Even if it could float, it would still probably trapped in the wreckage. You would need a system to eject the boxes right before impact...a bit far fetched.
Finding the sonar pinger is one thing. Actually recovering the boxes could be far more difficult, depending on the water depth. The deeper it gets, the fewer options you have. However, there is no ocean depth on earth which has not already been reached by the navy. It's just a matter of cost and time to get the equipment on station.
Maybe on civilian airplanes - but some Hornets have a feature like this already installed (DFIRS). If they can do it I'm sure it is only a matter of cost to put the same technology into civilian airplanes.
USMCFLYR
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
If you recall, PanAm 103 did not have people claiming responsibility right away either.
The satcom data could support this theory, so lets let the investigators rule it out.
Agreed....also remember Richard Reid, and the plans for airplanes over the Pacific that later came to light, all had plans for those aircraft to be lost at sea. The news reported this morning also that multiple debris fields were found up to 50 miles apart.
Agreed....also remember Richard Reid, and the plans for airplanes over the Pacific that later came to light, all had plans for those aircraft to be lost at sea. The news reported this morning also that multiple debris fields were found up to 50 miles apart.
USMCFLYR
True, and remember Pan Am 103 was delayed. The bomb was supposed to explode over open water.
But, I agree that it's way too early to start talking about ANYTHING yet.......much less this!
__________________
There's a party at the end of the world
Position: I'll take first break on both legs......
Posts: 16,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Agreed....also remember Richard Reid, and the plans for airplanes over the Pacific that later came to light, all had plans for those aircraft to be lost at sea. The news reported this morning also that multiple debris fields were found up to 50 miles apart.
USMCFLYR
Yes, and there is a lot to that. Also the way the sequence of data. I could explain it, but I am not in to speculation of events like this.
As I suggested on another forum, I think that when IFALPA puts out the call for donations for these lost crew members we all should donate at least a dollar(euro) or two for each pilot. Together everyone on this forum could make a huge contribution to those families.
The report said the pilot sent a manual signal at 10 p.m. EDT saying he was flying through an area of "CBs" -- black, electrically charged cumulo-nimbus clouds that pack violent winds and lightning.
Satellite data has a wall of thunderstorms were sending 100 mph winds straight into the jet's path at that time.
Ten minutes later, the plane sent a burst of automatic messages, indicating the autopilot had disengaged, the "fly-by-wire" computer system had been switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged.
An alarm also sounded, indicating the deterioration of flight systems, according to the report.
Three minutes later, more automatic messages indicated the failure of two other fundamental systems pilots use to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Then, there was a cascade of other electrical failures in systems that control the main flight computer and wing spoilers.
Satellite data has a wall of thunderstorms were sending 100 mph winds straight into the jet's path at that time.
Winds are not really the issue, if its just wind on the nose. A hundred knot wind-shear or change in wind, especially if its a change in direction along with velocity, would be a much bigger deal. The bigger danger in Thunderstorms is the convective energy that can throw the plane around like a rag doll - easily exceeding structural loads, or placing the plane in an attitude that makes this likely to happen. Throw in a little hail and icing, and a relatively flimsy piece of aluminum doesn't really stand a chance.
Sorry.............. kind of geeked out there for a second. I'll go to the gym now.
Somebody else already asked this, but I didn't see any response. Does the Boeing talk to homebase the way the Airbus does? Im on the 320 and I know it reports back but what about the 737 or the heavy Boeings?
Somebody else already asked this, but I didn't see any response. Does the Boeing talk to homebase the way the Airbus does? Im on the 320 and I know it reports back but what about the 737 or the heavy Boeings?
Our (DAL) 75-76's do. I suspect that there might be some different EICAS and fault reporting packages/options sold to different airlines, at different times. And of course there are different ACARS boxes, with different capabilities.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
