Air France 447 Rio-Paris missing over Atlantic

[Guest davelfc]

Look at the date. Look at the flight status...they've clearly not updated it.

 

2 June (today)

 

Your point?

[philyhamann]

Look at the date. Look at the flight status...they've clearly not updated it.

 

Or maybe it did land and there is something dodgy going on.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

When a plane crashes, 85% of the time it is either at take off or whilst landing. This is why you don't see flights saying "DELAYED" very often. In situations like this, and famously the TWA Flight 800 that blew up over Long Island in July 1996, they will just say "DELAYED" until the bare facts have been established. If I sound sad that's probably because I am, plane crashes have fascinated me since I was 8.

 

I feel particularly sorry for 447's passengers. As has been mentioned, they were literally in the middle of nowhere. I remain open minded about the cause of the crash personally because lightning shouldn't bring any plane down, let alone an airbus. It is one of the most advanced planes flying today. Unless it has encountered some a truly devastating storm (not unheard of, even at that altitude but still highly unlikely for me) then it should just have experienced a bit of turbulance.

 

I'll be very interested to see what they have to say when they obtain the black boxes etc. That'll be fun considering the depths involved. Personally I think that there's more to it than an electrical failure. Even if the systems did fail, then the plane should have been able to glide for hundreds of miles. It wouldn't have made it to the nearest land but it would have been much nearer Senegal than Brazil. Debris has been found 60KM apart also.

 

Everything to me, at the moment, screams "in flight break up." Something catastophic happened up there. But the fact remains, that plane shouldn't have crashed because of an electrical failure, unless this failure ripped off a wing or the tail, or damaged the flaps and ailerons too. None of this is likely but it is possible I suppose.

 

I think the plane has broken up in flight.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Someone please google Air France 447

 

Whats the first result that appears? Mine is...

 

I like the fact it has an "on time" rating of 2 stars out of five, can't help thinking that's a little generous myself.

[tokyojoe]

When a plane crashes, 85% of the time it is either at take off or whilst landing. This is why you don't see flights saying "DELAYED" very often. In situations like this, and famously the TWA Flight 800 that blew up over Long Island in July 1996, they will just say "DELAYED" until the bare facts have been established. If I sound sad that's probably because I am, plane crashes have fascinated me since I was 8.

 

I feel particularly sorry for 447's passengers. As has been mentioned, they were literally in the middle of nowhere. I remain open minded about the cause of the crash personally because lightning shouldn't bring any plane down, let alone an airbus. It is one of the most advanced planes flying today. Unless it has encountered some a truly devastating storm (not unheard of, even at that altitude but still highly unlikely for me) then it should just have experienced a bit of turbulance.

 

I'll be very interested to see what they have to say when they obtain the black boxes etc. That'll be fun considering the depths involved. Personally I think that there's more to it than an electrical failure. Even if the systems did fail, then the plane should have been able to glide for hundreds of miles. It wouldn't have made it to the nearest land but it would have been much nearer Senegal than Brazil. Debris has been found 60KM apart also.

 

Everything to me, at the moment, screams "in flight break up." Something catastophic happened up there. But the fact remains, that plane shouldn't have crashed because of an electrical failure, unless this failure ripped off a wing or the tail, or damaged the flaps and ailerons too. None of this is likely but it is possible I suppose.

 

I think the plane has broken up in flight.

 

I think you're right. I reckon an electrical short took out a fuel line, and blew the thing to bits.

[She Knows It]

I like the fact it has an "on time" rating of 2 stars out of five, can't help thinking that's a little generous myself.

 

The score, 2, shows that this flight has on-time performance characteristics better than 39% of all other flights in the FlightStats database.

 

It still beats Arriva buses.

[Nerik]

I remain open minded about the cause of the crash personally because lightning shouldn't bring any plane down, let alone an airbus. It is one of the most advanced planes flying today. Unless it has encountered some a truly devastating storm (not unheard of, even at that altitude but still highly unlikely for me) then it should just have experienced a bit of turbulance.

 

 

.

 

They were flying at 35000ft. The max such a commercial aircraft flies is in the region of 41000ft. Storms round the equator at times top 50000ft and are massive. Entering one would see one experience severe turbulence and not just a bit.

[tokyojoe]

Air France have just announced that the aircraft suffered 'multiple technical failures'.

 

It was only four years old FFS. I genuinely think Airbus's have serious safety issues.

[Antynwa]

All those with a fear of flying need to realise you are statistically more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash.

[Guest davelfc]

All those with a fear of flying need to realise you are statistically more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash.

