Robots Find Wreckage of AF447

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."

Comments

will there be data?

[mangu]

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?

[americamatrix]

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.

Which begs the question...why didn't they ask for their help 2 years ago? They originally spent weeks searching while these guys found it in a weeks time.

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Showered]

The flight recorder box is made to withstand deep sea pressure according to this article.

Re:will there be data?

[stoolpigeon]

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:will there be data?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It isn't a sure thing; the entropic forces of the uncaring universe are almost poetic in their creative destruction; but black boxes trade density for robustness in a pretty serious way.

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:will there be data?

[hey]

French pride?

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

granted salt water and steel wire mix like spaghetti and tuna fish

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is because of the lawsuit recently filed against airbus in the EU.

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Which begs the question...why didn't they ask for their help 2 years ago? They originally spent weeks searching while these guys found it in a weeks time.

It doesn't beg the question. It RAISES the question.

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
 

Re:will there be data?

[Lord Byron II]

granted salt water and steel wire mix like spaghetti and tuna fish

Yum! That's a great lunch idea!

Re:will there be data?

[TeXMaster]

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

Re:will there be data?

[Richard_at_work]

The Civil Aviation Authority, which will have the same requirements as EASA who will be the ones regulating the Airbus A330 as its an European aircraft, only requires the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) to withstand sea water immersion for 30 days, and says nothing about pressure at the depths we are talking about here other than the FDR will withstand crushing forces of 5,000 LBF (22.25 kN) for 5 continuous minutes.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=1229

The Cockpit Voice Recorder has similar requirements.

Its unlikely that after this time the FDR nor the CVR are still sealed.

Re:will there be data?

[Joce640k]

It's one of my favorite dishes! Try it some time...

Re:will there be data?

[NevarMore]

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:will there be data?

[Skater]

The AP article indicates that they are confident they can still read the recorders.

Re:will there be data?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Um... http://www.bettycrocker.com/products/hamburger-helper/products/tuna-helper-flavors

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Solid state FDRs began to be sold in the early 90s. The company which first made them (my former employer) lobbied the DOT heavily for requirements which would force competitors using magnetic tape/wire FDRs out of the market. I don't know how successful they were. Let's hope their lobbying didn't extend to Air France because, thought SSFDRs are superior in capacity and robustness for some types of aviation crashes, IMHO it's far more likely the older tape-based systems would retain data after 2 years in sea water.

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:will there be data?

[paiute]

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.

Re:will there be data?

[BlackSnake112]

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:will there be data?

[hb253]

I like it with capers, chopped kalamata olives, shallots, and some lemon juice and parsley.

Re:will there be data?

[TrisexualPuppy]

So you think that a well-packaged ceramic PGA or a plastic QFP would be susceptible to corrosion down there? We're talking about packages that are about as inert as glass, and even if the pins were somehow corroded away-- somehow corroded away--you could still open the package and bond new leads to the die. We're talking about something that might as well be as passive as glass sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Someone with a datasheet for the IC could come back in a hundred years and recover the data.

And stainless steel wire which is reactive as all get-out and has to be kept in a gas atmosphere is going to fare better? You may have a little chance with the wire recorded, but I wish you the best of luck with it!

--TSP

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part is that in the original Latin, the name of the fallacy (petitio principii) best translates to "seeking the principles", which not only has nothing to do with questions or begging, it describes this flavor of circular logic quite well.

So all the grammar nazis harassing people are going to have to do it in French, since they're wailing about a mistranslation in the first place.

Re:will there be data?

[Joce640k]

Mayo? Ick.

A better analogy would be "...goes together like food and mayo".

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

You people are sick.

Re:will there be data?

[Solandri]

requires the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) to withstand sea water immersion for 30 days, and says nothing about pressure at the depths we are talking about here other than the FDR will withstand crushing forces of 5,000 LBF (22.25 kN) for 5 continuous minutes.

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 words, it's not a pressure test, it's a uni-axial crush test.

Its unlikely that after this time the FDR nor the CVR are still sealed.

