or at least an ACARS (I have no idea if ACARS works over the Atlantic but I am assuming so)lowing wrote:
If thry had time for this, then the burning questionis why no mayday?GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Some of the investigators say that the automated messages were sent closer to Paris than the debris was found. That would be impossible unless the plane at some point turned around.usmarine wrote:
No I would like to see that since they arent saying it on the news here.
Of course the 100% proof of that lies under lots of water right now... so can't say its 100% sure what happened, but seems pretty likely...
but if complete electrical failure does that system work off of a standby bus or a DC emergency bus? I am not avionics at all, but I am pretty sure VHF1 is backed up by the battery bus and if they were flying for any length of time after the emergency, then they would have gotten off some sort of communicationusmarine wrote:
or at least an ACARS (I have no idea if ACARS works over the Atlantic but I am assuming so)lowing wrote:
If they had time for this, then the burning question is why no mayday?GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Some of the investigators say that the automated messages were sent closer to Paris than the debris was found. That would be impossible unless the plane at some point turned around.
Of course the 100% proof of that lies under lots of water right now... so can't say its 100% sure what happened, but seems pretty likely...
Last edited by lowing (2009-06-04 13:14:05)
Not an airplane guy, but if they lost all electrical systems, would they still be able to send it?usmarine wrote:
or at least an ACARS (I have no idea if ACARS works over the Atlantic but I am assuming so)lowing wrote:
If thry had time for this, then the burning questionis why no mayday?
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
As far as I know it does.usmarine wrote:
or at least an ACARS (I have no idea if ACARS works over the Atlantic but I am assuming so)lowing wrote:
If thry had time for this, then the burning questionis why no mayday?GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Some of the investigators say that the automated messages were sent closer to Paris than the debris was found. That would be impossible unless the plane at some point turned around.
Of course the 100% proof of that lies under lots of water right now... so can't say its 100% sure what happened, but seems pretty likely...
The WSJ is now reporting excessive speed may have been the cause.
lol at all these theories
lol at all these theories
Aliens shot it from space.usmarine wrote:
The WSJ is now reporting excessive speed may have been the cause.
lol at all these theories
QFTIoan92 wrote:
Aliens shot it from space.usmarine wrote:
The WSJ is now reporting excessive speed may have been the cause.
lol at all these theories
The debris found is now apprently not from the Air France jet at all.... Brazilian military fail.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8083474.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8083474.stm
I know fucking karate
The Air Data Intertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) that Qantas uses in its A330-300's is a different make to the Honeywell ones Air France uses in its A330-200's.. It could be related, but one can't say straight out "same problem".Racoon_Flyer wrote:
Qantas have had problems with there A330s as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 .
For more information and discussion on this, I'd head over to Airliners.net to have a look - http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum … n/4435136/
LOLlowing wrote:
\Mekstizzle wrote:
Oh wow, you guys are pathetic. It was lowing that starts off the whole shit about Airbus, and then someone starts talking shit about France. Seriously, I know this place has its whole USA vs Europe thing, but you guys really need to just grow up sometimes
I know some of you guys are in the industry, but the way you just write off Airbus isn't professional in any way whatsoever so there's no point in listening to you guys talk like you know what you're talking about cos you're all just acting stupid in the first place. The two companies are the biggest in the world for the airline industry and they didn't get there by being shit and crashing all the time, if you want to try and talk with some sense.
Sometimes the whole self identity thing gets in the way of people too much, you know what I'm talking about, need to cut some of that crap out.
Actually my opinion is based on experience, and has nothing to do with politics, ( for once)
So far your input on this has been spot on. My father and brother were both airline pilots. Bro flies the 320 at the moment.
As far as electrical goes there is always a source of power available. If they lost both engines, they still would have the ram air turbine to provide power for the basic systems. The ram turbine saved AC143 (Gimli glider) and Air Transat 236.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Not an airplane guy, but if they lost all electrical systems, would they still be able to send it?usmarine wrote:
or at least an ACARS (I have no idea if ACARS works over the Atlantic but I am assuming so)lowing wrote:
If thry had time for this, then the burning questionis why no mayday?
Last edited by Stubbee (2009-06-04 21:32:43)
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
honeywell? they made my thermostat.mcminty wrote:
The Air Data Intertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) that Qantas uses in its A330-300's is a different make to the Honeywell ones Air France uses in its A330-200's.. It could be related, but one can't say straight out "same problem".Racoon_Flyer wrote:
Qantas have had problems with there A330s as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 .
For more information and discussion on this, I'd head over to Airliners.net to have a look - http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum … n/4435136/
Yeah, they make a few aerospace products.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
honeywell? they made my thermostat.mcminty wrote:
The Air Data Intertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) that Qantas uses in its A330-300's is a different make to the Honeywell ones Air France uses in its A330-200's.. It could be related, but one can't say straight out "same problem".Racoon_Flyer wrote:
Qantas have had problems with there A330s as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 .
