More Engine views
 

TurbineD, lomapaseo, Bear and others interested in the engines:

There are a lot more views of the engines now available in the latest video posted by BEA:

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....des.pieces.mp4

Hi,

Indeed .. but methink his mission is also:
"If necessary, recommendations of security measures will be made urgently to prevent the accident from happening again"
And it's seem that BEA (maybe in the shadow) had made already one concerning the AF447 case ... as AF revised by a technical note how manage plane when incoherent speeds are read and also send all the pilots to a new (improved?) sim training for that.

Flight recorders are designed to withstand immersion to 20,000ft - double the depth and, if my physics knowledge is correct, double the pressure.

promani
 

Quote:
Unfortunately 228 souls had to lose their lives to prove, . . . .

Excactly that thought of the sad side of I&A investigation is what made me stop that job some 30+ years ago.

Older subsystems can provide good results
 

Older subsystems can provide good results. With proper operation and operated taking into account and respecting it´s limitations.

The Economic downturns affecting air transport perhaps played a role.

IMO much more serious is the "Pitot´s" issue. For new and critically dependent machines.

The new concept of Laser principle AS sensors (some patents filed by EADS) shows we will be during some time still vulnerable.

So is crucial respect the limitations. (obviously including here the ones of "FBW" highly optmized airliners)

"slats11, I suspected that this problem was known and a suitable bludgeon was needed to get the airlines to switch rapidly. I noticed the pilots unions got on the BEA, AirBus, and the airlines pretty quickly, too. So they took advantage of a handy crisis to get the job done. (God that sounds slimy.) And, indeed, it probably did need doing."

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that given the acars messages and any other data that was gathered,that Airbus did not input all the data into a 300 flight simulator in TLS and have known exactly what happened for a very long time.
I have seen flight the engineers doing just this sort of work when my airline used to use TLS for recurrent simulator checks.
Recovering the recorders will simply prove their assumptions and provide a reason as to why adverse weather was penetrated by this crew.

Turbine D

You will probably want to have a thorough look at these two screenshots extracted from BEA's most recent video ("remontée des pièces"):

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9...1619h21m09.png

http://imageshack.us/m/641/2627/vlcs...1619h19m15.png

According to the comments of the BEA engineer, the state of the blades is proof that the engine was delivering thrust.

In fact, if you watch to the end of that latest video, you'll see the other engine being lifted out of the water as well. That one is indeed missing the fan blade hub. Perhaps an indicator that it was first to begin absorbing the energy of impact?

According to the sources questioned by Le Figaro, of new elements on the responsibility for Air France or its crew will be communicated by the BEA on Tuesday. The final report of investigation of the BEA should be written during several months but it is possible that the scenario of the drama is definitively established from here the end of the week. Contacted by Le Figaro, the spokesperson of Air France refused with any comment, “as long as the BEA will not have concluded the whole of the checks necessary”. On its side, Airbus also refused with any confirmation.

Such a fast outcome was rather unhoped-for a few months ago still. The wreck of the AF 447 was discovered just six weeks ago. “All that occurs since the discovery from the wreck: the localization of the black boxes, their increase and the fact that they are still completely readable after having spent two years by 4000 meters basic, is completely extraordinary”, Monday evening a government source recalled.

Graybeard;

Thank you for the links...the list from the Collins site is impressive.

As per my history here, I am not anti-automation. But I think you will agree that efficacy, reliability and "truth-telling" in automated systems must be inherent and obvious (to those suitably trained and experienced). I would adopt the system, as described, in a heartbeat and then take the experience of learning and utility from there. "If it works well why look back at older systems?", is the approach.
This isn't a "Plug-'n-Play" system so let's acknowledge that with each change and improvement, continuous training and the benefits of experience are necessary aspects of this, and any kit today.

Graybeard,

I´m not a pilot, but I find telling that a weather radar maker feels that airlines should demand this capability.

Maybe something to factor in the AF 447 incident?

JPI33600;

I am looking carefully (and haven't seen the new video yet, so I may be stating the obvious!), but I think these are photographs of the other engine.

The entire front section is missing from the engine of which the photograph was posted earlier, (lomapaseo and others) but here, the N1 remains fastened, with blades damaged (struck by shrapnel during rotation) and bent in ways with which we are familiar in other accidents.

More Engine Views
 

auv-ee,

Thanks for the video, it answers some real questions!

Graybeard, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment here. The C-130 is still in use, a fifty year old design.

If the radar system has 30 years of operational use, then it would seem to me that most of how it works is known, and the amount of documentation in pilot operational manuals would be on record, and whatever new tweaks that come out are disseminated. If pilots do not routinely actually use the radar while flying, or are not interested in how that piece of gear works i suspect more are interested). Do not pilots want to get the most out of their gear? (Maybe how I was trained biases my opinion on this). Periodic refresher training isn't optional. Would not use of weather radar be part and parcel of the annual (or bi annual) training requirement?

I found that using radar became easier by using it frequently, and by exploring the features.

Granted if you are on 40-80 minute sectors routinely, there is less time do a bit of working the system, comparatively, than when you have 4-8 hour sectors. Perhaps me idea is only applicable to part of the workforce.

But use it or lose it seems to be a theme on these boards (in re hand flying, approaches, takeoffs, landings, and more). Likewise with radar skills -- use it or lose it.

I do appreciate that the state of the art does advance. Nice piece of kit that you are presenting, no question. :ok:

I note that you feel that it would be good to offload pilot work load, yet again, so that the folks on the flight deck have one more robot at work, doing what pilots used to do.

As I noted to PJ2, some of this is a question of philosophy. I consider my question well answered. Much obliged.

Thanks again for your explaining the suggested upgrade.

The non-human cost of retreving all wreckage must be huge. If you have the FDRs, some engines, the cockpit electronics, and can take pictures of the rest, will they continue to raise all the pieces at all cost?

I'm not intending to be morbid, but the press reported that two bodies were recently recovered and that DNA testing is being done. If the DNA tests are not conclusive, the press report said that no more bodies will be raised.

I can't image why the DNA would not be conclusive; how could that be possible?

Engine Screenshots
 

JPI33600,
Thanks for the still photos of the first engine hoisted onboard the ship. It is a classical indication the engine was running at impact with the fan blades bent in the opposite direction of rotation. In the top photo, the bottom of the engine is facing the camera and suffered the most vertical impact damage, as you can see, the fan frame struts and casing are totally missing.

3holeover,
I would agree with you. The second engine to be hoisted onboard is severely damaged, fan totally missing. It was the one photographed laying on the sea floor. It is probably the one that hit sea first, on the low wing?

In the paper quoted by Rotor12 above 2 informations : no responsability for Airbus and details regarding responsabilty of Air France or the crew could be revealed as soon as tomorrow.

What (how) and the Why´s
 

At this time i guess they yet known what (how)* occurred during the more important last 40+ minutes of recorded data. They had time to hear CVR and see the FDR most important parameters to correlate (timing) to the Audio and "construct a global picture". And yet started the "why´s" study.

Now the many players are about to enter the "organizational turbulent climate" where huge interests are present.

With big clusters of CB´s in their path to the new, summer interim report.

In the meantime we hope to be able to observe some "wave shocks" from the accident.

I hope we could see Recommendations, etc. before summer.

* From 01:35:43 to end of recording estimated for sure after last ACARS msgs and before the next, scheduled and never received.

Wx radar
 

having stayed out of the debate .. which remains my policy until findings are released by BAE, I wish to add my comments regarding weather radar from personal experience.

If it is not pointed at the correct part of the cloud, there will be no return, ie no water droplets to give a return. It means scanning a vertical profile from surface (clutter) returns upwards to get a vertical section through something active.

My ex, working as c/c along with her colleagues were horribly bounced over the roof structure and galley areas because flying in high overcast with no look down, a very active cell failed to paint. One girl was medivac'd out and never flew again having flown 4 rows forward from the aisle and head first into the 'F' foot well.

Own experience from the flightdeck, the number of times I entered "WX radar failed to paint visually active TS cells" together with the Fl, range, angles, and gain used, only to have it signed off as "tested on ground found satis" are too numerous to mention.

Of the manufactures mentioned one was worse than the other in this respect, & I will leave it at that.

Le Figaro informations
 

In addition to rotor12 post


Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : Airbus semble tre mis hors de cause


INFO LE FIGARO - Selon nos informations, les premiers éléments émanant des boîtes noires orientent les enquêteurs vers une erreur de l'équipage d'Air France.

According to our informations, first elements from the black boxes lead the investigators to a crew mistake.

Les boites noires ont vite parlé. Selon des sources au gouvernement et des proches de l'enquête interrogées par Le Figaro, les premiers éléments extraits des boites noires mettraient Airbus hors de cause dans le drame qui a couté la vie à 228 passagers le 1er juin 2009.

The black boxes have spoken very quickly. According to sources in government and close to the investigation interviewed by Le Figaro, the first elements extracted from the black boxes would put Airbus out of cause in the tragedy that claimed the lives of 228 passengers June 1st 2009.

Les enquêteurs du Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses (BEA) ont pu exploiter dès ce week-end les données du Data Flight Recorder (DFDR), l'une des deux boites noires, qui a enregistré les paramètres du vol et en conclure assez rapidement que l'Airbus A 330 était hors de cause. Le travail du BEA va maintenant consister à déterminer ce qui s'est passé dans le cockpit, et si les erreurs commises sont de la responsabilité de l'équipage ou de celle d'Air France, notamment du fait des procédures de sécurité imposée par la compagnie.

(...)
BEA Investigators were able to read data from the DFDR (...) the last week-end (...) and have concluded rather quickly that the A330 was out of cause.
The work of the BEA consists now to determine what happened in the cockpit and if the errors made are the responsibility of the crew or the one of Air France, especially because of the security procedures imposed by the company.


Selon les sources interrogées par Le Figaro, de nouveaux éléments sur la responsabilité d'Air France ou de son équipage seront communiquées par le BEA dans la journée de mardi.
.../...
According to sources questioned by Le Figaro, new elements on Air France responsability or its crew will be communicated by the BEA Tuesday.

Le rapport définitif d'enquête du BEA devrait être rédigé durant plusieurs mois mais il est possible que le scénario du drame soit définitivement établi d'ici la fin de semaine. Contactée par Le Figaro, le porte-parole d'Air France s'est refusé à tout commentaire, «tant que le BEA n'aura pas mené à bien l'ensemble des vérifications nécessaires». De son côté, Airbus s'est également refusé à toute confirmation.

.../...
Air France, contacted by Le Figaro declined to answer and Airbus refused to confirm the information.
.../...