Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air France plane missing?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I am not convinced that all of the Pitots froze up, the likely hood of all three probes sufferring the same fault at the same time would be so incredibly unlikey. This would only happen if none of them had probe heat on.

    This is not to say one did not fail, and the crew simple screwed up the fault isloation procedure.

    But a simple pitot issue should not have cause a bunch of the other failures such as the ISIS failure or TCAS failure.

    Pitot tubes are from my experience inherently reliable devices, i have only every changed 2 in my 15 years in aviation maintenance. The rest were for modification reasons about 4 years back.

    The most rescent, as i have previously said was a partial failure of the heating element so it was getting warm but not hot.
    This probe was quarantined and sent back to the manufaturer who did dismantled it and discovered the heater element to have shorted against the probe, which would have normally burnt the element out, but in this case there must have been just enough resistance to keep the element current down. Which is why it was not getting hot enough.

    A one off defect, though they did create a report on if and our my airline created an information bulletin for both Maintenance and Aircrew to read. This was mostly because the probe had had this defect for a number of weeks and only froze in very specific conditions, and difficult to prove on the ground in testing.

    When testing it i found it was warming up which would have misled the previous guys testing it. But i took it a step further and compared it with the others and only then could you see a clear difference in the heating.

    For info this was on a Boeing.

    I wonder what happens if you turn off all the ADIRUs? can you turn off the ISIS?

    Also on the FDR and CVR, they are positioned in the tail, and could easily be ejectable. A few issues though. The aircraft needs to identify it is crashing. On what basis does it make this assumption? The last thing you want is these things to be ejected everytime some one almost crashes, which probably happens way more than people actualy crash.

    i could just imagine it.
    "Man killed as Data Recorder falls from the sky as Hero pilot saves the lives of hundreds"

    But in terms of and automated data transmission of FDR could easily be done. But again based on what assumptions. How often has a normal landing turned into a crash in mear seconds?

    Comment


    • You're using this site and you take the train? Doubt that! don't be faceitious, it would be easy to engineer.
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Thurian View Post
        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.

        Countless arguments against... You only want one.

        1. CVR "ejects" (from the relative safety of the tail) before impact and a large part of the fuselage or an engine proceeds to fall right on top of it - crush!

        Comment


        • Sorry Vince, but you haven't posted a location so until you do I refuse to accept any of your directives.
          Originally posted by Vincentomoh View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Ok Retox, CVR was in the relative safety of the tail of AF447, It was probably the only intact piece(tailplane seems to remain relatively intact in most accidents) of the plane that hit the ocean in one piece and you still argue that the CVR should have remained attached? You are "misguided" if you think that. Change your name from Retox to Retard.
            Originally posted by retox View Post
            Countless arguments against... You only want one.

            1. CVR "ejects" (from the relative safety of the tail) before impact and a large part of the fuselage or an engine proceeds to fall right on top of it - crush!

            Comment


            • Your request doesn't make sense. You said "but I really hate this "Chest Thumping" that some Americans feel neccessary" - You said that problem existed, so wouldn't you already know those locations?
              Originally posted by Thurian View Post
              Sorry Vince, but you haven't posted a location so until you do I refuse to accept any of your directives.

              Comment


              • Important Notes:

                1. The aircraft is an AirBus

                2. The tail falls off

                3. FBW

                My girlfriend was leaving the Czech republic on July 19th 2007, the same day that the terrible Sao Paulo commercial airliner accident happen...


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Thurian View Post
                  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.
                  Accident investigators are now examining the possibility that a tail strike from a previous flight had caused its CVR and DFDR to eject onto the runway. Global Airlines flight 254 struck the object after having exceeded its takeoff rejection speed, causing the main gear tires to fail and resulting in the fatal runway excursion. FAA officials are now questioning the wisdom behind the new ejection system which was designed by a web forum contributor with no academic engineering training.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Thurian View Post
                    Ok Retox, CVR was in the relative safety of the tail of AF447, It was probably the only intact piece(tailplane seems to remain relatively intact in most accidents) of the plane that hit the ocean in one piece and you still argue that the CVR should have remained attached? You are "misguided" if you think that. Change your name from Retox to Retard.
                    So from now on we will issue a rule that all AC crashes will ONLY be into water. Why didn't I think of that? You are obviously 12.

                    Comment


                    • No SIR! I have chosen to answer your post above others, even over land it would make sense for ANY data recovering device to eject from the vehicle at the last second. LOOK!!! a pilot can eject from a military craft a split second before impact and survive regardless of landing surface. WHY DO YOU ARGUE THIS POINT? THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE! why are you arguing this point? from now on we will issue a rule that all AC crashes will ONLY be into water. Why didn't I think of that? You are obviously 12.[/quote]

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Thurian View Post
                        No SIR! I have chosen to answer your post above others, even over land it would make sense for ANY data recovering device to eject from the vehicle at the last second. LOOK!!! a pilot can eject from a military craft a split second before impact and survive regardless of landing surface. WHY DO YOU ARGUE THIS POINT? THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE! why are you arguing this point? from now on we will issue a rule that all AC crashes will ONLY be into water. Why didn't I think of that? You are obviously 12.
                        [/quote]

                        Good night.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Thurian View Post
                          No SIR! I have chosen to answer your post above others, even over land it would make sense for ANY data recovering device to eject from the vehicle at the last second. LOOK!!! a pilot can eject from a military craft a split second before impact and survive regardless of landing surface. WHY DO YOU ARGUE THIS POINT? THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE! why are you arguing this point? from now on we will issue a rule that all AC crashes will ONLY be into water. Why didn't I think of that? You are obviously 12.
                          [/QUOTE]

                          Latest news coverage, email, free stock quotes, live scores and video are just the beginning. Discover more every day at Yahoo!


