AF 447 Search to resume
Guest
Posts: n/a
jcjeant
Prosecution is unlikely. Generally, the authority pleads ignorance or stupidity, (or allows it to be unchallenged). There are too many patent defenses launched by "Government" or its "Agencies" to allow for justice, just sayin'.
There is an opportunity here in Private Enterprise that will out, and as soon as people realize that 447's resting place is in the public domain.
bear
Prosecution is unlikely. Generally, the authority pleads ignorance or stupidity, (or allows it to be unchallenged). There are too many patent defenses launched by "Government" or its "Agencies" to allow for justice, just sayin'.
There is an opportunity here in Private Enterprise that will out, and as soon as people realize that 447's resting place is in the public domain.
bear
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearfoil
Once again I find myself having to remind you that searching the sea bottom without knowing where the objective of your search is, is a very difficult task especially given the configuration of the sea bottom in that area. It is possible that the wreckage may never be found but you can rest assured that BEA will have done what they could. Their knowledge about where to search is also likely superior to yours and they are not going to try and avoid finding the wreckage. The deep sea environment is a totally alien environment about which very little is known and all comments on the search should bear this in mind.
Old Carthusian
Once again I find myself having to remind you that searching the sea bottom without knowing where the objective of your search is, is a very difficult task especially given the configuration of the sea bottom in that area. It is possible that the wreckage may never be found but you can rest assured that BEA will have done what they could. Their knowledge about where to search is also likely superior to yours and they are not going to try and avoid finding the wreckage. The deep sea environment is a totally alien environment about which very little is known and all comments on the search should bear this in mind.
Old Carthusian
Guest
Posts: n/a
Old Carthusian
Thank you, Sir, I stand reminded. I am also reminded of thousands of posts that include some critical of BEA in addition to mine. I mean not to present unattainable expectations, only that to stop now means neglecting part of a likely area to search. I also have a persistent feeling that BEA have "Phoned it In". Hope not, but why so long?
I know not why you feel the need to defend the investigators relative to the getting wet part, when deeper searches have proven successful; I think others could do better, faster, and for less money. I think a commercial venture would be excellent, there would be no doubt whatever their motive to find, simply find. Of course it is a daunting task, I wrack my little brain trying to remember where I said it was not.
I think you think I think not so.
bear
Thank you, Sir, I stand reminded. I am also reminded of thousands of posts that include some critical of BEA in addition to mine. I mean not to present unattainable expectations, only that to stop now means neglecting part of a likely area to search. I also have a persistent feeling that BEA have "Phoned it In". Hope not, but why so long?
I know not why you feel the need to defend the investigators relative to the getting wet part, when deeper searches have proven successful; I think others could do better, faster, and for less money. I think a commercial venture would be excellent, there would be no doubt whatever their motive to find, simply find. Of course it is a daunting task, I wrack my little brain trying to remember where I said it was not.
I think you think I think not so.
bear
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearfoil
Thank you for your reply - there are indeed grounds for people to query BEA but this area is not one of them. You refer to the depth of search but this isn't really a factor. There have been examples of unsuccessful searches in shallower environments than this. The configuration of the seabed in this part of the ocean is the issue. It is extremely rugged and varies quite significantly in depth. This creates very great difficulties in locating and identifying wreckage. I, myself, have no real surprise that it is taking so long the cliche 'needle in a haystack' comes to mind and no doubt others have used this before. The other searches you refer to have been conducted in relatively flat and easier conditions. However, I can assure you that BEA is not satisfied with the results of the search so far - it has cost them a lot of money with nothing to show for it. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that they would rather the wreckage was not found for whatever reason. This is an unlikely situation - for various reasons the aircraft needs to be cleared of blame or the correct remedy to this set of circumstances needs to be found.
Old Carthusian
Thank you for your reply - there are indeed grounds for people to query BEA but this area is not one of them. You refer to the depth of search but this isn't really a factor. There have been examples of unsuccessful searches in shallower environments than this. The configuration of the seabed in this part of the ocean is the issue. It is extremely rugged and varies quite significantly in depth. This creates very great difficulties in locating and identifying wreckage. I, myself, have no real surprise that it is taking so long the cliche 'needle in a haystack' comes to mind and no doubt others have used this before. The other searches you refer to have been conducted in relatively flat and easier conditions. However, I can assure you that BEA is not satisfied with the results of the search so far - it has cost them a lot of money with nothing to show for it. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that they would rather the wreckage was not found for whatever reason. This is an unlikely situation - for various reasons the aircraft needs to be cleared of blame or the correct remedy to this set of circumstances needs to be found.
Old Carthusian
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Search or Not to Search?!
I for one, have supported the efforts of the BEA, even through the difficult areas of interpretation caused by language. I still am of the opinion that even though their efforts to locate a debris field have so far been in vain, it has not been achieved without a good deal of consultation with and effort by those well versed in the environment the aircraft is believed to have sunk in.
With that in mind, and with some other knowledge that I have about on-going research, I venture that it is rather premature at this juncture to write off a further search not eventuating.
As I mentioned many posts ago, enjoy your Xmas and be reinvigorated for more delving in the depths of the Equatorial North Atlantic in the New Year.
mm43
With that in mind, and with some other knowledge that I have about on-going research, I venture that it is rather premature at this juncture to write off a further search not eventuating.
As I mentioned many posts ago, enjoy your Xmas and be reinvigorated for more delving in the depths of the Equatorial North Atlantic in the New Year.
mm43
Last edited by mm43; 19th Nov 2010 at 06:13.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: I am where I am and that's all where I am.
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody else noticed that....
...this thread is starting to sound like the websites of the people who steadfastly remain convinced that 9/11 was an inside job and the towers were brought down by dynamite in the face of engineering analysis?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I think this message has no reason to be there because:
The comparison is very badly chosen
It does nothing about the subject here
It would demonstrate that people who post messages here are adherents of conspiracy theories ... and that is not true
Anyway everyone is free to have views but it seems to me that this message is a sneaky approach to make close the post ... and so don't reflect any views or a argumentation about the subject here.
..this thread is starting to sound like the websites of the people who steadfastly remain convinced that 9/11 was an inside job and the towers were brought down by dynamite in the face of engineering analysis?
{o.o}
{o.o}
The comparison is very badly chosen
It does nothing about the subject here
It would demonstrate that people who post messages here are adherents of conspiracy theories ... and that is not true
Anyway everyone is free to have views but it seems to me that this message is a sneaky approach to make close the post ... and so don't reflect any views or a argumentation about the subject here.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spice Islands
Age: 58
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant...
I think JD-EE's comments refer to some posters who have been suggesting that BEA does not want to find the remains of AF447. If that were the case it would suggest a conspiracy within BEA. No matter what pressures are exerted on BEA (and there are many), and what mistakes they may have made early on, I don't believe it's correct, or helpful, to suggest ulterior motives to the agency.
On your other point, I would be very surprised, based on previous posts, if JD-EE's intent was to shut down this thread.
But I could be wrong. Perhaps there's a conspricacy to... Oh never mind.
I think JD-EE's comments refer to some posters who have been suggesting that BEA does not want to find the remains of AF447. If that were the case it would suggest a conspiracy within BEA. No matter what pressures are exerted on BEA (and there are many), and what mistakes they may have made early on, I don't believe it's correct, or helpful, to suggest ulterior motives to the agency.
On your other point, I would be very surprised, based on previous posts, if JD-EE's intent was to shut down this thread.
But I could be wrong. Perhaps there's a conspricacy to... Oh never mind.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: I am where I am and that's all where I am.
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam, I'm trying to start a conspiracy to get this thread back on track and off directions that, in today's world, are simply unrealistic. If one credits BEA with the brains to solve this if they want one cannot simultaneously ascribe to BEA a conspiracy to hide the truth.
Those who finance BEA do not give BEA bottomless pocketbooks for this investigation. Taken to the absurd an infinitely funded BEA could survey every bit of ocean in the world before finally surveying what everybody thinks might be the final resting place of the plane. They'd survey it so that the rest of the world would learn more of what IS down there or some such motivation.
More realistically they have to convince the holders of the purse strings that any money granted the BEA will be spent wisely AND that the results are likely to prove fruitful.
