Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 468

Thread: AirAsia flight missing

  1. #61
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    406

    Default

    for error mitigation and as is customary in many systems, the radar computers may be programmed to ignore returns that are not within an anticipated range (for example 10k feet lower than the previous sweep)
    moving quickly in air

  2. #62
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I've already mentioned this, but it's all the time bouncing in my head:

    No info about ACARS message: Ok, I've heard that Air Asia didn't have ACARS in the plane.
    No distress call: Ok. "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". Maybe the pilots never went past 1.
    But lack of radar data after the last know return????

    This strongly suggest a problem well different from a simple stall (which seems the most logical hypothesis by now, with the scarce data available).

    Stall: matches the last return, doesn't match the lack of further returns.
    In-flight break-up?
    Full loss of electric power?
    Intentional? (that would explain no oil slick or floating debris so far, which should be have been already found if the plane crashed near the last return).

    I'm starting to become uneasy. All these 4 possibilities are not totally incompatible but quite different and independent one form another.
    Pitot tube frozed up. Just like Air France or the EGT probes frozed up just like West Caribbean?
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  3. #63
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    Pitot tube frozed up. Just like Air France or the EGT probes frozed up just like West Caribbean?
    That doesn't explain a last radar return at FL 363. No matter what, the plane can't go all the way from there to the ground in less time than what it takes the radar to do one full sweep.

    Either there is a radar return after the last one that we already know, or the transponder stopped transmitting before the plane (or its remains) reached the ground.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  4. #64
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Wounder what it would be like to go out of a 787 side window at 200+ knots and hit the vertical or horizontal stab? Bet you would have more than a bump on the head!
    I think you'd have quite a bump on your head just trying to go out the non-opening side window. The 787 has a 747 style overhead escape hatch. I'd be more worried about rodeo riding the vertical stabilizer.

  5. #65
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post

    Either there is a radar return after the last one that we already know, or the transponder stopped transmitting before the plane (or its remains) reached the ground.
    I just don't agree, the radar could have interpreted the unanticipated returns as errors and ignored them, though the transponder could be transmitting correct values
    moving quickly in air

  6. #66
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    406

    Default

    there have been many mh370 debris sightings, all turned out to be false, so I am hoping Australia is very careful about what they announce

    http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asi...ething-near-ce
    moving quickly in air

  7. #67
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    I just don't agree, the radar could have interpreted the unanticipated returns as errors and ignored them, though the transponder could be transmitting correct values
    Do radars actually do that? With a mode C secondary interrogation-response return? I've never seen or heard of that. On the other hand, several times I've heard of radars tracking airplanes as they plummet to the ground.

    I can imagine a radar ignoring an erroneous return (self-inconsistent, like a checksum not checking), but not a valid data (verified that it was received just as transmitted) because the radar "thinks" that the data is wired.

    And in any event, I guess that by now, 24 hours after the accident, someone would have pulled the radar tapes and obtained the raw data.

    Maybe there was another return, the investigators already know it, and have not disclosed it.

    On the other hand, flight tracking websites relies in ADS data sent by the mode S transponder (which includes not only altitude but also coordinates) and not in actual radar data. I haven't checked those sites but I've heard that they have the same last return.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  8. #68
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    there have been many mh370 debris sightings, all turned out to be false, so I am hoping Australia is very careful about what they announce

    http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asi...ething-near-ce
    That is about 1,120km from the last known location
    Hard to reconcile with the lack of radio comm or radar returns.

    It takes well more than one hour to fly that distance.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  9. #69
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Hard to reconcile with the lack of radio comm or radar returns.

    It takes well more than one hour to fly that distance.
    the article is wrong, the waters off Pangkalan Bun can be defined as about 180km from last known position

    in fact 160 km SW of Pangkalan Bun is only 120 km SE of last known, so about 5km/h drift rate
    moving quickly in air

  10. #70
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    406

    Default



    location marked with "R" seems to be near described location of discovery
    moving quickly in air

  11. #71
    Senior Member Peter Kesternich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    (...)
    This strongly suggest a problem well different from a simple stall (which seems the most logical hypothesis by now, with the scarce data available).

    Stall: matches the last return, doesn't match the lack of further returns.
    In-flight break-up?
    Full loss of electric power?
    Intentional? (that would explain no oil slick or floating debris so far, which should be have been already found if the plane crashed near the last return).

    I'm starting to become uneasy. All these 4 possibilities are not totally incompatible but quite different and independent one form another.
    So here's my question: If the aircraft starts to drop out of the sky in a stall, but is still structurally intact with electrical power on, wouldn't the SSR track the fall? If the SSR returns from QZ8501 suddenly stopped, wouldn't that suggest an inflight breakup or at least a complete loss of electrical power?

  12. #72
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
    So here's my question: If the aircraft starts to drop out of the sky in a stall, but is still structurally intact with electrical power on, wouldn't the SSR track the fall? If the SSR returns from QZ8501 suddenly stopped, wouldn't that suggest an inflight breakup or at least a complete loss of electrical power?
    Are you kidding me? Tht's MY question!!!
    (Don't forget intentionally switching the transponder off)

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  13. #73
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...several times I've heard of radars tracking airplanes as they plummet to the ground...
    I'm thinking there was a pretty fair bit of radar data on TWA 800 which was quite the catastrophic break up/total electronic shut down.

    On the other hand, it was still quite close in to a radar-intense environment as opposed to out over a big body of water hundreds of miles or kilometeours away form a radar site.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  14. #74
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    (Don't forget intentionally switching the transponder off)
    It's hard not to go there. Why did ADS-B drop out one minute after radio contact was lost? And why can't they find any trace of it in tropical waters that average only 150' in depth after 24 hours of search effort? If you follow the foul play theory, it also might explain a request to climb to ceiling (but then why request it?)

    I don't think it is foul play at this point. The weather system and request to climb would seem too coincidental. Also, last transmission received from QZ-8501 was at 06:12L and radar contact was lost 6 minutes later. That might corrolate to a fully stalled descent.

    But then where is it...

  15. #75
    Member ultraflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    OSL
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post

    But then where is it...
    On an underground airfield, together with MH370..

  16. #76
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I'm thinking there was a pretty fair bit of radar data on TWA 800 which was quite the catastrophic break up/total electronic shut down.
    Primary radar data. Secondary of course was lost immediately.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  17. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    226

    Default

    Stall while climbing?

    One expert offered CNN a less sinister theory about what might have happened: The plane stalled mid-flight.

    A screen grab purportedly leaked by an Indonesian air traffic controller appears to show that Flight 8501 was rising in altitude but was losing speed at a velocity that was too slow to sustain flight, said Geoffrey Thomas, managing director at the aviation industry site airlineratings.com.

    The data taken from the screen grab comes from an Indonesian pilot who was given the screen grab anonymously by an air traffic controller who had been tracking the flight, according to Thomas.

    Thomas added that the typical procedure for a pilot is to push the nose of the plane down to gain airspeed and exit the stall, but in very rare circumstances atmospheric conditions can make that impossible, leading to a situation that is not recoverable.

  18. #78
    Member James Bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    43°29'04.4"S 172°31'30.7"E
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post

    But then where is it...
    Took 7 days to locate Adam Air 574.

    Don't panic.
    AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

  19. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    a grassy knoll
    Posts
    1,606

    Default

    They said it would be ground down and destroyed years ago on North 5'th Street in Sufr City years ago


    Me cousin's 650 Triumph. a ;pile of Mopar suff and some old Canoe and surfborads (mine but they will be gone.
    Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

  20. #80
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Bond View Post
    Took 7 days to locate Adam Air 574.
    Yes, at a depth of 6,600ft.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •