AF 447 Search to resume (part2)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear,
Nice cut.
Once the sentence "there is nothing to report at this stage" is cut into "there is nothing to report", you can make big headlines like F. Amedeo, or say anything you imagine to prove any point of you, as you did.
But, hey, I wasn't really expecting that you will behave better than him!
Originally Posted by Bearfoil
I am posting in a timely fashion 'with permission' that there is nothing new to report.
Once the sentence "there is nothing to report at this stage" is cut into "there is nothing to report", you can make big headlines like F. Amedeo, or say anything you imagine to prove any point of you, as you did.
But, hey, I wasn't really expecting that you will behave better than him!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the final report contains some criticism of the crew, I suppose you will now be pointing back to these posts of yours and saying that your conspiracy theory is thereby proved ?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Murphywasright, as mm43 recently noted about the awful results, in retrospect, of the June 1 search by both plane and ship, I would hope the final BEA report addresses the failures of that search, the causes of such, and what seems to be the unfortunate reliance in subsequent days on those awful results.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who says Vasquez' work is gospel?? Again with the "They flew into doom". Vasquez has shown error of up to 30 miles. At the outset, AF immediately reported, "The flight has reported "turbulences forte", then it was"Lightning", then the pilots were "unlucky with the Radars" (sic) (Gourgeon himself !!).
That was within the first month. All along with the bs, propaganda, and self-serving 'sacrifice' of the reputations of others. This has been a managed event, up to and including the "rabbit" of the leak. Do you for God's sake understand how much these suits spend on PR?? With more money than sense, (or integrity) the talking heads under contract have been spinning this since ORARO. If I am wrong, I will admit to it. In the mean time, scepticism is the fuel that fires objectivity.
That was within the first month. All along with the bs, propaganda, and self-serving 'sacrifice' of the reputations of others. This has been a managed event, up to and including the "rabbit" of the leak. Do you for God's sake understand how much these suits spend on PR?? With more money than sense, (or integrity) the talking heads under contract have been spinning this since ORARO. If I am wrong, I will admit to it. In the mean time, scepticism is the fuel that fires objectivity.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SatrunV
Totally agree, sorry that I was not clear that I was commenting on the pinger/sonar scan search phases, not the original search for wreck or hoped for survivors.
Murphywasright, as mm43 recently noted about the awful results, in retrospect, of the June 1 search by both plane and ship, I would hope the final BEA report addresses the failures of that search, the causes of such, and what seems to be the unfortunate reliance in subsequent days on those awful results.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checking CSMU integrity (sealing) before powering up
Chris and GS
If i designed the "pressure vessel" i put a VERY SIMPLE SENSOR inside:
A humidity detector. There are several (one is VERY CHEAP) to implement it.
Electrically (using Ohms law) you EXTERNALLY check the electric resistance of a "sensor" inside the CSMU cylinder.
There are risks associated in powering up an electronic circuit contaminated by salt water.
My kids destroyed the processor area of an air band radio after a drop in a pool. ITHO if they washed and dried it before powering up very probably we saved the portable VHF.
The idea to weight is another possibility but may not indicate the presence of salt water moisture.
Quote from Golf-Sierra:
As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?
Nice one. Perhaps the experts can comment?
As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?
Nice one. Perhaps the experts can comment?
A humidity detector. There are several (one is VERY CHEAP) to implement it.
Electrically (using Ohms law) you EXTERNALLY check the electric resistance of a "sensor" inside the CSMU cylinder.
There are risks associated in powering up an electronic circuit contaminated by salt water.
My kids destroyed the processor area of an air band radio after a drop in a pool. ITHO if they washed and dried it before powering up very probably we saved the portable VHF.
The idea to weight is another possibility but may not indicate the presence of salt water moisture.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checking CSMU integrity (sealing) before powering up
Chris and GS
Quote:
Quote from Golf-Sierra:
As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?
Nice one. Perhaps the experts can comment?
If i designed the "pressure vessel" i put a VERY SIMPLE SENSOR inside:
A humidity detector. There are several (one is VERY CHEAP) to implement it.
Chris and GS
Quote:
Quote from Golf-Sierra:
As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?
Nice one. Perhaps the experts can comment?
