Air France plane missing?

[Evan]

The question is what would make Airbus less popular than an aircraft falling out of the sky for no apparent reason? If there is a serious problem in the A330 (which apparently isn't the case, because they don't crash every week - in fact it was the first crash since service entry), why would they hide so that it could cause another crash - making Airbus even more unpopular... m.

I agree with mfeldt. Airbus is subject to all manner of uninformed speculation until the boxes are located. We have all endured the ITS style, wholesale denouncement of Airbus composites and the AA587 crash has enhanced that superstition. The appearance of the tail fin only made that worse. If anyone wants to find those boxes, it is Airbus. Even if they point to a fault in a speed sensor (the most likely cause in the minds of engineers), all Airbus would need to do is reassure the public that the parts have been replaced, and voila, no more worries.

On the conspiracy front, modern governments of major nations do not engage in cover-ups unless they are legal (for reasons of national security). Only select individuals within those governments will take that chance. To facilitate a cover-up on the scale some have proposed would be quite impossible to contain, and none would take that chance. Politicians, in the end, are very conservative, timid people who don't like to be indicted for conspiracy. To believe such a scenario, you must employ a paranoid mindset that works in spite of this logic.

[Evan]

An airspeed failure on an Airbus aircraft seems to have far more reaching and sometimes apparently unrelated issues than on other aircraft, which l guess adds to the possibility for situation confustion.

Exactly. Airbus took a bold step in the 1970's by introducing FBW to passenger a/c. To do this, they had to provide an assurance of failproof redundancy. The systems were designed around this requirement, and I think that is why, when the redundancy fails, the situation is more far-reaching.

Of course, Boeing has since taken up the flag. The 777 and 787 may harbor a similar potential for debilitating failure.

Is this the first time I've agreed with you Evan?

You should be proud of yourself.

[Spad13]

If anyone wants to find those boxes, it is Airbus.

Oh, I don't know about that.

On the conspiracy front, modern governments of major nations do not engage in cover-ups unless they are legal (for reasons of national security). Only select individuals within those governments will take that chance.

A pretty naive mindset, IMHO.

[Alpha Sierra]

A cover up by Airbus would require co-operation of the government

As a matter of fact, a cover up by Airbus would require co-operation of the French, German, UK and Spanish governments. As I have stated in a previous post, I believe government cover-ups are generally quite common around the world, but it seems to me that this one would just be too difficult to contain.

The question is what would make Airbus less popular than an aircraft falling out of the sky for no apparent reason? If there is a serious problem in the A330 (which apparently isn't the case, because they don't crash every week - in fact it was the first crash since service entry), why would they hide so that it could cause another crash - making Airbus even more unpopular... m.

You've said it - spot on!

[swissair]

Tend to agree

Oh, I don't know about that.




A pretty naive mindset, IMHO.

I tend to agree with you

[CockpitCat]

Please consider this as encouragement and not criticism.

Point taken Leightman.

[CockpitCat]

There are good reasons why we still have basically the same pitot after about a centruy of use.

Has icing up of pitots been a problem since the beginning of its use? On a GA I only know of carb heat, I guess pitot heat is required at 5000ft or above?

I gather there is a heater on airliners' pitots, but as per speculation around AF447, such heating was probably not effective enough, i.e. the heater was unable to keep up with rate of icing?

[MCM]

CockpitCat,

Which GA aircraft are you familiar with?

Even the humble C-172 has a pitot heat system. Pitot icing has always been an issue, and pitot heat has been around for a very very long time.

Why the airspeed indication system failed on this flight is an interesting question... it is possible, as you say, the rate of accumulation was very high, or the crystaline nature of the ice meant that went into the probe, clogged up and drained improperly. There are other possibilities.

The fact that this is not the first time they've had the same problem with this specific manufacturer of the probe means that they'll have a good place to start looking as to why.

We're learning some interesting things about convective weather and aircraft operation, with the "recent" G.E engine failures caused by low thrust settings around these types of storms.

I wonder if the mention of Engine failures will set a cat amongst the pigeons

[Gabriel]

Has icing up of pitots been a problem since the beginning of its use? On a GA I only know of carb heat, I guess pitot heat is required at 5000ft or above?

A heated pitot is a required equipment for flying in instrument conditions in all aircraft categories.

[Spad13]

A heated pitot is a required equipment for flying in instrument conditions in all aircraft categories.

You're close, but it's not quite that absolute. See 14 CFR Part 23.1323 and 25.1323.

[Tomtom]

Links

You're close, but it's not quite that absolute. See 14 CFR Part 23.1323 and 25.1323.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=565bb40169a76c5235fb45922d997f42&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.10.6.100.10&idno=14

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=565bb40169a76c5235fb45922d997f42&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.11.6.193.11&idno=14

[swissair]

New thinking process

You're close, but it's not quite that absolute. See 14 CFR Part 23.1323 and 25.1323.

Let us take a new lead here versus the in this forum named impossible, the bomb scenario. SR

[Jpmkam]

Towed listening device black box search ends....

But the French submarine will continue search for black boxes.

RIO DE JANEIRO – An American colonel says two ships searching for the black boxes of Air France Flight 447 are ending their hunt.

A French nuclear submarine is continuing to look.

U.S. Air Force Col. Willie Berges is the Brazil-based commander of American military forces supporting the effort. He says one ship towing a U.S. Navy listening device stopped searching Friday.

He says the other ship towing a device will end its search within hours.
Berges says the ships had "no success."

Flight 447 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off Brazil's northeastern coast June 1. All 228 people aboard died.

Investigators say without the black boxes, it may be impossible to know for certain what caused the crash.

[Leightman]

Search results

Thanks Tom Tom for the definitive links to airspeed indicator requirements.

The major search is now off ended for the black boxes. I admit surpise that more debris have not been found. However I got side-tracked with a coincidental run-in with the search for Steve Fossett's plane. Recall how long that took., and that the discovery was made by a hiker, not by any search aircraft. The search area was much larger--a few times the 40 mi radius assumed for 447-- but it was on the ground, in an area where good visibility prevails, and aircraft (very fast compared to a ship) were employed. It's helpful to remember that the visual remnants of a plane crash are much smaller than an intact a/c. The obvious difference is that AF447 is deep underwater. A reasonable analog would be a dozen blimps trolling over a solid overcast at 15,000' with cameras with a 50' range hanging from cables, looking for a crumpled travel trailer in the Grand Canyon.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Even if they point to a fault in a speed sensor (the most likely cause in the minds of engineers), all Airbus would need to do is reassure the public that the parts have been replaced, and voila, no more worries.

"The most likely cause in the minds of engineers"... Really? All engineers?

As for the last part of your statement, I said something similar probably around page 30... in fact, if you think about it, we've hardly budged since the ACARS messages were first released and the speed probe theory was trundled out there. We moved from overspeed, when we thought the plane broke up midair, to stall/spin/twirl/dive/loss of control, once they told us the plane did a belly flop more or less in one piece.

Leightman's recent analysis of the ACARS, while very thorough and commendable, seems to be piecing together a very precise sequence of events with the slimmest of evidence, like an anthropologist trying to reconstruct a civilization based on a jawbone fragment.

I guess I'm just very discouraged today. With no black boxes, this truly is a game of "Guess what happened to the airplane".