Category: Reference


**My updated postings are being posted at The Briefing Room, located at:

EgyptAir Flight Disappears From Radar

debris

 

MS804 Synopsis
==============

Background

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.

Flight History
————–
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)

Search
——
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…

Pihero

 

Quoting mandala499:
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.

Pihero

 

Source:  airliners.net

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:

Smartcockpit

Airbus Training

Flightcrew Training Manual

med;(

 

stupid-elephant

The GOP Leadership’s Attitude Toward Its Own Base Is Unprecedented

Rush Limbaugh

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.

 

10888572_321781481364031_571242763754445816_n

Boehner takes revenge

Politico

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…

mostinterestingrino

Pollster Pat Caddell: One-Third of GOP ‘Hanging by a Thread from Bolting’

“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.

 10384827_731136063660265_4284764337024079905_nBuddy and his new BFF!

How Georgia’s Congressmen Voted For House Speaker

PeachPundit

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

484x252xboehner.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Bh1DAFDSzCCBnNR-QeEd

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!

LB ;(

 

5990620-3x2-940x627

AirAsia Plane Often Experiences Trouble, Former Pilot Says

“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…”

150114091745-01-airasia-0114-exlarge-169

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…

134226_hidungc

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.

QRH Update

excerpt – from an AAIB reported incident on an A321 (pdf)

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

Roll: DIRECT

Yaw: ALT

This requires:

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*

mandala499@a.net (Wed 21 Jan 2015)

B77u2M4IUAAz8mR

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…

Mandala499@a.net

s041959482

AirAsia fuselage to be lifted to surface after divers foiled

“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.”

underswterairsi1501e

Fuselage found

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

 

B7TT7dBCcAAjVIz.jpg large

“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).

Mandala449@a.net

 

B7OXuE0CcAA2WYC

“Divers have retrieved the cockpit voice recorder of crashed AirAsia flight QZ8501, according to reports…”

3news.co.nz

The flight data recorder of AirAsia QZ8501 is seen in a carrying case onboard Indonesian navy vessel KRI Banda Aceh, in the Java Sea

“…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…”

abcnews/ap

209q5vc

“Cockpit voice recorder located 20m from flight data recorder, says official”

Channel NewsAsia

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…”

BBC

Potongan bagian ekor pesawat AirAsia QZ8501 ditarik ke atas kapal Crest Onyx, setelah berhasil diangkat dari dasar laut dengan menggunakan "floating bag" oleh tim penyelam gabungan TNI AL, di perairan Laut Jawa, Sabtu (10/1).

“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…”

news.com.au

Indonesia Plane

“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.”

ventus45@pprune

Pressure-Bulkhead shared by ventus45@pprune

_80179058_80179057

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.

201517135134121734_20

Airbus-A300-tail-detail201517135143371734_20

AirAsia flight QZ8501: Tail of plane found, Indonesia’s search and rescue chief says

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.

_80103115_025304013-1

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…”

151024

lY3zcJj_80103115_025304013-1

4 large objects detected in AirAsia wreckage hunt

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

202728_david1Object 6 has dimensions of 17 x 4 meters at a depth of 93 feet with 03-54.9667 S 110-32.0969’E.

 

202739_david2Object 7 measuring 14 x 4.6 meters at a depth equal to the coordinates 03-55.5672’S 110-34.1255’E.

 

qz8501-day-8-search-data

Internet Chatter

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.

Mandala488@a.net

42-2

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.

zeke@a.net

150841

LB Note:  As best I can determine, Air Asia did not have Airbus ACARS maintenance subscription nor on-line engine monitoring.

track

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).

14203127449LIgB5

 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:

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi…afetyLib_-FLT_OPS-ADV_WX-SEQ07.pdf

michi@a.net

sigwx

Indonesia Air Asia 8501: A Meteorological Analysis

“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.”

Fergal Tierney

B6yuQijCAAEaLL7

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).

zeke@a.net

AirAsia flight QZ8501: Crucial black boxes may not be found with wreckage after plane ‘split or cracked’ during crash

Independent – Adam Withnall

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…

Bill-Holland-map

AirAsia Tail Location Mystery: Solved?

-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]

Bill Holland

 

_80002276_airasia_black_box_20143112_624_v2

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.

hoistop@pprune.org

_80103117_025304015-1

1420905410QzjKDF

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.

AFM Procedure20141209EASAAD20140266E (PDF)

 

AIRBUS A320 (PDF) Materials

A320_Front_Panel

A320-Overhead_Panel

A320-Pedestal_Panel

Smiths_Thales_A_1_0_1_FM_Pilot_Guide

Abnormal_procedures_

STALL_RECOVERY

NORMAL_LAW_PROTECTIONS

A320-Unreliable_Speed_Indication

A319-320-321-Ice_and_Rain_Protection

A320-Dual_ADR_Fault

A319-320-321_FMGS

FPV

A_0_Limitations

A319-320-321_Limitations

FCTM_A318_to_A321

A320-Ground_Speed_Mini_Function

New_VAPP_procedures

**Disclaimer:  The Smartcockpit PDF files are for training purposes only and may be obsolete.**

Indonesia Plane

;(

awq8501-2332z

“Based on the available data and a close correlation of thunderstorm activity at the last received location, it appears that weather was a factor, or was a compounding factor. The most likely hazard, if weather was a factor, appears to be icing. This is only an assessment of best available meteorological information, and is not a final determination on the cause of the incident.”

Tim Vasquez / Weather Graphics

B6G2q41IQAAC5qW

Aircraft was seen on radar at FL363 and 353kts ground speed… later on, mode-S data showed it was at FL240 at -11000fpm and just over 60kts ground speed.

The climb rates of over 6000fpm and even up to 9000fpm were recorded on the Mode-S. Sources also said that at times the aircraft exceeded -24000fpm (yes, 3 zeroes)…

The other thing is that the climb, peak, descend and disintegration/disappearance (ie: FL320 to FL360 over, to FL240 where it disappeared) took just under 1 minute and 10 seconds or so.

Aircraft turned left throughout the drama, except for the end where it tracked east varying plus minus 5 degrees… through the very fast descent rates prior to disappearance.

Now, AF447 had peaks of +9500, and -16500fpm… this -24000fpm baffles me at the moment…

The slow ground speed is the confusing part. Flat spin or a nose up fall should still result in higher ground speed even at those descent rates.
Current suspicions are:
1. an AF447 style accident with higher nose up angle (which makes little sense in terms of pilot action)
2. loss of control due to one reason or another.
3. Structural failure of some sort.

mandala499@a.net

awq8501-2332visSatellite Visible 8 minutes after QZ8501 crossing. 

Thunderclouds were in their majority behind the aircraft.

airasia-area-altitudes-graphic

Debris, bodies from QZ8501 found in waters off Kalimantan

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta – Hans Nicholas Jong

After two days of fruitless effort, the search and rescue operation discovered on Tuesday debris and bodies from AirAsia flight QZ8501 in the Karimata Strait, the waters that separate Belitung Island and Kalimantan.

The first discovery was made in the afternoon when a C-295 transport aircraft discovered floating debris in the strait.

Shortly after, an Air Force Hercules C-130 found an object casting a shadow in the ocean, thought to resemble an airplane.

Rescue workers on the aircraft also found three bodies thought to be victims of the crash at 1:25 p.m., while the Indonesian Navy warship, KRI Bung Tomo, discovered an emergency exit door at 1:50 p.m.

All of the discoveries were made within sector V, one of 13 sectors in the search and rescue area, measuring 150-by-200-square nautical miles.

“Now we are focusing our recovery process in sector V,” National Search and Rescue Agency (Basarnas) chief Air Chief Marshall Henry Bambang Soelistyo told a press conference at his office in Kemayoran, Central Jakarta, on Tuesday.

As night fell on the strait, Basarnas had recovered three bodies, he said.

“They are on KRI Bung Tomo. Two are female and one is male. They were recovered at 5:50 p.m.,” Bambang said.

Basarnas decided to halt the recovery operation after finding the three bodies because the tide was rising.

“When the tide recedes tonight, we can continue the recovery using lights from the ships. But now the tide is still 3 meters high,” said Bambang.

Basarnas also retrieved some items from the aircraft, including an aspirator assembly, a small blue suitcase and a reservoir slide craft.

AirAsia had confirmed the aspirator assembly and the reservoir slide craft belonged to the airplane, according to Bambang.

Basarnas is being assisted in the search and rescue operation by the Indonesian Navy.

“In the vicinity of the debris, we have KRI Yos Sudarso, KRI Bung Tomo, Basarnas ship KN 224. Later tonight, other ships will arrive, including KRI Banda Aceh, three Singaporean ships, KRI Pulau Romang and KRI Pulau Rengat,” Bambang said.

Also expected to join the rescue operation are sonar-equipped ships from the Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) and the Indonesian Survey Association (ASI).

Earlier on Tuesday, Reuters reported that 40 bodies had been recovered from the sea. The news agency quoted Col. Manahan Simorangkir, a spokesman for the Navy for the report.

The misreporting prompted Indonesian Military (TNI) Commander Gen. Moeldoko to issue a statement saying that all information regarding the rescue operation would come from Basarnas, which was in charge of the whole search and rescue operation.

Moeldoko also stated that all military assets, including ships delivering logistics such as fuel, would be under Basarnas.

“We will deploy helicopters to take the bodies [from the sea to the ships],” he told reporters on Tuesday.

Moeldoko said that the Navy also had 47 divers, 11 of whom had been deployed on Tuesday to help Basarnas’ 10 divers.

The bodies and jet wreckage, once they could be retrieved, would be transported to Pangkalan Bun in Central Kalimantan.

“There, we have prepared coffins. Then the bodies will be transported on Hercules aircraft to Surabaya. […] The bodies will be identified there and returned to their families,” Moeldoko said.

In Surabaya, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo said that the recovery operation would solely be focused on retrieving the bodies.

“I have given orders to focus on the recovery of both passengers and crew. Right now, just focus on the recovery,” Jokowi said in a press briefing at Juanda International Airport.

1420093154301

“There is a recent development however that relates to Airbus A320 series aircraft. A December 10, 2014, Airworthiness Directive (AD 2014-25-51) describes how control of the aircraft could be lost in flight as a consequence of icing of the angle-of-attack probes and an interaction with the airplane’s stall protection function.

Those probes act like small weather vanes on the side of the aircraft and measure the angle at which the airplane moves through the air — the angle of attack. If the angle is too high the air can no longer flow smoothly around the wings, resulting in an aerodynamic stall. The acceptable range of angles of attack is fairly small, and gets considerably smaller at higher speeds, such as cruise speed.”

Simply put, depending on the position of the angle-of-attack probes when freezing occurs and the subsequent speed of the aircraft, the system may be fooled into thinking that the aircraft is approaching a stalled condition — even when it isn’t. In response, the airplane’s stall protections pitch the aircraft’s nose down to recover. This erroneous pitch down cannot be overridden by the pilots unless an emergency procedure in the Airworthiness Directive is followed. All pilots flying this model airplane should be aware of this.”

“The procedure instructs the pilots to shut down two of the three air data computers to render the usual stall protection inoperative and allow recovery of the aircraft…”

Bill Palmer, Airbus A330 captain, author of “Understanding Air France 447

1lw0wW2

UPDATES

First passenger identified, seat 23B, according to this list. No doors have been recovered as yet. They mentioned doors and emergency exits, but these turned out to be escape slides.  The slides have been identified as from both rear exists and they were not inflated.
“In total we have recovered 30 bodies; 10 bodies have been flown to Surabaya [East Java], four are in Pangakalan Bun, seven are on [naval vessel] KRI Bung Tomo, one on [Malaysian naval vessel] KD Pahang and eight bodies are in Surabaya,” Bambang told the press on Friday evening at Basarnas headquarters in Central Jakarta.
“We have also recovered debris from the plane, but I won’t go into detail.” The team also detected the presence of aviation turbine fuel (avtur) in the search area. He said the joint Search and Rescue (SAR) team was being challenged by bad weather in the operation, such as strong winds and high waves.
 5:36 PM EST – 2 Jan 15 Michael Bachelard (@mbachelard) - Twitter 2015-01-02 22-43-09

JAKARTA: Two big objects were found in the search for Indonesia AirAsia flight QZ8501 on Saturday, Indonesia’s search and rescue agency chief said.

The two objects are about 30m under water and located near an oil slick spotted Friday, said Basarnas chief Bambang Sulistyo.

The first object measured 9.4 meters by 4.8 meters by 0.4 meters (30 feet by 15 feet by 1.3 feet), while the second is 7.2 meters by 0.5 meters (24 feet by 1.6 feet), he said.

“With the discovery of an oil spill and two big parts of the aircraft, I can assure you these are the parts of the AirAsia plane we have been looking for,” he said.

“We are lowering a ROV (remotely operated underwater vehicle) underwater to get an actual picture of the objects detected on the sea floor. All are at the depth of 30m,” Soelistyo said, adding that a strong current was making it difficult to operate the ROV.

Three vessels sent out to a sea area where the oil slick was spotted located the “two objects…that are close to each other,” said Soelistyo.

1420091641226

“…As you can see, the lines are well correlated until the final squawk, where the reported airspeed is 469 kts and the average ground track speed is calculated at 264 kts.

This points strongly to Pitot tube icing, and the aircraft stalling as it attempted to climb.

I have uploaded the raw data here: Google Drive…”

Dave@SkyVector

B577yBaCMAEhoLC

Interesting Internet Chatter

Q: I noticed all the cargo was in bay #3 near the wings. Any chance of a sudden shift in CoG owing to a failure in the nets caused by heavy turbulence resulting in a loss of control? Similar to US 5481?

A: I had the same thought, but the numbers don’t bear this out. The 1.3 tonnes of baggage could move at most 8 meters aft, shifting the CG of the 60+ tonne aircraft by about 1/6 of a meter, a tiny amount that is well within the range of acceptable trim. It would certainly not result in a rocket climb.

 

Q: Does the 6k-9k fpm ascent rate work against the on-board-explosive theory? I have a hard time seeing how an explosion would be followed by a climb rate 3-4x greater than can be commanded.

A: Please think for just a minute of the balance of an airplane

– Forward of CoG : the cockpit / the front cabin / the equipment bay / the forward cargo hold / the engines and part of the fuel.

– Aft of CoG : the aft cabin / the aft cargo hold (s) / the tailplane and fin / the APU. The tailplane has generally an upward moment ( hence a nose-down effect ) to balance the wing lift in flight.

Hence the loss of the tailplane can be associated with a pitch up moment.

 

Q: If I read Pihero’s explanation about weight distribution right, CoG would move backward leading to a nose up attitude. Since the wings certainly provide much more lift than the stabilizers

A: Normally the horizontal stabilizer will produce downforce, not lift. More precisely, lift in the downwards direction.

 

Q: That requires a downward force on the tail, and would result in a nose down motion if the tail is los

A: You are of course very right. Typical brainfart for thinking too fast. On modern airplanes, we can move the CoG far enough for the tailplane to generate lift (a la A330, for instance ) Not generalised and not on the 320.

 

Mandala499’s above post depicts an altogether different scenario : fast climb to 36 000 ft +, followed by a rapid – very rapid descent, a continuous heading variation to the left.

FWIW, LTC8K6 had already given the climb rate : 8600 ft/min a long time ago.

Mandala499 goes on saying that the whole SSR event lasted 1 minute and 10 sec, descent rates reaching 24 000 ft/min.

We can now derive that :

FL 320 to FL 360 = 4300 ft in less than 30 sec –> vertical speed of 8600 ft/min

time left from 36 300 ft to 24 000 ft = 40 sec –> 12 300 ft in 40 sec –> vertical speed 18 450 ft/min average, or 182 kt

Recorded ground speed : 60 kt says Mandala499. That means, the fall was on a trajectory just 20° from the vertical.

182 kt is not terminal velocity, so it’s not a dive… more a falling leaf-type of situation… which means a major structural damage : wing (left wing probably) and flight controls.

Therefore there are two probable causes left:

1/- A freaky, violent encounter with a monster updraft which is not backed by study of the ITCZ weather in the zone at the time of the accident…

2/- An explosion / sudden violent fire… We might well be seeing the effects of a bomb here.

post-224939-14198257603705

LB ;(

blue

Per wiki, the presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. In the US, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

In sources from common law jurisdictions, the expression appears in an extended version, in its original form and then in a shortened form (and in each case the translation provided varies). As extended, it is: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit—”The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.” As found in its original form, it is (as above): Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—”The proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies.”  Then, shortened from the original, it is: Ei incumbit probatio qui—”the onus of proving a fact rests upon the man who”.

00-Darren-Wilson-Supporters-Ferguson-Poster-with-signatures

“Presumption of innocence” serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof. This is often expressed in the phrase innocent until proven guilty, coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760–1840). Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime.

The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:

  1. With respect to the critical facts of the case – whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime – the state has the entire burden of proof.
  2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
  3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.

This duty on the prosecution was famously referred to as the “golden thread” in the criminal law by Lord Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462:

“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen – that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception…”

92515160-27ee-11e4-9be1-79df940991df_officerdarrenwilsonphoto

U.S. Supreme Court

TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

471 U.S. 1 TENNESSEE v. GARNER ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 83-1035.

Argued October 30, 1984
Decided March 27, 1985 *

A Tennessee statute provides that if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, “the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.” Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner’s son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being “reasonably sure” the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of his son’s constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer’s actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Held:

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. 471 U.S. 1, 2]  

    (a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect’s rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.
    (b) The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common-law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. Changes in the legal and technological context mean that that rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied. Whereas felonies were formerly capital crimes, few are now, or can be, and many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Also, the common-law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. And, in light of the varied rules adopted in the States indicating a long-term movement away from the common-law rule, particularly in the police departments themselves, that rule is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. There is no indication that holding a police practice such as that authorized by the statute unreasonable will severely hamper effective law enforcement. Pp. 12-20.
    (c) While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect – young, slight, and unarmed – posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.

710 F.2d 240, affirmed and remanded.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. O’CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 22.

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 83-1070, Memphis Police Department et al. v. Garner et al., on certiorari to the same court.

Henry L. Klein argued the cause for petitioners in No. 83-1070. With him on the briefs were Clifford D. Pierce, Jr., Charles V. Holmes, and Paul F. Goodman. W. J. Michael Cody, Attorney General of Tennessee, argued the cause for appellant in No. 83-1035. With him on the briefs were William M. Leech, Jr., former Attorney General, and Jerry L. Smith, Assistant Attorney General. 471 U.S. 1, 3]  

Steven L. Winter argued the cause for appellee-respondent Garner. With him on the brief was Walter L. Bailey, Jr.Fn

Fn 471 U.S. 1, 3]   Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Florida Chapter of the National Bar Association by Deitra Micks; and for the Police Foundation et al. by William Josephson, Robert Kasanof, Philip Lacovara, and Margaret Bush Wilson.

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

blind-lady-justice

Whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975). While it is not always clear just when minimal police interference becomes a seizure, see United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980), there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

1408124005000-AP-Police-Shooting-Missouri

A police officer may arrest a person if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime. E. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). Petitioners and appellant argue that if this requirement is satisfied the Fourth Amendment has nothing to say about how that seizure is made. This submission ignores the many cases in which this Court, by balancing the extent of the intrusion against the need for it, has examined the reasonableness of 471 U.S. 1, 8]   the manner in which a search or seizure is conducted. To determine the constitutionality of a seizure “[w]e must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983); see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 555 (1976). We have described “the balancing of competing interests” as “the key principle of the Fourth Amendment.” Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 700 , n. 12 (1981). See also Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536 -537 (1967). Because one of the factors is the extent of the intrusion, it is plain that reasonableness depends on not only when a seizure is made, but also how it is carried out. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 895 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 28 -29 (1968).

Applying these principles to particular facts, the Court has held that governmental interests did not support a lengthy detention of luggage, United States v. Place, supra, an airport seizure not “carefully tailored to its underlying justification,” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion), surgery under general anesthesia to obtain evidence, Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985), or detention for fingerprinting without probable cause, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985). On the other hand, under the same approach it has upheld the taking of fingernail scrapings from a suspect, Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973), an unannounced entry into a home to prevent the destruction of evidence, Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), administrative housing inspections without probable cause to believe that a code violation will be found, Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, and a blood test of a drunken-driving suspect, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). In each of these cases, the question was whether 471 U.S. 1, 9]   the totality of the circumstances justified a particular sort of search or seizure.

22B463D4-FF34-4EBF-9E60-9A3F2E4215E7_mw1024_s_n

The same balancing process applied in the cases cited above demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect’s fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment. Against these interests are ranged governmental interests in effective law enforcement. 8 It is argued that overall violence will be reduced by encouraging the peaceful submission of suspects who know that they may be shot if they flee. Effectiveness in making arrests requires the resort to deadly 471 U.S. 1, 10]   force, or at least the meaningful threat thereof. “Being able to arrest such individuals is a condition precedent to the state’s entire system of law enforcement.” Brief for Petitioners 14.

Without in any way disparaging the importance of these goals, we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects. Cf. Delaware v. Prouse, supra, at 659. The use of deadly force is a self-defeating way of apprehending a suspect and so setting the criminal justice mechanism in motion. If successful, it guarantees that that mechanism will not be set in motion. And while the meaningful threat of deadly force might be thought to lead to the arrest of more live suspects by discouraging escape attempts, 9 the presently available evidence does not support this thesis. 10 The fact is that a majority of police departments 471 U.S. 1, 11]   in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects. See infra, at 18-19. If those charged with the enforcement of the criminal law have abjured the use of deadly force in arresting nondangerous felons, there is a substantial basis for doubting that the use of such force is an essential attribute of the arrest power in all felony cases. See Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 472, 240 N. W. 2d 525, 540 (1976) (Rogosheske, J., dissenting in part). Petitioners and appellant have not persuaded us that shooting nondangerous fleeing suspects is so vital as to outweigh the suspect’s interest in his own life.

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where 471 U.S. 1, 12]   feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

It is insisted that the Fourth Amendment must be construed in light of the common-law rule, which allowed the use of whatever force was necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon, though not a misdemeanant. As stated in Hale’s posthumously published Pleas of the Crown:

    “[I]f persons that are pursued by these officers for felony or the just suspicion thereof . . . shall not yield themselves to these officers, but shall either resist or fly before they are apprehended or being apprehended shall rescue themselves and resist or fly, so that they cannot be otherwise apprehended, and are upon necessity slain therein, because they cannot be otherwise taken, it is no felony.” 2 M. Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae 85 (1736).

See also 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *289. Most American jurisdictions also imposed a flat prohibition against the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing misdemeanant, coupled with a general privilege to use such force to stop a fleeing felon. E. g., Holloway v. Moser, 193 N.C. 185, 136 S. E. 375 (1927); State v. Smith, 127 Iowa 534, 535, 103 N. W. 944, 945 (1905); Reneau v. State, 70 Tenn. 720 (1879); Brooks v. Commonwealth, 61 Pa. 352 (1869); Roberts v. State, 14 Mo. 138 (1851); see generally R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 1098-1102 (3d ed. 1982); Day, Shooting the Fleeing Felon: State of the Law, 14 Crim. L. Bull. 285, 286-287 (1978); Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 798, 807-816 (1924). But see Storey v. State, 71 Ala. 329 (1882); State v. Bryant, 65 N.C. 327, 328 (1871); Caldwell v. State, 41 Tex. 86 (1874). 471 U.S. 1, 13]  

The State and city argue that because this was the prevailing rule at the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment and for some time thereafter, and is still in force in some States, use of deadly force against a fleeing felon must be “reasonable.” It is true that this Court has often looked to the common law in evaluating the reasonableness, for Fourth Amendment purposes, of police activity. See, e. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 418 -419 (1976); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 , 114 (1975); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 -153 (1925). On the other hand, it “has not simply frozen into constitutional law those law enforcement practices that existed at the time of the Fourth Amendment’s passage.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 591 , n. 33 (1980). Because of sweeping change in the legal and technological context, reliance on the common-law rule in this case would be a mistaken literalism that ignores the purposes of a historical inquiry.

CVS_TNY_09_01_14RGB2-690-942

It has been pointed out many times that the common-law rule is best understood in light of the fact that it arose at a time when virtually all felonies were punishable by death. 11 “Though effected without the protections and formalities of an orderly trial and conviction, the killing of a resisting or 471 U.S. 1, 14]   fleeing felon resulted in no greater consequences than those authorized for punishment of the felony of which the individual was charged or suspected.” American Law Institute, Model Penal Code 3.07, Comment 3, p. 56 (Tentative Draft No. 8, 1958) (hereinafter Model Penal Code Comment). Courts have also justified the common-law rule by emphasizing the relative dangerousness of felons. See, e. g., Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn., at 458, 240 N. W. 2d, at 533; Holloway v. Moser, supra, at 187, 136 S. E., at 376 (1927).

Neither of these justifications makes sense today. Almost all crimes formerly punishable by death no longer are or can be. See, e. g., Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). And while in earlier times “the gulf between the felonies and the minor offences was broad and deep,” 2 Pollock & Maitland 467, n. 3; Carroll v. United States, supra, at 158, today the distinction is minor and often arbitrary. Many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Wilgus, 22 Mich. L. Rev., at 572-573. These changes have undermined the concept, which was questionable to begin with, that use of deadly force against a fleeing felon is merely a speedier execution of someone who has already forfeited his life. They have also made the assumption that a “felon” is more dangerous than a misdemeanant untenable. Indeed, numerous misdemeanors involve conduct more dangerous than many felonies. 12

There is an additional reason why the common-law rule cannot be directly translated to the present day. The common-law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. Deadly force could be inflicted almost solely in a hand-to-hand struggle during which, necessarily, the safety 471 U.S. 1, 15]   of the arresting officer was at risk. Handguns were not carried by police officers until the latter half of the last century. L. Kennett & J. Anderson, The Gun in America 150-151 (1975). Only then did it become possible to use deadly force from a distance as a means of apprehension. As a practical matter, the use of deadly force under the standard articulation of the common-law rule has an altogether different meaning – and harsher consequences – now than in past centuries. See Wechsler & Michael, A Rationale for the Law of Homicide: I, 37 Colum. L. Rev. 701, 741 (1937). 13

One other aspect of the common-law rule bears emphasis. It forbids the use of deadly force to apprehend a misdemeanant, condemning such action as disproportionately severe. See Holloway v. Moser, 193 N.C., at 187, 136 S. E., at 376; State v. Smith, 127 Iowa, at 535, 103 N. W., at 945. See generally Annot., 83 A. L. R. 3d 238 (1978).

In short, though the common-law pedigree of Tennessee’s rule is pure on its face, changes in the legal and technological context mean the rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied.

453677740-1024x632

In evaluating the reasonableness of police procedures under the Fourth Amendment, we have also looked to prevailing [471 U.S. 1, 16]   rules in individual jurisdictions. See, e. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S., at 421 -422. The rules in the States are varied. See generally Comment, 18 Ga. L. Rev. 137, 140-144 (1983). Some 19 States have codified the common-law rule, 14 though in two of these the courts have significantly limited the statute. 15 Four States, though without a relevant statute, apparently retain the common-law rule. 16 Two States have adopted the Model Penal Code’s 471 U.S. 1, 17]   provision verbatim. 17 Eighteen others allow, in slightly varying language, the use of deadly force only if the suspect has committed a felony involving the use or threat of physical or deadly force, or is escaping with a deadly weapon, or is likely to endanger life or inflict serious physical injury if not arrested. 18 Louisiana and Vermont, though without statutes or case law on point, do forbid the use of deadly force to prevent any but violent felonies. 19 The remaining States either have no relevant statute or case law, or have positions that are unclear. 20  471 U.S. 1, 18]  

It cannot be said that there is a constant or overwhelming trend away from the common-law rule. In recent years, some States have reviewed their laws and expressly rejected abandonment of the common-law rule. 21 Nonetheless, the long-term movement has been away from the rule that deadly force may be used against any fleeing felon, and that remains the rule in less than half the States.

This trend is more evident and impressive when viewed in light of the policies adopted by the police departments themselves. Overwhelmingly, these are more restrictive than the common-law rule. C. Milton, J. Halleck, J. Lardner, & G. Abrecht, Police Use of Deadly Force 45-46 (1977). The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City Police Department, for example, both forbid the use of firearms except when necessary to prevent death or grievous bodily harm. Id., at 40-41; App. 83. For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where “the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.” Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies 1-2 (1983) (italics deleted). A 1974 study reported that the police department regulations in a majority of the large cities of the United States allowed the firing of a weapon only when a 471 U.S. 1, 19]   felon presented a threat of death or serious bodily harm. Boston Police Department, Planning & Research Division, The Use of Deadly Force by Boston Police Personnel (1974), cited in Mattis v. Schnarr, 547 F.2d 1007, 1016, n. 19 (CA8 1976), vacated as moot sub nom. Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 (1977). Overall, only 7.5% of departmental and municipal policies explicitly permit the use of deadly force against any felon; 86.8% explicitly do not. K. Matulia, A Balance of Forces: A Report of the International Association of Chiefs of Police 161 (1982) (table). See also Record 1108-1368 (written policies of 44 departments). See generally W. Geller & K. Karales, Split-Second Decisions 33-42 (1981); Brief for Police Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae. In light of the rules adopted by those who must actually administer them, the older and fading common-law view is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute now before us.

enhanced-11504-1408722670-1

Actual departmental policies are important for an additional reason. We would hesitate to declare a police practice of long standing “unreasonable” if doing so would severely hamper effective law enforcement. But the indications are to the contrary. There has been no suggestion that crime has worsened in any way in jurisdictions that have adopted, by legislation or departmental policy, rules similar to that announced today. Amici note that “[a]fter extensive research and consideration, [they] have concluded that laws permitting police officers to use deadly force to apprehend unarmed, non-violent fleeing felony suspects actually do not protect citizens or law enforcement officers, do not deter crime or alleviate problems caused by crime, and do not improve the crime-fighting ability of law enforcement agencies.” Id., at 11. The submission is that the obvious state interests in apprehension are not sufficiently served to warrant the use of lethal weapons against all fleeing felons. See supra, at 10-11, and n. 10. 471 U.S. 1, 20]  

Nor do we agree with petitioners and appellant that the rule we have adopted requires the police to make impossible, split-second evaluations of unknowable facts. See Brief for Petitioners 25; Brief for Appellant 11. We do not deny the practical difficulties of attempting to assess the suspect’s dangerousness. However, similarly difficult judgments must be made by the police in equally uncertain circumstances. See, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 20 , 27. Nor is there any indication that in States that allow the use of deadly force only against dangerous suspects, see nn. 15, 17-19, supra, the standard has been difficult to apply or has led to a rash of litigation involving inappropriate second-guessing of police officers’ split-second decisions. Moreover, the highly technical felony/misdemeanor distinction is equally, if not more, difficult to apply in the field. An officer is in no position to know, for example, the precise value of property stolen, or whether the crime was a first or second offense. Finally, as noted above, this claim must be viewed with suspicion in light of the similar self-imposed limitations of so many police departments.

police-shooting-missouri

The District Court concluded that Hymon was justified in shooting Garner because state law allows, and the Federal Constitution does not forbid, the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felony suspect if no alternative means of apprehension is available. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A9-A11, A38. This conclusion made a determination of Garner’s apparent dangerousness unnecessary. The court did find, however, that Garner appeared to be unarmed, though Hymon could not be certain that was the case. Id., at A4, A23. See also App. 41, 56; Record 219. Restated in Fourth Amendment terms, this means Hymon had no articulable basis to think Garner was armed.

In reversing, the Court of Appeals accepted the District Court’s factual conclusions and held that “the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force.” 710 F.2d, at 246. 471 U.S. 1, 21]   We agree. Officer Hymon could not reasonably have believed that Garner – young, slight, and unarmed – posed any threat. Indeed, Hymon never attempted to justify his actions on any basis other than the need to prevent an escape. The District Court stated in passing that “[t]he facts of this case did not indicate to Officer Hymon that Garner was `nondangerous.'” App. to Pet. for Cert. A34. This conclusion is not explained, and seems to be based solely on the fact that Garner had broken into a house at night. However, the fact that Garner was a suspected burglar could not, without regard to the other circumstances, automatically justify the use of deadly force. Hymon did not have probable cause to believe that Garner, whom he correctly believed to be unarmed, posed any physical danger to himself or others.

The dissent argues that the shooting was justified by the fact that Officer Hymon had probable cause to believe that Garner had committed a nighttime burglary. Post, at 29, 32. While we agree that burglary is a serious crime, we cannot agree that it is so dangerous as automatically to justify the use of deadly force. The FBI classifies burglary as a “property” rather than a “violent” crime. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 1 (1984). 22 Although the armed burglar would present a different situation, the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night does not automatically mean he is physically dangerous. This case demonstrates as much. See also Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 296 -297, and nn. 22-23 (1983). In fact, the available statistics demonstrate that burglaries only rarely involve physical violence. During the 10-year period from 1973-1982, only 3.8% of all burglaries involved violent crime. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Household 471 U.S. 1, 22]   Burglary 4 (1985). 23 See also T. Reppetto, Residential Crime 17, 105 (1974); Conklin & Bittner, Burglary in a Suburb, 11 Criminology 208, 214 (1973).

We wish to make clear what our holding means in the context of this case. The complaint has been dismissed as to all the individual defendants. The State is a party only by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 2403(b) and is not subject to liability. The possible liability of the remaining defendants – the Police Department and the city of Memphis – hinges on Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and is left for remand. We hold that the statute is invalid insofar as it purported to give Hymon the authority to act as he did. As for the policy of the Police Department, the absence of any discussion of this issue by the courts below, and the uncertain state of the record, preclude any consideration of its validity.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      So ordered.

o5z6uo

[ Footnote 14 ] Ala. Code 13A-3-27 (1982); Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-510 (1977); Cal. Penal Code Ann. 196 (West 1970); Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-22 (1972); Fla. Stat. 776.05 (1983); Idaho Code 19-610 (1979); Ind. Code 35-41-3-3 (1982); Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3215 (1981); Miss. Code Ann. 97-3-15(d) (Supp. 1984); Mo. Rev. Stat. 563.046 (1979); Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.140 (1983); N. M. Stat. Ann. 30-2-6 (1984); Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, 732 (1981); R. I. Gen. Laws 12-7-9 (1981); S. D. Codified Laws 22-16-32, 22-16-33 (1979); Tenn. Code Ann. 40-7-108 (1982); Wash. Rev. Code 9A.16.040(3) (1977). Oregon limits use of deadly force to violent felons, but also allows its use against any felon if “necessary.” Ore. Rev. Stat. 161.239 (1983). Wisconsin’s statute is ambiguous, but should probably be added to this list. Wis. Stat. 939.45(4) (1981-1982) (officer may use force necessary for “a reasonable accomplishment of a lawful arrest”). But see Clark v. Ziedonis, 368 F. Supp. 544 (ED Wis. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 513 F.2d 79 (CA7 1975).

Screenshot-2014-08-23-12.38.28

Related Links:

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke: Eric Holder Needs to Apologize to Cops

Eric the arsonist: Holder fans Ferguson flames

The Huffington Post, MSNBC’s Sharpton Lead High-Tech Lynching In Ferguson

Blue porch lights, Darren Wilson T-shirts part of growing support for Ferguson officer

 DARREN WILSON SUPPORTERS Bash Mainstream Media in First Public Statement

Frustrated WaPo Sics NINE REPORTERS on Darren Wilson – Finds Nothing

Support Officer Darren Wilson (Go Fund Me)

BlueSupport

 

My porch light is turned on…