Two newspapers are reporting conjecture that the aircraft made a soft landing on water as its emergency beacons were not set off.
I know it is too early to say for sure without the flight data recorders, but if this is true the to survive the crash but to be overcome by stormy seas is just so unlucky.
The Guardian: tinyurl.com/leohu2q
The Daily Mail: tinyurl.com/la9uw7p
|
But the Mail carried this story a few hours earlier:
tinyurl.com/n5qcf9c
Seems to be pure conjecture as presumably only the black box can reveal truth.
|
I have been skipping through the stuff, guff and enormous thread drift re the AirAsia loss on the Prune site.
Among it all was the following from John Farley.
His profile:- ( look him up )
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First posting
For the interest of the non pilots here, when I was trained I was taught that should one encounter extreme turbulence in the cruise,
You should ignore airspeed and altimeter readings, leave the cruise power as set and just use the controls to maintain the normal cruise aircraft attitude.
I was also taught that if one lost airspeed indication in the cruise you should do the same thing - leave the power as set and maintain attitude.
Of course I do not know what is taught these days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry K, as a non pilot, this is exactly what I had previously gleaned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Second posting
We have zero knowledge about what happened in this case.
I was under the impression that the aircraft was flying towards a known band of weather, had asked for a level change and shortly after this contact was lost.
In my first post and for the benefit of non pilots I was simply outlining the piloting actions I was taught (many moons ago) in the event of encountering extreme turbulence or loss of airspeed indication.
If you see that as me banging a drum of hate I can only apologise for confusing you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I love his modest understated words. I think he may have been implying
(“ for the non pilots here†and the rest of you know alls )
(“ I was under the impression†read the few known facts)
I suspect many do not know that the man has a rather impressive CV and a wealth of experience so read and digest his words but they will still prattle on.
I thought his words applied to the Air France crash and it seems that same type of events have
happened again.
|
I had exactly the same thought Henry. Like you, I'm reasonably happy the poster is that John Farley and not an imposter.
Find it too difficult to follow many of the rumours/news threads on Pprune because of (a) number of contributors who've never flown anything more than MS Flightsim and (b) what appear to me to be angels on head of a pin arguments.
The History and Nostalgia thread is much more interesting.
|
An Aussie has just tweeted - Just this basic info on PPrune
Black Box localised 0.5nm E of tail. Confirmed by the 3 searching vessels.
Divers are verifying finding.
|
Seems to me that the wreckage is quite well spread, with the fuselage now discovered 3km or more from the tail's location?
Wouldn't such a spread of wreckage support the theory that the plane broke up at altitude?
|
>> Seems to me that the wreckage is quite well spread, with the fuselage now discovered
>> 3km or more from the tail's location?
>>
>> Wouldn't such a spread of wreckage support the theory that the plane broke up at
>> altitude?
>>
Indeed, and surely post mortems of the already recovered victims would show whether they drowned post landing on water, or suffered blunt force trauma or whatever from falling out of the sky.
|
Looks like pilot tried to climb too fast and aircraft stalled falling out of the sky.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30902237
|
Bit misleading that story, suggesting the pilot tried to climb the aircraft. Its more likely given its rate of ascent and the fact he was flying through a thunder cloud that wind shear was involved.
Vertical conveyer belts of fast air traveling up and down inside the cloud. Sometimes you hit an up, sometimes you hit a down, sometimes you get one after the other.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 21 Jan 15 at 10:13
|
|
I agree. The high rate of climb in smooth air is not sustainable and the pilot would have known. Other forces than the elevator controls would have been involved.
|
|
This report amply demonstrates the reasons why we have protocols in UK preventing Ministers etc. leaking/speculating on causes of disasters and instead wait for the outcome of formal inquiry.
|
Damnable Bad Luck - AirAsia Flight 8501 - Stuartli
