Airliners-India.com Forum Index Airliners-India.com
Flickr Group & Facebook
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Air Asia flight from Surabaya to Singapore missing

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Airliners-India.com Forum Index -> International
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ssbmat
Member


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1710

PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:24 pm    Post subject: Air Asia flight from Surabaya to Singapore missing Reply with quote

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/27/world/asia/airasia-missing-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

What I am surprised, keeping all conspiracy theories aside is, why is there no sign of wreckage in a smaller area of the Indonesian sea, where it may have gone down presumably. If it deviated significantly aka MH370, the governments should immediately cooperate and disclose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
drpiru
Member


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 156
Location: LBA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to flight manifest about 23 passengers were no show for this flight. The number seems to be too high for a short LCC flight. Is it a normal number?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Goat
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 3260
Location: South of France

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:06 am    Post subject: Re: Air Asia flight from Surabaya to Singapore missing Reply with quote

ssbmat wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/27/world/asia/airasia-missing-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

What I am surprised, keeping all conspiracy theories aside is, why is there no sign of wreckage in a smaller area of the Indonesian sea, where it may have gone down presumably. If it deviated significantly aka MH370, the governments should immediately cooperate and disclose.


What is even more surprising is as to why the ELT signals aren't being detected. The same thing happened even with AF447 and MH370, and it is very disturbing as to why no one raises this question.
_________________
I don't know which is the more pampered bunch : AI's widebodies (the aunties) or Jet's widebodies (the planes).
-Jasepl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssbmat
Member


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1710

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is really unfortunate that in this era of ultra advanced technology, we have to build fantastic myths (terrorism, blackhole, alien, bermuda triangle) to justify incidents like MH-370. And add QZ8501 to that list now. 2 in a year is just too much.

What concerns me is why in both MH370 and this case, there was no radio communication whatsoever. A plane flying upwards of 30000 feet, assuming fully structurally capable, atleast will be in the air for 2-3 minutes. Unless the pilots were trying to figure out some loss of control situation aka AF447.
Which begs a question, why would pilots lose control so suddenly like that ? Is it poor handling capabilities ? Poor situational awareness ? Is it over-dependence on automation ?

It would be interesting to see in the era prior to FMS based jets (roughly pre-80s) , how many incidents of instrument failure resulted in full fatal accidents that pilots could not control .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sri_bom
Member


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 2365
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

drpiru wrote:
According to flight manifest about 23 passengers were no show for this flight. The number seems to be too high for a short LCC flight. Is it a normal number?


Seems like they re-scheduled the flight from 7:30 AM to 5:30 AM and many passengers were unaware as they did not check their emails/messages and missed the flights.

Sri_Bom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
drpiru
Member


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 156
Location: LBA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sri_bom wrote:
drpiru wrote:
According to flight manifest about 23 passengers were no show for this flight. The number seems to be too high for a short LCC flight. Is it a normal number?


Seems like they re-scheduled the flight from 7:30 AM to 5:30 AM and many passengers were unaware as they did not check their emails/messages and missed the flights.

Sri_Bom


Highly Lucky ones!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iah87
Member


Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 2566

PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know sometimes they move up the time by a few minutes at most 15 minutes. Any thing more it will be very difficult for many passengers. This appears to be highly unusual but could be normal for Air Asia. May be they were trying the beat the nasty weather.


They found the debris and have started recovering bodies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HAWK21M
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 8132
Location: Mumbai, INDIA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Search will take 48-72hrs depends on weather.....ELT pings will help.
The investigation will reveal the story.
_________________
Think of the Brighter side !!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
ssbmat
Member


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1710

PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am a bit concerned about how the Air Asia flight investigation is quickly turning into another "conflict" between man and machine interface aka AF 447. There are hints to point that the rudder trim was malfunctioning, and the pilots tried to pull the CB on the flight-augmentation computer, and flew the plane into an unrecoverable stall. And it appears that the weather conditions were again an initial trigger.

Air Asia 8501 lasted just 3 minutes. AF 447 lasted all of 4 and something minutes post initial stall. This is indeed alarming. Is this an indicator of severe degradation of manual flying skills that once you lose some of your flight instrumentation /control augmentation capability, you will be essentially a dead duck ?

I think Airbus (and perhaps Boeing) need to take a re-look at the design philosophy. Agreed, that countless safe flights have also been conducted before and post these events, but didnt we have safe flights in between the B737 rudder malfunction flights? Didnt we have safe flights in between the Comet-1 metal fatigue events ? It would be too arrogant to assume that Airbus has its fly-by-wire system all sorted out. I suspect there is still a lot to learn, sadly at the cost of human lives.
Similarly, look at Boeing Dreamliner. Still havent figured out why the battery malfunctions- simply put a container over it..(literally).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Goat
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 3260
Location: South of France

PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssbmat wrote:


Air Asia 8501 lasted just 3 minutes. AF 447 lasted all of 4 and something minutes post initial stall. This is indeed alarming. Is this an indicator of severe degradation of manual flying skills that once you lose some of your flight instrumentation /control augmentation capability, you will be essentially a dead duck ?



Correct me if I am wrong, but is it true that fly-by-wire planes like A320 don't have a manual backup for the controls at all??

In other words, if there is a malfunction and the computer cannot set it right, the pilot is helpless and everyone is a dead duck.. I don't know if such over-reliance on the idiot box is such a good thing, notwithstanding all the technological developments.
_________________
I don't know which is the more pampered bunch : AI's widebodies (the aunties) or Jet's widebodies (the planes).
-Jasepl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssbmat
Member


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1710

PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The experts can weigh in better, but I believe the Airbus FBW has continuous computer interface with the pilot inputs even if the flight augmentation controls are no longer applied. Flying manual involves the "Direct " law, but even so, there may be some degree of envelope protection available. One thing that is apparently being looked at is , in that state, when the airplane entered a severe updraft, the FBW system could have intiated a climb to counter the sudden increase in airspeed, even if the pilots may not have initiated it. Or if the rudder auto trim malfunctioned, the pilots tried to reset the computers and somewhere during the process, the updraft happened and the envelope protection prevented the pilots from fully taking over, and when they could no longer control the flight parameters, the system "gave" up and pilots were forced to take over a plane that was essentially unflyable.
And then, perhaps they were too overwhelmed by the situation and messages and could not fly manually.
Note- this is from other forums . Not my own theory.
Bottomline- pilots no longer apparently train for high altitude jet upset recovery, because the FBW systems are supposed to prevent the plane getting into that situation in the first place. But occasionally, they may behave erratically, and that can cause problems of a nature that have not been fully understood .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Airliners-India.com Forum Index -> International All times are GMT + 5.5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com