Comments on: Air France Investigators Eye Speed Sensors

New Focus For Probe Comes As Wreckage Recovered Earlier Thursday Dismissed As Unrelated

[ontheleft]

'Officials have said a jet fuel slick on the ocean's surface suggests there was no explosion. '

All a bomb in an airplane does is blow a small hole in the side of an airplane. The resulting decompression does the rest of the destruction. Planes don't break apart due to turbulence. It was a bomb.

[SusanStoHelit]

A sad accident.

The pilot's union should not be allowed to stop black boxes that broadcast from being installed. They're doing too important of a job for it to be OK for them to try to hide their minor mistakes.

[alphaa10]

MASSIVE LIGHTNING STRIKE ?

CBS/AP reports, "The last message from the pilot was a manual signal at 11 p.m. local time Sunday saying he was flying through an area of black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that come with violent winds and lightning...

At 11:10 p.m., a cascade of problems began: the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems. Then, systems for monitoring air speed, altitude and direction failed. Then controls over the main flight computer and wing spoilers failed as well. At 11:14 p.m., a final automatic message signaled loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure as the plane was breaking apart.

Patrick Smith, a U.S. airline pilot and aviation analyst, said the failures could have begun with a loss of electrical power, possibly as the result of an extremely strong lightning bolt.
---

Air France reports a string of events suggesting the crash began with a massive shock to the airliner's main electrical, then data systems, in rapid sequence, followed by failure of both.

This was followed by damaged flight control response. Any aircraft in such circumstances, as one aviation source pointed out, could be essentially unflyable.

The airliner became an object tossed about in the storm, and violent, unsustainable structural damage would be likely, regardless of potential design flaws in the aircraft.

The Spanish airliner report of a "strong and bright flash of white light that took a downward and vertical trajectory and vanished in six seconds" is consistent with fire on board during the final seconds of the breakup. Whether that fire came from a lightning strike or was consequent to the breakup may never be known.

[Lynn_Berk]

For those of you making joke about this story--you are sick, insensitive and cold-hearted. Shame on all of you. Maybe someday someone you love will die in such a terrible way, and let's see if you laugh then. You're inhuman. Go stick pins in dolls.

[dnamj]

There are some wonderful comments on here with great analyses of the weather at the time. One of the better threads I've read here.

[ffrecster]

Slrman

My first thought was the Langoliers, too.

[arthurraff]

I think that the media reports the facts but at the same time is eager to add a bit of additional fear in their story. Not only are people terrified of thinking what the passengers were thinking at the time, but do readers really have to be told that the plane fell apart in the air? I have been through turbulence as most people who fly have. the bumpier things get, the more nervous I get. I cant imagine what the passengers were going through. The fear that must have existed when they were going through the turbuelnce with winds of 100 mph and lightning. I am not saying that the media should sugar coat what happened. All I am saying is that the facts should be stated and no speculation

[tiktin]

I was infuriated at the gall of Mary Schavio shooting her mouth off, pretending to be an expert. Mary Schiavo is a lawyer who doesn't know her behind from a boundary layer. In general, these government "safety" agencies are run by lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats who are not qualified to investigate these accidents. If you think these agencies are protecting your interest or furthering your safety, think again.

[Slrman]

No human remains will ever be found because obviously, the Langoliers have taken them. That's why everything failed on the plane at the same time and, with no crew, plummeted to the sea in an uncontrolled dive. How long before they come for the rest of us?

[McHineguy]

Thank you McHineguy for a much more understandable explanation! It's nice that somebody can offer to explain what the press oddly left out. For the press to simply report WWII technology and fail to further explain themselves just raises eyebrows and causes concern for passengers. I recall they went on to report that planes are on their own when far out to sea. While this may be true when it comes to rescue operations, it's not the full story about all means available for communications and positioning. Maybe sensationalizing this issues is the strategy to improve sales at the expense of traveller fears. But here we are again; we're only left to speculate.
Posted by ici2i at 9:56 AM : Jun 4, 2009

I am happy to be able to help. I wish the press would take the time to report more accurately when these things happen. People are fearful enough without the press implying that modern air travel is rooted in 50 year old technology. In fact, the aviation industry is on a never ending quest for improved safety and efficiency. Occasionally, rarely cost inhibits progress but safety always rules.

I was involved with some of the early development of ACARS (the aircraft reporting system that provided the data we have so far on this accident). It was oriinally sold as an efficiency tool but quickly took on safety improvement as well. However, there is no way to report as accurately and thoroughly as the black boxes do because they function through to the bitter end.

[omded]

I strongly suspect that everyone aboard the aircraft lost consciousness very quickly upon the loss of cabin pressure, and were completely oblivious of anything from that point onward. Actually, when someone loses conciousness due to insufficient oxygen supply, they usually first become disoriented and delerious, so, it is doubtful that anyone knew what was happening for more than a few seconds, and, complete loss of consciousness would quickly follow. It's kind of like when you have an operation. When you wake up afterward, you are completely unaware of what happened. The only difference here is that, sadly, these people did not wake up. But their awareness was equally absent.

There will always be at least some amount of speculation regarding this terrible accident. But, one thing is certain, and beyond any doubt. The victims are no longer in any pain or fear. The past is only relevant as it relates to the present and the future. In other words, the details of what happened during the final minutes of flight 447 are important only for preventing another accident from happening in the future. However, it really isn't important to know anything more. We do know now, with complete certainty, that the victims are at peace, and out of any further danger. What's done is done, and it's all over. So let's not try to think about it. Doing so will do us no good.

[Illuminated1]

I can only surmise two events that could have brought down the jet.
1. Defective jet, weather its a design error or manufacturing defect....
2. Terrorist bombing....could be, but wouldn't someone take credit?
....oh yeah, I forgot 3. It could have been part of a conspiracy....for what I dunno...maybe to keep the fear of terrorism up....who'd do that?

In any scenario, I do feel for the loss to the familes....my condolences

[SAMTORRES66]

Boeing 100x better aircraft.............Fly American.....

[ici2i]

So, in summary..... Even with full data, we will be left with scientific speculation as to what initiated the breakup.
Posted by McHineguy

Thank you McHineguy for a much more understandable explanation! It's nice that somebody can offer to explain what the press oddly left out. For the press to simply report WWII technology and fail to further explain themselves just raises eyebrows and causes concern for passengers. I recall they went on to report that planes are on their own when far out to sea. While this may be true when it comes to rescue operations, it's not the full story about all means available for communications and positioning. Maybe sensationalizing this issues is the strategy to improve sales at the expense of traveller fears. But here we are again; we're only left to speculate.

[Markus]

This link gives an excellent description of the conditions that had developed around the airplane when it came down.

http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

[rrozsa]

What are you, some kind of a Sadist? The families are already dealing with enough emotions with out some jacka@@ trying to descibe their final moments. Try to have some compassion.
Posted by midvale3 at 8:57 AM : Jun 4, 2009

=====================

While I agree with your sentiments, I can speak from experience that when you lose a loved one unexpectedly, there are so many preparations to be made - people to contact, funeral arrangements, paperwork, plus so many people coming and going, that I seriously doubt any family members have much time to surf the news sites right now. At least that's what I always hope.....

[rrozsa]

Maybe the super power militaries have the technology but don't want to admit it. I think they know exactly where that plane fell off the tracking screen.
Posted by ici2i at 6:29 AM : Jun 4, 2009

======================

Maybe they cut a deal with "On-Star"! ;-)

[midvale3]

Basically tossed out of the cabin into the middle of a violent
thunder and lightning freefall to an ocean 20,000 feet deep.

An image of horror,,,,falling 7 miles for about 10 to 15 seconds
within high-up flashing thunder and lightning clouds then
breaking thru below them to see a horizon-to-horizon ocean,
Posted by ajjaxtheleast at 6:33 AM : Jun 4, 2009


What are you, some kind of a Sadist? The families are already dealing with enough emotions with out some jacka@@ trying to descibe their final moments. Try to have some compassion.

[McHineguy]

I do not believe for a moment earlier reports that tracking of a plane too far out to sea is not possible by radar and is no further advanced than during WWII. If ocean going vessels navigating by GPS can be tracked by satelite, so can planes. I'm not an engineer but this seems to be a logical conclusion except fo rthe diffence in travel speed and altitude. Maybe the super power militaries have the technology but don't want to admit it. I think they know exactly where that plane fell off the tracking screen.
Posted by ici2i at 6:29 AM : Jun 4, 2009

I AM an engineer, an avionics engineer. The reporting in these articles is highly simplified for general readership. The reports that radar is "WWII technology" are incorrect, the technology is highly advanced. But even so, its not optimized for long range tracking. Its optimized for precise identification and reporting in congested terminal areas. Long range tracking (say 150+ miles) is left to other reporting systems. So, while the technology does exist to track aircraft at great distances, it isnt necessary and so is not used in practice. Instead, trans oceanic flights are equipped with GPS and automatic reporting systems (ACARS) that periodically transmit additional data via sattelite radio. That ACARS system is the source of the data that is known and reported at this time.

However, even ACARS has limited abilities during aircraft dissintegration and/or crash. That is because the entire electronic system is dissintegrating along with the aircraft structure. As a simple example, the radio antenna may become disconnected. So, as the aircraft dissintegrates, it is likely that power will be lost and critical systems will be on battery backup. The systems are designed to minimize power when this occurs and reporting may be even further limited. Even worse, wires between various boxes may be broken or disrupted so reports may be incomplete.

So, in summary, radar will probably not provide much detail at this range because it is optimized for terminal areas and even then it would only provide tracks. Other reportin gsystems will provide more useful data but the priority on board is to preserve flight and reporting is secondary during these few seconds. Only the black boxes with their battery operations and reundant recording will provide full data. Even with full data, we will be left with scientific speculation as to what initiated the breakup.

[skydrifter1]

The reception of the data signals attest to the aircraft still being airborne, though in dire peril. The pilots - if able - could have radioed other aircraft on the emergency ferquency, or standard VHF air to air - add the HF frwequency for the area. They obviously had communication as a last priority.

If the pilots were concerned about the thunderstorms, they should have been calling for pilot reports, well ahead ofthe threat. If any turbulence could produce that kind of catastrophic failure. there's a design problem to look at.

Whatever happened looms badly for Airbus. The timeline of the failures sugests a design failure, progressing from bad to worse. It takes a lot to break up an aircraft in fight. If a bomb had been involved, the first indication would have been a loss of pressurization.

Back to the NYC Airbus crash - why so many structural failures? Did the FAA take an honest look at the design? There's the rub.