Air France Plane Drops Off Radar Over Atlantic

[churchill]

AP: French investigator "not optimistic" about finding black boxes of Air France jet

[jackdanielsesq]

They are in full damage control mode now - even spinning the future.

Time to call the lawyers, maybe ground the A330 until this is resolved.

BR>Jack

AP: French investigator "not optimistic" about finding black boxes of Air France jet

[Datsun240Z]

Although boeing stil uses cables trough the plane for basic control functions for the pilots, Airbus does not have something like that. If the computers fail, the plane fails.... Technology is nice, but sometimes to much is dangerous, you can't rely 100% on computers.

@ Jack: What I explained before. AF477.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Datsun240Z

[Datsun240Z]

maybe ground the A330 until this is resolved.

Not only A330 uses fly-by-wire systems, mostly all the newer types of Airbus. Never the mention the new A380, which faults can be expected sooner or later. ( Imagine that bird crash ) Airbus actually did several tests with the 300 series, completly flying it by computer, without pilot! That where the future is going is guess.

Fly-by-wire system is also used for technical unstable planes, which mechanicly cannot be hold steady, which computers can do.

[sibeymai]

If the black boxes are not recovered any cause determined will be speculation based on whatever can be determined from the physical evidence.

The reported 5km long debris trail should give an experienced investigator some clue as to whether the plane broke up in flight or on impact with the ocean, or during descent. Breakup at altitude would easily spread debris over a wide area. Impact with the ocean would need the sea conditions to spread the debris. Was the extent and direction of the debris trail consistent with surface or altitude breakup ? The pilots of another aircraft reported seeing what they thought was fire on the ocean (orange spots) at the time and in the location of the crash. This might also provide clues as to where the aircraft broke up. Text messages reportedly sent by passengers indicates the aircraft did not break up suddenly while in cruise.

Should be simple for an investigator who has access to the evidence to determine what happened, but harder to say why without the black boxes.

Edited June 3, 2009 by sibeymai

[churchill]

AP: French investigator "not optimistic" about finding black boxes of Air France jet

Lost jet data 'may not be found'

continued at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8080669.stm

-- BBC 03/06/09

[TAWP]

There was no SMS sent, it was faulty info being reprinted.

(See correction: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Passengers_on_...ane_disappeared )

[cloudhopper]

An Airbus demonstrating fly by wire at the Paris Air Show:

All of the flight and engine controls are commanded by a computer with NO cable or hydraulic backup. Even if the computer and electrical system are working OK malfunctioning sensors (e.g. due to bird strikes or hail) can cause loss of command.

[SMEEERE]

There is definatly something odd here as even in a nosedive from that altitude it would take minutes for the plane to impact,. that would have ( you would think ) given the pilots time to report and update on the problem,for total electrical failure ( to not be able to transmit ) it would have had to be blown out of the sky, lightning ?.

[jackdanielsesq]

I believe that the lack of mechanical backup or redundancy is going to be where the lawyers go.

And then watch EADS retrofit all their craft. Will be interesting to see the FAA & NTSB wade in on this.

And yes - the mind boggles at an A380 wreck.

BR>Jack

[meom]

There is definatly something odd here as even in a nosedive from that altitude it would take minutes for the plane to impact,. that would have ( you would think ) given the pilots time to report and update on the problem,for total electrical failure ( to not be able to transmit ) it would have had to be blown out of the sky, lightning ?.

It would take about 3-4 minutes and I would guess both pilots would have their hands full with the controls trying to get out of a nose dive.

Alaska Airlines flight 261 went down in a nose dive in 2000; link here with full report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

Edited June 3, 2009 by meom

[cgjtt]

I'm reading a lot of things on this post and a lot of it just makes me crack up.

The A-330 has been around for a while and has a very good safety record. This fly by wire thing has been around for a long time and is a proven concept . The B-777 is FBW . Just remember that hydraulics still power the actual control surfaces. Failure of the computers means that the system reverts to " direct law" meaning no protection against a pilot pulling too hard and doing damage.

