Pontius Navigator;
As I suggested earlier, back plotting these with known surface wind correction would be interesting.
The key is what
takata and many other are attempting to do: pinpoint the actual position of the aircraft at 02:10. All the rest flows from that one piece of information.
A normal descent for a normal approach/landing will take, at the most, 160nm, with an average of 130nm. That would be the greatest "radius of action" in terms of the location of the larger sections.
The winds in the ITCZ are almost always light and variable, 20, 30kts or so, at cruise altitudes; the "polar jet" and "subtropical jet" are further north and south.
Somewhere, someone has these winds for the time of the accident.
Falling (not in a high speed dive) parts would be exposed to such winds for between roughly three and ten minutes depending upon weight and shape Even assuming the winds remain at, say, thirty knots all the way to the surface, (not likely), that translates to very little lateral distance covered in relation to the position of the aircraft at 02:10 - less than 20nm.
Ocean currents, as has been posited, will account for the rest of the displacement from original impact point. I don't think it takes a supercomputer to work out a reasonable radius of action - it takes the assumptions as demonstrated by takata's methods, which may then be fine-tuned by the availability of more accurate data, (as is stated).
Dutch Bru, jimpy1979uk;
Thanks, I wasn't aware there is an oxygen-tank option for the 340/330 - it isn't in the AMM - only the O2 generation system and the F/A portable O2 installations are.
Originally Posted by Dutch Bru
AF uses gas cylinders for passenger oxigen.
To be completely accurate, we could reasonably assume from the quoted report, (thank you) that AF 340's have the cylinders installed. We need to confirm that the same installation has been made for the 330's.
In any case, the statement that the oxygen cylinder in the photograph IS from the cockpit, is in question.
ACLS65;
Can anyone confirm that there was a lav on AF447 port side directly aft of the cockpit? This could also refer to more than just a clogged lav, since it supposedly happened shortly after takeoff it might even be from before the lavs were in use.
. . . .
Also per the FCOM the vacuum generators for removing the wastewater are not used at altitudes greater than 16,000 feet. Could the lav ACARS msg we do have mean that this system "thought" it was at a lower altitude and tried to use the vacuum generators? Again maybe just another indicator that however this system receives altitude info was compromised.
Again all this assumes there is some validity to the original article and as of last night I had not found that same information anywhere else
The key in this is the statement, "
all this assumes"; this is precisely the situation where a little knowledge (and no experience on the airplane), is a dangerous thing. I think it is wise to suspend judgement on this risk and wait.
As I said a few pages ago, backups/flooding can and do occur on rare occasion but the F/As are very swift at ensuring any such overflow of water is mopped up. The concern is that the forward lavs or galleys may leak into the EE Bay under the cockpit. The concern is legitimate in the sense that it is good, cautious thinking on board an aircraft but is not legitimate in the sense that there is a problem with flooding the EE Bay.
The "LAV" ACARS message is not an indication of an abnormality; it is a Class 3 maintenance message which appears quite often, usually in climb.
The comments about "16,000ft altitude" and vacuum generators being driven by a system that "thought it was below 16,000ft", while possible, is highly improbable and would not result in flooding anyway. A galley tap which can't be shut off is more likely a source of local (
I emphasize "local" to forestall further launching in new directions!), flooding.