 

Absolutely, let's just look at London in 2008 (although this includes Killed or Seriously injured)

 

Latest figures show a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries for almost all road users in 2008:

 

Overall number of KSIs down by seven per cent (3,784 to 3,526) compared with 2007, 47 per cent overall compared with the Government baseline from 1994-1998 (6,684 to 3,526)

 

Pedestrian KSIs down seven per cent year on year (1,292 to 1,208), 43 per cent overall (2,136 to 1,208)

 

Powered two wheeler (motorcycle) KSIs down 10 per cent year on year (819 to 738), 21 per cent overall (933 to 738)

 

Car occupant KSIs down eight per cent year on year (952 to 880), 66 per cent overall (2,569 to 880)

 

Pedal cyclist KSIs went down by three per cent (461 to 445) and are 21 per cent down overall (567 to 445)

 

All child KSIs fell by six per cent (331 to 310) and are 67 per cent lower overall (935 to 310)

 

 

 

Seriously you have far more chance of dying on the way to and from the airport than you ever have on the plane. (unless the plane decides to drive instead)

[Nerik]

Air France have just announced that the aircraft suffered 'multiple technical failures'.

 

It was only four years old FFS. I genuinely think Airbus's have serious safety issues.

 

Based on what? It was the first ever A330 loss in commercial aviation. Multiple technical failures are common in severe turbulence encounters so aircraft type is irrelevant in this case.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

There were probably nuns on the plane, if there are nuns on a plane it ALWAYS crashes, oh and I hope the pilot remembered to tap the gauges, if you are running low on fuel or have an electrical fault it is always good to tap on the gauges.

[JohnnyH]

Air France have just announced that the aircraft suffered 'multiple technical failures'.

 

It was only four years old FFS. I genuinely think Airbus's have serious safety issues.

 

They don't. The shock press will try and convince you otherwise, but they don't. They have an excellent performance record.

 

The more I read on this the more I think of a fire in the electrics (E&E bay). That's the only reason I can see for an apparent nose dive into the ocean. I can certainly see the thought of an inflight break up, but for a 4 year old aircraft to have such structural damage for that to happen would be surprising to say the least. Unless there was undetected damage to the hull from ground equipment?

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Based on what? It was the first ever A330 loss in commercial aviation. Multiple technical failures are common in severe turbulence encounters so aircraft type is irrelevant in this case.

 

Totally disagree. We live in an age where a storm shouldn't bring down a commercial jet. Let alone probably the second most advanced flying.

[Randy Marsh]

Read last night that wreckage has been found 60km apart, surely that points quite convincingly to an inflight break up?

[Dan Vito Corleone]

They were flying at 35000ft. The max such a commercial aircraft flies is in the region of 41000ft. Storms round the equator at times top 50000ft and are massive. Entering one would see one experience severe turbulence and not just a bit.

 

Irrespective of this, severe turbulence normally sees a plane drop 2000-4000 foot rapidly and the usual probelms turbulence brings. It should not bring a plane down 35,000 foot straight into the sea.

 

I think you're right. I reckon an electrical short took out a fuel line, and blew the thing to bits.

 

Remember TWA Flight 800?

 

Put all the conspiracy theories to one side and the reason that went down was because a short circuit caused a spark in the central, empty fuel tank, which ignited fumes and caused a massive explosion.

 

I think you have it on the money. I reckon the plane has flown into an extreme electrical storm and it's caused a short circuit. All it takes is one wire slightly out of alignment and anything can happen, a chain of events, which could lead to the fuel tank.

 

 

Read last night that wreckage has been found 60km apart, surely that points quite convincingly to an inflight break up?

 

It does to me - or as tokyo joe suggested, an explosion.

 

That is though an enormous gap between the two debris fields. I know it's had 35,000ft to fall, but that's a huge, huge gap. I have a feeling that the poor weather has moved the debris apart. It had 24 hours to do it before the wreckage was located. I think it could have drifted flotsam about 30km in that time.

[aws]

There were probably nuns on the plane, if there are nuns on a plane it ALWAYS crashes, oh and I hope the pilot remembered to tap the gauges, if you are running low on fuel or have an electrical fault it is always good to tap on the gauges.

 

The Irish guy probably saw the nuns at check-in and did the common sense thing.

 

The only passenger worse than nuns is the sweaty looking guy who refuses to let go of his suspiciously heavy travel bag.

