User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 5:34:16 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think there is still some confusion. Does that speed reading take into consideration elevation ascents or descents? I will use some examples to help illustrate what I'm asking. A rocket fired straight up would have a fast vertical climb speed but the horizontal ground speed would be 0. Meanwhile, a bomb dropped from a hot air balloon would have a fast vertical descent speed but again, the horizontal ground speed would be 0. Both the rocket and bomb would actually have fast air speeds. If the ATC system only measures ground speed, the bomb and rocket would have a ground speed 0 and would give the illusion that the bomb and rocket aren't moving at all until the radar refreshes to show elevation changes. Is it possible the ATC photo was from when the plane was quickly descending at a slope, perhaps just prior to it breaking up from an extreme air speed? Several ATC photos in a series would've been a lot more helpful. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry if I missed the answer already as I only quickly scanned the last couple of pages. In the leaked ATC photo, the ground speed is only 3XX. Is that data sent from the plane or is that data from ATC radar? Is it measuring only true lateral ground speed or is airspeed computed with it? My initial thought was that the plane could've been in a dive with a forward ground speed of 3XX and it broke up from air speed, but that seems like too simple of an explanation. It is speed over ground from what I've heard. It should be in the 500 kt range, 300 kt is near stall speed at that altitude (36,000 ft), especially if there were a sudden tailwind from turbulence. I think there is still some confusion. Does that speed reading take into consideration elevation ascents or descents? I will use some examples to help illustrate what I'm asking. A rocket fired straight up would have a fast vertical climb speed but the horizontal ground speed would be 0. Meanwhile, a bomb dropped from a hot air balloon would have a fast vertical descent speed but again, the horizontal ground speed would be 0. Both the rocket and bomb would actually have fast air speeds. If the ATC system only measures ground speed, the bomb and rocket would have a ground speed 0 and would give the illusion that the bomb and rocket aren't moving at all until the radar refreshes to show elevation changes. Is it possible the ATC photo was from when the plane was quickly descending at a slope, perhaps just prior to it breaking up from an extreme air speed? Several ATC photos in a series would've been a lot more helpful. The up arrow next to the altitude indicates that the plane was climbing through 36,000 ft with that last data packet. It was assigned FL320, and was denied permission to climb to FL380 6 minutes prior to last contact (probably what the ATC capture is from, last contact). It wasn't going too fast, it was going far too slow, which would result in a nose high stall if it was still trying to climb to FL380. A320 Max Altitude is 39,500 ft, so they were at the very edge of the envelope for stalling. (See: Air France 447 --ETA: The plane was also fitted with CFM-56B Engines, which have been known to flame out in heavy rain. Snagged that tidbit from the airline news comments. These problems are supposed to have been fixed, however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 6:00:47 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The up arrow next to the altitude indicates that the plane was climbing through 36,000 ft with that last data packet. It was assigned FL320, and was denied permission to climb to FL380 6 minutes prior to last contact (probably what the ATC capture is from, last contact). It wasn't going too fast, it was going far too slow, which would result in a nose high stall if it was still trying to climb to FL380. A320 Max Altitude is 39,500 ft, so they were at the very edge of the envelope for stalling. (See: Air France 447 --ETA: The plane was also fitted with CFM-56B Engines, which have been known to flame out in heavy rain. Snagged that tidbit from the airline news comments. These problems are supposed to have been fixed, however. That's what I initially thought but I'm confused on why there wouldn't be any more data packets. A stalled plane wouldn't make a plane just vanish from radar like a broken up plane (or does it?). How far a part are the data packets received? Would there be enough time for the plane to stall and then dive to either break up speed or to the sea? Logically thinking, I wouldn't think there would be enough time for that but I don't know much about this stuff. The flame outs would be a logical thing but you would still think the plane would get another hit or two or more on radar while it was gliding down to the sea. As a side note, it would be very interesting if the start of the domino effect for the crash is because ATC denied the request so it delayed the pilots' decision to climb anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 6:45:20 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 6:59:46 AM EDT
[#4]