Now, while total electrical failure doesn't mean loss of control, it could possibly mean loss of radar, communications and navigation. Flying around blind may ruin you day, especially where they were. The last thing anybody whats to do is fly through a cell. If so, the airframe may have been overstressed. Hopefully they will find the CVR and the data recorder. If indeed they did loose electricals, the question is why.

[jackdanielsesq]

We are so glad for you !!

I'm reading a lot of things on this post and a lot of it just makes me crack up.

[harleyclarkey]

Word here is that they are looking at a really bad storm which caused the plane to crash. The debris is spread over miles which suggests a mid air break up.

The black boxes may never be recovered as the depth here is 6,000 metres.

God help the passengers and their loved ones left behind.

[Jimjim]

You're all saying that there is no backup if the electronics fail but I've seen on the news that's not true. It has a backup system (yes, electrical also) that kicks in to place if the main system fails, and they said if that fails there is a third fail-safe with manual controls, and I guess that means hydraulics but they said even that is enough to fly the plane.

There is definatly something odd here as even in a nosedive from that altitude it would take minutes for the plane to impact,. that would have ( you would think ) given the pilots time to report and update on the problem,for total electrical failure ( to not be able to transmit ) it would have had to be blown out of the sky, lightning ?.

Lightning doesn't blow planes out of the sky. Please educate yourself.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Jimjim

[Carib]

Latest Updates:

Bomb threat received several days prior to - the same flight to Paris, but which landed safely.

Still much discussion over it being known fact that there are frequent violent storms in that area - why then deliberately fly that route? Seems like an absurd argument! Or stupidity. Or more damage control, as all the lawyers circle. The QANTAS flight mishap in OZ is front & centre again, as that flight nosedived without provocation. This is a known, documented problem with Airbus. There was apparent outside electrical interference - the point being that the autopilot tripped up whilst in cruise mode. Flight 447 would have been in a similar cruise mode.

Remember - the Airbus does not have a mechanical redundancy built in - once the electronics or fly-by-wire go AWOL, its game over. One must further presume that Airbus did have electronic redundancy, but that did not work for whatever reasons.

We were discussing this very same redundancy vis-a-vis pleasure boat controls on another forum, where an entire family was killed on a Sunday pleasure cruise, simply because the captain entrusted the safety of his ship & passengers to a electronic autopilot, which went berserk, and turned the pleasure craft into an on coming tanker. The captain was, along with everyone, standing on the bow, waving at the tanker, with nobody minding the helm. Possible extraneous electrical interference from said tanker as cause. Again, another very tragic result, caused by a series of avoidable blunders.

We all felt very strongly, that there is no substitute for manual/human control of any craft, and that there is ultimately only one pilot in control - the Captain.

BR>Jack

Ridiculous statements. You may know something about a few things, but aviation is not one of them.

I suggest you look for some info on this type of aircraft first before you start making assumptions.

[jackdanielsesq]

A rather muddied report from the Brazil Airforce say that debris is spread over a 90km area - that is probably due to wind & ocean drift to a large degree.

You are correct - lightning should not blow the plane out of the sky, but it can reduce the electrics & electronics to junk status. The issue, I guess we are mostly in agreement with here, is that the craft could not proceed as it had no viable backup system.

There are quite a number of issue concerning fly-by-wire only systems.

Below is some interesting data also.

BR>Jack

Previous Airbus disasters

* August 2000: Gulf Air A320 crashed in Gulf off Bahrain

* January 2000: 169 killed when A310 crashed off Ivory Coast.

* February 1998: 197 killed when A300 crashed in Taiwan.

* September 1997: 234 killed when A300 crashed in Indonesia.

* July 1994: Seven killed when A330 crashed in Toulouse, France, when crew were testing simulated engine failure

* April 1994: 259 killed when A300 crashed in Japan.

* March 1994: 75 killed when A310 crashed in Siberia.

* September 1992: 167 killed when A300 crashed in Kathmandu, Nepal.

* July 1992: 113 killed when A310 crashed in Kathmandu.

* January 1992: 87 killed when A320 crashed in Strasbourg.

* February 1990: 90 killed when A320 crashed in Bangalore.

