They found part of the black box, although it sounds like it's not the part with any information.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13218021
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Air France plane lost over Atlantic
- Thread starter arkitect
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm fascinated by this disaster, still hasy on what caused the crash. My theory is the electrical power failed which led to flying in complete darkness until the inevitable happened.
But to be honest, this only accentuates the fact that flying at night is far more dangerous, as if there is a mechanical failure leading you to believe the planes altitude is higher than it really is the pilots can't tell otherwise. I always go for the early morning flight personally, so for the most part it is a day flight. Considerably more wise.
But to be honest, this only accentuates the fact that flying at night is far more dangerous, as if there is a mechanical failure leading you to believe the planes altitude is higher than it really is the pilots can't tell otherwise. I always go for the early morning flight personally, so for the most part it is a day flight. Considerably more wise.
Last edited:
Assuming the pilots and crew actually got a full nights sleep and a rested and alert (which is never the case for me when I take early morning flights).
I'm always amazed that I got myself to the airport.
I couldn't imagine being awake and alert enough to safely fly a huge airplane that early!
I remember watching a TV show series that reenacted major airline accidents. One flight from Canada to Europe ran out of fuel (to a leak) over the Atlantic. The engines shut down, and all electrical power was lost. This particular big plane (an Airbus 330-243, .. the Air France was an Airbus 330-203) had a little propeller that could be lowered down that spun around and generated enough electrical to control enough systems to glide it to a safe landing in the Azores.
Assuming the pilots and crew actually got a full nights sleep and a rested and alert (which is never the case for me when I take early morning flights).
I'm always amazed that I got myself to the airport.
I couldn't imagine being awake and alert enough to safely fly a huge airplane that early!
I remember watching a TV show series that reenacted major airline accidents. One flight from Canada to Europe ran out of fuel (to a leak) over the Atlantic. The engines shut down, and all electrical power was lost. This particular big plane (an Airbus 330-243, .. the Air France was an Airbus 330-203) had a little propeller that could be lowered down that spun around and generated enough electrical to control enough systems to glide it to a safe landing in the Azores.
That won the record for the longest glide.
The pilot was by nature, a gliding pilot.
Air Crash Investigation is interesting. Nat Geo.
Absolutely, @ rovex have you never heard of altimeters?
Guess what? I couldn't give a crap if I was wrong, I never said I was right. On the other hand, your insightful replies leave much room for improvement.
Assuming the pilots and crew actually got a full nights sleep and a rested and alert (which is never the case for me when I take early morning flights).
I'm always amazed that I got myself to the airport.
I couldn't imagine being awake and alert enough to safely fly a huge airplane that early!
I remember watching a TV show series that reenacted major airline accidents. One flight from Canada to Europe ran out of fuel (to a leak) over the Atlantic. The engines shut down, and all electrical power was lost. This particular big plane (an Airbus 330-243, .. the Air France was an Airbus 330-203) had a little propeller that could be lowered down that spun around and generated enough electrical to control enough systems to glide it to a safe landing in the Azores.
They have different pilots on different shifts, tiredness shouldn't be an issue if that's the case.
They've now found the 2nd box, both in good condition too. I suppose we'll find out in a couple of weeks.
I think the Gimli Glider (767 in Canada) was the pilot who also did gliding.
The Azores landing was the longest glide (apart from the Space Shuttle) and was done by a pilot with no gliding experience!
I think the Gimli Glider (767 in Canada) was the pilot who also did gliding.
The Azores landing was the longest glide (apart from the Space Shuttle) and was done by a pilot with no gliding experience!
All pilots have gliding experience during the course of their training. Not necessarily in a glider, but gliding nonetheless. It's not difficult, just set best glide speed (L/Dmax) and find a decent spot to land the airplane.
I'm very interested in what the recorders have to say. The memory, which is solid state on this Honeywell unit, should be intact. The units should be able to withstand pressure at 13,000ft indefinitely. Corrosion isn't a problem until you bring the unit up to the surface and expose it to air, but assuming the internals of the memory spheres weren't compromised that shouldn't be a problem.
