AF 447 Search to resume
PJ2,
Quote:
The idea isn't to shut down a path of thought but to test a line of thought against serious objections. That is the way investigations are done.
Agreed. I think that it is equally incumbent on those who disagree with a clearly-stated point – and who have competence and experience in that area – to provide a specific counter-argument.
Quote, re the period prior to 0210z:
I think things began to develop before the loss of airspeed...
Yes. Things were developing, and are probably the key to the events that followed. But, if you refer to the first discrepancy in the flight regime, I don't think we can assume that it was necessarily a loss of airspeed.
If we stick to the theory of progressively freezing pitot-probes, it is unclear whether they result in an over-reading of airspeed, or the reverse. The BEA analysis of previous events shows a large proportion of cases where a stall warning occurred. In every case, there had already been a reversion to Alternate Law. As I understand it, the stall warning in Alternate Law is based on indicated airspeed falling to a certain threshold, not the AoA. As the indications are unreliable, the stall warning might have occurred despite the airspeed being normal, or even above normal.
To be simplistic: if a pitot tube is blocked, but the static is clear, that is very likely to result in an under-reading of airspeed. (We've visited this one before...)
Regards,
Chris
Quote:
The idea isn't to shut down a path of thought but to test a line of thought against serious objections. That is the way investigations are done.
Agreed. I think that it is equally incumbent on those who disagree with a clearly-stated point – and who have competence and experience in that area – to provide a specific counter-argument.
Quote, re the period prior to 0210z:
I think things began to develop before the loss of airspeed...
Yes. Things were developing, and are probably the key to the events that followed. But, if you refer to the first discrepancy in the flight regime, I don't think we can assume that it was necessarily a loss of airspeed.
If we stick to the theory of progressively freezing pitot-probes, it is unclear whether they result in an over-reading of airspeed, or the reverse. The BEA analysis of previous events shows a large proportion of cases where a stall warning occurred. In every case, there had already been a reversion to Alternate Law. As I understand it, the stall warning in Alternate Law is based on indicated airspeed falling to a certain threshold, not the AoA. As the indications are unreliable, the stall warning might have occurred despite the airspeed being normal, or even above normal.
To be simplistic: if a pitot tube is blocked, but the static is clear, that is very likely to result in an under-reading of airspeed. (We've visited this one before...)
Regards,
Chris
Last edited by Chris Scott; 22nd Apr 2011 at 09:44.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2 - to save my trawling thousands of posts, do we know if contact between the two oceanics about no 'comms' took place and whether Selcal and 123.45/121/5 was used?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
If we stick to the theory of progressively freezing pitot-probes, it is unclear whether they result in an over-reading of airspeed, or the reverse. The BEA analysis of previous events shows a large proportion of cases where a stall warning occurred. In every case, there had already been a reversion to Alternate Law. As I understand it, the stall warning in Alternate Law is based on indicated airspeed falling to a certain threshold, not the AoA. As the indications are unreliable, the stall warning might have occurred despite the airspeed being normal, or even above normal.
To be simplistic: if a pitot tube is blocked, but the static is clear, that is very likely to result in an under-reading of airspeed. (We've visited this one before...)
To be simplistic: if a pitot tube is blocked, but the static is clear, that is very likely to result in an under-reading of airspeed. (We've visited this one before...)
To begin with the last point, if a pitot tube is blocked, but the drain hole(s) and the static are clear, that is very likely to result in an under-reading of airspeed. That was the case in all thirteen cases of UAS studied by BEA (see Interim#2, 1.16.3)
In the same paragraph, BEA writes about Stall Warning:
Nine cases of triggering of the stall warning were observed.
Note : the manufacturer’s additional abnormal STALL warning procedure is included in appendix 5.
The stall warning triggers when the angle of attack passes a variable threshold value. All of these warnings are explicable by the fact that the airplane is in alternate law at cruise mach and in turbulent zones. Only one case of triggering was caused by clear inputs on the controls.
