AirAsia QZ8501 Missing
Discussion
Pesty said:
Followed two other planes who went through the same area. Would they have reorted heavy weather?
Showed this on the news earlier, with the plane changing direction. Then they showed a weather map of the area, if they were oriented the same way the plane would have gone deeper into the storm rather than away from it.[url]
Edited by Brite spark on Monday 29th December 04:45
CAPP0 said:
cossy400 said:
Bbc sayin search called off. For the time being.
Yes but only due to daylight and weather conditions. Resuming pretty much about now. I guess the best guess at present is that the plane was somehow a victim if the weather, but I do hope they find the wreckage - not just for the relatives, but if this one doesn't show up, the airlines and the governments are going to have a real headache on their hands, and the conspiracy theorists are going to beat themselves off into oblivion.
Fresh day/fresh eyes as such, swiftly found im hoping.
So assuming the poor thing stalled and started to fall, am I being overly simplistic by thinking they could just restart/gain sufficient speed etc to recover or at least make a Mayday call?
Yes I've watched too much Red Bull Air Races, and am aware a 320 may not respond in exactly the same acrobatic manner but I am trying to appease my fears of flying in the area which I do quite often?
Or was the storm so violent it broke up immediately, in which case if that is a real risk I'm scared and will stop laughing at turbulence.
A poor Ryan Air Pilot sat next to a very inquisitive me on a bumpy flight from Glasgow to London last year, and took pride in explaining to me "No plane has ever broken up due to turbulence" is that no longer the case?
Yes I've watched too much Red Bull Air Races, and am aware a 320 may not respond in exactly the same acrobatic manner but I am trying to appease my fears of flying in the area which I do quite often?
Or was the storm so violent it broke up immediately, in which case if that is a real risk I'm scared and will stop laughing at turbulence.
A poor Ryan Air Pilot sat next to a very inquisitive me on a bumpy flight from Glasgow to London last year, and took pride in explaining to me "No plane has ever broken up due to turbulence" is that no longer the case?
humpbackmaniac said:
So assuming the poor thing stalled and started to fall, am I being overly simplistic by thinking they could just restart/gain sufficient speed etc to recover or at least make a Mayday call?
Yes I've watched too much Red Bull Air Races, and am aware a 320 may not respond in exactly the same acrobatic manner but I am trying to appease my fears of flying in the area which I do quite often?
Or was the storm so violent it broke up immediately, in which case if that is a real risk I'm scared and will stop laughing at turbulence.
A poor Ryan Air Pilot sat next to a very inquisitive me on a bumpy flight from Glasgow to London last year, and took pride in explaining to me "No plane has ever broken up due to turbulence" is that no longer the case?
broke up no, stalled likelyYes I've watched too much Red Bull Air Races, and am aware a 320 may not respond in exactly the same acrobatic manner but I am trying to appease my fears of flying in the area which I do quite often?
Or was the storm so violent it broke up immediately, in which case if that is a real risk I'm scared and will stop laughing at turbulence.
A poor Ryan Air Pilot sat next to a very inquisitive me on a bumpy flight from Glasgow to London last year, and took pride in explaining to me "No plane has ever broken up due to turbulence" is that no longer the case?
this one is very similar case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Algérie_Flig...
Can somebody explain why in these circumstances they say "it disappeared off the radar"? I would have thought that in the time it would take to drop from 36k feet to sea level the radar would pick it up on the way down - even if it had disintegrated, surely there would be a radar reflection? Or is this something to do with active/passive radar?
humpbackmaniac said:
A poor Ryan Air Pilot sat next to a very inquisitive me on a bumpy flight from Glasgow to London last year, and took pride in explaining to me "No plane has ever broken up due to turbulence" is that no longer the case?
What is left of G-APFE falling from the sky after being subject to extreme turbulence cause by a 'mountain wave' effect over Mount Fuji.
It was a Boeing 707.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Yes.
It will depend on whether the ATC centre is using primary or secondary radar.
If secondary, then once electrical power is cut to the transponder on the plane there will not be any more radar returns.
Most civil ATC systems around the world use secondary only (because its cheaper). Military radar in the area might have primary coverage.
