Air France plane missing?

[Dantheman]

I too have the same view. I have never spent this much time wondering about any air tragedy as I have with this one.

The given is that the debris field is about 3 miles long. And as of this writing, the Brazilian navy ship(s) are closing in on the debris. We should see pictures of the debris soon.

Oh, and the US is also assisting the search operations using spy satellites. (not to mention)

[Quench]

Anyone know why light aircraft are required to have an emergency locator beacon which activates on impact, but commercial aircraft do not.
They could have something that floats.

[shamrock]

Air France have put a memo on their site regarding the memorial service in Paris today (added to their site yesterday)..

Paris, 02 June 2009 - 21:26 local time
Memo to the press
Inter-religious ceremony wednesday 3 June

In respect for the mourning of the relatives and friends of the victims, we inform the press that they will not be able to attend the inter-religious ceremony to be held inside Notre Dame cathedral tomorrow at 4pm. There will be a sound broadcast of the ceremony on the square outside the cathedral.

I am pleased they have taken that step, it saves the families from running the gauntlet of the media when they really do not need to have to deal with them and it stops the media turning the whole thing into some ghoulish carnival. The fact that there is no wreckage on land for the media to gawk at and photograph is also a good thing in many respects, the relatives know their loved ones have perished, they probably do not need to see media footage of bits of plane and personal possessions bobbing about in the sea as has been the case in the past when crashes have been relatively close to landfall.

The worst part is that the relatives will not have anywhere to go and mourn. Other accidents that were at sea such as Swissair and TWA were reasonably close to landfall so a memorial could be built as a centerpiece for people to go and say their goodbye's or share a few moments on birthdays or at Christmas, but this accident is so far out at sea, it is probably impossible to have any memorial like that, and chances are that unlike the Swissair and TWA flights, there probably won't be much in the way of body recovery either, so the families will have nothing tangible to remember their loved ones by, and that is especially devastating.

[shamrock]

The BBC will be televising a press briefing by Air France at 10am BST

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7927039.stm

Those outside the UK should try this link...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7926576.stm

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Originally Posted by AVION1

the french president is socialist-communist

You can't be serious right ??? Sarkozy is a right wing conservativ and there's NOTHING socialist in him, not to talk about communism...

[shamrock]

OK...technical question for those 'in the know'

There have been comparisons drawn tween this accident and that of the two Qantas incidents last year. The reason why pundits are saying there can be no real comparison is that the Air France ADIRU was a Honeywell and the Qantas were Northrop-Grumman.

Is it possible to fit the NG part into the space taken by the Honeywell, do they have they same wiring etc?

Could they be fitted by mistake...as per the case with the crashed Tunisian ATR 72 that had an fuel gauge that belonged in an ATR 42 by mistake...?

Is it at all plausable that a genuine error such as this could be made?

[Dantheman]

The flight data recorders on commercial aircraft have underwater locater beacons.

Originally Posted by Quench

Anyone know why light aircraft are required to have an emergency locator beacon which activates on impact, but commercial aircraft do not.
They could have something that floats.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Quench

Anyone know why light aircraft are required to have an emergency locator beacon which activates on impact, but commercial aircraft do not.
They could have something that floats.

The boxes are internally mounted and wired to the aircraft. What good would it do to give them floatation? I saw this suggestion on the NY Times blog as well. Logic just seems to be missing at sea.

[eTang]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

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.

=> => => => => => =>

Originally Posted by mocus1

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?

How much later Lockerbie attack was claimed by terrorist? Not immediatly, right?

Originally Posted by AVION1

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.

Not necessarily in South America! Perhaps just south of France? AFAIK France arrested a couple of "radical political activists" (to be politically correct) recently!

Originally Posted by mocus1

May 27, 2009: 'The airport safety delayed an AIR FRANCE flight this evening before departing for Paris immediately after the company received a bomb threat over the phone at the airport of Ezeiza [Buenos Aires]'

This is an information which actually intregues me!


A german (boulevard) site quotes now that because of the large area the aircraft debris was found in on the ocean an mid-air explosion seems likely (can anybody confirm this: would this really be a too large area to find debris after disintegration on water contact/impact?) ...

... could it be authorities do not mention a word about the terrorist attack possibility just not to interfere with investigations?

[dr_cfii]

Originally Posted by AVION1

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.

With this dumb statement, you immediately discredited everything you said before. Get off that Bush era crap, and don't onvolve it here...

[Carl E. Hackert]

The Drudge Report links also take readers to a story about SMS text messages from AF's passengers: supposedly things like "I'm afraid" and "I love you". These messages may not relate at all to the crash as the reader is lead to believe by the author. The other problem with the message story would seem to be lack of cellphone coverage over the ocean 400-600 miles offshore unless the senders were using personal satellite phones or the aircraft's radio/phone equipment. The timestamps on the messages would answer the technical questions and the relevancy of the messages to the disaster.

Still, with the absence of evidence, the possibility of a terrorist hijacking, a missile, or a bomb can never be ruled out. Since there was no verbal communication from the cockpit, the CVR is absolutely vital.

