AirAsia flight missing

[BoeingBobby]

Yes, test pilots and crew wear parachutes when testing many new aircraft. I've worked on escape systems for many new aircraft. The NASA 747 shuttle carrier aircraft included a bail-out escape hatch as did the USAF C-17 prototype.

Now you are talking about Military aircraft, apples and oranges.



Parachuting from a large aircraft due to loss of control is hazardous but if one has to egress then it is better than staying on board.

Other than on a special equipped airline type aircraft, no way now how. They all have self plugging doors and it would take the Hulk or Superman to open one in flight.

[Highkeas]

I did forget to mention that the Concorde had a bailout system that was similar to that used on the C-17. I can't mention the large commercial jets I supplied egress systems for due to contract non-disclosure terms But here are a couple of items that mention the A350, A380 and 787 egress systems:

http://bloga350.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/emergency-scape-for-test-crew-located.html

http://seattletimes.com/html/boeingaerospace/2010509548_787profile15.html?cmpid=2727

Really this discussion belongs in a different thread than this one.

Daylight now in Indonesia so I assume search is underway.

[3WE]

Yes, test pilots and crew wear parachutes when testing many new aircraft. I've worked on escape systems for many new aircraft. The NASA 747 shuttle carrier aircraft included a bail-out escape hatch as did the USAF C-17 prototype. The Avanti test aircraft included a complex seat positioning system, door openers, and prop separation system. The crew of the Challenger biz jet that crashed at Mojave used parachutes which saved some of the flight test crew.

Several large aircraft used a stall recovery parachute when exploring stall conditions including the Concorde, DC-9, and C-17; although these systems have been deployed in flight for testing I do not know of one used in anger.

Parachuting from a large aircraft due to loss of control is hazardous but if one has to egress then it is better than staying on board.

Thanks...I wasn't crazy thinking that sometimes the initial prototypes of aircraft are equipped with special escape systems.

[BoeingBobby]

I used to drop sky divers for a couple of years when I was a kid to build time. Had one hit the tail of a D-18 and get knocked out. His reserve chute was equipped with a barometric release so he wound up with only a bump on the head and a broken ankle. 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!

Like I said, apples and oranges! You are talking about specially equipped aircraft. Not a regular production run air frame.

[3WE]

353kts groundspeed?

ITCZ... CB's... climbing... decaying speeds...

Alternate Law?

Please not again.

...this requires a new layer of Swiss Cheese with what I'd hope has only a very small hole:

"Oblivious to the seemingly huge and tragic mistake(s) of AF 447"

[Gabriel]

Like I said, apples and oranges! You are talking about specially equipped aircraft. Not a regular production run air frame.

Yes, but when 3WE made his original comment that triggered all this, he was talking about type certification test planes, which are "specially equipped aircraft" versions of what will later be the "regular production run airframe"

[BoeingBobby]

Yes, but when 3WE made his original comment that triggered all this, he was talking about type certification test planes, which are "specially equipped aircraft" versions of what will later be the "regular production run airframe"

Yea O.K. my bad! Sheesh

[Alessandro]

Did you by chance read the post 2 above that stated that is was 100' deep?

´=feet?

[Gabriel]

´=feet?

Yes. I'm 6' 4", for example.

[3WE]

Yes, but when 3WE made his original comment that triggered all this, he was talking about type certification test planes, which are "specially equipped aircraft" versions of what will later be the "regular production run airframe"

Thanks.

It was interesting to hear that Boeing Bobby truly stalls his regular production run 747's on occasion- and that it's not quite as rare as I suggested. That being said, I'm guessing our passenger hauling pilot buddies on this forum don't do any stalling of actual airliners, and that it's probably pretty darn rare to stall the simulator too...you really should ideally 'always' recover from the warning as opposed to an actual stall.

Of course, what do Airbus guys do since their planes won't stall for practical purposes?

[Gabriel]

Of course, what do Airbus guys do since their planes won't stall for practical purposes?

Pull up.

[3WE]

Pull up relentlessly.

Fixed.

[Gabriel]

Fixed.

To be fair, not only Airbius pilot do that.

Colgan, Pinnacle, West Caribbean to mention a few.

[orangehuggy]

this is where it went in it seems:



so 3deg 28' s, 109deg 44' e

[Gabriel]

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.