Eisspeedway

Talk:Air France Flight 447: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
70.29.208.129 (talk)
70.29.208.129 (talk)
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
|box-advert=no
|box-advert=no
}}
}}
{{tmbox|text=A [[WP:Centralized discussion|centralized discussion area]] has been set up to discuss what image to use in the infobox. See [[Talk:Air France Flight 447/Image discussions]] }}
{{Archive box|
{{Archive box|
;Chronological archives
;Chronological archives

Revision as of 06:28, 7 June 2009


Archives (Index)

I have returned the most recent threads from the most recent archive to this page and deleted them from the archive. In the future, when archives are made please retain the most recent or active threads as not to cause redundant thread creation. This message can be deleted in a few hours.PB666 yap 04:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Comet 'witnesses'

About the same time, three eyewitnesses, on the Air Comet flight from Lima to Lisbon, "saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up into six segments" in the direction of the crash site. Their position at the time was at location 7°N 49°W.

The location quoted for the Air Comet sightings is about two thousand kilometres from the position given for the last automatic radio contact with AF447! We should at the very least add a note to that effect, if not remove them altogether. Waht do people think? Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there were severe thunderstorms in the area also makes the whole claim somewhat spurious. However is the claim notable in itself, even if inaccurate? -- Rob.au (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! what logic! BY your very words, he cannot include that because it violates WP:OR, but at least I see you have verified my opinion that WP:tags are more often used for political reasons.PB666 yap 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this discussion just now, after I calculated the distance between "witnesses" and incident and added it to the article. It's definitely impossible that they really saw the plane, but on the other hand the big agency AFP reported the story, thus I think it should be mentioned in a side note. --94.221.92.176 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation was removed (speculative in its association with AF447) as well as the critique(WP:OR) were both removed from the main.PB666 yap 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:OR first:

This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived.

--94.221.92.176 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the assertions by the Air Comet crew must be considered wildly speculative and off-topic, considering the 2000 km distance to the accident site. I included some speculation about a possible meteoroid impact, considering that such a hypothesis was previously raised about TWA flight 800, but the paragraph I added was deleted. I agree that the link to a meteoroid is speculative, but considering what is known at this moment, it's not as unlikely as other possible causes of the accident that have been mentioned, for instance a lightning strike or the airframe being disintegrated by air turbulence. The accident happened exactly at the peak of the Arietids meteor shower, therefore what the Flight 974 crew saw was, with a very high degree of certainty, a meteor from that shower entering the earth's atmosphere. I think that, unless a meteoroid impact is considered as a possible cause of the accident, any mention of the flight 974 report is off-topic.User:vhilden200.152.98.65 (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I whole heartedly agree, the entire paragraph should be deleted, in fact I did delete it and it was reverted, so I will delete it again.PB666 yap 04:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost ALL media throughout the world report about this assertion (I saw/heard/read about it in German/Spanish/French/Swedish/Norwegian TV/radio/newspapers). Thus it is NOT relevant if the assertion is speculative, since the report is relevant itself. So it should be added again immediately, including the fact that it was 2000 kilometres away from the last message of the missing plane. --94.220.224.114 (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not relevant to the Accident section, please do not return it their. If you want to create a section called False reports of Sightings or Misleading Reports, then be my guest, that is one way to clean of the boondoggle of highly speculative and false information that plagues the Main page.PB666 yap 16:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit silly i expect a pilot in the same corridor to make a different assesment (no relation with 477) when being 2000 km away, so i doubt he was. otoh the duration of the observation (some 7 seconds) , suggest a meteor to me.24.132.171.225 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to finalise the absurdity of this possible sighting. If both planes were flying at approx. 10,000m altitude, line of sight to horizon is ~ 500kms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.244.100 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know the positioning data wasn't wrong? I think we'll have to wait for any official report to decide wether or not to include this information. BananaNoodle (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, previous unsigned comment sent by me.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcnally (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these sightings are really impossible then links to the sources of location data should be supplied. Arydberg (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original source was the Spanish newspaper El Mundo [1]. This is an English-language media report quoting El Mundo and giving the coordinates; this is a report from a Spanish news agency with confirmation from Air Comet of the sighting, and also saying that the Air Comet plane was "a fair way" to the North and West pf AF447. Physchim62 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the basic principles of Wiki content is reliable sources. From what I understand, the Air Comet "sightings" were about two thousand kilometres from the position of the AF 447 disaster, therefore I would have to be Michael Jackson to believe it. Bewp (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecture, please consider rewording/removing

The very fact that Airbus is issuing this new advice gives some credence to the claim that the pilots miscalculated the required speed to continue flying through the storm, causing a high-altitude aerodynamic stall.