In the final analysis the "target" is a very small pair of needles in a very large haystack, the FDR and the CVR. I don't think one without the other will prove conclusive. I'm not sure both together is going to settle all or even enough arguments. (People will still rely on stupid slogans like "Steel doesn't melt at XXX degrees" while ignoring details like most of the strength of steel is lost at temperatures considerably below melting temperature.) How much more money are the holders of the purse strings going to be willing to spend?
Consider some of the problems. We do not have a good estimate of currents below the surface in that area at that time. We do have some notion now that people have been down in the ocean observing the currents as a side effect of taking a good look around. We don't know that the CVR and FDR are still attached to a large enough chunk of plane to be found. If they are not and hit on a slope they MAY be underneath an avalanche where sonar alone won't find them. They'd have to find all likely avalanches and send something down there to excavate or use some means of exploration that would reveal the boxes.
Yes, I do think they should go down in the slightly less likely areas. It appears they presumed the plane remained largely on course with a deviation around the storm to the North, perhaps North West. Now they need to presume forward motion stopped much sooner, as early as the last position report, and the plane may have flown "considerably" off course trying to recover from its upset.
Meanwhile, somebody should be contracted to see how pieces of an A330 airframe, particularly pieces around the recorders, would sink. What is the density of the composites compared to equally strong metal parts? Somebody else should be contracted to use some new imagination to "guess" what upsets might be involved. The failure analysis tree is very large. And it may be that in pruning branches that look unrealistic the cause might be missed. Some pruning comes even before the tree is built because of prejudices, "XYZ simply cannot happen." A silly example is "God reached down and swatted the plane out of the air." What less silly examples were left off their trees? A fresh look might be productive, if egos could stand it.
But one failure I am not willing to presume at this point is a conspiracy to withhold and bury evidence. "Wikileaks" still exists. They simply cannot afford to do it. The downside is too great AND the probability of a leak in today's climate is close to unity. And THAT is the chief equation I am drawing to the 911 Truthers. In either case suggesting conspiracy is rapidly becoming as boring as it is silly and unproductive.
Those who finance BEA do not give BEA bottomless pocketbooks for this investigation. Taken to the absurd an infinitely funded BEA could survey every bit of ocean in the world before finally surveying what everybody thinks might be the final resting place of the plane. They'd survey it so that the rest of the world would learn more of what IS down there or some such motivation.
More realistically they have to convince the holders of the purse strings that any money granted the BEA will be spent wisely AND that the results are likely to prove fruitful.
In the final analysis the "target" is a very small pair of needles in a very large haystack, the FDR and the CVR. I don't think one without the other will prove conclusive. I'm not sure both together is going to settle all or even enough arguments. (People will still rely on stupid slogans like "Steel doesn't melt at XXX degrees" while ignoring details like most of the strength of steel is lost at temperatures considerably below melting temperature.) How much more money are the holders of the purse strings going to be willing to spend?
Consider some of the problems. We do not have a good estimate of currents below the surface in that area at that time. We do have some notion now that people have been down in the ocean observing the currents as a side effect of taking a good look around. We don't know that the CVR and FDR are still attached to a large enough chunk of plane to be found. If they are not and hit on a slope they MAY be underneath an avalanche where sonar alone won't find them. They'd have to find all likely avalanches and send something down there to excavate or use some means of exploration that would reveal the boxes.
Yes, I do think they should go down in the slightly less likely areas. It appears they presumed the plane remained largely on course with a deviation around the storm to the North, perhaps North West. Now they need to presume forward motion stopped much sooner, as early as the last position report, and the plane may have flown "considerably" off course trying to recover from its upset.
Meanwhile, somebody should be contracted to see how pieces of an A330 airframe, particularly pieces around the recorders, would sink. What is the density of the composites compared to equally strong metal parts? Somebody else should be contracted to use some new imagination to "guess" what upsets might be involved. The failure analysis tree is very large. And it may be that in pruning branches that look unrealistic the cause might be missed. Some pruning comes even before the tree is built because of prejudices, "XYZ simply cannot happen." A silly example is "God reached down and swatted the plane out of the air." What less silly examples were left off their trees? A fresh look might be productive, if egos could stand it.
