Air France Plane Drops Off Radar Over Atlantic

[jackdanielsesq]

Lobo - I believe bkkjames posted that URL - it has been around a while in pilot-speak, and is a decent, readable piece.

In summation - any wiring of this magnitude harks back to the AT&T era. Or PG&E. The media is full of such stories.

Nothing new. It is gonna bite ya in the a$$ - its what crippled the A380 for + 2 years.

The buck wheat post - please dont shoot the messenger - was no attempt at anything scurrilous - didnt know

the person even - ya must have realized that - so stop with the rhetoric, as it has nothing to do with the OP.

BR>Jack

More senile censorship -

Hey F4UCorsair, for someone who says they've flown heavy metal for 30 years your posts don't read anything like those on professional pilot forums.

How would ya have him sound like - cndcvic/yadda?! What happened to the First?!

You guys need a new routine - this is real old.

[Hermano Lobo]

Kapton: Dangerous aircraft wire.

Kapton - the aromatic polyimide wiring insulation around the wire strands - has no place, he says, in passenger-carrying aircraft. He says that the main reason is that, in an electrical short, the wiring insulation chars to a conductive carbon residue and ignites like a dynamite fuse, affecting the whole wiring bundle (and therefore many disassociated systems).

The phenomenon is known as arc tracking. Because the outer carbon char (and not the internal wire-core conductor) is then carrying the current, the circuit breakers most probably will not trip. There is therefore nothing to halt this "flashover" because the power stays on the wire. The older the Kapton wiring gets, the more brittle and vulnerable the insulation becomes.

"The wiring clearly is not safe," he says. "There is always a risk in aviation, but this stuff makes it tangibly worse."

By Tom Mangold and Tim Clark

In the past Airbus has insisted its use of Kapton is safe, because it coats it in a thin layer of ‘FEP’ – fluorinated ethylene propylene – making it less likely to crack. But other experts disagree, and in 2008 the Federal Aviation Administration, America’s rule-making body, stated that even when coated with FEP, ‘Kapton wire insulation materials should not be used in airborne applications.’ But to Block’s dismay, it didn’t ban its use, aware perhaps that to do so would call into question the safety of any aircraft using Kapton – as many as 14,000 planes.

Reply:-

Yes an interesting article , but it does contain several glaring errors and some far from convincing assumptions . Yes ACARS reports were received but that only means ACARS received data from the CMC's , it doesn't prove anything was actually wrong with the ADIRU's , only that the CMC's thought there was a discrepency . We still do not know what caused the crash , nor even why the aircraft crashed.

Kapton is used on many aircraft not just airbus but just about all modern have kapton or similiar wiring . Most of the scare reports about it were carried out by the military in the early and mid 80's and did have some very dramatic and serious outcomes , AS A RESULT OF BULLETS BEING SHOT THROUGH WIRING , not very likely in either the AF or QF incidents .

Sensationalising the events that led to the loss of an aircraft before any cause or details have been determined is irresponsible at least and can cause more distress and sorrow for the families of the deceased .

I do wish reporters would get the facts straight before publishing such stories and features ..............

Absolutely TT2 the Mail in what ever guise sunday, daily or on line is a real rumour monger outfit and facts are at the bottom of any integrity listing. Nothing beats sensationalism.

Air France A330-200 Crash: Follow Up

[jackdanielsesq]

I read somewhere that NASA had also banned it, that it might have been partly responsible for that lethal blowout over Florida in 1985/? Age is a huge contributor - wonder how soon before somebody issues an irrevocably wiring challenge?!

As a young engineer, we used to breadboard all our circuits - they never worked the same after committed to PCB.

Sometimes component values changed by 5-10 times - to get the required design outputs - which is why it is so difficult to replicate real-time left-seat. By taking control away from the PIC, everyone loses - clearly

BR>Jack

[F4UCorsair]

"Hey F4UCorsair, for someone who says they've flown heavy metal for 30 years your posts don't read anything like those on professional pilot forums. I wonder why."

How would you like me to sound sibeymai?? I wouldn't say I'm dumbing my posts down, but this isn't a forum where one would expect to find many with aeronautical knowledge, so I have gone for a more simplistic presentation. There's no point in presenting here full of jargon if nobody would understnad what is being said. I could write something that nobody would understand if you'd prefer though. It sounds to me that you may fancy yourself as the successor to cdvnic as the resident troll !!

I don't frequent PPRuNe because there are too many confrontationist and pretentious wanke_rs there.

