Post: #26

Eeek, I flew with them less than 2 months ago. =\


2014: Horror year in aviation.

Post: #27

Not good. I always considered Air Asia safe, but are there even any airlines left in the world which haven't crashed lethally?

I do wonder if it is like in that AirFrance article, pilots simply do not have enough practical understanding of handling airplanes in difficult condition because they fly on autopilot. And why are airlines consistently not being aware of avoiding bad weather when this is clearly the only major real cause of concern? Why even take the chance?

Post: #28

Did the Bermuda Triangle change hemispheres or something?

Post: #29

Airbus. Just saying. Airbus.

Post: #30

Quote:I do wonder if it is like in that AirFrance article, pilots simply do not have enough practical understanding of handling airplanes in difficult condition because they fly on autopilot. And why are airlines consistently not being aware of avoiding bad weather when this is clearly the only major real cause of concern? Why even take the chance?

Post: #31

(12-28-2014 10:12 AM)berserk Wrote:  Not good. I always considered Air Asia safe, but are there even any airlines left in the world which haven't crashed lethally?

I do wonder if it is like in that AirFrance article, pilots simply do not have enough practical understanding of handling airplanes in difficult condition because they fly on autopilot. And why are airlines consistently not being aware of avoiding bad weather when this is clearly the only major real cause of concern? Why even take the chance?

Dozens of flights that day alone flew through the same kind of weather without making the evening news, same for the Brazil to Paris crossing that downed AF447. Having said that, I would try to screen flights for bad weather if I were flying myself.

The reason that airlines don't do it is that it would add significant costs and delays, which would inevitably be passed on to the traveling public. People would rather fly where they want when they want to at as little cost as possible, even if that means taking a small chance.

Post: #32

Horrible news. Flying is generally very safe, but when it's your time, it's your time...

This hits home pretty hard because this is exactly the type of route that I have flown on numerous occasions. My thoughts go out to those on board and their families.

Post: #33

ATC radar coverage of Atlanta as a thunderstorm builds and hits the airport. Notice how the traffic is vectored around it, while still being very close to the cells.

As the thunderstorm moves over the airport, all aircraft are placed in holding patterns with staggered altitudes. This is what causes your delays (and maintenance). There is a single aircraft that goes in to land while the TS is over the field and the other aircraft are in holding. I'm curious as to what that was, probably a pilot declaring an emergency or a military aircraft.

Weather is extremely important in aviation and planes are almost always routed around weather cells. look at http://flightaware.com/live/. You can find flights near weather cells. Green weather cells are rain, that's nothing. Red and yellow are bed. You will see flights inside green cells, but very rarely inside yellow or red.

If the controller denied the pilots request than it was because the cell wasn't deemed to be dangerous, which can be verified by the fact the change in altitude was denied due to another aircraft being above (two aircraft on same flight paths just different altitude).

The pilot can also make deviations in order to ensure the safety of his crew. The pilot had 20k flight hours, dude's an old salt and knows that as long as you can explain your action (deviating from ATC guidance), you will be fine.

Also, the fact that they received no transmissions in the final 5 minutes of the flight is odd. As you approach a storm cell you can feel the change in turbulence and the pilot would have recognized it and asked again for diversion.

Interesting case, I will be following it.

Post: #34

The fact is there are several similarities with the AF447 as I understand it:

1) Encountering heavy thunderstorms
2) Asking/Wanting to climb to 38.000 ft to go over instead of around, but by doing so making the plan far more exposed due to poorer handling from thinner air, giving a very small margin of error in case of something like a stall.
3) Airbus planes with known pitot tubes issues (speed tracking), the 330 model also had issues in the past, leading to autopilot to disengage.
4) Possible authoritarian old school pilot taking a break and subordinates not questioning due to Asia deference culture.

It seems very likely that some or all of the above could be implicated.

After reading the article linked and studying some more, I am not going to fly Airbus unless I can't possibly avoid it and I also think it is a good idea to check for Western/Northern Euro pilots who are not afraid to question superiors. Also check for thunderstorms beforehand.

Post: #35

The news said today that the pilot requested a diversion but air traffic control rejected it.

Post: #36

(12-28-2014 04:29 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 11:48 PM)Kaizen Wrote:  I'm always a bit uneasy about using discount airlines.

Missing children reports often have happy endings. I don't think the same for missing airplane reports.

Missing children definitely give happy endings in Asia.

Holy Hell, Rio. Did you have to go there?

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #37

(12-28-2014 01:28 PM)berserk Wrote:  check for Western/Northern Euro pilots who are not afraid to question superiors.

Made me think of this clip at JFK.

Post: #38

In other news:

Everyone working at CNN just came...

Post: #39

(12-29-2014 11:39 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:28 PM)berserk Wrote:  check for Western/Northern Euro pilots who are not afraid to question superiors.

Made me think of this clip at JFK.

I love that video. I'd fly with that pilot any day.

Two things:

1. ATC is essentially for suggestions. Yes, professional pilots follow what they say, but ultimately ATC means nothing in the even of on unsafe clearance. The pilot in the video said "If I dont get runway x, ill declare an emergency". ATC says "runway Y". Pilot says (i paraphrase)"ALright faggot, I'm declaring an emergency, I'm landing at runway X, get everyone out of my way, because thats your job you desk sitting punk". This is all 100% legal. I don't know why he declared the emergency (controller gave me a semi crosswind landing, he instead went for a runway damn near directly into the wind. wind was gusting to 35 which isn't an issue for a 737, but who knows), but he was well within his right as the pilot in the command to do so. ATC makes suggestions, a simple "cannot comply" or "declaring an emergency", is all that a pilot has to say, and all the experienced pilots know this are not afraid to get into it with ATC.

