AF447
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: east of 10° west
Age: 62
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good question..
marsk
fresh sat charts in the cockpit ...
well, honestly have no idea??
you would not even need any big expensive "certified" installations, just take your lap top in the cockpit, most modern airliners have high speed data internet access via satcom, here you go...
beats me why it's obviously not yet the norm..??
but I am sure, nobody will leave home without it a couple of years from now..
The technology is clearly there so if cost is not an issue, what is preventing airline flight crews from having access to these data?
well, honestly have no idea??
you would not even need any big expensive "certified" installations, just take your lap top in the cockpit, most modern airliners have high speed data internet access via satcom, here you go...
beats me why it's obviously not yet the norm..??
but I am sure, nobody will leave home without it a couple of years from now..
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the Best Wx Radar Would Help
The newest Wx radars from Collins and Honeywell do automatic tilt and scan, and can see when the plane is headed into dangerous Wx. All the designers would have to do is to engage the Windshear Warning light when storm entry is imminent, to be sure the pilot has not turned down the intensity on his display to where he can't see what's coming, as related by ekLawyer in a prior post here.
Info on these radars is in Techlog.
Unfortunately, airlines have the frugal habit of buying only systems that have been mandated, and so 40-50 year old radars are still flying in revenue service.
It would be nice to know what system AF is flying on their A3xx fleets. They might be flying transceivers that are only 25-30 year old technology, as those meet the minimum requirement, and hence are basic fit on new planes.
GB
Info on these radars is in Techlog.
Unfortunately, airlines have the frugal habit of buying only systems that have been mandated, and so 40-50 year old radars are still flying in revenue service.
It would be nice to know what system AF is flying on their A3xx fleets. They might be flying transceivers that are only 25-30 year old technology, as those meet the minimum requirement, and hence are basic fit on new planes.
GB
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graybeard, from the report
Air France Airbus A330 aircraft are equipped with the Collins WXR700X radar. The radar image is presented on the NDs superimposed on the other information. It can detect precipitations in liquid form greater than 1 mm/h as well as wet hail. Thus, cloud systems made up of drops of water starting from a certain size can be observed but the radar cannot detect dry particles of ice, hail or snow with a diameter less than three centimetres.
In use, the radar beam has a narrow aperture angle of 3.4°, which means that it is necessary to adjust the TILT (angle between the horizontal and the middle of the beam) accurately, in particular according to the maximum range selected at the ND (RANGE): 160 NM for look ahead, 80 NM for avoidance.
The GAIN adjustment (amplification of the return signal) is normally "calibrated" (in the CAL position) to prevent saturation. However, a manual selection can be made.
A turbulence detection function (for the zones of precipitations in liquid form) is available (in the WX+T or TURB position) in a radius of 40 NM, whatever the RANGE chosen at the ND.
When cruising above 20,000 ft, a slightly downwards adjustment of the TILT is recommended so that the ground echoes only appear on the ND at the limits of the furthest range markers.
In use, the radar beam has a narrow aperture angle of 3.4°, which means that it is necessary to adjust the TILT (angle between the horizontal and the middle of the beam) accurately, in particular according to the maximum range selected at the ND (RANGE): 160 NM for look ahead, 80 NM for avoidance.
The GAIN adjustment (amplification of the return signal) is normally "calibrated" (in the CAL position) to prevent saturation. However, a manual selection can be made.
A turbulence detection function (for the zones of precipitations in liquid form) is available (in the WX+T or TURB position) in a radius of 40 NM, whatever the RANGE chosen at the ND.
When cruising above 20,000 ft, a slightly downwards adjustment of the TILT is recommended so that the ground echoes only appear on the ND at the limits of the furthest range markers.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S23W046
Age: 73
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CB scenario
I am following this thread like the first A447 Thread from the very beginning. I am amazed how this speculation of entering a "monster CB" is beeing posted in a nearly constant frequence. Untill now there is no evidence for this.
I have seen other maps showing A447 as already outside the weather at 0214UTC. As far as I have seen no mention to entering a CB has been written in the BEA report.
With a difference of about 20 minutes LH507 did fly the same AWY and only diverted by 10NM, if I remember well. Many of you were claiming, that this 'monster CB' would have to be avoided by a lot more.
I do belive only the DFDR could tell us that part of the story.
I really do have a problem with statements like this. I would not think we are comparing planes here. Are you aerospace engineer to have such a strong oppinion about the structural strenght of the A330's tailplane?
You may delete this, but I had to write this.......