They very well could be. Based on the debris collected so far it looks like the plane crashed belly-first into the ocean, so there's a good chance the housing of the recorders was not damaged by the crash impact. The thing about deep-sea pressure is that it's a compressive force, not a tensile force. So as the FDR and CVR sink down, it increases gradually and uniformly. Unless there's a puncture or a significant amount of air trapped inside, any metal housing should gradually crush down without necessarily creating any breach for seawater to get in. Things like rubber seals can actually perform better under compression (though from talking with guys at Benthos, it will deform the rubber enough to destroy it making it useless for future use)..

Even if the box itself isn't sealed, the ICs which make up the memory should be themselves sealed in something like epoxy to improve their impact resistance. Only the interface pins or contacts would be exposed to corrosion, and they're probably gold plated. The biggest danger I would think would be an air pocket around the solid state memory suddenly collapsing when the metal housing fails due to the pressure, leading to mechanical impact forces damaging the memory.

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

As seen on a TV show featuring insteresting plane accidents and the following investigation (don't know the name, in German TV it's called "Mayday - Alarm in Cockpit"), the magnetic tapes (loops containing the last 30 minutes of data) respectively FLASH memory (QAR, the device which can really be just pluged-in into the computer, but it writes data with some delay due to buffering and is therefore not used as a primary device).

The "needle scratching on a copper plate" type of flight data recorders were used in ancient times and are mainly history nowdays.

Do you have a reference to the "stainless steel wire" version? Sounds interesting.

Re:will there be data?

[mea_culpa]

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?

[eriqk]

Fries and mayo. Yum!

Re:will there be data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even so, there is some precedent for data being available. South African Airways flight 295 crashed in late 1987 in the Indian Ocean. The voice recorder was recovered 14 months later at a depth of 4,900 meters. Still, there was some useful information retrieved from it (time of the fire, circuit breakers popping).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295 [wikipedia.org]

Good luck

[Dan East]

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:Good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

This cannot be good luck. The ocean is just way too big, and the robots way too slow, to search more than a trivial amount of the territory in a few days. Much more likely is that they had help from some military who didn't want to talk about it themselves.

Re:Good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct.

The sonar network which is in place to track submarines was able to establish
a position for the impact of the aircraft with the sea surface, and also was able to
record various implosions as the wreckage sank. This established the position of
the wreckage within a small enough area that finding the wreckage did not require
a long pattern search.

As for Airbus being just as safe, there is a known problem with the fly by wire
control systems when an Airbus experiences a high static charge. I wouldn't
fly on one if it was free and they paid me to go.

Re:Good luck

[tibit]

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 about it. Link to it or just shut the fuck up.

Re:Good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Skeletons really after all this time.

Re:Good luck

[jrumney]

As for Airbus being just as safe, there is a known problem with the fly by wire control systems when an Airbus experiences a high static charge. I wouldn't fly on one if it was free and they paid me to go.

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:Good luck

[Conrthomas]

I can't imagine the reaction of the guys that found them. "ohh lookie here, I wonder what'es insid-BODIES" or perhaps it was more like "Oh look, he has a gold rolex"

Re:Good luck

[FormOfActionBanana]

Breaking news... Coward refuses to fly on airplane....

TFA

[ElectroPrime]

TFA in English.

Re:TFA

[Cochonou]

And their press presentation slides in French and English.

Only a week

[christurkel]

It took less than a week to find the plane? (!). Wow.

Re:Only a week

[dave420]

Not this shit again. Airbus make perfectly fine aircraft.

Re:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pointless to argue about the (slightly better) safety of Airbus on slashdot. Despite us nerds admiring engineering and automation most slashdotters are blinded by nationalism in the Boeing vs. Airbus pissing contest so Airbus engineers simply cannot get credit where credit is due here. If people want to bash Airbus with factual arguments, illegal subsidies (as ruled by the WTO) would do but this bullshit is not about facts.

Re:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you want to fly in Boeing, whose 737s now come with a new "roof off" feature at altitude.

Re:Only a week

[Richard_at_work]

The main reason being you are an ignorant, biased little shit stirrer?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you perhaps, like to list those reasons? Nobody is going to change their airline because someone on Slashdot said there is a "variety of reasons" to.

Re:Only a week

[antifoidulus]

Yeah, choosing which type of plane you fly on because you are worried about safety is folly, you should be much more worried about the airline operating the vehicle. 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(either due to negligence on the part of the workers or greed on the part of management) or improper hiring, training, or management of pilots(again usually done to cut costs, though to a certain extent that shows how braindead management can be in certain areas, they are willing to take a cut-rate pilot to handle their multi-million dollar planes....)