Note: At high altitude, the stall warning triggers in alternate law on approach to the stall. The stall manifests itself particularly through vibrations.
Note : the manufacturer’s additional abnormal STALL warning procedure is included in appendix 5.
The stall warning triggers when the angle of attack passes a variable threshold value. All of these warnings are explicable by the fact that the airplane is in alternate law at cruise mach and in turbulent zones. Only one case of triggering was caused by clear inputs on the controls.
Note: At high altitude, the stall warning triggers in alternate law on approach to the stall. The stall manifests itself particularly through vibrations.
In alternate or direct law, the angle-of-attack protections are no longer available but a stall warning is triggered when the greatest of the valid angle-of-attack values exceeds a certain threshold. In clean configuration, this threshold depends, in particular, on the Mach value in such a way that it decreases when the Mach increases. It is the highest of the valid Mach values that is used to determine the threshold. If none of the three Mach values is valid, a Mach value close to zero is used. For example, it is of the order of 10° at Mach 0.3 and of 4° at Mach 0.8.
Firstly, 4° at Mach 0.8 is rather early (compare to recent discussion on a 777 incident), with the risk of becoming ineffective because pilots then consider it 'inappropriate' (see Air Caraibes memo).
Secondly, 10° at Mach 0.3 is too late, when the speed drop is due to pitot blockage while actual speed is still Mach 0.8.
Finally, the occurence of stall warning in the cases studied by BEA does not seem to match the higher threshold after loss of IAS.
Regards,
HN39
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm43, for that matter the BEA has yet to discuss or release any transcripts of conversations between ATLANTICO and other flights on that track that night. IIRC, AF 447 was the only flight that did not diverge from the track on encountering the mesoscale convective complex.
LH507, which is suspected of being the flight with AMDAR, is mysteriously omitted from the BEA interactive map of the tracks that night. Why? Proprietary data, or does LH507's experience encountering the ITCZ leave too many questions yet to be answered?
Perhaps I overlooked it, but I have yet to find any reference as to when AF OOC looked at the ACARS messages. These seem not to have raised any flags at AF OOC at the time. AF and BREST still seem to be looking for the whereabouts of AF447 through 09h00. It is DAKAR at 09h40 that alerts French Naval Aviation that a plane is missing. French Naval Aviation goes on alert, contacts BREST, and several other centers in France. The BEA reports do not indicate when Brazil was contacted, or by whom, and asked to commence a search.
Asleep at the switch, anyone?
I would expect the BEA to ask the Drift Analysis group to do a re-analysis, and assess and explain why they and their models produced results that were so far off the mark. Until that happens, all the meteorological and oceanographic data on windage and current has to be looked at skeptically.
I increasingly think that French naval aviation and probably Brazil overflew the impact site on June 1 and saw nothing. Its possible that convection in the area later that day meant poor visibility or that parts of the area that supposedly were searched was never truly searched. In that event, the search should have been repeated when conditions improved, but was not. If this is the case, the result was 22 months of uncertainty, millions of Euros spent in wasted effort, and delays in getting to the boxes.
LH507, which is suspected of being the flight with AMDAR, is mysteriously omitted from the BEA interactive map of the tracks that night. Why? Proprietary data, or does LH507's experience encountering the ITCZ leave too many questions yet to be answered?
Perhaps I overlooked it, but I have yet to find any reference as to when AF OOC looked at the ACARS messages. These seem not to have raised any flags at AF OOC at the time. AF and BREST still seem to be looking for the whereabouts of AF447 through 09h00. It is DAKAR at 09h40 that alerts French Naval Aviation that a plane is missing. French Naval Aviation goes on alert, contacts BREST, and several other centers in France. The BEA reports do not indicate when Brazil was contacted, or by whom, and asked to commence a search.
Asleep at the switch, anyone?