This implies the result based on one of the possible causes and preemptive, precautionary action.

Pls remove this line, or at least reword it.

News

the debris recovered from the ocean are NOT from flight 447 airplane, check your sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.138.107 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

अभय नातू (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the aircraft

Colombian online newspaper El Tiempo has come up with an article that states that the Department of Airspace from Brazil has announced that the debris found does not belong to flight 447. Can anyone confirm that? Here is the link.[2] --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press seems to say similar: [3]. The article should probably corrected to reflect this.--GregRM (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to "O Globo", Lt. General Ramon Borges Cardoso of the Brazilian Air Force stated today (2009-06-04) that "No material collected until now came from Flight 447"[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhilden (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes about half this article false. It needs a major revamp Schnarr 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to doubt that the newest available information requires such dramatic changes. Please see my comments below.--GregRM (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of this evening, no confirmed parts have been recovered. Therefore this aircraft, has not been confirmed as having crashed, and is only missing. This entire article should be revised to relect this data, as it is insensitive to the families of the missing people aboard.

ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1190760/Debris-Atlantic-NOT-Air-France-jet-say-red-faced-investigators.html

Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanobrien08 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debris (placeholder)

Bodies found

According to UK radio station "Talk Sport", perhaps via sky news, two bodies have been have been found, along with at least one suitcase bearing air france tags for flight 447.

Special note with regard to wikipedia tags such as OR, yes, Im noticing them getting used politically too, even by admins, its time the community did something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.0.107 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Debris from Flight 447?

Recent edits ([4] and [5]) have suggested that none of the debris of the plane has been located. Looking at the cited CNN article (as well as the most recent AP article [6]), however, it is only clear that the debris that has been picked up does not belong to Flight 447. As there are multiple debris fields that have been discovered, it is not clear to me from the sources available that all the discovered debris has been ruled out as belonging to Flight 447.--GregRM (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that while noting the confusion about the debris that was picked up (apparently a pallet of some sort), the AP article also notes the discovery of debris on Wednesday and Thursday including "a 23-foot...chunk of plane", buoys, and an airplane seat. It seems to me that all the confusion is regarding the debris that was picked up and there have been no questions regarding the other material that has been spotted (but not picked up).--GregRM (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Debris from Flight 447 (Part 2) and Archiving

It seems that edits saying that none of the discovered debris is from the flight are continuing (e.g. [7]). As I have noted recently, I don't think it is clear that all the discovered debris has been ruled out as coming from Flight 447. In fact, the latest revision of the CNN article ([8]) makes specific note of the uncertainty: "The announcement left open the question of whether other debris that had not yet been plucked from the ocean might be from the plane." As an aside, I would like to point out that active threads on the talk page should not be archived. --GregRM (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO authentic material has been recovered, or confirmedly seen

According to "O Globo", Lt. General Ramon Borges Cardoso, director of the Air Space Control Department of the Brazilian Air Force, "No material retrieved until now came from the Airbus 330 in the AF 447 flight. The wooden pallet that was retrieved from the sea was not from the aircraft. No material from the aircraft has been recovered up to now. That pallet is trash that fell from some ship and will be discarded. We were dedicated to the search for survivors and bodies. After a hundred hours from the accident, however, the chances of finding someone is remote. The rescue teams will turn now to search and rescuing any material evidence that could belong to the Airbus. Weather conditions are unfavorable at the moment. Predictions for this night are for a storm, which will make flights difficult, and will shorten visibility. Our intention is to return to those sites where objects have been sighted and to retrieve them".

