Missing plane probably crashed in the Atlantic [Archive]

GoldenRivet

06-01-09, 09:58 PM

i hate to "assume" but the airbus is an electronics heavy vehicle - one lightning strike in the right place and you could lose something critical. i know this is a risk with all aircraft, but at least with cabled controls you can still go hands on all the way down and get something out of her.

I know three "bus drivers"... all three hate the airplane and cant wait to be awarded another bid for different equipment.

one went so far as to say "you tell the airplane to turn left... the computer thinks about it for a second or two... THEN the airplane responds, its like it has to decide whether or not to allow you to turn that way, its like HAL 9000 or something... 'sorry captain, im afraid i can't do that', whereas other similar aircraft i've flown hands on are more immediate in their responsiveness."

almost an exact quote from one of them (something to that extent anyhow)

i dont pretend to know the ins and outs of the systems of the airbus, but it seems to me that if it already seems to "approve" pilot inputs and you somehow fry the right part of the computer which manages that particular operation and your just along for the ride at that point.

Lurchi

06-02-09, 01:06 AM

I know three "bus drivers"... all three hate the airplane and cant wait to be awarded another bid for different equipment.

I would love to see the face of the guy who has to deal with their request for "the reintroduction of cabled controls" into passenger planes. At least Chesley Sullenberger and his Crew didn't seem to have a problem with the responsiveness of their (Airbus) plane when they brought it safely down onto the Hudson river.

There aren't any facts right now - but it is pretty safe to say, that it takes a little bit more than a lightning to bring down such a plane.

GoldenRivet

06-02-09, 01:31 AM

I would love to see the face of the guy who has to deal with their request for "the reintroduction of cabled controls" into passenger planes.

Not necessarily calling for the reintroduction of cables into airliners... I'm just saying, there has to be more system redundancy... if it were me piloting the plane - i want more than a wire leading to an electric motor in order to deflect a flight control.

I didnt have any problems hand flying prop-airliners around at 300MPH... and they were cable operated/ non hydraulic boost flight controls.

big difference though between that and a 747 or similar aircraft - but if all electrical goes out i want other options as a pilot than to just ride the thing down.

it is pretty safe to say, that it takes a little bit more than lightning to bring down such a plane.

Boy do i ever know that first hand :shifty: once we lost every MFD and Display in the cockpit for a good 20 seconds in hard night IMC - it was an interesting experience

I'll point you to December 8th 1962, Pan Am Boeing 707 - a lightning strike ignited a holding fuel tank and caused the aircraft to explode mid air.

I'll also point out that severe enough turbulence can bring down an aircraft of any size.

d@rk51d3

06-02-09, 02:17 AM

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

TarJak

06-02-09, 03:03 AM

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?No the SMS capability is satellite linked so no need to be near a shore transceiver.

d@rk51d3

06-02-09, 03:53 AM

No the SMS capability is satellite linked so no need to be near a shore transceiver.

So, your text messages from your mobile are relayed by the plane to satellite? Because your mobile won't do it directly.

TarJak

06-02-09, 06:15 AM

So, your text messages from your mobile are relayed by the plane to satellite? Because your mobile won't do it directly.That's right. The air to ground comms systems used on airliners are used to forward your SMS.

One system in use here in Australia on Qantas domestic flights is AeroMobile: http://www.aeromobile.net/aeromobile.asp

Skybird

06-02-09, 06:59 AM

No verified information yet, so just some guesses.

1. lightning strike usually is not dagerous for an airplace, since it is pretty much a Faraday-cage and the energy harmlessly dances on the skin and disappears if there is no contact to the ground, you get some scratches in the painting eventually, and that'S it. However, what happens if the plane is struck by two lightnings simultaneously, or a lightening so strong that it travels on and contacts the plane to the ground? Probability says this is a very small chance only. However, it is not impossible.

2. An airliner at FL300 and higher, can soar for around 150-220 km, if all engines fail. That leaves one of the pilots the time to contact ground control.

3. All vital electric systems have 3 and 4 backups. Additional to the engine generators (each engine it's own egnerator), there is the RAM air turbine, and battery. All vital ciorcuits can take over duties from damaged curcuits, the system is designed to be redundant.

I take it as a given that there must have been more happening than just a lightening strike. Whatever happened, it must have happened incredibly fast, leaving the pilots no time to react or to communicate.

So, as often in air desasters, the likely cause of the catastrophe is not a single event, but an unfortunate unfortunate combination of several singluar events, of which each single one probably would have caused no dramatic consequences if happening all alone.

While in theory it is possible, I do not assume that there was a total and complete loss of electricity caused by a normal lightning strike. If it was a lightning strike, than it probably was no "normal" one, but some phenomenon that is extremely rare.

"Software error" I have very high on my list. Or mid-air-destruction by exploding fuel or engine, or explosive cabin depressurization, which still leaves the question of what caused it. My focus is not so much on lightning, but turbulences. Maybe the plane simply lost an airwing that broke away, or the tail, for example. On the other hand the plane was young, and had undergone a routine major maintenance pitstop just weeks ago.

While currently there is being seen a link between the heavy weather zone they were passing, and the accident, this does not rule out that the weather had nothing to do with it - it could have been a bomb, too, so it is too early to rule out terrorism or organised crime.

Doing research at location is difficult, and maybe we will never learn what happened. If the wreck lies too deep in the water, the blackbox maybe will never be found.

XabbaRus

06-02-09, 07:26 AM

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

Do you have a source for this?

Oberon

06-02-09, 07:26 AM

http://avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1&opt=0

This has a good overview of information. Things seem to lean towards a catastrophic loss of electrical systems such as ISIS and ADIRU coupled with a depressurisation. In the dark, heavy turbulence, no guidance and depressurisation. It doesn't paint a pretty picture. God rest their souls.

Oberon

06-02-09, 07:33 AM

FLASH

Brazillian airforce has reportedly discovered traces of metal. Unconfirmed if this is anything to do with the lost flight.

d@rk51d3

06-02-09, 07:33 AM

Do you have a source for this?

Just the local news (tv and radio). About as unreliable as any. Although I have also read the same on another forum.

d@rk51d3

06-02-09, 07:40 AM

That's right. The air to ground comms systems used on airliners are used to forward your SMS.

One system in use here in Australia on Qantas domestic flights is AeroMobile: http://www.aeromobile.net/aeromobile.asp

Thanks for the info and the link.

Oberon

06-02-09, 07:45 AM

BBC is reporting that the Brazillian media is claiming that their air force have found small scattered metal debris, including, it is reported, seats.
This is also on Reuters.

OneToughHerring

06-02-09, 08:59 AM

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

Haven't heard of those, what was in those messages?

Sad business, overall. And I'm sure there are risks with most if not all airplanes.

edit. Oh, missed d@rk51d3s answer.

GoldenRivet

06-02-09, 02:00 PM

1. lightning strike usually is not dagerous for an airplace, since it is pretty much a Faraday-cage and the energy harmlessly dances on the skin and disappears if there is no contact to the ground, you get some scratches in the painting eventually, and that'S it.

yup.. like this image sent to me by a Captain i used to fly with quite a lot :shifty: looks harmless enough... put it right on a fuel tank or one of the electrical motors responsible for Aileron or Elevator deflection - say that it jams in a full travel position... then what? you just roll or pitch uncontrollably.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JGyMlGQKTSM/SiTO9lWVZFI/AAAAAAAAAW0/sxyCNGqFoZw/s320/1.jpg

2. An airliner at FL300 and higher, can soar for around 150-220 km, if all engines fail. That leaves one of the pilots the time to contact ground control.

unless you use the struck fuel tank scenario... a lightning strike severe enough as the one above makes contact with fuel vapor in a half empty wing and... KABOOM... you have about enough time to think "WTF" before your finished.

3. All vital electric systems have 3 and 4 backups. Additional to the engine generators (each engine it's own egnerator), there is the RAM air turbine, and battery. All vital ciorcuits can take over duties from damaged curcuits, the system is designed to be redundant.

correct, the ram air turbines will manage electrical signal to emergency systems (standby instrumentation, and comms and flight controls generally) but lets say that the primary motor that drives the ailerons or elevators is struck - jammed into a specific position - then what? what if the fuel tank scenario plays out... electrical power means nothing at that point. the fuel tank scenario is rare, it has only happened a couple of times in history... but why couldnt it happen in this case?

I take it as a given that there must have been more happening than just a lightening strike. Whatever happened, it must have happened incredibly fast, leaving the pilots no time to react or to communicate.

Pilots live by a three step process that determines their course of action in a tense situation 1. Aviate First 2. Navigate Second 3. Communicate third.

Im sure your 100% right about the situation happening so fast they couldnt communicate, but the primary focus of any experienced pilot is going to be to fly the airplane first - communicate his plight second... the worse the situation - the more true this becomes. so even if they had a couple of minutes it would not surprise me if they made no transmissions.

"Software error" I have very high on my list. Or mid-air-destruction by exploding fuel or engine, or explosive cabin depressurization, which still leaves the question of what caused it. My focus is not so much on lightning, but turbulences. Maybe the plane simply lost an airwing that broke away, or the tail, for example. On the other hand the plane was young, and had undergone a routine major maintenance pitstop just weeks ago.

While currently there is being seen a link between the heavy weather zone they were passing, and the accident, this does not rule out that the weather had nothing to do with it - it could have been a bomb, too, so it is too early to rule out terrorism or organised crime.

Doing research at location is difficult, and maybe we will never learn what happened. If the wreck lies too deep in the water, the blackbox maybe will never be found.

Im in complete agreement here :nope:

Jimbuna

06-02-09, 02:47 PM

This is an hour old:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5430418/French-air-crash-Blackbox-will-hold-clues-to-cause-of-Airbus-crash.html

Skybird

06-02-09, 03:19 PM

Golden Rivet,

as a rule of thumb, pilots and engineers calculate one lightning strike per 1000 flight hours. Another rule of thumb says that each airliner is hit at least 1-2 times per year.

That means each day, wordwide, probably dozens of planes get hit by lightning. Even parked planes get hit, with their tyres on the ground and being in close proximity to it. But when was the last time you heared that a parked plane went up due to lightning? And how many planes do fall out of the air because of it? A lightning strike usually does leave only cosmetical traces on an airplane. Many flights near the equator have to deal with thunderstorms that usually are several times as strong than what can be seen in europe, becasue they are a quite common thing in that region, especially over the ocean. If things like what you picture say were the rules inc ase of lightning stikres, then there must be several times as many air desasters as there actually are. therefore it would be interesting to see the exact circumstance of that lighting causing the damage in that picture. that polanes get struck by lightning is no unusual thing. And mostly, passangers do not even notice it.

The heavy winds and turbulences inside a heavy weather zone like the one the AF flight fas trying to sneak thourhg, can be easily underestimated, and they can shake an airframe so violently, that I find it much easier to imagine that structural damage occured due to such violent pushing and shaking. It can cause material (structure, surface) to break, and it can make hydraulic as well as electric wires breaking, too.

This does not mean that the plane was not hit by a lightning. But it means seen from a statistical perspective probably much more was happening to the airplane. I still see turbulences as the most likely cause for catastrophic damage appearing onboard the plane. tjhat storm front was more than a 1000 km wide and 18 km high, and the passage the weather satellites showed between two centres, had disappeared and united to one giant front at the time the AF flight was passing the area where before that passage was.

But all this is pub talking only. We simply do not know fopr sure what happened. The Brazilians say the Atlantic is 4-6 thousand meters deep where the Blackbox likely was buried, and there are strong currents as well. At 6 thousand meters it is even quersitonable that the radio signal of the box will reach the surface. And when it stops sending in a month or so, and has not been found until then, then it'S over. And even if it is being located, it is no certainty that diving robots will get it up.

Researchers will need plenty of luck to solve this puzzle. It is possible that they succeed, but I don't hold my breath.

GoldenRivet

06-02-09, 03:37 PM

Skybird,

Im not saying your wrong, and i do know that there are thousands of lightning hits per year. but would you argue that it only takes ONE critical lighting strike -out of all those thousands or millions - to make things go ca-ca?

I mean i have seen thousands of lightning strikes in my life time... but i have never been hit by one. does this mean i will never be killed by lightning? no. even though the statistics are in my favor - it could happen tomorrow.

you are absolutely right about the thunderstorm turbulence... the typical figure we go with when teaching it - is at least 6,000 foot per minute up drafts and down drafts - obviously a force that could tear an aircraft apart.

I do agree with you on the statistics of catastrophic structural failure induced by severe to extreme turbulence vs. lightning. but lets think of it this way...

...what if it was both?

in my experience - hard lighting strikes usually affects the aircraft's weather radar pretty badly, probably worse than any other system.

if the flight was operating at night, and their weather radar got fried, seeing and avoiding thunderstorms in the night gets to be an interesting game when that radar stops radaring.

at that point it wouldnt have taken much to stray right into a thunder head.

EDIT: i find it interesting in the article that it mentions the airline had received automated messages of errors and malfunctions in the flight control computers.
hmmm

Skybird

06-02-09, 03:47 PM

I do agree with you on the statistics of catastrophic structural failure induced by severe to extreme turbulence vs. lightning. but lets think of it this way...

...what if it was both?

As I said:

So, as often in air desasters, the likely cause of the catastrophe is not a single event, but an unfortunate combination of several singular events, of which each single one probably would have caused no dramatic consequences if happening all alone.

It probably is a chain of events, although in the above I did not say that eventually a heavy turbulence alone could also be sufficient to make a plane falling apart.

I do not see this as a "I am right and you are wrong" game, GR. It'S just that in the first wave of news, the lightning theory was so overly stressed by anchormen in the news that it became a bit annoying. I do not rule out lightning as a cause. But I think some other possible theories are more likely to be true. Lightning is just the most sensational explanation, because it offers effects made by ILM and is often used in movies to let the excitment of the audience reaching climax. .

i find it interesting in the article that it mentions the airline had received automated messages of errors and malfunctions in the flight control computers.

Which in my novice opinion speaks for a physical push causing it, not an electric impulse. If a lightning fries the electronics aboard an airplane, I would expect them to be in a state where they do not cause errors, but cause nothing anymore, just smoking. The automatted message system also sent a message at the end that sudden decompression of the cabin took place - but not initially, when the trouble began, but at the end, after four minutes. Because of this time delay, this also speaks more for a failing of the structural integrity due to turbulences of the airframe, than for a ligthning, imo.

