AF 447 Search to resume
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden
Age: 87
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitot tube simulator
By chance I found a Pitot Tube simulator on the internet. Using this you can block the drain port, etc, and study the effect. I don't know how accurate the simulation is, but the pitot tube is rather well described by bernoulli's eqn.
Try it. Here is a link:
luizmonteiro - Online Simulators - Pitot Static System Simulator
Perhaps it will make all agree to on what can happen.
Try it. Here is a link:
luizmonteiro - Online Simulators - Pitot Static System Simulator
Perhaps it will make all agree to on what can happen.
Apologies if this question has been asked before but does the technology not exist to transmit whatever goes to the two black boxes back to a server at head office as well?
I would imagine it is possible with today's technological advances and whilst black boxes could be retained as a back-up they would, in most instances, not be needed.
I would imagine it is possible with today's technological advances and whilst black boxes could be retained as a back-up they would, in most instances, not be needed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Doors to Automatic,
It has been discussed heavily on this thread. You will find postings on the subject when using the Search utility at the top of this page.
It will include information about available technology as well as limitations due to bandwidth and much more
Good luck!
It has been discussed heavily on this thread. You will find postings on the subject when using the Search utility at the top of this page.
It will include information about available technology as well as limitations due to bandwidth and much more
Good luck!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On TV this Sunday there is a program that will interest you if you are in the UK.
LOST: THE MYSTERY OF FLIGHT 447
BBC2 at 10pm.
LOST: THE MYSTERY OF FLIGHT 447
BBC2 at 10pm.
Guest
Posts: n/a
mm43
The Spoiler shown in your picture shows a typical air failure. The Spoiler, when deployed, especially in full, is a powerful lever. The force of the airstream is greatest at the trailing edge. When overloaded, the Spoiler uproots its hinges and "rolls" over its actuator, displaying its underside to the slipstream, hence the apparent upward failure.
BEA has also found that the flaps were stowed, protecting the underside of the spoiler from upward removal.
What interests me are the holes in the airside of the device. Clearly, the surface has been holed in at least three places. Nothing resembling a water flop would produce those high speed holes. My guess is that the spoiler was deployed to lose speed, but something parted the airframe ahead of it and blew those holes in it.
I would further state (guess) that the culprit may have been the Radome, having parted the nose in overspeed. If the Spoiler on the ship is the same one in the Sea, the evidence may remain, there appear to be no 'exit wounds' on the underside. If we're lucky, matching the projectile to the hole might roughly predict the two different airspeeds, instant.
bear
The Spoiler shown in your picture shows a typical air failure. The Spoiler, when deployed, especially in full, is a powerful lever. The force of the airstream is greatest at the trailing edge. When overloaded, the Spoiler uproots its hinges and "rolls" over its actuator, displaying its underside to the slipstream, hence the apparent upward failure.
BEA has also found that the flaps were stowed, protecting the underside of the spoiler from upward removal.
What interests me are the holes in the airside of the device. Clearly, the surface has been holed in at least three places. Nothing resembling a water flop would produce those high speed holes. My guess is that the spoiler was deployed to lose speed, but something parted the airframe ahead of it and blew those holes in it.
I would further state (guess) that the culprit may have been the Radome, having parted the nose in overspeed. If the Spoiler on the ship is the same one in the Sea, the evidence may remain, there appear to be no 'exit wounds' on the underside. If we're lucky, matching the projectile to the hole might roughly predict the two different airspeeds, instant.
bear
Last edited by bearfoil; 29th May 2010 at 14:35.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheShadow
i.e. the computed trim-state from the ADIRU’s accepted and supposedly bona-fide indicated CAS airspeed
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By chance I found a Pitot Tube simulator on the internet. Using this you can block the drain port, etc, and study the effect. I don't know how accurate the simulation is, but the pitot tube is rather well described by bernoulli's eqn.
Try it. Here is a link:
luizmonteiro - Online Simulators - Pitot Static System Simulator
Perhaps it will make all agree to on what can happen.
