AN Air France jet with 228 people on board has vanished from radar screens, a French airport official said today.
The flight left Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Sunday at 7pm local time and was expected in Paris on Monday at 11.15am (9.15am GMT), a spokesman said.
An official added: "We are very worried. The plane disappeared from the screens several hours ago.
"It could be a transponder problem, but this kind of fault is very rare and the plane did not land when expected."
The people on board are 216 passengers and 12 crew.
Bermuda tirangle ?
It looks certain that this plance has gone down. Sghould have landed a long time ago. There's a lot of water between Rio and Paris.
Brazil's air force confirmed the plane was missing and said a search and rescue mission was under way near the island of Fernando de Noronha.
Oceanic 6?
Did it not come down in a field near Pomeroy yesterday morning?
There was a pile of FIFA boys in Brazil over the weekend to announce th host cities for 2014. Wonder were they on it?
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on June 01, 2009, 01:05:11 PM
There was a pile of FIFA boys in Brazil over the weekend to announce th host cities for 2014. Wonder were they on it?
That was in the Bahamas.
They reckon it had to have been hit by lightning. Could take them days to find it. Scary stuff!
What is it about Paris in terms of airline travel? Didn't Concorde crash shortly after take off from Paris in 2000 and didn't a plane from JFK en route to Paris explode in mid air shortly after take off 10 years or so ago?
Quote from: 118cmal on June 01, 2009, 03:17:20 PM
They reckon it had to have been hit by lightning. Could take them days to find it. Scary stuff!
Lightning doesn't take an aircraft down.
Speculation about an electrical problem being reported by the crew but that shouldn't do it either. More info needed.
I can't think of another A330 passenger flight that went down.
The Azores glider was the closest call I think.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 01, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
What is it about Paris in terms of airline travel? Didn't Concorde crash shortly after take off from Paris in 2000 and didn't a plane from JFK en route to Paris explode in mid air shortly after take off 10 years or so ago?
Coincidence, if anything New York has the most incredibly bad record but again it is just coincidence and the act that these airports are among the world's busiest.
Quote from: clarshack on June 01, 2009, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Minus15 on June 01, 2009, 11:54:35 AM
Oceanic 6?
1st thing I thought of!
Jasus lad there are over 200 souls on board this plane . Hardly a joking matter .
Quote from: Gnevin on June 01, 2009, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: clarshack on June 01, 2009, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Minus15 on June 01, 2009, 11:54:35 AM
Oceanic 6?
1st thing I thought of!
Jasus lad there are over 200 souls on board this plane . Hardy a joking matter .
your right its not a joking matter - but when i first heard about this, lost sprang to mind that's all.
What are the chances of firstly finding the wreckage and secondly finding the black box which is presumably at the bottom of the sea ? Not good I'd imagine, my worst nightmare.
Quote from: 118cmal on June 01, 2009, 03:17:20 PM
They reckon it had to have been hit by lightning. Could take them days to find it. Scary stuff!
747 hit by lightning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IRfbC0RHsY)
3 Irish on the flight. Terrible altogether.
Three Irish aboard missing plane
The Department of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that three Irish citizens were on board an Air France Flight that has disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean.
The Air France plane with 228 people on board disappeared on its way from Brazil to Paris after hitting strong turbulence.
French officials say they fear the worst.
Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs have contacted the families of those Irish passengers and are offering full consular assistance.
The Irish embassies in both France and Brazil remain in close contact with the authorities investigating the disappearance of the flight.
Meanwhile, the Brazilian air force said the Airbus jet was well advanced over the sea when it went missing and military planes took off from both South America and Africa to hunt for the plane.
'We are probably facing an air catastrophe,' Air France Chief Executive Pierre-Henri Gourgeon said.
Air France said the airliner sent an automatic message reporting an electrical fault at 3.14am Irish time, roughly 15 minutes after the plane flew through a stormy area with strong turbulence.
Flight AF 447 left Rio de Janeiro last night at 11pm Irish time and had been expected to land at Paris Charles de Gaulle airport this morning at 10.15am Irish time.
The carrier said 216 passengers were on board, including seven children and one baby, and 12 crew members. Air France said the pilots were highly experienced.
Senior French government minister Jean-Louis Borloo ruled out the possibility of a hijacking.
The jet's last known location was unclear and Brazil's Air Force said it lost contact with the plane at 3.14am.
The plane was an Airbus 330-200 powered with General Electric engines.
Air France said relatives of people travelling on board flight AF 447 were being taken care of in a special area of Charles de Gaulle airport.
The last major incident involving an Air France plane was in July 2000 when one of its Concorde supersonic airliners crashed just after taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport bound for New York.
All 109 people on board were killed along with at least four on the ground.
In August 2005, an Air France Airbus burst into flames after shooting off the runway at Toronto airport following a storm. No one died in the crash.
Woman from County Down on board the flight..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8078264.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8078264.stm)
Scary stuff as I fly Air france the whole time, might reconsider. Condolenscenes to the families of the deceased. Although i hope a miracle occurs like the hudson river pilot proved you can land in water. Just a disaster and very sad.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on June 02, 2009, 05:50:02 AM
Scary stuff as I fly Air france the whole time, might reconsider. Condolenscenes to the families of the deceased. Although i hope a miracle occurs like the hudson river pilot proved you can land in water. Just a disaster and very sad.
Why would you reconsider Air France are one of the safest airlines in the world. Who else would you fly with?
Quote from: DennistheMenace on June 01, 2009, 04:51:54 PM
What are the chances of firstly finding the wreckage and secondly finding the black box which is presumably at the bottom of the sea ? Not good I'd imagine, my worst nightmare.
I heard on the news they will struggle to find the black box but I thought the black box was fire proof, bomb proof ... so surely then it is just a matter of finding the position of where the signal is coming from to find the box?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/black-box8.htm
Quote from: Gnevin on June 02, 2009, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on June 02, 2009, 05:50:02 AM
Scary stuff as I fly Air france the whole time, might reconsider. Condolenscenes to the families of the deceased. Although i hope a miracle occurs like the hudson river pilot proved you can land in water. Just a disaster and very sad.
Why would you reconsider Air France are one of the safest airlines in the world. Who else would you fly with?
This is the first of this type of airbus to crash from what there saying, and of course the articles mentioned other AF planes have had crashed so I might get Eithad, or Qatar airlines instead but either way when your time is up theres not much you can do, I guess i'll have less of fear factor flying with airlines that havent crashed.
Quote from: Maiden1 on June 02, 2009, 10:14:25 AM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on June 01, 2009, 04:51:54 PM
What are the chances of firstly finding the wreckage and secondly finding the black box which is presumably at the bottom of the sea ? Not good I'd imagine, my worst nightmare.
I heard on the news they will struggle to find the black box but I thought the black box was fire proof, bomb proof ... so surely then it is just a matter of finding the position of where the signal is coming from to find the box?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/black-box8.htm
If they could find the position of the signal Im assuming they could find the plane immediately ???
What is the story with the black box
They're seeking help from the Americans who have spy satellites, listening devices etc etc in an attempt to locate the plane - the ocean is 10,000 feet deep out there.
Eithne's family pays tribute to 'extraordinary' daughterview list
02/06/09
The family of one of three young Irish women onboard the Air France airliner that vanished over the Atlantic Ocean spoke today of their heartbreak at the loss of their daughter.
Eithne Walls, 28, from Ballygowan, Co Down and her friends Aisling Butler, of Roscrea, Co Tipperary and Jane Deasy of Dublin, also aged in their 20s, were returning from holiday in Brazil.
The young women were forging careers as doctors and today Dr Walls' parents Raymond and Mary paid tribute to their daughter, a talented Irish dancer who performed on Broadway with the world famous Riverdance troupe.
"It is with the heaviest and saddest of hearts that the Walls family confirm the loss of their dearest daughter and sister, Eithne," the Walls family said.
"Eithne was an extraordinary person who brought light to the lives of everyone she touched.
"She was beautiful in every way, especially of spirit. She had a passion for life that permeated, enlivened and enriched those around her.
"We feel privileged to have shared her too short life, and the countless memories of her will stay with us forever."
In a statement issued this morning, they added: "Eithne, we will miss your easy smile. We will miss your loving embrace.
"We will miss your happy hello. We will miss your dancing feet.
"We will miss your silliness, your wit and your hugs. We will always hold you in our hearts and you are never truly gone."
The three women had been holidaying in Brazil with other friends who graduated with them from Trinity College Dublin two years ago.
They were on the Air France Airbus A330 flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.
The search for evidence of what happened to the stricken plane is continuing today, while the airline has also confirmed five Britons were onboard.
Dr Walls worked in Dublin's Eye and Ear Hospital.
A talented Irish dancer she had won medals nationally and internationally before joining Riverdance in 2000.
She performed on Broadway with the hit show for a year before she began her medical studies at Trinity.
Despite the pressures of her academic work she continued to perform and danced with Riverdance in China, Qatar, Germany and France, as well as in Dublin when the dancers played the city's Gaiety theatre.
Today her family appealed for privacy as they come to terms with their loss.
Her parents and siblings, Kathryn, Raymond and Gerard, said Dr Walls had great hopes for her future.
"She had many hopes for her life, and was looking forward to the exciting journey to fulfilling her childhood dream of becoming an eye surgeon," they said.
"At university she made many life-long friends with whom she shared the trials and tribulations of university life and on this last holiday we know she was delighted to have been reunited with so many of them.
"Her friends will, we hope, remember their special time together with fondness and joy, despite its tragic end.
"Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of her dearest friends Jane and Aisling who are suffering this same inconsolable loss.
"Many people have known Eithne through Irish dancing, a passion she had continued throughout her studies and into her professional life.
"We have been overwhelmed by the messages of support from so many family and friends in our community and throughout the world."
Appealing for privacy, their statement added that they did not want to speak to the media.
"The family is in severe shock and they do not want anyone calling to the family home or at the home/work of Eithne's relatives.
"They would like to thank the media for respecting their wishes and understand that Eithne is in people's thoughts and prayers."
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2009, 05:58:18 PM
Quote from: 118cmal on June 01, 2009, 03:17:20 PM
They reckon it had to have been hit by lightning. Could take them days to find it. Scary stuff!
747 hit by lightning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IRfbC0RHsY)
I'm surprised noone has mentioned the B word yet.
Bomb.
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Where's Aerlik? He's good at giving possible reasons as to why and how these air disasters happen.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
Because terrorism doesn't first cause a electrical fault .
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
There was an automated message sent when the plane was lost from the radar, there was no mayday from the pilots. Something happened to knock it out of the sky pretty quick. Even if all the engines failed the plane would have kept gliding for 1/2 an hour with plenty of time for the pilots to send out a mayday signal.
Quote from: Maiden1 on June 02, 2009, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
There was an automated message sent when the plane was lost from the radar, there was no mayday from the pilots. Something happened to knock it out of the sky pretty quick. Even if all the engines failed the plane would have kept gliding for 1/2 an hour with plenty of time for the pilots to send out a mayday signal.
The thoughts that would have been running through the passengers' minds as she was literally falling out of the sky.
Horrific.
Sympathy to their families.
Brazilian aircraft searching for an Air France jet which went missing with 228 people aboard in an Atlantic storm have spotted debris on the ocean.
"Small remains" were located 650km (400 miles) north-east of Brazil's Fernando do Noronha island, the Brazilian air force said.
It could not be immediately confirmed that the debris came from the Airbus.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
The media are reporting the electrical fault message as being significant. That is not necessarily the case. A circuit breaker tripping would cause a message like that to be sent automatically but wouldn't necessarily cause difficulties for the aircraft.
No one is in a position to rule out any possibility until they they get the black box or the wreckage.
They rule out hi-jacking and bombs routinely nowadays to stop panic but they can't possibly be sure at the moment.
There is an ELT with the black box which means locating it won't be particularly difficult, it is the logistics of going to the bottom of the Atlantic to get it that is the problem.
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2009, 01:55:31 PM
There is an ELT with the black box which means locating it won't be particularly difficult, it is the logistics of going to the bottom of the Atlantic to get it that is the problem.
Why dont the know where it is now then? (for example, it is 10,00 ft at the bottom of the Ocean, but at least they would know it is in the Ocean)
Maybe Im a bit gormless here, but I thought something would transmit a signal regardless of where the plane is ???
Quote from: full back on June 02, 2009, 02:05:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2009, 01:55:31 PM
There is an ELT with the black box which means locating it won't be particularly difficult, it is the logistics of going to the bottom of the Atlantic to get it that is the problem.
Why dont the know where it is now then? (for example, it is 10,00 ft at the bottom of the Ocean, but at least they would know it is in the Ocean)
Maybe Im a bit gormless here, but I thought something would transmit a signal regardless of where the plane is ???
The ELT (http://www.avionix.com/store/elt.html) transmits a signal.
How specific is the signal that is transmitted?
Quote from: full back on June 02, 2009, 02:15:14 PM
How specific is the signal that is transmitted?
It is purely a locating device.
French Defence Minister Herve Morin has stressed there is still "no evidence whatsoever" as to the cause of the plane's loss
"We cannot, by definition, exclude a terrorist attack, because terrorism is the main threat for all Western democracies," he added
Given that a lot of the earth, most of it is water, why have such a device if it can't be recovered.
I think they've found the crash area now.
"terrorism was ruled out almost immediately". Hold on a second they don't have a clue yet. The airline industry will always play games like this until they are forced to admit what the real cause was. Storms do not make planes crash on their own, something else has to go wrong, human error, a technical fault, a combination of both or a bomb.
"The family has asked for privacy" ok a start would be not writing poems publicising your daughters death and releasing it to the press. You will be left alone as long as you do not court publicity, you have nothing really to add to the story.
Quote from: orangeman on June 02, 2009, 01:39:05 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on June 02, 2009, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
There was an automated message sent when the plane was lost from the radar, there was no mayday from the pilots. Something happened to knock it out of the sky pretty quick. Even if all the engines failed the plane would have kept gliding for 1/2 an hour with plenty of time for the pilots to send out a mayday signal.
The thoughts that would have been running through the passengers' minds as she was literally falling out of the sky.
Horrific.
Sympathy to their families.
Quick death, a great way to go imho. The tragedy is that they were so young.
Quote from: Capt Pat on June 02, 2009, 03:50:01 PM
"terrorism was ruled out almost immediately". Hold on a second they don't have a clue yet. The airline industry will always play games like this until they are forced to admit what the real cause was. Storms do not make planes crash on their own, something else has to go wrong, human error, a technical fault, a combination of both or a bomb.
