French passenger jet gone missing from radar screens........
Discussion
This doesn't sound too clever....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090601/twl-passenger-...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090601/twl-passenger-...
bbc said:
An Air France plane carrying at least 228 people from Brazil has disappeared from radar screens over the Atlantic.
Paris Charles de Gaulle airport said contact was lost with the flight from Rio de Janeiro at 0600 GMT. Brazil's air force confirmed the disappearance.
An airport official told AFP the Airbus 330 had been expected to arrive in Paris at 1110 local time (0910 GMT).
Another official said it was possible that the plane had a transponder problem but this was very rare.
"We are very worried," he said, quoted by AFP news agency. "The plane disappeared from the screens several hours ago."
Flight AF 447 left Rio at 1900 local time (2200 GMT) on Sunday. It had 216 passengers and 12 crew on board.
Airport authorities have set up a crisis centre at Charles de Gaulle.
ETA text from BBC NewsParis Charles de Gaulle airport said contact was lost with the flight from Rio de Janeiro at 0600 GMT. Brazil's air force confirmed the disappearance.
An airport official told AFP the Airbus 330 had been expected to arrive in Paris at 1110 local time (0910 GMT).
Another official said it was possible that the plane had a transponder problem but this was very rare.
"We are very worried," he said, quoted by AFP news agency. "The plane disappeared from the screens several hours ago."
Flight AF 447 left Rio at 1900 local time (2200 GMT) on Sunday. It had 216 passengers and 12 crew on board.
Airport authorities have set up a crisis centre at Charles de Gaulle.
Edited by schmalex on Monday 1st June 11:23
According to one of my French speaking colleagues, the French media are reporting that the plane sent out an automated distress message after losing all electrical power following flying through an electrical storm.
Very curious, as if true, I would have thought that the plane had backup systems that backup backup systems etc.
Very curious, as if true, I would have thought that the plane had backup systems that backup backup systems etc.
Edited by schmalex on Monday 1st June 13:19
dan1981 said:
bumblebee said:
dan1981 said:
French source suggesting lightening strike?
I thought that was quite commonplace? (i may be wrong)
Not unusual. I've been struck 5 times in the past 10yrs. The worst damage has been a few melted rivet heads and some scorched paint on the fuselage. It can do more damge than that. I'd be more concerned about the Severe Turbulence near to the type of CBs you get with an active ITCZ. I thought that was quite commonplace? (i may be wrong)
I just hope to God they didn't have a Swissair 111 type situation to deal with.
"I'd be more concerned about the Severe Turbulence near to the type of CBs you get with an active ITCZ."
Cheers
It gets really f
king bouncy Severe Turbulence near to the type of Cumulonimbus (big fluffy clouds) cb you get near to an active Intertropical Convergence Zone (a big area just on the equator where High & Low pressure systems converge) ITCZI might be wrong though
Edited by schmalex on Monday 1st June 13:49
grumbledoak said:
wiffmaster said:
Just in case you hadn't realised, I know nothing of planes - so feel free to teach me to suck eggs...
Radar works in straight lines, and the horizon isn't that far away.Satellites get a better 'view', but you need quite a few of them, and it isn't a simple visual. Any communication is both ways, so if the systems stop talking, you lose 'sight' of them.
Let's hope he got it in the drink in one piece; at least that way there is some hope.
10 Pence Short said:
Eric Mc said:
Some data is sent from the aircraft to Airline Operations. This is a relatively new facility and still limited in the volume of data that can be sent.
You need to realise the distances involved in an incident like this. The aircraft was just north of Brazil and the only way such data could be transmitted to Paris would be via satellite. This immediately puts a limit on how much and how often data can be transmitted. I would also hazard a guess that the sheer volume of aircraft in the air (even Air France ones) and the limited number of available frequencies would limit the nature of data tramsmittable.
Hundreds of thousands of people use satellite internet and phones relaying far more bandwidth than you'd need to send and receive raw data from all the planes in the sky, I would have thought.You need to realise the distances involved in an incident like this. The aircraft was just north of Brazil and the only way such data could be transmitted to Paris would be via satellite. This immediately puts a limit on how much and how often data can be transmitted. I would also hazard a guess that the sheer volume of aircraft in the air (even Air France ones) and the limited number of available frequencies would limit the nature of data tramsmittable.
dan1981 said:
I don't think wer can imagine how terrifying.
The news reports are talking about 200km/h updrafts, and the turbul;ance associated with it.
To be suddenly woken up mid flight by the plane bein gthrown around to that extent is unless you have experienced it truely unimaginable.
IF this has been a massive strutural failure caused by the weather conditions, - imagine what it must have been like to see the plane breaking up around you.
Horrible.
As a relatively frequent flyer, that thought sends shivers down my spine.The news reports are talking about 200km/h updrafts, and the turbul;ance associated with it.
