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

AF447

Old 5th Jun 2009, 07:46
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 731
Good point Bubbers44,

The acars messages seem consistent with what you might expect to see with cell penetration and heavy icing covering up all the pitot probes, and ports, causing the loss of data to nav systems and to flt control systems, followed by upset, followed by loss of cabin pressure control (down low)

BREAK

PJ2, I don't have the maintenance ATA fault manual in front of me, but I would guess acars code 341115 would likely decode this way: 34=Nav ATA section, 11=subsection (item) pitot static, 15 = specific status condition or report.

Just a guess.

Any mtc guys wanna tell us what piece of equipment this is and what it's status is?
34-11-15

34 = Navigation
11 = Sensors,Power Supply and Switching
15 = Pitot Probe

ATA decode from the Airbus AMM.
Fargoo is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:07
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the ragged edge
Posts: 80
34-11-15

34 = Navigation
11 = Sensors,Power Supply and Switching
15 = Pitot Probe

ATA decode from the Airbus AMM.
Ahh,

thanks Fargoo.

So, "15" is the pitot probe. Does this mean the pitot probe signal is lost to the nav computers?

Next question: What number is AOA probe?
Captain-Crunch is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:14
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: VTBS
Posts: 27
You're right Fargo, and I carried out trouble shooting starting from the fault message (and not the Wrng which are the result of the fault) and guess what.
341115 lost of all pitots probe (to make it short) not duplicable faulf on Gnd
341234 lost of all ADIRU'S, not duplicable on Gnd, and digging a little bit further, lost of ADIRU pwr (to make it short also),
and all these events occurs within 1 minute....
greenspinner is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:18
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 475
analyzing the report now. It will take time to ensure an accurate factual statement is posted as sequence and consequence must first be accurately determined.

One point for you to think about however. Under normal circumstances the ADR (air data) part of an ADIRU is suceptible to external influence. The IR (attitude) part however is a completely self contained unit that requires nothing more than power for it to operate and is not susceptible to external influence.


34-11 covers all air data sensors but one interesting aspect is that pitot probes 1 + 3 are close together on the fwd left hand side of the aircraft near the radome. Pitot probe feeding ADIRU 2 system is on the right hand side and I couldn't find any warnings for ADR2. However damage to these probes should only result in ADR faults and not IR faults.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:19
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 731
Ahh,

thanks Fargoo.

So, "15" is the pitot probe. Does this mean the pitot probe signal is lost to the nav computers?

Next question: What number is AOA probe?
On the small Airbus we operate normally Probe anti-ice failure (be it probe element, probe heat computer or wiring between the two) would bring up a message in that Chapter. Could quite easily be a different case on the A330 though.

34-11-16 is Static ports.
34-11-17 is Air Data Modules.
34-11-18 is TAT sensor.
34-11-19 is AOA sensor.

To decode the messages and their possible causes you need someone with access to the A330 Troubleshooting Manual (TSM).

Hope this helps a bit.

Fargoo.
Fargoo is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:20
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: VTBS
Posts: 27
Captain, AOA 34-11-19
greenspinner is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:21
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the ragged edge
Posts: 80
Fargoo and Greenspinner,

Great work.

Greenspinner (or another 330 tech,) is your troubleshooting manual from the A330? If so, please decode all the following six digit fault and warning codes, so we may achieve a measure of confirmation:

(please give us the long version with as much detail as possible; and your interpretation of what it tells you.)

Note: a reader has discovered an typo by Selfin below: The ISIS fault line code should start 3422 not 3412





Yours Truly,

Captain Crunch

Last edited by Captain-Crunch; 5th Jun 2009 at 09:41.
Captain-Crunch is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:36
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
Just a quick point on the "oil slick/fuel" that has apparently been spotted - it should be easy to determine (certainly by taking a sample and analysing, and possibly just by looking) whether the fuel oil seen in the water is kerosene (and thus possibly from the aircraft) or comes from some other source (eg. a ship dumping tank residues).