Also, some amusing theories in this thread. Love the enthusiasm
I'm very interested in what the recorders have to say. The memory, which is solid state on this Honeywell unit, should be intact. The units should be able to withstand pressure at 13,000ft indefinitely. Corrosion isn't a problem until you bring the unit up to the surface and expose it to air, but assuming the internals of the memory spheres weren't compromised that shouldn't be a problem.
Also, some amusing theories in this thread. Love the enthusiasm
If I recall correctly, no cockpit voice recorder has ever been exposed to conditions this harsh for this long; the combination of pressure, low temperature and salt water is not conducive to preservation of electronic components. Apparently the voice recorder was in decent physical condition, so hopefully the data has survived.
I'm relatively certain that you're correct in that no recovered recorder has been exposed to elements like this for as long as they have however, with the more modern recorders (such as the ones in this aircraft) the memory units themselves are self contained and fairly indestructible. It seems as though the impact forces would have been relatively light from what they've determined so far (that the airplane basically belly flopped with little horizontal velocity). So I remain hopeful. Pressure and salt water are some of the more benign forces the recorders can endure.
The data from the CVR and FDR have been successfully downloaded. Gotta love hardened solid state.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...line=BEA Downloads AF447 Recorder Information
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...line=BEA Downloads AF447 Recorder Information
Now if we could get the planes up to speed and make them just as indestructible.....
Glad to see they were able to still pull information off the "black box".
We could, except they'd turn out so heavy that they would have to be ridiculously large just to fly (which would make them more heavy, and so on), and probably have to be powered by nuclear reactors or some sort of exotic propulsion system still yet to be invented or still secret.
The real problem is making the passengers indestructible. It's just like old cars. They could take a pounding, but they would just transfer all of that energy to the occupants, and our squishy bodies don't appreciate that
It's ironic this incident occured to a French company situated in France just like the makers of the planes are situated in France. You would of thought those planes would be well inspected.
It's astonishing how Quantas have been able to avoid any major fatalities when you take into consideration all the long haul flights travelling to the other side of the Earth and how far away it is from the plane manufacturers.
It's astonishing how Quantas have been able to avoid any major fatalities when you take into consideration all the long haul flights travelling to the other side of the Earth and how far away it is from the plane manufacturers.
Distance from the aircraft manufacturer doesn't have anything to do with anything really. Airlines run their own maintenance programs (some may contract them out but they still run them). Airlines must comply with the regulations of the flight governing body for their country (such as the FAA and JAA, etc.).
Also, Qantas has been very very lucky at times and over the past few years has had a number of incidents bringing into question the quality of their maintenance program.
Personally, as a pilot with some training on the type, I am not a fan of Airbus aircraft for a number of reasons. And I have my suspicions as to what may have happened. However, I will remain reserved until the complete picture comes out.
What don't you like with Airbus aircrafts? I think the location of the manufacturers is important, in theory communication would be easier and issues can be raised and resolved sooner with the manufacturers nearby.
The real concern I have is that, personally I dislike the fly by wire system on the Airbus. I feel it takes too much direct control away from the pilot. For example, with the Airbus fly by wire system in normal law when you move the sidestick you are not actually commanding the flight control surfaces to deflect, you are commanding a change in load to the flight computer, and the computer figures out how to move the control surfaces. This differs from the approach of Boeing with their airplanes that utilize fly by wire where you still basically command the control surfaces to move directly through the yoke. It is possible to directly control the flight control surfaces of an Airbus in direct law, however that is the third level of redundancy built into the system and is designed to hopefully never be used (if it is, you're having a bad day).
Don't get me wrong, the Airbus a very nice airplane to fly most of the time. Very very easy. The thing has auto trim and all kinds of other helpful things. On a normal day these systems work fine, it's on a not normal day or not normal situation that I get concerned. I do not want a computer system sitting between what I want the airplane to do and what the airplane actually does especially when that computer system has the capacity to override the pilot. Boeing believes (correctly in my opinion) that the pilot should always have the final say, and as such can always override anything regarding the fly by wire. Airbus believes the opposite.
There are valid points made for and against the Airbus philosophy, you can see where I stand.
I don't like it when machines try to out think me. Same reason I will only ever own a car with a manual transmission.
Hope that answers your question.
Isn't the fly by wire system used to prevent a terrorist for example from changing the course of the plane? Sounds like a good security measure if you ask me.