Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is Missing

delft said:

If I understand the Airbus concept correctly the aircraft is protected from overstressing by pilot commands by the software.
Indonesia is large. The distance from Medan to Merauke is larger than from New Foundland to Ireland, but there are plenty of islands to build weather radar to advise pilots of ways to avoid the worst of the weather.

Click to expand...

I guess the Airbus FCS pretty much prevents any form of departure from controlled flight, to include overspeed, stall, exessive pitch or bank ... I think there are back-up modes also. I don't know if they're there to provide redundancy if the main system fails, or if they allow more freedom to the crew if the crew decides the situation warrants it. Any insight?

On the radars. I'm also sometimes a little confused that there's only that secondary radar data available after such incidents happen. Does the air survaillance of nations in SE Asia have such gaps in coverage? Due to cost being an issue? It's not like providing that data in detail would give away anything of concern, since I should think being able to record a proper radar track would be the norm for any current system. And not reveal some secret capability.
So WX radar might be the same issue here, no funds available?

delft said:

If I understand the Airbus concept correctly the aircraft is protected from overstressing by pilot commands by the software.
Indonesia is large. The distance from Medan to Merauke is larger than from New Foundland to Ireland, but there are plenty of islands to build weather radar to advise pilots of ways to avoid the worst of the weather.

Click to expand...

yes the Airbus FCS does protect the airframe!

Lately I'm seeing reports in different news outlets that suggest the airplane may have made a more or less safe emergency landing on the surface. It then sank in heavy seas. Which is meant to eplain why the jet apears to be in a rather good condition lying on the ocean floor.

The US media has been reporting it hasn't been confirmed that the wreckage was found. Remember there are people now who want the "facts" to turn in their favor. Just like Sony Pictures has been playing up the cyber attack on them as terrorism, it's because that reduces the liability to Sony when it comes to lawsuits. Having the aircraft found nearly together when it the hit water can mean a mechanical error which will be Airbus's responsibility. If the aircraft flew into extreme bad weather where some pundits said it should have gone around or turned back, that becomes the responsibility of AirAsia for human error.

-30 bodies recovered so far.

-Air asia frozen from flying this particular lucrative route; they were only licensed to fly four days a week - Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The fatal flight was on a Sunday.

AssassinsMace said:

The US media has been reporting it hasn't been confirmed that the wreckage was found. Remember there are people now who want the "facts" to turn in their favor. Just like Sony Pictures has been playing up the cyber attack on them as terrorism, it's because that reduces the liability to Sony when it comes to lawsuits. Having the aircraft found nearly together when it the hit water can mean a mechanical error which will be Airbus's responsibility. If the aircraft flew into extreme bad weather where some pundits said it should have gone around or turned back, that becomes the responsibility of AirAsia for human error.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. Why couldn't it be human error even if the plane was mostly intact?

getready said:

I don't understand. Why couldn't it be human error even if the plane was mostly intact?

Click to expand...

Not that it couldn't be human error, but if the aircraft was largely intact, it would make it far less likely to be human error as an intact plane would suggest a controlled landing at sea, so that would make the most likely cause of the downing of the plane mechanical failure to force an emergency water landing.

However, I think that's unlikely, as a controlled landing should have allowed at least some passengers to evac and possibly use the emergency slides as makeshift lifeboats until help arrived.

getready said:

I don't understand. Why couldn't it be human error even if the plane was mostly intact?

Click to expand...

Because if it fell out of the sky from a stall because of flying into what was reported extreme weather at 30,000ft, the aircraft wouldn't be intact when it hits the water. An intact plane would mean it most likely made a controlled landing into the water which points to mechanical failure not pilot error. It could be human error or mechanical failure in any scenario but just going by the chances.

AssassinsMace said:

Because if it fell out of the sky from a stall because of flying into what was reported extreme weather at 30,000ft, the aircraft wouldn't be intact when it hits the water. An intact plane would mean it most likely made a controlled landing into the water which points to mechanical failure not pilot error. It could be human error or mechanical failure in any scenario but just going by the chances.

Click to expand...

Gents, these things are never simple, lots of odd deals here already, the ELT should have activated, if it did not, why not??? So having located the wreckage, now we wait, I do believe the altitude reporting mode S transponder did display some very high and very low speeds. So lets hold our horses, my little simulator trip looks to be wrong at this stage, but some of the data accrued from our simulator test flight did sound like some of the mode S data?

First step here is clarify stall, there are two types in aviation

1. The engine quit or stalls-- multiple engine stalls are usually unlikely, but ingesting LOTS of water, will put those fires OUT!
2. Aerodynamic stall, this is where the AOA is so great that the airflow has detached or the wing has departed or stalled, this is usually caused by the violent updrafts/downdrafts causing a loss of control due to disorientation of the aircrew, that still remains my number one theory at this point???

Just read an article on the online outlet of a german newspaper saying a request by the pilot to change course to circumnavigate was granted. However, his request to change altitude was denied due to heavy traffic in the area.
A quick search on google news seems to show others stating this as well.