I would expect the BEA to ask the Drift Analysis group to do a re-analysis, and assess and explain why they and their models produced results that were so far off the mark. Until that happens, all the meteorological and oceanographic data on windage and current has to be looked at skeptically.
I increasingly think that French naval aviation and probably Brazil overflew the impact site on June 1 and saw nothing. Its possible that convection in the area later that day meant poor visibility or that parts of the area that supposedly were searched was never truly searched. In that event, the search should have been repeated when conditions improved, but was not. If this is the case, the result was 22 months of uncertainty, millions of Euros spent in wasted effort, and delays in getting to the boxes.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SaturnV
Perhaps I overlooked it, but I have yet to find any reference as to when AF OOC looked at the ACARS messages.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HN39, thanks. That meant they looked at them around 08h00, and apparently nobody thought to look at them earlier.
----
4h20 AF 459 tells DAKAR they have been unsuccessful in raising AF 447, and have sent a message (@ 4h18) to AF OCC to this effect.
4h24 AF OCC sends an ACARS message to AF 447 asking them to contact DAKAR.
5h50 AF OCC contacts Search and Rescue Satellite Tracking Center and asks if they have any beacon transmissions..
Between 6h00 and 7h30 approximately, AF OCC and the following centers are talking with each other on whether there has been contact with AF 447.
SANTA MARIA, SHANWICK, CANARIAS, DAKAR, LISBOA, MADRID, ATLANTICO, BREST, CASABLANCA,
"At 7 h 29, the Air France OCC called the BREST centre to state its concerns over AF447. It stated that the airplane was not in contact either with Brazil or with Senegal and that the attempts at communication using the ACARS system, SATCOM and Stockholm radio were unsuccessful."
^^^ No reference to the ACARS messages that had been sent.
______________________
Mr. Optimistic, the Drift Analysis group said there were voids in some of the satellite imagery of the sea surface on June 1 because of rain in the area. However, every low-level aerial search grid that was flown in the days following seems to have presumed that the June 1 search grid was adequately done. The first sighting of floating objects from AF 447 was made by a passing cargo vessel, not an airplane.
----
4h20 AF 459 tells DAKAR they have been unsuccessful in raising AF 447, and have sent a message (@ 4h18) to AF OCC to this effect.
4h24 AF OCC sends an ACARS message to AF 447 asking them to contact DAKAR.
5h50 AF OCC contacts Search and Rescue Satellite Tracking Center and asks if they have any beacon transmissions..
Between 6h00 and 7h30 approximately, AF OCC and the following centers are talking with each other on whether there has been contact with AF 447.
SANTA MARIA, SHANWICK, CANARIAS, DAKAR, LISBOA, MADRID, ATLANTICO, BREST, CASABLANCA,
"At 7 h 29, the Air France OCC called the BREST centre to state its concerns over AF447. It stated that the airplane was not in contact either with Brazil or with Senegal and that the attempts at communication using the ACARS system, SATCOM and Stockholm radio were unsuccessful."
^^^ No reference to the ACARS messages that had been sent.
______________________
Mr. Optimistic, the Drift Analysis group said there were voids in some of the satellite imagery of the sea surface on June 1 because of rain in the area. However, every low-level aerial search grid that was flown in the days following seems to have presumed that the June 1 search grid was adequately done. The first sighting of floating objects from AF 447 was made by a passing cargo vessel, not an airplane.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wreckage location?
Mr Troadec said that wreckage were located at about 3900 meters depth.
I searched for an area in GE starting at about 3850M depth or below and delimited this area with markers.
There is also the picture published by the BEA to help.
The result is here below.
The area should be read clockwise starting ie NW1-->NW2-->N1-->N2-->E-->SE1-->SE2-->S-->S1-->S2-->SW1 -->WO2-->NW1. Depth inside this area should be at or below 3850. Please allow some inexactitudes. There is a "peninsula" extending southwards from SO1/SE2 towards S points. Inside this peninsula is a limited area above 3850M depth.
