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 of America, joined Jun 2009, 346 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 86397 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
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 85365 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1): My guess, as I said before, is that it belongs to the Brazil Navy
To help maintain buoyancy during recovery. Good call.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 85146 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 85109 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 2826 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84879 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!" B.Franklin
Pygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 872 posts, RR: 41 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 85015 times:
This deflection appears to be the same as when it was in the water. Not saying it is jammed.
Ellehammer09 From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84645 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 (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84587 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 of America, joined Nov 2000, 3812 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84581 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 2826 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84540 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 of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84507 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, 53 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84416 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, joined Jul 2003, 10388 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84413 times:
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, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 84313 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.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 719 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 83994 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....
Saludos.
G.
Circling the world, that's the way to live !! DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fokker F-27 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 14991 posts, RR: 69 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 83940 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 83897 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, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 83600 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 of America, joined Dec 2007, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 83119 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 of America, joined Mar 2000, 6 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 82984 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 (2 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 82318 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 of America, joined Apr 2006, 3284 posts, RR: 4 Reply 26, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 86277 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 27, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 86194 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 1135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 85640 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 29, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 85701 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, 506 posts, RR: 1 Reply 30, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 85393 times:
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.
Luv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1648 posts, RR: 2 Reply 32, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 84780 times:
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 8): This deflection appears to be the same as when it was in the water. Not saying it is jammed.
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, 14991 posts, RR: 69 Reply 33, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 84869 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, 384 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 83862 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 of America, joined Jan 2004, 11471 posts, RR: 8 Reply 35, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 82765 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 of America, joined Mar 2007, 1977 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 80796 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.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3127 posts, RR: 6 Reply 37, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 80750 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.
Soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2419 posts, RR: 16 Reply 38, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 81547 times:
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 of America, joined May 2006, 2419 posts, RR: 16 Reply 39, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 79220 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, 1650 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 77260 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, 188 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 75459 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 of America, joined Dec 2006, 124 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 75172 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, 8407 posts, RR: 11 Reply 47, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 75224 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, 71 posts, RR: 1 Reply 48, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 75093 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 49, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 74904 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, 428 posts, RR: 1 Reply 50, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 72741 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 of America, joined Jun 2009, 7 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 72711 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, 21 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 71213 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, 2162 posts, RR: 20 Reply 53, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 71213 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 of America, joined Jun 2009, 346 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 70752 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 of America, joined Apr 2000, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 69654 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, 428 posts, RR: 1 Reply 61, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 69466 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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 64, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 68633 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 of America, joined Oct 2005, 1674 posts, RR: 1 Reply 66, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 66437 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, 1509 posts, RR: 31 Reply 67, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 66388 times:
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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 68, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 66295 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, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 69, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 65590 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 of America, joined Dec 2006, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 65227 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 of America, joined Feb 2004, 2115 posts, RR: 10 Reply 71, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 64509 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 of America, joined May 2003, 785 posts, RR: 5 Reply 72, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 64370 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 of America, joined Jun 2006, 843 posts, RR: 9 Reply 73, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 64136 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 of America, joined Jan 2004, 17393 posts, RR: 59 Reply 74, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 63906 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).
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 75, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 63679 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 of America, joined Sep 1999, 3514 posts, RR: 24 Reply 76, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 63882 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, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 77, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 63556 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, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 63222 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, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 79, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 63048 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, 7743 posts, RR: 57 Reply 80, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 62844 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 of America, joined Oct 2005, 1913 posts, RR: 56 Reply 81, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 62339 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 of America, joined Jun 2009, 346 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 62093 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 of America, joined Feb 2004, 2115 posts, RR: 10 Reply 83, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 62096 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. "
"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 of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4 Reply 87, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 59062 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 of America, joined Oct 2005, 1913 posts, RR: 56 Reply 88, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 58498 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 (2 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 67868 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 of America, joined Jul 2001, 608 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 58268 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 of America, joined Jun 2006, 843 posts, RR: 9 Reply 92, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 58021 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 of America, joined Aug 2004, 1829 posts, RR: 7 Reply 93, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 58008 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.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 57630 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, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 57030 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, 71 posts, RR: 1 Reply 96, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 56963 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, 880 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 56733 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.
Khobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4 Reply 100, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 56625 times:
I asked before but where is the third fin mount lug/clevis?
LongHaul67 From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 225 posts, RR: 1 Reply 101, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 57254 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, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 102, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 57566 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.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17393 posts, RR: 59 Reply 103, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 56737 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.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
AVLNative From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 98 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 56232 times:
... 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, 14991 posts, RR: 69 Reply 106, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 56071 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 of America, joined Jul 2001, 608 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 56154 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, 1131 posts, RR: 8 Reply 108, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 53357 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 New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8110 posts, RR: 18 Reply 109, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 53111 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, 53 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 53020 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, 1389 posts, RR: 2 Reply 111, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 53132 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, 8950 posts, RR: 45 Reply 112, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 52332 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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 113, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 52521 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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 114, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 52293 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, 8407 posts, RR: 11 Reply 115, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 51981 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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 116, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 51864 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 of America, joined Feb 2008, 1286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 51431 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 of America, joined Jun 2009, 346 posts, RR: 0 Reply 118, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 51065 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 of America, joined Nov 2004, 2000 posts, RR: 5 Reply 120, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 51007 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, 1510 posts, RR: 5 Reply 121, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 50890 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, 7913 posts, RR: 14 Reply 122, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 50539 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, 53 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 50278 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 of America, joined Nov 2004, 2000 posts, RR: 5 Reply 125, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 50264 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 of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 2137 posts, RR: 1 Reply 126, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 49710 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.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 127, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 49669 times:
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 of America, joined Feb 2008, 1286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 49616 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, 477 posts, RR: 0 Reply 129, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 49182 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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 130, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 49029 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, 1389 posts, RR: 2 Reply 131, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 49086 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.
Soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2419 posts, RR: 16 Reply 132, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 48684 times:
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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 133, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 48911 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, 3944 posts, RR: 49 Reply 134, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 48498 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, joined Jan 2005, 8505 posts, RR: 95 Reply 135, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 48272 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, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 136, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 47689 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 of America, joined Oct 2005, 1913 posts, RR: 56 Reply 137, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 47139 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, 1389 posts, RR: 2 Reply 138, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 46987 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, 477 posts, RR: 0 Reply 139, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 46964 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, 1249 posts, RR: 2 Reply 142, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 45828 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
Next flights: BOG-JFK-BOG AV, JFK-IAD B6, BOG-MIA-BOG AV, MIA-PLS-MIA AA
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, 7179 posts, RR: 65 Reply 144, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 45474 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 of America, joined Dec 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 145, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 45208 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 of America, joined May 2008, 1315 posts, RR: 1 Reply 146, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 45025 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, 1389 posts, RR: 2 Reply 147, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 44779 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 148, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 44609 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 149, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 44494 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, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 150, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 44378 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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 151, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44333 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).
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, 719 posts, RR: 0 Reply 152, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44195 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.
Saludos.
G.
Circling the world, that's the way to live !! DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fokker F-27 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1913 posts, RR: 56 Reply 153, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44121 times:
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.
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 154, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 44246 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, 3588 posts, RR: 0 Reply 155, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43858 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 156, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43709 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, 22455 posts, RR: 60 Reply 157, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43669 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.
Desh From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 216 posts, RR: 0 Reply 158, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43378 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
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 159, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43490 times:
Quoting Vasu (Reply 155): especially the oxygen mask. To think that someone could've been wearing it during the whole ordeal brought it to life...
Those masks look to still be in the stowed position, not extended for use.
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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 160, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43484 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 marÃtimas. Navios já foram direcionados para o resgate nessas áreas.
" 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."
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4251 posts, RR: 19 Reply 161, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43343 times:
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!
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 163, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43182 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 164, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 43064 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 of America, joined Nov 2005, 13035 posts, RR: 55 Reply 165, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 42801 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 (2 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 43300 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 of America, joined May 2005, 4251 posts, RR: 19 Reply 168, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42505 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...
Jeffbart33 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 169, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42366 times:
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).
F9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4319 posts, RR: 34 Reply 170, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42588 times:
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, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 171, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42157 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 of America, joined May 2007, 897 posts, RR: 0 Reply 172, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 41946 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 of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 173, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 41762 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.
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4251 posts, RR: 19 Reply 174, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 41214 times:
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?
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 897 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 41043 times:
[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 of America, joined Jun 2000, 4269 posts, RR: 19 Reply 176, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 41526 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 of America, joined Aug 2003, 437 posts, RR: 3 Reply 177, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 41386 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 of America, joined Jan 2004, 17393 posts, RR: 59 Reply 178, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 40603 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.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Sxmarbury33 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 445 posts, RR: 0 Reply 179, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 40356 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, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 180, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 40430 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, 1389 posts, RR: 2 Reply 182, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 40133 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, 1702 posts, RR: 2 Reply 184, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 39178 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.
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4251 posts, RR: 19 Reply 186, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 38019 times:
I just saw this excellent slideshow with some new pictures of the recovered wreckage on Time magazine's website:
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 187, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 37342 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
Mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1620 posts, RR: 51 Reply 189, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 37087 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 77): The thing is, why press the rudder? Who'd press the rudder?
To deal with turbulence? It may be incorrect piloting technique, but we have the worst sort of evidence that pilots do it.
The AGW hypothesis is still a solution in search of a problem - W. Eschenbach
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2861 posts, RR: 0 Reply 190, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 37021 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 of America, joined Oct 2006, 2861 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 36158 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, 3533 posts, RR: 21 Reply 193, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 36202 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, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 194, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 36043 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 of America, joined Feb 2008, 1286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 195, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days ago) and read 35430 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, 1702 posts, RR: 2 Reply 196, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 35003 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, 71 posts, RR: 1 Reply 197, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 34398 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.
KingFriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1166 posts, RR: 11 Reply 199, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 33771 times:
Quoting DRAIGONAIR (Reply 198): Anyone know what this is? Looks like a spoiler?
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.
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 201, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 33918 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 195): There's no need for thousands of streams of data.
I agree, though my answer was focused on why full FDR/CVR data is not streamed back fulltin.
I suspect some type of burst transmission of very limited data on a consistent basis will eventually be added.
Probably to only some major airlines and only to their long range over water aircraft initially.
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, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 203, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 33207 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.
KingFriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1166 posts, RR: 11 Reply 205, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 33005 times:
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 206, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 32594 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 201):
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 195):
There's no need for thousands of streams of data.
I agree, though my answer was focused on why full FDR/CVR data is not streamed back fulltin.
I suspect some type of burst transmission of very limited data on a consistent basis will eventually be added.
Probably to only some major airlines and only to their long range over water aircraft initially.
Ah. My fault for being too lazy to read everything.
Maybe it's time to start talking to Iridium about their next generation system. Make it something like the late Teledesic was suppose to be. It's the only planned system I know of that can cover the poles and hand off data between satellites. Since there will always only be so many channels available, they'll have to use something like the MPDS service Inmarsat has, and that's not as easy as it sounds when you're traveling Mach .80 or so. Screws up your propogation delays for figuring the upslot assignments.
Type-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 3514 posts, RR: 24 Reply 207, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31861 times:
Quoting KingFriday013 (Reply 199): I'm stunned at that damage! What could have caused it?
