

Air France Flight 447: A detailed meteorological analysis - pmikal
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

======
andreyf
For those of us who don't follow news much, there's more factual detail here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447>

_There were 228 people aboard the flight including three pilots and nine other
cabin crew. The passengers were one infant, seven children, 82 women and 126
men_

:(

~~~
Rod
It is doubtlessly an unfortunate tragedy :-(

Nonetheless, everyday over 3000 people die in car accidents all over the
world. Over 5000 people die everyday due to preventable water diseases. Over
3000 people commit suicide every day. One can also argue that these tragedies
could be prevented. From this perspective, it's all but cold statistics...

------
quizbiz
Just the idea of a plane vanishing, gone, with well over 200 people on board,
boggles the mind. No distress calls?

I can only imagine the sudden chaos that erupted.

Technology v. Nature.

~~~
weegee
perhaps there was rapid decompression caused by the turbulence caught the
pilots without their masks on, and they fell unconscious, thus no distress
call, and a crash. there could have been a structural failure and the airplane
may have broken up on descent to a lower altitude. remember the American
Airlines crash in New York in October, 2001, where the vertical fin broke off,
it was an Airbus A300. The BOAC crash caused by turbulence near Mt.Fuji in
1966 was a massive structural failure as well. Hard to believe the pilots
would not have seen this weather on the radar and steered around it. Then
again, they depend on meteorological reports and guidance from the ground in
these situations, and may have been waiting for instructions. I've never flown
through severe turbulence (few have and lived to tell about it) but I've
experienced light turbulence, the kind where your butt leaves your seat very
briefly, and it's not fun. 4 hours of that and you have a back ache.

------
DanielBMarkham
As a pilot, I'm tempted to speculate on various crashes.

I've learned that this is a bad habit.

Best case, you get the cause right, and you look like a jerk. Worst case, you
get the cause wrong, and you look like a jerk.

I will say that in general, flameouts due to ice ingestion and the complete
fly-by-wire system of the Airbus have been generating interesting
conversations in the aviation community for some time. Whether this has
anything to do with the current situation is anybody's guess. I feel very
sorry for all of those involved.

~~~
jgrahamc
For an interesting counterpoint on 'fly-by-wire-is-bad' read the Vanity Fair
article about the Airbus that landed in the Hudson and how the fly-by-wire
augmented the pilot's own ability.

[http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us_airways2...](http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us_airways200906)

~~~
frossie
Boy, there is some fabulous choice of words in that Vanity Fair article. For
example in the part telling the story of an Airbus 330 that ran out of fuel
over the Atlantic. Both engines are going out, the flight attendants have
instructed passengers to don life vests, the main lights have failed, the PA
system goes dead and then finally "as the cabin pressure leaked away, the
oxygen masks automatically dropped, and this caused another round of fussing."

Yeah, I bet those passengers were "fussy" alright.

------
jrnkntl
Many things he discusses are well above my level of comprehension but
turbulence is likely to be the main cause of the crash although other planes
passed that same region without problems. It sounds likely to me that heavy
turbulence just 'broke' inner electronic
equipment/circuits/meters/connections?

~~~
bojanb
This particular airplane (F-GZCP) was involved in a ground collision incident
with another Airbus in 2006, where its wing hit the other Airbus' tail. The
wing was repaired.

An improper fix would certainly lead to an in-flight breakup after many
operating cycles (see Japan Airlines flight 123 -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAL_123>; China Airlines flight 611 -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611> for example),
especially in conditions of heavy turbulence that this airplane obviously
experienced.

Either that or a bomb is my educated speculation.

~~~
petercooper
However, considering the maintenance transmissions were spread over 4 minutes,
I'd suspect the plane didn't entirely breakup within a shorter period of
time.. although this doesn't rule out that a bomb or breakup was the straw
that broke the camel's back - just that it probably wasn't the sole cause.

------
TweedHeads
"Terrorism has been ruled out"

I hate it when they try to manipulate mass opinion when they haven't even
found the damn plane.

The first thing that comes to my mind is a bomb in a suitcase blew the plane
in pieces.

Occam's razor.

~~~
petercooper
I think you're probably not being serious, but just in case.. you probably
aren't going to be getting 4 minutes of maintenance transmissions from a plane
that's been blown into pieces ;-)

~~~
TweedHeads
Totally serious. Nowhere I've read about those 4mins you claim.

Here is what I've found:

The Washington Post: "among the key questions are how long the plane kept
flying after its last automatic satellite transmission and why no mayday call
was received from the pilots."

"the aircraft emitted a series of automatic messages via satellite indicating
that its electrical system was not functioning and that it had suffered a loss
of cabin pressure. Those were the final signals from the plane. "

As soon as it explodes, the transmitters start sending info about electrical
failure and cabin pressure, of course, and they do so for as many minutes as
they fall from 30K feet.

Why there was no mayday call?

They were already dead. Remember Columbia.

~~~
unexpected
It's in the CNN Article (the four minutes). Here is the relevant bit:

"But about 4:15 a.m. Paris time, Flight 447's automatic system began a four-
minute exchange of messages to the company's maintenance computers, indicating
that "several pieces of aircraft equipment were at fault or had broken down,"
he said."

You can read the full article here:

[http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/01/air.france.braz...](http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/01/air.france.brazil/index.html)

My instincts tell me that if power was lost, they wouldn't be able to send a
mayday call. Of course, if total power was lost, how was the plane able to
communicate with the server?

A bomb could have caused this explosion, but doesn't fall within the usual
terrorist M.O. No group has stepped forward to claim the attack- half the
"fun" of a terrorist organization is spreading fear through your message.

Additionally, it would not make sense for a terrorist to blow up the plane 4
hours into the flight over the Atlantic Ocean. It would make more sense to
blow it up as soon as it takes off or lands, to maximize damage on the ground
as well.

I am not a pilot, nor a security expert. This is all just my street-instincts
talking.

~~~
randallsquared
> No group has stepped forward to claim the attack- half the "fun" of a
> terrorist organization is spreading fear through your message.

I don't have any reason to think this was a terrorist attack, but I have the
impression that (credibly) claiming responsibility for attacks is less common
than it used to be. The Mumbai attacks last year, for example, were just
miscellaneous mystery terror.

~~~
unexpected
I agree with you, but to use your Mumbai attack example, "everyone" (everyone
I've read) basically believes that the Pakistan CIA-equivalent helped sponsor
the attacks. An organization taking responsibility for the attack would lead
back to this organization, which would involve a lot of political drama.

As long as Pakistan doesn't openly claim responsibility, there's no real loss
in political capital to them- Indians hate them anyway, and any time an attack
happens, India seems to rattle its sabers for a few months before backing down
and they remember that Pakistan is also nuclear capable.

Then business returns as usual.