The area would be delimited by the markers listed below.
LKP 2.980000 -30.590000
NW1 3.085187 -30.667351
NW2 3.092785 -30.665565
N1 3.105311 -30.635955
N2 3.107749 -30.576287
E 3.075085 -30.554822
SE1 3.053872 -30.570126
SE2 3.059476 -30.610205
S 3.037939 -30.626338
S1 3.0000628 -30.605944
S2 3.006704 -30.630662
SW1 3.052021 -30.635182
SW2 3.062580 -30.652065
From the picture published by the BEA, with the position of the arrow, and the scale indicated, wreckage could be at 8.5 KM/4.59 NM in the North of LKP and slightly towards the East. It is not very reliable and precise because it is impossible to say if the arrow points to the exact location or a global area. The extremity of the arrow would show wreckage position nearby the SE1 point at about 3.056226 -30.576041 at a depth of about -3870 meters.
GE allows to "dive" and observe the bottom of the ocean in a somehow flat grounds area surrounded by mountains in the north and other higher grounds southward.
Markers can be positioned with GE at the bottom of the sea to keep a visual contact.
I searched for an area in GE starting at about 3850M depth or below and delimited this area with markers.
There is also the picture published by the BEA to help.
The result is here below.
The area should be read clockwise starting ie NW1-->NW2-->N1-->N2-->E-->SE1-->SE2-->S-->S1-->S2-->SW1 -->WO2-->NW1. Depth inside this area should be at or below 3850. Please allow some inexactitudes. There is a "peninsula" extending southwards from SO1/SE2 towards S points. Inside this peninsula is a limited area above 3850M depth.
The area would be delimited by the markers listed below.
LKP 2.980000 -30.590000
NW1 3.085187 -30.667351
NW2 3.092785 -30.665565
N1 3.105311 -30.635955
N2 3.107749 -30.576287
E 3.075085 -30.554822
SE1 3.053872 -30.570126
SE2 3.059476 -30.610205
S 3.037939 -30.626338
S1 3.0000628 -30.605944
S2 3.006704 -30.630662
SW1 3.052021 -30.635182
SW2 3.062580 -30.652065
From the picture published by the BEA, with the position of the arrow, and the scale indicated, wreckage could be at 8.5 KM/4.59 NM in the North of LKP and slightly towards the East. It is not very reliable and precise because it is impossible to say if the arrow points to the exact location or a global area. The extremity of the arrow would show wreckage position nearby the SE1 point at about 3.056226 -30.576041 at a depth of about -3870 meters.
GE allows to "dive" and observe the bottom of the ocean in a somehow flat grounds area surrounded by mountains in the north and other higher grounds southward.
Markers can be positioned with GE at the bottom of the sea to keep a visual contact.
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The Remora robot can work as far down as 6,000 meters. To ensure steady operation, a team of nine Phoenix experts will operate the 900-kilogram sub from the ship using large video monitors to track its progress. Every movement of the vessel at the surface is translated to the Remora's umbilical cable with a delay, said Brennan Phillips, manager of ROV operations at the University of Rhode Island in the U.S.
Delayed Reaction
"If the ship moves, it takes half an hour for the vehicle to feel it," he said. "You need an extremely stable ship."
I wonder why they don't use a compensating system (hydraulic-air) like used on the drill rigs (semi) or DS for the risers tensionners and on the derrick travelling block
This is odd. Why no Tether Management System?
The Remora robot can work as far down as 6,000 meters. To ensure steady operation, a team of nine Phoenix experts will operate the 900-kilogram sub from the ship using large video monitors to track its progress. Every movement of the vessel at the surface is translated to the Remora's umbilical cable with a delay, said Brennan Phillips, manager of ROV operations at the University of Rhode Island in the U.S.
Delayed Reaction
"If the ship moves, it takes half an hour for the vehicle to feel it," he said. "You need an extremely stable ship."