If you take your PC and shake it, it functions erratically and then gives up. If you grill it with 100.000 ampere, it doesn't do anything anymore.

heartc

06-02-09, 04:14 PM

Or mid-air-destruction by exploding fuel or engine, or explosive cabin depressurization, which still leaves the question of what caused it.

I don't know of course, but that's what I'm thinking. And it might have been from a lightning strike, however unprobable that might be. At some point this happened to another airliner once - lightning struck the fuel tanks and caused an explosion. I've now also heard from the news that the parts of the wreckage are dispersed over a pretty wide area, which would favor a disintegration mid-air at high altitude.

Anything else makes it difficult to see how they were not able to send a mayday call. I know the "aviate, navigate, communicate" rule, but when you are outside radar coverage, over the middle of the ocean in the middle of the night, it must occur to you that reporting your position and status is like EXTREMELY important if you want to provide your passengers with any chance of survival. So if they didn't, either all electrical systems failed, which is somewhat improbable with the high redundancy in modern airplanes, or what happened must have been so disastrous to disable them at once. And that could only be an explosion or catastrophic depressurization.

Even a catastrophic loss of control due to a software or whatever failure with the airplane departing and entering a spin or whatever and the crew trying to recover, doesn't explain why they wouldn't send a radio call while the plane goes down from 11 km. Or they must have gone down like a comet to not make a call while their radio was still working.

heartc

06-02-09, 04:27 PM

The automatted message system also sent a message at the end that sudden decompression of the cabin took place - but not initially, when the trouble began, but at the end, after four minutes. Because of this time delay, this also speaks more for a failing of the structural integrity due to turbulences of the airframe, than for a ligthning, imo.

That's news to me. OK, that would pretty much rule out a sudden explosion immediately after a lightning strike or something. Probably it was something that at first looked like a minor problem and they were trying to figure it out, so they didn't report yet, and then the airplane suddenly exploded / depressurized. Still doesn't rule out a lightning strike, though, except if they are required to report something like that at once. A strike could have caused a small fire in some place initially, eating up a few electrical systems, until reaching something vital or the fuel tank. A bit like what happened when the Shuttle Columbia lost more and more electrical systems that were burned away by the heat and then disintegrated.
I'll stop the speculations right now though. I'm no expert and will leave this to the aviation engineers (and the media...).

Aramike

06-02-09, 04:40 PM

I'm betting on a combination of factors, including lightening and turbulance.

PeriscopeDepth

06-02-09, 05:05 PM

It's possible to make radio contact with someone on land that far out, isn't it? Seems like something pretty sudden happened for there to be no voice transmissions before the accident. Or comms were out.

The last contact with the aircraft was at 02:14 UTC,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#cite_note-BBC1-0) four hours after take-off, when its avionics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics) automatically transmitted several messages via ACARS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communication_Addressing_and_Reporting_Sy stem) indicating multiple systems failures. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#cite_note-10) The first of these messages, at 2:10 UTC, reportedly indicated that the autopilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot) had disengaged and the fly-by-wire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire) computers had switched to an alternate program used in the event of multiple system failures. Next, the aircraft transmitted several messages indicating failures of the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Data_Inertial_Reference_Unit), the Integrated Standby Instrument System (a backup system providing primary flight instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_instruments)), and two of the three flight control computers. The final message received, at 02:14 UTC, indicated a possible cabin depressurization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization) at location http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Erioll_world.svg/18px-Erioll_world.svg.png3°34′40″N 30°22′28″W / 3.5777°N 30.3744°W / 3.5777; -30.3744 (http://stable.toolserver.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Air_France_Flight_447&params=3.5777_N_30.3744_W_type:landmark). [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#cite_note-AvHer090602-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#cite_note-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#cite_note-13)

RIP crew and passengers.

PD

bookworm_020

06-02-09, 07:30 PM

Since there was a series of failure messages that was sent by the planes control systems shows something went wrong and when the plane failed, it happened so quick that the pilots never got off a mayday.

The plane was almost brand new and has a pretty good history flight wise. Qantas had a incident with the same model of plane when the auto pilot made the plane descend rapidly twice in quick succession, only the quick response of the flight crew crew saved it from crashing into the sea. They are still unsure why it happened the last I heard, and it may not be related to this case.

My thoughts are with the families of those who have lost there lives:cry:

UglyMowgli

06-02-09, 08:46 PM

One of the ACARS message concern a rapid icing of the plane wings, engine and flight probes, and the problem is the Flight control use the probes to maintain the aircraft flying.
So if the electrical faillure make the de-icing system off the plane was in big trouble like the Air Florida Flight 90 crash in 1982.

SUBMAN1

06-02-09, 08:59 PM

...Boy do i ever know that first hand :shifty: once we lost every MFD and Display in the cockpit for a good 20 seconds in hard night IMC - it was an interesting experience

I'll point you to December 8th 1962, Pan Am Boeing 707 - a lightning strike ignited a holding fuel tank and caused the aircraft to explode mid air.

