AF 447 Search to resume (part2)

[bearfoil]

takata

In preparation for the next report, I am trying to tie up some loose ends for my own edification.

"I'm feeling that most of the wreckage at the bottom is somewhat related with the heading at impact (WSW), but it may be due to an illusion without having on hand the specific model showing all the mechanics involved."

This is a puzzlement. There is a point in the 'sea' where 447 hit, may we call it the IP (Impact point)??. I will make it the center of a circle, (or the apex of a cone), and derive some information from this cone's base, a circle drawn (on the bottom) around the vertical spine of the cone.

I'll make it concentric circles, at certain radii from the base center, described by the location of various debris, Engines, LG, other, etc. Now the direction of the stream of debris is certainly a result of the direction of the sub surface flow, mated to the velocity downward of the various masses as they sink. It cannot have any relationship with the direction of the a/c's nose, or any other part of the airframe as the impact happened.

All motion was arrested of the aircraft at impact, and the system became an independent ballistic aggregation, subject to density of mass, surface area, and other considerations having nothing whatever to do with "En Ligne de Vol". So my opinion is that the Direction (Heading, under protest), of the a/c at impact is absolutely random, and could have been exactly opposite of WSW, or any other bearing. The various pieces in the debris field were at the mercy of the sea, and it's whims. How could any direction present in the Field of Debris be anything but simply an increasing radius from the "center" of the circle described above ?? Not only is it not known now, it will never be known, the "direction at impact" of this a/c.

Are their possibilities of "Last recorded bearing" on the DFDR ?? And a time stamp at impact ??

To me, this accident almost certainly had a pedestrian cause, but circumstances were lain in front of the flight that could not be avoided. The absolute procuring cause may not be known, ever, but I think enough is already known to suggest some improvements in the industry.

I will sit on my hands until some new developments pop up.

Thanks, Olivier. From you and others I have learned much...

bear

edit. From comment on this thread, my understanding is that Captain launched, and established cruise, then took his rest. Three hours later puts his schedule at "Re-enter, and assume command". (0200). I am not persuaded that UAS is a given, that Discrepant a/s data from the pitots caused the disagree. A sudden, and unrecoverable LOC would point to the doubt that UAS occurred. As described by PJ2, UAS is not a guarantee of LOC, controlled flight continued ?? The boxes will out, but the simplest, though unlikely explanation may be that discrepant air velocities at the pitots were station related (position on the airframe), and not caused by ICE. This makes the a/p drop the problem, not the result. The positioning of the control surfaces can be done by either Automatics or Manually, and both have limits, neither one is infallible, ask gums.