I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 7:55:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The up arrow next to the altitude indicates that the plane was climbing through 36,000 ft with that last data packet. It was assigned FL320, and was denied permission to climb to FL380 6 minutes prior to last contact (probably what the ATC capture is from, last contact). It wasn't going too fast, it was going far too slow, which would result in a nose high stall if it was still trying to climb to FL380. A320 Max Altitude is 39,500 ft, so they were at the very edge of the envelope for stalling. (See: Air France 447 --ETA: The plane was also fitted with CFM-56B Engines, which have been known to flame out in heavy rain. Snagged that tidbit from the airline news comments. These problems are supposed to have been fixed, however. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry if I missed the answer already as I only quickly scanned the last couple of pages. In the leaked ATC photo, the ground speed is only 3XX. Is that data sent from the plane or is that data from ATC radar? Is it measuring only true lateral ground speed or is airspeed computed with it? My initial thought was that the plane could've been in a dive with a forward ground speed of 3XX and it broke up from air speed, but that seems like too simple of an explanation. It is speed over ground from what I've heard. It should be in the 500 kt range, 300 kt is near stall speed at that altitude (36,000 ft), especially if there were a sudden tailwind from turbulence. I think there is still some confusion. Does that speed reading take into consideration elevation ascents or descents? I will use some examples to help illustrate what I'm asking. A rocket fired straight up would have a fast vertical climb speed but the horizontal ground speed would be 0. Meanwhile, a bomb dropped from a hot air balloon would have a fast vertical descent speed but again, the horizontal ground speed would be 0. Both the rocket and bomb would actually have fast air speeds. If the ATC system only measures ground speed, the bomb and rocket would have a ground speed 0 and would give the illusion that the bomb and rocket aren't moving at all until the radar refreshes to show elevation changes. Is it possible the ATC photo was from when the plane was quickly descending at a slope, perhaps just prior to it breaking up from an extreme air speed? Several ATC photos in a series would've been a lot more helpful. The up arrow next to the altitude indicates that the plane was climbing through 36,000 ft with that last data packet. It was assigned FL320, and was denied permission to climb to FL380 6 minutes prior to last contact (probably what the ATC capture is from, last contact). It wasn't going too fast, it was going far too slow, which would result in a nose high stall if it was still trying to climb to FL380. A320 Max Altitude is 39,500 ft, so they were at the very edge of the envelope for stalling. (See: Air France 447 --ETA: The plane was also fitted with CFM-56B Engines, which have been known to flame out in heavy rain. Snagged that tidbit from the airline news comments. These problems are supposed to have been fixed, however. No such thing as a CFM-56B. It would be CFM-56xa/b/c with x being the generation of the engine. CFM-56s are probably the single finest commercial aircraft engine ever fielded. There is 0% chance that engine failure caused this accident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 8:25:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing? maybe the equipment for this isn't in the area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 9:15:14 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 9:17:06 AM EDT
[#8]
I really enjoy reading these missing plane threads as there are a ton of you wing guys that can share expertise. It's truly amazing how much you can learn here.
Here is a silly hypothetical question for anyone: "Isn't there some sort of tracking device, that can be put into place and cannot be tampered with, altered, removed, etc...?" It's fascinating to me that these $100M + items can just disappear off the globe. Don't get me wrong, I understand blowing up such said device would render it inoperable. But can't there be a tamper proof, 300 lb steel enclosure that keeps a tracking device safe to crashes, water, explosions, etc... You know, like an otter box? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 9:18:43 AM EDT
[#9]
Just a review: ELT's did not work. No ACARs information, No Mayday. No wreckage.
Air traffic control approved the pilot's request to turn left but denied permission for the plane to climb to 38,000 feet from 32,000 feet, Djoko Murjatmodjo, an aviation official at the Indonesian Transport Ministry, told the national newspaper Kompas.
The increased altitude request was denied because there was another plane flying at that height, he said. Q: HOW DOES A PLANE JUST FALL OFF RADAR?
A: It's still unclear what traffic controllers saw on their screens when the plane disappeared from radar. Authorities haven't said whether they lost only the secondary radar target, which is created by the plane's transponder, or whether the primary radar target, created by energy reflected from the plane, was lost as well. If a plane came apart in the air or suffered a loss of electrical power, the secondary target would be lost, but the primary target is often still visible on radar. But if the plane were descending at rate of over 6,000 feet a minute — typical of a plane about to crash — the primary target might be lost as well. No report by any other aircraft of emergency weather despite flying course. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:06:17 AM EDT
[#10]
No sign of plane going on two days of search in shallow water.
Search and rescue crews have been looking for the plane in at least 15 ships, seven aircraft and four helicopters, national search and rescue spokesman Jusuf Latif said. Most are Indonesian but Singapore, Malaysia and Australia have contributed planes, and a ship and aircraft from Thailand were awaiting clearance from Indonesian foreign ministry.