It possibly could have been damaged further by colliding with other pieces of the aircraft on the way down from 35,000 ft. After it broke up each piece of the wreckage had its own momentum to dissipate. But it's just a theory.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
Scipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 548 posts, RR: 7 Reply 208, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31917 times:
Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 207): It possibly could have been damaged further by colliding with other pieces of the aircraft on the way down from 35,000 ft. After it broke up each piece of the wreckage had its own momentum to dissipate. But it's just a theory.
Interestingly, the tailfin does not show such collision damage, which could be compatible with the hypothesis that it detached somewhere early on in the break-up sequence and had a "lone" freefall.
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 71 posts, RR: 1 Reply 209, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 32374 times:
Quoting Scipio (Reply 208): Interestingly, the tailfin does not show such collision damage, which could be compatible with the hypothesis that it detached somewhere early on in the break-up sequence and had a "lone" freefall.
Still wild speculation, but one scenario.
Different question: Suppose a plane like the A332 goes into a largely uncontrolled high-speed dive. Would a pilot deploy the spoilers to max in this scenario? If so, with increasing speed, is there a possibility that a spoiler would be torn off the wing section as the aircraft accelerates beyond spec?
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4251 posts, RR: 19 Reply 210, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31621 times:
Quoting Tietkej (Reply 209): Different question: Suppose a plane like the A332 goes into a largely uncontrolled high-speed dive. Would a pilot deploy the spoilers to max in this scenario? If so, with increasing speed, is there a possibility that a spoiler would be torn off the wing section as the aircraft accelerates beyond spec?
Good point!
I guess three things could have happened to the spoiler:
1. It was deployed to slow the aircraft.
2. It got ripped off and the points of failure were at the attachment points.
3a. After it got ripped off, it collided with something that damaged it.
3b. Or it got ripped off because something collided with it.
It looks unlikely that the spoiler separated when the wing impacted the water as we would have seen related wing debris at that point.
All this is total uneducated speculation on my part, of course.
p.s. I remember long ago reading about a TWA 727 that got itself into coffin corner and the captain saved the day by deploying spoilers and landing gear. There was some damage but it was good publicity for B.
Philhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 667 posts, RR: 2 Reply 211, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31415 times:
Quoting Mcdu (Reply 200):
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.
Someone else already pointed out that this flight had a crew of 9 with 11 jumpseats. Also, at that point in the flight, some of the crew were undoubtedly in the rest container.
HNL-Jack From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 721 posts, RR: 0 Reply 212, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31025 times:
Quoting Scipio (Reply 208): Interestingly, the tailfin does not show such collision damage, which could be compatible with the hypothesis that it detached somewhere early on in the break-up sequence and had a "lone" freefall.
That seems likely. Had a chance to view UA 811 after it returned to HNL and the damage to the tail was severe from various parts of the plane and other material hitting it. Entirely different situation, however.
Grew up in the business and continued the family tradition.
Jbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0 Reply 214, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30855 times:
Quoting Comorin (Reply 210): I guess three things could have happened to the spoiler:
1. It was deployed to slow the aircraft.
2. It got ripped off and the points of failure were at the attachment points.
3a. After it got ripped off, it collided with something that damaged it.
3b. Or it got ripped off because something collided with it.
On initial inspection, based on the damage shown in the img_4 & 5 photos it would appear that the impact would have been on the side shown in img_6 as on the 4/5 side it would appear to have blown out the structure on that side.
But looking at it another way, depending on where on the wing this panel was attached it could also be a case of the engine breaking off and striking the panel. I don't think the panel could sit too far out on the wing and still get this damaged.
I'm now thinking the impact was on the side shown in photos 4/5 as in the portion closest too you in image 4 also shows damage but when they show the other side in photo 6, the end further away is the same section and it does not appear to show any kind of impact like what we see in the middle.
As to the whole automated communication thing (FDR/CVR), to balance cost vs effectiveness, they could go with something less expensive but still useful, just broadcast a transmission with the GPS co-ordinates, a time stamp (all in UTC), altititude & an ID for the aircraft who sends it every 15-30 seconds, as this would narrow down your main search area pretty significantly.
You don't need any special communication setup by way of unique frequencies etc as the aircraft id & date/time stamp makes every tranmission unique to it. Keeping the 30 or so transmissions can show any kind of path deviation, as well as approximate speed (distance between two points), even if tranmission is lost a few minutes before an accident you still have a valid data stream that can be used to narrow your search are more so than what we have seen with the AF447 crash.
Then to ease up on the data storage, you would only need to keep the last 30 or so tranmissions to show any changes. Automatically remove the oldest transmission only as you receive the next one, so when an accident occurs, you always maintain the last 30 transmissions. By keeping this many on file you really don't need massive amounts of data storage on the backend, 30 transmissions * 500 aircraft is only 15,000 records which is a pretty minor database all things considered.
The vessel that retrieved the spoiler tried to contact other ships in the area by radio without success. It then sent the report with attached pictures by e-mail.
That would mean no radio contact but working internet connection.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 216, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30645 times:
Quoting Tietkej (Reply 202): Mir, Zeke, Mandala, Pihero, does this give you any indications of possible new/existing scenarios?
We just do not have enough factual information to draw any sort of conclusion from anything found so far. The information search will take months, be patient, they will come to the right answer eventually.
Type-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 3514 posts, RR: 24 Reply 217, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30631 times:
Quoting Scipio (Reply 208): Interestingly, the tailfin does not show such collision damage, which could be compatible with the hypothesis that it detached somewhere early on in the break-up sequence and had a "lone" freefall.
This theory of yours has a high possibility. If the VS went first then the aircraft would definitely been uncontrolable. Look at the AA A300 at JFK accident. It wasn't at high altitude at all and the forces were so great on the wings after the tail departed it tore the engines from their pylons. So the loss of a VS could result in the aircraft breaking up. IMHO it's a good clue.
Even though this is speculation, it is a good case of deduction.
I always believed that there is no such thing as a dumb question. If you don't know something how are you going to learn without asking? Don't feel dumb about asking questions.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
I just wanted to point out the report from Bloomberg (as indicated in post 121):
"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."
and,
"Investigators haven’t found water in the victims’ lungs, which would indicate drowning..."
So, not jumping to any conclusions - but this preliminary evidence lends credence to the suggestion that the A/C broke up at altitude.
Other less compelling, albeit interesting points include how far apart the bodies have been found, and that they all have multiple fractures, which SUGGESTS to some that a semi-controlled, water landing is less likely to have occurred.
Like everyone else, though, I am hoping the French sub can locate those black boxes...
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 71 posts, RR: 1 Reply 219, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 30895 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 216): We just do not have enough factual information to draw any sort of conclusion from anything found so far. The information search will take months, be patient, they will come to the right answer eventually.
Thanks, Zeke. I agree.
Still, I think we may be moving to a point where some scenarios are gaining more probability than others. But, even if we knew the plane broke up in mid-air, that's not going to help find the root cause - I was basically just curious to know about the spoiler issue.
Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 217): Quoting Scipio (Reply 208):
Interestingly, the tailfin does not show such collision damage, which could be compatible with the hypothesis that it detached somewhere early on in the break-up sequence and had a "lone" freefall.
This theory of yours has a high possibility. If the VS went first then the aircraft would definitely been uncontrolable. Look at the AA A300 at JFK accident. It wasn't at high altitude at all and the forces were so great on the wings after the tail departed it tore the engines from their pylons. So the loss of a VS could result in the aircraft breaking up. IMHO it's a good clue.
Well, its one option. But, then again, the engines could have been torn off as the aircraft impacted the water. And that could well have been a ditching attempt. I think this assumption is taking it too far again. It's certainly a thought though.
Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 218): I always believed that there is no such thing as a dumb question. If you don't know something how are you going to learn without asking? Don't feel dumb about asking questions.
Thank you, Type-Rated. I'm learning as fast as I can Â
Crjfixer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 220, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 30323 times:
Quoting Tietkej (Reply 209): Different question: Suppose a plane like the A332 goes into a largely uncontrolled high-speed dive. Would a pilot deploy the spoilers to max in this scenario? If so, with increasing speed, is there a possibility that a spoiler would be torn off the wing section as the aircraft accelerates beyond spec?
If its a dumb question whip me
No such thing as a dumb question especially when noone has the answers yet.
If that is indeed the spoiler (which it looks like to me as well) It looks to me like if it was torn off by being deployed at a high rate of speed it would be bent the opposite direction. It appears there are 2 connection points near the center of the spoiler. It appears as if the closer side in the picture is bent but bent forward as opposed to backward like i would think it would be if it had been deployed at and extreme rate of speed.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 221, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 30028 times:
Quoting Breiz (Reply 196): 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 Arctic 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.
You will note that this low salinity zone more or less corresponds with a velocity low. Happily, the gradation to lower velocities appears to be gradual so that it should not be strongly reflecting, but I suspect it will make the signal more diffuse at the surface.
The origin of that lower salinity water is interesting. There must be a heck of a lot of it, which makes one wonder about a source from the Amazon with some odd pattern of cooling and mixing. At least it is not likely to be coming from Africa.
Most drilling is indeed closer to the shores but remember some is up to 300 km offshore and way beyond the edge of the continental shelf and mostly it is deep ocean patterns that are evident.
AF Cabin Crew From French Polynesia, joined Sep 1999, 1002 posts, RR: 44 Reply 223, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 30197 times:
Quoting Mcdu (Reply 200): 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.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 203): 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.
I believe these jumpseats are the front one. There are 2 blocks of dual seats 1 by door 1L where the CCP/Chief Purser seat and one in the aft galley in the middle.
What makes me believe it is the front jumpseats is the curvature of the panel, yes the CIDS box is not there anymore but I doubt the aft panel would have such a curvature on the top of the panel.
And the doctor's box is indeed still sealed but not in the metal box where it is usually located and padlocked. It is usually in a hatrack in Business Class
Alhena From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 224, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 30133 times:
Quoting Crjfixer (Reply 220): It appears as if the closer side in the picture is bent but bent forward as opposed to backward like i would think it would be if it had been deployed at and extreme rate of speed.
I looks bent backwards on images 4 and 5 and forward on imges 3 and 6. Could it be somewhat 'flexible' at the damage area?
Mestrugo From Chile, joined Apr 2007, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 225, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 29900 times:
Quoting Alhena (Reply 213): What are the conditions necessary for spoiler deployment? From the TAM accident at CGH I remember positive gear pressure and throtles at or near idle.
What would the conditions be at cruise under alternate law?
You're confusing spoilers with thrust reversers. Spoilers can be activated at any moment to reduce speed, while thrust reversers can only be activated in ground. And that's because the thrust reversers can -and will- inflict so much stress on the airframe while in flight that it would break up in pieces.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 226, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 30237 times:
Quoting Crjfixer (Reply 220): If that is indeed the spoiler (which it looks like to me as well) It looks to me like if it was torn off by being deployed at a high rate of speed it would be bent the opposite direction. It appears there are 2 connection points near the center of the spoiler.
Yes, apparently, the damage should be "reversed". Unless - as some poster remarked on another site - the airplane was flying backward tail- first, it doesn't look like aerodynamic effect.
It could have been torn off through a massive deterioration
The wing could have failed either in the air or -again - at impact. Note that the moments involved in a breakage include the engine and its mounts...
You see, we don't have a lot to speculate on and what we see fits a lot of possibilities.
Quoting AF Cabin Crew (Reply 223): I believe these jumpseats are the front one. There are 2 blocks of dual seats 1 by door 1L where the CCP/Chief Purser seat and one in the aft galley in the middle.
What makes me believe it is the front jumpseats is the curvature of the panel
Good point. But on the other hand, the curvature doesn't fit the front bulkhead either (should be on the left of the seats...)
