-
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
- 30/3/08
- 43,907
- 20,207
- 113
This seems to be the problem here. The damn flight computer thinks it's smarter than the pilots! This happened also of Perth, Western Australia just a few weeks ago. Pilot tried to climb and 'puter decided he was climbing too hard and went full nose down. Thankfully they realised WTF was going on in time and punched the over ride. I seem to remember a simelar problem in a Korean Airlines A320(?) a few years ago. Computer somehow reversed the control inputs.
Yikes! To err is humen, to realy foul up takes a computer.
Col.
Yikes! To err is humen, to realy foul up takes a computer.
Col.
Nice call on the pitot, tictac:
Jet Sensors Are Probed in Brazilian Air Crash
By ANDY PASZTOR and DANIEL MICHAELS
June 5, 2009
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Investigators are pursuing a theory that excessive air speed -- potentially spurred by ice building up on electronic speed sensors -- contributed to the ocean crash of an Air France Airbus A330 amid heavy storms Monday, according to two industry officials familiar with the details.
The developments helped lead Airbus late Thursday to remind airlines with any Airbus planes that their pilots should check backup systems including GPS any time they suspect their airspeed indicators are malfunctioning, according to the officials.
The Airbus announcement provides scant new details of the crash of Air France Flight 447. But it reflects the investigators' suspicion that the sensors -- also implicated in at least two other fatal airline crashes and numerous other incidents -- were involved, possibly as the first stage of a series of electrical and mechanical malfunctions aboard the jetliner.
Investigators believe that the so-called pitot tubes may have iced up as the Air France plane with 228 people on board flew through a thunderstorm that could have included heavy rain and violent updrafts, the two industry officials said.
Industry officials stressed it is too early to draw definitive conclusions from the scant data available, and theories of the crash could change in coming days. Investigators, for example, haven't ruled out the possibility of a fire or other electrical problems that could have led to the emergency. They also don't know what other actions the crew may have taken during roughly four minutes in which the plane apparently was going through a major storm.
The pitot devices -- the name, pronounced PEA-toe, refers to the sensor and its housing -- are supposed to be heated to avoid icing. But tropical thunderstorms that develop in the area where the plane was flying often form tiny particles of ice at high altitudes, and air temperature at the plane's altitude is below zero.
A theory is that ice from the storm built up unusually quickly on the tubes and could have led to the malfunction whether or not the heat was working properly. If the tubes iced up, the pilots could have quickly seen sharp and rapid drops in their airspeed indicators, according to industry officials.
According to people familiar with the details, an international team of crash investigators as well as safety experts at Airbus are focused on a theory that malfunctioning airspeed indicators touched off a series of events that apparently made some flight controls, onboard computers and electrical systems go haywire.
The potentially faulty readings could have prompted the crew of the Air France flight to mistakenly boost thrust from the plane's engines and increase speed as they went through possibly extreme turbulence, according to people familiar with investigators' thinking. As a result, the pilots may inadvertently have subjected the plane to increased structural stress.
The sequence of messages automatically sent by the plane to Air France maintenance in the flight's last minutes -- from autopilot disconnect through flight-monitoring system failures, then flight-control failures and depressurization -- has helped fuel the investigators' theory.
It isn't known why other planes flying through such storms haven't suffered from such severe problems, but airline crashes often result from a chain of unusual events, not just a single trigger. Brazilian Air Force officials say three other jetliners flew in the general region around the same time; the other airlines have reported no abnormalities.
More
French Minister Raises Questions Over Debris Europe Alerts: Click here to sign up | Settings Investigators also are struggling to understand another big mystery: how the aircraft, equipped with its own weather-scanning radar, ended up engulfed in what is believed to be such extreme weather. The storm's exact force remains unclear, because the mid-Atlantic region isn't covered by precise ground-based weather radar.
The potential for pitot tubes to be blocked by ice, and the confusion it can cause pilots, is well known. A brochure from one manufacturer that provides the devices to Airbus points out it has improved their power and drainage "in order to meet the Airbus extreme icing conditions specification."
Pitot-tube icing was suspected in the October 1997 crash of an Austral Lineas Aereas DC-9 in Uruguay that killed all 74 people onboard. The flight-data recorder showed odd airspeed readings and that the crew had adjusted settings in ways suggesting they thought they were flying much slower than the plane, built by McDonnell Douglas, was actually moving. Investigators concluded those settings caused the pilots to lose control of the plane, which plunged into swamps, according to the Aviation Safety Network, a crash database.
A Continental Airlines MD-82 built by McDonnell Douglas skidded off the runway at New York's La Guardia Airport in March 1994 after the crew aborted takeoff due to strange airspeed readings. Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board later found the crew failed to activate the pitot tubes' heating, allowing them to get clogged with ice or snow. Nobody was killed.
The NTSB cited similar issues with incidents during two flights of Boeing 717 jetliners in 2002 and 2005, in which the pitot-tube heating system was temporarily inactive for unknown reasons.
In February 1996, a Boeing 757 crashed shortly after takeoff from the Dominican Republic, killing all 189 people onboard. Flight-data and cockpit recordings showed the crew got confused by conflicting speed readings and stalled the plane, which plunged into the ocean.
Investigators concluded that wasps may have nested in the pitot tubes as the plane, operated by Turkey's Birgenair, sat grounded for several days. The tubes are supposed to be kept covered when a plane is parked, but a witness recalled seeing them exposed.
Wasp nesting in pitot tubes was again cited in a March 2006 incident, where the crew of a Qantas Airways Ltd. Airbus A330 slammed on the brakes during takeoff from Brisbane, Australia. Nobody was injured.
The Air France jetliner was equipped with its own radar system, which normally suffices for pilots to navigate through bad weather. But it doesn't always detect trouble, specialists say, or accurately depict the worst areas of turbulence. The signals can get absorbed by heavy rain, for example, preventing pilots from getting a clear picture of conditions.
In Rio de Janeiro, hundreds of people attended a service for victims, and the local governor attending warned of "serious civil responsibilities" for the crash on the part of Air France and Airbus. Some victims' families said they would form a commission to monitor the crash investigation.
Jet Sensors Are Probed in Brazilian Air Crash
By ANDY PASZTOR and DANIEL MICHAELS
June 5, 2009
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Investigators are pursuing a theory that excessive air speed -- potentially spurred by ice building up on electronic speed sensors -- contributed to the ocean crash of an Air France Airbus A330 amid heavy storms Monday, according to two industry officials familiar with the details.
The developments helped lead Airbus late Thursday to remind airlines with any Airbus planes that their pilots should check backup systems including GPS any time they suspect their airspeed indicators are malfunctioning, according to the officials.
The Airbus announcement provides scant new details of the crash of Air France Flight 447. But it reflects the investigators' suspicion that the sensors -- also implicated in at least two other fatal airline crashes and numerous other incidents -- were involved, possibly as the first stage of a series of electrical and mechanical malfunctions aboard the jetliner.
Investigators believe that the so-called pitot tubes may have iced up as the Air France plane with 228 people on board flew through a thunderstorm that could have included heavy rain and violent updrafts, the two industry officials said.
Industry officials stressed it is too early to draw definitive conclusions from the scant data available, and theories of the crash could change in coming days. Investigators, for example, haven't ruled out the possibility of a fire or other electrical problems that could have led to the emergency. They also don't know what other actions the crew may have taken during roughly four minutes in which the plane apparently was going through a major storm.
The pitot devices -- the name, pronounced PEA-toe, refers to the sensor and its housing -- are supposed to be heated to avoid icing. But tropical thunderstorms that develop in the area where the plane was flying often form tiny particles of ice at high altitudes, and air temperature at the plane's altitude is below zero.
A theory is that ice from the storm built up unusually quickly on the tubes and could have led to the malfunction whether or not the heat was working properly. If the tubes iced up, the pilots could have quickly seen sharp and rapid drops in their airspeed indicators, according to industry officials.
According to people familiar with the details, an international team of crash investigators as well as safety experts at Airbus are focused on a theory that malfunctioning airspeed indicators touched off a series of events that apparently made some flight controls, onboard computers and electrical systems go haywire.
The potentially faulty readings could have prompted the crew of the Air France flight to mistakenly boost thrust from the plane's engines and increase speed as they went through possibly extreme turbulence, according to people familiar with investigators' thinking. As a result, the pilots may inadvertently have subjected the plane to increased structural stress.
The sequence of messages automatically sent by the plane to Air France maintenance in the flight's last minutes -- from autopilot disconnect through flight-monitoring system failures, then flight-control failures and depressurization -- has helped fuel the investigators' theory.
