PDA

View Full Version : AF447 wreckage found


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

hollingworthp
3rd Apr 2011, 22:12
BBC News - Wreckage from Air France jet found in Atlantic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12953432)

ECAM_Actions
3rd Apr 2011, 23:55
Let's hope we can get some answers at last.

Anyone know if there is any chance of the FDR and CVR surviving this long in a usable state? Looks like they're 13000 ft down.

redmtl
4th Apr 2011, 00:12
Designed for 20,000ft. But who knows for how long.

NTSB - CVR & FDR (http://www3.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_fdr_images.htm)

Diamond Bob
4th Apr 2011, 04:26
Well, this is exciting. A little more info here:

BEA Director Jean-Paul Troadec also told AFP that investigators have hope of finding the plane's black boxes because the debris area was relatively concentrated.
"The favourable news is that the debris area is relatively concentrated. And this gives us hope of finding the black boxes," he said.
Troadec said the parts of the wreckage that had been found consisted of "engines and certain elements of the wings".
The BEA is to publish first pictures of the wreckage found in the Atlantic on Monday.
"The BEA will on Monday afternoon hold a press conference to show first pictures of the plane parts," a spokeswoman told AFP.
The conference is to be held at 3:00 pm (1300 GMT) at BEA headquarters near Le Bourget airport, north of Paris.


AFP: Parts of Rio-Paris jet wreckage found (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gRmW8On3eoPqHPamyNeEG470H12g?docId=CNG.27d8269a87e82e5 58f6f222e87a9d9a8.141)

WojtekSz
4th Apr 2011, 06:02
what is the position?

vanHorck
4th Apr 2011, 06:31
The main AF447 thread has continued running in the Tech Log section.

Perhpaps for the avoidance of unnecessary repeats of questions we should continue the discussion on that thread and the mods could merge the threads?

Caygill
4th Apr 2011, 06:40
Designed for 20,000ft. But who knows for how long.

NTSB - CVR & FDR (http://www3.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_fdr_images.htm)Highly unlikely that any recorder would become unreadable even after contact with water so deep under.

Gringobr
4th Apr 2011, 14:38
A large part of the fuselage, with bodies inside, the engines and undercarriage have been found

Jet Jockey A4
4th Apr 2011, 15:16
Amazing news!

Never thought they would ever find it.

cesar
4th Apr 2011, 15:58
First image as shown on the press conference.

Crash Rio-Paris : les premières images de l’avion (http://www.sxminfo.com/04/04/2011/crash-rio-paris-les-premieres-images-de-lavion/)

subsonicsubic
4th Apr 2011, 16:21
With Airbus and Gov. Co. funding the opps. Any data recovered will be dubious to say the least. IMHO this debris field has already been picked clean, "evidence" replaced and official findings written.

Call me a cynic if you will...but I AM.


I have no issues with AB products. None with Boeing.



I DO have issues with transparency and/or lack of it.

Jet Jockey A4
4th Apr 2011, 16:31
Subsonicsubic write...

"With Airbus and Gov. Co. funding the opps. Any data recovered will be dubious to say the least. IMHO this debris field has already been picked clean, "evidence" replaced and official findings written.

Call me a cynic if you will...but I AM."


Not that I believe in everything in the press or from various governments or official company documents but in this case I'd say you are very cynical indeed!

If Air France and the French government wanted this to go away quietly, then why would they still be out there 2 years after the crash trying to find the aircraft and its 2 black boxes?

They have nothing to gain from this prolonged search for it except find the boxes and possibl the true cause of the crash.

No extensive search = no found aircraft = status quo = no real explanation for the crash = the story goes away slowly and eventually dies.

Not the case anymore now that a big chunk of the aircraft has been found!

Sallyann1234
4th Apr 2011, 16:42
With Airbus and Gov. Co. funding the opps. Any data recovered will be dubious to say the least. IMHO this debris field has already been picked clean, "evidence" replaced and official findings written.

AF and Airbus have gone well beyond duty and expectation with their investigations. Their determination to persist with the search in order to find the cause and hopefully prevent a repetition deserves the highest praise.

GarageYears
4th Apr 2011, 16:43
"Call me a cynic if you will...but I AM."

No, I will go one better - you have now joined the "conspiracy theorists" who will find any excuse to throw cr:mad:p around.

IMHO this debris field has already been picked clean, "evidence" replaced and official findings written.

Incredible rubbish. As if that were possible... OK, so along with the 'fact' that US never went to the moon, the 9/11 attack aircraft were holograms, and Elvis is living in my basement, now we have a staged debris field at 4km depth. Right :=

Until the results are published, might it not be wise to keep the calls of "foul" under your hat? Once they are published, then let's see what the story is.

JamesT73J
4th Apr 2011, 16:47
More images.

Oprations de recherche en mer : images du site (http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/images.du.site.php)

Gringobr
4th Apr 2011, 16:50
found so close to the last know position, surely they should have searched there first, must have been with a 50km radius

Jet Jockey A4
4th Apr 2011, 16:57
AF and Airbus have gone well beyond duty and expectation with their investigations. Their determination to persist with the search in order to find the cause and hopefully prevent a repetition deserves the highest praise.
Well said and I couldn't agree more!

alph2z
4th Apr 2011, 16:58
Pics included in video.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/04/04/quest.air.france.jet.found.cnn)
.

Mark in CA
4th Apr 2011, 17:00
Has anyone read anything yet about how deep the wreckage is? The BBC report stated only that they had been searching as deep as 4000 meters, but didn't specify where the wreckage was found. Just curious.

WillDAQ
4th Apr 2011, 17:02
IMHO this debris field has already been picked clean, "evidence" replaced and official findings written.

So you're suggesting that Airbus has already discovered the site and removed anything incriminating before then allowing a search that it funded to find the wreckage.... fine example of Occam's Razor there.

Jet Jockey A4
4th Apr 2011, 17:08
Mark in CA writes...

"Has anyone read anything yet about how deep the wreckage is? The BBC report stated only that they had been searching as deep as 4000 meters, but didn't specify where the wreckage was found. Just curious."

Yes the wreck was located at roughly 3900 meters (12,800') of depth and they disclosed its position but with a 10 nm fudge factor.

lomapaseo
4th Apr 2011, 17:39
they disclosed its position but with a 10 nm fudge factor.

Why the fudge factor:confused: no GPS? or sonar trianguarization?

Sky Wave
4th Apr 2011, 17:49
I take it that they don't wish to disclose the exact location as they don't want every tom dick and harry in the atlantic turning up there.

pattern_is_full
4th Apr 2011, 20:02
As with Titanic, with human remains still inside, it constitutes a burial place.

Lonewolf_50
4th Apr 2011, 20:24
So you're suggesting that Airbus has already discovered the site and removed anything incriminating before then allowing a search that it funded to find the wreckage.... fine example of Occam's Razor there.
More like Occam's Sledge Hammer. :E

While I am elated to hear that they have found what eluded them for so long, I worry that in the past year and a half, the tail section/CVR/FDR have had ample opportunity to get a little covered up with "stuff" and thus elude search. I hope I am wrong, as finding out the "why" is of interest to the air traveling public, as well as to professional aircrews who travel those long transoceanic routes.

vanHorck
4th Apr 2011, 20:52
Now I understand why the Tech Log is the place where serious people debate the same subject, rather than look for ghosts, some of the above posts are appropriate for the rumour section....

p7lot
4th Apr 2011, 21:00
This is good news folks...If I had a catastrophic failure in the cruise and plummeted with my crew and pax to 120 under the ocean, I would hope they would search for my FDR no matter how long it took.

SaturnV
4th Apr 2011, 21:01
vanHorck, precisely. The first AF 447 thread in rumours and news was closed because all manner of esoteric theories and explanations drifted into that thread. The techlog thread is now nearing 3,000 posts, most of them substantive, and many of them very informative postings by very knowledgeable people.

Stu666
4th Apr 2011, 22:44
I am no conspiracy theorist but when I hear "Airbus" and "black box" spoken in the same sentence, this incident springs to mind: Air France Flight 296 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296)

Jet Jockey A4
4th Apr 2011, 22:55
Wasn't the fact that many C/Bs were pulled effecting some systems on the aircraft play a role in the crash.

In any case any pilot that takes a fully loaded plane down to 30 feet above a runway in an "airshow" in a high alpha low speed pass deserves to be hung!

EnjoinThis
5th Apr 2011, 00:04
With Airbus and Gov. Co. funding the opps. Any data recovered will be dubious to say the least. IMHO this debris field has already been picked clean,
"evidence" replaced and official findings written.

Call me a cynic if you will...but I AM.
Ladies & gentlemen, please do not feed the trolls.

I for one am happy about the discovery, and optimistic that helpful information will be found. Although the pictures remind me of what a beautiful machine it was.

GHOTI
5th Apr 2011, 00:29
Enjointhis:
Amen. Let science and due diligence prevail. Congrats to AF and BEA etc. on seeing this thing out.

aterpster
5th Apr 2011, 02:03
Congrats to the Americans who found the wreck.

When will our French friends thank the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution?

MikeNYC
5th Apr 2011, 02:40
They will probably be thanked with a paycheck for services rendered.

742
5th Apr 2011, 03:40
Color me cynical, but I still can not believe that NATO/French subs could not find pinging boxes for 30 days.

But I have no doubt that this time the paint on the FDR/CVR will be consistent.

SummerLightning
5th Apr 2011, 05:17
AF296 has nothing to do with this, and the conspiracy theories over that are best left to run on by themselves. The assertion that a crash site at this depth can be tampered with, especially when world-leading authorities on deep oceanographic exploration are closely involved, is frankly ludicrous.

hefy_jefy
5th Apr 2011, 08:05
http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/images.du.site.ph

I don't think anybody posted this yet apologies if I missed it. Don't know much about aircraft but a bit about sonar - that's a very flat seabed.

PFR
5th Apr 2011, 10:14
Anywhere where photo's of the A/F elements of the a/c found on the sea floor have been posted? All I've seen is the video details running in the background of the CNN report.

mickk
5th Apr 2011, 10:28
Images in the media now.http://images.theage.com.au/2011/04/05/2286420/air-france-wreckage3-600x400.jpg

Evanelpus
5th Apr 2011, 10:32
I take it that they don't wish to disclose the exact location as they don't want every tom dick and harry in the atlantic turning up there.

I think that's highly unlikely, the wreckage is nearly 4000m down, what are they expecting....tours!

Bravo for finding the wreckage though. This will hopefully give the relatives and loved ones of those that perished some kind of closeure.

JamesT73J
5th Apr 2011, 10:48
Easy to forget that it is a very, very big ocean, and acoustic conditions have so many variables it is not a straightforward matter to determine why the boxes active sonar wasn't easily detectable.

Keep in mind the area size here; even 10sq miles is a massive area in subsea operations. Hats off to all involved for locating the site.

PFR
5th Apr 2011, 12:01
Thanks Mickk. Found them through the Techlog thread on the BEA site. Interesting discussion over there, including whether that gear was in the extended position prior to impact - the origin of my query really. For ref that's a very good thread to be following for the technically minded.
Well done to the investigating team and its partners for getting to this stage.

Fargoo
5th Apr 2011, 12:17
More images from the BEA (http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/images.du.site.php)

Loose rivets
5th Apr 2011, 12:51
What are we seeing in the vertical scan . . . is terrain supporting the vertical displacement of specific metal objects?

I had thought it was flatter than that at the site.

jfill
5th Apr 2011, 14:00
Even though this is a side scan sonar image, I believe the orientation is mainly one of looking down at the ocean bottom and showing the distribution of wreckage on the ocean floor as seen from above. Fairly tight cluster of wreckage to me means the aircraft was largely intact when it hit the ocean surface and sank.

rfp172
5th Apr 2011, 14:53
There used to be some excellent analysis in the old forum (MM43, Greatbear etal) on drift and potential final location. It would be interesting to know how accurate the analysis was.

kappa
5th Apr 2011, 15:05
I suggest you (and others here) go to the "old" thread on the Tech Log forum and see what is and has been going on.

memyself
5th Apr 2011, 19:04
I’m not a conspiracy theorist but those data recorders would have been putting out the equivalent of a heavy rock-concerts worth of sound to any sub-surface military listening device. And that relatively compact debris site would have been a magnetic sea-bed anomaly the size of a skyscraper, even to a looking satellite. This one does make me scratch my head (and few other parts of my anatomy). I really believe the technology exists to have found this wreckage before now. Which must beg the question ‘why wasn’t it found until now’ ? and the answer to that can only be because it wasn’t convenient. For what reason we don’t know, will never know !

vanHorck
5th Apr 2011, 19:16
memyself,

if you care to read the original thread in the tech log section you will find that your question too has been answered there.