I have seen other maps showing A447 as already outside the weather at 0214UTC. As far as I have seen no mention to entering a CB has been written in the BEA report.
With a difference of about 20 minutes LH507 did fly the same AWY and only diverted by 10NM, if I remember well. Many of you were claiming, that this 'monster CB' would have to be avoided by a lot more.
I do belive only the DFDR could tell us that part of the story.
I personally saw what hapened to the horizontal stabilizer. I can imagine that the airbus 330 might not be quite as robust.
I really do have a problem with statements like this. I would not think we are comparing planes here. Are you aerospace engineer to have such a strong oppinion about the structural strenght of the A330's tailplane?
You may delete this, but I had to write this.......
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyinheavy CB scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am following this thread like the first A447 Thread from the very beginning. I am amazed how this speculation of entering a "monster CB" is beeing posted in a nearly constant frequence. Untill now there is no evidence for this.
I have seen other maps showing A447 as already outside the weather at 0214UTC. As far as I have seen no mention to entering a CB has been written in the BEA report.
With a difference of about 20 minutes LH507 did fly the same AWY and only diverted by 10NM, if I remember well. Many of you were claiming, that this 'monster CB' would have to be avoided by a lot more.
I do belive only the DFDR could tell us that part of the story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am following this thread like the first A447 Thread from the very beginning. I am amazed how this speculation of entering a "monster CB" is beeing posted in a nearly constant frequence. Untill now there is no evidence for this.
I have seen other maps showing A447 as already outside the weather at 0214UTC. As far as I have seen no mention to entering a CB has been written in the BEA report.
With a difference of about 20 minutes LH507 did fly the same AWY and only diverted by 10NM, if I remember well. Many of you were claiming, that this 'monster CB' would have to be avoided by a lot more.
I do belive only the DFDR could tell us that part of the story.
Every CB is a "monster" when it comes to potentially wreaking havoc with aerodynamics and air data. A 10-mile diversion is still a diversion. With developing CBs commonly having growth rates between 5'000 and 10,000 fpm (as measured by water droplets, which lag) a 20 minute difference in a convective, dynamic area can mean the difference betweeen safely transiting the area and having absolutely nowhere to go.
Furthermore, you don't have to be inside the contouring returns shown on airborne radar to experience localized areas of moderate to severe turbulence due to not only vertical, but also horizontal shearing in such a dynamic area, and anyone flying around them enough knows this. Developing cells, which often produce the worse updraft/turbulence, frequently offer little radar return at all compared to mature or dissipating cells nearby and have the fewest visual cues (like frequency of lightning) if its night or when the cells are obscured/imbedded.
The same goes for sudden and transitory temp increases aloft in these areas with such convective activity. Put the wrong combination of turbulence and temp together when you're high and heavy with narrow buffet margins/low performance/degraded maneuvering ability as limited by load factor, and the can of worms can quickly be well-opened.
Like someone else wrote..Occam's Razor. You can say there's "no evidence" for this yet jet upset is a very real thing with very real incidents and/or accidents, and the heightened potential for a high and heavy aircraft in an area of severe weather experiencing it is the 1,000 pound gorilla hanging over this event.
Otherwise, you accept that a sudden instrument or mechanical failure just happened to occur at that place and time (in the area of convective activity), was of a type that went around all engineering redundancies, and so sudden and catastrophic that the crew couldn't even transmit a Mayday. To believe that you have to ignore the 1,000 pound gorilla outside the window, and even though nobody makes mystery movies or CSI episodes about the obvious, it's still the high probablity reality compared to some obscure, one-in-a-zillion chance failure.
Last edited by AMF; 4th Jul 2009 at 05:54.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyinheavy wrote:
I would be careful with using "other maps" - or in fact any maps at all - when you try to pinpoint exactly where the plane was with respect to the weather.
The time resolution of the imagery from the two primary satellites covering this area is 15 minutes for one of them (Meteosat-9), 30 minutes for the other (GOES-E). However, the nominal time for the images needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The reason is that satellite imagers are not snapshot cameras but actually use almost the whole 15 (or 30) minute period to acquire their images. I won't go into the details of all the possible scan patterns here, but the point is that the instrument looks at different regions within the overall image region at different instants during the image acquisition period.