Those numbers do not include Indonesian warships taking part in the search. Many fishermen from Belitung island also have joined in, and all vessels in that area of the sea have been alerted to be on the lookout for anything that could be linked to the plane. The local rescue agency in East Belitung, the closest district to the area where the plane disappeared from radar, deployed more than 10 boats near Nangka island following reports that people there had heard an explosion Sunday morning. Andriandi, the head of the agency, said the vessels searched around several small islands but found no clue to the plane's whereabouts. Soelstyo, head of the national search and rescue agency, said that if the plane is found on the sea floor, Indonesia lacks the capability to haul it to the surface, so the agency and the foreign ministry are arranging to borrow equipment from the United Kingdom, France or the United State http://www.aviationpros.com/news/11796338/key-developments-in-disappearance-of-airasia-jet |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:10:13 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Poorly trained crews can crash any aircraft. Several 737s crashed and killed all on board due to shitty design and poor pilot training. Look up 737 rudder reversal or dual concentric servo valve and read all about it. The two 777s that crashed don't mean boeings suck, both companies have nearly identical safety records. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: AirAsia plane likely 'at bottom of sea': Indonesia search chief I noticed one of the changes suggested after Air France 447 crashed was to include an Angle of Attack indicator in the cockpit. This suggestion was never implemented. Maybe they could have been saved by a piece of yarn taped to the windshield if it went down for the same reason? Airbus, you scary yo. My wife and toddler are flying overseas to Asia to visit her family tomorrow morning. I checked their tickets earlier.....Boeing 777. Whew.  Poorly trained crews can crash any aircraft. Several 737s crashed and killed all on board due to shitty design and poor pilot training. Look up 737 rudder reversal or dual concentric servo valve and read all about it. The two 777s that crashed don't mean boeings suck, both companies have nearly identical safety records. There are plenty of scarebus videos of them doing the porpoise and other bizarre shit including losing control surfaces due to shitty laminations. The problem which caused 447 to go down has not been fixed as far as I know. Once the autopilot loses the info it needs to fly the jet and forces the pilots who never fly the thing to take over shit goes downhill quickly. Fuck Airbus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:16:59 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At least three 737 crashes are attributed to rudder hardovers. All were caused by shitty design, exacerbated by excessive control inputs, no different than the pilot who tore the tail off his Airbus by stomping on the rudder pedals unnecessarily. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Poorly trained crews can crash any aircraft. Several 737s crashed and killed all on board due to shitty design and poor pilot training. Look up 737 rudder reversal or dual concentric servo valve and read all about it. The two 777s that crashed don't mean boeings suck, both companies have nearly identical safety records. I doubt that you can claim faulty piloting of the 737 that went vertical downward on final to Colorado Springs. At least three 737 crashes are attributed to rudder hardovers. All were caused by shitty design, exacerbated by excessive control inputs, no different than the pilot who tore the tail off his Airbus by stomping on the rudder pedals unnecessarily. major structural failure from using the rudder in the AA crash is bullshit, I have seen lots of photographic evidence of airbus shit falling apart Hell the chinese or Koreans had a 747 upside down and in a 20 thousand foot out of control dive and still were able to fly the plane even after it lost a bunch of shit off of it's tail
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:21:15 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two 737s crashed out of a billion flights due to a valve which only malfunctioned under bizarre circumstances. Yes it was a design error and has been fixed. There are plenty of scarebus videos of them doing the porpoise and other bizarre shit including losing control surfaces due to shitty laminations. The problem which caused 447 to go down has not been fixed as far as I know. Once the autopilot loses the info it needs to fly the jet and forces the pilots who never fly the thing to take over shit goes downhill quickly. Fuck Airbus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AirAsia plane likely 'at bottom of sea': Indonesia search chief I noticed one of the changes suggested after Air France 447 crashed was to include an Angle of Attack indicator in the cockpit. This suggestion was never implemented. Maybe they could have been saved by a piece of yarn taped to the windshield if it went down for the same reason? Airbus, you scary yo. My wife and toddler are flying overseas to Asia to visit her family tomorrow morning. I checked their tickets earlier.....Boeing 777. Whew. Poorly trained crews can crash any aircraft. Several 737s crashed and killed all on board due to shitty design and poor pilot training. Look up 737 rudder reversal or dual concentric servo valve and read all about it. The two 777s that crashed don't mean boeings suck, both companies have nearly identical safety records. There are plenty of scarebus videos of them doing the porpoise and other bizarre shit including losing control surfaces due to shitty laminations. The problem which caused 447 to go down has not been fixed as far as I know. Once the autopilot loses the info it needs to fly the jet and forces the pilots who never fly the thing to take over shit goes downhill quickly. Fuck Airbus. 