Quoting AF Cabin Crew (Reply 223): And the doctor's box is indeed still sealed but not in the metal box where it is usually located and padlocked. It is usually in a hat rack in Business Class
....thank you, AFCC. Another sign of a great shock.
Please note that,as Zeke writes :
Quoting Zeke (Reply 216): We just do not have enough factual information to draw any sort of conclusion from anything found so far. The information search will take months, be patient, they will come to the right answer eventually.
We should soon give some more info on the ACARS messages, as we're trying to sort out what makes sense.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2863 posts, RR: 16 Reply 227, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 30153 times:
Quoting Mestrugo (Reply 225): You're confusing spoilers with thrust reversers. Spoilers can be activated at any moment to reduce speed, while thrust reversers can only be activated in ground. And that's because the thrust reversers can -and will- inflict so much stress on the airframe while in flight that it would break up in pieces.
Not necessarily, in fact I can't think of a case when that has happened, and I can think of plenty of cases when thrust reversers deployed in flight. I suppose it's *possible* that Airbus planes are built in such a way that a reverser deployment would cause the plane to break up, as the only cases I know of where reversers have deployed in flight are on Boeing planes, but I just can't imagine that Boeing planes would be built strong enough to withstand this while Airbus planes aren't.
Not to say a reverser deployment wouldn't cause an accident, but it probably wouldn't cause an in-flight breakup on its own. The Lauda Air 767 that had a reverser deployment, for example, only began to break up at low altitude due to overspeed as it went through a vertical dive before crashing. The stress of the reverser itself deploying did not break up the airplane.
As for "spoilers", I think you are also confusing spoilers with speed/air brakes, which mean two different things. You would never deploy "spoilers" in flight, as the entire purpose of doing so is to kill lift (hence the name). Yes, on airliners it's often the same panel as the air brake (just deployed to different degrees), but when you say a pilot has deployed "spoilers", it means something different than saying he has deployed "air brakes". One is to kill lift, the other is to reduce speed. You would never deploy spoilers in order to try to regain control of an out of control airplane - that would have a similar effect as deploying thrust reversers in flight. But you might deploy air brakes.
The two terms are often used interchangeably but I think in a case like this, it's a good idea to use the terms properly so there's no confusion.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Alhena From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 228, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 30124 times:
Quoting Mestrugo (Reply 225): Spoilers can be activated at any moment to reduce speed
What I understood from the TAM case was that during landing spoilers would have to be used to reduce lift.
The speed-brake function must be somewhat different from the gnd-spoiler function, even if the same surfaces are used. So what would be the limits/conditions for the speed-brake function?
Crjfixer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 229, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 29572 times:
Quoting Mestrugo (Reply 225): Quoting Alhena (Reply 213):
What are the conditions necessary for spoiler deployment? From the TAM accident at CGH I remember positive gear pressure and throtles at or near idle.
You're confusing spoilers with thrust reversers. Spoilers can be activated at any moment to reduce speed, while thrust reversers can only be activated in ground. And that's because the thrust reversers can -and will- inflict so much stress on the airframe while in flight that it would break up in pieces.
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 227): As for "spoilers", I think you are also confusing spoilers with speed/air brakes, which mean two different things. You would never deploy "spoilers" in flight, as the entire purpose of doing so is to kill lift (hence the name). Yes, on airliners it's often the same panel as the air brake (just deployed to different degrees), but when you say a pilot has deployed "spoilers", it means something different than saying he has deployed "air brakes". One is to kill lift, the other is to reduce speed. You would never deploy spoilers in order to try to regain control of an out of control airplane - that would have a similar effect as deploying thrust reversers in flight. But you might deploy air brakes.
Im not sure about Airbus but some manufacturers call them all spoilers.
Most aircraft have flight spoilers, spoilerons, and ground spoilers. Flight spoilers and spoilerons can be used in flight and ground spoilers can only be used on the ground and are the 2 most inboard spoiler surfaces on each wing. The following conditions must be met for the ground spoilers to deploy....
For each engine, the throttle lever must be at or below the flight idle position, or the
engine fan speed must be at or below flight idle speed.
Two of the three conditions that follow must be present:
Radio altimeter reading must be below five feet.
Both weight−on wheels (WOW) signals from a main landing gear (MLG) (left or
right), or one WOW signal from each MLG.
Both wheel speed signals of a MLG (left or right) must be greater than 16
knots, or any wheel speed of an inboard or outboard pair must be greater
than 16 knots.
This is fairly genaric and im not 100% sure this would be exactly the same for the A330
Many of them puzzled by AF447 decision to fly into the weather system even with little deviation.
One particularly interesting comment.
"Excellent analysis, very well done. I am a retired captain, DC-8, DC-10, 27,000 + hours flying the world. I'd like to add one more thought: There are three times when a pilot is at what I refer to as a most dangerous time. Each is when the pilot feels he is at his best. The first is around 200/300 hours, the second, 1000/1200 hours and the final danger-time is 10,000/12,000 hours. At each point the pilot feels he is truly blessed, he's invincible. This is where if a series of incidents converge, the pilot oftentimes winds-up dead. I remember giving a checkride to a ten-thousand hour captain one dark-and-stormy-night over Oklahoma. We were approaching a series of thunder-bumpers and one particularly big monster was directly in our path on the radar. I asked him what he intended to do? He replied he planned to punch right through it. I responded with, "Not with me on-board." We deviated around the sucker and I spent a few beers at the hotel explaining how anything man has made, nature can tear apart. I believe the Air France captain had logged 11,000 hours.
Regards,
Captain Dave R. C----
Retired."
Maybe first part in chain of events that brought down AF447 was human error in not deciding to reroute due to bad weather. Underlying factors: overestimating human and machine capabilities vs nature, company strict fuel saving and schedule keeping directions -crews allowed to make substantial route deviations only after declaring emergency. Maybe time for Airbus state-of-the-art-fly-by-wire systems to include computer decision making on how to avoid dangerous thunderstorms.
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 428 posts, RR: 1 Reply 231, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 28815 times:
I know there's been especulation regarding the rudder.
This came out less than 1/2 hour ago. Maybe it's old news. If so please disregard.
Apparently there was a message indicating that the radar limiter was inoperative:
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 71 posts, RR: 1 Reply 232, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 28465 times:
Quoting 757GB (Reply 231): I know there's been especulation regarding the rudder.
This came out less than 1/2 hour ago. Maybe it's old news. If so please disregard.
Apparently there was a message indicating that the radar limiter was inoperative:
As I've stated before, I have not had the time to go through all the threads. Bear with me.
Hmm, the source contains this:
"One of the 24 automatic messages sent from the plane minutes before it disappeared points to a problem in the "rudder limiter," a mechanism that limits how far the plane's rudder can move. The nearly intact vertical stabilizer — which includes the rudder — was fished out of the water by Brazilian searchers."
Didn't we already establish that with the system going into Alternate Law?
AirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 223 posts, RR: 0 Reply 233, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 28295 times:
This is old news. It was also already established that the rudder limiter message most certainly was caused by the Air Data Disagree problem and the rudder limiter itself would still work at the last setting until slats are deployed.
So, regarding the "new" news, it seems to be an inflight-breakup. Possible causes could be a stall and then entering a spin or a highspeed dive. The damages at the lower aft end of the seperated rudder could indicate that it was torn by excessive air speed and then snapped to the aft, when the front bolts failed.
AirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 223 posts, RR: 0 Reply 234, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 28118 times:
I think, it went like this (speculation mode on)
- Crew flies into severe weather
- Airspeed information becomes unreliable (maybe because of iced/clogged pitot tubes)
- Autopilot pops off, as designed
- Flight controls switch from Normal Mode to Alternate Mode, as designed, providing only limited envelope protection
- Crew tries to fix the problem by rebooting several systems (therefore the burst of ACARS messages)
- Crew loses orientation in the dark and turbulent weather and the "feel" for the current air speed or actually uses the unreliable airspeed (ala birgenair)
- Aircraft enters stall or dive
This wouldn't be the first time the crew forget to actually fly the aircraft when distracted...
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11471 posts, RR: 8 Reply 235, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28083 times:
As to the recovered and possibly unoccpied 'jump seats', one has to wonder if maybe there wasn't enough time for the f/a's to get into the seats. It would not be improbable for f/a's not to be in their jump seats if the plane was just entering a turbulance area or entered one with no warning or if some sudden event happened as they may have been in the middle of food/beverage service, or securing the pax, or otherwise unable to be in them.
EcuadorianMD11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 237, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 27879 times:
Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 234): I think, it went like this (speculation mode on)
- Crew flies into severe weather
- Airspeed information becomes unreliable (maybe because of iced/clogged pitot tubes)
- Autopilot pops off, as designed
- Flight controls switch from Normal Mode to Alternate Mode, as designed, providing only limited envelope protection
- Crew tries to fix the problem by rebooting several systems (therefore the burst of ACARS messages)
- Crew loses orientation in the dark and turbulent weather and the "feel" for the current air speed or actually uses the unreliable airspeed (ala birgenair)
- Aircraft enters stall or dive
This wouldn't be the first time the crew forget to actually fly the aircraft when distracted...
It´s a plausible scenario I suppose...........but wouldn´t it be great to find those orange boxes in order to obtain some cold hard evidence!??
But the above is plausible in the sense that many major accidents / incidents occurred due to the flight crew "forgettng" to fly the plane whilst occupied with some "urgent" malfunctioning systems.
One tragic example that springs to mind is the Eastern Airways Tristar crash in the Everglades.
It´s only human to try to fix whatever problem jeopardizing your own life and that of the passengers and crew but it´s very sad when those attempts cause an even bigger danger than the initial problem did.
Surely contingency checklists state that we need at least 1 person at the helm while the others are busy fault finding.........
Anyways, with my nautical background I´m still optimistic that they will surface those boxes at some stage and find out once and for all what actually happened. That would be great news for all flight crews and pax worldwide!
ARGinLON From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, RR: 0 Reply 240, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 27640 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 235): As to the recovered and possibly unoccpied 'jump seats', one has to wonder if maybe there wasn't enough time for the f/a's to get into the seats. It would not be improbable for f/a's not to be in their jump seats if the plane was just entering a turbulance area or entered one with no warning or if some sudden event happened as they may have been in the middle of food/beverage service, or securing the pax, or otherwise unable to be in them.
The crew could have been in the rest area by then. Remember this happened 3 hours into the flight.
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 241, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27136 times:
Quoting Alhena (Reply 215): That would mean no radio contact but working internet connection.
Not necessarily. There was a lot of discussion of the physics of HF radio on some of the early threads.
A ship, or airplane, might well have very good radio contact with land thousands of miles away, but due to the physics of HF, not be able to contact other ships / airplanes a couple hundred miles away.
That assumes the search forces were listening on HF. They might only be using VHF due to their close proximity with each other.
Internet at sea works differently because it is satellite based. Slow, usually 4,800 / 9,600 BPS uplink. faster downloads of course, but it works (remember those days with dial-up modems).
Also a lot of ships are now using Iridium phone based technology at sea rather than long range HF radio.
Which would lead to even more compatability issues between ships of different shipping lines and the military forces of various nations.
