Latest Entries »
**My updated postings are being posted at The Briefing Room, located at:
1. 66 people were on board. None of the people on the manifest were on a terrorism watchlist.
2. Leaked passenger list: According to a leaked passenger list, only very few of the passengers have a non-Arabic name. A leaked passenger list can be found on a anti-Muslim website http://www.shoebat.com
2.1 Strangely, the plane mentioned on the leaked crew list is SU-GBZ, but at least two confirmed victims (among them, French photographer Pascal Hess) do appear on the passenger list.
2. Earlier that day, SU-GCC flew to Eritrea and Tunis, returning to CAI each time.
3. According to BBC, no terrorist organization has credibly claimed responsibility.
1. Flight entered Athens FIR at 2:24 AM. Last successful communication was at 2:48, the flight was cleared to the exit of Athens FIR. “The pilot was jocund and thanked in Greek.”
1.1 Several ACARS messages beginning at 3:26 AM:
00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
2. At 3:27, Athens ACC tried to communicate with the flight, to hand it over to the Cairo FIR. Repetitive calls, also on the emergency frequency, went without any response. At the same time, 0:27Z, there was the “2600 AVIONICS SMOKE ACARS” message.
2.1 ACARS message:
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
3. The flight passed the FIR boundary at 3:29 AM. At the same time, these ACARS messages were sent:
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
After those, no more ACARS messages were received.
At 3:29:40 AM, the flight was lost from ATC radar, almost 7 nm southeast of KUMBI (KUMBI lies on the FIR boundary). The Greek Air Force was called, they were unable to track the plane with their radars (as it had already crashed at this time).
4. The aircraft stayed at FL370, at least when the transponder was still working.
5. Supposedly, the Greek Air Force’s primary radars did record the plane’s flight. “It turned 90 degrees left and then a 360-degree turn toward the right, dropping from 38,000 to 15,000 feet and then it was lost at about 10,000 feet.” (Paul Kammenos, Greek minister of defense)
1. First debris spotted at around noon of May 20th.
2. Possible oil slick photographed by the European Space Agency’s Sentinel satellite.
Thanks to Flying Turtle for his work on the chronology of events.
I have three remarks to make:
1/- It’s still very early news and, as usual, information arrives in bits and pieces, very often very contradictory. There isn’t a reliable source of news except specialised media and officials… and even then…
2/- Theories and assumptions are fine… provided they have some logical basis :
– ” I think this happened (….x….) because of this info…” The usual wild guesses about fuel starvation and stall / spin, for the time being have absolutely no basis whatsoever.
3/- Accident investigations are a fine balance between causes and effects , appearances and realities, technical and human failures, all those in a very dynamic environment: weather, air traffic…
Here, for instance we have two sets of apparent facts :
A/- A turn, followed by a rapid descent, another turn ion the opposite direction, a steeper descent until a target signal loss around 15 000 feet.
B/- A set of ACARS messages which need to be qualified:
1/- ANTI ICE RIGHT WINDOW / RIGHT SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR / RIGHT FIXED WINDOW SENSOR : Of these, only the first one is displayed to the crew, indicating a fault in the RHS window heating : the panes are no longer heated.
2/- SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE / AVIONICS SMOKE . Onlyt the Lav smoke would trigger an alarm, the avionionics smoke is just a level 2 caution. On this aspect one should be really basic about the info / warning / advisory : *smoke* means the detectors and the system are seeing smoke in the affected compartment : It doesn’t mean a fire had started there. On this fire and smoke protection system, one has to say that there is no sensor (that I know of ) and no indication / warning of a COCKPIT SMOKE, for obvious reasons : there are two – or more – pairs of eyes and nostrils in that flight deck.
3/- AUTO FLIGHT : FCU 2 FAULT / FLIGHT CONTROLS : SEC 3 FAULT . Only the second triggers a caution. FCU 2 Fault means that , had the FO been the PF, A/P #2 would have disconnected, causing even more disorder on the flight deck. Otherwise, it has no real impact on the flight conduct.
Now, with all the above in mind, what can we seriously say ?
– The absence of a MAYDAY call seems to point toward a very sudden event that became rapidly unmanageable : IMHO the only event that could have happened was a fire. A violent fire which started either in the avionics bay or in the cockpit.
The fire quickly destroyed most of the electronics, which is the reason there is no more ACARS messages – that we know of – just three minutes after the events initiation at 00:26 Z.
What caused the fire ? culprits abound : shorts / laptop batteries / cigarette…. or plain sabotage or bomb…
Wherever the fire started, the cockpit was one of the most affected volumes on that aircraft ; it must have been a very uncomfortable place to be in…
it looks like a Sub-Bus of the DC-Bus 2 system that’s affected. I think this is more of a fire in avionics bay,
As usual, Buddy, you have a knack for complexities… And here, we have one which could go very far.
1/- Electrical fire in the Avionics Bay:
What is galling is that the right window(s) anti-icing is ruled by the WHC – window heating computer – which is in turn powered by DC BUS 2. That bus seems to be rather involved : SEC 3 and FCU 2 are amongst the systems it furnishes power to.
There now comes the big problem : DC BUS 2 powers a lot more systems and as a matter of fact, one is left with FAC 1 ELAC 1 and SEC 1… The F/O has lost his static sensor —> needs to switch to ADR 3… One’s lost three spoilers per side… and those haven’t been ACARS transmitted.
The only explanation that makes sense is a fire, are we to consider that its progression was very fast and it destroyed basically most of the communications capability of the flight in less than four minutes.
On that subject, we have to consider that the detected smoke should have triggered a QRH procedure, here the AVIONICS SMOKE… and guess what ? the procedure could lead to an ELEC EMER CONFIG situation and com-wise, one is left with only VHF1… no bloody ACARS possible.
2/- Fire in the cockpit:
I’m afraid we have to consider the possibility of an event similar to the B-777 Nefertiti on ground at Cairo.
What is of note is that the wires to the sliding window sensors / heaters run very close to the pilots’ O2 masks stowage, and we have basically a continuous table running parallel to the fuselage skin from the instrument panel to the circuit breakers boards behind the pilots, on which to store a book, a laptop…etc… the O2 mask hose would add a lot to a fire in this area.
