After the Lockerbie accident, when the a/c came apart ahead of the wing L/E , the rest of the a/c came down with enough force to dig a crater 200 feet wide and 60'- 80' deep, closing the M74 for 2 days. They found the engines........
If the AF had a similar break up, I doubt you'd find the galley a-floating on the briny.
Very early in this thread, I posted the following, but cannot find it now. This is copied from my word processor
Quote:
Again, I think that there is a good possibility that the airplane may have gone down intact. I based this on the thus far slow or lack of discovery of a debris footprint. Had the airplane failed at altitude, given the altitude, speed, and winds aloft, then one could reasonably expect an extended area of debris which would track with the airplane as it descended. I doubt it would have been difficult to locate.
To compare, I recall all too well the Lockerbie situation with the inflight breakup of PA and the area that was affected. The heavy portion fell in the village, and nearby area, but countless other items extended for miles. Some large, some small.
On the other hand, MS990 created only two relatively small debris field in the Atlantic. One 62 X 66 meters, and the other 83 X 73. This airplane entered the water mostly intact
I still think that the airplane reached the water with the fusillage together, with some failure occuring on impact. This would account for the varied distribution of bodies compared to the seating chart. Had the cabin broke at or around R & L 2, a good case can be made for the galley.
Interesting the Lockerbie has been brought up. (I, unfortunately, remember it all too well.) We know for a fact that Pan Am 103 broke apart at altitude. I'd like to correlate this with the recovered bodies from 103 and AF 447. If we all remember, although 103 broke apart at altitude many of the recovered bodies were fully clothed. (Reference: "my boy", "the man in the suit", etc.) So, in answer to someone's query earlier this week: because the bodies that were recovered from AF 447 were clothed, or not, I believe is indicative of nothing as far as a break up at altitude or not. Perhaps i"m incorrect. Then again, this supposition does nothing toward understanding what the CAUSAL factors of AF 447's destruction were.
Yet another dozen pages added to this thread because a few contributors refuse to read or otherwise ignore the "evidence" to date that BEA brings forward in its preliminary report which leads BEA to declare it is likely that the aircraft hit the water intact.
Allow me to paste here some quotes from pages 38 to 40 of the said report:
"The identified debris thus comes from all the areas of the plane."
"Part of the radome was found, representing approximately a fifth of its
circumference along its upper part."
"The galley, identified as G2, located at the level of door 2 on the right-hand
side, was not very distorted. Baskets and racks were compressed in the lower
part of both galley carts."
"The distortions observed in the metal vertical reinforcements of a toilet door
showed evidence of significant compressive forces."
"Fragments of the walls of the flight crew rest module were crumpled and
those of the ceiling were deformed downwards. The floor was curved under
the effect of a strong upward pressure from below. The connecting brackets
between the floor and the walls were bent backwards."
"Observations of the tail fin and on the parts from the passenger (galley, toilet
door, crew rest module) showed that the airplane had likely struck the surface
of the water in level flight, with a high rate vertical acceleration."
Assuming on what was there in terms of clues at the time of the publication of the report, I gues this sounds all perfecty plausible. To doubt the official investigating body and contrary to BEA's concrete findings speculate otherwise on NO evidence at all is irresponsible and a waste of space.
The final report will take into account all clues and evidence that has and, for now, will become available, hopefully when the wreckage and the recorders are found.
To doubt the official investigating body and contrary to BEA's concrete findings speculate otherwise on NO evidence at all is irresponsible and a waste of space.
Is it? Are you sure? So accepting on blind faith the hastily assembled preliminary observations of the official investigators' hypotheses based on some very limited bits of evidence is ok is it? I dont see much yet that can be labelled as "concrete findings" from anyone, even BEA.
I dont mean to single you out on this DB, because your response was quite valid and yes I agree it is frustrating to read the same things coming back again and again. However, whether we like it or not, iteration is a hugely important aspect of any kind of problem solving. It is only annoying in this forum because it is inconvenient; it doesn't fit neatly into a single-thread debating format.
So, either we take the view DB alludes to that there is no point whatsoever to this thread and we should just let the investigators do their job...
...or we allow this thread to stand as a collective demonstration that the aviation community will not accept less than the highest standard of problem solving in this case.
Whether the investigators take heed of some of the additional cognitive reasoning being offered by contributors to this forum, or not, they will surely be aware that this is one of the key places at which their findings MUST stand up to criticism.
Unfortunately in the field of problem solving it is NOT sufficient to say "Oh I wish people would shut up about x,y,z because they were mentioned 130 pages ago" because unless these things churn over and get re-evaluated obvious missing links will stay missing. It took a 13 year old kid to point out the that dial-up could become DSL due to an obvious oversight by an entire industry.
- I agree it is frustrating to read all the repitition though, particularly in such a complicated case. I would propose to the moderators that AF447 should temporarily occupy its own section within PPRuNe - with seperate sub-threads for the main debating issues, general news and a summary; until such a time as the evidence, reporting, speculation and debate of each nuance begin to gravitate towards something conclusive.
