AF447
Dysag;
Thanks; that coincides with the arrangement we saw when asked to examine alternatives for the -500. Perhaps this is the normal offering from Airbus, from which changes may be made. We thought that for cockpit crew, being at the tail of the aircraft wasn't the best idea. That said, the other option behind the cockpit is prone to noise from the galley. I think the 777 has the best arrangement I've seen. The worst was the A330 which was in the J-cabin with a velcroed tent.
Probably not relevant to AF447, but the normal cockpit crew rest offering on the A340-500/600 is in the bulk hold. I believe there are several in service with it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, it would be nice to think there were no obstacles in the modern world to fully co-operating in such matters and neither political, legal, fiscal or national interests prevents a full and fair sharing of information, responsibilites as well as resources...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kemble - England
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France crash investigators: relatives must be patient
Not wishing to promote any particular newspaper, but this artical seem as good as any and in English
Air France crash investigators: relatives must be patient - Telegraph
Air France crash investigators: relatives must be patient - Telegraph
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BOAC:
Even if this information were available, I think it would be difficult to analyze properly. Most people here are not experts on ocean currents. An earlier post mentioned diverging surface currents in the area, and that the sub-surface currents might differ from the surface. So for bodies, which sink and then (I'm assuming here) surface at varying times, backtracking currents to the crash site sounds at least tricky if not completely unreliable.
The same might apply to wreckage. It may be that as the plane (whether it impacted intact or in pieces) sank, pieces of wreckage broke off or worked loose underwater at various times and floated to the surface at different speeds depending on the boyancy of each piece. So backtracing might not be a simple as (speed of current) * (time since accident).
I'm not saying these analyses can't be done. They will be done and by the trained experts. But I will go out on a limb here and say that most posters here do NOT have the background required. For example without years of mechanical/structures/metallurgical engineering education or experience, someone just is not qualified to say whether impact forces could have broken off the VS from an intact airplane or whether it must have separated in midair.
There are frequent pprune posts arguing that non-pilots should not critique pilot actions, and I support that fully. But let's apply the same standard to accident investigation.
3) There have been several (I think unanswered) requests here for positions of the groups of bodies found. Do we have any, and has anyone back-plotted the position of the second recovery vis a vis ocean currents to see where they would have been in relation to the first, and likewise for the first to the POSSIBLE crash site?
The same might apply to wreckage. It may be that as the plane (whether it impacted intact or in pieces) sank, pieces of wreckage broke off or worked loose underwater at various times and floated to the surface at different speeds depending on the boyancy of each piece. So backtracing might not be a simple as (speed of current) * (time since accident).
I'm not saying these analyses can't be done. They will be done and by the trained experts. But I will go out on a limb here and say that most posters here do NOT have the background required. For example without years of mechanical/structures/metallurgical engineering education or experience, someone just is not qualified to say whether impact forces could have broken off the VS from an intact airplane or whether it must have separated in midair.
There are frequent pprune posts arguing that non-pilots should not critique pilot actions, and I support that fully. But let's apply the same standard to accident investigation.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 70
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
Seem's it' a constant request by the BEA ....
Relatives of the Charm el-Cheikh, crash Flash Airlines FSH 604 are a perfect exemple of patience ....
Air France crash investigators: relatives must be patient
Air France crash investigators: relatives must be patient - Telegraph
Air France crash investigators: relatives must be patient - Telegraph
Relatives of the Charm el-Cheikh, crash Flash Airlines FSH 604 are a perfect exemple of patience ....
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 39
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
inertial system related fault
- doesn't really answer aj's question about the Inertial Systems? Are there any required parameters other than profile rate?
There are messages in that ACARS list that relate exclusively, specifically, to the inertial reference systems.
I understand that the ADIRUS are composed by Air Data Units (then airspeed would obviously play a role) and Inertial Reference Units (which don't have air data as input).
YRP:
Precisely.
BOAC:
Thanks - you're right.
AJ:
Here's a description of the ADIRS:
– above 82° North
– above 73° North between 90° and 120° West (magnetic polar region)
- above 60° South
– one ADIRS control panel located on the overhead panel for modes selection (NAV, ATT, OFF) and failure indications.
