Part 15 in particular saw a lot of wild speculation over one or two emerging details. This will not be tolerated. Please try and keep the thread as factual as possible.
As ever, the forum rules apply; remember to focus on the topic in-hand and not other users.
Regards,
The Forum Moderators.
Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
LTC8K6 From United States, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 83143 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 320):
Is that a mangled/entangled escape slide/slideraft????
If it were from the plane, they would have recovered it and we'd have pictures of it as part of the wreckage. Recovery of a slide/raft would be noteworthy.
My guess, as I said before, is that it belongs to the Brazil Navy
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4537 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 81892 times:
Thanks for that... at least I can stop thinking about it. I was thinking that if it were a mangled slideraft, it could point towards some form of airframe separation... (since we've been debating about where and when the tailfiin snapped...
Quoting Pihero (Reply 316): Not so fast ! The deflection of the rudder before it was lifted from the ocean was assumed by some to be jammed at the position where it caused the airplane break-up in flight.
I'm just glad theat theory has been disproved.
Hmmmm ! someone said anything about eggs on some faces ?
And if it were jammed, they would have taken care for the displacement to be preserved.
Eggs? Time to do grocery shopping, but I didn't have eggs in mind!
Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 315): when an aircraft goes down and there is no evidence as to why the court can not infer that the pilot or owner are at fault.
That comment is so asking for someone (eggs anyone?) to start screaming "Conspiracy!" and/or "Cover Up!"
*yawn*
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 81855 times:
Quote: Ellehammer09 From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 319, posted Wed Jun 10 2009 16:57:48 your local time (23 secs ago) and read 0 times:
Just to keep things straight, I am in no way supporting theories of a terrorist attack - in contrary I'm sure we would have known by now, unless the basic strategy of terror has changed over night. Again the media is diverting facts to sell more papers - and the aspect of terror is known to have a great effect on the numbers.
But when it comes to excluding terror from this incident, isn't it pretty obvious that the messages on the ACARS is inconsistant with an explosion on board? And how would the interference by any terror act have influenced on the planes monitoring/controlling systems? I find it very unlikely that terror has anything to do with it..
I concur with your view on terrorism, however good old fashioned greed or revenge as a reason for a bomb I don't think can be excluded yet. Nor an accident if someone was transporting a explosive device.
I also don't think the ACARS messages exclude the possibility of an explosive device rupturing the hull which started a breakup of the aircraft.
A sudden massive explosion, yes the messages exclude that possibility. But a smaller one which lets the aerodynamic forces tear apart the plane must still be a possibility. A very small possibility in my opinion.
StasisLAX From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2128 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 81625 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 5): I concur with your view on terrorism, however good old fashioned greed or revenge as a reason for a bomb I don't think can be excluded yet. Nor an accident if someone was transporting a explosive device.
From the MSNBC.com news website:
"The French magazine L'Express reported Wednesday that French intelligence services had matched the names of two passengers on board Flight 447 with those of suspects linked to Islamic terrorism. But it noted that the passengers' birthdates were not available, and that it might only be a case of people with similar names. The names themselves weren't reported.
A senior judicial official in France, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said he had received no information to back up the claim. French police and British intelligence officials would not comment on the report."
Source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31207960/
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!
Ellehammer09 From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 81391 times:
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 8): This deflection appears to be the same as when it was in the water. Not saying it is jammed.
Mandala already pointed out the fact, but here its even more obvious
that they are taking no effort in maintaining the rudders deflection - and the visible strap around it, seems to be deflecting the rudder to its max.. Resting on the aft deck, its clearly that there is no deflection.
Sniffmom From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 81333 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 7): "The French magazine L'Express reported Wednesday that French intelligence services had matched the names of two passengers on board Flight 447 with those of suspects linked to Islamic terrorism. But it noted that the passengers' birthdates were not available, and that it might only be a case of people with similar names. The names themselves weren't reported.
Richierich From United States, joined Nov 2000, 3233 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 81327 times:
That's a great picture, Pygmalion, of a site nobody wanted to see.
Considering this plane crashed a little more than a week ago, it must still rip the heart out of any AF people on here to see this snap. Even if they didn't know any of the passengers or crew personally. I know we have all had time to absorb the crash but it still seems impossibly hard to believe...
Let's hope the search for the boxes is a successful one. Its certainly going to be a monumental effort.
StasisLAX From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2128 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 81286 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1): If it were from the plane, they would have recovered it and we'd have pictures of it as part of the wreckage. Recovery of a slide/raft would be noteworthy.
Associated Press is reporting "that a French frigate, the Ventose, had already gathered 130 pieces of debris, big and small. The debris was being cleaned of salt and was to be taken to an undisclosed location for further analysis". Furthermore, "a total of 41 bodies have been recovered so far from the scene of the crash... The remains are being flown daily to Recife, where investigators hope to identify them and uncover clues into the crash based on the victims' injuries."
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 81253 times:
Quoting Ellehammer09 (Reply 9): Mandala already pointed out the fact, but here its even more obvious
that they are taking no effort in maintaining the rudders deflection - and the visible strap around it, seems to be deflecting the rudder to its max.. Resting on the aft deck, its clearly that there is no deflection.
Looks like it's been strapped beyond it's max and has become displaced.
One has to remember that before it was moved it was photographed from various angles by the forensics team, so that once it was moved, any evidence would not be lost.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
GlenP From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 81162 times:
Correct me if I'm wrong,but wouldn't the cable that is slung around the V/S & rudder assembly from front to rear; & presumably tightened, cause the rudder to move?
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8906 posts, RR: 50 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 81159 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Ellehammer09 (Reply 7): I am in no way supporting theories of a terrorist attack
Until such time as each possible cause is eliminated, everything must be considered as a possibility, however remote.
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 8): This deflection appears to be the same as when it was in the water. Not saying it is jammed.
The pictures of the VS on the deck of the Brasilian Navy ship appear to show it lying completely flat, certainly not at the angle in the picture you've posted.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 65 Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 81059 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 229): But now please get a bit constructive and tell all of us what might, in your opinion, be the RIGHT information?
And I'll ask a question of you that I should have asked much earlier. As an experienced (and highly capable) Airbus pilot - has anything like that torrent of failure messages ever happened to you?
NAV, I will not speculate on here, I do not think you will find anyone who has my sort of background will, we just do not have all the facts.
The list of ACARS messages are MAINTENANCE messages, I generally never get to see maintenance messages until I shut down (unless I choose to look at the onboard central maintenance computer [CMC]) list in flight, as they are not displayed to the pilot). When I shut down, the first thing that comes out of the printer is the post flight report, that contains all the maintenance messages, and it is formatted nicely so you can actually read it. All I do is I scan through that list for any class 1 hard warnings, write those up in the aircraft technical log, and then put the post flight report it in the tech log for the mechanics to have. Class 2 and 3 messages do not make it to the tech log, they are captured on the post flight report, and then into in the airline maintenance system to be addressed at the next schedule service.
You can have a heap of maintenance messages in the CMC, and the pilots and passengers can be blissfully unaware of them due to all the system redundancy, pilots only get told about class 1 warnings, either by an ECAM or a flag. The CMC may generate a fault message, and still continue to function correctly, the built in test equipment (BITE) in these systems will pick up on lots of things that mechanics may need to look at some stage, but would not prevent the aircraft being dispatched on the next sector. The messages are classified as class 1 (must be looked at before by next sector), class 2 in the next 600h, and class 3, no specific time.
The differance between these ACARS messages and the FDR messages, is that on the FDR we can actually see the state (normal or fault) of each device in a time series, see which flag was displayed etc, can see what was and was not functioning in a time series. The ACARS list only gives the mechanics a time stamp and flight phase when a message was generated, the component may have been in that state for 1 second, 30 seconds or remain in a fault state, it will generate the same message in the CMC.
Quoting GlenP (Reply 14): Correct me if I'm wrong,but wouldn't the cable that is slung around the V/S & rudder assembly from front to rear; & presumably tightened, cause the rudder to move?
Yep, just like wind will cause a rudder to move when it parked at the gate.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 80740 times:
Anybody has an estimate of the distance this honeycomb tail fin can travel floating in the ocean in a day or two ?
Giving the fact that the torque box looks ripped out of the fuselage ( See pics in post 61 Part 15 ), and considering the close proximity of the CVR and FDR with this part of the aircraft, the search area for the boxes can be reduced a lot with this.
I wish the best luck to the Emerald Sub crew in its effort to find them. They have three weeks before the ping start to fade....
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13570 posts, RR: 68 Reply 17, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 80686 times:
"brouaviation
This wasn't just a celebrity, it was a founder and owner of two highly respected companies in the aviation industry, being Lauda Air and FlyNiki. Second, he knows were he's talking about, as 'his' Lauda Air lost an aircraft in kind of the same way as AF447 crashed. "
"In kind of the same way"? Not at all. The Lauda Air 767 crashed because of in-cruise reverser deployment. There have been no indications that the same thing happened here. I'm assuming an ACARS message would report it.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 80643 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 17): Anybody has an estimate of the distance this honeycomb tail fin can travel floating in the ocean in a day or two ?
People on the other thread quoted the Brasilian Navy as saying surface currents in the area run 3 to 5 kts per hour. I assume the tailfin would be moved only by surface currents, not significantly influenced by winds due to the way it was floating. But I could be wrong about that.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4537 posts, RR: 60 Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 80346 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 19): People on the other thread quoted the Brasilian Navy as saying surface currents in the area run 3 to 5 kts per hour. I assume the tailfin would be moved only by surface currents, not significantly influenced by winds due to the way it was floating. But I could be wrong about that.
Thank you...
OK, let's say it's 3kts... that gives it 72NM per day... give it 5 days and it's 370NM to which there is no guarantee that (and evidently) the debris and bodies will all move at the same rate and in the same direction resulting in a conveniently right cluster... So, even if the aircraft did breakup upon water impact, or shortly before, a 90km spread after a few days isn't hard to achieve... therefore, NAV20, it doesn't prove or explain that it was a high-altitude breakup, although it cannot be ruled out at this stage.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
B707forever From United States, joined Dec 2007, 280 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 79865 times:
Call me whatever but I'm so curious to know what's really happening behind the scenes with the lawyers. What's the positioning between Airbus and AF litigation teams and how are the families bonding to prepare to sue.
And as the backdrop, what are the positioning points being played out. If it turns out to be the pitot and the speed issue, it's going to be very interesting to see how it's all settled.
Versabob From United States, joined Mar 2000, 6 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 79730 times:
I only occasionally follow this forum, so the following question may be a possible repeat. At a cruising altitude of 30,000+, is there signficant risk of ice obstruction inside pitot tubes? At that altitude, air is very cold but typically also very dry.
< nitpick >
"Knot" means "nautical mile per hour". Saying "knot per hour" is redundant. Or, I guess, a measure of acceleration.
< /nitpick >
Quoting Versabob (Reply 22): At a cruising altitude of 30,000+, is there signficant risk of ice obstruction inside pitot tubes? At that altitude, air is very cold but typically also very dry.
If you're flying near or in a thunderstorm, I would say yes.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Pdoucy From France, joined Jun 2009, 3 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 79064 times:
Quoting Versabob (Reply 22): Call me whatever but I'm so curious to know what's really happening behind the scenes with the lawyers. What's the positioning between Airbus and AF litigation teams and how are the families bonding to prepare to sue.
I don't understand why it is a given that families will sue. At this point, sue whom, for what ?
Yes there is a significant risk especially if you are above/near a thunderstorm or another type of large weather system, remeber icing is pretty much possible at any level if the weather conditions are right
Tugger From United States, joined Apr 2006, 1895 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 83023 times:
Quoting Pdoucy (Reply 24): I don't understand why it is a given that families will sue. At this point, sue whom, for what ?
Because 228 family members are dead and the surviving family members want answers and someone will be blamed. Whether it's the crew, the aircraft manufacturer, the guys who predicted the weather on route, whatever, once a cause or fault is found the families will want some type of restitution to be made "whole" after their loss. Look at what happened after 9/11 and who was to blame there?
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 82940 times:
From the previous thread
Quote: Ellehammer09 From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 317, posted Wed Jun 10 2009 15:57:06 your local time (3 hours 45 minutes 12 secs ago) and read 2334 times:
Quoting JBH (Reply 322):
Could be. Seems to me it is some kind of floatation device used by the Brazilian navy to lift and/or ensure the fin would remain floating, though....
That was my first thought, but why use a floating device on something that is obviously floating on its own? Maybe to be sure that it doesn't sink before they can get it aboard the destroyer...
Navy and salvage experts around the world have learned very hard and deadly lessons to never trust any large item to float. Always expect it to sink without warning. Safety of the men trying to salvage the item is most important.
Dragon6172 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 82386 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1): If it were from the plane, they would have recovered it and we'd have pictures of it as part of the wreckage. Recovery of a slide/raft would be noteworthy.
My guess, as I said before, is that it belongs to the Brazil Navy
My guess is that it is bags that held all the ropes and straps that they are securing around the fin to prepare it for hoisting.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 82447 times:
Quoting Pdoucy (Reply 24): I don't understand why it is a given that families will sue. At this point, sue whom, for what ?
This was an international flight, while some folks will cite the Warsaw Conventions and the $75,000 limit on damages, those limits no longer apply. The 1999 Montreal Conventions replace the liability of the Warsaw Conventions.
Quote: The Montreal Convention creates a two-tiered system of compensation.
First, it imposes absolute liability on an international carrier to the extent of 100,000 “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs) (providing the plaintiff can prove damages up to that amount). SDRs are a type of international monetary reserve currency or accounting system created in 1968 by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is a specialized agency of the United Nations that determines the value of SDRs relative to the currencies of the five largest exporting nations. The value of an SDR is published everyday by the IMF. As of April 15, 2009, 100,000 SDRs are the equivalent of about $148,500 United States dollars..............
Note that the Montreal Convention and its predecessors (the Warsaw Convention, Prague Protocol, Montreal Agreement, and other agreements) apply only to the airlines. It does not apply to others who may have caused the victim’s injuries or death, such as the manufacturer of the airliner or the maker of component parts or systems installed in the aircraft.
Take a typical US death involving an accident crash.
For a male under age 40 with a wife and children, his family compenstation would normally be 5 to 10 years of his salary. For a person making $75,000 per year - that would be $375,000 to $750,000. The convention limits of approx $148,500 are obviously inadequate.
There will certainly be lawsuits. That is the only somewhat objective decision process for liability and to evaluate the adequacy of damages/ payments.
The companies not protected by the convention limits - Airbus, the manufacturers of the various instruments and systems will have no requirement to make payments to families without lawsuits.
But be assured that they all have insurance policies which can cover those payments even into the multi-million dollar per victim amounts.
Multi-million dollar awards to not set people up for a life of luxury, nor do they compensate for the loss of a husband, spouse, father, etc.
It would be best if the companies involved were forced into an objective arbitration process with the victims families, but that will never happen.
Most of the insurance policies the airlines and other companies use to pay such damages will only make payment if it is the result of an accepted judgement in a lawsuit.
Ac888yow From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 467 posts, RR: 1 Reply 30, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 82139 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting DaBuzzard (Reply 25): When the investigation is complete the courts will decide who pays what to whom.
As an aside, a relative of mine who is legal counsel at PWC (Pratt Canada) told me that "who" is obviously the party(ies) deemed to be negligent or at fault, and "what" is typically on the order of 2-3 million dollars per passenger in North America.
I've never been up close to a tail before, and it may be an optical illusion...but is the hinge really about in the middle? I didn't realize that the rudder portion of the stabilizer was so large!
When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13570 posts, RR: 68 Reply 33, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 81615 times:
Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 34): I've never been up close to a tail before, and it may be an optical illusion...but is the hinge really about in the middle? I didn't realize that the rudder portion of the stabilizer was so large!