If i designed the "pressure vessel" i put a VERY SIMPLE SENSOR inside:
A humidity detector. There are several (one is VERY CHEAP) to implement it.
Things other than water such as a cracked PCB that can also cause problems.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bearfoil, for better or worse, your skepticism has not yet reached the level of a former poster on this board, who was not content to simply post an amalgamation of theories, propositions, facts, and conjecture on PPRuNe:
http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/...mithAAR182.pdf
(Note the sleight of hand on the domain.)
http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/...mithAAR182.pdf
(Note the sleight of hand on the domain.)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the final report contains some criticism of the crew, I suppose you will now be pointing back to these posts of yours and saying that your conspiracy theory is thereby proved ?
So much for keeping an open mind.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weighing recorders
What is the variation in weights of brand new recorders? How do you compensate for the lost paint chips and the missing bits of labels? The amount of salt water which would cause corrosion of the electronics is probably a very small percentage of the weight of the recorder.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by grity
flying in future "sound and altitude" as backup system.....!
For l@serdog
Many thanks, I italicized and numbered the two critical concerns that are hidden from the layman when people toss about the term "pilot error" without understanding contributors. My response is with the non-pilot in reader mind. Even sciolists may benefit from what follows.l 
I had not remembered, nor quite grasped, from previous discussion that l@ser ring gyro integrity might be a system failure or malfunction facing the crew.
Note for the non-pilots on two words I use here. If you have a malfunctioning piece of equipment, sometimes a reset, or a bit of working with the equipment, or adjustment with its controlling knobs and switches, restores its operation. If you have an equipment failure, typically you don't get it back to functioning status until you land and the maintenance / engineering crew repair or replace whatever stopped working correctly.
The chance of l@ser ring gyro integrity failure (or malfunction) gives my many-pages-back-question on "tumbling gyros" part of an answer.
If I understand correctly, the l@ser ring gyro integrity being compromised leads to (may lead to?) unreliable attitude reference system on the pilot's display.
For the non-pilot reader.
If that happens in level flight, it's a matter of deliberate trouble shooting and dealing with the malfunction, and if needed, due to being in instrument conditions, using a partial panel scan by the flying pilot while the non flying pilot trouble shoots, resets, restores, whatever. If in less benign flight conditions, there's trouble ahead.
When the primary attitude reference instrument for flight in instrument conditions (which pilots are trained to refer to first, and to trust, when flying on instruments) is lost, or it gives false indications, it requires that the pilot use cross references to continue to fly in instrument conditions. Being good at this requires initial training, and practice. It's not easy, but if kept refreshed, it is a tool in every professional pilot's kit bag.
Here's the part that can kill you.
Until this failure or false indication is recognized, using this instrument as primary attitude reference (wings level or not, nose up or down) can lead to erroneous pilot inputs. (Think JFK, Jr., spiraling down off of Cape Cod due in part to not knowing how to correctly use, or to incorrectly using, flight instruments when flying in instrument conditions - no reference to outside horizon).
Once recognized, such a display failure requires the pilot(s) to transition to a partial panel scan to recover from what I assume in this case is an upset/out of control flight condition.
Even if, as might be the case, the attitude reference system might have been in "malfunction" rather than "failure" mode, the time constraint of falling in unstable flight can have precluded the crew being able to reset/restore the primary flight instrument (attitude reference) due to being up to their elbows in a partial panel, unusual attitude/upset/out of control recovery problem ... in turbulent air associated with a Tstorm.
As l@aserdog notes, "when it happens on a bumpy night in the middle of a cell with nothing to see outside the cockpit, that is a daunting task to put on anyone." Pucker factor goes to 9.9 out of a possible 10 ...
If we go to the Rumors sub forum thread, I see "well, it's pilot error." If we get some of journalists involved, we get "pilot error," and if we get pilots talking, we get "how do you solve this flying problem, and are you prepared, trained, and experienced in this mode of flight?"
This takes me to the question (2) on what weight unusual attitudes and partial panel scans get in the sim training, and during refresher / annual / periodic training.
Does this vary by airline? I suspect so, but am ignorant of detail.
Lonewolf... I've also wondered about your question ".. why were they not able to regain control? They had 30,000+ feet in which to do so, based on FL selected." 1. The ACARS message at 2:12 seems to hint at an upset with the loss of the l@ser ring gyro integrity.
2. I wonder how much simulator time on upset recovery is spent by flight crews?
Avoidance of those situations is certainly stressed, but when it happens on a bumpy night in the middle of a cell with nothing to see outside the cockpit, that is a daunting task to put on anyone.
2. I wonder how much simulator time on upset recovery is spent by flight crews?
Avoidance of those situations is certainly stressed, but when it happens on a bumpy night in the middle of a cell with nothing to see outside the cockpit, that is a daunting task to put on anyone.
I had not remembered, nor quite grasped, from previous discussion that l@ser ring gyro integrity might be a system failure or malfunction facing the crew.
Note for the non-pilots on two words I use here. If you have a malfunctioning piece of equipment, sometimes a reset, or a bit of working with the equipment, or adjustment with its controlling knobs and switches, restores its operation. If you have an equipment failure, typically you don't get it back to functioning status until you land and the maintenance / engineering crew repair or replace whatever stopped working correctly.
The chance of l@ser ring gyro integrity failure (or malfunction) gives my many-pages-back-question on "tumbling gyros" part of an answer.
If I understand correctly, the l@ser ring gyro integrity being compromised leads to (may lead to?) unreliable attitude reference system on the pilot's display.
For the non-pilot reader.
If that happens in level flight, it's a matter of deliberate trouble shooting and dealing with the malfunction, and if needed, due to being in instrument conditions, using a partial panel scan by the flying pilot while the non flying pilot trouble shoots, resets, restores, whatever. If in less benign flight conditions, there's trouble ahead.
When the primary attitude reference instrument for flight in instrument conditions (which pilots are trained to refer to first, and to trust, when flying on instruments) is lost, or it gives false indications, it requires that the pilot use cross references to continue to fly in instrument conditions. Being good at this requires initial training, and practice. It's not easy, but if kept refreshed, it is a tool in every professional pilot's kit bag.
Here's the part that can kill you.
Until this failure or false indication is recognized, using this instrument as primary attitude reference (wings level or not, nose up or down) can lead to erroneous pilot inputs. (Think JFK, Jr., spiraling down off of Cape Cod due in part to not knowing how to correctly use, or to incorrectly using, flight instruments when flying in instrument conditions - no reference to outside horizon).
Once recognized, such a display failure requires the pilot(s) to transition to a partial panel scan to recover from what I assume in this case is an upset/out of control flight condition.
Even if, as might be the case, the attitude reference system might have been in "malfunction" rather than "failure" mode, the time constraint of falling in unstable flight can have precluded the crew being able to reset/restore the primary flight instrument (attitude reference) due to being up to their elbows in a partial panel, unusual attitude/upset/out of control recovery problem ... in turbulent air associated with a Tstorm.
As l@aserdog notes, "when it happens on a bumpy night in the middle of a cell with nothing to see outside the cockpit, that is a daunting task to put on anyone." Pucker factor goes to 9.9 out of a possible 10 ... If we go to the Rumors sub forum thread, I see "well, it's pilot error." If we get some of journalists involved, we get "pilot error," and if we get pilots talking, we get "how do you solve this flying problem, and are you prepared, trained, and experienced in this mode of flight?"
This takes me to the question (2) on what weight unusual attitudes and partial panel scans get in the sim training, and during refresher / annual / periodic training.
Does this vary by airline? I suspect so, but am ignorant of detail.
SaturnV
Respectfully I'll treat this as an honest question 
I'll leave it to our seasoned speculators on this board to propose an answer.
I predict that with little thought they will deduce a coverup
widebody and lomapaseo, if the preliminary read of the FDR had indicated unreliable air speed perhaps associated with pitot failure, would Airbus (or Boeing or Dassault) have sent out the telex phrased as Airbus did?
I'll leave it to our seasoned speculators on this board to propose an answer.
I predict that with little thought they will deduce a coverup
loma:
IIRC, Airbus had already issued a service bulletin a couple of years ago (or an AD by BEA??) about pitot probes. If "nothing new to report" is what Airbus said, then even if FDR has indicated issues with A/S inputs, there had already been a remedy in the system for well over a year (nearly two or three?) to address that (possible) causal factor.
Have I missed a trick here?
IIRC, Airbus had already issued a service bulletin a couple of years ago (or an AD by BEA??) about pitot probes. If "nothing new to report" is what Airbus said, then even if FDR has indicated issues with A/S inputs, there had already been a remedy in the system for well over a year (nearly two or three?) to address that (possible) causal factor.
Have I missed a trick here?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Anyone who know the AF rules (SOP) concerning the maning of the flight deck ?
EG .. how many pilots minimun in flight deck
What rule if one pilot leave for some time the flight deck .. etc .. ?
Anyone who know the AF rules (SOP) concerning the maning of the flight deck ?
EG .. how many pilots minimun in flight deck
What rule if one pilot leave for some time the flight deck .. etc .. ?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf50:
But would a malfunction or failure of a gyro not show up on the FDR trace? And would Airbus in that case have sent out the AIT ?
Your scenario then seems to suggest initially an in-flight attitude upset beyond the gyro's limits, which then caused a "tumbling gyro" malfunction. Rather than a gyro malfunction leading to an attitude upset?
But would a malfunction or failure of a gyro not show up on the FDR trace? And would Airbus in that case have sent out the AIT ?
Your scenario then seems to suggest initially an in-flight attitude upset beyond the gyro's limits, which then caused a "tumbling gyro" malfunction. Rather than a gyro malfunction leading to an attitude upset?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slow motion evolution of recorders and pingers
GY,
It seems they designed this "architeture" to allow some flexibility in the a/c config. (microphones, etc.).
But i agree with you. IMO this shows there are "room for improvement". For example, why not a better fidelity in ALL channels (Nyquist) to allow an easier analysis. Memory chips are cheap like you mentioned.
On Pingers we will "soon" see in the market solutions that could avoid this ABSURD two years (3rd Interim report by summer) delay.
This seems overly complicated and unnecessary given the low cost of solid-state memory. In fact the idea that the 'recorder' is manipulating (mixing and storing) the data once recorded seems astonishing to me... but then I suppose the design is some 20 years old or so (haven't checked that - it is a guess!).
But i agree with you. IMO this shows there are "room for improvement". For example, why not a better fidelity in ALL channels (Nyquist) to allow an easier analysis. Memory chips are cheap like you mentioned.
On Pingers we will "soon" see in the market solutions that could avoid this ABSURD two years (3rd Interim report by summer) delay.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 19th May 2011 at 14:05.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grity,
Interestingly, I noticed the same thing you did and ask the same question to myself. If I interpret the A-300-200 for a 205 ton weight, they were operating within the limits, but right at the edge. For the -200 the limit is just under 38% and they were at somewhere between 37.3-37.8%. I would have to believe one would have better control (absent the computers) if the CG was as you suggested. The capability is there to pump the fuel either way, from or to the trim tanks. I am not sure how long it would take to pump the quantity of fuel to the center tank from the trim tank to equal a 24-26% CG. Tubby gave an estimate of the amount of fuel in the trim tank in his post #1253. However, that said, it could be pumped back to the trim tank after the perceived turbulent episode was over to regain the desired efficiency. Perhaps one or more of the A-300 pilots could comment on the pros and cons of this idea.
there is a graphic for whigt and balance (CG limits) on s.10
the range for an A330-200 with 210t is from 17 to 39%
there is no advice that the stability is badly different in this range...
and no advise what is the most stable position of CG (24...26% ???)
the range for an A330-200 with 210t is from 17 to 39%
there is no advice that the stability is badly different in this range...
and no advise what is the most stable position of CG (24...26% ???)
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant,
AirFrance provides each pilot with a foldable chamber pot so that they stay at all times in the flight deck.
Of course, not much attention to the flight instruments is given at these times when one is on his /her paper throne as etiquette requires the other pilot to look to the side window.
Anyone who know the AF rules (SOP) concerning the maning of the flight deck ?
Of course, not much attention to the flight instruments is given at these times when one is on his /her paper throne as etiquette requires the other pilot to look to the side window.
Last edited by Lemurian; 18th May 2011 at 16:18. Reason: spelin