Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64

Thread: Air France Incident!!!

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    5,510
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Look... this is tasteless... but I'll leave it up to you all whether you find it funny (I did .. just a little bit... and was then disgusted.. and then amused...)

    Investigators determine AF447 incident caused by air crash.
     2005 Defender 110 

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Gold coast
    Posts
    3,130
    Total Downloaded
    0
    So whats the story on this one??? anything been found???? Ie, black box???

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    5,510
    Total Downloaded
    0
    No wreckage has been found on the bottom. Airbus has offered to pay to continue the search.

    In other news, Air France has had one of their a320's loose airspeed info so Airbus are now recommended that affected aircraft have at least two BF goodrich pitots and are considering making this advice mandatory.
     2005 Defender 110 

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Gold coast
    Posts
    3,130
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Have the French Navy stopped looking??

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Back down the hill.
    Posts
    29,796
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Maybe the French don't want to find too much, BEA are quick to and fond of blaming the pilots.
    If you don't like trucks, stop buying stuff.
    http://www.aulro.com/afvb/signaturepics/sigpic20865_1.gif

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    5,510
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by V8Ian View Post
    Maybe the French don't want to find too much, BEA are quick to and fond of blaming the pilots.
    Well Airbus is chipping in a substantial amount of money to keep the search going.

    It would appear they very much want to find the cause. If I were them I would too as this is the type of incident that could give them a bad safety reputation. It's probably unjustified, but still. Loosing a large jet full of people is not on.
     2005 Defender 110 

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    33º 29' S 150º 13'30" E
    Posts
    1,148
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Scarebus already have a bad rep and have done for years, but whether it's justified or just some pro-Boeing rednecking I'm not in a position to say.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    693
    Total Downloaded
    0
    here is something to chew on, i'd say take it with a pinch of salt.

    for me personally i like Boeing warey of airbus, but that may be just were my lack of experiance lies. they are different and have different logic but do have some neat ideas even if not all of them work.
    ian

    Subject: Air France Accident: Smoking Gun Found





    A Brazilian Naval unit reportedly found the complete vertical fin/rudder assembly of the doomed aircraft floating some 30 miles from the main debris field. The search for the flight recorders goes on, but given the failure history of the vertical fins on A300-series aircraft, an analysis of its structure at the point of failure will likely yield the primary cause factor in the breakup of the aircraft, with the flight recorder data (if found) providing only secondary contributing phenomena.



    The fin-failure-leading-to-breakup sequence is strongly suggested in the attached (below) narrative report by George Larson, Editor emeritus of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine.



    It's regrettable that these aircraft are permitted to continue in routine flight operations with this known structural defect. It appears that safety finishes last within Airbus Industries, behind national pride and economics. Hopefully, this accident will force the issue to be addressed, requiring at a minimum restricted operations of selected platforms, and grounding of some high-time aircraft until a re-engineered (strengthened) vertical fin/rudder attachment structure can be incorporated.



    Les



    --------------------------(George Larson's Report)---------------------



    This is an account of a discussion I had recently with a maintenance professional

    who salvages airliner airframes for a living. He has been at it for a while, dba BMI

    Salvage at Opa Locka Airport in Florida. In the process of stripping parts, he sees

    things few others are able to see. His observations confirm prior assessments of

    Airbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero structures communities

    by those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series vertical fin failures.



    His observations:

    "I have scrapped just about every type of transport aircraft from A-310,
    A-320, B-747, 727, 737, 707, DC-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, MD-80, L-188, L1011
    and various Martin, Convair and KC-97 aircraft.

    Over a hundred of them.

    Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as
    airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite
    materials.

    I have one A310 vertical fin on the premises from a demonstration I just


    performed. It was pathetic to see the composite structure shatter as it did,

    something a Boeing product will not do.

    The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators is
    the worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I am
    not surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering the


    complete Vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crash

    site.

    The Airbus line has a history of both multiple rudder losses and a vertical
    fin and rudder separation from the airframe as was the case in NY with AA.



    As an old non-radar equipped DC4 pilot who flew through many a thunderstorm
    in Africa along the equator, I am quite familiar with their ferocity. It is not


    difficult to understand how such a storm might have stressed an aircraft

    structure to failure at its weakest point, and especially so in the presence of

    instrumentation problems.

    I replied with this:

    "I'm watching very carefully the orchestration of the inquiry by French
    officials and Airbus. I think I can smell a concerted effort to steer
    discussion away from structural issues and onto sensors, etc. Now Air
    France, at the behest of their pilots' union, is replacing all the air data
    sensors on the Airbus fleet, which creates a distraction and shifts the


    media's focus away from the real problem.


    It's difficult to delve into the structural issue without wading into the
    Boeing vs. Airbus swamp, where any observation is instantly tainted by its
    origin. Americans noting any Airbus structural issues (A380 early failure
    of wing in static test; loss of vertical surfaces in Canadian fleet prior to
    AA A300, e.g.) will be attacked by the other side as partisan, biased, etc. "



    His follow-up:

    One gets a really unique insight into structural issues when one has
    first-hand experience in the dismantling process.

    I am an A&P, FEJ and an ATP with 7000 flight hours and I was absolutely
    stunned, flabbergasted when I realized that the majority of internal
    airframe structural supports on the A 310 which appear to be aluminum are
    actually rolled composite material with aluminum rod ends. They shattered.

    Three years ago we had a storm come through, with gusts up to 60-70 kts.,


    catching several A320s tied down on the line, out in the open.



    The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had been

    removed shattered and the rudder and elevators came off.

    Upon closer inspection I realized that not only were the rear spars
    composite but so were the hinges. While Boeing also uses composite


    material in its airfoil structures, the actual attach fittings for the elevators,

    rudder, vertical and horizontal stabilizers are all of machined aluminum."

    -----------------(end of narrative)---------------









  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Back down the hill.
    Posts
    29,796
    Total Downloaded
    0
    How many hours were on this ship?
    If you don't like trucks, stop buying stuff.
    http://www.aulro.com/afvb/signaturepics/sigpic20865_1.gif

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    5,510
    Total Downloaded
    0
    From the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447"]wiki.[/ame]

    "The aircraft involved was an Airbus A330-203, with manufacturer serial number 660, and French aircraft registration F-GZCP.[11][12] F-GZCP was powered by two General Electric CF6-80E1 engines with a maximum speed of Mach 0.86 (913 km/h, 493 KT) at flight level 350 (10.7 km altitude) and a range of 12,500 km (6749 NM).[11] The first flight of the aircraft was on 25 February 2005 and at the time of the accident it had flown for 18,870 hours"

    Quite a new aeroplane...
     2005 Defender 110 

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!