Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

AF 447 Search to resume

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

AF 447 Search to resume

Old 19th Oct 2010, 16:31
  #2241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DFDR parallel subset on demand streaming

In an interim report on the feasibility of implementing improved aircraft tracking services across the Atlantic and on demand data streaming, the European Oceanic Position Tracking Improvement & Monitoring (“OPTIMI”) program has cited AeroMechanical’s (“AMA”) technology as a readily available solution for the airline industry.

The full press release on advanced proposals for trials in the NAT and EUR regions of patented systems developed by AeroMechanical Services of Canada can be found here.

An ICAO document on the “OPTIMI” program is available in PDF format.

mm43

Last edited by mm43; 19th Oct 2010 at 16:42.
mm43 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2010, 19:14
  #2242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: france
Age: 75
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to the report (june 2010) from CNRS, IFREMER, WHOI, METEO FRANCE, CLS, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CENTRE et MERCATOR

On June 2 2009 at 8h16 a possible pollution spot was detected near 30°30.5’W 2°43.4N by the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) on board the COSMO SkyMed 1 satellite. Figure A7_1 below shows the cusp shaped spot detected, which does not have the characteristic elongated form of an oil spill coming from a ship. it is not impossible that this pollution spot may be the remnant of a kerosene release by the plane AF447
SPA83 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2010, 21:21
  #2243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SPA83;

As mentioned by CONF iture a few posts back, this matter has been discussed commencing here.

mm43
mm43 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2010, 21:21
  #2244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,130
Received 318 Likes on 204 Posts
I expect a whack to the head for this question, but here goes:

What motive does BEA, Air France, France, Brazil, and the Brazillian and French navies, have to expend X amount of funds (available through what funding stream?) to reopen the search for the sources of the answers to what happened? (I refer to FDR & CVR).

ICAO treaty and agreements, and altruism, considered here. The cost benefit of needle in haystack searching in the current political environment of how everyone's operating in the red must be compared to what else competes for the scarce dollar/franc/euro whatever.

Me, I'd love to see the search reopened, and I'd love to see the exotic sonar tech find that needle in Davy Jones' haystack. I want to know, even if it means that a few of the theories floating about are either affirmed, or something else is discovered.

A purely objective analysis of the odds of finding what they seek strikes me as dismal in the extreme.

Related to this is a question I am utterly ignorant of: whose funds pay for the costs of the search and discovery requirement under the ICAO agreements?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 04:06
  #2245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If AF447 black boxes are not found and another Airbus aircraft is lost under similar circumstances, there will be a crisis of confidence in Airbus aircraft. The financial implications of such a crisis would be much worse than the cost of this search. The sooner they find the black boxes and determine the cause, the better for Airbus and all who depend on Airbus.

BEA has a daunting job making sure that they get the best bang for the Franc.

Just my take on the situation. I know some are much more skeptical.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 05:45
  #2246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: saigonpearl
Age: 59
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
they will never find the blackboxes because the french and airbus would want those evidence destroyed
duyentranvan is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 11:55
  #2247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,130
Received 318 Likes on 204 Posts
duyentranvan: I wasn't asking for a "conspiracy theory" answer to my question, thanks all the same.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 13:12
  #2248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf 50
Related to this is a question I am utterly ignorant of: whose funds pay for the costs of the search and discovery requirement under the ICAO agreements?
While being no less ignorant than you, I would submit that ICAO Annexes etc. generally address its member states. I wouldn't expect them to go into the question of who pays for discharging obligations placed on those states.

regards,
HN39
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 13:17
  #2249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: reading uk
Age: 77
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
motive

The motive for the search is surely to find out what exactly happened and to prevent it happening again.

dave
arearadar is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 13:32
  #2250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southeast U K
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think it's scandalous to suggest that anyone would hide any
evidence from the FDR or CVR, duyentranvan.
Storminnorm is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 16:48
  #2251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake Bay
Age: 79
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In this PPRuNe forum we have heard from many sharp minds who have no interest in commercial politics or the courtroom dance of legal fault-finding and finger-pointing and the messy business of claims and counterclaims. Most contributions have sought to distill from very scarce data credible, if not expert, explanations for the AF447 upset.

Too many scientists, consultants, corporations, international agencies and academic institutions have already been formally involved in the investigation to allow much space for the dark, secret places where conspiracies and data-suppression occur. Tacit agreements by handshake or mutually-shared interest, if at play, would still need to survive the pressure of world-wide scrutiny, and would necessarialy collapse if facts do not support the agreed-upon point of view. And there is always the threat of WikiLeaks for sunlight as a disinfectant.

There is simply not enough information or evidence about this incident for BEA to reach a satisfactory conclusion about cause. Otherwise, BEA would not be discussing a 4th search phase and would already be preparing a final report.

Perhaps BEA should take a happy lesson from the Chileans and stage the Phase 4 search as a very transparent but controlled "event" complete with corporate sponsors and advertising, IMAX film rights, interviews, and inside tracks to the reality of trans-oceanic flight, with undersea exploration and ROV footage at YouTube a bonus! The search would pay for itself using this 21st Century business model, but the authorities would need to think outside of the box. Chi chi chi, Le le le! I did hear that the Chilean mine video feed was on a 30-second delay loop, though, just in case. Probably more than one Canal+ producer in Paris has the experience to put it together and pull it off.

GB
GreatBear is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 18:54
  #2252 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Great Bear

Greetings once again. I have taken note of what I consider to be the first (and serious) part of your posting. The second part I will answer first. A popular (reality?) event might work, and I don't doubt the potential for profit. Even Cousteau was an accomplished Capitalist, eh? The sad truth is that if people won't take their safety seriously, Aviation cannot change.