Then, the already polluted cockpit air would go to the avionics bay, for cooling, then be evacuated through the extract duct / fan where it would be scanned for particles. Then, and only then we would have a “Smoke” warning.
Egypt officials claim to locate EgyptAir black boxes
CBS/AP May 21, 2016, 6:16 AM
Search crews located the data recorders for EgyptAir Flight 804 close to an area where human remains and debris from the crashed flight have been found, Egyptian government sources confirmed to CBS News on Saturday.
Also Saturday, the French air accident investigation agency said smoke was detected in multiple places on the flight moments before it plummeted into the Mediterranean, but the cause of the crash that killed all 66 on board remains unclear.
On Friday, sources told CBS News that information was transmitted from the flight indicating that smoke was detected on the plane before it crashed.
According to the sources, the information indicates smoke was coming from one of the engines. The data was transmitted through the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System, which sends snapshots of engine performance throughout the flight…
The spokesman’s Facebook page later posted a brief video that showed more debris, including what appeared to be a piece of blue carpet, seat belts, a shoe and what looked like a woman’s white handbag. The short clip opened with aerial footage of an unidentified navy ship followed by a speed boat with five service members aboard heading toward floating debris.
gyptian authorities said they believe terrorism is a more likely explanation than equipment failure, and some aviation experts have said the erratic flight suggests a bomb blast or a struggle in the cockpit. But so far no hard evidence has emerged.
No militant group has claimed to have brought down the aircraft. That is a contrast to the downing of a Russian jet in October over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula that killed all 224 on board. In that case, the Sinai branch of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, issued a claim of responsibility within hours. On Friday, ISIS issued a statement on clashes with the Egyptian military in Sinai, but said nothing about the plane crash.
Three European security officials said on Friday that the passenger manifest for Flight 804 contained no names on terrorism watch lists. The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation. The manifest was leaked online and has not been verified by the airline.
Further checks are being conducted on relatives of the passengers.
French aviation investigators have begun to check and question all baggage handlers, maintenance workers, gate agents and other ground crew members at Charles de Gaulle Airport who had a direct or indirect link to the plane before it took off, according to a French judicial official. The official was not authorized to discuss the investigation and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.
Whatever caused the aircraft to crash, the tragedy will most likely deepen Egypt’s difficult predicament as it struggles to revive a battered economy and contain an increasingly resilient insurgency by Islamic militants…
Additional Reference Material:
The owner of a Richland flower shop being sued over her refusal to provide services for a same-sex wedding can be held personally liable in the case, a Benton County Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday.
The state attorney general and the couple both filed lawsuits against Barronelle Stutzman and her Arlene’s Flowers shop in 2013, after Stutzman declined to provide services for the couple’s wedding.
Stutzman, a Christian, has cited her religious beliefs about marriage.
Her attorneys said the claims against her in her personal capacity should be dropped, calling them unprecedented and unjust, while attorneys for the state and the couple argued that the law is clear about personal liability.
In his decision, Judge Alex Ekstrom sided with the state and couple, writing that “the clear language” of the Consumer Protection Act and state anti-discrimination law “supports both individual and corporate liability.”
Ekstrom did toss out one of the couple’s claims — that Stutzman aided her business in violating the state anti-discrimination law, writing that the law’s “aiding and abetting language does not apply to an individual ‘acting alone.’ ” The couple, who are represented by attorneys working with the ACLU of Washington, have conceded that claim should be dismissed.
Kristen Waggoner, one of Stutzman’s attorneys, said Wednesday that, “we’re disappointed in the ruling,” noting it means Stutzman would be on the hook personally for civil penalties and attorney fees should she lose.
Waggoner is senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom.
In his 35-page decision, Ekstrom also upheld the Attorney General’s authority to bring its suit under the Consumer Protection Act, writing that, “the court concludes that the Legislature intended to allow the (attorney general) independent unfettered authority to bring this action.”
Stutzman’s attorneys have argued that the state’s lawsuit is based on an “unprecedented interpretation” of state law and goes against its specific terms and decades of practice by successive attorneys general…
Washington State Constitution
ARTICLE I – DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.
No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county’s or public hospital district’s hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 88, 1993 House Joint Resolution No. 4200, p 3062. Approved November 2, 1993.]
Amendment 34 (1957) — Art. 1 Section 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM — Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: Provided, however, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional and mental institutions as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 34, 1957 Senate Joint Resolution No. 14, p 1299. Approved November 4, 1958.]
Amendment 4 (1904) — Art. 1 Section 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM — Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment. Provided, however, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for the state penitentiary, and for such of the state reformatories as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 4, 1903 p 283 Section 1. Approved November, 1904.]
Original text — Art. 1 Section 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM — Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person, or property, on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for, or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office, or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness, or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony.
Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may “pierce” or “lift” the corporate veil.
A simple example would be where a businessman has left his job as a director and has signed a contract to not compete with the company he has just left for a period of time. If he sets up a company which competed with his former company, technically it would be the company and not the person competing. But it is likely a court would say that the new company was just a “sham”, a “fraud” or some other phrase, and would still allow the old company to sue the man for breach of contract. A court would look beyond the legal fiction to the reality of the situation.
Despite the terminology used which makes it appear as though a shareholder’s limited liability emanates from the view that a corporation is a separate legal entity, the reality is that the entity status of corporations has almost nothing to do with shareholder limited liability. For example, English law conferred entity status on corporations long before shareholders were afforded limited liability. Similarly, the Revised Uniform Partnership Act confers entity status on partnerships, but also provides that partners are individually liable for all partnership obligations. Therefore, this shareholder limited liability emanates mainly from statute.
Corporations exist in part to shield the personal assets of shareholders from personal liability for the debts or actions of a corporation. Unlike a general partnership or sole proprietorship in which the owner could be held responsible for all the debts of the company, a corporation traditionally limited the personal liability of the shareholders. The limits of this protection have narrowed in recent years. Shareholders are increasingly personally liable.
Piercing the corporate veil typically is most effective with smaller privately held business entities (close corporations) in which the corporation has a small number of shareholders, limited assets, and recognition of separateness of the corporation from its shareholders would promote fraud or an inequitable result.