For more information and discussion on this, I'd head over to Airliners.net to have a look - http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum … n/4435136/
more like MEDIA fail, because all along the Brazilian AF declined to confirm that the wreckage was from the A330 but fools at Air France, CNN and BBC and then pretty much every other news network reported the wreckage as being from the A330. All of this despite the fact that nobody had even had a proper look at the wreckage as it hadnt been recovered yet. Biggest fail from Air France because theyve been bullshitting their way through this entire disaster. i think 4 or 5 hours after the plane went missing, they had already decided it was because of a lightning strike.justice wrote:
The debris found is now apprently not from the Air France jet at all.... Brazilian military fail.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8083474.stm
we know what the RAT does. but, the RAT does you no good if the electrical system is fried.Stubbee wrote:
LOLlowing wrote:
\Mekstizzle wrote:
Oh wow, you guys are pathetic. It was lowing that starts off the whole shit about Airbus, and then someone starts talking shit about France. Seriously, I know this place has its whole USA vs Europe thing, but you guys really need to just grow up sometimes
I know some of you guys are in the industry, but the way you just write off Airbus isn't professional in any way whatsoever so there's no point in listening to you guys talk like you know what you're talking about cos you're all just acting stupid in the first place. The two companies are the biggest in the world for the airline industry and they didn't get there by being shit and crashing all the time, if you want to try and talk with some sense.
Sometimes the whole self identity thing gets in the way of people too much, you know what I'm talking about, need to cut some of that crap out.
Actually my opinion is based on experience, and has nothing to do with politics, ( for once)
So far your input on this has been spot on. My father and brother were both airline pilots. Bro flies the 320 at the moment.As far as electrical goes there is always a source of power available. If they lost both engines, they still would have the ram air turbine to provide power for the basic systems. The ram turbine saved AC143 (Gimli glider) and Air Transat 236.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Not an airplane guy, but if they lost all electrical systems, would they still be able to send it?usmarine wrote:
or at least an ACARS (I have no idea if ACARS works over the Atlantic but I am assuming so)
An Air France memo to its pilots Friday about the crash of Flight 447 said the airline is replacing instruments that help measure airspeed on all its medium- and long-haul Airbus jets.
The memo sent by Air France Friday says that a series of actions to reduce the risks of loss of airspeed information are being reinforced by "notably, the improvement of pitot models on Airbus' fleet of medium- and long-haul flights."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090605/ap_ … azil_plane
The memo sent by Air France Friday says that a series of actions to reduce the risks of loss of airspeed information are being reinforced by "notably, the improvement of pitot models on Airbus' fleet of medium- and long-haul flights."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090605/ap_ … azil_plane
I think Auto Pilot had a big part to play in this crash.
So was this Terrorism? Has it been ruled out? (I haven't read all 8 pages so forgive me if this has already been answered)
Oh no, something bad happened guys, it's terrorism!
Possible, yes. No doubt the speculation will cease before more evidence is found, but please hold off on the fearmongering.
Possible, yes. No doubt the speculation will cease before more evidence is found, but please hold off on the fearmongering.
Why consider possible terrorism 'fearmongering'? It could had been for all we know.
However, if it was terrorism I would had though a terrorist group would had come forward and claimed responsibly by now.
13,000 feet...can a black box survive the pressure underwater?
However, if it was terrorism I would had though a terrorist group would had come forward and claimed responsibly by now.
13,000 feet...can a black box survive the pressure underwater?
wtf? get out of here you fuck wit.Defiance wrote:
Oh no, something bad happened guys, it's terrorism!
Possible, yes. No doubt the speculation will cease before more evidence is found, but please hold off on the fearmongering.
I never thought there was a chance to have survivors really, seeing as they'd be hitting storm chopped water at a very high speed.
But now I think the question is: what happened to the plane? Did it break into 10 trillion pieces on impact or did it just sink to the bottom of the sea?
Well we ever know ?
But now I think the question is: what happened to the plane? Did it break into 10 trillion pieces on impact or did it just sink to the bottom of the sea?
Well we ever know ?
Water is like concrete in high speeds. The plane's more likely in a million pieces than intact.Bradt3hleader wrote:
I never thought there was a chance to have survivors really, seeing as they'd be hitting storm chopped water at a very high speed.
But now I think the question is: what happened to the plane? Did it break into 10 trillion pieces on impact or did it just sink to the bottom of the sea?
Well we ever know ?
ouch...
"Bodies and debris have been found from the Air France plane which went missing over the Atlantic last Monday, the Brazilian air force has said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8087303.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8087303.stm
I know fucking karate
And to think 50 people survived it.