Theres something to be said for 3 or 4 engines... and Glass instruments as backup.
Well.. I guess there IS something to be said for 3 or 4 engines mate but if something happens that is catastrophic enough to take out 2 with the amount of failsafe systems in place.. there's every likelihood that it would take out 3 or 4 too :think: Falling out of the sky is not the preserve of twins unfortunately though granted, the more you have, one would expect the chances of getting one to fire are increased.
Let us hope that the blackbox can be recovered and whatever problems befell these poor souls can be identified and addressed. One can only imagine the terror the passengers and crew might have experienced as they were a long way up which in turn means a long way down. :-(
With loss of pressurization and a complete failure of the electrics then no doubt the passengers and crew would have (mercyfully) lost consciousness very quickly and not been aware and felt the fear of the final plunge. :-(
Having said that and from reading Leifs' post, if the a/c battery can take over albeit for a very short period, then surely the ram air could have been deployed unless of course all the circuits had been blown meaning no power could be generated to the instruments and engine start switches.
Just one more point regarding back-up systems, why is it not feasible to design a backup control system using compressed air that could be generated from inlets along the wings to power the controls instead of relying on hydraulics or electrical back up systems? Just a thought. :think:
Nigel
I used to be an optimist but with age I am now a grumpy old pessimist.
The RAT on Airbus products doesn't drive electrics it drives the essential hydraulic pump (blue system I think if my memory hasn't gone totally) which in turn drives a PTO that acts a generator. From what I remember of the bus the concept was "Get it on the ground NOW!" to that end Toulouse taught crews to turn OFF the sacred six (computers) and how to land the aeroplane with out any computer assistance whatsoever. From conversations with TransAer crews who were typed at Toulouse - it was quite feasible to land the aircraft with a total loss of electronic help -- the concensus was you would need 60 miles to line it up on finals but you could do it. By the information that is now being released in the media -- I stick by my first thought that what ever happened was immeadiate and catastrophic -- more like the aircraft breaking up in severe turbulence that being struck by lightening.
Oh yes Got an email from an old friend who is currently driving ERJs around South America -- his statement was that Brazilian ATC is NOT the sharpest tool in the shed and it is frequent to find yourself making position reports to stay alive in the airspace north of Recife towards Belem and Manaus. He cited being cleared for take off at Manaus directly at an inbound aircraft making a non precision approach, and total lack of interest enroute from Belem to Rio causing him to treat the passengers to a short experience of zero gravity after getting TWO simultaneous RA's at FL330.
Leif
Unfortunately I have to agree that the aircraft most likely broke up due to severe turbulence. Someone on another forum posted info that South Atlantic tropical thunderstorms are an entirely different beast than what we northern hemisphere folks are used to, and can easily top out at 50k feet. If that's what the Air France flight ran into they would have been right in the heart of the worst turbulence and electrical activity. Heck, even the "small" storms I remember so well from 36 years in Texas could generate enough wind shear gradient to rip any aircraft ever built into small shreds.
My hope right now is that they do locate the crash site, to at least answer "what happened" - if not how and why - for the families of those aboard.
Tarasdad wrote: Someone on another forum posted info that South Atlantic tropical thunderstorms are an entirely different beast than what we northern hemisphere folks are used to, and can easily top out at 50k feet. If that's what the Air France flight ran into they would have been right in the heart of the worst turbulence and electrical activity. Heck, even the "small" storms I remember so well from 36 years in Texas could generate enough wind shear gradient to rip any aircraft ever built into small shreds.
Thats what I was just about to ask; do thunderstorms go that high ? I was always under the impression that at 30k, you were well above the weather. You've set me straight on that one. This is such a shock, a modern airliner and a first-rate airline...I'm flying to Pittsburgh in July with Air France, so its dampened my high spirits somewhat. God bless them.
CuNims on the Inter Tropical Front certainly get up very high...I met one while flying from Juba to Entebbe in a Venom. I climbed to 45,000 feet and was only just above the bubbly bit of the cloud...The anvil part was towering way up above me and I estimated its top at 55,000 feet. It was also gigantic in girth and I had to steer way off left of my course to get round it and then work back round it towards Entebbe. As the cloud was not very far from Entebbe I finished up steering back the way I came and diving down steeply behind the cloud to get down over the lake and make an approach. The cloud looked extremely active and I'm certain that I could not have flown through it :think:
Anyway gents - can you really imagine that airplane was torn apart by thunderstorms? That would be the first airliner for decades! Somehow I just don't believe that. At once for that modern airplane's high resistance against air tremor and then I don't believe the crew would have chosen to fly directly into such a front.
For the time being bad weather is the only connex we have to speculate. But hasn't history tought us that there's always a chain of events that leads to disaster?
Let's hope they find that black box...
Theres something to be said for 3 or 4 engines... and Glass instruments as backup.
Well.. I guess there IS something to be said for 3 or 4 engines mate but if something happens that is catastrophic enough to take out 2 with the amount of failsafe systems in place..
Absolutely - any ETOPS questions would probably be to do with the flight being compromised in routing and weather avoidance because it was ETOPS, compared with a non-ETOPS flight.
