• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AirAsia flight QZ8501 loses contact with air traffic control: reports



More reporting on wreckage....CNN not even talking about this yet.

"...goes missing after takeoff...."

I'm glad they shared that most critical detail, because if the flight went missing before takeoff, and they still couldn't find the aircraft....now that would be a story.
 
My thoughts and prayers for the wellbeing of those on board this plane and for their families should the worst case scenario come true.

I'm not a big traveler, nor afraid to fly, but when I do I always make sure it's a large, western airline, and not a cut-rate flyer. Skimping on life-safety for a few bucks is not my idea of good money management. No airline is perfectly safe - Qantas coming closest with no deaths since 1951 - but most of the crashes these days seem to be on Asian, Russian, and/or African airlines and I'm not prepared to take the risk with them.
 
My thoughts and prayers for the wellbeing of those on board this plane and for their families should the worst case scenario come true.

I'm not a big traveler, nor afraid to fly, but when I do I always make sure it's a large, western airline, and not a cut-rate flyer. Skimping on life-safety for a few bucks is not my idea of good money management. No airline is perfectly safe - Qantas coming closest with no deaths since 1951 - but most of the crashes these days seem to be on Asian, Russian, and/or African airlines and I'm not prepared to take the risk with them.
To be fair, half of the top ten most safest airlines happen to be Asian. The Malaysian carriers just had a real run of bad luck this year.
 
Third Malaysian aircraft this year.

I thought this was only the second? Starting to sound like the Bermuda triangle. At least this sounds weather related and not mysterious.
 
I thought this was only the second? Starting to sound like the Bermuda triangle. At least this sounds weather related and not mysterious.

Three planes within one year is a jinx.
 
To be fair, half of the top ten most safest airlines happen to be Asian. The Malaysian carriers just had a real run of bad luck this year.

That's probably fair - I'm not a world traveler so my comments are probably unfair and based solely on anecdotal evidence of what's been in the news the past couple of years. Considering the level of air travel throughout Asia, they're probably quite safe - especially considered against all other forms of transportation - cruise lines getting a bad rep the last couple of years as well.
 
Clean up on aisle four
 
Third Malaysian aircraft this year.

That's interesting. Is it also the 3rd Airbus this year?

The reason that I ask is that some of the punditry are observing that the similar size Boeing leaves the pilot as the final authority, in that he can override the computer control at any time. Not so in the Airbus, or so we are to be lead to believe.

One might even be legitimate in expanding on that difference into a comparison and contrast between US and European approaches to solutions.
 
That's interesting. Is it also the 3rd Airbus this year?

The reason that I ask is that some of the punditry are observing that the similar size Boeing leaves the pilot as the final authority, in that he can override the computer control at any time. Not so in the Airbus, or so we are to be lead to believe.

One might even be legitimate in expanding on that difference into a comparison and contrast between US and European approaches to solutions.

No, you would not be legitimate in this.
 
No, you would not be legitimate in this.

You don't see the parallel?

US airplane, the pilot is the man in charge, the man responsible, has the final authority.
US culture is, or rather has been, typically away from large bureaucratic morass in favor individual accountability and responsibility.

EU airplane, the pilot is only there for the last 300 ft of the landing, otherwise, the autopilot is in charge.
Should the pilot take over from the autopilot, the business side of the airlines reviews the autopilot log and questions the pilots actions.
EU culture is for large, intrusive bureaucratic monstrosities.

The US culture created the Boeing autopilot system. The EU culture created the airbus autopilot system. Each of the systems are a representation of their cultures solving the problem of needing an autopilot system.

The culture which produces products and systems contributes the culture from which they come from intertwined, embedded in those products and systems. It's unavoidable.
 
You don't see the parallel?

US airplane, the pilot is the man in charge, the man responsible, has the final authority.
US culture is, or rather has been, typically away from large bureaucratic morass in favor individual accountability and responsibility.

EU airplane, the pilot is only there for the last 300 ft of the landing, otherwise, the autopilot is in charge.
Should the pilot take over from the autopilot, the business side of the airlines reviews the autopilot log and questions the pilots actions.
EU culture is for large, intrusive bureaucratic monstrosities.

The US culture created the Boeing autopilot system. The EU culture created the airbus autopilot system. Each of the systems are a representation of their cultures solving the problem of needing an autopilot system.

The culture which produces products and systems contributes the culture from which they come from intertwined, embedded in those products and systems. It's unavoidable.

You are hilariously wrong. You started with your preconception and invented a situation to support it.
 
Last edited:
That's interesting. Is it also the 3rd Airbus this year?

The reason that I ask is that some of the punditry are observing that the similar size Boeing leaves the pilot as the final authority, in that he can override the computer control at any time. Not so in the Airbus, or so we are to be lead to believe.

One might even be legitimate in expanding on that difference into a comparison and contrast between US and European approaches to solutions.

No, the 777 twice...both Boeing.

Fly by wire is pretty much the same on Airbus and Boeing, pilot can override on both systems.
 
Three planes within one year is a jinx.

I don't think it's fair to count the one that got hit by a missile.
 
You are hilariously wrong.

No, the 777 twice...both Boeing.

Fly by wire is pretty much the same on Airbus and Boeing, pilot can override on both systems.

Well. OK. Guess I was wrong, but I still think that software does embody the decision making from the culture that writes it.
 
You don't see the parallel?

US airplane, the pilot is the man in charge, the man responsible, has the final authority.
US culture is, or rather has been, typically away from large bureaucratic morass in favor individual accountability and responsibility.

EU airplane, the pilot is only there for the last 300 ft of the landing, otherwise, the autopilot is in charge.
Should the pilot take over from the autopilot, the business side of the airlines reviews the autopilot log and questions the pilots actions.
EU culture is for large, intrusive bureaucratic monstrosities.

The US culture created the Boeing autopilot system. The EU culture created the airbus autopilot system. Each of the systems are a representation of their cultures solving the problem of needing an autopilot system.

The culture which produces products and systems contributes the culture from which they come from intertwined, embedded in those products and systems. It's unavoidable.

No, you are very wrong. I've been in the cockpit during an entire flight of an A320,and have been in cockpit during most of a flight on Boeing.

Your extrapolations about US culture as far as airplanes go is wrong. Both manufacturers use fly by wire extensively, it saves weight which means more range and less fuel. It is a technology that has been proven over many hundreds of thousands of flights. All Boeing planes being made now are FBW. It works, no matter where the pilot is from.
 
Well. OK. Guess I was wrong, but I still think that software does embody the decision making from the culture that writes it.

Except you're wrong about that too.

1) There are plenty of Airbus aircraft in the fleets of US operators.
2) Boeing and Airbus autopilots are not dramatically different from each other. Fly by wire systems are the way forward for all airliners.
3) European PICs are just as "in charge" as American ones. (that's Pilot In Command for the folks out there not in the aviation business)
4) American crews use the autopilot just as much as European ones. Yes, American pilots also leave the autopilot on until just before landing. (and in the case of a Boeing 777 or 787, the plane can actually land itself)
5) Autopilot systems are made by various manufacturers, generally not the airframe manufacturer. Rockwell Collins makes the autopilot for the 777 and their equipment can be found in plenty of European aircraft as well. (including Airbus aircraft)
6) What on earth gave you the idea that there's some kind of investigation every time a European pilot disconnects the autopilot? Did you literally just invent this in your head because it sounded plausible to you? Or maybe you just assumed nobody on these forums flies planes for a living so nobody would question your declarations?
 
Except you're wrong about that too.

1) There are plenty of Airbus aircraft in the fleets of US operators.
2) Boeing and Airbus autopilots are not dramatically different from each other. Fly by wire systems are the way forward for all airliners.
3) European PICs are just as "in charge" as American ones. (that's Pilot In Command for the folks out there not in the aviation business)
4) American crews use the autopilot just as much as European ones. Yes, American pilots also leave the autopilot on until just before landing. (and in the case of a Boeing 777 or 787, the plane can actually land itself)
5) Autopilot systems are made by various manufacturers, generally not the airframe manufacturer. Rockwell Collins makes the autopilot for the 777 and their equipment can be found in plenty of European aircraft as well. (including Airbus aircraft)
6) What on earth gave you the idea that there's some kind of investigation every time a European pilot disconnects the autopilot? Did you literally just invent this in your head because it sounded plausible to you? Or maybe you just assumed nobody on these forums flies planes for a living so nobody would question your declarations?

Except that nothing in my post above says anything about specific fly by wire systems, but is more a comment about software developers and the cultures they come from.

WRT review of the aircraft log and pilot deviations from the ideal course, was from a pundit this morning, so I'm willing to give on that one.
 
This airline along with other Asian airlines were not permitted to fly to the EU due to safety problems. This ban was lifted in 2010.
2 Planes in under a year?
Both airlines Indonesian.
1 never found.
Though some conspiracy types are sure flight MH 370 was shot down by the US over Diego Garcia.
 
Last edited:
Except that nothing in my post above says anything about specific fly by wire systems, but is more a comment about software developers and the cultures they come from.
Still wrong. An American-made autopilot in a European-made aircraft doesn't have its software rewritten. That's just stupid. There is no substantive difference in the natures of European and American fly-by-wire systems. In fact, autopilot systems on aircraft that fly international will be made to comply with both US FAA and EASA standards. There isn't a difference in software "culture." You made that up. You decided that this difference existed because it fit your partisan preconceptions.

WRT review of the aircraft log and pilot deviations from the ideal course, was from a pundit this morning, so I'm willing to give on that one.
Deviations from the ideal course? I don't think the pundit was talking about what you think he was talking about. Such a thing wouldn't be related to autopilot flight software. Deviations from a clearance are investigated by the FAA. Any time a pilot does something other than what he was expected, somebody asks why. Often the answer is very simple "there was a thunderstorm in front of me, I went around it." The FAA and EASA tend to respond to that with "Good job! Flying through thunderstorms is dangerous!"

