Air France Plane down

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Skadi, please contemplate on that last question.....no, based on previous experience, they were 'picking' their way through a line of thunder-bumpers....at least, that's how I'd picture the scenario.

We have all done it multiple times....something else happened....

CAn't guess anymore, not until we get more actual answers.....

AN Air France pilot yesterday declared it "highly likely" that disaster flight AF447 was blown up by a terrorist bomb.
www.thesun.co.uk...

AN Air France pilot yesterday declared it "highly likely" that disaster flight AF447 was blown up by a terrorist bomb.

The long-haul captain, speaking on condition of anonymity, dismissed the theory the doomed jet suffered catastrophic electrical failure.

And he ruled out suggestions the pilot of the Rio de Janeiro to Paris flight had tried to land on the sea.


The captain spoke as naval teams from Brazil and France scoured three miles of debris in the Atlantic, 750 miles north east of the Brazilian coast.

A 23ft chunk of fuselage and a 12-mile oil slick were also found 55 MILES to the south.

It also emerged Air France received a telephone threat against a flight from Argentina to Paris just four days before AF447 vanished without sending a Mayday message.

Passengers were delayed for two hours when police boarded the jet in Buenos Aires as it prepared to take off.

They searched in vain for a device before clearing the plane to leave.


The same day, the doomed Airbus 300 was reported in perfect order by technicians for a flight from Bangalore to Paris.

Talking of Monday's tragedy, in which 228 died, the Air France pilot said: "If there was an explosion on board, the wreckage would have been spread over a very wide area, as it was.

"So in my opinion there is no other option than the highly likely theory that a bomb went off on the plane - perhaps even a large bomb that destroyed it in mid-air leaving no chance to send a message."

He added: "I have flown these jets for more than ten years and the chances of an electrical fault seem unfeasible.

"There are five electricity supplies on the plane. And to cause it to break down completely they would all have to fail. Even then, a type of wind turbine takes over to generate power.

"We cannot know if it crashed after being struck by lightning. But we know this is very rare."

French defence minister Herve Morin said a terror attack could not be ruled out.


But he pointed out NO group had claimed responsibility.

I know this is from the Sun but does not sound good at all.Will be interesting to see if there is any collaboration from other news sites.

Edit.. just found this.Officials investigate Argentina bomb threat as pilot claims Air France Flight 447 was blown out of the sky by terrorists www.dailymail.co.uk... -threat.html


[edit on 4-6-2009 by tarifa37]

I started up a thread about this but different viewpoint on what caused it and was told to post here.

I believe solar flare activity may have brought down AF447 and may have also contributed to the severity of the thunderstorms. If you take a look at SOHO images of the 30th of May you will see a rather large flare erupt around 0030Z. Solar flares can take up to a day to pass earthLINK. I then took a look at the Real-Time Magnetosphere site and downloaded the video for the 31st of May. Starting around 2000z you can see a few shockwaves hit the shield in the images on the upper right. The Magnetic Field fluctuates also.LINK.

The crash site sits on the Northern edge of the SSA(South Atlantic Anomoly) also. With this potential weakness in the shield in that area and also if the charge of the particles was the same as the SAA would that not let larger amount of Solar radiation through? Could Solar flare activity also affect weather patterns and have contributed to the severity of the storms?

We'll never know I'm afraid. It will be a miraculous salvage if they can find the boxes.

Deez

I'm really mystified by the "I'm afraid to fly in fly by wire aircraft" crowd.
These things are not like your car, which has one version of the control system and one with no back-up.

A320 the first fully digital fly by wire aircraft (Concorde had the first fly-by wire controls except with analog signals) has triple redundancy of the flight control systems by means of 3 different hydraulic systems, there are 7 flight control computers on board for the signalling to each hydraulic system and if all else fails you still have mechanical cables to the rudder and THS which would allow you to fly the plane under total electrical failure.

Before 777 the difference between Airbus and Boeing was that Boeings are Mechanically Signalled and Hydraulically actuated. Airbus are Electrically Signalled and Hydraulically Actuated. In both cases the Hydraulics are signalled by a cable, in one case the cable is electric in the other it is mecanical (more of a rod).

