AirAsia QZ8501 - Another missing flight!

[Wd40]

What are your (x9200 & ecureilx) takes on the TigerAir fleet?

Sorry, I have never used the TigerAir. I generally avoid budget lines to minimize encounters like this one that effectively saved a number of people that otherwise boarded the QZ8501 flight.

I think lots of full service carriers are also in that league, like Malaysian airlines, Indian airlines etc. So who do we fly with then? Only the likes of Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qatar Airways? Oh wait a minute, how do you trust Qatar and Emirates, especially after what is happenning with Qatar hosting the world cup?

[ecureilx]

What are your (x9200 & ecureilx) takes on the TigerAir fleet?

TigerAir flies a total of 35 aircraft... all Airbus A319's and A320's. The average age of the fleet is 3.5 years, with the oldest plane being 9 years old. Compare this to the average age of Southwest Airlines (11.9 years) and Delta (16.9 years) and you see that TigerAir is much younger than most airlines.

Their airplanes are maintained by low cost contractors... whether this makes a difference is unknown to me. TigerAir also employs the least paid pilots with minimal hours as compared to other airlines... this could be a factor in very heavy weather and a high pilot load... the lack of experience could make a difference.

low cost doesn't mean low safety

In fact, all Aircraft registered in SG have to follow the CAAS standards, and likewise, foreign airline flying into SG have also certain requirements

Now about pilots, no pilot worth his salt will screw up his career - one smash and your career is over, like doctors.

Though that hasn't stopped some Indonesian Regional airlines pushing the pilots, but that has been stopped effectively in Indonesia with the FAA Ban hurting, all have pulled up their socks

Back to QZ, I foresee a possible repeat of AF447, as I mentioned. Pilots lost situational awareness and stalled, possibly. Then again, all have to wait for the blackbox

WD40, I believe X9200 meant on flight rescheduling, that happens often with LCCs than with regular airlines !

PS, Do you know who know Philippines is the maintenance center for Heavy checks, for Lufthansa and Virgin, for a start ?

[rajagainstthemachine]

What are your (x9200 & ecureilx) takes on the TigerAir fleet?

Sorry, I have never used the TigerAir. I generally avoid budget lines to minimize encounters like this one that effectively saved a number of people that otherwise boarded the QZ8501 flight.

I use budget carriers and full cost carriers equally. I don't see a perceptible loss in flying safety with one over the other.
What I do see here is a problem with traffic management that could have lead to the crash.
There were several other planes in the vicinity that impeded the ill fated flight from climbing to requested altitude in time.
The question should then be why let so many planes crowd the sky in bad weather? Any other time should be ok I'd imagine.

[ecureilx]

I use budget carriers and full cost carriers equally. I don't see a perceptible loss in flying safety with one over the other.
What I do see here is a problem with traffic management that could have lead to the crash.
There were several other planes in the vicinity that impeded the ill fated flight from climbing to requested altitude in time.
The question should then be why let so many planes crowd the sky in bad weather? Any other time should be ok I'd imagine.

still crowded skies are to do with ATC, not the airline

then again, it wasn't a typhoon to stop flying . planes fly through bad weather ..

[x9200]

What are your (x9200 & ecureilx) takes on the TigerAir fleet?

Sorry, I have never used the TigerAir. I generally avoid budget lines to minimize encounters like this one that effectively saved a number of people that otherwise boarded the QZ8501 flight.

I think lots of full service carriers are also in that league, like Malaysian airlines, Indian airlines etc. So who do we fly with then? Only the likes of Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qatar Airways? Oh wait a minute, how do you trust Qatar and Emirates, especially after what is happenning with Qatar hosting the world cup?

Short flight around the region, yes, I prefer Silkair, Thai, Cathay, Singapore. Indian I flew once and prefer not to repeat it. I used few times Garuda and once or twice Malaysian and nothing bad happened, Bangkok Air only once and it was rather bad experience, Berjaya also once and spent a few hours in the Seletar airport waiting for a replacement plane. Yes, I prefer to use the more expensive ones especially that now with the kid we are not that exploring the region any longer and obviously want to reduce the risk of being stuck somewhere too. With them, the worst what ever happened was the change of the carrier what was typical of SAS during the Christmas seasons - then you had to go with Lufthansa and I don't like them.

I flew with Emirates and Qatar few times, long haul flights and I was rather unimpressed but they were still ok, especially that the price was ok.

[x9200]

WD40, I believe X9200 meant on flight rescheduling, that happens often with LCCs than with regular airlines !

Yep.

[nanana]

Don't get me started with qantas. They are the worst from my experience. We flew half way from SG to melb, and had to return to sg due to technical problem. That was close call, but at least we made it safe landed in sg. Flight was delayed more than 4 hours, I called up the company to request for a letter so that I can claim from my insurance company, the staff said in their system , the flight arrived on time! And when I asked who else I can speak to in regards to this matter, she said I can try to email or fax to them. But can't guarantee I will get a reply.
True enough, 6 years later, I still haven't heard from them, and I never fly with them ever since.

