Looking at the deformed orange box I was wondering how it is exactly installed in the A330 (where exactly and in which orientation) and if we can derive something from the damage pattern about direction of forces applied.

Have we touched that somewhere and I have simply overseen/forgot it ?

Dumb insensitive British press at its worst

Robot submarines find part of Air France jet black box 13,000ft under Atlantic | Mail Online

[edit]Report now updated to refer to bodies of "passengers" and not "survivors"

:=
You're assuming the crash site (impact with surface) being east of the wreckage... LKP being east doesn't mean -IMO- that the plane impacted water on the same side... Therefore, the memory "can beer" may lie everywhere around.

@JD-EE

I fail to see a loop.

It looks very much like a small (semi) vertical monopole planted on the virtual ground (the aircraft).
At about 9 feet its resonance is around 26 MHz, (radiation) efficiency of the order of 1%, a set up similar to an HF whip on a car.
The location allows for a rail-kind of radiator, it helps to handle the many Amperes (not far from 100 ?) and flattens the bandwidth behavior (no need to retune when staying within a same frequency band).
Radiation would be pretty well omnidirectional with a peak towards the front (more return current).

Worth a different thread perhaps.

Kalimera

sensor validation,
I am no fan of the "hero pilot steers stricken plane away from school" style of reporting we often see, but I have looked at the article you linked to and cannot find an explanation for the reasonably factual content it contained deserving such lambasting, am I missing something ?

strange image
 

Dear sirs,

I definitely don´t identify with the conspiratory fringe. But I find the image of the box found at the bottom strange.

Just have a look, in the original image, at the region I have marked here.

http://i.imgur.com/2T1rH.jpg

If you amplify that region with Paint, you´ll see that the texture of the pixels are different from the rest of the image. It seems to me like someone tinkered with the image.

http://i.imgur.com/l78pV.jpg

But I really can´t think about a reason for that.

Also, if it really is an altered image, this could be the reason why BEA decided to distribute the photo popping up from the monitor (as someone observed sooner). Looking at the monitor conveys the feeling that we are witnessing the real workings of the ROV, not that we are really looking to an altered image.

From pictures of DFDRs I find it remarkable that the pinger's (ULB) attachment to the memory unit (CSMU) in the Honeywell SSDFDR seems to be a rather lightweight affair. (The ULB is the smaller "can" affixed to the end of the memory unit.)

FAA regulations prescribe that the ULB shall be "securely attached" to the memory module, which is quite logical.

Looking at the debris in this case I would not be surprised if the ULB has separated from the memory unit. That will probably not affect the chances of finding the memory unit now, but it may have contributed to the failure of the initial search operations.

Live imagery?
 

"Also, if it really is an altered image, this could be the reason why BEA decided to distribute the photo popping up from the monitor (as someone observed sooner). Looking at the monitor conveys the feeling that we are witnessing the real workings of the ROV, not that we are really looking to an altered image."

If i thought that i was watching live imagery from the ROV then i would expect to see at least depth, heading and speed info on the screen.

Catplaystation,

I think "sensor validation" was shacked by this phrase:

"The latest retrieval operation started after cameras pinpointed wreckage and the bodies of survivors some 4000 metres (13,000 feet) down."

"Bodies of survivors" don´t seems a sensible description of what the expedition found at the bottom...

Centrosphere
 

To me it looks like the area you point out is the middle of the picture. It also appears to be (quite logically) the area where the two main searchlight beams converge. This implies that all shadow areas "vanish" in that particular area of the picture, making the surface features appear very low contrast and featureless.
Towards the sides of the picture the shadows appear different as you can see the sharp shadows from each individual searchlight beam. The twin beams also make the shadow of the DFDR chassis look rather odd.

A somewhat similar optical effect appears when you look from your airplane exactly down-sun i.e. towards the airplane shadow. The shadow is surrounded by a light "halo" with very low contrast.

Nice point, cura.

I think you´re right if you only consider people acknowledgeable about rescue missions using ROV´s, not the general population.

But I really can be reading too much here.

snowfalcon2,

Actually I have seen this effect incountable times when flying. I think there is even a name to it: "pilot´s glory".

But I used to think that this effect is caused by backscattering light, what don´t seems quite be the case here. In fact the region is less, not more, bright than the rest of the image, or parts of the image at least.

Henra

The picture you are looking for is in Part 1 post #3050 provided by Machaca.

