Robots Find Wreckage of AF447 148
Last week we reported on an army of robots searching for Air France 447 over a nearly 4,000 sq mile patch of the Atlantic ocean. Today
mriya3 noted that "BEA, the French air accident investigation office, reports that the wreckage of Air France flight 447 has been found. The plane, an Airbus A330, crashed June 1, 2009 while flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. Investigators hope to find the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder. A press conference will be held today."
will there be data? (Score:5, Interesting)
What remains to be seen is, even if they find the recorders, will they have readable data?
It's not easy to protect equipment against two years under 4000 meters of water.
Re:will there be data? (Score:5, Informative)
The flight recorder box is made to withstand deep sea pressure according to this article [wikipedia.org].
Re:will there be data? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=1229 [caa.co.uk]
The Cockpit Voice Recorder has similar requirements.
Its unlikely that after this time the FDR nor the CVR are still sealed.
Re: (Score:3)
I flipped through the PDF and the crushing force you quoted is " a static crush force of 22.25 kN (5,000 lbf) applied continuously but not simultaneously to each of the three axes in the most critical direction, for a period of 5 minutes." In other word
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing.
I remember watching a documentary about the switchover from magnetic wire to flash memory sometime in the 90s. If the silicon under the epoxy survives, the data should be retrievable.
Re:will there be data? (Score:4, Informative)
The classic ones, at any rate, are well sealed and record magnetically onto loop of stainless steel wire. Seriously retro in terms of data density; and you don't just plug it into the nearest USB port(which is why many aircraft also have flight data recorders designed for non-emergency use, which are much less survivable; but much more convenient for routine diagnostics); but anything not involving serious corrosion or an excursion above the Curie temperature of the recording loop should be pretty much irrelevant...
Re: (Score:3)
granted salt water and steel wire mix like spaghetti and tuna fish
Yum! That's a great lunch idea!
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of my favorite dishes! Try it some time...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
granted salt water and steel wire mix like spaghetti and tuna fish
Spaghetti and tuna are an excellent combination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVY5nobY4Sw [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Um... http://www.bettycrocker.com/products/hamburger-helper/products/tuna-helper-flavors [bettycrocker.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Had that for dinner last night. Add some grated cheese and butter to the spaghetti. Put in the tuna what you want. I used salt, pepper, and a little mayo.
Re: (Score:2)
Mayo? Ick.
A better analogy would be "...goes together like food and mayo".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:will there be data? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
South African Airways Flight 295 had it's CVR recovered from 4,900 meters of water just over 2 years since the crash. They were able to read the data from it, although in the aforementioned case the fire stopped the CVR before the crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the wikipedia article, I got the impression that the current searchers benefited from the previous work to help them narrow down where to look.
Re: (Score:3)
Reading the wikipedia article, I got the impression that the current searchers benefited from the previous work to help them narrow down where to look.
Of course they benefited from it. They knew where the wreck was not located.
Re: (Score:1)
French pride?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not yet. I got ALL IN the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't beg the question. It RAISES the question.
Same difference. "begs the question" is now colloquially synonymous to "raises the question". Languages evolve with use. Get over it. If you still want to be a nitpicking d-bag grammar nazi go harass people in Latin.
Ha ha. Some thin-skinned AC who can't speak the King's English got owned.
Good luck (Score:3)
Seems they had extraordinarily good luck this time around. I think I remember reading that they found it on their 4th day of searching? Previous expeditions had searched for months, so they really did well to find it straight off.
There are new reports this morning that bodies have been found in the wreckage. This is going to provide closure in many ways (emotional, engineering, etc).
Re: (Score:3)
I know that trolls shouldn't be fed, but this "high static charge" FUD just made me chuckle. It doesn't mean squat. It's like if you said "when an Airbus experiences wakalixes". Just because you use words from a science vocabulary doesn't mean you make sense.
If you mean something, just say it. If there's a known problem, there will be an airworthiness directive [slashdot.org] about it. Link to it or just shut the fuck up.
...as opposed to what? (Score:2)
737s which keep on developing unexpected sunroofs?
Re: (Score:1)
A-330 is similar to the 767 and 777, not the 737-300
Re: (Score:2)
well i would bet that
1 something was a bit "off" in the bolts last used to attach that section
2 on that last inspection they re-certified the paper and forgot to update the plane itself.
3 somebody just plain FU^4
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I'd seriously question their (Southwest Airlines) paint-scheme.
That blue is quite dark and probably really heats up on those southwest American airport tarmacs.