Please sign your post so that we know which statements in the archive post belong to whom. Does anyone know why the {{update|date=June 2009}}tag was placed and who placed it? There is alot of speculative material that needs to be removed, apparently claims about crash coordinates are not correct, or the currents have carried material far out of range.PB666 yap 03:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather easy to deduce sth about the crash location from the sighted, and at times confirmed parts and slicks. given waveheight current wind and impact velocity of the wings or parts ,the slicks will have expanded a set (altho not very precise) factor. Then to make a guess, it may have drifted some 40-60 nautic miles in two days, wich would be rather much, but not "far out of range", in an ocean. where wreckage apparently has been strewn over 60 km or more, since the slicks suggest much of the plane impacted at once, it should be doable to retrieve evidence even from the ocean floor in 3 weeks. one may assume the tail part to be designed to remain some integrity for that.afaik also the wrecking had been confirmed through floating materials beyond doubt 3 days ago.(several news reports stating just that,"a chair, a lifebelt", not a pallet.)the position when the autopilot disengaged is known, most probably 1 minute later it stalled or started falling/descending rapidly, to partly disintegrate in 3 minutes, that correlates with other incidents, and thus the vector for it's impact is also not very unclear.not being a specialist again i have to guess, but it would have been airborne for about just one more minute, after its last signal. these two vectors should lead to a rather precise location (potentially even less then 100 km2), wich 2 submarines equiped to search can cover in few days. also the suggestion people did not put on lifebelts (and possibly airmasks) is strong, since the calmer sea would usually leave some dead victims floating. i am still surprised they didn't find any.24.132.171.225 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

So what is the current status? Are any sources currently claiming any debris has been recovered and confirmed? MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debris and Search Map

if anyone interested: debris and search map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.225.117 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible stall

Maybe a link to http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7547/acarsaf447d.png and to the Airbus telex?

41.6.207.208 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ctm[reply]

Hello,

The section on the stall suggests that the plane was flying too fast, while the source says it may have been flying too slowly, but the Wikipedia article says it was too fast. Could you guys who know better tell me? Tony (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong suggestion the pilots were making the best use they could from winddrift. (being 'to fast' ie. to far north). since this is to preserve fuel the planes independend (from 'wind') airspeed may well have been (to) slow. (enigines under to low power to prevent stall).24.132.171.225 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stall and Overspeed. For minor stalls in which there is small amount of turbulence behind the wing tip the nose can drop a few degrees and throttles checked; however with a large stall the turbulence does not immediately dissipate at high altitude, and the nose needs to go to very low angled (-60 to -80) depending on air speed. At 35000, if this occurs the aircraft will quickly accelerate to operable speed however the indicated air speed(IAS) almost doubles within a stretch of 3 to 4 miles because the atmosphere becomes dense quickly, as a consequence the aircraft can go, if not properly handled, into overspeed, a situation where control surfaces also don't work well. 35000ft (6.6 miles verticle), 15000ft (2.8 miles verticle) 3.8 verticle miles = 1 minute 30 seconds at 400knts, if we assume 2/3rds of that time is spent trying to recover from the stall then pilot has 30 seconds to correct from a plunge and potential overspeed.
Large stalls can occur if the aircraft is near stall speed with autopilot altitude set at constant or climb, at high altitude the turbines cannot accelerated quickly because of high N1/N2 relative to thrust and relatively low air pressure in front of the inlet. The movement from an airmass with a high headwind to an airmass with a high tailwind relative to aircraft direction can drop the IAS below stall speed. If IAS drops well below stall speed for level flight (This means if the AOA for level flight increases well beyond a certain positive angle, rapidly) then the nose of the aircraft must be dropped to pitch-low immediately, the longer pitch-high is held, the lower the IAS, the lower the nose will need to be dropped to recover. Consequently on recovery the slower the speed the more rapid the acceleration, and the harder it will be to control airspeed as the aircraft drops and recover level flight, the harder it will be to prevent overspeed. There is a scenario, now, with the lack of a widefield of debris (indicating a mid-air explosion) that AF447 plunged nose first into the Atlantic. Please read the references on predicted thundestorm activity in J12009 tropical Atlantic and pay attention to the issue of strong updrafts. We can avoid speculation by assuming there are many different ways to enter and exit the anvil of a powerful thunderstorm, consequently we cannot ascertain precisely what changes the pilot would need to make to correct from stall or overspeed. I am not convinced that AF 447 went through powerful storms, alot of things the media has said and claimed have been BS.PB666 yap 13:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this statement:
"There is a strong suggestion the pilots were making the best use they could from winddrift. (being 'to fast' ie. to far north). since this is to preserve fuel the planes independend (from 'wind') airspeed may well have been (to) slow. (enigines under to low power to prevent stall).24.132.171.225 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Wind drift is automatically corrected for by the autopilot, so that the plane tracks the desired FMC programmed course. In other words, it doesn't matter what direction the wind is coming from, nor how many kts. the wind blows. The plane will automatically track the correct course by crabbing the nose to the right or left, however much is required, to maintain that course. If the pilots hand-fly the plane (that would be unusual during normal cruise), their Flight Directors would tell them how much to crab the nose, to keep the plane on course.
Neither does wind drift have anything to do with the IAS of the plane, nor the RPMs and thrust output of the engines. Stalls are caused by the plane going too slow, or in the case of Mach wave shock (flying too close to the speed of sound), flying too fast. Wind drift has no bearing on the kind of situation which could cause a plane to stall.
Although extremely rare, it is possible for a plane to stall if it enters extreme turbulence which contains powerful up and down drafts. But, that has nothing to do with navigation that automatically corrects for "wind drift," while keeping the plane on the desired course.
The desired speed during cruise, is usually in the MACH .80 to .85 (80% to 85% of the speed of sound) range, and is part of the FMC flight plan. That is the speed range which provides the best fuel economy for most modern jetliners. The plane will not stall while it is flying in a speed range that is considerably broader than that. It would have to go above MACH .88, before wave separation over the wings would begin to cause control problems, and it would have to fly slower than MACH .77, before it would be getting close to a slow-speed stall.
The important point, is that wind drift has nothing to do with the IAS of the plane, nor with the RPMs and thrust of the engines. EditorASC (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicate Weather section