I have noticed that more modern fins tend to be more "slender", that is less extended along the long axis of the aircraft, than their older counterparts. The rudder tends to be the same size, so you do get that effect.
Bravo1six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 270 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 80608 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 30): That is the only somewhat objective decision process for liability and to evaluate the adequacy of damages/ payments.
While I agree with the premise regarding how the system works, just because an accident has occurred doesn't immediately mean that there is any liability involved on the part of anyone that needs to be decided upon.
To use an example, if an aircraft suffers a double engine failure and subsequent ditching because wildlife were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the impact of such wildlife on the aircraft was well beyond the required certification requirements of the aircraft, should anyone be sued at all (other than the now deceased wildlife)?
Sometimes things just happen through no fault of anyone.
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 9320 posts, RR: 7 Reply 35, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 79511 times:
While it may be distasteful to discuss about potential litigation or otherwise seeking of money compenstion by families of victims of this crash, there are important issues as to the investigation process and results that could affect them. For example, it may take more time to investigate and determine the 'cause' than victims families have to file lawsuits - usually 1-3 years depending on the country or other jurisdiction.
The Montreal Convention assure a certain minimum is paid out in a reaonable time period for the death of anyone on a air flight, anywhere in the world. This would usually paid by the airline involved and their insurers. For some, this may be sufficient compensation but for some it may not, especially if in some countries it may be taxable income so they may need to seek parties and a place to sue to get 'just' compensation. Some may not seek to sue in court as they feel it is wrong, or not want to go through the trauma multiple times in discovery, depositions, a trial or other hearing as well as the long time such lawsuits may take.
As to any lawsuit, where to sue is very important. Different countries like the USA have very loose rules to file a lawsuit and lawyers can represent a client to be only compensated with a percentage (usually 25-40%) of any settlement or judgement amount. If any component involved with this loss or work done on this a/c that contributed to this loss took place in the USA, they would have the possible right to sue in the USA. France would be the most likely place to sue as AF, Airbus, the probable maker of the pliot tubes parts (if proven to be a contribution to the cause of this loss) is based in France. Problem with France and most other countries in the right to sue is that the Plaintiffs, if they lose may have to compensate of all attornies, even for the Defendants and their could be stict money limits as to compensation amounts.
With the potential difficulties with gathering sufficient physical evidence, as this loss of AF 447 has shown so far, the many possible scenarios as to what happned, it may be very difficult to sue anywhere for any amount, so victims families may have to accept the Montreal amounts along with any life insurance amounts or other govenment compensation they may get.
FuturePilot16 From United States, joined Mar 2007, 701 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 77542 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 26): Because 228 family members are dead and the surviving family members want answers and someone will be blamed. Whether it's the crew, the aircraft manufacturer, the guys who predicted the weather on route, whatever, once a cause or fault is found the families will want some type of restitution to be made "whole" after their loss. Look at what happened after 9/11 and who was to blame there?
At the same time, they can't bring any lawsuit against anyone too hastily, because I know that if I was a judge, a case like this would have to have overwhelming evidence during legal preceedings against whoever the lawsuit is against. I keep seeing horrible lawsuits that happen after accidents, but I never really hear much more, only that the airline has settled and so on. But the reason why I would not be so lenient is because despite of the loss, people see the words "plane crash" and after they've grieved their loved ones , they start to see dollar signs.
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2185 posts, RR: 5 Reply 37, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 77496 times:
Quoting B707forever (Reply 20): What's the positioning between Airbus and AF litigation teams and how are the families bonding to prepare to sue.
I think if I had just lost someone in a crash only a few days ago I wouldn't yet be thinking of ways to sue the airline. There would be more pressing things to think about like 'Are they still alive somehow?' and 'What happened?'
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
I don't understand the rudder deflection concern...the deflection evident in the photos is a result of counterbalance weights attached to the leading edge of the rudder...when the rudder is suspended horizontally, the rudder trailing edge will always deflect upwards.
Soon7x7 From United States, joined May 2006, 1219 posts, RR: 1 Reply 39, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 75966 times:
Has this airframe been in Chicago?
Is it possible the TSA had a field trip to visit an A332 and climbed on the pitot tubes to look inside the cockpit...they do that you know...Yeh, thats it...they did it!
FCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 705 posts, RR: 2 Reply 41, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 74006 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 4): And if it were jammed, they would have taken care for the displacement to be preserved.
Eggs? Time to do grocery shopping, but I didn't have eggs in mind!
I couldn't tell if pihero was dis-crediting my idea or the others...all I saw was eggs for someone...which coincidently is what we mostly ate in ST. Martin because we were cheap
I seriously doubt it. After what the bodies have been though they won't be a pretty sight. At best you'll see a body bag, but I'd imagine the media won't go there..
Man City p3 w3 d0 l0 f4 a0 P9 - hey it may never happen again!
(But we did sell a s**tload of newspapers for a while there.........
But that's the same as "stasis's" Post but in french...its just because they cant prove the birth dates...which is strange as they would have someone like a friend or family which would know them wouldn't they...
A380Heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 72205 times:
With us being on Part 16 of this thread it is easy to miss some information so please forgive me.
Do we know yet whether the aircraft broke up at cruise altitude, during descent or on impact with the ocean?
Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
I know at approximately 7 miles up the air is very cold so would there be sufficient time for bodies to be affected by the icy conditions at altitude - even if they were only momentarily exposed before a rapid descent?
I am just wondering if the condition of the bodies will help reveal when and how the aircraft met its end.
Finally, were there any radio messages from the crew?
I read early on in the thread that it isn't unusual for there not to be radio contact for some time in trans-oceanic flights. But wasn't there a 'Pan Pan' or 'Mayday' call.
From my layman's point of view it would seem that the catastrophe happened very quickly indeed. I imagine even in a rapid descent - controlled or otherwise, that the crew would attempt at least some form of radio communication.
Again apologies for repeating questions that may have been asked before.
777DEN From United States, joined Dec 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 71918 times:
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): With us being on Part 16 of this thread it is easy to miss some information so please forgive me.
Do we know yet whether the aircraft broke up at cruise altitude, during descent or on impact with the ocean?
Unknown
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
Unknown, the bodies are still in transit to the morgue
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): I know at approximately 7 miles up the air is very cold so would there be sufficient time for bodies to be affected by the icy conditions at altitude - even if they were only momentarily exposed before a rapid descent?
probably not , but unknown at this time
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): I am just wondering if the condition of the bodies will help reveal when and how the aircraft met its end.
yes, once the autopsies are done
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Finally, were there any radio messages from the crew?
one report of an ACARS text message to AF before the MX messages
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72):
I read early on in the thread that it isn't unusual for there not to be radio contact for some time in trans-oceanic flights. But wasn't there a 'Pan Pan' or 'Mayday' call.
unknown, they were out of range of any VHF ground receivers, no reports from other aircraft that i have heard of , and no satcom that I have heard of.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): From my layman's point of view it would seem that the catastrophe happened very quickly indeed. I imagine even in a rapid descent - controlled or otherwise, that the crew would attempt at least some form of radio communication.
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. they were probably too busy at that point to communicate, especially since HF was the only real option
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6843 posts, RR: 8 Reply 47, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 71970 times:
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): With us being on Part 16 of this thread it is easy to miss some information so please forgive me.
I guess 99% can´t follow this so closely they can keep track with the 2000+ posts so far.
As for the ones so intensely looking at the rudder and a possible relation to the AA accident 8 years ago I want to post this from avherald.com:
"The NTSB concluded in their final report, that unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs caused the rudder and tail fin to separate from the aircraft causing the crash. In the report the NTSB stated, that "the entire rudder separated from the vertical stabilizer except for portions of the rudder spar structure that remained attached to hinge arm assembly numbers 2,3,4,5 and 7" (first sentence on page 52/last paragraph of chapter 1.2.12). However, the pictures of the vertical tail of Air France show the rudder still attached to the vertical stabilizer (fin). This is a very decisive difference disallowing any comparism of the accidents without further research and additional facts."
And this: "Airbus Industries said in an internal e-mail leaked to the public, that there is no evidence of any electrical failure as had been initially claimed by Air France."
Moreover, a LH captain is quoted in "Stern" magazine when looking at the weathercharts of the time at the accident that the thunderstorms appeared to be so severe, he would have diverted to Recife.
The IB flight directly (10 minutes) behind AF447 deviated for a few hundreds kms.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Do we know yet whether the aircraft broke up at cruise altitude, during descent or on impact with the ocean?
No.
Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
Sources I read say that in a few days bodies will be so decomposed they will be unidentifiable. No words about burns.
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 66 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 71839 times:
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): With us being on Part 16 of this thread it is easy to miss some information so please forgive me.
We forgive you.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Do we know yet whether the aircraft broke up at cruise altitude, during descent or on impact with the ocean?
No, seems impossible to narrow down at this stage.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
I think the bodies that have been recovered so far are being brought to an undisclosed location and will be examined then.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): I know at approximately 7 miles up the air is very cold so would there be sufficient time for bodies to be affected by the icy conditions at altitude - even if they were only momentarily exposed before a rapid descent?
Gruesome thought. What do you mean by 'affected'?
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): I am just wondering if the condition of the bodies will help reveal when and how the aircraft met its end.
Possibly. But impossible to say at this stage.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Finally, were there any radio messages from the crew?
None after 0133Z.
EDIT: Sorry, this has already been replied to by now - I was too slow.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 49, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 71650 times:
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
I know at approximately 7 miles up the air is very cold so would there be sufficient time for bodies to be affected by the icy conditions at altitude - even if they were only momentarily exposed before a rapid descent?
I am just wondering if the condition of the bodies will help reveal when and how the aircraft met its end.
We really know nothing about the bodies other than the reported number which have been picked up. They are using DNA for identification - not unusual in today's highly technical world where that capacity for 100% positive identification can be done easily. The only report on condition I've seen is one report which listed x number male, x number female and x number unknown gender. Since the bodies were in the water for several days that would not be unusual.
In the preliminary and final accident reports several months from now, we will find out if the condition of the bodies provided an important information as to the cause of the crash.
Since France is leading the accident investigation, and Brasil is leading the recovery efforts, including processing remains - I would expect information on the exact condition of the bodies to be very closely guarded.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Finally, were there any radio messages from the crew?
I read early on in the thread that it isn't unusual for there not to be radio contact for some time in trans-oceanic flights. But wasn't there a 'Pan Pan' or 'Mayday' call.
From my layman's point of view it would seem that the catastrophe happened very quickly indeed. I imagine even in a rapid descent - controlled or otherwise, that the crew would attempt at least some form of radio communication.
We do not know if there were any radio messages from the crew. The crew may well have broadcast on the emergency channels and being out of range of VHF communications, would not have been picked up except by nearby aircraft / ships. The nearest aircraft that I have heard was approx 150 km away. That may not be close enough in stormy weather to be heard.
The open ocean communications are done by HF radio, which requires more active work than pressing a button the yoke and speaking into the mike. Work which would have required the pilots to take time/ attention away from trying to save the aircraft.
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 338 posts, RR: 1 Reply 50, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 69487 times:
I'll ask this again because it's not an easy question and probably the forum experts on this topic might have not seen it (it was on a previous part of this thread).
I understand that mainly passive sonar would be used to locate the FDR and CVR, listening for the pings hopefully coming from their locators. Since we're talking about at least one military submarine in the area, would it be feasible or useful to use active sonar to search for aircraft fragments? I understand searching on the bottom might not be as easy, but I have heard it has been used before to locate ship wrecks. Any thougts?
Jerblaine From United States, joined Jun 2009, 7 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 69457 times:
It just seems to me that it is possible that the storm was just too strong. Do we have the technology to stay in flight through the most powerful storms? I'm not sure if they can even do it on Star Trek....so to me it is all pilot error. Why the heck did he fly straight for the ENORMOUS storm cells in the middle of the atlantic??
Doktor71 From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 67959 times:
As it is impossible to read all the posts in this topic, may I ask for a brief summary of the most important facts/details giving an idea or somewhat of a hint for possible cause(s) of this tragedy?
Everyone is very welcome to do it via private message if it would be redundant to do it here in public. Thanks a lot.
LH526 From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 19 Reply 53, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 67959 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1): If it were from the plane, they would have recovered it and we'd have pictures of it as part of the wreckage. Recovery of a slide/raft would be noteworthy.
What would be notewowrthy about it? A plane impacting the ocean with lot's of G forces and disintegrating into shrapnels wcould possibly rip a raft off it's case and int the vicinity of the tail, as every raft is packed so tight that 60% of it's inflation power is gained from self-relaxation of the material, even a floppily floating raft would be nothing noteworthy.
It's all chaos theory on impact!
Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
LTC8K6 From United States, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 67498 times:
Quoting Doktor71 (Reply 102): As it is impossible to read all the posts in this topic, may I ask for a brief summary of the most important facts/details giving an idea or somewhat of a hint for possible cause(s) of this tragedy?
AF447 did not complete it's flight and crashed in the ocean.
Yep. That´s pretty much the size of it. Everything else is speculation (some of it very good), but essentially we need to keep remembering time after time that we just don't know much, and much of what is being written here and elsewhere qualifies as a WAG.
Goooooaaal From United States, joined Apr 2000, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 66400 times:
I think that we can make the determination at this point that this aircraft broke up in the air, albeit we do not know how it came apart, or why, or at what altitude. If you will recall in Swiss Air 111, the bodies were found in 15,000 pieces after the MD-11 crashed into the sea intact, where as in this disaster, the bodies that have been found seem to be more or less intact.
"New Signs That Air France Jet Broke Up in Flight
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — Two pieces of evidence have emerged that lend new credence to the theory that the Air France jet that crashed more than a week ago broke up in flight. "
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 338 posts, RR: 1 Reply 61, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 66212 times:
Quoting Doktor71 (Reply 112): So may I ask for the "good speculations" without embarrassing anyone?
You're absolutely right, and I didn't mean to come across as not caring about your question. If I did I apologize. Some of the speculation I've read (I have a hard time keeping up as well) refers to:
- Pitot tubes - There were apparently issues with the sensors for airspeed installed in this aircraft type (A330/A340). Airbus had recommended some time ago the replacement of these sensors (Thales built?). Air France was in the process of replacing them in the fleet gradually. Now due to Union or Pilots demands (I'm not clear which) AF is speeding up the replacement process. Faulty information from the pitot tubes could have caused the airplane to enter the storm at the wrong speed (too fast/too slow - not determined). In any case, the parameters were somewhat tight ("coffin corner" is a term I learned about in this thread). The airplane COULD have entered a stall from either being too slow or too fast.
- Weather - There are different reports on how severe the weather conditions were. Most people seem to agree that weather by itself could not bring an A330 down. No certainties here, however it could have been an important factor. Other flights deviated from this storm.
- Rudder - Personally I don't agree, but there were a lot of comparisons made with the AA587 crash in NY. This came about after the pictures of the VS were shown.
- Inflight breakup vs. impact against water - A lot of discussion on this. Some believe the aircraft broke up in flight, others that it impacted the water more or less intact. Debris patterns, currents and other factors are thrown in the discussions. Personally, I lean towards an inflight breakup but nothing is clear on this one.
DISCLAIMER:
As I said, I'm having a hard time keeping up too. I'm mostly LEARNING here so if what I said needs to be corrected feel free to point it out. I also realize I'm not covering many of the technical aspects being discussed in depth, many of which are part of that "good speculation". I just haven't had the chance to read slowly enough, and to learn and understand enough to even try to repeat it. By no means am I ignoring it. Thanks to all the experts who take the time to bring their knowledge to the thread (I just wish I had more time!).
Anyway, that was my attempt at compiling what I got out of the thread so far. Hope it helps a little.
"New Signs That Air France Jet Broke Up in Flight
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — Two pieces of evidence have emerged that lend new credence to the theory that the Air France jet that crashed more than a week ago broke up in flight. "
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 64, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 65379 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 127): The article fails to live up to the headline.
Agree, except the very last paragraph :
"A Delta Air Lines spokeswoman, Betsey Talton, said Delta had replaced the tubes on some models and was replacing them on its A330s, the model in the accident."
,probably meaning that they had had some issues on their pitot tubes ?
What other "models" does Delta have , apart from the A300 and the A340 ?
Atlanta-based Delta is currently installing new Pitot tubes from Thales on its A330 aircraft per the manufacturer's recommendation, spokeswoman Betsy Talton said.
"Until these installations are complete, we are communicating with our flight crews to reiterate the correct procedures to be used in the event of unreliable airspeed indications," Talton said.
Delta subsidiary Northwest Airlines also has installed new Pitot tubes on its A319/320 aircraft, Talton said.
Delta, the world's largest airline operator, owns 11 A330-200s and 21 A330-300s. It owns or leases 57 A319-100s and 69 A320-200s.
Tempe, Arizona-based US Airways, the other major U.S. A330 operator, has begun replacing the Pitot tube component on its A330s out of an abundance of caution, spokeswoman Michelle Mohr said, though she declined to identify the manufacturer. Nine of the carrier's 11 A330s are in regular service.
StuckInCA From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1191 posts, RR: 1 Reply 66, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 63183 times:
I don't really understand people in every part of this 16 part discussion jumping in asking for a personal update. There's been a summary of what's known in every section. You don't have to read all 16 threads, maybe just do everyone a favor and read 50 posts or so. We've had an awful lot of duplicate posts and summaries for people who don't want to read anything prior to their post.
EI787 From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1404 posts, RR: 31 Reply 67, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 63134 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Many posts have had to be unnecessarily deleted in this thread due to people responding to posts which had to be removed. If you feel a post is in breach of forum rules (eg. due to wild speculation), DO NOT respond to it! Submit a 'Suggest Deletion' and we will deal with it.
Apologies to those who were inconvenienced with 'Referenced Post' Deletions.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 68, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 63041 times:
Since my post was deleted, I won't reference other posts.
What is / was the supply status of the new model pitot assemblies?
Were there dozens/ hundreds of the new ones sitting in parts bins around the world? or was there a supply / production backlog?
It appears that Air France was replacing them as a part of normal maintenance. Are they now sending them to outlying stations so the aircraft can be upgraded in normal overnight downtimes?
It would also be a fair assumption that Delta has similar logistics issues, if the parts are not readily available in many locations and quantities.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4537 posts, RR: 60 Reply 69, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 62336 times:
Quoting EI787 (Reply 67): Apologies to those who were inconvenienced with 'Referenced Post' Deletions.
'Tis a minor one... for a much greater benefit!
-------------- Let me go back to the 3 phases of an incident/accident.
You have:
1. Normal phase
A. Transition into trouble phase
2. Trouble phase
B. Transition to outcome
3. Outcome...
Outcome can be "problem solved", "problem remained but safe outcome", "survivable accident", and "insurvivable accident".
There are cases where phases can repeat itself, although it is I believe, rare... often, the transitions overlap into the phases, but normally does not extend beyond 2 phases or a phase and the following transition (in cases of multiple phases, that is). Terrorist bombing of aircraft is unique because it overlaps A, 2 and B into one.
The facts that we have remain on the phases (normal flight, phase2 began in 0210, and phase 3 is that we're now finding bodies and aircraft pieces), and nothing in the transitions.
Phasing does ease discussions and investigations in a LOT of accidents and incidents. I must stress however, that the root cause can be before Phase 1... however, that is for the investigators... when causes start way before Phase 1, it requires data not available to the public domain.
I do wish (which is unlikely to happen) that we discuss it in a systematic manner, such as the division into phases as above. It will make things much easier, although many egos of the "one-upmanship" types will be severely burst.
So, where are we now?
We know that the ACARS messages point towards problems with the pitot static system. This is not definite, albeit likely. As many professionals have stated, these messages can only explain what may have happened. To be sure, go and find the FDR and CVR yourself. This is... Phase 2.
We know that pieces of the aircraft is found and so have bodies. Phase 3 is therefore an accident. We do not know whether it is a survivable accident, or an insurvivable one. It is safe however, to assume that this is an insurvivable accident based on the information available.
So, this leaves the transitions... A and B. Transition A has a few possibilities.
A1. Loss of reliable airspeed data. This explains some of the ACARS messages. This however, if the procedures are carried out promptly, should not have caused in loss of aircraft.
A2. Loss of all Air Data... This explains further the ACARS messages. Procedures following this extends beyond that of A1, and can (not does) explain the cabin pressure controller ACARS message as it is part of the QRH/ECAM action... amongst other things.
A3. Total loss of all ADIRU... This means loss of Air Data and Attitude Reference data. This, is extremely unlikely to happen. If someone can explain why TCAS was in the ACARS message then we can theorize objectively whether this was a likely scenario or not.
A4. Bomb. Only a small explosion can explain what then happened in phase 2, albeit in my opinion, explains less when incomparison with A1, A2 and A3.
A5. Lightning strike. It is unlikely to have affected a transition into phase 2, based on data for phase 2.
A6. Tailfin separation. It is unlikely to have affected a transition into phase 2, based on the data for phase 2.
A7. Excessive turbulence resulting in attitude upset. This has been deemed unlikely due to data supporting A1 and A2. Should this have happened, A1 and/or A2 and/or A3 is unlikely to have continued after aircraft recovered normal attitude.
A8. Pilots switching off the autopilot and autothrust. Whilst switching off autothrust is an option to the crew as part of the QRH for severe turbulence encounter, human action to switch off the autopilot and autothrust does not produce an ACARS maintenance message. This is therefore deemed as unlikely.
Note that A1 - A8 only goes to explain what may have caused entry to phase 2. Possible causes for the transition to happen, will be discussed below.
How about Transition B?
B1. Bomb, if in transition B, cannot be dismissed based on current info.
B2. Lightning strike, this is possible due to lack of ACARS messages from the aircraft after 0214UTC which can mean electrical failure. This can explain further resulting failures as per B3 and B4.
B3. Electrical failure. See above and B5.
B4. Further loss of ADR or IR. This is possible.
B5. Wing separation. This can explain the lack of ACARS messages after 0214UTC due to lack of AC power based on engine electrical generators being severed from the fuselage (see B3).
B6. Loss of control. This is possible due to the flight control laws degrading to alternate or alternate 2 in bad weather. However, it is deemed unlikely that transition B is simply explained by crew inability to maintain control. Loss of control coupled with B3 and/or B5 is possible as with B3, aircraft would further degrade to direct law, and with B4, loss of attitude information in the dark.
B7. Tailfin separation. This is possible if after 0214UTC but require B6 as prerequisite(s).
B8. Airframe disintegration. This is possible with B6 as prerequisite.
B9. Crew task saturation. This is possible as in previous incidents, crew involved has cited overwhelming ECAM messages as a likely hindrance to prompt action to rescue the situation. This can easily explain B6, and subsequent possibilities.
B10. Meteor strike. Cannot be dismissed at this stage.
B11. Being shot at by alien spacecraft. As ridiculous as this sound, this too cannot be dismissed at this stage.
Please note that anything in transition B would mean it is not a single failure, as it requires transition A. So before jumping to simplistic conclusions, bear that in mind. Also note that B1 - 11 is a collection of what may have happened and what may have caused entry to phase 3 (different rules apply to phase 3). Any causes cited in phase 3 cannot be used as root cause, as it is "subsequent cause arising from the occurence of previous causes".
I do hope that reading this, one would realize that anything is possible for transition B (except for the aircraft being abducted by an alien mothership, unless later spewed out by the alien mothership).
So, if we want to discuss what may have caused transition A to happen, we will be discussing probable causes... which if we catalogue it.
O.1. Excessive Icing: This is possible and explains A1 and A2, and subsequently possibly explain several items in transition B. Icing is also hard to pick up on radar (if not impossible).
O.2. Radar insensitivity: No failure information was sent by the ACARS, however, manipulation of gain control do pose a risk of the colours produced in the displays depicting water precipitation no longer representative of the normal calibrated values. Radar attenuation in areas of heavy precipitation (where water sticks to the radome surface) is known to have resulted in poor ability for radar to detect clouds. The same applies for extremely dense precipitation may result in radar waves not reflecting back to the antennae but is instead "absorbed", resulting in no radar return for that particular location. This possibility can lead to O.1. above.
O.3. Lightning strike. Some may ask why this is again listed here. A lightning strike on the radome can cause damage not apparent to the ear (subtle increase in aerodynamic noise) or eyes. The damage, can lead to O.2, however this is deemed unlikely because of the lack in (voice/crew) communication.
If I am to bet... my bets will be: O.1/O.2, A.2. and B.5. leading to B.7. But that's strictly personal opinions/theory.
----
I do wonder though, why does this problem with the Pitot tubes only happen to Air Caraibes and Air France.
I see the Qantas A330 whilst being similar, is different.
I wonder who else have the same Pitot-static, ISIS, ADIRU set up (in terms of... "they got the same components") as AF and whether AF and Air Caraibes have the same set up.
The pitot tubes must have been certified to the required specs... otherwise they shouldn't be on the planes in the first place. The old and new Thales probes would have passed the certification as they did end up on planes carrying paying passengers. If they degrade in time, the lifetime of the tubes should have been included on the specs, but they wouldn't fail together for no other apparent reason.
Unfortunately, regulations that is used as standard settings by various countries, are based on those made for countries which don't have the excessive precipitations that happens from time to time in tropical regions. Manufacturers overbuilt components partly for that reason... but how overbuilt are they can be quantified, the problem is, freak conditions rarely do... they're rarely defined as freaky and excessive enough to require a research. On this matter, if you really need to sue someone for it, you're probably gonna have to sue God (for it is His creation), or sue the whole humanity (for not realizing human frailty against God's creations)... *bangs head on table*
There is another problem that I've noticed in the forums regarding this matter. It seems that the aviation community is slow to pick up on these things. I've read time and time again, pilots saying that "severe icing cannot happen at X temperature" or "severe icing cannot happen at altitude X"...Pilotaydin pointed this out which made me have a look at my notes and my memory on conversations with various people in the past, and it is unfortunately true. We learn something new everyday in aviation, the question is whether those up on the hierarchy openly embrace this or not... (I have had several heated exchanges with those types whose mindsets are literally "boxed in"). Several cases in the past regarding excessive precipitation have been dismissed by the industry's majority as "a freak occurence"... One 737-300 ditched in a river because of it (despite a previous no-engine landing because of the same thing years earlier)... There were calls to have another look at
water ingestion required standards... not sure if they've been modified since, but I remember the industry initially saying it was a freak occurence and that the crew made an error. I remember because I was at the airport when they called for "friends and relatives awaiting for flight XXX please contact the information desk" and then the arrivals board were switched off.
Either that, or I've been relatively closely surrounded by air accidents in my lifetime. *sigh*
-----
End of repeat I hope it is useful as a basecheck
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Airtechy From United States, joined Dec 2006, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 61973 times:
I still don't believe that we have any evidence that this flight flew into a "massive" thunderstorm. Other flights successfully deviated around the build ups in the area. I assume AF447 would have done the same.
Because we don't know what the flight path was after the last reporting point, I don't think we can say "with certainty" that they didn't deviate.....maybe not successfully.
Also, AFAIK all pitot tubes since the Piper Cub have been heated. I'm a little surprised that the Airbus doesn't have some way of disregarding false readings generated by a blocked tube as they have several to compare....maybe they do and they were all blocked?
It's interesting that blocked pitot tubes and static ports have always caused false readings on the cockpit displays that pilots have to be aware of and compensate for/ignore. They did not however alter the flight characteristics of the airplane. With the new generation of planes incorporating "flight protections" and more automation this is no longer the case. The computers controls are only as good as the data feeding them.
Canoecarrier From United States, joined Feb 2004, 761 posts, RR: 2 Reply 71, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 61255 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 69): Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 48
Reply 69, posted Thu Jun 11 2009 09:49:50 your local time (16 minutes 26 secs ago) and read 518 times:
Probably the best post I've seen on this topic so far. I appreciate that rather than jumping to a conclusion you've approached this as a septic, slowly analyzing the limited data we have available.
UPSMD11 From United States, joined May 2003, 744 posts, RR: 7 Reply 72, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 61116 times:
In regards to the pitot tubes getting the air speed, is there a way to use GPS to get this? I am guessing not as GPS, if available in all parts of the globe, would only show ground speed. There would still have to be a way to get the speed of the related winds to get the aircrafts air speed.
Well, just a thought as it seems like we need better technology to do this task.
If all 3 are to fail, how does a pilot, in better circumstances, compensate?
Tangowhisky From United States, joined Jun 2006, 585 posts, RR: 7 Reply 73, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 60882 times:
I apologize if this was explained before, but would the complete loss of airspeed data make the rudder limiter ineffective? If so, could this mean that the tail-fin broke off due to possible inputs from the pilots who were disoriented resulting from airspeed data loss?
Another question. According to the ACARS messages, is it possible that they lost ADI in addition to airspeed info on both primary PFDs and the standby PFD?
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13057 posts, RR: 65 Reply 74, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 60652 times:
Quoting 757GB (Reply 61): Air France was in the process of replacing them in the fleet gradually. Now due to Union or Pilots demands (I'm not clear which) AF is speeding up the replacement process.
It's as much for PR as it is response to union demands/requests (and it's the right thing to do).
Quoting 757GB (Reply 61): Faulty information from the pitot tubes could have caused the airplane to enter the storm at the wrong speed (too fast/too slow - not determined).
Nitpicking, but if the sensors were compromised, it only would have occurred AFTER the storm was entered. Pitot tubes cannot ice over in clear skies - you need some sort of visible moisture (precipitation or clouds) in order to get ice. They would have flown into the storm at an appropriate speed, but things would have gone wrong while inside (more likely) or after leaving the storm (less likely).
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4537 posts, RR: 60 Reply 75, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 60425 times:
Quoting UPSMD11 (Reply 72): In regards to the pitot tubes getting the air speed, is there a way to use GPS to get this? I am guessing not as GPS, if available in all parts of the globe, would only show ground speed. There would still have to be a way to get the speed of the related winds to get the aircrafts air speed.
There's a discussion about this in techops....
Anyways, theoretically you can derive some sort of airspeed through realtime trigonometric vector calculations (that's a mouthful, I'm sure there's a nicer term to use)...
You need to know: Angle of attack (either by the AoA sensor, or by the Inertial Units vertical track compared with pitch), you can derive a rough airspeed for continuation of some sort of safe flight.
If you combine this with Ground/track speed (derived from GPS and/or the Inertial units), nose heading, track heading... you can derive wind component... Then get a True Airspeed rough number...
Combine all the above with aircraft gross weight, perhaps with barometric or GPS altitude, and a rough airspeed can be attained...
Or... you can use the pitch / power (N1) table, and see where the nose goes (up or down) to see whether you're faster or slower than the target speed...
For direct law or simplified FBW systems (no manual autotrim) or conventional controls... if the nose goes down after you've trimmed it... it means you're too slow, and too fast if it goes up...
For systems with G-load command inputs (such as the Airbus FBW) and autotrim, if the nose goes down, it means you're getting faster, if it goes up it means you're getting slower....
Am not sure if the last 2 paragraph is written correctly... *just can't be bothered to open the manuals again*
For the Airbus, there is the "BackUp Speed Scale" option, if fitted... I'll set someone else describe it... *again, can't be bothered to look it up again for today*
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Type-Rated From United States, joined Sep 1999, 2250 posts, RR: 28 Reply 76, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 60628 times:
There are some similarities in this crash to the NW Boeing 720 crash in the Everglades back in 1963. That plane was at 17,000 feet, entered a T-Storm and came apart on the crew after man handling the plane in the storm. I believe the final cause was the crew's lack of experience flying a swept wing aircraft in severe turbulence.
One of our neighbors entire family (except for 1 son) was onboard that one.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4537 posts, RR: 60 Reply 77, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 60302 times:
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 73): I apologize if this was explained before, but would the complete loss of airspeed data make the rudder limiter ineffective? If so, could this mean that the tail-fin broke off due to possible inputs from the pilots who were disoriented resulting from airspeed data loss?
Tailfin separation causing them to enter the problem phase, or after they entered the problem phase? (See Post #69) on the "3 phases of an accident/incident", and the parts on transitions a & b.
If in transition a (from normal flight, to problem phase), the data does not support this. If in transition b (from problem phase to accident/aircraft loss), hey, anything's possible, including tailfin separation.
Coming back to Yaw damping and turn coordination provided by the FBW...
There is no feedback to the rudder pedals from these functions... There is no need to use them unless you're in direct law on all 3 axis... this accident does not appear to be such a case.
Under ALTN law, the yaw control is interestingly... (for ALTN2 law)
"The dutch roll damping function is available, and damper authority is limited to +/-4degs rudder (Conf 0) and +/-15degs rudder (other CONF).
Turn coordination is also provided, except in CONF 0."
The thing is, why press the rudder? Who'd press the rudder? Given the conditions, so what if the turn is not coordinated... it's not crucial...
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 73): Another question. According to the ACARS messages, is it possible that they lost ADI in addition to airspeed info on both primary PFDs and the standby PFD?
Being looked into, but some of us currently suspect the loss of ADIs was caused by crew following the checklist. None of the information in the ACARS suggest that ADI function of the standby instrument (ISIS) was lost... the fault we see is likely to be the loss of airspeed data into the ISIS (ISIS has an independent gyro set up for the attitude referencing).
Quoting Mir (Reply 74): Nitpicking, but if the sensors were compromised, it only would have occurred AFTER the storm was entered. Pitot tubes cannot ice over in clear skies - you need some sort of visible moisture (precipitation or clouds) in order to get ice.
The moisture turned ice, would no longer be moisture... but ice crystals (be it suspended in air)... weather radars aren't very good at picking ice...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1098 posts, RR: 1 Reply 78, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 59968 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 19): So, even if the aircraft did breakup upon water impact, or shortly before, a 90km spread after a few days isn't hard to achieve... therefore, NAV20, it doesn't prove or explain that it was a high-altitude breakup, although it cannot be ruled out at this stage.
Mandala. Quick note. If the plane broke up at altitude, the debris would hit the water over a large area. Then with ocean currents, the whole debris area would move with the water while sort of maintaining the same debris area. Each of the various objects would be moving at the same speed, so the spread would be the same.
If the plane broke up when it hit the water, the debris field would be much smaller. It would also move with ocean currents but the debris field would be smaller than for a mid-air breakup even after many days.
I believe this is the case because each object in the water would tend to move at the same speed at ocean/wind currents. If this is true, the debris field should not be getting much larger. Of course each object will have a different speed due to size/shape/area in the wind, but i don't see the debris field growing that much.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4537 posts, RR: 60 Reply 79, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 59794 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 78): If the plane broke up when it hit the water, the debris field would be much smaller. It would also move with ocean currents but the debris field would be smaller than for a mid-air breakup even after many days.
With all due respect, we have discussed this almost to the brink of death in the previous topics (which some replies may have been deleted for housekeeping purposes).
I refer to the Adam Air 574 accident. The aircraft is suspected to have broken up at 4000ft. Whilst most of the aircraft remained at the bottom of the sea, some of the floating debris made a 100km journey within a week... the currents dispersed the debris, resulting a wide area where they were washed ashore... and those found still at sea.
Whether they all move together in sync or not depends on the winds, current, sea state, and what stuff sank then floated (and how long it took before it floats... different current speeds at different depths) and what stuff floated immediately...
The 90km debris field of AF446 is does not prove nor does it disprove whether the aircraft broke up at high altitude, low altitude, or remained intact until water impact.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
BA319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 6151 posts, RR: 52 Reply 80, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 59590 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 69): Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 48
Reply 69, posted Thu Jun 11 2009 17:49:50 your local time (1 hour 10 minutes 44 secs ago) and read 2106 times
- This is perhaps the best post in the entire 16 parts of this story, welcome to my respected list.
Thanks for your informative and detailed opinion on possibilities.
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1659 posts, RR: 53 Reply 81, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 59085 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 78): each object in the water would tend to move at the same speed at ocean/wind currents. If this is true, the debris field should not be getting much larger. Of course each object will have a different speed due to size/shape/area in the wind, but i don't see the debris field growing that much.
It's not just wind. It's also wave action and ocean current turbulence. Finding a 90 km debris field 1 week after the fact requires only about half a km/hr of relative drift. That's not hard to imagine.
LTC8K6 From United States, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 58839 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 78): Mandala. Quick note. If the plane broke up at altitude, the debris would hit the water over a large area. Then with ocean currents, the whole debris area would move with the water while sort of maintaining the same debris area. Each of the various objects would be moving at the same speed, so the spread would be the same.
If the plane broke up when it hit the water, the debris field would be much smaller. It would also move with ocean currents but the debris field would be smaller than for a mid-air breakup even after many days.
I believe this is the case because each object in the water would tend to move at the same speed at ocean/wind currents. If this is true, the debris field should not be getting much larger. Of course each object will have a different speed due to size/shape/area in the wind, but i don't see the debris field growing that much.
iwok
Had the debris been found right away, you would be correct. Since the debris had several days to move around, we cannot draw those conclusions from it.
Canoecarrier From United States, joined Feb 2004, 761 posts, RR: 2 Reply 83, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 58842 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 81): It's not just wind. It's also wave action and ocean current turbulence. Finding a 90 km debris field 1 week after the fact requires only about half a km/hr of relative drift. That's not hard to imagine.
The US Coast Guard has been assisting the SAR mission by modeling the debris field and apparently the software has a "reverse drift" capability to predict a search area based on the location where floating wreckage is found.
"By tracking information on when and where debris is found, the SAROPS system works backward using the weather, wind and sea conditions over a specified period of time to estimate a probable location of the plane. Based on this position, search efforts can be focused to find the plane's flight data recorders. "
For those interested, it's a depth study on water currents, sea temperature, salinity and sound propagation (here called "celerité"), as well as the range and detection pattern of the pinging transmissions.
I have to say that I feel a bit more optimistic about finding the recorders after reading this document. (SHOM is the Service hydrologique de la Marine, Navy's hydrological service)
But there is another document which is a preliminary study of the weather as it was at 0215 Z .:
That document gives a very detailed picture of the situation, cloud formation in the ITCZ, how the clouds form a mass... as well as this conclusion :
Les conditions générales dans la ZCIT Atlantique sont normales pour un
mois de juin. Elle est le siège du développement de cumulonimbus
puissants et d'amas orageux, typiques de cette zone
Les images infrarouges prises toutes les 15 minutes par les satellites
géostationnaires constituent la principale source d'information pour
apprécier l'évolution et le caractère exceptionnel ou non des systèmes
orageux sur la zone
L'analyse préliminaire des images Météosat montre, à proximité de la
trajectoire prévue, l'existence d'un amas de cumulonimbus puissants, dont
la décroissance est déjà amorcée à 2hTU
Cette analyse de l'imagerie infrarouge ne permet pas de conclure au
caractère exceptionnel de cet amas orageux, ni de l'activité orageuse sur
la zone de l'accident.
My quick translation below :
"The general conditions in the Atlantic ITCZ are usual for a month of June.That zone is the site of the development of powerful cumulonimbus es and stormy masses that are typical .
The infra-red pictures taken every 15 minutes by geo-stationary satellites are the main source of information for appreciating the evolution of the storm systems and whether they show exceptional characteristics or not.
The preliminary analysis of Meteosat images show, in the vicinity of the expected trajectory the existence of a mass of powerful Cbs, the "decreasing phase" of which had already started at 0200Z.
This analysis does not allow any conclusion about an exceptional characteristic of that storm mass, or the storm activity over the accident zone."
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2346 posts, RR: 3 Reply 87, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 55808 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 74): Nitpicking, but if the sensors were compromised, it only would have occurred AFTER the storm was entered. Pitot tubes cannot ice over in clear skies - you need some sort of visible moisture (precipitation or clouds) in order to get ice. They would have flown into the storm at an appropriate speed, but things would have gone wrong while inside (more likely) or after leaving the storm (less likely).
You touched on a point I thought of a while back - if there was turbulence ahead, the normal procedure would be to slow down, and this would have happened before entering the storm itself. That would mean they'd have slowed down before the pitot tubes would have had any opportunity to ice up.
So - how much throttle action would one normally expect in a thunderstorm situation? Constantly pushing and pulling, or what?
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1659 posts, RR: 53 Reply 88, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 55244 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 85): I feel a bit more optimistic about finding the recorders after reading this document.
Me too.
And they've barely started the search... the Emeraude just got underway, as did the two US towed sonar arrays. The Nautile and the ROVs aren't even arriving until tomorrow. There's at least a couple of weeks left to figure out where to dive.
Also, I would be surprised if they revealed the detection of a pinger before getting a pretty good fix on exactly where it is... and whether it is still attached to a black box. There being no sense in creating another false media stir.
That should give us plenty of time to speculate until Part 37 of this thread.
Sniffmom From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 64614 times:
Quoting FCA767 (Reply 64):
But that's the same as "stasis's" Post but in french
Guess my point got lost because I didn't express myself good enough, but the French title says "No terrorists aboard AF 447".
Someone first started reporting about possible terrorists with links to islamist terror organizations and many other newsoutlets picked the story up. Why would they report such a thing without any evidence or any official statements whatsoever, if it wasn't just to add to all the speculation and sell more papers/attract more traffic to their websites?
To me, it seems like the media is running amok in their quest for something to report to hold on to the public interest. (Similarity of names = possible terrorists. Let's exploit every theory even if it's totally unfounded rumors.)
764 From United States, joined Jul 2001, 487 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 55014 times:
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but do we have any evidence that AF 447 was actually traveling at thirty something thousand feet? Is it at all possible that - possibly due to altimeter malfunctions that could in turn be influenced by inaccurate pressure settings - the plane was flying much lower? Maybe I am going down the entirely wrong road here, but could it be possible for pilots to not notice that they are flying considerably lower than the instruments indicate? Particularly if there are CBs all around and nothing but black water below?
So far we have focused on the possibilities of the ACARS messages being sent before a crash or after in-flight breakup. Could they have been transmitted after a crash while at least some systems were still working (aka before they either broke apart or sank)? Is it furthermore a possibility that some transmissions were never received due to atmospheric conditions? And finally, does the ACARS transmitter queue outgoing messages and send them in given intervals? Does it ever get any sort of confirmation back before it will send the next message or will it just send what it has right away? I am just wondering because it seems that there are relatively few messages that we actually know about. If there had been additional messages in some sort of queue that never got finished, we might have to look at the ACARS log in a different way.
As I said, this may be far fetched, so correct me if I am wrong.
Also, there were other aircraft in the general vicinity at the time. Has anybody ever created a list of which flights these were? It would be very interesting to talk to the pilots of those flights and also to listen to their CVRs if possible (I know they have probably been deleted by now). The only experience in transoceanic radio transmissions that I have is from listening to United's channel 9. Not much, but I did notice in the past that pilots would occasionally talk to other flights in the same area to alert them of certain conditions. It would be great if we could get our hands on some recordings and/or witnesses of the transmissions that night. Did the doomed flight crew ever make any transmissions and what were they about?
Oh, when I say "we" I mean mostly the investigators and hopefully the interested community as well.
Tangowhisky From United States, joined Jun 2006, 585 posts, RR: 7 Reply 92, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 54767 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 77): The thing is, why press the rudder? Who'd press the rudder? Given the conditions, so what if the turn is not coordinated... it's not crucial...
Thank you Mandala499 once again for taking the time and explain. I guess the only reason a pilot may press the rudder would be in attempt to recover control of flight. If the rudder limiter was ineffective and therefore full rudder deflection therefore can be attained, an inadvertent pedal push in the heat of the moment would most certainly break the fin off.
Another question: Was the relief pilot in the cockpit at the time replacing the captain or the f/o. I mean, how certain are we that there was no sabotage attempt in the cockpit by a crew member that knows how to disable protection systems (like pulling circuit breakers) and set the course for this disaster?
TUNisia From United States, joined Aug 2004, 1754 posts, RR: 8 Reply 93, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 54754 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 89): "An Italian woman was killed in a car crash in Austria just days after she narrowly avoided becoming a victim of the Air France plane crash."
I guess it happens from time to time - just don't see it mentioned all that often.
What are the odds of that? WOW... RIP
"Someday the sun is going to shine down on me in some faraway place." - Mahalia Jackson
Dragon6172 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 54376 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 89): "An Italian woman was killed in a car crash in Austria just days after she narrowly avoided becoming a victim of the Air France plane crash."
I guess it happens from time to time - just don't see it mentioned all that often.
Reminds me of a plot from a series of movies that have gone on way too long. Final Destination? They are coming out with another of those ridiculous movies this summer I believe.
Alhena From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 46 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 53776 times:
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 92): If the rudder limiter was ineffective and therefore full rudder deflection therefore can be attained
There have been numerous posts about the meaning of the limiter fault warning. Also seems not to be an unusual warning.
The warning about limiter fault would mean the limiter would keep the previously calculated limit until slat extension, unless speed data would become usable again to calculate a new limit.
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 66 posts, RR: 0 Reply 96, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 53709 times:
Quoting 764 (Reply 91): I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but do we have any evidence that AF 447 was actually traveling at thirty something thousand feet?
Apparently so, since it didn't leave radar surveillance until 0148Z (if the media got that right).
Jbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 858 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 53479 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 74): Nitpicking, but if the sensors were compromised, it only would have occurred AFTER the storm was entered. Pitot tubes cannot ice over in clear skies - you need some sort of visible moisture (precipitation or clouds) in order to get ice. They would have flown into the storm at an appropriate speed, but things would have gone wrong while inside (more likely) or after leaving the storm (less likely).
Question: Wouldn't a humid environment, or even just flying into regular rain prior to flying into a very cold section of air be enough to cause the compromise? Given the talk/commentary about the potential for these storms to have a ceiling above 50k ft would it not be impossible to fly into a tamer part of the storm first, get the moisture, then fly deeper into the storm and get the icing?
Not doubting your explanation as I understand it, but wanting clarification.
As to the requests for updates:
- The plane experienced a catastrophic event
- There was severe weather in the area, but other aircraft got through ok
- There were a number of ACARS messages sent
- No known communication from the crew
- Bodies have been recovered
- Aircraft debris has been recovered
- The tail is looking in decent shape from the photos we have seen
- CVR/FDR location yet to be determined, French sub on location
- No other reports of anything more (aircraft wise) than seats being in any reasonable condition when recovered
- Important: We do not have any sort time of timeline of the events that occured, other than the timestamps on the ACARS messages but we can in no way form a full timeline of the complete event from these until more data can be established.
The data we have is like a bunch of pieces of paper scattered on a desk, each one has something on it, but there is no time stamp or numbering on the pieces of paper to determine the order in which they occured. Hopefully either the FDR and/or CVR can be recovered in a good state such that more accurate order can be determined.
FAB (Brazilian airforce) is reporting that weather conditions around TASIL are getting worse, impacting SAR efforts. Sea currents have changed from north to west with 1.1 km/h.
LongHaul67 From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 186 posts, RR: 1 Reply 101, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 54000 times:
Don't know if this has been posted already.
From AF website 11 June 2009:
Air France Chief Executive Officer Pierre-Henri Gourgeon today met with members from the AJPAE (French Professional Aviation and Space Journalists Association).