It isn't known why other planes flying through such storms haven't suffered from such severe problems, but airline crashes often result from a chain of unusual events, not just a single trigger. Brazilian Air Force officials say three other jetliners flew in the general region around the same time; the other airlines have reported no abnormalities.
More
French Minister Raises Questions Over Debris Europe Alerts: Click here to sign up | Settings Investigators also are struggling to understand another big mystery: how the aircraft, equipped with its own weather-scanning radar, ended up engulfed in what is believed to be such extreme weather. The storm's exact force remains unclear, because the mid-Atlantic region isn't covered by precise ground-based weather radar.
The potential for pitot tubes to be blocked by ice, and the confusion it can cause pilots, is well known. A brochure from one manufacturer that provides the devices to Airbus points out it has improved their power and drainage "in order to meet the Airbus extreme icing conditions specification."
Pitot-tube icing was suspected in the October 1997 crash of an Austral Lineas Aereas DC-9 in Uruguay that killed all 74 people onboard. The flight-data recorder showed odd airspeed readings and that the crew had adjusted settings in ways suggesting they thought they were flying much slower than the plane, built by McDonnell Douglas, was actually moving. Investigators concluded those settings caused the pilots to lose control of the plane, which plunged into swamps, according to the Aviation Safety Network, a crash database.
A Continental Airlines MD-82 built by McDonnell Douglas skidded off the runway at New York's La Guardia Airport in March 1994 after the crew aborted takeoff due to strange airspeed readings. Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board later found the crew failed to activate the pitot tubes' heating, allowing them to get clogged with ice or snow. Nobody was killed.
The NTSB cited similar issues with incidents during two flights of Boeing 717 jetliners in 2002 and 2005, in which the pitot-tube heating system was temporarily inactive for unknown reasons.
In February 1996, a Boeing 757 crashed shortly after takeoff from the Dominican Republic, killing all 189 people onboard. Flight-data and cockpit recordings showed the crew got confused by conflicting speed readings and stalled the plane, which plunged into the ocean.
Investigators concluded that wasps may have nested in the pitot tubes as the plane, operated by Turkey's Birgenair, sat grounded for several days. The tubes are supposed to be kept covered when a plane is parked, but a witness recalled seeing them exposed.
Wasp nesting in pitot tubes was again cited in a March 2006 incident, where the crew of a Qantas Airways Ltd. Airbus A330 slammed on the brakes during takeoff from Brisbane, Australia. Nobody was injured.
The Air France jetliner was equipped with its own radar system, which normally suffices for pilots to navigate through bad weather. But it doesn't always detect trouble, specialists say, or accurately depict the worst areas of turbulence. The signals can get absorbed by heavy rain, for example, preventing pilots from getting a clear picture of conditions.
In Rio de Janeiro, hundreds of people attended a service for victims, and the local governor attending warned of "serious civil responsibilities" for the crash on the part of Air France and Airbus. Some victims' families said they would form a commission to monitor the crash investigation.
- 30/3/08
- 43,907
- 20,207
- 113
Still missing BTW. The debris spotted earlier now appears to be from shipping. Amazing how an entire plane the size of a A330 can just vanish in this day and age.
Col.
Col.
- 17/3/06
- 11,843
- 7
- 38
yep, they had one number wrong. here is the article. when we deliver a new aircraft we have a boeing crew with the customer at all times until they are comfortable the customer understands the aircraft. jesus now that's what i call customer service right there. lmao :lol:
http://markpknowles.com/first-airbus-crash-photos/
on another note airbus already knows there is a major problem with the 320 and has sent directives out to all customers. it is absolutely unprecedented for that to happen this fast.
http://markpknowles.com/first-airbus-crash-photos/
on another note airbus already knows there is a major problem with the 320 and has sent directives out to all customers. it is absolutely unprecedented for that to happen this fast.
- 30/3/08
- 43,907
- 20,207
- 113
I have some questions.
