Topic: Investigators ponder what happened to Air France (AP)

Ouch.

So many errors in one report, something (recently) typical for reporters writing about air disasters...

Well, if 26 minutes later qualifies as "about" 14 min later, then they have to widen the search area...

It is not the thunderstorms, its CB (cumulonimbus clouds) that tower that high. Actually, the top is the *least* dangerous area concerning lightning (NOTE: Not talking turbulence here, strictly *lightning strikes*), dont have the sources present on this machine but can provide if necessary.

Wont go into more details, it goes on and on and on, but one thingy:

Well, those "aviation expterts" are all the http://www.pprune.org/ members (yesterday it was visibly running in the bkgnd of CNN and they read from it literally w/o understanding what they read), so you get better info there (just have to learn to separate the troll inputs from the flywise guys inputs and to mesh through 20+pages).

Most of what you read in the article are citations from there...

I *hate* journalists that just do Internet Research and sell it as their own...

Rattler

It seems that they may never be able to recover the flight recorder so perhaps we will never know.

Why aren't these designed to eject from the tail when subject to a deceleration (like an airbag being activated in a car) and float, perhaps the data could then be communicated to a circulating aircraft by telemetry.

What information/data do you base this assumption/statement on, please?

Seriously, let them be heard.

Because it would be deployed too often as you cannot standardize parameters...

My only grudge with FDR management/handling/administration is that today we have way more options w/o the need for a search:

- continous downlink of FDR and CVR data
- instead of Cockpit Voice Recorder have a Cockpit Video Recorder

Unfortunately (from my POV) privacy and trade union concerns make this improbable to happen anytime soon (and with reason to some extent: e.g.: Many drivers might be stating something along the lines of "Our CEO is a SOB" during chit chat when no sterilie cockpit is required, there have been companies acting on such comments firing the pilots in question; imagine when it gets into - not unheard of - discussing the qualities of whatver type of a certain flight attendand...)

My take would be to *force* companies to not read the CVRs by law if not a diaster had happened, combined with some really harsh sanctions (to the point where the company would be out of market and the perpetrator in jail) if not complied.

I think the safety aspect really requires it (and the cost, as seen in this case, also).

My 2c

Rattler

Well the possible impact area is so wide, and the sea is almost 4km deep. Even if found it they then have to raise it. Also:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8080669.stm


Yes, I understand the problem, buffeting etc You may not require pre-deployment if landing in a river etc. However, cars have to cope with this issue, which would be very dangerous if deployed accidentally. I assume you need a high G force deployment, and a manual overide in case the aircraft gradually sinks after a more controlled landing as on the Hudson.

Well, I more optimistic:

- It has been done before, and in deeper water (5km) in the Helderberg accident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_A...ays_Flight_295, also in the case of the China Airline crash into water in 2002: http://www.allbusiness.com/operation.../201829-1.html

- the fairly concentrated debris field suggests there was no in-flight breakup, so, despite strong unterwater durrents at least they know whre to look

- at 3700 mtr water depth the pingers should be tracable (if they work, of cause)

- side scan sonar can work wonders

- when and if located, salvage should not be the main issue at that comapratively low depth, but it will be costly.

The French marine and deapp sea salvage vessels are due to arrive in 7 days, after that I expect we will know more about chances for recovery of the recorders.

Rattler

You gotta hand it to the expert.

Here we go again, once we are either the person who is expert in the area or know someone who is expert in the area, we realize how wrong the Press is. Makes you really wonder.

I am no real expert but I have a geography background and I can tell you that what Rattler has said about the clouds is absolutely correct. Lightning occurs at much lower altitudes and the upper part of the cumulous clouds are far more stable. This is sort of what people mean by "flying over the weather." Most of the difficult weather is at lower altitutdes.

Rattler, there are also concerns about the 'mountainous terrain' of the sea floor making it difficult, do you think this will be significant. They have a month to find it anyway.

Yes, this might be a backdraw as far as I understand (but I am *not* an expert on these things, so take with a grain of salt).

Rattler

But only as far as strictly "lightning strikes" are concerned.

Turbulence can be severe even way on top of a CB or at the sides (these beasts have thermal up and downwinds one by each other that can rip anything apart: I have heard stated several times that the potential energy conserved within a thunderstorm CB can equal a hiroshia bomb, the only thing similar i found in my net reasearch was that one claiming even more: http://twitter.com/bertplat/status/1915854664)

The prob is that up- and down currents are very close to each other, millions of tons of air mass oving at high speed, one up- one donwnwards.

Put anything of a minor (relatively) mass like an airliner in the middle of two of those, and you have a jojo you cannot control aerodynamically.

In the case of the airbus disaster one of the (totally speculative of cause, as we have no facts or data to decuct from yet) scenarios would be a lightning strike disabling wx radar and the drivers consecutively entering a newly formed cell with characterisitcs as described above: Probable in-fligh break-up due to forces involved.

Another scenario would see elec systems failure (in accord with the 1st automated ARAS msg) possibly incuced by hail ingestion or icing and the crew forced to drop in order to intend re-lighting and hitting the lightning intensive part of the CB...

There are more, but they are just that: Possilbe and not at all probable scenarios until we have some facts.

Current facts as I am writing (from aviation net, and you can see what the press makes of such scarce info):

Rattler