Looks like they are going to get away with sweeping it under the rug. Not much fuss being raised any more. Will not be the last. Taz Terry Phillips
It is normally, especially in the wings. When they break a wing in the iron maiden the Engineers already have a predetermined point of failure by design. The area of breakage isn't necessarily a partial section but a designated area in lieu of other points of random failure elsewhere. Predictable limits as it were.
We always knew (or thought we did anyway) where the limiting failure would occur and designed for that, but the critera for a progressive failure was our internal one (at the Eagle Jet Engine Works anyway), and not the FAAs'. The FAA specifies a limit load in terms of g's or loading (or in our case with engines, maximum overspeed), and then the designer has to prove his design meets the limit load critera, and tests to 1.5x or whatever, and he is done if he passes. The critera for flight critical factors of safety are a pass/fail. I realize that you can pull the wings off of anything if you pull enough g's and that I don't expect for the wings to break off in pieces if you exceed the max load factor, but with a situation like this a more benign failure criteria wouldn't increase the weight of the tail, it might actually lighten it. With the Airbus they tried to limit the amount of force that could be generated by limiting rudder travel above specific speeds using software in the control system. On face value that sounds fine, and the certifying authorities bought it because, ostensibly, you can't get more force in the tail without rudder movement, but that is actually not a good assumption, since there are situations where the tail provides large forces, even without rudder movement (think big turbulence here), and the combination of a max rudder deflection as allowed by the software added to some turbulence could increase the tail forces. Net result is that if too large a yaw angle happens (as perhaps in this case due to severe turbulence at high speed) at the wrong time, then the tail falls off. Or if the rudder travels too far, for whatever reason (be it software glitch, improper speed sensor reading, the co-pilot having heavy feet on takeoff when he hits wake turbulence (oop's, that did happen didn't it), or the computer just had a bad day and decides not to limit travel) then the tail falls off. To my mind there are simply too many scenarios that one can easily imagine where the next thing line in the sequence of things that happens is..... "then the tail falls off" ... with unfortunately very predictable results.
No boxes, huh? Did they find the nose? Isn't that where they are? Just the one pilot and he was outside the plane?
And of course the entire vertical tail broken clean off at the root. As noted from the very first of this thread - likely tail broke off like the other Bus, and it broke apart at altitude. And as noted, not much due diligence here from the French.
Not sure about Airbus but the Black Boxes are in the ceiling over the aft galley in the passenger cabin in Boeing aircraft, just forward of the pressure dome.. An area least likely to be totaled in a crash supposedly.
The flight recorders are painted high visibility orange and as Spasso said they are in the aft overhead area of the passenger cabin. At risk of blabbing too much i will relate my latest findings from my sources. Strictly trying to assemble a viable set of strung together incidents. It is thought that, putting it in simple language so I can understand it, the air data sensing system began to feed erroneous info to to the flight control systems that indicated to the flight crew that the airspeed was too low. The ensuing increase in control input gain and an increase in flight speed while entering a cumulocrunchus contributed to an over-control of the rudder at some point at too high a speed and failed the vertical fin and the resulting break up of the aircraft. There have been at least three incidents , Quantas for one, where the A330 and A340 have had violent un-commanded excursions from normal flight and the French and Airbus are in a frantic PYA mode with the Airbus airplanes. On top of that Quantas has named the A380 the A180 and the A-come lately. Not very happy.
A reasonable series of possible events - leaving the "out" of "fix the airspeed tubes and everything will be OK". Question - is it just about time that all commercial airlines have a satellite link for the data and voice recorder streams, and let the recorders be ground based? Yes, they could still have the onboard boxes as backup, but that would make the frenzied search after the fact less crucial. In this case, is it possible that they already had far more data of this sort than they want to admit?
All true, both the "fix" and the comment about satellite link. We are planning to do engine monitoring and maintenance in the future based on data uplink to our recording system. In this case the engine will literally "phone home" periodically and will give us data as to how much it flew, how it is doing, and allow maintenance to be scheduled accordingly. It also provides us the ability to bill on a "power by the hour" basis which is nice too ;-). Obvioulsy Airbus is already doing it to some extent. The aircraft is calling in items that might be maintenance actions, and increasing that data package to include the FDR paramters would be relatively easily done. The amount of data could be an issue, since it would take a lot of bandwidth to monitor all aircraft continously, but I'm sure it can be done, just isn't a priority right now.
It appears that this thing is more ramified and extensive than it was at first blush. Ominous quiet from Airbus about these incidents.
I agree, I'm sure there are groups of engineers sitting around the conference tables figuring exactly what possibly could cause each transmission, and then tying together what each one means in the context of what went just before and after. They probably already have a very good idea what happened in what order. They aren't talking because if the data recorders ever do show up, it could make them into liars... I would guess that the FAA will eventually get a look at the data and do the same thing, or at least would hope so. With the way airworthiness is handled in different places I simply don't trust other authorities where stuff like this might get handled with a wink and a nod.