The cable bundles that carry the signalls to the hydraulics in an Airbus are actually THICKER than those used to mechanically signal the hydraulics in Boeing. Redundancy is much easier to implement since you don't have to route more and more pully and lever systems through the aircraft, they are much easier to repair and spot flaws in, it s clearly a better system despite the propaganda that Boeing sent out trying to tell people that is was weak technology, they HAD to put it on 777 in order to compete, they will also put it on 787 in order to compete. FBW is clearly the better control system. It is safe and all the computer actually does outside of Autopilot is stop the Pilot from pulling maneuvres that might damage the plane.

You can still force the computers to allow you into Direct Law, which gives you complete unrestricted control over the aircraft, this is granted by the computer while the plane is taking off and occasionally on landing.

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Skadi, please contemplate on that last question.....no, based on previous experience, they were 'picking' their way through a line of thunder-bumpers....at least, that's how I'd picture the scenario.

"picking their way ... "

What a load of rubbish.



He flew into a wall of cloud which I have learned on another website reached 55,000ft. Look at the pictures...

There is no gap to pick one's way through.

He could have flown around it to the West. You make ridiculous excuses WW and you refuse to study the actual evidence.

reply to post by sy.gunson


Please, sy....consider the scale of the image you've posted.

I can see an outline of the Brazilian coastline....it encompasses hundreds of kilometers....

You cannot differentiate, in the 'blobs' in that picture, what was actually going on...since there is no reference to WHAT exactly it is showing!!!

Iw it showing ALL rainfall??? Violent thunsderstorms do NOT crowd up against one another!!!! The effects of the formaqtion of the storms prevent that....they can 'merge', and grow larger....but this doesn't happen in an instant!!! In fact....well....I just don't find your pictures compelling, for tte reasons I've stated.

I have seen 'similar' lines of isolated storms....all with rain in between....I have lived (obviously) to tell you that I have successfully navigated between acitive cells...probably scores of times.....in my career.

Think about the 'Hurricane Hunters' --- specially equipped C-130s, usually....they fly into Hurricanes, taking atmospheric readings. Saw one interviewed, recently...he said most they hit is about 6 Gs.....

Now, you know...for a large commercial jet....6 positive Gs...while outsidethe 'designed' envelope, is survivable. Would certainly require a huge inspection....possible hull loss/write-off. 6 negative Gs....an entire different story....and, frankly....I just cannot see it.

CAT is pretty violent....and, since so unexpected, more injuries are incurred. BUT, I have NEVER heard of 6 Gs in CAT encounters.

EVEN IF encountered...is isn't the amount of G Force, it's the duration that matters.

Transient exposure, even in 'extreme' turbulence (which is a PIREP category, BTW)...defined as total loss of control...some have encountered, and come out and told of it later. It is almost always quick, and violent....but, again...the violence needs to be sustained for a long time, for structural damage to occur. And I mean....tens of minutes...and, we DO NOT do that!!! WE get out of it, as quickly as possible....descending, if the only option, is better than penetrating a severe cell.

Sorry....just cannot believe that turbulence could bring down a modern jet. I've been through some rough stuff....we already know what Mother Nature can dish out, and how best to avoid the worst....decades of aviation have taught us this.

Somethin' else happened.....

Originally posted by FredT
Reply to post by CloudySkye

 

My understanding is that the FDR's contain voice recording of the cockpit and they also have on newer jets stuff like flight controll positions, FADEC numbers, info on the performance of critical systems, and a log of any faults. The crash near Buffalo was a case in point. They were able to tell when the deicing systems had been turned on etc. New FDR's give a lot of data.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

these days FDRs on FBW aircraft record every paramater that the Flight Control Computers can see as well as any recorded errors and the time of those errors, as has been said, you can precisely reconstruct a flight in a FBW aircraft from the data given by its FDRs

For those who don't know them, sorry for all the TLA's

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]

reply to post by weedwhacker


reply to post by sy.gunson




You 2 pilots have to learn to respect eachothers experiences and I think its time to agree to disagree on this one

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]

reply to post by FredT

My understanding is that the FDR's contain voice recording of the cockpit and they also have on newer jets stuff like flight controll positions, FADEC numbers, info on the performance of critical systems, and a log of any faults.

