Even the drive-by media isn't speculating on this one.

I'd bet the guys at Air Force Space Command know where that airplane was. I bet they had it on one of their radar satellites. What a lousy thing to happen.

How much weather and especially lightning is too much in a software controlled airplane...??

It's been a bad year to date, just when you think it couldn't get any worse another disaster happens, makes me wonder where were going as an industry...
Here's my opinion and I am anxious to hear what the other guys are thinking, too.

The reported electrical malfunction downgraded the weather radar display and they hit some seriously awful weather. Intense hail, heavy++ rain, severe turbulence and both engines flamed out. Maybe a crew change was in progress, one pilot strapped into his seat and the other guys are swapping out at the same time they hit the weather. the airplane loses power, the auto flight system fails and in a blink they are in a very tight spot.
The one pilot show is getting seriously stressed, the other pilots are casualities at this point. Severe turbelence kills people even when they are strapped down. In my scenario they were standing in the back of the cockpit when the shit hit the fan.

Macifej, to answer your question lightening strikes have caused system malfunctions. Not saying it couldn't happen but I have never heard of a hull loss associated to a lightening strike.
In regards to Boeing ETOPS aircraft if the AC electrical system goes completely TU like in the event of a dual engine flameout a RAT (Ram Air Turbine) is deployed and it will power electrical busses and hydraulics that have essential systems. Flight controls, fuel pumps and valves, engine ignition systems, primary flight displays, etc..
In the event that occurred the RAT would allow you to start your auxilary power unit, get an engine running and hopefully get some more flight instrument displays powered up. At high altitude it can take several minutes to get an engine running.
A big jet has a pretty good gide ratio and you have ample time to get your ducks lined up in "normal" circumstances.
Air France is a good line and I am shocked to hear the grim reaper sowed those poor guys. It goes to show you how dangerous an environment those big oceans can be.

I'm guessing big hail will shred a turbine especially if there's a lot of it. Seems to me I'd be most concerned about the loss of pressure and heat if no power. Was on a 777-200 over Greenland in winter and the outside temp was something like - 115 F. No overcoming that - you're freeze dried in a few seconds. Can you dump enough fuel (mid ocean - range?) to climb over that kind of weather? What's the don't give a shit about the rules service ceiling on those whales ...??

At heavy weights a 777 will drift down from 35000 to let's say 21000 in about 25-30 minutes without dumping any fuel, thats with a maximum continuous power setting on the good engine. That would keep you clear of the terrain over Greenland. Practically speaking you aren't going to be able to climb over any weather.
The leading edges of the fan blades on the GE engines on the 777 are sheathed in titanium and will really take abuse. Heavy hail will beat the crap out of an engine nacelles and wings but the turbines seem to survive the encounter with hail. It's the volume of water or foriegn object debris like birds or volcanic ash that damage turbine blades and puts the fire out.
The outflow valves close as the pessure controller attempts to maintain cabin altitude. The pressurization controllers are on the essential electrical busses I mentioned. Newer airplanes do a pretty good job of maintaining cabin pressure without much effort. One engine will handle it. Older airplanes not so, it's a common practice to leave a little power up on older jets in a descent just to maintain a comfortable cabin pressure. Lots of leaks in old airplanes, door seals, windows, vent and drain tubes for lavs and galleys. I have even spotted bullet holes.
The maximum altitude on the 777 is 43,100 feet. Practically speaking you aren't going up there in less you are very light weight.
The published maximum altitudes are damn close to maximum, maybe even stretching it in alot of instances.

Did the old birds (727, DC-10, L-1011) fly higher? I have this vague recollection of flying faster & higher waaaay back in the day. Fuel was cheap then.

M,
I should have mentioned you are spot on about the loss of pressure. At high altitude you are in a powerful vacuum that wants to suck the pressure out of a vessel. I have never experienced a rapid loss of cabin pressure at altitude but I have heard accounts and it is serious business.

The 727's would go to 43000 too, and you're right they could really whistle. I haven't flown any transports other than Boeing so can't say what the 10 or 1011 would do. The old Convair 990 that Delta had were the fastest. The 747 is still the KING of the sky. It's the safest, fastest most comfortable airplane. What a grand machine.
The new bizjets like the citation X and the new Lears, Gulfstreams are the high flyers. FL 510 at .90 mach.
Back in the day Fuel was cheap and there wasn't as much traffic in your way if you wanted to go fast.

