Machinbird, that excitation idea is pretty good with a large "if" involved. If the "speaker", the element that imparts the sound in the water, is a resonant element of some sort it should work fine. If not getting energy in through the water to housing discontinuity and then the housing to air discontinuity inside may be difficult. And the resonant element, if there is one, would have to get hard enough to get energy back out.

It might have something as simple as an RC time constant setting the oscillation frequency. With a little more complexity it could be something akin to a watch crystal. (And without driving it so hard it fractures you're not likely to hear it outside of the crystal case.) The next step up might be a tiny higher frequency crystal with a CMOS divider circuit to get it to frequency. I'd vote for the little quartz tuning fork or watch crystal type oscillator.

Stepping backwards a tiny bit if the structure itself plus the transducer has a resonance it might be possible to excite that and notice a distortion in the return signal as you go over the package. The package should have several resonances. Maybe one of them is strong enough to be exploitable.

Loose_rivets, military sonars are well beyond reasonable power for this application. Get too close to them in the water and you'll get homogenized nicely. (With some slight exaggeration. It'd not be at all healthy and likely deadly.)

Image metadata
 

ChristiaanJ,

> Does anybody really know the origin of this picture?
> All that's obvious so far is that it was "photographed" from a video monitor, presumably on the "Ile de Sein", since it's in colour."

The information sought is largely present in the image metadata. Personally, I like the way they've tethered the monitor to the desk.

Machinbird
 

Oh wow! Have you been reading your "Magnetic Resonance Imaging for fun and prophet" Machinbird? That is exactly the basis of MRI and you may have hit on a novel and just possible answer. Nice one. :)

The return signal will, of course, be tiny and distance will work against you dreadfully, but at the frequencies we are talking about, powerful transmitters are already available and suitably sensitive receivers too. Experimentation would, as you suggest, be necessary to study the characteristics of the received FID (Free Induction Decay) and what proportions of transmit and receive would be necessary.

And you wouldn't need a nice, clear signal ready for image reconstruction, just a return - any return - showing the FID of the pinger.

Very nice lateral thinking sir, if I might say so? :)

There is a K.I.S.S. way to check
 

Machinbird,

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/449639-af-447-search-resume-part2-20.html#post6422330

BEA should test! Could be done in few hours at lab. (low water pressure)

Considerations:

1) If you transmit high power pulses and listen after a short burst you may be able to detect.

2) I send you a "DART WITH KUDOS" for your feeling!

CSMU location
 

Machinbird,

They SHOULD be still attached. They were designed for.

Anyway, there are several improvements that should be made after AF447 crash and the "boxes" are candidates for.

Machinbird

Great suggestion. This is above my pay grade, but not understanding. I would think that those knowledgable in this field could refine your idea thereby improving the possibility of sucess. Implementation should not be all that difficult with proper preparation. Lets hope some consideration will be given by those who know.

Non metalic VS structure as HF antenna
 

JD_EE

Even if AF447 plane had an all plastic (non electrical conductive) VS structure it still had an HF antenna in it. And the antenna was not the high current shunt feeder. It´s more than that and much taller.

Do you know why?

Public domain solution (non patenteable)
 

Machinbird,

Your idea and comment could be used in next generation of CSMU location devices (pingers, etc)

Our discussion, a world wide public one precludes the big companies to patent it and can be used for the aviation safety in the future.

Kudos!

I will comment the technical advantages of your solution for underwater box location. Will use messages area,. Who become interested i can copy.

Wow, The opposite of zingers! Thank you all!

I did try to stay awake in Physics classes :8. Magnetic resonance is nothing new. The signal processing developments are what made MRI practical. My "idle speculation" evolved strictly from an understanding of electronics state of the art and basic physcs. Probably not a highly attractive patent anyway because of the highly limited demand.

Before we all get too excited, just remember the saying that there is "Many a slip twixt cup and lip." Yes, a competent person could likely acquire the necessary gear in a week, assemble a working prototype in the second week, and go on to deliver a unit capable of functioning at depth in the third....If they had a broad area of knowledge about EE, signal processing, sonar transducers, and operations at extreme depth. There are just a few such people out there. Get a group involved and it slows down considerably. I would bet that the Ile de Sein crew gets lucky before anyone develops a functional unit but the concept mentioned could influence future recorder design (attaching passive resonant elements) and should be followed up on in case we do need a phase 6:{.

They got one !!!
 

Information, 1er mai 2011

Sorry guys : English also !
1st May 2011 briefing

Thanks for the info.

FDR localized and identified
 

Information, 1er mai 2011

The investigation team localized and identified the memory unit from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) at 10 h UTC this morning. It was raised and lifted on board the ship Ile de Sein by the Remora 6000 ROV at 16h40 UTC.

Tongue Part Way in Cheek
 

from: Megalith Electronics
to: Mr. Pat Pendng

Dear Sir/Madam:

Thank you for your suggestion that we should buy your invention for Synchornous Anachronistic Wobbly Widget. However, we at Megalith have the greatest scientific and engineering minds in the industry, and if your idea had any merit, we would hold patents for it already.

Thank you again for your interest. We value you as a potential customer.

Randy Sparks, Vice President Engineering
Megalith Electronics

---
Then there's the reality that China does not enforce foreign patents.

Great News!
 

Let's hope it is as intact on the inside as it appears on the outside.

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....r2.reduite.jpg
GB

They found it!!! Barely penetrated the silt - was worried that it'd require sonar scan to find it.

Let's hope the data is usable...

Well done!

It appears that of the CSMU's four attachment bolts, at least one is not there anymore but the remains of two or three bolts are still affixed.

Also, I see no sign of the ULB (underwater locator beacon). From a flight safety improvement viewpoint, this is in my opinion a cause of concern.

Now only one missing CSMU from Boxes of AF447
 

Info on AF447 FDR:

980-4700-042
AC/DC supply
Option Long
ULB Yes
Des 4X
37 Mega Bytes non volatile memory
17.4 pounds Interface unit plus CSMU

SOLID STATE FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
4X SPECIFICATIONS
Honeywell Part Number 980-4700-04X
Packaging ARINC 404, 1/2 ATR Short & Long
Weight 16 or 18 Pounds, Nominal
Power 115 VAC, 400 Hz, 15 W; 28 VDC, 8 W
Data Capacity 25 Hours @ 256 Words/Sec (3,072 bits / Sec)
50 Hours @ 128 Words/Sec (1,536 bits / Sec)
100 Hours @ 64 Words/Sec (768 bits / Sec)
Data Storage Medium 36 Mbyte, Flash EEPROM

The SSFDR's crash survivable memory unit (CSMU) provides for complete data recovery when subjected
to the crash conditions stipulated in ED-55 and ED-56a:
• Impact Shock 3400G, 6.5 milliseconds
• Penetration Resistance 500 lb. weight from 10 feet
• Static Crush 5000 lbs., 5 minutes
• High Temperature Fire 1100°C, 30 minutes
• Low Temperature Fire 260°C, 10 hours (per ED-56a)
• Deep Sea Pressure and 20,000 feet, 30 days
• Sea Water/Fluids Immersion Per ED-55
The CSMU design has been fully qualified to these requirements and, in fact, exceeds them by
considerable margin in key survival areas:
• Impact shock has been successfully demonstrated at 4800 G's
• High temperature fire exposure has been tested to 60 minutes
• Low temperature fire was tested immediately after exposure to 1100°C fire

http://visualjournalism.com/wp-conte...6/blackbox.jpg

Info on AF447 CVR:

980-6022-001 120 minute model

Weight: 16 lbs. max
Temperature: Operating: -55 to +70C
Short Term Operating: +70C
Non-Operating: -55 to +85C
Altitude: +50,000 ft MSL Humidity: Severe Environment
Shock: Operational 6 g 11 ms duration
400 Hz single phase or +28VDC
Power Consumption: 8 watts typical, 35 watts max
Input Impedance: 10K ohms Output Impedance: Less than 600 ohms
Bandwidth:150 - 3500 Hz on voice channels 1-2-3
150 - 6500 Hz on area channel 4 Harmonic Distortion: <3% total at 1.0 KHz
Recording Duration: Up to 120 mins
System Deactivation: Cockpit installed circuit breaker

http://www.avionicsales.com/product/...VRFDR/ED55.jpg

All the conspiracy theorists must be fuming by now......