* June 1988: Eight killed when A320 crashed in Habersheim.

[Jimjim]

The problem is, Jack, is that you're making a lot of guesses and assumptions and making it sound as if they're truth. We may never know what happened.

[Carib]

Jack I can dig up a list like that from any type of aircraft or manufacturer within minutes and it will not mean a thing just as your list doesn't mean a thing.

[cloudhopper]

Jack I can dig up a list like that from any type of aircraft or manufacturer within minutes and it will not mean a thing just as your list doesn't mean a thing.

Well I'd like to see your list of Boeing fly by wire accidents. Here's an excerpt of a story regarding another Airbus fly-by-wire failure in Australia-

"Following an investigation of the A330's uncommanded dive, Australian aviation officials, assisted by U.S. and French authorities, blamed a pair of simultaneous failures for the near disaster. The plane has three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs), which are designed to help the plane's flight-control computer fly the plane safely. The system is intended to eliminate the possibility of electronic error: the flight computer, which is always monitoring the trio, can disregard one ADIRU if it begins relaying information that conflicts with the other two.

But that's not what happened when one of them went awry on Oct. 7 and began sending erroneous data spikes on the plane's angle of attack (AOA) - the angle between its wings and the air flowing over them - to the flight-control computer. "For some reason, the dam_n computer disregarded the healthy channels," says Hans Weber, an aviation expert who heads Tecop International, an aviation-consulting firm in San Diego. "Instead, it acted upon the information from the rogue channel." The computer, responding to the faulty data, put the plane into a dive. (Read "Is There a Cause for Fear of Flying?")

In its preliminary investigative report, released on March 6, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said Airbus had initially said it didn't know of any other similar events. But when the same thing happened again, involving a different aircraft, on Dec. 27, Airbus combed its computerized flight files and found data fingerprints suggesting similar ADIRU problems had occurred on a total of four flights. One of the earlier instances, in fact, included a September 2006 event on the same plane that entered the uncommanded dive in October (the other three flights had continued safely on). The same VCR-sized ADIRU was to blame in both those cases, although it had supposedly undergone a needed realignment following the 2006 event. All three planes carried the same brand and model of ADIRU, as do 397 of the 900 330s and 340s in the Airbus fleet.

It is not yet known whether Air France 447, an A330, carried the troublesome variety of ADIRU. But if it did, and if the Air France plane plummeted into an uncommanded dive while traveling through a downdraft generated by storms - a common occurrence over the region of the Atlantic Ocean where the plane went down - it could have been doomed as it entered a steep dive and likely broke up.

Aviation authorities around the world have ordered inspections and procedures to try to eliminate the problem. "In these fly-by-wire systems, one never really knows if one has checked out all possible combinations of events to make sure that the computer properly reacts," Weber says of modern flight control. Fly-by-wire systems use computers and wires instead of mechanics and hydraulics to control a plane's flight. Electronic systems are more reliable than mechanical processes but are prone to software errors that can't always be anticipated. "There could be some other sequence of events that could cause another bad software reaction," says Weber."

No mechanical backup is an inexcusable design failure IMO. If it ain't Boeing I ain't going.

[harleyclarkey]

Word here is that they are looking at a really bad storm which caused the plane to crash. The debris is spread over miles which suggests a mid air break up.

The black boxes may never be recovered as the depth here is 6,000 metres.

God help the passengers and their loved ones left behind.

The storm referred to was bad turbulance. Also heard one report that it rose to 40,000 feet....way above the normal cruising height.

[Carib]

Jack I can dig up a list like that from any type of aircraft or manufacturer within minutes and it will not mean a thing just as your list doesn't mean a thing.

Well I'd like to see your list of Boeing fly by wire accidents. Here's an excerpt of a story regarding another Airbus fly-by-wire failure in Australia-

"Following an investigation of the A330's uncommanded dive, Australian aviation officials, assisted by U.S. and French authorities, blamed a pair of simultaneous failures for the near disaster. The plane has three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs), which are designed to help the plane's flight-control computer fly the plane safely. The system is intended to eliminate the possibility of electronic error: the flight computer, which is always monitoring the trio, can disregard one ADIRU if it begins relaying information that conflicts with the other two.

