Slashdot Mirror


Debris, Bodies Recovered From AirAsia Flight 8501

Searchers have found traces of the crashed AirAsia Flight 8501, which lost contact with ground controllers shortly after requesting a weather-related course change. Reuters reports that both debris and some passenger remains have been recovered off the coast of Borneo, in a search complicated by waves "up to three meters high." From the report: About 30 ships and 21 aircraft from Indonesia, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea and the United States have been involved in the search. The plane, which did not issue a distress signal, disappeared after its pilot failed to get permission to fly higher to avoid bad weather because of heavy air traffic, officials said. It was travelling at 32,000 feet (9,753 metres) and had asked to fly at 38,000 feet, officials said earlier. Pilots and aviation experts said thunderstorms, and requests to gain altitude to avoid them, were not unusual in that area. ... Online discussion among pilots has centred on unconfirmed secondary radar data from Malaysia that suggested the aircraft was climbing at a speed of 353 knots, about 100 knots too slow, and that it might have stalled.

5 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Pilot Proof Airbus? by ai4px · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Air France flight 447 that crashed, as I understand it was because the pitot tube(s) froze over and the pilots lost their air speed indicator(s). It seems that in many Airbus crashes, the pilots are so accustomed to the automation that they forget how to fly the aircraft. Or they don't understand exactly how the automation works as was the case of an airbus that crashed because only one axis of the autopilot switched off unexpectedly. The aircraft was crabbing in yaw while the pilot was only controlling pitch by hand. Dunno, but it seems that more automation leads to more problems. Isn't this why the US Navy pilots subs manually all the time?

  2. Re:Stall? by ai4px · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could've been busy trying to fly the aircraft. Order of Operatons.... Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

  3. Re:Pilot Proof Airbus? by delt0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure as hell better than humans.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  4. Re:Pilot Proof Airbus? by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    no, that is not the case at the present time. Don't get your ideas about technology from sci-fi tv shows

  5. Re:Pilot Proof Airbus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The pilot did not try to fix the stall. He was pulling up all the time and even the dumbest student pilots know that that's the exact opposite of what to do in a stall. His (in)famous almost last words were "I've been at maxi-nose up for a while". For some reason that only he knows, he thought the plane was diving fast and that the instruments are wrong ("crazy speed" he said). In reality he first steered it above the plane's maximum service ceiling at which point the plane pretty much lost all its speed and subsequently fell down with a slight nose up pitch. The stall warning stopped when he pulled back because the plane slowed down even more and by design, the warning is not meant to be triggered when the plane lands and that was how low their speed was. A better system would of course somehow factor in altitude but then again, any pilot should know that something else than a stall recovery has happened if he's just pulled back. The saddest thing about the whole crash is that apart from the brief moment when the pitot tubes were frozen, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft. The tubes were heated so when they began working, all the pilots would've had to do was to trust their instruments. They had plenty of altitude to recover control of the aircraft and every instrument worked and every warning was correct. A display of shameful incompetence by Air France training.