Re:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible that my sarcasm detector is broken in which case my reply is foolish but since I actually have read all major accident reports since the 70s (out of an interest in aviation), I'll reply.

1. It's hard to read reports which don't exist since Airbus crash so rarely. The A340 is the safest aircraft in the world (albeit the 777 is a close second).

2. Boeing uses more composite materials in the 787 than any Airbus design and in that context it's ironic to claim that Airbus use "flimsy carbon-fiber".

3. It's even more ironic that you mention the Qantas A380 uncontained engine failure since Rolls Royce engines are used on Boeing aircraft as well and one of the pilots on board then had experience of flying Boeing as well and he praised the Airbus FBW system so much that it in his opinion would've been a disaster without it. Just one of the quotes can be found here: "Now comparing that to other types I have flown I am sure that Boeing types would have been equally flyable, but they would have been a lot more difficult, I’m sure."

Re:Only a week

[countertrolling]

That's because there's lots of very old Boeings still in service.. It has been a very long time since a Boeing has wrecked due to equipment failure.

Re:Only a week

[cmdahler]

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:Only a week

[Darth_brooks]

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:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaah, so I wasnt the only one that was wondering if he was joking or not.

Anyway, both Boeing and Airbus make fine aircraft, and many other companies do too.

Re:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because there's lots of very old Boeings still in service.. It has been a very long time since a Boeing has wrecked due to equipment failure.

True. It's unfair to compare old 737s with their known flaws to modern designs but even if we stick to comparing Boeing 757s, 767s, 777s and 737 NGs to Airbus aircraft from the same period of time, Airbus have a slightly better safety record. Equipment failures are very, very rare nowadays and pilot error is by far the most common accident cause so the reason is the numerous protections against pilot error the Airbus FBW system provides. A very interesting video of the system in action as tested by Bruce Dickinson (who isn't just the Iron Maiden vocalist but also a 757 captain) can be found here.

Re:Only a week

[Wyatt Earp]

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 aviation and whatever Boeing comes out with to replace the Boeing 737 Next Gen.

Re:Only a week

[countertrolling]

...if we stick to comparing Boeing 757s, 767s, 777s and 737 NGs to Airbus aircraft from the same period of time, Airbus have a slightly better safety record.

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 there is more confusion in the Airbus Cockpit when a crew member selects the incorrect mode during approach and landing. Look up the most famous one that happened an airshow. I will also grant that almost none of those types of accidents happened with an American crew :-)

Re:Only a week

[Wyatt Earp]

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:Only a week

[Wyatt Earp]

Cliff Claven from Boeing corporate in Chicago you mean.

Re:Only a week

[Capt. Skinny]

"I'm not doing your homework" == "I'm too lazy to support my arguments with evidence"

Re:Only a week

[Sun]

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 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:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as if you don't understand that accidents caused by other factors than mechanical ones are included in the safety record. The reason why Airbus have a better safety record is that they have done more to prevent pilot errors and pilot errors are by far the most common cause of accidents. It doesn't matter whether you think Boeing somehow are less susceptible to mechanical failures (they're not) when mechanical failures are only to blame for a fraction of accidents nowadays. Furthermore, accidents that are due to mechanical failures are frequently due to poor or improper maintenance instead of design issues, which is why it's a lot more about the airline than the aircraft manufacturer. If you want a real example of cockpit confusion, you should look at American Airlines 965 (a 757). That's a real example of human beings and computers not working well together.

Re:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, the Titanic was a much bigger object to find. In fact, many of the pieces it broke into in addition to the two main sections, were big enough to be easily recognizable in a sonar image - the first pieces they found were in fact the boilers, each of which was the size of a large locomotive. Furthermore, they had a relatively accurate position to start looking from based on the SOS call instead of floating debris and a plot that had ended when the aircraft was still traveling at cruise speed.

Re:Only a week

[countertrolling]

A mere navigational error... That all you got?

They involved pilot error, but the machine created a very difficult situation.

