Investigators ponder what happened to Air France (AP)

News Manager

Milforums News Bot
AP - Was Air France Flight 447 downed by wind and hail from towering thunderheads? By lightning? Or by a catastrophic combination of factors?




More...
 
Ouch.

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

No trouble was reported as the plane left radar contact, beyond Brazil's Fernando de Noronha archipelago, at 10:48 p.m. local time -snip- About 14 minutes later, at 11:14 p.m. local time
Well, if 26 minutes later qualifies as "about" 14 min later, then they have to widen the search area...

thunderstorms towered up to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters) in the area, so it was possible that the plane flew directly into the most charged part of the storm — the top of it.
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:

Although aviation experts stressed it was much too early to speculate about the causes of the crash, they noted that the accident was most likely caused by various factors that combined to cause a catastrophic chain of events.
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
It seems that they may never be able to recover the flight recorder -snip-

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

Seriously, let them be heard.

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.

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

Lost jet data 'may not be found'

French aviation officials have said they may never find the flight data recorders of an Air France jet that went missing over the Atlantic.

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


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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Well, I more optimistic:

- It has been done before, and in deeper water (5km) in the Helderberg accident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295, also in the case of the China Airline crash into water in 2002: http://www.allbusiness.com/operations/shipping-air-freight/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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
-snip- 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.

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):

An Air France Airbus A330-200 was destroyed when it crashed into the sea while on transatlantic flight from Rio de Janeiro-Galeao International Airport, RJ (GIG) to Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport.

The airplane carried 12 crew members an 216 passengers. Flight AF447 departed at 19:03 local time (May 31) from Rio de Janeiro (GIG).

Last radio contact with the flight was at 01:33 UTC. The crew was in contact with the Atlantic Area Control Centre (CINDACTA III) when the flight reported over the INTOL waypoint, estimating TASIL at 02:20 UTC. INTOL is an RNAV waypoint located in the Atlantic Ocean, 565 km from Natal, Brazil. The TASIL waypoint is located 1228 kilometers from Natal. TASIL is at the border of the Recife FIR and Dakar Oceanic FIR.

At 01:48 UTC the aircraft went out of the radar coverage of CINDACTA III, Fernando de Noronha. Information indicated that the aircraft flew normally at FL350 and a speed of 453 kts.

A preliminary analysis of meteorological information shows that AF447 crossed through three key thunderstorm clusters: a small one around 01:51 UTC, a new rapidly growing one at about 01:59 UTC, and finally a large multicell convective system (MCS) around 02:05-02:16 UTC.

Over a time span of four minutes, starting at 02:10 UTC, a series of ACARS messages were sent -automatically- from the plane. The first message indicated the disconnection of the autopilot followed and the airplane went into 'alternate law' flight control mode. This happens when multiple failures of redundant systems occur.

From 02:11 to 02:13, multiple faults regarding ADIRU (Air Data and Inertial Reference Unit) and ISIS (Integrated Standby Intsruments System) were reported. Then on 02:13 the system reported failures of PRIM 1, the primary flight control computers that receive inputs from the ADIRU and SEC 1 (secondary flight control computers). The last message at 02:14 was a 'Cabin vertical speed' advisory.

On June 3, 06:40 UTC, a Brazilian Air Force R-99 plane positively identified four points of wreckage: Various objects scattered in a circular area of 5 km radius; an object 7m in lenght; ten objects (some of which metal) and an oil stain extending 20 km.
Rattler
 
Perhaps identification of the area if not the actual recovery is perhaps the sort of job a whale could be trained to do? Although I doubt if it is practical to train something as big as a sperm whale, they can dive to 3000m.

Interesting thought anyway.
 
Which "weather experts", Mr. Ratier? He is a deputy head of the French weahter bureau? Makes him a spokesperson,an interested party in blaming crew to not stain ABI, and on orders from Interior... (check for yourself: What does your deputy head of the department - of whatever job you are in - know about the job, really)?

Again, I caution against reporting such "news" as mostly the "experts" are internet users like you and me, or administrative heads of departments or spokepersons (else they would give a name, a degree and a bkgnd) and simply cited by medioa that want to cover their ass.

AFAIK there are two groups (with names, renounced bkgnds and experience, one is Tim Vasquez) discussing this heavily and coming to completley different (and exclusively different) conclusions: Nothing out of the ordinary or 100 mph updrafts in the area of last ACARS msg... .

Who do we believe?

Sorry, but not BBC (or CNN, DPA, AFP, RUI etc...)...

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Air France jet 'broke on impact'

French investigators trying to find out why an Air France plane crashed in the Atlantic say they believe it broke up on contact with water, not in the air.
They said they reached that conclusion after examining the plane's wreckage.
All 228 people aboard the plane were killed when it plunged into the ocean en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris on 1 June.

Teams looking for the plane's flight data recorders will continue operations for another 10 days, an official said.
Alain Bouillard of the investigating team said the plane probably hit the water belly-first.
He said the plane "appears to have hit the surface of the water in flying position with a strong acceleration".
The investigators also said that faulty speed sensors, which were suspected of being behind the crash, had been "a factor but not the cause".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8130989.stm
 
Back
Top