Any updates on the Airbus lost in the Atlantic?

Lets not forget it was a French sub that was searching.

Maybe they should find someone that is actually willing to go UNDER water to have a look.

 

"Oh noes, it is le shark! I am le scared, to le surface!!"

 

Search is resuming yet again. Fourth effort begins March 18th.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/02/04/atlantic.ocean.air.france.search/index.html

CW

 

thanks for the update.

 

Funny this thread just came back up....I just watched a REALLY good documentry on Netflix about the crash and what an independant investigation was able to surmize. It was called "Crash of Flight 447." It was done by Nova and I really enjoyed it. Its on Netflix streaming and really was worth the 52 minutes I invested in it. I'd suggest anyone interest in how the crash probably happened watch it.

Mark

 

Thanks Mark - sounds good. Nova produces pretty cool shows - I don't have
netflix but will try to find it.


edit - go here to find your local PBS listing: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/crash-flight-447.html

Jedi

 

I wonder what newfangled technology they think will find the ultimate needle in a haystack.

I wouldn't bet on any success.

 

A fish finder from Cabellas.

 

I really do think that France does not WANT to find it.... but loves the press of
LOOKING for it.

Jedi

 

I am more concerned if they prove the pitot probes froze over and allowed the rudder too much travel. Resulting in a failure around the vertical stabilizer, and a rapid, violent decompression. Nothing against Airbus, but the new technologies need more testing before throwing them into production. i look forward to any new info on the tragedy. ( Ill try to catch the show on the 16th)

 

I still avoid Airbusses whenever possible. Pulled in to the gate earlier this week and there was one in Delta colors. Nearly puked. One reason I flew Delta was an all-Boeing fleet. That went away when they bought NWA. At least SW still flies all Boeing.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Every successful Airbus flight puts more distance between them and this tragedy. I don't see what could be gained for Airbus or Air France if they recover the wreckage.

 

I'll say it again. I have a friend who flies Airbus A320's and he hates them. He has umpteen thousands of hours and has flown all types of equipment but he does not like or trusts the Airbus.

 

I watched the Nova special on Netflix last week. Interesting commentary today from the FL390 blog.

http://flightlevel390.blogspot.com/2011/02/af-447-part-3.html

 

Too bad Nova was inaccurate in their presentation. The blog was much more insightful.

 

Ever since I learned of Captain Dave's blog I've been hooked.... he's a pretty amazing
and prolific writer.

Jedi

 

Sorry, but each successful flight means nothing if they don't address the underlying cause of the failure. All it means is that more people have beaten the odds for a little longer. It doesn't mean that the aircraft has been proven as safe, it only means that the things that stacked up to create the failure haven't occurred again.

What I have learned in my career in aerospace is that if there is a defficiency, be it in software or hardware, it will eventually come back to bite you. Just because it doesn't happen on every flight, or if the problem only occurs in a very specific set of circumstances, it WILL happen again, and unless you fix it properly, people will die.

 

I was speaking politically that every successful flight puts more distance from the crash and a fainter memory in the stockholders and ticket buyers minds.

Of course another crash is a possibility and if it occurs over land or shallower water the whole thing will be revisited again.

 

They didn't have much to say about the bodies recovered that showed ALL of the symptoms of an in-flight breakup at altitude.

It was as if they read the released report so far and made a fluff piece based solely off of it. It wasn't a very good episode.

 

All true, the only thing I'd say is that another crash is a PROBABILITY, the only question is when.

 

Good read, thanks for the tip!

 

May be because the opposite is true?

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e2.en/pdf/f-cp090601e2.en.pdf

 

Well, that sounds like injuries from impact with the water, mostly while strapped into seats.
The plane would probably be in level or near level attitude on impact?


A question would be if they were already unconscious or deceased when they hit.

Another would be whether the plane had ruptured or lost the tail or... before impact.

 

The fact that a large part of the aircraft hit the water (as evidenced by the injuries noted) in a level attitude only means just that. In its final moments it was falling in a flat attitude. Pancaking in could have been the result of a flat spin that could easily have happened after the vertical stabilizer left the aircraft. Right now nobody knows what happened, but there are plenty of theories that could explain what scant evidence we have.

From the telemetry data it also appears that the aircraft lost pressurization at altitude. It's hard to see how that would happen unless you had some type of severe structural damage to the aircraft. Seems like there's some analysis going on that is using "selective data acquistion" (that's where you look at the data that you want to look at and supports your analysis, as opposed to all the data that exists) and that often leads to erronous results.