Thanks,
Cacik
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
cacik |
Air France Flight 'disappeared'? |
Lead | |
|
Can someone shed any light on what may have happened to the Air France flight that 'disappeared' off the coast of Brazil? At what point does a flight
normally cease communication with the point of departure and start communication with the destination point? Are they in communication when they are in
international airspace? This makes me really scared - especially since it is a very reputable airline and equipment. If anyone has any helpful comments, please
share.
Thanks, Cacik |
|||
Felice |
|||
|
I live in France and am watching the French news and Air France is speculating that the plane was hit by lightening. Apparently the plane sent an automatic
message saying that they had lost electrical power shortly after entering a storm area. Another expert however was saying that lightening alone and a loss of
electrical power would not explain the plane going down. The plane apparently was rather new and the crew very experienced. It is very sad.
|
|||
Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW |
|||
|
I just sent this out on Twitter:
Air France 447 lost last night over equator on Rio to Paris trans-Atlantic flight. Ignore speculation. Cause which won't be know for months. |
|||
cacik |
|||
|
I read that too on le monde. My heart goes out to the families involved.
|
|||
Skeptic |
|||
|
All I can say at this point is we are gonna have a LOT to discuss. My prayers too are with those families.
|
|||
FobicFlyer |
|||
|
My French is far from perfect, but from what I can glean from French network television carried by cable here in Toronto, it appears as if AF447 lost
electrical power as it was flying through - why not around or over - a massive thunderstorm over the South Atlantic.
Couldn't a power loss knock out the radios meaning the crew couldn't send a "Mayday"? Coupled with flying at night over water, wouldn't the crew become easily disoriented? Even if they still had radios, might they have been too busy fighting the airplane and, because of their disoreintation, have gone into a catastophic spin that might have torn the plane apart before it hit the water? Between the turbulance and the fall to the see, I can feel the terror felt by passengers who were being tossed all over the cabin. Because of my flying phobia, I admitr not stepping foot on a plane for more than 16 years but it also means I read and study as much as I can about crashes so I can try to overcome my phobia. Does it occur to anyone else that this might be a plausible cause? After all, chances of finding an airplane 10 or more miles under the ocean is pretty unlikely. |
|||
CRob21 |
|||
|
Gotta admit, this spiked my jitters a little for my flight next week, even thought its not the same airline, route, or plane!
Last Edited By: CRob21
06/01/09 13:30:52.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
mrrantoul |
|||
|
I read a single newspaper story about this (New York Times), and already the speculation is in overdrive. Then there are the comments from readers, where one
can find helpful observations like, "All crashes are caused by storms and turbulence" and rants about Airbus' inferior (and un-American) design.
Whew! I look forward to some thoughtful analysis and myth-debunking. And my heart goes out to the passengers, crew, and their families and friends. Wish this stuff didn't spike my jitters as well, CRob21. Gotta remember how many traffic accidents happen daily, and how I'd feel about driving if each one was dramatically dissected in the paper. |
|||
Capn Steve |
|||
|
Yes, of course the speculation is in high gear, even in reputable media (like the NYT). That's to be expected when something like this happens. People
naturally want to know WHY??!
(Reader comments on news stories. I read them and just roll my eyes. It's depressing to realize how truly stupid -- and mean -- so many people are. Reading them is sort of like gaping at a traffic accident.) Anyway -- Capt. Tom is correct. Speculation should be ignored. It will take many months, at least, for the investigation to occur and findings to be issued. It does not help, at all, for news reports to use words like "storms," turbulence," "electrical failures," "lightning strikes." and so forth. These just trigger unwarranted fear in people. NONE of these things in themselves will cause an airplane to go down. (So what DID cause it to go down? I have no idea, and neither does anyone else just yet.) For those about to take an airplane trip and feeling anxious over all this, you may rest assured that the chances of a freaky thing like this happening to you are miniscule. You're far more likely to come to grief in your car, and even in your own home. Cheers. Cap'n Steve |
|||
FobicFlyer |
|||
|
Captain Steve ...
Neither you nor anyone else responded to the question I posed in my earlier post: Couldn't a power loss knock out the radios meaning the crew couldn't send a "Mayday"? Coupled with flying at night over water, wouldn't the crew become easily disoriented? Even if they still had radios, might they have been too busy fighting the airplane and, because of their disoreintation, have gone into a catastophic spin that might have torn the plane apart before it hit the water? French television is reporting this morning that the plane also send an automatic signal that it was losing pressure. Coupled with what I'd asked previously, mightn't there have been a series of catastrophic events, perhaps started by losing electrical power which knocked out the radio's, followed by what I posited yesterday? Thanks. |
|||
oaklandrosie |
|||
|
The media keeps harping on the notion that the plane had flown through a severe storm. I was under the distinct impression that commercial airliners don't
fly "through" storms, rather, they keep a distance from the intense cells and divert around them. Why on earth should we believe that this airliner
would have flown "through" a storm cell?
|
|||
waldmania |
|||
|
I was listening to a radio show last night, on which the guest was a FedEx pilot who flies that route. He said that, over that area of the Atlantic, there is
no access to radar, and pilots have to rely on reports of other pilots flying ahead of them, which can be difficult to understand via radio. Is that correct,
Captains Tom and Steve? If so, it would explain why an airliner might have flown "through" a storm cell.
|
|||
PaulDub |
Radar | ||
|
Are you talking about ground radar or weather radar in the plane. I think that most planes have weather radar onboard. Am I wrong? Paul
|
|||
Katt |
Flying Safer than Ever! | ||
|
Interesting article from Yahoo news today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090601/sc_livescience/flyingissaferthanever
In light of the Air France disaster, the reminder in this story is particularly valuable: the likelihood of dying in a plane accident is 1 in 20,000. I'm not a mathematician by any stretch, but even that seems high! I remember how I used to be really scared after crashes like this. They would capture my imagination and add up to a whole library of disasters for my mind to play with when it came time for me to get on a plane. SOAR has definitely helped with all of that. I've flown countless times now post-SOAR and, in fact, just booked tickets for a summer trip to Ireland. This isn't the forum to celebrate, though, obviously, as what happened to the crew and passengers on the Air France flight is certainly tragic. I'm just suggesting that there's an alternative to letting ones mind be preoccupied with the "what ifs."
Last Edited By: Katt
06/02/09 10:30:18.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
oaklandrosie |
|||
|
Katt makes a good point that flying is safer than ever. That's why I jumped into this discussion. It kind of bothers me that the media keeps focusing on
the notion that the plane was flying "through" a storm cell intentionally. I think it's wrong to suggest that because pilots avoid really bad
weather. This only serves to make nervous fliers even more nervous, and others a bit more concerned about the process of flying.
|
|||
StevePark |
RE: Flying is Safer Than Ever Article | ||
|
Nice article. There are some good, valid points there.
I like - and I think Captain Tom will also like - the ratio of flight-related deaths to automobile-related deaths in 2007. It was 44 from flight compared with 44,000 from automobiles. That's a huge difference. And if I'm not mistaken, there were zero flight-related fatalities in 2008... I believe. The stats don't lie. Now we just have to beat the anxiety... you know, let your mind "SOAR".
Last Edited By: StevePark
06/02/09 12:22:04.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
CRob21 |
|||
|
1 in 20,000 seems low.... I thought it was higher than that?
::Queue unnecessary panic:: |
|||
Sidecut |
|||
|
Hans Weber, head of the Tecop aviation consulting firm in San Diego, offered a hypothesis about the episode, based on his knowledge of severe losses of
altitude by two Qantas jets last year.
The new Airbus 330 was a "fly-by-wire" plane, in which signals to move the flaps are sent through electric wires to small motors in the wings rather than through cables or hydraulic tubing. Fly-by-wire systems can automatically conduct maneuvers to prevent an impending crash, but some Airbus jets will not allow a pilot to override the self-protection mechanism. On both Qantas flights, the planes' inertia sensors sent faulty information into the flight computers, making them take emergency measures to correct problems that did not exist, sending the planes into sudden dives. If the inertia sensor told a computer that a plane was stalling, forcing it to drop the nose and dive to pick up airspeed, and there was simultaneously a severe downdraft in the storm turbulence, "that would be hard to recover from," Mr. Weber said. |
|||
esprit12 |
|||
|
OMG
Is that true? Can an A330 go into a sudden dive that the pilot can't correct? Need info as I'm about to fly to Munich on an A330 on June 20. Thanks, Pam |
|||
Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW |
|||
|
GOT ABOUT 500 EMAILS TODAY. I'LL GET TO AN ANSWER TO POSTINGS ON THE BOARD ASAP.
|
|||
FobicFlyer |
|||
|
The A-330 type that crashed as well as the four engine A-340 were the subject of a European air worthiness directive issued January 16, 2009. It was issued
following an accident in October 2008 when a Quantas A330 experienced a sudden nose down order while in cruise.
The EASA directive said that the on-board computer began sending erroneous messages to the flight control systems which caused the Quantas plane to go into an uncontrolled dive;, fortunately, the pilots were able to regain control of the aircraft and save the plane. Authorities said the plane had provided random and erroneous information to the pilots, including a loss of altitude readings and warnings that the plane was about to stall. According to The New York Times, Air France received a number of automatic electronic messages from the doomed airplane in the final minutes of the flight including a loss of electrical power, sudden decompression and similar indications of a major problem with the airplane. |
|||
|
Note from Capt. Tom I know everyone worries about weather, but pilots really do not worry about it. We simply - instead of worrying about it - completely prepare for it. Before going to the plane, we review the weather at the destination. If it is not 100% sure to be within legal limits when we arrive at the destination, we must specify an alternate airport in our planning documents, and load on plenty of fuel for going to the destination airport, and then if need be, diverting to the alternate airport. The legal limits are conservative. Even when weather is slightly outside the legal limits, any airline pilot could still land safely. You can rely on the captain never to land when the weather is not legal, and legality limits are reached prior to safety limits. If you are still anxious, call me and we can talk it over. I'm at 877 332-7359 from 10 AM until 7 PM Eastern time. For effective help, even if you are flying in a day or two, sign up now at www.fearofflying.com/fasttrack and call me when you finish Clip 9 so I can make sure you are all set. |
|
Using Weather Information If you enter your ZIP Code or City at the top of the weather presentation, it will give you weather for your area. Or, you can enter your destination ZIP Code or City.
Click on the "LOCAL RADAR" button to see whether or not there are thunder- Turbulence, though it may cause anxiety, does not mean anything is wrong. Turbulence does not mean danger. The plane can handle far more turbulence than Mother Nature can dish out. Though flying in turbulence is safe, it doesn't feel safe. And here is where the SOAR programs come in. We can help you feel as safe when you fly as you actually are. You can see these programs at www.fearofflying.com/store. |