Clues to Air France 447

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
World • Wed Jun 3, 2009 at 10:51 am PDT • Views: 727

An interesting take on what might have happened to Air France Flight 447: A Past Flight May Offer Clues to Air France 447.

Following an investigation of the A330’s uncommanded dive, Australian aviation officials, assisted by U.S. and French authorities, blamed a pair of simultaneous failures for the near disaster. The plane has three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs), which are designed to help the plane’s flight-control computer fly the plane safely. The system is intended to eliminate the possibility of electronic error: the flight computer, which is always monitoring the trio, can disregard one ADIRU if it begins relaying information that conflicts with the other two.

But that’s not what happened when one of them went awry on October 7 and began sending erroneous data spikes on the plane’s angle of attack (AOA) - the angle between its wings and the air flowing over them - to the flight control computer. “For some reason the damn computer disregarded the healthy channels,” says Hans Weber, an aviation expert who heads Tecop International, an aviation consulting firm in San Diego. “Instead, it acted upon the information from the rogue channel.” The computer, responding to the faulty data, put the plane into a dive. (Read “Is There a Cause for Fear of Flying?”)

In its preliminary investigative report, released March 6, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said Airbus had initially said that it didn’t know of any other similar events. But when the same thing happened again, involving a different aircraft on December 27, Airbus combed its computerized flight files and found data fingerprints suggesting similar ADIRU problems had occurred on a total of four flights. One of the earlier instances, in fact, included a September 2006 event on the same plane that entered the uncommanded dive in October (the other three flights had continued safely on). The same VCR-sized ADIRU was to blame in both those cases, although it had supposedly undergone a needed “re-alignment” following the 2006 event. All three planes carried the same brand and model of ADIRU, as do 397 of the 900 330s and 340s in the Airbus fleet.

It is not yet known whether Air France 447, an A330, carried the troublesome variety of ADIRU. But if it did, and if the Air France plane plummeted into an uncommanded dive while traveling through a downdraft generated by storms - a common occurrence over the region of the Atlantic Ocean where the plane went down - it could have been doomed as it entered a steep dive and likely broke up.

(Hat tip: CIA Reject.)

Advertisement

231 comments

  • Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Gang of One  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:53:39am

Prayers for the families -- bad news.

2 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:54:01am

But wouldn't the pilots have had a chance to radio something?
It is strange that there was no message except the automated one that said no power and lost pressurization.

3 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:54:21am

I have been reading a few conspiracy theories on the interwebs that this AF 447 was brought down by missiles and bombs on board. This is a new twist.

4 Pianobuff  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:54:29am

Any experts know if this kind of failure could have an immediate effect on communications capability (assuming the pilots were physically capable)?

5 vxbush  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:54:35am

Fascinating. Sad, if this is indeed the cause. It almost reads as if they are asking the ADIRU to validate the data and decide which data point is invalid. That usually requires a human.

6 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:55:13am

re: #2 Kosh's Shadow

But wouldn't the pilots have had a chance to radio something?
It is strange that there was no message except the automated one that said no power and lost pressurization.

Well lost pressurization would be one of the first signs of breaking up in mid-air.

7 Kragar  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:55:24am

I was listening to a story this morning that some of the last data received said the plane went off of automatic pilot and soon after was registered a severe altitude drop. They said recovery of the flight recorders is extremely unlikely because of the underwater terrain.

8 vxbush  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:56:11am

re: #7 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I was listening to a story this morning that some of the last data received said the plane went off of automatic pilot and soon after was registered a severe altitude drop. They said recovery of the flight recorders is extremely unlikely because of the underwater terrain.

That's really unfortunate. We may never know what happened without that flight recorder.

9 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:56:12am

re: #5 vxbush

Fascinating. Sad, if this is indeed the cause. It almost reads as if they are asking the ADIRU to validate the data and decide which data point is invalid. That usually requires a human.

The assumption is that with three AIRDUs, only one will fail at a time, and the other two will agree. The computer is supposed to use data from the two that agree.

10 Kragar  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:57:10am

re: #2 Kosh's Shadow

But wouldn't the pilots have had a chance to radio something?
It is strange that there was no message except the automated one that said no power and lost pressurization.

A pilot being interviewed said radio tranmissions in that region are about as reliable as 2 cans on a string. Something about the atmospheric conditions and the frequencies used.

11 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:57:12am

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

Well lost pressurization would be one of the first signs of breaking up in mid-air.

Yes, but there was no message from the pilots. It is possible that the turbulence was so bad that they couldn't send anything. But that part makes me suspicious.

12 HoosierHoops  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:57:21am

I read the Plane was pretty new..Only 4 years old...
They reported an electrical short.. My guess is they lost all electrical power..
Thus no transmissions to ground..

13 Gang of One  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:57:25am

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

Well lost pressurization would be one of the first signs of breaking up in mid-air.

Would this system still be able to record the malfunction, i.e., a mid-air break up? I would imagine if the break up were explosive, there'd be no data recorded at that point ...

14 vxbush  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:58:04am

re: #9 Kosh's Shadow

The assumption is that with three AIRDUs, only one will fail at a time, and the other two will agree. The computer is supposed to use data from the two that agree.

And yet, it appears (given the repeated instances where the computer did *not* interpret correctly) that there is a logic error somewhere. That, or the only other option is that two ADIRUs gave faulty readings and the computer assumed it was correct.

15 KansasMom  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:58:07am

I also heard on the radio this morning that 4 days before the flight, the airport had to inspect an Air France plane because of a bomb threat.

Unless they are able to recover the data recorder, the cause of this crash may never be known.

16 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:58:54am

re: #7 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I was listening to a story this morning that some of the last data received said the plane went off of automatic pilot and soon after was registered a severe altitude drop. They said recovery of the flight recorders is extremely unlikely because of the underwater terrain.

The French do have equipment that could look for them, but it is much harder in mountainous areas. The towed "sleds" wouldn't be easy to use; they'd have to do anything deep with a manned submersible.

17 Fast Eddie  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:59:02am

The black box apparently has enough battery power to "ping" for about 30 days, which could help it be found and recovered by a robot diving vessel even in this water depth.

18 KenJen  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:59:07am

re: #2 Kosh's Shadow

But wouldn't the pilots have had a chance to radio something?
It is strange that there was no message except the automated one that said no power and lost pressurization.

Maybe it was similar to the Payne Stewart situation? Sudden loss of cabin pressure causing hypoxia. Only seconds to put on O2 masks?

19 Wendya  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:59:34am

It's still a bit early for speculation.

20 calcajun  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 10:59:54am

That's the sort of problem that caused the crash of a US Airways plane a few years back--the computer corrected a problem that was not there.

I can only hope that the end for those people was swift. As a kid, I remember seeing gun camera footage of shattered B-17's and B-24's hurtling to Earth with some of the crews trapped inside. A gut-wrenching and terrifying end to be sure.

21 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:00:06am

re: #14 vxbush

And yet, it appears (given the repeated instances where the computer did *not* interpret correctly) that there is a logic error somewhere. That, or the only other option is that two ADIRUs gave faulty readings and the computer assumed it was correct.

I was replying on the design. Yes, it sounds like there is an error and the computer, under some conditions, picks the one bad one and ignores the two that agree.

22 Kragar  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:00:57am

re: #18 KenJen

Maybe it was similar to the Payne Stewart situation? Sudden loss of cabin pressure causing hypoxia. Only seconds to put on O2 masks?

The pilot said they would have had 10 seconds to don masks before the blacked out at that altitude.

23 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:01:21am

re: #20 calcajun

That's the sort of problem that caused the crash of a US Airways plane a few years back--the computer corrected a problem that was not there.

I can only hope that the end for those people was swift. As a kid, I remember seeing gun camera footage of shattered B-17's and B-24's hurtling to Earth with some of the crews trapped inside. A gut-wrenching and terrifying end to be sure.

At 35-40,000 feet, consciousness lasts only seconds.

24 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:01:29am

re: #3 FurryOldGuyJeans

I have been reading a few conspiracy theories on the interwebs that this AF 447 was brought down by missiles and bombs on board. This is a new twist.

It's Bush's fault!

25 calcajun  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:01:30am

re: #13 Gang of One

Would this system still be able to record the malfunction, i.e., a mid-air break up? I would imagine if the break up were explosive, there'd be no data recorded at that point ...

They said that the VDR and FDR --the "black boxes" are probably lost forever as the water is too deep. It's like the Air India flight that fell out of the sky some years back.

26 Gang of One  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:01:31am

re: #17 Fast Eddie

The black box apparently has enough battery power to "ping" for about 30 days, which could help it be found and recovered by a robot diving vessel even in this water depth.


How deep? Read somewhere that depths reach 9,000+ feet in the area the plane is thought to have gone down.. Would a box survive that much pressure?

27 HoosierHoops  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:01:31am

re: #17 Fast Eddie

The black box apparently has enough battery power to "ping" for about 30 days, which could help it be found and recovered by a robot diving vessel even in this water depth.

Very true..Let's hope it works out..But the area where they crashed has a literal Rocky Mountains underneath the waves running from 8k to 20k in depth.
A very real challenge

28 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:02:06am

re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A pilot being interviewed said radio tranmissions in that region are about as reliable as 2 cans on a string. Something about the atmospheric conditions and the frequencies used.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. You are in open air, you have line of sight to whatever you are communicating with, UHF transmission/receptions cut through most storms, and there are back up frequencies, a number of radio rely stations on island in the Atlantic, etc.

They would have to have lost all (most) power first, before anything else happened, which is what I suspect.