I was discussing the magic FL 510 number with another pilot and not sure why that's the max certified ceiling for everyone. Is there some "turn into a pumpkin" phenomeneon if you go higher ...?? The upcoming G650 is pretty amazing .... the things money will buy ...

OK, guys, I’m flying on memory here and it was 40+ years ago so be gentle, be gentle. We had a CV880 about 100 miles out of ATL back in the late 60's that had a lightning strike, as I recall penetrated the skin, etc - but most importantly, it lost all electrical power – period, I mean everything was gone, fried, TU. Now the CV880 flew with the old CJ-805 engines and they continued to spin, controls were manual, push rods and cables, honest to God connections between the guy in the left seat and the rudder, ailerons, etc. So, he lined her up and flew her in for a successful landing with no communications, nothing.
Now, let’s put the same scenario in place with the B757/767 or the A330 on ETOPS ops – no power, nothing moves, right? RAT doesn’t deploy if it’s fried, correct? Do the CF-6 [-80’s on the A330?] engines continue to spin without continuous ignition?
Yes, I am assuming ‘worst case’ here but we have an A/C with 228 souls aboard GONE! And the pilot has [had] no direct connection with anything, just a joystick connected to the computer which then told the control surfaces what to do and when to do it – if ‘it’ did not disagree with the pilot’s commands! The B747 was the first A/C I am familiar with that had INS and while it was a great thing, in the event it flamed, the pilot could and did still fly the plane.
We were totally out of the Airbus business until the merge and now we have them back. Maybe it is just me but they sure do seem to be a left handed piece of work.

Reminds me of asking about how an electic drill worked when I was a kid after one quit after a shower of sparks and smoke--
The old man said " it runs on trapped smoke""
Huh??
"Yup, ya see boy, when the smoke gets out, it won't run no more"

I know I am approaching fossil status but--I have never liked the Fly by Wire (or now even optical fiber ) idea.

I understand --lighter,may be cheaper, maybe more efficient---but--electron eating Gremilins have always been one of my least favorite things about aircraft.

Its not that hydraulics and cables don't fail, like I said --a near fossil's comfort level with the smoke getting out.

Apprently they have found a debris field/drift about 400 miles off Brazilian coast.

While the passenger list on this flight was majority Brasilian, then French, there was a total of 33 nationalities including 6 Americans on the flight. It is of course Air France's worst accident since the airline was founded, and the first time an A330 has had an accident on a commercial flight.

Has a bomb aboard been ruled out?

Nothing has been ruled out and really can't be until and unless they find the wreckage which is highly doubtful IMO, but, the auto message which indicated there was an electrical problem, combined with the weather conditions, would tend to rule out the bomb possibility.

The Inter Tropic Convergence Zone is a nasty place. The thunderstorms are absolutely remarkable.

As usual, I'm sure it was a combination of multiple problems, but the pressurization loss is indicative of some catastrophic events about to occur or that have just occured.

I'm riding back from AMS on one of those NWA 330's in August, and I am not looking forward to it.

I'm a Boeing and Lockheed pilot and I have never agreed with Airbus's design philosiphy, and never will.

Here is a good analysis of AF 447.
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:

I'm a Boeing and Lockheed pilot and I have never agreed with Airbus's design philosiphy, and never will.

One of my Buddies changed job's for that reason--" If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goin"
he said-- he's much happier now.

Since the topic has become a Boeing/Airbus chat, I'll chime in... flying on all Boeing 747's and 737's to Zim in September and couldnt be happier about it!

Regardless of equip on Air Frances loss, its a damn shame for all involved/effected. I wish them the best in this tough time.

Seems there's more to the story ...

http://www.time.com/time/world...8599,1902421,00.html

As time goes by I see less and less reason to feel safe boarding any aircraft flown by a french programmed computer.

AD

Damn, just another reason to fly American metal......

When I first upgraded to the left seat on the 747, naturally I was at the bottom of the seniority list. Southern had a contract flying flowers out of Bogota. Aside from the Andes and the lousy ATC in Colombia, heading out across the Caribbean at night and looking at the lightning activity that always marked the ITC always made my stomach rumble, because I knew we very well might be in for an ass kicking. We spent many a night going and coming, threading our way through those big CB's. It was never a casual experience.

