AF447
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - last time. You said "The AF 447 CPT was 58 (I think close to the retirement), and not qualified for A340 in 2005." Does "not qualified for A340 in 2005" mean he had not been trained on the A340 in 2005 or does it mean that he was not type rated on the A340 in 2005? Sometimes the same terms have different meanings in different languages - as I am sure you are aware. In the US "not qualified" means the pilot had not been trained on the aircraft for either pilot position. However, a pilot can be qualified on an airplane and not be "type rated" on that airplane. If the Captain on AF447 was "not qualifed" (meaning that he had not been trained as a F/O) on the A340 in 2005, then I agree, there is little chance that these seasoned veterans at this international airline are correct and they are all mistaken. But, if that pilot was not type rated on the A340 in 2005, does that allow for the possibility that he may have been operating as a F/O in the A340 in 2005? Of course, I'll accept your conclusion.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in a plasma cocoon
Age: 53
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the English version of the BEA report, about the AF 447 CPT:
• Airbus A340 type rating obtained on 9 August 2007
• Line oriented flight training on 7 September 2007
(in 2009, he had cumulated 654 hours on Airbus A340)
The Toronto report states about the copilot, who was the PF at the landing:
"Il a été copilote sur Airbus A319/A320/A321 pendant trois ans et demi avant de recevoir sa qualification de type sur A340 le 11 septembre 2001".
the Toronto copilot obtained his Airbus A340 type rating on the 11th of september 2001: he cant' be the AF 447 CPT.
Jeff
• Airbus A340 type rating obtained on 9 August 2007
• Line oriented flight training on 7 September 2007
(in 2009, he had cumulated 654 hours on Airbus A340)
The Toronto report states about the copilot, who was the PF at the landing:
"Il a été copilote sur Airbus A319/A320/A321 pendant trois ans et demi avant de recevoir sa qualification de type sur A340 le 11 septembre 2001".
the Toronto copilot obtained his Airbus A340 type rating on the 11th of september 2001: he cant' be the AF 447 CPT.
Jeff
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
Here is a buffet boundary graph for an A330:
===
I can see the good sense in the alt.hold being 'soft' and Mach being 'harder' presumably - but there might be questions coming on auto-flight presumptions, philosophy & man/machine interface in general, for AF447, as well as two others currently under investigation.
Aware that you may well not sign up to that, even as pure speculation at this stage.
HarryMan;
Oh, so that's why I couldn't read it... It is REALLY confusing - arrows going in different directions etc - I followed one data point to get the high speed buffet at 205k kgs, (> M0.87) and gave up.
Well, I'm not a convinced Airbus believer and not a convinced automation user. I understand it, can use it and recover from screw-ups but two things, (obvious to all, now) mitigate full enthusiasm: Automation robs situational awareness through absence of physical/sensory cues of flying the machine and as a result atrophes flying and thinking skills, and when automation degrades it can overwhelm even a highly competent, well-trained crew. Other than that, automation, used as intended, (not an airplane babysitter but tool for accuracy, predictability and timeliness of action), I am enthusiastic because it is a flight safety enhancement.
That's a nomogram.. very clever things nomograms. Reading them can sometimes be, er... 'less than obvious'. Drawing them up, even more so...
Aware that you may well not sign up to that, even as pure speculation at this stage.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEA report-Item not stated
Hi Gentlemen,
I'm an old used military jet type with only steam gage experience, but there was something that I did not see in the BEA report that should probably have been in there at this point.
The size of the recovered wreckage fragments from AF447 appears to be relatively large and this implies a relatively low speed impact with the water (albeit with a large downward vector). I think some of the other old hands have sensed this as well, but it hasn't been explicitly stated.
Having participated in a few accident investigations over the years, I've seen what happens when an aircraft hits the water at medium speeds and at high speeds. Kinetic energy goes up as the square of the velocity. This energy converts the aircraft into a churning mass of fragments which then beat on each other until their energy is dissipated. The higher the energy, the smaller the fragments.
There are approximately 5 minutes of ACARS messages which were coming in at a good clip and probably would continue to come in if the aircraft were still airborne and under electric power. As I understand it, ACARS requires generator power from the engines to be operational.