29 Kragar  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:02:23am

re: #19 Wendya

It's still a bit early for speculation.

You're awfully quick to make that assumption!

/

30 jcm  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:02:23am

re: #2 Kosh's Shadow

But wouldn't the pilots have had a chance to radio something?
It is strange that there was no message except the automated one that said no power and lost pressurization.

Recover control then radio... pilots would have been fighting for their lives.

31 JohnnyReb  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:02:27am

I am not sure about that. 30,000 feet plunge without the crew having any time for a mayday? Me thinks someone is reaching here.

32 Sean  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:02:33am

Don't discount the possibility that the speed of the unfolding catastrophe prevented the pilots from making any radio transmissions before they were unable to by the damage to the aircraft's systems. They may have simply been too concerned with trying to save their aircraft.

IMHO- In many accidents we don't get a mayday call.

33 albusteve  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:02:40am

re: #26 Gang of One

How deep? Read somewhere that depths reach 9,000+ feet in the area the plane is thought to have gone down.. Would a box survive that much pressure?

yes...22k ft for 30 days

34 CIA Reject  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:03:16am

re: #5 vxbush

Fascinating. Sad, if this is indeed the cause. It almost reads as if they are asking the ADIRU to validate the data and decide which data point is invalid. That usually requires a human.

AirBus has had a long and (IMHO) frightening history with their flight control systems disregarding human attempts to override them. This summarizes just a few.

There is a particularly chilling video from about 10 or 15 years ago of an AirBus flying majestically into the ground at the Paris Air Show because the pilots had mistakenly commanded full flaps and the (at that time brand new) automated FCS decided they wanted to land and so it locked the ship into an idle descent that the pilots could not get out of.

AirBus claimed to have fixed that problem, but given the penchant for re-use of computer codes I think some variant of it lives on to this day.

35 KansasMom  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:03:28am

re: #26 Gang of One

How deep? Read somewhere that depths reach 9,000+ feet in the area the plane is thought to have gone down.. Would a box survive that much pressure?

If its pinging, its probably intact. But the battery that powers that 'ping' may not last a full 30 days in that environment.

36 razorbacker  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:04:16am

www.flightlevel390blogsp.com

Blog by pilot flying Airbus A320 for a living.

He has some thoughts.

37 Karagush  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:04:17am

thats why pilots call them "scarebus" weird things happen in wind shear conditions, sometimes.

38 KansasMom  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:05:02am

re: #32 Sean

Don't discount the possibility that the speed of the unfolding catastrophe prevented the pilots from making any radio transmissions before they were unable to by the damage to the aircraft's systems. They may have simply been too concerned with trying to save their aircraft.

IMHO- In many accidents we don't get a mayday call.

True. The pilots are concerned first with flying the plane.

39 Leonidas Hoplite  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:05:06am

Not for nothing but I'd rather have a drunk pilot at the controls than something like these computers that clearly have issues. Can't the pilot or co-pilot just override these things? Kinda like my cruise control? Leave it the French to think that an individual shouldn't be responsible for difficult tasks and must instead be assigned to a faceless, uncaring leviathan, be it electronic or bureaucratic.

40 razorbacker  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:06:01am

re: #39 Leonidas Hoplite

Not for nothing but I'd rather have a drunk pilot at the controls than something like these computers that clearly have issues. Can't the pilot or co-pilot just override these things? Kinda like my cruise control? Leave it the French to think that an individual shouldn't be responsible for difficult tasks and must instead be assigned to a faceless, uncaring leviathan, be it electronic or bureaucratic.

Airbus computers can't be overridden.

Boeing computers can.

Your choice.

41 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:06:02am
The [Qantas] plane abruptly entered a smooth 650-foot dive (which the crew sensed was not being caused by turbulence) that sent dozens of people smashing into the airplane's luggage bins and ceiling. More than 100 of the 300 people on board were hurt, with broken bones, neck and spinal injuries, and severe lacerations

Important safety reminder, campers: ALWAYS WEAR YOUR SEAT BELT WHILE IN FLIGHT, unless you absolutely have to take it off (e.g. to go to the head).

42 KenJen  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:06:07am

There's got to be a better way to do this black box thing. Why can't it transmit info?

43 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:06:53am

re: #34 CIA Reject

AirBus has had a long and (IMHO) frightening history with their flight control systems disregarding human attempts to override them. This summarizes just a few.

There is a particularly chilling video from about 10 or 15 years ago of an AirBus flying majestically into the ground at the Paris Air Show because the pilots had mistakenly commanded full flaps and the (at that time brand new) automated FCS decided they wanted to land and so it locked the ship into an idle descent that the pilots could not get out of.

AirBus claimed to have fixed that problem, but given the penchant for re-use of computer codes I think some variant of it lives on to this day.

And, maybe not related, but, if I remember correctly, the most current Airbus, that new super jumbo one (I don't remember the aircraft number), had electrical system problems as close to a year before it was rolled out.

When they started to put sections of the aircraft together, wiring and cabling from one cabin piece to the other didn't match.

that doesn't speak to anything in this case, but from what I hear, the Airbus is extremely dependent on

44 Gang of One  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:07:36am

Walt, don't leave us hanging ...!

45 John Neverbend  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:07:40am

Here's an interesting but lengthy analysis of the likely weather conditions over that part of the Atlantic with some interesting follow-up comments from a large group including active pilots. The comments alone are worth reading (they start about 1/3 down the scroll bar).

Detailed meteorological analysis

46 albusteve  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:07:49am

re: #41 Occasional Reader

Important safety reminder, campers: ALWAYS WEAR YOUR SEAT BELT WHILE IN FLIGHT, unless you absolutely have to take it off (e.g. to go to the head).

I do...and my Depenz

47 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:09:18am

As the bumper stickers in Everett, WA say: If It Ain't Boeing, I Ain't Going. I don't fly much anyway.

48 MandyManners  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:09:32am

If I can't drive it, I don't need to go.

49 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:10:30am

re: #34 CIA Reject

AirBus has had a long and (IMHO) frightening history with their flight control systems disregarding human attempts to override them. This summarizes just a few.

There is a particularly chilling video from about 10 or 15 years ago of an AirBus flying majestically into the ground at the Paris Air Show because the pilots had mistakenly commanded full flaps and the (at that time brand new) automated FCS decided they wanted to land and so it locked the ship into an idle descent that the pilots could not get out of.

AirBus claimed to have fixed that problem, but given the penchant for re-use of computer codes I think some variant of it lives on to this day.

That is the Airbus design philosophy - the computer knows best. It reflects their political attitudes, I believe.
There have been other crashes due to this.

50 Gang of One  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:10:31am

re: #48 MandyManners

If I can't drive it, I don't need to go.

As Steven Wright said: "Everything is within walking distance, if you have the time."

51 Pianobuff  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:10:41am

re: #45 John Neverbend

Here's an interesting but lengthy analysis of the likely weather conditions over that part of the Atlantic with some interesting follow-up comments from a large group including active pilots. The comments alone are worth reading (they start about 1/3 down the scroll bar).

Detailed meteorological analysis

Excellent link. Still reading...

52 Jetpilot1101  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:10:42am

If this was a computer issue that caused a steep pitch down or pitch up attitude, there isn't much the pilots could have done especially if this was combined with significant turbulence, wind shear, lightning strikes etc. Thunderstorms are no joke and all pilots are taught to avoid them by at least 20 miles. These guys were professionals and my guess is they didn't see this coming and whatever happened, happened really fast.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all the families of the people lost.

53 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:10:47am

re: #27 HoosierHoops

Very true..Let's hope it works out..But the area where they crashed has a literal Rocky Mountains underneath the waves

Then shouldn't Walter L. Newton be live-blogging the search?

/

54 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:11:38am

re: #48 MandyManners

If I can't drive it, I don't need to go.

Nah. There's no reason to limit yourself like that. (And on a per-mile basis, driving is MUCH more dangerous.)

55 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:11:41am

OT - Rush is pushing the "secret muslim" bit about Obama today.

56 Kragar  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:11:44am

re: #50 Gang of One

As Steven Wright said: "Everything is within walking distance, if you have the time."

He's a funny man

57 HoosierHoops  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:11:47am

re: #48 MandyManners

If I can't drive it, I don't need to go.

I love flying.. I remember on my 21st birthday my friends got together and send me up on a glider in Calistoga..Totally rocked

58 Baier  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:12:45am

re: #3 FurryOldGuyJeans

I have been reading a few conspiracy theories on the interwebs that this AF 447 was brought down by missiles and bombs on board. This is a new twist.

There was a bomb threat and the plane was searched before take off.

59 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:12:53am

re: #52 Jetpilot1101

Thunderstorms are no joke and all pilots are taught to avoid them by at least 20 miles.

That's one part I don't understand... the reports all say they flew right smack through a storm prior to losing contact. I'd have thought they'd either change flight path or altitude to avoid that like the plague.

60 albusteve  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:12:59am

I only fly a few times a year...back up north or around to party...I love those clear skies and fantastic views of the cities or the mountains...I don't drink or sleep...I just fly along thinking...toast

61 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:13:15am

BBIAB - I have some packages I have to bring to the P.O.

62 SasquatchOnSteroids  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:13:34am

re: #50 Gang of One

As Steven Wright said: "Everything is within walking distance, if you have the time."

He also said (paraphrasing) that since the black box is the only thing to survive a plane crash, they should just make the plane out of what they make the black box with.

63 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:13:34am

Actually, this makes sense. Imagine the ADIRU getting corrupted data following a lightning strike, and then acting on it. If it had a faulty unit, and it was accepting data from the faulty channel, there was little the crew could do.

