 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / July 2009AF 447 interim report
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf > http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf If I'm reading that right, the thinking is that the aircraft hit the water intact, wings level, and with little forward speed. Almost sounds like a deep stall, except I wouldn't have thought this aircraft could do that. Sylvia. >> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Sylvia. Looks more like a dive into the ocean. "the airplane had likely struck the surface of the water in a straight line, with a high rate vertical acceleration" OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. >>> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf >> If I'm reading that right, the thinking is that the aircraft hit the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. That's not consistent with the damage to the galley carts, nor the vertical reinforcements of the toilet door. The language is a bit strange in places, and my guess would be that it was translated into English by a non-native speaker. In a "straight line" seems rather redundant in context if it's meant to be describing the path. I think it was intended to describe the aircraft's orientation. The high rate of vertical acceleration has to be the acceleration resulting from the crash - there's no way they could deduce pre-impact acceleration from the debry. On the other hand, the failure mode of the fin looks difficult to reconcile with a vertical impact (and even less with an inflight failure). Sylvia. "Sillier than Anyone Else" <OzOne@Crackerbox-Palace.com> >> Looks more like a dive into the ocean. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > On the other hand, the failure mode of the fin looks difficult to > reconcile with a vertical impact (and even less with an inflight failure). ** Not those damn, pesky Canada Geese at it again ??? .... Phil >>>> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf >>> If I'm reading that right, the thinking is that the aircraft hit the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Sylvia. You can also download the French version (13Mb) at http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1/pdf/f-cp090601e1.pdf which you should be able to reas the relevant bits :) >>>>> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > which you should be able to reas the relevant bits :) It doesn't hugely help. It uses the expression "en ligne de vol," the meaning of which is subject to some dispute on Prune. The obvious translation is "in line of flight," but it could be idiomatic. Sylvia. >>>> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf >>> If I'm reading that right, the thinking is that the aircraft hit the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >That's not consistent with the damage to the galley carts, nor the >vertical reinforcements of the toilet door. How do you figure that...Do you expect that an aeroplane would just hit the ocean like a dart and slice right through if it were in a dive? Of course there's be compression damage to the underbody if it went in shiny side up >The language is a bit strange in places, and my guess would be that it >was translated into English by a non-native speaker. In a "straight >line" seems rather redundant in context if it's meant to be describing >the path. I think it was intended to describe the aircraft's orientation. In a straight line means without yaw.... >The high rate of vertical acceleration has to be the acceleration >resulting from the crash - there's no way they could deduce pre-impact >acceleration from the debry. Translation...velocity. >On the other hand, the failure mode of the fin looks difficult to >reconcile with a vertical impact (and even less with an inflight failure). No one has said vertical. >Sylvia. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. >>>>> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf >>>> If I'm reading that right, the thinking is that the aircraft hit the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Of course there's be compression damage to the underbody if it went > in shiny side up It specifically said compression damage to the vertical reinforcements of the toilet door. Absent was any mention of horizontal compression damage to the door. That, together with the damage to the galley carts, is a strong indication that the acceleration forces were perpendicular to the cabin floor. Since the acceleration will opposite to the direction of motion, this rather implies that the aircraft was travelling in a direction perpedicular to the floor. That is not something it could do for any significant time unless it was descending vertically. >> The language is a bit strange in places, and my guess would be that it >> was translated into English by a non-native speaker. In a "straight [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Translation...velocity. It seems improbable that the investigators would have such a poor command of the relevant terminology. If they'd meant velocity, they'd have said velocity. >> On the other hand, the failure mode of the fin looks difficult to >> reconcile with a vertical impact (and even less with an inflight failure). > > No one has said vertical. I have. Sylvia. >>> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. > Looks more like a dive into the ocean. > > "the airplane had likely struck the surface of the water in a straight > line, > with a high rate vertical acceleration" I'm with Silvia on this one... High accelerations in the vertical axis suggest little or no forward speed - the thing has basically done a belly-flop into the ocean... It'd be interesting to know the power settings of the engines at impact too (which can be determined quite reasonably without the FDR provided the engines themselves are found)... Regards, BB. "BB" > I'm with Silvia on this one... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (which can be determined quite reasonably without the FDR provided the > engines themselves are found)... ** Lost the tail fin in severe turbulence and then went into an un-recoverable *flat spin* all the way into the drink ? Airbus will not like that scenario. .... Phil > "BB" >> I'm with Silvia on this one... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > .... Phil No the tail fin just bounced out of its socket upon belly flop. >"BB" >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >.... Phil Especially seeing as the rear fuselage was pulled apart and remained attached to the fin? OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. >>"BB" >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Especially seeing as the rear fuselage was pulled apart and remained > attached to the fin? Did it? http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jun2009/5/4/air-france-af447-wreckage- pic-reuters-959798071.jpg >> Especially seeing as the rear fuselage was pulled apart and remained >> attached to the fin? > > Did it? The pic in the report is a little better than the one in the link you gave... Portions of the fuselage frames are still attached to some of the fasteners on the fin base... Furthermore they do not appear to have suffered the massive twisting forces one would expect if the rudder were overcontrolled to the point of fin failure... Regards, BB. >>>"BB" >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jun2009/5/4/air-france-af447-wreckage- >pic-reuters-959798071.jpg Yes. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. > "BB" >> I'm with Silvia on this one... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Airbus will not like that scenario. Losing the fin and rudder obviously makes life even more difficult if the aircraft were to enter a spin. But before that happens, the aircraft has to stall. JAL Flight 123 stayed airborn for over half an hour after losing its fin and rudder. Sylvia. "Stupider than Anyone Else" >> "BB" >>> I'm with Silvia on this one... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > JAL Flight 123 stayed airborn for over half an hour after losing its fin > and rudder. ** Irrelevant drivel, as always. Flight 123 was a 747 flying without any severe turbulence. A comparable example is American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus A300, which crashed only seconds after losing its tail fin when manouvering in the turbulence behind a 747. ..... Phil > "Stupider than Anyone Else" >>> "BB" [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > crashed only seconds after losing its tail fin when manouvering in the > turbulence behind a 747. It crashed from low altitude. Hardly comparable. Sylvia. "Stupider than Anyone Else" >>>> "BB" >>>>> I'm with Silvia on this one... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > It crashed from low altitude. ** Irrelevant. Loss of the tail fin on an Airbus 300 caused the plane to immediately go out of control in fine weather. Piss off you stupid TROLL .... Phil > Piss off you stupid TROLL > > .... Phil Ah, Philly. Here was me thinking you'd turned over a new leaf and you've let me down again. Go and take a bit more meds mate. cheers >> Piss off you stupid TROLL > > Ah, Philly. Here was me thinking you'd turned over a new leaf and you've > let me down again. > > Go and take a bit more meds mate. No amount of meds will help old Phil. Nothing short of a lobotomy will.  Signaturehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8 - KRudd at his finest. "The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!" - Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity. "This is the recession we had to have!" - Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession. "Silly old bugger!" - Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more. "By 1990, no child will live in poverty" - Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election. "A billion trees ..." - Borke, pissed as a newt again. "Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor general!" - Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his appointee for Governor General John Kerr. >>> Piss off you stupid TROLL >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No amount of meds will help old Phil. Nothing short of a lobotomy will. There was the old treatment of infibulation, that might help. SignatureCheers Paul Saccani Perth, Western Australia. > "Stupider than Anyone Else" >>>>> "BB" [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >> It crashed from low altitude. Other than aircraft colliding with other aircraft, aren't all crashes due to low altitude? SignatureKwyj. >> "Stupider than Anyone Else" >>>>>> "BB" [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Other than aircraft colliding with other aircraft, aren't all crashes due to > low altitude? Spot the key word "from". Sylvia. > "Stupider than Anyone Else" >>> "BB" [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > crashed only seconds after losing its tail fin when manouvering in the > turbulence behind a 747. What is relevant is that had the fin parted company at FL350 causing the crash, it is highly unlikely that it would have been found in the same area as the rest of the wreckage. Certainly in the case of AA587 it wasn't. "keithratbag" >> "Stupider than Anyone Else" >>>> "BB" [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > crash, it is highly unlikely that it would have been found in the same > area as the rest of the wreckage. ** Was it ?? Post the proof. > Certainly in the case of AA587 it wasn't. ** Fraid it was - fuckwit. ..... Phil > "keithratbag" >>> "Stupider than Anyone Else" [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > ..... Phil Isn't it amazing that such a big head can hold such a small mind? > "keithratbag" >>> "Stupider than Anyone Else" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Post the proof. Don't be so lazy filly, read the report. > > Certainly in the case of AA587 it wasn't. ** Fraid it was - fuckwit. Try looking at the facts filly instead of making them up, the fin was in Jamaica bay, the rest of the plane a mile way in Belle Harbor, and that was from only 2500 feet not FL350 " Keith the f.cking RATBAG " >> "Stupider than Anyone Else" >>>>>> ** Lost the tail fin in severe turbulence and then went into an >>>>>> un-recoverable *flat spin* all the way into the drink ? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Don't be so lazy filly, read the report. ** Your mad claim - so you get to prove it you f.cking LIAR !!! > > > Certainly in the case of AA587 it wasn't. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Jamaica bay, the rest of the plane a mile way in Belle Harbor, and that > was from only 2500 feet not FL350 ** The fin parting company WAS the cause of the crash of A587. And it WAS found nearby - just as expected. You have absolutely no case - as f.cking USUAL. You STINKING PILE OF LYING SUB HUMAN SHI T !! ..... Phil > " Keith the f.cking RATBAG " >>> "Stupider than Anyone Else" [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > ..... Phil To avoid the scenrio of two people each insisting that the other provide the proof, I'll post it. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf Page 1, Chapter title "Factual Information" "The airplane’s vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and were found in Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site." Took me about as long to find as would another demand to the other poster to provide the proof. The fin separated 10 seconds after the aircraft was stated to be at 2300ft msl (page 4). Sylvia. "Stupider than Anyone Else ASD f.cked Bitch " > To avoid the scenrio of two people each insisting that the other provide > the proof, I'll post it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "The airplane’s vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and > were found in Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site." ** ROTFLMFAO !!! Wrong plane's crash info Try learing to f.cking READ sometime - BITCH FACE !! ..... Phil > "Stupider than Anyone Else ASD f.cked Bitch " > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Wrong plane's crash info > > Certainly in the case of AA587 it wasn't. > ** Fraid it was - fuckwit. Sylvia. >> "Stupider than Anyone Else ASD f.cked Bitch " >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Sylvia. Give it up, filly's mind, such as it is, is made up, facts have no relevance. "Stupider than Anyone Else ASD f.cked Bitch " > To avoid the scenrio of two people each insisting that the other provide > the proof, I'll post it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "The airplane's vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and > were found in Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site." ** ROTFLMFAO !!! Wrong plane's crash info Try learing to f.cking READ sometime - you LYING BITCH !! ..... Phil > "Stupider than Anyone Else ASD f.cked Bitch " > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ..... Phil Phil, I don't know what you think is achieved by reposting this. I've already pointed out that you referred to this accident. Sylvia. "Stupider than Anyone Else ASD f.cked Bitch " >> ** ROTFLMFAO !!! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> - you LYING BITCH !! > Phil, I don't know what you think is achieved by reposting this. I've > already pointed out that you referred to this accident. ** But it is ** NOT ** the one where I asked for info to be posted. You f.cking IMBECILE !!! Try learing to f.cking READ sometime - you LYING BITCH !! .... Phil > " Keith the f.cking RATBAG " >>> "Stupider than Anyone Else" [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > You STINKING PILE OF LYING SUB HUMAN SHI T !! Typical filly, you know you are wrong; but, instead of admitting it, you just start slinging the insults. " Keith the f.cking RATBAG " >>> What is relevant is that had the fin parted company at FL350 causing the >>> crash, it is highly unlikely that it would have been found in the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don't be so lazy filly, read the report. ** Your mad claim - so you get to prove it you f.cking LIAR !!! > > > Certainly in the case of AA587 it wasn't. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Jamaica bay, the rest of the plane a mile way in Belle Harbor, and that > was from only 2500 feet not FL350 ** The fin parting company WAS the cause of the crash of A587. And it WAS found nearby - just as expected. You have absolutely no case - as f.cking USUAL. You STINKING PILE OF LYING SUB HUMAN SHI T !! ..... Phil Page 35 of the interim report shows the locations of the recovered bodies and wreckage, and specifically identifies the location of the fin. There is nothing there to suggest that the fin detached before the crash. Sylvia >Losing the fin and rudder obviously makes life even more difficult if >the aircraft were to enter a spin. But before that happens, the aircraft >has to stall. Huh? OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. >> Losing the fin and rudder obviously makes life even more difficult if >> the aircraft were to enter a spin. But before that happens, the aircraft >> has to stall. > > Huh? A spin involves a stalled wing. Just losing the fin doesn't make an aircraft spin. Sylvia. > High accelerations in the vertical axis suggest little or no forward speed - > the thing has basically done a belly-flop into the ocean... It'd be > interesting to know the power settings of the engines at impact too (which > can be determined quite reasonably without the FDR provided the engines > themselves are found)... The wording of the report is a little odd. I think all of the 'flat spin' scenarios are just plain silly. Forward speed may well have been low, but it doesn't have to have been non existent. A scenario similar to Turkish (at AMS) comes to mind. SignatureRead the latest aviation news at www.flight.org >> High accelerations in the vertical axis suggest little or no forward speed - >> the thing has basically done a belly-flop into the ocean... It'd be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Forward speed may well have been low, but it doesn't have to have been non >existent. A scenario similar to Turkish (at AMS) comes to mind. Just needed another 1000' or so to recover? OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. > The wording of the report is a little odd. > > I think all of the 'flat spin' scenarios are just plain silly. > > Forward speed may well have been low, but it doesn't have to have been non > existent. A scenario similar to Turkish (at AMS) comes to mind. I don't think the a/c was in a flat spin and as for the forward speed, you're right - it may very well have been low (rather than non-existant)... This is what I meant to say and my use of the words "belly-flop" was probably not right... I do think the aircraft was probably stalled but level and going in a straight line... This is quite possible when the crew had unreliable airspeed info - hence my comment regarding engine power setting at impact (and whether the crew managed to perform the items on the relevant checklist)... Regards, BB. >> Looks more like a dive into the ocean. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Regards, >BB. With no rotaional about its vertical axis....It fell like a brick? In that case it had no wings and was perfectly balanced ...or it was just lucky that it hit in that orientation as it tumbled. BTW, have you had a look at the compression damage to the underbody of Sully's boat? It was absolutely definately moving forward at impact! OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.