Retrieving wreckage from AirAsia Flight To Singapore- no survivors recovered #3

[Boodles]

Unless someone knows the best link that gives up to date information, I struggle to find the latest news. Here is one that is pretty recent but havent seen news for Friday yet.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/divers-search-for-bodies-in-fuselage-of-crashed-airasia-jet-648933

I follow @jackboard on Twitter. He's on top of things.

	Jackson Board (@JackBoard)

[TD="colspan: 2"] 1/16/15, 5:38 AM
Despite the #QZ8501 joint operation being scaled down, Basarnas is now calling for Navy & Air Force to assist in lifting fuselage

[/TD]

 

[jggordo]

PANGKALAN BUN, Indonesia (AP) — "An Indonesian search official said Friday that the crashed AirAsia jet's fuselage will be lifted to the surface after sea conditions again prevented divers from examining the large chunk of wreckage."

"National Search and Rescue Agency chief Henry Bambang Soelistyo said that rescue teams discovered more wreckage despite the strong current and poor visibility."

"Apart from the fuselage, we found what we suspected as the aircraft's cockpit and also an engine," he said. "We also found what seems to be a passenger seat in which we thought there still bodies tied on it."



http://news.yahoo.com/airasia-fuselage-lifted-surface-divers-foiled-140215089.html

 

[Hatfield]

I follow @jackboard on Twitter. He's on top of things.

	Jackson Board (@JackBoard)

[TD="colspan: 2"] 1/16/15, 5:38 AM
Despite the #QZ8501 joint operation being scaled down, Basarnas is now calling for Navy & Air Force to assist in lifting fuselage

[/TD]

Thanks. He does seem to have pretty current updates. I like his twitter posts.

It sounds to me that the search and rescue is going to contact the same people who got the tail up because they at least were successful.

Its sad it has taken them so long and I am sure family members are getting upset with them. It is a tough job although you have to think by now other countries may have had better success.

 

[Hatfield]

It is still a little puzzling why the tail was found so far away from fuselage area. I dont know if it has been proven why that would be yet. I think I read somewhere about water current is bad. If it was the current then I am thinking the fuselage area is where the plane really went down because I dont see how the water current could move that large section.

I think the current moved the tail section away from the fuselage area and not the other way around.

Its either that or the plane began breaking apart in midair before it hit water.

Its quite a distance for the parts to be separated. I think i saw about 2 miles apart between tail and fuselage. WOW.

 

[MsFacetious]

This plane did not break apart before it hit the water.
If it had, it would have been broken into many more pieces.
This plane is too intact for anything but a nearly successful ditching in the water.

There have been other ditchings with survivors (besides the Hudson River.)
They often cartwheel breaking off the tail, cockpit and one wing.
This is completely consistent with an attempted ditching in the water. :twocents:

 

[itzkatiex0]

We can't say for sure what happened because we don't know.

 

[MsFacetious]

When you have studied airplane crashes for 15 years you can get an idea.
There is also physics and how an airplane responds.
Just like if I see a car crash and both cars are drivable... I know they didn't hit head on at 50MPH each.

When a plane breaks up at altitude there isn't much left when it lands. (TWA, Lockerbie)
Pieces are found 20 miles apart from each other, not 2 miles apart from each other.

When a plane hits the water or the ground going full speed, there isn't much left. (EgyptAir)
When a plane falls out of the sky at altitude and hits the water, there isn't much left. (AirFrance)

This has been proven by many crashes with full investigations.
The only water crashes I recall with pieces this big... were ditching style.
A couple were not intentional... they bumped the auto pilot and the plane crash landed in the water.
But they still came in as if they were landing, at the correct angle and all of that.

That is really the only logical explanation for this plane being so intact.
In my "I'm feeling more opinionated with this pregnancy" opinion. :twocents:

 

[PrairieWind]

It is still a little puzzling why the tail was found so far away from fuselage area. I dont know if it has been proven why that would be yet. I think I read somewhere about water current is bad. If it was the current then I am thinking the fuselage area is where the plane really went down because I dont see how the water current could move that large section.

I think the current moved the tail section away from the fuselage area and not the other way around.

Its either that or the plane began breaking apart in midair before it hit water.

Its quite a distance for the parts to be separated. I think i saw about 2 miles apart between tail and fuselage. WOW.

My guess is that the tail section broke off when it hit the water. The fuselage section sank immediately and the tail floated for a short period. It wouldn't take long for it to get 2 miles away given what we know about the storms that night. Remember when AF447 went down, searchers found the tail fin floating on the surface and that was several days after the plane disappeared.

 

[itzkatiex0]

Well we're allowed our own theories until we know for sure what happened. Until then if we wanna believe it broke apart midair, we can until all evidence from this wreck is given. IMO

 

[Hatfield]

Once I saw that large fuselage section I was very surprised and so I tend to think that it was in tact until it hit the water.

If it did manage to try for a controlled crash landing, then it is more possible that some people may have survived the initial impact. I would hate to think that there were people that were in that water and were not rescued.

It does make you wonder if that is why they dont want autopsies. Maybe to hide the fact there were some people that drowned.

 

[Hatfield]

I suppose once they get the cockpit voice recorder information, it will tell the whole story. I suppose I just need to be patient until we find out. I just hope they dont try to hide anything from the public as to what happened.

The whole thing is so awful to think what the people went through.

 

[emirates1957]

What would we do without you on this thread? Please make sure to thank all the engineers that have been so helpful! And thank you for going to all the trouble to ask and relay all this information to us!