Deviations from the ideal route might also be investigated by the company, because that costs fuel. Again, if the answer is "weather," European airlines aren't any more troublesome than American ones. In fact, both American and European airlines put a lot of effort into finding the smoothest ride possible, even if this means flying at a slightly less-efficient altitude.

Who was the pundit?
 
Last edited:
Still wrong. An American-made autopilot in a European-made aircraft doesn't have its software rewritten. That's just stupid. There is no substantive difference in the natures of European and American fly-by-wire systems. In fact, autopilot systems on aircraft that fly international will be made to comply with both US FAA and EASA standards. There isn't a difference in software "culture." You made that up. You decided that this difference existed because it fit your partisan preconceptions.

Well, no, I really didn't. There is a cultural aspect to decision making, and decision making and decision trees is large part of the what software design is all about.

A large IT company off shored Java development to India. The requirements were written by the people in the US gathered from the US client through the usual interview and documentation process. This was all vetted as accurate.

When the finished software came back from India, there was, and still is, a typical 30% rework due to some requirements being missed and / or not interpreted with the same cultural perspective. The difference was in how the Indian culture views business and how the US culture views business. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that one or the other is inherently better than the other, just that they are different.

My premise was that there is a similar cultural difference in systems created in the EU vs. systems created in the US. You've pointed out that there is far more commonality of sources that both Boeing and Airbus procured their systems from, which would eliminate this difference. OK. Fine. I stand corrected.

However, I still maintain that there is a good deal of culture that makes it's way into software and systems inherited there from the culture of the software and systems designers. True, not a specific part of the topic under discussion here, but that was my point.

Deviations from the ideal course? I don't think the pundit was talking about what you think he was talking about. Such a thing wouldn't be related to autopilot flight software. Deviations from a clearance are investigated by the FAA. Any time a pilot does something other than what he was expected, somebody asks why. Often the answer is very simple "there was a thunderstorm in front of me, I went around it." The FAA and EASA tend to respond to that with "Good job! Flying through thunderstorms is dangerous!"

Deviations from the ideal route might also be investigated by the company, because that costs fuel. Again, if the answer is "weather," European airlines aren't any more troublesome than American ones. In fact, both American and European airlines put a lot of effort into finding the smoothest ride possible, even if this means flying at a slightly less-efficient altitude.

Who was the pundit?

Lost to the sands of time. I think he was on ABC's early morning show. Should know better than to look to that, or any of them really, for any accuracy in what they all incessantly blather about.
 
This airline along with other Asian airlines were not permitted to fly to the EU due to safety problems. This ban was lifted in 2010.
2 Planes in under a year?
Both airlines Indonesian.
1 never found.
Though some conspiracy types are sure flight MH 370 was shot down by the US over Diego Garcia.

I am not aware of AirAsia being banned from EU flying. Where did you find that? Besides, Air Asia can't fly a A320 to EU, doesn't have the range. Air Asia X flew to Europe for a while with the A330, but pulled out, not due to any regulatory status.

Mind you, there is Air Asia Indonesia, Air Asia Thailand, Air Asia Malaysia and Air Asia X, all separate airlines with separate certificates.
 
Last edited:
I am not aware of AirAsia being banned from EU flying. Where did you find that? Besides, Air Asia can't fly a A320 to EU, doesn't have the range. Air Asia X flew to Europe for a while with the A330, but pulled out, not due to any regulatory status.

Mind you, there is Air Asia Indonesia, Air Asia Thailand, Air Asia Malaysia and Air Asia X, all separate airlines with separate certificates.

Yes, there are a number of them.

Heard it on CBC last night. They were not clear on how many airlines were banned from the EU due to safety records.
From 2009
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/7665066/100-bali-fares-likely-in-air-war/

From 2008
Thailand Aviation: EU updates blacklist: removes Mahan Airlines
In the case of Indonesia, the Commission and the Air Safety Committee which is composed of all EU Member States heard three airlines at their request – Garuda, Mandala and Air Fast, along with the authorities for civil aviation of Indonesia. Following the unanimous opinion of the Air Safety Committee, the Commission decided that the Indonesian authorities have still not developed and implemented an efficient oversight programme on any of the carriers under their regulatory control. Besides, the corrective actions designed to address safety deficiencies detected by the ICAO and by the Commission, have not yet been assessed by ICAO.


Indonesia AirAsia route map - from Singapore
PT. Indonesia AirAsia (operating as Indonesia AirAsia) is a low-cost airline based in Jakarta, Indonesia. It operates scheduled domestic, international services and is an Indonesian associate carrier of Malaysian low-fare airline AirAsia. Its main base is Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, Jakarta. Until July 2010, Indonesia Air Asia, along with many Indonesian airlines, was banned from flying to the EU due to safety concerns. However the ban was lifted on July 2010. As of 15 April 2009, all AirAsia domestic flights from Jakarta started operating from terminal 3 but the international flights continues to operate from terminal 2D. Prior to moving to T3, the airline flew from Terminal 1C. Indonesia AirAsia is listed in category 1 by Indonesian Civil Aviation Authority for airline safety quality. In 2011, this 100 percent Airbus airline dominated international market in Indonesia by 41.50 percent.
 
Back
Top Bottom