mm43, I bow to your superior observational powers (I still can't pick it up) and excellent analysis which has made a major contribution here:ok:

mm43:

Interesting flight animation your provided: thanks for that.

What is striking, for this SLF anyway, is that AF447 is the only aircraft during the time line as provided in the animation, that seemingly made no attempt to skirt the red blob around TASIL. AF459 didn't make much more of an attempt either whereas the other aircraft did.

Very interesting animation indeed.

I stand corrected: AF459 did indeed zig zag around the area where it was the KLM flight then seemed to take great pains in skirting the red blob.

I'd be interested in comments on the following:

Looking at the animation of aircraft that passed through the area affected by convective weather on the night of the accident it's evident that those shown, with the exception of El Al, are all from the Air Fance group.

Can anyone list which other airlines passed through that area within an hour or so on the same night - I believe there was at least one Lufthansa and one TAM.

Whilst I understand that there are one way airways through the area I wonder why the Air France dispatchers flight planned their aircraft through the area of convective weather when other routes would have avoided it.

Comparing the tracks shown with my experience on BA in late December is interesting.

On December 29 the Atlantic turbulence forecast and storm cell maps which I accessed before my flight to LHR showed a large area of potential convective activity between 18.00 UTC and midnight UTC over and to the north of Rio, almost to the Natal/Recife area. The midnight to 06.00 UTC maps showed the storm area predicted to be reduced considerably but a cell was positioned off the coast between Natal/Recife and the Cape Verde islands with embedded CBs from 450 downwards - the cell was forecast to be astride the most direct routes available.

At 20.00 UTC there was a severe storm over Rio with heavy rain, windshear and regular lightning which lasted about an hour and closed the airport for around 45 minutes.

By the time we took off at 01.40 UTC the storm had long passed but the ride to the Atlantic was punctuated by some episodes of moderate turbulence, patches of cloud as we climbed to cruise level and patches of cloud in the cruise which gave light turbulence.

Following the route on the seat back video, we flew well inland, away from the remnants of the storm system, and exited the coast a few miles to the west of Forteleza. Our north north easterly track took us around the west of the forecast Atlantic storm cell and we were some 400 miles off the coast before we turned north east towards the Cape Verde Islands, which we eventually crossed after a further dog leg just north of the Equator. Apart from the odd ripple the flight over the ocean was turbulence free.

Given the South Atlantic is far less busy than the North Atlantic tracks and that the airways in the area can be used to avoid many of active cells which frequent the ITCZ, why would experienced crew accept routings through weather that could be avoided and put thermselves to extra work avoiding the worst of the weather and at risk should all the holes in the cheese line up?

Looking at this image for the night of the accident:
http://avherald.com/img/af_a332_f-gz...90601_sat0.jpg
it would seem that, even though the cells sometimes move unpredictably, a more westerly routing would have been smoother, less stressful on the crew and ultimately safe.

Don't understand why, but I still cannot get the link to work. I've tried manually entering it, and still, errrrr, no go. Suggestions?
Thanks, ww

ww,
I just now loaded it and looked at it with Firefox, and it worked fine.

Well done, too, the way you can look at each track individually.

Maybe something in your settings is switched off?

Or are you still using Internet Exploder?

CJ

@wes_wall

As CJ has suggested, the problem most likely is with Internet Explorer. Try downloading and installing Firefox 3.6. Don't try and uninstall Internet Explorer - it will only revert to the previous version.

You will be able to import into Firefox any bookmarks you have in IE, and also able to set the browser as your default.

mm43

You do need Javascript enabled in your browser and your firewall.

The animation doesn't work in Google Chrome either. In Firefox it does.

All, thanks much
ww

ITCZ WX versus Track Deviations - 01 June 2009
 

A few days ago when searching the BEA site for information on the Phase 3 search, I found an animation showing the tracks of a number of aircraft that flew northbound on either UN873 or UN866 between 0000z and 0300z. The animation was designed as a web application and for those using Firefox 3.5+ it can be found at -

Flight Paths of Flight AF 447 and of the flights that crossed the zone around the same time

The above animation shows a/c positions every 2.5 minutes (except AF447 - every 10 minutes), and uses Scalable Vector Graphics which allow the integration of 12 satellite images taken over the same 3 hour period. Individual aircraft/tracks can be selected, and the animation can be paused at any time.

Unfortunately, the application doesn't work in Internet Explorer, Chrome, Safari or Opera. All is not lost, as further trawling of the BEA website revealed that a video had been made of the above, and though it doesn't provide the user interaction mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it can be paused. The video will play in the Windows Media Player and is at -

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flig...ires010609.avi

This post is duplicated on the AF447 and AF447 Search to Resume threads as a matter of record.

mm43

I'm very puzzled - I have not followed this thread now for several months, but when I was last 'here' I was under the impression that position was not transmitted by acars.

How then are we seeing a/c tracks ('updated every 2.5 minutes'?) and if they are not pure imagination, why is the search area for 447 not down to a few 10's of miles?

@BOAC

A lot of wise whys!

The BEA publishes factual information - or so I am informed.

mm43

Here is a quote from an "Update on the Investigation" from 2009/12/17:

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flig...12.2009.en.pdf

I intend to offer no commentary on the why’s and where not’s of much of the pontification contained within this thread as this is not my field. The technology to do much of what has been discussed on this forum is already currently available. I have been involved in a working group looking at this particular technology for a period of time.

Video, bi-directional audio and data can already be streamed live to the ground independently of existing avionic systems and may be combined with a QAR in order that real time flight data can be downloaded and recorded in real time should any customer demand that they want the system configured to do that.

