PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Air France A330-200 missing (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/375937-air-france-a330-200-missing.html)

DC-ATE 4th Jun 2009 19:12

Just wondering -

No Captain is going to go through thunderstorms to stay within a theory based planning stage paperwork excercise calculation.
You simply do not know that.

ribt4t 4th Jun 2009 19:25


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 ?
I'm not a pilot but more of a computer / communications person. Wouldn't the reports include a time stamp of when the failure occurred ?

bbrown1664 4th Jun 2009 19:26

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.

barrymung 4th Jun 2009 19:29

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.

Frankie_B 4th Jun 2009 19:30

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).

barrymung 4th Jun 2009 19:33

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?

bbrown1664 4th Jun 2009 19:39


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?

Lost in Saigon 4th Jun 2009 19:46


Originally Posted by barrymung (Post 4974586)
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

overthewing 4th Jun 2009 19:51


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.

TripleBravo 4th Jun 2009 19:58


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... :ugh:

Danny 4th Jun 2009 20:09

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!


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:58.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.