"The family has asked for privacy" ok a start would be not writing poems publicising your daughters death and releasing it to the press. You will be left alone as long as you do not court publicity, you have nothing really to add to the story.
Catch yourself on this is not a lottery winner asking for privacy FFS. The family have a right to do what they want if it helps them deal with the loss of a daughter and sister.
Quote from: Capt Pat on June 02, 2009, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 02, 2009, 01:39:05 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on June 02, 2009, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
There was an automated message sent when the plane was lost from the radar, there was no mayday from the pilots. Something happened to knock it out of the sky pretty quick. Even if all the engines failed the plane would have kept gliding for 1/2 an hour with plenty of time for the pilots to send out a mayday signal.
The thoughts that would have been running through the passengers' minds as she was literally falling out of the sky.
Horrific.
Sympathy to their families.
Quick death, a great way to go imho. The tragedy is that they were so young.
How long would it take to fall 30,000 feet ?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on June 02, 2009, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2009, 01:55:31 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
The media are reporting the electrical fault message as being significant. That is not necessarily the case. A circuit breaker tripping would cause a message like that to be sent automatically but wouldn't necessarily cause difficulties for the aircraft.
No one is in a position to rule out any possibility until they they get the black box or the wreckage.
They rule out hi-jacking and bombs routinely nowadays to stop panic but they can't possibly be sure at the moment.
There is an ELT with the black box which means locating it won't be particularly difficult, it is the logistics of going to the bottom of the Atlantic to get it that is the problem.
I stand corrected to be wrong, but I would think that if the black box is lying in the bottom of the ocean, finding such a beacon in the VHF/UHF range will be impossible due to the conductive nature of sea water. Has there been any recorded successful attempts of a black box being recovered in the ocean bed outside shallow waters?
It should have an Underwater device.
Air India flight 182 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182) which crashed in 1985 was in 2000 meters deep water and the Black Boxes were recovered.
Quote from: orangeman on June 02, 2009, 03:56:07 PM
Quote from: Capt Pat on June 02, 2009, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 02, 2009, 01:39:05 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on June 02, 2009, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
There was an automated message sent when the plane was lost from the radar, there was no mayday from the pilots. Something happened to knock it out of the sky pretty quick. Even if all the engines failed the plane would have kept gliding for 1/2 an hour with plenty of time for the pilots to send out a mayday signal.
The thoughts that would have been running through the passengers' minds as she was literally falling out of the sky.
Horrific.
Sympathy to their families.
Quick death, a great way to go imho. The tragedy is that they were so young.
How long would it take to fall 30,000 feet ?
How long does it take to die from cancer or heart disease?
Capt Pat... I'd say after redaing your 'input' on several threats your demise will be swift.
My advice to follow boarders... just ignore everything.
Quote from: Capt Pat on June 02, 2009, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 02, 2009, 03:56:07 PM
Quote from: Capt Pat on June 02, 2009, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 02, 2009, 01:39:05 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on June 02, 2009, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: passedit on June 02, 2009, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 02, 2009, 12:35:24 PM
Terrorism was ruled out almost immediately, terrible wait for the families now.
Why? Because they have conclusive proof it wasn't or so as not to scare the horses?
I thought the fact that there was a message sent from the plane on more than one occasion would mean that it was hardly a bomb.
There was an automated message sent when the plane was lost from the radar, there was no mayday from the pilots. Something happened to knock it out of the sky pretty quick. Even if all the engines failed the plane would have kept gliding for 1/2 an hour with plenty of time for the pilots to send out a mayday signal.
The thoughts that would have been running through the passengers' minds as she was literally falling out of the sky.
Horrific.
Sympathy to their families.
Quick death, a great way to go imho. The tragedy is that they were so young.
How long would it take to fall 30,000 feet ?
How long does it take to die from cancer or heart disease?
Would have passed out long before they hit the water. Terrible time for families though, wondering what happened...
Say it wasn't a bomb or terrorist attack, would these planes not glide even without any power for at least a short duration of time ?
Shocking tragedy altogether.
For the sake of the airline involved, the industry and most importantly the families, hopefully they'll find out what happened.
Did anyone else hear the head of the Irish pilot association or whatever it's called on Radio Ulster this morning?
He found it difficult to believe that it was lightening or turbulence.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on June 02, 2009, 04:10:41 PM
Say it wasn't a bomb or terrorist attack, would these planes not glide even without any power for at least a short duration of time ?
As a rule of thumb they will glide for 3 times (in nautical miles) their altitude (in thousands of feet). So an aircraft at 35,000 feet will glide 35 x 3 = 105 nautical miles.
There are a few questions that need to be asked.
* We there any aircraft within VHF range that would have been able to hear any emergency broadcast? The North Atlantic is sufficiently busy to ensure someone would hear such a message but what about the South Atlantic? If the answer is no then we can't derive any conclusion from the apparent lack of a broadcast.
* Are Air France A330s equipped with SatCom or similar devices? This would allow them to communicate regardless of location.
Edit BBC news reporting two items of debris found 60 KM apart. That suggests it may have broken up in the air.
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2009, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on June 02, 2009, 04:10:41 PM
Say it wasn't a bomb or terrorist attack, would these planes not glide even without any power for at least a short duration of time ?
As a rule of thumb they will glide for 3 times (in nautical miles) their altitude (in thousands of feet). So an aircraft at 35,000 feet will glide 35 x 3 = 105 nautical miles.
There are a few questions that need to be asked.
* We there any aircraft within VHF range that would have been able to hear any emergency broadcast? The North Atlantic is sufficiently busy to ensure someone would hear such a message but what about the South Atlantic? If the answer is no then we can't derive any conclusion from the apparent lack of a broadcast.
* Are Air France A330s equipped with SatCom or similar devices? This would allow them to communicate regardless of location.
Edit BBC news reporting two items of debris found 60 KM apart. That suggests it may have broken up in the air.
60KM apart ? The scale is massive.
The distance does suggest the plane broke in air, a smallish explosion could explain this and would result in a depressurized cabin I presume.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on June 02, 2009, 04:39:13 PM
The distance does suggest the plane broke in air, a smallish explosion could explain this and would result in a depressurized cabin I presume.
Terrorism ???
Quote from: orangeman on June 02, 2009, 04:41:25 PM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on June 02, 2009, 04:39:13 PM
The distance does suggest the plane broke in air, a smallish explosion could explain this and would result in a depressurized cabin I presume.
Terrorism ???
There are other possibilities such as what happened the
TWA 800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800) but that would be the obvious one.
Quote from: orangeman on June 02, 2009, 04:41:25 PM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on June 02, 2009, 04:39:13 PM
The distance does suggest the plane broke in air, a smallish explosion could explain this and would result in a depressurized cabin I presume.
Terrorism ???
Surely though if it was a bomb then someone would have took responsibility by now ? Why bomb a plane and tell no one you did it ? I doubt it personally.
One of the girls lived a couple of miles up the road from me. Whatever happened, I hope it was over before they knew it. RIP
Where's Aerlik when you need him.
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on June 02, 2009, 04:50:24 PM
Where's Aerlik when you need him.
For more speculation?
Surely if the plane glided for a period of time as someone said or even just dropped from the sky straight down then surely one of the passengers would have had time to use a mobile to ring/text someone,the fact that all communication was lost makes me think it had to be blown up mid air,this might not have been a bomb though it could have been a electrical fault that started a fire or something to that effect
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on June 02, 2009, 08:02:49 PM
Surely if the plane glided for a period of time as someone said or even just dropped from the sky straight down then surely one of the passengers would have had time to use a mobile to ring/text someone,the fact that all communication was lost makes me think it had to be blown up mid air,this might not have been a bomb though it could have been a electrical fault that started a fire or something to that effect
Mobile phones don't normally work in either in the mid Atlantic or at high altitude. There is no signal in either place (usually).
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2009, 08:37:25 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on June 02, 2009, 08:02:49 PM
Surely if the plane glided for a period of time as someone said or even just dropped from the sky straight down then surely one of the passengers would have had time to use a mobile to ring/text someone,the fact that all communication was lost makes me think it had to be blown up mid air,this might not have been a bomb though it could have been a electrical fault that started a fire or something to that effect
Mobile phones don't normally work in either in the mid Atlantic or at high altitude. There is no signal in either place (usually).
I wondered who'd be first to mention it.
CNN reporting that there was fire spotted near the debris.
Terrible tragedy!
Quote from: Treasurer on June 02, 2009, 04:48:11 PM
One of the girls lived a couple of miles up the road from me. Whatever happened, I hope it was over before they knew it. RIP
Did you know her ???
Quote from: Carmen Stateside on June 02, 2009, 09:08:20 PM
CNN reporting that there was fire spotted near the debris.
Terrible tragedy!
When ?
Brazil air force had reported seeing fire in area. They havent said anything more only that the debris may have moved quite a bit since plane went down.
30 days to find the black box!
Quote from: hardstation on June 02, 2009, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Carmen Stateside on June 02, 2009, 10:10:54 PM
Brazil air force had reported seeing fire in area. They havent said anything more only that the debris may have moved quite a bit since plane went down.
30 days to find the black box!
That sounds like a porn documentary involving illdecide.
You have a good name for porn.
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on June 02, 2009, 09:18:40 PM
Quote from: Treasurer on June 02, 2009, 04:48:11 PM
One of the girls lived a couple of miles up the road from me. Whatever happened, I hope it was over before they knew it. RIP
Did you know her ???
Just to see.
Another sad for our industry.
I have held back giving my opinions but just this morning I was watching France 2 news on SBS television (I knew a degree in French would come in handy one day) and the head of the French investigation team was interviewed. He was at pains to stress that the team was not ruling out any scenario but was quick to play down the suggestion of "a bomb", rather he calmly but sternly stressed that all eventualities were being investigated.
In 1996, immediately after the loss of the TWA 800 aircraft, a FBI "spokesman" came on TV roaring to the heavens that they knew it was a terrorist attack and that they knew the perpetrators and that in due course they would be going to get them. I remember thinking as he was ganching on, that it was way too early to speculate what exactly happened. As time would prove, it wasn't a bomb but in fact a technical error. That is why we are not hearing shouts of "bomb". Perhaps the French have learned from the yanks' error. I think we can rule out the Russians this time, as per KAL007 in 1983.
I'm not sure what to think but the sudden loss of communication suggests a catastrophic event. I'm not sure what the range of the Brazilian airspace over those Atlantic waters is so I cannot speculate if aircraft was under radar control. If it was and the aircraft suddenly disappeared from view then there are two scenarios: an explosion or total loss of electric power. Here in Oz, there are large swathes of the continent which do not provide radar coverage for aircraft and so air traffic control depends on radio communication with crews to estimate ETAs at waypoints thus offering separation.
The former could take two forms: a bomb, or a technical fault.
The latter would see the aircraft still controllable for, as Muppet pointed out, approximately 30 minutes, sufficient time for the aircraft to turn back. But it is extremely unlikely to have a 100% loss of electrical power as batteries provide back up for the emergency systems.
My gut feeling is a technical fault leading to an explosion.
One other consideration (although extremely, highly unlikely) is sudden and rapid depressurisation incapacitating the flight crew. At that altitude, the crew would have between eight to twelve seconds to don and activate the oxygen masks before hypoxia rendered them unconscious.
These are just suggestions based on my experience of the industry. Like I said, another sad day.
From Independant.ie
High Altitude Explosion most likely cause :-\
By Henry Samuel in Paris
Thursday June 04 2009
The Air France plane that went missing over the Atlantic this week was likely to have broken up in mid-air, experts said yesterday.
The vast area over which debris has been found suggested there was an explosion while the aircraft was in flight.
Experts said the "wide dispersion of wreckage discovered suggests that the Airbus exploded at high altitude".
Terrorism has not been ruled out but they said the most likely scenario was that the break-up was caused by massive depressurisation inside the plane.
If depressurisation had occurred at high altitude, passengers would have almost certainly fallen unconscious instantly and may have been unaware of their fate.
Quick
Professor Philippe Juvin, of Beaujon hospital, west of Paris, said: "It would have been as quick as the moment when one falls asleep."
Depressurisation can be caused by failure of the pressure control system, reduced cabin air inflow, or structural failure -- such as an open door, a cracked window, or a hole caused by a bomb.
The structure can also disintegrate if the G-forces during a dive are more than the plane can cope with.
Investigators will examine a bomb threat made against a flight from Buenos Aires to Paris just days before Flight 447 disappeared.
One unnamed Air France pilot suggested that a bomb could "very well" be the cause of the crash.
He said: "One can very well imagine that a bomb caused the aircraft's depressurisation and that the plane took time to break up. It could just as well have been a big bomb that blew up the entire plane, which would explain why the aircraft didn't have time to send an alert signal."
Crash investigators said they were "not optimistic" about retrieving the plane's black boxes, despite confirmation that debris spotted 400 miles off Brazil's coast came from the missing plane.
Difficult
Paul-Louis Arslanian, of the French civil aviation ministry, said it would be very difficult to recover the flight data recorders because of the depth of the ocean -- up to 10,000ft -- and its rugged floor.
"The investigation will not be easy ... but we are not giving up," he said.
terrible tragedy for all involved..although reading the post above, i would much rather be knocked unconscious and not know what was happening than to be falling 30,000 feet knowing what was goin to happen..unimaginable terror.
RIP all
Wasnt it Payne Stewart that died on a crash when something similar happened i.e all of the passengers were unconscious before it crashed
A bomb is starting to look plausible now.
Quote from: ONeill on June 04, 2009, 10:41:23 AM
A bomb is starting to look plausible now.
But they're some reports saying the presence of oil on the water indicates there wasn't an explosion as it would have burned off? Interesting reading on Pprune.org but I think the traffic has brought the site down.
i was on a ryanair flight last autumn that was hit by lightning, returned to airport and checked over before departing normally. lots of white faces through the flight.i cannot imagine how that plane was damaged enough to go down, they are monsters of planes and to look at them at the airport is breathtaking.
rip.
Quote from: Treasurer on June 04, 2009, 10:43:25 AM
Quote from: ONeill on June 04, 2009, 10:41:23 AM
A bomb is starting to look plausible now.
But they're some reports saying the presence of oil on the water indicates there wasn't an explosion as it would have burned off? Interesting reading on Pprune.org but I think the traffic has brought the site down.
Not all explosions involve fire, explosive decompression.