I'd definitely feel safer in a non-painted airliner, knowing that they have to totally strip the plane to test for cracking.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I'd seriously question their (Southwest Airlines) paint-scheme. That blue is quite dark and probably really heats up on those southwest American airport tarmacs.
I'd definitely feel safer in a non-painted airliner, knowing that they have to totally strip the plane to test for cracking.
Wow, I hope that was said TIC... If not, I think this post wins hands-down as the Most Stupid Aviation Commentary By Somone Who Knows Nothing About Aviation on this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, you talked about heat from the ramp. An airliner's skin will vary from about -40 C in flight to whatever the ramp temperature is. That's a pretty wide temperature variation. Adding a few more degrees from the color of the paint isn't going to do anything to the skin. Of vastly more interest to aviation professionals is the expansion and contraction of the pressure hull during thousands of pressurization cycles. This, as well as corrosion, is what causes the fatigue-related cracks that lead to
Re: (Score:2)
Is it not true that they need to strip all that paint to test & inspect properly?
I am not an airframe engineer (obviously), According to Douglas Feith on NBC news (allegedly a former NTSB investigator), the paint does get in the way of their testing.
Re:...as opposed to what? [smoking...] (Score:2)
It's said that in the Olden Days, back in the 80's, any tiny cracks were obvious from nicotine stains streaming downwind. This might be a case of smoking saving lives...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so what if the airlines do have to strip the paint? The point is that the paint will get stripped, so the airframe will get tested for cracks without the paint regardless of whether the airline in question decided they wanted to go with paint or without paint during commercial operations. If the airline wants to spend the money to paint, strip, paint, strip, etc., that's their business, so long as they conduct the testing without the paint.
Most airlines don't really care about this sort of thing since
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Comparing the safety record of the A320, A330, A340, A380 and B777 to other airliners such as the A310 and B737, I'll take your known problem over other known problems any day.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking news... Coward refuses to fly on airplane....
TFA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only a week (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They found debris from the aircraft after the initial crash. This wasn't so much "finding the titanic after 70 some years" as it was "I know I parked my car in this lot where di....oh there it is, it was a couple rows over." They also found large pieces of the plane. They are still far complete.
Still quite a feat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only a week (Score:4, Insightful)
No they don't. They make junk. Compared to Boeing, their fly-by-wire (night) is completely flaky and has killed many people, and let's forget their flimsy carbon-fiber (plastic).. and the 380, right out of the box, after all that testing, and the engine still can't contain itself.... Read the damn accident reports yourself. I'm not doing your homework. Airbus should be grounded.
Because Boeing doesn't use carbon fiber on their airframes, right? (Hint, that Southwest Airlines 737 that just had its top peeled off didn't develop those cracks in carbon fiber.) Because Boeing doesn't use fly-by-wire systems, right? (Hint: only difference between Boeing and Airbus since the 1990s has been that Boeing kept a yoke in the cockpit and Airbus went with a sidestick, but it's all connected to wires these days, and can you provide even one example of an accident of either Boeing or Airbus that was directly tied to the fly-by-wire system failing on the airplane? Right, I thought not.) Because Boeing aircraft are never powered by Rolls Royce engines, right? (Hint: the A380 incident didn't have anything at all to do with Airbus, it was a problem with the engine that was manufactured by Rolls Royce.) There are so many fools who think they know what they're talking about. When I read this comment I pictured Cliff Claven from Cheers.
Re: (Score:1)
Cliff Claven from Boeing corporate in Chicago you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Airbus didn't make the engine of the A380 that blew up, Rolls Royce did, RR also had an engine for the Boeing 787-8 blow up on the test stand. So if you want to hammer on RR vs CFM vs GE vs Engine Alliance, go for it. But Airbus didn't build the problem engine and Airbus didn't tell Qantas they had to use the RR engine in question.
If Carbon Fiber is do goddamned flimsy, then why is everyone and their mother going to carbon fiber over aluminum? Look at the 787, A-350 for current examples, oh plus military av
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing? You mean that manufacturer of convertible [bbc.co.uk] commuter [wikipedia.org] airliners [bbc.co.uk]? Maybe they should use some of that 'flimsy carbon fiber' in their planes to keep the roofs on - I heard they were planning to do so in their forthcoming yet somehow yet even more delayed machine (or was that just a dream?).
Re: (Score:2)
B-777 is safer than the A-340, while there have been no fatalities in either type, the A340 has had five hull loss accidents while the B-777 has only had one.
There are only 375 A-340s compared to 919 B-777s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Technical fault of the engine, not Boeing, any RR Trent 800 could have had that failure.