So unless you have intimate knowledge of the file naming convention and the data acquisition pattern of the particular imager, you won't know exactly at what time the pixels you see near the last reported position of AF447 in for instance the 2:00 UTC image were really obtained. The offset between the time given on the "map" and the time of the A/C report could in the worst case be up to 15 (or 30) minutes. In terms of horizontal travel distance I'm guessing this could be anywhere in the vicinity of 100 to 120 NM depending on wind speed and direction - and even half of that could make a big difference with respect to being outside the weather or not.
I am following this thread like the first A447 Thread from the very beginning. I am amazed how this speculation of entering a "monster CB" is beeing posted in a nearly constant frequence. Untill now there is no evidence for this.
I have seen other maps showing A447 as already outside the weather at 0214UTC. As far as I have seen no mention to entering a CB has been written in the BEA report.
...
I have seen other maps showing A447 as already outside the weather at 0214UTC. As far as I have seen no mention to entering a CB has been written in the BEA report.
...
The time resolution of the imagery from the two primary satellites covering this area is 15 minutes for one of them (Meteosat-9), 30 minutes for the other (GOES-E). However, the nominal time for the images needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The reason is that satellite imagers are not snapshot cameras but actually use almost the whole 15 (or 30) minute period to acquire their images. I won't go into the details of all the possible scan patterns here, but the point is that the instrument looks at different regions within the overall image region at different instants during the image acquisition period.
So unless you have intimate knowledge of the file naming convention and the data acquisition pattern of the particular imager, you won't know exactly at what time the pixels you see near the last reported position of AF447 in for instance the 2:00 UTC image were really obtained. The offset between the time given on the "map" and the time of the A/C report could in the worst case be up to 15 (or 30) minutes. In terms of horizontal travel distance I'm guessing this could be anywhere in the vicinity of 100 to 120 NM depending on wind speed and direction - and even half of that could make a big difference with respect to being outside the weather or not.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
marsk
I agree and it isn't possible to 'shade' the last position relative to the red. Emphasizing or minimizing weather makes no sense. For me the flight and some very bad wx were in the same place at the 'same' time. "Having gotten through the worst" can mean absolutely anything. 'In what condition?' 'Is the position and the perimeter of the wx 'accurate'? 'Weather related' is absolutely the least value one might claim here.
Robert
I do think BEA have an attitude. I also think it is to be expected. The history says authorities put their heads together and share. The autopsy prohibition was harsh, to be honest. When the exact position of debris and pathologies are in, I believe BEA will backtrack, but they have a built in fallback, they weren't privy to all information. Ever CYA.
I agree and it isn't possible to 'shade' the last position relative to the red. Emphasizing or minimizing weather makes no sense. For me the flight and some very bad wx were in the same place at the 'same' time. "Having gotten through the worst" can mean absolutely anything. 'In what condition?' 'Is the position and the perimeter of the wx 'accurate'? 'Weather related' is absolutely the least value one might claim here.
Robert
I do think BEA have an attitude. I also think it is to be expected. The history says authorities put their heads together and share. The autopsy prohibition was harsh, to be honest. When the exact position of debris and pathologies are in, I believe BEA will backtrack, but they have a built in fallback, they weren't privy to all information. Ever CYA.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought from a retired Boeing pilot.
If the pitot tubes were blocked what is the effect on the actuation of the rudder, in particular if the ASI was indicating too low a speed would the rudder accept higher rudder pedal inputs than would otherwise be the case?
If the pitot tubes were blocked what is the effect on the actuation of the rudder, in particular if the ASI was indicating too low a speed would the rudder accept higher rudder pedal inputs than would otherwise be the case?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Age: 77
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>I do believe the French are trying to spin this,
quite probable
>and the US media is falling for it.
Possibly.
The interim report suggests some deep stall/flat spin situation that was entered due to some combination of weather, weight and balance, erroneous speed information. This slammed onto the water with high vertical velocity but little if any forward motion is said to be supported by the concave failure of the fuselage and the compressive failure of vertical structural members.
Are you able to list the counter-vailing indications and then list whether these indications are based on unsupported news reports or are more factually supported by direct observations.
Failure to inflate a life vest can be attributed to a high velocity vertical impact, a horizontal impact, disorientation due to stress, a conscious desire due to clear-headed decision, etc. Multiple failures to inflate a life vest are consistent with the interim report's views, but hardly substantial evidence of anything.
quite probable
>and the US media is falling for it.
Possibly.
The interim report suggests some deep stall/flat spin situation that was entered due to some combination of weather, weight and balance, erroneous speed information. This slammed onto the water with high vertical velocity but little if any forward motion is said to be supported by the concave failure of the fuselage and the compressive failure of vertical structural members.
Are you able to list the counter-vailing indications and then list whether these indications are based on unsupported news reports or are more factually supported by direct observations.
Failure to inflate a life vest can be attributed to a high velocity vertical impact, a horizontal impact, disorientation due to stress, a conscious desire due to clear-headed decision, etc. Multiple failures to inflate a life vest are consistent with the interim report's views, but hardly substantial evidence of anything.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paname
Age: 55
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robert Campbell,
The BEA did not use any forensic evidence, as it seems they did not have them.
I'm having a hard time accepting the BEA report considering the forensic evidence. No clothing, Pink/magenta coloring of teeth, and other information from the Brazilians.
Last edited by JuggleDan; 15th Jul 2009 at 06:32.
Wx deviations ?
Precise calculations using the last ACARS position message coordinates (as reported by BEA) show that the crosstrack error (XTK) was 2.95 nm left of UN873 centerline.
Examination of the messages reception times and precedence, assuming equal transmission times, exclude the possibility that the a/c was on track and on course when the AP disconnected.
This can neither be explained by assuming they were using a tactical route offset since these offsets are only allowed right of track.
Hence, I tend to believe there is a strong clue that weather deviations had been in progress when the first cockpit alarms occured.
Examination of the messages reception times and precedence, assuming equal transmission times, exclude the possibility that the a/c was on track and on course when the AP disconnected.
This can neither be explained by assuming they were using a tactical route offset since these offsets are only allowed right of track.
Hence, I tend to believe there is a strong clue that weather deviations had been in progress when the first cockpit alarms occured.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good question 320 Driver, especially as an inadvertantly entered flat spin is about the only thing that could bring the aircraft to where it ended up at the minimal rate of descent required to produce the evidence found to date.
In other words, a flat spin is the simplest answer that fits the evidence as we know it.
I don't doubt that modern aircraft are supposed to be spin resistant and have all sorts of ways to prevent getting to a stall, but we all know strange things happen in the vertical and horizontal movements in CB buildups and it is not difficult to imaging how a storm could take over and induce a high angle of attack, perhaps yaw, the crew lose control and a flat spin result.
I wonder if either of the crew on duty had any spin recovery training at all? It used to be a requirement for a Private Pilot license, but I hear that is no longer so, perhaps because a spin is an out of control manoeuvre and training is all about control. Equally, who would have recognized a flat spin anyway - would the instruments tell you? How would today's AHRS electronic instrument sensors translate the forces of a spin? It used to be that the only dependable clues were the slip indicator and the rate of turn indicator (turn & bank) and airspeed...
I should add that a flat spin produces an extreme rate of yaw as opposed to a "normal" spin which might make one wonder about the Vertical Stabilizer and that in a spin, at least one wing is stalled, and the two wings are operating at very different angles of attack.
I could go on, but would not want to be distracting by throwing too much aerodynamic fact into the frey.
In other words, a flat spin is the simplest answer that fits the evidence as we know it.
I don't doubt that modern aircraft are supposed to be spin resistant and have all sorts of ways to prevent getting to a stall, but we all know strange things happen in the vertical and horizontal movements in CB buildups and it is not difficult to imaging how a storm could take over and induce a high angle of attack, perhaps yaw, the crew lose control and a flat spin result.
I wonder if either of the crew on duty had any spin recovery training at all? It used to be a requirement for a Private Pilot license, but I hear that is no longer so, perhaps because a spin is an out of control manoeuvre and training is all about control. Equally, who would have recognized a flat spin anyway - would the instruments tell you? How would today's AHRS electronic instrument sensors translate the forces of a spin? It used to be that the only dependable clues were the slip indicator and the rate of turn indicator (turn & bank) and airspeed...
I should add that a flat spin produces an extreme rate of yaw as opposed to a "normal" spin which might make one wonder about the Vertical Stabilizer and that in a spin, at least one wing is stalled, and the two wings are operating at very different angles of attack.
I could go on, but would not want to be distracting by throwing too much aerodynamic fact into the frey.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the Satellite plots I saw here showed them flying through the last bit of the storm in what could be interpreted as a hook, the classic signature of a tornado.
I thought also one of the other flights around that time had flown a left offset. Not so?
GB
I thought also one of the other flights around that time had flown a left offset. Not so?
GB
Last edited by Graybeard; 4th Jul 2009 at 13:09. Reason: Substitute Satellite for Radar
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Graybeard
One of the radar plots I saw here showed them flying through the last bit of the storm i