The UK media's timeline overlayed on the flight's track includes satellite images of the area of thunderstorms with tops estimated at 50,000', about 15,000 above the flight's altitude. It appears to my view of the image that the flight may have changed course slightly more to the southeast and tried to pass between stormceels. This may have taken them away from lightning but not have taken them out of any area of hail, which can be as much as 10-15 miles from a storm's center. Is it possible that large hail could have struck the aircraft?

1) Text message story below:
General

Last message from flight AF447

Posted on 02 June 2009 at 15:54
Tags: air france, airbus a330, flifht af447, lost plane missing plane, sms, text message


A Brazilian TV station says that some passengers have been able to send SMS from the plane, but there is not confirmation on this news.
A story published in Portuguese in Journal de Noticias reports about SMS that the passengers sent to their loved ones.
“I love you” or “I’m afraid” were some of the messages from phones of the passengers of the plane of Air France sent to their relatives. Some passengers sent these SMS messages when they realized that the aircraft had problems.


2) BBC's flight path story:
Timeline of Flight AF 447




Details are emerging about the disappearance of an Air France flight from Brazil to France in the early hours of Monday.
Flight AF 447 left Rio de Janeiro, bound for Paris, at 1900 local time (2200 GMT) on Sunday 31 May.
The aircraft, an Airbus A330-200 with registration F-GZCP, had been in operation since April 2005.
Shortly after the aircraft's scheduled arrival time in Paris of 1110 local time (0910 GMT), it was announced that the flight was missing.
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-20.jpg[/IMG]

[FrequentFlyer]

... could it be authorities do not mention a word about the terrorist attack possibility just not to interfere with investigations?

Like any other hypothesis, terrorism should not be discarded, but, as someone wrote at the beginning of this dicusssion, terrorism should be kept at the back, not the front of the probable causes. Terrorists would tend to hit their "enemies" in Europe and the US. One of their aims is the impact on the public opinion which, with a hit in SA would be extremely negative.

The composite issue should be seriously considered, together with fly-by-wire and ADIRU (especially the sequence of ADIRU faults in recent accidents) as well as a sequence of weather events — lightning, turbulence, freezing of crucial commands (left vulnerable by the lack of heat due to power failure)...

We all know the list is long and the work ahead a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle. Untill any further, more robust evidence, let terrorism at the end of the line.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by eTang

A german (boulevard) site quotes now that because of the large area the aircraft debris was found in on the ocean an mid-air explosion seems likely (can anybody confirm this: would this really be a too large area to find debris after disintegration on water contact/impact?) ...

... could it be authorities do not mention a word about the terrorist attack possibility just not to interfere with investigations?

Could it be that the authorities don't want to mention a word about terrorism out of a sense of responsibility?

You would be amazed to know how many bomb threats the airlines receive. That's why every flight is considered to include a bomb threat. You might also be amazed to know how many armchair terrorists have already claimed responsibility for this incident. There is also a tin-foil theory going around right now that the Iranians used a new space-based 'pulse weapon' to bring it down, and I'll just bet there is a German website to corroborate this as well.

The way to fight terrorism is to not participate in elevating the fearful conjecture. A wound can't heal if you continually scratch at it. This plane flew into a violent storm and didn't come out the other side. That raises a lot of possibilities. Why even bring up terrorism at this point? To perpetuate it?

[FrequentFlyer]

Brazilian midia efforts now focus on calming down the fear of flying...

Turbulence is normal and do not make planes crash... Accidents are rare... Statistics show that cycling is more "dangerous" and a mere walk on the sidewalk (crossing a street is hell) even more. Only elevators are safer than planes...

TV Globo morning news dared to make a (rather dubious, indeed) metaphor with the Titanic...

The accident is out of the limelight: now it's the turn of investigators and specialists (and, why not, this forum) to become responsible not to letting this fade into oblivion and make something good come out of this tragedy.

[AVION1]

French investigators now agree that it would be impossible to recover the boxes, believed to be at 21,000 ft deep...!!

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by ATFS_Crash

Quote:

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.

Absolutely not. Don't put in my mouth things that I haven't said.

By no means I am saying that there is an increased risk but it is not significant.
I'm saying that there isn't a significant increase in risk.

Can you tell the difference?
A decrease in risk, no change in risk, or an increase in risk that is non-significant, (that is, everything that is not a significant increase in risk) all are compatible with "there isn't a significant increase in risk".

If you read my first post on this (the part you quote is from a clarification of that first post) I've said that I would attempt a statistical approach.

"Significant" is a very definite word in statistics. Statistics are about probabilities, not certainties. A significant difference is a difference that, if existed, it is very unlikely that it would not show up in the statistical evaluation.

Over the years, there have been a few cases of planes known downed by lighting (or where a lighting was a causal factor). ALL OF THEM WERE OF MAINLY METALLIC STRUCTURE (AFAIK).

