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

[Flacker]

Lightning can cause structural failure in aircraft. There have been cases of lightning strike that punch/melt holes in the aircraft fuselage. The media is quick to show footage of airplane strikes and discount it as a cause. The key is that aircraft are RESISTANT to lightning strike, if you take one in the wrong place on the aircraft the results can be catostrophic. Shown below is a 757 that suffered a lightning strike in flight hitting the radar dome an unpressurized area. Such a hole at 900+km/hr in a critical area will cause breakup of the aircraft.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Well at least now that they've found the general crash area, it may give them a better chance to figure out what actually happened to bring the plane down.

Originally Posted by Dion

Now they can go about the process of finding the black boxes - which will tell us what happened to the plane.

Is there an echo in here? Or perhaps I've discovered someone's ignore list that I'm on?!

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Dion

Now they can go about the process of finding the black boxes - which will tell us what happened to the plane.

If the plane went down over the Atlanic, those black boxes will likely be under 1000's of feet of water. I don't think they could be recovered from there.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

If the plane went down over the Atlanic, those black boxes will likely be under 1000's of feet of water. I don't think they could be recovered from there.

I was just reading an article on CBC that mentioned they do have the technology to go get them from those depths. But the issue seems to be that they only emit a signal for 30 days? So they wouldn't be able to find them after that signal stopped, if I understood it correctly.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/0...search365.html

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Lightning can cause structural failure in aircraft. There have been cases of lightning strike that punch/melt holes in the aircraft fuselage. The media is quick to show footage of airplane strikes and discount it as a cause. The key is that aircraft are RESISTANT to lightning strike, if you take one in the wrong place on the aircraft the results can be catostrophic. Shown below is a 757 that suffered a lightning strike in flight hitting the radar dome an unpressurized area. Such a hole at 900+km/hr in a critical area will cause breakup of the aircraft.

The skin of the radome is different then the skin of the rest of the aircraft. It's only purpose is to act as a fairing to decrease drag and still allow pulses/signals through it. It's considerably weaker than the structural skin of the rest of the aircraft. What you are claiming is possible hasn't happened since lightning was first thought about in designing. Yes, such a hole in a critical area MAY cause breakup (not will, aircraft have flown with larger holes), but the like I said, the damage you show in the photo wouldn't be likely elsewhere in a crtical part of the aircraft.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I was just reading an article on CBC that mentioned they do have the technology to go get them from those depths. But the issue seems to be that they only emit a signal for 30 days? So they wouldn't be able to find them after that signal stopped, if I understood it correctly.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/0...search365.html

Lets hope they recover them soon.

[Bigtime]

Has anyone here mentioned the difference between positive and negative lightning? Apparently positive lightning is a pretty scary thing, and only accounts for something like 5% of all lightning strikes in the world.

However they are much more dangerous than the standard 'negative' lightning and aircraft are not designed to withstand strikes from them. There are still some aviation incidents from the past where positive lightning has been considered a suspect for causing the problem.

Pan-Am Flight 214: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_214

[Bigtime]

"A Detailed Meteorological Analysis of Air France Flight 447"
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

From what I have heard, over the ocean, at night, in a storm is one of the hardest places to fly. No horizon to get your bearings, being buffeted so it tough to get level, wind shear and gusts so your relative bearing may be totally off course. Instruments give honest feedback when the human senses can be easily fooled.

A university buddy flies in military. He told me once that while he was training there was one test where he had to fly with a special hood on so that he could not see outside the cockpit - everything was done by instruments. While he was doing his test, the instructor told him he wasn't supposed to do this, but for a moment, remove the hood.

He pulled back the hood, but it didn't matter. They were flying through a cloud bank that made visibility nil. And while he always knew that what what this training was about, when you are only a couple hundred feet above the ground and see how really bad it can be it really reaffirms how vital instrumentation is in any aircraft.

