tortue

I think the K-129 and the Scorpion both suffered from submerged underwater explosions. Of course, both are still the subject of conspiracy theories (missile failsafe detonating when attacking Hawaii, Scorpion sunk by a Ruskie boat, etc).

However, I doubt anyone in the public knows the true capabilities of these systems so it'd be nice if they could help out with this.

On another note, it was stated that the Airbus is chatty back to the manufacturer and the air carrier via ACARS. Is this a behavior that only Airbus utilizes, or do Boeing a/c do similar?

KC10 FATboy

Forgot to bid ... funny story. What most people didn't know was, until February 2009, the satellites used to monitor 121.5 and 243.0.

Keying either 121.5 MHz or 243.0 MHz for 30 seconds or more will activate the SARSAT. Any activation initiates ground processing to locate the activating transmitter. Historically, inadvertent activations have been inordinately high and cause false alarms which seriously degrade the efficiency of the SAR System. Transmissions on 243.0 and 121.5 must not exceed a 15-second keying limit except in actual emergency or distress situations.

This is why ELTs must use 406mhz now. I wonder if the AF jet had the new equipment?

Nosmo King

I've never flown from SA to Europe. I have however flown from HNL-SYD and into and around SIN and GUM/SPN.

The thunderstorms near the equator in the Pacific can be hard to paint with modern digital radars. We used to call them smokestacks because they were tall skinny and had hellacious drafts. I used to talk to Qantas pilots that told me I was lucky to be on the classic 747 because the old monochrome radars were much better at picking out the smokestacks, but you had to run the tilt all the way down to the ocean surface to pick up the precip coming out the bottom of the CB.

Having said that, it is entirely possible that depending on how the radar was configured, they didnt see a really compact, tall, skinny CB that was right in their path at night. A CB strong enough to do damage to an unsuspecting crew and aircraft.

There is speculation that this was the type of thunderstorm that caught a UA 747 by surprise on a night flight from NRT-HNL, resulting in several major injuries to the cabin crew and one passenger death. The NW flight above and in front of the UA had no turbulence at all and neither did the NW flight above and behind.

If this is what happened, its likely it was just one link in a chain of events. That is the usual finding in accident reports.

Hypothetical:

Jet upset. I have 5 years flying the A330. I can tell you from flying the 747, DC10 and the 330 that the 330 would have less room for recovery in an overspeed situation. The wing is designed for .80M (cost index =0). Some carriers (mine included) operate at .82M (cost index =100). It is not too much farther to barber pole at some weights and altitudes, but in normal flight law the flight computers try to help.

Unusual attitude (bank angle >125 or pitch > +30 or pitch <-15): A330 in normal conditions runs under "Normal" flight laws which restricts bank angles and pitch and g-loading and provides auto trim. In an unusual atttitude situation, such as might be encountered inside a thunderstorm, it reverts to Alternate Law pitch (over-g protection only) and Roll direct (no protections from the flight computers, it flies like a cabled airplane)

So there you are at 35000 feet, its crew changeover time. One pilot is in the seat, one leaves to use the lavatory, one is standing in the cockpit building a nest before strapping into the seat. All of a sudden the airplane is upside down in severe turbulence. Not a damn thing was painting on the radar.

You have one pilot useless in the lav. One useless in the pit but not in seat and one pilot in the seat wondering what happened as things start to make nasty warning sounds, messages start to flash on the ECAM and the airplane picks up speed as it descends on its back. The generators may or may not still be online. The engines may or may not be running. Now you have one pilot trying to fly in alternate pitch mode and roll direct inverted in the dark possibly on partial panel and or partial thrust. Pilot may or may not even be able to reach the stick.

You can make your own scenarios by guessing which systems are still online and which ones are not...

Just many really bad scenarios. Hope that isn't how it happened.

Condolences to families of crew and passengers.

LivingInMEM

Just go to the military board, they'll tell you that all Lt Col's are not as kind.

5030N

Radar tilt/gain management over the ocean at night is a demanding task, and inadvertant penetration of any top at FL350 can be bad news.

After several years of day/night crossings of both oceans, your hypothetical made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

FlyJSH

Nosmo thanks for keeping this thread on point.

A few of the posts have had an agenda. Let us all remember a crew, our brethren, who wanted to get home had the worst possible day.

My heart goes out to those who have suffered a loss.

Fly4hire

Didn't the acft report loss of pressurization as well? Doesn't the 330 bleeds fail open with elec failure? Points to engines out or hull breach. Take your scenario, (+ Capt in the back on break), and throw in hail severe enough to FOD both engines.

KoruPilot

I've flown the S Pacific for the past number of years from NZ to N America and have never had a problem either seeing storms (on radar) or avoiding large clusters, although at times the deviations can be a bit far and wide. The newer radar on the B777 however is, in my opinion only, not so hot in automatic, so I always transferred between auto and manual for my own piece of mind. I think it has something to do with the way the Doppler works with the brain of the thing to pick out turbulence (WX+T only works within 40 NM). A smarter techie here can likely explain it better. Anyway, never had a real problem with the big nastys in SE Asia or the S Pacific myself. Early deviations and diligent monitoring.

Continental N America is a different story. The lines in central prairies can run for 100 miles or more and, if they are big, are full of hail and turbulence.

As I understand it, radar are set for the continental US as the returns from ice are more difficult to pick up than the returns from large water droplets. Hence, you'll see red more readily in tropical TS than in continental. I'm not sure what my friends at QF across the Tasman have been smoking, but you'd never have to scan down to the water to pick up a tropical cell; at least I've never had to. Perhaps they ran around with the gain turned down.

Anyway, terrible event and I'll be very interested to see just what happened here. Some interesting posts and a few very interesting comments. Having to descend into a band of nasty weather after a de-press was a good one I thought, as was Fly4Hires double flame out.

KoruPilot

food for thought from Airwise News;

Two Lufthansa jets passed through turbulence before and after a missing Air France plane without incident on Monday, a source with access to data said, leaving experts scrambling to assess the weather's role in the disaster.

Dougdrvr

You are spot on about fancy colors and doppler logic being a poor substitute for aggressive tilt management. Add to that the practice of turning up all the storm lights at night (i know it helps with fatigue). It's amazing what you can still see even on a moonless night. Blundering into the top of a building cell all the while "standing on a basketball" in the performance envelope has always given me "chickenskin" too.