This meeting, planned some time ago, was devoted to the current situation and outlook for air transport.
In his opening speech, Pierre-Henri Gourgeon reiterated to the thirty French and foreign media present that all Air France staff have remained totally mobilized since the tragic accident of Air France flight 447. Every member of the staff shares the deep distress of the families and friends of the victims, crew and colleagues who were lost on this flight, and there has been a feeling of great solidarity throughout the Company.
The CEO reminded journalists that the investigation will be long and difficult, given the location of the accident. Analysis of the initial results of the searches being carried out may give us an indication of the circumstances of the catastrophe. Various scenarios could then be built by the experts. In addition to which, we hope to recover the flight recorders. As for the assumptions made by some of the media, they are pure speculation.
Air France launched its programme for replacing the anemometric sensors on Friday, 29 May, as soon as it received the stock of parts. Due to the problem concerning speed measurement, which had been observed in the last automatic messages from the aircraft, the replacement programme was stepped up.
We cannot, however, assume any link between the sensors and the causes of the accident. Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency maintain that the A330/A340s are safe with any one of the three types of existing sensors.
Air France will be totally transparent in dealing with the investigators and, in agreement with them, in communicating with the general public and its passengers, concluded the Chief Executive Officer.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 65 Reply 102, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 54312 times:
Quoting Alhena (Reply 95): There have been numerous posts about the meaning of the limiter fault warning. Also seems not to be an unusual warning.
The warning about limiter fault would mean the limiter would keep the previously calculated limit until slat extension, unless speed data would become usable again to calculate a new limit.
Alternate Law and the Rudder Travel Limiter would be linked to F/CTL ADR DISAGREE.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13057 posts, RR: 65 Reply 103, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 53483 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 94): Reminds me of a plot from a series of movies that have gone on way too long. Final Destination?
The Final Destination movies have plots?
Quoting Jbernie (Reply 97): Question: Wouldn't a humid environment, or even just flying into regular rain prior to flying into a very cold section of air be enough to cause the compromise?
Humidity no, rain yes (provided it remained on the pitot tube as the air got colder, which is difficult at high speed).
Quoting Jbernie (Reply 97): would it not be impossible to fly into a tamer part of the storm first, get the moisture, then fly deeper into the storm and get the icing?
Not impossible, but more likely would be that all the trouble happened in the more severe parts of the storm.
Again, this assumes that there was pitot tube trouble, which we don't know for sure.
... But after 10 days of searching, the authorities combing what's believed to be Flight 447's crash site, some 700 miles (1,125 km) out to sea, have come up with only 41 bodies and relatively little of the plane's wreckage. And that, experts say, is not nearly enough.
"Based on what has been recovered thus far, you really can't expect investigators to come up with much about how and why the plane came down," says Vincent FavÉ, an aeronautic engineer and judicial expert who has participated in past French aviation investigations. "What they do have supports the obvious hypothesis that the plane broke up while still in the air. But with so little debris and few victims recovered this late, they'll really need to get the black box to have any chance of finding out what happened."
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13570 posts, RR: 68 Reply 106, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 52817 times:
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 73): I apologize if this was explained before, but would the complete loss of airspeed data make the rudder limiter ineffective? If so, could this mean that the tail-fin broke off due to possible inputs from the pilots who were disoriented resulting from airspeed data loss?
As I understand it, if airspeed data is lost the limiter remains set to the last speed it got. In other words, if the last speed it got was 300kt, it will remain at the setting for 300kt even if the plane slows to 200kt. Once flaps/gear are selected, it would stop limiting travel.
Also as Mandala499 said, there should be no reason to touch the rudder pedals.
Quoting UPSMD11 (Reply 72): In regards to the pitot tubes getting the air speed, is there a way to use GPS to get this? I am guessing not as GPS, if available in all parts of the globe, would only show ground speed. There would still have to be a way to get the speed of the related winds to get the aircrafts air speed.
Well, just a thought as it seems like we need better technology to do this task.
The technology is pretty darned good as is. Not saying perfect but such things don't exist. We're talking tens of thousands of commercial flights and who knows how many general aviation flights a day without issues with pitot tubes. It's a pretty reliable piece of tech.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
764 From United States, joined Jul 2001, 487 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 52900 times:
Quoting Tietkej (Reply 96): Quoting 764 (Reply 91):
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but do we have any evidence that AF 447 was actually traveling at thirty something thousand feet?
Apparently so, since it didn't leave radar surveillance until 0148Z (if the media got that right).
Good point. Although I am still wondering whether the aircraft could have - for whatever reason - ended up descending without pilots' knowledge.
Other than that, is there any experts on ACARS transmitters around who can answer the question whether messages - if a lot happen at once - are transmitted right away, if they are queued, what intervals they are sent in and whether some may get deleted before sending if there are too many?
HAMAD From United Arab Emirates, joined Apr 2000, 995 posts, RR: 7 Reply 108, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 50103 times:
this article on cnn, indicates that the CEO beleives that it is terrorism, and not the airspeed sensors. not sure if he is trying to cover something up, but here is the article
Kiwiandrew From Mauritius, joined Jun 2005, 5513 posts, RR: 17 Reply 109, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 49857 times:
Quoting HAMAD (Reply 108): this article on cnn, indicates that the CEO beleives that it is terrorism, and not the airspeed sensors. not sure if he is trying to cover something up, but here is the article
I think that it is stretching it a bit to say that the article indicates the CEO believes that it is terrorism , it says that the CEO says we should not assume that the sensors caused the crash ( quite rightly at this point of the investigation , we should not assume anything ) then later in the article without any connection to the CEO it mentions that two pax had names similar to those of two people apparently on a list of people linked with terrorism . ( the article even makes the point that they were not necessarily the people from the list as there is not enough information yet .)
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
GlenP From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 49766 times:
Sorry Hamad, but the CNN piece is basically a restatement of Longhaul67's reply 101, with additional, separate details of the possible terrorists on board story, from L'Express & the FBI.
What the AF CEO is actually saying is that just because they identified a potential problem with the pitot sensors, were changing them (on their own initiative), but hadn't managed to do so on this particular aircraft, doesn't mean we should leap to conclusions & assume that we have identified the cause of this tragedy.
More a case of "let's calm down & gather the evidence & not let the media decide the ooutcome before hand", than a cover up.
The rest is actually separate statements from other sources.
Pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 111, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 49878 times:
Time is running out.
Just read on Yahoo/AP that the French submarine is capable to cover 13 square miles/35 squate km A DAY!!! And effective US military sensors are expected "within days".
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8258 posts, RR: 41 Reply 112, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 49078 times:
Quoting HAMAD (Reply 108): this article on cnn, indicates that the CEO beleives that it is terrorism, and not the airspeed sensors. not sure if he is trying to cover something up
I have to agree with GlenP. The CEO does not say anything to suggest he believes terrorism was involved. As for a "cover up", all he is saying is that people should not jump to conclusions in the absence of much evidence.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 113, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 49267 times:
Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 111): Just read on Yahoo/AP that the French submarine is capable to cover 13 square miles/35 squate km A DAY!!! And effective US military sensors are expected "within days".
Bad interpretation !
This ABCNews is more accurate :
"The sub, the Emeraude, which is equipped with high-tech sonar equipment, joins search teams from several countries in the race against time to find these flight recorders.
"Its mission is to detect the acoustic signals sent by the black boxes," French military spokesman Christophe Prazuck told ABC News. "It is capable on a daily basis of patrolling in a zone of 20 nautical by 20 nautical miles, 36 kilometers by 36 kilometers (22 miles by 22 miles), to detect acoustic signals sent by the black boxes."
"It will change zones every day," he said.
The Emeraude will work in conjunction with a research vessel from the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea, the Pourquoi Pas, that carries underwater robots and is due to arrive in the region Friday. "
That 20 Nm x 20Nm square translates into some 1400 km² .
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 114, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 49039 times:
Quoting 764 (Reply 107): Other than that, is there any experts on ACARS transmitters around who can answer the question whether messages - if a lot happen at once - are transmitted right away, if they are queued, what intervals they are sent in and whether some may get deleted before sending if there are too many?
The ACARS uses either VHF or satellite links for data transmission.
The messages are automatically sent when a system declares a fault and the maintenance computer ( which provides them) doesn't chose a priority (see that some fault reporting could precede a warninhg on another system).
If the aircraft is in a zone or conditions that preclude an immediate transmission, the messages are queued, but still sent in the order of their sensing when communication is re-established, and with a time tag of the occurence.
What has been leaked to the press is only the maintenance messages. The rest of the ACARS transmissions to/from the airline, some automatic, some manual hasn't been released to the public.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6843 posts, RR: 8 Reply 115, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 48727 times:
Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 111): Time is running out.
Just read on Yahoo/AP that the French submarine is capable to cover 13 square miles/35 squate km A DAY!!! And effective US military sensors are expected "within days".
With such a pace there is not much hope (just luck) that signals from FDR and CVR will be detected within remaining 2 weeks+
But sounds underwater can be heard from a much larger distance than above water, so they can be quite some distance away to at least hear the "ping" and localize it I guess. Or is that "ping" so low you have to be very near it to hear it?
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 116, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 48610 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 115): sounds underwater can be heard from a much larger distance than above water, so they can be quite some distance away to at least hear the "ping" and localize it I guess. Or is that "ping" so low you have to be very near it to hear it?
See post # 85 and the link to the SHOM study of propagation.
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 791 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 48177 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 115):
But sounds underwater can be heard from a much larger distance than above water, so they can be quite some distance away to at least hear the "ping" and localize it I guess. Or is that "ping" so low you have to be very near it to hear it?
It's like trying to find something in space. There are very large, high gain accoustical sensors that could pick up the signal from many miles away, but part of the high gain is their directionality, so they'd only cover a tiny area. Low gain sensors will cover a lot more area, but also pick up a lot more background noise, so they won't be as sensitive.
The signal never exactly goes away, but just goes below the background noise level. Highly directional pickups work more by reducing background noise than by increasing desired signal.
Since they're trying to pick up a pure tone it will be easier for the computerized analysis gear they have to seperate it out of the chaff. It should be much easier than trying to detect the slight noises from another sub, which is what the gear is made for.
Not to slight anybody elses navy, but a couple of Los Angeles class attack subs would be the best things they could have there to find that pinger.
LTC8K6 From United States, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 118, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 47811 times:
Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 111): With such a pace there is not much hope (just luck) that signals from FDR and CVR will be detected within remaining 2 weeks+
30 days is the minimum spec. They will almost certainly ping for much longer than 30 days.
Hiflyer From United States, joined Nov 2004, 1620 posts, RR: 6 Reply 120, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 47753 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 117): Not to slight anybody elses navy, but a couple of Los Angeles class attack subs would be the best things they could have there to find that pinger.
With the P3 dropping sonobuoys and couple choppers with dipping sonar to boot. I know secrecy is great but in this case perhaps there would be a greater good. Additionally I find it interesting that debris started to be found after the weather cleared...does that not lead one to think some very detailed pix from a retasked sat were shown??? However...I do not think there was 'realtime' data of the specific area...the ITCZ between South America and Africa is not a normal place that you would monitor with hugely expensive and life limited equipment on a 24hr basis...but a retask and search after the fact would make a great training scenario.
Funny about the P3...lots of press of it being sent down from SAL for the search but since then not a peep in any media reports...and unlike the first few days hasn't been listed as one of the active search ac in recent media releases. You would think that the US press would latch on and play it up as our contribution, catch a ride for PR, little photo ops for the USN, but zippo nada. Strange.
Theredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1177 posts, RR: 5 Reply 121, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 47636 times:
Well now details are emerging about the posibility of an inflight breakup.
The article does not identify the source, but the info is consistent with this case.
here is a part...
Quote: By Laura Price
June 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Air France plane that crashed June 1 may have partly broken up in the air before hitting the Atlantic Ocean, O Estado de S. Paulo reported, citing investigators it didn’t identify.
Most of the 16 bodies examined in preliminary stages of the probe into the flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris were found naked or with minimal clothing, suggesting the wind may have removed the garments, the newspaper said. The possibility of an explosion or fire in the jet is also unlikely because the bodies showed no sign of burns, Estado said.
Almost all of the bodies had multiple fractures, the paper reported. Investigators haven’t found water in the victims’ lungs, which would indicate drowning, Estado said. Bodies were found 85 kilometers (53 miles) apart, which may also indicate the Airbus A330-200 broke up before reaching the ocean, Estado reported.
Representatives from Brazil’s legal medical institute, which is conducting the body examinations in the northeastern city of Recife, weren’t immediately reachable when Bloomberg News called for comment before regular working hours.
This is sad and It make very important to recover the CVR and FDR.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 5768 posts, RR: 15 Reply 122, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 47285 times:
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 121): The possibility of an explosion or fire in the jet is also unlikely because the bodies showed no sign of burns, Estado said.
If there was an explosion in let's say the lower deck cargo hold, not all passengers will get burns. If the passengers of which they have found the bodies were sitting all in the aft section, than we cannot exclude an explosion because the other passengers might well have burn marks if an explosion took place on their side. Where were the passengers sitting in the aircraft of which they have recovered the bodies?
GlenP From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 47024 times:
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 121): Well now details are emerging about the posibility of an inflight breakup.
The article does not identify the source, but the info is consistent with this case.
here is a part...
Personally, I think it's probably better to wait for something official to be released,rather than taking a news media item, citing an unindentified source, as being 100% reliable, if only because it strikes me as being perfectly possible that multiple fractures could have been sustained in the event of the A/C remaining intact & impacting with the ocean; & as someone observed either ealier in this section or in thread 15, the fact that any bodies were found naked wouldn't necessarily be indicative of a mid-air breakup.
Hiflyer From United States, joined Nov 2004, 1620 posts, RR: 6 Reply 125, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 47010 times:
Quoting A388 (Reply 122): Where were the passengers sitting in the aircraft of which they have recovered the bodies?
I believe the various organizations have stated that they are officially releasing no details on bodies until after recovery efforts are over and all next of kin have been notified and able to do whatever they need to do....which IMHO is quite appropriate.
Seat location, condition of the bodies, clothed or not, drowned or not, subjected to deep sea pressure or not, location found...all these will go a long way to giving good data on the incident..as mentioned in other incidents the human body is a good 'data recorder' and our civilization has had quite a long term experience examining remains for clues thru history. I just don't think it will be soon unless something is leaked....and if it does leak we will argue here if it is true or not for days...grin!
CasInterest From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1178 posts, RR: 2 Reply 126, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 46456 times:
Has there been an updated Debris Map released by the Search Authorities. The other day we had one that showed where the bodies, vertical stabilizer and checkpoints where located. Has there been an updated one, with more debris fields?
I am wondering if these are what some of the news agecies are using to make their guess about the inflight breakup.
Didn't mean to and I shouldn't have worded it that way. Although I have some knowledge of US capability I have to admit none whatsoever of French equipment. But, it would have to be pretty impressive to match the LA class subs.
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 791 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 46362 times:
Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 120): With the P3 dropping sonobuoys and couple choppers with dipping sonar to boot. I know secrecy is great but in this case perhaps there would be a greater good.
You're probably right if they're covering a large area. They wouldn't have the same capability as subs, but you could cover much more ocean in a much shorter time.
Slinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 129, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 45928 times:
Quoting CasInterest (Reply 127): Has there been an updated Debris Map released by the Search Authorities. The other day we had one that showed where the bodies, vertical stabilizer and checkpoints where located. Has there been an updated one, with more debris fields?
No new maps but there is a notice on the Brazillian forces pages saying:
"Command and the Navy Command of the Air report that, in recent hours, aircraft from visual search, moved to west of the points of initial concentration, able to see various wrecks, confirming the predictions of the planning of searches on the movement of sea currents. Ships were directed to the rescue in these areas.
