Are retirees moving to the new DTV visa - anybody done it?

[Carib]

Precisely - my gut suggests it went into a power stall very early on.

The million Dollar question is why they could not correct it expeditiously.

There have been flight deck concerns with faulty ADIRU readouts still on the main monitor, which were giving

misleading, faulty data, exacerbating the predicament.

BR>Jack

No airflow over the rudder, little airflow over the ailerons, so very hard to get out of it.

The thing we almost all forgot here is that the plane had entered an area with unstable weather/ outside air temperature differences / up and downdrafts / temperature pockets well you name it.

By itself this doesn't have to be a cause to bring an aircraft down, but....and that is where it all ends again... we just don't know..

Frozen up Pitot tubes does happen but " on the way down" or out of the turbulence can " undo" itself.

Although I still find it very hard to believe that 6 tubes must have frozen up ( 3 on each side of the fuselage)

I will add a link to a possible "freeze up" occasion on which the possible fault ( frozen tube) rectified itself. Airspeed readings became normal again at first but later on it was again unreliable. It happened on June 19. Cannot find a follow up on this incident jet.

There are more of these incident's, which make it all the more puzzling why the Air France bird went down. There is so much redundancy in the systems, that it should always be flyable, even if almost everything shuts down.

The boxes need to be found, all of the industry will benefit from knowing what really happened.

Link as per above: http://avherald.com/h?article=41b7477b

[cloudhopper]

The suggestion that it nose dived at an 90 degrees angle is pure sensation fuel, nothing more that that.

Coming down vertically doesn't necessarily mean that it hit the water at a 90° angle or even close to it.

Except for the case of a "flat spin".

Now that's a very interesting hypothesis. I've done many, both upright and inverted, and it is the only scenario I can envision that combines a very high sink rate with a level attitude. Also compatible with the discovery that the vertical stab had separated, which would make any spin recovery impossible.

[Carib]

The suggestion that it nose dived at an 90 degrees angle is pure sensation fuel, nothing more that that.

Coming down vertically doesn't necessarily mean that it hit the water at a 90° angle or even close to it.

Except for the case of a "flat spin".

Now that's a very interesting hypothesis. I've done many, both upright and inverted, and it is the only scenario I can envision that combines a very high sink rate with a level attitude. Also compatible with the discovery that the vertical stab had separated, which would make any spin recovery impossible.

True, but when did it separate, looking at pics all lugs seemed to be intact, and it looked like being torn out of the hull, with just as much material on both side of the base, so that could indicate it was ripped out on a fwd aimed motion. Impact??.

On the several industry and air travel related forums there are a couple of theories but every conversation always ends with more or less debunking the own theory, and stating : "We don't know".

Just like everything I write down, I don't know...

[Carib]

Just got the interim report concerning this accident in English.

Hope I can upload it.

Edit for: Give it some time to download, it is over 70 pages.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Carib

[animatic]

If Pitot tubes are subject to freezing for any reason in bad condition,

why are they not heated when neccessary to prevent freezing on a major jet liner?

[Carib]

If Pitot tubes are subject to freezing for any reason in bad condition,

why are they not heated when neccessary to prevent freezing on a major jet liner?

They are Animatic,

Basicly two types 1) Constant heat/ on demand or inflight always. 2) thermostat controlled.

[animatic]

If Pitot tubes are subject to freezing for any reason in bad condition,

why are they not heated when neccessary to prevent freezing on a major jet liner?

They are Animatic,

Basicly two types 1) Constant heat/ on demand or inflight always. 2) thermostat controlled.

Yes that would make sense.

It would have to be extraordinarily cold for these to freeze then.

So could extra large hail stones knock or bend them?

What causes their failing, in multiple simultaneous cases, typically?

[bdenner]

Just got the interim report concerning this accident in English.

Hope I can upload it.

Edit for: Give it some time to download, it is over 70 pages.

They are saying it looks like it hit the water, nose/belly first and intact, at high speed. That should change the mind of some of the theorists on this thread.

[Carib]

If Pitot tubes are subject to freezing for any reason in bad condition,

why are they not heated when neccessary to prevent freezing on a major jet liner?

They are Animatic,

Basicly two types 1) Constant heat/ on demand or inflight always. 2) thermostat controlled.