There is no record of a successful piercing of the corporate veil for a publicly traded corporation because of the large number of shareholders and the extensive mandatory filings entailed in qualifying for listing on an exchange.
In the United States, corporate veil piercing is the most litigated issue in corporate law. Although courts are reluctant to hold an active shareholder liable for actions that are legally the responsibility of the corporation, even if the corporation has a single shareholder, they will often do so if the corporation was markedly noncompliant, or if holding only the corporation liable would be singularly unfair to the plaintiff. In most jurisdictions, no bright-line rule exists and the ruling is based on common law precedents. In the United States, different theories, most important “alter ego” or “instrumentality rule”, attempted to create a piercing standard. Mostly, they rest upon three basic prongs—namely “unity of interest and ownership”, “wrongful conduct” and “proximate cause”. However, the theories failed to articulate a real-world approach which courts could directly apply to their cases. Thus, courts struggle with the proof of each prong and rather analyze all given factors. This is known as “totality of circumstances”.
There is also the matter of what jurisdiction the corporation is incorporated in if the corporation is authorized to do business in more than one state. All corporations have one specific state (their “home” state) to which they are incorporated as a “domestic” corporation, and if they operate in other states, they would apply for authority to do business in those other states as a “foreign” corporation. In determining whether or not the corporate veil may be pierced, the courts are required to use the laws of the corporation’s home state. This issue can be significant, for example, the rules for allowing a corporate veil to be pierced are much more liberal in California than they are in Nevada, thus, the owner(s) of a corporation operating in California would be subject to different potential for the corporation’s veil to be pierced if the corporation was to be sued, depending on whether the corporation was a California domestic corporation or was a Nevada foreign corporation operating in California.
Generally, the plaintiff has to prove that the incorporation was merely a formality and that the corporation neglected corporate formalities and protocols, such as voting to approve major corporate actions in the context of a duly authorized corporate meeting. This is quite often the case when a corporation facing legal liability transfers its assets and business to another corporation with the same management and shareholders. It also happens with single person corporations that are managed in a haphazard manner. As such, the veil can be pierced in both civil cases and where regulatory proceedings are taken against a shell corporation.
Factors for courts to consider
- Absence or inaccuracy of corporate records;
- Concealment or misrepresentation of members;
- Failure to maintain arm’s length relationships with related entities;
- Failure to observe corporate formalities in terms of behavior and documentation;
- Failure to pay dividends;
- Intermingling of assets of the corporation and of the shareholder;
- Manipulation of assets or liabilities to concentrate the assets or liabilities;
- Non-functioning corporate officers and/or directors;
- Significant undercapitalization of the business entity (capitalization requirements vary based on industry, location, and specific company circumstances);
- Siphoning of corporate funds by the dominant shareholder(s);
- Treatment by an individual of the assets of corporation as his/her own;
- Was the corporation being used as a “façade” for dominant shareholder(s) personal dealings; alter ego theory;
It is important to note that not all of these factors need to be met in order for the court to pierce the corporate veil. Further, some courts might find that one factor is so compelling in a particular case that it will find the shareholders personally liable.
- Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway, 244 N.Y. 602, 155 N.E. 914 (1927). Benjamin Cardozo decided there was no right to pierce the veil for a personal injury victim.
- Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties, Inc. 974 F.2d 545 (4th Cir. 1992). The Fourth Circuit held that no piercing could take place merely to prevent “unfairness” or “injustice”, where a corporation in a real estate building partnership could not pay its share of a lawsuit bill
- Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995)
- Minton v. Cavaney, 56 Cal. 2d 576 (1961). Mr. Minton’s daughter drowned in the public swimming pool owned by Mr. Cavaney. Then-Associate Justice Roger J. Traynor (later Chief Justice) of the Supreme Court of California held: “The equitable owners of a corporation, for example, are personally liable…when they provide inadequate capitalization and actively participate in the conduct of corporate affairs.”
- Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan, 939 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1991). The veil was pierced where its enforcement would not have matched the purpose of limited liability. Here a corporation was undercapitalized and was only used to shield a shareholder’s other company from debts.
Internal Revenue Service
In recent years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States has made use of corporate veil piercing arguments and logic as a means of recapturing income, estate, or gift tax revenue, particularly from business entities created primarily for estate planning purposes. A number of U.S. Tax Court cases involving Family Limited Partnerships (FLPs), such as Strangi, Hackl, Shepherd, and Bongard, show the IRS’s use of veil-piercing arguments. Since owners of U.S. business entities created for asset protection and estate purposes often fail to maintain proper corporate compliance, the IRS has achieved multiple high-profile court victories.
‘Fiat justitia et ruant coeli’
When you think about it, the Republican leadership’s attitude toward its own base is pretty much unprecedented. The Democrat Party never, at least publicly, rejects its base or impugns its base or makes fun of its base or wishes its base didn’t exist. The Democrat Party never, ever publicly does anything to diminish the image of their base, the reality, the existence of their base. They never do anything to humiliate them, and the Republican Party thrives on it.
The Republican Party is doing everything it can to dismantle its own base, as identified by the Tea Party. It’s doing everything it can to impugn them, to join the Democrats in mocking and making fun and to render their base, their own base impotent, which is why I spent so much time yesterday explaining the modern composition of the current establishment Inside the Beltway.
Anyway, it’s fascinating to watch all this take place, and you all are flooding the zone in Washington, phone calls and e-mails, text and Twitter messages, hashtags. They’re being inundated in the capital city by many of you who are simply fed up at the fact that they don’t get it and are not listening.
I mean, I can’t emphasize how really unprecedented this situation is for the Republican Party leadership, its attitude toward its own base…
Many people think the Republican Party needs new leadership. For many people it couldn’t be more clear. Republicans across this country spoke and have been speaking, but they spoke most recently in the November elections. But it’s not just elections. Landslide elections to recent polling demonstrate overwhelming no confidence in current leadership.