I can assure you I have a military background, Mirage III, and with airlines B747-300/400 and B777, and retired with a touch under 20,000 hours total time. Since you're probably wondering why I've noted different 747 types and only one 777, the B747-300 is a different endorsement (because of different technology) from the 400 whereas a single B777 endorsement covers all.

Once again, I have no axe to grind over FBW or otherwise. The ony point I believe I've tried to make is that a FBW failure doesn't have to be burnt out wiring; that is merely a link in the vast chain.

[F4UCorsair]

"Hey F4UCorsair, for someone who says they've flown heavy metal for 30 years your posts don't read anything like those on professional pilot forums. I wonder why."

How would you like me to sound sibeymai, like an airline pilot visiting the local aero club and making out I'm a hero?? I wouldn't say I'm dumbing my posts down, but this isn't a forum where one would expect to find many with aeronautical knowledge, so I have gone for a more simplistic presentation. There's no point in presenting here full of jargon if nobody would understnad what is being said. I could write something that nobody would understand if you'd prefer though. It sounds to me that you may fancy yourself as the successor to cdvnic as the resident troll !!

I don't frequent PPRuNe because there are too many confrontationist and pretentious wanke_rs there, and I said in an earlier post that I'm not an aviation enthusiast; I worked as a pilot for 30+ years, but apart from the first few of those years, didn't see it as anything but a job, a huge income job, but still just a job.

I can assure you I have a military background, Macchi, Mirage III, and with airlines B737-300, B747-300/400 and B777, and retired with a touch under 20,000 hours total time. Since you're probably wondering why I've noted different 747 types and only one 777, the B747-300 is a different endorsement (because of different technology) from the 400 whereas a single B777 endorsement covers all, but I'm sure you knew that from hanging out on the professional pilot forums! The B737-300 endorsement covered up to the 500 series and subsequent 737's were another endorsement, the NG's. I hold ATPL's in four countries.

Once again, I have no axe to grind over FBW or otherwise. The ony point I believe I've tried to make is that a FBW failure doesn't have to be burnt out wiring; that is merely a link in the vast chain.

Edited August 5, 2009 by F4UCorsair

[Datsun240Z]

Bkkjames, I really can not imagine any aircraft maker doing such a thing! The gain will be nothing. A crash needs to be investigated, and the cause(s) needs to be found. Airbus or Boeing won't do anything, I believe, that could jeopardize any investigation in case of............And the authorities would not allow such things if they feel that it can be a problem...Or at least I hope they would not..

hmm ok, but from a liability point of view, makes more sense to blame the airline / pilots than the manufacturer if i am the manufacturer.

anyways, all I am saying is if you make the plane so sophisticated, a cause and effect of this will be more pilot error - not less as CDVIC points out.

that being the case don't those who make things overly complicated bear some of the responsibility for going beyond the limits of normal human behavior.

In the "old days" we had an flight engineer on board, doing all that kind of switches and monitoring. They now expect pilots to do it.

[F4UCorsair]

Please excuse the oduble post; I'm not sure how that happened.

Ah, he good old days when there was an FE up front. Going a lot further back, there was also a radio operator. I can't imagine a DC3 cockpit with four crew up there.

[Who, me ?]

yes, and we also had the good old plane that we had to start by spinning the propeller.....

You also can regret the old time when trains were powered by steam....

[sibeymai]

In the "old days" we had an flight engineer on board, doing all that kind of switches and monitoring. They now expect pilots to do it.

Not really. Now they expect computers to do it.

F4UCorsair: just my observation. Perhaps you were tailoring your posts to the audience. Here are my thoughts from a systems analyst perspective.

I guess the crux of this discussion is whether FBW is safer than direct control backup systems and specifically whether AF447 might have been saved by the pilot if it had a direct control backup system or whether FBW decreased their chances of survival.

It appears likely that the pilots of AF447 did not have any visual reference points being a dark sky, dark sea, no visible horizon and with any possible visual reference points obscured by cloud. While an autopilot cares none about this this environment is very demanding for a pilot who has to fly manually by instruments alone. Remove some instruments and the job becomes progressively more difficult. Remove all instruments and without any visual reference it becomes near impossible.

The only difference between FBW and direct control backup in this situation is the tactile feedback a pilot receives from a direct control system. However, a pilot would have to be very skilled and extremely lucky to successfully fly "blind" for an extended period relying on the tactile feedback and human senses.

The question mark is whether FBW or direct control backup would have made any difference to the chances of AF447's survival. In the A340, with no control over power and no systems operating the pilot has no control of the airplane. Ordinarily had there been some form of direct control backup the pilot has some control of the aircraft which might have allowed them to remain airborne for longer and allow more time to recover the systems and regain flight control. But in the case of AF447 with no visual references even direct control may not have been enough to continue flying blind.

One additional point: regardless of total systems failure some critical cockpit instruments still function whether in FBW or direct control backup systems. In FBW without power, or with power but without systems the pilot can not provide control inputs to the aircraft even though the pilot can determine the situation from the instruments. In direct control systems the pilot can respond to the instruments and provide control inputs to the aircraft without power or systems.

FBW does not fit the definition of a "fail safe" system. Direct control backup does.

I agree with cdnvic that the inability of a pilot to correctly use a FBW system is not a FBW failure. Unless a program code error is found to be the primary cause of an accident most accidents will still be determined to be caused by pilot error or mechanical/electrical or other systems failures, including Pitot tube sensors feeding data to FBW systems. These can not be catagorised strictly as failures of the FBW system but instead are failures of related systems and input devices. Even bad input data is not a fault of the FBW system itself.

Edited August 6, 2009 by sibeymai

[brahmburgers]

let's go with blimps or zeppelins. What's the big hurry?

[bkkjames]

In the "old days" we had an flight engineer on board, doing all that kind of switches and monitoring. They now expect pilots to do it.

Not really. Now they expect computers to do it.

F4UCorsair: just my observation. Perhaps you were tailoring your posts to the audience. Here are my thoughts from a systems analyst perspective.

I guess the crux of this discussion is whether FBW is safer than direct control backup systems and specifically whether AF447 might have been saved by the pilot if it had a direct control backup system or whether FBW decreased their chances of survival.

It appears likely that the pilots of AF447 did not have any visual reference points being a dark sky, dark sea, no visible horizon and with any possible visual reference points obscured by cloud. While an autopilot cares none about this this environment is very demanding for a pilot who has to fly manually by instruments alone. Remove some instruments and the job becomes progressively more difficult. Remove all instruments and without any visual reference it becomes near impossible.

The only difference between FBW and direct control backup in this situation is the tactile feedback a pilot receives from a direct control system. However, a pilot would have to be very skilled and extremely lucky to successfully fly "blind" for an extended period relying on the tactile feedback and human senses.

The question mark is whether FBW or direct control backup would have made any difference to the chances of AF447's survival. In the A340, with no control over power and no systems operating the pilot has no control of the airplane. Ordinarily had there been some form of direct control backup the pilot has some control of the aircraft which might have allowed them to remain airborne for longer and allow more time to recover the systems and regain flight control. But in the case of AF447 with no visual references even direct control may not have been enough to continue flying blind.

One additional point: regardless of total systems failure some critical cockpit instruments still function whether in FBW or direct control backup systems. In FBW without power, or with power but without systems the pilot can not provide control inputs to the aircraft even though the pilot can determine the situation from the instruments. In direct control systems the pilot can respond to the instruments and provide control inputs to the aircraft without power or systems.

FBW does not fit the definition of a "fail safe" system. Direct control backup does.

I agree with cdnvic that the inability of a pilot to correctly use a FBW system is not a FBW failure. Unless a program code error is found to be the primary cause of an accident most accidents will still be determined to be caused by pilot error or mechanical/electrical or other systems failures, including Pitot tube sensors feeding data to FBW systems. These can not be catagorised strictly as failures of the FBW system but instead are failures of related systems and input devices. Even bad input data is not a fault of the FBW system itself.

The thing that scares me if what you say is true (above bold), if an Air France pilot can't figure out the system, what about other airlines using aircraft that employ it. Hardly reassuring.

[toptuan]

What does this thread have to do with Thailand?

Or is it just a pissing contest between retired pilots?

Stop wasting our bandwidth.

I vote...

[jackdanielsesq]

Thats OK if ya dont fly anywhere - in which case dont participate - LOS uses Airbus, last I checked.

This is not a 'he said, she said' issue - it is purely about airline safety, or lack thereof

Some here would endorse certain systems and practices, others not.

Which is why we have dead passengers. We are merely examining the possible causes.

Let me repeat - if you dont fly or have no interest - please dont participate

Your post above probably consumed as much server space & bandwidth as this entire page will, maybe more.

It is also considered bad form

BR>Jack

[Who, me ?]

Thats OK if ya dont fly anywhere - in which case dont participate - LOS uses Airbus, last I checked.

This is not a 'he said, she said' issue - it is purely about airline safety, or lack thereof

Some here would endorse certain systems and practices, others not.

Which is why we have dead passengers. We are merely examining the possible causes.