To be suddenly woken up mid flight by the plane bein gthrown around to that extent is unless you have experienced it truely unimaginable.
IF this has been a massive strutural failure caused by the weather conditions, - imagine what it must have been like to see the plane breaking up around you.
Horrible.
If indeed this was what happened, I truly hope for the passengers and crew, it happened very quickly. My thoughts are with them & their families.
Dunk76 said:
HSVGTSCoupe said:
Stuff
There's also the part about the airframe calling time on the whole affair - there's only so many Gs things can handle.One thing - Fly by Wire as in the Airbus interprets the control request, and operates the surface if it's within it's parameters. Subsonic aircraft have a control phenomenon which reverses the effect of the control surfaces as the speed of sound approaches. Literally, down becomes up on the controls.
If one was to push an Airbus into a long powered dive where Mach 1 is approached, how would the Fly By Wire computer interpret a request to dive further, or indeed a request to lower flaps to reduce airspeed?
ds on board suffered as little as possibleForgive me for being a little dumb, but if the wreckage that has been found is not from AF447. Where on earth is it?
Granted, the Atlantic is a big piece of water, but modern satellite technology renders it a fairly simple search. When the plane hit the water, a lot debris would float.
Granted, the Atlantic is a big piece of water, but modern satellite technology renders it a fairly simple search. When the plane hit the water, a lot debris would float.
There is also another angle of speculation regarding the tail fin. Apparently the tail fin of the crashed jet tangled with another AF plane in 2006. Now, obviously, it would have been subsequently checked for damage, but speculation suggests that there may have been failure of the potentially weakened composite in the tail fin due to the extreme bad weather the fligth encountered.
I guess, too slow & it'll stall. Too fast through the turbulence & it'll smash itself to bits
ETA. Within aerofoils, there is a action called "the Cutah (sp) effect". Essentilly, a foil is always cycling between a state of stall and attached flow. To make a foil work effectively, the flow needs to remain attached as long as possible & when it stalls, the flow needs to be re-attached as quickly as possible. This re-attachment can be achieved through speed or changing the parameters of a foil (twist, angle etc, etc). In an aircraft, if you start going too slowly for too long, you lose the window of opportunity to re-attach the flow to the foil, so end up in an in-controlable situation, as no matter how fast you then start going, you can't get the foil to work.
ETA. Within aerofoils, there is a action called "the Cutah (sp) effect". Essentilly, a foil is always cycling between a state of stall and attached flow. To make a foil work effectively, the flow needs to remain attached as long as possible & when it stalls, the flow needs to be re-attached as quickly as possible. This re-attachment can be achieved through speed or changing the parameters of a foil (twist, angle etc, etc). In an aircraft, if you start going too slowly for too long, you lose the window of opportunity to re-attach the flow to the foil, so end up in an in-controlable situation, as no matter how fast you then start going, you can't get the foil to work.
Edited by schmalex on Sunday 7th June 19:38
Edited by schmalex on Sunday 7th June 19:39
Fume troll said:
Vipers said:
Oh dear, from Google news, same aircraft as the AF one.
A mid-air fire forced an Australian budget airliner to make an emergency landing on a remote Pacific island Thursday, just days after 228 died in a mysterious accident involving the same type of plane. Skip related content
Jetstar's flight JQ20 was about four hours into its journey from Osaka to the Gold Coast when the blaze broke out in the cockpit, prompting the captain to douse the flames with a fire extinguisher before diverting to Guam.
Nobody was hurt among the 203 mainly Japanese passengers and crew on board the Airbus A330-200, the same model as the Air France plane that went down over the Atlantic on June 1.
Weird, there was one yesterday too, different aircraft though I think.A mid-air fire forced an Australian budget airliner to make an emergency landing on a remote Pacific island Thursday, just days after 228 died in a mysterious accident involving the same type of plane. Skip related content
Jetstar's flight JQ20 was about four hours into its journey from Osaka to the Gold Coast when the blaze broke out in the cockpit, prompting the captain to douse the flames with a fire extinguisher before diverting to Guam.
Nobody was hurt among the 203 mainly Japanese passengers and crew on board the Airbus A330-200, the same model as the Air France plane that went down over the Atlantic on June 1.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM...
Cheers,
FT.
Mojocvh said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8177530.stm
Now the money question has to be why AF selected the Thales probes over the Goodrich ones?
This accident has French arrogance stamped all over it.
sounds like the normal French nepotismNow the money question has to be why AF selected the Thales probes over the Goodrich ones?
This accident has French arrogance stamped all over it.
Invisible man said:
schmalex said:
Mojocvh said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8177530.stm
Now the money question has to be why AF selected the Thales probes over the Goodrich ones?
This accident has French arrogance stamped all over it.
sounds like the normal French nepotismNow the money question has to be why AF selected the Thales probes over the Goodrich ones?
This accident has French arrogance stamped all over it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff