Deep search capabilities
There had been some talk earlier that we as humans did not have the capability to search to the depths where this incident occured. This has recently changed. Woods Hole Oceanagraphic Institute demonstrated 6.8 Miles at the bottom of the Mariana Trench on May 31, 2009.
link to press release News Release : Hybrid Remotely Operated Vehicle “Nereus” Reaches Deepest Part of the Ocean : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution |
Originally Posted by Rockhound
(Post 4985817)
ELAC,
Correct me if I misunderstand you, but it seems to me that you're implying the AF crew did deviate from track? Doesn't the evidence (comms from the crew, ACARS transmissions, location of wreckage and debris) indicate that AF447 stayed on track and flew into, or found itself in, a major storm cell? Rockhound Everything else is speculation. Correction: The last known position would have been when they went out of radar coverage approximately 15 minutes past INTOL. |
golfyankeesierra;
Sorry Guys, you have to stop. It really gets annoying that after every accident someone needs to point out that younger pilots can't fly and and training isn't what it used to be. This is a complex matter about the present practicalities of the career which I and other poster have dealt with thoroughly in other threads and which, if you haven't, I kindly invite you to read and consider. We cannot and should not deal with it here. This was an experienced crew! And even after and despite this tragic accident, aviation still remains safer then it has ever been. Let me ask in the face of the accidents since the tragic and avoidable MD80 one at Madrid, where are the "Sully's" of professional transport aviation? Such a statement is perhaps quite a direct and pithy way of stating the issue, but there it is - sometimes "pithy" is the shortest way to communicate overarching concerns. We have three accidents, (Madrid, Buffalo, Amsterdam) which have resulted from basically stalling an airliner and which have killed a lot of our passengers. That's unacceptable. PJ2 |
already done at Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There is a nice diagram of a pitot/static probe and a description of how it works, despite the fact that the A330 has pitot probes, and separate static ports. The guy that wrote it should have twigged it when he wrote 3 pitot/static probes and 8 ADMs. |
could you comment on this
Transcription: "In relation to the Rudder Travel Limiter (RTL) if the violent storm theory holds then it is probably as a result of structural failure due to massive yawing forces induced by turbulence. The F/CTL RUD TRVL LIM FAULT message has been generated due to the NAV ADR DISAGREE message and NOT due to a fault in the Rudder Travel Limiter itself NOR due to a failure/separation of the rudder. If the problem lay in the unit itself, a F/CTL RUD TRVL LIM 1 / (2) FAULT would appeaer. This is due to the Rudder Travel Limiter requiring an airspeed input from the ADR’s to function properly."
|
This information below was just posted 7 hours ago and thought it might be of useful information to a few experts here. Engineer decodes Air France Flight 447 emergency messages From the link: Then the rudder exceeds the limits of normal flight. @727GM Once again we have no indication that any of the ACARS messages were related to a loss of VS. To say otherwise is not helping this thread. The aircraft in question would not have suddenly started wagging its tail for lack of ADIRUs, nor has there been any demonstrated sane reasoning shown so far that would support our PF to have suddenly had an urge to start stomping away at his rudder pedals. |
ELAC, Correct me if I misunderstand you, but it seems to me that you're implying the AF crew did deviate from track? Doesn't the evidence (comms from the crew, ACARS transmissions, location of wreckage and debris) indicate that AF447 stayed on track and flew into, or found itself in, a major storm cell? Rockhound I'm implying that we don't really know what path they took after their report at INTOL. To my knowledge the ACARS transmissions don't include location and the position of debris found in the ocean means very little with respect to the specific track flown, particularly after days of drift. Regarding communications, HF radio in oceanic airspace is not like you experience with VHF over land. At times atmospheric conditions can make HF communication impossible and it varies from place to place. Just because comms were good at the last position report doesn't mean they'll work 20 minutes later. If deviating without a clearance oceanic procedures would have required a broadcast on 121.5/123.45 but there is no record of anyone having heard one. Again, that doesn't mean that a broadcast wasn't made (severe electrical storms can interfere with VHF reception). So, that a request to deviate wasn't received does not prove that a request wasn't transmitted or that a deviation from track didn't occur. Until those facts are known it's not really possible to conclude whether they attempted to deviate, and if so by how much, or whether they flew directly through the MCS shown in the satellite image or not. ELAC |
ELAC wrote:
Until those facts are known it's not really possible to conclude whether they attempted to deviate, and if so by how much, or whether they flew directly through the MCS shown in the satellite image or not. Did we ever confirm whether or not the crew sent a text message about turbulence? I'm confused by recent posts on that subject. |
Some facts,
?? asked this question: (deleted)?
If speed indication fails (for whatever reason) then rudder limitation stops. Am I right? if that's the case, how on earth (on air) a pilot would know how much rudder could apply without breaking it? Even more, in FBW a/cs, where pumps and fluids can creat a LOT of force, wouldn't this become super critical? Same question applies to the case of using "alternate law". In the 'Enhanced' version there is no mech(cable) backup so also no RTLU/PTLU. Art feel and Trim is directly on Pedals by a PFTU. RTLU/PTLU in this 'classic' version and also PFTU 'in the enhanced version' are driven by SEC1 (SEC2 as backup) an this has nothing to do with - LAW- configuration. Rudder Travel Limiter is mounted on the VS rear spar above the upper servo jack (so is retrieved within the VS and last position soon to be known by the investigators) The Pedal Travel Limiter however is mounted in the THS compartment. A330 tech. |
PJ2
has taught passengers to expect and demand $1.49 fares in exchange for on-time, However let me disagree on the PAX demanding $1.49...they are offered such fares and they will take it, note that I am not a LCC PAX therefore my mindset on the topic might be bias. What disturb me is inferring that low fares are lowering the safety standards....where are the Control Boards? Could be that competition have brought to the flight systems ways to save costs and become more efficient? Following your rational we could also state that the special fares for the crews and employees of an airline are the cause of the lower safety standards. Thanks for your great contribution FSLF |
|
Apologies again if this is silly or off-topic.