2.I forget what #2 was to be.

Post: #40

Looks like they've found the plans and a few swollen bodies floating. Apparently only 30 meters below sea.

Post: #41

Has there been any instances of a plane crashing like this, and people surviving?

I know the Hudson River landing, but what about a plane going down from high altitude and people actually living to tell about it?

Post: #42

A Dutch kid survived a crash in Libya in 2010, everyone else on board died.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...light.html

Post: #43

(12-30-2014 03:56 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  Has there been any instances of a plane crashing like this, and people surviving?

I know the Hudson River landing, but what about a plane going down from high altitude and people actually living to tell about it?

163 people on board, 50 people survived the crash.

Some other crashes where the plane ditched/crashed in the water and people survived:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuninter_Flight_1153

Post: #44

Daily Mail also compiled this list: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...light.html

Quote:The miracle boy in Libya is thought to be only the world's 14th sole survivor of a major plane crash.
Six were children and four were flight crew.

Some of the others include:

June 29, 2009: Yemenia Flight 626. French schoolgirl Bahia Bakari, 13, survived when Airbus A310 crashed into the Indian Ocean, killing all other 152 people on board. Rescued after 13 hours clinging to aircraft wreckage.

March 6, 2003: Air Algeria Flight 6289. Youcef Djillali, a 28-year-old soldier lived after flight crashed on take-off in the southern Algerian city of Tamanrasset, killing 102 passengers and crew.

March 17, 1995: Intercontinental Airlines Flight 256. Erika Delgado, nine, was the only survivor after a mid-air explosion near Cartegena, Colombia. She was thrown from the plane as it made an emergency landing that left 51 dead.

August 16, 1987: Northwest Airline Flight 255. Toddler Cecelia Cichan, four, survived when all 154 other people on board - including her parents and 6-year-old brother - plus two people on the ground were killed when flight crashed after take-off in Saginaw, Michigan.

January 26, 1972: JAT Yugoslav Airlines Flight 367. Flight attendant Vesna Vulovic, 22, was lone survivor when plane plummeted 33,000 feet into the snow in Czechoslovakia after a bomb exploded, killing 22 passengers and five other crew members.

Post: #45

Flight LANSA 508 is missing in the list above:

Quote:The sole survivor was 17-year-old Juliane Koepcke, who fell 2 miles (3 km) down into the Amazon rainforest strapped to her seat and survived the fall, and was then able to walk through the jungle for 10 days until she was rescued by local lumbermen.

Post: #46

(12-28-2014 10:12 AM)berserk Wrote:  Not good. I always considered Air Asia safe, but are there even any airlines left in the world which haven't crashed lethally?

By this logic, you should be swearing off cars, trains, etc.

"Are there even any car companies left in the world that haven't had a lethal crash?"

The statistics for air travel speak for themselves, just think rationally about things, this crash is nothing to get spooked about.

Post: #47

(12-30-2014 01:06 AM)AntiTrace Wrote:  This is all 100% legal. I don't know why he declared the emergency (controller gave me a semi crosswind landing, he instead went for a runway damn near directly into the wind. wind was gusting to 35 which isn't an issue for a 737, but who knows), but he was well within his right as the pilot in the command to do so.

It likely exceeded the crosswind componant for that airframe under those circumstances. In the interest of control and safety in the most challenging and unsafe phase of flight, he did what he felt was necessary to do to remain in control of the aircraft. He probably was also getting into reserve fuel possibly because of heavy congestion in that airspace (it IS JFK after all) and needed to get down immediately.

Contrast that with Avianca Flt 52 that crashed inbound to JFK in 1990 because of fuel starvation and lack of a clear understanding of "I AM LOW ON FUEL - DECLARING AN EMERGENCY" between ATC and the captain.

Post: #48

RIP to the souls of this tragic accident.

Now to find out what brought it down.

Post: #49

(12-30-2014 01:35 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 10:12 AM)berserk Wrote:  Not good. I always considered Air Asia safe, but are there even any airlines left in the world which haven't crashed lethally?

By this logic, you should be swearing off cars, trains, etc.

"Are there even any car companies left in the world that haven't had a lethal crash?"

The statistics for air travel speak for themselves, just think rationally about things, this crash is nothing to get spooked about.

Actually, airline is only safer when you travel, meaning when you drive or take the train to the same destination it takes a lot longer than flying and you are more likely to crash than in a short flight. But, as far as I remember, you spend so little time in the air and so much time in the car every day that every minute you spend in an airplane turns out to be more dangerous than every minute you spend driving to work and back home. That's why you should read between the lines when they say ''airline is the safest way to travel''. I might be wrong, I read this some time ago, but apart from traveling you are safer inside a car or train, considering the amount of time you spend in each and the fatality rates.

Post: #50

Last week I caught a flight from O'Hare to Tampa and had an all male flight staff, two of which were super gay.

I would have rather been on this missing flight if the crew looked like those girls in the picture and I didn't have some limp-wristed lisper filling my water.