The bad batch of pitot probes (heaters specially) were already the subject of an AD, the urgency was just changed. The crew of that flight did not follow published procedures to maintain control of the aircraft during that type of emergency (multiple ADC failure). The bottom line is the aircraft design didn't cause the accident, the crew did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:46:00 AM EDT
[#14]
2nd day of searching ends with nothing found.
As AirAsia search ends second day, families can only wait Authorities had little new to report and little evidence on why the jet lost contact en route from Surabaya to Singapore shortly after the pilot requested permission to head to a higher altitude in the face of a storm, Channel NewsAsia reports.
The inability to immediately find the plane has brought back echoes of the ordeal of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 and questions of how what appeared to be a routine flight could go so wrong. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/as-airasia-search-ends/1555914.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:52:33 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what I initially thought but I'm confused on why there wouldn't be any more data packets. A stalled plane wouldn't make a plane just vanish from radar like a broken up plane (or does it?). How far a part are the data packets received? Would there be enough time for the plane to stall and then dive to either break up speed or to the sea? Logically thinking, I wouldn't think there would be enough time for that but I don't know much about this stuff. The flame outs would be a logical thing but you would still think the plane would get another hit or two or more on radar while it was gliding down to the sea. As a side note, it would be very interesting if the start of the domino effect for the crash is because ATC denied the request so it delayed the pilots' decision to climb anyways. A plane nose-down descending at 600mph would take about 45 seconds to fall 38,000 feet, but slightly less time to fall below the horizon. An ATC radar with a rotation of >2 RPM should make at least one hit on it as it descends. The cross section should be larger as well, making it easier. I think we can surmise that the aircraft made it intact to the sea. Otherwise, there would be a large area of floating debris. I know, capt obvious here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:52:46 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really enjoy reading these missing plane threads as there are a ton of you wing guys that can share expertise. It's truly amazing how much you can learn here. Here is a silly hypothetical question for anyone: "Isn't there some sort of tracking device, that can be put into place and cannot be tampered with, altered, removed, etc...?" It's fascinating to me that these $100M + items can just disappear off the globe. Don't get me wrong, I understand blowing up such said device would render it inoperable. But can't there be a tamper proof, 300 lb steel enclosure that keeps a tracking device safe to crashes, water, explosions, etc... You know, like an otter box? Planes already have transponders for in flight use and ELTs for crash location. Those systems work pretty reliably. Making a device that is crash proof and able to track a plane in flight around the world and while underwater is a bit of a problem from (if nothing else) a signals perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:53:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A plane nose-down descending at 600mph would take about 45 seconds to fall 38,000 feet, but slightly less time to fall below the horizon. An ATC radar with a rotation of >2 RPM should make at least one hit on it as it descends. The cross section should be larger as well, making it easier. I think we can surmise that the aircraft made it intact to the sea. Otherwise, there would be a large area of floating debris. I know, capt obvious here. How far away is the ATC radar from the location and what's the radar horizon at that distance? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:58:13 AM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:15:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought that too. maybe the equipment for this isn't in the area. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing? maybe the equipment for this isn't in the area. They have beacons, but they don't always survive the impact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:16:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At least three 737 crashes are attributed to rudder hardovers. All were caused by shitty design, exacerbated by excessive control inputs, no different than the pilot who tore the tail off his Airbus by stomping on the rudder pedals unnecessarily. The control inputs were of limited impact on the rudder hardcover, and the pilot of AA587 was flying that aircraft exactly as AA's training program had instructed him to do so. That AA587 pointed out a glaring disconnect between FAA certification standards and FAA training MANDATED training POIs isn't a bust on the pilot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:19:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The control inputs were of limited impact on the rudder hardcover, and the pilot of AA587 was flying that aircraft exactly as AA's training program had instructed him to do so. That AA587 pointed out a glaring disconnect between FAA certification standards and FAA training MANDATED training POIs isn't a bust on the pilot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
At least three 737 crashes are attributed to rudder hardovers. All were caused by shitty design, exacerbated by excessive control inputs, no different than the pilot who tore the tail off his Airbus by stomping on the rudder pedals unnecessarily. The control inputs were of limited impact on the rudder hardcover, and the pilot of AA587 was flying that aircraft exactly as AA's training program had instructed him to do so. That AA587 pointed out a glaring disconnect between FAA certification standards and FAA training MANDATED training POIs isn't a bust on the pilot. Are we ignoring the pic someone took of smoke coming out of the rear cargo door before it went down? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:21:44 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:22:53 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:23:53 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:25:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A plane nose-down descending at 600mph would take about 45 seconds to fall 38,000 feet, but slightly less time to fall below the horizon. An ATC radar with a rotation of >2 RPM should make at least one hit on it as it descends. The cross section should be larger as well, making it easier. I think we can surmise that the aircraft made it intact to the sea. Otherwise, there would be a large area of floating debris. I know, capt obvious here. U.S. radars will discard data returns with more than a 6000 fpm descent rate, IIRC. Further technical review might show a primary return, but the processors won't display it immediately. Honestly, a completely end of all data return suggests to me destruction at altitude. Tstorms can do that to an airplane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:32:48 PM EDT
