Crashes at sea are also heart wrenching experiences for the recovery divers. This will have a sad and profound effect on a lot of people. But foremost our thoughts need to be with the families.
-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
Air France Airbus missing.
- Thread starter trailboss99
- Start date
Dazzler911 said:
Dazzler911 said:
Touche sir,
you have one upped me to say the least.
But if you want to believe that it is unimaginable for a plane to be taken down by lightning then .. go for it.
again my response was to
pzissimos comment: "I thought planes didnt go down when hit by lightning."
and how though unlikely (see my post.. I explain that) it could happen.
.....
anyways glad to have another systems engineer on board I'm sure I will learn a lot from your future posts.
- 17/3/06
- 11,843
- 7
- 38
in all fairness he probably didn't know because it has been more than 40 years since one has been brought down because of a lightning strike so i can see how he might think that. can it happen? sure it can, does a fbw aircraft have a higher probability of being brought down because of it? in my opinion absolutely and i have been building commercial aircraft for 28 years now. i have seen fbw aircraft go down because of electrical problems since it's inception and i am not a fan of it on commercial aircraft. general dynamics fbw problems on the f16 fighting falcons is well documented.
brtelec said:
On the news just now they said w/ the TWA crash they had a pretty good idea of where the plane had crashed, eye witnesses and all.
..... still took them 4 days of searching to find the first bits of the rubble.
then the talked about how this plane's location is unknown really puts it into perspective - quite literally like finding a needle in a hay stack.
hk45ca said:
I understand the use of them for fighterjets they need the maneuverability.
Unfortunately,
fbw
=
lower fuel costs, smoother flights through bad weather and lower maintenance fees
>
human life risk ....
so I'm with you, on the fbw not being the best approach.
a hybrid of the two IMHO is the best for light-weighting the plane while maintaining a higher factor of safety.
That being said, I think Boeing switched over to a full fbw system for their 777's
Poor souls.
I'm not a mechanic, but did fly military jets , none fbw. IMO
-
Lightning destroying a quadruple redundant system , you have a better chance of hitting the powerball twice in a week.
Could be a host of other things from fuel starvation to PE.
My guess, thunderstorms are no joke , at those lattitudes especially. They can have tops to FL 60 and greater. With wind shear , downdrafts and microbursts in all directions at all levels.
In a thunderstorm you are trained to keep a level flt attitude and go along for the ride. Good chance they were pushed down into the sea, and if not coupled up on auto pilot, it's game over hand flying through that snot.
I'm not a mechanic, but did fly military jets , none fbw. IMO
-
Lightning destroying a quadruple redundant system , you have a better chance of hitting the powerball twice in a week.
Could be a host of other things from fuel starvation to PE.
My guess, thunderstorms are no joke , at those lattitudes especially. They can have tops to FL 60 and greater. With wind shear , downdrafts and microbursts in all directions at all levels.
In a thunderstorm you are trained to keep a level flt attitude and go along for the ride. Good chance they were pushed down into the sea, and if not coupled up on auto pilot, it's game over hand flying through that snot.
I know a couple of the Navy guys that were on the TWA recovery, very grim, very moving experience. I am happy I have never done a crash that large. I have done helicopter crashes and Oil platform man overboard recoveries. It is horrible. You do it because the families need the closure, otherwise everyone I know would refuse to to it. This kind of work in low or zero visibility is tough on you.
- 17/3/06
- 11,843
- 7
- 38
watchbuff said:
i truly hope we find out what happened so airbus and boeing can make changes if necessary in how we do this. both companies try to think of every possible scenario but as we all know that is just about impossible to do.
in our business "we don't know what happened" simply will not do. every 3 seconds 24/7/365 a boeing aircraft takes off somewhere in the world and i couldn't live with it if i truly thought that what we do wasn't good enough, there is too much at stake.
I would like to understand what exactly happen to this aircraft, I have a idea, I am quite sure this is the result of stupidity to allow twin engines to fly over transoceanic or desertic regions.
1) METEROLOGICAL
The equatorial region between west Africa coast and Brazil is called "Le pot au noir" -the black pot- this zone is very dangerous with a strong magnetic activity and a mix of cold and warm air mass layers. The result is a permanently very strong Cb (cumulo nimbus, thunderstorm clouds) activity. Its hard to understand and admit than a cumulo nimbus has his bottom starting at 5000feet and the top can ritch the tropospher, that means 50.000feet... Inside is a mess... ice cubes as big as a tv set, severe vertical turbulences can rich up to 3000ft/min in a few seconds.
So you can imagine a aircraft who penetrates this at mach .84 witch means a 500kt ground speed... The aircraft will be immediatly in a bombing and coated with almost 10 tons of ice.
o.k, its possible to fly very close or inside a regular storm cloud. But between Africa and Brazil or between Florida and Bahamas at this period of the year, forget it. Ask members here who live in Florida, about thunderstorm right now in june...
I was myself caught once : coming from Brussels we had burn more fuel as usual because we had to bypass Cb's, arriving to land in KMIA, the airport was closed. We got the clearence for Tempa. Tempa closed also. Finally we landed at Orlando... 15 minutes later we would be all dead...
We have weather radars so we can see these clouds and change the heading to pass on the side. Sometime we make slalom between. If a aircraft penetrates, the risk is the ice and the stress caused by turbulences, the aircraft can loose a wing. Also the destruction of all electrical and avionic devices by magnetic phenomens and lightning. No one aircraft can fly over a thunderstorm cloud, we just change the route to bypass.
2) TECHNICAL
I make it short and simple:
Controls on regular aircrafts like Boeing are mechanic and powered by cables and wheels with hydraulic and electric assistance. All these devices are redondant. In case of hydraulic or electric failure, the aircraft is still controlable, hard but controlable (elbow oil). Look on all Boeing aircrafts there is a colomn with a yoke, its full mechanical.
All Airbus aircrafts use the "fly by wire" technology. This means all controls, elevator, rudder, ailerons are powered by electric motors and hydraulic coupled with mini computers/calculators. No colomn and solid yoke, just a plastic joystick like these used for computer games.
In case of general electrical power failure, the plane is dead as the emergency batteries will provide power only for 1 hour or so. There is also the RAT system witch is a kind of little wind turbine, but this is not enough to keep the plane full alive inside a thunder cloud...
If this plane was hit by a severe lightning witch has destroyed the main electrical system, no issue.
You can observe on all aircraft fuselages little metalic tubes called pitot or probe. This is static captors to mesure horizontal and vertical speeds, temperatures, air pressure etc. These infos are used of course for classic intruments like air speed indicators, altimeters etc. but also for all automatic flight controls systems. If these captors are coated with ice, all indications will be vrong and the plane will crash. We have electrical prope heaters systems, but if there is to much ice, no way.
3) ETOPS
My philosophy is 4 engines or nothing. Since 15 years international regulations allows 2 engine jets to fly over oceans. For money reasons of course, less fuel used. This is stupid, imho, and more and more today the security is engaged for money reasons.
All Boeing and Airbus twin engines are certified ETOPS (Extended range twin engine Operation Performance Standards) ETOPS90 for little jets, ETOPS120 and ETOPS180 for the the Boeing 777 or Airbus A330
What does't mean ? a certified ETOPS120 2 engines aircraft can cross ocean but has to stay at least at 120 minutes from the closer coasts. ETOPS180, 180 minutes, 3 hours. I will myself feel inconfortable flying a twin engines at 3 hours distance from the cost with a dead engine...
For money reasons, the captain reduces the volume of fuel to the strict minimum, often the company put the pressure on him... When you fly a ETOPS, if you decide to change the routing for any raison, often you will be out of the rules and you can loose your licence and your job. And if you are in short petrol conditions, you cannot change anything, or the risk is to never rich your destination...
4) CONCLUSION (IMHO)
The crew was limited in actions, short fuel, no possibility to bypass a big chain of dangerous clouds -I am not sure, I have to verify but I think Air France A330 have only a ETOPS120 certification- The aircraft was caught in a big cloud mass and destroyed by icing or electric and avionic systems failure.