                          This guy makes a lot of astute points:

                          --How can we afford this? DoD throwing away multi-million dollar aircraft like toilet paper!

                          --When a pilot ejects during peacetime, a RECOVERY PARACHUTE DEPLOYS and recovers the entire damn plane for repair.

                          --In war time we can disable the RP over enemy territory to keep their grubby hands off our planes.

                          --We've had a Concorde airliner crash/burn, killing over 100...3 airliners rammed into buildings killing over 3,000; yet we still are in our non-chalant trance building airliners in the same death trap fashion because we refuse to admit that they will indeed CRASH.

                          --This web page begins with a quick presentation of how our airliners are made into death traps that are not survivable.

                          -- Its our technoarrogance and corporate greed that prevents us from having the HUMILITY to respect God's creation and its forces and to have a "Plan B" when "Plan A" fails.

                          --Ivanov said it was "too early to say" what caused the crash, but added the plane had been maintained to Russian and international standards.

                          Comment


                          • The comparison between a military pilot ejecting and and CVR ejection system is not so valid as Ejection seats are pilot initiated. The pilot elects to eject to save his life. The aircraft does not eject the pilot automatically.

                            However I think i read a report somewhere that the F18's FDR automatically eject. There was a Swiss Air Force F18 that crashed into the alps, and i recall some reference to a data module ejecting prior to impact.

                            The simplest concept of an ejectable FDR and CRV could be as follows.

                            CVR and FDR located in tail in unpressurised section of the frame eg behind the aft pressure bulkhead either side of the lower fuselage. If accidental ejection occure the airframe integrity is not compromised.

                            Both modeles would have a G-Sensor that when subjected to an abnormal longitudinal G-Force eg aircraft impact with the ground. The Modules are ejected clear of the Aircraft.

                            In addtion to the current data recorder design such as crash worthiness and water activated ELB (why are they not just G-Triggered) a water activated floatation device be incorporated.

                            So in simple terms on at onset of impact, the G switches trigger the ejection process which as we know can be very quick. The modules are blown clear and start emiting their location signal water or not. If the modules land in water, the floatation devices trigger and the CVR and FDR convientiently float to the waters surface and are easily found.

                            Taa daaa!

                            Maybe not perfect but better than sinking to the bottom of the atlantic ocean.

                            Another even simpler solution would to have them in the same location as above, but simple be able to eject themselves and float to the surface if the aircraft is submerged in water.

                            If you are wondering commercial aircraft have a number of explosive charges on them. For example the fire extiguishers have Squib charges that fire to let the extigusher bottle discharge. Nothing new there.

                            Comment


                            • THANK YOU THEO! the technology regarding ejecting a pilot has to take into acount "A Human" but a CVR" could take much higher loads. Great to meet an open mind
                              Originally posted by Theoddkiwi View Post
                              The comparison between a military pilot ejecting and and CVR ejection system is not so valid as Ejection seats are pilot initiated. The pilot elects to eject to save his life. The aircraft does not eject the pilot automatically.

                              However I think i read a report somewhere that the F18's FDR automatically eject. There was a Swiss Air Force F18 that crashed into the alps, and i recall some reference to a data module ejecting prior to impact.

                              The simplest concept of an ejectable FDR and CRV could be as follows.

                              CVR and FDR located in tail in unpressurised section of the frame eg behind the aft pressure bulkhead either side of the lower fuselage. If accidental ejection occure the airframe integrity is not compromised.

                              Both modeles would have a G-Sensor that when subjected to an abnormal longitudinal G-Force eg aircraft impact with the ground. The Modules are ejected clear of the Aircraft.

                              In addtion to the current data recorder design such as crash worthiness and water activated ELB (why are they not just G-Triggered) a water activated floatation device be incorporated.

                              So in simple terms on at onset of impact, the G switches trigger the ejection process which as we know can be very quick. The modules are blown clear and start emiting their location signal water or not. If the modules land in water, the floatation devices trigger and the CVR and FDR convientiently float to the waters surface and are easily found.

                              Taa daaa!

                              Maybe not perfect but better than sinking to the bottom of the atlantic ocean.

                              Another even simpler solution would to have them in the same location as above, but simple be able to eject themselves and float to the surface if the aircraft is submerged in water.

                              If you are wondering commercial aircraft have a number of explosive charges on them. For example the fire extiguishers have Squib charges that fire to let the extigusher bottle discharge. Nothing new there.

                              Comment


                              • Good clear image, no doubt thats from an aircraft.



                                Another report i have read indicates they have located some much larger pieces below the waters surface. Also indicated the first bodies were found about 70km from where the ACARS messages were sent.



                                70km is not so far to travel from 35,000ft. Especially accounting for oceanic currents. Be interesting to know which way and how fast the currents flow our there

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X