AF447
md80fanatic;
Yes it does, in terms of "how", but large chunks of intact wreckage, (especially the latest made available/linked to by DorianB) mean that there was not a high-speed collision with the water as was the case with SW111.
The airframe broke up sufficiently to permit large pieces to exit relatively free of damage from other large pieces. We do not know when or how this occurred. "Shrapnel" damage is visible on many of the large sections, which would be expected. The nature of these telltale markings may, with hard sleuthing, indicate something about a breakup pattern....or not.
With careful examination regarding any part number markings or with drawings, many of the collected parts' location in the airframe may be determined. At this point, very little can be known about location of anything we now have photos of.
I think we can say all this with some reliability now, but regarding airframe breakup we cannot answer the questions:
- At what altitude(s) did the initial breakup occur or was it upon contact with the sea?
- What broke free first? (Evidence of the horizontal stabilizer, wing parts and engine cowlings, (same honeycomb material) have not been found, nor have wheels, (I say this only because there is a photo of a bogie floating free in the Abijan accident discussed earlier in this thread - I realize this may be a smaller possibility here).
- When did the VS break free?
- The question of further ACARS data has been asked, but not answered.
- An far-fetched question might be asked about what, if anything, did satellites see at 02:14+ Z in terms of a flash or anything else unusual. Just haven't seen any comments re this.(dealt with below).
More data brings exponentially more questions.
The airframe broke up sufficiently to permit large pieces to exit relatively free of damage from other large pieces. We do not know when or how this occurred. "Shrapnel" damage is visible on many of the large sections, which would be expected. The nature of these telltale markings may, with hard sleuthing, indicate something about a breakup pattern....or not.
With careful examination regarding any part number markings or with drawings, many of the collected parts' location in the airframe may be determined. At this point, very little can be known about location of anything we now have photos of.
I think we can say all this with some reliability now, but regarding airframe breakup we cannot answer the questions:
- At what altitude(s) did the initial breakup occur or was it upon contact with the sea?
- What broke free first? (Evidence of the horizontal stabilizer, wing parts and engine cowlings, (same honeycomb material) have not been found, nor have wheels, (I say this only because there is a photo of a bogie floating free in the Abijan accident discussed earlier in this thread - I realize this may be a smaller possibility here).
- When did the VS break free?
- The question of further ACARS data has been asked, but not answered.
- An far-fetched question might be asked about what, if anything, did satellites see at 02:14+ Z in terms of a flash or anything else unusual. Just haven't seen any comments re this.(dealt with below).
Last edited by PJ2; 17th Jun 2009 at 18:46.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: LFBO
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The galley is made of Honeycomb structure which contains sealed air pockets.
In addition there are Standard Units still in the galley structure. I don't know how well sealed they are but I imagine that it would be easy to trap (say) 100litres of air in the whole structure.
Hence the galley (liberated from the trolleys) floats. Look how high it is out of the water.
http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/u...Banks/echo.jpg
Why just this galley (5 Trolleys - Door 2?) and not others??????
In addition there are Standard Units still in the galley structure. I don't know how well sealed they are but I imagine that it would be easy to trap (say) 100litres of air in the whole structure.
Hence the galley (liberated from the trolleys) floats. Look how high it is out of the water.
http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/u...Banks/echo.jpg
Why just this galley (5 Trolleys - Door 2?) and not others??????
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD80 Fanatic
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)?
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)?
Some input from experienced investigators would be preferable, what's the PROBABLE result of:
1. Mid air break up/ high altitude
2. High velocity /high angle impact
3. Low velocity/low angle impact.
Due to my limited experience id rather not be shot down for making an uneducated speculation at how the galley has somehow been thrown clear or survived a potential heavy impact, at the same time it seems most of A/C sank. Otherwise we would of expected a considerable amount of boyant debris. With non boyant objects sinking.
Decomposition happens slower in water but bodies should eventually float. Surely they're contained in the A/C still? Surely some of the wheels stayed intact, that's alot of bouyancy.
Last edited by captains_log; 17th Jun 2009 at 18:24. Reason: addition
PN;
Almost certainly you're right - anything unusual would be obscured by cloud etc - just casting about at this point.
I thought that that would not have been possible given the states ITCZ activity.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: ATL
Age: 67
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We still can't conclude an in-flight break-up with the evidence at hand. Though I think speculation leads to a more thorough understanding of one's equipment, and is therefore healthy, some here would jump on you for speculating that this is an in-flight break-up.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brazil
Age: 76
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Floating bodies
Bodies may float if they do not have ruptured stomachs
Once ruptured, or after decomposition which may take up to 3-4 weeks, they will sink... which is why the big rush was on to find them, and fewer (only one yesterday) are being found.
Autopsy reports also state it is probable that the aircraft hit the water in a near horizontal position because of the majority of 4 fracture type injuries, (ie virtually no head injuries)
Google FAB, the Brazilian Air Force site they have daily press releases and photos in English
Once ruptured, or after decomposition which may take up to 3-4 weeks, they will sink... which is why the big rush was on to find them, and fewer (only one yesterday) are being found.
