AirAsia flight missing

[TeeVee]

doesn't look so bad...

[Highkeas]

Here is a piece of recovered structure. Any idea on what it might be?

http://news.yahoo.com/searchers-hopeful-airasia-search-050039983.html

[Gabriel]

in a straight fall from 30k feet you will at some point cease to accelerate (prior to hitting the ground). as for spinning, yes you would continue to feel that.

i bet that there was no inflight break up. rather the aircraft entered into an unrecoverable state and gravity did the rest.

You are assuming not only an intact airframe but also a stable fall. If the pilots are actively manipulating the controls during the fall while struggling for control, the plane can pitch up and down and roll left and right any number of degrees, which can cause large changes in the AoA and airspeed, and hence in the lift and drag, which are fores that when divided by mass, gives you an acceleration. (Of course you can also have a fairly stable fall like in AF, but that's not necessarily the case).

A steady terminal velocity assumes no lift and a constant drag coefficient (Cd), which is not the case if your projectile is "offering different sides and shapes" to the relative wind.

[Jpmkam]

Fixed. Swapped discovered for recovered.

I trust The Aviation Herald more than the CNN.


http://avherald.com/h?article=47f6abc7&opt=0

Now recovered.

Col. Yayan Sofiyan, commander of the warship Bung Tomo, told MetroTV his vessel managed to pull seven bodies from the choppy waters on Friday, five still fastened in their seats.

Soelistyo, who was only able to confirm two victims in their seats, said a total of 30 bodies have been recovered. More than a third have been pulled out by a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Sampson.

http://www.firstpost.com/world/airasia-30-bodies-recovered-flight-qz8501-still-strapped-seats-2027863.html

[Jpmkam]

Window panel section recovered.

[Evan]

indonesia has a fairly robust navy with two active submarines. they can DEFINITELY hear pinging underwater. they also have two bases within spitting distance of the area of the crash. are we supposed to believe that they have not dispatched assets to the area?

something just doesn't ring right here.

I wouldn't expect the Indonesian navy to dispatch submarines to waters with 150' (or less) depths for non-military purposes. Even at 150', with 50' of safety margin below the keel. That would give you about 50' of safe maneuving depth below periscope depth. Add storm swells to that... and the presence of a wreck somewhere... not something you would want to do in peacetime.

The weather is the thing that's not right here. Once it calms down the navy will have no need for submarines to find the wreckage. The important thing is to not lose anymore plsnes or ships in the meantime.

[brianw999]

I'm surprised that combination would be buoyant.

Small people with their own inherent buoyancy strapped to a lightweight foam padded seat ? Yes, I can see that floating.

[AVION1]

Here is a piece of recovered structure. Any idea on what it might be?
http://news.yahoo.com/searchers-hope...050039983.html

Looks like a panel from a speed break.

[Peter Kesternich]

(...)it still boggles my mind that no pinger detectors are on station yet. they are not super complicated rare items and i would bet that most navy vessels have the ability to listen. after all, any ship with military type sonar can hear the pings.(...)

Do we know that they are not actively searching or do we just know that they haven't found anything?

You might also want to consider that even if the orange boxes and the related equipment are made to withstand immense forces, they are not indestructible. The pinger might just be destroyed.

[Evan]

Looks like a panel from a speed break.

Definitely not a spoiler panel. Maybe an interior partion.

[Gabriel]

By Simon Hradecky on Friday, Jan 2nd 2015 17:53Z

An ADS-B screenshot circulating on the Internet has so many errors with respect to the capabilities of the Mode-S and ADS-B protocol that I have an extremely hard time to believe it has any credibility whatsoever.

E.g., that screenshot provides fraction values (11,518.75 fpm) for geometric vertical rate, according to document DO-260, definition of Mode-S protocol including ADS-B, the vertical rate provides only increments of 64 fpm (11520 or 11456 fpm possible only).

Similiar on ground speed reported as 64.82 knots. DO260 defines only one value for the ground speed for airborne aircraft doing between 48 and 80 knots over ground. Even if the aircraft reports to be on the ground the ground speed is defined in 1 knot increments only (64 or 65 knots).

And the lack of even any mention of barometric altitude, even as data missing, is more than puzzling because the only reference in aviation is barometric altitude, however, the barometric vertical rate is shown as data missing?

http://avherald.com/h?article=47f6abc7&opt=0

I think he is talking about this photo posted here by orangehuggy some posts ago:

[Evan]

Looks like a panel from a speed break.

Actually... it's so hard to tell from this picture... but if it impacted in a way to significantly distort the trailing edge, this could be an elevator. A bit if a stretch...

Anybody know what that grey hose/conduit on the left is?

[T.O.G.A.]

A situation like that would normally still allow the pilots to make radio contact and communicate the emergency. What happened to QZ8501 must have been a) sudden and b) so severe that the pilot's couldn't report it.

Not necessarily, I try to put myself in the cockpit and imagine this:

Lose engines, lose generators. Lose generators lose hydraulics. I have been out of aviation a long time and dont have experience with this aircraft but if partially or completely fly by wire, you lose all that too.

So, on battery power, there is the radio , an MCDP that illuminates everything that has failed, horns, aural warnings blaring, a standby attitude indicator that is doing things that would nauseate anyone on an x box in their living room, let alone a real situation like this, and they are being tossed violently by a thunderstorm with no engines and no electrics in the dark.

I dont know about you, but sending out a distress call would be secondary to saving my behind. I know the flight data and voice recorders will let the world know what happened if I failed.

personally, I think flame outs are pretty catastrophic.

[T.O.G.A.]

dupe post whilst editing

[Gabriel]

Not necessarily, I try to put myself in the cockpit and imagine this:

Lose engines, lose generators. Lose generators lose hydraulics. I have been out of aviation a long time and dont have experience with this aircraft but if partially or completely fly by wire, you lose all that too.

So, on battery power, there is the radio , an MCDP that illuminates everything that has failed, horns, aural warnings blaring, a standby attitude indicator that is doing things that would nauseate anyone on an x box in their living room, let alone a real situation like this, and they are being tossed violently by a thunderstorm with no engines and no electrics in the dark.

I dont know about you, but sending out a distress call would be secondary to saving my behind. I know the flight data and voice recorders will let the world know what happened if I failed.

personally, I think flame outs are pretty catastrophic.

In the event of a double flame out, the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) will deploy automatically and will provide essential hydro and electric power. That's enough to fly (well, glide) even a FBW plane. Unless the double flame out was fuel related, some time along the glide they will enter within the envelop of operation of the APU. At that time almost full hydro and electric power is available (even if cross-feeding the systems) and also pneumatic power to attempt a relight.

There have been several cases of losing all engines that were not so catastrophic, including the miracle of the Hudson and the AirTran glider to mention two notable cases that were FBW. Sully could start the APU, the AirTran pilots not because the reason of the failure was precisely fuel exhaustion. Still they managed to glide and land on a runway, and maintain communications with the ATC all along the way. The TACA 737 (that landed off-airport in a grass field, and took off from there again!) and the Canadair 767 (Gimili glider) are other 2 notable cases, in this case non-FBW. The TACA could start the APU, the Gimili glider not because, again, the reason for the double failure was running out of fuel.

Nobody died in any of those accidents.