Guillermo From Italy, joined Feb 2001, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 242, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 27100 times:
That thing in fact seems like a spoiler. However, watching closely to that photographs furnished by the Brazilian Air force (http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/voo447/FOTOS/130609/img_4.JPG) and a close-up of that one from Konstantin von Wedelstaedt (http://www.airliners.net/photo/0663338/M/) , I think that:
1.- The hinges (circles n° 1) are not the same between images. However, maybe it means nothing because perhaps Airbus can change them from one series of that particular aicraft model to another as a consequence of designe upgrades, etc. Or maybe it is an inner spoiler. from what I have not any image. BTW, please note the damage on the edge of the panel, above the right hinge.
2.- Lower surface of the thing seems not to be damaged by any solid object that might produce the separation from the wing structure. In fact, circe n° 2 points to a broken area most probably originated -after separation from the wing- by an impact with the part the red arrow points at.
3.- IMHO the thing separated from the wing due to excessive aerodynamic pressure coming from the lower surface. That's to said, in my opinion it was not deployed, because if that were the case the aerodinamic pressure would be grater on the upper surface. Please note circle n° 3: it is apparently the area regarding the actuator's attachment. The whole core of the thing is missing in the square area of the junction, but the upper surface of the "spoiler" as can be seen on other photos is rather intact (despite that long crack most probably due to surface bending upwards). Hence in my opinion it bended upwards upon the resistance limits of the core, then the junction failed releasing the thing. If you care to see the other photos regarding the upper surface, you should clearly note the holes of the fixation bolts, just as if they were pushed downwards through the fiber core while the "spoiler" was fiercely forced upwards.
4.- Circles n° 4 & 5 point to a damage most probably due to torsional forces, IMHO backing my feeling that the spoiler separated from the wing in an upwards movement. It seems to me that that piece of structure would be rotated almost 90° clockwise just to reach its actual position inside the wing. If that were the case, the fractured portion mostly near the hinge would remain above of the rest, indicating the action of a vertical component of the breaking force.
5.- Circle n° 6: this seems to be a detached part of the surface. This -and other longitudinal cracks of the lower surface- sems to be caused by an upwards bending attitude (the radius being perpendicular to the "spoiler" surface), that would stretch that surface over its tractional resistance, hence braking it in a longitudinal fashion.
That said, since I am not a pilot, I wish to make this questions:
1.- Can you actually deploy flaps while on cruise, despite the fact you should not do that over a certain airspeed just to prevent structural damages?
2.- If -for whatever reason- you just do that, maybe backed by a wrong airspeed indication, don't the spoilers remain exposed to the wings' downface airstream?
3.- If 1 & 2 are affirmative, could it be that in a highly turbulent environment in a certain moment the spoilers would be exposed to a fierce upstream shot passing by the flaps' trailing edge?
Of course, it could be that none of this actually happened, and that the wing due whatever reason broke away and hence we are watching at a consequence of a chain of events during the braking sequence. Or maybe the wing smashed the water surface in a near horizontal attitude with a high vertical speed component.
I am just answering, not speculating anything. Anyway -sadly- this accident remembers me very well this one (link below):
Thank you very much for sharing all that work and analysis. In my case seeing the spoiler also brought back memories from that Austral flight. It actually crashed in Uruguay. In that case it looked like slat extension at high speed. By no means am I saying that something like that happened here, but it sure brought it back.
TheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1510 posts, RR: 5 Reply 244, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25574 times:
Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 234): I think, it went like this (speculation mode on)
- Crew flies into severe weather
- Airspeed information becomes unreliable (maybe because of iced/clogged pitot tubes)
- Autopilot pops off, as designed
- Flight controls switch from Normal Mode to Alternate Mode, as designed, providing only limited envelope protection
- Crew tries to fix the problem by rebooting several systems (therefore the burst of ACARS messages)
- Crew loses orientation in the dark and turbulent weather and the "feel" for the current air speed or actually uses the unreliable airspeed (ala birgenair)
- Aircraft enters stall or dive
Add that maybe after the auto pilot disconects it gives the crew an uncontrolable airplane in moderate to heavy turbulence...
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 245, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25405 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 216): We just do not have enough factual information to draw any sort of conclusion from anything found so far. The information search will take months, be patient, they will come to the right answer eventually.
And this drives us nuts... literally...
We can only come up with the most possible scenarios, which includes significant extrapolations... hence, the possible scenarios has too many unclosed junctions/ends... *sigh*
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 92): 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?
Pulling the CB on the protection would likely cause an ACARS maintenance message to be generated... this doesn't seem to be present in the data available.
Quoting Crjfixer (Reply 229): Im not sure about Airbus but some manufacturers call them all spoilers.
Spoiler panels... and depending on their position in the wing, the deflection angles limits are set for speedbrake mode, groundspoiler mode.
Quoting Tietkej (Reply 209): Different question: Suppose a plane like the A332 goes into a largely uncontrolled high-speed dive. Would a pilot deploy the spoilers to max in this scenario? If so, with increasing speed, is there a possibility that a spoiler would be torn off the wing section as the aircraft accelerates beyond spec?
Yes using the spoiler panel as speedbrakes using the speedbrake lever... it is one method to reduce the longitudinal acceleration in a dive.
Quoting Tietkej (Reply 219): Still, I think we may be moving to a point where some scenarios are gaining more probability than others. But, even if we knew the plane broke up in mid-air, that's not going to help find the root cause - I was basically just curious to know about the spoiler issue.
The loose possibilities of what may have started the problem phase is discussed in reply 69... but as to the transition from problem to doom is even wider in terms of possibilities... The discovery of the spoiler panel only reduces the number of possibilities from "almost infinite" to "generously numerous".
Quoting Pihero (Reply 226): You see, we don't have a lot to speculate on and what we see fits a lot of possibilities.
Agreeeee...
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 230): Maybe first part in chain of events that brought down AF447 was human error in not deciding to reroute due to bad weather. Underlying factors: overestimating human and machine capabilities vs nature, company strict fuel saving and schedule keeping directions -crews allowed to make substantial route deviations only after declaring emergency. Maybe time for Airbus state-of-the-art-fly-by-wire systems to include computer decision making on how to avoid dangerous thunderstorms.
Human error by flying into the bad weather? Please re-read the previous replies... in particular, radar attenuation and minor radome damage... and gain insensitivity... and see my reply to LTBEWR below...
Quoting Tietkej (Reply 232): Didn't we already establish that with the system going into Alternate Law?
Yes... ALTN (as per ACARS message), and likely ALTN2 at the lowest level(only load protection, no other protection)... ie: just 1 step away from Direct Law... It's just "LIKELY", there's no certainty about it.
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 235): As to the recovered and possibly unoccpied 'jump seats', one has to wonder if maybe there wasn't enough time for the f/a's to get into the seats. It would not be improbable for f/a's not to be in their jump seats if the plane was just entering a turbulance area or entered one with no warning or if some sudden event happened as they may have been in the middle of food/beverage service, or securing the pax, or otherwise unable to be in them.
Unoccupied jumpseats also point to the likelihood that before 0210, the turbulence was not excessive to the extent requiring crew to abandon whatever they do and go to their jumpseat. This points to "they never what was going to happen" at 0210...
This also suggests that the cockpit crew did not deliberately and knowingly fly into the severe parts of the storm...
Quoting Guillermo (Reply 242): 1.- Can you actually deploy flaps while on cruise, despite the fact you should not do that over a certain airspeed just to prevent structural damages?
2.- If -for whatever reason- you just do that, maybe backed by a wrong airspeed indication, don't the spoilers remain exposed to the wings' downface airstream?
3.- If 1 & 2 are affirmative, could it be that in a highly turbulent environment in a certain moment the spoilers would be exposed to a fierce upstream shot passing by the flaps' trailing edge?
Of course, it could be that none of this actually happened, and that the wing due whatever reason broke away and hence we are watching at a consequence of a chain of events during the braking sequence. Or maybe the wing smashed the water surface in a near horizontal attitude with a high vertical speed component.
Guillermo, The question is, which spoiler panel is this...
I remember a PRIM1 and SEC1 error.... not sure about this but a sensor reading the position of the spoiler panel (aircraft was suspected under roll direct after 0210UTC)... And if i recall correctly, the outermost spoiler panels are under PRIM1 and/or SEC1...
I was pondering about this... and the roll direct, and loss of control during "transition B" of the accident (explained in reply#69)...
This, if all the analysis you mentioned and my thoughts on it are correct, points towards airframe disintegration during a dive. Circle #3 does appear correct and probably is the hinge/part that is connected to the actuator...
Down to up force causing separation seems correct based on the rip characteristics, and circle #4. But/and...
The aircraft entered ALTN law (ALTN2 is most likely), which means aircraft looses AOA and stall protections... only has load protection on the pitch axis... no protection on roll.
your Q1-3: Flap deployment due to stall is possible if they have stall protection available. They did not. I do not think they deployed the flaps if under transition B under a loss of control situation... nor would they deploy the flap to prevent a stall. BUT, if at a high speed dive, I think such a wreck would be possible if the flap had separated (shortly) beforehand, rendering the lower surface to no longer be smooth... this could create an upward force due to surface below no longer protecting the spoiler... hence an upward force...
On the other hand, extreme high speeds can suck the spoiler upwards and off due to the airfoil wingshape (low pressure turbulent air strongest on the trailing edge)... causing a rotation force "rear up"... this may explain circle #3 & 4. I don't know extreme high speed aerodynamic properties of this particular wing to give a judgement call... so this is just a "loose opinion".
It is possible that the rear & up suction of the upper surface due to the high speed just simply pulled the panel off...
Flutter from the flap pressing onto the spoiler during/near time of separation may cause circle #2... doesn't explain #6 thugh... For #2 and #6, yours probably make more sense
Answer to #3, the flaps would have been ripped off rist before the spoilers in that situation, and I doubt it will yield this kind of damage characteristics.
Quoting Guillermo (Reply 242): Of course, it could be that none of this actually happened, and that the wing due whatever reason broke away and hence we are watching at a consequence of a chain of events during the braking sequence. Or maybe the wing smashed the water surface in a near horizontal attitude with a high vertical speed component.
I tend to think more that this panel describes a highspeed separation of the spoiler panel rather than a water impact at imaginable attitudes and speeds... But a water impact at near horizontal attitude at high vertical speed component... depends on how high of a Vertspeet we're talking about (and whether the wings would have snapped off beforehand).
I'm still trying to match this spoiler detachment with the rudder being still attached to the vertical tailfin.
OK, I think I'm trying to write too much for today...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9 Reply 246, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25170 times:
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 227): As for "spoilers", I think you are also confusing spoilers with speed/air brakes, which mean two different things. You would never deploy "spoilers" in flight, as the entire purpose of doing so is to kill lift (hence the name). Yes, on airliners it's often the same panel as the air brake (just deployed to different degrees), but when you say a pilot has deployed "spoilers", it means something different than saying he has deployed "air brakes". One is to kill lift, the other is to reduce speed. You would never deploy spoilers in order to try to regain control of an out of control airplane - that would have a similar effect as deploying thrust reversers in flight. But you might deploy air brakes.
The two terms are often used interchangeably but I think in a case like this, it's a good idea to use the terms properly so there's no confusion.
Spoiler is the correct name for the control surface. Spoilers preform many different functions depending upon the aircraft/manfacture. They can be used as:
- speedbrakes
- ground spoilers
- lift dumpers
- roll augmentation
- roll control
- air brakes
- direct lift control
- recovery speed brakes
- maneuvering direct lift control
- etc.
They can be used symmetrically or asymmetrical.
But no matter what they are used for they are still a spoiler (they spoil lift).
Theredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1510 posts, RR: 5 Reply 247, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23710 times:
Mandala its been in my thoughts from day 1 that the crew most likely had no idea of the problems they would be facing maybe seconds before they happened, hence the lack of mayday calls and now these empty jumpseats.
Years ago I was flying LAX to MEX in DL, perfectly clear day and smooth ride, and out of nothing the 757 jumped 20 to 30 feet up and had like 25 seconds of moderate to hard turbulence. I always travel with my seatbelt on. I always respect mother nature even if it clear outside.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 248, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 23340 times:
Quoting Sxmarbury33 (Reply 179): 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.
You can't evade it: first there's the bandwidth issue, then the issue that for satellite communication to take place, the antenna will have to be directed - no grossly unusual flight attitudes allowed, which is prohibitive. Buffering and retransmission can't be done as each second would count for eventual analysis. The datalink would have to be 100% reliable at all times by design, which would add hugely to the costs.
Boacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 448 posts, RR: 0 Reply 249, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 23267 times:
Just a comment for future thought, not particularly relevant to the AF447 incident, but really relevant to air safety:
If the "black boxes" are so important to keep track of the state of the aircraft and aid in determining the cause of accidents - so that others may fly safely, there should be a duplicate set of blackboxes in another part of the aircraft that would have different type of container in the hope that at least ONE of the two systems would be able to be recovered.
After all:
each critical system on the aircraft is duplicated, so why not the black box set ?
satellite links for the blackbox data would be expensive, difficult, but so is the complete lack of information for a critical accident such as AF447.
The cost for such a replacement device would be trivial compared to the value obtained. Just think of what will happen to an aircraft manufacturer (e.g., in this case the mfr of the A330) if the general public develops a fear of flying - as more days go without a cause of what might turn out to be a horrifying mid-air breakup of a very advanced airliner, what makes you think that they will continue to trust the "professionals" over the long term ?
I am getting a bit confused as to why the target region is still not able to be scanned using remote sensing satellites - with SAR (synthetic aperture radars) and also infra red sensors for sea surface anomalies. These scans do not always depend upon the weather, and are easy to program through ground based systems.
There are satellites that can detect small mid air meteorites that "burn up on reentry" in the atmosphere, so why not check if any satellites scanning the ITCZ observed anomalies during the time of loss of the aircraft ?
For an example of a (rare) photo of an upper atmospheric disturbance/anomaly, taken from a geo stationary orbit satellite METEOSAT8 which is running on a backup mission (its primary mission instrument a solid state power amplifier has failed, after being hit with a micro-meteroid it seems). See Figure 4. Meteosat 8 / EUMETSAT infrared image of the 2008 TC3 explosion.
Soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2419 posts, RR: 16 Reply 250, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 22819 times:
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 17757 posts, RR: 17 Reply 253, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 21850 times:
Quoting Mestrugo (Reply 225): Spoilers can be activated at any moment to reduce speed, while thrust reversers can only be activated in ground. And that's because the thrust reversers can -and will- inflict so much stress on the airframe while in flight that it would break up in pieces.
You're overlooking the DC-8 which only has ground spoilers. DC-8 spoilers cannot be used in the air which is why the DC-8 is one of the few aircraft certified for use of reverse thrust while airborne. AC's worst fatal accident occurred on a new DC-8-63 in 1970 when the ground spoilers were accidentally deployed on final approach to YYZ.
Bramble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 254, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 21714 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 235): It would not be improbable for f/a's not to be in their jump seats if the plane was just entering a turbulance area or entered one with no warning or if some sudden event happened
Quoting ARGinLON (Reply 240): The crew could have been in the rest area by then. Remember this happened 3 hours into the flight
Not neccessarily. Perhaps AF are still tidying up the meal service 3 hours into the flight. Not sure myself as havne't flown them personally. The crew may have been checking that the pax cabin was secure. And some airlines have a policy of no crew in rest area during severe turbulence.
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 245): This also suggests that the cockpit crew did not deliberately and knowingly fly into the severe parts of the storm...
Looking at the ACARS messages it seems the incident took from 0210 to 0214. The cabin crew may have be securing the cabin or unable to get back to their seats. If the captain expected to hit severe turbulence (the final communication from the cockpit was encountering strong turbulence, 'forte turbulence') I'm sure the cabin crew would have been told to finish the service and take their seats.
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 897 posts, RR: 0 Reply 255, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 20921 times:
Quoting Boacvc10 (Reply 249): I am getting a bit confused as to why the target region is still not able to be scanned using remote sensing satellites - with SAR (synthetic aperture radars) and also infra red sensors for sea surface anomalies. These scans do not always depend upon the weather, and are easy to program through ground based systems.
I am sure that whatever satellites that were in an orbit to look at this area have looked. Unfortunaelty, debris and other gunk floating on the surface is probably too small to see with radars. The vast majority of items will also be at ocean temperature as well - thus infared will not work. Keep in mind that most satellites have rather poor resolution of surface features. Seeing things less than 10 Ft is rather rare (and a lot of satellites cannot see less than 20 - 30 ft) - and typically the domain of spy satillites. I cannot see anyone retasking their spy satelittes to specifically look for this - but they might look if it were convienient.
Also, keep in mind that a normal low earth orbit satellite is on a 90 minute orbit - and they may only pass over this area a couple times a month due to the fact that many of them are set to slowly sweep the surface of the earth.
Quoting Boacvc10 (Reply 249): There are satellites that can detect small mid air meteorites that "burn up on reentry" in the atmosphere, so why not check if any satellites scanning the ITCZ observed anomalies during the time of loss of the aircraft ?
The satellites that detect meteorite flashes are only able to see flashes of light (and other radiation) - and were set up to spot a ground or air nuclear explosion. Being a military system - the coverage is much more etensive than any civlilan network - and it also covers most of the earth at all times. These systems would never even see a commercial airliner - even if it blew up midair from a chemical explosive. These systems also are blinded by weather (they can't see light flashes through clouds).
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2861 posts, RR: 0 Reply 256, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 20574 times:
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 255): Also, keep in mind that a normal low earth orbit satellite is on a 90 minute orbit - and they may only pass over this area a couple times a month due to the fact that many of them are set to slowly sweep the surface of the earth.
Most of the typical earth resources satellites that would be equipped for this kind of thing are in 12hour sun synchronous polar orbits.
This is done so that the lighting conditions are always identical, i.e. the shadows are always the same and makes changes easier to detect.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
I think that is the most logical position. Taking aside the "fair play" expected in a situation like this, Boeing and Airbus products share a lot of common technologies ( FBW, Composite materials, among others ), and certainly the industry need some support and confidence nowadays, from both A & B...bashing the opponent over safety issues can be a bad move at the end, specially without a strong base to do it.
Back on topic, there are a couple of pics of debris in the above series, showing a piece of brown material, it looks like wood but i guess is a different thing ? Can anyone identify what is that ?
Saludos.
G.
Circling the world, that's the way to live !! DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fokker F-27 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
In fact, in all certainty, it's spoiler #1 L. It is longer and less square than the others. It also has a lesser angle of deployment than the rest of them .
Still difficult to make any conclusion from the aspect of the breakage. Mandala's theory is one...
A complete break-up of the wing still another...
Examination of the bulkhead with the attached jump seats show a shaded area and fixations that are consistent with the CIDS dimensions and shape : we are looking at the L1 door pair of FA seats. But it's only visible if you look and expand the FAB site photograph. (btw, I'd really appreciate a few F/As to join in...their expertise is needed).
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 260, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18212 times:
Quoting Bramble (Reply 254): Looking at the ACARS messages it seems the incident took from 0210 to 0214. The cabin crew may have be securing the cabin or unable to get back to their seats. If the captain expected to hit severe turbulence (the final communication from the cockpit was encountering strong turbulence, 'forte turbulence') I'm sure the cabin crew would have been told to finish the service and take their seats.
Would they willingly and knowingly go through severe turbulent area (to the extent of being "dangerous"? Whilst your comment is fair, others such as "pilot error because they flew into the storm" is the aim of my comments...
Passing through another known turbulent area (Bay of Bengal and Medan)... the crew often has little choice on where to go through... During one SE Asia monsoon, the crew informed us that it was going to be a bumpy ride ahead for most of the journey. The Captain of that flight is an a.netter... he also advised me prior to gate entry, that "it's going to be rough"...
Surely enough, at several stages were the crew told to stop cabin service. Once or twice, the crew was told to "cease service immediately, go to your stations and report back".
After landing, had a long conversation with him... "Initially we saw green allover with patches of yellow and spots of red. Before we know it, the green blanket turned red...allover, there was nowhere to go. We just avoided the patches of black, because that would be a mess."
Radar attenuation risks were considered by the crew on when to allow cabin service to resume... ITCZs can behave funnily too... so called "belts of clouds" are sometimes... unavoidable. Icing and turbulence has occurred out of cloud...
Back to Bramble's comments, doesn't just make us more and more curious????
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
FCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1650 posts, RR: 0 Reply 261, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17918 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 260): After landing, had a long conversation with him... "Initially we saw green allover with patches of yellow and spots of red. Before we know it, the green blanket turned red...allover, there was nowhere to go. We just avoided the patches of black, because that would be a mess
Hi Mandala, Taking that Black spot of turbulence you see in the radar return...say if you were flying in clear sky...and get that clear air turb...could you encounter the same strength of the black part...without knowing it and having no cloud around?
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 263, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17453 times:
Quoting FCA767 (Reply 261): Hi Mandala, Taking that Black spot of turbulence you see in the radar return...say if you were flying in clear sky...and get that clear air turb...could you encounter the same strength of the black part...without knowing it and having no cloud around?
Well, this so called black spots... you avoid them when it's surrounded by red (and/or purple).
The radar colours shows the intensity of the precipitation where the beam is at... (beam returns)... the waves are transmitted and reflected back by water molecules.
If there's no cloud, you get no returns... result = Black
If there's light cloud, you get some returns... result = Green
The denser the cloud, the more returns you get... up to red or purple...
What happens when it's too dense? The beams coming in will be reflected... and fewer beams will get through as the distance increase... and, the beams coming back has a risk of being obstructed by the water molecules between it and the receiver, resulting in black.
Clear Air turbulence (no radar returns due to no clouds) is really pot luck... there's no way of knowing if something awful is around... but, when you see patches of black around a blanket of red... you know that can mean trouble.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 264, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17401 times:
Quoting FCA767 (Reply 261): Hi Mandala, Taking that Black spot of turbulence you see in the radar return...say if you were flying in clear sky...and get that clear air turb...could you encounter the same strength of the black part...without knowing it and having no cloud around?
By definition CAT doesn't show on radar. Only defense is a flight level change, or if CAT is identified as linked to mountain waves, or generally in a known localised area, a deviation...knowing full well that a change of heading could worsen the conditions.
Giopan1975 From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 265, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17060 times:
I don’t see any reason why cockpit crews cannot be blamed for anything (even at this stage of the investigation and being totally speculative with very little evidence at hand) since pilot error is clearly top of the list of aviation accident causes.
Tim Vasquez may not be God of meteorology and even God himself would not be able to forecast every single developing thunderstorm cell. But if we consider his analysis as reliable and couple it with lots of pilots’ comments (not my comments) that they would deviate this kind of thunderstorm activity and the fact of other planes rerouting during the same night, I think we could reach some still unsafe but conclusion. That the aircraft should have never been caught in that area of severe weather activity in the first place. Humans are judged by the result of their actions and one of the few facts we have is cockpit crew reporting strong turbulence and some 14 minutes later aircraft was lost. So, probable cause (together with or among others?) that plane was flying in severe weather. Bearing in mind that crews’ decision regarding weather related problems are still in the hands of crews (and not some wire), I am not happy to say, in this kind of cases, crews are the first to be pointed some finger. Of course one may try to find as many excuses as one likes (unreliable weather radar, very fast and not easily predictable developing weather systems etc). I really don’t think finding excuses belongs to this highly sophisticated industry.