But one failure I am not willing to presume at this point is a conspiracy to withhold and bury evidence. "Wikileaks" still exists. They simply cannot afford to do it. The downside is too great AND the probability of a leak in today's climate is close to unity. And THAT is the chief equation I am drawing to the 911 Truthers. In either case suggesting conspiracy is rapidly becoming as boring as it is silly and unproductive.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pattern
In the sequence of ACARS messages are a number of 'silences'. A silence means either that there is no message to transmit, or that the satcomm link is lost. I've been intrigued by an apparent pattern in these silences, which is shown in this graph.
The red bars mark the gaps in transmission. They are initially spaced at 27 seconds, and 30 seconds after 02:12z. Any significance in this?
regards,
HN39
EDIT:: Examination of the message timings shows the following:
2:11:00 +15s - Four WRN messages time-stamped 2:10 waiting. Therefore lack of messages was not the reason for this gap.
2:11:27 +15s - One WRN message time-stamped 2:10 waiting. Therefore lack of messages was not the reason for this gap.
2:11:55 +15s - Two WRN messages time-stamped 2:11 waiting to be transmitted before 2:12. Therefore lack of messages was not the reason for the silence until 2:12:10.
2:12:16 +35s - There may have been messages to transmit but that cannot be concluded from the timings.
2:12:51 +17s - Two FLR messages time-stamped 2:11 waiting to be transmitted before 2:13, therefore no reason for silence until 2:13:08.
2:13:14 +31s - There may have been messages to transmit but that cannot be concluded from the timings.
2:13:51 +23s - There may have been messages to transmit but that cannot be concluded from the timings.
The red bars mark the gaps in transmission. They are initially spaced at 27 seconds, and 30 seconds after 02:12z. Any significance in this?
regards,
HN39
EDIT:: Examination of the message timings shows the following:
2:11:00 +15s - Four WRN messages time-stamped 2:10 waiting. Therefore lack of messages was not the reason for this gap.
2:11:27 +15s - One WRN message time-stamped 2:10 waiting. Therefore lack of messages was not the reason for this gap.
2:11:55 +15s - Two WRN messages time-stamped 2:11 waiting to be transmitted before 2:12. Therefore lack of messages was not the reason for the silence until 2:12:10.
2:12:16 +35s - There may have been messages to transmit but that cannot be concluded from the timings.
2:12:51 +17s - Two FLR messages time-stamped 2:11 waiting to be transmitted before 2:13, therefore no reason for silence until 2:13:08.
2:13:14 +31s - There may have been messages to transmit but that cannot be concluded from the timings.
2:13:51 +23s - There may have been messages to transmit but that cannot be concluded from the timings.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 20th Nov 2010 at 21:10.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If 447 had "stabilized" in a descent of say 5-7k fpm, there is room for an established Phugoid while descending to blank the signal in an apparent "Period". Likwise, if the aircraft had become "stable" (unacceptably) in a rotation with nose down, the airframe may have occupied an aspect that similarly blanked ACARS, seemingly in a "rhythm".
Edit, Since JD-EE has said that a signal may take 30 seconds to re-establish, we may also be looking at an interruption that is immediate, and a re-acquisition on the order of the 27-30 seconds?
This is an enormous airplane, and local velocities are distorted towards the "gentle" when we visualize. Every thing this airplane does is "slow", but occasionally only in scale.IMO
Edit, Since JD-EE has said that a signal may take 30 seconds to re-establish, we may also be looking at an interruption that is immediate, and a re-acquisition on the order of the 27-30 seconds?
This is an enormous airplane, and local velocities are distorted towards the "gentle" when we visualize. Every thing this airplane does is "slow", but occasionally only in scale.IMO
Last edited by bearfoil; 20th Nov 2010 at 13:52.
Guest
Posts: n/a
JD-EE
With great respect, onlookers have busted the King's nakedness for centuries. Somewhere between your naivete and my aggression towards BEA, is the balance that people seek who wish not to believe that which is to them impossible. We live in a World where information that is readily available is ignored, or where no data at all is used as "evidence", on this you are quite correct. If you are unwilling to entertain less than noble motives on the part of BEA, that is your prerogative.