The weather indicates a sharp worsening of weather conditions and visibility in the searches, which may compromise the work. Even with the weather limitations, the search will be performed, always in areas that provide visual flight conditions to the low height. The sea conditions are favorable, with waves up to a meter height.
The effective military, the means employed, and used to conduct search operations, remain unchanged in relation to information provided previously."
(Apols for the translation, I had to rely on Google.)
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 130, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 45775 times:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
May I remind you once again to be very careful with quick conclusions based on perceived effects and phenomena ?
For instance,
- multiple fractures only hint at strong accelerations or decelerations. They could happen inside or outside of the cabin
- lack of clothing could be done by wave effects (see somewhere on the net the studies on the Comet crash in the Med)
- the fin was separated from the airplane .Full stop . When and where are unknown. In-flight separation or ground impact shear are both possibilities.
- the ACARS messages could be a picture of the failures appearing inside the systems. Some knowledgeable posters have warned against too quick assumptions : spurious messages or real faults ? Failures or results of crew actions during an abnormal check-list ? Related faults or results of a more complicated chain of events ?
I have more than 12 years on Airbus products and still can't understand all that was transmitted via ACARS. Some items do not seem to correlate without the occurrence of another set of faults that should then have been reported on the messages....etc...etc...
That's the reason people like Zeke and Mandala499 are so prudent with their posts, some with a pilot point of view, others based on engineering data research. And I personally am in the same boat.That's why for the past three or four days I've only contributed with factualities (if I may use that word).
We will probably within the next two days present more of our ideas, BUT our ideas are more in the domain of technical sleuthing than actual investigative protocols...which should be left with the French and Brazilians appointed authorities.
Pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 131, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 45832 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 116): Quoting NA (Reply 115):
sounds underwater can be heard from a much larger distance than above water, so they can be quite some distance away to at least hear the "ping" and localize it I guess. Or is that "ping" so low you have to be very near it to hear it?
See post # 85 and the link to the SHOM study of propagation.
So the good news is that LA class US submarines joint the operation.
All is classified - but those are supposed to be effective.
Pihero, I went to the Web-page - but it is in French. So I still can't figure out from what distance the signals will be heard by sonars IF FDR and CVR are at 2,000 m, 3,000 m?
Please help to understand.
Also, square miles/meters are numbers a little bit misleading for most people (though we all basically know that 35 km x 35 km = 1225 square km).
What would you say about the whole area to be covered in terms of perimeter.
Can you tell me if the vertical fin torque box on the A332 is common to the A300, A340 series with the various leading edges, fin caps and respective rudders added to each model applied during the production process?...thnx...j
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 133, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 45657 times:
Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 138): Also, square miles/meters are numbers a little bit misleading for most people (though we all basically know that 35 km x 35 km = 1225 square km).
What would you say about the whole area to be covered in terms of perimeter.
It's another bloody problem of measuring units :
The original Navy press release talks about a 20 Nm x 20 Nm square, so an area of 400 square nautical miles.
1 Nm = 1852 metres
So in kilometers, a square of 37.04 x 37.04 kilometres. or some 1,372 Km², which I rounded up to 1,400 km².
I have to go, now. I'll come back to you for the bathymetrics.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 3394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 134, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 45244 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 126): Of course AF CEO (together with all us aviation enthusiasts and professionals) will be delighted had terrorism been the cause of the accident.
Actually if it was terrorism, with so little clearity of the political agenda behind it and with already the current level of airport checks of cargo and luggage, it would worry me actually more that terrorism can still just hit any airline and not be rule out wven with airport checks taking longer and becoming more annoying.
While if it's a stall and pitot tube related crash, together with the conclusions from some other comparible incidents, we can expect implemented changes will make aviation safer in the future. Look at the Windshear detecting and GPWS developments in the last twenty years had major impact in getting aviation safer.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6191 posts, RR: 85 Reply 135, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 45018 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 117): Not to slight anybody elses navy, but a couple of Los Angeles class attack subs would be the best things they could have there to find that pinger.
Although that probably IS a slight to other people's Navies...
Quoting FCA767 (Reply 123): he didnt mean anything bad...he just knows his navy...so used that
But may not know other people's.........
No matter. I digress.... Apols.
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 128): You're probably right if they're covering a large area. They wouldn't have the same capability as subs, but you could cover much more ocean in a much shorter time.
I would have thought sonobuoys were a sound option......
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 10617 posts, RR: 51 Reply 136, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 44435 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 135): I would have thought sonobuoys were a sound option.....
It is almost surprising that there is not constant coverage from sonobuoys a bit lke satellite coverage only more so.
Possibly the relation of the search area to the mid-Atlantic ridge has been posted but is there any information on the relief on the ocean floor in the area? Searches with active sonar are going to be much easier if the plane is on one of the abyssal plains.
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1659 posts, RR: 53 Reply 137, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 43885 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 136): Possibly the relation of the search area to the mid-Atlantic ridge has been posted but is there any information on the relief on the ocean floor in the area?
Pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 138, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 43733 times:
Still it would be much easier for many of if those who follow investigation really close:
1. To provide information in plain English - what is perimeter of the search area. I guess authorities have already fugured what particular area is to be searched.
2. Information about radio siganls transmission in the ocean water correlated to various depth levels (expected from Pihero).
And it would be great if we get link to source where updated information is available.
AF774 is our common pain. And we are all in the same boat as we all are pax of Airbus a/c and many of us pax of AF.
Slinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 139, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 43710 times:
Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 138): Still it would be much easier for many of if those who follow investigation really close
This site belongs to the Brazilian Air Force who are providing images, maps and sometimes bi-daily updates. To translate, copy a page url to Google Translate or other online translation tool:
probable are of impact is a circle with radius 65-70km around point of last contact. That's the area where the sonar searches are being done, acccording to same report.
777jaah From Colombia, joined Jan 2006, 854 posts, RR: 2 Reply 142, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 42574 times:
Quoting Alhena (Reply 140): some pictures of recovered debris:
Images #9 and 14 shows a couple of jumpseats. Looks like those were basically intact, and makes you wonder if the crew supposse to be sitting on them were using the seatbelts. I don't know if standard in 330 ops, or depending on number of jumpseats and crew onboard, but if the captain was experiencing terrible weather, maybe all crew was seat and fasten?? Just a bit of crazy ideas in my head right now....
777jaah
"He can't fly!!! Those wings are made of plastic" Woody on Buzz Lightyear's wings.
Alhena From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 46 posts, RR: 0 Reply 143, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 42045 times:
About the presentation on the shom site (reply 85):
The sea floor is very accidented. Depths varying from 864 to 4696m - slide 3
slide 4: in red - rocks. Green and brown: mud.
slides 5 and 6 - current (as in sea currents) forecasts.
Note: currents have been reported to change from N to W since 2 days
slide 7: water profiles. I think celerité is velocity (current speed). This would be consistent with 1.5 km/h at surface reported by brazilian navy. IIRC PIHERO thought this to be sound propagation distance. The other two are salinity and temperature.
slide 8: detection areas for the pingers. This would be the radius of the circle on the surface in which the pings could be heard, as a function of depth at which the pingers lie. Would vary between 1 and 5.5 km. There is also a dependency on conditions MER 1, MER 2, ... MER 7. I don't know what that means.
Note: I would guess the topography would make hearing of the pingers more difficult.
FlySSC From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 6309 posts, RR: 64 Reply 144, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 42220 times:
Quoting 777jaah (Reply 142): Images #9 and 14 shows a couple of jumpseats. Looks like those were basically intact, and makes you wonder if the crew supposse to be sitting on them were using the seatbelts. I don't know if standard in 330 ops, or depending on number of jumpseats and crew onboard, but if the captain was experiencing terrible weather, maybe all crew was seat and fasten?? Just a bit of crazy ideas in my head right now....
Air France A332 are fitted with 11 jumpseats for the F/A for a Crew of 9.
Moreover, considering when the accident occurred (more than 3 hours after take off), half of the F/A were probably in the Crew rest, so even if the Captain required the F/A to be seated because of the turbulence, a lot of jumpseats in the cabin were not occupied.
Sdq777 From United States, joined Dec 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 145, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 41954 times:
Quoting 757GB (Reply 61): Weather - There are different reports on how severe the weather conditions were. Most people seem to agree that weather by itself could not bring an A330 down. No certainties here, however it could have been an important factor. Other flights deviated from this storm.
I haven't looked at all the post, so if this has been posted, sorry. But it's interesting to note that if the aircraft did indeed enter a severe thunderstorm, the severe turbulence accompanied by hail and lighting could have downed the aircraft. Maybe not the turbulence alone but the combining factors.
FrmrCAPCADET From United States, joined May 2008, 626 posts, RR: 0 Reply 146, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 41771 times:
Sonobuoys would not seem to have to be all that expensive, and an appropriate plane could have got there and dropped them in hours versus days/even a week. They could be retrieved somewhat at leisure after the boats arrive. Astuteman - it really is odd that there is not that capability. Losing a plane over water while rare is not unheard of.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
Pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 147, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 41525 times:
Quoting Alhena (Reply 141): probable are of impact is a circle with radius 65-70km around point of last contact. That's the area where the sonar searches are being done, acccording to same report.
that would give some 15 000 km^2.
These numbers appear to be doable, don't they?
Even having in mind the minimum signal if boxes are on max. depth.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 148, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 41355 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 135): Although that probably IS a slight to other people's Navies
No, just an acknowledgement of the impact of cubic dollars/pounds/euros thrown into a defense budget.
The French have good submarines. Much better than the generation we could pick up on the US Navy Argentia Newfoundland SOSUS array in the early 80s when they were 50 miles off the coast of France.
But the French have only 6 SSN and 4 SSBN boats.
The US Navy has 49 LA class, 3 Seawolf class, 4 Virginia class SSN and 18 Ohio class SSBN boats.
The SSBN would be the best for passive sonar searches, but nobody is going to put a boat armed with missles in a publich search area.
The Seawolf and the Virginia class would be better than the LA class for a search, but they are committed right now.
The LA class, like the French boat currently on scene, has a long towed array passive sonar which can be used very well in this type search.
None of the submarines of the US or France has an active sonar system designed for bottom mapping, but what they have will work if the debris is large enough.
The basic principles of submarine search remain the same. They have to narrow the field of search to the most productive possible areas. The sub then does a slow racetrack while the crew works under "all quiet" conditions. They will operate as deep as possible, though extreme depth work tends to make the sub a noiser than a little higher.
Outside the primary search zones each day, passive sonobouys can be dropped to listed for the signals from the boxes.
But the presence of low flying aircraft, surface search ships, normal shipping will all degrade the noise environment, making location of the pingers harder.
No one will be using active sonar until a likely target is identified.
Also remember, none of the submarines have the capability of getting anywhere near bottom or any debris. Their listed test depths are all 2,000 ft or less. Of course they go deeper, but no where near the 16-20,000 ft of that area.
It will take one or two of the very specialized, very few deep submersibles and associated ROV to get that deep.
The DSV Alvin is one option for getting to the debris, but part of this area is too deep for that vessel. (4,500M is Alvin's dive limit). DSV 4 Sea Cliff has worked at 20,000 ft, but no deeper.
The replacement for the Alvin - assumed to be DSV 5 Nemo - is due to be completed sometime in late 2011 with a capability for dives to 6,500M / 21,000 ft. It may take that long to recover debris and the FDR/CVR from this crash.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 149, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 41240 times:
Quoting FrmrCAPCADET (Reply 146): Sonobuoys would not seem to have to be all that expensive, and an appropriate plane could have got there and dropped them in hours versus days/even a week. They could be retrieved somewhat at leisure after the boats arrive. Astuteman - it really is odd that there is not that capability. Losing a plane over water while rare is not unheard of.
Sonobouys are not designed to search for the depths of this area. They are designed and optimized to detect sounds at depths up to 2,000 ft and in certain frequency ranges.
Yes they can be tweaked for the pinger frequencies, but this water is DEEP.
Also passive sonobouys are not very useful in areas where there is a lot of ship and aircraft traffic. The noises they generate in the water interfere with the ability of the sonobouy.
Propeller driven aircraft resonate sounds into the water. The US Navy SOSUS system could track the Soviet TU-95 Bear aircraft headed to Cuba better than the USAF long range rader in the 80s.
Helicopters are also terrible noise makers. Passive helicopter dipped sonars are only useful in localizing a loud underwater source known to be in the nearby area.
Most of the search aircraft used are propeller driven, or helicopters.
Alhena From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 46 posts, RR: 0 Reply 150, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 41124 times:
Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 147): These numbers appear to be doable, don't they?
I guess so.
I think to remember the Émeraude being capable of covering something like 35 x 35 km a day (sources are very messy with figures, especially square figures). That would give something around 12 days to cover the circle with r = 70 km. And there are more resources participating in the search.
The topography though looks very very difficult (mountains, faults, cliffs, ...) it might be a matter of luck.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 151, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 41079 times:
RField,
Thanks for the infos.
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 148):
It will take one or two of the very specialized, very few deep submersibles and associated ROV to get that deep.
Here is the one, already on site, along with another two ROVs. All are aboard the "Pourquoi Pas ?" (meaning "Why Not ?"). On the same vein "Nautile" means "Nautilus". Apt names I reckon. the Nautile
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 148): The DSV Alvin is one option for getting to the debris, but part of this area is too deep for that vessel. (4,500M is Alvin's dive limit). DSV 4 Sea Cliff has worked at 20,000 ft, but no deeper.
Seems that the Europeans are one up on that technology, doesnt'it ?
Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 138): Information about radio siganls transmission in the ocean water correlated to various depth levels (expected from Pihero).
See first Alhena's post that simplifies it a lot.
Quoting Alhena (Reply 143): I think celerité is velocity (current speed)
"Célérité" is the "speed" for a non-solid object. Here it is the propagation speed of the sound in water.
Quoting Alhena (Reply 143): This would be the radius of the circle on the surface in which the pings could be heard, as a function of depth at which the pingers lie. Would vary between 1 and 5.5 km. There is also a dependency on conditions MER 1, MER 2, ... MER 7. I don't know what that means
Correct.
So if I may recap,
-Slide 3 is the bottom profile. See that the max depth within 80 km is 4606 m, some 15300 ft, well within the capabilities of Nautile and the ROV Victor.
-Slide 4 is about nature of Bottom. As Alhena said, red is rock, green and brown is mud.
-Slide 5 is about marine currents directions at the surface and at a 1000 m depth
-Slide 6 reports the current speeds at different depths, the depth scale on the left, the speed colour-coded on the right (red, f.i is .5 kt.
-Slide 7 studies the evolution of the sound speed with depth and the influence of salinity.
That study is interesting as it forecasts the diffraction of the sound waves with salinity and depth.
-Slide 8 is the detection radius of a pinger, given its depth and sea conditions. Knowing the French sailors, the different sea states ( 1 to 7) could be related to the Beaufort scale, 1 being a calm sea, 7 a somewhat rough surface.
Note that in sea condition 1, for a pinger on the 4500m bottom, the radius of detection is 3500m (roughly 2 statute miles) and goes down to 600 m im sea state 7.
Of course, they've given you the previous data that have to be interpreted in terms of accurate detection.
Having been really keen on submarine stories (especially Ned Beach's novels) I'm surprised that there is no mention of thermoclines (layers of water at different temperature than the environment).
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 152, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 40941 times:
Quoting Alhena (Reply 140): some pictures of recovered debris:
Can somebody with a deep knowledge of the A330 lay out identify this items on the pics ?
So far I can see two jump seats ( or flatbeds for crew rest ? ), some overhead comp doors and a lot o small pieces. What is that object in pic number 1 with the word "survival" ? It's a raft or something else ? Thanks in advance for your help.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 154, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 40992 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 151): Seems that the Europeans are one up on that technology, doesnt'it ?
No.