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...aftBHtail1.jpg

centrosphere
 

Maybe.
Looking more closely at the lighting, it appears that the left searchlight has a bluer light than the right one and it also appears to be brighter. This may have an effect on the perception.

There are several optical effects that may play a role in this picture. The "vanishing of shadows" is one that lowers the contrast of the mid picture area. Another possible effect is the Gloria effect that may cause the areas surrounding the middle area to appear brighter, i.e. the effect you comment on.
Finally, backscattering (or Heiligenschein) may also play a role. But I believe that this effect is dependent on the surface characteristics of the subject. For example dewy grass often makes this visible, but in this picture we don't have such features.

Of course it's also entirely possible that, for example, there were some human remains on the seabed at that spot and BEA did not want to show those to the world. But lighting effects are IMO more likely.

possible explainations
 

Possible explainations could be;
1. image is from the 'non-flying' camera
2. image is a still shot extracted after recovery
3. ROV not being flown but following a predetermined search pattern

With regard to the lighting effects, the ROV has a variable intensity lighting system, perhaps the port light was set at a higher intensity than the stbd one.

Hi,

Black boxes:
In my opinion this design standard should undergo a great improvement.
From concept .. the black boxes did not change much.
Techniques to store data have improved (following developments with other techniques such as computer .. .. .. etc) .. but not their container .. or the system that allows to locate them.
In fact, these black boxes are considered a mandatory accessory by laws and therefore and so long they are present and in working condition ... everyone is happy and we can say that once everything is done to improve safety ....
When the accident occurs and the black boxes are not found .. or found after long searches (but what is the pinger?) and in addition they are deteriorated .. he is sure someone (authorities) to say that the black boxes were OK .. well maintained .. but the shock of the accident was very violent .. etc. ....
But everyone know that a plane that crashed into the ground or water .. suffer (mostly) a big shock ....

Snowfalcon2,

I really believe the "bluer light" to be an effect due to the water. I see no reason to use two different colors in the lighting apparatus. Phoenix International site only gives this information concerning the lighting system of the Remora 6000:

4 x Remote Ocean Systems 250 watt lights ( variable-intensity )

Actually, I have searched for other photos of the sea bottom taken from ROV´s. I couldn´t find many decent pictures, but the ones I found lack this effect. Please look at this one, from a submarine archeological site:

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution(WHOI) : Archaeology in Deep Water

"Of course it's also entirely possible that, for example, there were some human remains on the seabed at that spot and BEA did not want to show those to the world."

Yes, I was considering this possibility the more likely, if this is really an alteration of the photo and not a natural effect.

[/quote]
Originally Posted by Machinbird http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
If the "beer can" is much denser than the chassis, they should look back to the East of the Chassis location to have a hope of finding it.

Quote:AlphaZuluRomeo

In Part 1 of this thread we discussed wreckage distribution and how it had been influenced by a slow moving current from E to W. You must not have been paying attention then and missed an opportunity to give us your 2 cents in a timely fashion. Do you have a different theory of wreckage distribution? Lets hear it.

Hi Susu42,

Thanks a lot !
Now that I see it I remember having seen it before :O

If I see it correctly ithe DFDR is mounted vertically.
With the tiny mounts of the CSMU it is clear why it tore off the rest of the DFDR upon impact.
On the other hand the deformation of the base plate is somewhat strange given the orientation shown in this picture.
@Machca (if you read it): Do you know if all DFDR's are mounted that way on A330's, i.e. the one in AF447 as well?

Centrosphere,

Indeed, I missed that one.
A bit like a joke we told as children,
" a plane crashes exactly on the border of Russia & Finland, where do they bury the survivors" ? ? or something like that, well, you get the meaning I am sure.

The recorder in the photograph is mounted horizontally. I can't imagine any being mounted vertically.

Altered image? no..
 

Centrosphere,

"If you amplify that region with Paint, you´ll see that the texture of the pixels.."

It appears to me to be a smudge on the optical window covering the camera. A small camera with a wide-field lens at f/8 or more will show smudges on the front optics as hazy areas in the image. Perhaps it got smudged nosing about in the dirt.

deSitter,

Nice take. I wonder if an expensive piece of equipment like a ROV, that can take three hours only to arrive at it´s job place, don´t have some gadget to clean the lens in cases like that............... :ugh:

The picture of the chassis is a photograph of a computer monitor showing the image from the ROV. So the lens of the camera taking the photograph could have a smudge, the monitor itself could have a smudge,.... and so on and so forth.

