AF 447 Search to resume (part2)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Access. Somewhere between "Ere, let's 'ave a look?" and by subpoena.
In this case, and others, access by Court order is sufficient. Other than that, a standard "FOIA" should do nicely. And does. No one I know has demanded release of raw data, as yet. There are still missing some traces from the final minute of Perpignan, however.
Academic access? Certainly, and provided for. Access for commercial reasons? Probably, and unavoidable.
Accident results are in the Public domain, suredly.
In this case, and others, access by Court order is sufficient. Other than that, a standard "FOIA" should do nicely. And does. No one I know has demanded release of raw data, as yet. There are still missing some traces from the final minute of Perpignan, however.
Academic access? Certainly, and provided for. Access for commercial reasons? Probably, and unavoidable.
Accident results are in the Public domain, suredly.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bearfoil
In this case, and others, access by Court order is sufficient. Other than that, a standard "FOIA" should do nicely. And does. No one I know has demanded release of raw data, as yet. There are still missing some traces from the final minute of Perpignan, however.
Or, maybe that this quote is for enlighting your claimed "objectivity"!
Public domain: those data are under justice control and nothing will be in the public domain until this case is fully settled. Only declared parties can access it. As for the raw data, NTSB, AAIB, etc. are fully involved beside the BEA with this analysis process.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But at what cost in terms of engineering complexity? The more components involved, the higher the complexity, and the higher the probability of component failure. This is one of the first axioms we learn as engineers.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
The BEA is not part of the court process.
The BEA is making an technical investigation that is completely separate from the judicial power
As tell the BEA itself .. they are not there for blame anyone.
And be sure that the final BEA report will be published long time before any judicial process begin (like Concorde case)
It is not required (no laws) to maintain silence as it is the case for those involved in the court process.
Judicial:
Another technical investigation will be conduct by judiciary experts
I talked neither about duty nor responsibilty (I agree, anyone should have the opportunity for taking that on themselves), but mandate (by law - remember, there are judicial proceedings going on)
ublic domain: those data are under justice control and nothing will be in the public domain until this case is fully settled
The BEA is making an technical investigation that is completely separate from the judicial power
As tell the BEA itself .. they are not there for blame anyone.
And be sure that the final BEA report will be published long time before any judicial process begin (like Concorde case)
It is not required (no laws) to maintain silence as it is the case for those involved in the court process.
Judicial:
Another technical investigation will be conduct by judiciary experts
Last edited by jcjeant; 21st May 2011 at 18:26.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTLU found "coherent" with cruise setting
BEA Interim report #2, pg 27:
Suppose they used slats (thus enabling change of RTLU settings)
Question: The info obtainable on the RTLU would be (high probability) different or could be the 7.9° by "chance"? The RTLU mfr. had this info "from a memorized mechanical freeze" of a mechanical limiter? Or other method?
The RTLU was found in its place in the fin and disassembled. An examination
was performed at the manufacturers and showed that it would allow travel
of the rudder measured as 7.9° +/- 0.1°. As an example, at FL350, this travel is
obtained for Mach 0.8 +/- 0.004, corresponding to a CAS of 272 +/- 2 kt.
was performed at the manufacturers and showed that it would allow travel
of the rudder measured as 7.9° +/- 0.1°. As an example, at FL350, this travel is
obtained for Mach 0.8 +/- 0.004, corresponding to a CAS of 272 +/- 2 kt.
Question: The info obtainable on the RTLU would be (high probability) different or could be the 7.9° by "chance"? The RTLU mfr. had this info "from a memorized mechanical freeze" of a mechanical limiter? Or other method?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decoding document, supplied with this airplane, has around 1,300 parameters. Not all of them are relevant or necessary for an understanding of the causes and circumstances of this accident. The reporting will understandably be limited to those that are. From the BEA website:
In accordance with Article L731-3 (French Law n° 99-243 of 29 March 1999), the BEA Ŧ makes public at the end of the technical investigation a report in a form appropriate to the type and seriousness of the event. This report does not mention people by name. It uses only information from the investigation necessary to determine the circumstances and causes of the accident or incident and to the understanding of safety recommendations.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
This is irrelevant. The BEA is fully mandated by the law for investigating those data which are staying (from the begining) under judiciary control (those Gendarmes are in charge of the recorders and a judiciary police officer is always staying with them). So, the BEA doesn't own those "evidences" and work on them following its mandat. What is released for the public is in the BEA report, as per the law.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
The BEA is not part of the court process...
