Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

AF447

Old 31st Oct 2009, 00:32
  #4541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 76
Posts: 1,331
Unusual Attitude wrote:-
Just to point out, Multibeam and Sidescan are 2 different things.
Duh! You're absolutely right, and I will amend the previous post.

mm43

Last edited by mm43; 31st Oct 2009 at 01:05.
mm43 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2009, 21:52
  #4542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SUSSEX UK
Age: 72
Posts: 57
Aviation Week - comment on December report

BEA Preliminary Report Expected December | AVIATION WEEK

A few more clues about where the focus will be in December's report.
BJ-ENG is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2009, 09:42
  #4543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne, ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 70
Posts: 58
Another Pitot incident suspected

A Jetstar Airways A330-200 with 209 passengers and crew onboard suffered momentary erratic speed data indications from its computers in apparent bad weather and possible icing conditions on an Oct. 29 flight from Tokyo Narita to Gold Coast. (Australia)
ATW Daily News
LandIT is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2009, 14:39
  #4544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: london
Posts: 2
4523 Manuel Garcia, Jr.: The New Crisis in Aviation

hi there. I tried to post this on 2nd of july as I think it makes an invaluable contribution. You deleted my post, or rather did not post it; now you post the article, 4 months later. Just wondering why.... made me give up trying to post to help solve this tricky puzzle of AF447...
rik Sound is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2009, 22:15
  #4545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Around the World
Age: 70
Posts: 88
First post

Don't worry!
" I tried to post this on 2nd of july .... or rather did not post it"
Probably you never sent the link.

This is my first post, as yours.
NeoFit is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2009, 09:05
  #4546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 45
New technology could revolutionize the black box

Calgary firm's data-streaming system would enhance safety. But what's really caught the airlines' attention is the cost-saving properties


New technology could revolutionize the black box - The Globe and Mail
John47 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2009, 16:33
  #4547 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,410
John47;
Originally Posted by From the linked GM Report on Business article
. . .
Jacques Kavafian, vice-president of Research Capital Inc., is also impressed by AeroMechanical. He owns stock in the company and Research Capital has a relationship with the company as an investment banker. "[The technology] is attractive because it helps airlines save a lot of money by tracking fuel consumption and by also tracking maintenance occurrences and alerting the airlines in real time of any problems that occur. No one else really can do that in a way that is economical like AeroMechanical does. Their technology is essentially the cheaper way to transmit the data in real time from the airplane to the ground. ..."

"That $50,000 [installation cost] will save airlines anywhere from $100,000 per plane per year up to $500,000 per plane per year. It's a savings amount that no one can ignore."

AeroMechanical, which has about 50 employees, already has the appropriate supplemental-type certificates for their equipment to be used on a number of Boeing and Airbus aircraft, and Mr. Bradley says it is compatible with all major aircraft manufacturers. Mr. Kavafian says AeroMechanical has installed 180 AFIRS units on aircraft at various airlines.

"We see ourselves as being in the right place at the right time, with the right product," he says.
If I were marketing this product, (and I have no opinion on it because I have no information on it), I would not be using Jacques Kavafian.

Mr. Kavafian is speaking as an investor and a businessman, not as a safety or data specialist. He is known as a controversial commentator on the commercial aspects of the airline business in Canada. He knows nothing about flight data analysis, about installations, about how this work is really done and how the data is used and handled.

Any flight data analysis product faces the same challenges of buy-in and competing for limited resources. I think the concept is a good one but as "FLYHT"'s website states up front, data security guarantees by users including flight crews is a requirement. However, no information is provided by FLYHT as to how those problems are addressed. With others, I've been doing flight data analysis for a long time and these issues are not easily resolved, either procedurally, technically or politically.

PJ2
PJ2 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2009, 23:20
  #4548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 45
PJ12
data security guarantees ... are not easily resolved, either procedurally, technically or politically.
Good point but perhaps one day
John47 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2009, 01:30
  #4549 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,410
John47;
but perhaps one day
No, I don't think so.

I have seen no reason to be the least bit optimistic about the protection of safety data and information even though under SMS the collection and use of this data is mandated under SMS in Canada.

CVRs and DFDRs as well as QARs and when they are eventually installed, Cockpit Video Recorders, will, under rubric of "the public interest" or, more realistically, the power of the highest bidder (in the US media), always be subject to the possibility that narrow legal interests or prurient media interests, both of which are focussed on money instead of the improvement of the whole system will force court-directed appropriation of safety data in discovery.

Permit me a sidebar...
While some claim that such processes lead to changes and improvements in safety, the process is inefficient and very narrowly focussed on specific items and is largely a collateral result, often with unintended consquences. Witness the latest, where the entire Congress of the United States is collectively setting their hair on fire, (or playing solitaire) over some laptops, intent on a wholesale ban without the slightest input or study from the industry so affected.

Two weeks after two guys got distracted (and never hurt anyone and weren't in any immediate danger), we have Congress making laws to "protect" the flying public from this new, nefarious, insidiosity. It reminds one slightly, of the widespread panic over H1N1 vaccinations.

Good god, we in the profession can only imagine in our wildest dreams, such a keen response from Congress to all the science and now the accident reports concerning crew fatigue. But you will never see it because it costs the airlines too much. Banning laptops is attaboys-for-free.

To those who understand flight safety and how our system got so safe, a bunch of publicity-seeking congresspeople banning laptops is a joke and the fools are the lawmakers themselves. This is a clear, obvious example of why individual industry incidents cannot, in and of themselves, form a basis upon which policy and law are made.

The case for the protection of flight safety data of all kinds is abundant and clear - it improves the level of safety of an entire industry.

