Absolutely. The NTSB guys are nothing short of incredible at what they do. That said, we don't know (and likely won't for some time) exactly how they'll fit into the scheme of the investigation and/or what they'll be able to do. I hope that they'll play a large role, because they have the least 'skin in the game'!
It's a stretch to say that it happens "regularly" but it certainly has happened. Highly unlikely in this case, however.
After they radio to base that they are entering a high turbulence thunderstorm? Only if it depressurized and they didn't have their oxygen on. I have to say that I am becoming a little pessimistic that the Navy will find the recorders, and if they don't - this one will essentially be another Emelia Aerhardt with a little flotsam and jetsam.
Radio to who? Who radioed to anyone? Are you talking about the ACARS messages? Those are automated-- the crew didn't have anything to do with them. The airplane sends those on it's own. I do agree with you about the recorders, though.
Maybe I am wrong - but I thought last voice transmission was to alert entry into area of thunderstorms. I know the later messages were automatic - and there is another mystery to all this: why no cockpit voice messages for several minutes after the auto-alerts were sounding off? BTW, I am skeptical that the SOSUS network could "hear" the pings or even the impact with the surface - and that ocean floor is like a mountain range reportedly. So, the best hope is passive sonar from a sub in the local area. Of course, if they can locate the fuselage wreckage, then maybe they can hunt for them visually with an underwater remote craft - even after the pingers wear down.
No, I'm pretty sure the last voice transmission (that was recorded) was a normal position report. It's unlikely that they would say anything about entering an area of thunderstorms other than to request a deviation. However, HF radio is very odd, and big gaps in communication are common. I assume the various ARINC facilities have recorders, but unless they were receiving the transmission, who would be recording it? That's not to say they didn't try calling, just that no one may have received the call.
I don't think the SOSUS coverage in that part of the world is as good as it is in others but from what I have been told about, at least our subs, I would be surprised if the pinging was not heard if they are operable. It seems to me that the French "Might" feel it is not in their best interests to find them. They can choose to blame it on anything if that were the case. Makes me wonder if there is a Seawolf or Virginia snooping around there. If there was, the French may not even know it. Be a great training mission.
Maybe, who knows? Of course, it was SOSUS that triangulated the wreckage of the Scorpion - out east from the Canary Islands or the Azores, I think - and that was years ago. Of course, they picked up the breakup noises of a nuclear submarine (and even that took some skillful analysis IIRC). French best interests? I am sorry to say that so far (without some serious open NTSB involvement) - I would trust a French Government investigation of Airbus about as much as I trust the Iranian centrifuge program to be only for peaceful purposes. We shall see - hope they find the boxes soon.
Well, it has been several more days now and pretty much all quiet - Wonder when the "official" pinger lifetime will run out and what happens then? I suspect that this may just be allowed to coast down as "unknown causes after flight into turbulence" and allowed to rest.
That is a pretty "strong" statement, particularly given the fact that BEA (their NTSB) is internationally recognized as one of the best in that field...
They did OK on the Concorde crash...but I am still suspicious that this one may be sort of lost between France and Brazil.
As said before, I think the French will take this very seriously. It would only take one more similar Airbus loss to doom that airframe commercially and a major economic atom bomb to AirbusIndustrie and an unrecoverable political black eye for the BEA. The BEA has to either find the fix or vindicate the Airbus. It's terrific that NTSB is there, so no delay in ascertaining urgent AD issuance - I do not know about Brazil, but I am sure that the BEA is as competent as anyone on the planet as is the NTSB. The risk of glossing this over is just too huge and very personal
I honestly did not want to offend anyone, but here is my position: This plane obviously broke up in mid-air. Another accident was also due to structural failure on this family of aircraft. This family of aircraft is pretty well known to have some "issues" with the control systems. The NY crash goes to control issues and the FO was blamed for pilot error. I am very uncertain that three pitot tubes could have failed all at once and caused the Atlantic Ocean crash. I am merely making a note that the government of France has a big stake in the Airbus and am noting caution that everything is done impartially. I personally am not going to be flying on these AC until clear answers are found and corrections are made that make proper sense. This almost brings up the ghosts of the old BOAC Comet - doomed as an airliner after several mid-air breakups, but served the military for many years after structural fixes were correctly done.
I thought of the Comet too, Smithsonian magazine did an article on it.. I think the pingers last about a month......depends on where they are resting on the ocean floor, IMO.....
I mentioned this before. I worked with the Boeing engineer who was at the time of the Electra incidents a renowned expert on structural dynamics and flutter and flutter models. I spent many hours talking with " Pete" Plunkett. ne Elizabeth Plunkett. and she explained the structural elasticity and failure mode of the Electra's engine nacelles and wing that led to the in flight failure. She designed a wind tunnel flutter model that proved her analysis and led to the changes on the nacelle structure and configuration. The nacelle skins and engine mount bulkhead webs were increased in thickness and stiffened as well as thickened interspar wing skins. In turbulence the engines were bouncing up and down, feeding into the wing which fed reactions back into the nacelles. The oscillations were then reinforced by the gyroscopic precession of the props. The repeated cycle of oscillations were not dampened out but increased in amplitude and leverage until the wing failed. You can see one of the changes in nacelle configuration by the break in contour of the upper part of the nacelle from the engines thrust line being rotated upward by several degrees.
This is the very first accident on this family of aircraft. See above, no A330/340 ever crashed in NY. The A310 (a completely different aircraft) crash in NY was due to pilot error, unless of course you believe NTSB is also controlled by the French. I appreciate your input, but as of today, I believe no one knows for sure what happens. The government of France has some minority share of EADS. Airbus is 100% owned by EADS, so no governments have any share of it. Do not forget that all Boeing 737 fly on French engines too. I guess Greyhounds buses are in your future! Nope: A330 flew several millions hours before that unfortunate accident. There are like 600+ of them flying. Only a handful of Comet were flying at that time. (Edit: Same for the Electra)
Look - I said it before: did not mean to offend anybody. My opinion is my own alone - but there is enough backscatter on this to make me suspicious of Airbus...hence I am watching with interest and taking the side of precaution. BTW, it is not an anti-French thing either. It is an anti-tail breaking off airliners thing. James
Bob- You bring up a very valuable point. It took a long time to understand all the failure modes of jet airliner and even fighter aluminum structures due to flutter, fastener issues, metal fatigue, pressurization effects, "g" loads etc. Even then, we recently grounded a large portion of our F-15 fleet for fatigue problems and the F-16 is showing similar issues. We do not have that body of knowledge yet on carbon fiber and it is nowhere near as well characterized. If this is another vertical stabilizer/rudder separation, there are fundamental engineering issues with the Airbus aircraft. Hopefully, Boeing's 787 has been better engineered, because it is largely an all-composite aircraft. There is no way crew inputs should be able to separate flight controls or major wing or stabilizer units. If they can, it should be back to the drawing board, because Murphy will make sure the aircraft and crew are put in a situation where separation can occur. Taz Terry Phillips
