Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AirAsia flight missing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    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

    Comment


    • #62
      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)....

      Comment


      • #63
        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 ---

        Comment


        • #64
          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.

          Comment


          • #65
            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

            Comment


            • #66
              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

              An Australian P-3C Orion reconnaissance plane has spotted "something" in the waters off Pangkalan Bun near central Kalimantan where a massive air-sea search has been mounted for AirAsia Indonesia flight QZ8501, it was reported. Read more at straitstimes.com.
              moving quickly in air

              Comment


              • #67
                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 ---

                Comment


                • #68
                  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 ---

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #70


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

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          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 ---

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              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...

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X