There is absolutely no excuse for a widebody blessed with the finest powerplants, engineering, pilotage and electronics to have an incident over water, leave alone an accident.

Galley: The tray cabinet and the kitchen module cannot look like they do and have survived an impact entertained by the BEA. It is not possible. Some circumstance of hull ejection (at altitude) of cabin parts easily explains the lack of catastrophic damage to these parts.

Spoiler: The damage evident again argues against a flat impact on the Sea. The characteristics of aerodynamic destructive forces are unmistakable.

FA seat bulkhead veneer: Once again, a part that shows no damage to speak of other than separation from its mounts.

Cabin liner: This is harder to suss, its shredded state could be indicative of impact stresses, but it has failed along the line of the Ports/windows.
If the hull split open, it is reasonable to assume that the area above the "window Line" parted the upper cabin from the portion merging at the Floor/Hold line.

There are dozens of other "conclusions" available.

I simply repeat what I have maintained all along. Where there is "commentary"/conclusion by BEA, it is supportive of earlier "unfounded" (to my belief) conclusions they made, absent the mention of any evidence that would disagree, or not solidify "The best decisions available". (Politically).

bear
 
Old 20th Oct 2010, 19:49
  #2253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake Bay
Age: 79
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aaah, Bearfoil,

Of course "there are dozens of other 'conclusions' available." That is why, I'm sure, no conclusions have been reached by BEA and why a final report would not be easy to write under present circumstances. No need to rant about these other conclusions until the "final" conclusions are reached: then, if these final answers do not resonate with a ring of truth, is the proper time for contention. So far we have seen only "preliminary" data but can be sure that BEA is aware of the sketchiness of some of the published preliminary thinking and of the intense scrutiny and potential criticism of their work by outsiders such as yourself. Patience. Be glad you are not in the hot seat and REQUIRED to reach conclusions, knowing each must be defended.

In a former life I had the pleasure of negotiating across the table from J. Cousteau. He was, indeed, a very savvy and inventive thinker and willing to work outside of the box -- even non-profit operations need cash flow -- and were he with us today, I'm sure he would be contributing in his sometimes gadfly way (as you are) to the solution of this mystery.

GB

N.B. "Gadfly" is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions... (src Wikipedia)
GreatBear is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 20:52
  #2254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This sort of discussion has been coming up from time to time almost from the second day after the accident. Each time I’ve been racking my mind trying to imagine what terrible, unimaginable secret there could possibly exist to justify the things that some posters suppose.

The easiest way out would have been to declare shortly after the accident that the airplane must have hit a very strong gust that exceeded its design limits, it broke apart and the pieces fell to the earth. That would have been an ‘act of god’, nobody to blame, not Airbus, nor Air France, or DGAC. Not even a need to spend millions trying to find the recorders.

In its first Interim Report BEA went out of its way to argument that that didn’t happen. Their ‘finding’ may have been poorly worded, evidently hastily put together, and perhaps somewhat premature in the light of the meagre evidence and analysis available at that time. Nevertheless, it meant that BEA committed itself to a long and costly investigation that is still continuing.

In rejecting the theory of an immediate break-up, BEA must almost inescapably assume that a loss of control occurred, probably strongly related to the loss of airpeed indication. In that context, I still cannot imagine the inimaginable secret that would make the difference between disintegration at impact or sometime before that.

regards,
HN39

P.S. My thanks to GreatBear for expressing my feelings better than I could myself.
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2010, 21:16
  #2255 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
HazelNuts39

The inimaginable might be the one rejected by BEA at the outset, as you describe. Fine. So then everything but the BEA's quick shuffle and deal of the evidence becomes Impossible? I cannot follow your reasoning. If in fact the a/c did simply enter the cell and break up, fine too. AF had the luxury of easy standards re: Press Release, and initially had the deal done.

"Fortes Turbulences". Unfortunately, that was a soon discovered Lie. Posters here are NOT the only ones reaching "Possibilities" on slim evidence, it occurs to some that BEA has done the very same: The difference is they are the ones with the Trust, the Money, and the future well being of Aviation in their collective word processors. If one is satisfied with the status quo, and supports BEA, well and good, to each his own. Why the constant criticism of those who have other opinions? Believe me, I know whereof I speak relative to investigative traditions, and Legacy.

take care,

bear
 
Old 21st Oct 2010, 08:56
  #2256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bearfoil
Why the constant criticism of those who have other opinions?
Because spreading conspiracy theories is dangerous, frustrates serious discussion and forces BEA to keep its doors tightly shut? Does it serve any useful purpose?

regards,
HN39
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2010, 12:45
  #2257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HN39

After an event like AF447, the Manufacturer absolutely needs to know precisely what happened, but he does not necessarily want to share with the all world what he has just learned or what he could learn ...

Absence of transparency would be more appropriate that conspiracy theory.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2010, 15:39
  #2258 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
HazelNuts39

I do sincerely respect your position. I would prefer that the favor be reciprocal, but it is simply not necessary, and speaks of another red Herring: allowing any endeavour to become personal. For me, my 'shoe' may well be GreatBear's suggestion of 'gadfly'. It feels like it is fitting, so be it. I am not a theorist of dark and imagined far out possibilities. What I regret in our culture is the death of scepticism.

Trust in the Industry when freely given and without consideration is not wise. We all have motives, goals, and issues, frequently unattached and ill fitting to those of other's.

If anyone is doubting the primary motive of any investigation, anywhere, I will remind you it is control. It is not sinister, it is the nature of the enterprise. It is not a violation to take the product with a dash of salt.

bear
 
Old 21st Oct 2010, 15:47
  #2259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: saigonpearl
Age: 59
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
well they just wont find it
duyentranvan is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2010, 17:19
  #2260 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We all probably think you are right - but for the wrong reason.
BOAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.