I would propose to the moderators that AF447 should temporarily occupy its own section within PPRuNe - with seperate sub-threads for the main debating issues, general news and a summary; until such a time as the evidence, reporting, speculation and debate of each nuance begin to gravitate towards something conclusive.
That would be an administrative nightmare. The hapless moderators are busy enough deleting posts at random -to busy to take on the additional chores you describe. The closest thing I think you could whip up is an 'announcement post' (which would show up on each page) and would have researched links to Frequently asked questions. Forum software like this isnt really designed for the type of analysis attempted here.. A Wiki- would be a bit better, not really good but good enough to muddle through with a bit of effort and a lot of discipline/moderation. Maybe PPRuNe could start up a wiki?? Ppruneipedia?
"So accepting on blind faith the hastily assembled preliminary observations of the official investigators' hypotheses based on some very limited bits of evidence is ok is it?"
Yes. The time constraint was 30 days and they only posted the basic knowned facts or what they observed at that 30-day period. They specifically stated that they were not making any hypothesis.
Quote:
This document has been prepared on the basis of the initial information gathered during the investigation, without any analysis and - given the continuing absence of wreckage, the flight recorders, radar tracks and direct testimony - without any description of the circumstances of the accident. Some of the points covered may evolve with time. Nothing in the presentation of this interim report or in the points that are raised therein should be interpreted as an indication of the orientation or conclusions of the investigation.
Until such time as new facts or evidence emerges, perhaps this thread should be closed, as it is, anyhow, vanishing up its own ass with constant rehashing and repetition based on very little known & no new evidence.
I am not forced to read it, but, like so many others I look here for new information or perhaps a "new" angle on what has happened. At the moment I have (and feel free to disagree) the distinct impression that like most threads following an accident this one is now going round in circles chasing it's own tail. It is frustrating to have to wade through pages of speculative suggestions recycled & regurgitated ad infinitum, to only find that there is nothing new of any value.
Captplaystation, mate I completely agree with you!
I fly the A332 (and A343/5), so I am obviously keen to find out what happened, however the thought of wading through 4000 posts of speculative drivel (as is often the case on these hallowed forums) fills me with dread and fear, and frankly I can't be arsed!
So please guys, why don't we make a new pact (or thread) that only brings NEW relevant information to the fore that actually may be of some use to us buggers that actually fly the things.
Seems to me there's a big difference between speculating on other possible scenarios and saying flat-out that the preliminary report's wrong.
If the galley tumbled down by itself, it's an interesting coincidence that it landed right-side up (as the damage at the bottom seems to indicate). Add in the similiar damage pattern on a number of other items, and coincidence starts looking like a pretty unsatisfactory explanation.
i reckon the final report will say a perfectly serviceable aircraft entered an area of extreme intense thunder storm activity supplemented by abnormally high ISA's being a contributory factor.
Why is anybody so quick to close this topic. If you frequent the thread then it takes very little time to keep and stay up to date. If a poster is being redundent with previous info, simply disregard it and continue to the next post. Suggesting the topic be closed is a redundent statement too.
Ok, quick question. If you ice over the pitot tube inlet, the obvious thing that should happen is that the pressure in the tubing behind the pitot will bleed out the bleed port intended to remove moisture and airspeed indications will drop toward zero. But on a heated pitot, if the interior is hot enough, some of the moisture might flash to steam and actually pressurize the pitot system between the ice block and the remaining tubing. Has anyone seen this effect? Keep in mind that the boiling point of water at FL350 isn't that high. Much less than 100 degrees C/ 212 degrees F. Can anyone conclusively say that AF447 didn't get a (bogus) Mach warning at the beginning of their problems? Sid
I would imagine that the latent heat of vaporisation at 31C would be very different to the usually quoted value at 100C. Just goies to show why youy can't get a decent cup of coffee up a mountain.
Not adding anything to the debate, other then to prove there are more answers than question on the web .. this is a different set of numbers from wiki-answers.
17 in. Hg: 188.07 °F or 86.71 °C (at approx 15,000 ft or 4572 m above SL)
10 in. Hg: 175.11 °F or 79.51 °C (at approx 27,000 ft or 8230 m above SL)
5 in. Hg: 165.85 °F or 74.36 °C (at approx 42,000 ft 12,802 m above SL)
Perhaps when I get a minute tomorrow I'll find the formaula and make an excel sheet .. if only for me own eddification. Then look up what latent heat of vaporisation has to do with it - and why it increases at altitude, when I would expect it to decrease with falling vapour pressure.
A quick question to AF crew, if they happen to read this. Do you get any information about the search operations? The latest summary I found on the BEA site is from July 17th. If you have information, are you allowed to share it? I'd like to know what area has been surveyed so far; what the planning is; is the progress as foreseen, or slower?
It appears to be popular with others.