Given that the weather in the vicinity included strong t-storms, this unit could have sent the wrong messages to flight systems, and ordered a dive or other actions, leading to the destruction of the plane and killing all those on board.

The problem with this theory is that finding the flight data recorders and voice recorders in the Atlantic Ocean is going to make finding a needle in a haystack seem like child's play.

We only have theories to go on, and without parts of the planes to confirm, this is speculation - albeit an informed speculation on the part of those who know something about the plane systems.

64 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:13:50am

re: #50 Gang of One

As Steven Wright said: "Everything is within walking distance, if you have the time."

I'd like to see him walk to Hawaii.

65 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:14:34am

re: #3 FurryOldGuyJeans

I have been reading a few conspiracy theories on the interwebs that this AF 447 was brought down by missiles and bombs on board. This is a new twist.

Oh, Lordy... let me guess... US Navy sekrit missul test! again?

66 Kragar  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:14:46am

re: #64 Kosh's Shadow

I'd like to see him walk to Hawaii.

Just wait on plate tectonics and the oceans to boil away and its no problem.

67 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:14:46am

re: #62 SasquatchOnSteroids

He also said (paraphrasing) that since the black box is the only thing to survive a plane crash, they should just make the plane out of what they make the black box with.

Which of course would make the plane safe because it would be too heavy to fly.

68 damnyanqui  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:00am

I'm no pilot but I always get nervous with these aviation systems in which there is NO direct connection at all between the stick and the rudder, or the flaps, or the engines. You just have to trust the computer.
You'd like to think that if all else failed, the pilot could operate, maneuver, even land or crash land, a plane just by maneuvering the controls by hand.
No way with Airbus, so I've read.
Scary

69 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:02am

re: #55 Walter L. Newton

OT - Rush is pushing the "secret muslim" bit about Obama today.

I had him on for one minute, until I heard "Sotomayor is a radical." I put some music on.

70 opnion  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:15am

I saw a commercial pilot on TV the other day discussing this incident.
He flew the same equipment & said that he took a lightening strike on the same route that just went threw the whole cabin & out.
He speculated that this Air France plane took a hit & that it destroyed the electrical system.
Actually computer malfunction sounds more credible.

71 pink freud  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:29am

re: #58 Baier

There was a bomb threat and the plane was searched before take off.

The bomb threat was made on May 27 to the same flight.

72 Gang of One  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:36am

re: #56 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

He's a funny man

Yes. Was in the Village once with a friend at the Comedy Cellar[?] around 1990 or so on MacDougal Street. Steve Wright came in, unannounced, and did 45 minutes.
Best. Comedy. Ever.

73 MrPaulRevere  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:37am

Charles, if you haven't seen this already, nirthers indict Obama, or something...

74 callahan23  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:37am

re: #48 MandyManners

If I can't drive it, I don't need to go.

Regardless of what I love flying.
Even when it is getting rocky 'n bumpy just the merrier.

Still my thoughts go out to all the relatives of those lost.

75 KansasMom  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:52am

re: #67 Kosh's Shadow

Which of course would make the plane safe because it would be too heavy to fly.

Pssst!
You're ruining the joke for people who don't understand aircraft design!

76 jcm  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:15:59am

re: #34 CIA Reject

Design philosophy.

Airbus the computers check on the pilots they cannot exceed computer flight parameters.

Boeing pilots check the computers and can over ride computer flight parameters. Boeing knows in not all extreme situations can be planned for and written in code, that the analog butt in the front seat with experience and situational awareness may come with a solution outside the program.

77 John Neverbend  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:16:04am

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

Well lost pressurization would be one of the first signs of breaking up in mid-air.

Also, if the plane was caught in a 100mph updraft or experienced other sudden turbulence sufficient to cause massive structural damage, the g-forces sustained by all passengers and crew would make manual radio communication unlikely.

78 Kragar  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:16:24am

re: #72 Gang of One

Yes. Was in the Village once with a friend at the Comedy Cellar[?] around 1990 or so on MacDougal Street. Steve Wright came in, unannounced, and did 45 minutes.
Best. Comedy. Ever.

"I've got a lifesize map of the world. Its a bitch to fold."

79 Jetpilot1101  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:16:36am

re: #59 Occasional Reader

That's one part I don't understand... the reports all say they flew right smack through a storm prior to losing contact. I'd have thought they'd either change flight path or altitude to avoid that like the plague.

The 20 NM distance comes from the longest recorded lightning bolt - 20 NM. I can't imagine that they flew right through a thunderstorm. Believe me when I say this, pilots avoid convective activity at all costs. There is absolutely no reason to fly right through a supercell, it will only end badly. My guess is they were trying to sneak through it and it closed in around them; not an uncommon practice but generally dine when the controller can guide you through the cells. I'd really like to know if their weather radar was working and how much fuel they had onboard.

80 calcajun  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:17:01am

re: #61 Walter L. Newton

BBIAB - I have some packages I have to bring to the P.O.

If you see any of our photos on the wall there, be sure to let us know.//

81 Gang of One  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:17:08am

re: #59 Occasional Reader

That's one part I don't understand... the reports all say they flew right smack through a storm prior to losing contact. I'd have thought they'd either change flight path or altitude to avoid that like the plague.

I think I remember seeing a graphic showing that the storm reached higher than the aircraft's service cieling, something like 55,000 and the cileling of the aircraft is around 40K ...

82 Gang of One  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:17:56am

re: #64 Kosh's Shadow

I'd like to see him walk to Hawaii.


Maybe during the winter, when the Pacific is frozen.

83 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:18:29am

I think we had a bit of a "perfect storm" in this one, the plane was on a sparsely traveled route, out of radar contact and over a very deep, non traffic-ed ocean.

As for the "bash Airbus" crowd, this is the first crash of the A330, and the A318,A319,A320,A321, A330, A340 and A380 all have excellent safety records. If we were to just place blame on the mfg, Boeing would not look so good, a huge number of accidents in the last few years were 737-200's (mostly because of crappy mx and 3rd world operators)

I think what brought this down was rapid and catastrophic and caused the plane to lose power and control rapidly, the crew had very little time to react, and I don't believe the RAT would have even deployed.

Its sad, I worked in the industry for a long time, thankfully with no loss of life on my airline, but it was always in the back of my mind.

84 zombie  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:18:47am

Don't want to rank on AirBus as compared to Boeing, but dang -- that computer malfunction is seriously uncool. Airbuses have always made me vaguely nervous, and I've only flown on one of them once. For some reason, perhaps chauvinism, I always prefer Boeing craft over AirBus and the others. This report about AirBus computers going haywire only confirms my uneasiness.

85 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:18:54am

re: #76 jcm

Design philosophy.

Airbus the computers check on the pilots they cannot exceed computer flight parameters.

Boeing pilots check the computers and can over ride computer flight parameters. Boeing knows in not all extreme situations can be planned for and written in code, that the analog butt in the front seat with experience and situational awareness may come with a solution outside the program.

Yes, and sometimes, damaging the aircraft because of exceeding the envelope is better than wrecking it in a crash, and only the pilot is in a position to tell.

I don't know what system Boeing uses, but I'd guess it is similar to McDonnell-Douglas' system: The controls have a normal range of movement. If you push harder, it overrides the computer. No finding a button to push, do what comes naturally in a panic.

86 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:18:58am

re: #62 SasquatchOnSteroids

He also said (paraphrasing) that since the black box is the only thing to survive a plane crash, they should just make the plane out of what they make the black box with.

And I recall some other comedian talking about the whole "we're landing, please return your seat to the upright position" thing.

"Do you really think that if the plane smacks into terrain at 200 mph, it'll make a difference? 'He was killed instantly, of course: His seat was reclined. Everyone else just... walked away.'"

87 CIA Reject  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:19:00am

re: #76 jcm

Design philosophy.

Airbus the computers check on the pilots they cannot exceed computer flight parameters.

Boeing pilots check the computers and can over ride computer flight parameters. Boeing knows in not all extreme situations can be planned for and written in code, that the analog butt in the front seat with experience and situational awareness may come with a solution outside the program.

Amen.

As the old pilot's joke goes: "The air crew of the future will consist of one man and one dog. The man will be there to feed the dog and the dog will be there to bite the man if he tries to touch anything."

Apparently AirBus Industrie doesn't think that this is a joke...

88 zombie  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:20:33am

Has anyone linked to this yet?:

Air France Bomb Threat Before Flight 447 Crash

Just days before the mysterious crash of Air France Flight 447 in the Atlantic Ocean, Argentinean authorities reportedly delayed a similar Air France flight from Buenos Aires to Paris after the airline received a bomb threat over the phone.

Police and officials at Buenos Aires' Ezeiza Airport spent 90 minutes inspecting the threatened plane for explosives on the evening of May 27, but found nothing, according to a Brazilian news report.

During the search, passengers were not evacuated from the jet and later arrived safely at their destination in Paris.

89 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:21:12am

Forgive me if I think it's quite a coincidence that there was a bomb threat for the exact same flight at the exact same airport only one week ago.

90 Jetpilot1101  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:21:13am

Take care Lizards, have a great day.

Time for work, and yes, I have to fly tonight.

91 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:21:16am

re: #36 razorbacker

www.flightlevel390blogsp.com

Blog by pilot flying Airbus A320 for a living.

He has some thoughts.

From his previous entry:

...Maximum landing weight is still 2,600 pounds away. That, in itself, is interesting since we have been airborne five hours. We rolled out of the sack at 0200 hrs. (circadian time) and will arrive, knock on wood, at 1100 hrs.