Yeah that's a good description, there are VFR and IFR, Visual and Instrument Flight Rules. If you want to see what it's like fly IFR just jump into a cloud, you can't see anything. So if their instruments failed (due to lightning/wind shear what have you) and they were in a low pressure system chances are they couldn't see anything more then the reflection of their faces on the glass in front of them. It's a very uncomfortable feeling when you don't know your horizon and you learn to trust your instruments, but when they fail you meet the ocean or the mountain.

[BigFlamesFan]

I have flown right seat quite a number of times coming down from 40,000 feet and passing through cloud. The weirdest sensation is turning while in complete cloud cover yet you still feel as though you are completely level. Your instruments tell you your turning but it does not feel like it.

[Bigtime]

It sure is amazing just how fast our bodies get screwed up once we lose points of reference.

I still remember being amazed by it during my IFR training in a little ol'twin commanche.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I was just reading an article on CBC that mentioned they do have the technology to go get them from those depths. But the issue seems to be that they only emit a signal for 30 days? So they wouldn't be able to find them after that signal stopped, if I understood it correctly.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/0...search365.html

They have the technology to recover the black boxes, but if the block boxes are at the bottom of the ocean (are they designed to float?) it'd be like searching for a needle in a million haystacks.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

The skin of the radome is different then the skin of the rest of the aircraft. It's only purpose is to act as a fairing to decrease drag and still allow pulses/signals through it. It's considerably weaker than the structural skin of the rest of the aircraft. What you are claiming is possible hasn't happened since lightning was first thought about in designing. Yes, such a hole in a critical area MAY cause breakup (not will, aircraft have flown with larger holes), but the like I said, the damage you show in the photo wouldn't be likely elsewhere in a crtical part of the aircraft.

Agreed.. the radome wouldn't be pressurized first and foremost, so destruction of the radome would not cause the aircraft to no longer fly, and it's made of a honeycomb like material. It's sort of hard to describe, but yeah.. not in the least bit likely to cause an airliner to crash.

[burn_this_city]

Those black boxes are likely in 4000m of water. They would survive the impact and the depth but if the wreckage isnt discovered soon they will stop pinging after 30ish days. Unfortunately that flight went down outside of radar contact so finding the exact crash site is going to be very difficult. Even if they are found they won't necessarily explain what happened. You might get some information from the data and voice recordings, but its not going to pinpoint the exact cause of the crash. The probability if lightening striking an aircraft at 35,000ft is pretty low. I think the electrical problems reported by Air France we're likely the culprit.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

They have the technology to recover the black boxes, but if the block boxes are at the bottom of the ocean (are they designed to float?) it'd be like searching for a needle in a million haystacks.

Oh yeah definitely. That's another reason why they're worried about the signals from the boxes stopping in 30 days or so. After that I would assume it'd be pretty much impossible (although I don't "really" know).

And they're saying they "have" the technology to go that deep with the robots, but apparently 4,300m is basically the limit of anything they've ever done before.

[Bill Bumface]

Maybe a dumb question, but who pays for all of this? Is it Air France? Air Bus? Some overseeing flight commission that the airlines or manufacturers have to pay into?

[arsenal]

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requires that a civil aircraft accident be investigated by an independent body belonging to the country where the accident took place. Each country has its own organization taking responsibility for this: in the United States, it is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB ); in the United Kingdom, it is the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB).

So there will be a body from France that will do the investigation.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3448300019.html

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Maybe a dumb question, but who pays for all of this? Is it Air France? Air Bus? Some overseeing flight commission that the airlines or manufacturers have to pay into?

I'm guessing insurance companies.

[Morozee]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

They have the technology to recover the black boxes, but if the block boxes are at the bottom of the ocean (are they designed to float?) it'd be like searching for a needle in a million haystacks.

I've replaced dozens of CVR's and FDR's. No, they definitely don't float... they're quite heavy.

[Bigtime]

Multiple media outlets are reporting that officials have now confirmed the wreckage found is from flight 447.