That may end up exonerating AA587's pilots; 961 was flying straight and level and had no turbulence - the rudder suddenly started traversing back and forth on its own and then came off.
Posted on 06/01/2009 3:50:07 AM PDT by rdl6989
(CNN) -- A French passenger aircraft carrying 228 people has disappeared off the coast of Brazil, airline officials say. A file photo shows an Air France jet on take off. Some 228 passengers are aboard the missing aircraft.
A file photo shows an Air France jet on take off. Some 228 passengers are aboard the missing aircraft.
Air France told CNN the jet was traveling from Rio de Janeiro to Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris when contact was lost.
The airline said flight AF447 was carrying 216 passengers in addition to a crew of 12. The plane is listed as an Airbus A330.
State radio reported a crisis center was being set up at Charles de Gaulle where the plane had been due to land at 11.15 a.m. local time.
Reports said an air force search and rescue operation was underway around the Brazilian island of Fernando de Noronha, 365 kilometers (226 miles) off the mainland.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I have a hard time understanding why this airplane would fly in to any thunderstorm during a flight where you probaby have 1000 miles of open airspace in any direction.
Fly around the darn thing.
I have been on probably 30 trans-atlantic flights and never got anywhere near a storm.
No, the ELT signal wouldn’t penetrate the water. The only hope for that would be if that part of the fuselage (normally in the tail section) stayed together long enough to float and transmit a signal. Another possibility would be that an ELT in one of the life rafts stayed afloat long enough to transmit an ELT signal to the COMSAT.
Regardless, searchers seem to have it’s probable downed location narrowed down fairly well based upon it last verbal HF communication and its last datalink transmission.
Providing the pilots didn’t veer too much off the planned flight path while doing thunderstorm avoidance before or after the first incident, SAR forces should have a good search grid...
According to an article just released on FoxNews, the crew reported severe electrical problems, leading the President of Air France to speculate that the airliner might have been struck by lightning, as it was flying through a thunderstorm at the time.
Thank God you are safe.
>>> Fly around the darn thing.
The longest CONFIRMED distance of a lightning strike is 93 miles from it’s originating thunderstorm. Unconfirmed — 400 miles.
I’ve been 2 miles ABOVE the tops of a t-storm I’ve positively painted with onboard radar, in CLEAR air at night (stars visible), and still got severe turbulence over the Indian Ocean, in a DC-10, that nearly crippled the aircraft.
You don’t have to be very near dense, moist, electrically-charged oceanic air to totally screw up your day.
LOL!
>>I’ve been 2 miles ABOVE the tops of a t-storm I’ve positively painted with onboard radar, in CLEAR air at night (stars visible), and still got severe turbulence over the Indian Ocean, in a DC-10, that nearly crippled the aircraft.
Due to your experience, is it possible that the airplane was struck by lightning on the nose and temporarily blinding the crew while in severe turbulence? I have heard this has happened before. Please offer your thoughts.
Wow, thank God you are okay! He must have some special plans for you. :-)
Blog says the plane was grounded for 4 days in March due to electrical problems:
http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2009/03/air-france-airbus-a330-grounded-at.html
I have settled on Southwest as my carrier of choice.
All Boeing 737’s.
That may end up exonerating AA587's pilots; 961 was flying straight and level and had no turbulence - the rudder suddenly started traversing back and forth on its own and then came off.
“That’s why I fly Boeing exclusively. Between parts always seeming to fall off Airbuses in just a bit of adverse conditions, landing gears twisting and locking sideways, and the general socialist tendencies of the company, I’ll stick to all-American safety, tyvm.”
Boeings have had parts fall off.
Boeings have had uncommanded thrust reverser deployments.
Boeings have had landing gear failures.
Boeing’s union is headed by a flaming communist 0bama supporter.
And Boeing has had far more fatal crashes than all other aircraft manufacturers combined.
So what was your point?
“Right... why no verbal message....if there was an electrical short you would think the pilot would communicate this. Unless the short some how ceased all communications... I have no idea.”
If a short ceased all communications it would have ceased the automated ones too.
“I know what you mean. I myself just hate it when engines detach from their pods and fall off into the ocean, together with a blown fuselage door and decompression at 35000 ft and a fire in the cockpit.. It’s difficult to focus on the movie.”
Or the roof comes off mid flight.
Wow.
There’s one thing we need to consider: if a bomb went off on AF 447, we would see a substantial debris field floating on the ocean and spread over many square kilometers of ocean surface from the remains of the plane as it disintegrated after the bomb explosion. The fact we haven’t seen such a debris field makes me wonder did the plane crash in to the ocean almost intact, which indicates more a mechanical failure.
So the fact that they were able to fly as far as they did and had as much control as they did was nothing short of a miracle. They were literally writing the manual as they were flying.
Wish I had that choice. The last three legs I flew were Embraer, Airbus, SAAB.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.