What a name you have.... I smell a conspiracy just in that name!

GarageYears
5th Apr 2011, 19:33
And that relatively compact debris site would have been a magnetic sea-bed anomaly the size of a skyscraper, even to a looking satellite. This one does make me scratch my head (and few other parts of my anatomy). I really believe the technology exists to have found this wreckage before now. Which must beg the question ‘why wasn’t it found until now’ ?

For there to be a magnetic anomaly there needs to be material with magnetic properties (or a moving body through a conductive liquid).

What is a modern airliner made of? Not magnetic stuff. :ugh:

I think you want to see conspiracy where none likely exists. And that in itself speaks volumes.

:=

wozzo
5th Apr 2011, 20:20
I’m not a conspiracy theorist but ...

This accident ist perfect for conspiracy theorists (not that OP claims one to be):

If they had found the wreck immediately ...
... then they would have known beforehand that it would crash there

If they had found the wreck after a long search
... read above

If they hadn't found the wreck at all
... well, that explains itself

aston09
5th Apr 2011, 21:08
Salut les gars! Hi guys!

well, it may be time to wipe off the fog from your glasses :rolleyes:

Of course, "they" do know where the wreckage is .... since long time.

Just remember the means deployed during the search phase 1, 2 & 3.

Now, just focused on search phase 3 and look at the searched areas on the following map (extract from BEA - Point of the situation) - sorry, it is in french - :
http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/images/bilan.phase.3.fr.jpg

By coïncidence, the abyssal plain where is sitting the wreckage has not being expored...
Remember again, just after the crash, a brazilian air patrouilleur found and oil puddle nearby the last known A330 point of report, and, still by coïncidence, no submarine search was conducted around this area....

Still in memory, a french submarine vessel was involved during the search phase 1 (just after crash). The job of the submarine is to LISTEN, with its sophisticated listenning device, any sound in a wide sound spectrum. The french navy has listened some thing..... and then a public communication said that there is mistake in the interpretation /localisation of the sound (mistaken with a beluga cry).

What's next? Easy to guess:
1. "we" do not know whether the CVR&SSFDR are within the wreckage or not;
2. if not--> end of the story
3. if yes : are they readable? Y or N
4. if Y ....
5. if N, go back to 2.

In any case, the BEA, officials, airline and AIB has an escape door to save, not only their face but also DZE BUSINESS.
Because this world is talking and doing business :}

What about the bodies? The remaining families? Who cares? and this is most likely the most important.

rh200
6th Apr 2011, 00:26
and few other parts of my anatomy

You do know you can get creams and powders for that problem!:E

MATELO
6th Apr 2011, 01:29
The job of the submarine is to LISTEN, with its sophisticated listenning device, any sound in a wide sound spectrum.

If you have time and away from this thread i will give you lessons on accoustics and how sound tends to bend (i.e. refraction) as it passes through the thermoclines and tends to produce "shadow zones" above and below the angle of the sound.

jjeppson
6th Apr 2011, 02:32
From the photos, it certainly appears that the landing gear is extended. Any ideas why that would be? Years ago, a 727 in an uncontrollable dive, the crew lowered the gear to slow down and were able to successfully recover from the dive.

jj

techgeek
6th Apr 2011, 05:06
They renewed the search because they were named in a civil lawsuit and are trying to find evidence that will prove they were not negligent in ways that contributed to the accident. I would say some degree of cynicism is warranted, however, with so many people involved (Woods Hole Institute) I don't think you can really keep the wraps on things. Now if you believe the Apollo moon landing was a hoax ...

jcjeant
6th Apr 2011, 07:26
Hi,

They renewed the search because they were named in a civil lawsuit and are trying to find evidence that will prove they were not negligent in ways that contributed to the accidentYou are completely wrong .. or you have a hidden agenda or you are misinformed :8
The researches phase 4 was decided months ago and certainly with some pressure from the family associations
The lawsuites were made after the decision of phase 4

cwatters
6th Apr 2011, 09:16
The job of the submarine is to LISTEN, with its sophisticated listenning device, any sound in a wide sound spectrum.

Actually no. Noise is proportional to bandwidth so listening for any sound in a "wide spectrum" is exactly what you shouldn't do. If you know the frequency of the transmitter you should optimise your reciever to that narrow band.

Bobman84
6th Apr 2011, 09:27
Why are there two threads on here now with the same topic?

Can mods please merge this with the main 'Search Resumes' thread. It's pointless having both.

PFR
6th Apr 2011, 09:41
Seconded - that's where the most informed discussion is taking place IMHO.

vanHorck
6th Apr 2011, 09:50
Except that on the other thread RELEVANT discussion takes place, where here, it is (rightly) RUMOURS only.

I Think till this thread shows signs of maturity, Mods will refrain from merging the two out of respect for mm43 and his fellows.

Respect to the Mods!

captplaystation
6th Apr 2011, 09:53
I think it is best the Mods DON'T merge the threads, leave the other one well & good, and keep this one to deposit all the drivel and nonsense.

Why corrupt a perfectly good thread whilst you can just let this one fester here :D

rh200
6th Apr 2011, 10:18
I think people should stop mentioning the other thread least it gets corrupted.

mickk
6th Apr 2011, 10:31
The sidescan radar image is amazing, wings, mid section, clear as a bell. Looks like there may even be a part of the tail and the engines detached and forward of the wings.

jcjeant
6th Apr 2011, 10:48
Hi,

I think it is best the Mods DON'T merge the threads, leave the other one well & good, and keep this one to deposit all the drivel and nonsense.

Why corrupt a perfectly good thread whilst you can just let this one fester here

Seem's this thread deserve a place in the Jetblast forum :p

Langball
6th Apr 2011, 11:36
The 'clear' images are not side scan images, they are from an ROV (remote operated vehicle). You can clearly see the bright light from the ROV and the black and white camera.

If you look at the BEA website you will see the side scan image at the bottom (the dark image). You will see reference to 'AUV' in the title box, this is an 'Autonomous Underwater Vehicle'. A 'side scan' is normally incorporated into a 'towed fish', and the deeper the water the longer the umbilical and the difficulty in controlling the fish, and knowing the exact location of the fish. The 'AUV' is the latest and greatest, an 'untethered vehicle', think of it as an underwater 'tomahawk missile' with a side scan fitted, you programme it where you want it to go, and off it goes and then pops up to the surface when it is finished.

So the Side Scan gives you an acoustic return, and they can be hard to interpret. The ROV gives you a real image, and is much clearer.

So I presume they mapped the seabed with the AUV, then pin pointed the location and then used the ROV to take the still images.

memyself
6th Apr 2011, 11:41
So let's review then....a brazillian search plane spots an oil slick more or less right over this newly discovered debris zone (correct). A french submarine is sent to investigate and finds nothing. Said submarine can find another sub in the worlds oceans, but can't find a data recorder (that wants to be found, due to emitting a signal on a specific bandwidth) that is more or less right next to it. Thermoclines and other known sonar deficiencies aside, for which sub sonar crews are trained, this one has more questions than answers.

Also, on the tech thread there are sonar pics of the debris field overlaid with the original search pattern and newly discovered debris field. They are so close that they were on the edge of this new find during the original search. The time taken for this new search to find the debris field was very short given the size of the search area, guess they were just lucky eh ! ......ummm !

cribbagepeg
6th Apr 2011, 11:54
If I recall correctly, the AUVs had to be retrofitted with better sonar and other systems before being deployed on this latest mission. It seems plausible that it was this upgrade that allowed the relatively speedy location of the debris field to be established. Remember, this isn't necessarily a walk in the park.

GarageYears
6th Apr 2011, 13:37
A french submarine is sent to investigate and finds nothing. Said submarine can find another sub in the worlds oceans, but can't find a data recorder (that wants to be found, due to emitting a signal on a specific bandwidth) that is more or less right next to itSo it's that easy then?

If you have any kind of search abilities using Google, you will be very capable of finding a report where two of the latest, highly instrumented, sonar overloaded submarines (one British, one French) HIT EACH OTHER in the middle of the Ocean. :ugh:

Both submarines were equipped with state-of-the-art sonar technology, but xxxxx said it was possible that neither was aware of the close proximity of the other vessel.So, your implied assertion that it is simple to find an audio signal (which incidentally we do NOT know was functional) using a sub is perhaps a little off. If two submarines can get close enough to HIT EACH OTHER, with all this fine sonar technology, which is specifically intended to detect other submarines, and not even know the other was there rather clearly confirms that acoustic detection at best is a hit or miss affair.

The search area was, what, 3,200 square miles... with depths that exceed the hull crushing depth of most submarines.

Modern nuclear attack submarines like the American Seawolf class are estimated to have a test depth of 490 m (1,600 ft),[which would imply (see above) a collapse depth of 730 m (2,400 ft). [Wiki]

That leaves a LOT of water and many thermoclines between any sub and the bottom of the Ocean in this area.

'Nuff said?

Lonewolf_50
6th Apr 2011, 14:42
Having spent a few years in the ASW community (though it's some years ago), I would like to comment on sonar search optimization in the military sense, and the impression Hollywood and Tom Clancy have given of magical sound detection capability in military submarines using sensors optimized for military use.

The whole point of tuning your gear, and positioning it in the water column when you are using a towed array, is to
1) put it in a good direct path posture for some missions
2) take advantage of various sound channels, sound layers, or convergence zones in other missions.

This sensor positioning is predicated on searching for "things" between the surface of the ocean and about 3000 feet, things which try to hide in the "shadow zones" between various water layers in a given area. I use 3000 feet since it is well beyond crush depth for every submarine I can think of in all navies, and roughly where the main thermocline is over come by the isothermal layer.

Thanks to physics, this depth range represents the zone where sound velocity undergoes a series of changes for a variety of reasons. Deeper than that, the velocity gradient takes on a predictable profile.

http://usna.edu/Users/physics/ejtuchol/Chapter5.pdf

See page 5-10 for a nice picture of the whole ball of wax for very deep oecan.

As the ocean gets deeper, the influence on sound propagation with basically constant temperature at some point around 3000 feet is water density. The other factors (like salinity) tend to have reached a constant by then.

This "roughly homogenous" medium (water, cold, deep) removes the various exotic sound channel features like the deep sound channel and the convergence zone, which take advantage of the changes in sound velocity from shallower water to deeper water.

With the pinger at depths in excess of 5000 feet, the long range signal reception enjoyed against manned submerged "things" most likely cannot be taken advantage of. (Caveat .... depending on what the CZ and sound channels are doing in that locale on that day ... it can vary a bit).

With the source well below the main thermocline, my back of the napkin estimates are that you are stuck with a direct path propagation ... IF you can get your sensor below some of the last sound channels at depth (and thus a possible difractive layer). If the sub is trailing a towed array at, say, 500 or 700 feet, he's not going to be able to trail it at 3000 feet ...

Granted, it's been a few years since I had to chart sound velocity profiles from at BT trace. That said, I cannot recall any military tactical hydrophone optimized for detecting "things" below 2000 feet, even though sounds of many sorts would follow varying paths from various depths to reach the hydrophones.

I am pretty sure that SOSUS (if it's still in operation) would not be listening in the proper layer of water to hear the pinger. I think the pinger's sonic waves were likely "bent away" from a hydrophone array at tactical depth. The best one could hope for is the pinger being in a zone of "half channel," but I don't recall if there is a depth limitation to that phenomenon. I seem to remember the limit being less than 10,000 feet, and half channel being somewhat available in the Med during some seasons ... but it's been a few years.

For those more current in acoustic sensing, I'll accept corrections to my recollection on how all of that sonar detection fits together.

It amazed me to learn that post mission acoustic analysis of the tapes from the submarine showed that a pinger signal had been detected. I suspect that "which direction was it from us at the time?" was very difficult to confirm. Had they verified a detection 'in situ' during the mission, the captain might have been able to use some simple tactical maneuvring to arrive at an AOP and expedite the search and location while the pinging was in progress.

EDIT: the more I think of it, the less likely it is for half channel to have been in operation, as I think that requires a surface layer temp roughly equal to bottom layer temp, little to no mixing layer and a few other things that memory does not serve up.

This crash was in June, so half channel not likely in the tropics.

memyself
6th Apr 2011, 16:35
Lonewolf 50 - what an informative post, :D

I didn't realize that the French sub had actually picked-up the pinger from the data recorder, but could not define the position. What a pity that was not identified while on-position.

I am not a military specialist, (so question to those who are ?)but wouldn't aircraft such as the P3 Orian, or some military helicopters have onomoly detectors that could have investigated the oil slick over the debris site ? If they can find submarines coated in rubber and all kinds of other anti-detection materials, that are also hiding in thermoclines then could they theoretically have found the debris site. Notwithstanding it's a 3,000ft !!

BOAC
6th Apr 2011, 16:47
"have found the debris site. Notwithstanding it's a 3,000ft !" wrong - try 3900'

Lonewolf_50
6th Apr 2011, 16:50
1) The pinger/wreck is a bit deeper than 3000 feet.

2) In the time it takes to get to the oil slick, it will have drifted and over time spread and dispersed. As I understand the history, there were in fact patrol planes and aircraft that did take a look at the oil slick, but the Tech Log thread has waaaaaaay more info on that.

3) P-3 dropping some LOFAR or VLAD passive buoys ... might that have detected a ping? Not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Not sure if it was requested, or such missions flown. I assumed that Brazil has maritime patrol aircraft like the P-3. If they wanted US help, they'd have asked for it. I'll try and find out from a few old Navy friends if any US P-3's did acoustic search ... may not be able to come up with anything.

4) Time to datum. In any search mission, you first have to get to datum (or last known position) and then come up with a scheme.

More later.

AlphaZuluRomeo
6th Apr 2011, 17:24
(...)A french submarine is sent to investigate and finds nothing. Said submarine can find another sub in the worlds oceans, but can't find a data recorder (that wants to be found, due to emitting a signal on a specific bandwidth) that is more or less right next to it(...)

On a side note : What if the emitter of the black boxes simply didn't work ?
Before being accused of too big "whatification", a little digression : 3 helicopters of the same type & operator were lost (crash) in the past years. Said 3 helicopters were equipped with a 406MHz emergency beacon. No beacon ever emitted, as they were separated from their battery in each of the 3 crashes.
I suppose some redesign is to be done to those emergency beacons, but so far...

GarageYears
6th Apr 2011, 17:37
Magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) is not some magic that just "finds" stuff. I presume that is what you are implying?

Any reasonable sized structure (including plastic boats believe it or not) moving through water will create a magnetic signature that can be detected - Russia built a class of subs from Titanium in the misplaced belief that MAD detectors would not "see" them - but it is the motion of the structure, through a conductive medium (sea water) that creates electronic currents on the surface of the structure that can be detected, in addition to any ferrous metals.

However, once such a non-ferrous structure stops moving, the magnetic signature does too. No more MAD detection.

The second problem of acoustic detection, is that these systems have been highly "tuned" to detect the targets of choice - i.e. submarines. LOFAR buoys and the system used to interpret the signals received, are adapted to focus on the low frequency range (where a subs noise signature differs most from the normal background), and not the 37.5kHz tone of the data recorders. In fact this is near the upper range of LOFAR reception, which is 40kHz.

VLAD is no good the audio range is limited to 2400Hz, way below the pinger frequency.

Basically, the problem is way harder than it might seem from behind the keyboard. I believe the French tried really hard and even had support from the Sonar system manufacturer in an attempt to reprogram the software, but the depth of the pinger was very different from those the system was intended to detect signals from. An R&D project in other words on a very, very short, 30-day schedule (based on battery life of the pinger).

I already posted proof that acoustic detection is difficult...

Lonewolf_50
6th Apr 2011, 18:33
Ah, had forgotten VLAD limitations ... and am still trying to sort out what sound propagation path was available for exploitation.

All I come up with is Direct Path, based on source location.

mm43
6th Apr 2011, 19:55
Originally posted by Langball ...
So I presume they mapped the seabed with the AUV, then pin pointed the location and then used the ROV to take the still images.

An AUV has been used to do both operations. The REMUS 6000 AUVs have provision to carry either a sidescan sonar package, or a camera and illumination source. The photo will be one of a sequence taken during a pre-programed fly-by.

asc12
6th Apr 2011, 20:22
Nevermind. :\

tubby linton
6th Apr 2011, 20:40
I would be surprised if any recovered bodies are intact for very long once they surface unless special preparations are in place.
When the submarine HMS Thetis was lost on trials in Liverpool Bay in 1939 the bodies of those lost with her were eventually recovered.Initially when they were extracted from the submarine they looked normal but within thirty minutes of recovery they rapidly started decomposing and became unrecognisable.
I suppose that with modern forensic science this is less of a problem but if the corpses have any useful information for the investigators then some kind of refrigeration unit on site would be needed.

ChristiaanJ
6th Apr 2011, 21:40
A bit ghoulish, tubby, but you're entirely right.
Let's hope the right precautions will be in place this time....

WilyB
6th Apr 2011, 22:28
"have found the debris site. Notwithstanding it's a 3,000ft !" wrong - try 3900'

Actually, it is > 3,900 meters (13,000 ft).

mm43
7th Apr 2011, 01:32
Actually, it is > 3,900 meters (13,000 ft).
More importantly, the pressure is 378 Atmospheres, or 378 times pressure at the sea surface. Some may find that 5,562 psi is more meaningful, but remember a lot of the composites that have been carried to the bottom will have had any residual softness compacted, and the same goes for anything else. Tyres (tires) on the landing gear will have deflated at the rims once the pressure exceeded that to which they had been inflated. Water will be occupying that space.

bubbers44
7th Apr 2011, 01:40
mm43, thanks for that information. I think the tires are inflated to about 220 psi but was unsure what the water pressure would be at 13,000 ft. Yes, the tires would obviously be deflated.

jcjeant
7th Apr 2011, 17:34
Hi,

In France-Soir (French newspaper) :
Google Vertaling (http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.francesoir.fr%2Factualite%2Ffai ts-divers%2Fcrash-rio-paris-fiasco-du-bureau-d-enquete-francais-88660.html&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)
Original link:
Crash Rio-Paris : Fiasco du bureau d'enquête français | France Soir (http://www.francesoir.fr/actualite/faits-divers/crash-rio-paris-fiasco-du-bureau-d-enquete-francais-88660.html)

takata
7th Apr 2011, 18:59
In France-Soir (French newspaper) :
Usual buzz for nothing.
People tend to forget now that this zone was already searched from the start by both SAR aircraft and the two French/US crews onboard the TPL trailers (Fairmount Glacier and Expedition). The main problem was that the recorders pingers could have malfunctioned.

Here is the map from Metron Inc. report for the BEA showing those TPL searches around LKP:
http://takata1940.free.fr/TPL_search.jpg

WilyB
7th Apr 2011, 23:12
he main problem was that the recorders pingers could have malfunctioned.

BEA says the detection range of the Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB) also called as Emergency Locator Pingers (ELP) is up to 2,000 m.

The manufacturer's technical brochure does give a detection range, but says the emission covers 80% of a sphere.

That would mean the microphone would have to be lowered by over 2,000 m to have had a chance at locating the pinger.

http://www.benthos.com/pdf/elp362D_001815_revK.pdf

RiversInAustin
8th Apr 2011, 02:41
Have you ever tried to find anything underwater in a reasonably challenging environment? I mean even in a spot where the parameters would seem to have it down to a fairly limited area ("it must be around here somewhere...", kind of thing).

Having failed after an initial, frantic, emergency search the group brain kicks in and tells you "it's not here, let's spread out guys". The theories get wilder from there on out.

I've been there, and also (totally coincidentally) personally involved in the final discovery and subsequent recovery 6 months later, which was (somewhat predictably and very much like this case) very, very close to the LKP

Nothing like the AF447 depths though, my experience involved puddle depth, a mere 200 fsw. I consider it fairly amazing they found any further trace mid Atlantic.

I believe the pinger(s) must have been down. There is no other logical explanation for not picking up signals during the first searches, unless I'm missing something totally obvious, generic conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

Whatever, this and the TechLogs original thread have been tremendous, thanks y'all.

hefy_jefy
8th Apr 2011, 03:15
The REMUS 6000 has an Edgetech 4200 side scan as standard. That sonar image is not from an Edgetech 4200, it looks more like a SAS image (synthetic aperture sonar). It is a remarkably good image for such a long (600m) range.

But I repeat - that is a very flat seabed.

Loerie
8th Apr 2011, 03:45
The pingers were heard by a French submarine,apparently.What is a point of wonder for me is why the area now known as the last known position,was apparently never properly searched by the very best that the World had to offer (as now done).Why spend millions of Euro`s looking all over way away from the LKP in an area which is hostile,with mountains and valleys with equipment that is not able to do the job as has now been done?If they had been looking,with the equipment that they have now,(which was available then)maybe the CVR and the FDR may have been found before they stopped transmitting.Looking for the Aircraft where it "may have ended up" seems to be a reckless endeavour,and not only financially.Why not look where it was supposed by most to be?I get the feeling,having followed this from the upset,that there is more to this investigation and search location then meets the eye with many possible insiders apparently bending the way the search may be conducted.At the present time we have about 6 pictures published and absolutely no information about the so-called Black Boxes,who is on site,what has been discovered,where the aircraft is actually lying (reporters do not have enough financial clout to dive to the area so why not say where the aircraft is----why the mystery).The cause of the accident needs to be peeled away layer by layer,and quickly;Was it an operator error,was it structural due to an overload by way of the vertical stabiliser which was carried away,was it simply an overload which no airframe could cope with?I am simply an unpowered (glider) aircraft operator and I find it very difficult to believe,with what has come to light so far (made worse by little information) that the accident was not caused by loss of the vertical stabiliser due to extreme weather and possibly pilot input in those terrible last moments.Where are the pictures---where are Woods and their underwater probes and why did it take so long for a proper and concerted effort to be put together to find a huge aircraft almost within hailing distance of where she was lost contact with AF maintenance.There is a smell here....The finals will be very interesting.:=

MountainBear
8th Apr 2011, 05:34
where are Woods and their underwater probes and why did it take so long for a proper and concerted effort to be put together to find a huge aircraft almost within hailing distance of where she was lost contact with AF maintenance.There is a smell here.

My mother always used to advise me, "never put down to malice what is best explained by incompetence."

Given that this search has been overseen by the French....

:ouch:

Old Carthusian
8th Apr 2011, 05:40
It is easy to see those who don't understand the ocean and the sheer difficulty trying to find anything once you get under the surface which is a totally different environment. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, gentlemen but we should remember that the BEA has found the aircraft and done a very fine piece of work. Parading a lack of knowledge is also not the best way to go about things. My training - start at the furthest point that an item could have reached and then work in.

avionimc
8th Apr 2011, 07:11
MountainBear's Mother: "never put down to malice what is best explained by incompetence."


... But do not rule out malice!

Loerie
8th Apr 2011, 13:51
Points taken,guys but two years is a long time....how long did the search to find the SAA Combi off of Mauritius take?
I think,now that the wreckage has finally been found,that the shut-door attitude is quite frustrating for all of the folks on both this and the technical forum.And I am sure that those on the tech forum have input a huge amount of work and research.
Area to search?Given that money is involved I would have started at the last known location and worked outwards,not the other way around! :hmm:

SaturnV
8th Apr 2011, 16:11
Loerie, if you have been reading the tech forum, the answer to your criticism of the search will be found there.

Very simply, search aircraft overflew the location of the crash on the day of the crash (June 1) and saw nothing. Why they saw nothing is a matter that needs to be examined.

But the logical thinking would be if you don't find evidence of the crash on the day of the crash when you overfly the crash location, then the plane didn't crash there. The result of them not seeing evidence on June 1 led them to searching elsewhere in the days, months, and years that followed.

Loerie
8th Apr 2011, 16:33
Hi,
Did they not see the Vertical Stabiliser at that point from the air and some passengers and crew from sea level or was that later and well away from the LKP and what of the kerosene trace---that must surely have been from aloft?
I will go back and check,thanks.
Not really complaining or anything,just curious as to why the Woods guys were not called in right away.After all,it has taken them under a week to find the Aircraft very close to where it came down.Would just have thought,and bearing in mind all the difficulties facing deep-water exploration,that possibly more effort and money immediately spent would have worked better.
Thanks for the courteous post and reply.I have been more immersed in the tech side of the forum but do not have that kind of tech to comment----just putting down my frustration at the apparent lack of co-operation apparently from so many,including,from what I read,the Brazilians who seem to have been slow in supplying information to the French investigative body.
On a happier note----nice day in the BVI`s today....!:oh:
Cheers.

cwatters
8th Apr 2011, 17:54
The pingers were heard by a French submarine,apparently.

They didn't know they had heard them until about the middle of last year. Thales only made the discovery after writing new software to reprocess the data recorded during the first search. If I've understoof correctly this discovery caused them to extend the search plan by a month before the equipment was needed for a military project.

Machinbird
9th Apr 2011, 07:51
My training - start at the furthest point that an item could have reached and then work in. If you are looking for something on the surface that is moving, that is a good strategy. You trap the item between its last known position and the furthest possible point and the search area should shrink over time as you clear sectors.

For an item on the bottom that is not moving, it may not be a good strategy.
The furthest possible position is a guess. The search area should not vary over time (except as new information comes to light) and the LKP is a good starting point (assuming it is reliably known).

Of course, the retrospective analysis approach can always find the flaw in the grand plan that should have been recognized at the beginning.:rolleyes:

They did find AF447's resting place though and that fact should be respected.

aston09
10th Apr 2011, 21:07
Hi guys,
May be one day you'll understand french politics'.
Up to know, nothing, absolutely nothing has been done by chance or coïncidence.
Ref to my previous post to Know about the future (i'm not Ms Irma) ;-)))

nojwod
11th Apr 2011, 02:58
This thread is a classic example of why I love visiting these forums. I am always looking for ultra-talented people who can be head-hunted for international organisations who currently employ specialists and experts in their fields, who unfortunately don't have a clue.

Despite what the so-called experts will tell you, it seems that locating a downed airliner at 13,000' of Atlantic Ocean is childs play if you know what you're doing. All the finest minds in the various fields were simply incompetent. Our finest PPRuNe contributors should have been called up. All they needed to do was look at the various scopes and detection devices, locate the ping, from there send a scuba diver down to guide the robot submarine towards the wreckage, and while down there, before the SCUBA tank ran out, comprehensively document the cause of the crash, and issue recommendations for all future trans-Atlantic flights to prevent any possible mishap ever again.

lee van chief
11th Apr 2011, 17:18
nojwod,

Don't forget that while sorting out all of the above, they would also find time to spot spelling and grammar mistakes, moan about pay and allowances, and express disbelief that non pilots have the audacity to express an opinion on the mighty Pprune!
It does give us engineers a chuckle though.

cats_five
11th Apr 2011, 17:49
Don't forget that while sorting out all of the above, they [...] express disbelief that non pilots have the audacity to express an opinion on the mighty Pprune!

Whilst reserving the right to tell all other professionals how to do their jobs.

Dengue_Dude
11th Apr 2011, 17:49
what is the position?

Sea floor apparently . . .

Lonewolf_50
12th Apr 2011, 19:54
BEA says the detection range of the Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB) also called as Emergency Locator Pingers (ELP) is up to 2,000 m.

Based on what figure of merit, what receiver, and what water conditions? :confused:

Given that the pinger is apparently under 3900m of water, and it was detected by a submarine sonar (with post mission FOM enhanced) at more than 2000m slant range, their range estimates appear to be "rough" and not "fine" in resolution. Not sure what sort of range resolution the sub might have been able to discern, even in post mission analysis, with

1) a signal that weak, at a comparatively high frequency (for sound in water)
2) angular direction being mostly "down" rather than lateral

Tricky sonar tracking and locating problem to resolve, for sure. Even more curious, I wonder if it was detected via a convergence zone sound ray path.

( I am about to draw blood from my scalp via head scratching on that one ... I can still only grok Direct Path from the geometry ... )

samuelmj1
12th Apr 2011, 20:18
I note the French Transport Minister being quoted yesterday as saying that the tail section has now been found.

Lonewolf_50
12th Apr 2011, 21:36
One hopes the FDR and CVR will be either in that tail section, or nearby.

*crosses fingers*

N1EPR
13th Apr 2011, 01:58
The tail section of an Air France plane which crashed over the Atlantic in 2009 has been found on the ocean floor, relatives of those killed have said.
Investigators had told them the section was "relatively intact", they added.
The discovery has raised hopes that the "black boxes", which were located at the rear of the jet, may be recovered.
The voice and data recorders could yield crucial clues about the cause of the crash that killed 228 people on the flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.
There has been speculation that malfunctioning speed sensors were to blame, but officials say other factors must also have contributed.
'99% certain' Nelson Marinho of the Brazilian victims' family association said French Accident Investigation Bureau (BEA) officials had told them during a meeting in Paris on Monday that the "tail section had been found and that it was relatively intact so the black boxes are possibly still attached to it".
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13057612#story_continues_2) “Start Quote

They made it clear that they could not guarantee that the content of the black boxes would be able to be retrieved”
Maarten Van Sluys Brazilian victims' family association
"I am 99% certain the black boxes will be recovered," he said.
BEA spokeswoman Martine Del Bono urged caution about the news.
"We are working intensely under a very short time span to have a maximum amount of information to able to find the black boxes," she said. "But we don't know where they are right now - we have to find them at the site."
Maarten Van Sluys, another member of the Brazilian victims' family association, said there was also concern about the condition of the black boxes after two years sitting in corrosive seawater under immense pressure, nearly 4km below the surface of the ocean.
"They made it clear that they could not guarantee that the content of the black boxes would be able to be retrieved," he told the Associated Press.
Flight 447 crashed into the Atlantic north-east of Brazil on 1 June 2009, after running into an intense high-altitude thunderstorm.
Automatic messages sent by the Airbus 330's computers showed it was receiving false air-speed readings from its sensors.
The French transport ministry has said that the ship Ile de Sein, which is equipped with a remotely-operated submarine, will leave Cape Verde on 21 April to being retrieving parts of the wreckage.

jcjeant
14th Apr 2011, 12:11
Hi,

Maarten Van Sluys, another member of the Brazilian victims' family association, said there was also concern about the condition of the black boxes after two years sitting in corrosive seawater under immense pressure, nearly 4km below the surface of the ocean.

Anyone know what will be at 3.900 meters dept the percentage of oxygen ?

Volume
14th Apr 2011, 12:27
At least the temperature should be low, this slows down chemical reactions. See the Titanic for example, almost 100 years in seawater without maintenance and still standing.

fizz57
14th Apr 2011, 12:47
quote:
Anyone know what will be at 3.900 meters dept the percentage of oxygen ?

The oxygen content is irrelevant, with sea water the main cause of corrosion is electrochemical. Two dissimilar metals with a conducting path between them (and sea water is conductive) form a battery, and the least noble metal will just dissolve away. Since circuit boards contain copper tracks and tin/lead solder, the tracks disappear in a disappointingly short time if exposed to sea water. This isn't too big a deal if the chips are still intact, as they can be removed and re-soldered to a new circuit board.

However, the same thing happens if water gets into the chips themselves, typically along the interface between the package and the leads: the aluminium metallization on the chip just rots away. Putting chips in a pressure cooker is a standard quality-control test for hermiticity, you typically start getting failures after a few weeks, and that's at only 1 bar (although that's at 121 degrees C- I've no idea how this translates to a higher pressure and lower temperature).

There are techniques used in failure analysis where you can use the beam of an electron microscope to "read out" an unconnected circuit, but I don't know whether this will scale up to the megabits of data in the recorder chips.

Basically it's all down to how well the internal and external packaging has managed to keep the sea water out, after a year under water at umpteen bar and following a high-velocity impact. There is, unfortunately, a good chance the data will be unreadable.

Not that the conspiracy theorists will believe the BEA if that's what it ends up announcing.

Orestes
14th Apr 2011, 13:58
Don't know how deep this camera was submerged, but if a regular consumer memory card was able to survive a year on the seabed, there's hope the robustly packaged memory in the AF447 recorders will have survived as well :

Camera Returned After Year on Ocean Floor (http://www.petapixel.com/2010/02/11/camera-returned-after-year-on-ocean-floor/)

Heathrow Harry
14th Apr 2011, 15:02
looking at the pictures I'm a amazed at how intact the pieces are

given what can be figured out from a few shards scattered all over the countryside there must be a good chance of closure on this incident if they can get those pieces to the surface

lomapaseo
14th Apr 2011, 15:10
Anyone know what will be at 3.900 meters dept the percentage of oxygen ?

The photos of the airplane and engine bits on the sea floor don't look bad.

SR111 didn't have a problem with the balck boxes or engine FADECs etc. etc.

robertbartsch
14th Apr 2011, 20:41
Who will have legal jurisdiction (ownership) over the data recorders, if found?

I would have thought it would be the S. American authorities since they had initial jurisdication over the recovered bodies.

infrequentflyer789
14th Apr 2011, 21:05
Who will have legal jurisdiction (ownership) over the data recorders, if found?

I would have thought it would be the S. American authorities since they had initial jurisdication over the recovered bodies.

I think that is only because Brazilian ships picked them up (and possibly because they were, at least some, bodies of Brazilian nationals).

The French are the investigating authority, I believe that is as it is a French certified operator in international waters. The crash didn't happen anywhere near Brazil's jurisdiction.

Since the Brazilians initially refused to cooperate with the legitimate investigating authority over the autopsies, I doubt the French will be falling over themselves to give them access to whatever they can bring up from the bottom.

jcjeant
14th Apr 2011, 23:06
Hi,

Abnormal :

The French government announced that it will bail out at the expense of the state for five million dollars, the wreckage of the Airbus A330-220 of Air France Flight 447 from Rio to Paris, crashed into the Atlantic 1 June 2009 in the Atlantic Ocean.Seem's completely wrong for me.
Why the french taxpayer must paid for rescue operations of an airliner ?
All the costs must be for Air France .. the company who make benefits by exploiting this aircraft ....
If you take benefits .. you must also take the responsability and costs.

Turbine D
15th Apr 2011, 02:28
jcjeant

I suspect $5M is only a small portion of the total cost to retrieve the wreckage of AF447. I am sure a larger percentage will be paid by AF & Airbus. There is much at stake here to learn the true cause and prevent future occurrences. In the future, I am sure if the mission is successful, you as a PAX on an A-330 flight, will feel more at ease knowing the cause had been found and corrective action taken for only $5M, shared by many.

jcjeant
15th Apr 2011, 02:42
Hi,

I must emphasize that it's a very small percentage of french taxpayers who put their ass in the AF seats .... all types of aircrafts included.
Or are we speaking of "collectivism" when it's about AF ?
corrective action taken for only $5M, shared by many.That "only $5M" can certainly be shared by the passengers of AF (air ticket price increase will compensate and give better safety) instead of Mr Toulemonde
As the old proverb say
You can not have your cake and eat it too

Rwy in Sight
15th Apr 2011, 05:40
I would be very concerned if AF was to pay alone for the search.

Taildragger67
15th Apr 2011, 06:40
jcjeant,

Every time you set foot on a passenger aircraft - no, make that any aircraft - you benefit from every incident investigation (and subsequent recommendation) that has gone before.

For example, floor-level lights were mandated after an incident where passengers could not find their way out due dense smoke and died as a result. The idea to use high-intensity wingtip strobes whilst on an active runway strip did not come about just whilst some bright spark was singing in the shower.

Airbus would also be itching to know why one of their products apparently fell from the sky. Frankly so am I, given I strapped into their products from time to time. If AF can't or won't pay, I'm glad someone is willing and able to.

the company who make benefits by exploiting this aircraft ....
If you take benefits .. you must also take the responsability and costs.

Airbus "make benefit" by manufacturing this aircraft. Hence it is fair that Airbus "must also take the responsability and costs". And guess who has (at least in part) underwritten Airbus these last 40 years? Yep - the French / German / British / Spanish taxpayer.

lomapaseo
15th Apr 2011, 14:51
Talking about investigation responsibility and costs is a diversion to this thread.

This properly resides in ICAO annex 13, but since those are recommendations and not law, some variations occur (mostly revolving around deep pockets vs holes in pockets)

Argiuments can exist for the manufacturer having the responsibility for correcting known airworthiness issues of aircraft in service. Since crashed aircraft don't belong to the manufacturer and are no longer in service ....

OK, the manufacturer has a need to respond to known deficencies as reported by the operator or investigating agency (BEA) to the satisfaction of the regulator (DGAC).

The manufacturer typically carries insurance for unexpected costs (deep ocean recovery is excluded)

ergo the responsibilty rests almost entirely with the investigating agency to make investigating decisions which can be economically supported by themselves.

No harm in anybody else offering support for the investigation (persons or money) but the buck stops there.

jcjeant
15th Apr 2011, 22:31
Hi,

Is not really a diversion as the researches are not only a technical challenge but are also sometime (in adverse situation)a financial challenge.

This properly resides in ICAO annex 13, but since those are recommendations and not law, some variations occur (mostly revolving around deep pockets vs holes in pockets)

You're absolutely right ... these are recommendations, not laws
But the French laws are not recommendations
We have here an accident at work (personnel aboard the aircraft is linked to Air France by an employment contract governed by French law)
The French state in case of accident .. has the right to request any documents or physical evidence to conduct an investigation to determine whether the laws concerning the activity of the company .. the tools used by the employees .. hygiene ... rest time .. and more .. have been met.
So the company has to provide (to the extent possible and in good faith) the documents .. etc .. required for the survey
Current research and results show that it was "in the extent of opportunities"
And until proven otherwise Air France has money ..
Air France is not yet declared a bankrupt company ... which would then be considered as an act of God .. and could then induce the French state to intervene financially if necessary.

End of "disgression" :)

Halfnut
27th Apr 2011, 23:13
Sub finds container of Air France recorder, but no data | Boeing and Aerospace News - seattlepi.com (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/04/27/sub-finds-container-of-air-france-recorder-but-no-data/)

Photos at link -

Sub finds container of Air France recorder, but no data

Searchers have found the container for the flight data recorder of Air France flight 447 but not the memory unit that contains the data, French investigators reported Wednesday.

Earlier this month, searchers found major wreckage from the Airbus A330, which crashed on its way between Rio de Janeiro and Paris on June 1, 2009, killing all 228 people aboard.

The first, 12-hour dive by the Remora 6000 remote submarine found the chassis of Flight Data Recorder, France’s air accident investigation agency, the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses, said Wednesday. “The searches are continuing. A second dive by the Remora 6000 began this morning.”

Searchers have not yet found any part of the cockpit voice recorder.

iflyboeing747
28th Apr 2011, 07:33
How come that in various news media I sense a rhetoric about the chances of finding the boxes intact being low - with different socalled official statements to build up a public belief that no real facts will ever be available because the boxes were never found or if found they would be so badly damaged that it was not possible to extract any valid data? (data which could indirectly put the political, legal and financial interests of airbus and air france in jeopardy?)

Wannabe Flyer
28th Apr 2011, 08:27
Without playing to any conspiracy theory, from the picture of the box it seems split wide open. Considering all the theories till date and the condition of the wreckage found in initial dates it seems to point that the aircraft landed intact and on its belly with little forward speed. What would cause the box to split open in such a manner??? Does that mean all theories to date could be incorrect?

iflyboeing747
28th Apr 2011, 08:42
theories are just that - and guesswork is the same - just that..
my feeling is that this is just what the involved parties want officially - again - just my own guesswork..
only the people actually having the data in their possession will know the real facts and then it is up to them what they want to disclose to the public - to suit their agenda..
I sincerely want to believe we will get the real facts - in public - but apparently it has happened through the history of accidents that not all facts were disclosed..

BOAC
28th Apr 2011, 08:43
(Without posting yet another image of the chassis of which we have several identical!) where do you see "from the picture of the box it seems split wide open"?

beardy
28th Apr 2011, 09:00
It is a well known phenomenon that when confronted with unfamiliar stimuli humans tend to interpret from experience. i.e. we see what we expect to see.

If you want to see a conspiracy you create one (in your own mind.)

anengineer
28th Apr 2011, 09:46
Surely no-one is suggesting that Air France & Airbus might be in cahoots to somehow delete incriminating evidence from recorders ?

<cough>Habsheim<cough>:oh:

LPS500
28th Apr 2011, 10:01
I can't see from the photo that the data module is missing. Which end is it at, the end buried under the sand?

Jazz Hands
28th Apr 2011, 10:15
Before the Airbus conspiracies start getting out of hand :=

Part of CVR recovered from Ethiopian 737 crash site (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/10/338275/part-of-cvr-recovered-from-ethiopian-737-crash-site.html)

forget
28th Apr 2011, 10:15
Am I missing something here? The supposed FDR on the sea bed appears to be a different type to the new unit shown in the newspaper article. This isn't immediately obvious as the newspaper picture cuts off the end of the new unit. A complete unit is shown below. Compare the overall length of the 'boxes' of both units. Perhaps someone more current with Air Transport Racking sizes can expand on this. Curious.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/fdr.jpg

iflyboeing747
28th Apr 2011, 10:21
interesting photo - is the sand at the front left-hand part going all the way up to the edge of the top-plate (covering the left-hand part of the box under it) - or are we looking at an open space under the left hand part of that top-plate..?

iflyboeing747
28th Apr 2011, 10:28
..explain what your point is, regarding conspiracies - with that article - jazz hands..?

beardy
28th Apr 2011, 11:27
ANENGINEER said:
Surely no-one is suggesting that Air France & Airbus might be in cahoots to somehow delete incriminating evidence from recorders ?

<cough>Habsheim<cough>

The thing is, if that is what you expect in these circumstances, then that is what you will see. Which of course is almost the same as prejudging. This mechanism has served humans very well in the course of evolution, but is not an appropriate method of accident investigation.

no sponsor
28th Apr 2011, 12:35
Press release from the UK AAIB states that the UK representative will take part in the analysis of voice and data recorders. I presume other representatives from other authorities will be present, so just not a case of Airbus or French-only investigators being present?

Air Accidents Investigation: Press Release - Air France 447 - Wreckage recovery operations (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/latest_news/press_release___air_france_447___wreckage_recovery_operation s.cfm)

GlueBall
28th Apr 2011, 12:44
It's already understood that conspiracy theorists will not be silenced by facts, because myth and paranoia is food for the intellectually challenged.

Too many people involved in this lengthy search, recovery, analysis of wreckage would make it very difficult to keep everyone "on the same page" in any attempt of suppressing findings and facts as to the probable cause of the crash. :ooh:

The_Steed
28th Apr 2011, 12:58
@Glueball

Couldn't agree more. Like the people demanding to see Obama's birth certificate. He shows them and of course "it's a fake"...

Beauty about conspiracy theories is that you can't prove nor disprove them!

forget
28th Apr 2011, 13:13
It seems that F-GZCP should have been equipped with two dual purpose recorders, one forward and one aft. Was this recommendation ever made law?

The accident aircraft was an Airbus A330-203, with manufacturer serial number 660, registered as "F-GZCP". This airliner first flew on 25 February 2005.

The U.S. NTSB and TSB of Canada issued safety recommendations on March 9, 1999, to require:

By January 1, 2003, all newly manufactured airplanes required to carry both a CVR and FDR be fitted with two combined voice and data recorders, one recorder located as close to the cockpit as practical and the other as far aft as practical.

HalloweenJack
28th Apr 2011, 22:16
i must say ` well done` to the french navy , especially the submarine crew - trying to find a needle in a haystack , using equipment `out of spec` , not properly knowing the water conditions beneath them - and thales trying to push the sonar even further shows a dedication to the misison - to get `something` shows for pretty good equipment.

and likely that know how will be used for further finetuning`

Daysleeper
29th Apr 2011, 09:04
i must say ` well done` to the french navy , especially the submarine crew - trying to find a needle in a haystack , using equipment `out of spec` , not properly knowing the water conditions beneath them - and thales trying to push the sonar even further shows a dedication to the misison - to get `something` shows for pretty good equipment.

and likely that know how will be used for further finetuning`

Not sure if your post is ironic or if I've missed something (probably) but for the record..... the successful search was done by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute using Remus 6000 autonomous underwater vehicles.

This stage of recovery is on a French commercial ship and using Remora ROV(s) provided by (and I guess operated by) Phoenix International

The Sonar and black and white photos are from the Remus. The FDR chassis pictures in colour would be from the Remora.

anengineer
30th Apr 2011, 11:05
It's already understood that conspiracy theorists will not be silenced by facts, because myth and paranoia is food for the intellectually challenged.

And absolute blind faith in the establishment isn't a sign of staggering naivety ?

Yes, of course there are conspiracy nutters out there who will not believe any amount of evidence. Likewise, there are naive nutters who gullibly accept, without question, what the establishment tells them. In my opinion there is a significantly greater proportion of the latter.

My point was that people are all too happy to label anyone who questions the official line as conspiracy 'nutters', but the bottom line is that the debacle surrounding the FDR from the Habsheim crash (and the subsequent shameful scapegoating of Cpt Asseline) shows to all that where big bucks are at stake, anything is possible.

Of course, it is already understood that no degree of evidence will silence the naivity nutters.

wozzo
30th Apr 2011, 12:41
(...) people are all too happy to label anyone who questions the official line as conspiracy 'nutters' (...)

You'll have to do better than coughing "Habsheim" if you'd like your questions to be taken seriously. All I get from this thread are musings about supposed "hints" in official press releases and speculation about an "open" box, which is ridiculous because 1) it's not split open and 2) this "box" doesn't contain the memory module.

Jet Jockey A4
30th Apr 2011, 12:54
Originally Posted by anengineer...

"(and the subsequent shameful scapegoating of Cpt Asseline)"

Regardless of any conspiracy if any and whether it was in the A320 accident in Habsheim or this newer accident involving the A330 lying at the bottom of the Atlantic, Cpt Asseline deserves to be hung in public and his licence removed permanently because any pilot that decides to take a fully loaded airliner down to 30 feet above ground in a slow speed/high alpha pass regardless of aircraft technology as a few screws missing.

captplaystation
30th Apr 2011, 13:25
Used to be the "done thing" in the "good old days", but with pax on board ? ? think that was the hanging offence IMHO.

scanhorse
30th Apr 2011, 19:28
Searchers find auxiliary power unit from Air France flight 447 | Boeing and Aerospace News - seattlepi.com (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/04/29/searchers-find-auxiliary-power-unit-from-air-france-flight-447/)

oldchina
30th Apr 2011, 20:57
Arseline, aka "Rambo" in AFR, demonstrated an exceptional lack of professionalism taking handicapped pax to their death in those trees.
He will have to live with that for the rest of his days. Hanging is too kind.

anengineer
30th Apr 2011, 23:37
because any pilot that decides to take a fully loaded airliner down to 30 feet above ground in a slow speed/high alpha pass regardless of aircraft technology as a few screws missing.

Cpt Asseline has always said it was 30M indicated (or he believed it to be). He has never said that he deliberately took the aircraft down to 30 feet. Either you have more information on this aspect than the French courts or you are assuming he's just a liar. Are you suggesting that the entire accident can be laid squarely, and completely, at Asseline's feet ?

ChristiaanJ
30th Apr 2011, 23:58
anengineer, from another engineer....
I would think there is probably a thread on PPRuNe still, about Arseline's imbecility. I don't think it's relevant to the AF447 crash yet, since we simply don't know the "Probable Cause" of the AF447 crash.

I would suggest we leave Habsheim out of this discussion, or start a separate new thread on the subject.

CJ

SKS777FLYER
1st May 2011, 08:07
Captain Asseline also reported that the engines didn't respond to his throttle input as he attempted to increase power. In the month prior to the accident, Airbus had posted two Operational Engineering Bulletins (OEBs) indicating anomalous behavior in the A320 aircraft. These bulletins were received by Air France, but were not sent out to pilots until after the accident.

OEB 19/1: Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude
This OEB noted that the engines may not respond to throttle input at low altitude.
OEB 06/2: Baro-Setting Cross Check
This OEB stated that the barometric altitude indication on the A320 did not always function properly.
These malfunctions could have caused both the lack of power when the throttle was increased, and the inability of the crew to recognize the sharp sink rate as the plane passed 100 feet into the trees.