Let me repeat - if you dont fly or have no interest - please dont participate

Your post above probably consumed as much server space & bandwidth as this entire page will, maybe more.

It is also considered bad form

BR>Jack

We are merely examining the possible causes.

Because of course you have an accreditation to do so, and your finding while being in front of your computer are more reliable than the investigators on the ground!!!

[toptuan]

Thats OK if ya dont fly anywhere - in which case dont participate - LOS uses Airbus, last I checked.

Oh that's a stretch. My Thai neighbor likes to listen to Karen Carpenter, but I don't fancy a thread like that would last long on this forum.

It is also considered bad form

BR>Jack

Thanks for sharing your opinion, however, suggesting a non-Thai-related thread be closed is a service to the Thai Visa community. Sorry if the large print disturbed you, but it had to stand out from the pissing contest.

[F4UCorsair]

toptuan, I quoted my credentials because somebody expressed doubt; no more and no less.

As for a pissing contest, as somebody else posted, if you don't want to participate, don't.

"Unless a program code error is found to be the primary cause of an accident most accidents will still be determined to be caused by pilot error or mechanical/electrical or other systems failures, including Pitot tube sensors feeding data to FBW systems. "

By that definition, there may NEVER be a FBW attributed accident !! It will always be categoried as an electrical/hydraulic/other system failure because there is an interface between the FBW technology and all other systems.

"However, a pilot would have to be very skilled and extremely lucky to successfully fly "blind" for an extended period relying on the tactile feedback and human senses. "

A pilot would have to be a great deal more than skilled and lucky to maintain control with reference to his senses for more than a few seconds in a high performance jet without instrumentation or any outside reference.

Incidentally, pilot error normally results from system failures, or multiples thereof, but accidents are still categorized as 'pilot error' seldom with any reference to the root cause/s.

[jackdanielsesq]

Who keeps saying 'retarded pirates'

BR>Jack

[F4UCorsair]

I think I may have said this in an earlier post, but perhaps not as directly, so here it is:

A FBW aircraft is conventional in every way, i.e., it is essentially the same as a non FBW aircraft EXCEPT that it has no physical connection between the pilots' control columns/side sticks and the flight control surfaces. There may be a few cosmetic things, but otherwise the two are essentially the same; they fly the same and the same inputs cause the same effect, i.e., pull back it goes up, push forward and it goes down.

A conventional aircraft has cables (mostly) from the flight deck to the hydraulic/electric actuators whereas a FBW has electrical wiring that transmits signals to the actuators. Even some conventional aircraft have limited FBW to activate what are generally emergency/backup systems, e.g., TE flaps and LED's on a Boeing.

FBW aircraft still have multiple systems, hydraulic, electric, pneumatic, anti icing, etc., so still stand to suffer faults in those systems. The electric/electronic impulses transmitted via the wires do not activate control surfaces, undercarriage, etc., contrary to what seems to be popular belief. That is done by the impulses activating conventional systems to control surfaces.

The navigation systems are conventional, multiple GPS's feeding Flight Management/Performance Computers, Flight Data Computers and Symbol Generators feeding the instrumentation, conventional navigation aids are used (newer generation aircraft [and not just FBW aircraft] have auto selection though), they both have auto throttles, multiple brake and hydraulic systems and enormous redundancy built in, and a whole lot of other common installations.

The FBW technology is only a small part of the overall complex machine, so a FBW failure will almost inevitably impact on other systems.

Edited August 6, 2009 by F4UCorsair

[F4UCorsair]

I attempted to edit my earlier post, but couldn't add the following:

Even some conventional aircraft have limited FBW to activate what are generally emergency/backup systems, e.g., TE flaps and LED's on a Boeing.

sibeymai, you said:

The only difference between FBW and direct control backup in this situation is the tactile feedback a pilot receives from a direct control system.

Well, that's not a difference; FBW aircraft have 'feel computers' (because control is thorugh hydraulic systems) as do conventional aircraft for a number of functions so there is feedback.The earliest form of 'feel computers' was the stick shaker stall warning because the approaching stall couldn't be felt through the hydraulic system.

We'll have to wait and see what the cause of the crash was before we can determine whether a conventinal aircraft would have saved the day over a FBW, and we may never know. If it was iced up pitot tubes, and an erroneous airspeed was sent to the FDC, and the aircraft entered severe turbulence at higher than the optimum penetration speed, then nothing would have saved it from an in flight breakup, but there's even some conjecture now as to whether that happened.