I wonder why they don't use a compensating system (hydraulic-air) like used on the drill rigs (semi) or DS for the risers tensionners and on the derrick travelling block
This is odd. Why no Tether Management System?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I have been very surprised of this "(very?) hign sea" in the accident night and subsequent days" when I saw this picture :
(picture is a cropped one from:Todesflug AF 447: Die Bilder vom Wrack auf dem Meeresboden - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Panorama)
How this box was able to stay in balance for several days? And more: it seems there is a bag just under the box. Kind of fabric handbag? Just left there by crew people as they often do?
About the same picture: damages to the structure from vertical G seems low. And the box on the top don't seem to have any deformation. Perhaps it was empty at this time of flight?
In the same categorie : as the wreckage area on sea bed seems small, the wreckage at sea level just after the impact had to be small also. So how could it be ignored if the place was trully searched? (no mismatch, it is not a critic to search teams, just a question).
Sorry if those questions have been discussed before,
Regards,
S
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
As I recall, didn't bad weather hamper the search in the early days: poor visibility and a high sea state may explain missed sightings.
(picture is a cropped one from:Todesflug AF 447: Die Bilder vom Wrack auf dem Meeresboden - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Panorama)
How this box was able to stay in balance for several days? And more: it seems there is a bag just under the box. Kind of fabric handbag? Just left there by crew people as they often do?
About the same picture: damages to the structure from vertical G seems low. And the box on the top don't seem to have any deformation. Perhaps it was empty at this time of flight?
In the same categorie : as the wreckage area on sea bed seems small, the wreckage at sea level just after the impact had to be small also. So how could it be ignored if the place was trully searched? (no mismatch, it is not a critic to search teams, just a question).
Sorry if those questions have been discussed before,
Regards,
S
Guest
Posts: n/a
As above, one problem since the accident has been a less than appropriate approach to the collection and evaluation of crash evidence. Politics, both International and internal, as well as corporate, have corrupted what should be a transparent and straightforward exercise, period.
No one to my knowledge has held fast to any theory that suggests the VS was the cause of upset, or for that matter separated completely before impact. Damaged? Certainly. Its find stimulated an ongoing discussion of many things aerodynamic and flightworthiness.
This forum is not, in my mind, the venue to determine what happened, and studious and awesome academic discourse notwithstanding, the bickering is evidence of that.
BEA is the fulcrum of the interest for me. Searches, politics, wild corporate statements and defenses have been the tenor, the "reports" crazily political and obfuscatory, to put it mildly. The Investigative authority is compact and witholding for trite and sadly historical purposes, to selfishly retain "control" and pre edit the finality of this tragedie's outcome for protection of the guilty, rather than the innocents.
Any reasonably proposed "what if" should be welcome, if only for its catalytic value. No one has the grail, and if the heat diminishes on the principals, no one ever will.
bear
No one to my knowledge has held fast to any theory that suggests the VS was the cause of upset, or for that matter separated completely before impact. Damaged? Certainly. Its find stimulated an ongoing discussion of many things aerodynamic and flightworthiness.
This forum is not, in my mind, the venue to determine what happened, and studious and awesome academic discourse notwithstanding, the bickering is evidence of that.
BEA is the fulcrum of the interest for me. Searches, politics, wild corporate statements and defenses have been the tenor, the "reports" crazily political and obfuscatory, to put it mildly. The Investigative authority is compact and witholding for trite and sadly historical purposes, to selfishly retain "control" and pre edit the finality of this tragedie's outcome for protection of the guilty, rather than the innocents.
Any reasonably proposed "what if" should be welcome, if only for its catalytic value. No one has the grail, and if the heat diminishes on the principals, no one ever will.
bear
On sea state etc I was recalling press releases from the very early days: given the storms it still makes sense.
Bad weather is hampering the search for bodies and debris from an Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, Brazilian officials said Friday.
Not sure why the limited number of photos released to the public is so difficult to understand. There isn't much interest in the general public and the only non-industry group that would matter are the relatives and can't see them caring too much about the distributed wreckage, in fact they may find it upsetting. So enough photos to prove the point and that's it. Pity, but understandable.
Bad weather is hampering the search for bodies and debris from an Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, Brazilian officials said Friday.
Not sure why the limited number of photos released to the public is so difficult to understand. There isn't much interest in the general public and the only non-industry group that would matter are the relatives and can't see them caring too much about the distributed wreckage, in fact they may find it upsetting. So enough photos to prove the point and that's it. Pity, but understandable.
Engines found where?
Recorders sunk in mud ?
99,9995 pictures being witheld
Just to remind, the TWA800 engines were separated in uncontroled flight and yet were found in the debris field, so let's not be too conclusive from just a single picture out of 100,000
looking at both the engine picture and the one with the gear it dosesn't look like they have sunk very much into the sea floor.
Give a thought also to TWA800 and the thousands of pictures taken on the seafloor that you have never seen..
Photos are released as the invstigating body sees fit to keep the public informed. After the experts decode all the various bits of information both for and against theories they typically release critical bits of facts (photos and recordings) that the experts feel corroborate their findings. They are not in the business of feeding theories that may end up diverting their resources from the expert based task at hand.
be happy that you got something that at least shows where the investigation is at.
Recorders sunk in mud ?
99,9995 pictures being witheld
Just to remind, the TWA800 engines were separated in uncontroled flight and yet were found in the debris field, so let's not be too conclusive from just a single picture out of 100,000
looking at both the engine picture and the one with the gear it dosesn't look like they have sunk very much into the sea floor.
Give a thought also to TWA800 and the thousands of pictures taken on the seafloor that you have never seen..
Photos are released as the invstigating body sees fit to keep the public informed. After the experts decode all the various bits of information both for and against theories they typically release critical bits of facts (photos and recordings) that the experts feel corroborate their findings. They are not in the business of feeding theories that may end up diverting their resources from the expert based task at hand.
be happy that you got something that at least shows where the investigation is at.
Guest
Posts: n/a
eg. 447's 'impact' started at altitude, and because the 'impact' was initially with air, (turbulent and vertically developing), the remark that she was intact at water entry is a likely false conclusion. I doubt she slowed much below .82 at first, but rather accelerated, and combined with turbulence, confounded her instruments (passive and active) into an ACARS jumble that decieves if one keeps a narrow mind. Know that a narrow mind is the goal product in the public v/v BEA. From the outset, AF and Gourgeon were clutching at any 'explanation' that would even put a crack in their obvious culpability. Along comes Airbus, and Thales becomes the criminal. A Labor action by the pilots was meat for the feast to AB.
Overspeed, turbulence, and a baffled computer and auto pilot? This accident is not a textbook one. Reliance on the way things have behaved throughout transits of the ITCZ in history will not suffice. BEA and the others have created (and welcomed) all that can be imagined in the way of keeping solutions from the public. Secrecy is for the old Eastern Bloc, this is a new time.
edit
having just this moment read lomapaseo, I thank you for demonstrating the mindset of the authority. Well said.
edit
#3787, shadoko.
May I direct one's attention to the strut supporting the shelving (box) panel of the cabin structure in the excellent photo?? I'll repeat from a year ago, I have seen far greater damage to such a structure after one of these was dropped off a loading dock from two meters. Some thing is wrong with BEA's report?? Different airplane?? Different impact?? Altitude??
Overspeed, turbulence, and a baffled computer and auto pilot? This accident is not a textbook one. Reliance on the way things have behaved throughout transits of the ITCZ in history will not suffice. BEA and the others have created (and welcomed) all that can be imagined in the way of keeping solutions from the public. Secrecy is for the old Eastern Bloc, this is a new time.
edit
having just this moment read lomapaseo, I thank you for demonstrating the mindset of the authority. Well said.
edit
#3787, shadoko.