But that's not what happened when one of them went awry on Oct. 7 and began sending erroneous data spikes on the plane's angle of attack (AOA) - the angle between its wings and the air flowing over them - to the flight-control computer. "For some reason, the dam_n computer disregarded the healthy channels," says Hans Weber, an aviation expert who heads Tecop International, an aviation-consulting firm in San Diego. "Instead, it acted upon the information from the rogue channel." The computer, responding to the faulty data, put the plane into a dive. (Read "Is There a Cause for Fear of Flying?")

In its preliminary investigative report, released on March 6, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said Airbus had initially said it didn't know of any other similar events. But when the same thing happened again, involving a different aircraft, on Dec. 27, Airbus combed its computerized flight files and found data fingerprints suggesting similar ADIRU problems had occurred on a total of four flights. One of the earlier instances, in fact, included a September 2006 event on the same plane that entered the uncommanded dive in October (the other three flights had continued safely on). The same VCR-sized ADIRU was to blame in both those cases, although it had supposedly undergone a needed realignment following the 2006 event. All three planes carried the same brand and model of ADIRU, as do 397 of the 900 330s and 340s in the Airbus fleet.

It is not yet known whether Air France 447, an A330, carried the troublesome variety of ADIRU. But if it did, and if the Air France plane plummeted into an uncommanded dive while traveling through a downdraft generated by storms - a common occurrence over the region of the Atlantic Ocean where the plane went down - it could have been doomed as it entered a steep dive and likely broke up.

Aviation authorities around the world have ordered inspections and procedures to try to eliminate the problem. "In these fly-by-wire systems, one never really knows if one has checked out all possible combinations of events to make sure that the computer properly reacts," Weber says of modern flight control. Fly-by-wire systems use computers and wires instead of mechanics and hydraulics to control a plane's flight. Electronic systems are more reliable than mechanical processes but are prone to software errors that can't always be anticipated. "There could be some other sequence of events that could cause another bad software reaction," says Weber."

No mechanical backup is an inexcusable design failure IMO. If it ain't Boeing I ain't going.

Aileron & Rudder trim actuators are operated electrically by lots of boeing planes already. Boeing was the first to start with fadec, a kind of fly by wire for the engines. ( cannot really compare that but you get my drift)

The boeing 777 and all boeings there after will be fly by wire too. The difference will be in the "hard " limits, either by computer or pilot if you compare the both.

Militairy planes like the f 16 or for instance the f 117 have FBW too.

The lunar module in 1969 was a digital FBW too.

Think before you post !

[cloudhopper]

No mechanical backup is an inexcusable design failure IMO. If it ain't Boeing I ain't going.

Aileron & Rudder trim actuators are operated electrically by lots of boeing planes already. Boeing was the first to start with fadec, a kind of fly by wire for the engines. ( cannot really compare that but you get my drift)

The boeing 777 and all boeings there after will be fly by wire too. The difference will be in the "hard " limits, either by computer or pilot if you compare the both.

Militairy planes like the f 16 or for instance the f 117 have FBW too.

The lunar module in 1969 was a digital FBW too.

Think before you post !

I am not disparaging FBW Carib, nor am I addressing the end-means of control actuation. I am addressing the issue of the need for mechanical backup in the event of computer or I/O communication failure.

[Carib]

The mechanical stuff is what they wanted to get rid of, it weighs too much.

Overall reduction in total airframe weight was and is the reason to get rid of those systems. Also integration of several " fly" systems into a single system is easier. Steadier and superior air plane handling. Less maintenance and easy to fix/make/produce.

ALL systems have their flows and problems. In 15 years from now we will look back and shake our heads when we see the amount of accidents which have happened due to mechanical or hydraulical systems or a combination of the both.

edit: typo

Edited June 3, 2009 by Carib

[Mosha]

I have only flown Airbuses twice, once from FRA with Lufthansa on an A340, and one from the Gulf on an Emirates A330. Both times I felt as if I wanted to get out and push. Almost as if they are given just enough power and that's it. Boeings seem to have more poke, and therefore maybe the ability to handle a problem better.