There is a possible chain of events, being discussed, that starts with the failure of the Pitot probes. Does this imply that at least two probes must have failed (almost) simultaneously? I saw mentioned "EFCS PROBE 1+2/2+3/1+3" sitting next to "F/CTL RUD TRVL LIMIT FAULT". How exactly is it determined if a probe is failing: is it some low-level status related to the probe itself (heating?); or is it determined e.g. by comparison with the other (one or two) probes? Also, I assume that power for the 3 Pitot heaters comes also from different buses? |
New info
FYI again:
As reported in AIT reference "AF447 Issue 3 June 8th 2009", there are 3 standards of pitot probes in service on the A330/A340 family aircraft: - Thales (ex Sextant) PN C16195AA and PN C16195BA - Goodrich (Rosemount) PN 0851HL It is reminded that the 'BA' standard probe was made available to address low altitude water ingress events that generated a number of RTO on the A320 family program. AF447 aircraft was equipped with Pitot PN C16195AA. The intense speculation regarding these pitot probes has led many Operators to contact Thales or Airbus to: - request an immediate replacement of the Thales 'AA' probes with 'BA' (Service Bulletins A330-34- 3206, A340-34-4200, A340-34-5068) - report recent and past (previously unreported) events of Unreliable airspeed. These events, after analysis and confirmation, will allow to determine if any corrective action is warranted by the findings. In this context, all Operators, equipped with Goodrich (Rosemount) or Thales (Sextant) pitot probes, are requested to report all confirmed in-flight Unreliable airspeed events. 2/ TYPICAL SIGNATURE OF UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED To be sure that Unreliable airspeed events are correctly identified, please report events corresponding to the criteria as follows: - Crew report indicates loss or discrepant IAS (Indicated Airspeed) on CAPT and/or F/O PFD and/or Standby Airspeed indicator (ISIS). - Typical ECAM Warnings were seen: NAV ADR DISAGREE NAV IAS DISCREPANCY F/CTL ALTN LAW F/CTL RUD TRV LIM 1(2) FAULT AUTO FLT AP OFF AUTO FLT A/THR OFF STALL WARNING (audio call-out) AUTO FLT REAC W/S DET FAULT - Fault Message "PROBE-PITOT 1+2/2+3/1+3" was possibly also seen. |
Any probe heating issue would have been flagged by the PHC's. (PROBE HEAT CONTROLLERS) They are able to determine whether a probe is being heated or not.
Any issue with probe heat and you would have a different selection of messages although there would be some overlap. The probes have their own independent PHC. Manual autopilot disconnects are logged on acars as well just in case some haven't seen post #915 |
Airbus Rudder
A lot of talk about the rudder on AF447. I asked this in the Tech Forum but got no reply. What indication is given the pilot when they are in other than 'Normal Law' on an Airbus as to how much rudder to apply or NOT to apply, if needed, to keep the rudder attached to the airframe?
Is the Airbus of such a design that one needs to accually use the rudder in flight, even in turbulence? I only flew Lockheed, Douglas, and Boeing aircraft (Transport-wise), but don't recall ever using the rudder except on the ground. Oh, maybe during crosswind take-offs and landings, but NEVER enough to cause any kind of problem, with or without boost. Thoughts anyone? |
Static discharger
Interesting little detail on the picture lifting the fin onboard: The top of the fin / rudder seems intact, but only one static discharger remains attached. At least 3 are missing.
Of course, they could have gone during impact (but looks not damaged), or during handling by the Brazilian team in the water, or due to lightning... |
Simply no evidence regarding VS/rudder
DC-ATE,
My thoughts are that AA587 cannot be compared with AF447 with regard to the rudder use. AA587 was flown on a A300-600 and according to the NTSB investigation this type of aircraft, in comparison to others, has the lightest pedal forces as well as among the shortest pedal travel, making it harder to gauge the right force applied to them. To my knowledge no Airbus A330/A340 have reported issues similar to those that eventually brought down AA587. Instead I have read a report by a AF Concorde pilot who said that in its early tests the A300 displayed weaknesses in the rudder, and I always wondered whether that was somewhat related to AA587. But nothing with the A330/340. And there is no evidence to tell here at this time. Simply wait for the investigation. If I find the AF pilot quote I'll post it here. |
Brazilian Air Force AF447 Website
|
to chefrp:
That's unlikely but possible. Static dischargers are here to discharge static electricity, and when you get a lightning strike (can be anywhere on the fuselage, sometimes one or more "burn away", that's what they are installed for. So this could be a sign of (very) intense lightning action, if the 3 were gone due to lightning. But as I mentioned above, could also be during the water-impact or during handling later. |
One very obvious difference between AA587 and AF447 that I haven't seen mentioned is that in the former, the rudder and VS had separated at some point prior to discovery, while in the latter the entire assembly has been recovered intact.
Significant? I don't know. FBW |
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.