Missing Malaysian flight

[Dales Cannon]

Do people still fly or not flynthrkugh the Bermuda triangle?

I don't think anyone flynthrkugh anymore. It was banned by international treaty.

Doesn't look good for the passengers on the Air Asia flight unfortunately.

 

[Nautonier]

Thunderclouds Ahead: is this really so atypical?

So apparently the missing Asia Air Flight (QZ8501) requested an altitude increase from 32,000 ft to 38,000 ft due to 'nasty looking clouds' on the horizon. This request was denied due to heavy air traffic in the region at the time. 5 minutes later, QZ8501 disappeared off the radar and is presumed to have 'crashed into the ocean' as a result of 'catastrophic bad weather'.

News reports have been predictably patchy, sensationalist and just plain wrong in speculating what might have happened to the missing plane. Items of particular offence are fellow (experienced) pilots saying things like "they might have blundered into a thunderstorm" and "air asia pilots don't get a lot of extreme turbulence training". One pilot (from another airline) claimed that he'd experienced 2 'catastrophic' turbulence situations on the same route, in which he was 'grateful' of his preparatory training.

Seriously, is 'bad weather' really an issue for experienced pilots? I'm sure just about all of us have experienced flying into or through thunderstorms at some point in our globe-trotting careers, but, while not that much fun (when you're sober at least), they really don't amount to anything pilots would do more than yawn at.

So my question is: WTF?

 

[Xavo.au]

Seriously, is 'bad weather' really an issue for experienced pilots? I'm sure just about all of us have experienced flying into or through thunderstorms at some point in our globe-trotting careers, but, while not that much fun (when you're sober at least), they really don't amount to anything pilots would do more than yawn at.

So my question is: WTF?

Err, I would re-read that paragraph.

The thunderstorms that you have flown through are ones that haven't been severe enough to realistically threaten the aircraft you were in.

Bad weather is quite a nightmare for even the most experienced pilots, modern day radar and advanced avionics can only guide pilots to places where they think it will be safe enough for the plane. But there is more than enough power in a decent storm to literally rip the wings clean off even the biggest aircraft.

 

[moorey]

Protocol for the pilots of that airline is to be either diverted around or turn back in cases of extreme weather. Pilot apparently tried to fly above it, as he radio'd he was asking permission to do so. Last I hear it disappeared from radar after climbing. That's all I know, and I don't know much, and what I heard might have changed. Sounds like pilot error, nothing more.

 

[Nautonier]

Err, I would re-read that paragraph.

The thunderstorms that you have flown through are ones that haven't been severe enough to realistically threaten the aircraft you were in.

Bad weather is quite a nightmare for even the most experienced pilots, modern day radar and advanced avionics can only guide pilots to places where they think it will be safe enough for the plane. But there is more than enough power in a decent storm to literally rip the wings clean off even the biggest aircraft.

Well yes, but are passengers really routinely put at risk in these situations? The usual tactic of being diverted away from the more severe storms seems to keep most planes out of harm's way, but can a plane really be taken down simply because someone at air traffic control says "no"?

Also, why no distress call? I'm sure it takes more than a split second to hit the deck from 32,000ft, even if the most pressing issue is getting the plane back under control. I would have thought that ensuring passenger safety, even in the grave instance of a plane losing control and altitude, would involve letting someone know where they are about to ditch in the (unlikely) event that there are survivors.

 

[Comic Book Guy]

After watching the stewardess bounce around the cabin during a flight from brisvegas back to shitney I would say thunderstorms are dangerous.

 

[frenchman]

Well yes, but are passengers really routinely put at risk in these situations? The usual tactic of being diverted away from the more severe storms seems to keep most planes out of harm's way, but can a plane really be taken down simply because someone at air traffic control says "no"?

Also, why no distress call? I'm sure it takes more than a split second to hit the deck from 32,000ft, even if the most pressing issue is getting the plane back under control. I would have thought that ensuring passenger safety, even in the grave instance of a plane losing control and altitude, would involve letting someone know where they are about to ditch in the (unlikely) event that there are survivors.

The pilot is in control at the end of the day. You can go against what ATC tells you, and I'd like to think most would if it meant avoiding major weather..

Fuck making a distress call if you're in the middle of a spin cycle trying to get the aircraft back under control. Fly the plane, navigate and then you can have a chat.

 

[stirk]

The pilot is in control at the end of the day. You can go against what ATC tells you, and I'd like to think most would if it meant avoiding major weather..

Fuck making a distress call if you're in the middle of a spin cycle trying to get the aircraft back under control. Fly the plane, navigate and then you can have a chat.

Going against ATC is a big call especially when you can't see a thing with cloud everywhere, you might take out another plane above you and that's not cool.
Pilot's fly through storms all the time, not really big nasty ones but in many cases it can't be avoided.
Diverting around is better than flying above as big storms can be well over 40,000 feet so going against ATC in this instance probably would not have helped them.

