Airasia QZ8501 Missing

That report seems a bit contradictory.
the extremely low speed of the descent - as low as 61 knots - which would suggest the plane was heading almost straight down,

but

the aircraft fell at an even more incredible rate of 11,000ft a minute, with extraordinary bursts of up to 24,000ft a minute

"extremely low speed" of descent or "incredible rate" of descent?

11,000ft a minute is about 110 knots, not 61.

This is also an interesting comment:

plunged straight down 'like a piece of metal being thrown down.'

assuming the rate of descent was fast, at least in part, it suggests some force propelled the plane straight down, possibly faster than its terminal velocity (assuming it wasn't nose diving).
 
Perceval said:
That report seems a bit contradictory.
the extremely low speed of the descent - as low as 61 knots - which would suggest the plane was heading almost straight down,

but

the aircraft fell at an even more incredible rate of 11,000ft a minute, with extraordinary bursts of up to 24,000ft a minute

"extremely low speed" of descent or "incredible rate" of descent?

11,000ft a minute is about 110 knots, not 61.

You are right Perceval , before posting i didn't read carefully enough to see the contradiction in the article ,sorry for that ,will try to be more carefull. :-[
 
Perceval said:
That report seems a bit contradictory.
the extremely low speed of the descent - as low as 61 knots - which would suggest the plane was heading almost straight down,

but

the aircraft fell at an even more incredible rate of 11,000ft a minute, with extraordinary bursts of up to 24,000ft a minute

"extremely low speed" of descent or "incredible rate" of descent?

11,000ft a minute is about 110 knots, not 61.

I guess the first quote refers to the horizontal speed, while the second one refers to the vertical speed. These could be measured from the radar data.

The reporter could have been careless in his/her writing. Or I could be filling in the blank :P
 
Bobo08 said:
I guess the first quote refers to the horizontal speed, while the second one refers to the vertical speed. These could be measured from the radar data.

The reporter could have been careless in his/her writing. Or I could be filling in the blank :P

I think you're right. And that also suggests the "like a piece of metal being thrown down". Or to put it another way: the plane was traveling at 500mph (or thereabouts) horizontally and with little or no vertical (descent) speed (like most commercial aircraft), when some force suddenly reversed those parameters and slammed it earthwards at up to 270mph and only 70mph horizontal speed. Like an angled blow from above.

That still doesn't explain the previous alleged "virtually unprecedented" high rate of climb. Unless a severe updraft could explain it. Re: updrafts/downdrafts: I can only find worst case scenarios for these of 3,000ft per minute effects. So if it's weather-related, we're talking about some very unusual weather that involves drafts of 9,000ft per min.

Then there's this:

A leaked radar screenshot from air traffic controller AirNav Indonesia shows the plane climbing through 36,300 feet without permission and critically lost 200 kilometres per hour, which meant it could no longer keep flying at that altitude.

Which suggests the engines lost power prior to the "downdraft". Not discounting "freak weather", but it's possible we're looking at an initial EMP that fried all electrics and power, and then the shock wave that propelled it downwards.
 
At least these 2 separate news reports are consistent, both saying 30 bodies have been recovered so far.
http://rt.com/news/219375-air-asia-body-30/ (reported 40 bodies a couple of days ago?)
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/body-of-aussie-student-found-as-flotilla-of-ships-and-a-fleet-of-planes-close-in-on-wreckage-of-airasia-flight-qz8501/story-fnizu68q-1227173151716
 
This is the latest reply from the psychic woman, which some of you may be interested in.

"I see a large amount of positive energy surrounding this in regards to the families getting answers and some closure, BUT there are also uncertainties surrounding this too. I get that for some this has given families what they need to move on, but for many there is something skeptical or "not right" about the situation. I also get that the government involved is going "overboard" in trying to "prove" this was an accident and recover these bodies. Something feels forced or excessive and not genuine. Then I hear that "the truth runs naked, but lies need to be covered up." Something about this feels "covered up."

I still see images of this plane being hijacked and flow elsewhere. I see that by now this plane is being housed safely in a desert (dry, warm, rocky and sandy) location.

This "event" feels tied to the idea and energy associated to ISIS.
I get this plane will be used for their agenda (not sure if it will be a weapon or transport vehicle).

When the plane resurfaces it will be painted with white, green and red lettering.

I will continue to do updates as things comes to me. Thank you everyone for your continued shared energy."
 
Tony said:
This is the latest reply from the psychic woman, which some of you may be interested in.