Yes that would make sense.

It would have to be extraordinarily cold for these to freeze then.

So could extra large hail stones knock or bend them?

What causes their failing, in multiple simultaneous cases, typically?

Typically It is blockage by dirt/ water/heat element failure/incorrect drainage (automatic) of the system

Cases have been known of wasps building a nest in the tube when aircraft not used for a long time. (tube covers are not always applied)

Never seen a bend one or one knocked of the plane.

[churchill]

Airbus could be asked to ground all long-range airliners

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6612165.ece

[jackdanielsesq]

Enter stage-left the class-action lawyers. Read that as big-bucks lawyers.

BR>Jack

“EASA has a legal and moral obligation to get to the bottom of this problem now. If there is a defective system and the aircraft is unsafe then it should be grounded,” said James Healy-Pratt of Stewarts Law in London. The firm, which specialises in aviation, is representing the families of 20 of the victims of flight 447.

[cdnvic]

Airbus could be asked to ground all long-range airliners

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6612165.ece

That this info is coming from a lawyer who's specialty is suiing airlines and airline manufacturers is no surprise considering the sensationalistic headline. With the number of aircraft flying and this being the only fatal accident of this series ever while in service, that alone makes one wonder at the motivations for those who talk as if these things are dropping from the sky in droves.

There's definitly reason for concern, but it needs to rational, not sensational.

Was it wise in the first place to fly into weather that was beyond the capability of the pilots to fly manually, or like some of the biggest air disasters in history, was it an economic decision?

[jackdanielsesq]

Sensationalism aside - the folks who got hammered are victims - not our call.

The moment it impacts one of our loved ones - watch out!!

We are simply looking for the truth and to prevent being steamrolled - is all.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

BR>Jack

[cdnvic]

Sensationalism aside - the folks who got hammered are victims - not our call.

The moment it impacts one of our loved ones - watch out!!

We are simply looking for the truth and to prevent being steamrolled - is all.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

BR>Jack

I have no idea what that collection of catchphrases and disjointed thoughts is saying.

[LaoPo]

Just got the interim report concerning this accident in English.

Hope I can upload it.

Edit for: Give it some time to download, it is over 70 pages.

Thanks a lot for that info, Carib!

Contrary to earlier reports (a.o. about naked bodies) there is some important info in that link:

"PAGE 38 of the report: 1.12.4 Summary of visual examination

Observations of the tail fin and on the parts from the passenger (galley, toilet door, crew rest

module) showed that the airplane had likely struck the surface of the water in a straight line,

with a high rate vertical acceleration.

1.13 Medical and Pathological Information

Sailors from the Frigate Ventôse recovered about thirty bodies. A visual examination of the

bodies showed that they were clothed and relatively well preserved. All of them were handed

over to the Brazilian Navy to be transferred to the Recife morgue.

At this stage of the investigation, the BEA has not yet had access to the autopsy data.

PAGE 39 of the report: 1.14 Fire

Based on the elements recovered up to now, no evidence of fire or explosion has been

brought to light.

Of course, this doesn't say anything yet about the cause of the accident but the time that the black boxes were sending signals has passed now (30 days or so) so that the probability that the cause will be found (from the blaCK BOXES*) is minimal unless someone with more knowledge than myself could explain that it will still be possible.

Anyone ?

* PAGE 43 of the report: 1.16.1.1 Context of the searches

The estimated area of the accident is over the Atlantic Dorsal Chain. The search is

proceeding there in an unfavourable environment due to the depth and to the topography of

the seabed. This seabed is little known and presents, over short distances, depths going

from 900 metres to approximately 4,600 metres. The distance from dry land implies a lack of

radar coverage and radio communication difficulties.

NEXT TO:

This makes an area with a radius of 40 NM, extending

over more than 17,000 km2 and located more than 500 NM from the coasts.