Flight recorders: In May of 1998, the Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) determined that the recorders presented to the Court were not the ones taken from the aircraft after the accident.[3]

cockney steve
1st May 2011, 11:32
^^^^^ The salient fact is, HE HAD EXPERIENCED THE LACK OF RESPONSE.

Had he been a Ppruner, I'm damned sure he would have alerted fellow aviators of his "brown trouser moment" Irrespective of any documentation going through official channels.

I'm also damned sure he'd have discussed it with other AF drivers.

The man's personal ethics is another ball of wax altogether and as Christiaanj said, start a new thread if you feel the need, :uhoh:


The fact that the discovery of some wreckage is in the public domain, indicates that it's likely interested parties consider a cover-up to be pretty futile.

Graybeard
1st May 2011, 19:02
http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/images/fdr2.reduite.jpg

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/images/fdr2.reduite.jpg

Let's hope it's as intact inside as it appears on the outside.

GB

anengineer
1st May 2011, 19:18
Wow ! They must be over the moon after searching for so long. Congratulations to all involved. It certainly looks in decent nick. Fingers crossed.

rp122
1st May 2011, 19:23
My understanding is that this is just the casing, and the memory module is still missing.

anengineer
1st May 2011, 19:24
No, that is the memory module. The case was found earlier in the week.

jdsworld
1st May 2011, 19:26
The press release confirms that it is the memory unit.

Information, 1 May 2011 (http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/info01may2011.en.php)

Good news!

anengineer
1st May 2011, 19:30
Underside image:
http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/images/fdr1.reduite.jpg

More info here: Information, 1 May 2011 (http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/info01may2011.en.php)

(sorry - duplicating Greybeard's link there !)

J.O.
1st May 2011, 19:32
And the conspiracy theorists suddenly go silent. But for how long? :hmm:

jdsworld
1st May 2011, 19:34
Until the investigation finding is issued. Then there will be calls of foul play and cover up!

anengineer
1st May 2011, 19:47
And the conspiracy theorists suddenly go silent. But for how long?

Oh do shut up ! How can the 'conspiracy theorists suddenly go silent' ?? Greybeard only posted the news less than 40 minutes ago FFS ! :rolleyes:

Grunff
1st May 2011, 19:50
Hats off to the search party.
It pays to be persevere. I hope they will find Flash-memory still intact and that we will learn something from this sad accident.

Sallyann1234
1st May 2011, 19:53
That really is superb news. All the effort and expense has been justified.
This is all about avoiding a repeat of whatever caused this tragic accident.

Congratulations to all involved.

AnthonyGA
1st May 2011, 22:24
Now Airbus will finally have some hard data that it can modify.

lambourne
1st May 2011, 22:39
And the conspiracy theorists suddenly go silent. But for how long? :hmm:

How do we know that the photo is not taken in a fish tank somewhere? It is not like the recorder is holding up a newspaper to verify date and location.....
lol:E;)

In fact I suspect this photo was taken on the same stage from where the moon landing was faked........:ooh::p

blueloo
1st May 2011, 22:56
I think the CVR may be a bit more important in this event.

(Only because the ACARS transmissions have provided some pieces of puzzle already relating to the aircraft state)

rp122
1st May 2011, 22:59
Looks like this news has been progressing fast.

Great news indeed that it is the memory module.

bubbers44
1st May 2011, 23:00
Hopefully this will tell the story of what happened. We don't want this to ever happen again.

parabellum
1st May 2011, 23:01
Just how much force is required to separate the memory unit from the casing, are the attachment points intended to shear at a certain force?
Personally not seen one separated before, despite a very severe arrival on earth, so quite curious.

hval
1st May 2011, 23:05
@ Parabellum,

Force required for separation would depend upon rate of change of deceleration and angle of deceleration along with whether deceleration was sustained. Then there are the bolt material strength to be taken into account, whether there was any play in connections and also the material strength of whatever the bolts were attached to.

Jet Jockey A4
2nd May 2011, 01:01
Great news!

Hopefully they can pull the data and give everyone a wealth of information on this accident.

Machinbird
2nd May 2011, 02:17
I think the CVR may be a bit more important in this event.


Maybe not. The accident may have been solely the result of 'system problems.' The wreckage very near LKP points to an immediate loss of control.

GHOTI
2nd May 2011, 02:31
Why is BEA/AF so transparent on the recovery effort, if somebody were trying to cover something up? Every screw-up on the recovery effort has been reported and reported again -- by them!
Doggone, they have found the FDR and presumably will bring it up. Good work!
Maybe the CVR will reveal more if found, but how many times can a person say "Aw Crap" in French?
Although long retired as a pilot, I have spent 600k miles as SLF on the 330 and its derivatives. No French person I know would ever deliberately put me on a dangerous plane. Please, all you Bus bashers, give these guys a little more time. Pray God the gizmo tells us something.

blueloo
2nd May 2011, 03:11
The accident may have been solely the result of 'system problems.'

I don't doubt this as a possibility either.

The CVR may provide an insight into how the errors appeared to the crew, and how they responded. Appropriately or not.....


Or maybe they do indeed just say "Aw Crap".

Roller Merlin
2nd May 2011, 03:23
Air France black box recovered from Atlantic
Posted 4 hours 16 minutes ago onABC Australia

Relatives of the crash victims said they were heartened by the news the black box had been recovered. (Reuters: Brazilian Air Force)

RELATED STORY: Doomed Air France flight's black box found
Search teams have retrieved one of two black box flight recorders of an Air France plane that crashed into the Atlantic in 2009, killing 228 people.

The device was the crucial memory unit from a flight data recorder, France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA) said in a statement.

It was "in good physical condition" after having been moved by a robotic submarine.

The official cause of the disaster remains uncertain, but the crash has been partly blamed on malfunctioning speed sensors used by Airbus.

Air France has been accused of not having responded quickly enough to reports that they might be faulty.

The recovery could be a breakthrough in the investigation into the disaster, because the box could hold crucial data that would enable BEA investigators to determine the cause of the crash.

"Our experts will tell us if there's hope of reading the data," BEA director Jean-Paul Troadec said.

"If the data can be used it will allow the inquiry to make headway because the [flight data recorder] records the altitude, speed and the various positions of the rudder."

The device was expected to arrive at BEA offices within eight to 10 days to allow for the search of the cockpit voice recorder (CFR), so both can be taken back to France.

"If we can read the first data, that would be a great step forward. But without the second black box, essential data will be missing ... the way the pilots reacted, the reasons they took ... one decision or another during the emergency," Mr Troadec said.

A spokesman for relatives of the crash victims said they were heartened by the news.

"It's very, very encouraging for all the families of the victims, even if we have to remain prudent while we wait to see to what extent the recorder can be used," said Jean-Baptiste Audousset, head of the AF447 Association.

Investigators announced last Wednesday that search teams had retrieved part of a black box flight recorder from the Airbus A330, but not the part containing the key data.

BEA said the chassis that held one of the recorders had been found a day after a salvage ship began working to retrieve bodies and recently discovered wreckage using the Remora submarines.

The module had broken off from the chassis, presumably at the moment the plane, which was flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, crashed into the water.

- AFP

Golden Rivit
2nd May 2011, 03:41
I too am waiting for the CVR, I want to know why everyone else deviated around the cells,and AF 447 did not. Radar failure,and they took a chance and continued?

Graybeard
2nd May 2011, 03:54
In days of olde, the CVR yielded much more than the 5 or 13 parameter FDR. The large number of parameters in this DFDR should reveal most or all that's really needed.

VinRouge
2nd May 2011, 04:02
On the 330, is it possible to deselect the WX RDR on the MFD? I have spotted the Co on my current Jet having done this a couple of times with CBs predicted. At night, unless you got a flash above you, it could be easy to assume nothing was painting and you were all clear. To be honest, the best tool I find for searching for cells are a set of NVGs. you can see a good 200+ miles, flashes over the horizon WELL before the typical radar will pick things up.


Would a forward looking IR camera in addition to the WX RDR be a more sensible addition? If they had a night mode on the tail cam I have seen some buses have, with a tilt feature to move from the view of the wingspan more into the direction of flight, it could be done at very little cost. Of course, doesnt help with embedded stuff, so you will still need WX RDR. Of my 2000 hours heavy jet (dont laugh), I can only think of 1 time where I needed to nav in cloud around embedded stuff; generally, if its convective, people generally stay out of clouds rather than fly though it!

crHedBngr
2nd May 2011, 04:45
Fantastic news . . . hoping it yields that missing piece of the puzzle, despite the length of time it took to find it . . . quite an accomplishment, really.

nielsdc
2nd May 2011, 07:24
Nobody seems to have noticed yet that the pinger is missing from the memory module. You can see the four holes where the pinger was attached on the side. Since the pinger is located on the outside of the memory unit, it is much less protected. The forces needed to shear it of the memory unit would probably also destroy it, which would explain why they never heard the pinger.

HalloweenJack
2nd May 2011, 08:58
actually from the the tech log thread , the french navy did in fact hear a pinger , but only on the data tapes , via a new `cleaning` method many many months after the initial search.

@Daysleeper

i should have been clearer then , the french navy actually heard the `pinger` , or rather , they recorded it on the data tapes which were looked at `again` many months later ; using equipment designed for hunting other subs at much much higher depths than the 10000 feet of water AF447 is laying to rest

EDLB
2nd May 2011, 09:14
Given the progress they made, I am very confident, that they find the CVR module too.

zekeigo
2nd May 2011, 10:29
Black Box found.
Now let's hope the French authorities release the full report.

Down Three Greens
2nd May 2011, 10:32
very interesting line in the BEA posting above....

"If the data can be used it will allow the inquiry to make headway because the [flight data recorder] records the altitude, speed and the various positions of the rudder.

Congrats to the recovery team.

AlphaZuluRomeo
2nd May 2011, 13:43
@ Empire :
"Who is going... ?"
=> The BEA and other representatives (from NTSB, Honeywell, AF... etc.) is likely the good answer.
"How can transparency and accuracy be guaranteed?"
=> By the team working exposed above. I cannot see a better way, can you?

britfrog
2nd May 2011, 17:42
I like many here am more than a little skeptical that the truth will out. The financial consequences are too high, if as I believe, the a/c broke up in the air, the ramifications to airbus and also the french government are enormous. Do they admit that 561 a/c can be unsafe in high turbulence?, will this create a public that will not fly in such a/c as many have done with the MD11? what do the airlines operating these a/c do? ask for their money back?
Imagine the response from Boeing supporters there will be a huge anti airbus hue and cry! with cancelled orders etc
I for one will not be surprised if they simply announce the fdr was too damaged to offer much help but they were convinced the a/c remained integral till it hit the sea.
another small matter taht I am not too happy about is the apparent ease in which they found the recorder mostly the size of a coke can in an ocean where they couldnt find something the size of a/c last year.
yes I am a cynic when it comes to matters involving various countries CAA's or their equivalents.

JCviggen
2nd May 2011, 18:44
if as I believe, the a/c broke up in the air, the ramifications to airbus and also the french government are enormous. Do they admit that 561 a/c can be unsafe in high turbulence?The debris field does not appear to support any obvious in-flight breakup, and evidently the A330 is not inherently unsafe or more would have dropped out of the sky by now with several hundred of them in the air daily. Statistics are not on your side.

Oops I missed the do not feed the trolls sign, my bad.

Lonewolf_50
2nd May 2011, 18:46
britfrog.

I invite you to take a look at the Tech Log discussion on this crash. I think you will find the arguments well support "it hit the water pretty much intact" conclusion.

Cheers.

Jazz Hands
2nd May 2011, 18:58
very interesting line in the BEA posting above....

"If the data can be used it will allow the inquiry to make headway because the [flight data recorder] records the altitude, speed and the various positions of the rudder.



Not really a surprising comment, though. It's well-known that the data from the aircraft included a rudder travel limiter fault message. Therefore the investigators want to know the rudder positions.

vapilot2004
2nd May 2011, 19:28
Not really a surprising comment, though. It's well-known that the data from the aircraft included a rudder travel limiter fault message. Therefore the investigators want to know the rudder positions.

My understanding of that message (and several others including a cabin press system alarm) is it was generated due to the lack of air data.