We still have primary at LondonIt will depend on whether the ATC centre is using primary or secondary radar.
If secondary, then once electrical power is cut to the transponder on the plane there will not be any more radar returns.
Most civil ATC systems around the world use secondary only (because its cheaper). Military radar in the area might have primary coverage.
This titbit was found on another forum. No link. Though.
"Air traffic control approved the pilot's request to turn left but denied permission for the plane to climb to 38,000 feet from 32,000 feet, Djoko Murjatmodjo, an aviation official at the Indonesian Transport Ministry, told the national newspaper Kompas.
The increased altitude request was denied because there was another plane flying at that height, he said."
Megaflow said:
Is it just me that's starting to think this is another MH370?
No mayday, no distress call, an area well covered by radar and and despite spending 36 hours searching a reasonably compact search, there is no sign of it.
MH370 didn't have extremely bad weather, this plane went in a pitch black clouds...strange because captain had 20K hours of experience flying mainly through this same area.No mayday, no distress call, an area well covered by radar and and despite spending 36 hours searching a reasonably compact search, there is no sign of it.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Pesty said:
This titbit was found on another forum. No link. Though.
"Air traffic control approved the pilot's request to turn left but denied permission for the plane to climb to 38,000 feet from 32,000 feet, Djoko Murjatmodjo, an aviation official at the Indonesian Transport Ministry, told the national newspaper Kompas.
The increased altitude request was denied because there was another plane flying at that height, he said."
Complete non-story."Air traffic control approved the pilot's request to turn left but denied permission for the plane to climb to 38,000 feet from 32,000 feet, Djoko Murjatmodjo, an aviation official at the Indonesian Transport Ministry, told the national newspaper Kompas.
The increased altitude request was denied because there was another plane flying at that height, he said."
I deny requests for climb (or descent) every day at work due to other aircraft being in the way.
IF the pilot thinks that the safety of the aircraft is in question, they can also ignore the ATC clearance and climb anyway....
Jimbeaux said:
I see pilots on the news speaking of computer-imposed limits on climb and descent to avoid accidental encroachment into other flight paths, not able to be overridden by the pilot. If this is so, might it have inhibited the pilot from climbing out of the weather?
I think you're referring to TCAS/ACAS and that's not how it works, it actually requires pilot input it doesn't have independent control of the aircraft. Hopefully one of our resident Pilots will be along soon to explain the ins and outs.Pesty said:
This titbit was found on another forum. No link. Though.
"Air traffic control approved the pilot's request to turn left but denied permission for the plane to climb to 38,000 feet from 32,000 feet, Djoko Murjatmodjo, an aviation official at the Indonesian Transport Ministry, told the national newspaper Kompas.
The increased altitude request was denied because there was another plane flying at that height, he said."
Possibly a silly question but why didn't ATC just say there's a plane at 38,000ft but you can fly at 37,000 or 37,500ft?"Air traffic control approved the pilot's request to turn left but denied permission for the plane to climb to 38,000 feet from 32,000 feet, Djoko Murjatmodjo, an aviation official at the Indonesian Transport Ministry, told the national newspaper Kompas.
The increased altitude request was denied because there was another plane flying at that height, he said."
Shaoxter said:
Possibly a silly question but why didn't ATC just say there's a plane at 38,000ft but you can fly at 37,000 or 37,500ft?
Well the last image of it on radar and flight radar had it at FL363 so presumably it had been cleared up. Minimum separation is 1000ft in RVSM airspace if correctly equipped.kapiteinlangzaam said:
Because ATC is a slightly complicated environment 
They would never approve 37500ft, as thats less than the prescribed minimum vertical separation....
If the controller said no, theres a reason.
Having said that, the pilot DID climb, as the last radar contact was passing FL363 (36,300ft std. altitude).
The ATC stuff is a NON story.
24 hour news trying desperately to find something to reportThey would never approve 37500ft, as thats less than the prescribed minimum vertical separation....
If the controller said no, theres a reason.
Having said that, the pilot DID climb, as the last radar contact was passing FL363 (36,300ft std. altitude).
The ATC stuff is a NON story.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff