Another plane missing

[HoppingPavlova]

Not sure if this is the right place, didn’t seem to fit anywhere.

Just read another plane has disappeared from radar. Indonesian flight 182, Boeing 747.

What I can’t work out is they are reporting it lost contact 45 mins after departure and Flight Radar indicated it lost 3000m altitude 4mins after take-off. I understand the 45mins but not the loss of altitude 4mins after take-off. Wouldn’t the plane still be climbing in that time? I would think it would even be visible from the air traffic tower! Maybe the early reports have muddled information?

Hopefully they locate this one and by someone me miracle there are survivors but experience proves doubtful unfortunately.

@Changi

That's pretty worrying, given that there were far fewer planes flying last year.

More were shot down though, which bumped the fatality figures up significantly.

You might want to spend some time looking at the data..

aviation-safety.net/database/

@HoppingPavlova the 737-500 i believe has a rate of climb around 2000 ft per minute so would be through the clouds in the first minute.

Very sad affair and hopefully the families get some closure.

I don’t understand why some countries use older aircraft? Surely they are more likely to have a fault?

They’re cheap to buy, mainly. But old planes aren’t by their very nature unsafe (lots of cargo aircraft use old planes, including converted passenger aircraft) just as long as they’re well maintained.

Unfortunately some airlines have a culture of keeping a poorly maintained fleet / penny pinching. And like I said, Indonesia in particular has a really bad safety record.

do you hit 2000m in under 4mins? Sorry, pre-Covid I did fly a lot but admittedly no idea, left it all to the pilots😁. If you do hit 2000 in under 4mins then yes, together with the cloud information all head scratching aspects resolved and probably better to move to news, no idea how one does this though?

It's way way too early to be speculating over cause...TBH the weather may/may not have had anything to do with it.

I'd also caution believing anything derived the various flight tracking apps - some people have a horrible tendency to try and play at being air crash investigator after these things, not realising or not admitting that In reality the data the apps use to produce a meaningful picture can be absent /corrupted/ simply won't have the resolution to come to any meaningful conclusions.

The increase in the proportion of crashes to total number of flights is likely to be at least partly due to skill fade amongst aircrew. Using older or less experienced pilots to cover routes due to the regular pilots isolating is obviously likely to increase the likelihood of errors. It's not a conspiracy, & given that there were less flights overall, really small number of incidents could make a difference.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55515525

You might want to spend some time looking at the data.

Why?

[quote LemonSquirtInTheEyeOfLife]The increase in the proportion of crashes to total number of flights is likely to be at least partly due to skill fade amongst aircrew. Using older or less experienced pilots to cover routes due to the regular pilots isolating is obviously likely to increase the likelihood of errors. It's not a conspiracy, & given that there were less flights overall, really small number of incidents could make a difference.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55515525[/quote]
"Skill fade", due to lack of recency might well be an issue but the airlines I know of are rotating pilots through the simulators to ensure they meet all the regulatory requirements in terms of landings, tests and checks and in addition are trying to share out the reduced number of sectors (flights) that are available...it's not a lot, I know, but a lot of care is being taken to ensure people are up to speed.

I'm not sure at all what you mean by "older or less experienced pilots to cover routes due to the regular pilots isolating is obviously likely to increase the likelihood of errors."

Who are these "regular pilots" and why they would be any more prone to having to isolate than "non-regular pilots"?, whoever they are?

At many airlines, certainly the one I know best, the older pilots have taken the opportunity to retire early so the average age at many outfits has probably dropped slightly, and regardless of age everybody has to pass and continue to pass the recurrent checks and tests.

@Changi

You might want to spend some time looking at the data.

Why?

I kind of see what you were' driving at ( 2 shoot downs, one of a largish airliner in 2020 vs. zero in 2019), but it's the idea that the increase in casualties was "significant" perhaps to the extent that the nervous flyers really should be worrying that I'd say the data doesn't support..

As LemonSquirtin..... points out the numbers are so low (and have been for several years) that a very small increase in incidents and accidents can make for a possibly misleading impression.

I kind of see what you were' driving at ( 2 shoot downs, one of a largish airliner in 2020 vs. zero in 2019), but it's the idea that the increase in casualties was "significant" perhaps to the extent that the nervous flyers really should be worrying that I'd say the data doesn't support.

Zero also in 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2013, 2012...

I was actually trying to allay the fears of nervous flyers. The increase in fatalities is significant but the reason for the increase, shoot downs, are very rare. Thankfully.

Terrifying! Can't imagine anything worse tbh. Apart from a tsunami maybe. Getting shivers now.

I was actually trying to allay the fears of nervous flyers. The increase in fatalities is significant but the reason for the increase, shoot downs, are very rare.

Ah, sorry I was being v slow - I agree.