– 2 GPS receivers, which are connected to the IR part of the ADIRU's for GP/IR hybrid position calculation.
– four types of sensors :
• pitot probes (3)
• static pressure probes (STAT) (6)
• angle of attack sensors (AOA) (3)
• total air temperature probes (TAT) (2)
These sensors are electrically heated to prevent from icing up.
– eight ADMs (Air Data Modules) which convert pneumatic data from pitot and static probes into numerical data for the ADIRUs.
– a switching capability for selecting ADR3 or IR3 for instrument displays in case of ADIRU 1 or 2 failure.
– a MAG / TRUE pushbutton switch, used during polar navigation.
– AC BUS provides to normal electrical supply. DC BUS provides a back up possibility through an inverter.
Let's be serious here. Accidents are not investigated by the court of public opinion. Does anyone here know whether the ACARs messages are transmitted reliably, or lossy? What is the transmit order, same as events, or based on priorities? How does the timestamping work? Specifically what messages does Air France enable/disable? What about messages that have _not_ been reported (eg excess cabin altitude)? Would there have been one, or is there no message for that event?
BOAC:
Thanks - you're right.
AJ:
Here's a description of the ADIRS:
The Air Data and Inertial Reference System (ADIRS) supplies temperature, anemometric barometric and inertial parameters to the EFIS system(PFD and ND) and to other user systems (FMGC, FADEC, PRIM, SEC, FWC, SFCC, ATC, GPWS, CMC, CPC).
The system is comprised of:
– three identical ADIRU's (Air Data and Inertial Reference Units). Each ADIRU is divided in two parts, either of which can work separately in case of failure in the other :
• the ADR (Air Data Reference) part which supplies barometric altitude, speed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and overspeed warnings.
• the IR (Inertial Reference) part which supplies attitude, flight path vector, track, heading, accelerations, angular rates, ground speed, vertical speed and aircraft position.
The ADIRU gives the true heading instead of magnetic heading :
The system is comprised of:
– three identical ADIRU's (Air Data and Inertial Reference Units). Each ADIRU is divided in two parts, either of which can work separately in case of failure in the other :
• the ADR (Air Data Reference) part which supplies barometric altitude, speed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and overspeed warnings.
• the IR (Inertial Reference) part which supplies attitude, flight path vector, track, heading, accelerations, angular rates, ground speed, vertical speed and aircraft position.
The ADIRU gives the true heading instead of magnetic heading :
– above 82° North
– above 73° North between 90° and 120° West (magnetic polar region)
- above 60° South
– one ADIRS control panel located on the overhead panel for modes selection (NAV, ATT, OFF) and failure indications.
– 2 GPS receivers, which are connected to the IR part of the ADIRU's for GP/IR hybrid position calculation.
– four types of sensors :
• pitot probes (3)
• static pressure probes (STAT) (6)
• angle of attack sensors (AOA) (3)
• total air temperature probes (TAT) (2)
These sensors are electrically heated to prevent from icing up.
– eight ADMs (Air Data Modules) which convert pneumatic data from pitot and static probes into numerical data for the ADIRUs.
– a switching capability for selecting ADR3 or IR3 for instrument displays in case of ADIRU 1 or 2 failure.
– a MAG / TRUE pushbutton switch, used during polar navigation.
– AC BUS provides to normal electrical supply. DC BUS provides a back up possibility through an inverter.
Hope this helps!
Last edited by PJ2; 17th Jun 2009 at 16:44.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWA
It might be that the Brazilian coroner before passing the results wants to be 100% sure of them, just to avoid unneeded speculation?
Why on earth aren't the autopsy results being passed on to the investigators? Apart from anything else, they'll be absolutely crucial in deciding whether the victims died in the air or in the sea?
Latest deleted photos
Whatever happened to the rest of the structure, this bit of a galley seems not to have been subjected to major forces. It even looks like the trash bin stayed attached with some contents.
Possibly it went below the surface with the external structure it was attached to, came loose and floated back up.