Try it. Here is a link:
luizmonteiro - Online Simulators - Pitot Static System Simulator
Perhaps it will make all agree to on what can happen.
At alts/speeds in its range it doesn't seem to model the small over-read due to the drain blockage, but this is likely to be specific to the particular design of probe. The model includes drain because if both ram plus drain blocked the total pressure is locked in and indicated speed just becomes function of altitude.
The AA probe was originally introduced to fix unreliable measurements, the critical period of flight is during climb after take-off, blocked drain+ram = false indicated speed increasing with increasing altitude, during which period pitot tube heater failure has been fatal. This model can be used to see how this can happen.
I believe there is a possibility of 3 identical probes in same airstream could suffer common mode fault of slowly blocking drains at same time. With auto-thrust the indicated air speed would not be seen to rise if all drains blocked - just true air-speed would fall (by small unquantified amount). Calculated wind speed would rise and engine thrust would be reduced. Would 30-50 knots be an issue?
At 02:10 there was an ACARS report
PROBE-PITOT 1X2 / 2X3 / 1X3
Which requires, for example one working correctly, one blocked ram+drain (stuck), one blocked ram (drain open =read zero).
So any false speed readings were just before this point, and have only an impact on the state of the a/c when the auto control gave up.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bearfoil
Yep, put the trailing edge front on to high speed air flow. Barn doors are not designed to withstand airflow from behind [swept wing roll without VS, flick, yaw, all over red rover]. The only way that could happen is loss of the VS following assem upset at alt.
What precipitated the loss of the lateral control [the VS] is any ones guess [Takata will chime in i'll guess].
Yep, put the trailing edge front on to high speed air flow. Barn doors are not designed to withstand airflow from behind [swept wing roll without VS, flick, yaw, all over red rover]. The only way that could happen is loss of the VS following assem upset at alt.
What precipitated the loss of the lateral control [the VS] is any ones guess [Takata will chime in i'll guess].
Last edited by ARFOR; 29th May 2010 at 15:58.
bear
not sure about your ideas with the spoiler panel, i think if the spoiler was overloaded the actuator would have burst through the panel rather than acted as a pivot for the panel to rotate over itself.
gs
not sure about your ideas with the spoiler panel, i think if the spoiler was overloaded the actuator would have burst through the panel rather than acted as a pivot for the panel to rotate over itself.
gs
Guest
Posts: n/a
goodspark
The actuator takes all the spoiler's load, and is engineered accordingly. Note how the corners of the spoiler are broken downward, and the spoiler itself has folded in on itself longitudinally, ('around' the actuator, which is missing). This collapse is patent in overload, it is likely the actuator was 'pulled' out of its bed in the spoiler, as the spoiler left the a/c. Note the missing structure, roughly the shape of the join: actuator/spoiler.
The "Feathering" of the composite is typical of a spread-load failure, as opposed to focal collapse. This spread load can be related to either Air or SeaWater. the reason I choose Air Stream failure is that I would expect Water to have completely destroyed this panel at entry speeds entertained by BEA (ie above 100 knots.)
Composite, as opposed to Aluminum, has an instantaneous load/memory. It doesn't last long, but long enough such that the stress, if built up 'slowly' will instantaneously communicate with the whole panel at the failure point, causing a generalized rupture, instead of 'tearing', in the case of metallic sheets, or even laminates.
bear
The actuator takes all the spoiler's load, and is engineered accordingly. Note how the corners of the spoiler are broken downward, and the spoiler itself has folded in on itself longitudinally, ('around' the actuator, which is missing). This collapse is patent in overload, it is likely the actuator was 'pulled' out of its bed in the spoiler, as the spoiler left the a/c. Note the missing structure, roughly the shape of the join: actuator/spoiler.
The "Feathering" of the composite is typical of a spread-load failure, as opposed to focal collapse. This spread load can be related to either Air or SeaWater. the reason I choose Air Stream failure is that I would expect Water to have completely destroyed this panel at entry speeds entertained by BEA (ie above 100 knots.)
