If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The CVR and FDR will be found and recovered. My guess on this is that hail broke the windshield, immediately incapacitating the flight deck crew. It may be months or years, but the answers will come.
[sarcasm]And was the extensive use of composite materials a factor in the damage caused by the lighting?[/sarcasm]
I know that a few planes crashed with a lighting strike being a causal factor. As far as I know, none of them used composites extensively.
My response was not about a lighting not being involved, but a serious reservation about a composites / lighting strike interaction being involved.
As I've said, thousands of mainly composite business jets take off every day, and there must have been thousands of strikes by now. The fact that none of those planes AFAIK was ever downed by a lighting strike up to now is a solid evidence that the extensive use of composites isn't a significant increase in the risk associated with lighting strikes, compared with mainly aluminium planes.
Oops, sorry. It's late here, in a daze I must have missed the part referring to the composite discussion on that particular post. It wasn't my intention to go against your argument regarding the composites as I actually do follow your line of argumentation.
The CVR and FDR will be found and recovered. My guess on this is that hail broke the windshield, immediately incapacitating the flight deck crew.
What? its pretty damn hard to break a windshield, probably one of the toughest peices on the aircraft. There was a 737 that hit a big hail storm, everything but the windshielsd had dents and holes, they were cracked though.
The other thing is ACARS reported electrical problems, before pressurisation problems. A rapid decompression wont cause a loss of electrical power unless the electrical bus has been physically damaged. but loss of electrical power could cause loss of pressurisation.
I am thinking more along the lines of a Lightening strike causing a surge and perhaps dropping the instruments off line for a time, strong turbulance knock the aircraft out of stable flight, and the crew unable to orientate themselves in the clouds. And they simply tumbled out of the sky as they tried to regain control.
But i feel there will be more to the puzzle than something as simple as that.
Lack of a Pan call only mean the crew were probably too busy trying to save their lives, rather than some kind of instantaneous incapacition. On saying that.
Rapid decompression is still a big possibility, but it would have had to be very fast and the crew not fast enough to react.
On the whole composit issue, what a load of c p, i have seen many of the composite pieces of the boeings i work on after strikes. I have not seen anything that worries me.
What evidence do we have that the weather was involved as a causal factor in the crash, other that the weather and the crash coexisting?
Since mostly everybody around here looks willing to speculate that the weather was a major factor in this crash, let me speculate that it had nothing to do with it.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
What evidence do we have that the weather was involved as a causal factor in the crash, other that the weather and the crash coexisting?
Since mostly everybody around here looks willing to speculate that the weather was a major factor in this crash, let me speculate that it had nothing to do with it.
I would second that. Remember how obvious it seemed to everyone that ice caused the Colgan accident? Neither turbulence nor lightning is a strong candidate for bringing down a large a/c, and hail, apparently, was unlikely to have been an issue at all.
What evidence do we have that the weather was involved as a causal factor in the crash, other that the weather and the crash coexisting?
Since mostly everybody around here looks willing to speculate that the weather was a major factor in this crash, let me speculate that it had nothing to do with it.
Is there any evidence the pilot decreased the airspeed prior to entering the thunder clouds?, or just he ripped the wings off?
A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....
Ruling the weather out would make it even harder to speculate on .
I still suspect the conditions had a contributory rule, even just to provide a horizonless environment in which the crew were trying to recover from an abnormal flight attitude.
If the radar had failed ACARS would have transmitted the failure, and i would think they would then be pretty careful where they flew from there. With out WXR you are not ment to fly into known or forcasted weather.
What evidence do we have that the weather was involved as a causal factor in the crash, other that the weather and the crash coexisting?
Since mostly everybody around here looks willing to speculate that the weather was a major factor in this crash, let me speculate that it had nothing to do with it.
Very good point, Gabriel. We're not privy to the "leaks" that are apparently taking place, but many of the quoted "experts" are. It appears that they're leaning towards some type of weather related event.
Though, it's truly anyone's guess. I'm not convinced weather was a casual factor, at this point either...
What? its pretty damn hard to break a windshield, probably one of the toughest peices on the aircraft. There was a 737 that hit a big hail storm, everything but the windshielsd had dents and holes, they were cracked though.
The other thing is ACARS reported electrical problems, before pressurisation problems. A rapid decompression wont cause a loss of electrical power unless the electrical bus has been physically damaged. but loss of electrical power could cause loss of pressurisation.
I am thinking more along the lines of a Lightening strike causing a surge and perhaps dropping the instruments off line for a time, strong turbulance knock the aircraft out of stable flight, and the crew unable to orientate themselves in the clouds. And they simply tumbled out of the sky as they tried to regain control.
But i feel there will be more to the puzzle than something as simple as that.
Lack of a Pan call only mean the crew were probably too busy trying to save their lives, rather than some kind of instantaneous incapacition. On saying that.
Rapid decompression is still a big possibility, but it would have had to be very fast and the crew not fast enough to react.
On the whole composit issue, what a load of c p, i have seen many of the composite pieces of the boeings i work on after strikes. I have not seen anything that worries me.
Think what you want and make it as complicated as you can. Windshields can be broken and if so would immediately incapaccitate the flight crew. Electronic reports could easily be delayed by seconds or tens of seconds and many things could have transpired between the inital event and the reporting equipment. Your argument above seems conflicted. I'm proposing the most simple scenario.
Windshields can be broken and if so would immediately incapaccitate the flight crew.
Theoretically possible (hail that would be big enough to penetrate both windscreens on a commercial airliner would almost certainly be able to pummel the pilots to death in a matter of seconds. However I would consider the scenario quite unlikely). However I would think a lightning strike taking out a significant portion of the electrical system would be much more probable. I would think a catastrophic structural failure enough to take out the power would be more probable. So far the evidence seems to indicate that the electrical failure occurred before the decompression.
Besides; I would think if they had operating radar that they would try to avoid any heavy weather that would produce hail.
composites isn't a significant increase in the risk associated with lighting strikes, compared with mainly aluminium planes.
You seem to be making a strawman argument. You seem to admit that there is an increased risk of lightning strike damage with composites; yet you try to use a strawman argument by injecting the word "significant". How one would define significant would be largely a matter of opinion. I'm saying that we should exercise caution and if an exact cause cannot be determined I would consider a lightning strike a definite possibility with the evidence that has been presented so far.
There has been many aircraft lost without explanation; I suspect some of them were lightning or other weather phenomenon.
Don't forget that composite skinned planes have been in widespread use for several decades, in both military and civilian applications.
I have not forgot. From what I understand it was taking into much consideration for the design, testing and development and tactics used for the B-2. From what I understand untreated composites and an unprotected electrical system can even be vulnerable to the static electricity generated by the aircraft from traveling through the air. I think that's part of the reason there has been much effort to shield the electrical system, impregnate the composites with a conductor and part of the reason that they are supposed to avoid heavy weather.
From what I understand they were quite nervous in the B-2 trials when they flew it into heavier weather than they would normally. However from what I understand, it exceeded their expectations.
Originally posted by compositeworld - High Performance Composites
Unlike their metal counterparts, composite structures in these applications do not readily conduct away the extreme electrical currents and electromagnetic forces generated by lightning strikes. Composite materials are either not conductive at all (e.g., fiberglass) or are significantly less conductive than metals (e.g., carbon fiber), so current from a lightning strike seeks the metal paths available. For that reason, lightning strike protection (LSP) has been a significant concern since the first composites were used on aircraft more than 30 years ago.
I don't know what type of lightning protection that Airbus uses for their plastic composite. I'm just merely suggesting that if a causation is determined to be a lightning strike; that perhaps standards should be raised. I was a little alarmed when in the above article they said they used aluminum fibers and spray on metals; as under the right conditions that could possibly be a fire or explosion hazard. IIRC They suspect part of the reason the Hindenburg burned so quickly is that some of the dope was impregnated with powdered aluminum. I would hope any fire or explosion hazard would be discovered in R&D testing and evaluation.
Drudge is reporting there was a bomb threat against Air France which originated in South America just a few days before the crash. The plot thickens......Lockerbie anyone?
Drudge is reporting there was a bomb threat against Air France which originated in South America just a few days before the crash. The plot thickens......Lockerbie anyone?
From which terrorist group?...there are few in South America, and the french president is socialist-communist, so I doubt he or his government has enemies in South America.
A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
. 
Comment