Quote from: ONeill on June 04, 2009, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: Treasurer on June 04, 2009, 10:43:25 AM
Quote from: ONeill on June 04, 2009, 10:41:23 AM
A bomb is starting to look plausible now.
But they're some reports saying the presence of oil on the water indicates there wasn't an explosion as it would have burned off? Interesting reading on Pprune.org but I think the traffic has brought the site down.
Not all explosions involve fire, explosive decompression.
Pilots on PPrune seem to think this is the most likely cause...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6430398.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6430398.ece)
Air France pilots battled for 15 minutes to save doomed flight AF 447
Air France pilots battled for up to 15 minutes to save the doomed flight that went missing over the Atlantic this week, electronic messages emitted by the aircraft have revealed.
Air France pilots battled for up to 15 minutes to save the doomed flight that went missing over the Atlantic this week, electronic messages emitted by the aircraft have revealed.
Details have emerged of the moments leading up to the disappearance of flight AF 447 with 228 people on-board, with error messages reportedly suggesting the plane was flying too slowly and that two key computers malfunctioned.
Flight data messages provided by an Air France source show the precise chronology of events of flight AF 447 before it plummeted into the sea 400 miles off Brazil on Monday.
These indicate that the pilot reported hitting tropical turbulence at 3am (BST), shortly before reaching Senegalese airspace. It said the plane had passed through tall, dense cumulonimbus thunderclouds.
At this stage, according to a source close to the investigation cited by Le Monde, the Airbus A330-200's speed was "erroneous" - either too fast or too slow. Each plane has an optimal speed when passing through difficult weather conditions, which for unknown reasons, had not been reached by flight AF 447.
Airbus is expected to issue recommendations today to all operators of the A330 model to maintain appropriate thrust levels to steady the plane's flight path in storms.
At 3.10am, the messages show the pilot was presented with a series of major failures over a four-minute period before catastrophe struck, according to automatic data signals cited by the Sao Paulo newspaper, le Jornal da Tarde.
At this time, the automatic pilot was disconnected – either by the pilot or by the plane's inbuilt security system, which flips to manual after detecting a serious error.
It is unclear whether the pilot wanted to manually change course to avoid a dangerous cloud zone – an extremely difficult manoeuvre at such high altitude.
At the same moment, another message indicates that the "fly-by-wire" electronic flight system which controls the wing and tail flaps shifted to "alternative law" – an emergency backup system engaged after multiple electricity failures. This system enables the plane to continue functioning on minimum energy but reduces flight stability. An alarm would have sounded to alert the cabin crew to this.
Two minutes later, another message indicates that two essential computers providing vital information on altitude, speed and flight direction ceased functioning correctly.
Two new messages at 3.13am report electricity breakdowns in the principal and auxiliary flight computers.
At 3.14am, a final message reads "cabin in vertical speed", suggesting a sudden loss of cabin pressure, either the cause or the consequence of the plane breaking up in mid-air.
Despite the precise details, sources close to the investigation contested the chronology and denied that the two computers providing altitude, speed and directional data malfunctioned.
The suggestion that the pilot gradually lost control of the plane appears to counter reports that the plane exploded in mid-air.
These were lent more weight today after a Spanish pilot in the vicinity at the time reported seeing an "intense white flash".
"Suddenly we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, followed by a downward, vertical trajectory which broke up into six segments," the chief pilot of an Air Comet plane from Lima to Madrid told the Spanish newspaper, El Pais. He has reported his observations to investigators.
Some experts have supported the theory that the plane exploded, given the wide area where debris has been found.
However, Brazil's defence minister, Nelson Jobim, said an explosion was "improbable" given the 13-mile trail of kerosine spotted on the sea. "If we have fuel slicks, it's because it didn't burn," he said.
Paul-Louis Arslanian, the head of the French air accident bureau in charge of the investigation, also said there were other possible reasons for wide debris area, such as high winds and choppy seas.
Yesterday he warned against hasty "speculation" and said that the search would take time.
Four naval vessels and a tanker are in the area around 400 miles off Brazil's northeastern coast. Some 11 spotter planes are searching for more debris, after finding a seat and a 23-foot metal object thought to be part of the fuselage. A French mini-submarine will arrive in the zone next week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5444168/Air-France-pilots-battled-for-15-minutes-to-save-doomed-flight-AF-447.html
Here are two satellite images of the route at the time. They show serious thunderstorm activity on the route and it looks as if the aircraft was in it for at least 150 nm until it disappeared. Aerlik there would be no commercial radar in that part of the world and probably no military either.
The aircraft disappeared at night which is significant because the lightning from that weather, at night, would have been highly visible (out the window literally to the pilots) for hundreds of miles, so in theory they should have seen it coming.
The aircraft radar, if it was working properly, would have shown the green and red bits as seen below. The worst turbulence usually shown as the red bits on the radar (incredibly strong updrafts and downdrafts occurring in quick succession) associated with an equatorial CB (cumulonimbus cloud) that is as big as that would be well capable of bringing down an aircraft in my opinion. Normally the options are to go around it or over it but at that latitude they can reach 60,000 feet so going around it would have been the only option.
I find it interesting that the line they seem to have followed went between two red returns which could indicate that they chose that route. That would appear sensible looking on a small scale but if you look at the bigger scale a weather system 400 miles wide and 100 deep is not somewhere most crews would want to go.
(http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/af447-radarsim.jpg)
(http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/af447-0215-zoom.jpg)
Some of those articles are just embarassing:
QuoteIt is unclear whether the pilot wanted to manually change course to avoid a dangerous cloud zone – an extremely difficult manoeuvre at such high altitude.
Bullshit of the highest order.
QuoteAirbus is expected to issue recommendations today to all operators of the A330 model to maintain appropriate thrust levels to steady the plane's flight path in storms
That is standard procedure for every commercial aircraft with automatic thrust FFS.
What's your view on what happened then Muppet ?
There isn't enough info hence why sensationalism seems to have the same circulation as informed opinion. The only facts are the weather was very bad in the area and the Acars reports which can perform like the telemetry of an F1 car. The messages mention an electrical failure, a pressurization failure and instrument failures. A pressurization failure doesn't necessarily mean it is sudden as the media assume. And even a complete electrical failure should leave enough Istruments to fly safely.
A bomb could certainly cause multiple failures like that. I don't believe lightning would but an equatorial CB could.
There have been the odd structural failure due to difficulties spotting weaknesses in the composite materials used by Airbus. They have happened after a repair procedure didn't pick up further damage.
My gut is with that weather but I hope for the families of the pilots it was a bomb.
Quote from: muppet on June 04, 2009, 11:02:15 PM
The isn't enough info hence why sensationalism seems to have the same circulation as informed opinion. The only facts are the weather was very bad in the area and the Acars reports which can perform like the telemetry of an F1 car. The messages mention an electrical failure, a pressurization failure and instrument failures. A pressurization failure doesn't necessarily mean it is sudden as the media assume. And even a complete electrical failure should leave enough Istruments to fly safely.
A bomb could certainly cause multiple failures like that. I don't believe lightning would but an equatorial CB could.
There has been the odd structural failure due to difficulties spotting weaknesses in the composite materials used by Airbus. They have happened after. A repair procedure didn't pick up further damage.
My gut is with that weather but I hope for the families of the pilots it was a bomb.
Would the pilots not have known that the weather on the radar was so horrendous that they should hsave changed course or is this too simplistic a view ?
Do you pilot yourself ?
It's not too simplistic a view at all. If the radar was working properly it would have shown the weather but the best tool would have been their eyes looking at a storm over half the size of Ireland. The lightning would have been amazing and visable probably a couple of hundred miles before they got there.
Quote from: muppet on June 04, 2009, 11:24:40 PM
It's not too simplistic a view at all. If the radar was working properly it would have shown the weather but the best tool would have been their eyes looking at a storm over half the size of Ireland. The lightning would have been amazing and visable probably a couple of hundred miles before they got there.
Ok - so why did they fly into it then ?.
Apparently these planes are tested thouroughly in the worst of weather conditions. I've heard that the wings go right up during testing till you think they're going to break off.
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2009, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 04, 2009, 11:02:15 PM
The isn't enough info hence why sensationalism seems to have the same circulation as informed opinion. The only facts are the weather was very bad in the area and the Acars reports which can perform like the telemetry of an F1 car. The messages mention an electrical failure, a pressurization failure and instrument failures. A pressurization failure doesn't necessarily mean it is sudden as the media assume. And even a complete electrical failure should leave enough Istruments to fly safely.
A bomb could certainly cause multiple failures like that. I don't believe lightning would but an equatorial CB could.
There has been the odd structural failure due to difficulties spotting weaknesses in the composite materials used by Airbus. They have happened after. A repair procedure didn't pick up further damage.
My gut is with that weather but I hope for the families of the pilots it was a bomb.
Would the pilots not have known that the weather on the radar was so horrendous that they should hsave changed course or is this too simplistic a view ?
Do you pilot yourself ?
Do you? You know a lot about the big steel burds for a westie ;)
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 04, 2009, 11:35:11 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2009, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 04, 2009, 11:02:15 PM
The isn't enough info hence why sensationalism seems to have the same circulation as informed opinion. The only facts are the weather was very bad in the area and the Acars reports which can perform like the telemetry of an F1 car. The messages mention an electrical failure, a pressurization failure and instrument failures. A pressurization failure doesn't necessarily mean it is sudden as the media assume. And even a complete electrical failure should leave enough Istruments to fly safely.
A bomb could certainly cause multiple failures like that. I don't believe lightning would but an equatorial CB could.
There has been the odd structural failure due to difficulties spotting weaknesses in the composite materials used by Airbus. They have happened after. A repair procedure didn't pick up further damage.
My gut is with that weather but I hope for the families of the pilots it was a bomb.
Would the pilots not have known that the weather on the radar was so horrendous that they should hsave changed course or is this too simplistic a view ?
Do you pilot yourself ?
Do you? ( simply through extensive researching of such incidents you would love us all to believe) ;) that you know a lot about the big steel burds for a westie ;)
;D
On a more serious note, I'd say it was unfortunately like most airline disasters, a combination of catastrophic events
(with the exception of a bomb of course) with a structural failure ultimately taking it out of the sky.
Heard on the local news here this morning that an Air France plane the day before leaving out of Venezuela had to be searched for a bomb
after receiving a threat ???.... the 12 mile long oil slick kinda knocks that theory on the head in this instance though.
I've a feeling we'll never know for sure as I can't see the boxes being found :-\
Quote from: Tyrones own on June 05, 2009, 01:31:13 AM
On a more serious note, I'd say it was unfortunately like most airline disasters, a combination of catastrophic events
(with the exception of a bomb of course) with a structural failure ultimately taking it out of the sky.
Excluding bombs, most (i.e. more than 50%) catastrophic airline events are pilot error
According to the news this morning, debris found in the sea is not from the missing plane. The oil slick could well be from a ship also, so its back to square one again it seems.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 05, 2009, 08:50:19 AM
According to the news this morning, debris found in the sea is not from the missing plane. The oil slick could well be from a ship also, so its back to square one again it seems.
Jesus I hope they get some answers qucikly - do the submarines not stand a good chance of picking the boxes signals up ?.
Quote from: Tyrones own on June 05, 2009, 01:31:13 AM
the 12 mile long oil slick kinda knocks that theory on the head in this instance though.
It doesn't. If there was a bomb there does not necessarily have to be fire.
4 days and they can't find the plane ? Madness considering the technoligical advances made.
The making of these sensational claims that they found debri is shocking to the families concerned.
Some reports are saying that the first lot of debris spotted in the water probably IS from the plane but none of that has been recovered yet.
Quote from: ONeill on June 05, 2009, 10:35:29 AM
Quote from: Tyrones own on June 05, 2009, 01:31:13 AM
the 12 mile long oil slick kinda knocks that theory on the head in this instance though.
It doesn't. If there was a bomb there does not necessarily have to be fire.
True but what are the odds.....
This seems to be a credible analysis of the weather that was on the route that the Air France flew into. It is quite scientific in nature so if, like me, you don't have a degree in meteorology a lot of it will go over your head. But it is very interesting without ever being sensationalist. It is where I got the charts I posted earlier.
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ (http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/)
There could be a number of reasons why they flew into that weather but none would seem logical to us after the event. The A330 has two engines and is limited by what is called ETOPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS). Looking at the chart it seems simple to say they should have planned a route further west and pass to the northwest of the weather but the ETOPS restrictions (needing to stay within 180 minutes of an airport) may have forced them to use that route. (Note this is my own speculation and it should be treated as such, I have no evidence to support this this).
This chart from the above site is very interesting:
(http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/af447-profile.jpg)
As they approached the first storm they may not have seen the second much bigger one on the radar. This is a phenomenon of aircraft weather radars that basically when it shows you a storm you can't rely on the information it gives 'behind' the storm. No one knows yet if they manoeuvred around the first one or flew straight through it but either way the second storm system might have be thrust upon them fairly quickly. They might not have had any idea of the extent of it until they had passed the first one. In that case it is a choice of using the radar to pick a route through the weather that shows the least 'returns' or else going around it. It may have seemed too late at that stage to go around it.
Quote from: Tyrones own on June 05, 2009, 02:12:07 PM
Quote from: ONeill on June 05, 2009, 10:35:29 AM
Quote from: Tyrones own on June 05, 2009, 01:31:13 AM
the 12 mile long oil slick kinda knocks that theory on the head in this instance though.
It doesn't. If there was a bomb there does not necessarily have to be fire.
True but what are the odds.....
Fairly high. Decompressed explosions, maybe caused by a small device in the holdage, can cause metal fatigue that'll lead to a break up of the plane.
I personally believe it was some sort of metal fatigue due to negligence.
Quote from: hardstation on June 06, 2009, 12:52:21 AM
Or, some blade forgot to take the tinfoil off the dinners before sticking 12 of them in the microwave at one time.
That explains the lightning but what about the thunder?
Mutterings at this early stage seem to be leaning towards the desired speed at which to punch through such a storm...
..too fast can cause structural failure while too slow causing a stall, either is plausible at this point.
I read there that Airbus had made recommendations on the A330 as far back as a year ago regarding air speed sensors.
Could Ice have been a factor with excessive moisture in the air at - 43 degrees?
Two male bodies and some debris found.
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2009, 11:27:25 PM
Apparently these planes are tested thouroughly in the worst of weather conditions. I've heard that the wings go right up during testing till you think they're going to break off.