This equipment utilises inmarsat, which already has over 8000 aircraft relying on global in-flight connectivity through its use. Inmarsat is the most widely used satellite operator in the airline industry and were the first to provide global safety services that comply with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The iridium satellite constellation was unable to provide the required functionality demanded by this technology.

Narrowband technology makes the satellite cost much less expensive and its transmission through a stable albeit unique algorithm accounts for not only its encrypted security but permits a downlink speed of 400kbps. However the number of systems that can use a particular inmarsat satellite at any one time is not open ended and relates entirely to the supply and demand. The restriction of inmarsat’s current capabilities is known but something that could be addressed if the demand for such a system was present.

This system is already in use for vehicle borne equipment and was developed for use in military airborne applications where it was found to work extremely well. It was been offered as a potential modern day solution for commercial aviation to work in tandem with existing CVR and FDR technologies which are required through international legislation, it is entirely a matter for each customer which available requirement their business wishes to make use of.

As with any new technology, the cost of development to have it certified for an STC is expensive. The equipment itself would not be cost prohibitive. There is currently very little enthusiasm for this equipment although this may change when the industry picks up again and the need to survive passes in exchange for the need for new development to be introduced to respond to customer demands.

It may be used for many applications due to its versatility and has embedded within it an independent GPS location module which provides an accurate global location whilst in operation.

This will, in years to come, be developed I am sure but without any customer demand and support then the cost of its certification are beyond what the industry would support. The global downtrend has affected many airlines, jobs and their supporting businesses, it is only when growth and stability return that airlines may once again look at new developments and how they may integrate them for the benefit of their business but also for the industry in general.

Sallyann 1234 I acknowledge your expertise in your field, CJ I likewise acknowledge your opinion, I offer this solely as work that has already been undertaken and evaluated by my employer of which I was a part. I have seen and assessed this equipment operating in real time but whilst not publicly reported, it does interest me and I can see a day in the future where we may all likely embrace and use it.

I am sure that if EADS or Boeing were to develop this and offer it as a CRO then its uptake may be better assured but those days are likely some years away. Any change in the requirements demanded by the regulatory authorities is a long way off as the financial impact on those changes would send a shock wave throughout the industry which would be most likely criticised on the grounds of cost.

Please do not shoot the messenger !

Best

Jox :(

@Jox

A very thoughtful and well constructed post. In fact I would venture that the post is well worth book-marking as a future reference.

As you have carefully pointed out, the technology is available, it has been proven, and the only things that are missing are sufficient infrastructure and industry willingness to make it viable in the short term. If the regulatory bodies were to make the first move, then the rest would fall into line when commercial reality becomes commercial necessity.

Unfortunately, it will be a bit like my planned trip to Mars - a long wait!

mm43

What? That? Here on PPruNe??

:D

Seriously, you are right.

I think there are at least two other factors holding back:

-- Airlines consider flight data to be proprietary unless they need to surrender it for an investigation. To some extent, this is true as it might reveal business conditions such as weight, et cetera.
-- Pilots might see instant reporting of their actions on-deck in as an invasion of privacy in their workplace. To some extent, this too is true as it would tend to report every "not by the numbers" action on a crew's part.

I have a great respect for pilots. They have transported my fat butt for approximately 100,000 miles and managed to return it to earth intact each and every time.

And I understand that pilots are already under a great deal of "normal" scrutiny the rest of us are just catching up with. I worked for companies during the 1980s and 1990s which didn't have surveillance cams pointed at me; now, virtually everyone does.

So I can understand their point as well - "we are already heavily monitored."


But in some cases, real-time streaming of data might help solve enigmas or save lives.

I think it will boil down to how such a change is implemented in the air transit culture, which has a wide variety of "attitudes" contained within it.

RR

Don't tell me you're stuck at the terminal for a tech...

:}

@jox
Most of what you say is entirely correct. A suitably processed data stream of requisite speed can be sent from an aircraft via satellite to a ground station. The technology has been around for many years.

But this is not the problem.
As has been stated before, the difficulty arises when several hundred aircraft are sending their individual data streams to a satellite receiver, and for this data to then be retrieved, combined and sent down to earth station/s.

For a system to work in practice requires satellite base-stations which can control and synchronise the individual aircraft stations in every aircraft. Due to the relative high speeds and varying distances of the aircraft, this synchronisation is a difficult problem and the technical challenges of a comprehensive system are outwith what is currently installed.

With current technology it would be possible given funding to design such a system, and a number of companies are known to be interested. Of course Inmarsat is well placed due to its considerable experience in this area. However to cover all long-distance commercial aircraft would need new satellite capacity, new ground infrastructure (not just to receive the signal but somehow to store and forward it to the many diverse users), and new equipment in every participating aircraft. This implies huge expenditure at a time when airlines are going out of business for lack of capital.

Additionally any universal system would need agreement on design and implementation by all interested national and international bodies - not an easy matter as has been previously demonstrated.

Incidentally, without wishing to be rude but if you are dealing with the companies you should note their correct names:
"irridium" is Iridium, and
"immarsat" is Inmarsat.

Edit:
Would someone from Inmarsat like to comment?
Their contribution to this discussion would be very valuable.

mm43, not that you should have the explanation, but I am curious why the simulation omits the tracks of IB 6024 and LH 507. Those flights, along with AF 459, were referenced extensively in the preliminary report. And I believe LH 507 was the flight equipped with AMDAR.

And thaniks very much for all your observations and analyses.

Also, why is it so hard for the BEA to state that the last automatic position point was 3 NM off track ???