Oh that's lovely Snoods. Our crew room is located on the apron area….when I asked the guys if I could borrow their van to do a drive by and check underneath all the parked AC wings. It was that moment the guys knew I was totally nuts. Were all here doing the same thing…..trying to stitch the pieces together.

 

[SouthAussie]

The only thing that I don't get about a controlled landing is that the plane was found relatively close to the point of last contact ... thinking that it would need time and distance to reduce its elevation in order to try to land. However, I guess that if it was forced into a massive elevation drop by forces of nature (or whatever), it was probably too low for this experienced ex-air force pilot to pull up after he gained some semblance of control and leveled his aircraft out.

I do think the plane had to be somewhat level for the fuselage to be so intact.

And I still think the pilot was probably a real hero, and really tried his absolute very-experienced best to save his plane and all the people on it.

 

[emirates1957]

This plane did not break apart before it hit the water.
If it had, it would have been broken into many more pieces.
This plane is too intact for anything but a nearly successful ditching in the water.

There have been other ditchings with survivors (besides the Hudson River.)
They often cartwheel breaking off the tail, cockpit and one wing.
This is completely consistent with an attempted ditching in the water. :twocents:

Totally agree.

 

[Hatfield]

The only thing that I don't get about a controlled landing is that the plane was found relatively close to the point of last contact ... thinking that it would need time and distance to reduce its elevation in order to try to land. However, I guess that if it was forced into a massive elevation drop by forces of nature (or whatever), it was probably too low for this experienced ex-air force pilot to pull up after he gained some semblance of control and leveled his aircraft out.

I do think the plane had to be somewhat level for the fuselage to be so intact.

And I still think the pilot was probably a real hero, and really tried his absolute very-experienced best to save his plane and all the people on it.

Yeah good points. It was pretty close to last known contact.

I am not sure how difficult it would be to try to glide a plane like that in a severe thunderstorm if the engine got stalled. Maybe the engine power stalled at 30 K feet, and he ended up going in a death spiral and was trying to bring it out of the spiral and right before he hit the water he managed to level it out some.

 

[Snoods]

When you have studied airplane crashes for 15 years you can get an idea.
There is also physics and how an airplane responds.
Just like if I see a car crash and both cars are drivable... I know they didn't hit head on at 50MPH each.

When a plane breaks up at altitude there isn't much left when it lands. (TWA, Lockerbie)
Pieces are found 20 miles apart from each other, not 2 miles apart from each other.

When a plane hits the water or the ground going full speed, there isn't much left. (EgyptAir)
When a plane falls out of the sky at altitude and hits the water, there isn't much left. (AirFrance)

This has been proven by many crashes with full investigations.
The only water crashes I recall with pieces this big... were ditching style.
A couple were not intentional... they bumped the auto pilot and the plane crash landed in the water.
But they still came in as if they were landing, at the correct angle and all of that.

That is really the only logical explanation for this plane being so intact.
In my "I'm feeling more opinionated with this pregnancy" opinion. :twocents:

What you say makes sense, but I question if it was a controlled ditching why the pilots wouldn't issue a mayday or any kind of emergency call?

 

[jggordo]

I am wondering if the remaining family members are starting to come to terms that their loved ones remains may not be recovered. In some reports and interviews I have read some of the family members want to see their family member "one more time". Even in the best case scenario I don't believe that is possible. In the event the remains may be found and identified through DNA etc there is no way that a "viewing" could be done by family members.

IMO

 

[Snoods]

Oh that's lovely Snoods. Our crew room is located on the apron area….when I asked the guys if I could borrow their van to do a drive by and check underneath all the parked AC wings. It was that moment the guys knew I was totally nuts. Were all here doing the same thing…..trying to stitch the pieces together.

Oh no how funny! You're awesome! :floorlaugh:

 

[Hatfield]

I was reading about 1 of the horrific crashes (think it may have been the Air France one) where the Pitot Tubes froze. If I understood what happened, this is basically what I read:

The Pitot Tubes froze up and the current reading to the pilot made it look like they were going real fast when actually the speed kept dropping. The speed of the plane dropped to a very dangerous level and then what happened is the "shaker" started which is a safety feature where the control stick of the airplane starts to physically shake to alert the pilot that something bad is happening to the plane. The pilots then made a huge error. They thought the control sticks were shaking because they were going too fast and that was totally wrong, because the real reason they were shaking was because the plane was going too slow. So because of the pilots misjudgement of the reason, they did the worst thing you would want to do. They severely raised the nose of the plane to slow down the plane. Which caused the plane engines to stall because it wasnt going fast enough to begin with.

I didnt read much after that and I am not sure why they couldnt just glide the plane down at least even with no engines. I suppose trying to glide a plane in a storm is much harder than we like to think could be done. Especially when the pilots were trying to figure out what all was happening to them.

And when you throw in total darkness, severe winds, rain, instruments not reading right, they probably didnt know up from down at that point.

 

[Snoods]

The only thing that I don't get about a controlled landing is that the plane was found relatively close to the point of last contact ... thinking that it would need time and distance to reduce its elevation in order to try to land. However, I guess that if it was forced into a massive elevation drop by forces of nature (or whatever), it was probably too low for this experienced ex-air force pilot to pull up after he gained some semblance of control and leveled his aircraft out.

I do think the plane had to be somewhat level for the fuselage to be so intact.

And I still think the pilot was probably a real hero, and really tried his absolute very-experienced best to save his plane and all the people on it.

This makes sense to me SA. The pilot may have only been able to gain a little control at the last possible seconds, giving the plane enough time to start to pull up before it hit the water? This would explain why there wasn't time for a mayday call as well.