It's unreal how they are tested.
Somehow it is human error more than likely. Be it an engineer on the ground not checking or a pilot error.
Barring a bomb there isnt much else that would take a plane down without the intervention of someone neglegence. I supose that means they don't go down unless someone interfeers.
Quote from: down6061689194 on June 06, 2009, 07:05:50 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2009, 11:27:25 PM
Apparently these planes are tested thouroughly in the worst of weather conditions. I've heard that the wings go right up during testing till you think they're going to break off.
It's unreal how they are tested.
Somehow it is human error more than likely. Be it an engineer on the ground not checking or a pilot error.
Barring a bomb there isnt much else that would take a plane down without the intervention of someone neglegence. I supose that means they don't go down unless someone interfeers.
That's a bit harsh if not naive.... so in your eyes there's no chance for instance lightning taking out a couple of the computers then while the engineer
attempts a reboot the pilot is getting faulty Speed readings causing him to make adjustments as per information he's receiving from a faulty or iced
up speed sensor, ultimately leading to a structural failure while all the time not really feeling the need for a mayday call as he possibly thought
everything was under control trusting in his instruments ??? Don't know what else could explain no emergency call to ATC
TO no engineer on an A330 crew. But I think what you suggest is on the right track. No commercial aircraft is certified to fly for long in severe icing conditions. Minus 40 celcius is very cold for air to hold any moisture but in a thunderstorm a powerful updraft can bring up warmer air containing supercooled water still in liquid state. This would freeze instantly on touching any unheated exterior part of an aircraft. On it's own this still wouldn't be a huge deal but if they were in severe turbulance also then who knows?
Quote from: muppet on June 07, 2009, 12:43:52 AM
TO no engineer on an A330 crew. But I think what you suggest is on the right track. No commercial aircraft is certified to fly for long in severe icing conditions. Minus 40 celcius is very cold for air to hold any moisture but in a thunderstorm a powerful updraft can bring up warmer air containing supercooled water still in liquid state. This would freeze instantly on touching any unheated exterior part of an aircraft. On it's own this still wouldn't be a huge deal but if they were in severe turbulance also then who knows?
Early reports I read mentioned a flight engineer being in the cockpit but I checked again there when I read this and I see
it's been changed now to a captain and
two co-pilots.... :-\
I do still think ice will come to have played a part in this though.
Quote from: Tyrones own on June 07, 2009, 01:01:14 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 07, 2009, 12:43:52 AM
TO no engineer on an A330 crew. But I think what you suggest is on the right track. No commercial aircraft is certified to fly for long in severe icing conditions. Minus 40 celcius is very cold for air to hold any moisture but in a thunderstorm a powerful updraft can bring up warmer air containing supercooled water still in liquid state. This would freeze instantly on touching any unheated exterior part of an aircraft. On it's own this still wouldn't be a huge deal but if they were in severe turbulance also then who knows?
Early reports I read mentioned a flight engineer being in the cockpit but I checked again there when I read this and I see
it's been changed now to a captain and two co-pilots.... :-\
I do still think ice will come to have played a part in this though.
Air France are pushing ahead with the immediate retrofit of the pitot tubes so maybe they think also that ice caused a discrepancy in the air speed readings. Nothing will be conclusive though until they get the recorders.
Quote from: Tyrones own on June 07, 2009, 01:01:14 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 07, 2009, 12:43:52 AM
TO no engineer on an A330 crew. But I think what you suggest is on the right track. No commercial aircraft is certified to fly for long in severe icing conditions. Minus 40 celcius is very cold for air to hold any moisture but in a thunderstorm a powerful updraft can bring up warmer air containing supercooled water still in liquid state. This would freeze instantly on touching any unheated exterior part of an aircraft. On it's own this still wouldn't be a huge deal but if they were in severe turbulance also then who knows?
Early reports I read mentioned a flight engineer being in the cockpit but I checked again there when I read this and I see
it's been changed now to a captain and two co-pilots.... :-\
I do still think ice will come to have played a part in this though.
Three man crew for a trip that length. Each man gets a break in the cruise hence 1 Captain 2 co-pilots. At least one of the co-pilots would be qualified as a cruise Captain.
OK but the :-\ was regarding a change to the initial report I had read mentioning a flight engineer being on board
Quote from: Tyrones own on June 07, 2009, 04:58:22 PM
OK but the :-\ was regarding a change to the initial report I had read mentioning a flight engineer being on board
Lazy journalism I'd say.
I see they've hauled another 3 bodies from the water and think they've spotted more :(
At least if nothing else it will bring some closure for those families involved.
Would these bodies not usually sink? They must have had life jackets or some type of flotation devices on.
No they'll float for quite a while with the build up of gas as the body breaks down.
I'm sure most corpses will float for a period of time before sinking, the bodies are completely relaxed and the gases giving off by decompisition help it stay afloat.
Fair enough, my knowledge of it wouldn't go much further than Leo Di Caprio and Titanic :-[
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/07/brazil.plane.crash/index.html?eref=rss_topstories (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/07/brazil.plane.crash/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
Quote from: Carmen Stateside on June 08, 2009, 12:59:18 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/07/brazil.plane.crash/index.html?eref=rss_topstories (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/07/brazil.plane.crash/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
From that report :
Investigators also reported the airline failed to replace a part on the aircraft, as recommended by the manufacturer, Airbus.Airbus had advised airlines to update equipment that monitors speed, known as Pitot tubes. The recommendation was a result of technological developments and improvements, an Airbus spokesman told CNN. The change was not mandatory, and the spokesman would not comment on Air France's failure to follow the advice.
I believe that recommendation was issued in 2002. That particular aircraft may have been constructed as late as 2005 (according to Pprune). If that were true then Airbus would also have failed to follow it's own recommendation.
This could turn into a nightmare for the French Government with Airbus going to war against Air France.
All three would probably like to see a 'Pilot error' finding.
Quote from: muppet on June 08, 2009, 11:19:50 AM
I believe that recommendation was issued in 2002. That particular aircraft may have been constructed as late as 2005 (according to Pprune). If that were true then Airbus would also have failed to follow it's own recommendation.
This could turn into a nightmare for the French Government with Airbus going to war against Air France.
All three would probably like to see a 'Pilot error' finding.
That's guaranteed at this stage - even if they found traces of explosives they'd say it came from the second world war !!
Air France terror link
Two passengers on board the doomed flight had names that appeared on a classified list of radical Muslims
By Jonathan HarwoodFIRST POSTED JUNE 10, 2009The names of two passengers on the doomed Air France flight AF447 which crashed into the Atlantic last week appeared on classified French documents listing radical Muslims considered to be a threat, raising the spectre that terrorists may have been involved in the disaster that killed 228 people.
The discovery was made by a team from the Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE) - the French equivalent of MI6 - sent to South America to go through the list of those who boarded the Airbus 330 in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday, May 31.
Agents are trying to establish dates of birth and family connections of the two passengers to see if they are the same people listed in the documents. A security service source told the French media that while there was a possibility the name similarities were a "macabre coincidence",
they were being "taken very seriously".
Despite the finding, Air France maintains that "all the indications" are that the Airbus suffered some kind of catastrophic equipment failure. Investigators are focusing on the plane's airspeed sensors which were giving faulty readings, according to automatic data alerts sent by the plane during its final minutes in the air.
A total of 41 bodies have so far been recovered from the crash zone 700 miles off Brazil's north-east coast. The plane's tail fin has also been recovered - an important discovery as it could narrow the underwater search for the 'black box' flight recorders. A French nuclear submarine and a naval vessel containing robot submarines are expected to reach the crash site this week and begin searching the ocean bed for the two recorders.
Meanwhile, a memorial service is to be held at Trinity College, Dublin for the three Irish doctors killed in the crash. Eithne Walls, 28, from Ballygowan, County Down, died along with her friends Aisling Butler, from Roscrea, County Tipperary, and Jane Deasy from Dublin.
There was a mass for Aisling Butler on Tues evening - never saw crowds like it. They were spilling out into the yard a good half hour before the Mass started- and it's a very big Church. The Mass ended just after 9 and the crowd queuing to sympathise was still out the door at half 10. RIP
Irony at its worst :-\
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/06/11/w oman-who-missed-air-france-crash-killed-in-car-accident-8690 8-21432567/
Real life Final Destination :o :o
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on June 11, 2009, 03:12:56 PM
Real life Final Destination :o :o
Just what I was thinking Gab
Quote from: full back on June 11, 2009, 03:15:02 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on June 11, 2009, 03:12:56 PM
Real life Final Destination :o :o
Just what I was thinking Gab
the plane in final destination was also supposed to go to paris.
Quote from: muppet on June 06, 2009, 12:12:01 AM
This seems to be a credible analysis of the weather that was on the route that the Air France flew into. It is quite scientific in nature so if, like me, you don't have a degree in meteorology a lot of it will go over your head. But it is very interesting without ever being sensationalist. It is where I got the charts I posted earlier.
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ (http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/)
There could be a number of reasons why they flew into that weather but none would seem logical to us after the event. The A330 has two engines and is limited by what is called ETOPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS). Looking at the chart it seems simple to say they should have planned a route further west and pass to the northwest of the weather but the ETOPS restrictions (needing to stay within 180 minutes of an airport) may have forced them to use that route. (Note this is my own speculation and it should be treated as such, I have no evidence to support this this).
This chart from the above site is very interesting:
(http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/af447-profile.jpg)
As they approached the first storm they may not have seen the second much bigger one on the radar. This is a phenomenon of aircraft weather radars that basically when it shows you a storm you can't rely on the information it gives 'behind' the storm. No one knows yet if they manoeuvred around the first one or flew straight through it but either way the second storm system might have be thrust upon them fairly quickly. They might not have had any idea of the extent of it until they had passed the first one. In that case it is a choice of using the radar to pick a route through the weather that shows the least 'returns' or else going around it. It may have seemed too late at that stage to go around it.
Thanks for the analysis Muppet. I clicked on your ETOPS link and read the following:
In 1988, the FAA amended the ETOPS regulation to allow the extension to a 180-minute diversion period subject to stringent technical and operational qualifications. This made
95% of the Earth's surface available to ETOPS flights.
So it wouldn't seem likely from reading about 95% that any part of the South Atlantic would be outside of a 180 min exclusion zone, map of that should be available though? What about fuel, what is the route length vs. operating range, could this make a diversion less likely. Also I'm not sure about Air France, but I've read about pilots coming under pressure not to avoid turbulence as much anymore due to fuel costs?
tyssam5 Air France has very strong unions. I would be confident that any crew that had to land en route (e.g. in the Canaries) after burning fuel to go around severe weather, would have no problems with their employer.
The ETOPS 5% of the earth mentioned would be in the north and south Pacific, north and south Atlantic and possibly Antarctica (don't know enough about it). Also that article assumes that aircraft are certified for the full 180 minutes. Unserviceable equipment can downgrade the ETOPS certification and if that was the case for the Air France, they could have had to plan a route for e.g. 120 minutes ETOPS.
As I said though that was a suggestion of mine and I still haven't heard any basis to suggest ETOPS might have been a factor.
All the industry talk at the moment is focusing on the pitot probes and the possibility that a fault meant they couldn't cope with severe icing.
Severe icing is just one possible adverse affects of 56,000 foot high CBs (thunderstorms). Why someone would knowingly fly a passenger aircraft into one is beyond me.
Quote from: muppet on June 11, 2009, 06:40:48 PM
Severe icing is just one possible adverse affects of 56,000 foot high CBs (thunderstorms). Why someone would knowingly fly a passenger aircraft into one is beyond me.
Another adverse effect is high likelihood of being smacked with hailstones the size of bowling balls. I had the pleasure of experiencing icing at 9000ft on my way into Perth one night several years ago. Talk about a rapid descent. Luckily I had no pax on board. Just got her down and dealt with ATC afterwards. No problems.
I'm still going on the depressurisation theory leading to pilot incapacitation. (Why were there automatic signals given indicating malfunctions yet no mention of this during any radio contact with ATC, as the pilots would have also been alerted I should imagine?) In turn the plane would not have slowed down as it entered the severe turbulence and the physical parameters of the aircraft exceeded.
Quote from: Aerlik on June 12, 2009, 06:17:35 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 11, 2009, 06:40:48 PM
Severe icing is just one possible adverse affects of 56,000 foot high CBs (thunderstorms). Why someone would knowingly fly a passenger aircraft into one is beyond me.
Another adverse effect is high likelihood of being smacked with hailstones the size of bowling balls. I had the pleasure of experiencing icing at 9000ft on my way into Perth one night several years ago. Talk about a rapid descent. Luckily I had no pax on board. Just got her down and dealt with ATC afterwards. No problems.
I'm still going on the depressurisation theory leading to pilot incapacitation. (Why were there automatic signals given indicating malfunctions yet no mention of this during any radio contact with ATC, as the pilots would have also been alerted I should imagine?) In turn the plane would not have slowed down as it entered the severe turbulence and the physical parameters of the aircraft exceeded.
There was one ACARS message sent manually by the crew reporting turbulence not long before the automatic messages.
Here is a well presented analysis I found online but it comes with the usual disclaimers.
http://luckybogey.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/af-flight-447-we-face-a-puzzle/ (http://luckybogey.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/af-flight-447-we-face-a-puzzle/)
The Three (3) Phases up to the "Event." (See Previous Post)
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 that we discuss it in a systematic manner, such as the division into phases as above. It will make things much easier. 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. This is Phase 2.
We know that pieces of the aircraft/bodies are 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 in comparison 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 auto thrust 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.
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 – 9 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. 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 colors 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.
*** DISCLAIMER: ABOVE IS PERSONAL OPINION/THEORY/CONJECTURE ***
Received this email this morning... first thoughts when reading it I have to say was that the man interviewed
was possibly on Boeings payroll :-\
Interesting none the less!
Air France Accident: Smoking Gun Found
>
>A Brazilian Naval unit reportedly found the complete vertical
>fin/rudder assembly of the doomed aircraft floating some 30 miles
>from the main debris field. The search for the flight recorders goes
>on, but given the failure history of the vertical fins on
>A300-series aircraft, an analysis of its structure at the point of
>failure will likely yield the primary cause factor in the breakup of
>the aircraft, with the flight recorder data (if found) providing
>only secondary contributing phenomena.
>
>The fin-failure-leading-to-breakup sequence is strongly suggested in
>the attached (below) narrative report by George Larson, Editor
>emeritus of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine.