[#26]
The following site may provide useful information
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/live-blog-missing-airasia/1554372.html Here are some of the islands mentioned in other posts 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:33:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
U.S. radars will discard data returns with more than a 6000 fpm descent rate, IIRC. Further technical review might show a primary return, but the processors won't display it immediately. Honestly, a completely end of all data return suggests to me destruction at altitude. Tstorms can do that to an airplane. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A plane nose-down descending at 600mph would take about 45 seconds to fall 38,000 feet, but slightly less time to fall below the horizon. An ATC radar with a rotation of >2 RPM should make at least one hit on it as it descends. The cross section should be larger as well, making it easier. I think we can surmise that the aircraft made it intact to the sea. Otherwise, there would be a large area of floating debris. I know, capt obvious here. U.S. radars will discard data returns with more than a 6000 fpm descent rate, IIRC. Further technical review might show a primary return, but the processors won't display it immediately. Honestly, a completely end of all data return suggests to me destruction at altitude. Tstorms can do that to an airplane. and the wreckage should be right there easily found. But there is nothing. Now they are looking at wreckage found some 700 miles away from their last known position. Something is not right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:36:35 PM EDT
[#28]
this disappearance seems a lot more straightforward than earlier this year, but apparently not so much
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:43:21 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They have beacons, but they don't always survive the impact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing? maybe the equipment for this isn't in the area. They have beacons, but they don't always survive the impact. That's why there are 4-6 ELTs typically in airliners. They are built to withstand crashes, but sometimes a hard crash will cause a ELT to fail. Up until Flight 370, I never heard of complete failure of all ELT devices and no debris. Not ready to liken this to other missing plane, but there are a lot of communications (or lack thereof) that have yet to be explained. ELTs are accessible by mechanics often outside the plane, not something that can be disengaged in flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:48:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why there are 4-6 ELTs typically in airliners. They are built to withstand crashes, but sometimes a hard crash will cause a ELT to fail. Up until Flight 370, I never heard of complete failure of all ELT devices and no debris. Not ready to liken this to other missing plane, but there are a lot of communications (or lack thereof) that have yet to be explained. ELTs are accessible by mechanics often outside the plane, not something that can be disengaged in flight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing? maybe the equipment for this isn't in the area. They have beacons, but they don't always survive the impact. That's why there are 4-6 ELTs typically in airliners. They are built to withstand crashes, but sometimes a hard crash will cause a ELT to fail. Up until Flight 370, I never heard of complete failure of all ELT devices and no debris. Not ready to liken this to other missing plane, but there are a lot of communications (or lack thereof) that have yet to be explained. ELTs are accessible by mechanics often outside the plane, not something that can be disengaged in flight. No. All the ELTs on commercial airliners are in the cabin or cockpit. They are not accessable from outside and they can all be switched, armed, on, or off during flight with the flick of a switch on the unit. The Airbus 320 has 2 ELTs. One in the cockpit and one in the cabin. ETA. they are a crew preflight item to make sure they are armed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:50:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and the wreckage should be right there easily found. But there is nothing. Now they are looking at wreckage found some 700 miles away from their last known position. Something is not right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A plane nose-down descending at 600mph would take about 45 seconds to fall 38,000 feet, but slightly less time to fall below the horizon. An ATC radar with a rotation of >2 RPM should make at least one hit on it as it descends. The cross section should be larger as well, making it easier. I think we can surmise that the aircraft made it intact to the sea. Otherwise, there would be a large area of floating debris. I know, capt obvious here. U.S. radars will discard data returns with more than a 6000 fpm descent rate, IIRC. Further technical review might show a primary return, but the processors won't display it immediately. Honestly, a completely end of all data return suggests to me destruction at altitude. Tstorms can do that to an airplane. and the wreckage should be right there easily found. But there is nothing. Now they are looking at wreckage found some 700 miles away from their last known position. Something is not right. Dragons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:56:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still find it funny that people still trust the company after they said "hey, the plane is over there!!! no... wait... Over there!!!..." and nothing has been found in their locations. Nothing. Even on the bottom of the ocean. In 9 months. There may have been a communication, but their ability to know where it came from (not what it came from) is extremely lacking. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont these planes have GPS transmitters? Unless the GPS thing was f'd, we would know where the plane was. GPS as a receiver/navigation aid does not help. ELT may help especially if it is GPS-enabled but I am skeptical that it would transmit long if the plane went under quickly. Obviously any asset that could receive a signal needs to be checked. Transponder: If similar to what I use it is a reply type system that needs to be interrogated by active radar. I will assume/guess that in the event of a catastrophic breakup, power to the transponder may be interrupted. Still this aspect needs to be thoroughly investigated. ADS-B: Another possibility that can provide actual location information but receiver systems may not cover the area where the plane was. Another point is did that plane have an ACARS or similar system like Malaysia Air MH370 that allowed another company to verify that it was flying after the transponder was turned off.