Actually, the opposite is true. "The middle and rear fasteners with the related fragments of the fuselage hoop frames were present in the fin base. The distortions of the frames showed that they broke during a forward motion with a slight twisting component towards the left." In other words, the tail was firmly attached to the A330 when it hit the water. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Silence is golden... Airbus to fund extra search for Air France black box. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090730/wl_nm/us_france_airbus
The interim report says: "Observations of the tail fin and on the parts from the passenger (galley, toilet door, crew rest module) showed that the airplane had likely struck the surface of the water in level flight, with a high rate vertical acceleration."
1. The recovered bodies including the pilot exhibited wind damage and were stripped of clothing. 2. The pilot could not have been in the nose section when it hit since he was found completely free of clothing, seat belt, and with all limbs intact and he was separated from the aircraft wreckage. He , too, showed signs of wind damage. 3. Wide dispersion of the stripped and flailed bodies indicates that they were broadcast into space along with the wreckage. 4. Damage to the structure attached to the vertical tail could have been made by air flow, struck by adjacent wreckage, or impact with the water. The damage to the lower aft portion of the rudder indicates that the vertical tail assembly could have moved AFT. 5. The vertical tail attachment with " Hoop Frames" and external bolt lugs is a damn poor way to attach a flight surface that is subjected to very heavy side loads in severe turbulence and in engine out episodes. Glad to hear that Airbus and Air France are really going to take a serious look for the FDR and wreckage. Switches
The same thought crossed my mind when they found the pilot so quickly, he was walking aft to take a look at something.......not belted in.
You are probably correct. If he or anyone else was in the nose of the airplane when it impacted they would have been reduced to something akin to hamburger. At fear of being too descriptive here, the structure of an aluminum airplane turns into a giant compressor and meat cleaver when it hits the earth or water at speed. Those within are not spread all over the scene untouched. The galley and crew rest components mentioned with downward force damage incurred when they, after being cleanly separated from the airplane in the air, probably impacted the ocean. If they had been in the fuselage when it hit the ocean they, with everything else, would have been crushed and destroyed and sent to the bottom of the ocean with the rest of the structure. The "preliminary report " smacks of a quick and desperate attempt to ward off any assumptions that something failed on the airplane and their " findings " are ludicrous and deceitful. If I'm wrong on my statements I will eat crow with feathers and without salt or pepper.
Bob, that is a pretty strong statement, given the NTSB and other countries are participating in the inquiry. Is the NTSB "ludicrous", or is it "deceitful" or both? What about the inspectors form the dozen other countries? Are they all ignorant crooks too? Let me ask you one question: What was your reaction when Pres. Obama said he did not know all the facts but that the Cambridge Police acted "stupidly'? Please give an honest answer. BTW, the "Preliminary Report" is not quick. Per law, it has to be published 30 days after the accident. There are no findings of any sort in it, just a listing of the established facts at that point in time. The final report, which may contain "findings" or not will be published in a year or two.
Bob, were you among those who recovered the bodies? Before you answer, remember there were many witnesses from many countries.
What I read was that they were subjected to wind damage and were intact. If they were inside the airplane when it impacted the water they would be in very bad shape. President Obama has nothing to do with this but his statement was wrong and based on partial facts he admitted it. The BEA statements are also based on partial facts and faulty assumptions.
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- The injuries to many of the bodies recovered after the June 1 crash of an Air France plane suggest they were seated at the time of impact, indicating at least one section of fuselage may have hit the ocean on its underbelly, O Estado de S. Paulo said, citing unidentified investigators. Autopsies showed a majority of the 43 bodies examined so far had leg and hip fractures typical of a trauma suffered while sitting, the Brazilian newspaper said. The lack of many skull injuries in the passengers on the Rio de Janeiro-to-Paris flight also suggests the Airbus A330-200 didnt nosedive, Estado said. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCX7YbZZwokM "This document has been prepared on the basis of the initial information gathered during the investigation, without any analysis and - given the continuing absence of wreckage, the flight recorders, radar tracks and direct testimony - without any description of the circumstances of the accident. Some of the points covered may evolve with time. Nothing in the presentation of this interim report or in the points that are raised therein should be interpreted as an indication of the orientation or conclusions of the investigation. In accordance with Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, with EC directive 94/56 and with the French Civil Aviation Code, the investigation is not conducted in such a way as to apportion blame or to assess individual or collective responsibility. The sole objective is to draw lessons from this occurrence which may help to prevent future accidents or incidents SPECIAL FOREWORD TO ENGLISH EDITION This interim report has been translated and published by the BEA to make its reading easier for English-speaking people. As accurate as the translation may be, the original text in French should be considered as the work of reference." http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf
