Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    So tell me how many flights over say, the whole world over the past couple of years have gone missing? Hardly any that I can recall of. And the region? The same one. There's definitely something wrong going on in that region.


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    All airplanes that crash are 'missing' until wreckage is found.

    Air France 447 was missing in 2009 for two days before they found the wreckage in the ocean.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spyka)
    All airplanes that crash are 'missing' until wreckage is found.

    Air France 447 was missing in 2009 for two days before they found the wreckage in the ocean.
    When I meant "missing" I meant have completely gone off the trace of the map, no wreckage is found and no idea what happened. That's why I said in my last post that only time will tell .. If they don't find it having I still don't find it coincidental.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by upagumtree)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    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.
    woooops

    It was meant as a joke. I'm sorry to tell you that after you wrote such a lengthy reply
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The missing jet had requested a "deviation" from the flight path to avoid thick storm clouds, AirAsia said.
    Indonesia's transport ministry said the pilot had asked permission to climb to 38,000ft (11,000m).
    Ministry official Djoko Murjatmodjo said the request "could not be approved at that time due to traffic, there was a flight above, and five minutes later [flight QZ8501] disappeared from radar".


    Makes me heavily suspect it's weather related.
    Horrible
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamCee)
    The missing jet had requested a "deviation" from the flight path to avoid thick storm clouds, AirAsia said.
    Indonesia's transport ministry said the pilot had asked permission to climb to 38,000ft (11,000m).
    Ministry official Djoko Murjatmodjo said the request "could not be approved at that time due to traffic, there was a flight above, and five minutes later [flight QZ8501] disappeared from radar".


    Makes me heavily suspect it's weather related.
    Horrible
    What do you think happened?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonynous)
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamCee)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamCee)
    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?

    (Original post by Anonynous)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    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)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamCee)
    Why isn't it a smart move?

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How do flights go missing in this day and age?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Divide N Rule)
    How do flights go missing in this day and age?
    Ignoring the potential for detailed, accurate engineering answers, such as some of those above...

    When the aircraft is in difficulty, the pilots can either try to keep it in their air or spend time sending a distress call. As a passenger I would rather they did the former.

    It's a flimsy metal tube, heavier-than-air, flying at hundreds of miles an hour just to stay up there, going over vast expanses of ocean in which - amazingly - there can be thousands of square miles with no ships in them.

    During a storm, nobody is looking upwards to watch aircraft fall out of the sky.

    In choppy seas, a crashed plane will break up very fast and most items on board sink.

    The oceans have loads of detail - waves, floating plant life, floating litter - which make aerial observation of floating wreckage (which has mostly sunk and what is left is dispersed very quickly) extremely difficult.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    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.
    :lolwut:

    You need to chill :yes:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fermions)
    :lolwut:

    You need to chill :yes:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Last time I checked, I was fairly chilled.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sena5)
    It's the Malaysian Airline's fault for not inspecting the aeroplane spare parts before taking it to fly on the day.
    And excuse me, where did you get these facts from? Quite a hasty conclusion you came up with I must say.

    Anyways updates are : The missing AirAsia Indonesia flight QZ8501 is likely to be at the bottom of the sea, the head of Indonesia's search-and-rescue agency has said. ( http://m.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30620647 )


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    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!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    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!
    Apparently they were approved to FL340 pending other traffic, but I've also heard they were outright denied as well. There's a picture of it on radar showing it climbing through FL363 with a GS of only 353 - obviously way too slow and contradicts both them being denied and temporarily approved to 340.

    http://i.imgur.com/1lw0wW2.jpg

    I don't know whether that's a genuine picture or not.

    EDIT: The winds at the time wouldn't have accounted for that GS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Divide N Rule)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spyka)
    Because when they crash at the bottom of the sea even modern technology isn't good enough.
    I think they tend to crash at the top of the sea...

 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.