>
>It's regrettable that these aircraft are permitted to continue in
>routi ne flight operations with this known structural defect. It
>appears that safety finishes last within Airbus Industries, behind
>national pride and economics. Hopefully, this accident will force
>the issue to be addressed, requiring at a minimum restricted
>operations of selected platforms, and grounding of some high-time
>aircraft until a re-engineered (strengthened) vertical fin/rudder
>attachment structure can be incorporated.
>
>Les
>
>--------------------------(George Larson's Report)---------------------
>
>This is an account of a discussion I had recently with a maintenance
>professional
>who salvages airliner airframes for a living. He has been at it for
>a while, dba BMI
>Salvage at Opa Locka Airport in Florida. In the process of stripping
>parts, he sees
>things few others are able to see. His observations confirm prior
>assessments of
>Airbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero
>structures communities
>by those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series
>vertical fin failures.
>
>His observations:
>
>"I have scrapped just about every type of transport aircraft from A-310,
>A-320, B-747, 727, 737, 707, DC-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, MD-80, L-188, L1011
>and various Martin, Convair and KC-97 aircraft.
>
>Over a hundred of them.
>
>Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as
>airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite
>materials.
>
>I have one A310 vertical fin on the premises from a demonstration I just
>performed. It was pathetic to see the composite structure shatter as it did,
>something a Boeing product will not do.
>
>The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators is
>the worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I am
>not surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering the
>complete Vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crash
>site.
>
>The Airbus line has a history of both multiple rudder losses and a vertical
>fin and rudder separation from the airframe as was the case in NY with AA.
>
>As an old non-radar equipped DC4 pilot who flew through many a thunderstorm
>in Africa along the equator, I am quite familiar with their
>ferocity. It is not
>difficult to understand how such a storm might have stressed an aircraft
>structure to failure at its weakest point, and especially so in the
>presence of
>instrumentation problems.
>
>I replied with this:
>
>"I'm watching very carefully the orchestration of the inquiry by French
>officials and Airbus. I think I can smell a concerted effort to steer
>discussion away from structural issues and onto sensors, etc. Now Air France, at the behest of th eir pilots' union, is replacing all the air data
>sensors on the Airbus fleet, which creates a distraction and shifts the
>media's focus away from the real problem.
>
>It's difficult to delve into the structural issue without wading into the
>Boeing vs. Airbus swamp, where any observation is instantly tainted by its
>origin. Americans noting any Airbus structural issues (A380 early failure
>of wing in static test; loss of vertical surfaces in Canadian fleet prior to
>AA A300, e.g.) will be attacked by the other side as partisan, biased, etc. "
>
>His follow-up:
>
>One gets a really unique insight into structural issues when one has
>first-hand experience in the dismantling process.
>
>I am an A&P, FEJ and an ATP with 7000 flight hours and I was absolutely
>stunned, flabbergasted when I realized that the majority of internal
>airframe structural supports on the A 310 which appear to be aluminum are actually rolled composite material with aluminum rod ends. They shattered.
>
>Three years ago we had a storm come through, with gusts up to 60-70 kts., catching several A320s tied down on the line, out in the open.
>
>The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had been
>removed shattered and the rudder and elevators came off. ??? (Is that maybe a slight exageration ?)
>
>Upon closer inspection I realized that not only were the rear spars
>compos ite but so were the hinges. While Boeing also uses composite
>material in its airfoil structures, the actual attach fittings for
>the elevators, rudder, vertical and horizontal stabilizers are all of machined aluminum."
The rudder or tailplane problem/separation issue has it's origins funnily enough with unexplained Boeing accidents particularly the B 737. Airbus first fatal accident attributed to was the one in JFK just after 911 and as the Airbus, even though a relatively old aircraft, had more information on it's FDR (flight data recorder) the investigation concluded that it was caused by pilot error after entering wake turbulence.
In addition though it was discovered that ex-US military pilots, in particular, were trained to aggressively use the rudder to recover from upsets. Commercial pilots are trained to use rudder only for engine failures and crosswinds. The aggressive use of rudder, in particular the rapid inputting of successive full opposite (left then right then left etc) rudder known as rudder reversals, will exceed the design limits of commercial aircraft.
Boeing had another issue with a rudder PCU that could freeze in certain situations but they (Boeing that is) still point at pilots exceeding the design limitation as the probable cause of at least a couple of unexplained B737 crashes.
After this finding Boeing re-analysed their unexplained crashed and concluded that the 'military training' was likely to have caused those crashes as they were flown in the States by American crews. Part of the problem is that in particular at American Airlines the military procedure was actually taught to their pilots in error.
The rudder/tailplane separation issue for both Boeing and Airbus was solved (at least until now) once the above finding was released.
Here is the NTSB recommendation letter (http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2002/A02_01_02.pdf) after their report into that accident.
Specifically, the National Transportation Safety Board has learned that many pilot training programs do not include information about the structural certification requirements for the rudder and vertical stabilizer on transport-category airplanes.
Here is Airlinesafety.com (http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm) analysis of the Boeing rudder problems. They have no doubt that the faulty PCU is the source of the problem but the link and the articles on it pre-date the Airbus A300 in JFK when rudder reversals by pilots were an unknown factor.
Back to the AF 447. If they had an upset which was likely reading the ACARS and as they were in a giant CB, if they applied the old aggressive military technique then the rudder or tailplane could have come off. However all commercial crews have been trained to avoid rudder in that scenario and I don't see it happening.
Not so much smoking gun as smoking pot I'd say.
Powerful discussion there lads, way above my head. So it turns out the plane broke up in mid air, to my untrained eyes this means it was a bomb. What else could it have been?
I doubt it was a bomb. If terrorist were involved im sure someone would have claimed it by now and as far as im aware there have been no creditable claims on it. My guess is a series of unlikely faults that snowballed into this tragedy. All of which possibly triggered by a worse than expected storm they couldn't see. (explained by Muppet's diagram above)
Two different newspaper reports today - both carrying basically the same story about autopsy reports confirming no water in lungs, multiple fractures, particularly to legs and hips implying they died in their seats, etc - yet both coming to opposite conclusions. One concluded that the injuries implied they had broken up mid air, the other saying they hit the water pretty much intact.
Quote from: clarshack on June 11, 2009, 03:43:52 PM
Quote from: full back on June 11, 2009, 03:15:02 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on June 11, 2009, 03:12:56 PM
Real life Final Destination :o :o
Just what I was thinking Gab
the plane in final destination was also supposed to go to paris.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8125664.stm
Right enough...what the hell is it about Paris? this one was supposedly a connection from it !
So many unanswered questions. :(
Another airbus down in apparent bad weather.
Quote from: bcarrier on June 30, 2009, 11:42:15 AM
Another airbus down in apparent bad weather.
Serious ? Where ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5693873/Yemenia-Air-plane-crash-150-missing-as-Paris-to-Comoros-islands-flight-crashes-in-Indian-Ocean.html
By Charles Bremner in Paris
Wednesday July 01 2009
A TEENAGE girl has survived the crash of a Yemeni airlines Airbus which hit the Indian Ocean with 153 passengers on board yesterday as it was attempting to land on the Comoros islands.
The girl, aged about 14, was plucked from the water off Moroni, on Grand Comore island, as rescue boats collected bodies in high seas after the second disaster in a month involving an airliner from the Airbus family.
The Yemenia Air flight was an elderly Airbus 310 airliner which was on a flight from Sanaa to Moroni on the final leg of a route from Paris Charles de Gaulle via Marseilles to the Comoros.
At least 66 of the 142 passengers were French. Experts dismissed any link with the crash of Air France Flight 447, a modern Airbus A330 which crashed off Brazil on June 1 killing all 228 aboard. Attention focused on the severe weather at Moroni, an under-equipped airport, and on the shaky record of Yemenia Air.
The pilots were reported to have been making their second attempt at landing at Moroni after aborting a first touch-down in gusty crosswinds of up to 50 mph. Circling back to land while low over the water, the aircraft hit the ocean, according to first reports.
Sergeant Said Abdela, of the Comores armed forces, said that he had helped rescue the girl, who he said was a Comorienne aged about 14. "She is talking. She's OK," he said.
Attacked
The sea was too rough for rescue boats to collect more than a few bodies, he said.
As counsellors comforted relatives at Paris and Marseilles airports, members of the French Comoros community attacked the airline, which is on an official French watch-list after safety breaches. "We were expecting this crash to happen," said a spokesman for the France-Comores association in France.
"There have been times when people have turned up at the airports and seen the conditions of the planes and refused to get on," he said.
Dominique Bussereau, the French Transport Minister, said the Airbus A310 that came down was a 19-year-old aircraft which had been banned from French air space since 2007, after an inspection at Paris airport found that it did not meet safety standards.
The airline used a larger Airbus A330 for the Paris-Sanaa stretch of the flight.
"The plane that was involved today was not allowed into France," said Mr Bussereau.
"The company was not on the blacklist but was subject to stricter checks on our part, and was due to be interviewed shortly by the European Union's safety committee," he said.
News of a second Airbus crash was another blow to the company as it awaits the investigators' report from the Rio-Paris crash. They are expected to outline a sequence of catastrophic failure that began when the airliner ran into icing conditions and lost vital instruments and controls early in the morning of June 1. (©The Times, London)
- Charles Bremner in Paris
QuoteAs counsellors comforted relatives at Paris and Marseilles airports, members of the French Comoros community attacked the airline, which is on an official French watch-list after safety breaches. "We were expecting this crash to happen," said a spokesman for the France-Comores association in France.
"There have been times when people have turned up at the airports and seen the conditions of the planes and refused to get on," he said.
Dominique Bussereau, the French Transport Minister, said the Airbus A310 that came down was a 19-year-old aircraft which had been banned from French air space since 2007, after an inspection at Paris airport found that it did not meet safety standards.
The airline used a larger Airbus A330 for the Paris-Sanaa stretch of the flight.
"The plane that was involved today was not allowed into France," said Mr Bussereau.
"The company was not on the blacklist but was subject to stricter checks on our part, and was due to be interviewed shortly by the European Union's safety committee," he said
That is some statement coming from the French Transport Minister. Nice to a Department of Transport that takes action even some of the time with rogue airlines.
Don't know anything about this one yet but unlike the Air France it appears to fit into the more frequent '2nd or 3rd attempt to land in bad weather' type accident. It seems they have the black box so we should get some info soon.
RIP.
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/remains-of-irish-plane-crash-victim-identified-1800550.html (http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/remains-of-irish-plane-crash-victim-identified-1800550.html)
some closure for one of the families
French: Air France Flight 447 fell intact into sea
LE BOURGET, France (AP) — A French investigator says Air France Flight 447 did not break up in flight but plunged vertically into the Atlantic Ocean.
Alain Bouillard, leading the investigation into the June 1 crash for the French accident investigation agency BEA, also says life vests found among the wreckage of the plane were not inflated.
All 228 people aboard the plane were killed when it plunged into the ocean en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.
Bouillard said at a news conference outside Paris on Thursday that the search for the plane's black boxes has been extended by 10 days and will continue through July 10.
Quote from: Treasurer on July 02, 2009, 02:49:09 PM
French: Air France Flight 447 fell intact into sea
LE BOURGET, France (AP) — A French investigator says Air France Flight 447 did not break up in flight but plunged vertically into the Atlantic Ocean.
Alain Bouillard, leading the investigation into the June 1 crash for the French accident investigation agency BEA, also says life vests found among the wreckage of the plane were not inflated.
All 228 people aboard the plane were killed when it plunged into the ocean en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.
Bouillard said at a news conference outside Paris on Thursday that the search for the plane's black boxes has been extended by 10 days and will continue through July 10.
Seems this was interpreted incorrectly in the haste and that the actual translation was it most likely entered the water belly first.
Copy of the english report here (but apparently it's a lot shorter than the original french version) http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf (http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf)
Thanks Treas that is very informative.
The conclusions for the moment at the end were (the comments in italics are mine and come with the usual caveats):
2. INITIAL FINDINGS
On the basis of the first factual elements gathered in the course of the investigation, the
following facts have been established:
• The crew possessed the licenses and ratings required to undertake the flight,
• The airplane possessed a valid Certificate of Airworthiness, and had been maintained
in accordance with the regulations,
• the airplane had taken off from Rio de Janeiro without any known technical problems,
except on one of the three radio handling panels,
• no problems were indicated by the crew to Air France or during contacts with the Brazilian
controllers,
• no distress messages were received by the control centres or by other airplanes,
• there were no satellite telephone communications between the airplane and the
ground,
• the last radio exchange between the crew and Brazilian ATC occurred at 1 h 35 min
15 s. The airplane arrived at the edge of radar range of the Brazilian control centres,
• at 2 h 01, the crew tried, without success for the third time, to connect to the Dakar
ATC ADS-C system,
• up to the last automatic position point, received at 2 h 10 min 35 s, the flight had followed
the route indicated in the flight plan,
• the meteorological situation was typical of that encountered in the month of June in
the inter-tropical convergence zone,
• there were powerful cumulonimbus clusters on the route of AF447. Some of them
could have been the centre of some notable turbulence, [This is an understatement but understandable due to the media attention]
• several airplanes that were flying before and after AF 447, at about the same altitude,
altered their routes in order to avoid cloud masses, [One of the testimony from other aircraft, another Air France, suggests difficulty seeing the weather both visually and on the radar. Avoiding something you can't see with either of the two tools available is rather difficult. All the others said they went around a major CB, one aircraft went up to 70 miles off course to avoid it. I think there is enough evidence to suggest AF 447 didn't avoid that particular storm, certainly not to the extent that the other aircraft mentioned did.]
• twenty-four automatic maintenance messages were received between 2 h 10 and 2 h
15 via the ACARS system. These messages show inconsistency between the measured
speeds as well as the associated consequences, [ In the less than 5 minutes that these messages were transmitted they would only have travelled a maximum of 40 miles.]
• before 2 h 10, no maintenance messages had been received from AF 447, with the
exception of two messages relating to the configuration of the toilets,
• the operator's and the manufacturer's procedures mention actions to be undertaken
by the crew when they have doubts as to the speed indications,[This is steering towards blaming the crew. The number of alarms and warning messages that would have been going off simultaneously would have made it very difficult to recognise which was the critical failure and therefore what exactly was the correct procedure.]