Weather info is a huge improvement on yesterday. Unfortunately we now have 2 of them! JRPG (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it could be better to have one section on the weather. At the moment one is in the context of the time of the accident and the other is in the context of the following investigation. Do you think these should be merged? Bewp (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the weather was quite exceptional for the area, I think one merged section should suffice.
Does the meteorologist need to be named, he's not familiar in the UK?
I also note the shortage of citations. Having read most UK newspaper sources, it appears the main contributors have more expertise than these journalists so this will be a problem until an authoritive report is issued. JRPG (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the meteorologist in question did quite a lot of original research into the matter, and as such he did not want to have his diagrams et cetera uploaded to Wikipedia. I also would tend to agree with you that the people dealing with this website have more expertise than journalists. In that respect, do you think the "weather" section should be best integrated at the beginning or the end? Bewp (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to merge the two weather sections if there are no objections. Bewp (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to extend the first section slightly. I suspect there will be multiple causes and that the type of severe weather routinely seen in this area will be relevant, hence an early description is needed. JRPG (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completed Bewp (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

There are no valid, reliable sources as for yet, but Chinese websites are going crazy about some conspiracy theory. People are claiming that the crash was an attack by the United States, as one of the passengers is a Chinese nuclear physicist, who had travelled to Brazil to exchange data regarding nuclear submarines. It appears rather far-fetched, and may be a hoax; we'll see if further information arises in the future. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah the whole thing is just viral marketing for the next season of Lost--86.8.176.85 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

I have removed a paragraph from the lede, specifically the paragraph outlining the discovery of debris. The lede should generally not exceed four paragraphs, and given that the debris has turned out to be not from flight 447, this is probably a relatively non-critical detail that is better suited to (and adequately covered in) the body of the article anyway. ----Clubjuggle T/C 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-GZCP.jpg

Moved to Talk:Air_France_Flight_447/Image_discussions#5_June_12.54. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

excised Wreckage map External link

I've removed this external link to a wreckage map, because the wreckage has been announced to be not part of the plane.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News claims that fault created speed inaccuracies

[Drafted from deleted text in Laws of Airbussing, now moved to Archive 2 since it now becomes relevant] If the reports it was much to far north are correct (errors started in the navigation system) apparently the autopilots (steering) not responding to meteorological report could be blamed(?). I guess it combined, the navigational errors made the pilots take a wrong 'bumpy ride'. This leaves questions whether the meteorological and steering systems shouldn't interact and or warn more independently (from the navigational set and (its..) pilots interpretations). Not improbably it was also struck by lightning while suffering from unexpectedly heavy turbulence limiting the pilots window for reactions, and somewhat explaining the lack of floating victims. Obviously they did put on belts, before entering the worst turbulence. 24.132.171.225 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the question of weather and Alternative Law. It is possible if turbulence was high enough that then IR and ADR (ADIRU) became overwhelmed and were no longer giving consistent information to the computer then it is possible that the flight was automatically switched to Alternative Law and warning lights for various malfunctions occurred. These are computers and the inertia references algorithms probably assume that their will be no 'food processor' turbulence scenarios. . . . . by PB666 yap 12:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Adding to this that there is no precedence for a failure of the Honeywell ADIRU inflight. All the failures were in Northrup Grumman ADIRU in clear flight at night.PB666 yap 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Also See "Stall"[reply]