May I direct one's attention to the strut supporting the shelving (box) panel of the cabin structure in the excellent photo?? I'll repeat from a year ago, I have seen far greater damage to such a structure after one of these was dropped off a loading dock from two meters. Some thing is wrong with BEA's report?? Different airplane?? Different impact?? Altitude??
Last edited by bearfoil; 22nd Apr 2011 at 14:54.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the search was widened it appears the wreckage moved back towards the LKP, possibly seen South of the LKP?, and then North till it caught up with the search and by then was spread out over more than 100NM.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Foster City, California
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recorders to be retrieved early May
A French article suggests BEA knows where to find the recorders and will retrieve them as their first priority:
Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : mission repêchage des boîtes noires
Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : mission repêchage des boîtes noires
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give a thought also to TWA800 and the thousands of pictures taken on the seafloor that you have never seen..
Guest
Posts: n/a
sensor validation
Why would one exclude the area about LKP to be assiduously searched and researched? A proprietary instinct that one's a/c would look dismal if found to have "fallen" from the sky rather than soldier on in spite of the "unlucky pilots" who missed the cell everyone else had "luckily" avoided? Poor dumb inept pilots, after all, the machine was stall proof and had far better breeding than a fall from great altitude would challenge?? Talk about unfortunate theories on PPRuNe, they actually started with the first unanswered Selcal? No monitoring of the a/c's flight in Paris? Unplug, damage control, blame, distract, redirect, dim the lights, etc. This flight ended in a typically corporate and political CF with the all too eager Press rabidly promoting the drivel from Paris and Toulouse.
imho.
Why would one exclude the area about LKP to be assiduously searched and researched? A proprietary instinct that one's a/c would look dismal if found to have "fallen" from the sky rather than soldier on in spite of the "unlucky pilots" who missed the cell everyone else had "luckily" avoided? Poor dumb inept pilots, after all, the machine was stall proof and had far better breeding than a fall from great altitude would challenge?? Talk about unfortunate theories on PPRuNe, they actually started with the first unanswered Selcal? No monitoring of the a/c's flight in Paris? Unplug, damage control, blame, distract, redirect, dim the lights, etc. This flight ended in a typically corporate and political CF with the all too eager Press rabidly promoting the drivel from Paris and Toulouse.
imho.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the article in "Le Figaro"
Excerpt:
Parmi les débris photographiés, pas de trace des boîtes noires mais la partie de l'appareil qui les abrite a été formellement identifiée et localisée. Il s'agit de la pressure bulkhead, la paroi qui sépare la partie pressurisée de l'appareil de sa partie non pressurisée, à l'arrière. Sur l'Airbus A 330, les deux boîtes noires sont fixées de part et d'autre de cette cloison.
"Among the debris photographed, no trace of the black boxes but the part of the aircraft which shelters them has been formally identified and located. It is the pressure bulkhead, the wall that separates the pressurized part of the aircraft and its nonpressurized one, at the back (of the plane). On the Airbus A330, the two black boxes are fixed on each side of this pressure bulkhead."
Personnal comment:
Since the beginning, "Le Figaro" seems to have been always very well informed.
Excerpt:
Parmi les débris photographiés, pas de trace des boîtes noires mais la partie de l'appareil qui les abrite a été formellement identifiée et localisée. Il s'agit de la pressure bulkhead, la paroi qui sépare la partie pressurisée de l'appareil de sa partie non pressurisée, à l'arrière. Sur l'Airbus A 330, les deux boîtes noires sont fixées de part et d'autre de cette cloison.
"Among the debris photographed, no trace of the black boxes but the part of the aircraft which shelters them has been formally identified and located. It is the pressure bulkhead, the wall that separates the pressurized part of the aircraft and its nonpressurized one, at the back (of the plane). On the Airbus A330, the two black boxes are fixed on each side of this pressure bulkhead."
Personnal comment:
Since the beginning, "Le Figaro" seems to have been always very well informed.