AirAsia QZ8501 Missing

[croyde]

[Eric Mc]

Always sad when something like this happens. It is pretty obvious that the plane has gone down due to an encounter with a fierce thunderstorm. It's not the first time this has happened nor will it be the last.

How it ended up in a situation where it found itself trapped in such a situation will be for the investigators to find out.

[alfaman]

Wondering if same outcome as that Air France airbus:

Enters icing conditions > iced up pitot tubes> inaccurate airspeed readings > near operating ceiling > fly by wire confused> stall from 35,000+ feet :-(

[Eric Mc]

Or wings ripped off by extreme updrafts or aircraft pummeled by monster hailstones.

These aspects of thunderstorms have also brought down aircraft.

[Chilli]

Eric Mc said:

Or wings ripped off by extreme updrafts or aircraft pummeled by monster hailstones.

These aspects of thunderstorms have also brought down aircraft.

I was led to believe that modern airliners were designed so that weather alone couldn't result in them falling from the sky. Is this not entirely accurate?

Another thing to worry about when climbing aboard then.

[Scuffers]

alfaman said:

Wondering if same outcome as that Air France airbus:

Enters icing conditions > iced up pitot tubes> inaccurate airspeed readings > near operating ceiling > fly by wire confused> stall from 35,000+ feet :-(

that's not what happened to air france..

pitot tubes gave bad readings, auto pilot dropped out, left it to the pilots to fly..

the pilot in the right hand seat forced it into stall by pulling the (side) stick back and holding it there for several minutes till the plane fell out the sky whilst the left seat pilot was trying to understand what was going on.

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapp...

[thehawk]

Eric Mc said:

Always sad when something like this happens. It is pretty obvious that the plane has gone down due to an encounter with a fierce thunderstorm.

Far too early to be making those sorts of assumptions, it's not obvious at all. Thunderstorm conditions are very common and a daily occurrence in that part of the world. Weather radar for them is very accurate as well.

[Eric Mc]

They crew were seeking permission to climb above a thunderstorm so there certainly was a weather related aspect to this accident. They wanted permission to climb to 38,000 feet - which is pretty high for an A320 with 160 plus people on board.

[Eric Mc]

Chilli said:

Eric Mc said:

Or wings ripped off by extreme updrafts or aircraft pummeled by monster hailstones.

These aspects of thunderstorms have also brought down aircraft.

I was led to believe that modern airliners were designed so that weather alone couldn't result in them falling from the sky. Is this not entirely accurate?

Another thing to worry about when climbing aboard then.

No aircraft yet built by man is strong enough to survive the violence of a large thunderstorm. The basic rule is to never enter thunderstorms in the first place - go around them or over them if at all possible - which seems to be what this aircraft was trying to do..

[ali_kat]

[King Herald]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Air Asia has actually (up until now) being historically a safe airline. With no incidents at all in its 10yr history.

Unfortunately, the longer they go without an accident, the more likely one is to occur. They used to say that about Qantas, the only accident-free airline in the world, until people realised it didn't mean all they thought it did.

(anecdotal evidence, I have no facts or figures to back up any of the above, before anybody asks)

[okie592]

rich85uk said:

Got 3 flights booked in the next few weeks with this airline, as someone else said now a 3rd Malaysian aircraft that appears to have come to a terrible ending, I will be keeping an eye on this story and be doing some serious thinking in the next few days...

Why? 1 was shot down, no one knows what caused the other to crash, and no one knows what happened to this one.


Think of the amount of planes that take off and land every single day. And how many crash. It's the same as saying your never going to drive again.

Would you avoid BA? They had a plane crash not so long ago, don't forget who ran Concorde.

When man puts a big metal bird in the sky, once in a while something bad it bound to happen once in a while

[SpeckledJim]

King Herald said:

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Air Asia has actually (up until now) being historically a safe airline. With no incidents at all in its 10yr history.

Unfortunately, the longer they go without an accident, the more likely one is to occur. They used to say that about Qantas, the only accident-free airline in the world, until people realised it didn't mean all they thought it did.

(anecdotal evidence, I have no facts or figures to back up any of the above, before anybody asks)

That doesn't make a great deal of sense at all!

[Cliftonite]

King Herald said:

Unfortunately, the longer they go without an accident, the more likely one is to occur. They used to say that about Qantas, the only accident-free airline in the world, until people realised it didn't mean all they thought it did.

(anecdotal evidence, I have no facts or figures to back up any of the above, before anybody asks)

Rubbish!

[Eric Mc]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Commercial pilots will not fly over active TS systems.

Sorry, I thought that was clear from the one word reply.

OK - but they will try to go around thunderstorms. I used to listen to ATC a lot and you would often hear pilots asking for courses to avoid weather build ups. This plane seemed to be in the process of doing this.

[Scuffers]

SpeckledJim said:

King Herald said:

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Air Asia has actually (up until now) being historically a safe airline. With no incidents at all in its 10yr history.

Unfortunately, the longer they go without an accident, the more likely one is to occur. They used to say that about Qantas, the only accident-free airline in the world, until people realised it didn't mean all they thought it did.

(anecdotal evidence, I have no facts or figures to back up any of the above, before anybody asks)

That doesn't make a great deal of sense at all!

statistically it does.

The Qantas thing is about never losing a jet aircraft (as in crashing one), last hull loss they had was a de Havilland DHA-3 in 1951.

QF32 is probably the closest they have come to losing a plane.

[B17NNS]

Appears to have been a Brit on board.

Nationalities of passengers:
1 Singapore
1 Malaysia
3 South Korea
1 United Kingdom
149 Indonesia

Nationalities of crew:
1 France
6 Indonesia

[Eric Mc]

QF32 - Was that the Airbus A380 that lost bits of its engine?

[SpeckledJim]

Scuffers said:

SpeckledJim said:

King Herald said:

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Air Asia has actually (up until now) being historically a safe airline. With no incidents at all in its 10yr history.

Unfortunately, the longer they go without an accident, the more likely one is to occur. They used to say that about Qantas, the only accident-free airline in the world, until people realised it didn't mean all they thought it did.

(anecdotal evidence, I have no facts or figures to back up any of the above, before anybody asks)

That doesn't make a great deal of sense at all!

statistically it does.

So to extend that logic - the more recent your last accident, the less likely you are to have another one soon?

You're not an actuary, are you?

[Chilli]

Eric Mc said:

No aircraft yet built by man is strong enough to survive the violence of a large thunderstorm. The basic rule is to never enter thunderstorms in the first place - go around them or over them if at all possible - which seems to be what this aircraft was trying to do..

Damn. Thanks for the info.