There's a huge difference between jet A1 and oily ballast, and IMHO it wouldn't be difficult for someone who knew what they were doing to tell the two apart.

Final point on Jet A1 - it dissipates fairly quickly, so wouldn't necessarily be around/visible for long.
Octopussy2 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:42
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: VTBS
Posts: 27
Captain,
At this stage describe all the messages would be little bit useless, as what we need is the fault message from CMS related to these Wrn. In fact we need the full Current flight Report rather that the current leg report provided here.
Nevertheless, as I got the A330 AFR TSM in front of me, I do try to understand ,as you, what’s occurs during this flight, and despite my 17 years of experience (as line engineer) on this type of machine (A340/A330), I’ve still have difficulties to sort it out.
However for your perusal
228334 – FMGC
341234 – ADIRU
279334 – EFCS
341115 – PROBE – PITOT
That’s all the data, which could be helpful with what we have right now
The WRn messages are only 4 digits exploitable and the sixth one are mainly 00

Cheers
greenspinner is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:43
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cairo
Posts: 57
Not of your industry, but:

Where the time stamps are very close together please don't read too much into the sequence of events. It is very difficult to get an accurate sequence for events happening close together because of the time scan of the data logger and (if multiple systems are involved) the difficulty of synchronising the various clocks.

This thread is fascinating and informative, but I suspect (in the absence of anything else) you are using ACARS output for something other than its intended function.
SLF3b is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 08:57
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 475
slf3b you are spot on which is why I posted that analyzing will take tíme. Some faults hopefully can be dismissed as "a consequence of" but no guarantees.

First one needs to look at all the data.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:02
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ags
Age: 43
Posts: 1
Facts

Just keep to facts:

- the BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses, the french agency that make the investigation) stated that, at this point, the investigation showed the "incoherence of the different speeds mesured".
Le Figaro - Flash actu : Vol AF 447: ''incohérence'' des vitesses

- the Air Comet pilot who said he saw a bright light wasn't on his normal path to Madrid but had to re-rout and go east (closer to the AF 447) due to bad weather. Yet, it is unsure if he was close enough to the missing Airbus. The Air Comet flight was 7° north and 49° west while the AF 447 was something like 30° west.
Un piloto dice que vio caer un 'destello de luz blanca' donde desapareció el avión francés | Mundo | elmundo.es
Enkidelaplaya is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:08
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
There is no ECAM warning for a triple ADR failure, only dual, hence the ADR DISAGREE message.
I thought ADR DISAGREE was triggered once after one ADR failed, the other two ADR disagreed?..
jauh is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:08
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 33
Posts: 169
3 - Flaps fail
Is there any indication for flaps failure in the ACARS report?
Lantirn is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:09
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 337
ADIRU 1+2+3 faults

Many, many years ago an A340 (I believe AF) entered the very top of an undetected CB and experienced ice crystals of a perfect size to block all pitot tubes and so "faulted" all ADIRUS simultaneously. This immediately "tripped" the a/c into ALTN Law (or would it have even been Direct Law?-long time back).

It was night time and in the cruise with Captain as PF. As he struggled to control the a/c in the turbulence with degraded flt. laws, the PNF (F/O) became very concerned at the various attitudes on PFD and with the tables down, he believed the Capt was not trying to correct the flight path and became directly involved leading to dual inputs which prevailed for some time.

It was this incident, amongst others, which directly led to the modification for "Dual Input" warnings. The source of this information was a magazine published by Airbus for a number of years called "Hangar Flying". I think it was discontinued but not sure. But I could pinpoint the year more accurately with a little research but don't imagine that's necessary here.

I mention all of this to remind that a single external source could affect all ADIRUs and also of course because it occurred in quite similar circumstancesto this latest incident. Incidentally, the only radar return at the time of the first incident was a very small speck of green.

Like one or two others, I am also rather concerned at the some of the statements issued by the French Authorities. Whilst they are quite correct to play down the chances of finding the recorders, I would still expect positive statements along the lines of "whilst recovery may prove imposible, rest assured we will do absolutely everything within our power to find and salvage them"
Starbear is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:16
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Post

Captain Crunch,

The transcript is wrong - FR0906010211 re: ISIS should start with 3422 not 3412
jauh is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:18
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 90
Just a quick point on the "oil slick/fuel" that has apparently been spotted - it should be easy to determine (certainly by taking a sample and analysing, and possibly just by looking) whether the fuel oil seen in the water is kerosene (and thus possibly from the aircraft) or comes from some other source (eg. a ship dumping tank residues).

There's a huge difference between jet A1 and oily ballast, and IMHO it wouldn't be difficult for someone who knew what they were doing to tell the two apart.
First, jet fuel is very close to diesel in its physical and chemical properties. So it might need sophisticated analysis to make sure it is indeed jet fuel. If that is even possible after several days of exposure to open water and evaporation of the lighter parts of it I don't know.

Second, even if it was jet fuel, it is no positive proof, that is is from AF447. It could be a tank ship carrying jet fuel or cleaning its tanks...

Positive proof would be only unique debris.
-Aircraft parts of an A330
-unique Cargo consistent with the manifest.
-Human remains after DNA or other identification

The oceans are full of trash.
Interflug is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:22
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 7
The French accident investigators (Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses) have just announced that, working from the ACARS data, they have been able to establish "incoherence in the various speeds" registered by the aircraft. The BEA also "confirms the presence of convective cells characteristic of equatorial regions in proximity to the planned route of the aircraft."

Here, in French, is the Agence France Presse summary:
L'enquête a permis d'établir "à partir de l’exploitation des messages automatiques transmis par l’avion, l’incohérence des différentes vitesses mesurées".... L'enquête a aussi permis de confirmer "la présence à proximité de la route prévue de l’avion au-dessus de l’Atlantique d’importantes cellules convectives caractéristiques des régions équatoriales".
CharlieBrem is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:23
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,035
Air France plane: debris 'is not from lost aircraft'

None of the debris found so far in the Atlantic Ocean was from the Air France Airbus that disappeared on Sunday night, Brazilian military officials have said.







"We have not recovered any parts of the aeroplane so far," Ramon Borges Cardoso, the director of the Air Space Control Department, was quoted as saying on the Terra website.
An Air Force official confirmed Mr Cardoso's statement and said a detailed communique would be released later.



Mr Cardoso also said the fuel slicks were not caused by jet fuel but by oil believed to have come from a passing ship.


Earlier on Thursday, Mr Cardoso had told reporters that navy ships 600 miles off Brazil's shore had pulled aboard debris from the Air France plane, including a pallet from its cargo hold and two buoys.



But after inspection it was determined the pallet could not have come from the plane.
"We confirm that the pallet found is not part of the debris of the plane. It's a pallet that was in the area, but considered more to be trash," he said.



The pallet found was made of wood, he said, and the Air France Airbus A330 that vanished Monday did not have any wooden pallets on board.



"That's how we can confirm that the pallet isn't part of the remains of the aircraft."



He added that the Brazilian navy crews were pulling any item out of the water and inspecting it. Anything not belonging to the Air France plane was being put aside.
Telegraph
Published: 2:00AM BST 05 Jun 2009
Mercenary Pilot is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2009, 09:30
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 475
Press release 5 June 2009
Flight AF 447 on 31 May 2009
The BEA will hold a second press conference on its premises at Le Bourget on Saturday 6 June from 10 h to 12h. Journalists who wish to attend are asked to confirm their intentions with Martine Del Bono.



A large quantity of more or less accurate information and attempts at explanations concerning the accident are currently being circulated. The BEA reminds those concerned that in such circumstances, it is advisable to avoid all hasty interpretations and speculation on the basis of partial or non-validated information.



At this stage of the investigation, the only established facts are:
  • the presence near the airplane’s planned route over the Atlantic of significant convective cells typical of the equatorial regions;
  • based on the analysis of the automatic messages broadcast by the plane, there are inconsistencies between the various speeds measured.
Safety Concerns 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.