I don’t think there is any mistaking the direction Republican voters seek. I don’t think there’s anything ambivalent about any of this. And I don’t think there’s any room for misunderstanding. You can do all the Google analytics you want, but I don’t think there’s any level, any reason, there’s not even any room for misinterpretation here. This is perfectly clear what has happened. As far as Republican voters are concerned, from amnesty, to Obamacare, to spending, to the budget, there is no uncertainty; they want Obama stopped…
Let’s face it, they think the Tea Party’s a bunch of kooks. They think the Tea Party’s a bunch of — well, some they think are decent people, they just don’t get it how Washington works. They’re rubes, and they just don’t get it. The typical way the Democrats have always looked at people. Democrats hold average Americans in contempt, by definition. Democrats look at individuals and see helplessness and hopelessness, and the Democrats believe that everybody needs to be saved from themselves because nobody has the guts or the ability to take care of themselves…
And so the Republican Party, which used to have a real connection with the people who make this country work, Republican leadership’s in the process of losing that connection, losing their audience, is the term, if this were media. It isn’t media; it’s politics. They’re losing their base.
They’re losing the connection they have with their voters who are the ones who really make this country work. And those people, people who make this country work in increasing numbers, don’t trust Boehner and others in the Republican leadership, and they don’t trust Washington as a whole. They trust in God. That’s another story from yesterday we’re gonna get to, the fact that American exceptionalism is actually rooted in Christianity and — it’s a Wall Street Journal story, December 30th — about how many people in this country actually are Christian. It will stun you.
The Republican base trusts in God, trusts in families, free markets, Constitution. And they’re sick of the BS. Sick of being told what to eat; sick of being told what to drive; sick of being told how to keep warm; sick of being told it’s cold in Chicago in December, January, when it’s supposed to be, they already know it’s cold. And they’re sick of being told how to stay warm when it gets cold. They’re sick of being insulted.
John Boehner is getting revenge.
After he secured his third term as speaker Tuesday afternoon, losing 25 votes on the House floor to some relative-unknown members of the Republican Conference, Boehner moved swiftly to boot two of the insurgents from the influential Rules Committee. That could be just the start of payback for the speaker’s betrayers, who might see subcommittee chairmanships and other perks fall away in the coming months…
Members are already making noises about reversing any punitive action by Boehner and the leadership, although the speaker’s allies warn that further retaliation could be on the way.
The House Republican leadership is carefully reviewing the list of members who voted against the speaker and those who opposed a procedural motion in December on the so-called “crominibus,” the $1.1 trillion spending package to keep the government open through to September. Top Republican sources suggested that the process could take months to unfold…
“The alienation among Republican voters is so high,” says Caddell, that conservatively “a quarter to one-third of the Republican party are hanging by a thread from bolting.” Caddell argues that GOP voters’ attitudes are “so anti-establishment,” and they give Republican leadership poor ratings.
The revelation comes on the heels of polling data supervised by Caddell Associates and reported on Friday by Breitbart News that a stupefying 60% of Republicans who voted in the November elections either definitely or probably want someone other than Ohio Congressman John Boehner to be the Speaker of the House…
His latest poll shows that Republican voters are reaching a tipping point and may have had enough of GOP lawmakers’ feckless leadership and constant submission to President Obama’s policies…
Breitbart’s Chairman asked Caddell “does the math show you that there could be an uprising and could the GOP go the way of the Whig Party?” Caddell answered by reminding Bannon that the estimate that one-quarter to one-third are hanging on by a thread is a conservative one. He explained:
The GOP leadership, the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultant class of the Republican party, and all the big donors don’t understand that these people are angry. … They are saying that John Boehner doesn’t care about them, and all he cares about is the special interests. I’ve never seen anything like this in the base of a party. And that is why the analogy to the Whigs is not so far-fetched.
In case you were wondering, the following is how the Georgia House Delegation voted:
Buddy Carter (GA-1) – Boehner
Sanford Bishop (GA-2) – Pelosi
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3) – Boehner
Hank Johnson (GA-4) – Pelosi
John Lewis (GA-5) – Pelosi
Tom Price (GA-6) – Boehner
Rob Woodall (GA-7) – Boehner
Austin Scott (GA-8) – Boehner
Doug Collins (GA-9) – Boehner
Jody Hice (GA-10) – Boehner
Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) – Boehner
Rick Allen (GA-12) – Boehner
David Scott (GA-13) – Pelosi
Tom Graves (GA-14) – Boehner
The so called conservatives, like Blackburn, Gowdy and many others left these brave 25 congressmen out to hang. The frauds got exposed today. 2016 is really close, and the so-called conservatives who voted today for tax and spend, big government, tyranny loving Boehner, will be coming to you for your votes next year. When they come begging for your votes, when they come claiming to be conservative, when they come claiming to “stand up to washington”, please ask them how they voted for Speaker today. The base will remember who voted for this fool!
“Former Garuda Indonesia pilot Capt. Shadrach M. Nababan, said -based on its logbook data – that the Airbus A320-200 serving AirAsia flight QZ8501 had experienced problems as much as nine times on its auto rudder trim limiter flight control in 2014.
Three days before crashing on December 25, 2014, flight QZ8501 experienced a ‘return to apron’ twice, according to Shadrach…”
Q: Regarding the continuous left turn, and reversion to alternate law, there were reports a number of years ago of FAC (flight augmentation computer) faults on A320s resulting in “runaway” rudder trim. From Youtube (not “runaway”, but … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT0NJiRFA1s My understanding is that FAC failure will also result in a reversion to Alternate2, with a number of protections being lost.
A: You got something there… Ironically a local media called me today and asked about MELs related to:
AUTO FLT RUD TRV LIM (and 2)
ELAC 1 FAULT
Rudder travel limiter 2 fault identification and MEL Cat C allowances
AUTO FLT RUD TRV LIM SYS
FAC 2 FAULT
This… they said was from the aircraft’s write up…
Q: “Safety Recommendation 2010-092 It is recommended that Airbus alert all operators of A320-series aircraft of the possibility that an electrical power generation system fault may not be clearly annunciated on the ECAM, and may lead to uncommanded rudder trim operation.”,
A: Uncommanded rudder command or rudder trim is being suspected.