[JohnnyH]

Irrespective of this, severe turbulence normally sees a plane drop 2000-4000 foot rapidly and the usual probelms turbulence brings. It should not bring a plane down 35,000 foot straight into the sea.

 

 

 

Remember TWA Flight 800?

 

Put all the conspiracy theories to one side and the reason that went down was because a short circuit caused a spark in the central, empty fuel tank, which ignited fumes and caused a massive explosion.

 

I think you have it on the money. I reckon the plane has flown into an extreme electrical storm and it's caused a short circuit. All it takes is one wire slightly out of alignment and anything can happen, a chain of events, which could lead to the fuel tank.

 

 

I think you're grasping there mate. It could me one of many things. Any serious of electrical faults could affect the flying ability. A severe storm and over use of the pedals could result in tail loss. Undetected hull damage could have depressurised the aircraft. Yaw damper problem. Incorrectly set air con. Fire in the electrics. Snakes on the God damn plane, etc, etc.

 

It’s pure speculation and could be one of a 1000 things. To settle on a spark in the fuel tanks at this point, while this may result in an extremely lucky guess in the fullness of time, is still just as likely as any of the other 999 possibilities.

[JohnnyH]

Read last night that wreckage has been found 60km apart, surely that points quite convincingly to an inflight break up?

 

Or it's been sitting in stormy waters for 2 days and by the end of week will be spread over 500kms.

 

There is a very good chance of in air break up, but a long way to go before we get any facts, if we ever do, and without the black boxes we never will.

[hamstrung]

All those with a fear of flying need to realise you are statistically more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash.

 

Consider me cured.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

what might have happened is that the weather radar system was shut down and the plane then flew right into the middle of the storm. The crew would have to be totally incompetent to not have the radar turned on in that area. What could have happened, though, is the radar antenna failing because of a lightning strike, right in the middle of dodging thunderstorms. Then, with no weather radar information, the plane could have unwittingly flown through one, resulting in an upset (loss of control) due to very severe turbulence, or damage by hail, or both engines failing due to compressor stall, again due to severe turbulence, because of disrupted airflow into the engines.

 

Most widebody airliners have 2 radar transceivers, but only one radar antenna.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

I think you're grasping there mate. It could me one of many things. Any serious of electrical faults could affect the flying ability. A severe storm and over use of the pedals could result in tail loss. Undetected hull damage could have depressurised the aircraft. Yaw damper problem. Incorrectly set air con. Fire in the electrics. Snakes on the God damn plane, etc, etc.

 

It’s pure speculation and could be one of a 1000 things. To settle on a spark in the fuel tanks at this point, while this may result in an extremely lucky guess in the fullness of time, is still just as likely as any of the other 999 possibilities.

 

Fair enough, but I agree with Tokyo Joe. It wouldn't be a lucky guess, it would be a logical one, based on what little we know so far. I will be happy to continually revise as we go along and get more information.

 

I did consider last night the possibility of a depressurisation. I wondered if, maybe, hail from this storm had been big enough to crack a window and cause a depressurisation.

 

Overuse of the tail has happened once, with American Airlines Flight 587 in 2001, and since the facts about that were established it has become part of the rules that pedals cannot be used to correct air turbulence on an airbus. I'd put my house on that not being the cause.

 

Fire in the electrics was suggested earlier in the thread, that is entirely plausible. But I don't think there's ever been a crash caused by fire where the pilot has been unable to get his mayday out about a fire. If it was a fire then that's another horror story because they were literally in the middle of nowhere with nothing but sea around them.... Not a nice thought.

 

Everything points to it breaking up totally unexpectedly. Some of the things you've brought up could well be thrown into the mixer, for sure, and we'll only know when/if the data boxes are recovered. Personally I have a feeling the cockpit voice recorder will give us way more to go on than the data recorder If all systems were lost we can't discount the possibility that the recorder stopped working. Same goes for the voice but it'd give some build up.

[RobbieOR]

Just seen in the Irish Independant that one of the girls that were on the plane lived 5 minutes up the road from me.

[JohnnyH]

I'd agree that mid air break up seems the most plausable, although a number of aircraft have lost their tails, and not just to overuse of the rudder.. I just hope they find the black boxes, but with them been 14,000ft under water, we may never know.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

I'd agree that mid air break up seems the most plausable, although a number of aircraft have lost their tails, and not just to overuse of the rudder.. I just hope they find the black boxes, but with them been 14,000ft under water, we may never know.

 

So often you hear the phrase "We are struggling to find the black boxes" but on this occasion, I actually do believe them when they say that. This plane has gone down in the most remote part of the Earth.