Air France plane missing?

[swissair]

vote

My odds,

1. Bomb 0%
2. Pitot 10%
3. Weather 10%
4. Human 80% including Airbus, Thales, AF (staff and crew) and Regulatory bodies

1. Bomb 90%
2. Pitot 5%
3.Weather 5%
4. Human 0%

[Highkeas]

Let us vote in % terms what was the probable cause:

1. Bomb
2. Pitot
3. Weather in combo Pitot
4. Human

Id like to know.
Thanks for participating

SR

1 thru 4 --- 25%
5. Other --- 75%

[Gabriel]

1. Bomb 90%
2. Pitot 5%
3.Weather 5%
4. Human 0%

Pricelss....

[irvirv]

Gps

This is naively simple I know but if the GPS locations of where the largest items where picked up is known couldn't investigators drop 100 or so GPS devices in the water at 100 different locations within the area it is estimated the plane "could" have crashed and then see after the same number of days lapse between crash and piece discovery which of those floating GPS devices is closest to the discovery site(s)? I realize currents change but maybe not that much? Seems to me it's worth the chance of finding some tighter dimensions in which to do some extra searching. No?

Perhaps they already computer model this stuff (surely they do) but this seems a low tech way of getting some confirmation and perhaps new ideas. I also realize that pieces were found 50 miles apart and I have no explanation for that. I'm just thinking 100 "targets" dropped in the area with each drop point precisely recorded could yield some useful info.

[Highkeas]

This is naively simple I know but if the GPS locations of where the largest items where picked up is known couldn't investigators drop 100 or so GPS devices in the water at 100 different locations within the area it is estimated the plane "could" have crashed and then see after the same number of days lapse between crash and piece discovery which of those floating GPS devices is closest to the discovery site(s)? I realize currents change but maybe not that much? Seems to me it's worth the chance of finding some tighter dimensions in which to do some extra searching. No?

Perhaps they already computer model this stuff (surely they do) but this seems a low tech way of getting some confirmation and perhaps new ideas. I also realize that pieces were found 50 miles apart and I have no explanation for that. I'm just thinking 100 "targets" dropped in the area with each drop point precisely recorded could yield some useful info.

If that was done around day one it would certainly have yeilded valuable infomation. However debris dispersion is a function of current, wave, and wind conditions, which are perhaps different now than they were 50+ days ago, and also debris/body density and size.

I would be surprised if they are not trying to model debris disperion.

[Taliesin]

You have to read 100% of my words (none of which are "If I can do it, I have to do it"):

Upon reading your words 100%, I notice that your percentages are completely off. The rest sounds a lot like blanket statements. What exactly is "affordable"? How do you calculate "affordable"? Which costs being greater than which costs, or which costs being worth which risk?

I think affordable safety improvements must be made incrementally, as they become available, without dwelling on the odds or percentages

That kind of implies the pitot tubes are affordable and that they should be installed regardless of how little they help. That's what I called "If we can do it, we have to do it". You need to make a decision. Which improvement in safety is worth which investment, or else you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and end up with a risk that only marginally improved. That is not very differentiated decision-making and will bankrupt any airline that acts like you suggest.

What percentage of all A330 flights does AF447 represent?

1 in 3 million flights. That establishes the probability for a safe flight at a whopping 99,99996%
Are you still so eager to pay your hundreds of thousands of dollars for new tubes?

1. Bomb 90%
2. Pitot 5%
3.Weather 5%
4. Human 0%

Hilarious. More tinfoil man, more tinfoil.

[Evan]

That kind of implies the pitot tubes are affordable and that they should be installed regardless of how little they help. That's what I called "If we can do it, we have to do it". You need to make a decision. Which improvement in safety is worth which investment, or else you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and end up with a risk that only marginally improved. That is not very differentiated decision-making and will bankrupt any airline that acts like you suggest.

They are affordable, they should be replaced, they are being replaced, and it is not bankrupting the airlines to replace them. And it was easy to accomplish.

Do they eliminate the problem or do they just make it less likely to occur? I think that's irrelevant; the mantra I support is "if you can make it safer, you must make it safer', "can" being a variable of many factors, from technology to finances. In this case they could and they did.

The other factors that still need to be addressed are improved piloting procedures and better understanding of weather phenomena. These things cost money as well. Undoubtedly more than pitot tubes. Should we just skip them?

[Jpmkam]

Let us vote in % terms what was the probable cause:


1. Bomb
2. Pitot
3. Weather in combo Pitot
4. Human
5. Bermuda Triangle
6. Collision with UFO


Id like to know.

Thanks for participating

SR

Fixed

[UALdave]

Hasn't it been over 30 days now, since the black box started emitting its signal? If so, I don't see how they could find it, and without that, we will never know the true cause.

I would vote for human error, but not on the side of Airbus, who warned Air France to replace the pitot tubes, which they didn't do, on the A330. I also cannot understand why the pilots were flying in the thunderstorms to begin with-they had radar just like all other pilots, and should have been able (unless the radar failed) to see the thunderstorms well in advance in order to avoid them. I'm not trying to judge the pilots, but I just don't understand what they were doing in those storms.

[Leightman]

....I just don't understand what they were doing in those storms.

That has previously been covered here. The radar isn't foolproof and takes attention to get results. Another flight had to divert at the last minute to avoid something they hadn't seen before, so there's an example within 30 minute of how well radar doesn't work at times. It was an entire line of storms, not just one. It is doubtful that they wanted to be in a storm. They may have taken their best guess, and it wasn't good enough.

[Highkeas]

Hasn't it been over 30 days now, since the black box started emitting its signal? If so, I don't see how they could find it, and without that, we will never know the true cause.

I would vote for human error, but not on the side of Airbus, who warned Air France to replace the pitot tubes, which they didn't do, on the A330. I also cannot understand why the pilots were flying in the thunderstorms to begin with-they had radar just like all other pilots, and should have been able (unless the radar failed) to see the thunderstorms well in advance in order to avoid them. I'm not trying to judge the pilots, but I just don't understand what they were doing in those storms.

The BEA press release dated 15 July states that search using sonar will run thru mid August

http://www.bea-fr.org/anglaise/actualite/actu.htm

They will be searching for debris larger than the CVR & FDR such as wings, engines, etc. The undersea terrain is very rough so that poses a challenge. The US Navy found the cargo door from UA 811 in a very deep area of the Pacific Ocean without the benefit of a pinger.

As to the cause I doubt if any one knows at this time. The causes you mention are a few possibilities among many others.

[UALdave]

That has previously been covered here. The radar isn't foolproof and takes attention to get results. Another flight had to divert at the last minute to avoid something they hadn't seen before, so there's an example within 30 minute of how well radar doesn't work at times. It was an entire line of storms, not just one. It is doubtful that they wanted to be in a storm. They may have taken their best guess, and it wasn't good enough.

Ok, I didn't know that about the radar, so thanks! I just want to make it clear, again, that I am in no way condemning the pilots.

And it's good news that they are still looking out there in the Atlantic. I hope and pray that they find whatever caused the crash.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Pilots demand US speed sensors

From: http://www.news24.com/Content/World/...d_US_equipment

"The top pilots' union at Air France demanded on Wednesday that European airspeed monitors be replaced by US-made models across the airline's fleet after a new malfunction was reported this month.

"An Airbus 320 equipped with new speed probes made by European electronics giant Thales was flying from Rome to Paris on July 13 when the sensors, known as pitot tubes, broke down, Air France said late on Tuesday.

"The pilots' union demanded the Thales monitors be replaced by those made by US-based Goodrich, which provides pitot tubes to 70% of the world's aircraft."

Dated today's date.

[Highkeas]

From: http://www.news24.com/Content/World/...d_US_equipment

"The top pilots' union at Air France demanded on Wednesday that European airspeed monitors be replaced by US-made models across the airline's fleet after a new malfunction was reported this month.

"An Airbus 320 equipped with new speed probes made by European electronics giant Thales was flying from Rome to Paris on July 13 when the sensors, known as pitot tubes, broke down, Air France said late on Tuesday.

"The pilots' union demanded the Thales monitors be replaced by those made by US-based Goodrich, which provides pitot tubes to 70% of the world's aircraft."

Dated today's date.

But is it the pitot that is the problem (if it really is) or is it the location on the aircraft? I worked on a new aircraft which, during flight test, had a nose boom pitot and a trailing cone. These were used to verify the hull pitot and static port locations. In the wrong location hull pitot and static ports can provide anomalous readings due to various factors such as boundary layers and localized non-laminar flow.

With three independent systems on an aircraft it is hard to imagine them all acting up simultaneously.

[Jason]

Hasn't it been over 30 days now, since the black box started emitting its signal? If so, I don't see how they could find it, and without that, we will never know the true cause.

That is the point. If the FDR / CVR are not to be found, any simlilar accident that unfortunately occured to AF 447, could repeat sooner or later.