Air France plane missing?

[Cam]

^They are located in the tail of the plane.

[retox]

I can't help but feel that a number of people in this forum really enjoy bashing Airbus with whatever excuse they find... I don't really care too much about the Airbus vs Boeing debate, but to be fair, both have demonstrated a remarkable safety record over the years... For god's sake, we are not talking here about Russian tupolevs... I will keep flying Airbus or Boeing without hesitation as long as they are operated by a world class carrier (such as Air France for the record). Even if the investigation concludes that the speed sensors were the ones to blame in this accident, it wouldn't be the first time that something specific to the aircraft was the main cause of an accident, would it?

Outside of any "opinion" one may have, Airbus must figure this out and fix the issue or there will be a public and/or industry perception issue which will impact their bottom line.

I am neutral BUT my bias would be to avoid the A330 IF the cause is never found. I do not believe you could qualify that as bashing in any sense.

Neither Airbus nor Boeing can afford an image problem in this market (especially Airbus as the US dollar remains weak vs the Euro).

[Thurian]

As soon as this story broke, I said to myself, "who will be first to say it wouldn't happen on a Boeing?" I don't know who exactly went down that road but it is a completely ridiculous thing to say because Boeings seem to fall out of the skies a little bit more often than Airbus' and I'm glad I fly Airbus with Aer Lingus but I've also flown T7's with Singapore Airlines( nice plane!) and never felt unsafe but I really hate this "Chest Thumping" that some Americans feel neccessary. All it does is show how insecure they are as a nation.

I can't help but feel that a number of people in this forum really enjoy bashing Airbus with whatever excuse they find... I don't really care too much about the Airbus vs Boeing debate, but to be fair, both have demonstrated a remarkable safety record over the years... For god's sake, we are not talking here about Russian tupolevs... I will keep flying Airbus or Boeing without hesitation as long as they are operated by a world class carrier (such as Air France for the record). Even if the investigation concludes that the speed sensors were the ones to blame in this accident, it wouldn't be the first time that something specific to the aircraft was the main cause of an accident, would it?

[retox]

On a side issue, I don't know where CVR's etc are located on an aircraft but why can't they be located in the extreme aft tip of fuselage or wing tip designed to detach in the event of an impact and FLOAT! seems elemental.

A 9 year old article that somewhat answers your questions:

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/bga/The-Promising-Future-for-FDRs-and-CVRs_12615.html

[Gabriel]

I can't help but feel that a number of people in this forum really enjoy bashing Airbus with whatever excuse they find... I don't really care too much about the Airbus vs Boeing debate, but to be fair, both have demonstrated a remarkable safety record over the years... For god's sake, we are not talking here about Russian tupolevs... I will keep flying Airbus or Boeing without hesitation as long as they are operated by a world class carrier (such as Air France for the record). Even if the investigation concludes that the speed sensors were the ones to blame in this accident, it wouldn't be the first time that something specific to the aircraft was the main cause of an accident, would it?

Agree 100%.

Let's put things in context.

The A330 has 15 years in service.
600 were sold.
Probably they did millions of flights.
And dozens of millions of hours.
This is the FIRST fatal accident after entry in service (there was one fatal accident during test flight).
Even if this accident was due to a technical problem where the plane is to blame, the next time you have to take a flight in an A330 the chances that you die in your way to the airport will still be several orders of magnitude greater than dying during the flight (except for natural reasons).

By all means, get to the bottom of this and, if there is something wrong with the plane, fix it.

In the meanwhile, I'd fly in an A330 any day.

[Thurian]

Then why the hell can't they "detach" and float from the main vehicle(explosive bolts?) in the event of a collision? FFS! mercedes' next supercar(gullwing doors) has explosive bolts to enable egress in the event of an inversion(UPSIDEDOWN for all you south of the Mason/Dixie)

^They are located in the tail of the plane.

[retox]

Then why the hell can't they "detach" and float from the main vehicle(explosive bolts?) in the event of a collision? FFS! mercedes' next supercar(gullwing doors) has explosive bolts to enable egress in the event of an inversion(UPSIDEDOWN for all you south of the Mason/Dixie)

Not sure how that would be beneficial - at all - in ANY situation?

[Thurian]

Not really in the brain tumour(humour) for a long drawn out discussion/debate about Telemetry, think about your mobile(cell) phone(sometimes free!) think about how much THAT can do! it can locate YOU to a couple of metres, it can send information in a burst(which is the way text messages are sent) and yet a jet costing HUNDREDS of millions of Dollars can lack this basic technology(even if AF447 had sent its info as a burst, it might not be received immediately but it WOULD be received eventually) Here we are debating technology and 228 peoples families lives are destroyed. Godspeed.

[Thurian]

Well Retox, It'd mean the things would be floating around on the surface of the Atlantic and even when the transponder stopped sending it might eventually wash up on a beach. As things stand, they could be up to 12'000ft deep. Not unrecoverable but damned tricky(provided they locate them) wouldn't it be better for them to float? Even if they were found floating you can work backwards using tidetables and windspeed/direction to figure exactly where they entered the ocean. Or am I oversimplifying?