But then perhaps they can now concentrate on how the french can insert faulty data in the recovered SSFDR

vanHorck
 

How do you know that these pictures have been really taken on the crash site ?:ugh:
Are you sure that this is THE DFDR aboard AF447 ?:ugh:
And of course, as you mentioned, data will surely be edited by the BEA/Airbus/AF conspiracy !:ugh:

I am pretty sure that our beloved conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day on those pictures !!!!
At least 20 pages on the thread if they are in a good day !:ok:

Good work! Let us hope that it contains (at least part of) the answer to what happened.

Am I correct though that they have not found either part of the CVR yet?

llagonne66. Why the silly head banging. Do what everyone else does. Copy the properties of the picture, check them out, paste them in your search engine. Satisfied?

Events like this remind me of the tenacity of the human race.

They didn't announce it, so it's safe to assume they indeed didn't found it (by now). :)
Or of course, they did find it and are currently reworking the data it contains. :E :E

France BEA must learn to differentiate between a CSMU of a FDR and the one from a CVR
 

I suggest France´s BEA to learn ASAP how to differentiate between a CSMU of a FDR to the one they found, from the CVR:

The photos published by BEA are from CVR CSMU:

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....mages/fdr1.jpg

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....mages/fdr2.jpg

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....mages/fdr3.jpg

The drawing on the Honeywell data sheet is not correct for the "4X" (4700) series recorders. It is only correct for "1X" and "2X" models.

See this picture of the Gol 1907 FDR (which used the same recorder model as used on AF447):
File:Caixa-Preta GOL.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that we know this is not the CVR because on that flight the CVR's memory module separated, while the FDR's did not.

Conspiracy hawkers, (they cannot be called theorists) express both the need to control information and the need to limit, not expand understanding.

This is opposite to an investigator's primary goal which is to discover and follow evidence where it leads, no matter where or to whom it leads and then to build a story based upon what is demonstrated to be true.

Conspiracy hawkers have an easy job because all they need to do to is create doubt then leave it to others to build upon the insecurity of not knowing.

Investigators have a much more difficult job because they must convince experts and doubters alike.

We needn't guess which method withstands tough scrutiny, experience and expertise and which deserves our attention.

Another point: Creating flight and system data for credulous consumption as well as reading by experts (NTSB included, I would think), presumes a rational, detailed theory of what happened. In just over three million views and over five thousand contributions in four threads, 99% of contributions being knowledgable, thoughtful and informative, we have many theories but none of which are complete in every single detail.

Conspiracy hawkers need to explain how anyone creating false data, ostensibly to support the views of powerful interests of one persuasion or another, is going to create a plausible theory and then turn it into 1300 digital parameters, without a trace of intervention.

The A330 AFS and other aircraft systems and AF 447's flight conditions may be inferred, perhaps even accurately so, but, assuming this CSMU is readable, (and I believe it will be), flight data accounts for every second and every digital value these 1300 flight and system parameters, until the end of the recording. No theory presented here has been able to do that.

None of this denies the fact that strong interests are involved and that the expertise exists to be able to make the claim that manufacturing data is possible. But the possibility is not the problem.

Manufacturing such data such that its falsified pedigree is invisible while still making complete sense to those who do this work in their sleep, and keeping this within the necessary confines of a few, is virtually impossible.

It is those who know the airplane, accident investigation processes, flight data, human factors, weather, sea states, software and hardware design, communications and organizational factors who deserve the attention of those who wish to find things out. While doubt is always good because it leads to advances in understanding, doubt without an explanation which so leads, is not worth reading.