Fuel burn -vs- landing weight... Fi-Fi's powerful nav computers are whispering to me, "Don't worry captain, we've got this under control."

Maybe... All the same, my stubby No.#2 pencil and pocket calculator are in the stand-by mode...

He doesn't totally trust the computers either.

92 Sean  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:21:23am

Scarebus- That's a new one! It's probably pretty accurate. Did they ever explain just why they lost the vertical fin & rudder in the Queens crash?

When I heard turbulence I remembered the CFRP part getting torn off and wondered if that could happen in wind shear.

93 HoosierHoops  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:21:44am

re: #90 Jetpilot1101

Take care Lizards, have a great day.

Time for work, and yes, I have to fly tonight.

Be safe! Have a great day

94 Ben Hur  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:21:58am

Any traction on the bomb threat story?

95 Tumulus11  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:21:58am
'For some reason the damn computer disregarded the healthy channels.'

. No automaton should be entrusted with decisions of human life and death.

96 KansasMom  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:22:07am

re: #88 zombie

Has anyone linked to this yet?:

Air France Bomb Threat Before Flight 447 Crash

No, I heard it on the radio this morning. Certainly adds a sinister note to the speculation.
I hope they can recover the data recorder, they need it.

97 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:22:27am

re: #72 Gang of One

I saw him (Wright) in concert once, I think at the Warner Theater in DC. Leon Redbone was the opening act. That was an interesting combination.

98 Baier  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:22:35am

re: #71 pink freud

The bomb threat was made on May 27 to the same flight.

Yes. You're right, the the flight with the same number was searched 4 days earlier. Still, I wouldn't say it's a crack-pot theory until more evidence is in.

[Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]

99 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:22:37am

re: #84 zombie

Don't want to rank on AirBus as compared to Boeing, but dang -- that computer malfunction is seriously uncool. Airbuses have always made me vaguely nervous, and I've only flown on one of them once. For some reason, perhaps chauvinism, I always prefer Boeing craft over AirBus and the others. This report about AirBus computers going haywire only confirms my uneasiness.

If you fly jetBlue, you're on Airbus exclusively (except for the smaller planes they picked up more recently - another non-Boeing plane). My experience with the Airbus via jetBlue has been quite positive. Better noise deadening on the planes, and jetBlue has comfortable seating as far as planes go. Passenger comfort was quite good.

Can't speak of other systems.

My experiences flying on Boeing planes (Continental, USAir, and/or Delta) have been good, but noisier than the Airbus flown by jetBlue or the other airlines.

100 MandyManners  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:22:55am

Wasn't the plane that went down in the Hudson an Airbus?

101 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:22:58am

re: #89 Spare O'Lake

Forgive me if I think it's quite a coincidence that there was a bomb threat for the exact same flight at the exact same airport only one week ago.

See zombie's link immediately above... it appears it was a different Air France flight, departing BA, not Rio.

102 jcm  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:23:41am

re: #59 Occasional Reader

That's one part I don't understand... the reports all say they flew right smack through a storm prior to losing contact. I'd have thought they'd either change flight path or altitude to avoid that like the plague.

T-Storms in that region aren't isolated cells, a whole storm line which couldn't be avoided.

103 Baier  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:23:42am

re: #100 MandyManners

Wasn't the plane that went down in the Hudson an Airbus?

to be fair, only two companies make 99% of all airplanes these days.

104 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:24:07am

re: #92 Sean

Scarebus- That's a new one! It's probably pretty accurate. Did they ever explain just why they lost the vertical fin & rudder in the Queens crash?

When I heard turbulence I remembered the CFRP part getting torn off and wondered if that could happen in wind shear.

The rudder problems also caused crashes on a few Boeing 737's (Usair in LGA, and United in PUB) and there were a few that nearly crashed.

105 zombie  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:24:20am

I know someone who worked on the OS of the chips that power the Mars Rover vehicles. They had a commandment: This OS has to NEVER fail in real-time. Because once the thing is up there on Mars, ain't no way to fix it.

They tested the system for FIVE YEARS and worked out every imaginable glitch.

And it paid off: the computers on the Mars Rovers have never failed or locked up or went screwy, ever, even after all this time under the most extreme conditions.

Now that is the kind of attitude and excellence-ethic America is famous for.

Airbus on the other hand...

106 JohnnyReb  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:24:23am

re: #96 KansasMom

No, I heard it on the radio this morning. Certainly adds a sinister note to the speculation.
I hope they can recover the data recorder, they need it.

Unless they get extremely lucky, the black box won't be recovered. The ocean there is extremely deep with very fast currents. There are just a few countries that have gear that can retrieve something that deep. The best thing in the world for that was the US research submarine NR-1. Sadly it is sitting in Portsmouth, MA waiting to be cut up for scrap.

107 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:24:24am

re: #94 Ben Hur

Any traction on the bomb threat story?

Only if it was phoned in by someone claiming to be at a Tea Party.

/

108 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:25:10am

re: #65 Occasional Reader

Oh, Lordy... let me guess... US Navy sekrit missul test! again?

I didn't bother to read further to find out. When I read the first foaming at the mouth paragraph I closed the FF tab.

I remember my days of buying into conspiracies, JFK for the most part, and I see how I was dragged in; and I still shake my head at how uncritical (stupid actually) I was.

109 KansasMom  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:25:11am

re: #92 Sean

Scarebus- That's a new one! It's probably pretty accurate. Did they ever explain just why they lost the vertical fin & rudder in the Queens crash?

When I heard turbulence I remembered the CFRP part getting torn off and wondered if that could happen in wind shear.

re: #100 MandyManners

Wasn't the plane that went down in the Hudson an Airbus?

Yes.

110 callahan23  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:25:16am

re: #100 MandyManners

Wasn't the plane that went down in the Hudson an Airbus?

That total engine failure could heave happened to any aircraft-make.

111 razorbacker  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:25:19am

I don't care what machine your are talking about. Any machine.

If it has moving parts, sooner or later one of those parts will break.

Pay your mechanic enough to keep him/her interested.

112 Learned Mother of Zion  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:25:26am

Crap, the flight I booked to Israel this September is an Airbus 330.

113 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:25:45am

re: #105 zombie

Airbus on the other hand...

Er, Boeing has had its problems, too. Search for "737 hard-over rudder".

114 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:26:07am

re: #112 Alouette

If that is on USAirways, your plane is brand spanking new, just got delivered today.

115 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:26:28am

re: #106 JohnnyReb

Unless they get extremely lucky, the black box won't be recovered. The ocean there is extremely deep with very fast currents. There are just a few countries that have gear that can retrieve something that deep. The best thing in the world for that was the US research submarine NR-1. Sadly it is sitting in Portsmouth, MA waiting to be cut up for scrap.

The French, IIRC, have some deep-diving equipment; the original mission that found the Titanic was on board a French ship.

116 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:26:39am

re: #103 Baier

to be fair, only two companies make 99% of all commercial airliners airplanes these days.

FTFY.

True enough (the percentage may be off, Canadair, Embraer, etc.). The Europeans invented Airbus to "compete fairly" with Boeing, et. al. in the US, and Boeing swallowed its remaining competition of any size.

117 SFGoth  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:26:46am

re: #23 Kosh's Shadow

At 35-40,000 feet, consciousness lasts only seconds.

Another reason to be strapped in when you're in your seat. It's much easier to grab hold of the mask if you're not flying around. I flew from Munich to S.F. yesterday on a Lufthansa 340-600. I was in seat 2K (;->) and I was rather shocked at how much turbulence we had w/o the pilot putting on the seatbelt sign. On UA, the bird hiccups and the sign goes on. The back of the plane must have been pretty rough. Anyway, given the height of equitorial storms -- up to 50,000 feet -- which a plane cannot climb over, I'm guessing there won't be any direct Brazil - France flights for awhile.

118 Baier  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:26:49am

re: #105 zombie

I know someone who worked on the OS of the chips that power the Mars Rover vehicles. They had a commandment: This OS has to NEVER fail in real-time. Because once the thing is up there on Mars, ain't no way to fix it.

They tested the system for FIVE YEARS and worked out every imaginable glitch.

And it paid off: the computers on the Mars Rovers have never failed or locked up or went screwy, ever, even after all this time under the most extreme conditions.

Now that is the kind of attitude and excellence-ethic America is famous for.

Airbus on the other hand...

I dated an engineer for awhile, and we went our with alum from her school. One worked for Boeing, and told, what he thought to be an amusing story, about workers attaching wings on with the wrong bolts. None left the factory, but you have to wonder how many mistakes like that they don't catch.

119 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:26:52am

re: #100 MandyManners

Wasn't the plane that went down in the Hudson an Airbus?

I don't know, but that was a truly bad luck "double bird strike". Not the plane design's fault.

120 jcm  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:27:15am

re: #89 Spare O'Lake

Forgive me if I think it's quite a coincidence that there was a bomb threat for the exact same flight at the exact same airport only one week ago.

Could be just a sick fuck with a even sicker sense of humor.

A bomb will be high on the possibility list for this one. It's exceedingly rare for planes to disintegrate even in T-Storms.

121 MandyManners  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:27:42am

I'll never forget meeting my neighbor's father in Seattle. He worked at Boeing, helping attach the engines to the wings. He got stoned every day before work.

122 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:27:54am

re: #115 Kosh's Shadow

The French, IIRC, have some deep-diving equipment; the original mission that found the Titanic was on board a French ship.