Not sure how that would be beneficial - at all - in ANY situation?

[Evan]

Then why the hell can't they "detach" and float from the main vehicle(explosive bolts?) in the event of a collision? FFS! mercedes' next supercar(gullwing doors) has explosive bolts to enable egress in the event of an inversion(UPSIDEDOWN for all you south of the Mason/Dixie)

Geezus stop already. Explosive bolts? Is there a big book of basic lunacy I can refer all you popular mechanics to? To begin with, the black boxes are housed within a reinforced enclosure in the tail to survive a devastating impact. If they were anywhere near the outside of the fuselage, how would they survive an impact in the first place? Hmmm. If they were made to float, how would they manage to detach from the wiring harness that feeds them and then swim out of the tangled wreckage? Hmmm again. And why in a million years would you want to introduce explosive anything to a commercial airliner? Remember, complexity increases the risk of something going wrong. I value new ideas as much as the next guy (more actually) but please, put the keyboard aside and think for a minute before you propose anymore crackerbox inventions. Digital flight recorders need to stay where they are. Telemetry is the only way that info is going to leave the aircraft in flight, and given the very, very, very low frequency that one ends up deep in the ocean, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.

[Vincentomoh]

but I really hate this "Chest Thumping" that some Americans feel neccessary. All it does is show how insecure they are as a nation.

If you see any examples, please post links. Then we, the aviation enthusiasts, can go on and, in numbers, correct the chest thumpers. We need to be in control of the discussion at all major websites.

[Dantheman]

I being an American,will be the first to admit that Boeing a/c have their own flaws. Remember the 737 rudder-jams that brought down 2/3 (not sure the exact number) 737s with 0 survivors? I can go on about the number of "mistakes" that Boeing has committed. Also, parts/engineering for Boeing aircraft are not all American. The 777 wings, for example, are made by the Japanese. Oh well...that is all I have to say on this matter.

As soon as this story broke, I said to myself, "who will be first to say it wouldn't happen on a Boeing?" I don't know who exactly went down that road but it is a completely ridiculous thing to say because Boeings seem to fall out of the skies a little bit more often than Airbus' and I'm glad I fly Airbus with Aer Lingus but I've also flown T7's with Singapore Airlines( nice plane!) and never felt unsafe but I really hate this "Chest Thumping" that some Americans feel neccessary. All it does is show how insecure they are as a nation.

[Thurian]

Hi Evan, You say you "value" new ideas (more actually) than the next guy, explosives have been used in your car that you drive to work every day, howabout the airbags? howabout the seatbelt pretensioners? thats the level of explosives I'm talking about, Aviation used to lead the way in tech, now they seem to follow? I know in commercial aviation its down to "cost per seat" but don't be so ignorant to dismiss explosive devices. It would be very easy to engineer CVR's to "eject" in the event of an impact. Can YOU put forward a SINGLE argument against this?
I think not.

Geezus stop already. Explosive bolts? Is there a big book of basic lunacy I can refer all you popular mechanics to? To begin with, the black boxes are housed within a reinforced enclosure in the tail to survive a devastating impact. If they were anywhere near the outside of the fuselage, how would they survive an impact in the first place? Hmmm. If they were made to float, how would they manage to detach from the wiring harness that feeds them and then swim out of the tangled wreckage? Hmmm again. And why in a million years would you want to introduce explosive anything to a commercial airliner? Remember, complexity increases the risk of something going wrong. I value new ideas as much as the next guy (more actually) but please, put the keyboard aside and think for a minute before you propose anymore crackerbox inventions. Digital flight recorders need to stay where they are. Telemetry is the only way that info is going to leave the aircraft in flight, and given the very, very, very low frequency that one ends up deep in the ocean, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.

[Thurian]

Dan you are so right, there is no such thing as an "American" aircraft or a European aircraft(have you ever seen how an AIRBUS is built? parts of it travel by barge for final assembly) but it bugs me when so called Aviation Enthusiasts turn this into a mud slinger. an Aircraft in flight is beautiful and I know exactly where the first powered flight took place(Kittyhawk Dec, 1903) so what is it with some of the US guys?

I being an American,will be the first to admit that Boeing a/c have their own flaws. Remember the 737 rudder-jams that brought down 2/3 (not sure the exact number) 737s with 0 survivors? I can go on about the number of "mistakes" that Boeing has committed. Also, parts/engineering for Boeing aircraft are not all American. The 777 wings, for example, are made by the Japanese. Oh well...that is all I have to say on this matter.

[Evan]

Hi Evan, You say you "value" new ideas (more actually) than the next guy, explosives have been used in your car that you drive to work every day, howabout the airbags? howabout the seatbelt pretensioners? thats the level of explosives I'm talking about, Aviation used to lead the way in tech, now they seem to follow? I know in commercial aviation its down to "cost per seat" but don't be so ignorant to dismiss explosive devices. It would be very easy to engineer CVR's to "eject" in the event of an impact. Can YOU put forward a SINGLE argument against this?
I think not.

I take the train. It makes more sense. But definitely, draw up some sketches. I'd love to see how very easy it is to engineer.