Re:Only a week

[Richard_at_work]

They would have been checked at a C or D check, but just because they failed and Boeing issued an AD doesn't mean that Boeing was in the wrong - note that the remedial action recommended was "inspect and replace if necessary", it wasn't "replace component with new component of specification X".

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 banged accidentally during an engine swap and not reported.

The fact that the AD issued was not a demanding one is telling.

Re:Only a week

[Sun]

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:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to "get". The accident I referred to was significant due to the cause of the navigational error but it seems to me that you're just intent on twisting data in favor of whatever argument you're trying to make so I won't bother educating you anymore.

Re:Only a week

[sznupi]

Two days ago a friggin' hull rapture happened in a Boeing 737. Also, this year so far: two Boeing aircraft in major incidents including one with lots of fatalities; Airbus: zero incidents. Which doesn't even mean much, just random fluctuations (2010: Boeing 7 crashes, mostly few years old aircraft, two on board fires in which everybody perish - one visible from the ground shortly after takeoff; Airbus 4 crashes, the only very fatal ones - pilot errors & bad weather, engine malfunctions without victims / both airplane manufacturer use the same engine (and many other components) manufacturers anyway; still whole 2010 within random fluctuations and differences expected from relative number of airplanes)

The absolute numbers of airplanes don't change the rates, which are the same within the margin or error for both major manufacturers. And there are almost 4-decade old Airbuses still flying.

People are just quick to see patterns which aren't there. Even more if you want to see what you want to see. Boeing itself says that Airbus airplanes are just as safe as their own.

Re:Only a week

[sznupi]

NVM how many components in Airbuses are US-made... Or how Boeing uses CATIA to design their airplanes - a software which, while not strictly "from Airbus", is certainly in the family.

And in recent news - WTO ruled that Boeing subsidies are also illegal...

Re:Only a week

[countertrolling]

...I won't bother educating you anymore.

:-) Cool, you just saved me from having to brag about my certificates.

Re:Only a week

[sznupi]

And all of those hull losses had everything to do with human error or weather. The one for B777 - technical fault.

Re:Only a week

[Wyatt Earp]

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

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 runway at Ecuador’s Mariscal Sucre International Airport. The landing gear collapsed and two engines broke off. The aircraft was scrapped.

Rain didn't cause the landing gear to collapse, the construction of the gear did.

Re:Only a week

[sznupi]

"badly damaged after sliding off the runway"; high speed "taxiing" through soil tends to cause gear collapses in any aircraft / but interesting how you read it in the most damning way ;p (and similar engine faults are quickly blamed on, also Airbus in this thread...)

Re:Only a week

[Wyatt Earp]

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 conditions, thats the pilot error, but the loss of the hull isn't because of the weather, its because of the structural failure.

Fact remains, B-777s have fewer hull losses per hour flown than A-340, but no fatalities for either type.

Re:Only a week

[cmdahler]

Which clearly didn't include any courses in statistical analysis or the basic ability to use a dictionary...

Re:Only a week

[sznupi]

Srsly, a general aviation aircraft, often operated on soil runways, as an example? (even typically, at my place) How do you managed to convince yourself it's a good idea? NVM the difference between a soil runway / taxiing area vs. areas outside it (and how bringing an airplane to a stop as quickly as possible, on them, is preferable; even at the cost of irreparable damage)

Anyway, if anything it was a fault of tire manufacturer. Certainly not worse than engine part icing.

Re:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

...I won't bother educating you anymore.

:-) Cool, you just saved me from having to brag about my certificates.

You're being saved from having to embarrass yourself. It doesn't matter much if you're wrong when you're not expected to know more than the average Joe but when you're wrong and at the same time claim that you have some qualifications it's a lot more embarrassing.

Re:Only a week

[Richard_at_work]

Only if the manufacturer was proven to have been negligent in providing the initial maintenance requirements in the first place.

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 first flight of a brand new aircraft type, and not 25 years from first flight).

The manufacturers put their aircraft through a lot both during flight testing and even after the type has entered into service - one of the things that manufacturers are always looking to do is improve the economics of their aircraft, and one seriously big way to do that is to extend the periods between maintenance. The initial maintenance periods are set under agreement with the aviation authorities, and the manufacturer has to prove that the aircraft can exceed those fairly conservative boundaries safely.

