Air France plane lost: 'no hope' of finding airliner ** UPDATE- Wreckage Found **

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ya I know, but I dn't think it would realy be that much more money to send it. It's notlike it has to be in High Def or anything.

Look at the equipment required to recieve a satelite signal in your house, and then look at a news truck and all the equipment required to send it.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Look at the equipment required to recieve a satelite signal in your house, and then look at a news truck and all the equipment required to send it.

... I don't see the issue. Maybe a few aerodynamic problems to solve... but other than than, flawless!

[HOOT]

Priceless!

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I wonder if airplane mechanics ever get blamed for showing up to work hungover or for simply having shoddy workmanship that results in catastrophic consequences.

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

You bet! Accountability is HUGE in aviation.

One of the episode I watched on May Day had a member of the ground crew charged after he forgot to remove the tape that covered an altitude sensor after he was done his maintenance work. The pilot missed it too and the plane took off. Caused some sort of problem over the ocean with attitude, and the plane went into the ocean
All because of a strip of tape....

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I'm not buying the idea that lightning knocked out the radar and then the pilot flew into a tropical storm, which brought down the plane. What doesn't make sense about that is that the radar looks forward quite far... if the radar did get knocked out, the pilot still would have known what was in front of him and should have been flying around systems, which would have given him enough time to send out a communication that he was having problems. There is no way the radar got knocked out and immediately the plane broke apart which prevented the pilot from radioing in a mayday or pan.

As well, it's unlikely a lightning strike brought down the plane in a hurry. There are a lot of things not making sense with all the media reports and are starting to contradict each other.

VERY unlikely that the weather radar was knocked out by lightning strike. That would have registered the storm FAARRR in advance of the actual storm cell before they got into a lightning strike range. Lightning could possibly disrupt the electrical system, especially if there was sufficient strikes. There's plenty of devices on the aircraft to help with static dispersion and such, but lightning strikes can still cause a bunch of problems. My plane was struck in Malaysia while I was working and we didn't notice until we landed and saw that one of our prop blades was cracked.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I don't think it would cost that much, would it? I mean we have satallite on west jet.

Generally satellites for TV and such are in geosynchronous orbit. Meaning that they're position is constant relative to the ground. So you can point a satellite receiver at the transmitting satellite and do stuff with the data like watch TV. Transmitting via a satellite uplink is much more complicated.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yes sometimes they are put on trial for murder.
Problem is when an airplane goes down, it usually not one single thing that takes a plane down, but a multitude of reasons.

I dunno about murder, but certainly negligent homicide. But this is less likely.

Originally Posted by Byrns

Or a GPS transmitter that could track the last location.

GPS receivers are used in the navigation systems of the aircraft, but same as the whole thing with a satellite uplink, it's more difficult to transmit you're location.

Originally Posted by Finny61

If ATC lost them on radar over the ocean I'd certainly buy the possibility of system failure (because they can't track their height) especially if they were flying instrument only and no visibility due to storms in the area, if the altimeter was failing they would believe they are flying at a set height but in fact were descending and then suddenly ocean.

They'd lose radar contact as soon as the aircraft gets outside of the radar range of the ground based radar systems. And you can effectively determine the height based on the angle of incidence of the returned radar signal.


Personally I would speculate that a combination of weather created a situation where the pilot's lost control of the aircraft, became disoriented and crashed.

[SteveToms]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

One of the episode I watched on May Day had a member of the ground crew charged after he forgot to remove the tape that covered an altitude sensor after he was done his maintenance work. The pilot missed it too and the plane took off. Caused some sort of problem over the ocean with attitude, and the plane went into the ocean
All because of a strip of tape....

That was AeroPeru 603, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603. You are supposed to use a bright day-glo coloured tape on what are called static ports, but they failed to use such tape, using a duct tape, when blended in with the plane, especially at night.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I'm personally a little surprised that nobody tracks these planes on radar over the atlantic?? Or is that the same as satellite? Sorry I honestly don't know the answer to that question. But anyways, it seems a little weird that they just leave them on their own over the Atlantic and then when they get within a certain distance to land they track them again?

That's exactly how it works.
My sister is an Air Traffic Controller, and when flights are over the Atlantic, they aren't tracked by anyone, unless the airlines do it themselves via satellite, which is really expensive.

That's why Gander Newfoundland is the most important navigational point on the East Coast, it's the first radar station that flights from Europe start to get tracked from.

[MelBridgeman]

The earth is circular, radar travels in a straight line, that is why you can't track planes over the atlantic OR pacific. the radar on the coast travels into space as the earth curves

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

The earth is circular, radar travels in a straight line, that is why you can't track planes over the atlantic OR pacific. the radar on the coast travels into space as the earth curves

So are you telling me my globe is out dated?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

The earth is circular, radar travels in a straight line, that is why you can't track planes over the atlantic OR pacific. the radar on the coast travels into space as the earth curves

Not sure if this is directed at me or not.
But if it is, let me assure you , I'm very familliar with why planes can't be tracked over the oceans, and only mentioned the Atlantic, because I'm not sure with the equivalent to Gander would be in the Pacific.