PAGE 52 onwards: Analysis of the fault messages

Five fault messages were received by ACARS. They are described in the order in which they

appear in the CFR.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

In the last pages of the report-link, provided by member Carib there is this on PAGES 69 and 70 (out of 72 pages):

2. INITIAL FINDINGS

On the basis of the first factual elements gathered in the course of the investigation, the

following facts have been established:

• The crew possessed the licenses and ratings required to undertake the flight,

• The airplane possessed a valid Certificate of Airworthiness, and had been maintained

in accordance with the regulations,

• the airplane had taken off from Rio de Janeiro without any known technical problems,

except on one of the three radio handling panels,

• no problems were indicated by the crew to Air France or during contacts with the Brazilian

controllers,

• no distress messages were received by the control centres or by other airplanes,

• there were no satellite telephone communications between the airplane and the

ground,

• the last radio exchange between the crew and Brazilian ATC occurred at 1 h 35 min

15 s. The airplane arrived at the edge of radar range of the Brazilian control centres,

• at 2 h 01, the crew tried, without success for the third time, to connect to the Dakar

ATC ADS-C system,

• up to the last automatic position point, received at 2 h 10 min 35 s, the flight had followed

the route indicated in the flight plan,

• the meteorological situation was typical of that encountered in the month of June in

the inter-tropical convergence zone,

• there were powerful cumulonimbus clusters on the route of AF447. Some of them

could have been the centre of some notable turbulence,

• several airplanes that were flying before and after AF 447, at about the same altitude,

altered their routes in order to avoid cloud masses,

• twenty-four automatic maintenance messages were received between 2 h 10 and 2 h

15 via the ACARS system. These messages show inconsistency between the measured

speeds as well as the associated consequences,

• before 2 h 10, no maintenance messages had been received from AF 447, with the

exception of two messages relating to the configuration of the toilets,

• the operator’s and the manufacturer’s procedures mention actions to be undertaken

by the crew when they have doubts as to the speed indications,

• the last ACARS message was received towards 2 h 14 min 28 s,

• the flight was not transferred between the Brazilian and Senegalese control centres,

69

• between 8 h and 8 h 30, the first emergency alert messages were sent by the Madrid

and Brest control centres,

• the first bodies and airplane parts were found on 6 June,

• the elements identified came from all areas of the airplane,

• visual examination showed that the airplane was not destroyed in flight ; it appears to

have struck the surface of the sea in a straight line with high vertical acceleration.

LaoPo

[cgjtt]

From the Aviation Herald

Quote

Incident: LOT B763 near Toronto on Jun 19th 2009, severe turbulence and unreliable airspeed

By Simon Hradecky, created Saturday, Jun 20th 2009 13:43Z, last updated Monday, Jun 22nd 2009 20:46ZA LOT Polish Airlines Boeing 767-300, registration SP-LPA performing flight LO-2 from Chicago O'Hare,IL (USA) to Warsaw (Poland) with 206 passengers and 10 crew, was enroute at FL330 about 9nm eastsoutheast of North Bay,ON (Canada) about 70 minutes into the flight (Jun 19th 22:02L, Jun 20th 02:02Z), when the airplane encountered "severe turbulence at high speed" and started to deviate signficantly from assigned altitude. The crew reported later, that their airspeed had become unreliable and requested to divert to Toronto,ON (Canada). During descent towards Toronto the crew reported, that airspeed had returned to be normal and requested to hold to reduce weight. No ambulances were needed. While in the hold and descending, the crew was ordered to stop descent at 16000 feet, the crew was however unable to comply and reported, the airspeed problems had reoccured. The airplane proceeded directly for a safe landing on runway 23 73 minutes after the onset of problems and taxied to a gate.

At the time of the incident air traffic control reported continuous light chop (light turbulence) on all altitudes above FL300, later changed to severe turbulence at FL330 reported by a 763.

The Canadian TSB reported on Jun 22nd, that the airplane was enroute at FL330 near North Bay, when it experienced a sudden and commanded overspeed condition, stick shaker and illumination of the left and right hand engine electronic control (EEC) caution lights. The aircraft descended to FL280 before the situation was resolved. The airplane diverted to Toronto, where it landed without further incident. The TSB has dispatched investigators to the site. End quote,

Need I remind everyone that all assumptions and suppositions are what they are until a final report comes out. This event may not be what happened to AF447, but the resemblance is interesting. AND iTS A BOEING.

By the way, GPS shows ground speed, period. And yes, you can try your Garmin in an airliner and you will get the same info as the guys up front. The problem with GPS is altitude. It will have an error due to the earth not being perfectly round.

