AirAsia Flight Missing - 155 on board

[Jbo]

This must be one of the most deadly years in commercial aviation history. I know how safe flying is, but I can't fathom how we have now had so many major losses in one year. I say that also knowing there are more commercial flights int he air now, then ever before.

For those in the industry, I appreciate your insight.

Edit: nevermind...a quick google search shows this is far from true. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...n-history.html

[Acey]

Feels that way because a) 2011-13 had relatively few deaths and b) the major losses this year were attributable to very high profile crashes that stayed in the news for much longer, as opposed to a larger number of crashes each with fewer deaths, like last year.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

What makes you think it came apart? I haven't seen anything to suggest that but I haven't been watching super close. Seems more likely it was a stall and loss of control into the ocean. But I'm certainly not 99% sure of anything.

Very good point there. "Rescuers believe they have found the missing AirAsia plane on the ocean floor off Borneo, after sonar detected a large, dark object beneath waters near where debris and bodies were found on the surface." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/airasia...onar-1.2887068

[Tsawwassen]

Maps and photos.

http://avherald.com/h?article=47f6abc7&opt=0

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by FLAME ENVY

A stall & loss of control at that altitude can certainly break an airplane.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate are 3 of the most important words a pilot should know.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0K900D20141231

Seven bodies have been recovered from the sea, some fully clothed, which could indicate the Airbus A320-200 was intact when it hit the water. That would support a theory that it suffered an aerodynamic stall.

Tatang Zaenudin, an official with Indonesia's search and rescue agency, said earlier that one of the bodies found had been wearing a life jacket.
But he later said no victim had been recovered with a life jacket on.

[chummer]

"Online discussion among pilots has centered on unconfirmed secondary radar data from Malaysia that suggested the aircraft was climbing at a speed of 353 knots, about 100 knots too slow, and that it might have stalled."

Eerily similiar to AF 447.

[hwy19man]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I can imagine how terrifying those last moments would have been for those poor people.

Originally Posted by JonDuke

You'd still have about 30+/- seconds of useful consciousness at that altitude. (wouldn't you?)
That would have felt like a lifetime, I'm sure, IF indeed it did experience some sort of catastrophic fuselage failure at that height.

Originally Posted by FLAME ENVY

It's not the thin air that would get you instantly, it would be the trauma from the aircraft coming apart and being strewn to the atmosphere at 400+MPH.

Originally Posted by PIMking

if you weren't knocked unconscious from the failure or fear.

At least I hope

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/...=mailsignoutmd

"This morning, we recovered a total of four bodies and one of them was wearing a life jacket," Tatang Zaenudin, an official with the search and rescue agency, told Reuters.
He declined to speculate on what the find might mean.

A pilot who works for a Gulf carrier said the life jacket indicated the cause of the crash was not "catastrophic failure". Instead, the plane could have stalled and then come down, possibly because its instruments iced up and gave the pilots inaccurate readings.
"There was time. It means the thing didn't just fall out of the sky," said the pilot, who declined to be identified.

He said it could take a minute for a plane to come down from 30,000 feet and the pilots could have experienced "tunnel vision ... too overloaded" to send a distress call.

[Bigtime]

Tunnel vision? Or perhaps they didn't want to "drop the plane to fly the mic". You know, self preservation and all that.

[Acey]

I'm seeing conflicting reports about the life vest being worn at all. It's a very major detail so hopefully it gets cleared up.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Acey

I'm seeing conflicting reports about the life vest being worn at all. It's a very major detail so hopefully it gets cleared up.

Yeah, a life vest would mean an attempted sea landing and probable time to try it. but then the question of at least a quick mayday comes up.

[chemgear]

http://www.ibtimes.com/airasia-fligh...caused-1771688

An unidentified source close to the investigation told Reuters that data transmitted by the flight just before it lost contact with air traffic controllers suggested that the aircraft may have climbed sharply to avoid a storm in its path, possibly causing the crash.

"So far, the numbers taken by the radar are unbelievably high. This rate of climb is very high, too high. It appears to be beyond the performance envelope of the aircraft," the source said.

Geoffrey Thomas, an aviation expert, told the Telegraph: "I have a radar plot which shows [the pilot] at 36,000 feet and climbing at a speed of 353 knots, which is approximately 100 knots too slow ... if the radar return is correct, he appears to be going too slow for the altitude he is flying at.

"Essentially the plane is flying too slow to the altitude and the thin air, and the wings won't support it at that speed and you get a stall, an aerodynamic stall."

[Acey]

That "aviation expert" is probably not as stupid as his comments make him sound, but he's done a terrible job of explaining the key difference between ground speed (what radar shows) and the airspeed of the aircraft, which is what matters.

Plenty of westbound aircraft in the northeast United States right now are showing speeds of less than 300 knots at 36,000 feet... but none are about to fall out of the sky as this guy seems to imply. Here's one I just screengrabbed.

[Acey]

Forgot to actually make a point in that post: the speed we see on radar is just a guess by our computer of how fast it thinks the target is moving across the ground and is not a speed the aircraft is telling us, even worse - our radar takes like 12 seconds to spin around and update. Maybe theirs is better, but you can see why you can't draw any conclusions from a radar ground speed return.

When they find the flight data recorder (one of the two black boxes) which records true/indicated airspeed and hundreds of other parameters in real time, it will all but confirm the high altitude stall which, don't get me wrong, is my suspicion as well... just wanted to clarify that the alleged "expert" doesn't understand ATC radar and apparently has never stepped foot in an airplane either.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yeah, a life vest would mean an attempted sea landing and probable time to try it. but then the question of at least a quick mayday comes up.

Not necessarily. If the plane is going down over water, I would probably grab my life vest even if I wasn't instructed to do so.

However it would seem to rule out a mid-air break up.

[hwy19man]

"We managed to detect two large objects - one three-dimensioned, another two-dimensioned," Soelistyo said, adding there were signs of an oil spill.
"I can confirm that they are parts of the plane we are looking for," he said.

One object was said to be 9.4 meters (31 feet) in length, with the other being 7.2 meters long. "We are trying to lower an ROV
(remotely operated vehicle) to capture the actual image of the objects on the sea floor, at a depth of 30 metres," Soelistyo said.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/...=mailsignoutmd

[Peanut]

Aviation types... What do you make of this article and the aviation expert quoted within? http://m.theage.com.au/world/airasia...01-12gk9a.html

Apparently the radar data shows the plane behavior was almost impossible in terms of how quickly it gained altitude and then subsequently how quickly it lost altitude.

(This is basically my worst nightmare as a nervous flyer, which is why I keep asking questions and looking for new news)

[Peanut]

double post.

[Acey]

I quite like the article - specifically the fact that he discusses what's actually possible for the type of aircraft involved. The key is that when it comes to stuff we don't know yet, he pretty much says "we don't know yet for sure..." and that's exactly what we should all be saying (me included) or at the very least, using it as a suffix for our speculation. Even mode S returns are still radar and thus sketchy at best, for the reasons I stated above... which he acknowledges. The FDR and physical evidence will make this investigation, but the door is wide open at this point.

[Art Vandelay]

I dont think we can trust anything that's been leaked. Wait until they find the FDR and CVR and get real data before coming to any conclusions.

[KelVarnsen]

I heard back from my friend who is first officer at Indonesia AirAsia. He is ok but quite shocked and hurting. He knew the crew well and misses them.