What this means is that Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer et al are always testing parts. They don't just get an initial test and thats it for the rest of their lives...

The aircraft involved in the crash you are questioning was 14 years old at the time it met its fate - that means that those engines would have been off their pylons several times, the entire pylons would have been removed several times - and each time the pins in question would have been inspected and replaced if necessary.

Everyone learns from a crash - its impossible to design an airliner with a 100% safety margin, they would be too costly to operate. In this case, Boeing discovered that under particular circumstances the pins can suffer from metal fatigue which leads to an unsafe failure mode - they still don't know what led to the metal fatigue in this particular case, but its not complacent in other Boeing 747 engine loss incidents (there have been several) and the FAA did not mandate an overly burdenous remedy - that indicates that Boeings initial approach was fine, shit happens. Check for shit periodically.

And sometimes it simply is a case of shit happens - these machines have millions of moving parts, millions of materials made to different tolerances, and fly continuously through very different climates. Someday, something that has always been within its operating parameters will fail for no apparent reason, and that may bring an aircraft down, while its sister part sat next to it or on the other wing is fine for another 30 years.

Re:Only a week

[drsquare]

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:Only a week

[Cochonou]

There have already been two search campaigns in the most likely places so far. It's more like it took them almost two years... but utlimately, they did find it.

Re:Only a week

[knarf]

Boeing? You mean that manufacturer of convertible commuter airliners? 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:Only a week

[FormOfActionBanana]

"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?"

Well, there was the demonstration flight where the pilot overflew the runway at a high angle of attack with gear down... and then impacted the ground, survived, was tried and put in jail. He always maintained the thrust control delayed his command to spool up the engines.

Re:Only a week

[FormOfActionBanana]

These are really not very good examples of Airbus design flaws. Reverse thruster disabled? And two guys just swinging the levers wildly without communicating? TOGA button pressed, and the FO and captain insist on trying to force the plane down instead of... gasp... going around, because something is not right with this approach. Bad weather, captain freakout from a late late go around instruction, absolutely shit weather and a difficult climbing turn?

Come on, have you ever flown a plane? I'm not at all convinced your examples are design flaws, these are fucked up multiple cock-up situations. The usual type of accident.

Re:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there was the demonstration flight where the pilot overflew the runway at a high angle of attack with gear down... and then impacted the ground, survived, was tried and put in jail. He always maintained the thrust control delayed his command to spool up the engines.

And even if that were due to the computer (the audio in the video indicates the contrary), it wouldn't have had anything to do with the FBW system. If any computer failed, it was the FADEC (Full Authority Digital Electronics Control) which had begun to replace flight engineers on aircraft with hydraulic controls by all manufacturers before the A320 was launched. The video has been analyzed several times and contradicts the pilot's version of when he commanded thrust since the sound of the engines spooling up can be heard. Fuel-efficient jet engines are not high-performance fighter jet engines so they take their time spooling up and based on when they're heard doing it, the position where the aircraft was when he increased thrust can be determined. Now, there might be a cover up of an altimeter problem since a faulty reading could indeed have misled the pilot but as an accident cause such a simple instrument failure would've made the PR disaster even worse. However, the pilot should never have agreed to such a stunt in the first place at an airfield he didn't know and that was too small for that aircraft to land anyway on so all his visual references were also misleading when performing that overflight.

Re:Only a week

[FormOfActionBanana]

Coward, I think we can determine when the engines were given the command, but not when the pilot initiated that command. Not unless we were in there... or unless we had the flight recorders which, as I understand it, disappeared.

Re:Only a week

[MoeDrippins]

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.

Re:Only a week

[Sun]

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 manufacturer's fault". I'd rather call it "sometimes you mess up even if you follow the rules".

At the end of the day the people risking the most in case something goes wrong, i.e., the passengers, are also the people who have the least amount of control over whether something goes wrong or not. Again, I accept that flight is one of the safest forms of travel, I just don't accept that it's never the manufacturer's fault, as you are trying to imply.

Shachar

Re:Only a week

[countertrolling]

ouch! Luckily they still have an old fashion gyro, airspeed indicator, and an altimeter on board, and were as close to the airport as they were. Dodged another bullet...

...Boeing itself says that Airbus airplanes are just as safe as their own.

Lawyers lawyers lawyers...

Re:Only a week

[Anonymous Coward]

They certainly didn't disappear but there were rumors that they were tampered with since the authorities didn't quite follow the proper legal channels when providing access to them. The video, however, supported the official version but it's still possible that a faulty altimeter misled the pilot and that it's been covered up.

Re:Only a week

[Richard_at_work]

I'm certainly not saying its never>/i> the manufacturers fault, and I don't think its circular logic at all - its a simple attempt to say "sometimes no one is at fault", and thats entirely true no matter what is at stake.

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 even if you follow the rules" - this isn't about messing up, sometimes there is no screw up anywhere along the chain.

You seem to be pushing for the manufacturer to always be at fault in situations where the airline or environment isn't (or rather thats the way your last post is coming across) - that simply isn't the case. Sometimes shit happens, and when shit happens blame doesn't have to be attributed to anyone - yes, there are situations where there is no blame to portion out, where no one is to blame.

There is ample scope for manufacturers to be blamed for incidents, and this has happened in the past - McDonnel Douglas's DC-10 had several major design flaws which led to a number of deaths, and they were rectified and the company paid fines and damages. Airbus has had incidents requiring compensation and remedial action. Boeing has also had its fair share.

Aircraft are complicated - if blame were to be attributed in the manner in which you seem to be suggesting then no commercial entity would be building aircraft - it simply wouldn't be in their financial interests to take the blame for everything that went wrong with the aircraft, regardless of whether they followed best practice, rules and regulations and certfication requirements to the letter. It would be too costly to build them, no one would insure their business due to the risk.

Re:Only a week

[sznupi]

And this changes the actual rates, actual data and their conclusions, or the BS you spew even in your basic chronology of "Boeing equipment failures" (NVM how major one, random hull rupture is as bad as it gets)... in what way? NVM as far as fatalities go... (and both cases in question being most likely maintenance errors anyway; but BTW, a lot of avionics / equipment in Airbuses is US-made...)

Right, lawyers - even those leeches unable to get any cash from such "patriotism" flavored paranoia + some people really wanting to believe. Or: airlines, the ones who want confidence in the safety of bought airplanes / it brings them more money - trust both manufacturers pretty much equally, looking at history of deliveries and procurements.

As far as your nickname goes, you're a disappointment (unless it's itself...)

Re:Only a week

[countertrolling]

I'm gonna tell you a little story.. Back when I was in the business, it was Lockheed against McDonald Douglas. The Lockheed had terrible developmental problems (and Rolls Royce went bankrupt while designing the engine, who'd a thunk Rolls Royce of all people?) Anyway, the performance was very similar to the MD, a little short on range, corrected later on. However, MD is infamous for the safety of the DC-10.. Well, guess who sold over five times as many aircraft? You honestly think you're going to get me to believe the airlines give a damn? The DC-10 made money, lots and lots of money. Mechanically, the Lockheed was an impeccable, beautifully laid out, easy access to most components, very robust airplane. The MD is quite frail in comparison. And crawling around in places the passengers never see confirmed every suspicion I had. And amongst all of them, I still consider the L-1011 to be the best ever. That means nothing to the business. The MD, dangerous as it is, shows glowing returns on the spreadsheets. Maybe you ought to dig a little bit deeper than the business section of the newspapers. Numbers aren't everything. Some people are just very lucky. I don't give a shit about numbers. I care about sound design and engineering. And the Airbus is a laggard in that department, and the ones I've been on are very noisy and uncomfortable besides. I expected better from the 'teutonic' Europeans. What I actually picture in their boardrooms these days is a lot of bickering and the resulting slop. Part of the problem is the cultural problem from too many chefs. Everybody else worked as a single entity. The Airbus is glommed together from all sorts of different places. More like accretion than assembly. Check out the ridiculous process the 380 manufacture goes through. It's a mess. This is why the 787 is going nowhere. Boeing should stay with the tried and true methods that have proven themselves so well. Everybody here sees the Airbus from the Wall Street point of view. There it looks just fine. I look at it from the dirty, filthy mechanic's POV. And I can't paint a pretty picture from that. Eh.. whatever...

Re:Only a week

[sznupi]

Yes, sad... (go on, continue ignoring basic stats; or how random hull rupture can be easily seen as "as bad as it gets"; unless you worship also Comet... ups, that would be the evil Europeans)

get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane

[circletimessquare]

insert your own samuel l jackson joke

http://www.seasky.org/deep-sea/atlantic-hagfish.html

the ocean's morticians, always found near the dead

nastiest things on earth

Re:get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane

[Dan East]

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

[circletimessquare]

http://www.whaletimes.org/hagfish.htm

'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

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

'The adjective which best describes the Myxini is "Lovecraftian".'

Re:get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane

[DocSavage64109]

Thanks. This is just what I needed to read on a monday morning.

Re:get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane

[ColdWetDog]

FTFL:

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:get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane

[sjames]

Nah, politicians don't have a heart!

Re:get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane

[StikyPad]

Looks like videos have already leaked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ7OLYd0UE0

Four years early too. That's weird.

Re:get ready for pictures of hagfish on a plane

[Anonymous Coward]

nastiest things on earth

OK, I don't get it. I read the page you linked, and all I saw was a description of a deep sea dwelling animal, along with some commentary similar to yours ("nasty", "monster", "gruesome" etc.).

But what's so gruesome about this fish? The fact that it's ugly (granted, it is)? The fact it uses slime to defend itself? The fact it eats other fish, who might even still be alive at the time?

None of that is particularly nasty to me. The last bit may be, perhaps, but it's a) not as if the hagfish's doing it on purpose, and b) not uncommon in the first place; and of course, it c) does not appear to be where the "nasty" bit comes from, anyway.

Seriously, folks. This is Slashdot, and we're supposed to be of above average intelligence here: people who appreciate the world around us, whether it's distant stars or denizens of the deep sea, people who are interested in the hard sciences (of which biology is one), people who know enough to not let their own prejudices get in the way when they evaluate new things.

And all we manage to come up with when seeing an interesting new species is how it's "nasty"? That's really sad.

That's not the wreckage of AF447

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the wreckage Charles Widmore put there for them to find!

Cue the LOST logo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still too soon?

I know, I miss LOST too.

Re:Cue the LOST logo.

[GameboyRMH]

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.

[citation needed]

[Nidi62]

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:[citation needed]

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm an actual Airbus A330 so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Re:[citation needed]

[sznupi]

Data are better though, and they clearly show that airplanes of both major manufacturers come down at about the same rate, with white noise fluctuations (but human minds have a propensity to see patterns which aren't there; more so when they want to see it). Also that human error is the cause of majority of crashes, pilot error being a large part part of those.

Re:[citation needed]

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

where are links to native teepeeleaks etchings?

[Anonymous Coward]

there are sites all over the world, as real history seems to be unburying itself? a lot of it is not pleasant (repeated attacks/exterminations by 'religious' beings), but is presented so that we may learn... something? babys rule.

...as opposed to what?

[Joce640k]

737s which keep on developing unexpected sunroofs?

Re:...as opposed to what?

[Wyatt Earp]

A-330 is similar to the 767 and 777, not the 737-300

Re:...as opposed to what?

[RobertLTux]

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:...as opposed to what?

[phorest]

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:...as opposed to what?

[cmdahler]

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:...as opposed to what?

[phorest]

You don't give any reason why it's so stupid. Enlighten me and don't just slander me.

Re:...as opposed to what?

[cmdahler]

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 hull damage such as with the recent Southwest incident.

Airline skin tests on aluminum are done via eddy current testing. It has nothing to do with a visual inspection. The point is to find the cracks long before they become visible to the naked eye.

You were slandered because you made a statement showing your ignorance of how things operating in a particular industry, when spending two minutes doing a little online searching would have educated you. Then, you stated your willingness to judge your personal safety on your misconceptions without apparently putting even a moment's effort into educating yourself on the subject so as to make an informed decision. Thus, silly.

Re:...as opposed to what?

[phorest]

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?

[cmdahler]

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 eddy current testing is normally performed during heavy maintenance when the airplane is pulled out of service for weeks for such minute inspections. These "heavy checks" happen after fairly lengthy intervals after which the paint on the airframe needs to be stripped and replaced anyway just because it looks awful after a while.