Upon investigation, the accident was blamed on ice crystals from the fuel system clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger (FOHE). Air accident investigators called for this component on the Trent 800 series engine to be redesigned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7941137.stm [bbc.co.uk]
As for all A-340 loses from humans or weather...
9 November 2007 – An Iberia Airlines A340-600 (EC-JOH) was badly damaged after sliding off the ru
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I've high speed taxied a Cessna 210 Centurian and a Super Cub through soil without gear failure.
Engines are also supposed to operate without icing, so is the loss of the B-777 a weather issue, a Boeing issue or a Rolls Royce problem?
It's a Rolls Royce issue, just like the hull loss of EC-JOH is because of whomever made the landing gear, not because of weather.
Or the sliding off the runway is due to the brakes (which Airbus makes) or the anti-lock brake software (which Airbus wrote).
The pilots landed in bad
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, if anything it was a fault of tire manufacturer. Certainly not worse than engine part icing.
Re: (Score:2)
And in recent news - WTO ruled that Boeing subsidies are also illegal...
Re:Only a week (Score:4, Insightful)
Evidence needed. According to every conceivable statistic about aircraft safety, Airbus and Boeing are fairly in the same figures. Of course, to speak about "the buzz in the industry" without any proof nor reference is very easy. And probably will be moderated as "informative".
Re: (Score:2)
hull rapture (Score:3)
Y'know, as a kid the whole "rapture [wikipedia.org]" thing puzzled me -- how do the believers get to heaven if they're flying, and sealed inside a pressurized metal tube? Now it's clear: A hole opens up in the roof of the airplane. Thanks!
;-) No offense intended -- it was just too good to pass up :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, lawyers - even those leeches unable to get any cash from such "patriotism" flavored paranoia + some peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They certainly do not... The only mechanical glitch that killed (or even hurt) anybody suffered by any those models was Lauda Air's 767 that kicked a thrust reverser in mid flight, due to a short circuit. Even that is a recoverable situation with a quick acting pilot.. in the daytime, with an easy to see horizon. Reading the accident reports also show t
Re: (Score:1)
A mere navigational error... That [aviation-safety.net] all [aviation-safety.net] you [aviation-safety.net] got [aviation-safety.net]?
They involved pilot error, but the machine created a very difficult situation.
Re: (Score:1)
...I won't bother educating you anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, you want to fly in Boeing, whose 737s now come with a new "roof off" feature at altitude.
[citation needed] (Score:5, Interesting)
You might even wonder if the French were looking all that hard the first time. The buzz in the industry is that they really don't want to find the flight data recorder, since what it reveals might impact their sales. I can tell you one thing, you *do not* want to fly Airbus, for a variety of reasons.
Really? What "buzz"? My mom works in the pilot's office of a major US airline that flies both Boeing and Airbus, including the A330. She deals with pilots and the head pilot on a daily basis, and has contacts with both senior executives and people in the mechanical and operations departments that she speaks with regularly. I worked there myself for 6 years while going to college. Neither of us have ever heard of any complaints from crew or mechanics regarding the airworthiness or safety of Airbus versus Boeing. People "in the industry" like to talk and gossip a lot, and I have never heard of this anti-Airbus "buzz" you refer to.
And yes, I know anecdotes =/= data, but at least I can show my connection to airlines and the aviation industry and am not just some random guy off the street talking out of my ass.
Re: (Score:1)
And I'm an actual Airbus A330 so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an actual Airbus A330
Wow. I knew airline flight control systems were getting clever, but I didn't realize they were so sophisticated that an actual aircraft could post on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only a week (Score:4, Funny)
Airbus have sold over 10,000 aircraft and have delivered over 6,500. The airlines have every confidence in what they are buying, they wouldn't buy anything they considered dangerous because people will avoid the type once the crashes start happening.
Not one of you crap throwers have ever come up with any statistical evidence that Airbus aircraft are more dangerous or risky than Boeing.
Re:Only a week (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Very, VERY few airlines go down because of engineering or manufacturing defects, most go down because of operational problems at the airline, poor or improper maintenance
Out of curiosity, how would you rate the crash of LY1862 [wikipedia.org] in Amsterdam? Recap - the fuse pin that connects the engine to the wing failed, and failed improperly. Inspection and earlier replacement could have prevented the accident, but those were not in Boeing's manuals at the time.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
Those sort of issues happen quite often - undue wear and tear on the part, an unknown manufacturing defect in a single part or small series of parts, abnormal usage etc etc. The engine mounting could have been b
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'm not intimately familiar with the case (not from that industry), but my memory tells me that inspection period for the fuse were shortened as a result of the accident.