I'll also point out that severe enough turbulence can bring down an aircraft of any size.

I hear ya man. Flying down to LA one time in the middle of the soup at about FL200 and a lightning strike knocked out all electronics. Reset the fuel flow meter to 0 for example, but of course had back up analog gauges for qty.

I've been hit while flying before, but it never really mattered. This time however, it did.

I think a bigger danger that usually comes with lightening is hail. That stuff will rip a plane to shreds in seconds.

-S

GoldenRivet

06-02-09, 09:03 PM

I hear ya man. Flying down to LA one time in the middle of the soup at about FL20 and a lightning strike knocked out all electronics. Reset the fuel flow meter to 0 for example, but of course had back up analog gauges for qty.

I've been hit while flying before, but it never really mattered. This time however, it did.

-S

you know a funny thing... a couple of the worst icing conditions i ever ran into was down around Fresno and Phoenix etc... people dont expect it much down in the southwest, but its there.

SUBMAN1

06-02-09, 09:08 PM

you know a funny thing... a couple of the worst icing conditions i ever ran into was down around Fresno and Phoenix etc... people dont expect it much down in the southwest, but its there.

Try Southern WA at 6K. Worst I ever ran into at 2 AM in the morning. I was watching the airspeed drop down to about 170 kts but though nothing of it, then a while later looked at it and it was approaching 120 kts. George was flying - the nickname for the autopilot and he is happy to correct for it! :D Grabbed a flashlight, pointed it on the wing and crud! We were a flying brick! Probably seconds from a death spiral. Hit the boots and it all came off but I tell you, that happened quick. Had to get out of the alt. fast. Requested FL40 and it was a bit better down there.

One thing I tell you, if you want to wake up fast from a nap, hit the prop de-ice in the middle of some good icing conditions. Ice slamming against the fuselage does a number on your napping state! :D Especially in the dark!

-S

GoldenRivet

06-02-09, 09:13 PM

One thing I tell you, if you want to wake up fast from a nap, hit the prop de-ice in the middle of some good icing conditions. Ice slamming against the fuselage does a number on your napping state! :D Especially in the dark!

-S

haha yes indeed the first time.

what plane?

our lav was up front behind the FO seat, when the toilet flush motor would run it would run slightly out of sync with the prop sound so it sounds like the right engine just sh*t the bed... thats a nice wake up call.

SUBMAN1

06-02-09, 09:37 PM

haha yes indeed the first time.

what plane?

our lav was up front behind the FO seat, when the toilet flush motor would run it would run slightly out of sync with the prop sound so it sounds like the right engine just sh*t the bed... thats a nice wake up call.LOL!

There has always been aircraft in the family, everything from a Piper Tri-Pacer to a Balanca Super Viking, decked out with an all digital cockpit. This particular aircraft in the story above was an E model Aztec, with full de-ice and modified. Had a STOL kit on it, and long range tanks (1200 nmi range). The STOL kit was put on to cut down on approach speeds. It dropped stall speed to about 49 knots dirty. It allowed us to get into airports otherwise inaccesable. Approach speed dropped by about 20 knots as well - putting us well under 3 digits unlike before.

Its kind of left unused mostly these days. I should go get certified and fly it. It needs to be used. Right now it gets its engines run-up once every 1 to 2 months. It is expensive to fly that thing though, but it does have a 248 MPH cruise capability at 24K. Ceiling is 30K.

-S

PS. Of all the aircraft I miss, that Balanca was it. 300 HP, 520 cu/in Continental on it. That is no longer in the family. It had unheard of radio's - a permanent trial by NARCO with 25 WATTS power (normal is about 7 WATTS). You could talk to Seattle ATC from anywhere (on the ramp) you wanted in that thing and they were always surprised you could raise them. Not sure if NARCO ever went on to produce them commercially, but that is just one thing that Balanca had. It probably had a $250K cockpit. And you wore that plane. I can remember coming over the crest and into the crater in Mt. St. Helens at over 200 kts, dropping a wing to take pictures and it was such and unstable platform it would not try to correct itself and it would leave that wing down there if you took your hands off the controls. Then pulling out on the other side. You needed the speed and the power to make sure you didn't get caught in the downdraft on the other side. I could go on all day about that plane. It was not a Mooney. It was not a Bonanaza. It was special and only those that flew it know what I am talking about.

GoldenRivet

06-03-09, 12:58 AM

The Aztec is a great airplane:up:

Skybird

06-03-09, 02:44 AM

Aramike

06-03-09, 02:56 AM

Something different, in the Marchetti SF260 cockpit I noticed a label reading:

"Turn off strobe lights when taxing in vicinity of other aircraft..."

Okay until here, but then:

"... or during flight through cloud, fog and haze."

????I'm not a pilot, but I'm guess that it's either a misprint or is the result of the way water refracts light, making it seem as though something is in a different position than it actually is.

