It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: trapeze on May 01, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
-
PARIS (AP) — Investigators have located and recovered the memory unit of the flight data recorder of a 2009 Air France flight — a remarkable deep-sea discovery they hope will explain why the aircraft went down in a remote area of the mid-Atlantic, killing all 228 people on board.
France's air accident investigation agency BEA said a search by a submarine probing some 3,900 meters (12,800 feet) below the ocean's surface located and recovered the unit Sunday morning. The unit is now aboard the ship Ile de Sein, the statement said.
The statement also included photos of the recorder — a red cylinder partially buried in sand on the sea floor. Judging from the photos, the unit appeared to be in good condition.
Last month, the agency said the undersea search had identified the "chassis" that had held the recorder, but said the memory unit was still missing.
LINK (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idIOYTZIx-M9JhNPwQyoaWwkY-fA?docId=6d8f0d3725944466baa582f8fa3babb9)
-
It'll be interesting information to have. On the one hand, planes crash. On the other hand, they don't crash very often. And on the third hand, there is a well-known variable that occasionally causes plane crashes, and France has a burgeoning problem with that particular variable.
-
Apparently Brazil is also experiencing problems with that particular variable.
-
http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/04/hezbollah-hamas-and-al-qaeda-in-brazil-as-world-cup-olympics-loom/?amp& (http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/04/hezbollah-hamas-and-al-qaeda-in-brazil-as-world-cup-olympics-loom/?amp&)
-
I often wonder that the U.S. TSA is fully aware of that "variable" and appears not wanting to hurt the "variable's" feelings to the point that it's a freakin miracle that we haven't had to deal with the freakin variable since somebody's underpants started to smolder.
-
I wonder how long the data recorder can survive under those conditions? I've never heard of finding one so long after a crash.
At 12,800 feet the pressure is tremendous. I hope seawater didn't get inside the unit.
-
I wonder how long the data recorder can survive under those conditions? I've never heard of finding one so long after a crash.
At 12,800 feet the pressure is tremendous. I hope seawater didn't get inside the unit.
I believe they're made to survive fire, explosion, impact, crushing, corrosion, and immersion. I don't know about 2 + miles worth of water pressure over an extended period of time though. Perhaps.
-
I wonder how long the data recorder can survive under those conditions? I've never heard of finding one so long after a crash.
At 12,800 feet the pressure is tremendous. I hope seawater didn't get inside the unit.
I believe they're made to survive fire, explosion, impact, crushing, corrosion, and immersion. I don't know about 2 + miles worth of water pressure over an extended period of time though. Perhaps.
From the looks of the case it's in nothing is going to hurt the insides.
Black box: Inside a flight data recorder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlY5W7be5jU#ws)
-
Given that 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, one would think these things are specifically designed to withstand great depths. Probably the big question mark is the amount of time spent at the bottom. At that depth it is subject to over 5,700 pounds per square inch.
-
The picture of the flight data recorder from the article:
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1543/flightrecorder.jpg)
Hopefully new design means better design not just new.
-
Of course, it will be infinitely more helpful if they can also find the cockpit voice recorder, too. Unless one unit now does both functions.
-
The pilots of an Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean two years ago apparently became distracted with faulty airspeed indicators and failed to properly deal with other vital systems, including adjusting engine thrust, according to people familiar with preliminary findings from the plane's recorders.
The final moments inside the cockpit of the twin-engine Airbus A330, these people said, indicate the pilots seemingly were confused by alarms they received from various automated flight-control systems as the plane passed through some turbulence typical on the route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. They also faced unexpectedly heavy icing at 35,000 feet. Such icing is renowned for making airspeed-indicators and other external sensors unreliable.
LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576341631579541512.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
-
Black Boxes Point to Pilot Error
The article speaks of known deficiencies in the airspeed measuring devices, a lack of training for the pilots in dealing with this type of emergency, and possible information overload with all the various automated warning alarms.
The headline doesn't match the article.
-
Yes, the article seems contradictory and confused.
and
Slated to be disclosed by investigators on Friday, the sequence of events captured on the recorders is expected to highlight that the jet slowed dangerously shortly after the autopilot disconnected. The pilots almost immediately faced the beginning of what became a series of automation failures or disconnects related to problems with the plane's airspeed sensors, these people said.
and following from the tube, today
The plane went into a dive...yada yada... recovered and was climbing, then stalled. Those were the last words by the reader.
If the pilot and crew recovered from the initial down path an was climbing, he had control of the craft. If the TV reader is correct the problem was either a French variable or the plane stressed out and came apart. Is "stalled" a euphemism for "came apart"?
-
Is "stalled" a euphemism for "came apart"?
Not that I've ever heard. A stall is a stall.
-
Well, FOS Shep put a twist on it, we'll find out Friday.
-
Yes, the article seems contradictory and confused.
and
Slated to be disclosed by investigators on Friday, the sequence of events captured on the recorders is expected to highlight that the jet slowed dangerously shortly after the autopilot disconnected. The pilots almost immediately faced the beginning of what became a series of automation failures or disconnects related to problems with the plane's airspeed sensors, these people said.
and following from the tube, today
The plane went into a dive...yada yada... recovered and was climbing, then stalled. Those were the last words by the reader.
If the pilot and crew recovered from the initial down path an was climbing, he had control of the craft. If the TV reader is correct the problem was either a French variable or the plane stressed out and came apart. Is "stalled" a euphemism for "came apart"?
If the airspeed indicators were giving faulty readings and the plane was flying slower than the pilots thought it was, then pulling it up into a climb certainly could have caused a stall, followed by loss of control.
I don't see how the pilots could be blamed for that, though.
-
I would think pilots of any significant flight hours would have better spacial awareness and not be blindly obedient to just instruments. They are indicating they recovered from the dive (thus back on manual, not autopilot) and began climbing...and the failing sensors caused them to pull up too sharply and stalled the plane. Perhaps they had no time to exercise spatial awareness (visibility issues?) that would tell them not to exceed a certain angle or a stall is possible. If instruments begin to go haywire, relying on other instruments should be suspect. But then you throw in the time compression and factor in all of the things happening in the plane and it seems it is a case of cascading mechanical and instrument failures that presented an unrecoverable situation for the crew. I am not sure how much icing was at fault, it doesn't appear it affected aerodynamics otherwise they would not have pulled out of the dive, but it must have been enough to cause the pitot tubes to ice up and give faulty readings. They will need to look at overall design improvements and procedures and not just a better black box!
-
But it wasn't terrorism. So that's good. I gotta say...these terrorists aren't very good at taking out planes. They are not as good as human error and other common reasons for planes crashing.
-
I wonder if this is a situation where the "glass cockpit" leads to a tactile disconnect between pilot and flight controls. I know Airbus went to the side-stick controls whereas Boeing, while also going to computer controlled fly-by-wire, nevertheless stuck with a more traditional yoke and devised a force-feedback servo system to emulate the classic "feel" of the control surfaces. I just remember reading a blurb about this several years ago when Lufthansa placed a large order for then-new Boeings (777?), saying their pilots preferred the traditional feel of the yoke.
-
Perhaps they had no time to exercise spatial awareness (visibility issues?)
I think I remember that they were in or near a storm at the time. I don't remember whether it was day or night.
-
Perhaps they had no time to exercise spatial awareness (visibility issues?)
I think I remember that they were in or near a storm at the time. I don't remember whether it was day or night.
I think you might be right, I think there was inclement weather in the area. But I seem to recall the flight was in daylight.
And as far as the yoke vs side-controls, a fighter pilot is comfortable with the latter, but in a big plane, I would think the yoke rig would be preferable.