Say the computer got a spike and commanded a descent when the aircraft was in the tops, perhaps in an updraft. There is no way that airplane would hold together.

Would the captain be hand flying the airplane? That isn't Airbus's design philosophy, or is it? Maybe an Airbus driver can chime in here.

I'm not being suppositional here, just thinking about what that crew was dealing with and wondering what happened. May all aboard RIP.

None of em are built like A-10's that's for sure. You can watch the videos of wing deflection testing. Imagine it wouldn't take all that much relatively to break one up especially if it was heavy going into extreme weather.

quote:

Originally posted by Vemo:
The 727's would go to 43000 too, and you're right they could really whistle. I haven't flown any transports other than Boeing so can't say what the 10 or 1011 would do. The old Convair 990 that Delta had were the fastest. The 747 is still the KING of the sky. It's the safest, fastest most comfortable airplane. What a grand machine.
The new bizjets like the citation X and the new Lears, Gulfstreams are the high flyers. FL 510 at .90 mach.
Back in the day Fuel was cheap and there wasn't as much traffic in your way if you wanted to go fast.

Minor correction here - Delta never flew the CV990 but had the CV880. I believe DL had six of the CV990 slotted but never exercised the option to buy them. Same story, pilots had to be careful with this one or she would go into plus mach numbers - happened several times. The combination of that airframe and the CJ805 engine has not yet been equaled for speed in a commercial A/C - I believe the CV880 still holds some p-t-p speed records - but oh, how they loved kerosene. Always joked about the DC-9 being able to run in the slipstream of the CV880 sucking up fumes!
Different time, different A/C - And don't think I don't miss them, especially the DC-8, the best damn A/C ever built!

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
When I first upgraded to the left seat on the 747, naturally I was at the bottom of the seniority list. Southern had a contract flying flowers out of Bogota. Aside from the Andes and the lousy ATC in Colombia, heading out across the Caribbean at night and looking at the lightning activity that always marked the ITC always made my stomach rumble, because I knew we very well might be in for an ass kicking. We spent many a night going and coming, threading our way through those big CB's. It was never a casual experience.

Say the computer got a spike and commanded a descent when the aircraft was in the tops, perhaps in an updraft. There is no way that airplane would hold together.

Would the captain be hand flying the airplane? That isn't Airbus's design philosophy, or is it? Maybe an Airbus driver can chime in here.

I'm not being suppositional here, just thinking about what that crew was dealing with and wondering what happened. May all aboard RIP.

Used to fly Miami to deep south America in the 777 and of course all over Asia and from the west coast to down under. The ITC and I are familiar with each other. And I've taken a few ass kickings enroute.

The buss can be hand flown like any other airplane. However if he did have some kind of a big electrical/flight control problem the autopilot would have kicked off automatically.

Without trying to bore you the bus has multiple flt control modes. If you were to get in an unusual attitude the flight controls revert to a direct mode or a recovery mode if you will which makes the controls move in direct proportion to the stick. HOWEVER (I hope you are listening you airbus design ASSHOLES!)All of this shit needs electricity to work. So if in fact this buss had some kind of a major electricity problem in conjunction with a major turbulence upset concurrently. Well it's tough to say what might have happened.

I've said it before and I'll say it again even though it tends to piss off some you guys who are bus babies. The A-320 is the ONLY airplane that I've ever flown where it isn't uncommon to hit the control stops in multiple direction during a gusty crosswind landing within 50 feet of the ground. And the airplane just kind of wallows around and does what it wants. The flight control system was designed by a bunch of no flying pocket protector wearing engineers. I can't believe that the bus was even certified in the US in some regards.I doubt it would have been if it hadn't been for the international politics involved.

After you've been flying the bus for a while you learn to pick up your wing with rudder as the rudder is the only control that is manual and direct and the only one that works fast enough in gusty situation close to the ground.

At my airline we just had a bus go completely dark right at rotation. It had an essential ac buss feed failure. They lost EVERYTHING including the standby instrument which are supposed to be on a separate battery and last for 25 minutes (yes 25 not 30 on the bus!)the standby gyro tumbled after 5 minutes. Lucky for them it was VMC outside and they were able to manually lower the gear and come back in and land.