Sorry for the sidebar, but it is an important and relevant understanding in this conversation, and are matters which must be addressed in practical terms if one is going to market one's organization as the answer to irretrievable flight data of the kind under discussion, (447).
PJ2 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2009, 20:48
  #4550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 76
Posts: 1,331
@John47,
The staff of AeroMechanical Services Ltd. watched the fruitless search for flight-data recorders of Air France Flight 447 in the South Atlantic from afar earlier this year knowing that their technology could have helped to reconstruct the tragedy.
Of course the search was fruitless in the South Atlantic!

mm43
mm43 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2009, 11:16
  #4551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SUSSEX UK
Age: 72
Posts: 57
Investigators have played down any link between problems with Qantas A330s & AF447

No link between Qantas A330 problems and Air France crash | The Australian


A second interim report into a Qantas A330-300 that nosedived twice 154km west of the West Australian town of Learmonth last October said investigators had yet to find a reason for erroneous data provided by a component known as an air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU).

The report said there several important differences between the Qantas and Air France accident, including the fact that the ADIRUs were made by different manufacturers, cockpit messages followed a different sequence and pattern and the airspeed sensors (pitot probes) on the two aircraft were different models made by different manufacturers.

A European airworthiness directive that pitot probes made by Thales Avionics be replaced with units manufactured by Goodrich also did not apply to Qantas aircraft.


An Australian Transport Safety Bureau report released today emphasised the importance of seatbelts and said new procedures and software modifications on A330s were aimed at preventing further nosedives.

The investigation team is continuing to evaluate a problem with ADIRU’s called "dozing", where the units stop outputting data during a flight, and are looking at the possibility that cosmic rays or solar radiation may have affected the unit.

A test plane equipped with sensors was also flown near the Harold E. Holt Naval Communications station near Learmonth while it was transmitting but an analysis did not reveal any anomalous results.
BJ-ENG is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2009, 23:45
  #4552 (permalink)  
TvB

please wait
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: miami and other nice places
Age: 58
Posts: 35
do you mean "misuse" of CVR and DFDR data?

CVRs and DFDRs as well as QARs and when they are eventually installed, Cockpit Video Recorders, will, under rubric of "the public interest" or, more realistically, the power of the highest bidder (in the US media), always be subject to the possibility that narrow legal interests or prurient media interests, both of which are focussed on money instead of the improvement of the whole system will force court-directed appropriation of safety data in discovery.
PJ2:

could you please tell me in which recent accident CVR, DFDR or QAR became "in the public interest" the power of the highest bidder in the US or anywhere on this planet?

I think you would have to agree that it is and hopefully will continue to be common practize that DFDR data, once transfered out of the box and AFTER (!) it got analyzed by the pro's in charge with this job, will become published in the official accident investigation report under ICAO Annex 13? Anything wrong with that?

Now in regards to CVR transcripts I think you would have to admit that they may be published by some countries and other won't publish them. Nevertheless
this information is vital for the understanding and thereby to required prevention of similar incidents and accidents or did I get something wrong here?

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Otherwise please come on and enlighten me.

rgds

TvB
TvB is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2009, 18:34
  #4553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 834
The USN lent sonar equipment and personnel the first time out. There are 4 deepwater navies - the French are obviously involved, the USN was as well, that leaves two.

Which would be more problematic diplomatically, Russian or British sonar?
steamchicken is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 17:19
  #4554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: michigan
Posts: 7
bobrun

According to your analysis this is similar to the Air France 447 analysis. Are you basing this on specifics in the BEA report?
rogerrapoport is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2009, 22:55
  #4555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SUSSEX UK
Age: 72
Posts: 57
Accident experts seek clues into AF Airbus disaster from recent S Atlantic incident

The French air accident investigation agency, the Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses (BEA) is examining the incident involving an Air France A330-200 airliner over the South Atlantic on December 1......


Accident experts seek clues into Air France Airbus disaster from recent S Atlantic incident
BJ-ENG is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2009, 23:01
  #4556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 27
Another brush with the ITCZ

The Daily Telegraph is reporting an incident to AF445 on the Rio to CDG run in the same area as AF447 disappeared. According to the report the aircraft lost 5,000 ft in severe turbulence.
Air France jet plunges 5,000ft in same spot as doomed flight from Brazil - Telegraph

Rgds.
24V
24victor is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2009, 13:34
  #4557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SUSSEX UK
Age: 72
Posts: 57
Bea Report Dec 17th

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...90601e2.en.pdf
BJ-ENG is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2009, 01:18
  #4558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 20
The summary indicates:

The aircraft was probably intact on impact
The aircraft struck the the surface of the water with a positive attitude, a low bank and a high rate of descent
There was no depressurisation
Tokyo Geoff is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2009, 02:40
  #4559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 898
Characteristic of flat spin.

Rotation isn't required for a flat spin.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2009, 04:03
  #4560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,615
One theory would have to include the probability of a stall. A situation where moderate or severe turbulence had disconnected A/P and A/T, and the PF had instinctively reduced thrust, with or without correct airspeed indications. In case of inoperative stall warning, the resultant airframe vibration or buffeting was masked by turbulence. Since the airplane remained intact and impacted the water in a pitch-up, low bank and little sideslip attitude, it's conceivable that the airplane remained stalled during the entire descent. The crew subsequently may also have tried to re engage the automatics, but without first lowering the nose to effect stall recovery.

Such a stall event had played out on 22 Dec 1996 when an ABX DC-8-63F on a test flight encountered a full stall with severe buffet in night IMC without the benefit of a working stick shaker. Upon recognition of the stall, the crew had added thrust, but had failed to lower the nose.
GlueBall is offline  

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.