"I see a large amount of positive energy surrounding this in regards to the families getting answers and some closure, BUT there are also uncertainties surrounding this too. I get that for some this has given families what they need to move on, but for many there is something skeptical or "not right" about the situation. I also get that the government involved is going "overboard" in trying to "prove" this was an accident and recover these bodies. Something feels forced or excessive and not genuine. Then I hear that "the truth runs naked, but lies need to be covered up." Something about this feels "covered up."

I still see images of this plane being hijacked and flow elsewhere. I see that by now this plane is being housed safely in a desert (dry, warm, rocky and sandy) location.

This "event" feels tied to the idea and energy associated to ISIS.
I get this plane will be used for their agenda (not sure if it will be a weapon or transport vehicle).

When the plane resurfaces it will be painted with white, green and red lettering.

I will continue to do updates as things comes to me. Thank you everyone for your continued shared energy."

In short, she's fulla beans and trying to back-pedal and do damage control.

How embarrassing for her.
 
Perceval said:
Bobo08 said:
A leaked radar screenshot from air traffic controller AirNav Indonesia shows the plane climbing through 36,300 feet without permission and critically lost 200 kilometres per hour, which meant it could no longer keep flying at that altitude.

Which suggests the engines lost power prior to the "downdraft". Not discounting "freak weather", but it's possible we're looking at an initial EMP that fried all electrics and power, and then the shock wave that propelled it downwards.

That's quite a leap. Perhaps we can conduct some analysis to understand this tragic incident in context without having to assume EMP (or hyperdimensional) effects.

Let's review the radar information that's been leaked so far. Initially the plane was climbing at 6,000 to 9,000fpm (about 70-100mph) through 36,300ft at a forward speed of 353kph (about 220mph) without permission. The extreme rate of climb suggests that it was caught in a very strong updraft.

The ground speed of 220mph was alarmingly slow, as the plane should have been traveling much faster at that altitude in order to sustain lift. What could explain this? We can imagine the scenario.

The plane reportedly was flying at 34,000ft, and the crew had asked air traffic control for clearance to climb. Since it was approaching a thunderstorm, the crew might have throttled the engines down, waiting for clearance to climb. Perhaps the crew slowed the plane to about 350mph or thereabouts.

Then the plane encounters a strong updraft. The pilot reacts to the sudden climb by pushing the plane's nose down, trying to maintain its assigned altitude, but crucially doesn't put on more power. Thus, a large part of the plane's thrust is spent fighting the updraft, and its forward speed falls off.

The plane climbs 2,300ft within about 15-25 seconds (the estimated 6,000 to 9,000fpm rate of climb) and its ground speed drops to about 220mph. This is too slow to maintain control at higher altitude.

At that point the plane is nose down, flying too slow and on the ragged edge of control, but still being carried higher in a strong updraft. Then the plane flies out of the updraft and into a strong downdraft.

Perhaps, in the momentary transition between the updraft on the tail and the downdraft on the nose, the plane flips straight downward. We can assume that the pilot immediately pulls back hard on the stick trying to recover control, but at that point, the plane is doomed.

Immediately, the reversed airflow of the downdraft over the wings causes the pilot's action to have the opposite of the intended effect. Instead of leveling the plane, it kills the plane's forward airspeed and merely reinforces its downward attitude.

As the plane dives downwards, perhaps the pilot put on emergency power in a desperate attempt to regain control. That would explain the reported 11,000-24,000fpm (270mph) descent into the ocean.

No meteor strike, EMP, or hyperdimensional extra/ultra-terrestrial intervention required. Just weather.
 
griffin said:
[..]
No meteor strike, EMP, or hyperdimensional extra/ultra-terrestrial intervention required. Just weather.

Good summary! Plus the engines remained in a good condition to the end, i think, they were just not designed to fight nowadays new, violent type of weather.
 
griffin said:
Just weather.

You describe a fairly complex scenario that involves very extreme and unusual weather (according to that aviation expert) and then say it's "just weather"? I could be wrong but you seem to be trying to downplay this as "nothing to see here", despite the fact that the initial reactions of people who have seen the radar data seem to have thought there was definitely something of which to take note.

Commercial airliners don't fall out of they sky very often, particularly without a word from the pilots. In fact, it's extremely rare for that to happen. Tens of thousands of commercial planes are flying through the skies of the world 24hrs a day. When one does go down in this way, and with this initial data, I think we can assume that something rather unusual was involved.

Also, maybe you're not aware of it, but high altitude meteorite explosions have become increasingly common in the last 10 years. You could almost say that they're as common as extreme or freak weather (in fact, they may be related). So it's not really any longer a case of a high altitude meteorite explosion being "required" to explain such events, but rather that they are an increasingly plausible explanation for them.

So rather than a complex series of events involving "just weather" and a 'perfect storm' of compounded pilot error that somehow made it impossible for him to transmit a single word on the emergency (or any other) channel, we could be looking at "just a meteorite explosion" or just your average "unprecedented" (although strangely common these days) bizarre weather system that causes previously unheard of effects on commercial aircraft unlucky enough to be caught in one.
 
In short, she's fulla beans and trying to back-pedal and do damage control.

How embarrassing for her.

It's a shame Laura but you might be right. There is still some hope for her though and I won't write her off unless we receive some really convincing facts that it was not a terrorist attack.
 
FWIW? :) Here's an entertaining one from a 'friendly' site which always reminds me that the clarity of the data is dependent upon the clarity of the channel, it reminded me of that 'perimeter transfer' issue which is always interesting: http://www.transients.info/2015/01/airasia-flight-qz8501-answers-from-qhht.html#more
 
Posted by: Bobo08
« on: January 02, 2015, 07:16:11 PM »
Quote from: Perceval on January 02, 2015, 07:03:00 PM

That report seems a bit contradictory.
Quote

the extremely low speed of the descent - as low as 61 knots - which would suggest the plane was heading almost straight down,


but

Quote

the aircraft fell at an even more incredible rate of 11,000ft a minute, with extraordinary bursts of up to 24,000ft a minute


"extremely low speed" of descent or "incredible rate" of descent?

11,000ft a minute is about 110 knots, not 61.


I guess the first quote refers to the horizontal speed, while the second one refers to the vertical speed. These could be measured from the radar data.

indeed "ground speed" is the speed or aircraft as seen from a stationary observer on the ground
"air speed" is what keeps the plane in the air

on a small slow aircraft you can even get zero or less ground speed if you have a strong headwind and appear to fly backwards or hover for an observer on the ground but still flying
the "slow" speed is ground speed and just means a very sharply angled decent
 
rrraven said:
Posted by: Bobo08
« on: January 02, 2015, 07:16:11 PM »
Quote from: Perceval on January 02, 2015, 07:03:00 PM

That report seems a bit contradictory.
Quote

the extremely low speed of the descent - as low as 61 knots - which would suggest the plane was heading almost straight down,


but

Quote

the aircraft fell at an even more incredible rate of 11,000ft a minute, with extraordinary bursts of up to 24,000ft a minute


"extremely low speed" of descent or "incredible rate" of descent?

11,000ft a minute is about 110 knots, not 61.


I guess the first quote refers to the horizontal speed, while the second one refers to the vertical speed. These could be measured from the radar data.

indeed "ground speed" is the speed or aircraft as seen from a stationary observer on the ground
"air speed" is what keeps the plane in the air

on a small slow aircraft you can even get zero or less ground speed if you have a strong headwind and appear to fly backwards or hover for an observer on the ground but still flying
the "slow" speed is ground speed and just means a very sharply angled decent

That is what I thought also, there likely was a strong headwind. I could not figure out why they focused on ground speed being too slow, doesn't anyone think before they speculate? After all, it was an ugly cloud formation.

When the data from the recorders is released, we may still have questions about what happened. The authority may not be willing to risk the facts, but it seems like they have a lot of options to pick from.
 
Perceval said:
griffin said:
Just weather.
You describe a fairly complex scenario that involves very extreme and unusual weather (according to that aviation expert) and then say it's "just weather"? I could be wrong but you seem to be trying to downplay this as "nothing to see here", despite the fact that the initial reactions of people who have seen the radar data seem to have thought there was definitely something of which to take note.
My apologies if that seemed flippant, and I believe we should remain open-minded to consider all possibilities. I should have included the adjective 'extreme'. However, even extreme weather is only relatively unusual, and in some subtropical and tropical regions - like parts of Southeast Asia including Indonesia and Malasia at certain times of the year - violent thunderstorms are common occurances.

Commercial airliners don't fall out of they sky very often, particularly without a word from the pilots. In fact, it's extremely rare for that to happen. Tens of thousands of commercial planes are flying through the skies of the world 24hrs a day. When one does go down in this way, and with this initial data, I think we can assume that something rather unusual was involved.

Yes, commercial air travel has become very safe on a per-miles or per-flights basis, especially in recent years. But that's partly due to pilots going out of their way to avoid flying directly through violent thunderstorms.

In this instance, though, the pilots apparently decided not to go around and weren't allowed to climb above the storm in time to avoid it. That made this combination of circumstances unusual, certainly.

In the absence of any sighting reports or other evidence of a meteor fall coincident with this accident, it seems somewhat like wishful thinking to propose that as the cause. That's all I meant to suggest in my response.
 
Back
Top Bottom