Just an uneducated guess, though...

GoldenRivet

06-03-09, 03:54 AM

the result of the way water refracts light, making it seem as though something is in a different position than it actually is.

Just an uneducated guess, though...

pretty much correct.

the idea is that repeated strobing lights in Instrument conditions contributes to disorientation during flight.

turning off strobe lights on the ground is pretty much a courtesy thing as it is very annoying and distracting while on the ground (we are not talking about the red beacons... but the white strobes)

this placard has been present in just about every aircraft i have ever flown.

OneToughHerring

06-03-09, 08:50 AM

Btw, does anyone know how difficult it is to retrieve the so called black box from around that area, presumably from the bottom of the sea? Does it emanate a homing signal or something? Wonder if it would be possible to implement a floating black box, one that would rise to the surface after the crash.

edit. Hmm, looks like they might never find the flight recorders.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/03/france.plane.memorial/index.html?eref=googletoolbar

UglyMowgli

06-03-09, 12:40 PM

The French send the 'Pourquoi Pas' a joint french navy and some deep sea research institute ship with the Nautile (one of the sub who discover the Titanic can dive to -7000m), the ship is specially built to minimize the noise and had a lot of sonar detection system aboard , it will be on the area in 7 days and has 21 other days to find the 2 blackbox.

this ship help to recover blackbox from an egyptian aircrash in the red sea some years ago.

Skybird

06-03-09, 01:45 PM

pretty much correct.

the idea is that repeated strobing lights in Instrument conditions contributes to disorientation during flight.

turning off strobe lights on the ground is pretty much a courtesy thing as it is very annoying and distracting while on the ground (we are not talking about the red beacons... but the white strobes)

this placard has been present in just about every aircraft i have ever flown.
Ignoring for a moment that you are not well-advised - and may even be prohibited - to intentionally fly into a cloud formation, especially with a small plane maybe even lacking a radar or TCAS, isn't this switching off of the strobes - the brightest light indicators on a plane short of the landing lights - compromising security, since it makes the plane harder to spot for any other traffic in close proximity?

GoldenRivet

06-03-09, 01:56 PM

any aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan can enter clouds because they are required to be communicating with air traffic controller, and they are also required to have a working - altitude reporting transponder.

we would typically turn strobe lights off when flying into clouds or fog for a long period of time. the first few flashes are not a big deal, but after it becomes obvious that you have flown into a rather large cloud, its best to switch them off.

When you fly through a cloud, everything becomes white out - in extreme cases you can barely see your wingtips.

You see... flying through a cloud or fog causes the entire immediate area of your aircraft to flash white like lightning on and of and on and off as it refracts off of every water molecule around your plane. its not the sharply defined flash you see when you look up at night at a passing airliner.

if you are close enough to another aircraft in flight in such low visibility conditions as i have described above; to see the strobe lights of another aircraft means its already to late to avoid collision. in some cases you might not be able to tell the flashes of another aircraft's lights and your own.

given that IFR aircraft are separated from one another by very specific air traffic control separation minimums (the air traffic controller makes sure the dots on his radar screen dont touch other dots) the greater risk for pilots is to suffer from "flicker vertigo" or to suffer from disorientation caused by strobe lights in extreme low visibility - thus causing him to possibly lose control of his aircraft.

when flying through clouds with strobe lights ON, your intire world outside the windows starts looking like it is occuring at 1 or 2 frames per second, while the inside world (instrument indications, head and hand movements etc) is occuring in real time. its something that is hard to describe - but once you experience it first hand it is very easy to think "Okay.... i can see where this would be a problem"

EDIT: in lieu of strobe lights - you can activate your landing lights if you will be in a cloud for a long period of time, this way the white light is constant and not flashing so you do not suffer from strobe vertigo.

SteamWake

06-03-09, 02:27 PM

Fascinating article "How to find a plane at the bottom of the ocean"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524861,00.html

Yes its fox news... get over it.

Skybird

06-03-09, 05:38 PM

if you are close enough to another aircraft in flight in such low visibility conditions as i have described above; to see the strobe lights of another aircraft means its already to late to avoid collision.

Ah, that clears it for me. Now it makes sense. Well, I never experienced such a foggy weather on sea or on the ground - just a really bad sandstorm in North Africa.

Linton

06-03-09, 05:48 PM

I have about 3000 hours in A330s and loved every minute of it.

GoldenRivet

06-03-09, 07:30 PM

I have about 3000 hours in A330s and loved every minute of it.

i have heard an equal amount of praise and scorn for the aircraft to be honest.

sunvalleyslim

06-04-09, 01:16 AM

No Matter What.......R.I.P.....Oh World Travelers.....You Go Before Us All...................