Edited August 6, 2009 by F4UCorsair

[jackdanielsesq]

Having watched electronics in action for an awful long time, and observed how it has been elevated from a mere tool status to a primary, or means to an end, is it small wonder when exceeding its given, design envelope parameters, there are not more, larger catastrophic failures. The hostile work environments are not conducive to its reliability and well being either.

Two glaring FD errors come to mind - the inability of the PIC to override extraneous flawed data expeditiously, when the system has reached critical-mass, prior to shutdown - where manual control/input is absolutely essential for craft survival, and the spatial cocoon these flyboy of ours are made to live in, where there is little, relative cognitive reference, and the ability to make rational, logical decisions is reduced to zero. We are still three dimensional. The FBW in its current form, might indeed be more hindrance than help.

BR>Jack

[LaoPo]

Air France crash remains a mystery

December 17, 2009 - 6:59am EST

PARIS (Reuters) - Investigators are still unable to pinpoint why an Air France passenger jet crashed into the Atlantic on June 1, killing all 228 people on board, France's official BEA aviation accident authority said on Thursday.

The BEA said in its latest report into the disaster that speed probes on Air France flight AF 447, which was flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, were one factor in a string of events that led to the crash but not the sole cause.

"At this stage, despite the extensive analyses carried out by the BEA on the basis of the available information, it is still not possible to understand the causes and the circumstances of the accident," the report said.

The 'black box' flight recorders are still missing and only small parts of the wreckage have been found of the Airbus A330. However, a string of automated messages just before the crash showed there were problems with data from the speed probes.

"The BEA confirms that the phenomenon of inconsistency in the measurement of airspeeds was one of the elements in a chain of events that led to the accident, though this alone cannot explain it," the BEA said in a report.

Noting that planemaker Airbus had recommended replacing Pitot speed probes on A330 and A340 planes and that airlines including Air France had followed the advice, the BEA issued two additional recommendations.

The first one was to improve the effectiveness of the equipment for localizing airplanes and collecting the recorded data for analysis in case of an aviation accident.

The second one was to better characterize the composition of cloud masses at high altitude in which long-range airplanes fly, and to draw conclusions in relation to airplane certification.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BG1U120091217

LaoPo

[manarak]

There is a theory that the turbulences severed the plane's vertical stabilizer and it then went into a plunging spiral, which caused the odd readings of the speed probes which worked normally.

This may be due to a weakness in the plane's design.

[powderpuff]

Non Thailand Related. Close It.

[Crossy]

Non Thailand Related. Close It.

Due to the importance of this incident it was decided to keep it open.

[Old Croc]

Non Thailand Related. Close It.

This unexplained crash was the worst of several recent incidents involving the Airbus A330.

Problems with this widely utilised aircraft are of a concern for all travellers, including those of us that fly to and from Thailand.

Thai Airways run a number of these aircraft.

This thread is very much "Thai related".

[animatic]

Non Thailand Related. Close It.

This unexplained crash was the worst of several recent incidents involving the Airbus A330.

Problems with this widely utilised aircraft are of a concern for all travellers, including those of us that fly to and from Thailand.

Thai Airways run a number of these aircraft.

This thread is very much "Thai related".

Ditto.

[SantiSuk]

I came across some documentary last night about sun radiation getting very close to the earth's surface in an area of the South Atlantic off Brazil. They said it had the capability to screw up communications and wreck electronics big time. Sorry if this repeats some discussion earlier on.

[bkkjames]

I came across some documentary last night about sun radiation getting very close to the earth's surface in an area of the South Atlantic off Brazil. They said it had the capability to screw up communications and wreck electronics big time. Sorry if this repeats some discussion earlier on.

Is there much radiation from the sun at 11pm local time?

he flight left Rio on Sunday at 7 p.m. local time. About four hours later, the plane sent an automatic signal indicating electrical problems while going through strong turbulence, Air France said.

[LaoPo]

UPDATE

4 April 2011 Last updated at 20:24 GMT

Air France Rio crash dead to be recovered - officials

French ministers promised the wreckage and bodies would be recovered

Specialists could start recovering bodies of those killed in Air France's 2009 plane crash off Brazil within weeks, French officials say.

Undersea robots finally uncovered a large part of the wreckage, including bodies, on Sunday.

The "black-box" flight recorders have not yet been spotted, but investigators have expressed hope they will be found.

The flight went down in the Atlantic, killing all 228 people on board. The cause of the disaster remains unknown.

'Major breakthrough'

Continue reading the main story

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-12961710

LaoPo

Edited April 5, 2011 by cdnvic
Closed - Updated topic in travel forum