhoi Superjet 100 slammed into Mount Salak in western Java killing all 45 people on board. Photo by Jefri Tarigan/AFP/Getty Images.

Caption for that CVR picture.

http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/...nt/uploads/2014/03/145473737-1.jpg

[Edited 2015-01-25 13:29:44]
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:37 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 86):
Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 85):
Hmm, this must be the -other- CVR

The Russian writing didn't bother you?

Of course not. Amongst his myriad accomplishments, he doubtless speaks fluent Russian    Besides, it adds to the cover-up conspiracy theories.

[Edited 2015-01-25 13:41:26]
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:17 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 74):
Well, where do I start...
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 74):
I think however, the points 1-8 should be discussed in a separate topic, but I thought I'd share them here first...

Wow! You were right when you said 'back to the stone age'  

Thanks for sharing and I agree that those points should be and are very worthy of being discussed in another topic.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 74):
7. All flights that have had: Return to Apron, Return to Base, or Diversion; cannot continue the flight without a flight approval from the ministry, and that no ministry officials at the airport are to provide a release or flight approval. Guess what, airplanes diverting now have severe delays in continuing because of the ministry's slow response to flight approvals request. He says this is done in the name of safety, but, instead, this is producing the contrary.

Aircraft that RTB'ed due to maintenance now have to wait for days for the Flight Approval to be released... 1 case, the previous 6-12 hours prior to the new ruling, has turned into 4 days... (and 6th now if that plane is still not flying!)

Return to Apron... Wow... That's a bit extreme...

So if the nut rage 'Heather Cho' incident flight happened today @ CGK and returned to the gate would that mean they would need ministry approval before being able to continue? I can only imagine the excitement that would cause  
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
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17841
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:29 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 85):
Hmm, this must be the -other- CVR (you know, the undamaged one), unless some nice person took a rubber mallet to it ... for the cameras of course.

Epic fail - the Russian writing is a big clue.   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:26 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 87):
The flight data recorder, or black box of a crashed Russian passenger jet is displayed during a press conference in Jakarta on May 31, 2012.
Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 78):
Also would like to add a photographic-level memory

Yeah, I used to have a camera like that.  
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:49 am

Quote:
You got something there...
Ironically a local media called me today and asked about MELs related to:
AUTO FLT RUD TRV LIM (and 2)
ELAC 1 FAULT
Rudder travel limiter 2 fault identification and MEL Cat C allowances
AUTO FLT RUD TRV LIM SYS
FAC 2 FAULT

This... they said was from the aircraft's write up...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 168):
"Safety Recommendation 2010-092
It is recommended that Airbus alert all operators of A320-series aircraft of the possibility that an electrical power generation system fault may not be clearly annunciated on the ECAM, and may lead to uncommanded rudder trim operation.",

Uncommanded rudder command or rudder trim is being suspected.

Looking at some trouble shooting elements when there is a FAC 2 failure, depending on test results, fixes are replace FAC 2, check and or repair wiring, replace the Actuator-Rudder Trim, replace the Limitation Unit-Rudder Travel.

Looking at a FAC 2 MEL,
"FAC 2 may be inoperative provided:
A. Both FCU channels operate normally.
B. ELAC, SEC, ADIRS, SFCC, RA, and LGCIU systems operate normally.
C. Approach minimums do not require its use.
NOTE: Loss of FAC 1 will result in Direct Law Mode at landing gear down."
You are here.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:48 am

http://www.dropbox.com/s/q67265sv48qc4zt/wings%20as%20in%202.png?dl=0

[Edited 2015-01-25 17:49:52]

Pic from above at the wingbox?


[Edited 2015-01-25 17:50:20]
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:53 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlk-eJoRLnc&feature=youtu.be

Video of an attempt to winch the fuselage over the stern of the boat...
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

"Rear Admiral Widodo's comments came after a renewed attempt to raise the wreckage from seabed failed when it kept breaking into pieces."

"The wreckage includes parts of both of the wings of the Airbus."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30972235
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:04 am

I think we can forget about any of the initial images we saw of the fuselage with the right wing. It is in far worse shape now.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:12 am

http://home.comcast.net/~shademaker/CenterSection.png

Wing center section just as the line parted.

Bottom side perhaps?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14155
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 97):
I think we can forget about any of the initial images we saw of the fuselage with the right wing. It is in far worse shape now.

I am no salvage expect, I would have thought they should have constructed a metal carriage box for the fuselage out of I beams and lift the carriage box rather than lifting with straps to prevent further crushing. While it an approved method to move aircraft on straps when disabled on the ground, this assumes the structural integrity of the fuselage to resist the loads. It appears from the initial photos we saw that the fuselage appeared to have failed.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Okie
Posts: 4042
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 13

Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:55 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 99):
I am no salvage expect, I would have thought they should have constructed a metal carriage box for the fuselage out of I beams and lift the carriage box rather than lifting with straps to prevent further crushing

I would agree, I sure expected some other means than trying to just break the weight of the fuselage over the aft of the ship with a wench.
I would normally think of some type of crane on a barge type set up to lift, then set the fuselage on a ship or barge.

Okie

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