Skybird

06-04-09, 06:55 AM

They report that a Spanish pilot saw a bright white shine in the area, but from some distance to where the French aircraft was supposed to be at that time, that moved vertically at high speed and after 5-6 seconds split into half a dozen light blips moving down. If that was the AF flight, it could be indicating either a serious navigation probloem, or that they were forced to stray off very far in order to local circumstances (which then they should have reported to ground control, I assume).

They also report that an official warning has been issued to all operators of Airbus models, that when flying in storms and turbulences, aircrews should maintain proper speed and redadjust the autothrottles. As far as I know, aircraft reduce their speed when flying through turbulences, and change the ignitor settings as well. I even use to do it in the simulator. :) Commentators say that the fact they issue the warning so early is a clear signal that they have very substantial ideas of what happened and meet their legal obligations by giving such a warning, then.

The conclusion therefore is: pilot error. The plane probably flew too fast, slammed into a wall of winds and turbulences, or accelerated during a sudden fall ("air hole"), so that speed went beyond safety limits and the airframe was ripped apart, making parts of the aircraft maybe also exploding in mid-air.

Maybe there was a navigation problem, when the pilots tried to alter their course to find a gap in the weather front, and that problem or error led them right into the mess. Also, weather radar can be tricky to read.

sharkbit

06-04-09, 09:07 AM

yup.. like this image sent to me by a Captain i used to fly with quite a lot :shifty: looks harmless enough... put it right on a fuel tank or one of the electrical motors responsible for Aileron or Elevator deflection - say that it jams in a full travel position... then what? you just roll or pitch uncontrollably.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JGyMlGQKTSM/SiTO9lWVZFI/AAAAAAAAAW0/sxyCNGqFoZw/s320/1.jpg

unless you use the struck fuel tank scenario... a lightning strike severe enough as the one above makes contact with fuel vapor in a half empty wing and... KABOOM... you have about enough time to think "WTF" before your finished.

This photo has been erroneously reported as a lightning strike. It was in fact a electrical fire on the ground after ground power was hooked up.

Lightning does cause damage though. Normally airplanes are designed to dissipate the energy. Most of time, there is usually a entry hole somewhere and a exit hole somewhere. These are usually small. You'll usually see the entry on the radome on the nose and the exit up on the tail at the rudder or elevator. Sometimes it wil blow off a static wick or a end cap on a flight control. If an engine or prop gets struck, it will sometimes magnetize the bearings which causes problems and you usually have to replace the engine and/or prop.
None of this is catastrophic though.

We had a Lear 35 get hit a few years ago. It hit the nose, bounced along the top of the fuselage, leaving burn holes in 3 places, and exited the elevator, blowing a static wick apart. No catastrophic damage though.

I think the biggest threat after a strike is the effect it has on the electronics. I'm not familiar with the Airbus, but I bet it is a pretty electronic intensive aircraft. Who knows how bad lightning could have affected it.

My bet is severe turbulence but I would think they can avoid that with the aircraft radar showing returns of severe thunderstorms ahead.
Probably a combination of things, like any other aviation accident.

Hopefully they can recover the flight recorders and figure out exactly what happened.

:)

sharkbit

06-04-09, 09:10 AM

Here's a link about the hole in that ASA aircraft with some good pictures:
http://blog.flightstory.net/1158/photos-cockpit-fire-damage-asa-bombardier-crj-200/

:)

TDK1044

06-04-09, 09:17 AM

I think this is the most likely scenario.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/article.aspx?cp-documentid=147760267

GoldenRivet

06-04-09, 01:46 PM

Here's a link about the hole in that ASA aircraft with some good pictures:
http://blog.flightstory.net/1158/photos-cockpit-fire-damage-asa-bombardier-crj-200/

:)

neat find! :up:

i was told lightning strike... ah well.

I have seen one as small as a penny or dime, and another about the size of a basketball, both at my home GA airport.

it can be pretty impressive being hit by lightning though!

TheSatyr

06-04-09, 04:06 PM

From the reports I've been reading,the last electronic message from the plane was that ALL electronics systems were failing and that the cabin had been de pressurized.

It all sounds like a cascade affect. System breakdowns leading to more system breakdowns leading to total system failure.

I never did like Airbus aircraft. Too much relying on electronics systems. I suspect their electronics systems were backed up by more electronics systems instead of by hydraulic systems. But then I know more about Boeing than I do Airbus so I could easily be wrong.

Linton

06-04-09, 05:09 PM

The Satyr,with your logic regarding electronic systems and aircraft are you suggesting that we all fly in a 300 seat version of the Wright Flyer???

GoldenRivet

06-04-09, 05:26 PM

lol warping wings and all.

its nice having a plane though - that when ALL electronics die - you still maintain control.

novel concept :shifty:

SteamWake

06-04-09, 09:47 PM

This is a stunning article.