There is a button called the AC essential line feed that will give you back some electricity in this case. But it isn't covered in any check list and oh by the way the ECAM was out of service with the electricity loss. And even if it was working it doesn't come up on the ECAM you've just got to guess and start stabbing at buttons.

Imagine if that would have happened to you on a dark and stormy night in the tops of a cell. My guess is that you'd be dead.

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
None of em are built like A-10's that's for sure. You can watch the videos of wing deflection testing. Imagine it wouldn't take all that much relatively to break one up especially if it was heavy going into extreme weather.

No they are not built like an A-10 but they do not come apart easily either. If the wing does what it was designed to do taking out fatigue or metal flaws the PAX would all be dead or at least severely mangled from G-forces before a wing or a tail broke off in turbulence.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
None of em are built like A-10's that's for sure. You can watch the videos of wing deflection testing. Imagine it wouldn't take all that much relatively to break one up especially if it was heavy going into extreme weather.

No they are not built like an A-10 but they do not come apart easily either. If the wing does what it was designed to do taking out fatigue or metal flaws the PAX would all be dead or at least severely mangled from G-forces before a wing or a tail broke off in turbulence.

Good point ...

I don't know surestrike, that AA tail over Queens came off pretty handily.

Airbus has scared me for a loooong time but the more I read about the way they work the less I wanna get on one. Think I may go back to Lufthansa 747's on the LAX - FRA leg.

I don't pretend to know what happened here, know one really knows. All I can add is that for all of my flying Career such as it is, when there are Thunderstorms, I like to be someplace else. You play that game long enough and it don't matter a wit what airplane you are flying its going to bit you and its going to be ugly. Its going to be tough to determine what happened since the airplane or what is left of it, is in the Ocean. And its deep water out there to boot.

quote:

Originally posted by Vemo:
I don't know surestrike, that AA tail over Queens came off pretty handily.

Commanded rudder movement that ran the rudder to the stops in both directions

Airbus' "fix" was to tell all pilots
"Don't do that!"

AD

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:

quote:

Originally posted by Vemo:
I don't know surestrike, that AA tail over Queens came off pretty handily.

Commanded rudder movement that ran the rudder to the stops in both directions

Airbus' "fix" was to tell all pilots
"Don't do that!"

AD

F4 Phantom roll & recovery technique. Not a so good in a the Airbus.

Quite some time ago our brother Jorge posted a warning concerning Airbus design imperfections. I felt Jorge was more than qualified to voice his opinions, and I took heed. Flight AF447 was a favorite flight - as a professor and consultant I fly a lot - but since I read Jorge's comments my philosophy became "No Boeing? No going!".
Antonio

The automatic message sending unit on the plane showed that it had seen 100 mph updrafts !! That ought to start breaking things !
Here's some recent info -possible stall http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...e/article6430398.ece

quote:

Originally posted by Vemo:
Here is a good analysis of AF 447.
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

Nice Graphics, esp the side-on vertical views.

So, since when don't you "run and hide" from radar images like these?

When you have a hot date waiting for you in Paris, or maybe when lightening takes out your weather radar, when the capt is taking a nap and the less experienced FO is in charge, when you foolishly believe the Airbus adverts on how good there equipment is...

POS airplane. I will bet the computers sent it into a dive and ripped its wings off. Humans come equiped with the best computer we know, why do engineers keep trying to downgrade it.
It's like we have a Cray supercomputer for free and someone keeps trying to tell us the 286 is better. I think I will fly Boeing from now on.

I heard they are back to square one when it comes to finding any remains of the aircraft. It seems the debris that was spotted doesn't come from an aircraft and they don't have any other debris evidence.

someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression of AirBus aircraft control systems is that they are prone to a "Star Trek-ism"...

"Captain, manual controls are offline!"

a phrase that seemed to me to be enough of an oxymoron to justify giggling like a schoolgirl
any time some hack actor utters those lines with their best serious concern tone of voice.

But a very real possibility with airbus design philosophy...

Silly me, but I though "pure" hydraulic controls were enough like suicide already...

Granted steel cables are not idiot proof...
(I recall an incident with a Beech 1900)

AD

Pure hydraulic systems are about as reliable as hammers more so in aircraft that aren't being shot at. Anyone ever hear of an actuator failure that caused a control surface to fail? It's all software the BS attached to them that create problems assuming basic maintenance procedures are followed. Alaska Air 261.