And even if it is proved by the investigation that weather had nothing at all to do with the accident, we will still have as a fact that this particular flight was the only one reporting strong turbulence (why on earth would a professional pilot not use textbook language like “moderate†or “severe†that can be interpreted correctly by everybody instead of “forte turbulence�???) that night. From the point of a passenger’s view, I definitely have little excuse for airliners compromising passengers’ (a passenger is a customer and every customer can be demanding about having smooth rides among many other things) comfort (and eventually safety) by trying to cut down on their fuel expenses. Airliners should keep in mind that 1 out of 3 passengers carries some degree of fear of flying – I don’t think that any of these scared people are indifferent to turbulence.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 266, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16552 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 265): I don’t see any reason why cockpit crews cannot be blamed for anything
Reason ? Decency is one. Humility for accepting the fact that one knows nothing is two. Intellectual honesty based on lack of basic understanding on flight management is three...
Need more ?
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 265): ...since pilot error is clearly top of the list of aviation accident causes.
Are you seriously implying that statistics, based on past events is clearly your only argument ?
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 265): why on earth would a professional pilot not use textbook language like “moderate†or “severe†that can be interpreted correctly by everybody instead of “forte turbulence�???)
If I used only my professional talk, you wouldn't undersdtand a thing, unless one could get a kick out of speaking words that one doesn't fully grasp.
Since, according to your first post, you joined this forum to talk about this accident, I suggest you'd put a brake on your ranting. Every sentence of this latest post of yours could be discussed and shot down. You have plenty of sites around to air your extreme views. PM me if you want their details, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8407 posts, RR: 11 Reply 267, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16166 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 230): Maybe first part in chain of events that brought down AF447 was human error in not deciding to reroute due to bad weather
That is imho very likely. It was reported all other flights deviated, just not AF447, though I´m still waiting for the confirmation that the deviation of all other flights around that time is true. Most aviation accidents involve human error, and the decision of the pilot to not fly around the storm wasnt surely a wise idea.
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 230): anything man has made, nature can tear apart.
Giopan1975 From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 268, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16042 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 267): That is imho very likely. It was reported all other flights deviated, just not AF447, though I´m still waiting for the confirmation that the deviation of all other flights around that time is true. Most aviation accidents involve human error, and the decision of the pilot to not fly around the storm wasnt surely a wise idea.
"This has been my thinking (uneducated!) along the lines of an upset in the ITCZ. Having operated on the big jets worldwide for 30 years I wonder if the crew at the planning stage when faced with the wx north of Brazil made decisions along the lines as follows-
1. Would a flight plan rerouting direct to west Africa then north be unavailable to 2 engine ops due to the long overwater leg ?
2. This leaves an alternate route to the north west of South America, with an enroute fuel stop which may have flightime limitations.
3. Have a go using radar to find a hole in the ITCZ. Maybe closer inspection will see if AF447 made any deviations. Nearest airways are along way away (UN866 and UB623). Crews turn off airways for a few miles without contacting ATC in a non radar environment. Especially allowing for the hassle of using HF radio when flying the aircraft is priority No.1.
4. If no luck in getting through then the possibility of dropping into Recife ( an AirFrance station in my days) for a replan.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 269, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16014 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 267): That is imho very likely. It was reported all other flights deviated, just not AF447,
Unless you have a crystal ball, you don't whether the flight has diverted or not. Therefore, you, along with your fiend above have no right to pose any judgment on that crew's decision. Unless, of course, this aspect has escaped me.
Ironically, both of you are demonstarting one of the origins of "human error ", which is : reliance to non-objective criteria.
FCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1650 posts, RR: 0 Reply 270, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15797 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 263):
Clear Air turbulence (no radar returns due to no clouds) is really pot luck... there's no way of knowing if something awful is around... but, when you see patches of black around a blanket of red... you know that can mean trouble
Quoting Pihero (Reply 264): By definition CAT doesn't show on radar. Only defense is a flight level change, or if CAT is identified as linked to mountain waves, or generally in a known localised area, a deviation...knowing full well that a change of heading could worsen the conditions
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 71 posts, RR: 1 Reply 271, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15775 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 269): Unless you have a crystal ball, you don't whether the flight has diverted or not. Therefore, you, along with your fiend above have no right to pose any judgment on that crew's decision. Unless, of course, this aspect has escaped me.
Ironically, both of you are demonstarting one of the origins of "human error ", which is : reliance to non-objective criteria.
That is spot on, Pihero. Thanks for venting your frustration, because I agree this is going too far. We're not predicting the weather here, nor are we making any statistical analyses with historical data.
As for you, Giopan1975, working with statistics is fine. But making accusations of your calibre following the death of more than 200 human beings is outrageous. Your Popcorn report is an insult to me and, obviously, some other forum members.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8950 posts, RR: 45 Reply 272, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15804 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 265): And even if it is proved by the investigation that weather had nothing at all to do with the accident, we will still have as a fact that this particular flight was the only one reporting strong turbulence
Let me get this straight: you're saying that even if weather had nothing at all to do with this accident, you still want to "blame" the AF crew for being the only ones to report strong turbulence?
Even if the weather does turn out to be a major factor, I'd still want to hear how and why it happened before making a blanket judgement like that. How can anyone blame the crew without knowing what happened? When more facts are known, maybe blame will be appropriate.
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 265): why on earth would a professional pilot not use textbook language like “moderate†or “severe†that can be interpreted correctly by everybody instead of “forte turbulenceâ€
As I recall, the message was to AF at CDG. It was not an ATC communication and nor was it for our benefit. It's a matter between AF crews and the airline. I don't see how it's any of our concern whether they said "strong turbulence" or "quite bumpy".
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8407 posts, RR: 11 Reply 273, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15442 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 269): Unless you have a crystal ball, you don't whether the flight has diverted or not. Therefore, you, along with your fiend above have no right to pose any judgment on that crew's decision. Unless, of course, this aspect has escaped me.
Well, the IB flight 10 minutes behind AF447 deviated some 200 miles or more to the west. AF 447 last position and the area where the wreckage was found is more or less on the direct route through where the published weathercharts show the center of the huge thunderstorm.
Quoting David L (Reply 272): if weather had nothing at all to do with this accident
That remains to be seen, but it would be very, very, very odd if the airplane would have crashed without any weather influence where it is POSITEVELY SURE that there was a severe thunderstorm at that very place and it is POSITIVELY SURE it entered severe turbulence very few minutes before it crashed, weather serious enough to other flights to deviate, weather so unusually bad a LH captain said he would have diverted to Recife if having such on his screen.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 269): reliance to non-objective criteria.
Non-objective are those who think it was a technical fault alone which brought AF447 down. We know the weather (and I include strong turbulences as bad weather here) was very bad, we know other pilots deviated a lot because of that (AF447, if even, deviated only a bit) and we know something technically related went wrong on board AFTERWARDS. Anything else we dont know.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 274, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15669 times:
Internet back online... finally...
I am appalled that one writes "I don’t see any reason why cockpit crews cannot be blamed for anything"... at this stage, there is NOTHING to conclude it.
Are you implying that entering heavy cloud or turbulence means the pilot is in error? It happens EVERYDAY!
Giopan,
Unless you're a professional investigator, Pilot Error should be, and always be the LAST on the list. For us, plausible scenarios should be made first, before assessing the culpability of the crew for their actions. Professional pilots would be quick to point out "do you know what you're talking about" or "you weren't there and you do not understand aviation decision making process" and I don't blame them. I am not a professional pilot nor do I worship them (in fact I enjoy stripping megalomaniac pilots out of their ego) but Dead men can't talk and hindsight is always 20/20. Saying that crew error is likely, is much fairer than "it has to be". Pilots don't want to make fatal errors (except for suicidal ones)... at least appreciate that...
Most who are quick to point out pilot error base it on the decision for not flying around the storm. Saying that is easy.
Whilst the comment cited from http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/comments.shtml is supposedly from a professional pilot (and a Captain), please appreciate his own "disclaimer"... "This has been my thinking (uneducated!) along the lines of an upset in the ITCZ. Having operated on the big jets worldwide for 30 years I wonder if the crew at the planning stage when faced with the wx north of Brazil made decisions along the lines as follows-"
Radar Attenuation or blackholes is not out of the question... and one cannot conclusively blame the crew for it. And the following: "3. Have a go using radar to find a hole in the ITCZ. Maybe closer inspection will see if AF447 made any deviations. Nearest airways are along way away (UN866 and UB623). Crews turn off airways for a few miles without contacting ATC in a non radar environment. Especially allowing for the hassle of using HF radio when flying the aircraft is priority No.1."
shows a normal reaction of crew when confronted by a wide area storm. Playing hide and seek with clouds using radar, can be a problem depending on the situation, and each storm is different and one relies on experience to make a judgement call when doing so. Why? again, risks of attenuation and black holes. Any pilot who has flown in tropical areas during monsoons that claim to NEVER even be tempted to play hide and seek would be an outright liar, or hasn't flown enough in those conditions.
Given the above and if you see the radar plot for 0200UTC that night, playing hide-and-seek may be what have happened. There's a nice gap in black and grey they might have tried to punch through between ORARO and TASIL.
If hide and seek is stamped as "improper", how wide of a deviation would one suggest? And see if such a wide deviation is wise or not in terms of generally accepted practice with no relationship to this accident (thus without the benefit of hindsight).
I also invite you to see on that link, a post made by "James" on SUN,07JUN2009 21:07:12 +0100...
Quote: I've attached two pictures from a flight over W.Europe that, had it not been for an ?aggressive? down tilt on the WXR would have only painted ?green? and would have definitely posed a hazard at night without the benefit of lightning. Please feel free to use.
And also:
Quote: 1-6 For the ITCZ type weather two of which I sent before. The visual shot I sent before is looking left of the aircraft with the sun behind the camera! All these shots are taken at 35 mm max wide aperture on my old compact camera. So we were pretty close! Note we didn't experience any turb. from memory.
5 of a big CB above a forest fire in the N America [near Abbottsford BC, Canada]. That only paints "green" note with high terrain the ground paints quite well nearer to the a/c than normal. It looked pretty impressive, I caught some video too.
I'm using this for showing the problem with blaming the crew... with the benefit of daylight:
1. Slightly left of nose
2. Slightly right of nose
Now, what do you suggest? Play hide-and-seek and punch through?
So, the guy decided to play hide and seek...
So let's go up to the wall in front, and turn left...
Here's the result...
So we've encircled the muck on the left... now look forward...
The wall of clear narrows...
OK, where do we go now? Right? Have a look to the right...
That's not a nice wall...
So, punching by hide-and-seek... it's normal for crew to do... error? OK, how about avoiding the area altogether? Is it wise? Let's have a look at the radar prior to deciding to turn left for the punching with hide-and-seek...
The radar paint.
If you suggest avoid the area altogether, you've got a lot of understanding to do.
The above is an "easy" problem if using the hindsight of "going through red = accident"... The radar doesn't always paint a 100% clear and usable picture...
Let's look at this:
Simple right... I see a CB, so I want to avoid it... correct?
Now, surely we've cleared that pair of blown up hammers called CBs... so, just see what's on the radar...