Q: A dual FAC failure seems to me one factor that could explain the event after the climb as it seems that the aircraft kept structural integrity all the way to the impact. Another problem is that with both FACs failed, the flight control laws revert to ALT w/o protections. It’s not – obviously – the explanation. It just shows how drastic and how complicated the chain of events could have been on this accident. Anyway, the failure(s) must have been severe, given how redundant the systems are on a modern jet. It’s one of the reasons I’d like to know whether the engines were running after / during the climb.
A: Dual FAC fail or fault could have caused reversion to ALTN NO PROT… Even Yaw Damper failure could have caused the above. If it’s an FAC 2 fault only, I wouldn’t suspect Yaw Damper failure… But ELAC2, and FAC2 swap (with another aircraft) and the write ups… does raise my eyebrow…
Q: I thought that even ALT2 had some protections left, but I’m always happy to learn.
A: A320 has a different albeit similar reversion chain… Dual FAC fail, Dual HYD (Green & Yellow) fail, Yaw Damper Failure = Pitch ALT (REDUCED PROT), ROLL DIRECT, YAW MECHANICAL
ALT NO PROT (ALTN 2) in A330 would translate in A320 to…
Pitch: ALT NO PROT
Double ADR Fail (with 1 fail not through self detection of VCAS or M disagree)
Triple ADR Fail
Double SFCC Fail
Double HYD fail (Green & Blue)
This is not what we seem to be looking at ALT RED PROT not ALT NO PROT.
Q: What we call * ELEC EMER CONFIG (on BAT) * is no joke and at 60 kt indicated, I honestly doubt the RAT would deliver anything.
A: Let’s just assume for the moment that the engines are running to the very end… 😉 *hint hint*
email@example.com (Wed 21 Jan 2015)
Q: I believe Mandala499 has pondered an inflight breakup.
A: Pondered only… leaks from within currently indicate recordings were all the way to water impact… this effectively rules out inflight breakup involving separation of the rear fuselage. The photos of the wreck, all seem to indicate a nose high water impact with left bank… but this will have to be confirmed by the FDR.
Q: How can the cockpit and the rest of the fuselage come to rest so far apart on only 100 feet deep water? After separaion they both fill with water in seconds and fall to the bottom.
A: If it was a flat attitude, it’s difficult… but a nose high altitude can make this possible it seems…
The media mayhem have stopped for me for the past 2 days providing much needed relief, rest, and time to look at the information gathered.
There is now a debate within the stakeholders on whether or not to look for the FOQA data (which includes the ECAM messages, which on this aircraft, is (according to sources in the airline) not recorded in the FDR. The FOQA data would be stored in the FDIMU in the avionics bay in a CF card… I am told the CF data, if treated the same way as the FDR from site-retrieval to the lab, would have a high possibility of having the data intact.
Let’s see how things will pan out over the next few days…
“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.”
He did not specify whether or not the seat was inside the fuselage section that sits on the seabed at a depth of 28 meters (92 feet). The 30-meter-long (100-foot-long) part of the plane body with a wing attached was sighted Wednesday.
Rescuers believe that many of the bodies are still inside the main fuselage.
Soelistyo said the failure of the underwater examination of the wreckage left no option but to lift the fuselage, either by using floating balloons as the tail part was lifted early this week, or using cranes from tugboats. He did not say when the operation would start.
He added that one victim’s body was recovered on Friday, raising the total to 51…
..Earlier Friday, chief of operation of the agency, Suryadi Bambang Supriyadi said the wreckage that appears to be the cockpit was located by sonar imagery about 500 meters (yards) from the fuselage and partly embedded in the mud.”
Just spoken over the phone with the Commander Task Group for underwater search operations on board the MV Swift Rescue, SLTC Chow Khim Chong. He described to me how their sonar first detected the wreckage about 2km from where the tail was found earlier. They then sent the remotely operated vehicle to have visual confirmation before informing BASARNAS, the Indonesian search authority. The wreckage with wings was about 26m long. I asked Khim Chong to convey my thanks and appreciation to his crew. I’m sure Singaporeans are proud of them for their hard work. Attaching an audio-clip of the phone call.
– Ng Eng Hen
“Reports from the field are trickling in… There is means to guarantee that the following make sense or accurate. This is a speculation warning.
From the description I am getting it appears that the horizontal stabilizer had separated from the rear fuselage, which separated from the rest of the aircraft, at around FL220 (where the recorded ADSB altitude is only GEO alt, and no more barometric).
From the description of the SAR team, it is unclear if the FDR was found on the sea floor below the horizontal stabilizer or the aircraft wing. 1 FA found strapped to his seat, indicates that those onboard were anticipating something.
The above may be obvious to some already, and this news from ‘inside’… gets me baffled once more…
Still a great deal of obfuscation going on and it seems to me that one of the most important things still unfound in this accident is absolute truth. The obfuscation by the SAR team isn’t helping. They, and the military brass seems to be seeking glory with every single discovery. Thankfully, they are not the ones doing the investigation, and sources from inside the search team has indicated that the locations reported are so far accurate.
Q: If that’s what happened I guess this wasn’t just a simple stall like AF447 as in that kind of a flight condition there shouldn’t be high enough forces to damage the aircraft so badly…
A: Well, -20000fpm, and the last recorded valid barometric info (I just received the info) on the ADS-B, was at FL235, with -15,681.25fpm, at the beginning of a tight left turn. Seems that the load factor protection of the FBW had failed… the question is, what caused the failure.
… I have seen the data and there was a wide left 180 (with a stall in the middle) followed by… a tight left orbit before the data stopped…
Q: Does this normally degrade with degraded flight control law (normal to alternate to etc.) or is it supposed to always be present?
A: If it goes to ALT with reduced protection (load factor protection available), the icing argument, makes sense, but doesn’t explain the breakup… If it goes to ALT with reduced protection then go into an upset, this needs opening the books (which I can’t do effectively at the moment).
“Divers have retrieved the cockpit voice recorder of crashed AirAsia flight QZ8501, according to reports…”
“…Henry Bambang Soelistyo, chief of Indonesia’s search and rescue agency, says the flight data recorder was brought to the surface by four divers early Monday morning. He says the search continues for the cockpit voice recorder…”
“Cockpit voice recorder located 20m from flight data recorder, says official”
Update – 11 January 2015
“…Forty-eight bodies have been retrieved so far. Search teams believe most of the remains may still be inside the fuselage of the plane, which has yet to be found…”
“THREE ships equipped with ping detectors received pings from the same location,” said Ridwan Djamaluddin, from the Agency for the Application of Technology, whose ship was involved in the search.
He said the ping came from a location about one to four kilometres from where the aircraft’s broken tail section was retrieved on Saturday. “We are confident it’s from the black box,” he said, referring to the voice cockpit recorder and the flight data recorder…”
“If one assumed that the aircraft pancaked, or even broke up attempting to ditch, you would expect that the remainder of the aircraft, particularly all the concentrated mass components, ie, the dense and heavy bits, like engines, apu, mlgs, nlg, and if they separated from their mounting trays, the cvr, fdr etc, and the other larger major components like ths, outboard wing panels, and centre section, would be, indeed must be, immediately proximate, regardless of currents. So far, that does not seem to be the case.
There is no evidence, at this stage, of any other major component wreckage, anywhere, let alone anywhere near the location of the tail. It has been reported that a suspected pinger is over a mile away.
The reported condition of the recovered bodys (at this stage less than one third) suggests relatively low “g” conditions. The leaked mode “s” data showed high rod at much below cruise level.
Taken together therefore, these observations suggest strongly to me, the high probability of an in flight breakup, not a whole aircraft experiencing surface induced structural disruption.
My viewing of the recovered upper empenage and fin, and lower rudder, suggests to me, that the ths, and it’s mounting structure (including apu mounting structure and apu) most likely separated from the upper empenage by downward bending with pitch down torsion.
If that is the case, it would have taken tremendous downward ths loading of the support structure to do that, which suggests to me, probable breakup during pull-up, attempting recovery from a significantly pitch down attitude, at high speed (high dynamic pressure), probably at a relatively low altitude, ie, between FL200 – FL100.
Under such conditions, if the ths separated first, with the aircraft otherwise still “whole at that instant”, the remainder of the aircraft would immediately, and violently, “tumble in the pitch down direction”, with high angular velocity. The weakened empenage would “immediately” tear off, and the remaining fuselage aft of the wing, and the fuselage forward of the wing, would then both rapidly separate from the wingbox, probably before the pitch axis had even passed through the vertical. In the same timeframe, the pylons would fail, the engines would separate, and the outboard wing sections would fail in downward bending and torsion overload, and separate, probably at or just outboard of the pylons.
The schredded wreckage would then descend. If that be the case, the greater the altitude of the breakup, the greater the dimensions of the resulting debris field. The foreward section of the fuselage, and the remaining aft section of the fuselage, may have remained relatively intact, and may still contain most of the occupants.”
AirAsia Update – 7 Jan 2015
AirAsia Indonesia Flight QZ8501 UPDATE (as of 7th January 2015 8:00 PM (GMT+7)
SURABAYA, 7 JANUARY 2015 – The National Search and Rescue Agency (BASARNAS) Republic of Indonesia today confirmed that the SAR team retrieved a visual confirmation of the tail part of QZ 8501’s aircraft. The visual confirmation was made following underwater documentation of the aircraft’s tail and small wreckage, which showed the plane’s registration number (PK-AXC), captured by the SAR team’s sea divers.
The tail part was found in the additional focus search area (approx. 30 kms from the primary focus area). The SAR operation is still underway as the weather is reported to be clear with good underwater visibility for the divers to continue observation.
Sunu Widyatmoko, Chief Executive Officer AirAsia Indonesia commented, “We would like to extend our appreciation to all authorities and personnel that has been involved in the SAR operation. Today is the eleventh day and the latest finding is indeed an breakthrough for all of us who have been anxiously waiting for further development on the SAR operation.” Following the latest finding, BASARNAS confirmed that the later SAR operation will be focused in this area to see if there are any trapped remains that must be recovered as well as the continued search for the black box.
Earlier today, Indonesian Navy Commander of the KRI Bung Tomo-357, Lieutenant Colonel Ashari Alamsyah officially handed over the debris and passengers belongings of QZ 8501’s flight that were found in the search area to the Deputy Commander of Indonesian Naval Aviation Unit, Colonel Yuwono at SAR Operation center in Juanda International Airport. As for the next phase, debris will be transferred to Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee (KNKT) for further investigation.
This morning, BASARNAS also confirmed to have recovered one more remain from the search area. The remain is still in Pangkalan Bun, waiting to be transported to Surabaya for further identification process. Meanwhile, the Disaster Victim Identification Police Department Republic of Indonesia (DVI POLRI) today announced that they have identified 8 more remains of QZ 8501 passengers as: Ratri Sri Andriani (female),Rudy Soetjipto (male), Jou Christine Yuanita (female), Soetikno Sia (male), Ruth Natalia Made Puspita Sari (female), Nico Giovani (male), Indahju Liangsih (female), Stephanie Yulianto (female). AirAsia Indonesia officially handed over the remains to the respective families at Bhayangkara Hospital, Surabaya this afternoon.
To date, BASARNAS confirmed to have recovered a total of 40 remains of which 24 remains have been identified by DVI POLRI and 16 remains are still being identified.
Search teams looking for underwater wreckage from crashed AirAsia flight QZ8501 have located the tail of the aircraft, the section where the crucial black box flight recorders are housed, Indonesia’s search and rescue agency chief says.
Bambang Soelistyo, the chief of Basarnas, Indonesia’s search and rescue agency, told reporters in Jakarta recovery teams found the tail of the plane in the Java Sea.
“We have successfully obtained part of the plane that has been our target. The tail portion has been confirmed found,” he said.
AirAsia Update – 6 Jan 2015
“…This evening, BASARNAS also confirmed to recover two more remains from the focused search area. The two remains are still in Pangkalan Bun, waiting to be transported to Surabaya for further identification process.
Meanwhile, the Disaster Victim Identification Police Department Republic of Indonesia (DVI POLRI) today announced that they have identified 3 more remains of QZ 8501 passengers as: Indra Yulianto (male), Hindarto Halim (male), Jou Brian Youvito (male). AirAsia Indonesia officially handed over the remains to the respective families at Bhayangkara Hospital, Surabaya this afternoon.
To date, BASARNAS confirmed to have recovered a total of 39 remains of which 16 remains have been identified by DVI POLRI and 23 remains are still being identified…”
The Jakarta Post
Indonesian officials said Saturday that they were confident wreckage of AirAsia Flight 8501 had been located after sonar equipment detected four massive objects on the ocean floor.
The biggest piece, measuring 18 meters (59 feet) long and 5.4 meters (18 feet) wide, appeared to be part of the jet’s body, said Henry Bambang Soelistyo, chief of the National Search and Rescue Agency.
Though strong currents and big surf have prevented divers from entering waters to get a visual of the suspected fuselage, officials are hopeful they will find many of the passengers and crew inside, still strapped in their seats…
The objects on the seafloor were discovered Friday and Saturday, and an Indonesian Geological Survey vessel was used to assess their dimensions, Soelistyo said.
In addition to what appeared to be a significant part of the plane’s body, chunks of debris found in the target search area measured up to 12 meters (39 feet) long.
Other suspected plane parts were seen scattered on beaches during an aerial survey, Soelistyo said…
Strong currents and towering waves as high as 4 meters (13 feet) have slowed recovery efforts, scattering bodies and debris in all directions. The discoveries so far include an emergency exit door and slide, as well as a backpack with food and a camera inside.
As part of the investigation into the crash, autopsies will be carried out on some of the bodies, including the pilot and co-pilot, whose remains have not yet been recovered, said Budiyono, who heads East Java’s Disaster Victim Identification unit and, like many Indonesians, uses only one name…
2 Additional Large Objects Found by USS Fort Worth
Q: The news is stating 4 large pieces of the plane have been identified/found/located, are these very close to each other?
A: 3 within 30-50 meters of each other and 1 within 300-400m of the other, that is what I heard or misheard on the press conference 18 hours ago or so.
Q: Several threads ago you gave information which was transmitted from the aircraft. Has this data been able to be validated by cross referencing with other data which either qualifies the data as good or suggests it is maybe questionable?
A: I cross checked this with someone involved in the wreckage search, and the position “made sense” after allowing for debris drift. I have since obtained more on the so-called Mode-S transmissions from the aircraft, and trust me, it is NOT a pretty picture. Honestly, it makes AF447 look like a doddle.
Q: The AD did not concern a “computer glitch,” but rather an issue with frozen AoA vanes which, under the right conditions, can cause Alpha Prot to activate and the flight control system to therefore command nose-down pitch rates.
A: People I believe are incorrectly referring to this Red OEB as they are looking for anything to quickly solve the cause. The OEB deals with the situation where the AoA probs which are an input to the flight control computers are frozen at an angle of attack, and the aircraft mach number is increased. This should not be an issue in the cruise when mach is relatively stable.
What the flight control computers see is a higher angle of attack on two or more probes which is normal for lower speeds, however as they aircraft accelerates the AoA should decrease. By having two or more of them them frozen (unable to rotate), AoA remains unchanged for the speed, so the flight control system will lower the nose to reduce the AoA. If it is the case of a single one being frozen, the aircraft will vote the incorrect one out, this problem only occurs when there are multiple incorrect inputs.
Q: implies a very definite nose-down attitude.
A: No it does not.
Q: Forgive my ignorance, but just how out of the ordinary is this?
A: Depends on the level they are at, it is not uncommon to have -60 deg C in cruise in the tropics, if they are looking at cloud tops of a mature CB, it can reach the best part of 20-30,000 above normal cruising altitudes in the tropics. The tropopause is up around 55,000 ft at the moment in the area, which is normal this time of year.
Q: The general area of the main wreckage relative to floating debris varies not just with time (currents) but also depends highly on what exactly happened to the plane in the first place.
A: The parts of the cabin that have been recovered in my view show signs of vertical deceleration.
LB Note: As best I can determine, Air Asia did not have Airbus ACARS maintenance subscription nor on-line engine monitoring.
When avoiding CBs ahead you can ask for a clearance in many different ways.
– You can ask for a new specific heading: “Callsign requesting left/right turn heading xxx due to weather” You have to ask again when a further deviation is required.
– You can ask for a clearance to proceed offtrack: ” Callsign requesting up to 30NM right/left of track due to weather” This request allows you to basically to use headings on your own as long as you stay within the mileage which was granted.
In most parts of the world it is way easier to obtain a lateral deviation clearance than a vertical. Vertical separation is almost everywhere 1000′ and the limiting factor.
Lateral separation is around 5NM in terminal areas up to 100NM or more in remote areas. Take a look on flightradar and skyvector to get am impression of airway density in different parts of the world.
QZ8501 was filed on airway M635. The next airway towards the southwest is airway L511. It is more that 70NM southwest of M635. This enables the controller to use the airspace between the airways for traffic avoiding CBs…
Safety is first!
… Bravery… Being a pilot does not require bravery. But people are different. Sometimes I observe other traffic (on the nav display) which is very close to a build up. They are in a position where I would not want to be. Are they brave? I don’t know. They might be less sensitive to CBs than I am. But I really don’t like build ups that much.
The pressure on pilots might be different, depending on where you work. This was on CB cluster we were deviating around. And it looks like that we did not received a clearance for that (Africa).
Q: Thanks again for your contributions. What are the circumstances under which you will climb to better see what you are trying to fly around?
A: This depends on lots of factors: Day, Night, Moonlight or not, what type of cloud am I in, tropopause height, relative position to build ups (if any), wind direction, … But in the end I don’t have to see anything, because the weather radar is a pretty good tool to avoid the dangerous stuff.
Q: Will the weather radar display hail that gets kicked out of the tops and can come down well away from the storm center?
A: You need to know the structure of a cumulonimbus cloud to identify dangerous areas. The reflectivity of precipitation depends on droplet type (rain, wet hail, dry hail, ice crystals). So you need a combination of weather radar display and knowledge to identify hail areas.
It is better not to fly in the areas where the hail will come down obviously. The hail itself will not be kicked out of the tops, but it will be in the cloud, next to the cloud and below the anvil. During cruise, the part under the anvil is the one you want to avoid because here you will find hail furthest from the cloud. You do not want to fly too close to the CB anyway.
Here is an open document, which contains some nice images, drawings and weather radar information:
“To summarise, the flight was in a northwesterly heading and probably climbing from FL320 to its cleared level of FL340. The crew had already initiated a deviation to the left of bad weather just before the accident, and meteorological data show some vigorous convection – and therefore moderate to severe turbulence – in the immediate vicinity. At least two other flights also appear to have taken a (wider) deviation. Upper air observations and model data suggest that icing conditions were also possible. Radar data show that the aircraft’s groundspeed was unusually slow for the conditions observed.”
The transponder today is no longer a simple device, it is a complicated transmitted connected to numerous systems designed to provide different levels of data to ATC and other aircraft.
In its most simple mode, the transponder will return a ping to a radar without any altitude information, and the time of flight and azimuth of the ping is used to generate an arc of that distance from zero ft at maximum distance to directly above the radar head where the aircraft must be. Next to useless as the height of the aircraft is needed to establish where the aircraft is on that arc.
The error with this position information is the similar to position errors with a VOR, the airways need to be calibrated to account for position errors. Calibration is needed to establish the ground station and site effect error, the can be as much as 2 degrees which at 200 nm from the radar head can mean a position error of around 7 nm.
Mode C is taken from the aircraft air data system, if the air data system is compromised, eg probes or ports blocked, the transmitted encoded altitude can be in error.
Globally the datalink standard ADS-B out uses is the 1090 MHz Mode S Extended Squitter (1090 ES) (some regional areas also use VHF Data Link Mode 4 (VDL-4) and Universal Access Transceiver (UAT)). ATC has two types of ADS-B, ADS-B RAD : ADS-B for Radar Airspace and ADS-B NRA : ADS-B for Non Radar Airspace. Data for the ADS-B out comes from a different system again, it comes from the navigation system, the system will normally provide 8 labels to the transponder from the GPS, GNSS Altitude (Msl) Feet, GNSS Latitude Degrees, GNSS Longitude Degrees, GNSS Ground Speed Knots, Vertical Figure Of Merit Feet, Vertical Velocity Feet/Min, EPU Estimate Position Uncertainty/ (ANP), Actual Navigation Performance, Horizontal Figure Of Merit, GNSS Height Feet. It can take up to two seconds for each ADS-B out packet to be sent, and for Routine Surveillance or Navigation the ATC equipment will process 95% of the ADS-B data within 22.5 seconds, and 99.996% within 45 seconds.
Bottom line, with the delay in generating and transmitting the ADS-B packets, you need to be aware of the limits of the different pieces of information, what their source is, and what the errors are in each system before drawing conclusions.
Also need to keep in mind is you are looking at SSR data, the altitude information is from the air data system on the aircraft, if its ADS-B, the altitude information is from the GPS/NAV system.
The radar screen image provided in a previous thread showed the aircraft as an open circle, that means the data source was SSR, ADS-B derived positions, aircraft are displayed differently (like a fly by waypoint symbol tilted by 45 deg).
AirAsia flight QZ8501: Crucial black boxes may not be found with wreckage after plane ‘split or cracked’ during crash
Five large objects have been found at the bottom of the Java Sea about 90 nautical miles off the coast of Borneo, and experts believe them to be parts of the Airbus A320-200 that plunged into the sea on route from Surabaya to Singapore last Sunday.
At about 18 metres (59 feet) long, the largest piece suspected to be the fuselage of the plane – but bad weather and strong currents have prevented searchers from making the relatively shallow 30-metre dive to verify this.
Fransiskus Bambang Soelistyo, the head of Indonesia’s search and rescue agency, said the focus now was to reach that fuselage, where many bodies could still be strapped in to seats. “Our priority is to dive in the location we suspect parts of the plane to be,” he said.
But Soelistyo said none of the ships searching the area have detected any “pings” – locator signals sent out by black boxes in the event of a crash…
Air Force Lt Col Johnson Supriyadi, a search and rescue official co-ordinating the operation, said it now looked like the boxes, located in the tail of the plane, had broken away from the rest of the wreckage.
“Based on the finding of pieces of debris it looks like the body of the aircraft split or cracked and was separated from its tail,” he said…
-03° 38′ 39″ 109° 43′ 43″ (degrees minutes seconds)
This is about 2.5nm South East of the last SSR/ADS-B location (Google Maps measures 3.03 statute miles = 2.63nm)
In my screen grab [above]:
– the lower yellow start marke the tail section (and the blue annotation is the distance from the purple star)
– the purple circle is the last lat/lon from the SSR (ADS-B),
– the purple star is the approx location from the primary radar image.
– The red box is supposed to be “Most Probable Area 2″,
– the black tilted rectangular outline is the left (Western) section of the “Underwater Search Area”.
– The yellow diagonal line is Route M635 between TAVIP to RAFIS.
– The black diagonal line is the FR24 estimated flight path (the inverted teardrops are individual extrapolations from FR24 after the last valid ADS-B data data they received)
[ignore the white square, the blue square, the Northern yellow star, and the green diagonal line]
The photo of inside tells the most: it is taken inside aft fuselage looking from front towards the tail end and considering that light comes from the top of photo, I believe camera was held reasonably level. Therefore, this part of tail section probably rests leaning on vertical stabiliser with its right side on the bottom (left side exposed – photographed) Right half of horizontal stabiliser pushed into the mud or is (partially) broken away-fuselage rests half inverted to the right side-approx. 130 deg. from normal. Interior shows parts of THS mechanism, that moves-trims horizontal stabiliser via jackscrew. It appears it is in extreme position ANU, (leading edge to the bottom) but cannot say for sure as mechanism looks broken and fuselage skin severely distorted. Am surprised that CVR / DFDR were not found, as they are installed very close to position, from where the photo was taken. I assume that part of the fuselage is not in the same piece with the structure photographed.
AD No.: 2014-0266-E – Date: 09 December 2014
An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle Of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.
When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AOA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane. To address this unsafe condition, Airbus have developed a specific Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) procedure, which has been published in AFM Temporary Revision (TR) N° 502. For the reasons described above, this AD requires amendment of the applicable AFM.
AIRBUS A320 (PDF) Materials
**Disclaimer: The Smartcockpit PDF files are for training purposes only and may be obsolete.**