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockpit sound analysis
DozyWannabe,
I reiterate: At a very low cost. Letīs segment qualitatively first:
1) R&D: Very low cost.
2) Product Engineering: Low cost (We could quantify)
The integration to existing structure i estimate to be not a relevant issue.
I posted this possibility with all implications previously "self questioned" (this forum requires a fascinating degree of attention).
About "Circuitry complexity and Failure Rate" we could implement a better one with less components and simpler circuitry, just using denser Integrated Circuits.
In summary, The cost/benefit IMO is good for an improvement. For an investigator "High Quality recording of facts" is obviously good.
But at what cost in terms of engineering complexity? The more components involved, the higher the complexity, and the higher the probability of component failure. This is one of the first axioms we learn as engineers.
1) R&D: Very low cost.
2) Product Engineering: Low cost (We could quantify)
The integration to existing structure i estimate to be not a relevant issue.
I posted this possibility with all implications previously "self questioned" (this forum requires a fascinating degree of attention).
About "Circuitry complexity and Failure Rate" we could implement a better one with less components and simpler circuitry, just using denser Integrated Circuits.
In summary, The cost/benefit IMO is good for an improvement. For an investigator "High Quality recording of facts" is obviously good.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
You right .... this material (the black boxes) are exhibits to the prosecution of the court process.
The BEA report (the result of their analysis) is not an exhibit.
It therefore not falls under the same sections of law protecting the exhibits.
That's the point I want to put emphasis (BEA report is not part of the judicial process)
This is irrelevant. The BEA is fully mandated by the law for investigating those data which are staying (from the begining) under judiciary control (those Gendarmes are in charge of the recorders and a judiciary police officer is always staying with them). So, the BEA doesn't own those "evidences" and work on them following its mandat. What is released for the public is in the BEA report, as per the law.
The BEA report (the result of their analysis) is not an exhibit.
It therefore not falls under the same sections of law protecting the exhibits.
That's the point I want to put emphasis (BEA report is not part of the judicial process)
FBW Stick Philosophy
Garage Years:
Also, my understanding of the side-stick is that the Airbus stick is quite a different design to that of the F-16. The F-16 stick only moves a very small physical deflection and is more of a force sensor (I worked F-16 simulators about 17 years ago!), while the 'bus stick is a position sensor. That in itself though is merely interesting.
Also, my understanding of the side-stick is that the Airbus stick is quite a different design to that of the F-16. The F-16 stick only moves a very small physical deflection and is more of a force sensor (I worked F-16 simulators about 17 years ago!), while the 'bus stick is a position sensor. That in itself though is merely interesting.
(See Nello's obituary here: Nello Infanti Obituary: View Obituary for Nello Infanti by Dengler, Roberts, Perna Funeral Home, East Amherst, NY )
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DJ77
Having had another look at the French, and guided by your interpretation, I believe you are right. Thanks.
Was not the BEA just meaning it is not yet determined whether the ULBs did transmit or both failed ?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RR_NDB
Suppose they used slats (thus enabling change of RTLU settings)
Guest
Posts: n/a
takata
It is not possible to determine as yet? The record of control deflection is at hand? If rolling and or yawing, and the Rudder was frozen at ~ 4degrees each way, unlocking it by manual action might have been tried. We'll soon see. I think we'll get an education as to how the Rudder and Pilot interface in the weeds, also. Unlocking the Rudder seems a poor choice?
It is not possible to determine as yet? The record of control deflection is at hand? If rolling and or yawing, and the Rudder was frozen at ~ 4degrees each way, unlocking it by manual action might have been tried. We'll soon see. I think we'll get an education as to how the Rudder and Pilot interface in the weeds, also. Unlocking the Rudder seems a poor choice?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bearfoil
A small factual error - one I believe you have committed before.