Hey, that CB we're avoiding on the front right (1 o'clock at about 40NM) is showing... GREEN...
Now, you still want to fly through that green???? (luckily, this flight, the CB was right of track all the way until waypoint YDC).
Now look at that at last radar plot, and tell me you think the whole area shouldn't be flown over????
---
So, when can we talk about pilot error? Are we allowed?
YES, with decency, we're allowed to talk about it, but talk about it OBJECTIVELY. How do you maintain objectivity on crew error? First, it's not easy, and secondly, do it at the end when you've adequately covered the facts of what happened independent of crew caused actions (not crew reactions).
And Pihero is spot on in saying that one of the origins of human error is the reliance on on-objective criterias in conclusive analysis.
Giopan, I suggest you have a read of "Aviation Decision Making Process", and "inadequacies of conventional decision making process"... "ADMP" (as I like to call it) is extremely useful on process thought management... even outside aviation. Quality Assurance Systems have adopted the same philosophy as ADMP... Outside Flight Operations, ADMP do save a LOT of money because, when used objectively, it leads to excellent risk management, unnecessary risk alleviation, and timely corrective actions. It has saved my life and my pocket a lot of the times both on the ground and in the air.
And yes, "forte turbulence" is subjective... measuring turbulence is extremely subjective... Just like those who says "bumpy landing".
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 275, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15132 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 273): AF 447 last position and the area where the wreckage was found is more or less on the direct route through where the published weathercharts show the center of the huge thunderstorm.
"more or less "is the right word.Prove to us that the aircraft did not deviate. If you can't, you're talking out of turn. The wreckage was found is closer to TASIL and to the north of track.
Quoting NA (Reply 273):
Non-objective are those who think it was a technical fault alone which brought AF447 down.
Another assessment without any backing. Some collection...
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8407 posts, RR: 11 Reply 276, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15222 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 275): "more or less "is the right word.Prove to us that the aircraft did not deviate. If you can't, you're talking out of turn. The wreckage was found is closer to TASIL and to the north of track.
Proven is almost nothing in regards of AF447, only that it approached, likely entered a severe storm and encoutered severe turbulance. As for a deviation, wouldnt the pilot have reported such?
Quoting Pihero (Reply 275): Another assessment without any backing. Some collection...
I dont get what you´re saying. Of cause everyone is not objective who says a technical fault alone caused the crash. No one can know that before it has been proven after finding the Black Box or other proof.
Catseye From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0 Reply 278, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15192 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 265): I don’t see any reason why cockpit crews cannot be blamed for anything
Suggesting pilot error on a predominately pilot contributed forum was ill-informed. Professional airline pilots undergo extensive theoretical and practical training with many examinations over many years and regular reviews. It takes a special kind of person to achieve the rating of Pilot in Command of an A330. Aviation is their life blood, not simply a 9 to 5 job one does to pay the bills. I think this needs to be said even at the risk of blowing already overinflated egos. Anyway, knowing this, one should not question the what (was done) but rather the why (decisions were executed).
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4251 posts, RR: 19 Reply 279, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15161 times:
Mandala99, a fascinating post! Thanks for taking us into your cockpit.
I was intrigued by your reference to ADMP, and since have Googled the term. Do you have any reading suggestions on the topic? I'm looking at it from how it might benefit us non-aviators professionally.
Requesting clarification:
You mention punching through weather in the cauldrons of the Bay of Bengal. Does that mean that you are taking on added risk since you cannot avoid the weather? I imagine Monsoon flying in SE Asia is not for the faint of heart!
Again, I want to thank all the pilots on this thread for their contributions and retributions!
Giopan1975 From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 280, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14650 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 274): Saying that crew error is likely, is much fairer than "it has to be".
I do not want to get misunderstood with this pilot error scenario that irritated some people. But pilot error as in underestimating the severity of the weather and deciding to penetrate it still remains a possible scenario since there is no evidence to support the opposite. What is so bad about it? Nobody said this is definitely the cause – we are still speculating. Unless speculating has become a taboo in this open-to-everybody forum, which I doubt. It is like suggesting that it is not decent to speculate on structural damage due to rudder sensitivity to violent inputs because that would suggest that Airbus designers are killers. Or speculation on the damaged wing that was fixed by AF maintenance who did not screw some ribbons properly and therefore they are to blame. On this basis I can agree that it is not decent to speculate at all!
I can assure my friends on this forum that I have deep respect for pilots. But unfortunately when it comes to deciding on how to play hide-and-seek with thunderstorm cells there is no backup system that will save a captain’s ass if he makes the wrong turn and get into a monstrous up/downdraft. It is understandable why pilots can become the “easy target†when It comes to putting the blame especially after 200+ people are mysteriously killed during a stormy night over the Atlantic on a public flight that could have mine or anybody’s family on board.
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 274): in fact I enjoy stripping megalomaniac pilots out of their ego
I am afraid there is quite a lot of them out there. They remind me of the KLM captain involved in the Tenerife accident.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8950 posts, RR: 45 Reply 281, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14472 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 273): Quoting David L (Reply 272):
if weather had nothing at all to do with this accident
That remains to be seen, but it would be very, very, very odd if the airplane would have crashed without any weather influence where it is POSITEVELY SURE that there was a severe thunderstorm at that very place and it is POSITIVELY SURE it entered severe turbulence very few minutes before it crashed, weather serious enough to other flights to deviate, weather so unusually bad a LH captain said he would have diverted to Recife if having such on his screen.
That's a bit misleading - you've taken my words out of context. Look at the comment I was responding to. In fact, look at the rest of the sentence you quoted.
Quoting NA (Reply 276): I dont get what you´re saying. Of cause everyone is not objective who says a technical fault alone caused the crash. No one can know that before it has been proven after finding the Black Box or other proof.
And it is similarly not objective to blame the crew based on the same almost complete lack of information. I think the point was quite clear - no-one has any reason to blame anyone or anything at this point.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 282, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14610 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 276): Proven is almost nothing in regards of AF447, only that it approached, likely entered a severe storm and encoutered severe turbulance. As for a deviation, wouldnt the pilot have reported such?
Ever tried reporting a deviation in Africa or congested HF airspace? In a non-radar environment... the atc couldn't care less whether you deviate or not, they would be concerned about time separation through a revised estimate of your arrival at the next waypoint and the altitude you would be at. Since the ACARS POS PLOT indicate that they would be ahead of schedule on arrival to TASIL, such a deviation would result in them reaching TASIL or abeam TASIL more or less near their ETA TASIL.
The proof of deviation comes in at the ACARS POS at 0214... north of track (a net of 2 degs off track if you take in the position from all the way back as their reported position at 0133 UTC... on an 11NM cross track position.
The last ACARS (0214UTC) position was 330NM and 2degs off track from INTOL... this gives an 11.5NM cross track at 0214UTC.
Aircraft was under autopilot control until 0210UTC.
If the aircraft was on track at 0210UTC, that means between 0210 to 0214, the aircraft would have travelled 31.8NM at 19.9 degrees off track.
Now assuming aircraft was still under control at 0214, one would not make a 20deg track error (not heading error) due to manual flying (+/-5 is acceptable)...
Based on the above, I guess it is safe to assume at this time that the crew DID deviate off track prior to 0210UTC (under autopilot control)
If they didn't deviate, then it would be inevitable to conclude the loss of autopilot under the conditions the crew faced, the aircraft produced a net 19.9 degree deviation... that leaves nothing else but progressive loss of control between 0210 to 0214, with the minimum of inability to maintain wings relatively level. Whilst not impossible, I find that hard to believe.
I guess I have to ask Zeke and Pihero to tell us what's the coordinated turn rates for 2.5degs, 5degs, 10degs and 15degs...
Currently, it needs a scenario such as progressive change in speed of 0.5kt per second and on a constant turn rate of 0.3 degrees, both commencing at 0211UTC, to result on a the cross track and lateral track requirements...
If one wants to OBJECTIVELY blame pilot error based on no course deviation due to weather, then I suggest one starts calculating such deviation rate scenarios from 0210UTC to 0214UTC to cause the aircraft to end where it is at... and see if such deviations are possible and plausible. Otherwise, until there is some factual base to it, it's subjective.
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Normie999 From United Kingdom, joined May 2009, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 283, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14528 times:
Back in the day, a zillion entries ago, I speculated about Air France's "excellent safety record" (entry 6 at - AF A332 Crash (F-GZCP) Part 14 (by Moderators Jun 8 2009 in Civil Aviation)).
Well, two weeks on, fingers are being pointed every which way - the AF crew, faulty speed dials, weather updraft, weather downdraft, non ferrous panels, fly-by-wire, Airbus manufacturing techniques, etc etc, but not a lot at AF itself.
I'm not sure why not. There is a bit of history here - Concorde at CDG, Toronto, icing problems, and a propos F-GZCP, Airbus sent out a service bulletin in late 2007 advising the replacement of some probes, which Air France did not fit.
The article I quoted from was speculative, but it seemed well-informed, and raised questions about AF that don't yet seemed to have been addressed much.
FCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1650 posts, RR: 0 Reply 284, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14438 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 274): So, when can we talk about pilot error? Are we allowed?
YES, with decency, we're allowed to talk about it, but talk about it OBJECTIVELY. How do you maintain objectivity on crew error? First, it's not easy, and secondly, do it at the end when you've adequately covered the facts of what happened independent of crew caused actions (not crew reactions).
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 71 posts, RR: 1 Reply 285, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14314 times:
Quoting Normie999 (Reply 283): Back in the day, a zillion entries ago, I speculated about Air France's "excellent safety record" (entry 6 at - AF A332 Crash (F-GZCP) Part 14 (by Moderators Jun 8 2009 in Civil Aviation)).
Well, two weeks on, fingers are being pointed every which way - the AF crew, faulty speed dials, weather updraft, weather downdraft, non ferrous panels, fly-by-wire, Airbus manufacturing techniques, etc etc, but not a lot at AF itself.
I'm not sure why not. There is a bit of history here - Concorde at CDG, Toronto, icing problems, and a propos F-GZCP, Airbus sent out a service bulletin in late 2007 advising the replacement of some probes, which Air France did not fit.
The article I quoted from was speculative, but it seemed well-informed, and raised questions about AF that don't yet seemed to have been addressed much.
You're missing the point: we're not blaming anyone or anything. We're trying to establish the root cause of the accident and this not possible so far.
Saying 'pilot error' or 'bad safety record' carries a lot of assumptions and must be subject to a detailed justification - it's a qualitative thing to say. Whereas establishing indisputable accident phases, such as Mandala499 has done, is meaningful to this discussion thread as it does not assume wild speculation.
Normie999 From United Kingdom, joined May 2009, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 286, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14127 times:
You're missing the point: we're not blaming anyone or anything. We're trying to establish the root cause of the accident and this not possible so far.
Saying 'pilot error' or 'bad safety record' carries a lot of assumptions and must be subject to a detailed justification - it's a qualitative thing to say. Whereas establishing indisputable accident phases, such as Mandala499 has done, is meaningful to this discussion thread as it does not assume wild speculation.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 70 Reply 287, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14231 times:
Quoting Comorin (Reply 279): Mandala99, a fascinating post! Thanks for taking us into your cockpit.