And the follow-up missions, especially with James Cameron, have been with Russians. Just pay enough money and it is doable. Not easy, but doable.

123 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:27:54am

re: #103 Baier

Not so, Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Canadair, ATR, LET, Brasilia, DeHavilland all make planes today.

124 John Neverbend  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:28:03am

re: #114 Egregious Philbin

If that is on USAirways, your plane is brand spanking new, just got delivered today.

Also, I don't think the route from the US to Israel will go through any tropical storms.

125 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:28:08am

re: #105 zombie

Heh.

"Microsoft Windows support, may I help you?"
/breeep PING rooommm rooommm clack BANG
"Have you tried re-installing from the OS disk?"

/

126 MandyManners  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:28:31am

re: #118 Baier

I dated an engineer for awhile, and we went our with alum from her school. One worked for Boeing, and told, what he thought to be an amusing story, about workers attaching wings on with the wrong bolts. None left the factory, but you have to wonder how many mistakes like that they don't catch.

Oh, my stars. Look at my No. 121.

127 Learned Mother of Zion  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:28:37am

re: #114 Egregious Philbin

If that is on USAirways, your plane is brand spanking new, just got delivered today.

It is on US Airways. I hope Sully is the pilot.

128 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:28:59am

re: #112 Alouette

Crap, the flight I booked to Israel this September is an Airbus 330.

I heard Obama is about to throw Israel under the Airbus.

/

129 clgood  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:29:01am

re: #79 Jetpilot1101

I heard someone call in to a radio show last night claiming to be a DC-10 pilot with lots of Atlantic crossings under his belt. He said storm penetration over the ocean wasn't nearly as bad as attempting it over land, since the water can't create thermals as severe. That sort of makes sense. It wouldn't be the first time pilots tried to "take a look".

What I wonder about this proposed scenario is how it explains the data burst from the aircraft. If the depressurization were due to in flight breakup I wouldn't expect the data radios to keep sending.

130 jcm  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:29:23am

re: #105 zombie

I know someone who worked on the OS of the chips that power the Mars Rover vehicles. They had a commandment: This OS has to NEVER fail in real-time. Because once the thing is up there on Mars, ain't no way to fix it.

They tested the system for FIVE YEARS and worked out every imaginable glitch.

And it paid off: the computers on the Mars Rovers have never failed or locked up or went screwy, ever, even after all this time under the most extreme conditions.

Now that is the kind of attitude and excellence-ethic America is famous for.

Airbus on the other hand...

Early on they had a memory issue which kuldged things up. But once they understood what was going on purged the memory and all was well. They left a lot of test code in the memory. The OS performed just fine as you said.

131 MandyManners  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:29:51am

re: #119 Occasional Reader

I don't know, but that was a truly bad luck "double bird strike". Not the plane design's fault.

I read the Vanity Fair article about it but most of the technical stuff went "zoom" over my head. However, the gist was that there was something special about the Airbus that allowed the captain to control its decent.

132 Baier  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:30:08am

re: #116 OldLineTexan

FTFY.

True enough (the percentage may be off, Canadair, Embraer, etc.). The Europeans invented Airbus to "compete fairly" with Boeing, et. al. in the US, and Boeing swallowed its remaining competition of any size.

"Compete fairly", sounds like something out of Atlas Shrugged...

133 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:30:26am

re: #120 jcm


A bomb will be high on the possibility list for this one. It's exceedingly rare for planes to disintegrate even in T-Storms.


It's possible but who calls in bomb threats in advance anymore? The Basque guys, the IRA doesn't blow stuff up much any more, RoP never does it. Who's left?

134 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:30:34am

re: #117 SFGoth

I'm guessing there won't be any direct Brazil - France flights for awhile.

Have they all been suspended? On all airlines?

135 johnnyreb  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:30:42am

re: #115 Kosh's Shadow

The French, IIRC, have some deep-diving equipment; the original mission that found the Titanic was on board a French ship.


There are a few countries that can do it. It is just a matter of time and where the equipment is, and more importantly if the equipment is ready. That black box is mot likely being bounced around quite a bit down there by those currents.

136 [deleted]  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:30:49am
137 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:30:58am

re: #111 razorbacker

I don't care what machine your are talking about. Any machine.

If it has moving parts, sooner or later one of those parts will break.

Pay your mechanic enough to keep him/her interested.

I just wanted to read that again, thanks!

I'm only a bicycle mechanic, but as one of my suck-up customers keeps saying, "Bicycle mechanics made flight possible."

138 Baier  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:30:59am

re: #126 MandyManners

Oh, my stars. Look at my No. 121.

hahaha! Perhaps we solved the mystery of the wrong bolts.

139 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:31:01am

re: #123 Egregious Philbin

Not so, Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Canadair, ATR, LET, Brasilia, DeHavilland all make planes today.

I won't fly on an Ilyushin. I paid for a ticket, I demand an ACTUAL plane.

/

140 elevenbravo1969  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:31:26am

re: #131 MandyManners

The decent are easy to control; it's the indecent that cause problems.

141 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:31:53am

re: #127 Alouette

Sully is an idiot, he testified in court for his union in a case where his union actively was screwing over America West pilots. He got eviscerated by the lawyers, same with the FO, Jeff Skiles.

Sully's union lost the trial, big time. I lost a huge amount of respect for him personally after that.

Anyway, your plane just landed in Mobile, AL and will start service in about a week.

142 thedopefishlives  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:32:00am

re: #126 MandyManners

Here's the thing, though: American companies are also generally renowned for their high standards of quality control. While mistakes can and do happen, because it is infeasible for every single unit to be completely and perfectly inspected even for something as low-volume as a commercial airliner, the incidence rate among American manufacturers is, on average, much lower than among those in other regions of the world. All this despite stories like the above, which is pretty remarkable.

143 MandyManners  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:32:02am

re: #140 elevenbravo1969

The decent are easy to control; it's the indecent that cause problems.

Har. Har.

144 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:32:15am

re: #133 Killgore Trout

It's possible but who calls in bomb threats in advance anymore? The Basque guys, the IRA doesn't blow stuff up much any more, RoP never does it. Who's left?

Courtesy is declining in the terrorism business.

I blame Bush.

/

145 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:32:23am

re: #139 OldLineTexan

I've flown Tupolev and Ilyushin, its an experience in fun.

146 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:32:38am

re: #101 Occasional Reader

See zombie's link immediately above... it appears it was a different Air France flight, departing BA, not Rio.

Yes it does.
I heard something on the radio this morning and obviously either the report I heard or I was mistaken.
It still raises the spectre of possible foul play.

147 KansasMom  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:32:40am

re: #139 OldLineTexan

I won't fly on an Ilyushin. I paid for a ticket, I demand an ACTUAL plane.

/

Ha! I had a choice once between flying on a Tupolev or a CRJ...guess which I took?

148 MandyManners  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:32:48am

That's what I get for trying to post while buffing my nails.

149 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:34:47am

re: #145 Egregious Philbin

I've flown Tupolev and Ilyushin, its an experience in fun.

And if there are only Tupolev, is that enough to be safe?

/

150 jcm  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:34:51am

re: #117 SFGoth

Another reason to be strapped in when you're in your seat. It's much easier to grab hold of the mask if you're not flying around. I flew from Munich to S.F. yesterday on a Lufthansa 340-600. I was in seat 2K (;->) and I was rather shocked at how much turbulence we had w/o the pilot putting on the seatbelt sign. On UA, the bird hiccups and the sign goes on. The back of the plane must have been pretty rough. Anyway, given the height of equitorial storms -- up to 50,000 feet -- which a plane cannot climb over, I'm guessing there won't be any direct Brazil - France flights for awhile.

At 40K the drop down masks won't help you stay conscious, they only provide supplemental O2 You need to be at 25K or lower to stay conscious. At 25K and above they'll keep you alive if the pilot gets low enough quickly.

Above 25K the air pressure (technical Partial Pressure O2 or PO2) is too low to enable the O2 to transfer to the blood stream in sufficient amounts to stay conscious. That why the pilots have those strap on masks that provide positive pressure. Similar to the mask military pilots use.

That's why they say put the mask on first, and fast, don't help other people.

151 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:35:14am

I'm surprised the Japanese have not gotten into the commerical airliner business. They have the basic know-how, and lots of public trust in their technology and quality control.

152 razorbacker  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:35:21am

re: #137 wrenchwench

I just wanted to read that again, thanks!

I'm only a bicycle mechanic, but as one of my suck-up customers keeps saying, "Bicycle mechanics made flight possible."

You're more than welcome. As an old mechanic myself, let me add the mechanic's creed...

Of course the actual part itself only cost $2.99. But I've got to get to the damned thing first.

153 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:35:23am

re: #105 zombie

Now there was that other Mars spacecraft which crashed into the surface of the planet. The code worked fine, but the people who programmed it made an error in unit conversions, newtons to force-pounds or something.

154 Ben Hur  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:35:23am

re: #133 Killgore Trout

It's possible but who calls in bomb threats in advance anymore? The Basque guys, the IRA doesn't blow stuff up much any more, RoP never does it. Who's left?

That's what thought.

155 jvic  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:35:32am

re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A pilot being interviewed said radio tranmissions in that region are about as reliable as 2 cans on a string. Something about the atmospheric conditions and the frequencies used.

The South Atlantic Anomaly is only a few hundred miles from the plane's last transmission:

The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA, the large red area in the image) is a dip in the Earth's magnetic field which allows cosmic rays, and charged particles to reach lower into the atmosphere. This interferes with communication with satellites, aircraft, and the Space Shuttle. While there are theories as to why this occurs, the geologic origin is not yet known.