Article says:

French air accident investigators said automatic messages broadcast by the jet in its final moments showed the plane's systems were giving different readings.[9]

Consequently Airbus has reissued guidelines with respect to airspeed. Elsewhere in the article it claims:

The BBC's Tom Symonds says erratic speed readings could have been caused by heavy turbulence and might have caused the plane's automatic throttle to power up or down as it passed through heavy storms.

I think this can be added to the Accident section in some abbreviated form, please. We know that the ADIRU and Flight computers are responsible for formulating airspeed and we also know that the ADIRU can fail, but it is speculation to add this to the article as a cause for the IAS inconsistencies. I recommend mentioning these two systems as responsible for airspeed calculation and append this as a sentence to the above reference.PB666 yap 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture

  • I erased this section. Somebody added a reference to the TV show Lost, which I think is out of place in the article, at least during the first few days after the accident. There are references to popular culture in other air disasters articles, but adding them less than one week after the crash is a lack of sensitivity to the relatives of the passengers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.131.174.111 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that adding this is insensitive. Facts are facts regardless the time frame. I do believe we should keep the section at the barest minimum. (Nobody cares if the plane from Lost was traveling through time.) This would seem to provide some compromise for those closest to the incident while allowing editors to improve completeness. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this popular culture reference has some relevance, but the section should be kept extremely brief. The copy I recently removed was poorly written and irrelevant. There is no need to provide advance spoilers for some television series here. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this has no enciclopedic value whatsoever. What does it add to the content? Not to mention some due respect for the feelings of people, less than a week after the fact. --Raistlin (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree - this section is completely irrelevant, unnecessary, potentially insensitive. This is a current event - it wasn't referenced in any pop culture. For consistency, we may as well list all movies, TV programs, and other media that depict plane crashes in the ocean. It should be entirely removed until there is something actually relevant in pop culture.
    • I agree - unless more popular culture material is collected it should be left on the sidelines. Would someone please cleanup the Search and Rescue section, it is getting difficult to read.
    • While I also agree this section is superfluous, let me play "Devil's Advocate" and note that there may be interest in how popular culture treats these tragedies. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • At any rate, we have waring editors repeatedly deleting and restoring the content here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAhlers (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree that there is interest in how pop culture would treat these tragedies - but wouldn't such a discussion be better-suited for a page about airline disasters in general, and not on a page for an unfolding, single event? It makes it more complicated, as one may wonder why this page has an "In Pop Culture" section, but the article about, e.g., Iran Air Flight 655 does not have such a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.228.142 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is relevant to this crash because it was in the ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.193.134 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with this is that we would need to find all the articles about planes that crash in the ocean, and reference pop culture that deals with oceanic crashes. We'll need to edit the article on Swissair Flight 111, then Air India Flight 182, etc. ... Additionally, this is a current event, which is really the main point -- it's not "in pop culture" yet. Yokwephil (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with those that say it's insensitive. Let's leave it out for now; if and when it proves to be of more interest then perhaps we can reconsider. As it stands, it looks like only one or two people are responsible for re-inserting it, whereas the majority is content to leave it out. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the "Popular Culture" thing just clearly misused? Nobody has put Flight 447 into popular culture yet. No movies on 447. No television shows. Just Lost--and they made that before 447! QSUNG 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. The policy version: If no reliable source picks up the significance of the relation, it is original research to suggest they are even remotely relevant. The ethical version: it's irrelevant pop cruft nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user keeps reverting, and claims "no consensus" - counting up the unofficial "anti" votes here leads me to believe otherwise. I'd keep re-reverting, but I'm bumping up against the three-revert rule myself, and I'd rather not. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User warned for potentially breaking 3RR. QSUNG 16:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It keeps being added. I can't see how it is involved in popular culture when these TV and films were made before. Also it is a bit premature and insensitive. 86.131.9.6 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is e.g. Qantas Flight 72 a significant relation picked up by source, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.193.134 (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question. If you disagree with that reference, start another discussion thread. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I think it's too early to have a "see also" section - we don't know what caused the crash. That's not the issue here, however. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 16:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree too, because the cause of the accident is uncertain at best. However this is far more relevant than pop culture references to plane crashes into an ocean. Problems with the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit is a specific technical issue that makes those handful of flights significant; it actually relates to how the incident happened in the first place. Crashing into the ocean is neither significant nor unique, and it doesn't relate to the issues that brought down the plane. I did read that the aircraft did transmit ADIRU problems in its final moments. However this is best left to the article about ADIRUs. Pop culture section should still be left out. Yokwephil (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state as well that this section is completely irrelevant as none of the things mentioned in it refer to this particular event. Therefore, the whole section does not cover this event in popular culture and it should therefore be removed. - Simeon (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly believe that this section has no encyclopedic value, and ought to be left off the article. Cochonfou (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just trying to offer ideas as to where we can find the plane. Maybe the people on it survived and are on some weird island somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.193.134 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pop culture sections usually refer to pop culture media based upon or referring to the topic, and not the other way round (that is, if a TV show was based on flight 447, it would belong, but not a previous one that may or may not be similar). In addition, any such inferences of similarity must be sourced, an author drawing such inferences on their own constitutes original research and so this section should be removed on that basis as well. I only see one editor arguing for conclusion and quite a number arguing against, so consensus is quite clearly to remove. ----Clubjuggle T/C 16:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People, please wait for new (real) facts and forget about this article for awhile. It will be salutary for everybody here. If Wikipedia cannot be considered a newspaper, try to eliminate all the press speculation - what rests? Nothing...RobertoRMola (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my voice to those protesting that the Popular Culture section is wrong in so many ways, and should be removed. I've removed it. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the removal. Untill the actual AF447 makes it to notable popular culture, any reference to popular culture is speculation and as such must be removed. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was really shocked that anyone thought fit to add this section in the first place. I hope none of the relatives saw it or thought their grief would provide fictional entertainment.JRPG (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any decision to include the section or not should be agnostic to the feelings of the relatives. I think it is of interest to see reactions to this event in popular culture, in the same way we are interested in the memorials for the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.226.167 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but we are not going to accept the addition of "In the poem "Ode to Flight 447", flight 447 was compared to the fictional Oceanic flight 815, which deviated from course and crashed[2]. That crash was later revealed to be caused by time travel, or something like that." to this article. This is not a reference to this event in popular culture. It is not even popular culture. There has been no time for popular culture to assess the event, and no legitimate culture has made an entry notable enough to warrant this section. The IP adding this has been continually warned, and if the edit is made again I believe we should be considering further action. SGGH ping! 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final Warning has been given to the IP. SGGH ping! 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24 hour block given. I did not deem it appropriate to protect this article at this time, as other IPs are making good edits. I have thus blocked the IP adding this section for 24 hours. I do not see anything in the section that is even remotely suitable. There can be a popular culture section if and when popular culture ever makes a comment or reference to it. SGGH ping! 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reaction. I followed recent changes and discussion and was just asking for it.Mawijk (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for blocking this timewaster. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we want to see Wikipedia turned into just another forum for postings by idiots, I agree that all the "Popular Culture" postings be promptly eliminated and that those who keep putting them back, be blocked from doing it again. There should never be any room in Wikipedia for Shirley MacLaine's "create your own Reality" drivel, unless it is in an article solely about those who posit such gibberish. EditorASC (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite image for weather section

Would it be appropriate to use a satellite image (non-free only, I suppose?) for the weather section of the investigation? Here is one from Discovery Channel. It indicates the area whereas some other images I have seen just give you the whole area with nothing to indicate where the flight was. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Flight Number 447 or 477?

I have noticed that the plane is now being cited in some places in the news (including CNN and TIME) as "Air France Flight 477" instead of 447.

This article from CNN was updated on 6/05/09 and has the flight number as 477. [10]

Also, in the title of this 6/01/09 TIME article is "What Brought Down Air France Flight 447?". [11] But later in the article the author calls it Flight 477.