• the last ACARS message was received towards 2 h 14 min 28 s,
• the flight was not transferred between the Brazilian and Senegalese control centres,
69
• between 8 h and 8 h 30, the first emergency alert messages were sent by the Madrid
and Brest control centres,
• the first bodies and airplane parts were found on 6 June,
• the elements identified came from all areas of the airplane,
• visual examination showed that the airplane was not destroyed in flight ; it appears to
have struck the surface of the sea in a straight line with high vertical acceleration [ I would interpret this the same as Treas, the straight line is from nose to tail. If it went in nose first then they would have referred to it entering at a point, i.e. the nose].
Can't take any credit for the interpretation - just read a longer report quoting Mr Bouillard.
I know nothing about any of this stuff, but if the plane hit the water belly first, wouldn't that suggest they had some control on it at that point?
Quote from: Treasurer on July 02, 2009, 07:28:55 PM
I know nothing about any of this stuff, but if the plane hit the water belly first, wouldn't that suggest they had some control on it at that point?
'The more you know, the more you know you don't know' ~ anonymous
As information comes out in bits and pieces it seems to only raise more questions.
They say it hit belly first but they don't know the status of the engines, the wings, controls surfaces, hydraulic systems that move the control surfaces or the computers that send the info (via the infamous fly-by-wire) to the servos etc..
They know the fuselage hit intact and belly first, but that is about all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8151327.stm
Is crashes more common or are they just getting more coverage now?
Quote from: full back on July 15, 2009, 12:47:26 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8151327.stm
Is crashes more common or are they just getting more coverage now?
Starting to think that myself, there seems to be a plane crashing every other week now.
Terrible news.
How many plane crashes has there been in Ireland in recent months. A hell of a lot.
More interesting if not damning news for Airbus to deal with.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200132/LIVE-SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-series-mysterious-Airbus-330-accidents-culminating-tragic-loss-Air-France-Flight-447.html
Quote from: Tyrones own on July 25, 2009, 02:55:18 AM
More interesting if not damning news for Airbus to deal with.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200132/LIVE-SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-series-mysterious-Airbus-330-accidents-culminating-tragic-loss-Air-France-Flight-447.html
A crap article, written by a 2 year old >:(
Thats all I'm saying
Quote from: Tyrones own on July 25, 2009, 02:55:18 AM
More interesting if not damning news for Airbus to deal with.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200132/LIVE-SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-series-mysterious-Airbus-330-accidents-culminating-tragic-loss-Air-France-Flight-447.html
The worst kind of sensationalist crap I've seen in a long time.
The references were 'a musician', a 'retired crash investigator' working for the relatives of the victims (his job is to maximize compensation not to find the cause - no credible investigator would speak like that until the final report is out) and 'an airman' who sounds suspiciously like a typical retired Boeing pilot who has never flown an Airbus.
I don't know anything about this stuff but all I know is that it is scary.
Does the pilot basically just do the take off and landing ????? Auto pilot from then on.
Quote from: orangeman on July 25, 2009, 12:59:52 PM
I don't know anything about this stuff but all I know is that it is scary.
Does the pilot basically just do the take off and landing ????? Auto pilot from then on.
In the same way as your computer posts on this site and you do nothing.
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: orangeman on July 25, 2009, 12:59:52 PM
I don't know anything about this stuff but all I know is that it is scary.
Does the pilot basically just do the take off and landing ????? Auto pilot from then on.
In the same way as your computer posts on this site and you do nothing.
Good enough. Point taken.
There are many myths about Airbus and their computers, a lot of which start in Seattle.
The article says that while cruising an aircraft has a 70 knot speed window (this varies for each aircraft type and with weight, altitude and temperature) within which it must remain. Too fast and you get too close to the speed of sound (bits start breaking off), too slow and there isn't enough air going over the wings to keep flying so you stall and start to fall out of the sky.
This is simple physics and applies to any aircraft.
It is the responsibility of the pilots to ensure that the aircraft flies at a safe speed for the altitude and conditions. While that journalist thinks the pilots are enjoying the scenery they will be constantly (among other things that a Daily Mail hack wouldn't be interested in) assessing their computer calculated cruise speed versus the conditions (e.g. turbulence, unusual temperatures for the altitude etc.) and may override the computer speed. This happens frequently and is perfectly normal.
However if for some reason the aircraft exceeds either the upper or lower speed limit the aircraft computers will automatically take corrective action and this is different from a Boeing. In the event of an overspeed the computer will pull the nose up and in the event of a stall the computer will apply full power and lower the nose. Both of these actions temporarily override any pilot inputs, however these are precisely the actions that the pilots should already have taken for those events.
Muppet - what did / do you make of this bit and the piece in bold in particular ?
The last ECAM warning recorded by the ACARS, at 2.14am, is the most chilling. It simply said, 'ADVISORY CABIN VERTICAL SPEED'. In other words, the plane was heading downwards, with uncontrolled rapidity.
Damage to some of the recovered parts, such as the galley shelves, shows they were compressed by the forces of impact. So were the passengers: according to one source close to the investigation, many of the 51 bodies found to date have broken pelvises, caused by the upward force of their seats on their bones as the plane hit the water.
There was a half-moon, but beneath the 50,000ft-high clouds, it would not have been visible. On the way down, the winds must have been immense. It's likely that, deprived of all means to ascertain their position, the crew flew the plane into the waves of the Atlantic with no idea where they were.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200132/LIVE-SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-series-mysterious-Airbus-330-accidents-culminating-tragic-loss-Air-France-Flight-447.html#ixzz0MH3HJ7Mo
Quote from: orangeman on July 25, 2009, 01:36:26 PM
Muppet - what did / do you make of this bit and the piece in bold in particular ?
The last ECAM warning recorded by the ACARS, at 2.14am, is the most chilling. It simply said, ''. In other words, the plane was heading downwards, with uncontrolled rapidity.
Damage to some of the recovered parts, such as the galley shelves, shows they were compressed by the forces of impact. So were the passengers: according to one source close to the investigation, many of the 51 bodies found to date have broken pelvises, caused by the upward force of their seats on their bones as the plane hit the water.
There was a half-moon, but beneath the 50,000ft-high clouds, it would not have been visible. On the way down, the winds must have been immense. It's likely that, deprived of all means to ascertain their position, the crew flew the plane into the waves of the Atlantic with no idea where they were.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200132/LIVE-SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-series-mysterious-Airbus-330-accidents-culminating-tragic-loss-Air-France-Flight-447.html#ixzz0MH3HJ7Mo
It's like listening to Ger Canning, you can't believe you are watching the same game.
Firstly an 'ADVISORY CABIN VERTICAL SPEED' means that the aircraft is descending faster than the cabin pressure controllers can cope with. Despite how that may sound it is a relatively benign warning that, in normal circumstances, would mean the pilots should simply reduce the rate of descent of the aircraft to allow the cabin time to descend. Failure to do so would, at worst, cause the aircraft to 'catch the cabin' which would pop everyones ears and cause some pain for those with colds and/or sinus problems, but that's all. (catching the cabin means the actual altitude would equal the cabin altitude, normally the aircraft actual altitude is way above the cabin altitude e.g aircraft at 37,000' the cabin might be at 8,000')
In this case it may be a symptom of a greater problem and it may not. The journalist however has decided it is 'the most chilling' warning. This type of warning is very common on some Boeings (737 in particular )and while rare on an Airbus it is usually no big deal when it occurs.
The bit in bold is sensationalise. To suggest 'the crew flew the plane into the water' suggests they had some control. I don't believe they had any control at all otherwise they would have kept the thing up. Even without instruments pilots can keep an aircraft flying simply by setting 'pitch and power' from memory or off a checklist. Doing a landing in such circumstances would be tough but keeping it airborne should be staightforward.
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: orangeman on July 25, 2009, 12:59:52 PM
I don't know anything about this stuff but all I know is that it is scary.
Does the pilot basically just do the take off and landing ????? Auto pilot from then on.
In the same way as your computer posts on this site and you do nothing.
With Orangeman's post count I'd imagine auto pilot is always engaged.
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2009, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: orangeman on July 25, 2009, 01:36:26 PM
Muppet - what did / do you make of this bit and the piece in bold in particular ?
The last ECAM warning recorded by the ACARS, at 2.14am, is the most chilling. It simply said, ''. In other words, the plane was heading downwards, with uncontrolled rapidity.
Damage to some of the recovered parts, such as the galley shelves, shows they were compressed by the forces of impact. So were the passengers: according to one source close to the investigation, many of the 51 bodies found to date have broken pelvises, caused by the upward force of their seats on their bones as the plane hit the water.
There was a half-moon, but beneath the 50,000ft-high clouds, it would not have been visible. On the way down, the winds must have been immense. It's likely that, deprived of all means to ascertain their position, the crew flew the plane into the waves of the Atlantic with no idea where they were.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200132/LIVE-SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-series-mysterious-Airbus-330-accidents-culminating-tragic-loss-Air-France-Flight-447.html#ixzz0MH3HJ7Mo
It's like listening to Ger Canning, you can't believe you are watching the same game.
Firstly an 'ADVISORY CABIN VERTICAL SPEED' means that the aircraft is descending faster than the cabin pressure controllers can cope with. Despite how that may sound it is a relatively benign warning that, in normal circumstances, would mean the pilots should simply reduce the rate of descent of the aircraft to allow the cabin time to descend. Failure to do so would, at worst, cause the aircraft to 'catch the cabin' which would pop everyones ears and cause some pain for those with colds and/or sinus problems, but that's all. (catching the cabin means the actual altitude would equal the cabin altitude, normally the aircraft actual altitude is way above the cabin altitude e.g aircraft at 37,000' the cabin might be at 8,000')
In this case it may be a symptom of a greater problem and it may not. The journalist however has decided it is 'the most chilling' warning. This type of warning is very common on some Boeings (737 in particular )and while rare on an Airbus it is usually no big deal when it occurs.
The bit in bold is sensationalise. To suggest 'the crew flew the plane into the water' suggests they had some control. I don't believe they had any control at all otherwise they would have kept the thing up. Even without instruments pilots can keep an aircraft flying simply by setting 'pitch and power' from memory or off a checklist. Doing a landing in such circumstances would be tough but keeping it airborne should be staightforward.
Are you with the conspiracy theorists who reckon they actually have recovered the black box but it doesn't suit to tell the world what happened ?
Personally I don't think they were able to locate the Black box due to the terrain.
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2009, 11:40:11 AM
Quote from: Tyrones own on July 25, 2009, 02:55:18 AM
More interesting if not damning news for Airbus to deal with.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200132/LIVE-SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-series-mysterious-Airbus-330-accidents-culminating-tragic-loss-Air-France-Flight-447.html
The worst kind of sensationalist crap I've seen in a long time.
The references were 'a musician', a 'retired crash investigator' working for the relatives of the victims (his job is to maximize compensation not to find the cause - no credible investigator would speak like that until the final report is out) and 'an airman' who sounds suspiciously like a typical retired Boeing pilot who has never flown an Airbus.
Please do explain the
sensationalist crap remark with respect to the 7 similar incidents
quoted below involving airbus within a single 12 month period.
Ah sure maybe it's all a conspiracy against Airbus, is that the next of it ::)
QuoteAugust 2008 - Air Caraibes Atlantique
Paris to Martinique
Plane flying through turbulence experiences failure of autopilot, ADIRU and computerised instruments. Pilots successfully fight to restore control.
September 2008 - Air Caraibes Atlantique
Paris to Martinique
Second Air Caraibes flight to Martinique has identical experience. Plane is same model, different aircraft.
October 7, 2008 - Qantas Flight 72
Singapore to Perth
Makes emergency landing after twice plunging uncontrollably in flight following failure of ADIRU, autopilot and instruments. 64 injured, 14 seriously.
December 28, 2008 - Qantas Flight 71
Perth to Singapore
Forced to return to base after failure of autopilot and ADIRU. Different aircraft, same model as in previous incident.
May 21, 2009 - TAM Flight 8901
Miami to Sao Paulo
Experiences failure of autopilot, ADIRU and instruments. Crew regain control after five minutes. No injuries.
US investigation under way.
June 1, 2009 - Air France Flight 447
Rio to Paris
Crashes during Atlantic storm, killing 228. Automatic radio messages indicate that in minutes before crash, crew lost autopilot, ADIRU and computerised instruments.
June 23, 2009 - Northwest Airlines
Hong Kong to Tokyo
Flight loses autopilot, ADIRU and instruments before landing safely. US investigation under way.
Quote from: orangeman on July 25, 2009, 12:59:52 PM
I don't know anything about this stuff but all I know is that it is scary.
Does the pilot basically just do the take off and landing ????? Auto pilot from then on.
On something as "small" as a Pilatus PC12, at 300ft AGL after take-off you hit the autopilot button and away she goes. All you do is monitor until top of descent. Mind you, the PC12 is one of the most technologically-advanced civilian aircraft around. Brilliant to fly. By monitoring I mean tweak and adjust when necessary.
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2009, 11:40:11 AM
Quote from: Tyrones own on July 25, 2009, 02:55:18 AM
More interesting if not damning news for Airbus to deal with.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1200132/LIVE-SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-series-mysterious-Airbus-330-accidents-culminating-tragic-loss-Air-France-Flight-447.html
The worst kind of sensationalist crap I've seen in a long time.
The references were 'a musician', a 'retired crash investigator' working for the relatives of the victims (his job is to maximize compensation not to find the cause - no credible investigator would speak like that until the final report is out) and 'an airman' who sounds suspiciously like a typical retired Boeing pilot who has never flown an Airbus.
[/b]
haha the number of wannabes who think they knwo everything about planes and have precisely that attitude. Oh they have much to learn. Like coming to terms with a Cessna 210 one of the most crashed planes in the world.
TO I can point to more Boeing events within a single Irish airline within a short time frame. 7 events is nothing.
'Losing an ADIRU' does not compare to the AF447 crash in any intelligent way. The list of incidents you produced, with the exception of the Qantas one, is mere tabloid clutching at the 720,000 A330 straws that fly every year.
WRT to the QANTAS flight the only similarity is that there was some sort of upset during the flight, there is no evidence (beyond UK tabloidism and US jingoism) to suggest the events were caused by the same thing.
For a start the crashed Air France aircraft only reported ADR failures not ADIRU failures. If you know the difference I will debate on.
QuoteTO I can point to more Boeing events within a single Irish airline within a short time frame.
Maybe you could but are they events that to date have/can not be explained?
Quote7 events is nothing.
:o One
unexplained event at 37,000 ft is one too many in my opinion
Again, even to pull the Air France and Quantas flights from that list of incidents...