Jazz Hands
2nd May 2011, 19:33
I suspect that's the case, I'm just putting the rudder comment into context before it starts taking on a life of its own.

bearfoil
2nd May 2011, 19:45
One can only speculate that without airdata, the RTLU was not in fault, but couldn't compute its limits due no speed data. Not being in the set doesn't mean it is inop, per se. It rather defaulted to least sweep, due last velocity, M.82. I think this is the working theory. There is no reason to exclude extensive damage to flight surfaces, without loss from airframe. The VS roots look as though they encountered a range of overstresses, perhaps it "broke" on board, to remain onboard to the surface. If broken loose, (not 'free') and inarticulate, serious inflight control issues would ensue, etc.

As to in-flight breakup. Yes. And No. There was no disintegration. There was the opportunity however for shedding some parts due air loads (overspeed) or cycling at past critical limits (airspeed). Found on the surface were flight surfaces, aileron, elevator, and spoiler, and radome. The drift calcs are inconclusive, and there was ad nauseum comment on the issue, some of it mine. If the ship plunged quickly down from LKP, yet ended up in a flat spin (aspect), remember the average rate of descent is 6,000 fpm. Likewise, the average AOD is 45 degrees (down) plus, pointing to the possibility that some nose down may have been in excess of 50 degrees or more.

Sallyann1234
2nd May 2011, 23:14
I like many here am more than a little skeptical that the truth will out. The financial consequences are too high, if as I believe, the a/c broke up in the air, the ramifications to airbus and also the french government are enormous.
So against the evidence already collected, and without waiting for data to be analysed, your own brilliant deduction is that the plane broke up in the air. If the data shows something different you will of course say that the analysis is forged. And if the data cannot be recovered, you will say that you were right all along.

The recovery operation has gone to extremes of effort and expense to find why this tragic accident happened, in the hope of avoiding it ever happening again. If a cover-up was required it would have been possible to give up the search after the first or second or third failed attempt. But the recovery team have persisted for nearly two years in order to get to the truth. It has been a superb effort.

Set against all this, your own conjecture at this very late stage is utterly futile and pointless.

nojwod
3rd May 2011, 03:42
britfrog said "another small matter taht I am not too happy about is the apparent ease in which they found the recorder mostly the size of a coke can in an ocean where they couldnt find something the size of a/c last year."

I am constantly amazed at the inability of some at this forum to display commonsense, and your statement is a classical example. Why? You might well ask.

Well, imagine you were set down on a dry lakebed the size of Lake Eyre in a sandstorm and told there was a crashed model aircraft that had gone missing as it flew over the middle heading north. You're given a pair of scratched goggles and dropped in the middle of the lakebed and told to look for the wreckage, and the battery is the most important thing to find.

After several weeks of criss-crossing the dry lakebed you stumble upon a wing section partially covered in drifting salt, and you start to narrow the search area to a kilometre radius of where you found the wing. Despite the handicap of having to peer through almost opaque goggles, the next day or two other bits are located, scattered over an area of a couple of hundred metres. The next day you find the all-important battery, a few metres from the damaged rear fuselage. Nothing surprising about the fact that you found the battery so soon after finding the wreckage, because now you have a small area in which to concentrate your efforts.

As you walk back to search HQ some pratt whispers that it all seemed so convenient, finding the battery so soon after locating the rest of the wreckage.

mm43
3rd May 2011, 06:34
France24.com

AFP - Search teams have retrieved the second black box flight recorder of an Air France plane that crashed in the Atlantic in 2009 en route from Rio to Paris, killing 228 people, French investigators said Tuesday.
"The investigation team localised and identified the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) at 2150 UTC (GMT) on Monday 2 May, 2011," France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA) said in a statement.
The recorder was "in good condition," BEA chief Jean-Paul Troadec told AFP, adding: "The chassis, the module and even the underwater locator beacon is there."
"It was raised and lifted on board the ship Ile de Sein" by a submersible robot early on Tuesday, the statement said.

Jazz Hands
3rd May 2011, 08:14
Picture of the CVR here:

AF447 recovery team retrieves cockpit-voice recorder (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/03/356145/af447-recovery-team-retrieves-cockpit-voice-recorder.html)

Bolli
3rd May 2011, 10:53
BEA pictures:
3rd May 2011 briefing (http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/info03mai2011.en.php)

forget
3rd May 2011, 11:05
For those who can't magnify picture 3 of 3, above, the hand in shot is applying a second sealing stamp to the red seal compound. I suppose one stamp from an indepedent (maybe the Brazilian Naval officer aboard) and one from BEA.

AlexanderH
3rd May 2011, 11:12
Might I just ask, and excuse me in advance of any ignorance on this subject, but given that after two years sitting on the bottom of the South Atlantic ocean under immense pressure, both the flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the Air France disaster have been found intact and more amazing still is that they were found at all given the size of the wreckage area, why then have the black boxes from the aircraft that smashed into the twin towers not been found and never will be found?

Hedge36
3rd May 2011, 12:04
One situation exposed the recorders to obliterating impact, fire and not just a few hundred tons of pulverizing concrete and steel.

The other... well, didn't.

AlexanderH
3rd May 2011, 12:17
Indeed, I appreciate that. However, is the pressure 4000 metres below sea level well in excess of the crushing weight of the world trade centre towers? Also, there are many instances where black boxes have been well able to withstand excess heat for many days.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious.

Globaliser
3rd May 2011, 12:25
"The investigation team localised and identified the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) at 2150 UTC (GMT) on Monday 2 May, 2011," France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA) said in a statement.Having read this thread, I can't help but admire and be impressed by the extraordinary lengths to which this Airbus/Air France/French Government/Bigfoot conspiracy is going to ensure that all the facts are covered up and nobody ever finds out what happened!

captplaystation
3rd May 2011, 12:30
Even more curious is why there are no CCTV images of the aircraft that "hit the pentagon", but that, and and a whole load of other Q's,could fill several threads.

Fantastic news that they have found the CVR, if it is readable I suspect it will be of even more value than the FDR. I could imagine Airboos & Air Chance are feeling a little anxious at this moment, as at least one of them is likely to come out smelling of something other than roses.

Globaliser
3rd May 2011, 12:30
... why then have the black boxes from the aircraft that smashed into the twin towers not been found and never will be found?What would have been the point of sifting minutely through millions of tons of rubble to find two small pieces of equipment that were as likely as not to have been totally useless and unreadable? How much would it have cost, and how long would it have taken? And what would the searchers have had to do about all the other stuff they would come across while they were doing it, including a lot of asbestos and a lot of body parts? What would have been the sense in even trying it?

It's not exactly as if there was any mystery about why those aircraft flew into the World Trade Center.

KBPsen
3rd May 2011, 13:00
there are many instances where black boxes have been well able to withstand excess heat for many days.Name these "many instances".

ATC Watcher
3rd May 2011, 13:27
I could imagine Airboos & Air Chance are feeling a little anxious at this moment, as at least one of them is likely to come out smelling of something other than roses.

And if it is the case then the new BEA head would be in his real first test. Would he bend l like his predecessor(s) or would he stand firm behind his staff and publish what must be published ?

The most recent report under the new management I read from the BEA ( the fatal accident of the local Aerobatic world champion ) would indicate that the human aspects reserach was extremely well done and the published conclusions bold and accurate. So I am hopeful, although taking on a French air Force Hero is a bit easier than the 2 you mentioned.

Jazz Hands
3rd May 2011, 13:49
However, is the pressure 4000 metres below sea level well in excess of the crushing weight of the world trade centre towers? Also, there are many instances where black boxes have been well able to withstand excess heat for many days.



Ballpark figures, but a flight recorder typically is designed to withstand intense fire (1,000C) for about 30min and lower-temperature (250C) for about 10 hours. Plus pressure immersion to twice the depth of AF447.

There are few (if any) cases of aircraft fires burning anywhere near those durations, making the intense WTC fire something of an exception.

NWA SLF
3rd May 2011, 14:47
It is my feeling that Air France, Airbus, and BEA have spent so much money in an attempt to find the recorders and the wreckage in order to determine the root cause of the accident in order to make all airplanes safer in the future. Will recovery of the root cause open up something like the Applegate memorandum? For those who don't remember, during the trial regarding the first wide body crash with massive loss of life, this memorandum from an executive of Convair, manufacturer of the DC-10 fuselage, came to light:

“My only criticism of Douglas in this regard is that once this inherent weakness was demonstrated by the July 1970 test failure, they did not take immediate steps to correct it. It seems to me inevitable that, in the twenty years ahead of us, DC-10 cargo doors will come open and I would expect this to usually result in the loss of the airplane. This fundamental failure mode has been discussed in the past and is being discussed again in the bowels of both the Douglas and Convair organizations. It appears, however, that Douglas is waiting and hoping for government direction or regulations in the hope of passing costs on to us or their customers.”
An executive writing a memo predicting the accident in the exact way it would happen - could there actually be such a "smoking gun" in the archives of the manufacturer, any of the suppliers, or the airline? I only hope we don't find that something happened to the aircraft early in the event that cut off data delivery to the recorders that hampers finding the root cause of the accident. Walkingthe site of the TK 981 flight crash site near Senlis, France, many times and adding parts of the aircraft I discovered to the collection that is always surrounding the memorial never made me reluctant to fly in DC-10s. I actually felt safer knowing the aircraft in which I was flying was safer due to findings and improvements as the result of its mishaps. Having made over 100 trans-Atlantic crossings in DC-10s before NWA switching, then dozens of those same transits in A-330s before I retired, I look forward to Airbus/Air France/BEA being able to find enough information to make any further transits safer. Already we have the improved procedures the flight crew should follow if they see questionable data, plus the hardware changes. Instead of coverups and downsides, I look at the efforts being put out as making air travel safer for us all.

ATC Watcher
3rd May 2011, 15:03
NWA SLF : very well said :D
I also sincerely hope that the new BEA management will differ from what we were used to in the past and that truly the aim is , as you rightly said, to make air travel safer as a result.

cwatters
3rd May 2011, 16:11
Britfrog wrote:

..if as I believe, the a/c broke up in the air, the ramifications to airbus and also the french government are enormous. Do they admit that 561 a/c can be unsafe in high turbulence?

Why not? Can all other other aircraft survive unlimited turbulence and never need to divert around weather? I don't think so.

skidbuggy
4th May 2011, 16:58
For those interested:

YouTube - RECUPERATION BOITES NOIRES VOL AF447

ChristiaanJ
4th May 2011, 17:48
skidbuggy,
Nice one.
Also explains where some of the earlier 'photos' came from, with everybody taking photos (and movies) of the screens.
Odd that Phoenix did not have enough 'stuff' at hand to get instant 'video caps' (snapshots) from either the incoming video or the video recordings - look at the discussions about the recorder module P/N and S/N.

And for the conspiracy freaks... note it's the "Gerdarmerie" handling the units, with the BEA team advising on the 'how-to' but otherwise staying completely 'hands-off'.

vovachan
4th May 2011, 18:26
So what happens next are they going to send the black boxes back to mainland? how? Or they are going to sit on the ship until they are done with the search.

doyll
4th May 2011, 18:45
"The BEA reports that a French navy patrol boat will be dispatched to pick both elements up from the Ile de Sein vessel that is conducting the search for debris of the Airbus A330-200...."

AF447 Cockpit Voice Recorder Recovered | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/awx/2011/05/03/awx_05_03_2011_p0-317950.xml&headline=AF447%20Cockpit%20Voice%20Recorder%20Recovered)

cats_five
5th May 2011, 04:29
And for the conspiracy freaks... note it's the "Gerdarmerie" handling the units, with the BEA team advising on the 'how-to' but otherwise staying completely 'hands-off'.

The conspiracy freaks will say it's BEA personel dressed as gendermarie. :rolleyes:

dfish
7th May 2011, 05:48
NY Times article

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/magazine/mag-08Plane-t.html?_r=1

WojtekSz
7th May 2011, 10:24
@dfish:
thanks for that link - excellent piece of investigative jurnalism

TwoOneFour
7th May 2011, 16:50
The conspiracy freaks will say it's BEA personel dressed as gendermarie

Best they don't see this then, they'll say the whole aircraft is in disguise

Why is the AF447 search using our A321 cutaway? - Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/2011/05/why-is-the-af447-search-using.html)

blind pew
11th May 2011, 13:01
dfish - very good article thanks
Injuries appear very similar to the Trident crash which came down in a deep stall.

funfly
11th May 2011, 13:44
dfish - this article must be the best at this time, sensitively written and apparently well researched. there seems to be very little bias there as well.