Maybe I overlooked something !?
Probably I'm equally ignorant as BEA, but at first glance I do not see a difference between the CSMU of the FDR from that of the CVR.
Could you point me to the differences ?

More than the NTSB involved !
 

If we just go back to the BEA interim report, page 11 :So the conspiracy would be at the United Nations level !!!

If the matter was not so tragic with 228 lost souls, I guess the BEA people would be laughing out pretty loud when reading some of the posts from our armchair conspiracy theorists.

Back to business : let's hope the DFDR data is legible and that they will be lucky twice by finding the CVR.

They have found one of the boxes so hopefully we will get all the answers

Hi,

PJ12 - AlphaZuluRomeo - llagonne66 - vanHorck

Why stir an empty pot http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...stirthepot.gif :confused:

I have not yet seen here in the messages some posts from Mr Jacquet - Mr Gerard Arnoux - Mr Henri Marnet-Cornu .. etc ... :p

BTW United Nations are masters for conspirations :)

They found the CVR
 

Henra, there is a briefing here:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/44963...ml#post6423361http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/44963...ml#post6423361

Rgds,

RR_NDB,

I saw the links. But they look to me identical to the CSMU of the SSFDR.
The following link shows the CSMU of a SSFDR from Honeywell:
https://commerce.honeywell.com/wcsst...DR_800x800.jpg
What for do I have to look ?
Where is the difference to the one they found ?

Regards,

henra

Debris Field
 

Hi all, I'm a new participant but been reading for years. I am highly appreciative of the expert knowledge here.

Some of you may have noticed in the latest BEA photo, there are two annotated images of the debris field (annotations are not legible) taped to the flatscreen stand. I have cropped and adjusted the images.

The debris is quite scattered, but I believe some of you may be able to make guesses at some parts of the aircraft.

Not sure if these are photo composites or hi-res sonograms. Shadowing seems consistent across the field.


http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/8...brisnarrow.png

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7...debriswide.png

Hi,

Found on another forum:
Sonar pic
Deleted (doublon lol)
It's frenzy post here :p

At some parts of the world, today, May 1, is the Workers´ Day.

So let´s salute the good job of the guys on board "Ile de Seine". Cheers!

Besides, the third photo published by BEA shows something interesting:

http://i.imgur.com/bGyZO.jpg

To me, this seems to be a detailed map of the wreckage, probably showing also the position of some rocks at the bottom of the sea.

PS: sorry lateott, I just posted after you......... ;)

henra,
The photo you have is of a CVR (see the label on the recorder electronics behind the CSMU) - however the CSMU on the FDR carried by AF447 is similar in appearance (cylindrical).

RR_NDB believes that the CSMU should be cubical and with rounded edges. (as in his earlier post where he gives all the technical details on the SSFDR and CVR) But this is incorrect for the model (4700) of SSFDR carried by AF447. The publicly-available data sheet from Honeywell shows only diagrams for different (presumably earlier) models of SSFDR. As I mentioned before, the 4700 model FDR carries a cylindrical CSMU.

Based on westerly currents encountered on the drift to the seafloor, as described previously, it is likely the heavy, dense or hydrodynamic chunks are to the east (right) with lighter, less dense parts further to the west.

There is a section quite large far to the east that is only present in the wide field image. Some postulated earlier that might be the cockpit or tailplane.

Could the section to the south be a wing with landing gear? Can anyone make out the engines or the APU (likely in the rightmost part of the main debris field)? It would be nice to establish the scale.

CSMU of SSFDR model 4700 is bigger
 

Henra,

Did you see my briefing?

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/449639-af-447-search-resume-part2-21.html#post6423288


I posted it few moments before BEA announcement.

Mac

PS

I am investigating a post here with info on MAC between PR-GTD x N600XL

Perhaps someone should tell the BEA there's no need to look any further for the other recorder: the BBC web-site says this one records cockpit conversations.......