How can you you say that 7 events is nothing in remembering the fact that while it's most likely
both flight crews suffered similar problems with their systems.... Airbus have
no answer to why this
is happening and that is the point I'm trying to make... now if that's not scary and worthy of scrutiny i don't know what is !
Quote from: Tyrones own on July 26, 2009, 04:17:57 PM
QuoteTO I can point to more Boeing events within a single Irish airline within a short time frame.
Maybe you could but are they events that to date have/can not be explained?
Quote7 events is nothing.
:o One unexplained event at 37,000 ft is one too many in my opinion
Again, even to pull the Air France and Quantas flights from that list of incidents...
How can you you say that 7 events is nothing in remembering the fact that while it's most likely
both flight crews suffered similar problems with their systems.... Airbus have no answer to why this
is happening and that is the point I'm trying to make... now if that's not scary and worthy of scrutiny i don't know what is !
The ADIRUs fitted on the A330 are exactly the same as those on the A340, A321, A320, A319 & A318. There are 3 on each aircraft. If no 1 fails autopilot 1 is unavailable. If no 2 fails then autopilot no 2 is unavailable. This happens during flight from time to time without even the cabin crew knowing let alone the passengers.
The issue with the Qantas was that the ADIRU gave faulty info which told the aircraft computers that the aircraft was overspeeding and stalling (too low speed) at the same time. This is not possible (in normal conditions, high 'g' or flying too high for example can create those conditions but didn't happen here) and a human brain would discard the info but a computer won't. Hence it started flying erratically.
The Air France seems to have had problems with the Air Data sensors. That is a different problem but we still don't know exactly what happened. This of course is enough for a tabloid to suggest a conspiracy.
Certain media outlets are very quick to attack Airbus while never do the same when a Boeing is involved. The irony here of course is that the ADIRUs are US made, Nothrop Grumman to be exact. I suspect Boeing may use the same company for their IRS (ADIRU equivalent) but a journalist with an obvious anti-Airbus bias who starts with the headline "
The Airbus 330 - an accident waiting to happen" wouldn't be interested in that.
You didn't get to my initial question about whether any of the events you mentioned
happening with Irish airlines were problems that could not be explained?
It's my understanding that the ADIRU's are fed and use data collected by the ADR
no doubt you'll correct me on that but the fact remains there is a glitch somewhere
in their system that is causing problems in flight that they can't explain.
I personally have nothing against them at all, It's just seems to me that Airbus have rushed into such superior
technological designs with their systems in trying to compete with Boeing
The fly by wire problems they had when first introduced to the design flaws and delays in the A380
to the electrical problems that now surrounds them!
The industry are going to want answers and if it's this type of conspiracy Journalism that keeps the pressure on then I'm OK with it!
"We don't know" isn't going to get it done IMO.
Quote from: Tyrones own on July 26, 2009, 05:24:45 PM
You didn't get to my initial question about whether any of the events you mentioned
happening with Irish airlines were problems that could not be explained?
It's my understanding that the ADIRU's are fed and use data collected by the ADR
no doubt you'll correct me on that but the fact remains there is a glitch somewhere
in their system that is causing problems in flight that they can't explain.
I personally have nothing against them at all, It's just seems to me that Airbus have rushed into such superior
technological designs with their systems in trying to compete with Boeing
The fly by wire problems they had when first introduced to the design flaws and delays in the A380
to the electrical problems that now surrounds them!
The industry are going to want answers and if it's this type of conspiracy Journalism that keeps the pressure on then I'm OK with it!
"We don't know" isn't going to get it done IMO.
Tyrone's Own on this thread I pointed out two Boeing 737 accidents in the 1990s that killed all on board. Both happened in the States, neither investigations found the cause. A design flaw with the rudder actuator was found and fixed but it is still not known what caused those crashes.
QuoteIt's just seems to me that Airbus have rushed into such superior
technological designs with their systems in trying to compete with Boeing
That is the Seattle spin. These ADIRUs have been in use since 1988. 21 years. US propaganda killed the Concorde but failed to stop Airbus. There is no evidence that an ADIRU problem caused the fatal Air France crash. And by the way, ADIRUs can be turned off which in turn prevents the Airbus computer from relying on them. It is highly likely that the major cause of the Air France crash was a 56,000 foot high thunderstorm, but that is just speculation.
That article that you posted is sensationalist nonsense no matter how you try to twist it.
Here is another article by the same Daily Mail hack and the headline tells you all you need to know about his objectivity:
THE WIDER VIEW: 100 years after Bleriot first flew across the Channel, an identical plane repeats the feat (but not before the French had blocked the first attempt) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202165/THE-WIDER-VIEW-100-years-Bleriot-flew-Channel-identical-plane-repeats-feat.html)
The reference to the French is typically misleading and jingoistic.
Big discovery :
Jet wreckage offers hope for Riverdance star's family
Eithne Walls, 28, was a doctor and a talented dancer Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Irish Air France victim is found
Memorial for plane crash doctors
Walls family statement
Human remains found among wreckage from a crashed passenger jet have offered fresh hope to the family of a County Down doctor and Riverdance star.
Eithne Walls, 28, from Ballygowan, County Down died when an Air France jet from Rio de Janeiro to Paris crashed into the Atlantic on 1 June 2009.
Her body has never been recovered. All 228 people on board were killed.
She had been on holiday with two doctor friends from the Republic of Ireland. She died alongside her two friends.
They were Aisling Butler, from Roscrea, County Tipperary, and Jane Deasy from Dublin.
The three women had graduated in medicine from Trinity College Dublin in 2007 and were returning from holiday.
Dr Walls, who worked in the Dublin Eye and Ear Hospital, was also a talented Irish dancer. She had spent a year with Riverdance on Broadway, New York, before going on to university.
But French air accident investigators have now discovered a large piece of fuselage and engine from the Airbus A330 plane, French Transport Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet has confirmed.
"A large part of the plane has been found, all in one piece, and human bodies have also been found," she told Radio France Inter.
Black boxes
"There is now hope that the black boxes will also be found quickly."
The black boxes were fitted with locater beacons, known as 'pingers', which send an electronic impulse every second, but only for around 30 days before battery power runs out.
There are also doubts over whether vital information on the boxes could be preserved after more than 18 months underwater, the French defence ministry said.
The hunt for the wreckage around 1,500 miles north-east of the Brazilian port of Recife resumed last month after initial searches found only 50 bodies and hundreds of small fragments of the smashed aircraft.
A preliminary investigation found that the crash could have been caused by faulty speed sensors, called "pitot tubes" which iced over during the flight.
Plane-maker Airbus was last month charged with the manslaughter of the 228 victims - including five Britons and the three Irish doctors.
The company could now face a full trial in the coming months over the crash.
Air France has also been summoned to court to answer accusations it did not respond quickly enough to reports that speed sensors might be faulty.
One of two flight recorders from an Air France plane that crashed in 2009 off the coast of Brazil has been recovered, officials say.
France's Bureau of Investigation said in a statement that the device was "in good physical condition".
French search teams last week found the outer casing of the so-called black box recorder, but not its memory.
The Air France Airbus plane went down in the Atlantic on 1 June 2009, killing all 228 people on board.
Cockpit conversations
The wreckage was discovered last month after a long search of 10,000 sq km (3,860 sq miles) of sea floor.
The remains of the plane were found only on a fourth attempt, using robots capable of operating 4,000m (13,120ft) below the ocean's surface.
The Paris-bound Air France jet went down after running into an intense high-altitude thunderstorm, four hours following take-off from Rio de Janeiro.
Those on board came from more than 30 countries, though most were French, Brazilian or German.
Experts say the data in the flight recorders - which records cockpit conversations - is the only hope of finding out why the plane crashed into the sea.
But one expert told the Associated Press that the data recorder's information may yet prove unusable, as it was subjected to underwater pressure for nearly two years.
"We can't say in advance that we're going to be able to read it until it's been opened," a spokeswoman told the news agency.
The data recorders are expected to be sent back to Paris for testing.
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2011, 10:04:06 PM
One of two flight recorders from an Air France plane that crashed in 2009 off the coast of Brazil has been recovered, officials say.
France's Bureau of Investigation said in a statement that the device was "in good physical condition".
French search teams last week found the outer casing of the so-called black box recorder, but not its memory.
The Air France Airbus plane went down in the Atlantic on 1 June 2009, killing all 228 people on board.
Cockpit conversations
The wreckage was discovered last month after a long search of 10,000 sq km (3,860 sq miles) of sea floor.
The remains of the plane were found only on a fourth attempt, using robots capable of operating 4,000m (13,120ft) below the ocean's surface.
The Paris-bound Air France jet went down after running into an intense high-altitude thunderstorm, four hours following take-off from Rio de Janeiro.
Those on board came from more than 30 countries, though most were French, Brazilian or German.
Experts say the data in the flight recorders - which records cockpit conversations - is the only hope of finding out why the plane crashed into the sea.
But one expert told the Associated Press that the data recorder's information may yet prove unusable, as it was subjected to underwater pressure for nearly two years.
"We can't say in advance that we're going to be able to read it until it's been opened," a spokeswoman told the news agency.
The data recorders are expected to be sent back to Paris for testing.
Fair fucks to the French for sticking at it. Hope they get some useable information.
No word on the identifcation of those found on board the wrecakge they found ?
What a complete nightmare :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13572569
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0601/breaking33.html
75 bodies recovered.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/04/357360/investigators-try-to-explain-crew-reaction-to-af447s.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/04/357360/investigators-try-to-explain-crew-reaction-to-af447s.html)
Any article I've seen tries to paint a complete picture without acknowledging that most of the canvas is missing.
That article talks about climbing at 7000 feet per minute from 35,000 feet. It mentions a 'turbulent layer' which most people will think refers to the odd few bumbs that occur on any flight. To climb at 7000 feet per minute at that altitude (which before this I would have reckoned was impossible in a large commercial aircraft tbh) required either a totally disorientated crew pointing the nose at the sky (insane) or an encounter with a monstrous storm cell and associated updraft (literally air rising with a huge speed and force), or some combination of both.
We know there was such a storm in the vicinity but the article only suggests it might have disoriented the crew possibly by icing up the speed probes, which is likely. But it doesn't consider it as the cause of the high rate of climb which it surely had to be a huge factor. Heavy aircraft do not climb well at high altitude. Something had to help it other than a disorientated pilot.
The other factor is, in a storm as you leave a big updraft you are very likely to encounter a massive downdraft. That might explain the sudden temporary increase in speed and start of the rapid descent.
The more questions they answer the more questions seem to arise. But to me there seems to be evidence that they were in a huge storm (probes blocked by icing, initial massive rate of climb at high altitude, turbulence and disorientation). The tone of the recent articles is to simply blame the pilots for losing control. Imho that is too simplistic.
Some info on huge storm cells and associated updrafts and downdrafts: http://www.corymottice.com/category/severe-weather/ (http://www.corymottice.com/category/severe-weather/)
What Is a Supercell Thunderstorm?
A supercell is a thunderstorm that has a deep, continuously rotating updraft. Supercells are the least common type of thunderstorm, and have the most potential to be severe. In order to get this rotating updraft that we see in supercells, the winds must veer with height (or turn clockwise with height). For example, the winds at the surface are out of the southeast and the winds 15,000 feet up in the atmosphere are out of the southwest. You may often hear this referred to as directional shear.
Another necessary component to all thunderstorms is the downdraft. As the warm, moist air rises in a thunderstorm it will eventually condense and form rain droplets. This rain is cooler and more dense than its surrounding environment so it begins to fall back to the Earth's surface. The stronger the updraft is, the stronger the downdraft can be. In the image below, the red arrow indicates the updraft region in a supercell, and the blue arrow denotes the downdraft region. Supercells create an environment of their own, so they can last several hours as opposed to the 30 minutes or so that an ordinary thunderstorm typically lasts.
(http://www.corymottice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MatureSupercell1.jpg)
The updraft region of a supercell usually has little to no rain associated with it. This is because winds generally increase in speed with height, so this tilts the updraft. This tilting of the updraft allows the rain to fall away from the updraft region. If the winds were the same speed from the surface all the way to the top of the thunderstorm, it would never be able to mature since the downdraft and updraft would be in the same place, thus canceling each other out.
Air France disaster pilots 'made errors', report says
France's BEA authority said the pilots ignored repeated stall warnings and failed to follow textbook procedures.
The investigation revealed that passengers were not given any warnings as pilots struggled to avoid the crash.
It issued 10 new safety recommendations including more training on how to fly aircraft manually, a skill that some industry critics say has been eroded by computers.
The latest BEA report found that pilots failed to discuss repeated "stall" alarms as their Airbus jet plummeted 38,000 feet and hurtled into the ocean at 200 km (125 miles) per hour.
The pilots "did not formally identify the loss of altitude" despite an alarm ringing for nearly a minute, the report said.
However, in a statement released at the same time as the BEA, Air France defended its pilots saying the altitude-loss alert system had malfunctioned.
"Nothing at this stage can allow the crew's technical competence to be blamed" for the crash, the airline said.
"The crew on duty showed professionalism and stayed committed until the end to operating the flight."
Ms Walls, a doctor and talented Irish dancer, was travelling home from a holiday with two friends from the Republic of Ireland- Aisling Butler from County Tipperary and Jane Deasy from Dublin.
The friends had graduated from Trinity College, Dublin two years before the accident.
Both Air France and the plane maker Airbus could face legal action based on the report's findings.
However, officials have insisted that the BEA's findings would not amount to an official attribution of blame for the disaster.
Black box recorders have already shown terrifying details of the moments before the crash and, in Paris, experts are still carrying out DNA tests to identify the remains of many of those killed.
That article is like reading about a bus driver who failed to control a skid without any mention of why the bus was in a skid or any other such details.
Quote"The crew on duty showed professionalism and stayed committed until the end to operating the flight."
Oh that's all right then, they didn't head off home.
probably not a terrible long list of better options available to them by that stage, i would have thought.
A FRENCH report has found that human error contributed to the 2009 crash of an Air France flight from Rio to Paris that killed 228 people – including three Irish doctors.
A source close to the case told AFP that the judicial report – due to be presented to victims' families next week – has concluded that pilot error and malfunctioning speed sensors were responsible.
The three young Irish doctors were flying home from a holiday with friends when their plane went missing in a violent storm over the Atlantic.
The ill-fated Airbus A330 aircraft flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in June 2009 disappeared after it ran into stormy weather with strong turbulence around four hours into the flight.