Composite, as opposed to Aluminum, has an instantaneous load/memory. It doesn't last long, but long enough such that the stress, if built up 'slowly' will instantaneously communicate with the whole panel at the failure point, causing a generalized rupture, instead of 'tearing', in the case of metallic sheets, or even laminates.
bear
Spoiler functions
Quote from mm43 (post #1250):
"My understanding is that the outer spoilers can only be deployed following both MLG on the deck when landing or in a RTO above 72KT. Both outer spoilers are not used for speed brake or roll."
It's tough to keep up with the fascinating mm43/bearfoil dialogue (!) but, just for the record, Spoilers 1 are the inboards, and are the pair that are used only as Ground Spoilers (lift-dumpers). Spoilers 6 (the extreme outers) are used for roll. Perhaps someone with the Tech Manual can confirm that they (6) are also used as Speed Brakes?
Chris
PS (Edited addition)
The phrase now coloured pale orange has since been shown to be incorrect. See CONF_iture post #1273.
"My understanding is that the outer spoilers can only be deployed following both MLG on the deck when landing or in a RTO above 72KT. Both outer spoilers are not used for speed brake or roll."
It's tough to keep up with the fascinating mm43/bearfoil dialogue (!) but, just for the record, Spoilers 1 are the inboards, and are the pair that are used only as Ground Spoilers (lift-dumpers). Spoilers 6 (the extreme outers) are used for roll. Perhaps someone with the Tech Manual can confirm that they (6) are also used as Speed Brakes?
Chris
PS (Edited addition)
The phrase now coloured pale orange has since been shown to be incorrect. See CONF_iture post #1273.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 30th May 2010 at 22:51. Reason: See PS.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearfoil; CONF iture;
I confused my "inners" and "outers", and thanks CONF iture for alerting me to an error in the Andy Tracy doc. Will let him know.
For the record, the spoiler arrangement and numbering are as follows:-
There still seems to be universal disagreement as to the cause of the spoiler detachment, though I am personally in favour of the BEA's version, as visible breakage of the spar attachments point to a high unidirectional force, which I don't see being as a result of an overspeed event. The usual proviso - I may well be wrong.
Bearfoil; Apologies, my original supposition regarding the non deployment of the "outer" spoiler was wrong. However, the top surface of the spoiler could have been impacted with shrapnel from anywhere at time of impact.
mm43
I confused my "inners" and "outers", and thanks CONF iture for alerting me to an error in the Andy Tracy doc. Will let him know.
For the record, the spoiler arrangement and numbering are as follows:-
There still seems to be universal disagreement as to the cause of the spoiler detachment, though I am personally in favour of the BEA's version, as visible breakage of the spar attachments point to a high unidirectional force, which I don't see being as a result of an overspeed event. The usual proviso - I may well be wrong.
Bearfoil; Apologies, my original supposition regarding the non deployment of the "outer" spoiler was wrong. However, the top surface of the spoiler could have been impacted with shrapnel from anywhere at time of impact.
mm43
Last edited by mm43; 29th May 2010 at 22:41. Reason: edit text
Quote from CONF_iture:
"FCOM :
· The speedbrakes involve spoilers 1 to 6.
· Spoilers 1 to 6 act as ground spoilers.
· Roll control is achieved by 2 ailerons and spoilers 2 to 6 on each wing."
[unquote]
Salut Confit,
I see that the FCOM says Spoilers 1 act as Speedbrakes as well as Ground Spoilers. Am surprised for two reasons:
(1) The schematic posted above by mm43 appears to exclude them;
(2) They are much bigger surfaces than the others, as per A320 (which only uses them as Ground Spoilers).
Not sure if this effects the damage argument, but can you confirm from your own knowledge that the FCOM text quoted is not a misprint?
Chris
"FCOM :
· The speedbrakes involve spoilers 1 to 6.
· Spoilers 1 to 6 act as ground spoilers.
· Roll control is achieved by 2 ailerons and spoilers 2 to 6 on each wing."
[unquote]
Salut Confit,
I see that the FCOM says Spoilers 1 act as Speedbrakes as well as Ground Spoilers. Am surprised for two reasons:
(1) The schematic posted above by mm43 appears to exclude them;
(2) They are much bigger surfaces than the others, as per A320 (which only uses them as Ground Spoilers).
Not sure if this effects the damage argument, but can you confirm from your own knowledge that the FCOM text quoted is not a misprint?
Chris
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris,
I was a bit surprised too, but the text is supported by the following schematic :
According to the FCOM, in their speedbrake function, the maximum deflection for spoilers 1 is limited to 25 degrees, and that limit is 30 degrees for spoilers 2 to 6.
I was a bit surprised too, but the text is supported by the following schematic :
According to the FCOM, in their speedbrake function, the maximum deflection for spoilers 1 is limited to 25 degrees, and that limit is 30 degrees for spoilers 2 to 6.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Scott; Conf iture;
Strange that there appears to be a discrepancy, but a diagram I have indicates that the No.1 spoilers are for ground use only.
I'm not sure of the actual source, but will try and find it.
EDIT :: Here it is:-
Electrical Flight Controls, From Airbus A320/330/340 to Future Military Transport Aircraft:
A Family of Fault-Tolerant Systems
by
Dominique Briere
Aerospatiale
Christian Favre
Aerospatiale
Pascal Traverse
Aerospatiale
The Avionics Handbook
mm43
Strange that there appears to be a discrepancy, but a diagram I have indicates that the No.1 spoilers are for ground use only.
I'm not sure of the actual source, but will try and find it.
EDIT :: Here it is:-
Electrical Flight Controls, From Airbus A320/330/340 to Future Military Transport Aircraft:
A Family of Fault-Tolerant Systems
by
Dominique Briere
Aerospatiale
Christian Favre
Aerospatiale
Pascal Traverse
Aerospatiale
The Avionics Handbook
mm43
Last edited by mm43; 30th May 2010 at 01:25.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing resembling a water flop would produce those high speed holes.
Or even a high-speed hole...
Please forgive me, if I cannot force myself to be more credulous
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm43,
Unless you see something I don't, but to me both diagrams are pretty similar :
Spoilers 1 are controlled by the PRIM3 computer and powered by the Green hydraulic system. They are used as GROUND LIFT DUMPER as well as SPEEDBRAKES.
Unless you see something I don't, but to me both diagrams are pretty similar :
Spoilers 1 are controlled by the PRIM3 computer and powered by the Green hydraulic system. They are used as GROUND LIFT DUMPER as well as SPEEDBRAKES.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture;
You are right, they are the same. Spoilers 1 - 6 are both ground and speed brake, roll spoilers are 2 - 6, and more clearly marked in the second schematic. I would say the Aerospatiale guys used the Airbus schematic as the basis for the one they produced.
Bearfoil;
Wasn't intended to be. But regarding the spoilers, it would appear that if 3 ADR fail, or VS1g computations fail, then there is no overspeed protection in Alternate Law, and side-stick input to spoilers in roll situation is direct and bank protections are lost.
EDIT :: As the flaps were stowed on impact, it is possible that they lifted cleanly upwards and took the spoilers out with them.
Oh yeah! I've put a red "strike-through" line through the reference to No1 spoilers not being used in the speed brake function in the A340 - A330 Control: Flight Laws
mm43
Unless you see something I don't, but to me both diagrams are pretty similar
Bearfoil;
Is your original schematic for Direct Law? (Roll Only) ?
EDIT :: As the flaps were stowed on impact, it is possible that they lifted cleanly upwards and took the spoilers out with them.
Oh yeah! I've put a red "strike-through" line through the reference to No1 spoilers not being used in the speed brake function in the A340 - A330 Control: Flight Laws
mm43
Last edited by mm43; 30th May 2010 at 05:43.