[LaoPo]

France extends search for Air France black box

Fri Jul 3, 2009 4:40am EDT

PARIS, July 3 (Reuters) - Investigators have extended the search for the flight recorders of an Air France plane that crashed into the Atlantic last month and still hope to find them, France's transport minister said on Friday.

Flight AF 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris crashed on June 1, killing all 228 people on board, but investigators have so far failed to pick up any signals emitted by the "black box" recorders. The signals are sent out for at least 30 days. "We could stop around ... July 10, but we won't. If we don't find them with the classic means, we will continue through submarine exploration," Transport Minister Dominique Busseareau told French radio.

He said the chances of finding the black boxes were fairly weak, but they would nevertheless try.

French investigators said on Thursday the plane hit the water intact and at high speed, but was missing for six hours before an emergency was declared.

Evidence from wreckage indicates the plane was broken apart by impact with the water, which it struck facing forwards.

(Reporting by Elizabeth Pineau; Editing by Sophie Hares)

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL348327320090703

LaoPo

[Hermano Lobo]

Still no sign of the black box. A great pity. There is something to be learned from this sad incident.

Why do I fly in aircraft with four engines? Because they don't make them with five !

This is still the best site on the subject:-

Tim Vasquez - Weathergraphics

As with almost all aviation incidents, it is never one thing, but a combination, all happening at the

same(wrong) time.

It will be another tragedy if the black box is never found.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Hermano Lobo

[animatic]

I suspect Airbus will be helping Air France finance extra strong Black box search efforts.

It is in their best interests to get to the bottom of this in as much detail as possible.

[jackdanielsesq]

Several points I have alluded to previously, mentioned here, viz. final control, and pilot's inability to control craft due insufficient training for worst-case scenarios.

BR>Jack

As investigators search for clues to why Air France Flight 447 crashed, former pilots and aviation experts are debating whether the "fly-by-wire" technology in modern aircraft makes it difficult or impossible for a pilot to control a plane in distress. The Airbus A330-200 that crashed into the Atlantic on May 31 — killing all 228 people aboard — relied on electronic rather than hydraulic or mechanical systems to control the aircraft. It's akin to having a computer control your car, with the electronic brain doing the steering, hitting the gas and pumping the brakes as you tell it what to do.

Some pilots claim the old way was better. In an emergency, they say, passengers are better off having a skilled pilot working all the systems.

But planes built by Airbus, a European consortium based in Toulouse, France, give computers, not humans, the final authority on flight decisions. Airbus' American rival, Boeing, also uses fly-by-wire systems on its newest planes, but their pilots have the ability to override the computers in an emergency.

As Airbus puts it, the "deflections of the flying control surfaces on the wing and tail are no longer driven directly by the pilots' controls, but by a computer which calculates exactly which control surfaces are needed to make the aircraft respond as the pilot wishes."

Because the computer "drives," Airbus says the system leads to "considerable reductions in the time and costs involved in training pilots and crew to operate" its planes. Boeing uses fly-by-wire technology on its 777 jets and will also have it on its next-generation 787s, due out early next year.

Airbus uses it on its A320, A330 and A340 models, as well as the giant double-decker A380 jumbo jet, which began flying in late 2007. Older commercial aircraft, including Boeing 747s, Lockheed Martin L-1011s and McDonnell Douglas DC-10s, use hydraulic controls. Kevin Darcy, a licensed commercial pilot and former accident investigator for Boeing, said fly-by-wire and hydraulic systems both have inherent advantages.

[cdnvic]

So if this is such a problem, why the superb safety record of these aircraft?

[Datsun240Z]

The 787 Dreamliner has delay, but it will be a beauty. Boeing did alot of study on the plane.

A380 is comfort to, but I have nightmares of this bird falling out of the sky

[animatic]

Fly by wire in commercial use is relatively new.

Sure it's been in military use for a long time.

Still the actual combination of lightning strikes and severe turbulent weather

in a loaded commercial plane at high altitude is not adequately studied IMHO.

Just because most pilots have avoided such weather, doesn't automatically mean

the planes can handle it without question if the don't....

I know that lightning in the neighborhood of my computers can fry them

even with protection circuits and isolation in between. I see no reason not to assume

confluence of two lightning strikes in short order could not get past the planes issolation

and cause the need of a global reset. What happens during that reboot cycle?