I still find it funny that people still trust the company after they said "hey, the plane is over there!!! no... wait... Over there!!!..." and nothing has been found in their locations. Nothing. Even on the bottom of the ocean. In 9 months. There may have been a communication, but their ability to know where it came from (not what it came from) is extremely lacking. Your concept of what they're telling you in terms of where the aircraft is is fucked. They gave an arc, that as I recall probably works out to an area larger than the size of the state of Texas, in water over 15k feet deep. The idea that you could search those locations in ten years of dedicated and concentrated work (which is not possible due to the weather and seas), and have any concept of whether or not anything is there is laughable. The data Inmarsat provided is probably accurate, it's just not detailed enough to find anything in any reasonable amount of time with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:56:47 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and the wreckage should be right there easily found. But there is nothing. Now they are looking at wreckage found some 700 miles away from their last known position. Something is not right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A plane nose-down descending at 600mph would take about 45 seconds to fall 38,000 feet, but slightly less time to fall below the horizon. An ATC radar with a rotation of >2 RPM should make at least one hit on it as it descends. The cross section should be larger as well, making it easier. I think we can surmise that the aircraft made it intact to the sea. Otherwise, there would be a large area of floating debris. I know, capt obvious here. U.S. radars will discard data returns with more than a 6000 fpm descent rate, IIRC. Further technical review might show a primary return, but the processors won't display it immediately. Honestly, a completely end of all data return suggests to me destruction at altitude. Tstorms can do that to an airplane. and the wreckage should be right there easily found. But there is nothing. Now they are looking at wreckage found some 700 miles away from their last known position. Something is not right. I'd have to look at the drift and current weather tables, but that's a ways, and it's been a long time since I was trained in that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:00:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While that is possible, how do you explain no more radar/transponder returns? Even in a AF447 scenario, didn't it take them several minutes to descend into the ocean? Assuming that the transponder was not turned off, an in-flight breakup seems more likely. Give us more data/facts and guessing becomes easier. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The flight envelope is getting pretty small, maybe 30 to 40 knots between overspeed and stall at that altitude. Add in adverse weather, crew ability, and the way the Airbus systems function (flight envelope protection) I could easily see the already concerned pilots question the flight systems and then proceed to fight the airplane into the sea. While that is possible, how do you explain no more radar/transponder returns? Even in a AF447 scenario, didn't it take them several minutes to descend into the ocean? Assuming that the transponder was not turned off, an in-flight breakup seems more likely. Give us more data/facts and guessing becomes easier. Weather plays havoc with radar returns. I wouldn't put too much stock in that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:02:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is speed over ground from what I've heard. It should be in the 500 kt range, 300 kt is near stall speed at that altitude (36,000 ft), especially if there were a sudden tailwind from turbulence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry if I missed the answer already as I only quickly scanned the last couple of pages. In the leaked ATC photo, the ground speed is only 3XX. Is that data sent from the plane or is that data from ATC radar? Is it measuring only true lateral ground speed or is airspeed computed with it? My initial thought was that the plane could've been in a dive with a forward ground speed of 3XX and it broke up from air speed, but that seems like too simple of an explanation. It is speed over ground from what I've heard. It should be in the 500 kt range, 300 kt is near stall speed at that altitude (36,000 ft), especially if there were a sudden tailwind from turbulence. It is groundspeed and depending on headwind component, a normal speed. Flying east to west here it is a normal winter groundspeed readout due to headwinds. If they had a true airspeed of 450 kts (.78ish mach) with a 100 knot headwind, they'd get 350 over the ground. I've been under 300 kts groundspeed at those altitudes before despite going nearly 80% the speed of sound relative to the air. Look down and it feels like you're barely moving. So it depends on what the winds were if that was normal. My guess is the crew screwed up and flew into some nasty weather. I really doubt it has anything to do with it being an Airbus. If they were really heavy, which they very well could have been given it was fairly close to departure, and they tried to top a thunderstorm, then they most likely flew themselves into a bad situation. Wind changes and turbulence, when your stall speed is close to your max speed, is a bad place to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:25:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. All the ELTs on commercial airliners are in the cabin or cockpit. They are not accessable from outside and they can all be switched, armed, on, or