Oviously they did not divert away enough.

There is more than one person in the cockpit and not all can control the plane at the same time so if possible they would have gotten a Mayday out.

 

[frenchman]

Going against ATC is a big call especially when you can't see a thing with cloud everywhere, you might take out another plane above you and that's not cool.
Pilot's fly through storms all the time, not really big nasty ones but in many cases it can't be avoided.
Diverting around is better than flying above as big storms can be well over 40,000 feet so going against ATC in this instance probably would not have helped them.

Oviously they did not divert away enough.

There is more than one person in the cockpit and not all can control the plane at the same time so if possible they would have gotten a Mayday out.

You'd much rather divert because you can 99.999% know where the other aircraft are due to TCAS unless they are running around with the transponder off. ATC can tell other traffic to move and they do. If there are guys not complying with ATC instructions due to adverse weather it's not going to be a little storm...

Agreed it can't always be avoided but it would at least warrant an attempt. No one knows yet why the crew attempted to climb over. Only they (crew) would know. Those storms can easily go through the troposphere

When shit hits the oscilator the captain is the one making the calls. You might not need 2 to physically control the plane, but if there are any systems going haywire you'd be wise to deal with those first. It's still aviate, navigate and then communicate.

 

[kwikee]

It's looking a lot like AF447, the A330 that fell into the Atlantic. Sad thing is that, other than the known issue they had with icing, the aircraft was perfectly airworthy when it literally fell out of the sky into the Atlantic.
This A320 looks to have done a similar thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if ice played some part in it, not so much with pitot tubes this time but Angle of Attack sensors or simple airframe icing. Mixed with unpredictable and furious tropical storm conditions, the initial uncleared climb followed by a 15,000fpm descent and impact close to the loss of radar point suggests something particularly nasty happened that a 20,000+ hour, ex F-16 fighter pilot couldn't save.
The A320 has a great safety record, but Airbus aircraft are a full electronic/computer guided control system and it has caused some issues in the last. When they find the black boxes, all will be revealed.

 

[stirk]

You'd much rather divert because you can 99.999% know where the other aircraft are due to TCAS unless they are running around with the transponder off. ATC can tell other traffic to move and they do. If there are guys not complying with ATC instructions due to adverse weather it's not going to be a little storm...

Agreed it can't always be avoided but it would at least warrant an attempt. No one knows yet why the crew attempted to climb over. Only they (crew) would know. Those storms can easily go through the troposphere

When shit hits the oscilator the captain is the one making the calls. You might not need 2 to physically control the plane, but if there are any systems going haywire you'd be wise to deal with those first. It's still aviate, navigate and then communicate.

If you look at one radar images online which show the storms and the planes flight path it looks like they were skirting the edge of one storm rather than really giving it a wide berth. They might run a very small fuel reserve so major divergence from normal flight route is not possible.

 

[Dozer]

Sooooooooooo, the entire search of the Indian ocean for flight MH370 has ended without finding anything of the plane. That's an almost impossible thing to comprehend and must be harrowing for the people who've lost loved ones.
It's a big planet we live on.

 

[John U]

Sooooooooooo, the entire search of the Indian ocean for flight MH370 has ended without finding anything of the plane. That's an almost impossible thing to comprehend and must be harrowing for the people who've lost loved ones.
It's a big planet we live on.

Comprehending the sadness of people who've lost someone, agreed. Comprehending the fact it was never found, not so. Many things have gone missing over the years, some never to be found, some only to be found a very long time later. When they had very little idea of where this plane went down I think it would have been the honest thing to say that there was very little chance of finding it from the outset.

 

[Beej1]

Sooooooooooo, the entire search of the Indian ocean for flight MH370 has ended without finding anything of the plane. That's an almost impossible thing to comprehend and must be harrowing for the people who've lost loved ones.
It's a big planet we live on.

Pretty sure it was only a mere fraction of the Indian Ocean.

I remember reading a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory somewhere about it being 'disappeared' on purpose, due to some passenger of importance or something.

I didn't (and still don't) believe it's likely. But at the same time, it seems like everything that could be done to make the plane un-findable, was indeed done.

Possibly some autonomous underwater drone will find it sometime in the far future.

 

[ajay]

I remember reading a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory somewhere about it being 'disappeared' on purpose, due to some passenger of importance or something.

Haha, yeah, you'd think hiring a hit man would be a whole simpler!

 

[redbruce]

Sooooooooooo, the entire search of the Indian ocean for flight MH370 has ended without finding anything of the plane. That's an almost impossible thing to comprehend and must be harrowing for the people who've lost loved ones.
It's a big planet we live on.

Not quite, some wreckage was found but your conclusion is reality, and a salient reminder of the contemporary limitations of our mortal development.

None the less lessons learnt for future.

http://theconversation.com/the-search-for-mh370-is-over-what-we-learnt-and-where-to-now-71475