Could be also a weather radar failure, but the crew could communicate with other aircrafts to get the exact position of storms
Medias will never tell you this, as people could be affraid and avoid companies who operates twin engines. Also an AF captain told me this aircraft was recorded with a engine problem during the precedent flight,
1) METEROLOGICAL
The equatorial region between west Africa coast and Brazil is called "Le pot au noir" -the black pot- this zone is very dangerous with a strong magnetic activity and a mix of cold and warm air mass layers. The result is a permanently very strong Cb (cumulo nimbus, thunderstorm clouds) activity. Its hard to understand and admit than a cumulo nimbus has his bottom starting at 5000feet and the top can ritch the tropospher, that means 50.000feet... Inside is a mess... ice cubes as big as a tv set, severe vertical turbulences can rich up to 3000ft/min in a few seconds.
So you can imagine a aircraft who penetrates this at mach .84 witch means a 500kt ground speed... The aircraft will be immediatly in a bombing and coated with almost 10 tons of ice.
o.k, its possible to fly very close or inside a regular storm cloud. But between Africa and Brazil or between Florida and Bahamas at this period of the year, forget it. Ask members here who live in Florida, about thunderstorm right now in june...
I was myself caught once : coming from Brussels we had burn more fuel as usual because we had to bypass Cb's, arriving to land in KMIA, the airport was closed. We got the clearence for Tempa. Tempa closed also. Finally we landed at Orlando... 15 minutes later we would be all dead...
We have weather radars so we can see these clouds and change the heading to pass on the side. Sometime we make slalom between. If a aircraft penetrates, the risk is the ice and the stress caused by turbulences, the aircraft can loose a wing. Also the destruction of all electrical and avionic devices by magnetic phenomens and lightning. No one aircraft can fly over a thunderstorm cloud, we just change the route to bypass.
2) TECHNICAL
I make it short and simple:
Controls on regular aircrafts like Boeing are mechanic and powered by cables and wheels with hydraulic and electric assistance. All these devices are redondant. In case of hydraulic or electric failure, the aircraft is still controlable, hard but controlable (elbow oil). Look on all Boeing aircrafts there is a colomn with a yoke, its full mechanical.
All Airbus aircrafts use the "fly by wire" technology. This means all controls, elevator, rudder, ailerons are powered by electric motors and hydraulic coupled with mini computers/calculators. No colomn and solid yoke, just a plastic joystick like these used for computer games.
In case of general electrical power failure, the plane is dead as the emergency batteries will provide power only for 1 hour or so. There is also the RAT system witch is a kind of little wind turbine, but this is not enough to keep the plane full alive inside a thunder cloud...
If this plane was hit by a severe lightning witch has destroyed the main electrical system, no issue.
You can observe on all aircraft fuselages little metalic tubes called pitot or probe. This is static captors to mesure horizontal and vertical speeds, temperatures, air pressure etc. These infos are used of course for classic intruments like air speed indicators, altimeters etc. but also for all automatic flight controls systems. If these captors are coated with ice, all indications will be vrong and the plane will crash. We have electrical prope heaters systems, but if there is to much ice, no way.
3) ETOPS
My philosophy is 4 engines or nothing. Since 15 years international regulations allows 2 engine jets to fly over oceans. For money reasons of course, less fuel used. This is stupid, imho, and more and more today the security is engaged for money reasons.
All Boeing and Airbus twin engines are certified ETOPS (Extended range twin engine Operation Performance Standards) ETOPS90 for little jets, ETOPS120 and ETOPS180 for the the Boeing 777 or Airbus A330
What does't mean ? a certified ETOPS120 2 engines aircraft can cross ocean but has to stay at least at 120 minutes from the closer coasts. ETOPS180, 180 minutes, 3 hours. I will myself feel inconfortable flying a twin engines at 3 hours distance from the cost with a dead engine...
For money reasons, the captain reduces the volume of fuel to the strict minimum, often the company put the pressure on him... When you fly a ETOPS, if you decide to change the routing for any raison, often you will be out of the rules and you can loose your licence and your job. And if you are in short petrol conditions, you cannot change anything, or the risk is to never rich your destination...
4) CONCLUSION (IMHO)
The crew was limited in actions, short fuel, no possibility to bypass a big chain of dangerous clouds -I am not sure, I have to verify but I think Air France A330 have only a ETOPS120 certification- The aircraft was caught in a big cloud mass and destroyed by icing or electric and avionic systems failure.
Could be also a weather radar failure, but the crew could communicate with other aircrafts to get the exact position of storms
Medias will never tell you this, as people could be affraid and avoid companies who operates twin engines. Also an AF captain told me this aircraft was recorded with a engine problem during the precedent flight,
- 30/3/08
- 43,904
- 20,181
- 113
You heard it here first folks. Wait till the media get hold of that litle gem.
Thanks for the input mate. He knows of what he speaks folks.
Col.
seventhexile said:
but -could be vrong- what I have seen and heard in Everett, the fbw system will use optical fiber instead of classic electric wire, and, on the side, it will continue to have a classic cables and wheels ergonomy
hk45ca, correct me if I am vrong
- 17/3/06
- 11,843
- 7
- 38
tictac said:
actually my part of the 777 is the floor beams, it still has a yoke in the cockpit and we install cable pulley wheels in certain places on some of the floor beams. i am sure it has cable backup and i think it is only partial fbw/fiber optic.
hk45ca said:
"The flight-control system for the 777 airplane is different from those on other Boeing airplane designs. Rather than have the airplane rely on cables to move the ailerons, elevator, and rudder, Boeing designed the 777 with fly-by-wire technology. As a result, the 777 uses wires to carry electrical signals from the pilot control wheel, column, and pedals to a primary flight computer. " - Boeing.com
"Side-sticks, center sticks, or conventional control yokes can be used to fly such an aircraft. While the side-stick offers the advantages of being lighter, mechanically simpler, and unobtrusive, Boeing considered the lack of visual feedback from the side-stick a problem, and so uses conventional yokes in the 777 and the upcoming 787. " - wiki.com
I think if I read those right, and some other paragraphs, then HK is correct.
Something to the extent of a hybrid system (w/ cable as its back up)
but then again.... I'm no aeronautical engineer
Does anyone remember the Air New zealand A320 that crashed in the Med' ? About the end of last year. That is totally un-explained as yet, but that did some pretty crazy things on it's way in according to the recorders and so raises more fly by wire questions.
This hapened in Mulhouse-Habstein, a little air-club field during an air show in 1987.
The A320 took off from Mulhouse-Basel intl' with invited passengers for a demo flight. The pilots decided to make a low speed/low altitude passage over the little air club.
Configuration was nose up limit stall speed, full flaps and gear down to simulate a landing
At the end of the short grass runway the captain pushed full power to make a very nose up rotate, in front of the forest...
No power available... because the calculators decided instead of the pilot. I know the captain, he was an Air France intructor and chief pilot for the A320 division. Very experimented. He said he pushed full throttle and nothing hapened. Engines started a power recovery as the plane was already in the trees (you can listen engines in the video). The first officer confirmed everything.
Both have lost their job, with what you imagine: court, prison, pay for the family of died pax, divorce...
Around 100 pax was on bord, only 3 died.
Medias, Air France and Airbus Industries declared pilots made a mistake, I think to protect the developpment and sales for this new generation of aircrafts.
The same year, similar accident in Madras, India, throttle problem. I think later Airbus corrected this throttle system
The A320 took off from Mulhouse-Basel intl' with invited passengers for a demo flight. The pilots decided to make a low speed/low altitude passage over the little air club.
Configuration was nose up limit stall speed, full flaps and gear down to simulate a landing
At the end of the short grass runway the captain pushed full power to make a very nose up rotate, in front of the forest...
No power available... because the calculators decided instead of the pilot. I know the captain, he was an Air France intructor and chief pilot for the A320 division. Very experimented. He said he pushed full throttle and nothing hapened. Engines started a power recovery as the plane was already in the trees (you can listen engines in the video). The first officer confirmed everything.
Both have lost their job, with what you imagine: court, prison, pay for the family of died pax, divorce...
Around 100 pax was on bord, only 3 died.
Medias, Air France and Airbus Industries declared pilots made a mistake, I think to protect the developpment and sales for this new generation of aircrafts.
The same year, similar accident in Madras, India, throttle problem. I think later Airbus corrected this throttle system