It would probably require at least 1 minute for the aircraft to decelerate from cruise to stall speed if that is what it did. To then descend from FL350 to the surface in the remaining 4 minutes would take a descent rate of almost 9000 ft min which implies a very deep stall or that the aircraft had some unpowered flight time.
I would imagine Airbus has already worked out the numbers whether 9000 fpm is even possible in a deep stall. If this type of scenario seems reasonable, we can look backwards and see what might have precipitated it. Thoughts?
Sid
I'm an old used military jet type with only steam gage experience, but there was something that I did not see in the BEA report that should probably have been in there at this point.
The size of the recovered wreckage fragments from AF447 appears to be relatively large and this implies a relatively low speed impact with the water (albeit with a large downward vector). I think some of the other old hands have sensed this as well, but it hasn't been explicitly stated.
Having participated in a few accident investigations over the years, I've seen what happens when an aircraft hits the water at medium speeds and at high speeds. Kinetic energy goes up as the square of the velocity. This energy converts the aircraft into a churning mass of fragments which then beat on each other until their energy is dissipated. The higher the energy, the smaller the fragments.
There are approximately 5 minutes of ACARS messages which were coming in at a good clip and probably would continue to come in if the aircraft were still airborne and under electric power. As I understand it, ACARS requires generator power from the engines to be operational.
It would probably require at least 1 minute for the aircraft to decelerate from cruise to stall speed if that is what it did. To then descend from FL350 to the surface in the remaining 4 minutes would take a descent rate of almost 9000 ft min which implies a very deep stall or that the aircraft had some unpowered flight time.
I would imagine Airbus has already worked out the numbers whether 9000 fpm is even possible in a deep stall. If this type of scenario seems reasonable, we can look backwards and see what might have precipitated it. Thoughts?
Sid
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in a plasma cocoon
Age: 53
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello d747
Hi there. It was said here in France that the "Pourquoi pas ?" should begin a "2nd phase" (the 1st was the search of the ULB/pingers) of underwater searches using a multibeam high resolution sonar (the SAR: Système Acoustique Remorqué, or Towed Acoustic System, used to locate the Titanic) for 4 to 6 weeks. Merging full res SAR lateral images with the AF 447 pieces of fuselage shows that there should be very good chances to detect the wreck, it could look like this (not a SAR simulation)
Search parameters: operational speed at which the SAR must be operated (as a function of the desired resolution), Reference value in the report ~2 NM per hour (full res), search area of 16 000 km² (or a 70 NM square), the width of two lateral images is 512 pixels or 128 meters at full resolution (footprint), which will not be practicable on the entire search area. But with a medium resolution (the middle SAR image), the search area could be scanned in ~50 days (more at sea!). Search strategies could vary the SAR resolution as a function of an a priori probability to find the wreck in a given area. But the very difficult bathymetry will probably slow the operations.
Jeff
Source: http://www.ifremer.fr/flotte/systeme...du%20SAR-1.pdf
Hi there. It was said here in France that the "Pourquoi pas ?" should begin a "2nd phase" (the 1st was the search of the ULB/pingers) of underwater searches using a multibeam high resolution sonar (the SAR: Système Acoustique Remorqué, or Towed Acoustic System, used to locate the Titanic) for 4 to 6 weeks. Merging full res SAR lateral images with the AF 447 pieces of fuselage shows that there should be very good chances to detect the wreck, it could look like this (not a SAR simulation)
Search parameters: operational speed at which the SAR must be operated (as a function of the desired resolution), Reference value in the report ~2 NM per hour (full res), search area of 16 000 km² (or a 70 NM square), the width of two lateral images is 512 pixels or 128 meters at full resolution (footprint), which will not be practicable on the entire search area. But with a medium resolution (the middle SAR image), the search area could be scanned in ~50 days (more at sea!). Search strategies could vary the SAR resolution as a function of an a priori probability to find the wreck in a given area. But the very difficult bathymetry will probably slow the operations.
Jeff
Source: http://www.ifremer.fr/flotte/systeme...du%20SAR-1.pdf
Last edited by Hyperveloce; 27th Jul 2009 at 16:17.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 66
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if the wreckage of AF447 is found?
I guess the other question regarding the possibility of the wreckage being found is:
is an attempt made to hoist the wreckage (would seem near impossible to me dependent on depth) or simply map and film it? The latter would, of course, preclude
recovery of the CVR and FDR.
is an attempt made to hoist the wreckage (would seem near impossible to me dependent on depth) or simply map and film it? The latter would, of course, preclude
recovery of the CVR and FDR.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the other question regarding the possibility of the wreckage being found is:
is an attempt made to hoist the wreckage (would seem near impossible to me dependent on depth) or simply map and film it?
is an attempt made to hoist the wreckage (would seem near impossible to me dependent on depth) or simply map and film it?
Dani
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in a plasma cocoon
Age: 53
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you PJ2.
When we look to the means deployed in the impact area and the multiple partners:
-the French Navy ships: Ventôse Frigate, Emeraude nuclear submarine, Mistral support ship, Aircraft from the fleet air arm and the air force
-the civilian ships chartered by the BEA: the IFREMER ship, the « Pourquoi Pas? », two tugs from Louis-Dreyfus Armateurs (Fairmount Expedition, Fairmount Glacier)
-Two Remotely Operated Vehicle: the ROV Victor and the Nautile submarine
-BEA investigators, AAIB investigator (UK), advisors from Air France, Airbus, advisers from CEPHISMER, SHOM, US Navy, IFREMER, GENAVIR,...
Can the French authorities or the multiple partners be suspected not to do their utmost to recover the black boxes, or to hide things ? Some people really like conspirations. This 2nd phase is scheduled for 4 to 6 weeks, I hope and I think that it should be sufficient, but I am also convinced that the efforts can be prolongated if needed. Wait and see. Also a (very) small hope from the CEAT, was the left wing spoiler torn away from its wing at the impact or by the aerodynamical efforts ? are there clues in the debris about the loss of control and not only the impact ? We never know.
Jeff
When we look to the means deployed in the impact area and the multiple partners:
-the French Navy ships: Ventôse Frigate, Emeraude nuclear submarine, Mistral support ship, Aircraft from the fleet air arm and the air force
-the civilian ships chartered by the BEA: the IFREMER ship, the « Pourquoi Pas? », two tugs from Louis-Dreyfus Armateurs (Fairmount Expedition, Fairmount Glacier)
-Two Remotely Operated Vehicle: the ROV Victor and the Nautile submarine
-BEA investigators, AAIB investigator (UK), advisors from Air France, Airbus, advisers from CEPHISMER, SHOM, US Navy, IFREMER, GENAVIR,...
Can the French authorities or the multiple partners be suspected not to do their utmost to recover the black boxes, or to hide things ? Some people really like conspirations. This 2nd phase is scheduled for 4 to 6 weeks, I hope and I think that it should be sufficient, but I am also convinced that the efforts can be prolongated if needed. Wait and see. Also a (very) small hope from the CEAT, was the left wing spoiler torn away from its wing at the impact or by the aerodynamical efforts ? are there clues in the debris about the loss of control and not only the impact ? We never know.
Jeff
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are about one week into the sonar scan, and assuming they started where they think the plane most likely impacted, that would be an area scanned of 3,000 - 4,000 sq km. Unless Jeff has heard unpublished news that they have found, or think they have found, parts of the plane, a negative scan result would be disappointing. There was a report in the French press late last week that the search area had been localized (if I translated correctly), but without being more specific, and a 16,000 sq km area could be localized in the larger order of things.
__________________________
I think this is the video mentioned by wes wall.
France 24 | Investigators piece together wreckage from doomed Air France jet | France 24
There is an English voiceover on several remarks spoken en Francais, but one of the investigators apparently said there are burn marks on parts of the wreckage.
__________________________
I think this is the video mentioned by wes wall.
France 24 | Investigators piece together wreckage from doomed Air France jet | France 24
There is an English voiceover on several remarks spoken en Francais, but one of the investigators apparently said there are burn marks on parts of the wreckage.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burn over the wreckage
SaturnV
No no no please.
This is a translation of the last Friday France2 report . This Gendarme did not say that there was burn marks found at any moments. He simply said that the inquiry will try to find any clues including burn marks or traces or cut, rupture or anything pertaining to the debris found. At no moment he said that burn traces were found.
There is an English voiceover on several remarks spoken en Francais, but one of the investigators apparently said there are burn marks on parts of the wreckage.
This is a translation of the last Friday France2 report . This Gendarme did not say that there was burn marks found at any moments. He simply said that the inquiry will try to find any clues including burn marks or traces or cut, rupture or anything pertaining to the debris found. At no moment he said that burn traces were found.
And If The Wreckage is Found
I guess the other question regarding the possibility of the wreckage being found is:
is an attempt made to hoist the wreckage (would seem near impossible to me dependent on depth) or simply map and film it? The latter would, of course, preclude
recovery of the CVR and FDR.
is an attempt made to hoist the wreckage (would seem near impossible to me dependent on depth) or simply map and film it? The latter would, of course, preclude
recovery of the CVR and FDR.
The submersibles have some capability for extraction and lift, is it enough??
Lacking the lift capability (black box emeshed in something too heavy) then some more difficult attempts may be made with flotation devices.
But first things first
lets get the pics and see what the experts recommend after that.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pourquoi pas ?
The "Pourquoi pas ?" is a sophisticated oceanographic / hydrographic research vessel built in 2004 as a joint venture between the French ministries of Defence and Research. Full Specifications of its equipment etc. can be found on this (English version) page which has been updated today.
A Navarea V Radio Navigation Warning to shipping is currently effective for the "Pourquoi pas ?" underwater operations -
mm43
A Navarea V Radio Navigation Warning to shipping is currently effective for the "Pourquoi pas ?" underwater operations -
1544/09 – NORTHWEST OF ARQUIPELAGO DE SAO PEDRO E SAO PAULO – CHART 10 (INT 216) - VESSEL POURQUOI PAS – CARRYING OUT OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH IN CIRCULAR AREA WITH 70 NAUTICAL MILES RADIUS CENTERED IN POSITION: 03-00.00N 030-36.00W - UNDERWATER VEHICLE NEAR THE VESSEL - PERIOD: 26/JUL TO 16/AUG. BERTH REQUESTED. CANCEL THIS WARNING 170359Z/AUG/09.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in a plasma cocoon
Age: 53
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Nautile" & ROV Victor
Nautile
(100 daN for each 6 dof arms, propulsion 300 daN, where 1daN~1kg)
http://www.ifremer.fr/flotte/systeme...%20Nautile.pdf
VICTOR 6000
(100 daN for each 6 dof arms, propulsion 300 daN, where 1daN~1kg)
http://www.ifremer.fr/flotte/systeme...%20Nautile.pdf
VICTOR 6000
Last edited by Hyperveloce; 27th Jul 2009 at 20:53.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: US Virgin & British Virgin,Islands
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
France 24 International News 24/7
I have read the report mentioned and listened to the video and,according to the way the report is written it states that Lt Col.Mulot is 'expecting a lot from the study.....debris......broken and traces of burns'......that`s what it says in type,for what it`s worth,in that press report. Have no idea what they mean and just repeating what is written...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by France24
According to Lieutenant-Colonel Xavier Mulot, chief investigator for AF flight 447, "We're expecting a lot from this study because, thanks to the way the debris was broken and traces of burns, it'll eventually allow us to understand what happened."
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk Ident, I defer to your hearing the original.
For what its worth, here is the English-language text of what he said on the France24 site.
Most speakers with English as their mother tongue would say that he described the recovered wreckage as having traces of burns.
For what its worth, here is the English-language text of what he said on the France24 site.
According to Lieutenant-Colonel Xavier Mulot, chief investigator for AF flight 447, "We're expecting a lot from this study because, thanks to the way the debris was broken and traces of burns, it'll eventually allow us to understand what happened."