Regardless of whether that is the case, would you say that if an airliner strictly follows the manufacturer maintenance instructions, and a mechanical problem still happens, that that is the manufacturer's fault?
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft design and manufacture is a hugely complicated job, the manufacturers know that and the aviation authorities know that - and they tend to agree on a stragety that is designed to minimise risk to the customer (airline and passenger) but also is loose enough that it also allows the manufacturer to deliver the aircraft on a reasonable schedule (for example, two years from
Re: (Score:2)
My only issue with your answer is that the logic is circular. You claim that very few aircrafts go down due to the manufacturer fault, but then go on with a set of criteria that would be unintuitive at best to a layman (which I fully admit that I am) regarding when it would be the manufacturer's fault.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like playing the blame game either, and I completely agree that economical considerations are important, even when flight safety is concerned, but I wouldn't call that "it's not the
Re: (Score:2)
The manufacturer can do everything correct, and parts or materials can still fail - why they failed can sometimes never be determined, they are just the one-in-a-million chance that doesn't play by the rules. This is why I disagree with your assertion that "sometimes you mess up e
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the reasons Americans don't want to fly Airbus:
1. It's not American
2. They've spent decades throwing tax-payer's money at their own aeronautics industry and don't want it to be wasted.
The rest of us however can carry on happily flying them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I hope you're not representative of all non-Americans, because you do it as poorly as the Americans you're trying to deride.
get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane (Score:3)
insert your own samuel l jackson joke
http://www.seasky.org/deep-sea/atlantic-hagfish.html [seasky.org]
the ocean's morticians, always found near the dead
nastiest things on earth
Re: (Score:2)
The plane is at a depth of 3,800 to 4,000 meters. To quote your own link:
They (hagfish) can be found at depths of up to 5,600 feet (about 1,800 meters).
Re:get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.whaletimes.org/hagfish.htm [whaletimes.org]
'Hagfish have been seen as deep as 16,405 feet (5000 m)'
do not doubt cthulhu's minions
even worse:
'Looking closer, one might discover an alarming sight: Those dead organisms resting on the deep sea floor are actually pulsating! What could cause such movements? Usually, it's a passel of scavenging hagfish feeding on the carcasses from the inside out.'
http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume5/issue7/features/lee.html [jyi.org]
I would spare relatives the idea that human bodies would be found pulsating from within as they are consumed by hagfish. hagfish are the fate of all bodies that go to the deep. i don't want to know the details
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/basalfish/myxini.html [berkeley.edu]
'The adjective which best describes the Myxini is "Lovecraftian".'
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. This is just what I needed to read on a monday morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Hagfish have three accessory hearts, no cerebrum or cerebellum, no jaws or stomach, and will "sneeze" when their nostrils clog with their own slime. .
I think that Berkeley mixed up some pages on their website. They're supposedly describing Hagfish. The description, however, seems to fit a US Senator better.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, politicians don't have a heart!
I think three is about right (Score:2)
None real, all for show.
One for their supporters.
One for their opponents.
One for their family and friends.
Remember, all fake, interchangeable, for show.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like videos have already leaked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ7OLYd0UE0 [youtube.com]
Four years early too. That's weird.
Lost? (Score:1)
Yes my child. (Score:2)
Yes it is their SOULS that are down there. Quick! Go down there, and get thee their SOULS!
Gaah! An Army of Robots (Score:2)
The army of robots, after confirming the destruction of AF447, celebrated their victory today, decorating Unit 00110110 with the Metal of Honor. Their leader, Unit 10001101, was reported as saying "Hey sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?"
Re: (Score:2)
That ought to do them in.
(apologies to somebody)
Photos from a Brazilian news site (Score:4, Informative)
Transmission instead of on-board recording (Score:1)
Why isn't the data, or some subset of it, transmitted continuously during the flight?
Re: (Score:1)
Generally speaking, the signals are reduced to line of sight shortfalls. Once the plane is in the middle of the Atlantic, the curvature of the earth prevents signals going to or coming from the plane from any point under the horizon. At least GPS tells us the last location of the plane before failure/sinking.
After that, it is the same as a leaf falling from a tree on a windy day...
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't this why we have communication satellites?
Re: (Score:2)
Searchbots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What an awful show that was. I'm glad they finally admitted they were making it up as they went along. After that long, crazy, haphazard storyline, it basically ends with "it was all a dream" (they were dead the whole time). My dad was a huge fan but finally admitted recently that it was a massive letdown.