Others may wish to ponder to what extent incestuous "Guardians" may go to protect a Trillion Dollar Enterprise. To each his own, if you are offended, look away.
What Is somewhat disturbing is your dismissiveness and arrogance. I take your point in general, but frankly, some of your rhetoric is beyond dismissive, as it seems to pander to those whose views are similar, but in an adversarial way. Pity.
Much respect to you,
bear
With great respect, onlookers have busted the King's nakedness for centuries. Somewhere between your naivete and my aggression towards BEA, is the balance that people seek who wish not to believe that which is to them impossible. We live in a World where information that is readily available is ignored, or where no data at all is used as "evidence", on this you are quite correct. If you are unwilling to entertain less than noble motives on the part of BEA, that is your prerogative.
Others may wish to ponder to what extent incestuous "Guardians" may go to protect a Trillion Dollar Enterprise. To each his own, if you are offended, look away.
What Is somewhat disturbing is your dismissiveness and arrogance. I take your point in general, but frankly, some of your rhetoric is beyond dismissive, as it seems to pander to those whose views are similar, but in an adversarial way. Pity.
Much respect to you,
bear
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that I buy into any conspiracy theory, but more one of actions. My concern over BEA’s procedures reverts back to when the accident occurred. Whenever an airplane goes down in the ocean, the first few days of search and rescue are critical. Each day afterward increases the difficulty exponentially as the footprint of sunken debris can shift, deteriorate, move around, and become covered. It is therefore paramount that all possible effort and resource be devoted immediately to the task of locating the site. Underwater detection capabilities is best achieved by the military, yet no request to Governments which obviously have this capability was made. The British claim that their subs while sitting in the UK have equipment that can detect a ship that is leaving New York harbor. To me it appears that the BEA took more of an attitude of job ownership (and pride), rather than at best humbly request outside resources which could have been made available. The precious time to find the airplane lingered, on and on and on. I fear there is every likelihood the site will never be located, not after such a long period. I hope that I am wrong.
Guest
Posts: n/a
wes wall
The word itself, conspiracy, has acquired an odious and paranoid feel. It is the most marginalized of words, and panders to the wide scope of ignorance in the Field. It merely means an agreement between (among) people to do mischief. A practical joke is a conspiracy of sorts. An Industrial or Administrative entity, in pursuing its mission, daily engages in conspiracy. If one hasn't the objectivity to grasp that, and instead goes to the fear of fear, (paranoia) directly, one should consider eliminating the word from one's working (?) vocabulary. Eh, my friend?
bear
The word itself, conspiracy, has acquired an odious and paranoid feel. It is the most marginalized of words, and panders to the wide scope of ignorance in the Field. It merely means an agreement between (among) people to do mischief. A practical joke is a conspiracy of sorts. An Industrial or Administrative entity, in pursuing its mission, daily engages in conspiracy. If one hasn't the objectivity to grasp that, and instead goes to the fear of fear, (paranoia) directly, one should consider eliminating the word from one's working (?) vocabulary. Eh, my friend?
bear
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: I am where I am and that's all where I am.
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bearfoil, I am mainly suggesting that it is premature to buy into a conspiracy of silence. The downside is too great given the probability of exposure. There may come a time when it's proper to consider such things. Let's first dismiss most other probabilities.
One interesting thought was fed to me in a convention session this past week. Different cultures think differently and have different "blinders" on. I remember reading of some relatively recent research that indicates some of this is "language" blinders. For example, with most European languages you're forced to convey a sense of "sex" with each object you describe. The article showed how this appeared to affect architecture. They drew a comparison between the gender of the word "bridge" and the form of bridge commonly built by the culture. This effect could affect the BEA experts to dismiss some things that should not be dismissed. Can we dismiss that potential before we jump in to indict BEA for conspiracy?
(It MAY be time for BEA to listen to talented outsiders to give them more (idiotic as well as good) ideas to dismiss in their searches for clues and causes.)
Conspiracy is a very serious charge (at least in North America for the most part.) As such the charge of conspiracy must be associated with strong evidence rather than mere "it looks like" and (as with 911 Truthers) faulty "common sense physics" which more resembles "cartoon physics." You're welcome to the BEA conspiracy theory. Just please be prepared to be vigorously challenged to prove it if anyone cares to push it very much.
In the total time I've been reading these threads conspiracy by BEA to withhold evidence and not find other evidence has been brought forward many times - never with a nice clear solid argument in support of the accusations. Please bring evidence of a smoking gun.
{^_^}
One interesting thought was fed to me in a convention session this past week. Different cultures think differently and have different "blinders" on. I remember reading of some relatively recent research that indicates some of this is "language" blinders. For example, with most European languages you're forced to convey a sense of "sex" with each object you describe. The article showed how this appeared to affect architecture. They drew a comparison between the gender of the word "bridge" and the form of bridge commonly built by the culture. This effect could affect the BEA experts to dismiss some things that should not be dismissed. Can we dismiss that potential before we jump in to indict BEA for conspiracy?
(It MAY be time for BEA to listen to talented outsiders to give them more (idiotic as well as good) ideas to dismiss in their searches for clues and causes.)
Conspiracy is a very serious charge (at least in North America for the most part.) As such the charge of conspiracy must be associated with strong evidence rather than mere "it looks like" and (as with 911 Truthers) faulty "common sense physics" which more resembles "cartoon physics." You're welcome to the BEA conspiracy theory. Just please be prepared to be vigorously challenged to prove it if anyone cares to push it very much.
In the total time I've been reading these threads conspiracy by BEA to withhold evidence and not find other evidence has been brought forward many times - never with a nice clear solid argument in support of the accusations. Please bring evidence of a smoking gun.
{^_^}
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: I am where I am and that's all where I am.
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HazelNuts39, I was about to shake my head "Yeah" to bearfoil's phugoid scenario when something dribbled into my thick skull regarding the timing of the transmissions. I don't know (or have forgotten) how long each ACARS message plus handshake takes AND what length of guard time must exist between messages. I also don't remember if BEA established AND published whether there had been any other transmissions that would have consumed some of the blank intervals.
Messages appear to take (an incredibly long) 6.5 seconds. There were just a whole lot of planes in the air that would be using that same satellite. Message frequency is normally very low. What is the usage rate of that particular satellite channel? Could some of those time intervals been consumed by other competing messages?
That aside some form of attitude instability would make sense with a periodic transmission interruption. However, the number of interruptions you have charted seems high to me.
I also believe that BEA did not comment about messages being delayed from the time it was expected the message would be sent other than the messages that should have been cued for transmission next after the last message ever transmitted.
That basically says, "This is an area that could be reviewed again." Once we know the duration of typical ACARS message transactions that can be added to your charts to show gaps that are suspicious. Then we'd need to ask if the message after a gap would have logically been sent earlier if it could be sent.Let's establish the phugoid spin as being near the same level of probability as other possible explanations.
I've long entertained a attitudinal upset or spin scenario to explain the gaps. Maybe it's time to establish how likely messages really WERE delayed. I've probably been remiss there.
{^_^}
Messages appear to take (an incredibly long) 6.5 seconds. There were just a whole lot of planes in the air that would be using that same satellite. Message frequency is normally very low. What is the usage rate of that particular satellite channel? Could some of those time intervals been consumed by other competing messages?
That aside some form of attitude instability would make sense with a periodic transmission interruption. However, the number of interruptions you have charted seems high to me.
I also believe that BEA did not comment about messages being delayed from the time it was expected the message would be sent other than the messages that should have been cued for transmission next after the last message ever transmitted.
That basically says, "This is an area that could be reviewed again." Once we know the duration of typical ACARS message transactions that can be added to your charts to show gaps that are suspicious. Then we'd need to ask if the message after a gap would have logically been sent earlier if it could be sent.Let's establish the phugoid spin as being near the same level of probability as other possible explanations.
I've long entertained a attitudinal upset or spin scenario to explain the gaps. Maybe it's time to establish how likely messages really WERE delayed. I've probably been remiss there.
{^_^}
Guest
Posts: n/a
JD-EE
As you say, conspiracy is a serious charge. I have never made it, relative to any part of this accident. Long ago I defined what I thought was afoot as a certain lack of interest, or momentum, if you will. The Inertia of a large group can be hobbling in ways that mimic actual wrongdoing. Many times here, the language bug has appeared. I can't prevent others from calling what I write a "conspiracy theory". As above, the word itself has lost virtually all its meaning in modern discourse. It is almost exclusively used to savage an opponent as "Irrelevant", an "idiot", or other. What is most discouraging is the lack of agreement about the word itself. This has polarized people into two groups, each permissive of nothing that isn't in complete agreement with either "Party Line". It is intolerant of criticism, or disagreement, and stifles objective debate. All I have tried to convey is BEA's at times "laziness", a lack of assertiveness and a reporting system that is wide open to proofs of same. This does not even include their distressing lack of clarity and transparency, something that insults almost everyone who has an interest in this accident.
It is extremely difficult to prove foul play, and I doubt there is any to pursue, can I make it more clear? In the absence of anything done, it is difficult to demonstrate a motive of any kind, and why would anyone attempt to do that? Hard to make a mistake without doing anything.
I'd like BEA to get off the damn dime, or failing that, explain what is happening, from their point of view, Fair?
edit: JD-EE, I haven't considered Phugoid and Spin together, and am not sure it is even possible. A phugoid would have to be consonant, not increasing, decreasing, or "interrupted" to add some cycle that is consistent with HN's graph, this in itself may not be likely. A flat spin may be more likely; loss of signal with one aspect (orientation) followed be a re-acquisition of signal, followed by the same aspect with another signal break. I can't get any further with it than that, so HN's graph is most intriguing, and should be addressed by someone who has the signal skills with an experience of heavy/unusual attitudes.
bear
As you say, conspiracy is a serious charge. I have never made it, relative to any part of this accident. Long ago I defined what I thought was afoot as a certain lack of interest, or momentum, if you will. The Inertia of a large group can be hobbling in ways that mimic actual wrongdoing. Many times here, the language bug has appeared. I can't prevent others from calling what I write a "conspiracy theory". As above, the word itself has lost virtually all its meaning in modern discourse. It is almost exclusively used to savage an opponent as "Irrelevant", an "idiot", or other. What is most discouraging is the lack of agreement about the word itself. This has polarized people into two groups, each permissive of nothing that isn't in complete agreement with either "Party Line". It is intolerant of criticism, or disagreement, and stifles objective debate. All I have tried to convey is BEA's at times "laziness", a lack of assertiveness and a reporting system that is wide open to proofs of same. This does not even include their distressing lack of clarity and transparency, something that insults almost everyone who has an interest in this accident.
It is extremely difficult to prove foul play, and I doubt there is any to pursue, can I make it more clear? In the absence of anything done, it is difficult to demonstrate a motive of any kind, and why would anyone attempt to do that? Hard to make a mistake without doing anything.
I'd like BEA to get off the damn dime, or failing that, explain what is happening, from their point of view, Fair?
edit: JD-EE, I haven't considered Phugoid and Spin together, and am not sure it is even possible. A phugoid would have to be consonant, not increasing, decreasing, or "interrupted" to add some cycle that is consistent with HN's graph, this in itself may not be likely. A flat spin may be more likely; loss of signal with one aspect (orientation) followed be a re-acquisition of signal, followed by the same aspect with another signal break. I can't get any further with it than that, so HN's graph is most intriguing, and should be addressed by someone who has the signal skills with an experience of heavy/unusual attitudes.
bear
Last edited by bearfoil; 21st Nov 2010 at 02:44.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: I am where I am and that's all where I am.
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bearfoil, why are you taking it so seriously. I did not comment to anybody in particular. I'd simply noticed a trend in the discussion which is fatal to considered discussion, as fatal as breaking Godwin's law.
One would think that you thought it applied to you. I note that I am willing to let anybody try the shoe on for fit. It's not a shoe *I* would want to wear.
{^_-}
One would think that you thought it applied to you. I note that I am willing to let anybody try the shoe on for fit. It's not a shoe *I* would want to wear.
{^_-}