off during flight with the flick of a switch on the unit. The Airbus 320 has 2 ELTs. One in the cockpit and one in the cabin. ETA. they are a crew preflight item to make sure they are armed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing? maybe the equipment for this isn't in the area. They have beacons, but they don't always survive the impact. That's why there are 4-6 ELTs typically in airliners. They are built to withstand crashes, but sometimes a hard crash will cause a ELT to fail. Up until Flight 370, I never heard of complete failure of all ELT devices and no debris. Not ready to liken this to other missing plane, but there are a lot of communications (or lack thereof) that have yet to be explained. ELTs are accessible by mechanics often outside the plane, not something that can be disengaged in flight. No. All the ELTs on commercial airliners are in the cabin or cockpit. They are not accessable from outside and they can all be switched, armed, on, or off during flight with the flick of a switch on the unit. The Airbus 320 has 2 ELTs. One in the cockpit and one in the cabin. ETA. they are a crew preflight item to make sure they are armed. While the plane itself may have a minimum of 2 ELT, they were also rated for oceanic flight and must have emergency rafts.....I was under the impression these days they have ELT too. Isn't the lack of communications and evidence way odd? ETA: I should have said not all ELT can be disengaged from the cockpit, which I believe is normally the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:35:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Im gonna bust out FSX tonight to fly this same course. I will update if a Dragon/aliens/godzilla devours the aircraft for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:43:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing? A $200 tablet does,but apparently nobody bothered with commercial aircraft. At least not a system that works Someone should sell. Retrofit kit to the airlines. For he low price of $5,000 you get a used I phone and some duct tape. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:46:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Im gonna bust out FSX tonight to fly this same course. I will update if a Dragon/aliens/godzilla devours the aircraft for me. I would suggest attaching some sort of electronic device to track you with, so we can find you later. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:46:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While the plane itself may have a minimum of 2 ELT, they were also rated for oceanic flight and must have emergency rafts.....I was under the impression these days they have ELT too. Isn't the lack of communications and evidence way odd? The ones in the raft almost certainly wouldn't be impact activated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:52:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would suggest attaching some sort of electronic device to track you with, so we can find you later. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Im gonna bust out FSX tonight to fly this same course. I will update if a Dragon/aliens/godzilla devours the aircraft for me. I would suggest attaching some sort of electronic device to track you with, so we can find you later. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Tie a rope to yourself so we can find you later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:53:44 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ones in the raft almost certainly wouldn't be impact activated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
While the plane itself may have a minimum of 2 ELT, they were also rated for oceanic flight and must have emergency rafts.....I was under the impression these days they have ELT too. Isn't the lack of communications and evidence way odd? The ones in the raft almost certainly wouldn't be impact activated. Usually water/inflation/manually activated. I'm not the aviation pro so I am just raising questions. I find it hard to believe the aviation industry could be this archaic. There's so much technology available now and for cheap. Surely the industry is embracing technology and improving safety/rescue, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 1:55:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A $200 tablet does,but apparently nobody bothered with commercial aircraft. At least not a system that works Someone should sell. Retrofit kit to the airlines. For he low price of $5,000 you get a used I phone and some duct tape. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing? A $200 tablet does,but apparently nobody bothered with commercial aircraft. At least not a system that works Someone should sell. Retrofit kit to the airlines. For he low price of $5,000 you get a used I phone and some duct tape. PSSSTTT .... No one is mentioning this. After MH370 disappeared from the earth, INMARSAT announced free tracking so this would not happen again. Guess what? Airbus POS did not have equipment installed. Inmarsat to provide free global airline tracking service
