Air France A330-200 missing
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spokane WA
Age: 51
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a point about these sequential "ACARS" reports - if the aircraft
was in fact terminally damaged or breaking up, would'nt the computer
systems automatically "report" all sorts of breakdowns, simultaneously,
and yet, these immediate transmission could have been received over
a longer time period by the Paris base due to conditions at the time
and the fact that atmospheric conditions can and do interfere with
such radio transmissions ?
was in fact terminally damaged or breaking up, would'nt the computer
systems automatically "report" all sorts of breakdowns, simultaneously,
and yet, these immediate transmission could have been received over
a longer time period by the Paris base due to conditions at the time
and the fact that atmospheric conditions can and do interfere with
such radio transmissions ?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. People keep saying the the Argentina incident a few days before is not linked and therefore not relevant. Is that true? Was the same airframe involved?
Either way nobody knows what happend yet as the CVR and FDR have yet to be located and the wreckage has only just started to be picked up for examination. Lets hope they find the cause of this loss soon to help all of us (and you) understaand if this was just a terrible acccident or something that could have easily been avoided.
Either way nobody knows what happend yet as the CVR and FDR have yet to be located and the wreckage has only just started to be picked up for examination. Lets hope they find the cause of this loss soon to help all of us (and you) understaand if this was just a terrible acccident or something that could have easily been avoided.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Either the "expert" is wrong or the pilots who witnessed the event were wrong.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Surely it's far more likely that the weather started a chain of events that brought the plane down?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either the "expert" is wrong or the pilots who witnessed the event were wrong.
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...
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