[bkkjames]

Found this on CNN's website...

Air France had received a bomb threat May 27 for a flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Paris, sources in the Argentine military and police told CNN on Wednesday.

According to the officials, who had been briefed on the incident and declined to be identified because of the ongoing investigation, the Air France office in Buenos Aires received the threat from a man speaking Spanish.

Just another possibility.

[CFIT]

You're all saying that there is no backup if the electronics fail but I've seen on the news that's not true. It has a backup system (yes, electrical also) that kicks in to place if the main system fails, and they said if that fails there is a third fail-safe with manual controls, and I guess that means hydraulics but they said even that is enough to fly the plane.

There is definatly something odd here as even in a nosedive from that altitude it would take minutes for the plane to impact,. that would have ( you would think ) given the pilots time to report and update on the problem,for total electrical failure ( to not be able to transmit ) it would have had to be blown out of the sky, lightning ?.

Lightning doesn't blow planes out of the sky. Please educate yourself.

If it hits fuel tanks it sure can, or more likely- fuses control surfaces.

It is being reported that lightening was nOT in the area however

These totally automated aircraft are vulnerable reference systems loss due to electrical malfunction, ( and taped over or bird sh*t in the pitot tubes, whatever )- makes me wonder why ALL planes don't have manually presented altimeters, attitude reference and compasses.

for real techno gab see PRuNe: ( Pro Pilot Rumour and News )

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/375937-...missing-41.html

Edited June 4, 2009 by CFIT

[Farma]

I haven’t bought the lightning strike theory just yet. Personally I think it would be an extremely unlucky strike to bring an aircraft down.

These are just the thoughts of a person who has repaired dozens of aircraft subjected to lightning strikes/storm damage and personally experienced a lightning strike in an aircraft on finals coming into Don Muang.

[cgjtt]

You're all saying that there is no backup if the electronics fail but I've seen on the news that's not true. It has a backup system (yes, electrical also) that kicks in to place if the main system fails, and they said if that fails there is a third fail-safe with manual controls, and I guess that means hydraulics but they said even that is enough to fly the plane.

There is definatly something odd here as even in a nosedive from that altitude it would take minutes for the plane to impact,. that would have ( you would think ) given the pilots time to report and update on the problem,for total electrical failure ( to not be able to transmit ) it would have had to be blown out of the sky, lightning ?.

Lightning doesn't blow planes out of the sky. Please educate yourself.

From what I understand the backup is electrical, the hydraulics just power the flight control.

As for the other member, yes you do crack me up but if you knew what I did for a living, you'd know that I wouldn't be laughing about this subject.

If these guys were trying to make their way around a bunch of thunderstorms without radar, I'm sure the pucker factor is way up there.

In an other twist, there is data out there that showed no lightning evident on their flight path. Hopefully they will find the Flight data recorder and fix what went wrong.

[bkkjames]

You're all saying that there is no backup if the electronics fail but I've seen on the news that's not true. It has a backup system (yes, electrical also) that kicks in to place if the main system fails, and they said if that fails there is a third fail-safe with manual controls, and I guess that means hydraulics but they said even that is enough to fly the plane.

There is definatly something odd here as even in a nosedive from that altitude it would take minutes for the plane to impact,. that would have ( you would think ) given the pilots time to report and update on the problem,for total electrical failure ( to not be able to transmit ) it would have had to be blown out of the sky, lightning ?.

Lightning doesn't blow planes out of the sky. Please educate yourself.

From what I understand the backup is electrical, the hydraulics just power the flight control.

As for the other member, yes you do crack me up but if you knew what I did for a living, you'd know that I wouldn't be laughing about this subject.

If these guys were trying to make their way around a bunch of thunderstorms without radar, I'm sure the pucker factor is way up there.

In an other twist, there is data out there that showed no lightning evident on their flight path. Hopefully they will find the Flight data recorder and fix what went wrong.

They already said they won't find it. Which begs the question, if they can make it crash proof, fire proof and idiot proof, why cant they figure out a way to make them float?

Edited June 4, 2009 by bkkjames