Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air France A330-200 missing

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air France A330-200 missing

Old 4th Jun 2009, 18:29
  #941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 96
Posts: 53
It has been stated that one "expert" said that there could not have been an explosion on board due to unburned patches of kerosine on the sea. Yet eye witness reports from pilots suggest that there was a "bright flash" and around six burning objects falling through the sky, which suggests some sort of explosion.

Either the "expert" is wrong or the pilots who witnessed the event were wrong.
barrymung is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2009, 18:30
  #942 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 25
It is my understanding (based on an A320 and an assumption that the A330 architecture is similar) that a loss of one or all ADIRUs does not lead to the failure of the FCC [Flight Control Computers]. If there is no information from the ADIRUs or it is invalid, the FCCs switch to Direct Law. Therefore, it is unclear why PRIM and SEC failures were indicated if ADIRU failed.

The Emergency Electrical Configuration theory also looks sketchy to me. ACARS/SATCOM was operational at the time of the failures, and as far as I know they are supplied through the AC1 bus (which will have to be lost to get to EMER ELEC).
Frankie_B is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2009, 18:33
  #943 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 96
Posts: 53
QUOTE: "There are a lot of theory's and one of them at least is likely to be correct. One that keeps getting dismissed too quickly is the b word."

I personally don't buy into the bomb theory. The possibilty of their being a bomb on board and the plane encountering abnormal adverse weather conditions at the same time is streching things a bit far.

Surely it's far more likely that the weather started a chain of events that brought the plane down?
barrymung is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2009, 18:39
  #944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 105
I personally don't buy into the bomb theory. The possibilty of their being a bomb on board and the plane encountering abnormal adverse weather conditions at the same time is streching things a bit far.

Surely it's far more likely that the weather started a chain of events that brought the plane down?
I like many others agree with this. The questions do remain valid though. Were teh two events linked by the fact that the same airframe was involved?
bbrown1664 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2009, 18:46
  #945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 608
Originally Posted by barrymung View Post
It has been stated that one "expert" said that there could not have been an explosion on board due to unburned patches of kerosine on the sea. Yet eye witness reports from pilots suggest that there was a "bright flash" and around six burning objects falling through the sky, which suggests some sort of explosion.

Either the "expert" is wrong or the pilots who witnessed the event were wrong.

The Pilots were wrong. They were over 2,000km from the AF flight. They probably saw a large meteor. They did not see AF447.

See this post: http://www.pprune.org/4974157-post912.html
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2009, 18:51
  #946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 60
Posts: 215
Yet eye witness reports from pilots suggest that there was a "bright flash" and around six burning objects falling through the sky, which suggests some sort of explosion.
A mistranslation, anyway, later corrected to state that the object fell for six seconds.
overthewing is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2009, 18:58
  #947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 92
Either the "expert" is wrong or the pilots who witnessed the event were wrong.
Both are wrong. The "witness" would have been able to see around the earth curvature, as has been stated several times here.

And the "expert" with the kerosene ruling out a fire on board is wrong as well with his conclusion: If he would be an expert, he would know that there are several tanks on board. Burning the one would not automatically imply the others would burn as well. They sure can get to the surface in one piece, breaking there at impact.

I personally do not believe in an on-board fire or explosion as well, but the way of conclusion above is downright wrong.

"Experts" and witnesses...
TripleBravo is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2009, 19:09
  #948 (permalink)  

aka Capt PPRuNe
 
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Exclamation Thread closed due to no attribution and uninformed speculation

This thread is now closed. The main reason being one of too many uninformed speculators relying on unattributed media quotes which are so far beyond the realms of anything sensible that it just makes the posters look as stupid and ignorant as the media themselves.

I have taken the liberty of quoting a recent post by P2J which emphasises what I am trying to get across. I have highlighted it in a feeble attempt to get those incessant posters who obviously haven't read the whole thread and in particular, those who are relying on sources other than faactual and authoratitive ones.

With the exception of a few contributions by those who actually know their stuff and who are recognized as such by others who know their stuff, this statement summarizes the serious shortcomings of this entire thread.

We have "stories" being quoted about speed control, stalling an Airbus, going 'too fast', going 'too slow', getting bombed ad nauseum, with absolutely no basis in fact, "no attribution" as one poster honestly states and no documentation.

All we have are "layman's terms" everywhere, which are not only disrespectful to a general audience but which do great violence to real understanding and comprehension of the airplane, the environment it was operating in and what the crew did and did not do.

We've seen this all before. Decades ago, Randy Sohn on AVSIG very pointedly used to ask the question all the time: "Does anybody actually read the thread?", or are they just interested in hearing the noise of their own voice?

In the eight pages growth while I slept, there is precisely nothing new or even interesting; what I read is manufactured, regurgitated (because someone was too lazy to read the thread - the Vazquez presentation is cited at least five times) or picked out of thin air.

The thread is bulging with explanations to the newly-curious about why in many cases their wild notions about what happened are wrong.

I'm not saying "wait for the report". I'm not that naive and I think informed speculation is a good learning exercise. But for the newbies and others who talk and never listen/read, please - respect what has happened and think before you write. This thread is a deep embarrassment.
No doubt a new thread will spring to life within minutes of this post. However, be aware that from now on, any posts with content that is considered by the moderators to be based on un-attributed sources or more importantly theories from anyone without a proper understanding of LH, heavy metal flying will be deleted and the poster banned from the thread for future posting. We will decide on who has a realistic understanding of those criteria by reading what is posted and using our own experience as current airline pilots and crew who do LH flying on heavy metal.

If you don't sound right then you will be toast. Hopefully that will lower our workload and stop this incessant theorising by people who only know what they read and hear in the media.

1897 posts of which 947 were deleted!
Danny is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.