The three friends were Jane Deasy (27), from Rathgar in Dublin, Aisling Butler (26), from Roscrea, Co Tipperary, and Eithne Walls, (28), a former Irish dancing star and member of the famous 'Riverdance' troupe from Ballygowan, Co Down.
They graduated together from the same class as doctors in surgery from Trinity College on June 15, 2007.
It took days before debris from the crash was located in the remote equatorial Atlantic Ocean area, and far longer until the wreckage was recovered.
The black boxes were finally located by robot submarines after a search spanning 23 months and costing about $40m.
A second report by the French aviation safety authority, BEA, is due to present its final report on the crash on Thursday. The paper is eagerly awaited amid a row between Airbus and Air France on who ultimately bears responsibility.
The source said the separate 356-page judicial report found that speed sensors froze up and failed, but also that the "captain had failed in his duties" and "prevented the co-pilot from reacting".
The aircraft had entered a zone of turbulence two hours into the flight when the autopilot suddenly disengaged, the BEA had said earlier.
Investigators revealed last year that Captain Marc Dubois was on a break as his two less experienced co-pilots ignored and failed to discuss repeated stall warnings during the three and a half minutes it took the Airbus A330 to plunge into the ocean.
All 228 people on board – including crew – died after the Airbus hurtled into the Atlantic at a speed of 180 feet a second in the worst disaster in Air France's history.
French magistrates are investigating Air France and Airbus for alleged manslaughter in connection with the crash, notably because of the malfunctioning speed sensors, known as Pitots.
The airline replaced the Pitots, manufactured by French company Thales, on its Airbus planes with a newer model after the crash.
Victims' families have previously alleged that the involvement of big French corporations such as Airbus and Air France was influencing the affair.
I was watching a documentary about this Air France crash tonight. It seems like a bit of a clusterfuck. The least experienced pilot at the controls and he didn't seem to have a clue. I know little about flying, but from playing a computer game it is clear that if you get a stall warning at high altitude that you stop pointing the nose of the aircraft upwards, but rather descend a fraction under power. Leaving aside complex computers a spirit level would show the pitch of the aircraft, perhaps a few old fashioned devices are needed in fly by wire aircraft. They were replacing the sensors, but some training for staff would have been appropriate if these things had ever failed.
I suppose the equivalent would be if your GPS system is recommending bollix, get out the road map rather than following it.
A computer game?? I'm fecking brilliant at Call of duty but wouldn't have a fecking clue if it were real!
You can have all the technology in there world but if you have a half wit controlling it then you are f##ked! Watched the documentary before about the airfrance flight and the imcompetence was frightening. Umpteen opportunities to right a wrong
Quote from: armaghniac on March 22, 2015, 12:42:10 AM
I was watching a documentary about this Air France crash tonight. It seems like a bit of a clusterfuck. The least experienced pilot at the controls and he didn't seem to have a clue. I know little about flying, but from playing a computer game it is clear that if you get a stall warning at high altitude that you stop pointing the nose of the aircraft upwards, but rather descend a fraction under power. Leaving aside complex computers a spirit level would show the pitch of the aircraft, perhaps a few old fashioned devices are needed in fly by wire aircraft. They were replacing the sensors, but some training for staff would have been appropriate if these things had ever failed.
I suppose the equivalent would be if your GPS system is recommending bollix, get out the road map rather than following it.
That is over simplifying things.
If there was only a stall warning, then any halfwit could determine that a stall recovery might help. AF447 had multiple warnings, all at the same time, while flying in a thunderstorm the size of Munster. They lost all of their instruments so it is likely they had overspeed warnings to go with the stall warnings. It seems to me that the pilot flying was fixated on the overspeed warning. Here is a list and some basic analysis of some of the warnings they got: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/87963438/Analysis-of-AF447-ACARS (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/87963438/Analysis-of-AF447-ACARS)
As for the sprint level theory. That would work fine if the aircraft wasn't moving and generating any g forces. But in the latter case, a spirit level is unreliable. Think of why, when an aircraft banks left or right, you don't see all the drinks in the cabin spill. Granted that example is exaggerated, as it is for bank not pitch, but the point is still valid.
Quote from: muppet on March 22, 2015, 08:49:27 PM
If there was only a stall warning, then any halfwit could determine that a stall recovery might help. AF447 had multiple warnings, all at the same time, while flying in a thunderstorm the size of Munster. They lost all of their instruments so it is likely they had overspeed warnings to go with the stall warnings. It seems to me that the pilot flying was fixated on the overspeed warning. Here is a list and some basic analysis of some of the warnings they got: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/87963438/Analysis-of-AF447-ACARS (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/87963438/Analysis-of-AF447-ACARS)
Reading a bit more about this, it is obvious that some of these warnings were dysfunctional. For instance, the stall warning cut out after a while as the data was so far out of normal range. But when they plane levelled up to some extent the data came back into range and the stall warning resumed, although the levelling of the plane was actually going in the right direction! As perhaps some ranking of warnings is appropriate, to reduce information overload.
Both training and better information presentation is needed.
Quote
As for the sprint level theory. That would work fine if the aircraft wasn't moving and generating any g forces. But in the latter case, a spirit level is unreliable. Think of why, when an aircraft banks left or right, you don't see all the drinks in the cabin spill. Granted that example is exaggerated, as it is for bank not pitch, but the point is still valid.
Perhaps the spirit level is simplistic, but simple instruments that provide the basic data.
I've watched the documentary in question, I suspect we'll see a similar one for the Air Asia flight once the full report is completed next year. Ultimately it's a combination of errors which lead to these type of disasters and erradicating human error completley is impossible.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 23, 2015, 04:12:14 PM
I've watched the documentary in question, I suspect we'll see a similar one for the Air Asia flight once the full report is completed next year. Ultimately it's a combination of errors which lead to these type of disasters and erradicating human error completley is impossible.
It is decades since passenger aircraft simply stalled to a fatal crash. Every pilot knows how to get out of a stall. But these two events appear to have presented such a complicated stream of information, so suddenly and so confusingly, that the pilots simply couldn't recognise or diagnose the problem properly. These aircraft work beautifully when everything is normal or even close to normal. But things are chaotic when a serious problem occurs.
Imagine 10 people shouting at you at the same time, with equal vigour. The human mind doesn't cope very well with that. Add a highly unusual situation whereby you are a co-pilot hand flying for the first time ever at high altitude (because the computers can't cope), in the middle of the above confusion and nowadays you have a dangerous situation, one that wasn't much of a problem 25 years ago. All aircraft manufacturers strongly recommend using autopilots for everything but takeoff and landing, and almost all airlines push the same philosophy.
That is fine, but how do you identify a pilot who might benefit from some extra training in high altitude handling and stalling and upset recognition, if he is never, ever, tested in that scenario?
It is important to note that despite the above, the vast majority of pilots have the ability to cope. Many do so without the event ever reaching the news. Others have flown older aircraft designs, which give a much better grounding of the basic of flying and you would expect them to cope easily.
But for newer pilots who have only flown the latest aircraft, it is much harder to score that injury time winner when you haven't been allowed to touch the ball for years.
Quote from: muppet on March 23, 2015, 04:27:36 PMImagine 10 people shouting at you at the same time, with equal vigourQuote
Systems need to prioritise information into must know, like to know, information only ...
Quote from: muppet on March 23, 2015, 04:27:36 PM
But for newer pilots who have only flown the latest aircraft, it is much harder to score that injury time winner when you haven't been allowed to touch the ball for years.
In this case, the more senior of the co-pilots should have taken control immediately things began to pear shaped and the captain should have been called.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 23, 2015, 05:58:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 23, 2015, 04:27:36 PMImagine 10 people shouting at you at the same time, with equal vigour
Systems need to prioritise information into must know, like to know, information only ...
They are prioritised accordingly. The problem is dealing with each one while trying to make sense of everything. For example, one of the the top priority warnings is the autopilot disconnecting. The reason for that is obviously that it is vital the pilots take control in that event. Fair enough. But it takes time, under pressure, to analyse each individual warning and to take the appropriate action. But that warning will probably come after another warning (the likely primary failure) and will be immediately followed by a series of other warnings. These warning come with bells and sirens blaring and it is difficult to remain disciplined, and calm, in order to deal with the warnings in a logical and timely manner. Each message will carry information that is vitally important, but it takes an experienced head, or a very talented inexperienced one, to quickly and accurately make complete sense of it sometimes.
The AF447 had all of the warnings I mentioned in the link above, but the correct action was not anything the computer suggested. It required one of the pilots to recognise the condition as 'unreliable airspeed' and act accordingly. Even more confusing is that if they did that, the procedure recommended by Airbus recommended setting a pitch up to about 5 degrees and setting a power setting that would have also given a pitch up moment. This would most likely have led to a stall anyway.
The experienced head is needed to get around the confusion. Sullenburger, for example, dismissed the cacophony of warnings and simply glided his aircraft onto the Hudson River. Everyone survived.
Quote
Quote from: muppet on March 23, 2015, 04:27:36 PM
But for newer pilots who have only flown the latest aircraft, it is much harder to score that injury time winner when you haven't been allowed to touch the ball for years.
In this case, the more senior of the co-pilots should have taken control immediately things began to pear shaped and the captain should have been called.
This follows on nicely to my next point. Airlines and regulators allow longer flights to be crewed with a scenario whereby, when a captain has to take a break, there will be 'only' two co-pilots in the cockpit. This is merely a finance issue. Carrying an extra co-pilot is a lot cheaper than carrying an extra captain. It is likely, but by no means certain, that having an experienced captain in the cockpit would have increased the chances of AF447 surviving. I'd go as far as saying there wouldn't have been a crash, but that is speculation. But there is no clamour from anywhere to insist that the cockpit always has a captain in it.
No aircraft can fly without a captain who holds a valid license, yet regulators allow the flight to continue for long periods without a captain at the controls.
Also many airlines put the pilots rest area at or near the back of the aircraft. Some even put it in a hold. Imagine trying to get the captain, on whose license the aircraft is flying, from a hold at the back of the plane, to the cockpit in a stalling aircraft being thrown around in a thunderstorm. Again this is down purely to cost. They could easily design a suitable rest area at the back of the cockpit.
And another one, the pilots appear to have dealt with it well though: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-send-a321-into-deep-dive.html (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-send-a321-into-deep-dive.html)
This looks like iced up probes fooled the autopilot into thinking it was stalling. The computers took over and incorrectly put the aircraft into a descent. The pilots recognised that was not the right course of action and 'turned off the computers'. In reality it means the pilots shut down enough navigational systems (e.g. 2 out of three ADIRUs) to force the aircraft computers to hand over control to the pilots.
Yes, it is as crazy as it sounds.
Quote from: muppet on March 23, 2015, 09:09:51 PM
And another one yesterday, the pilots appear to have dealt with it well though: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-send-a321-into-deep-dive.html (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-send-a321-into-deep-dive.html)
This looks like iced up probes fooled the autopilot into thinking it was stalling. The computers took over and incorrectly put the aircraft into a descent. The pilots recognised that was not the right course of action and 'turned off the computers'. In reality it means the pilots shut down enough navigational systems (e.g. 2 out of three ADIRUs) to force the aircraft computers to hand over control to the pilots.
Yes, it is as crazy as it sounds.
Fook me. Is there anything you aren't an self-appointed expert on?
My guess would be "Girls" ;)
The thing I can't really comprehend is that it's been proven that the root cause of these issues are frozen or blocked sensors. With this information in hand now for a few years (at least) the response airbus apparently give is that there is a procedure for dealing with this scenario and they are currently working on a fix. Surely there is needs to be more pressure coming from the aviation authority.
The whole debate around the real time monitoring and sending back of data is another one altogether but I'd like to see a permanent fix to the actual root cause which I presume isn't Airbus specific.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 24, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
The thing I can't really comprehend is that it's been proven that the root cause of these issues are frozen or blocked sensors. With this information in hand now for a few years (at least) the response airbus apparently give is that there is a procedure for dealing with this scenario and they are currently working on a fix. Surely there is needs to be more pressure coming from the aviation authority.
The whole debate around the real time monitoring and sending back of data is another one altogether but I'd like to see a permanent fix to the actual root cause which I presume isn't Airbus specific.
Your last point is interesting. The sensor problem appears to be Airbus specific, but then it may happen on other types and is simply handled much better and thus we don't hear about it as much.
There are people theorising about super-cooled water droplets that can exist at much lower temperatures and than previously assumed (-40c). These would ice up anything metal they touched instantly (like freezing rain in Canada). But this hasn't been proven.
An Airbus travelling from Barcelona to Dusselldorf has crashed in French Alps
Quote from: Minder on March 24, 2015, 10:41:49 AM
An Airbus travelling from Barcelona to Dusselldorf has crashed in French Alps
Jesus, looks like the flight from Barcelona to Dusseldorf.
Quote from: foxcommander on March 23, 2015, 09:18:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 23, 2015, 09:09:51 PM
And another one yesterday, the pilots appear to have dealt with it well though: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-send-a321-into-deep-dive.html (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-send-a321-into-deep-dive.html)
This looks like iced up probes fooled the autopilot into thinking it was stalling. The computers took over and incorrectly put the aircraft into a descent. The pilots recognised that was not the right course of action and 'turned off the computers'. In reality it means the pilots shut down enough navigational systems (e.g. 2 out of three ADIRUs) to force the aircraft computers to hand over control to the pilots.
Yes, it is as crazy as it sounds.
Fook me. Is there anything you aren't an self-appointed expert on?
My guess would be "Girls" ;)
It's probably a new notion to you, but some people know stuff.
Quote from: Hardy on March 24, 2015, 12:46:18 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on March 23, 2015, 09:18:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 23, 2015, 09:09:51 PM
And another one yesterday, the pilots appear to have dealt with it well though: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-send-a321-into-deep-dive.html (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-send-a321-into-deep-dive.html)
This looks like iced up probes fooled the autopilot into thinking it was stalling. The computers took over and incorrectly put the aircraft into a descent. The pilots recognised that was not the right course of action and 'turned off the computers'. In reality it means the pilots shut down enough navigational systems (e.g. 2 out of three ADIRUs) to force the aircraft computers to hand over control to the pilots.
Yes, it is as crazy as it sounds.
Fook me. Is there anything you aren't an self-appointed expert on?
My guess would be "Girls" ;)
It's probably a new notion to you, but some people know stuff.
Admirable that you felt the need to step in there...good on ya...