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.