Mostly correct, Fred.

Just to be specific....thre are SSFDRs, and CVRs...although, the distinctions are becoming blurred.

An SSFDR is, as denoted...a Solid Stade Flight Data Recorder...and is tasked, of course, with recording a lot of digital information...hundreds, actually...No moving parts, just wired in to the various systems and devices wihich electronicsally send ones and zeroes to be recorded, on memory cards. The SSDVRs can hold over 25 hours of memory. They are routinely downloaded, by Maintenace....using socket on the Flight Deck, and hand-held units that they carry aboard.

More modern versions of the CVR are now solid State, as well...and record with better clarity than the old magnetic tapes....but, still...only are supposed to provide a minimum of the last 30 minutes, prior to power failre, or erasure. (There is a process whereby pilots can erase a CVR....after a flight, with the Parking Brake set....we are told if we hold the red 'ERASE button for at least 30 seconds, under those conditions, everything is deleted). I never tested that aspect of it...never needed to....Oh...we 'tested' the CVR, in the preflight..."Required Item", first flight of the day.....there were things to look for, to ascertain proper operation....

There are likely, now...combined units....the DCVR and SSFDR in one compact, easily located (they hope) single 'box'....I think, because of weight issues...and space requirements, they are becoming prevalent on Bizjets....the combined units. You can shop for them on various manufacturers sites....but, don't try to buy one!!! Look for crashed and 'salvaged' units....except then, you'll only likely find the old ones...that used the foil tape, that recorded about a dozen parameters, if that!

As to how many parameters a modern SSFDR can record...I've posted links on some 9/11 threads....

The CVR is still only supposed to record the last 30 minutes....it covers all of the radios...all VHFs, HFs, SATCOMMS...as well as what is called the "CAM"....cockpit area microphone...and all of the interphone communications too.

here's the rub, though: BOTH recorders, whether integrated as one, or two separate units, are nevertheless powered by main electric...usually Main Bus #1. There is no thought to giving them indepent power supplies, except, of course, for the location 'pingers' that we've all heard about, by now.

As we saw, in Swiss Air 111....and certain other major accidents, of late...if MAIN electircs go off, for any reason...and the bus is not re-powered from another source, Recorders stop...Even if still in flight, prior to impact.

I don't want to be the one to pay for re-designs....but there is certainly no reason (other than cost issues) that a dedicated battery could not be implemented into the design....it qwouldn't have to weigh that much more....there would be circuitry that would keep it charged....there would also have to be a small inverter, for the AC power, to the unit....in case of MAIN AC failure...because, of course, the battery would be DC...

I am sure these designs enhancements exist already....but, again....it's the price of retrofit....and, as I pointed out in a previous post....the lawyer's opinions....because, in these sorts of tragedies.....lawyers win, and victims, and their families lose......

Sorry to take a down note, on this thread....but, I think this is the new reality....

Kapton Wiring dangers

Another factor people forget. Military and NASA have banned this DuPont wiring for good reason.

It is very much used on Boeing and Airbus planes.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]

www.dailymail.co.uk... -threat.html

Officials investigate Argentina bomb threat as pilot claims Air France Flight 447 was blown out of the sky by terrorists

But an unidentified senior long-haul Air France pilot told a French newspaper: 'I have flown these jets for Air France for more than ten years and the chances of an electrical fault seem unfeasible to me.

'There are five electricity supplies on the plane and they would all have to fail.' He said a bomb was the only logical reason for why the captain failed to send out a mayday call.

Originally posted by dallas18
www.dailymail.co.uk... -threat.html

Officials investigate Argentina bomb threat as pilot claims Air France Flight 447 was blown out of the sky by terrorists

But an unidentified senior long-haul Air France pilot told a French newspaper: 'I have flown these jets for Air France for more than ten years and the chances of an electrical fault seem unfeasible to me.

'There are five electricity supplies on the plane and they would all have to fail.' He said a bomb was the only logical reason for why the captain failed to send out a mayday call.

So, explain the large oil slick? Wouldnt the fuel have burned up in an explosion? Unless the explosion was just enough at a critical point to cause a structure failure but not a big detonation.

As for no radar coverage in the ocean, satellites or offshore radar platforms would solve that issue.

Isn't the electricity supplied by the engines? If they stop what is the power situation? How long can the electrics last with no engine power?

As for electric failures check out Kapton wiring.

As for fault tolerance, sure you may have 5 systems or wiring plans but they all probably pass through one single point and if you hit that, bye bye failovers.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Yes well I am a pilot and i do work around Boeings in my job so I am well familiar with wheel wells thanks. Boeings use electrical actuators. Have you ever heard of autothrottle, or autopilots ?

Who do you think was flying the Turkish 737-800 which crashed at Schipol ?
It wasn't the pilots.

No, it wasn't the pilots, that's why they crashed.

Btw the autothrottle servos on the 37 only moves the throttle levers, there's all cables from there to the FADEC's on the NG and MEC on the classics.

You honestly believe pilots still fly Boeings by hand ?

Well i do whenever i can (and have alot of fun doing it)

I am referring to flying manually because even flying manually a 737 is usually flown in a semi automated condition.

Well in my airline we have got this silly nothing or all rule, autopilot off, autothrottle off, and autopilot on, autothrottle on.

(You did of course know that the B737 can be flown on full manual revertion? without hydraulics and electrics.)

reply to post by dallas18


Bomb threats, three days (or more) after the fact...fit few profiles.

I have tentatively suggested, previously...an inflight fire, in the cabin...one of unknown cause, as yet..since unmanaged, or unmanageable.....but substantial and devasting enough to mimic the Swiss Air 111 disaster.

I could be totally wrong....I hope that I AM wrong....but, given what littel we know, so far....and based on previous examples....this is likely as any other scenario....

reply to post by weedwhacker


I have no idea what teh set-up of FDRs are in Boeing craft bu I can tell you that there is most certainly a DC to AC converter (and back again) on Airbus craft and before you'd even need that youd have to have a failure in both your engine generators and your Apu generator and your RAT generator...

If you are flying with no engines or fuel the RAT will provide power to the Priority bus and hence the FDRs no need for the batteries to do anything.

If the electrical harness fails then you wouldnt be able to record anything on the FDR's anyway since the sensors would be down. That is why batteries aren't necessary on the FDRs.

reply to post by sy.gunson


I don't get it. What's the problem with these clouds ? Tons of other planes use the same path everyday and flew right through the same clouds yet nothing happened to them.

reply to post by zorkthegreat


the engines are but one source of the electricty, there are of course back up supplies in case of generator failure on the engines, or in case of having no more fuel.

As for eing able to take out all the back-up circuits, you managed to imagine in but a short time that if they all pass through a point and that point is damaged then they will fail. In 15 years of design so you not think that Airbus also realised this and found a solution?

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]

Originally posted by Demos
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

I don't get it. What's the problem with these clouds ? Tons of other planes use the same path everyday and flew right through the same clouds yet nothing happened to them.

Perhaps it looked like a picture of Jesus or something.

Originally posted by zorkthegreat

Originally posted by Demos
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

I don't get it. What's the problem with these clouds ? Tons of other planes use the same path everyday and flew right through the same clouds yet nothing happened to them.

Perhaps it looked like a picture of Jesus or something.

No they weren't South American Pilots, they were French so it probably looked like a tempting mistress or a giant pair of boobs. If only the HUD could make it appear to be their mother-in-law or wife they'd have taken a huge diversion.

Joking aside, in a short time the same set of clouds can turn from not a problem to problematic. the same way that one minute its blue skies the next its torential rain.

Would it be possible to survive a water impact of you go in feet first or dive in with your hands pushing water past your head like a diver?