In advance of the conference on aircraft tracking being hosted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Montreal on Monday, 12 May, Inmarsat has confirmed it has proposed to ICAO a free global airline tracking service over the Inmarsat network, as part of the anticipated adoption of further aviation safety service measures by the world’s airlines following the loss of flight MH370. This service is being offered to all 11,000 commercial passenger aircraft, which are already equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection, virtually 100 per cent of the world’s long haul commercial fleet. In addition to this free global airline tracking service, Inmarsat will also offer both an enhanced position reporting facility to support reduced in-flight aircraft separation, and a ‘black box in the cloud’ service, under which – on the back of certain defined trigger events (such as an unapproved course deviation) – historic and real-time flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder information can be streamed off an aircraft to defined aviation safety recipients. http://www.inmarsat.com/news/inmarsat-provide-free-global-airline-tracking-service/ Inmarsat says equipment not installed on missing AirAsia jet KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 29 — Inmarsat, the British satellite communications firm that helped provide key information in the hunt for Flight MH370, said its location equipment was not installed in the Indonesia AirAsia jetliner that went missing yesterday. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/inmarsat-says-equipment-not-installed-on-missing-airasia-jet |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 3:10:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A $200 tablet does,but apparently nobody bothered with commercial aircraft. At least not a system that works Someone should sell. Retrofit kit to the airlines. For he low price of $5,000 you get a used I phone and some duct tape. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought commercial aircraft had transponders or locating beacons for this sort of thing? A $200 tablet does,but apparently nobody bothered with commercial aircraft. At least not a system that works Someone should sell. Retrofit kit to the airlines. For he low price of $5,000 you get a used I phone and some duct tape. very very different - in short, no, it doesn't |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 3:13:35 PM EDT
[#45]
"@Telegraph: Frustration grows as Indonesia fails to find missing AirAsia flight #QZ8501: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/11316679/Frustration-grows-as-Indonesia-fails-to-find-missing-AirAsia-flight-QZ8501.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 3:14:48 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 3:17:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote Historyadds up to 155
none of it adds up 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 3:23:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bad batch of pitot probes (heaters specially) were already the subject of an AD, the urgency was just changed. The crew of that flight did not follow published procedures to maintain control of the aircraft during that type of emergency (multiple ADC failure). The bottom line is the aircraft design didn't cause the accident, the crew did. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AirAsia plane likely 'at bottom of sea': Indonesia search chief I noticed one of the changes suggested after Air France 447 crashed was to include an Angle of Attack indicator in the cockpit. This suggestion was never implemented. Maybe they could have been saved by a piece of yarn taped to the windshield if it went down for the same reason? Airbus, you scary yo. My wife and toddler are flying overseas to Asia to visit her family tomorrow morning. I checked their tickets earlier.....Boeing 777. Whew. Poorly trained crews can crash any aircraft. Several 737s crashed and killed all on board due to shitty design and poor pilot training. Look up 737 rudder reversal or dual concentric servo valve and read all about it. The two 777s that crashed don't mean boeings suck, both companies have nearly identical safety records. There are plenty of scarebus videos of them doing the porpoise and other bizarre shit including losing control surfaces due to shitty laminations. The problem which caused 447 to go down has not been fixed as far as I know. Once the autopilot loses the info it needs to fly the jet and forces the pilots who never fly the thing to take over shit goes downhill quickly. Fuck Airbus.
The bad batch of pitot probes (heaters specially) were already the subject of an AD, the urgency was just changed. The crew of that flight did not follow published procedures to maintain control of the aircraft during that type of emergency (multiple ADC failure). The bottom line is the aircraft design didn't cause the accident, the crew did. Yes. Lesson learned: don't pull back on the stick when the stall warning is on. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 3:36:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tie a rope to yourself so we can find you later. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Im gonna bust out FSX tonight to fly this same course. I will update if a Dragon/aliens/godzilla devours the aircraft for me. I would suggest attaching some sort of electronic device to track you with, so we can find you later. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Tie a rope to yourself so we can find you later. Its ok guys, unlike $80 million airliners, my cell phone has a GPS tracker on it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 3:36:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its ok guys, unlike $80 million airliners, my cell phone has a GPS tracker on it Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Im gonna bust out FSX tonight to fly this same course. I will update if a Dragon/aliens/godzilla devours the aircraft for me. I would suggest attaching some sort of electronic device to track you with, so we can find you later. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Tie a rope to yourself so we can find you later. Its ok guys, unlike $80 million airliners, my cell phone has a GPS tracker on it 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