There now appears to be several similar incidents involving computers, unresponsive controls,

lack critical of air-flight data and Pitot issues. Not to say all these are exactly the same reasons

and faults, but too many parallels seem to be there. All seem related to fly by wire,

and how the pilots get their info and the autopilots get theirs.

Makes me appreciate the manual pilot over ride in the Boeings a notch more....

And not appreciate the 'time saved training pilots' because the computer has the 'final say'

Call me nuts if you like.

[Carib]

Fly by wire in commercial use is relatively new.

Sure it's been in military use for a long time.

Still the actual combination of lightning strikes and severe turbulent weather

in a loaded commercial plane at high altitude is not adequately studied IMHO.

Just because most pilots have avoided such weather, doesn't automatically mean

the planes can handle it without question if the don't....

I know that lightning in the neighborhood of my computers can fry them

even with protection circuits and isolation in between. I see no reason not to assume

confluence of two lightning strikes in short order could not get past the planes issolation

and cause the need of a global reset. What happens during that reboot cycle?

There now appears to be several similar incidents involving computers, unresponsive controls,

lack critical of air-flight data and Pitot issues. Not to say all these are exactly the same reasons

and faults, but too many parallels seem to be there. All seem related to fly by wire,

and how the pilots get their info and the autopilots get theirs.

Makes me appreciate the manual pilot over ride in the Boeings a notch more....

And not appreciate the 'time saved training pilots' because the computer has the 'final say'

Call me nuts if you like.

Not calling you nuts here, lol.

An average plane gets hit at least ones a year by lightning, and I am very very careful here. Not enough time to look up the statistics. Planes do fly in-webbed in st Elmo`s fire for long periods too. Nice to see by the way.

Difference with your PC is that it is not placed in a so called Faraday cage, which protects everything and everyone inside. Same like when lightning hits your car. Nothing will happen to you.

The `manual override` in Boeing's comes down to the same `manual override` like in Airbus. The main difference is that Airbus will be held within the envelope of the plane, and Boeing allows over-stretching the limits.

Also Airbus will still use automated thrust and gear/flap retraction for instance, as for Boeing the pilot will have to do that himself in a case of emergency. Both systems have pro`s and con`s. That is where everybody agrees about.

Proof that it (A320) will be and stay perfectly flyable was given by the Hudson ditch of a US airways? flight beginning this year after both engines had ingested a flock of birds.

Love these discussions, but pressed for time right now.

I am sure if you google `differences in Airbus/Boeing systems or whatever like it, something will come up to make my short rambling more clear.

Regards

[cdnvic]

Well, if it eases your mind a bit, you can look at accident records involving mechanical failure from the pre-FBW era and you will see ones where an aircraft has sustained physical damage but is still flyable, but the controls have been damaged, leading to the loss of the aircraft. In a FBW setup there is less mechanical parts to fail, and there can be much more redundancy built into the systems allowing for multiple backups.

Although there is not a single commercial aviation accident attributed to fly by wire failures, there are many that have been due to mechanical failure, and others which could have been avoided by having the computer correct a pilot's oversight.

Edited July 5, 2009 by cdnvic

[cgjtt]

Several points I have alluded to previously, mentioned here, viz. final control, and pilot's inability to control craft due insufficient training for worst-case scenarios.

BR>Jack

As investigators search for clues to why Air France Flight 447 crashed, former pilots and aviation experts are debating whether the "fly-by-wire" technology in modern aircraft makes it difficult or impossible for a pilot to control a plane in distress. The Airbus A330-200 that crashed into the Atlantic on May 31 — killing all 228 people aboard — relied on electronic rather than hydraulic or mechanical systems to control the aircraft. It's akin to having a computer control your car, with the electronic brain doing the steering, hitting the gas and pumping the brakes as you tell it what to do.

Some pilots claim the old way was better. In an emergency, they say, passengers are better off having a skilled pilot working all the systems.

But planes built by Airbus, a European consortium based in Toulouse, France, give computers, not humans, the final authority on flight decisions. Airbus' American rival, Boeing, also uses fly-by-wire systems on its newest planes, but their pilots have the ability to override the computers in an emergency.