A key computer system had switched to alternative power and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06042009/news/worldnews/jets_horrifying_final_14_minutes_172538.htm

sharkbit

06-04-09, 09:59 PM

Give me a good old fashioned King Air or Lear 35 or any other airplane with control cables.
Airplane goes dark, you kepp on flying.:up:

Of course, the wings still come off if you hit any extreme turbulence, but don't fly through that stuff dummy.:shucks:

XabbaRus

06-05-09, 01:59 AM

OK now they are saying the wreckage found isn't that of Air France.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8083474.stm

Jimbuna

06-05-09, 08:14 AM

A fair few photos here:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/06/05/air-france-flight-af447-search-setback/atlantic-debris-just-rubbish-not-airbus-wreckage.html

GoldenRivet

06-05-09, 12:09 PM

we all must be prepared for the possibility that they may never find any part of the aircraft - or determine the cause of the tragedy. :nope:

Linton

06-05-09, 12:17 PM

A french ssn is to join the search according to the bbc

Jimbuna

06-05-09, 12:27 PM

Time to clear the area of all other subs then :o

OneToughHerring

06-05-09, 01:34 PM

Yes there is a lot of electronics in an Airbus, just as there is in a Boeing.

One aspect that I think could be the cause is a problem with the general software that guides the automated systems and the electronics. I've heard stories that when heading toward a mountain the software of a plane should allow for some extreme evasive manouvers even if it meant going close to the airplanes durability limits.

I guess it's possible that we might never know the real cause, would put a shadow over, well most air travel I guess. Probably not what they want in this economic situation.

Skybird

06-10-09, 09:12 AM

SteamWake

06-10-09, 09:28 AM

According to this French article

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/deux-passagers-suspects-sur-le-vol-af447_766227.html

two names on the passenger list are identical to names of two known Islamic terrorists. French authorities currently try to verify the identity of the two suspects, which is difficult since no other information about them (birth dates etc.) currently are known and currently nobody can rule out that the matching names are by random chance only.

Different article, same topic.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Terror-Names-Linked-To-Doomed-Flight-AF-447-Two-Passengers-Shared-Names-Of-Radical-Muslims/Article/200906215300405?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15300405_Terror_Names_Linked_To_Doomed _Flight_AF_447%3A_Two_Passengers_Shared_Names_Of_R adical_Muslims

TarJak

06-10-09, 10:23 PM

Looks like the French have sent a nuclear sub to search for the black boxes:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/french-nuclear-sub-begins-search-for-jets-black-boxes-20090611-c3y7.html

SteamWake

06-10-09, 10:29 PM

Looks like the French have sent a nuclear sub to search for the black boxes:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/french-nuclear-sub-begins-search-for-jets-black-boxes-20090611-c3y7.html

Yes heard about this. If anyone can find those pings thats the boat to do it. :rock:

But I wonder... if they do find the boxes in that deep of water it will be an extrodinary misson to retrieve them.

TarJak

06-10-09, 10:39 PM

I guess they will call for some kind of deep sea oceanographic submersible with some sort of retireval claw or something, to retrieve them. Depending on where and if they find them of course.

d@rk51d3

06-11-09, 02:32 AM

And today, another Airbus, of the same model was forced to make an emergency landing whilst flying from Japan to Australia.

Apparently it caught fire.

What is it with these planes?

Skybird

06-11-09, 05:33 AM

Simultaneity of events does not automatically mean a causal link with the same cause.

CastleBravo

06-11-09, 06:00 AM

I hear that a threat was issued two days before the flight was lost. I also hear that two passengers have been linked to known terrorist cells.

But I haven't heard any claims of responsibility. Now this may very well be because the retaliation could be enormose.

But isn't there some claim of responsibility? Or have terrorists wised up?

Jimbuna

06-11-09, 06:12 AM

I'm a little suprised other nations haven't sent nukes to assist in a co-ordinated and more timely investigation of the area.

CastleBravo

06-11-09, 06:48 AM

I'm a little suprised other nations haven't sent nukes to assist in a co-ordinated and more timely investigation of the area.

In some ways it gives you some estimation as to how the nuclear powers divide the world. On the other hand there may be some dis-information as -wel.

d@rk51d3

06-11-09, 07:04 AM

Simultaneity of events does not automatically mean a causal link with the same cause.

I agree, but they seem to be making a few headlines these days. I know I'd think twice before boarding one.

TarJak

06-11-09, 07:15 AM

And today, another Airbus, of the same model was forced to make an emergency landing whilst flying from Japan to Australia.

Apparently it caught fire.

What is it with these planes?This was due to a fire in the cockpit. The airline has stated that it was a fault in the left side cockpit window heater. Initially there was smoke then flame which was quickly extingushed by the crew. The emergency landing was a precaution in case there were other problems which from first reports there were none found. Engineers were sent to do a thorough investigation before the aircraft will be cleared for return to it's home maintenance base where it will get checked over again.

The one that crashed off Brazil was a A330-200 whilst the one that did the emergency landing was an A330-300. There are significant differences between the two despite them sharing a common airframe and basic systems.

The fact that there are two incidents within weeks of one another from a common manufacturer is nothing significant.