The RTLU set the travel to +/- 7.9° or a 15.8° "sweep" if you want it that way.
If rolling and or yawing, and the Rudder was frozen at ~ 4degrees each way, unlocking it by manual action might have been tried.
The RTLU set the travel to +/- 7.9° or a 15.8° "sweep" if you want it that way.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complexity and lack of predictability in new hardware is the reason that digital circuitry introduced in aviation tends to be of the simpler "tried and true" designs (which would be considered obsolete in terms of consumer devices) rather than the latest generation hardware - it's also the reason I throw my hands up in the air every time I hear FBW/FMC avionics systems compared with modern PC computer technology.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by takata
I certainly can't suppose they used slats after RTL freeze. In this case, the RTL would be at its full limit settings (no speed limit).
Last edited by Jetdriver; 21st May 2011 at 22:06.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not ambiguous at all. RT Limits are computed and limited by both sec's. If both sec's fail the RTLU remains frozen at the limit in use upon failure.
Now lowering the slats won't repair the sec's so the statement is quite logical. Lower the slats and you have max deflection again (35 degrees)
Now lowering the slats won't repair the sec's so the statement is quite logical. Lower the slats and you have max deflection again (35 degrees)
Guest
Posts: n/a
So. What happens to the Rudder Travel if unlocked. Can it be re-Limited?
Or, with SECs still out, does it lock at whatever travel it had at new Lock? (including deflected?)
Can it lock at 17 degrees? Can it be re-centered and locked?
What does DIRECT LAW do to RTL ? Does it release it?
Or, with SECs still out, does it lock at whatever travel it had at new Lock? (including deflected?)
Can it lock at 17 degrees? Can it be re-centered and locked?
What does DIRECT LAW do to RTL ? Does it release it?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now lowering the slats won't repair the sec's so the statement is quite logical. Lower the slats and you have max deflection again (35 degrees)
The RTLU setting was as a result of reversion to ALT2 Law, and whether other PRIM/SEC problems have intervened, or whether valid KCAS was available is simply guesswork.
EDIT :: Should the slats be extended as allowed below FL200, then any preset RTLU setting will not be cleared until < 150 KCAS, at which point the limit will be +/-35° and reducing if the KCAS increases again.
Last edited by mm43; 22nd May 2011 at 01:46. Reason: disambiguation
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K.I.S.S. should be a design rule, when possible
Hi,
First, i will use some words of a phrase you posted:
To say you what happens to me when i realize the "circuitry" amount and complexity used (required) in highly complex FBW a/c.
Just a detail: You need to use 3X (acting as 5X) redundancy. Approaching the one used in the STS fleet now retiring.
(Yesterday night i was reading again on the F8 DFBW. A MUST read)
Well,
In this case, i would say: No. The complexity is about the same. And the use of more memory presents "no drawbacks".
We are talking about Audio (low power signals), so, no problem.
You are talking on the ICīs or the final product, the CVR? Anyway every change or evolution is not free. And ROI must be checked.
I agree 100%. And will use this to ask: Whatīs your feeling (on this issue) on the Revolution (rdware and Software/algorithms[/]) EA introduced using DFBW technology (for the first time in non military planes)? With itīs big implications. Why US didnīt introduce "in parallel"? But this is for another post or even another thread.
BTW, What is "wiring fault" (Hard) mentioned in some earlier posts regarding ACARS sent. I am curious to understand this.
First, i will use some words of a phrase you posted:
I throw my hands up in the air every time I hear FBW/FMC avionics systems
Just a detail: You need to use 3X (acting as 5X) redundancy. Approaching the one used in the STS fleet now retiring.
(Yesterday night i was reading again on the F8 DFBW. A MUST read)
Well,
But aren't denser IC's just moving the complexity "up the chain", as it were?
Denser IC's also tend to generate more heat energy
so the new components would have to be re-certified - an expensive and time-consuming process.
Complexity and lack of predictability in new hardware is the reason that digital circuitry introduced in aviation tends to be of the simpler "tried and true" designs
BTW, What is "wiring fault" (Hard) mentioned in some earlier posts regarding ACARS sent. I am curious to understand this.