Lemurian
11th May 2011, 14:57
thanks for that link - excellent piece of investigative jurnalism very good article thanks
Injuries appear very similar to the Trident crash which came down in a deep stall.his article must be the best at this time, sensitively written and apparently well researched. there seems to be very little bias there as well.
I'd really like to know what makes that article *excellent*, *best*, *sensitive* (??????????) and *well researched*.

Really. because I haven't found one redeemeing piece of intellectual honesty in it... Just a search for a scoop at any price.
But I'm ready to be convinced, as I think it is a piece of self-serving gutter garbage, and I wonder why you are members of this forum : having seen for two years the investigative work done by the pros on this thread and the results -incomplete by sheer intellectual honesty- achieved by pooling to-gether multiple fields of interests and specialities, achievements that are nothing short of impressive...
A philosopher of the XIX th century would say again :"The more I see people, the more I love my dog ".
I feel the same.

DouglasFlyer
11th May 2011, 15:13
Then - I think - you're in the wrong forum.

Here's the link for you:

Forum du chien CaniForum - Portail (http://www.forum-chien.com/)

edmundronald
11th May 2011, 16:18
Some people here really think that those who paid for the search did so *to cover up* something? Wouldn't a cover-up have been easier by just saying that the wreckage was lost, end of story?

Edmund

jcjeant
11th May 2011, 17:14
Hi,

Some people here really think that those who paid for the search did so *to cover up* something? Wouldn't a cover-up have been easier by just saying that the wreckage was lost, end of story?

Edmund I know that is a very old event (the crash of the Caravelle Ajaccio - Nice) ... but what follow is not to shut up the feeling of conspirations when French state and BEA are mixed in a investigation.
Sorry for those who don't understand french .. and also apologise for the disgression ............

Video (TF1 news - main french TV media)
L'enquête du 20h : le secret d'Etat de la Caravelle - Vidéo du journal televise : Le journal de 20h - TF1 (http://videos.tf1.fr/jt-20h/l-enquete-du-20h-le-secret-d-etat-de-la-caravelle-6445341.html)

http://i.imgur.com/VMRo5.jpg

ZuluPapa
11th May 2011, 17:23
I wouldnt be surprised if the French tried to blame the poor Brazilians like they did to the Americans over the concorde disaster...

captplaystation
11th May 2011, 19:25
jcjeant,

I do , fortunately , understand French, and thank you for that link.

When we are asked, why conspiracy theories?
why you don't trust the French (or let's be honest ANY govt) to tell the truth?

Et voila !

Not forgetting ( geographically very close) the Itavia DC9, apparently, also the victim of a (French? if I remember the last hypotheses) missile.

Sh1t happens Eh? ( C'est la merde, Non? )

Edited to say, if you don't like conspiracy theories, read "Itavia 870" on wikipedia & ignore, if you wish to continue life as an ostrich.

ATC Watcher
11th May 2011, 19:45
Those were the 70s and a famous French sentence resumed everything : "la raison d'etat" . You were told and educated in those days that you needed to protect the State, and the State would protect you.

If someone screwed up big in those days, evidence was removed and tainted to fit a "rosier" version exonerating the State.
Fortunately the French people are not very good at keeping secrets or go quiet for years. Justice is not always "aux ordres" and years later generally we get the truth.
For the Nantes collision in 1973 , it took 10 years , for the Caravelle near l' Ile du levant in 1978 it may still take a few more years, ( most probably waiting for a certain ex-minster to die ).

Those times are gone fortunately, and I sincerely do not think this will apply to the 447 inquiry.

hetfield
11th May 2011, 19:55
why you don't trust the FrenchAre you aware that most of the 87 passengers at the A320 accident of Straßbourg 1992 died due to cold temperatures on ground and massive SAR "delays" ordered by the "prefecture" to protect the accident area and all possible traces?

jcjeant
11th May 2011, 21:58
Hi,

And it was again the 11/05/2011 on the TF1 main stream (the families ask the open of a new investigation and trial) at 11.10 min in video:
Le 20 heures du 11 mai 2011 - Vidéo du journal televise : Le journal de 20h - TF1 (http://videos.tf1.fr/jt-20h/le-20-heures-du-11-mai-2011-6451375.html)

( most probably waiting for a certain ex-minster to die )Le Ministre d'Etat

http://i.imgur.com/NftXk.jpg

funfly
11th May 2011, 22:51
Thank you Lemurian for your kind personal comments. Looking at your past posts you have often felt that you needed to comment on other posters albiet not realising who any actually are, and I am sure we appreciate this.

TwoOneFour
12th May 2011, 14:29
Interesting detailed map of the AF447 debris field here:

AF447: Map of the debris field - Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/2011/05/af447-map-of-the-debris-field.html)

edmundronald
13th May 2011, 14:59
Given the repeated tendency of commercial pilots eg. Korean 007 or Iran AIr 655 to to aggressively pursue missiles and insist on colliding with them, it is understandable that military authorities in every country will insist on short and clear investigations when they serve their political masters :)

I don't think there has ever been such a thing as an honest investigation after a missile shootdown of a civilian airliner, nor can one be expected. The investigation after the Iran Air 655 flight was probably the best one can hope for, and the facts, or at least a fairly plausible version of the facts slowly emerged after a long time and retirement of all concerned.

Edmund

Lonewolf_50
13th May 2011, 21:20
What has this to do with AF447, edmund? Or are you referring to the Italian incident? :confused:

edmundronald
14th May 2011, 00:14
Lonewolf,

It has to do with french accident reports - if the military are involved the reports will be trash - but that appears to be the case in every country on the earth.

I live in France, and I think the the AF 447 report will be clean, since it is locally visible that extraordinary measures are being taken in order to get hold of some facts. At the very least, the facts will be used to make future flights safer.

I do remember that in the past even the FAA has occasionnally been overly cooperative with the aircraft industry, to the extent sometimes of not explicitly enforcing safety-related design changes. The unsavory story of the well-understood, recurring, and ultimately deadly DC10 cargo door issues is related on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10#Cargo_door_problem).

The French are not known for understatement, which is why one of the final paragraphs of the Ermenonville report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/8-1976%20TC-JAV.pdf) (p50) is a striking indictment:


The commission recommends that the mandatory procedure of airworthiness directives, whatever the financial repercussions, should be selected whenever safety could be at serious risk.


Of course it is quite possible that in the case of the Pitot probes they should have remembered this sentence themselves :)

Edmund

Yankee Whisky
14th May 2011, 02:01
No inflight break-up? Hmmmmm what about that nasty little
vertical stab then? Remember turbulence and New York plus the possibility of a lesser experienced crew pressing on through a storm system (captain could have been in his sleeping pit?)

Questions questions questions.

Let's see what the French authorities come up with.

bubbers44
14th May 2011, 02:38
YW, I think you are right that the captain wasn't in the cockpit, but taking his rest period. Can someone tell us again what experience the two FO's in the cockpit had if the captain was taking his break? If it was a pitot static failure it would take a damn good pilot to get through that zone using what he had available. Maybe going to GPS ground speed for a while until they sorted it out. I only did one trip to Sao Paulo, Brazil and that convinced me I didn't want to do any more. You leave your cockpit to have no control for a couple hours would require a lot of confidence in your crew. I had confidence in them but still didn't like it. Only did it once so am not an authority on the subject.

wozzo
14th May 2011, 04:17
Can someone tell us again what experience the two FO's in the cockpit had if the captain was taking his break?

Captain:
10,988h, on type 1,747 (1,093 A330, 654 A340)
16 rotations South America sector

1st FO:
6,547h, on type 4,479 (1,882 A330, 2,597 A340)
39 rotations South America sector
"This pilot’s licences allowed him to perform the duties of replacement pilot in place of the captain."[1]

2nd FO:
2,936h, on type 807 (216 A330, 591 A340)
5 rotations South America sector

[1] "The airline’s procedures specify that to be a replacement duty pilot, a crew member must have the same rating as the crew member that he or she is replacing and, in addition, during the captain’s rest period, a pilot with the same license as the captain must be at the controls."

Source: 1st interim report, p. 14-16

Me Myself
14th May 2011, 16:56
Bubber 44, you have the option of chosing your break..............wisely if you know you're heading into a dungstorm.
I've been crossing zillions of times both as F/O and Captain. My elders were always at the control to cross this particular spot and I am doing just the same.

Some I trust and some others I'd be a lot happier knowing they're working in a diner.

If you're in charge, you might as well be in your seat knowing where the tricky spots are.

Phantom Driver
14th May 2011, 18:44
Absolutely. That pretty well sums it up.

repariit
14th May 2011, 21:53
How much time has gone by since the boxes reached the lab for examination? It seems strange that there has been so little news.

Mike-Bracknell
14th May 2011, 22:03
How much time has gone by since the boxes reached the lab for examination? It seems strange that there has been so little news.

IIRC there was a report on the BBC website (I only saw it as part of an RSS feed) that said they wouldn't announce any findings until approx 2012.

repariit
14th May 2011, 22:18
This is from CBS: The seven memory cards in each data recorder will be extracted, cleaned, dried and tested to see if they still work. If so data will be copied onto BEA's computers."If the card is in good shape it can be read in a couple hours," Menez said. If damaged, it is impossible to say how long it might take to try to cull information from it, he added.The officials said BEA will provide an update on Monday.

AlphaZuluRomeo
14th May 2011, 22:18
@ repariit :
Recorders reached Paris on the may the 11 or 12th. That was only 2-3 days!

And there were news, perhaps didn't they reach you :
Press conference (http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/sea.search.ops.phase.5.php) @ Le Bourget (BEA) on the 12th morning. Boxes were shown then. The work on them to begin on the 12th afternoon (drying the boxes, testing them... etc.)
New news :p to be released on monday. :)

Nothing strange, IMO. :=

[edit] cross-posting, I see you figuered it by yourself :)

JamesT73J
16th May 2011, 11:55
FDR and CVR are 'readable'.

AF447 flight-data and cockpit-voice recorder data is readable (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/16/356711/af447-flight-data-and-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-is.html)

angels
16th May 2011, 12:12
Reuters are also saying all that the data from both recorders has been downloaded.

So it seems they've got the lot.

Edited to add that Reuters are now quoting the BEA as saying it will take several weeks to examine the downloaded data. A further interim report will be written and published 'during the summer'.

Jet Jockey A4
16th May 2011, 13:14
Excellent news!

Defruiter
16th May 2011, 13:40
I find it simply amazing that after almost 2 years under water, it appears all the data is in tact - What an amazing piece of human engineering these black boxes are.

JCviggen
16th May 2011, 14:21
I find it simply amazing that after almost 2 years under water, it appears all the data is in tact - What an amazing piece of human engineering these black boxes are

Not underestimating the hostile environment down there, the most critical part was getting to the bottom in 1 piece, uncompromised. After that I do not believe the time span had much influence anymore, it's solid state memory. After 5 to 10 years+ it likely would have been still OK since the outer shell appears to be quite corrosion resistant.

Mike-Bracknell
16th May 2011, 14:30
Not underestimating the hostile environment down there, the most critical part was getting to the bottom in 1 piece, uncompromised. After that I do not believe the time span had much influence anymore, it's solid state memory. After 5 to 10 years+ it likely would have been still OK since the outer shell appears to be quite corrosion resistant.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Digital memories survive extremes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3939333.stm)
Camera returned After Year On Ocean Floor (http://www.petapixel.com/2010/02/11/camera-returned-after-year-on-ocean-floor/)

foff
16th May 2011, 20:38
As you must know, the AF447 flight recorders have been recovered and are legible.
like usual, pilots must be responsible, data to be manipulated if need be. I guess that this time, it will be easy for them, the BEA, since they will probably discover a panic on board (in the cockpit) after the freezing of the pitots, multiple warning, loss of autopilot

Locked door
16th May 2011, 20:39
WRT pitot failure.

Don't forget there's a recall drill for unreliable airspeed, and it doesn't call for heroics from the pilots. If all else fails 90% N1 and 2.5 degrees nose up in the cruise will keep you safe in almost any heavy jet.

Basic stuff.

Max Angle
16th May 2011, 21:26
now let's bet what the recorders will say

No, lets not.

End of thread.