This is a very specialized area with the incredible costs only being worthwile to build such a submersible once every couple decades. Everyone of these vessels is built using the lessons learned from the previous craft, and improving.
The Nautile is newer than the Alvin class, commissioned in 1984. She has a working depth limit of 6,000M - the same as DSV 4 Sea Cliff, which was rebuilt during the 1998-2002 period to have a 6,000M capability.
Other 6,000M vessels include the two Mir class DSVs (Mir1 and Mir2) built in Finland for Russia - delivered in 1987.
The Japanese Shinkai 6500 is the deepest diving, most modern manned vessel in operation today - capable of operation at 6,500M. It was completed in 1990.
Vasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 0 Reply 155, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 40604 times:
Those pictures of debris were kinda chilling... especially the oxygen mask. To think that someone could've been wearing it during the whole ordeal brought it to life... RIP to all victims and thoughts be to their friends and relatives.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 156, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 40455 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 151): I'm surprised that there is no mention of thermoclines
Way, way too technical for most folks on this forum. I've had supposedly knowledgable university professors argue with US Navy submarine sonar operators over how termoclines and layers impact sound transmission through the water.
OA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 16762 posts, RR: 53 Reply 157, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 40415 times:
Quoting Vasu (Reply 155): Those pictures of debris were kinda chilling... especially the oxygen mask. To think that someone could've been wearing it during the whole ordeal brought it to life... RIP to all victims and thoughts be to their friends and relatives.
Yes thats exactly what I was thinking, quite upsetting really.
Olympic Air "Η Ελλάδα ψηλά" - ''Flying Greece Sky High''
Desh From India, joined Aug 2005, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 158, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 40124 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 149): Yes they can be tweaked for the pinger frequencies, but this water is DEEP.
At what depth does the black box implode ? Is that a know metric - pounds or kgs per sq inch or cm ? Is there a cut off depth beyond which the search is futille, at some point the searchers are going to have to prioritize - width or depth ?
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
Airplane crashes are very difficult events. Only when you see a site before debris removal close up can you begin to comprehend how violent they are and the level of destruction. Images which will never leave the minds of rescuers, investigators and recovery teams.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 160, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 40230 times:
That FAB site revealed, but not in English some rather interesting pieces of information :
"
O Comando da Marinha e o Comando da Aeronáutica informam que, nas últimas horas, aeronaves de busca visual, deslocadas para oeste dos pontos de concentração inicial, conseguiram avistar diversos destroços, confirmando as previsões do planejamento de buscas em relação ao movimento das correntes marítimas. Navios já foram direcionados para o resgate nessas áreas.
A meteorologia indica uma acentuada piora das condições de tempo e visibilidade na área de buscas, o que poderá comprometer os trabalhos. Mesmo com as limitações meteorológicas, as buscas continuarão a ser realizadas, sempre nas áreas que ofereçam condições de vôo visual à baixa altura. As condições do mar são favoráveis, com ondas de até um metro de altura. "
Which with my quick translation:
" The Navy and air Commands inform that during the last hours, visual research aircraft, moved to the west of the initial concentration points managed to discover diverse debris, confirming that the planning previsions of the search in relation with the sea current movements (were correct).Ships are already being directed to these areas for collection.
The weather service forecasts a worsening of the weather and visibility conditions in the search area. Even with these weather limitations, the search will proceed on, at least in areas that offer visual flight conditions at low altitudes. The sea conditions are fair,with waves of one meter or less."
Assuming that a ping is hearable within a 1 km square, and that a ping happens every 30 seconds, we would need the underwater listening device to travel 1 km every 30 seconds for fastest discovery, which is not possible (120kmph). Assuming a max of 30 kmph, you could cover 30 1km 'squares' every hour, and the task would take would take 15000/30 = 500 hours. However, if you had multiple ships towing hydrophones, it's becomes possible to locate the devices within a reasonable time period..
I'm presuming that if the ships can locate the ping within 10 days, they would then launch a DSV to search the sea bed for retrieval that could go another 10 days at least before the pings shut down.
If anyone has any idea of how such a mission is carried out it would be fascinating if you could inform us!
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6191 posts, RR: 85 Reply 162, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 40066 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 148): Quoting Astuteman (Reply 135):
Although that probably IS a slight to other people's Navies
No, just an acknowledgement of the impact of cubic dollars/pounds/euros thrown into a defense budget.
Which hasn't always resulted in better capability.....
Quoting Pihero (Reply 151): I'm surprised that there is no mention of thermoclines
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 791 posts, RR: 0 Reply 163, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 39928 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 156): I've had supposedly knowledgable university professors argue with US Navy submarine sonar operators over how termoclines and layers impact sound transmission through the water.
Professors love using perfect fluids, whatever point on the curve suits them and fewer variables than you would ever find in the real world. The good ones wouldn't be argueing with the operators. They be looking for the factor that was upsetting their knowledgeable conclusions.
The sonars I operated were old when Moses was a corporal, so my ramblings are mostly 2nd hand.
I figure the Seawolfs and Virginias are always off on some sort of Clancy stuff.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 164, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 39810 times:
Quoting Desh (Reply 158): At what depth does the black box implode ? Is that a know metric - pounds or kgs per sq inch or cm ? Is there a cut off depth beyond which the search is futille, at some point the searchers are going to have to prioritize - width or depth ?
I do not know who made the FDR / CVR for this aircraft - but a brochure from Sagem Defense Securitie list their SSFDR specs as
Quote: - Resistance to immersion in seawater: 30 days at depth of 6000 m
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7122 posts, RR: 44 Reply 165, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 39547 times:
Quoting HAMAD (Reply 108): not sure if he is trying to cover something up, but here is the article
Look, the financial costs of a plane crash are monumental. The human costs of a plane crash are monumental.
With various governments and their respective TSB's crawling all over this like an ant colony, a "cover-up" is going to be essentially impossible.
NOBODY wants to risk a plane crash, not even the most cold-hearted bean counter. I have every confidence that the management at AF, as well as the governments involved are all very keen to find the real cause so that they can address it on other A/C and prevent this from happening again.
Sorry, but I tire of hearing about cover-ups and cheapskate CEO's who don't care if 228 people lost their lives. Even if they didn't care, the idea of losing a plane that expensive, the compensation, and the blow to corporate image makes it worth it to avoid crashes.
Sniffmom From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, RR: 0 Reply 166, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 40046 times:
FAB says the French Navy has found more bodies, but that the number won't be disclosed until the bodies are transferred to the Brazilian Navy. The Constitution will reach Recife Sunday June 14th with more debris and personal items found. Also, starting from tomorrow, Saturday June 13th, press conferences will only be held once a day, 1800hrs local time in Brasilia.
Comorin From United States, joined May 2005, 2351 posts, RR: 7 Reply 168, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 39251 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 167): Quoting Comorin (Reply 161):
Assuming that a ping is hearable within a 1 km square, and that a ping happens every 30 seconds
I believe the device transmits once per second.
-Mir
Thank you for the correction, and apologies to all for posting misleading information without checking the facts. Luckily the final numbers still work out OK, I think...
I understand that mainly passive sonar would be used to locate the FDR and CVR, listening for the pings hopefully coming from their locators. Since we're talking about at least one military submarine in the area, would it be feasible or useful to use active sonar to search for aircraft fragments? I understand searching on the bottom might not be as easy, but I have heard it has been used before to locate ship wrecks. Any thougts?
Active sonar will scatter and it is not correct angle. The idea is to narrow down to the specific frequency that the box is emitting and that will clean out alot of the background noise using passive sonar. Side scan sonar would work better for active searching and that is what the towed arrays attached to the surface ships will be working with more I believe. Although a Frigate will usually have an excellent sonar suite for active or passive searching (using down doppler).
June 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Air France plane that crashed June 1 may have partly broken up in the air before hitting the Atlantic Ocean, O Estado de S. Paulo reported, citing investigators it didn’t identify.
Most of the 16 bodies examined in preliminary stages of the probe into the flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris were found naked or with minimal clothing, suggesting the wind may have removed the garments, the newspaper said. The possibility of an explosion or fire in the jet is also unlikely because the bodies showed no sign of burns, Estado said.
Almost all of the bodies had multiple fractures, the paper reported. Investigators haven’t found water in the victims’ lungs, which would indicate drowning, Estado said. Bodies were found 85 kilometers (53 miles) apart, which may also indicate the Airbus A330-200 broke up before reaching the ocean, Estado reported.
Representatives from Brazil’s legal medical institute, which is conducting the body examinations in the northeastern city of Recife, weren’t immediately reachable when Bloomberg News called for comment before regular working hours.
This news alone is very interesting. If there was no water in the lungs, then that rests my fear of survivors drowning, or dying before rescuers arrived.
Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1098 posts, RR: 1 Reply 171, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 38903 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 136): It is almost surprising that there is not constant coverage from sonobuoys a bit lke satellite coverage only more so.
Possibly the relation of the search area to the mid-Atlantic ridge has been posted but is there any information on the relief on the ocean floor in the area? Searches with active sonar are going to be much easier if the plane is on one of the abyssal plains.
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 148): The French have good submarines. Much better than the generation we could pick up on the US Navy Argentia Newfoundland SOSUS array in the early 80s when they were 50 miles off the coast of France.
I was wondering about SOSUS as well. Is it still active? If so, shouldn't they be able to triangulate the crash position based on the loud noise that must have occurred as large bits of aircraft hit the water?
That would help to narrow the search a bit.
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 79): I refer to the Adam Air 574 accident. The aircraft is suspected to have broken up at 4000ft.
Sorry to go back to this topic... With respect to you (since your posting on this website is extremely accurate and informative) doesn't this back up a theory of high speed altitude breakup. 4,000ft is not 30,000ft, but its still high enough and the plane would be moving pretty quick such that one could expect a larger debris field that would be anticipated from a breakup on water impact?
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 81): It's not just wind. It's also wave action and ocean current turbulence. Finding a 90 km debris field 1 week after the fact requires only about half a km/hr of relative drift. That's not hard to imagine.
That's a good point.
The reason I returned to this topic is because of #121 where the theory seems to be getting traction based on the debris field along with several other factors as well.
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 121): Well now details are emerging about the posibility of an inflight breakup.
The article does not identify the source, but the info is consistent with this case.
here is a part...
Quote:
By Laura Price
June 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Air France plane that crashed June 1 may have partly broken up in the air before hitting the Atlantic Ocean, O Estado de S. Paulo reported, citing investigators it didn’t identify.
Most of the 16 bodies examined in preliminary stages of the probe into the flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris were found naked or with minimal clothing, suggesting the wind may have removed the garments, the newspaper said. The possibility of an explosion or fire in the jet is also unlikely because the bodies showed no sign of burns, Estado said.
Almost all of the bodies had multiple fractures, the paper reported. Investigators haven’t found water in the victims’ lungs, which would indicate drowning, Estado said. Bodies were found 85 kilometers (53 miles) apart, which may also indicate the Airbus A330-200 broke up before reaching the ocean, Estado reported.
Representatives from Brazil’s legal medical institute, which is conducting the body examinations in the northeastern city of Recife, weren’t immediately reachable when Bloomberg News called for comment before regular working hours.
This is sad and It make very important to recover the CVR and FDR.
2175301 From United States, joined May 2007, 631 posts, RR: 0 Reply 172, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 38692 times:
Concerning the search for the CVR and FDR and the technologies being brought into play:
The French submarine Emeraude is likely to have just as good passive listening capabilities as the US Navy Los Angeles class submarines - and may even have the identical equipment installed.
There are no news reports of any Los Angeles Class US Navy Submarines (or any other US Submarines) deployed to the area. Not saying that they might not be there. But the US Navy has not announced any.
The US Navy has announced that they have provided two sets of special listening gear and operating crews to be mounted on two surface vessels (One French and One Brazil) that were developed for such searches. The key part of these systems can be lowered to a considerable depth - and might be towable at slow speeds. Those should already be installed on their ships and on the way to that area by now - and were expected to be in the search area roughly this weekend.
The submarine and these two ships with the special listening gear have a great advantage over surface listening as they will operate below the surface noise and surface thermal layers (thermoclines) where they will have a far more effective range.
The amount of search area each day is limited because while the submarine can go a lot faster - it then creates a lot of noise which interferes with the passive sonar (listening) gear.
Active sonar is of no use in locating the black boxes pingers. You are just listening.
Active sonar from the surface - or even from the sub - is unlikely to locate any wreckage on the bottom of the ocean due to the depth involved. You will not have the resolution - even if the bottom was smooth - with this gear at that depth.
Once the black boxes are located by passive sonar - additional deep water radars on cables or submersibles can be brought into play to map the bottom and find wreckage. Close up side scan radar is the most effective.
The US Navy NR-1 often reported that they could find a soda (or beer) can buried in sand or silt 1 mile away. After approximately 40 years of service the NR-1 was retired November 2008. It had a reported maximum depth of 3000 Ft, and underwater mission times of up to 30 days (food and water limited). I know of no replacement for the NR-1 and the US Navy has recently also transferred its other known deep sea diving subs to civilian organizations citing budget and mission priorities.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 173, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 38508 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 171): I was wondering about SOSUS as well. Is it still active? If so, shouldn't they be able to triangulate the crash position based on the loud noise that must have occurred as large bits of aircraft hit the water?
On one of the previous threads I described how we used to use the Antigua NAVFAC with the Antigua, Barbados and Grand Turk SOSUS arrays to locate rocket impacts in the region for NASA back in the late 70s, early 80s.
But there has never been a military need to establish coverage off the area of this crash. I am sure that type data was looked for, but since we have heard nothing, it is very unlikely usable information could be obtained from SOSUS.
The SOSUS arrays are pretty old, and while some have been updated, most were allowed to degrade and go out of service.
The US Navy now uses SURTASS ships - towed arrays - for coverage areas when a military need comes up for an area where static arrays do not cover.
From the descriptions in the media - that is what the US Navy is loaning to the French/ Brasilian searchers. Along with arrays, there will be vans with the necessary equipment to interpret that data and civilian maintenance and operations techs.
Thank you for an excellent, informative post that answers a lot of questions.
On a different tack, I suspect that the debris field could be drifting away from the eventual resting place of the wreck. Surface currents could be quite unrelated to underwater ocean currents, right?
[quote=RFields5421 (Reply 173):
On one of the previous threads I described how we used to use the Antigua NAVFAC with the Antigua, Barbados and Grand Turk SOSUS arrays to locate rocket impacts in the region for NASA back in the late 70s, early 80s.
But there has never been a military need to establish coverage off the area of this crash. I am sure that type data was looked for, but since we have heard nothing, it is very unlikely usable information could be obtained from SOSUS.
The SOSUS arrays are pretty old, and while some have been updated, most were allowed to degrade and go out of service.
RFFields5421 is correct. In addition, even if the US (or someone else) has a survelience system that located the crash location I am far from convinced that such information would be provided. Such a system would be classified above Top Secret (deep black) and significant intelegence capability would be revealed by providing the crash location.
I am quite convinced that the US maintains additional surveilance beyond the known SOSUS array areas. I am sure that I am not alone in that.
Oh and for a related underwater surveilance topic on towed arrays (not related to this crash): Anyone for playing cat and mouse: just who is the cat and who is the mouse?
Wjcandee From United States, joined Jun 2000, 3751 posts, RR: 20 Reply 176, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 38272 times:
I am constantly amazed by media reports that "there was no explosion or fire" because the bodies recently recovered weren't burned (the 16 they saw, that is), although they seem to have fallen a great distance apart from the aircraft and did not drown.