And the plane was flying through thunderstorms.

NB: I'm talking about possible causes of the communication breakdown, not about possible causes of the crash.

156 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:35:59am

re: #149 OldLineTexan

And if there are only Tupolev, is that enough to be safe?

/

Try to stay on topic, you Fokker.

157 HoosierHoops  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:36:36am

re: #106 JohnnyReb

Unless they get extremely lucky, the black box won't be recovered. The ocean there is extremely deep with very fast currents. There are just a few countries that have gear that can retrieve something that deep. The best thing in the world for that was the US research submarine NR-1. Sadly it is sitting in Portsmouth, MA waiting to be cut up for scrap.

The SSN683 could have helped...After we spent a billion dollars fitting her for deep underwater research at Mare Island.. They Decommissioned her.
but hell..What's a billion frigging dollars? I'm including a link to Wiki..But it was a top secret sub..You ain't getting much
I personally saw a worker getting arrested for peeking behind a curtain on the bottom of Drydock#3.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

158 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:36:37am

re: #151 Occasional Reader

I'm surprised the Japanese have not gotten into the commerical airliner business. They have the basic know-how, and lots of public trust in their technology and quality control.

There was a prototype built by a conglomeration of Mitsubishi and Kawasaki.

Unfortunately, the autopilot was always dropping all the luggage over Pearl Harbor.

/

159 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:36:55am

re: #151 Occasional Reader

They did for a while, they made the NAMC YS-11 back in the 60's, there are a few still around, I had a chance to fly one once but refused, it was Phuket Air, probably the most dangerous airline in the world at the time.

I flew Laos Air, scary, but the plane was an ATR-72, much safer.

160 razorbacker  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:37:41am

re: #151 Occasional Reader

I'm surprised the Japanese have not gotten into the commerical airliner business. They have the basic know-how, and lots of public trust in their technology and quality control.

Some of that goes all the way back to '45. The Japanese had excellent planes and sorry pilot armor.

After the war they tended to buy stuff from the folks running things.

161 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:38:14am

re: #156 Occasional Reader

Try to stay on topic, you Fokker.

One more like that and I'll Bombardier.

162 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:38:31am

re: #159 Egregious Philbin

They did for a while, they made the NAMC YS-11 back in the 60's, there are a few still around, I had a chance to fly one once but refused, it was Phuket Air, probably the most dangerous airline in the world at the time.

I flew Laos Air, scary, but the plane was an ATR-72, much safer.

Who needs safety? Phuket!

/loser in slogan contest

163 rightside  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:38:39am

Wow, barbara boxer just said, sotomayor has more qualifications to be a supreme court justice than ANYONE in the past 100 years!

Fact: She is an extremist.

164 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:39:03am

re: #159 Egregious Philbin

it was Phuket Air, probably the most dangerous airline in the world at the time.

You'd think "Phuket Air" would fly fookin' Fokkers.

I think my most "edgy" airline trip was about 10 years ago on Suriname Airways. MD-80, but it appeared to have been last serviced some time during the Nixon Administration.

165 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:39:12am

re: #163 rightside

Wow, barbara boxer just said, sotomayor has more qualifications to be a supreme court justice than ANYONE in the past 100 years!

Fact: She is an extremist.

Barbara is NOT an extremist.

She's an IDIOT.

/

166 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:39:35am

re: #123 Egregious Philbin

Not so, Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Canadair, ATR, LET, Brasilia, DeHavilland all make planes today.

And Avic in China. There is another Chinese company that I can't remember at the moment. Right now, they both make updated copies of Russian aircraft, as well as parts for Airbus and Boeing, but they each have newer airliners in progress.

And DeHavilland and Canadair are owned by Bombadier. The Q-400 is the latest turboprop (DeHavilland heritage), and the CRJ series are Canadair. Bombadier also owns Lear Jet. And they make snowmobiles.

167 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:39:52am

re: #162 OldLineTexan

Who needs safety? Phuket!

/loser in slogan contest

They later shifted industries, and began making frigates.

168 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:40:39am

re: #151 Occasional Reader

I'm surprised the Japanese have not gotten into the commerical airliner business. They have the basic know-how, and lots of public trust in their technology and quality control.

Mitsubishi is working on a regional jet.

169 John Neverbend  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:40:46am

re: #151 Occasional Reader

I'm surprised the Japanese have not gotten into the commerical airliner business. They have the basic know-how, and lots of public trust in their technology and quality control.

See NAMC YS-11 and Mitsubishi Regional Jet

The business doesn't seem to fit in well with the way that Japan Inc. works.

170 SFGoth  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:41:31am

re: #76 jcm

Design philosophy.

Airbus the computers check on the pilots they cannot exceed computer flight parameters.

Boeing pilots check the computers and can over ride computer flight parameters. Boeing knows in not all extreme situations can be planned for and written in code, that the analog butt in the front seat with experience and situational awareness may come with a solution outside the program.

Airbus = European = military bad. Boeing = American = military good. Military pilots know that shit happens and YOU have to deal with it, not a computer. That philosophy may underlie this.

171 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:41:39am

re: #167 Occasional Reader

They later shifted industries, and began making frigates.

The frigate Matilda, plying her illicit trade in rubber goods and spiders up and down the Mocha Java straight from Singapore to Sinatra!
/Firesign Theatre

172 Gus  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:42:57am

re: #83 Egregious Philbin

I think we had a bit of a "perfect storm" in this one, the plane was on a sparsely traveled route, out of radar contact and over a very deep, non traffic-ed ocean.

As for the "bash Airbus" crowd, this is the first crash of the A330, and the A318,A319,A320,A321, A330, A340 and A380 all have excellent safety records. If we were to just place blame on the mfg, Boeing would not look so good, a huge number of accidents in the last few years were 737-200's (mostly because of crappy mx and 3rd world operators)

I think what brought this down was rapid and catastrophic and caused the plane to lose power and control rapidly, the crew had very little time to react, and I don't believe the RAT would have even deployed.

Its sad, I worked in the industry for a long time, thankfully with no loss of life on my airline, but it was always in the back of my mind.

Good points. It's much too early for speculation into the cause of this crash. They have yet to even locate a significant amount of debris which might lead to the recovery of the CDR and the FDR. Depth of the recorders are thought to be in the vicinity of 13,000 BSL.

An interesting point on the Airbus vs. Boeing arguments is the recent successful ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 which involved an Airbus A320-214. There is also the case of Air Transat Flight 236 which experienced complete loss of fuel due to a leak resulting in a complete flameout but was able to glide to safety in the Azores. This aircraft was able to glide a distance of 65 nautical miles and stands as a record for an airliner. That aircraft was an Airbus A330-243.

In my opinion both manufacturers produce fine aircraft.

173 SFGoth  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:43:11am

re: #115 Kosh's Shadow

The French, IIRC, have some deep-diving equipment; the original mission that found the Titanic was on board a French ship.

Well, in May, 1941, the French became familiar with "in deep shit".

174 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:43:13am

re: #171 Kosh's Shadow

The frigate Matilda, plying her illicit trade in rubber goods and spiders up and down the Mocha Java straight strait from Singapore to Sinatra!
/Firesign Theatre

PIMF! Fixed it

175 JohnnyReb  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:43:30am

re: #169 John Neverbend

See NAMC YS-11 and Mitsubishi Regional Jet

The business doesn't seem to fit in well with the way that Japan Inc. works.

Kind of like their tank production in WWII. They knew they would never be able to make a decent tank without having a heavy automobile/truck manufacturing base, so they just settled on a very crappy design and went with it instead of tooling up to make a good design. That worked out pretty well until they actually had to use them in combat.

176 jcm  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:45:23am

re: #151 Occasional Reader

I'm surprised the Japanese have not gotten into the commerical airliner business. They have the basic know-how, and lots of public trust in their technology and quality control.

Boeing outsource the 787 wing to Japan. In the Aviation biz they say "the wing is the thing" the precise wing shape is a big part of lift, range and efficiency. In a decade the Japanese will be entering the market.

177 Miss Molly  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:46:24am

Why would France or any other group want to install computers that a pilot could not override in an emergency or for any other reason deemed necessary. My first concern with a machine or computers is that they don't always work sometimes.

178 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:46:55am

re: #175 JohnnyReb

Kind of like their tank production in WWII.

I think that other than things that float, the Japanese didn't really shine at any major weapon in WWII. The Zero had its day at the beginning of the war, but only because we had been napping.

Of course, given that this was a nation that had been almost pre-Industrial a mere 50 or 60 years previously, what they did accomplish was pretty astounding.

179 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:47:02am

re: #164 Occasional Reader

I had to fly in a dodgy Fokker F 70 last year, few were made, few are left, but hey, it was Vietnam Airlines, crap happens...

180 John Neverbend  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:47:29am

re: #175 JohnnyReb

Kind of like their tank production in WWII. They knew they would never be able to make a decent tank without having a heavy automobile/truck manufacturing base, so they just settled on a very crappy design and went with it instead of tooling up to make a good design. That worked out pretty well until they actually had to use them in combat.

"...the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras."

181 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:48:00am

re: #179 Egregious Philbin

I had to fly in a dodgy Fokker F 70 last year, few were made, few are left, but hey, it was Vietnam Airlines, crap happens...

Fly Vietnam Airlines!

You die, G.I.! We love American $!

182 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:48:26am

re: #179 Egregious Philbin

I had to fly in a dodgy Fokker F 70 last year, few were made, few are left, but hey, it was Vietnam Airlines, crap happens...

Did you bring along a roll of duct tape, in case the flight crew forgot theirs?

183 OldLineTexan  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:50:00am

re: #182 Occasional Reader

Did you bring along a roll of duct tape, in case the flight crew forgot theirs?

I bring barf bags ... the pilot's name is always Immelman ...

/

184 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:50:13am

re: #169 John Neverbend


The business doesn't seem to fit in well with the way that Japan Inc. works.

Why do you say? I'd think it would be a good fit for them; it's a business dominated by a few large players, which would seem to work well with their zaibatsu (sp?) setup.

185 2SoonOld2LateSmart  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:52:26am

Hasn't anyone blamed this on global warming yet?

/after all, the science is settled. Don't ya know?

186 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:53:03am

I've never been too crazy about Airbus's "I'm the computer, and I know better than the pilots" idea. I'm reminded of the one on the test flight at Toulouse, that flew itself into some trees, with the pilots fighting it all the way.

187 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:54:10am

re: #181 OldLineTexan

Actually, apart from Vietnam's Fokkers, they have a very nice fleet of 777's and A321's. And they have great service, good food and hot Flight Attendants.

188 VioletTiger  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:54:13am

re: #35 KansasMom

If its pinging, its probably intact. But the battery that powers that 'ping' may not last a full 30 days in that environment.


I also understand that they have to be pretty close to it to pick up the ping. If it is 15,000 feet down, they'd have to right over it to get the signal.

189 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:54:53am

re: #187 Egregious Philbin

Actually, apart from Vietnam's Fokkers, they have a very nice fleet of 777's and A321's. And they have great service, good food and hot Flight Attendants.

"Let's get this Fokker off the ground!"

/thinking of the old, old joke

190 Hawaii69  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:55:08am

re: #31 JohnnyReb

I am not sure about that. 30,000 feet plunge without the crew having any time for a mayday? Me thinks someone is reaching here.

It's not likely that it would have been in one piece for most of that plunge.

Making a mayday call is a luxury they may not have had while fighting a catastrophic failure.

191 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:57:02am

re: #187 Egregious Philbin

Actually, apart from Vietnam's Fokkers, they have a very nice fleet of 777's and A321's. And they have great service, good food and hot Flight Attendants.

I cannot emphasized how much more pleasant that makes a flight.

Sorry if that means I'm a "sexist" or whatever, but there it is.

(My favorite in that regard: TAM Mercosur. But I've never flown Asian airlines of any sort.)

192 John Neverbend  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:57:18am

re: #184 Occasional Reader

Why do you say? I'd think it would be a good fit for them; it's a business dominated by a few large players, which would seem to work well with their zaibatsu (sp?) setup.

My understanding from talking to an aircraft financier is that there isn't generally the sort of appetite in Japan for the risks involved in the business. Clearly, there are exceptions to this (the links show at least two). Obviously, during WWII, conditions were different.

193 Occasional Reader  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:59:27am

re: #191 Occasional Reader

I cannot emphasized = I cannot emphasize

194 John Neverbend  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 11:59:49am

re: #192 John Neverbend

By the way, the "zaibatsu" was a form of monopolistic conglomerate that no longer exists. The new post-war form is a "kairetsu".

195 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 12:03:14pm

re: #173 SFGoth

Well, in May, 1941, the French became familiar with "in deep shit".

c'est la merde profonde

196 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 12:06:01pm

re: #191 Occasional Reader

I cannot emphasized how much more pleasant that makes a flight.

Sorry if that means I'm a "sexist" or whatever, but there it is.

Nothing says "in flight hospitality" like a smarmy middle aged gay French-Canadian Air Canada flight attendant named Maurice.

197 John Neverbend  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 12:06:51pm

re: #196 Kenneth

Nothing says "in flight hospitality" like a smarmy middle aged gay French-Canadian Air Canada flight attendant named Maurice.

Do you know him? I think he was on my flight from Calgary to Toronto.

198 calcajun  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 12:19:49pm

re: #149 OldLineTexan

And if there are only Tupolev, is that enough to be safe?

/

Safety? It's an Ilyushin.

199 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 12:21:00pm

A human pilot would never make such a stupid mistake as is being attributed to the computers here.

200 Bob Dillon  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 12:36:42pm

re: #139 OldLineTexan

I won't fly on an Ilyushin. I paid for a ticket, I demand an ACTUAL plane.

/

I actually flew on one - only once - on the Singapore, Tashkent, Copenhagen run back in the late 60s. Fastest way to get from Asia to Europe back then ... it was sheer terror all the way ... I returned on Lufthansa milk run thru the ME.

201 razorbacker  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 12:44:27pm

re: #187 Egregious Philbin

Actually, apart from Vietnam's Fokkers, they have a very nice fleet of 777's and A321's. And they have great service, good food and hot Flight Attendants.

I'm jealous. I can't even get hot food and good Flight Attendants.

202 Land Shark  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 12:47:54pm

Given the available information regarding the weather in the area, I think extreme turbulence has to be looked at as the most likely cause. The power of such turbulence can not be over stated. Last year when coming back from Buenos Aires, Argentina on an American 777-200ER (a larger plane than the Air France A330-200 that crashed), while flying over Colombia we experienced some of the most extreme turbulence I've ever experienced. We were flying through or near some severe weather, lightning was flashing all about and the plane shook like crazy. Trust me, the aircraft's construction was put to the test. I was concerned when the plane pitched up and down several times quite suddenly and violently. It lasted for roughly a half hour until we started flying over the Caribbean.

Sadly, we may never know for sure given the substantial depth and ruggedness of the sea floor in the area. My prayers are with the victims and their loved ones.

203 Grantman  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 1:04:55pm

A friend sent me this link. Incredibly detailed.

Actually, too detailed for me but I thought I'd share.

204 wiffersnapper  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 1:51:46pm

It's all a conspiracy I tell you. Blame Bush!

/sarc

205 oh_dude  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 1:58:25pm

Interesting. When I first started learning to fly, one of the first things I learned was the concept of a wing's "Angle of Attack"

An aircraft will stall whenever the wing's critical angle of attack is exceeded. Doesn't matter whether you're in a 747 or a Piper Cub. Doesn't matter how fast you're going either. My flight instructor (an ex-Air Force pilot) told me that he stalled a F-111 at around 600KIA. The point being that the concept of an aircraft's stall speed is somewhat of a misnomer.

I'm a tech guy, but this is what happens when you're overly dependent on computers.

206 Egregious Philbin  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 2:01:43pm

re: #199 Ojoe

A human pilot would never make such a stupid mistake as is being attributed to the computers here.

Oh yeah?

Lets see, Singapore airlines had a 747 crash when the human pilots lined up on the taxiway and took off. Garuda had a crash when the pilots flew into a mountain, American crashed a 757 into a mountain in Columbia, United had a DC8 that ran out gas and crashed in Portland, pilots didn't read the guages. Saudi had a L1011 that started on fire, pilots landed it, but forgot to tell the attendants to open up the doors on landing and evacuate (attendants were yelled at during the descent), the plane flamed out and everyone died. Continental Express lined up on wrong runway a few years back, killed everyone. Northwest MD80 taking off from DTW, didn't set flaps for takeoff, all but one died... Dozens and dozen more examples out there


On the contrary, I'd rather have a very smart computer on the plane that can make dispassionate decisions and keep the plane flying within the limits (with a chance to override), than to allow a pilot to screw it up.

207 funky chicken  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 2:41:12pm

re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A pilot being interviewed said radio tranmissions in that region are about as reliable as 2 cans on a string. Something about the atmospheric conditions and the frequencies used.

My husband's a military pilot. He said ATC/flight support from Africa is a joke, if it's available at all. Usuallly nobody's home at all over there.

208 Flame Fin Tomini Tang  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 2:58:53pm

re: #2 Kosh's Shadow

But wouldn't the pilots have had a chance to radio something?
It is strange that there was no message except the automated one that said no power and lost pressurization.

My understanding is there are and were automatic transmissions of problems, specifically electrical problems and cabin pressure. However if the computers thought that a dive was sanctioned, that might not have been reported as a problem. Does seem like primitive programming though...

209 tradewind  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 3:07:41pm

No mention of the bomb threats received by AF a day or two before the accident, re this same flight?
This aircraft has so much redundancy built into its system that I still cannot imagine the scenario above...
And pilots do have an override system on the airbus in case of electrical systems error in the fly by wire... hope they find that ELT and FDR.

210 tradewind  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 3:09:29pm

re: #206 Egregious Philbin

Pilot error as a factor is most common during takeoff and landing. The problem almost never occurs at altitude.
Damn, I hope they find out what happened.

211 skylane95  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 3:38:49pm

If it ain't Boeing,
I'm not going.

212 FrogMarch  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 4:16:59pm

I feel safer in a Boeing.

213 Tantor  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 4:28:38pm

The bomb threat to Air France is almost certainly a coincidence. Those who can bomb, bomb. Those who can't, threaten.

The problems with the AIRDUs are interesting but don't match the characteristics of this accident. An uncommanded dive at 35,000 feet is undesirable but it's not going to make every system on board the aircraft fail, as the automated maintenance messages indicated. According to those messages, the electrical circuits went bad, the cabin depressurized, main electrical power failed, the flight controls began to degrade, and everything else went bad. You don't get total system failure in an uncommanded dive. You get it when a bomb cuts your aircraft in half, breaks electrical circuits, cuts the power lines, cuts the primary and backup control lines.

Likewise, lightning doesn't blow jets out of the sky. Turbulence doesn't break aircraft up. It's possible that some freakish conspiracy of factors brought the aircraft down, but it's a small possibility. The most likely possibility was that it was brought down by a bomb. If it was a bomb, it was probably a Muslim bomb, which means there is a connection to the Saudis.

214 avspatti  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 5:10:35pm

re: #40 razorbacker

Airbus computers can't be overridden.

Boeing computers can.

Your choice.

Is there some reason for this? Seems foolish to me.

215 Banner  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 6:25:36pm

I'm a former military aviator, and I was also a flight test engineer for a major aerospace company for a number of years. That being said, I WILL NOT fly on an Airbus. Their fly by wire system is crap and often has problems. Some of those problems have led to crashes (the number of near accidents is large as well).

As Airbus is owned by France and England, they do get a lot of help in covering up their problems when they happen. I suspect that this plane crashed because the lightning reset the computers, or something similar. There is no pilot override. Airbus aircraft are unsafe, and if you're smart, you'll never set foot in one.

216 Banner  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 6:26:37pm

re: #214 avspatti

Is there some reason for this? Seems foolish to me.

Yes, the people who work at Airbus are socialist idiots. Remember, in Socialism, the 'State' (Aircraft) is always right and the 'individual' (pilot) is always wrong.

217 Banner  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 6:30:07pm

re: #2 Kosh's Shadow

But wouldn't the pilots have had a chance to radio something?
It is strange that there was no message except the automated one that said no power and lost pressurization.

If you have catastrophic cabin pressure failure at high altitude (30,000 feet) your Time of Useful Conciousness is about 15 seconds. You're not going to be grabbing for the radio in that time frame, you're going to grabbing for the Oxygen.

And yes, I've been through it, in training. It's not like the movies, if you don't get a mask on in time you just sit there and suffocate, until someone puts an oxygen mask on you.

218 Banner  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 6:34:19pm

re: #213 Tantor


Turbulence doesn't break aircraft up.

Turbulence has broken up hundreds of aircraft, including airliners. It has also ripped engines from wings, ripped off tails and wings, and many other things. Hail from thunderstorms has also destroyed many an aircraft, and lightning can put holes in an airframe. Those automated systems may very well have been reporting from an airframe that was already in multiple pieces, and an uncontrolled highspeed dive can overspeed an aircraft, causing the tail to separate, and even the wings to come off.

(Please note, I used to test these things for a living I'm a former Flight Test Engineer - not a test pilot, I value my hide too much, those guys are crazy!)

219 avspatti  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 7:24:17pm

re: #153 Kenneth

Now there was that other Mars spacecraft which crashed into the surface of the planet. The code worked fine, but the people who programmed it made an error in unit conversions, newtons to force-pounds or something.

English instead of Metric, I thought.

220 avspatti  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 7:27:38pm

re: #163 rightside

Who - Boxer or Sotomayer?

221 AFVetWife  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 7:51:25pm

re: #40 razorbacker

222 AFVetWife  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 7:55:10pm

RE: #40 My hsband says, "If it ain't Boeing, we're not going."

223 AFVetWife  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 7:58:19pm

re: #45 John Neverbend

Yes, that is an exceptional analysis. I forwarded the website to my husband (the FAA Inspector) and to my daughter (the NOAA Meteorologist). I'll be anxious to hear both of their analyses.

224 AFVetWife  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 8:18:43pm

Yeah, I'm up late, and the Weather Channel is doing a piece on this right now - not much evidence of lightning in the area at at the time. When AFVet gets home tomorrow night, I will bring up this thread and see what he thinks. In general, I've noted that many pilots are wary of "fly by wire" aircraft, especially when it overrides/disallows the pilot's instincts.

225 AFVetWife  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 8:24:12pm

re: #120 jcm

Saw a report on the news awhile earlier this evening saying debris was found over a 60 mile area in the Atlantic, indicating some type of breakup before impact. Waiting for further details.

226 AFVetWife  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 8:40:21pm

re: #213 Tantor

I hear you about your analysis - I can only pray that it wasn't a terrorist act. If it was, why is no group claiming "credit?" Of course, it could have been one of those "lone wolf" type of guys.

227 LTC8K6  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 9:19:21pm

AF447 had Honeywell ADIRU's, the failed ones were Litton. So should be no connection.

228 seax  Wed, Jun 3, 2009 9:37:53pm

Re 215
I have a friend who fuels large passenger type aircraft for a living.
He also refuses to fly in an airbus - if it's an Airbus
he will get another ticket so he will fly in another type of aircraft.
He will fuel them but he won't step inside one.
Years ago I talked with a former miltary pilot who had
flown inside a thunder storm - scared him silly- a military plane flapping it's wings ( in his words) "like a flipping seagull".He said that if he was in there any longer than he was the aircraft would have been torn apart.

229 noahsatellite  Thu, Jun 4, 2009 8:55:16am

As a software engineer, I'm thinking about the people who designed the software. Where do they fit into all this? Do they not completely test their code? Do they not anticipate hardware failure?

If the issue here is indeed software based, aren't these people to blame? I'm not talking about legally, I'm talking about psychologically. How can you wake up in the morning knowing that your code might have killed hundreds of people?

230 Bullskin  Thu, Jun 4, 2009 11:15:37am

Bomb plot?, who knows. Why a roper would wait and let a huge thunderstorm keep his “work” in doubt and avoid him to get credit?, a timer failure?.

Facts, as told by the MSM, French first source:

-First reports say the aircraft may have been struck by one or more lightnings. Yet, even an aircraft which systems and controls are computer based could not (they can) be harmed by a lightning, it’s weather radar undoubtedly can.

-First reports indicate a radar failure which could have perfectly driven them into a thunderstorm.

-Parts have been scattered up to 90 Kms, 55 miles away. The sea drift can not do this in a 24 hours time lapse, but, it’s known that the huge cumulonimbus, that cauliflower shaped clouds hold ice, hail, rain and snow boiling in a nightmare of winds in all directions that can reach up to 150 mph but mostly up and downwards. This winds are also known that can hold ice chunks of tens kgs just in the air which could easily scattered the debris.
This is the average cumulonimbus around 30 000 ft high, and has been pointed out these ones might have been around 50 000.

-Flight data recorders are now 7000 m deep, 22000ft.

re: #76 jcm

Design philosophy.

Airbus the computers check on the pilots they cannot exceed computer flight parameters.

Boeing pilots check the computers and can over ride computer flight parameters. Boeing knows in not all extreme situations can be planned for and written in code, that the analog butt in the front seat with experience and situational awareness may come with a solution outside the program.

Great!

I think the airbus aircraft were first designed to make profit and then to fly meanwhile the American ones were first designed to fly. It’s undoubtedly right the computer, and it’s fancy designer have not a clue about what it is to fear for your life while you are flying. And have not a clue on what you are seeing, that you know what you can do, and they, both agree you must not do that. Bullshit!.

An Airbus would never had stood a thousands feet drop of a spinning JAL Jumbo without disintegrating because even Boeing engineers could hardly believe it.
If engineers who can send a man to the moon who knows exactly about materials as airbus engineers, if not more, have not designed a superjumbo is because they hold structural safety margins that Airbus engineers think they can go beyond. The same applies to that HALL 9000 bullshit.

231 Banner  Thu, Jun 4, 2009 6:20:25pm

re: #229 noahsatellite

As a software engineer, I'm thinking about the people who designed the software. Where do they fit into all this? Do they not completely test their code? Do they not anticipate hardware failure?

If the issue here is indeed software based, aren't these people to blame? I'm not talking about legally, I'm talking about psychologically. How can you wake up in the morning knowing that your code might have killed hundreds of people?

You can test your code until the cows come home. If you don't know anything about flying and pilots and aircraft you're still going to write programs with deadly effects. I've personally found logic in code that the people writing it had no idea would have caused the aircraft to be damaged, possibly crash, because they weren't pilots, and had no experience actually flying the type of aircraft they were coding for.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Enhancing the mystique.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

MikeySDCA
5 Infuriating Things Nobody Tells You About College
59 minutes ago
Views: 38 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
'I Was Looking Forward to a Quiet Old Age': Instead, Etta Shiber, Helped Smuggle Stranded Allied Soldiers To Freedom
10 hours, 18 minutes ago
Views: 130 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0

Daniel Ballard
Late Afternoon Light-Kalanchoe
17 hours, 59 minutes ago
Views: 135 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Eclectic Infidel
City College of San Francisco Budget Update
18 hours, 52 minutes ago
Views: 149 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Michael McBacon
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
23 hours, 22 minutes ago
Views: 274 • Comments: 7
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6

Aigle
National Geographic Traveler Veers Off Track
1 day, 23 hours ago
Views: 575 • Comments: 8
Tweets: 12 • Rating: -5

MichaelJ
Apple TV Slated to Debut in December?
2 days ago
Views: 248 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Ascher
Israeli Who Saved Turk on Everest: You Never Abandon a Friend - Israel News, Ynetnews
2 days, 1 hour ago
Views: 316 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Haywood Jabloeme
The Harrassment of Patterico & Its Roots in Left-Wing Activism
2 days, 1 hour ago
Views: 547 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Curt
Brian Banks: (Video) Falsely accused of rape speaks out
2 days, 4 hours ago
Views: 292 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

 Frank says:

It began with lyrics, but even looking at the PMRC fund raising letter in the last paragraph, at the bottom of the page, it starts looking like it's branching into other areas when it says 'We realize that this material's pervaded other aspects of society' and it's like 'What, you gonna fix it all for me?'