Missing plane probably crashed in the Atlantic
 

The jet carrying 228 people from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, that disappeared overnight as it entered an area of strong turbulence probably crashed into the Atlantic Ocean... very sad news :wah:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/am...zil/index.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Do you have a source for this?

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.

FLASH

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

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

Thanks for the info and the link.

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.

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.

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/_JGyMlGQKTS...oZw/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.

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?

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.

Im in complete agreement here :nope:

This is an hour old:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...bus-crash.html

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.

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