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!

Well that has been on the cards since the beginning, witness the previous reports noting lack of diversion, the excellent weather research of Tim Vasquez, and massive discussion here on weather radar etc. There is no way the plane decided to fly into a cb by itself (one day we may have a plane piloted by an artifical intelligence that choses to do that from a masochisitic sense of "fun", but that is not what FBW is). That only leaves pilot decision (or lack of) to explain it.

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 ? :ugh:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure I see the point in trying to detect water/moisture inside the module when it is very low risk to open it and have a look.

Things other than water such as a cracked PCB that can also cause problems.

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.)

That is the beauty of conspiracy theories. Everything can be used to prove the theory. If the facts do not fit the conspiracy theory then the facts are part of the conspiracy and therefore proves the conspiracy. If facts do fit the theory then that also proves the conspiracy.

So much for keeping an open mind.

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.

Perhaps the cockpit noise is somewhat sensitive to sideslip and AoA. The AF447 analysis can (will?) use IRS-derived groundspeed together with last known wind speed at cruise FL, and from meteo data at lower altitudes, or alternatively, airspeed derived from Weight and AoA. The principle is shown in this graphical illustration. The latter method may also be useable 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 :E

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. :eek: 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 :E

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? :confused:

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 .. ?

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?

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.

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.

RE: 3rd Interim report by summer;

I'm afraid "not before summer" means after summer - october?

jcjeant,

AirFrance provides each pilot with a foldable chamber pot so that they stay at all times in the flight deck.:rolleyes:
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.:ugh:

Hi,

Jig-Peter
Confusion there ...
It's not the "Leaker" .. it's only the messenger.
The"Leaker" is somebody from BEA or Airbus or french govt.

Hi,

Can you post official AF SOP please .. thank you.

Hi,

Another "leak" from BEA .........

Sur LCI.fr


On LCI.fr

Source:
Info et Actualité en direct - Toutes les actualités et infos - TF1 News

HazelNuts39

I'm afraid "not before summer" means after summer - october?

My knowledge of the English language tells me that there is 'before Summer', 'during Summer', and 'after Summer'.
So I would expect that the BEA will produce an interim report not before Summer starts, but during the Summer months, maybe July/August. No doubt there will leaks before then, or even a press release.

Bear,

Really???

Now I will agree that a certain amount of skepticism may test the validity of findings based on data at hand, but, more often than not, it morphs into imagined theories, essays and blog sites on the internet by skeptics who are more interested in promoting themselves and seeing their name in print than the reality of the situation. If you don't believe me, Google TWA800 and count the skeptic sites before you get to the 4th page where the NTSB information is found (my laptop @ 10 posts per page), many more following. I suppose Googling AF447 will look the same in another 10 years, the way it is going.

Promani;

It's not based on my knowledge of the English language, but on that of the summer holiday season in France.

Lonewolf - we are I believe, in danger of going off on another wild goose chase here.

1) There is no such thing as 'partial panel' in modern aircraft. There are standby attitude indicators, but 'p p' refers to the old 'turn and slip' which can be used to fly in IMC, but is not fitted on modern a/c

2) I thought we had eliminated attitude indication problems way back?

a) I don't think a laser-ring gyro can 'exceed' any limits and 'tumble'
b) I don't believe there is ANY indication of IRS problems in the ACARS, nor would the pitot problem cause such
c) There would be a separate IRS based standby attitude indicator.

Now, back to conspiracy theories and paper poo-pots:ugh: It certainly is an advantage to be mad here.

Hi,

First, thanks to JD-EE for his answer in post #1671. Hope all these procedures always fullfilled (but not sure IMHPO).

And (one more...) question: in the first BEA interim report (1st June 2009), we can read both co-pilots have to wear corective lenses ("Medical certificate .../... with compulsory wearing of corrective lenses.", p.15 and 16). Have those corective lenses to be contact lenses or glasses? Could he (they) have lost them if a sudden movement happen?
What are the minimum visual performances for AF pilots without corrective lenses?

This question is NOT to charge pilots. But it HAVE TO happen something very crazy for downing this probably million flying hours a/c model.

MurphyWasRight,

MurphyWasRight, as you know "Murphy´s law" never fail. My idea is:

1) More you know about the internal condition of the "pressure vessel" safer and faster will be the job of the investigators. And this IMHO is very important. Not just for the lengthy bureaucratic processes but to ASAP understand what happened (the global picture)
2) The PCB´s inside the well designed CSMU certainly are not prone to crack.

There is a picture i guess i posted earlier with the internal view of a "non cylindrical shape" of a similar CSMU for the SSFDR 4700, the one of F-GZCP.

Probably the cylindrical shaped is even better than the one showed in mfr. website.

CG position: would it be possible now, using the full data from the FDR (since t/o), i.e. using the dynamic behaviour of the a/c, to calculate the CG more accurately and independently from the load sheet?

Come-on, both pilots were fully straped in their seats. It would take many times the G-Forces that an aiframe could sustain without first breaking off.

I'll bet you can read them in detail in Lemurian's last book: "How to understand sarcasms for dummies", page 666.
:-)

TurbineD

Thanks for the 'heads up'. What we have been bequeathed by less than forthcoming ancestors is a playground that is regrettably "Polarized". It is difficult to express an opinion without being dismissed as "One or the Other".

In writing in favor of severe scepticism, one is taken for a cynic. A definition contrasting both words would frustrate most people. On the one hand are the apologists who see no evil, or have an agenda, and on the other folks with vivid imaginations who have a tendency to build on said imagination.

The data is in, readable, and being sussed. I suppose those who take to heart the goodness of the world will be patient and wait to be told what happened.

On a linguistics note and in danger of being accused of tinhattedness I will leave you with a final thought. This was not an accident. BLIMEY. WHAT??

Regardless the story that is told, I will bet the ranch that what did in 447 was not mysterious, not even unexpected. Flight is not without loads of sophistications and anticipations of danger.

There should be a third term to include with incident and accident.

:mad:

pardon my......french

All those whom have given all....rest.

Bouillard and Troadec both gave interviews following Figaroleaks questions but have said very few (as they still know about zlitch). How does this qualify as a leak as they are the main investigators, the only ones habilited to talk about their work?
Do you really think that any people in governmental circles (possible "source" of those leaks) are really that skilled in aeronautics in order to fully understand what the BEA is really working at without being provided with a full and detailed report?
We already had the Transport minister declaration about "we will recover all the bodies" later.... "oops!... we won't!"

Make your own calculation:
There is about 1,200 parameters monitored, some are sampled by the DFDR many times per second. The last ten minutes of flight (600 seconds) would be above 1,400,000 figures, each one having to be verified for its coherence inside the whole dataset in order to discard and reprocess what would be wrong data recorded (like airspeed, etc.).
And that is the easy part of it as they should already have all the tools developped to do it.
This won't take a couple of day.

BOAC, yes, we sort of went through this before, but in that iteration degradation of attitude reference was written out ... and this may be another misunderstanding on my part that, sorry to wander off the reservation. L@zerdog's pointing to something amiss at the :12 minute point with that system might or might not be of significance. Even if degraded.

I may not be using the best terms. By partial panel I refer to flying on instruments without reference to the primary attitude reference instrument. (Nose and wing). You use cross check (heading, air speed, ascent/descent) to infer actual aircraft attitude and use performance to determine how to make corrections based on second order input to set an estimated attitude that yields the airspeed, turn or non turn, and speed that you desire to maintain, rather than the usual set your attitude and adjust performance based around that primary reference. It isn't just "turn needle and ball" reference.

Regarding stand by attitude reference, roger. That was explained before, and I think snowfalcon2 said better what I was trying to get at.
Yes, which may not be a possible failure mode, as you (IIRC it was you) suggested previously. The standby attitude reference system would have limits as well, would it not?

Assuming that the attitude reference system, primary or back up, remains reliable enough to refer to and keep in one's scan, one is still likely dealing with an on instrument scan upset/dynamic upset/unusual attitude recovery problem in turbulent air, possibly in violently turbulent air, so l@zerdog's second question remains a valid pilot concern.

Not sure how many "spins under the bag" (instrument training hood, if you like) you got to do, or how common it is any more in any sort of pilot training. The first time I did it, full panel, was an eye opener. It's a skill that a bit of practice improves immensely. (The first few times I tried it partial panel (gyro failed) it was a double handful. Took quite a few tries to get it right.)

If full panel recovery, versus prevention, it isn't trained for, how well prepared is any crew to deal with it when facing the situation, with a full instrument panel? :confused:

Shadoko
To say it in simple terms, in France, an optical correction above 5 dioptres on one single eye is a no-go for obtaining a *french* professional pilot license (more precisely, these 5 dioptres are not really a correction measured on your lenses, they result from a combined spherical/cylindrical measurement performed on your eyes with a special instrument using refractometry). However, once you are a happy PP, even if your visual capability degrades, you won't lose your license until the optical correction you need exceeds 8.0 dioptres. Other countries have more relaxed requirements (AFAIK, in the US, you just need to have a 10/10 visual acuity with your corrective lenses). Regarding usage of contact lenses vs. standard glasses, it seems this is left to the individual's appreciation.

Watertight CSMU
 

Hi, IO540

Look this http://i53.tinypic.com/2reqjxd.jpg
And also this http://50.img.v4.skyrock.com/50c/avi...s/15292660.jpg

The SSFDR CSMU (4700 model) used in F-GZCP was the cylindrical, steel armoured.

I guess they implemented a "double or even a triple barrier". Why not to do so?


I am looking for and will come back on this subject


I have some "war surplus" and other newer parts with connectors integrated to the mechanical modules. I don´t see why to have an o ring in a CSMU.

When you was starting to design i was starting my EE graduation, so please consider my comments as a way to learn from you.

Lonewolf 50
 

I am long time retired from the cockpit, thus equally removed from recurrent sim sessions. However, from my experience, at altitude upset was more focused on the cause, and how to recognize them prior to onset, thus how to avoid the situation from occurring, and or get out of hand. Once PT got out of the airplane and into the sim, any stall replication was easy to handle – quite different from being in a 707 when stalls (leading up to one) were practiced while in the air. Thus, not knowing the answer to your question, I would bet the how to avoid is taking precedent over the how to recover.

M. Bouillard also went to say that after future readings of the recorder, come tomorrow, or the day ater tomorrow, or next week, [or next month] the BEA might discover something that requires Airbus to send another advisory telex to its customers etc.

So for now, I interpret his phrasing to mean there are no hardware or software flags based on several days of reading the data.
______________

On a related note, the gendarmerie announced through a spokesperson (no secret leaker) that they will be able to use DNA to identify the two recovered bodies.

I'll reserve judgement/comment on what the crew may or may not have done until the final report is released. I'd however, like to say this. In my limited experience of flying non-jet a/c, I have come to believe that good airmanship is all about staying ahead of the a/c. Here I have to agree with the sentiment expressed by deSitter earlier in the thread. If I had a choice, I'd prefer to fly a/c without automatisms. Alas! thats not a choice we have anymore. Why the lament you ask?

In the a/c that I've flown with even a semblance of automation, the implementation is too-often half-assed (from a pilots standpoint that is). To be clear, the automation is perfectly logical and always does the right thing, but it is not designed to involve the pilot. And for a good reason. The man-machine interface will quickly get complicated, if it did. Nevertheless, the end result is that, once the pilot falls behind the a/c, it become difficult for him/her to catch up. And my guess would be that the more complex the automation, the more unlikely the pilots will ever be able to catch up.

Lets take the subject at hand. How would I have designed the man-machine interface in a situation like this. The a/c would "recognize" that there is a significant weather system ahead and alert me (the pilot) about it. At this stage, I'd be more aware of the situation (if I already wasn't) and be in anticipation of some of the issues that may come up. (Just to be clear, I'd choose to manually fly the a/c)

For this the a/c would need an auto-scan radar at a minimum. Ironically, if I were to trust the aircraft with handling a situation like this, I'd have to have enough confidence in the automation to anticipate. i.e. more automation not less. We are bordering on AI here, so I'll leave it at that.

But, the interesting question is, lets say the pilots (for whatever reason) failed to recognize that they were going to fly into the storm and were caught with their pants down, can you blame the a/c for doing the same?

It seems to me the only way out of this conundrum is for the a/c and pilot to work together, and a man+machine interface that makes it possible. Its the a/c and the pilot, not a/c or the pilot.

As my professor used to say, two brains is better than half a brain...

Hi,

takata
They just take the decision to recover all possible bodies ... DNA analysis are positives on the already recovered bodies.
Source TF1 News Paris 20H

How you know this ?