Autopsy reports also state it is probable that the aircraft hit the water in a near horizontal position because of the majority of 4 fracture type injuries, (ie virtually no head injuries)
Google FAB, the Brazilian Air Force site they have daily press releases and photos in English
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Otherwise we would of expected a considerable amount of boyant debris. With non boyant objects sinking.
Decomposition happens slower in water but bodies should eventually float. Surely they're contained in the A/C still?
Surely some of the wheels stayed intact, that's alot of bouyancy.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my untutored eye, the pieces of the plane that have been retrieved seem to be in remarkably good condition, and also remarkably large. Having looked at photos from crash sites (on the ground) over the years, I often get the impression of the plane being shattered into tiny pieces. If my impression is at all accurate, this fragmentation is presumably due to a violent collision with the ground? The ocean is no less hard when you hit it, so does this tell us anything about the impact made by AF447?
ClippedCub;
Yes, understand - though I tried to stay away from "concluding", it can read like that, so guilty as charged and being taken to task would be fair game I think. The alternatives are expressed below in another's post seems to cover all bases...
At the same time, we have large chunks and not a SW111 wreckage pattern so there is at least something in that. Post modified, with thanks.
some here would jump on you for speculating that this is an in-flight break-up.
At the same time, we have large chunks and not a SW111 wreckage pattern so there is at least something in that. Post modified, with thanks.
Given that speculation is part of what this forum and this thread are about, the most accurate speculation (though that term in itself can be problematic) that can be done in most situations like this, is to speculate on what things, with given facts, most likely are NOT true. Informed speculation (as has been previously mentioned) often provides an investigator with assistance in where to look and what to look for.
I may have missed somehting (as I often do . . ) this morning, but I haven't seen anyone say that the new pix lead us directly to inflight break up. Using the process I mentioned above, the size and condition of the portions recovered in the recent pix do lead us away from the notion of a high speed / high angle impact with the surface.
Investigators will indeed be ticking off a few boxes as we write these things. But in almost all instances they will be ticking the box that says "Not Likely" rather than the box that says "Likely". And, over the next few weeks and months, they will continue to do so -- very slowly, and very carefully.
I may have missed somehting (as I often do . . ) this morning, but I haven't seen anyone say that the new pix lead us directly to inflight break up. Using the process I mentioned above, the size and condition of the portions recovered in the recent pix do lead us away from the notion of a high speed / high angle impact with the surface.
Investigators will indeed be ticking off a few boxes as we write these things. But in almost all instances they will be ticking the box that says "Not Likely" rather than the box that says "Likely". And, over the next few weeks and months, they will continue to do so -- very slowly, and very carefully.
PJ2
I go for hours without reading this thread but from the posts so far it appears that the posters are referencing photos etc. that are now deleted.
I agree that much can be discerned by examining the photos against experience although the best we might do is decide how much it broke up in the air.
Your use of the word shrapnel is intriguing. I tend to use that word only in describing impacts to a structure from smaller individual objects moving at a much higher velocity and from a funnel source(explosive blasts, uncontained engine bits etc.) In the event of a breakup either in the air or against the water the velocity gradient between major parts is not as pronounced and scaring and longitudinal (along the axis of flight) gouging is more evident.
If you could point to a photo of what you meant I could understand better.
"Shrapnel" damage is visible on many of the large sections, which would be expected
I agree that much can be discerned by examining the photos against experience although the best we might do is decide how much it broke up in the air.
Your use of the word shrapnel is intriguing. I tend to use that word only in describing impacts to a structure from smaller individual objects moving at a much higher velocity and from a funnel source(explosive blasts, uncontained engine bits etc.) In the event of a breakup either in the air or against the water the velocity gradient between major parts is not as pronounced and scaring and longitudinal (along the axis of flight) gouging is more evident.
If you could point to a photo of what you meant I could understand better.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Galley structure is likely not a part of fuselage 'architecture'. Its shape and appearance as 'infill' or 'appurtenant' structure and its seeming lack of freefall through high speed airmass or high speed impact need some noodle work. Perhaps it may have been 'sheltered' at impact and floated free of a substantial part of the hull post impact with the sea?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@RuddA
The debris fields are already maped and numbered by the BEA.
See here:
http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....hes.en.mer.pdf
The comment including facts is quite short and in French:
Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses
S~
Olivier
The debris fields are already maped and numbered by the BEA.
See here:
http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....hes.en.mer.pdf
The comment including facts is quite short and in French:
Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses
S~
Olivier
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: california
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orange spots and Ultimo reporte
Orange spots are sites of debris recovery (derived from "tail fin" tag on map)
"Ultimo reporte" is likely to be the last VHF transmission or reporting point when leaving the Brasilian radar controllers. This is when they transmitted estimating TASIL 50 min later (transmitted at 01:33 for TASIL at 02h23).
This transmission may have also included the turbulence report. (unless it was just a bit ealier). This was not explicit from BEA daily briefings from last week...
"Ultimo reporte" is likely to be the last VHF transmission or reporting point when leaving the Brasilian radar controllers. This is when they transmitted estimating TASIL 50 min later (transmitted at 01:33 for TASIL at 02h23).
This transmission may have also included the turbulence report. (unless it was just a bit ealier). This was not explicit from BEA daily briefings from last week...
lomapaseo;
I am using the word "shrapnel" here to describe smaller pieces hitting larger pieces in a break-up sequence but am not implying or conveying anything more than that.
The word is perhaps the wrong one to use in this case as it may imply an "explosion", which is not what I am trying to convey.
Rather than post photos I can refer you to the F/A seating structure, the spoiler panel, the structure with the video screen attached, for example, where there are both fractures and marks which may be the result of that structure being struck by other parts.
If hypothetically we found blue or red paint on some parts, we could surmise that they had come into contact with the fin, for example. That's the kind of thinking. I am not saying this is the case with anything - I'm just using this as an example.
Whether such accident investigation analysis would yield meaningful information is wholly uncertain given the tiny collection of structure available but it is a technique used. I am not an AI but am familiar with some of the processes.
I am using the word "shrapnel" here to describe smaller pieces hitting larger pieces in a break-up sequence but am not implying or conveying anything more than that.
The word is perhaps the wrong one to use in this case as it may imply an "explosion", which is not what I am trying to convey.
Rather than post photos I can refer you to the F/A seating structure, the spoiler panel, the structure with the video screen attached, for example, where there are both fractures and marks which may be the result of that structure being struck by other parts.
If hypothetically we found blue or red paint on some parts, we could surmise that they had come into contact with the fin, for example. That's the kind of thinking. I am not saying this is the case with anything - I'm just using this as an example.
Whether such accident investigation analysis would yield meaningful information is wholly uncertain given the tiny collection of structure available but it is a technique used. I am not an AI but am familiar with some of the processes.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overthewing
If you descend with a blocked pitot then the aircraft will rapidly exceed Vne, unless the pilots fly 'attitude'. The reason for this is that the pitot pressure remains the same whereas the static pressure increases, causing underreading of the speed. I have tried this on the simulator, descending with a constant IAS (not all simulators have this function), and Vne was exceeded after about 5000ft.
Conversely if the aircraft climbs at constant speed with a blocked pitot then it will stall unless attitude flying is used.
Dave
If you descend with a blocked pitot then the aircraft will rapidly exceed Vne, unless the pilots fly 'attitude'. The reason for this is that the pitot pressure remains the same whereas the static pressure increases, causing underreading of the speed. I have tried this on the simulator, descending with a constant IAS (not all simulators have this function), and Vne was exceeded after about 5000ft.
Conversely if the aircraft climbs at constant speed with a blocked pitot then it will stall unless attitude flying is used.
Dave
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S23W046
Age: 73
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@LostInSaigon:
Correct me, if I am wrong, but reaching my destination, would be the least of my worries in that situation.
As far as I have seen the ISIS has the Altimeter included, so not so sure about Stby Altm.
Just my impression......
1) Descending to warm air would mean a huge fuel penalty. They only have enough fuel to reach their destination at cruising altitudes. Descending even for a short time would mean they would not have enough fuel to complete the flight
As far as I have seen the ISIS has the Altimeter included, so not so sure about Stby Altm.
Just my impression......
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA - IL
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm wondering, Poison's message aside, has anybody fed the sequence of
ACARS into a simulator to see what the result is? Either in reverse order of received, or in order listed on the ACARS message. Does one message trigger the next one in line? At what point does the aircraft simulator become uncontrollable or unrecoverable? Factor in the weather, turbulance, etc.
You should have some sort of idea as to what happened in what sequence and what type of break up they were looking at?
ACARS into a simulator to see what the result is? Either in reverse order of received, or in order listed on the ACARS message. Does one message trigger the next one in line? At what point does the aircraft simulator become uncontrollable or unrecoverable? Factor in the weather, turbulance, etc.
You should have some sort of idea as to what happened in what sequence and what type of break up they were looking at?
1)Without knowing what triggered the ACARS messages, how could you feed this into a simulator? (Assuming simulators have a total ACARS simulation which they do not).
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Shrapnel Damage"
lomapaseo, PJ2,
I find your "shrapnel" comments interesting, I had the same thought when I first studied photos of the VS.
Take a look at this shot: http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/voo447/...609/foto_3.jpg
I can see 3 "cuts" in the leading edge of the VS, anyone else concur?
I find your "shrapnel" comments interesting, I had the same thought when I first studied photos of the VS.
Take a look at this shot: http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/voo447/...609/foto_3.jpg
I can see 3 "cuts" in the leading edge of the VS, anyone else concur?