[rajagainstthemachine]

I have to fly back to Singapore on 3rd from Thailand on tiger. Wish me well. Although I've been flying almost every month for the last ten years, I can't help feeling a bit nervous, I've checked all the weather systems along the flight path just to calm me down.
Downside of dying budget: They don't serve drinks, at least one wont be in the senses in case calamity strikes.

[rajagainstthemachine]

Reading this article made my head reel with some of the theories people come up with.

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/ ... red-video/

[nanana]

I have to fly back to Singapore on 3rd from Thailand on tiger. Wish me well. Although I've been flying almost every month for the last ten years, I can't help feeling a bit nervous, I've checked all the weather systems along the flight path just to calm me down.
Downside of dying budget: They don't serve drinks, at least one wont be in the senses in case calamity strikes.

Safe trip back, rajagainstthemachine.

[rajagainstthemachine]

I use budget carriers and full cost carriers equally. I don't see a perceptible loss in flying safety with one over the other.
What I do see here is a problem with traffic management that could have lead to the crash.
There were several other planes in the vicinity that impeded the ill fated flight from climbing to requested altitude in time.
The question should then be why let so many planes crowd the sky in bad weather? Any other time should be ok I'd imagine.

still crowded skies are to do with ATC, not the airline

then again, it wasn't a typhoon to stop flying . planes fly through bad weather ..

This article is quite an intelligent insight from a former sia pilot who says that air traffic and equipment needs a radical overhaul in most asean airports

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/12/3 ... CK20141231

[x9200]

Interesting discussion on possible causes based on some unofficial data:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/airasia-fli ... y28zsr6qiq

Mr Soejatman said the plane was equipped with a Mode S radar, a relatively new piece of equipment which sends more comprehensive information, in real time, from aircraft to ground.

Leaked figures show the plane climbed at a virtually unprecedented rate of 6000 to 9000 feet per minute, and "you can't do that at altitude in an Airbus 320 with pilot action".

The most that could normally be expected would be 1000 to 1500 feet on a sustained basis, with up to 3000 feet in a burst, he said.

The plane then fell at an even more incredible rate: 11,000 feet per minute with bursts of up to 24,000 feet per minute.

If correct it seems to suggests an extreme weather afterall.

[Brah]

Re the post just before this one, I don't know the first thing about commercial aircraft flight, but have been on a number of flights where we were 'rushing', and it always scares then hell out of me.

It feels more like free-fall than tailwind, that the plane is pointed slight towards the ground and rushing at it, feeling barely in control.

[Strong Eagle]

Re the post just before this one, I don't know the first thing about commercial aircraft flight, but have been on a number of flights where we were 'rushing', and it always scares then hell out of me.

It feels more like free-fall than tailwind, that the plane is pointed slight towards the ground and rushing at it, feeling barely in control.

Nothing to be scared about, actually. Unlike takeoff, where your rate of ascent is determined by the aircraft's maximum climb out rate (around 3000 feet per minute for your average airliner), descent rates are determined by flight patterns, proximity to urban areas and noise restrictions, and weather.

There are three ways to force and airplane to descend. For a normal descent, and although you don't notice it, the nose is pointed down, and the plane flies down to a landing. The rate of descent is related to cruise speed. Faster descents result in higher speeds.

For a quick descent, the spoilers are deployed and lift of the aircraft is drastically reduced. This is also done in a nose down configuration, only it may be more noticeable to the passengers, especially since the spoilers make a lot more noise. This is probably the "rushing" to which you refer. Spoilers allow the aircraft to get down faster without increasing airspeed. Rest assured it is completely controlled flight, just that with reduced lift, the plane can drop at 5 to 6 thousand feet per minute (the maximum rate being determined by the rate at which the cabin pressurization system can keep up. This type of landing happens when there are minimum height restrictions... like flying into Jackson Hole, where you have no choice but to drop in over the mountains, staying above storm cells until the last minute, or noise restrictions where planes must stay at a certain height over urban areas.

And finally, there is the emergency descent. The aircraft has a steep nose down angle, and flies at the maximum speed the aircraft can manage... around Mach .83. It is possible to achieve descent rates to 10 to 12 thousand feet per minute, and I reckon everyone will be nervous about this maneuver.

[aster]

If correct it seems to suggests an extreme weather afterall.

Seems like it right now, even though it is extremely rare to lose a plane due to atmospheric conditions at this stage of the flight. Still surprised that not a single word was uttered via the radio... I guess we'll have to wait until the flight recorders are recovered to learn more about what happened.

Definitely taking the A380 on my next flight though... always feel better on big planes, just like I feel safer at sea on big cruiseliners.