AirAsia flight missing??!???

Never flying again

So I'm also guessing that you'll never drive or be driven in a car again? How about walking down the pavement, are you ever going to do that? Eating food, is that still something you're prepared to do?

Of course you are, despite the fact that each of those activities is more likely to kill you than flying with any commercial airline operating today

According to the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives, an organisation which keeps meticulous records related to every aircraft crash worldwide, there have been 111 crashes so far in 2014, a rate of 2.1 crashes per one million flights. The total number of deaths (assuming that all of the souls on QZ8501 died) is at 1320.

Last year there were approximately 1.24 million deaths due to motor vehicles around the world, 940 times the number of deaths due to aircraft this year. Even though 2014 has been the worst year for aviation deaths in the last decade it is still massively more safe than a huge range of things that we expose ourselves to on a daily basis.

What do you think happened?

I'm not really sure. I don't like to come up with theories with little knowledge as I often get it completely wrong and look a bit stupid lol..

I do think it was something to do with the weather though, and that the deviation request was rejected - maybe the storm caused a power fault?

What about you?

I'm not really sure. I don't like to come up with theories with little knowledge as I often get it completely wrong and look a bit stupid lol..

I do think it was something to do with the weather though, and that the deviation request was rejected - maybe the storm caused a power fault?

What about you?

I think the storm screwed them over.

Unfortunately, and this is what anyone who knows anything about flying/aerodynamics is already thinking, the most likely 'main cause' of this is the direct result of the pilots foolishly deciding to try and climb out of the bad weather. They requested permission to climb from FL320 to FL380, and really the only reason for them to request a 6,000ft climb (taking them most probably way above their optimum flight level) would be to avoid the weather in the area, but that isn't exactly a smart move.

Why isn't it a smart move?

(not challenging you - just interested in case that sounded pretty blunt :P)

How do flights go missing in this day and age?

The height an aircraft cruises at is primarily determined by the weight of the aircraft. Which is why, on a long-haul flight, you may initially climb to FL280 (28,000ft above sea level) but by the end of the flight you're at FL380 (38,000ft ASL) when the aircraft is potentially up to 130 tonnes lighter after burning fuel; there is essentially an optimum altitude to fly at taking into consideration the fact that you burn less fuel at higher altitudes, for a fixed thrust setting, but you also need more thrust to maintain a certain altitude the higher you climb (so there's a trade-off). The reason aircraft don't just go straight to the final cruising altitude is, in part, an obvious one (weight - there isn't enough thrust to get there) but there is also a secondary aerodynamic reason - for a fixed gross weight, climbing higher decreases the gap between the stall speed and the critical mach number, both of which causes an aircraft to stall if the airspeed reaches either. In an extreme example, on a long-haul (10+ hour) flight (in say a 777 or a 747) taking off at the maximum take-off weight the flight management computer will probably recommend an initial cruising altitude of FL280-FL300, but in reality the aircraft could probably make it to FL340-FL360, but the reason you wouldn't climb to that altitude is the secondary reason mentioned above - the aircraft would be operating on such tight margins (between the stall speed and critical mach number) that any big fluctuation in wind speed, or hitting any turbulence, could result in a stall (if you're interested in this more, look up Q-corner/Coffin corner on Wikipedia).

The fact they were cruising at FL320 and not FL340 is probably because the optimum cruising level was less than FL340. So climbing up to FL380 would put the aircraft in a significantly more vulnerable position in the event they hit turbulence. However, this would be such an odd thing for a pilot to do, especially a pilot that regularly flies in that area because generally CBs exist up to FL500 in the tropics - i.e. you can't climb out of it - so there may have been other factors in requesting this climb (but still, it's a foolish thing to do). There is also the fact that at a higher altitude, with a higher thrust setting, they would have had much less "power on tap", so in the event the aircraft got close to the stall speed and alpha protection kicked in, the engines switching to maximum thrust would've had little effect on increasing the airspeed - whereas at a lower altitude, maintaining the same height, with a lower thrust setting, the engines essentially are in a much better position at maintaining airspeed (and with a greater margin for error as well). In many respects, if you're caught in a situation where you can't fly around weather, you're better off flying straight into it at an altitude the aircraft is 'happy' to fly at with a slight reduction in speed, than you would be trying to climb out of it.

You need to chill

Posted from TSR Mobile

It's the Malaysian Airline's fault for not inspecting the aeroplane spare parts before taking it to fly on the day.

The height an aircraft cruises at is primarily determined by the weight of the aircraft. Which is why, on a long-haul flight, you may initially climb to FL280 (28,000ft above sea level) but by the end of the flight you're at FL380 (38,000ft ASL) when the aircraft is potentially up to 130 tonnes lighter after burning fuel; there is essentially an optimum altitude to fly at taking into consideration the fact that you burn less fuel at higher altitudes, for a fixed thrust setting, but you also need more thrust to maintain a certain altitude the higher you climb (so there's a trade-off). The reason aircraft don't just go straight to the final cruising altitude is, in part, an obvious one (weight - there isn't enough thrust to get there) but there is also a secondary aerodynamic reason - for a fixed gross weight, climbing higher decreases the gap between the stall speed and the critical mach number, both of which causes an aircraft to stall if the airspeed reaches either. In an extreme example, on a long-haul (10+ hour) flight (in say a 777 or a 747) taking off at the maximum take-off weight the flight management computer will probably recommend an initial cruising altitude of FL280-FL300, but in reality the aircraft could probably make it to FL340-FL360, but the reason you wouldn't climb to that altitude is the secondary reason mentioned above - the aircraft would be operating on such tight margins (between the stall speed and critical mach number) that any big fluctuation in wind speed, or hitting any turbulence, could result in a stall (if you're interested in this more, look up Q-corner/Coffin corner on Wikipedia).

The fact they were cruising at FL320 and not FL340 is probably because the optimum cruising level was less than FL340. So climbing up to FL380 would put the aircraft in a significantly more vulnerable position in the event they hit turbulence. However, this would be such an odd thing for a pilot to do, especially a pilot that regularly flies in that area because generally CBs exist up to FL500 in the tropics - i.e. you can't climb out of it - so there may have been other factors in requesting this climb (but still, it's a foolish thing to do). There is also the fact that at a higher altitude, with a higher thrust setting, they would have had much less "power on tap", so in the event the aircraft got close to the stall speed and alpha protection kicked in, the engines switching to maximum thrust would've had little effect on increasing the airspeed - whereas at a lower altitude, maintaining the same height, with a lower thrust setting, the engines essentially are in a much better position at maintaining airspeed (and with a greater margin for error as well). In many respects, if you're caught in a situation where you can't fly around weather, you're better off flying straight into it at an altitude the aircraft is 'happy' to fly at with a slight reduction in speed, than you would be trying to climb out of it.

But they weren't approved to climb so they were presumably still at FL320 when they lost it.

The cynic in me says that they requested climb, were denied, and couldn't deviate enough laterally to clear the CB so they just flew straight through it and bad things happened. As it turns out, flying is a dangerous game!

How do flights go missing in this day and age?

Because when they crash at the bottom of the sea even modern technology isn't good enough.

It's scary how weather can cause planes to drop out of the sky!