HELLO MEDIA! Let's review: you don't need the aircraft to become a Die Hard-sized fireball to cause an in-flight breakup. A much-smaller, confined explosion, or even a non-incendiary one (like an accidental one from a cylinder of compressed inert gas carried on the aircraft), could cause a hull breach sufficient to cause a loss of structural integrity at altitude. Pan Am 103 was brought down by an incendiary device in a tape player in luggage inside a metal luggage loading container, and the concussion from that little device caused a hull breach; there was no fireball. Had that Shoe Bomber guy succeeded, same thing. Security measures today are designed to try to prevent even very small explosions, because, in the right place (wherever that is, and I assume "they" know) a small explosion is enough. That 16 bodies, found near each other, had no evidence of damage from flame is hardly enough to suggest that there was "no explosion". There are still over 200 bodies out there, so lets not be so quick to judge.
Is there no definitive evidence of explosion at this point? Absolutely.
Was there likely an in-flight breakup? Evidence seems to say yes.
But can we assume that the breakup did not come from an explosion (intentional or accidental) yet? No, no, no.
JetMARC From United States, joined Aug 2003, 273 posts, RR: 4 Reply 177, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 38132 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 152): So far I can see two jump seats ( or flatbeds for crew rest ? ), some overhead comp doors and a lot o small pieces. What is that object in pic number 1 with the word "survival" ? It's a raft or something else ? Thanks in advance for your help.
The Survival image is most likely a survival kit that is attached to the slide-raft (in the slide pack) which deploys automatically when the door is opened. It's supposed to contain items used in a ditching like a knife, first aid kit, bailing bucket, some water and food, flare gun, signal mirror, etc...
What I find most upsetting in the pictures of the flight attendant jumpseats. Missing the headrests and small doors that conceal the stowage underneath the seat, showing the missing halon fire extingisher. Doesnt look like they were occupied either...
"Sucka, I'm gonna send you out on Knuckle Airlines. Fist Class!!" ~ Mr. T
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13057 posts, RR: 65 Reply 178, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 37349 times:
Quoting Comorin (Reply 174): On a different tack, I suspect that the debris field could be drifting away from the eventual resting place of the wreck. Surface currents could be quite unrelated to underwater ocean currents, right?
They definitely can be. But I would imagine that whatever wreckage is too heavy to float has found its way to the bottom by now, and it's not going to move a whole lot once it's there.
Sxmarbury33 From United States, joined Oct 2000, 433 posts, RR: 0 Reply 179, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 37102 times:
Just curious, how much bandwitdth would it take to have a sat uplink for a "streaming" FDR alongside a hard FDR. It seems a little archaic that after 50 years of commercial aviation that finding the CVR/FDR is usual the main holdup of an investigation.
I consider the A332 to be a cutting edge aircraft. Obviously it already sends a massive amount of info back to base already. Just the other day my car sat uplinked to base and sent them a bunch of maintanince data causing them to call and set up a maintananice date. I know millions of parameters are recorded every second but how would that translate into data transfer, ie. 50mpbs or like 3TB per second? If its to much data then why not just have a scaled back version of the FDR and full CVR uplink for aircraft designed to fly long distances over water. Not FAA (or other regulatory body) required but just an FAA certified feature.
At this point a 1 hr CVR leading up to the accident would probably determine if there was an in flight break up or explosion/catostrophic decompression. I'm pretty sure they are able to hear stuff like that, plus the obvious cockpit warnings and pilot discussion.
This was also probably already brought up but was the plane flying above the storm tops or in the clouds? With military satalite imaging technology as advanced as I would assume it is, would it be possible to get the last GPS cordinates and try and zoom in on a satalite image if the plane was not in the clouds?
Having asked the above questions, I am amazed and awed at the international resources being put forth in this investigation and would like to commend the aggressive efforts from governments, investigators and especially the front line searchers.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 10617 posts, RR: 51 Reply 180, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 37176 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 137): Quoting Baroque (Reply 136):
Possibly the relation of the search area to the mid-Atlantic ridge has been posted but is there any information on the relief on the ocean floor in the area?
Yes. See Reply 85.
You are right, I should have followed Pihero's link - I was waiting for the book as in Reply 151 when all along the film was showing at http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/shom.050609.pdf
Coming down on the ridge, as it appears to have done, will might aid finding the signals from the boxes, but is going to make a search for debris much more difficult. Even if they are deeper, the abyssal plains are easier places to search with side-scan radar.
Going back to the dats shown in Pihero's link, the temperatures at 2000 to 2500 metres are higher than I would have expected. Most petroleum exploration wells at 2000 m, report bottom sea temps of less than 4.5 degrees C. The salinities are all over the place too, looks as if the water in the middle of the N or the S Atlantic is quite strange.
Pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 182, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 36879 times:
With all sufficient information provided - thanks to all having knowledge and who has been participating in this discussion - we should follow the FDR/CVR search mission.
Speculations of different sort will go on - but the hard evidence stored in black boxes is the priority.
Breiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 3 Reply 184, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 35924 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 180): The salinities are all over the place too, looks as if the water in the middle of the N or the S Atlantic is quite strange.
Not really strange if you take into account the proximity of the mid-atlantic ridge.
This ridge is an active line of magma spill-outs which pushes slowly away from each other the Americas and Europe-Africa.
The consequences are higher temperatures and higher salinities.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2481 posts, RR: 1 Reply 187, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 34088 times:
Quoting Sxmarbury33 (Reply 179): Just curious, how much bandwitdth would it take to have a sat uplink for a "streaming" FDR alongside a hard FDR. It seems a little archaic that after 50 years of commercial aviation that finding the CVR/FDR is usual the main holdup of an investigation.
There are several issues.
One of course is bandwidth and maintaining a consistent connection in remote areas of the world. The bandwidth is readily available in locations where the aircraft could reach the cell phone network, but almost all the satellites in space right now are mainly focused on streaming masses of data down to multiple users from only one source signal.
It would probably take dedicated new satellites to be able to handle multiple (thousands) of sources streaming up data, consolidate that information and stream it down to one receiver for ground distribution to the various airlines.
Additionally, one reason the ACARS type messages go through is they are extemely simple and extremely small - in the tens of bytes - less size than the word ACARS on this page.
Remote locations around the world, storms and interference would all make large bandwidth signals more unreliable.
After all we are still talking about a line-of sight radio signal from the aircraft to reach the satellite - with all the inherent physics issues of radio transmission.
Speaking of radio signals - that is a huge issue. It is one thing for a few hundred aircraft over France to send very short ACARS messages on a couple frequencies. But for streaming real-time information - every aircraft would require an individual frequency.
The cell phone networks have only about 1 frequency for every 200-500 phones expected on a cell. That is why cell phones always fail to be reliable in major emergencies when a large number of people try to call at the same time.
The radio spectrum in the United States does not have the capacity to add separate radio communications frequencies on existing radio bands for all aircraft currently flying in the US. Probably the same situation in Europe, Japan, China, Singapore, and a few others.
Privacy is a major issue and would be something the pilots unions would not stand for.
FDR and CVR data today is not available to the individual airline on a routine basis. There are, and have always been justifiable fears that such data would be used by airline management to 'grade' pilots on their performance while flying.
That management could second guess pilot decisions about altitude, fuel usage, weather avoidance, routing - a thousand other things from FDR data. The pilots who did not fly most efficiently would find themselves not promoted or even let go. That pilots who fly to cautiously in the eyes of pencil pushers at desks would suffer, etc.
That the CVR could be used to ensure the political correctness of pilots, to ensure they have the proper attitude toward management and do not work to be 'too safe' when being safe might cost money for the airline if nothing happened.
There would also be great concern from the investigation agencies that airlines might alter the data before releasing it to investigators to make any airline liability in accidents less easy to prove.
But short answer - could it be done - YES
It would not be cheap, there would be major technical problems that would take billions of dollars to solve. There would probably have to be a separate organization setup to receive and safeguard the data outside the reach of the airline management.
It would raise the cost of every airline ticket by a substantial amount.
Now what could be done more cheaply would be to use the ACARS type systems in use now and add regular position reporting, every 5 minutes?, to the ACARS messages.
It is not done now because it would increase the cost of the system by 3 to 5 times to include that much data in the transmissions. But would be easily possible.
Thank you for sharing. I can't say I "enjoyed" watching them. For me at least it really brings home how tragic this is, besides all the technical discussions. I hope it was quick...
RIP
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1918 posts, RR: 0 Reply 190, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 33767 times:
Reading all the FDR/CVR posts in the AF447 threads... and all the FDR/CVR threads popping up elsewhere as a result of AF447 has left me with this thought...
With all the problems of bandwidth etc why not just use a deployable recorder with GPS receiver and Iridium modem?
Deployable decoders already exist and are in use in a number of military applications...
Shouldn't be too hard to fit it with GPS & data modem and existing deployable recorders already float and are impact resistant.
Should an aircraft so equipped have an incident, recorder would deploy far enough away from the scene to be safe. Modem would phone home automatically with aircraft identity, GPS coordinates, and last two hours of voice & FDR data. Or the modem could be polled if the flight went missing.
No need for expensive bandwidth downloading lots of useless data from thousands of airliners....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Shouldn't be too hard to fit it with GPS & data modem and existing deployable recorders already float and are impact resistant.
Should an aircraft so equipped have an incident, recorder would deploy far enough away from the scene to be safe. Modem would phone home automatically with aircraft identity, GPS coordinates, and last two hours of voice & FDR data. Or the modem could be polled if the flight went missing.
No need for expensive bandwidth downloading lots of useless data from thousands of airliners....
A deployable CVR/FDR is also a lot more expensive than the current system. Military aircraft do not have the cost structure that civilian aircraft has - and can afford to build in a location where a recorder can be ejected from. The Military also has a lot more retrofit $$ than the airlines.
This may be a hard thing to retrofit into a civilian commercial jet (where would you put it - and how would you wire it?).
I do admit that something like this would be easier to design in up front on a new aircraft. So perhaps the A350 could be designed with this concept. It would take many decades for them to become standard.
However, a cost benifit analysis would perhaps be needed to show that its higher cost was more economical than the occasional deep ocean search for a CVR/FDR.
How many CVR's/DVR's have not been recovered (eventurally). Even Russia recovered the ones from the shot down jet a long time ago (after refusing to let anyone else into the area to recover it). Those were eventually turned over for data recovery.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1918 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32904 times:
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 191): A deployable CVR/FDR is also a lot more expensive than the current system.
But I'm not comparing it to the current system, compare it with the other schemes I mentioned that transmit data, from every aircraft, before the crash....
I suspect the search for the AF447 recorders will be in the tens of millions of dollars range. That would pay for a fair amount of R&D on the deployable recorders, particularly given that they are already designed to a MIL-spec.
Deployable recorders are already used on the RC-135s, E-4s, and I believe E-3s so a lot of the large jet work is already done.
I believe they are deployed from the vertical stabilizers on those aircraft....
edit:
Link to interesting article about deployable recorders.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2714 posts, RR: 7 Reply 193, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32948 times:
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 176): I am constantly amazed by media reports that "there was no explosion or fire" because the bodies recently recovered weren't burned (the 16 they saw, that is), although they seem to have fallen a great distance apart from the aircraft and did not drown.
Actually, over 50 bodies have been retrieved so far. And the debris retrieved also does not have any burn marks on it. But granted.. it's still way too early to determine, or rule out, anything.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 10617 posts, RR: 51 Reply 194, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32789 times:
Quoting Breiz (Reply 184): Quoting Baroque (Reply 180):
The salinities are all over the place too, looks as if the water in the middle of the N or the S Atlantic is quite strange.
Not really strange if you take into account the proximity of the mid-atlantic ridge.
This ridge is an active line of magma spill-outs which pushes slowly away from each other the Americas and Europe-Africa.
The consequences are higher temperatures and higher salinities.
It is the lower salinities between about 500 and 1200 m that interest me.
Higher bottom water temperatures around mid ocean ridges are not likely to be showing up on those graphs and they would be confined to a few hundred metres at most. AFAIK the hot water around the ridges is very localized. It is possible to approach (in a submersible) within metres of the black smokers where temperatures are over 100 C.
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 791 posts, RR: 0 Reply 195, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 32176 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 187): It would probably take dedicated new satellites to be able to handle multiple (thousands) of sources streaming up data, consolidate that information and stream it down to one receiver for ground distribution to the various airlines.
There's no need for thousands of streams of data. All systems can stay locked onto a few available channels and only open up a transmission at need, and there would be no need to consolidate anything. Just have multiple receivers/recorders standing by.
There was already an overlong argument about using Iridium since it's about the only system with planetary coverage, and you can aquire a data channel in a few seconds. You could pack about 1 sample per second of black box data into an Iridium channel or come up with software to pack more frequent selected summaries. People keep talking about the huge expense of developing new technology, when very cheap, very simple old technology has been around for 11 years that could handle the basic job. People are getting way to spoiled by huge amounts of available bandwidth and forgetting how much data you can pack into a 2400bps circuit.
Breiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 3 Reply 196, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 31749 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 194): It is the lower salinities between about 500 and 1200 m that interest me.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
The presence of the so-called "conveyor belt" in the Atlantic brings surface artic waters down to the depths of the equator. Temperatures and salinities follow then a different pattern from waters closer to the shores where most of the deep drilling take place.
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 66 posts, RR: 0 Reply 197, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31144 times:
German magazine "Der Spiegel" (considered a reputable magazine in Germany) is now reporting that all 50 of the dead passengers (may they rest in peace) showed no signs of water in their lungs, had no burns and suffered multiple fractures.
Spiegel magazine goes as far as to state that the plane probably broke up in mid-air (they use the bodies as well as the debris field as evidence). But that, again, is speculation. We know the debris field is potentially this large due to surface winds, currents, etc.
One thing I do find important to remark is the fact that all bodies show similar findings (while not all passengers have been recovered, in mathematical terms, 50 is a significant sample size). Forgive me, I hate to be talking about bodies and their state in factual terms because it sounds terrible. However, in terms of AF447 it is viable to note that this is significant information.
The picture of the jumpseats from the cabin are interesting. Not sure what the staffing level is on AF but if the flight was encountering turbulence the FA's would have most likely been strapped into those seats. From what I see it does not look as if someone was in the seat at impact.
I'm stunned at that damage! What could have caused it?
Yes, the violent damage is indeed stunning. Mir, Zeke, Mandala, Pihero, does this give you any indications of possible new/existing scenarios? I'd have expected these parts to be less damaged, but I am no aviation expert and would be glad to hear how you see it.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 203, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29953 times:
Quoting Mcdu (Reply 200):
The picture of the jumpseats from the cabin are interesting.
In fact it's the whole group that could bring a few clues :
- The twin jumpseats are in all probability those fixed on the aft bulkhead. The give-away is the absence of the CIDS box.
- In the same group, one can see an orange box, which is actually the "Doctor's kit" only opened - see the seals are still attached - for a physician needing some particular drugs...
One knows that this kit belongs in the forward cabin at the disposal of the senior F/A.
To find in the same group two objects that were situated so far apart is puzzling.
- The torn piece marked with a "<--FWD sign, IMO, is part of the crew rest container, therefore to be linked with one of the first debris recovered.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2004, 265 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 147 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4537 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8906 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 224 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13570 posts, 
From France, joined Jun 2009, 3 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2007, 115 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1177 posts, 
, they start to see dollar signs. 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6843 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 338 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2005, 190 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1404 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1098 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 46 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 858 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Apr 2000, 995 posts, 
From Mauritius, joined Jun 2005, 5513 posts, 
From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 434 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 5768 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jan 2006, 854 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 6309 posts, 
...
From Brazil, joined Jan 2005, 1370 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2714 posts, ![_](javascript:compressPost('4443520','1','1','32','Luv2cattlecall',' " target=_blank>http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/voo447/...1.jpg I\'ve never been up close to a tail before, and it may be an optical illusion...but is th','')){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![_](javascript:compressPost('4447249','2','1','199','KingFriday013','" target=_blank>http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/voo447/...5.JPG Certainly looks like one. Here\'s more of it: http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/voo447/FOTOS/13','2')){kind=link}