How long until we find out what happened to AirAsia QZ? - Telegraph
Government to tighten regulations following AirAsia accident 1, , that an analysis of Flight 's data recorder showed that the Airbus A had that it will also be mandatory for flight crew to practice flight simulations for the upset recovery of Tangerang Police arrest man for sextorting girlfriend. Divers retrieved one black box on Monday and located the other from the AirAsia plane that crashed more than two weeks ago, a key. Indonesia AirAsia Flight was a scheduled international passenger flight operated by Date, 28 December (). Summary, Mishandled.
The requested climb was not possible due to other traffic but the flight was cleared to climb to FL This was the third failure on both Rudder Travel Limiter Units on this flight.
Government to tighten regulations following AirAsia accident - National - The Jakarta Post
The pilots performed the ECAM actions and the system returned to function normally. The Jakarta Radar controller then called the pilot for several times but received no reply. Meanwhile on the flight deck, the pilot in command decided not to follow the same ECAM actions as before to rectify the failure. He had recently observed a ground engineer resetting the FAC Circuit Breakers CB to rectify the rudder travel limiter failure and assumed he could use the same method in flight.
This action however was not allowed in flight. It requires good understanding of the aircraft system to be aware of the consequences.
AirAsia plane flew with fault for a year before crash in Java Sea
Following a reset of the circuit breakers, several master cautions were triggered in relation to FAC's 1 and 2. After electrical interruption the autopilot and the auto-thrust then disengaged. Flight control law reverted from Normal Law to Alternate Law.
Nine seconds after the autopilot disengaged, the right side-stick activated. The delayed response of the pilot flying was likely due to his attention not being directed to the PFD as many events occurred at this time.Air Disasters - Deadly Solution (Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501)
He may have been startled when he realized the unusual attitude of the aircraft. Neither of these things is true, usually. It depends where the flight is operating, what equipment is on board, and which air traffic control ATC facility the crew is working with.
As a general rule, flights are constantly tracked and monitored. By regulation a flight must always be in contact, one way or the other, with both air traffic control and company dispatchers on the ground.
This is true in domestic airspace, and over the remotest points of the ocean as well. In the busiest airspace, such as over the continental U. In addition to basic position data, newer aircraft can transmit data about engine performance and the mechanical status of certain onboard systems. In some areas of the world, however, position reports are sent only intermittently, at designated waypoints rather than continuously.
The Crash of AirAsia Flight
There is room for improvement here, I feel, particularly for long-haul aircraft that operate routinely in non-radar airspace. Planes could and perhaps should be equipped with a relatively simple, inexpensive, and fail-safe technology that allows continuous location tracking, no matter where.
- Black box from doomed AirAsia flight QZ8501 recovered from seabed
- How long until we find out what happened to AirAsia QZ8501?
It was a little startling for the Times to begin with a pair of premises that are only partially true. This is one of my ongoing pet peeves: The main reason why is because it would take immense mounts of bandwidth, multiplied by the thousands of airplanes in the air at any one time, to upload all of the hundreds of parameters monitored by the FDR and CVR.
And for what practical purpose, exactly? For the one airplane every 25 years or so that is temporarily missing, out of the 40, or so commercial flights that operate every day?
Such a thing is certainly possible, but it would be technologically challenging and highly expensive. Is it really needed, in practical terms?
This issue comes up all the time. It is a bad idea to speculate too broadly on the how-and-why so soon after an air disaster. Almost always the initial hunches and theories end up totally off-base or at best incomplete.
It often takes months or even years before a cause is nailed down. In some cases we never learn for sure what happened. Could the Airbus A, flying from the busy Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore, have wandered inadvertently into a violent thunderstorm and suffered some kind of catastrophic malfunction or structural failure? The crew had asked for a weather-related altitude change shortly before the disappearance, a request that was denied by air traffic control — presumably because of traffic constraints.
However, that does not mean the AirAsia crew had no choice but to plow headlong into a storm. Worst-case, the crew always reserves the right to do what it needs to do, with or without permission. I cannot imagine the pilots willingly flew into what, on the radar screen, would have been a bright red splotch of potentially dangerous airspace. Perhaps a patch of weather that the pilots presumed would be manageable turned out to be otherwise?
Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501
Some are drawing comparisons between this incident and the Air France tragedy. They occurred under somewhat similar circumstances, and the media is eager to link these recent incidents together and wring some scary significance out of them.
Some commentators have noted, for instance, that both planes were built by Airbus. Remember that basically half of all the commercial jetliners in the sky are Airbus models. An even bigger red herring is the fact that the pilots made no distress call.