Dec 27, 2014, 9:43 pm
Last edit by: JDiver
WELCOME, MODERATOR GUIDELINES and SUMMARY
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk!
Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that covers the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc.)
All travelers are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum: conversing about airlines and their programs, airports, destinations, dining and how to make the most of your miles and points, or visit our Information Desk to start.
We do have some Rules, and everyone agrees to abide by these when they are granted free membership privileges. On a topic that generates a lot of feelings and perspectives, please remember "welcoming, respectful" are key words on FlyerTalk.
As with previous missing plane threads, please observe the following in this thread:
1. The normal FT Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions on-thread). And please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.
2. You are expected to respect our diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, orientation, etc." Do not cite, copy, or report on such.
3. Please do continue to be attentive to the sensibilities of the families of those on the flight. Think about if you were them what you would and would not want to see posted. Reasonable speculation about what happened is permissible; please, though, do not indulge in inflammatory or overly-lurid descriptions or depictions (or links to same) that could well be hurtful.
4. Overly / extravagantly exaggerative posts such as conspiracy theories, posts beyond the realm of science and known facts, etc. as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted. Moderator actions may not be discussed in posts on FlyerTalk.
(For those more interested in conspiracy theories and have access to OMNI, please post here: OMNI: Search launched for missing AirAsia jet bound for Singapore from Indonesia)
5. FlyerTalk complies with international copyright agreements. Please do not post full copyrighted articles; summarize the salient points, cite properly and post links. Entire copyrighted articles will be summarily deleted.
6. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules or the guidelines for this thread may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and have membership privileges suspended, forum masks, etc.
QZ8501 Moderator team: JDiver, cblaisd, Moderator2, starflyergold, armagebedar
Please note we have added a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) to the first post in this thread.
N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note.
=========================================
AirAsia Indonesia has verified QZ8501 has reported missing with 162 aboard. Departed Surabaya, Indonesia 0532 local time, last contact with ATC 0714 local Singapore time / 0614 Western Indonesia Time Sunday, 28 Dec 2014. QZ8501 was due to arrive SIN 0837 local time.
Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia is on Western Indonesia Time (WIB), UTC +7.
Originally Posted by AirAsia Indonesia FaceBook page
AirAsia Indonesia regrets to confirm that flight QZ8501 from Surabaya to Singapore has lost contact with air traffic control at 07:24 (Surabaya LT) this morning. The flight took off from Juanda International Airport in Surabaya at 0535 hours.
Search and rescue operations are being conducted under the guidance of The Indonesia of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). AirAsia Indonesia is cooperating fully and assisting the investigation in every possible way.
The aircraft was on the submitted flight plan route and was requesting deviation due to en route weather before communication with the aircraft was lost while it was still under the control of the Indonesian Air Traffic Control (ATC).
The aircraft had undergone its last scheduled maintenance on 16 November 2014.
AirAsia has established an Emergency Call Centre that is available for family or friends of those who may have been on board the aircraft. The number is: +622129850801.
Originally Posted by gpeso8
I'm in Indonesia right now and local TV is reporting that an emergency exit door was located they are also showing a body in the water (blurred out).
Originally Posted by BBC 30 Dec 2014
Indonesian officials have confirmed that bodies and debris found in the Java Sea off Borneo are from AirAsia flight QZ8501 that went missing on Sunday, a statement by AirAsia says.
The AirAsia statement said the remains were found in the Karimata Strait, south-west of Pangkalan Bun in the Borneo province of Central Kalimantan.
The AirAsia statement said the remains were found in the Karimata Strait, south-west of Pangkalan Bun in the Borneo province of Central Kalimantan.
Originally Posted by Aviation Herald
On Dec 31st 2014 the chairman of Indonesia's Search and Rescue Service stated in an evening press conference, that earlier reports about the fuselage having been located have been incorrect, the search is still ongoing, so far - referring to a report by CNN hitting global headlines - there are no sonar images of the fuselage as well. Correcting other media reports the chairman stressed that none of the bodies recovered so far was wearing a life vest. All valid information concerning QZ-8501 only and only comes from one source, namely the Search and Rescue Service which is currently in charge of the entire operation, the chairman stated with reference to the current information chaos.