It's Greg Feith, actually, and he has worked as an accident investigator for the NTSB for a long time. The NTSB (which is his background) has nothing to do with the FAA and is often at loggerheads with the FAA over this or that issue. The NTSB plays an investigatory role during accidents, incidents, etc.; they have nothing to do with the ongoing regulation or inspection requirements of the airlines, which is where this paint thing would come into play. If paint seriously got in the way of performing a proper inspection, the FAA would long ago have regulated it out of existence. Since the kind of cracks we're talking about here are not going to be visible to the naked eye anyway, there's no problem with paint so long as your testing methodology is adequate to detect the metal weakness with the paint present; if it's not, the paint has to be stripped before testing.

Bottom line, paint is not an issue.

Re:...as opposed to what?

[phorest]

Thanks for sticking with me. However, I always thought that painting them all up (especially like Southwest) is a real waste anyway. Between the extra weight of the paint to the solvents they use to remove the paint, just seems foolish for brandings sake.

Re:...as opposed to what?

[cmdahler]

Painting results in a smooth surface, so long as it's kept clean. Thus, the fuel savings from the reduced drag offset the cost of hauling around that extra weight in paint. For airlines like American, which go with an unpainted fuselage, they have to polish that aluminum at frequent intervals to keep it smooth, which adds up to a lot of expense and wear on the skin. I've read studies in the past saying it's basically a toss-up as to which methodology costs/saves more.

Lost?

[trevc]

Sounds like something out of a Lost episode to me. Are we sure this wreck is not a fake?

Yes my child.

[eyenot]

Yes it is their SOULS that are down there. Quick! Go down there, and get thee their SOULS!

Gaah! An Army of Robots

[dkleinsc]

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:Gaah! An Army of Robots

[ColdWetDog]

Not to worry. If robots get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee.

That ought to do them in.

(apologies to somebody)

Re:You raise, I call

[Quiet_Desperation]

Not yet. I got ALL IN the question.

Photos from a Brazilian news site

[pdcull]

The Brazilian Globo news site has photos which were taken yesterday: http://g1.globo.com/mundo/fotos/2011/04/destrocos-do-voo-447.html

Geologically fortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

They're lucky. According to the bathymetry map on page 8 of the press release [PDF], the wreckage has been found on a relatively flat/smooth sediment abyssal plain area rather than the more rugged, exposed bedrock of the surrounding sea floor. This made identification of the crash site with sonar much easier (it stands out from the otherwise smooth sediment surface, as seen on page 2) and should make subsequent mapping of the site easier too. Depending upon how soft the sediment is, there could be items sunk into the sediment, which wouldn't be so good, but overall the location is quite fortunate.

Transmission instead of on-board recording

[noname444]

Why isn't the data, or some subset of it, transmitted continuously during the flight?

Re:Transmission instead of on-board recording

[SeeSp0tRun]

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:Transmission instead of on-board recording

[noname444]

Isn't this why we have communication satellites?

Re:Transmission instead of on-board recording

[Skater]

Cost? Every plane would require upgrades...all for the extremely unlikely event one is lost, over water, without a trace.

Re:Transmission instead of on-board recording

[lingon]

They're used (I think the system is called ACARS), but the links are expensive so I think they are used sparingly (triggered when the aircraft is in an emergency and so on).

Re:...as opposed to what? [smoking...]

[Thagg]

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...

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

TriSexual Puppy brings up a real interesting point here. Any EEs in the audience?

hull rapture

[dtmos]

Y'know, as a kid the whole "rapture" 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:hull rapture

[sznupi]

Yeah, well, false sense of correctness from the lack of whining by auto-correct ;p (that, and many such differences aren't immediately intuitively apparent in 3rd language...)

Re:You raise, I call

[Tsar]

It doesn't beg the question. It RAISES the question.

OK, then I CALL the question. The debate is closed.

Your statement that the debate is closed assumes that debate on /. is subject to the referenced parliamentary procedure, which it most certainly is not. Guess what this logical fallacy is called?

If irony were strawberries, we'd both be drinking smoothies right now.

Searchbots

[Geminii]

Next, Sarah Connor!

Re:You raise, I call

[pjt33]

By name or by value?

I think three is about right

[A nonymous Coward]

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:You raise, I call

[Phoghat]

Check