As Airbus puts it, the "deflections of the flying control surfaces on the wing and tail are no longer driven directly by the pilots' controls, but by a computer which calculates exactly which control surfaces are needed to make the aircraft respond as the pilot wishes."

Because the computer "drives," Airbus says the system leads to "considerable reductions in the time and costs involved in training pilots and crew to operate" its planes. Boeing uses fly-by-wire technology on its 777 jets and will also have it on its next-generation 787s, due out early next year.

Airbus uses it on its A320, A330 and A340 models, as well as the giant double-decker A380 jumbo jet, which began flying in late 2007. Older commercial aircraft, including Boeing 747s, Lockheed Martin L-1011s and McDonnell Douglas DC-10s, use hydraulic controls. Kevin Darcy, a licensed commercial pilot and former accident investigator for Boeing, said fly-by-wire and hydraulic systems both have inherent advantages.

Japan airlines Boeing 747 crashed after loosing its 4 hydraulic systems following the failure of its rear pressure dome.

Sioux city american airlines DC-10 lost its 3 hydraulic systems after #2 engine came unglued.

Your old airplane argument doesn't hold squat.

Air Transat A-330 lost 2 engines due fuel starvation ( ie no generators ) airplane hand flown with basic electrical systems ie, same as a 2' generation airliner .

On the B-777 and the B-787, computers drive the flight control systems.B-777 hydraulic power the flight controls. FLY BY WIRE.

Please get your facts strait.

As per your insufficient training argument, Air France flies the boeing airplane also. Their training is as good as any airlines in europe and north america.

Your training argument also doesn't hold squat.

[LaoPo]

Air France box search winds down

French ships equipped with US listening devices are ending their hunt for the black boxes of an airliner lost over the Atlantic on 1 June, officials say.

They failed to pick up signals the boxes' "pingers" were meant to emit for 30 days after the Air France jet crashed with the loss of all 228 lives.

Experts believe the cause of the crash may never be known unless the two flight recorders are recovered.

There is still a chance that French submarines may discover the boxes.

Brazil ended its operation to recover bodies and wreckage from Flight AF447, which was flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, towards the end of last month, after finding the remains of 51 people.

French investigators believe the plane, which disappeared in a storm, broke up on contact with water, not in the air.

They say the plane's speed sensors appear to have been a factor in the crash but not its cause.

'Still hope'

Two tugs chartered by the French agency investigating the crash (the Investigation and Analysis Bureau, or BEA) had been searching for the jet's cockpit voice and flight data recorders with Towed Pinger Locators (TPL) supplied by the US Navy.

US Air Force Col Willie Berges, the Brazil-based commander of US military forces supporting the effort, said one tug had already stopped searching.

"The last ship will be departing the search area today," he told the Associated Press news agency on Friday, adding that he did not know the exact time.

The ships had had "no success - nothing was tracked", Col Berges said.

A French nuclear submarine, the Emeraude, has also been hunting the boxes and robot submarines will join the search later in July, Air France-KLM director Pierre-Henri Gourgeon said in an interview published in France's Le Figaro newspaper on Thursday.

"All hope is not lost," he said.

Chief BEA investigator Alain Bouillard said last week that a French boat equipped with two small submarines would begin a search along with another submarine and a robot craft "after 14 July", a public holiday in France.

Friday saw the funeral in Dublin of a young Irishwoman who was aboard the jet along with two friends, all three of them doctors.

The body of Dr Jane Deasy was identified this month. Those of her friends, Dr Aisling Butler and Dr Eithne Walls, were never found.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/8145578.stm

LaoPo

[jackdanielsesq]

I saw a piece on the 100% recovery record of the black-box (orange) manufacturers, who said they have

never failed. Interesting times ahead. Although there was only one US couple on board, one must suspect

that the powers that be, have a vested interest in solving two back-2-back Airbus wrecks, in 30 day period.

The Yemenis have threatened to cancel their 10 Airbus purchase.

BR>Jack

[Datsun240Z]

So if this is such a problem, why the superb safety record of these aircraft?

Sure it's safe, and electronic control should be more reliable then mechanical. But the one problem is with the software, if the computers recieve false information, they tend to correct it by it's programmed script. In this case probably in a dive. But a computer is just a computer, and not a human.