Saturn V,

I think that BEA and the expedition crew wouldn´t be so careless to the point of offering to the world the picture of a dirty monitor...:E

FDR
 

No way can the FDR have separated on impact with the seabed, I do not believe even a heavy aircraft would sink so fast.. Therefore it is reasonable that it came off upon impact with the surface of the sea and because of the small debris field, it would seem that the plane had a very slow forward speed.. and the tail and/or rudder did not break off in the air.

Of course the FDR could survive a fall in the sea - the terminal speed would be less than in air, much less, and certainly the FDR is designed to fall out of the sky.

I believe the "different texture" to be an artifact of the jpg compression. In areas with fewer details (caused by the vanishing of the shadows) the block sizes on which the jpg compression operates become larger. The different texture is a natural consequence of the varying information content with any lossy compression algorithm.

It could also be the result of fine seabed material beeing expulsed by the impact of the box and subsequently falling in the nearabouts, moved slightly by a water current (therefore in only one direction). The litle dark spots looks like "worm" activity, so it would take a time to appear on the new sediment (biological activity should be very slow there).
My 2 cents.

That is the most likely explanation. Compression is quite high on these web images. Also IF there was a loss of detail in one area because of a small lens contamination the compression will amplify the effect which saves bytes.

If the area in the center of the image were modified it would show up as a noisier area compared to the surrounding.

My guess is that we're seeing a fogging up on the lense(s).

http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/5...hancedjpeg.jpg


http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5264/a2f4085jpeg.jpg

Forensic Error Level Analysis Results for http://www.bea.aero/...

alph2Z

I think this was the cleverer approach so far. I wasn´t aware of this kind of thing available on the net, thanks.

But, have a look on what the site claims:

"If parts of the image are from different source files, they may have been saved a number of different times, and thus they will stand out as a different colour in the ELA test."

I don´t think the image was manipulated in this way (say, the juxtaposition of different images). I think that it´s possible that the original image was only "hazed" at the center. I am not sure about the interpretation of the test, but I think that it´s not very suitable to detect this kind of manipulation.

Limited, jcviggen,

I´m a little bit skeptical about this explanation.

First: the image´s geometry don´t seems to be in agreement with your thesis of "vanishing of shadows". I think that it would occur if the source of the light were close to the lens (POV). But when you look to the shadows, you see that some objects display two shadows, inclined with respect one another, what probably means that there are two light sources in some distance of each side of the lens. I think this geometry isn´t very probable to cause any "vanishing of shadows" at the designated place of the image...

Centrosphere,

my argument is independent of the presence of a "vanishing shadows" effect. The part in the center has fewer features, hence the jpg compression will operate on different scales than in other parts of the images, leading to the impression of a "different texture".

I'm not making any claims as to the origin of this smoother part.

It looks like a crater made by a heavy object which got buried into the silt.
Could the memory module be there ?

alph2z
Having tweaked it a bit with image processing software, I second the opinion about this picture probably not having been altered. Actually, the first time I looked at it, my impression was that the different aspect of the center area resulted from the sand/mud having been flushed by the blast of the ROV's propeller(s) or turbine(s).

auv-ee will possibly have some interesting comments, especially regarding the altitude at which the ROV operates above the seafloor, and the suspected "washing effect" of the propellers ?

Limited,

Maybe, but I think you´re taking for granted exactly what the hypothesis of image alteration wants you to belief.

The "fact" that you have less features at the image center, if you think about that, is a parti pris suggested to you by what you´re seeing...

Has anything been retrieved yet?

Centrosphere
 

The "Vanishing of shadows" happens differently depending on the number of light sources. If you have only one light source on the optical axis of the lens, you effectively see no shadows at all in the picture. Photographers sometimes use ring flashes surrounding the lens to achieve this. If the sun is the light source, you will see shadows away from the centre of the picture due to the increasing "parallax" angle.

But in this picture there are at least two light sources, one on each side of the lens. On the left side of the picture you see the shadow cast by the left lamp, and on the right side the shadow cast by the right-side lamp. In the middle of the picture both lamps have equal brightness and so each lamp cancels out the shadow cast by the second lamp (unless the feature is big enough so that the lamps create two overlapping shadows). The result is a low contrast area.

.jpg algorithm
 

Quote: "I believe the "different texture" to be an artifact of the jpg compression"

Kudos in remembering this possibility!