1. Is it possible to keep a plane in the air once it has no power?
2. Is it normal to find bodies in the water in the area where the plane went down?
3. Do they usually pull the bodes from the water or leave them there?
4. Could the passengers have suffered any injuries at the time the plane hit the water?
5. Can hitting the water at 200 miles per hour cause a plane to break into pieces?
6. Can wind affect a plane while it's in the air?
1. Is it possible to keep a plane in the air once it has no power?
2. Is it normal to find bodies in the water in the area where the plane went down?
3. Do they usually pull the bodes from the water or leave them there?
4. Could the passengers have suffered any injuries at the time the plane hit the water?
5. Can hitting the water at 200 miles per hour cause a plane to break into pieces?
6. Can wind affect a plane while it's in the air?
1. Is it possible to keep a plane in the air once it has no power? - not that kind of plane, or at least not for long.
2. Is it normal to find bodies in the water in the area where the plane went down? - yes
3. Do they usually pull the bodes from the water or leave them there? - what do you reckon??
4. Could the passengers have suffered any injuries at the time the plane hit the water? - odd question. The plane probably broke up in the air and everyone would have already been killed before hitting the water.
5. Can hitting the water at 200 miles per hour cause a plane to break into pieces? - Yes, but my understanding is that this is not what happened. The plane most likely broke up in the air.
6. Can wind affect a plane while it's in the air? - I don't get this question...
2. Is it normal to find bodies in the water in the area where the plane went down? - yes
3. Do they usually pull the bodes from the water or leave them there? - what do you reckon??
4. Could the passengers have suffered any injuries at the time the plane hit the water? - odd question. The plane probably broke up in the air and everyone would have already been killed before hitting the water.
5. Can hitting the water at 200 miles per hour cause a plane to break into pieces? - Yes, but my understanding is that this is not what happened. The plane most likely broke up in the air.
6. Can wind affect a plane while it's in the air? - I don't get this question...
I think he means varying high winds, yes if strong enough it could cause a plane to become unstable...remember wind shear at Toronto a couple of years ago...
These aren't my questions. They were taken directly from the mouths of CNN news anchors who supposedly have an IQ and get paid hundreds of thousands a year.
1) Technically yes, however, an Airbus A330 would drop out of the sky like a cartoon...commercial airliners aren't known for their gliding ability. Cases have been shown of commercial airliners being able to stay in the air for a certain period of time, and have gotten the belly of the plane on the ground as opposed to a nose dive.fakemaster said:
2) Yes and no; if the plane had crashed (as in nose first) into the ocean, PARTS of bodies would be found if the passengers weren't liquidated on contact, however, if the structural integrity of the plane was intact (landing on it's belly), the passengers would likely be still in the plane. Once the sucker starts sinking people don't open the airlock, and the pressurized environment can keep them alive for a certain period of time.
3) Whomever CNN anchor asked this question should be beaten.
4) Yes, like backseat passengers who've kept their seatbelt on in a head on car collision, you'd likely find the same type of injuries, just magnified by the fact that they've gone from 450 knots to 0 in no seconds flat. If the passengers were stupid enough to have taken off their seatbelts, likely the same type of injury that happens to backseat passengers who don't wear their seatbelt in a head-on collision, just without the windshield factor. Replace windshield with seat and/or bulkhead.
5)Depends on how it went down. Belly first crashes with the nose level are kind of like doing a jump really fast (and straight) with a snowboard. Nose first...think Matrix: Reloaded when the two semi trucks collided head-on. Meaning yes. Tailspin? You bet your ass.
6) See answer to question 3.
- 17/3/06
- 11,843
- 7
- 38
it would depend on the context the questions were asked in. all of them are valid questions depending on who they were directed at. 36,000ft at 580mph a commercial airliner will stay in the air for several minutes if they have control of it. all of these questions have many answers depending on the conditions. that's why i said the simple answer was yes to all of them.
if he was restating questions that had been asked to someone by a cnn anchor that should have been stipulated in the original post. i am assuming the questions were asked to a professional in these matters in a vague manor so the person answering them had allot of room to give an answer. they are asking about things nobody knows the specifics of yet. i can give you specific answers to all of these questions but you are going to have to be much more specific in asking them.
if he was restating questions that had been asked to someone by a cnn anchor that should have been stipulated in the original post. i am assuming the questions were asked to a professional in these matters in a vague manor so the person answering them had allot of room to give an answer. they are asking about things nobody knows the specifics of yet. i can give you specific answers to all of these questions but you are going to have to be much more specific in asking them.
I'd like to say they in some special context but alas no. They were just the typical questions these guys ask when they have an expert on. I always sit there hoping the expert will say something like 'no a human cannot live without a brain you retard' (yes that question was actually asked one time). But sadly they never do.