As I've said over and over, we have perhaps 20 years of airplanes made with extensive use of composite materials flying. Thousands of lightings strikes must have happened on them, and still noone of them was known to be lost due to that. (that includes of course a lot of airliners with a composites fin).

Picture this scenario:

"Composite materials, as used in airplanes, create a significant increase in risk (compared with aluminium) of lossing an airplane where a lighting is a causal factor. However, just by chance, none of these planes (but a few aluminium ones) was downed by lighting (even after 20 years, thousands of flight per day, and thousands of strikes in composites planes)."

What are the chances for the above scenario to be true? Little.
That makes the scenario above unlikely. What means that very likely there isn't a significant increase in risk (that includes no increase or a decrease), otherwise it would have showed up in the sample.

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

I'm ok with that. A lighting being a causal factor in this accident is a goos speculation by now (even if I've speculated otherwise). As it has been in other accidents.

What I see VERY unlikely is that the fact that the plane used composites in parts of its srtucture combined with the lighting to become a causlal factor.

Yet, if a lighting was involved this possibility should and would be investigated.

And yes, that's an opinion. I hope you are Ok with that.

[shamrock]

Originally Posted by AVION1

French investigators now agree that it would be impossible to recover the boxes, believed to be at 21,000 ft deep...!!

These people may be able to do something...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8080324.stm

A robotic sub called Nereus has reached the deepest-known part of the ocean.

The dive to 10,902m (6.8 miles/35,813ft) took place on 31 May, at the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench, located in the western Pacific Ocean.

[ATFS_Crash]

Originally Posted by Carl E. Hackert

The Drudge Report links also take readers to a story about SMS text messages from AF's passengers: supposedly things like "I'm afraid" and "I love you". These messages may not relate at all to the crash as the reader is lead to believe by the author.

The Drudge report site isn't exactly the most reliable site. They (like much of the media) will often run with a story before doing much investigation to see how credible a story is. As with most media sources I would take most of the reports that come from that site with a large dose of salt (skepticism). However in defense of the Drudge Report; I will say that sometimes they break a story long before the mainstream media gets it; and often they will print truths that the biased mainstream media chooses to ignore. However the Drudge report itself is biased, and often runs with erroneous information.


I don't doubt that some passengers sent some messages; however I am highly skeptical that any of these messages would be related to a mishap. The mishap seems to have occurred at an altitude and a distance that I think it would be unlikely that text messages could be transmitted. I agree with your assessment that someone seems to be trying to connect dots that probably don't connect in the context of this mishap.

[RobinB]

Hello Gang - well, venturing from my usual haunt on the Off Topic Forum, I have been reading the various posts in this forum as well as those on the Pprune forum. I am amazed at the various angles hypothesised as to "what went wrong". Of course this is a tragedy of note. We had a South African business man on board so it's "big news" here. So, what can I contribute to the discussion. I am in no way any "expert" (PS: the definition of "expert" is he (or she) who knows more and more about less and less until he (or she) knows everything about nothing !!) in "things aviation" however let's look at some logic - well my version of "logic".

Is the aircraft "tough" ? IE: could it withstand adverse weather ? Well, I am of the opinion that B17's and Lancaster's withstood a lot more punishment on a regular basis (WW2) and were, on occasions, able to limp home. Orion's that fly "Tornado sorties" knowingly fly into very bad weather and survive, so I am of the opinion that it is unlikely that weather was the sole cause of the sad loss.

Structural integrity: Composites vs Aluminium: both have their limits and neither would withstand "adverse inputs" to the flight profile. If you wanted to barrel roll an Airbus, chances are that your wings will fall off !! Fly by wire vs "direct" cable n stick - hmmmm, again, possible but probably unlikely.

Terrorist activity ? New theory put forward - possible but perhaps unlikely that a carry on type device would have done it without some sort of communication being possible - anyone who saw the episode of Mythbusters trying to simulate a "small explosive device" causing massive depressurisation will see that it would take a lot mote explosive to cause that amount of damage to bring down the aircraft without some sort of "mayday" being transmitted. Explosive in the hold, different story as per Lockerbie.

In many of the aircraft accident investigations (correct me if I'm wrong) it's usually a SERIES of malfunctions (mechanical and/or "human") that contribute to the disaster - again in many cases some sort of warning was communicated via the cockpit.

So, for me, it's a case of "I just don't know because I don't know" - hopefully in time we will know and react accordingly - but a sad day all round. Food for Thought (a parting shot) - Africa has the WORST (by far) aviation safety record and aircraft losses are almost a "daily occurrence" (a bit unfair, but you get my meaning) - but hardly a murmur in the press when such occurrences happen - are we just too sanitised to African Aviation problems as opposed to "First World" disasters ?

[Evan]

Originally Posted by AVION1

French investigators now agree that it would be impossible to recover the boxes, believed to be at 21,000 ft deep...!!

French investigators will surely never find them in the Puerto Rico trench. I don't think the waters around Fernando de Naronha go much deeper than 16,000 ft.

Still, a job for Jacques Cousteau.