Although, there are a lot more inhabited Islands in the Pacific than the Atlantic, so I'd be willing to bet Radar coverage is Much better for plance going from the west coast to Asia.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Not sure if this is directed at me or not.
But if it is, let me assure you , I'm very familliar with why planes can't be tracked over the oceans, and only mentioned the Atlantic, because I'm not sure with the equivalent to Gander would be in the Pacific.

Although, there are a lot more inhabited Islands in the Pacific than the Atlantic, so I'd be willing to bet Radar coverage is Much better for plance going from the west coast to Asia.

I know for a fact that a flight from Vancouver to Hong Kong... they basically fly up along the coast, then near the Aleutian Islands, and then down the coast of Russia, fly over Japan and Taiwan... so in that sense, coverage is quite a bit better.

[4X4]

I'm surprised that none of the GPS companies have come up with something that they can retrofit into an airplane. Some kind of black box type thing that has an indestructible GPS beacon that'll pinpoint plane locations. Guaranteed the airlines would be buying it and putting it on their planes.
When tragedy like this happens, you can bet that nobody will be happier to find the wreckage than the airline.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Look at the equipment required to recieve a satelite signal in your house, and then look at a news truck and all the equipment required to send it.

If they can have high speed internet on the plane, it shouldn't be that hard.

http://www.wlanbook.com/airplane-wif...less-internet/

[browna]

As hours go on, its less and less likely, but earlier in the day, couldn't help but wonder if the French, once again, surrendered all hope prematurely.

[STeeLy]

I remember when plans had Phones and I'm almost sure they were satellite based. Can't they re-fit those to send signals every so often with just some vital information to HQ or Ground Control?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If they can have high speed internet on the plane, it shouldn't be that hard.

http://www.wlanbook.com/airplane-wif...less-internet/

Those use cell networks or geosynchronous sattelites. None of which exist over the oceans.

Ulimately, the technology is there, it's just that more cost will need to be added to get the systems in place.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Those use cell networks or geosynchronous sattelites. None of which exist over the oceans.

Ulimately, the technology is there, it's just that more cost will need to be added to get the systems in place.

Fair enough, I didn't strictly mean that it had to be on a ocean route, they could start with routes that this could work with and go from there.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Not sure if this is directed at me or not.
But if it is, let me assure you , I'm very familliar with why planes can't be tracked over the oceans, and only mentioned the Atlantic, because I'm not sure with the equivalent to Gander would be in the Pacific.

Although, there are a lot more inhabited Islands in the Pacific than the Atlantic, so I'd be willing to bet Radar coverage is Much better for plance going from the west coast to Asia.

The routes are such in the pacific that flying over the north pacific, planes are basically flying over the north pole OR close to Alaska, planes flying south have the Hawaii islands plus others enroute.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Of course one critical system failure can bring it down, but it would have to be a serious failure. And the electrical system failing would have to mean that these backups all failed. If (and I mean serious IFF) the electrical system failed, than Airbus could be in serious trouble as all but 1 in production model uses this FBW system.

For them to lose all rudder control, and it not be structural would be something similar to the Swiss Air flight on the east coast where there was a fire in the avionics due to insulating foam. The Hydraulics last resort is simply that, its for basic steerage and nothing more.

Also, lightening knocking out the weather dopler is likely, however they would have had pre flight weather reports from CDG, as well as the information they had before it went down. The US weather network has serious storms in their flight paths. Also remember that almost all hurricanes that hit North America originate in that area of the Atlantic.

Compare the 2 flight decks. Airbus - A330 FlyByWire (FBW) with no stick, if the electrical and all backups fail all you have is rudder via the pedals. Electrical system is required to fly the plane hence the reason for the four fully redundant electrical systems



Boeing 777 - newest model they produce only has 2 electrical generators, however they are independent and run all the time since its used similar to power steering instead of running a computer.

In fact the Boeing 777 is the only current Boeing model to have a fly-by-wire although Boeing has opted to retain the yoke rather than use the joystick like flight stick that Airbus uses.

[Bagor]

My friend's take on it. He's a design engineer for Boeing and used to work for Airbus.

"What d'ya reckon? You buy the lightning theory?"
*****************

"Very remote chance it was a direct lightening strike that caused it, the aircraft is designed to withstand that hit and their are 2 other auxiliary back-ups if power loss occurs due to a strike.

Looks like it was some kind of major turbulence issue coupled with electrical faults, it may have went into a nose dive at 35,000 feet and by the time the crew could get it together they were right in the middle of the lower lying storm. No black box likely to be recovered as they don't even know where it went down so they may never fully know."