AirAsia updates on QZ8501 http://qz8501.airasia.com/index.html
Aviation Herald: http://avherald.com/h?article=47f6abc7
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30620647
Please do not post speculation or unconfirmed information in this wiki or thread.
AirAsia Indonesia QZ8501 SUB to SIN reported missing 0724 Sun 28 Dec 2014
Jan 31, 2015, 2:08 pm
#571
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Amex Centurion
Posts: 150
Looks like initial reports are not good and may have some explanations why they did what they did..could very well be wrong readings and other technical problems with the in flight computer as well.......
Link: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World...trol--sources/
Link: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World...trol--sources/
Really unfortunate if indeed it was as a result of pulling a fuse.
It strikes me as off the report used the language "startled" when describing the reaction of the co-pilot. The fuses as stated were directly behind the co-pilot and if the Captain told him what he was going to do, why would the co-pilot's reaction be 'startled'?
Jan 31, 2015, 4:36 pm
#572
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,978
Interesting, pulling the FAC basically removes any safety envelope protection famous for Airbus planes. Why is that necessary and what was the Captain thinking will be a primary investigation direction.
I am assuming also he didn't do it to "reset" as he didn't bother to put the circuit breaker back in. His main objective is simply to shut it down.
I am assuming also he didn't do it to "reset" as he didn't bother to put the circuit breaker back in. His main objective is simply to shut it down.
Jan 31, 2015, 4:47 pm
#573
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,978
In the pilot industry you trust each other's training. It is very normal for "co-pilot" to fly the plane and the Captain to be monitoring. In the USA on multiple hop routes the Captain and co-pilot switch back and forth. And even in bad weather or other tough to fly cases unless the co-pilot admits it's over his head, it is customary that whoever is flying just keep on flying.
Also, I would even argue having a more senior person monitoring equipments, deciding which are false alarms and which are real threats are more crucial than actually "flying". Of course no one should expect trained pilots to make illogical mistakes like trying to climb when low on speed with stall warning screaming to your face (AirFrance, Colgan Air).
As for the super climb, it could be a combination of the pilot trying to climb and hit an updraft of air that made it climb faster than possible and increase the angle of attack.
Looks like this case it isn't the tubes (please stop saying this is the same a AirFrance), but the Captain for whatever reason took off FAC and thus they lost any envelope protection, but still, trained pilots shouldn't need this kind of protection in the first place...
Also, I would even argue having a more senior person monitoring equipments, deciding which are false alarms and which are real threats are more crucial than actually "flying". Of course no one should expect trained pilots to make illogical mistakes like trying to climb when low on speed with stall warning screaming to your face (AirFrance, Colgan Air).
As for the super climb, it could be a combination of the pilot trying to climb and hit an updraft of air that made it climb faster than possible and increase the angle of attack.
Looks like this case it isn't the tubes (please stop saying this is the same a AirFrance), but the Captain for whatever reason took off FAC and thus they lost any envelope protection, but still, trained pilots shouldn't need this kind of protection in the first place...
Jan 31, 2015, 6:20 pm
#574
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
In the pilot industry you trust each other's training. It is very normal for "co-pilot" to fly the plane and the Captain to be monitoring. In the USA on multiple hop routes the Captain and co-pilot switch back and forth. And even in bad weather or other tough to fly cases unless the co-pilot admits it's over his head, it is customary that whoever is flying just keep on flying.
Also, I would even argue having a more senior person monitoring equipments, deciding which are false alarms and which are real threats are more crucial than actually "flying". Of course no one should expect trained pilots to make illogical mistakes like trying to climb when low on speed with stall warning screaming to your face (AirFrance, Colgan Air).
As for the super climb, it could be a combination of the pilot trying to climb and hit an updraft of air that made it climb faster than possible and increase the angle of attack.
Looks like this case it isn't the tubes (please stop saying this is the same a AirFrance), but the Captain for whatever reason took off FAC and thus they lost any envelope protection, but still, trained pilots shouldn't need this kind of protection in the first place...
Also, I would even argue having a more senior person monitoring equipments, deciding which are false alarms and which are real threats are more crucial than actually "flying". Of course no one should expect trained pilots to make illogical mistakes like trying to climb when low on speed with stall warning screaming to your face (AirFrance, Colgan Air).
As for the super climb, it could be a combination of the pilot trying to climb and hit an updraft of air that made it climb faster than possible and increase the angle of attack.
Looks like this case it isn't the tubes (please stop saying this is the same a AirFrance), but the Captain for whatever reason took off FAC and thus they lost any envelope protection, but still, trained pilots shouldn't need this kind of protection in the first place...
Last edited by wolf72; Feb 1, 2015 at 4:00 pm
Jan 31, 2015, 6:22 pm
#575
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
Interesting, pulling the FAC basically removes any safety envelope protection famous for Airbus planes. Why is that necessary and what was the Captain thinking will be a primary investigation direction.
I am assuming also he didn't do it to "reset" as he didn't bother to put the circuit breaker back in. His main objective is simply to shut it down.
I am assuming also he didn't do it to "reset" as he didn't bother to put the circuit breaker back in. His main objective is simply to shut it down.
Last edited by wolf72; Feb 1, 2015 at 4:00 pm
Jan 31, 2015, 8:53 pm
#576
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,978
Very good article on the current culture of pilots, automation, and with Air Frace 447 as a test case.
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2...ight-447-crash
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2...ight-447-crash
Feb 1, 2015, 1:37 pm
#577
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,164
I think you are all chomping at the bit over a bit of nonsense in a rag using poor quality sources in a desperate attempt to keep plugging the story. 'Sources near to the investigation'?? So made up fictional characters or the chai wallah?
The FAC(s) are reset inflight via two switches in the overhead panel inflight, no need to get up. Airbus publishes a reset table of systems and faults that can be reset inflight or on ground. Anything else is managed via the ECAM, QRH, OEBs and then the engineers on the ground. It could possibly be that the skipper was leaning over to inspect if any C/Bs had popped, but that is all. I would be highly skeptical of made up sources. Afterall how close is close? 10m away, ten levels of rank removed? We know nothing much of anything from that report.
Patience all, patience.
ECAM - Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring
QRH - Quick Reference Handbook
OEB - Operational Engineering Bulletin
The FAC(s) are reset inflight via two switches in the overhead panel inflight, no need to get up. Airbus publishes a reset table of systems and faults that can be reset inflight or on ground. Anything else is managed via the ECAM, QRH, OEBs and then the engineers on the ground. It could possibly be that the skipper was leaning over to inspect if any C/Bs had popped, but that is all. I would be highly skeptical of made up sources. Afterall how close is close? 10m away, ten levels of rank removed? We know nothing much of anything from that report.
Patience all, patience.
ECAM - Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring
QRH - Quick Reference Handbook
OEB - Operational Engineering Bulletin
Feb 1, 2015, 4:01 pm
#578
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
I think you are all chomping at the bit over a bit of nonsense in a rag using poor quality sources in a desperate attempt to keep plugging the story. 'Sources near to the investigation'?? So made up fictional characters or the chai wallah?
The FAC(s) are reset inflight via two switches in the overhead panel inflight, no need to get up. Airbus publishes a reset table of systems and faults that can be reset inflight or on ground. Anything else is managed via the ECAM, QRH, OEBs and then the engineers on the ground. It could possibly be that the skipper was leaning over to inspect if any C/Bs had popped, but that is all. I would be highly skeptical of made up sources. Afterall how close is close? 10m away, ten levels of rank removed? We know nothing much of anything from that report.
Patience all, patience.
ECAM - Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring
QRH - Quick Reference Handbook
OEB - Operational Engineering Bulletin
The FAC(s) are reset inflight via two switches in the overhead panel inflight, no need to get up. Airbus publishes a reset table of systems and faults that can be reset inflight or on ground. Anything else is managed via the ECAM, QRH, OEBs and then the engineers on the ground. It could possibly be that the skipper was leaning over to inspect if any C/Bs had popped, but that is all. I would be highly skeptical of made up sources. Afterall how close is close? 10m away, ten levels of rank removed? We know nothing much of anything from that report.
Patience all, patience.
ECAM - Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring
QRH - Quick Reference Handbook
OEB - Operational Engineering Bulletin
Yeah..
Last edited by wolf72; Feb 12, 2015 at 5:24 am
Feb 3, 2015, 3:32 pm
#579
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: san antonio, texas
Programs: 3.2MM AA, 1.4MM UA,StwdLftPlt
Posts: 1,586
I think you are all chomping at the bit over a bit of nonsense in a rag using poor quality sources in a desperate attempt to keep plugging the story. 'Sources near to the investigation'?? So made up fictional characters or the chai wallah?
The FAC(s) are reset inflight via two switches in the overhead panel inflight, no need to get up. Airbus publishes a reset table of systems and faults that can be reset inflight or on ground. Anything else is managed via the ECAM, QRH, OEBs and then the engineers on the ground. It could possibly be that the skipper was leaning over to inspect if any C/Bs had popped, but that is all. I would be highly skeptical of made up sources. Afterall how close is close? 10m away, ten levels of rank removed? We know nothing much of anything from that report.
Patience all, patience.
ECAM - Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring
QRH - Quick Reference Handbook
OEB - Operational Engineering Bulletin
The FAC(s) are reset inflight via two switches in the overhead panel inflight, no need to get up. Airbus publishes a reset table of systems and faults that can be reset inflight or on ground. Anything else is managed via the ECAM, QRH, OEBs and then the engineers on the ground. It could possibly be that the skipper was leaning over to inspect if any C/Bs had popped, but that is all. I would be highly skeptical of made up sources. Afterall how close is close? 10m away, ten levels of rank removed? We know nothing much of anything from that report.
Patience all, patience.
ECAM - Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring
QRH - Quick Reference Handbook
OEB - Operational Engineering Bulletin
Feb 5, 2015, 2:52 pm
#580
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,978
FAC or Flight Augmentation Computers are crucial in fly-by-wire airplane such as Airbus 320. It basically decides if inputs by pilots are sane, and then make it happen (yes, in fly-by-wire the computer is the one that does everything, it checks what the pilot inputs and only allows the ones it likes to actually happen.) In theory if computer fails, pilots can still fly the plane because they still have manual rudder control and engine control. However, that kind of success has only been tried in certification process and not in real life (in real life if the computer go down, you can say bye bye....)
Feb 7, 2015, 7:36 am
#581
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: san antonio, texas
Programs: 3.2MM AA, 1.4MM UA,StwdLftPlt
Posts: 1,586
FAC or Flight Augmentation Computers are crucial in fly-by-wire airplane such as Airbus 320. It basically decides if inputs by pilots are sane, and then make it happen (yes, in fly-by-wire the computer is the one that does everything, it checks what the pilot inputs and only allows the ones it likes to actually happen.) In theory if computer fails, pilots can still fly the plane because they still have manual rudder control and engine control. However, that kind of success has only been tried in certification process and not in real life (in real life if the computer go down, you can say bye bye....)
Feb 9, 2015, 11:46 pm
#582
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,164
FAC or Flight Augmentation Computers are crucial in fly-by-wire airplane such as Airbus 320. It basically decides if inputs by pilots are sane, and then make it happen (yes, in fly-by-wire the computer is the one that does everything, it checks what the pilot inputs and only allows the ones it likes to actually happen.) In theory if computer fails, pilots can still fly the plane because they still have manual rudder control and engine control. However, that kind of success has only been tried in certification process and not in real life (in real life if the computer go down, you can say bye bye....)
Thanks for the overview. I am vaguely familiar with the Normal-Alternate-Direct Law transitions (although I do not have a clear understanding of what flight envelope protections are lost in the Normal-Alternate transition). I was hoping someone might comment upon whether the alarms being generated would be suppressed during the reset.
YET AGAIN, all will be revealed in the subsequent accident report. Just wait.
Feb 24, 2015, 2:56 am
#583
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: san antonio, texas
Programs: 3.2MM AA, 1.4MM UA,StwdLftPlt
Posts: 1,586
I thought there was an obligation to issue a preliminary accident report 30 days after the discovery of functioning flight recorders? FAA/NTSB and not international?