AF 447 Search to resume

[bearfoil]

JD-EE

TCAS is a passive alert/report re: traffic, I think it isn't connected via satellite. ACARS is, and so I would still ask if the a/c had accomplished a 180 and subsequently entered a dive of 30 nd, would that trip the 45 degree signal for a half minute perhaps?

I know the a/p has a limit in roll of 45 degrees each way, and a p/u of 9 and p/d of 13, for a total possible excursion in Pitch of 22 degrees. The Roll is 90 degrees of limit; I do not know if the point of disengagement (automatic, or "involuntary") has components of rate or g limit in either plane.

Lack of activity during (scheduled) radio reporting? Perhaps, but radio if intermittent or nonexistent quickly loses its attraction for a pilot in weather. The lack of 121.5 is alarming, if the ride was as exuberant as can be imagined by us. Incapacity of the crew is suggested only, it hasn't a whole lot to back it up. Distraction is perhaps a more believable event(s), for the element of surprise is there in ACARS, as is a trail of ever increasing criticality over the four minutes it reported. Direct Law at altitude and speed should get more than a little interest here, the possibilities are disturbing, RTLU notwithstanding, imo.

I think even the lav entry in ACARS should not be overlooked. As I recall, even the RTLU was Fail, its report didn't necessarily mean that it was working properly to limit Rudder travel, No? A loss of Hyd.? A loss of indexing in its sensor that mimiced serviceability? As found, there was no way to determine the sequence of fault/fail, but it was reported as found in 8 degree limit? That finding has no bearing on when the separation from the airframe occurred. One wonders what was found in the remaining lines, whether all fluid, fluid/water, or foam. Hydraulic lines can communicate whether they "drowned" or not, as can human lungs.

121.5 is extremely germane, as you have said!

edit to add: The working theory for BEA is most certainly logical, it is also to be taken with the bulk of the evidence. To land "forward" with slight Pitch up, and a robust vertical acceleration is quite possible. It also contravenes the body of evidence taken from ACARS, and the relative condition of recovered debris. The debris is a very long discussion, there is a great deal left unaddressed here (believe it or don't!!)

bear