Possibly it went below the surface with the external structure it was attached to, came loose and floated back up.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulled up by Fragata Constituição yesterday.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BOAC:
My answer:
The Brazilians gave information about the location of bodies on 9 and 16 June.
In the next picture I have combined this two pictures (orange spots = 9 June; red spots = 16 June).
In this picture I also give the possible drift of the bodies (in yellow)
(see debris and impact-location #1374))
YRP said:
I totally agree with YRP.
I know that even for a specialist this backtracking takes a lot of time and is difficult and uncertain.
But nevertheless we don't have a lot of time to find the black box.
And this forum can maybe answer the next question:
Simple backtracking shows a discrepantion between the possible impact-location and the location of ultimo ACARS report: is that possible?
There have been several (I think unanswered) requests here for positions of the groups of bodies found. Do we have any, and has anyone back-plotted the position of the second recovery vis a vis ocean currents to see where they would have been in relation to the first, and likewise for the first to the POSSIBLE crash site?
The Brazilians gave information about the location of bodies on 9 and 16 June.
In the next picture I have combined this two pictures (orange spots = 9 June; red spots = 16 June).
In this picture I also give the possible drift of the bodies (in yellow)
(see debris and impact-location #1374))
YRP said:
Even if this information were available, I think it would be difficult to analyze properly. Most people here are not experts on ocean currents. An earlier post mentioned diverging surface currents in the area, ...... backtracking currents to the crash site sounds at least tricky if not completely unreliable.
I know that even for a specialist this backtracking takes a lot of time and is difficult and uncertain.
But nevertheless we don't have a lot of time to find the black box.
And this forum can maybe answer the next question:
Simple backtracking shows a discrepantion between the possible impact-location and the location of ultimo ACARS report: is that possible?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, Devon U.K.
Age: 90
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Fraser
"petermcleland it is the same, sloppy knots and all"
No I don't think so Will,...It seems to have a clean and undamaged internal structure (top of picture), as opposed to the ragged and torn parts of the VS root structure that we have seen before.
"petermcleland it is the same, sloppy knots and all"
No I don't think so Will,...It seems to have a clean and undamaged internal structure (top of picture), as opposed to the ragged and torn parts of the VS root structure that we have seen before.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Midpines, CA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
petermcleland: I think the base of the VS and debris are just cut off in those pictures making it look like there is a clean edge. I believe the angle of the rudder is the same. Hopefully we are only missing one AC in that area.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, RuudA - very informative. I cannot quite understand the 'drift', and what are the 2 unlabelled orange dots?
One would hope that oceanographers can do something there. Time is running out.
If the white circle is the focus of the search area I hope they have good reason for siting it on the floating fin.
One would hope that oceanographers can do something there. Time is running out.
If the white circle is the focus of the search area I hope they have good reason for siting it on the floating fin.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pattern_is_full said:
That would NOT be the case if the warning message indicates that plane altitude is in danger of overtaking cabin altitude, as was stated early in the thread. *IF* that is the true meaning of the warning message, then at 0214z the plane had just started a rapid descent, with an intact cabin, at an angle that still permitted the sending of the ACARS message.
2. The cabin altitude warning seems equivocal. Plane decompresses - or - plane rises 2,000 ft. in 20 secs. in a convective updraft - or - plane drops 2,000 ft. in 10 secs. in a convective downdraft - or - plane ascends/descends rapidly for some other reason. Would not any rapid altitude change in either direction that exceeded the pressurization/venting system's ability to keep up lead to this warning?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 62
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's puzzling to find such a large internal structure (portion of galley), without finding any smaller pieces of the same obviously buoyant material that it was attached to. Like finding a bedroom closet in the middle of the woods, with no bedroom in sight.
Of all the items on an aircraft, the galley is nearly the last item I'd expect to still be floating after 16 days. Since it was, I am surprised there isn't more of this plane to be found within eyesight of this piece (subject to the exact same currents)?
More data brings exponentially more questions.
Of all the items on an aircraft, the galley is nearly the last item I'd expect to still be floating after 16 days. Since it was, I am surprised there isn't more of this plane to be found within eyesight of this piece (subject to the exact same currents)?
More data brings exponentially more questions.