Fears for 228 as Air France jet vanishes

CNN ^ | June 1, 2009

[mewzilla]

Anyone know if authorities have ruled out hijacking?

[TChris]

Where did it fire from? A rowboat out in the middle of an Atlantic storm?

Hey, I'm just adding to the list of possibilities that fit the computer-generated error messages.

[TChris]

Anyone know if authorities have ruled out hijacking?

Yes, I believe they have.

[The KG9 Kid]

I think you can probably rule that one out.

[Zathras]

Yep, looks dead center of the storm on posting #42.

[mewzilla]

Did they say how they came to that conclusion? Just curious.

[choirboy]

Do you work for the MSM?

LOL

[mewzilla]

Gourgeon said that military planes had narrowed down their search area to a zone of a few dozen nautical miles half-way between Brazil and west Africa.

When/where was the last time/place the crew radioed in, anyone heard?

[Texas4ever]

and you need a job...or some sort of significance.

[tc45a]

Yeah I just heard this as well. Strange reports and also hears a Fox News report that makes it sound like this plane vanished into thin air!

LOST!! Hope we hear again from the Air France 6.

[tc45a]

So, what are the pilot's names?

John Locke and Benjamin Linus.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I haven’t seen any official explanation for how hijacking was ruled out, but presumably based on the text messages that a few passengers reportedly got out, which sounded like concern over the storm, the last report from the pilots which mentioned the storm, and the fact that there was no communication at all from the pilots before or after the automated messages from the aircraft’s computers reporting the electrical system failures and loss of cabin pressure, and no communication from any hijackers. Note that “ruled out hijacking” is not the same as “ruled out terrorism”. I don’t think any official or off-the-record-official or aviation expert is on the record as saying a bomb can be ruled out at this point. But blowing up a plane without warning isn’t hijacking.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The flight took off from Rio de Janeiro at 7:30 p.m. local time (6:30 Eastern time), and its last verbal communication with air traffic control was three hours later, at 10:33 p.m., according to a statement from the Aeronautica, the agency in charge of Brazilian air space. . . . About a half-hour after the radio call, the plane encountered an electrical storm with “very heavy turbulence,” said an Air France spokeswoman in Paris, Brigitte Barrand. The last communication from the plane was 14 minutes later — a series of automatic messages http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/world/europe/02plane.html?bl&ex=1244001600&en=41c84257b053c1ca&ei=5087%0A

[PhilosopherStones]

Interesting tidbits from Le Figaro, France’s “conservative” newspaper:

Sarkozy: “We don’t rule out any hypothesis.”

But just below that:

21h26 : La gendarmerie chargée de l’enquête. La section de recherche de la gendarmerie des transports aériens a été chargée ce soir de l’enquête sur la disparition de l’Airbus A330 d’Air France. Comme il s’agit à priori d’un acccident, c’est le tribunal de Bobigny qui a hérité de la compétence dans cette affaire, comme c’est l’habitude en cas d’accident aérien concernant l’aéroport de Roissy, où l’avion devait se poser, a ainsi indiqué le parquet. Si l’affaire avait eu une origine terroriste, c’est le parquet de Paris qui aurait été saisi.

Rapid translation:
Gendarmerie will investigate. The research section of the air transportation Gendarmerie has been chosen tonight to head up the investigation of the disappearance of Air France’s Airbus 330. Because it looks at first glance like an accident, the court of Bobigny has jurisdiction which is standard procedure for an aircraft which was to land at Roissey as this one was, according to the Justice Ministry.

If it had been a terrorist act which caused the disappearance, it would have been the court in Paris which would have had jurisdication.

So looks for the moment like the French are treating this like an accident despite what Sarkozy said.

[Stolly]

Given that Boeing has entirely embraced “that Airbus FBW crap” in the 787 and 777 i fear you may soon be reduced to taking the bus.

We don’t know if the design of the aircraft had anything to do with this tragedy.

[rabidralph]

A brand new jet like that, falling out of the sky. Unbelievable.

[Wiseghy]

I doubt that a UHF ELT signal on the bottom would be able to penetrate to the surface, unless you were right over it.

However, it would make sense if an ELT had a float attached, like marine EPIRBs. If so, it seems like it would be pretty easy to locate.

[Wiseghy]

“electrical failure and a loss of cabin pressure.”

Not to alarm anyone, but an automessage showing both at the same time could indicate a number of different problems, including explosion, no?

[rdl6989]

If it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going.

Agreed. I have flown on an A320 and I wonder how much difference there is.

[wolf78]

Given that Boeing has entirely embraced “that Airbus FBW crap” in the 787 and 777 i fear you may soon be reduced to taking the bus.

Correct. Fly-by-Wire is state of the art: it's lighter and due to 4-fold redundancy at least as safe as the conventional alternative (mechanics / hydraulics can fail, too). Boeing is even going a bit further as basically all the systems on the 787 are electrical, so the engines can be bleedless.

I hate that Airbus “fly by wire” crap, where the computer automatically overrides anything a pilot tries to do. In adverse conditions, it limits the amount of adjustment that a human being with “touch and feel” can achieve. and then when you have something like a “complete electrical failure” (i.e. the thing that’s driving the “fly by wire” computer in the first place), well...you’re a goner.

You are confusing FBW (fly-by-wire) with FEP (flight envelope protection) which is usually enabled to prevent mistakes like stalling or exceeding structural limits. In the case of Boeing you can override it by using brute force on the controls, in the case of Airbus you can can reprogram the FEP control laws to fly beyond envelope limits. However, flying outside evelope limits can f*ck up your plane quite a bit:



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.

ROFL. That is pure opinion not supported by facts. Yes, there has been the American Airlines A300 incident where the rudder came off (due to wrong operating procedures: basically the AA manual said "just wiggle yourself out of wake turbulence" and the Airbus manual said "never ever do this, it's beyond the structural limits"), but there has also been the DHL A300 that landed safely after being hit by a missile. For Boeing mishaps, click on the picture. All in all, there's not much difference between Boeing and Airbus. And above all, there's no such thing as an "all-american" aircraft. Modern Boeings wouldn't have wings without Japanese suppliers. On the other hand, there are a lot of US American components on any given Airbus, especially when they use GE / P&W engines.