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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Motorbiker)
    Hopefully this means they can find the plane this time.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Reports say that an aircraft shaped shadow has been spotted.

    (Original post by hayles101)
    Does this confirm its a weather related accident?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I doubt that they will know for sure yet.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry to see that they've found the bodies and plane debris, however at least the families will have closure.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hayles101)
    Does this confirm its a weather related accident?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No.

    Nobody will be able to begin to confirm the cause until after the 'black boxes' have been found and analysed. Anyone who says they know for sure what it was before then is lying.

    It is likely to be the cause, but that is not the same as 'definitely was'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The wreckage has been confirmed to be that of AirAsia QZ8501. Bodies are coming in, so are debris. It's the weather, some what similar to the Air France 447 incident probably. We can't say until we've got the Blackbox (CVR and FDR) which will give a good insight. This shouldn't take long since the plane is actually showing signs of existence after the disappearance unlike the mystery of MH370. It's stupid how people say they won't fly the airline again, any jet can go down but on the whole side, air travel is still and will remain to be 1000x safer.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I know this sounds awful but at least there is closure on this incident, unlike the crash earlier in the year. R.I.P. My thoughts are with the families of the victims.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnolaGay)
    The wreckage has been confirmed to be that of AirAsia QZ8501. Bodies are coming in, so are debris. It's the weather, some what similar to the Air France 447 incident probably. We can't say until we've got the Blackbox (CVR and FDR) which will give a good insight. This shouldn't take long since the plane is actually showing signs of existence after the disappearance unlike the mystery of MH370. It's stupid how people say they won't fly the airline again, any jet can go down but on the whole side, air travel is still and will remain to be 1000x safer.
    It won't be entirely similar to AF447 because the defective tubes that catalyse the crash were fixed, and never installed on the A32X anyway.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    It won't be entirely similar to AF447 because the defective tubes that catalyse the crash were fixed, and never installed on the A32X anyway.
    The case of AF447 has been pilot error, if i'm not wrong that is.

    What tubes are you referring to here?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnolaGay)
    The case of AF447 has been pilot error, if i'm not wrong that is.

    What tubes are you referring to here?
    While AF447 was avoidable, it's harsh simply saying it was pilot error. Essentially 'probes' outside of the aircraft started sending contradicting information to the aircraft, so a lot of automated systems turned off and handed things over to the pilots to sort out. Trying to fly in pitch black (over the sea as well) not knowing what your airspeed is, in an airbus (which would've had several alarms going off, sending multiple error messages to the pilots (distracting them from actually flying the aircraft) is a challenging environment to say the least. But yes, it was handled poorly from the pilots (especially the first officer who, I hate to say, single handedly sealed their fate) considering there is a standard procedure to follow in the situation they found themselves in, but knowing what to do and actually doing it are two very different things (and ultimately, the main goal of training for these scenarios is to try and train pilots to almost go into autopilot to deal with them, because people tend not to perform well in those kind of situations - pilots included).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    While AF447 was avoidable, it's harsh simply saying it was pilot error. Essentially 'probes' outside of the aircraft started sending contradicting information to the aircraft, so a lot of automated systems turned off and handed things over to the pilots to sort out. Trying to fly in pitch black (over the sea as well) not knowing what your airspeed is, in an airbus (which would've had several alarms going off, sending multiple error messages to the pilots (distracting them from actually flying the aircraft) is a challenging environment to say the least. But yes, it was handled poorly from the pilots (especially the first officer who, I hate to say, single handedly sealed their fate) considering there is a standard procedure to follow in the situation they found themselves in, but knowing what to do and actually doing it are two very different things (and ultimately, the main goal of training for these scenarios is to try and train pilots to almost go into autopilot to deal with them, because people tend not to perform well in those kind of situations - pilots included).
    "Probes" as you referred to them are pitot tubes - a pressure instrument that measures fluid flow velocity. This pointy outward device(s) on the fuselage section mainly in the nose section of both the pilot and co-pilot's side rely information on altitude and airspeed. The reason it gave wrong information to the flight crew is because the Captain made a call to fly through the bad weather or rather the PF (Pilot Flying) at that time. Now because it went through this weather, a rapid drop in temperature along with hail temporarily chilled/froze the tubes which in turn had the planes computer sending incorrect readings. Now when this happens, like you said; warnings go on and off in the cockpit and; at this point of time the aircraft is on autopilot, it is not designed to handle allot of stress and cannot cope up to analyzing and evaluating those failures/instrument misinterpretations. So in that case, the autopilot disengages and gives control to the pilot i.e manual flight is activated, that's when the pilots have to invest all their effort, more as teamwork; use the cockpit laws and training they've had to bring the situation under control. Indeed it is a challenging environment but yet there are many cases where evidence was found the crew lacked basic understanding of procedures, instrument recognition, airbus side-stick control activations, appropriate procedures and most of all, completely incorrect input methods. In simple words, when the aircraft was in a state of stall, the cockpit crew thought the aircraft was still climbing rapidly and only final moments to when the master warnings popped up did the Captain realize they're headed for a crash, the controls were handed over to the senior First Officer who also wasn't aware he had his colleague still pulling up on the side stick, seconds later.. in the ocean! Avoidable incident in my opinion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hayles101)
    Does this confirm its a weather related accident?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    For now, the weather has a high probability that it caused the crash. It's been flooding in Malaysia, Thailand and raining heavily in Indonesia. However it's too soon as they haven't collected enough evidence etc, from the blackboc


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    *black box


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnolaGay)
    Those "probes" as you referred to them are actually what's called pitot tubes - a pressure instrument that measures fluid flow velocity. This pointy outward device(s) on the fuselage section mainly in the nose section of both the pilot and co-pilot's side rely information on altitude, pressure and airspeed. The reason it gave wrong information to the flight crew is because the Captain made a call to fly through the bad weather or rather the PF (Pilot Flying) at that time. Now because it went through this weather, a rapid drop in temperature along with hail temporarily chilled/froze the tubes which in turn had the planes computer sending incorrect readings. Now when this happens, like you said; warnings go on and off in the cockpit and when; at this point of time the aircraft is on autopilot, it is not designed to handle allot of stress and cannot cope up to analyzing and evaluating those failures/instrument misinterpretations. So in that case, the autopilot disengages and gives control to the pilot i.e manual flight is activated, that's when the pilots have to invest all their effort, more as teamwork; use the cockpit laws and training they've had to bring the situation under control. Indeed it is a challenging environment but yet there are many cases where evidence was found the crew lacked basic understanding of procedures, instrument recognition, airbus side-stick control activations, appropriate procedures and most of all, completely incorrect input methods. In simple words, when the aircraft was in a state of stall, the cockpit crew thought the aircraft was still climbing rapidly and only final moments to when the "PULL UP", "DONT SINK" master warnings popped up, did the Captain realize they are going to crash, the control's were handed over to the senior First Officer who took control but wasn't aware he had his colleague still pulling up on the side stick, seconds later.. IMPACT! Very avoidable incident.
    Yes, I know it was the pitot tubes, and what they are (I wasn't simplifying it for my benefit). That said, pitot tubes do not measure altitude, it measures the total pressure (static and dynamic).

    While you're right they shouldn't have flown into the storm (although this opens up a whole other discussion about how ineffective weather radars can be at actually telling you exactly what you're flying into) at the same time, the Thales pitots used by AF were much more likely to ice over than the alternative (to the point where now they're no longer in use). They had the potential to be troublesome even in perfectly safe flying situations.

    Don't get me wrong, the crew performed very badly and are largely to blame - but they were in a difficult situation. Had the aircraft been over land or, better yet, it had been day, chances are they'd have recovered. What you feel on an aircraft is often different from what is actually happening (and there have been plenty of crashes where you can argue spatial disorientation played a role). To be fair to two crew members, they were telling the PF (FO) to nose down, but he kept pulling back on the side-stick, and there was probably an element of "too many cooks" in the flight deck. Also, Airbus don't use the "DON'T SINK", they opted for "SINK RATE" instead, just to be different.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I dont understand with all this technology today , how such a big thing as a plane could just dissappear of the face of the earth. I'm not just talking about this air Asia flight, I'm also referring to the Malaysian airline MH370

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Yes, I know it was the pitot tubes, and what they are (I wasn't simplifying it for my benefit). That said, pitot tubes do not measure altitude, it measures the total pressure (static and dynamic).

    While you're right they shouldn't have flown into the storm (although this opens up a whole other discussion about how ineffective weather radars can be at actually telling you exactly what you're flying into) at the same time, the Thales pitots used by AF were much more likely to ice over than the alternative (to the point where now they're no longer in use). They had the potential to be troublesome even in perfectly safe flying situations.

    Don't get me wrong, the crew performed very badly and are largely to blame - but they were in a difficult situation. Had the aircraft been over land or, better yet, it had been day, chances are they'd have recovered. What you feel on an aircraft is often different from what is actually happening (and there have been plenty of crashes where you can argue spatial disorientation played a role). To be fair to two crew members, they were telling the PF (FO) to nose down, but he kept pulling back on the side-stick, and there was probably an element of "too many cooks" in the flight deck. Also, Airbus don't use the "DON'T SINK", they opted for "SINK RATE" instead, just to be different.
    Yes, the aneroid baro gets the readings from the static ports*. Ahh.. the "DONT SINK" were the Boeing callouts. :facepalm:
    I'll admit to being a bit lackadaisical whilst typing that out. Thank you for correcting me out, Noble.

    Exactly. Agreed. What's your view on the AirAsia incident, that makes it different from that of AF447..?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heretohelp!)
    I dont understand with all this technology today , how such a big thing as a plane could just dissappear of the face of the earth. I'm not just talking about this air Asia flight, I'm also referring to the Malaysian airline MH370

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Maybe because the seas and oceans are maaaaaassssive. Maybe because radar malfunctions, transponders fail and black box pings are hard to detect when they're so far below the surface. Maybe because the plane is like an ant when compared to an ocean and maybe cos the plane breaks up into even smaller bits and pieces before it sinks to the bottom. Maybe cos seas and oceans are not static

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnolaGay)
    Yes, the aneroid baro gets the readings from the static ports*. Ahh.. the "DONT SINK" were the Boeing callouts. :facepalm:
    I'll admit to being a bit lackadaisical whilst typing that out. Thank you for correcting me out, Noble.

    Exactly. Agreed. What's your view on the AirAsia incident, that makes it different from that of AF447..?
    When it first hit the news, my initial thoughts were essentially along the lines of my post on this thread here:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post52517477

    Obviously that relies on them actually trying to climb out of the storm. Apparently they didn't climb, although further down that page I link to a radar picture showing them climbing through FL363.

    If it's true they didn't climb, I'd be inclined to agree with Schleigg that they flew straight through it and it turned out to be an exceptionally bad storm.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heretohelp!)
    I dont understand with all this technology today , how such a big thing as a plane could just dissappear of the face of the earth. I'm not just talking about this air Asia flight, I'm also referring to the Malaysian airline MH370

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Plane = tiny.
    Sea = fecking huge.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    Awful to hear they found bodies and the debries, thoughts go out to all those involved.
    • Reporter Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Not their aircraft! :rofl:
    lol :lol: :lol:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    R.I.P to all the dead. Was hoping for good news but it seemed unlikely.
 
 
 
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.