Before anyone misunderstands... let me set the record straight, I am not a licensed pilot. The closest I've been to that is taking my hands on the yoke of a 737-200 full sim or my flights as AP (Assisting Pilot) an IFR twin that I chartered on "Special Ops IFR" scenario with an instructor qualified PIC on the other pilot seat, or on other flights as Mission Commander of that aircraft under "Special Operations IFR" missions where the Pilot In Charge's authority is solely relegated to the aircraft's safety (Interestingly, I called Bingo fuel and cancellations and deviations due to weather more often than the PIC... mind U, I had a set of IRU + DGPS and he had just his analogue IFR panel) and my ID tag claims I'm a Navigator (which did raise some interesting questions by airport ops and security). I do miss those days where my ADMP and the pilot's do immediately affect my life expectancy. Countless cloud dodging w/o weather radar in daytime IFR and a few emergencies too... but I am NOT a licensed pilot. Those shots on post 274 isn't mine, but taken from the site quoted.
Quoting Comorin (Reply 279): I was intrigued by your reference to ADMP, and since have Googled the term. Do you have any reading suggestions on the topic? I'm looking at it from how it might benefit us non-aviators professionally.
Try searching Human factors...
A nice one to start with is under www.faa.gov/library/manuals and I think one of the IFR or night VFR handbooks describes ADMP in one of the sections.
Quoting Comorin (Reply 279): You mention punching through weather in the cauldrons of the Bay of Bengal. Does that mean that you are taking on added risk since you cannot avoid the weather? I imagine Monsoon flying in SE Asia is not for the faint of heart!
Wasn't me... was another a.net member (as Captain) I flew with. I've experienced other "hairy" situations over the Bay of Bengal and discussed it with the PIC... try being away from the CBs and the rest of the murky skies at night, and suddenly being hit by a huge gust causing the aircraft to bank sharply and cabin in chaos... That was fun Helped the cabin crew clear up the cabin mess and the worst affected pax was actually me after a camera flew out if the overhead missed my head by a inch and ended up with the lens frame edge embedded itself on the cabin floor... Thanks to the airline for giving me nice treatment at the destination. PIC's answer to my question of "what the heck happened" was... we weren't near the nasty clouds", so he was baffled too.
Flying in the monsoon in some parts of the world is a challenge... but then, other parts of the world have different challenges.
---
Giopan, your self restraint to achieve some objectivity is appreciated despite our differences in perception on the matter... As to megalomaniac crew? I've seen enough of them ranging from the Dictatorial to the clowns... *shakes head*
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 288, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13748 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 267): It was reported all other flights deviated, just not AF447, though I´m still waiting for the confirmation that the deviation of all other flights around that time is true.
I would be very interested to see some confirmation, because everything I've seen/ heard is that almost no flights deviated their flight plans more than a few miles.
Quoting NA (Reply 273): the IB flight 10 minutes behind AF447 deviated some 200 miles or more to the west
The original report from IB was 60 to 70 miles off planned track. But supposing the 200 miles number is correct, that did not go around the heavy weather system, and even the chances of encountering heavy cells was high.
Quoting Normie999 (Reply 283): Airbus sent out a service bulletin in late 2007 advising the replacement of some probes, which Air France did not fit.
Are you sure about the datae? What I remember was late 2008. Air France started replacing probes on some of their aircraft late in 2008 and early 2009 - because the same probes have the same issue on the A320 series of aircraft.
But apparently Air France's main issue was manufacturing backlog of the new probes. Several airlines have reported delays in getting replacement probes in large enough numbers to begin replacement at times/ locations other than heavy checks.
Sneiled From France, joined Feb 2009, 10 posts, RR: 0 Reply 289, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13487 times:
I have been reading mostly all posts on Airliners and pprune about AF447 crash since the breaking news on 1st of June.
From day one, some media made their headlines with the title AF447 Mystery
Big Mystery; as pilot did not even give any sign of what went wrong or send a May Day (we all know that under some situation, crew has other priority before they send any sign of distress)
Two weeks after the crash it remains a mystery...
We get more clue, more information with the debris, bodies, ACARS messages, testimony of professionals including pilots who were following similar flight path on that night and of course TONS of assumptions.
We have been hearing weird and erroneous details from media (the best was the SMS and phone calls made by the passengers to their loved ones minutes before the crash...)
Investigation teams will obviously have more clue with the review of the debris and the bodies examination.
But as long as we do not find the FDR and VCR, we won't be able to know what actually happened over the Atlantic ocean that night
.
I am hoping that rescue team find it VERY SOON.
Every morning,the first thing I do is to turn on CNN to watch the headlines, go on airliners to know the latest, log on the Brazilian army web site to read the reports.
And we are a lot in this situation I guess...
Stop guessing, giving assumptions, criticize each others and medias and so on.
For sure, we will know the truth, it is just a matter of time. (Hopefully short...)
Goooooaaal From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 290, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13008 times:
The only thing we can say with any degree of certainty is that the evidence strongly suggests a break up in the air. Unfortunately, everything beyond that is speculation. Did the windshield shatter at 35,000 feet and immediately disable the crew? Did an unintentional, or intentional, explosion, small or large, structurally damage the aircraft leading to loss of control and crash? Did the wing(s) and/or vertical stabilizer sheer off due to extreme forces caused by turbulence? Did the aircraft stall at altitude for whatever reason? The potential causes really are endless, which of course causes so much frustration. And of course the sadness for the victims and even for the aircraft itself are ever present. Rest in peace AF447, hopefully one day we will know what happened.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 291, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12707 times:
In order to give some sense in the mad house.
One of the most common aspects following an accident is the number of conflicting senses of urgency, focus and time agenda.
1/- The press. They want to sell, have the most immediate scoops and their agenda is basically about filling the next edition. Result is generally low content.
2/-The families and friends of the victims : they want the quickest answers because the mourning phase is paramount. Problem is that their main - and very often the only - reference is #1 above. There is a lot to say about the airline treatment of the accident but in general they can't do much. There is an even more bigger lot to say about media irresponsibility.
3/- The professionals ; they have some conflicting attitudes : a/-respect of the deceased colleagues, b/- study of the potential flight safety aspects of the accident with very few indicators and the implementation of some likely measures or the insistence on some likely CRM improvements, c/-some hidden agenda from some unions having to settle a few accounts with management (probably the ugliest aspect of this post-accident events ),
4/- The investigators : they know that it is going to be a long and arduous set of studies, that each clue, each piece of evidence has to be weighted with all known facts in order to derive the most likely scenario, that the search of the airplane structure needs to be continued and the recorders would be an important piece of the investigation. They reason in terms of months or years.
5/- The lawyers : they need as many people as they could gather for the future lawsuits. So their time frame is double : immediately get the cases, knowing full well that the first trials won't happen for several years, after the investigation report has been completed and further analysis could bring some malpractice / manslaughter possibilities...
Now, where are we at A.net ?
And a more important question, where do you personally put yourself ?
A partial answer has been given by most of the professionals on this site and they've tried to put you up in the third group. In fact, going back to most they've written, you should now be able to pass quite a few exams on FBW control laws, weather charts reading....etc...
But we are bound by decency and intellectual honesty to work on facts and only on facts.
I don't remember anyone of us referring to the technical savvy of any newspaper.
Rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1358 posts, RR: 2 Reply 295, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 11243 times:
Quoting FCA767 (Reply 294): wow nice...I never knew it does it that regularly...normally from the groun you see 1 lightning every 4 minutes or something
A great place to see such amazing power is in Arizona in late August/early September, during monsoon season. I have never experienced such a raw display of electrical activity...and even from significant distance away the sound is indescribable.
The thought of AF447 going through something like that makes my stomach turn.
Again, here is hoping the FDR VCR are found intact... and can give all involved the information needed to resolve this tragic accident.
RIP to all the victims.
Cessna 172; King Air 100; Twin Otter; SAAB 340; Dash 7; Dash 8-100,-200,-300,-400; CRJ-200,700,900; ERJ-170; F-28; DC 9-
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2863 posts, RR: 16 Reply 296, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 10859 times:
Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 295): A great place to see such amazing power is in Arizona in late August/early September, during monsoon season.
Also in the middle part of the USA, in "big sky country". I have never seen such storms as I have seen driving through Nebraska. Amazing thing is you can see them coming from hundreds of miles away. I watched this CB cloud ahead of me for literally 300 miles driving along one day and finally by dusk it filled the entire sky, also for hundreds of miles in any direction. There was non-stop lightning all around me for about the next 2 hours. It was actually really scary even on the ground, especially with the threat of tornadoes, with me just in my car on the side of the road in the middle of a wheat field. I can only imagine what anyone trying to fly through that would have experienced.
By the way, sort of tangentially related... just last week my wife and I flew back from NRT-JFK, and we took a weird southern route that I've never seen before... basically went straight (on the map) from Japan over the deep Pacific and then entering the US over Oregon. Had pretty nasty turbulence most of the way, including one spot of seat belt sign on for about 15 minutes, which is highly unusual for either Japanese airline in my experience (American pilots are a lot quicker with that switch than Japanese ones). Lots of altitude adjustments both up and down too - at one point we were at just 29,000 feet, lower than I've ever been at cruise on that route. Checked the weather after we landed and sure enough, there were thunderstorms all up and down the eastern US from the coast back through Illinois and then up through Canada. Those same storms hit us the next day and they were fierce, with near-record rainfall and lightning strike totals - and we're no stranger to thunderstorms in summer. My wife actually asked me during the storm, "we flew through this??"
I guess my point is I can understand that what to do in a case like that must be a difficult decision. There was no way to avoid those storms completely other than diverting to some other airport in the midwest. Our pilots did what they could, and we landed safely along with every other airplane that day. That doesn't mean that the chances of an accident weren't some small amount greater by trying to wind our way through the storms than if we'd diverted. But the pilots thought the risk was manageable. Whether a decision is an "error" in a case like this depends almost entirely on the outcome, and that's not always completely in the pilots' hands.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8407 posts, RR: 11 Reply 297, posted (2 years 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 10302 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 117): 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.
Thanks for your explanation. Usually top weapon, or better, defence systems are more capable than is being reported to the public. Just think about spy satellites, what is said about their capability to the public, and what they really can see.
Quoting David L (Reply 281): And it is similarly not objective to blame the crew based on the same almost complete lack of information. I think the point was quite clear - no-one has any reason to blame anyone or anything at this point.
I doubt anyone really put a blame on anyone or anything here. Saying it might have been pilot error at the beginning of a chain of events is not the the same as blaming the pilot, its just one part of the more likely scenarios.
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 288): The original report from IB was 60 to 70 miles off planned track. But supposing the 200 miles number is correct, that did not go around the heavy weather system, and even the chances of encountering heavy cells was high.
IB reported a deviation of 30 minutes, that would be more than 60 or 70 miles for sure unless they flew a crazy zig-zag course, but also likely less than 200 miles.
Speedbird128 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 298, posted (2 years 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 9985 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 282): In a non-radar environment... the atc couldn't care less whether you deviate or not
As a radar and non-radar controller, it does matter to me if there is track deviation. It *can* affect the longitudinal time separation if the aircraft behind at the same level doesn't deviate off track too, and also, it may interfere with assumed lateral separation from other airways (they may also have traffic deviating).
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 424 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 477 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5743 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 40 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 719 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 14991 posts, 
From France, joined Jun 2009, 3 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2007, 133 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1510 posts, 
, they start to see dollar signs. 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8407 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 428 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1509 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1102 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 57 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Apr 2000, 1131 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8110 posts, 
From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1389 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 7913 posts, 
, 2137 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jan 2006, 1249 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 7179 posts, 
...
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 548 posts, 
From French Polynesia, joined Sep 1999, 1002 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 238 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, 
From Italy, joined Feb 2001, 25 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 17757 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
![_](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}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}