Which flight number is correct? Hds44 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)hds44[reply]

The flight number according to Air France is 447 [12] There is a red banner on top of the web page. This is yet another reason why we cannot take media as a first hand account of information. They cannot even get the flight number correct.PB666 yap 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accident location

I think the exact location of the accident location should be removed. At the moment the exact location is unknown. In the beginning the location was out in there as an extrapolation of the flight plan, then it was thought that the location would have been transmitted with the ACARS maintenance information - which is not the case. If AF 447 deviated from their course, they could be anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.141.137 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, however the last location given by ACARS is what it is, the last known location of the aircraft. In addition some information regarding the ADIRU makes sense with regard to what malfunction was occurring, and so we have better reasoning that the other parts of the system may have not been malfunctioning, such as the GPS and its link to the reporting computer.PB666 yap 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly that is the problem. The ARCAS did not transmit a location. To put the other ARCAS information here is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.170.144.228 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a great deal of misinformed speculation as to positions said to have been reported by AF447. The sources quoted are newspaper articles, themselves without identifiable sources. INTOL 1 21 39S 32 49 53W at 0133(UTC) and expecting TASIL 4 00 18N 29 59 24W within 50 minutes. The distance between these way-points is 364 nautical miles, and if an ETA of 0223(UTC) at TASIL is assumed, the aircraft will need a Ground Speed of 437 knots.

The Flight Plan filed showed 0.82 Mach at a flight level of 35,000 feet. Conversion at sea level of 0.82 Mach gives 543 knots, but when corrected for the forecast air temperature of -46C at FL350, a factor of 0.88 needs to be applied, resulting in an True Air Speed of 477 knots. Meteorological data derived for this period indicated a head wind factor of 10 knots which results in a ground speed of 467 knots.

Based on the information provided in the preceding paragraph, the aircraft's position report at INTOL would have been in the following format:-

"Air France 447, INTOL 0133, Flight Level 350, next TASIL 0220, Ground Speed 467, Temp -46".

As mentioned by others, the 0214(UTC) position was not provided by ACARS and is someones "guesstimate" of where the aircraft was at that time. Also consider that 0.78 Mach is the aircraft type recommended turbulence penetration speed, and the aircraft would most likely have been slowed prior to 0200(UTC) - flight parameters permitting.

The Brazilian Air Force are basing their search on the following 0214(UTC) position:-

3 16 28N 30 22 28W, which is at variance with the 3 34 40N 30 22 28W position attributed in this article.

Identified debris has now been recovered from near 3 41N 30 47W, or 35 Nautical miles (69.5 kilometers) north-west of 3 16 28N 30 22 28W.Kiwi Kousin (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this acceptable as an external link?

The Brazilian Air Force maintains a portal about AF447 here: http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?page=voo447 - It is entirely in Portuguese. It contains a lot of supporting information regarding the Brazilian Air Force's efforts. Is this an acceptable external link for this article? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links section

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If there is relevant material, it should be incorporate into the article and cited. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We all understand that. However, what that means is that we are not here to list every single external link under the sun. We limit the external links to the most relevant, most useful ones. That is what we do. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the template message as the section is looking OK now. Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to publish a link to the list of passengers? Even of other news service use these kind of information in my opinion wikipedia should respect the anonymity of the families and not participate to the general sensationalism. 20:22, 6 June 2009 JST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.62.75 (talk)

Senegalese Radar?

I'm became curious about the following statement: "After the aircraft failed to appear on Senegalese radar..." Well, last time I've flown through Dakar Control Area (1999), there was no radar service in its whole area and Control was accomplished by radio contact (on HF-SSB-SELCAL) and flight progression (based on position messages from the aircraft). Anything changed ever since?RobertoRMola (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another possibility is that they are referring to the radar at Sal, Cape Verde, which covers some of the ocean region controlled from Dakar. AF447 shouldn't have appeared on Dakar radar unless it was heading to land, but it should have (and didn't) appear on Sal radar. Even before then, it should have contacted the Dakar control centre, but didn't. Physchim62 (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News report? I simply do not believe on the press when they describe any technicality in aviation (even when they refer to the omnipresent "specialists" on duty). I trying to download any chart from that specific area in order to clarify my doubts with no success so far. Cape Verde Archipelago didn't provide any radar service in 1999, also.RobertoRMola (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Clean up Sections

I noticed that several sections are now top-loaded with out-of-date trivial. What I began warning about 3 days ago when the Bermuda Triangle speculation was put forth has come to past. Spurious speculation is everywhere.

Image File:AF447Cross-Section.jpg

While vertical exaggeration can clarify graphic representation of earth surface contours, this image would be more informative with less than the (fifty-to-one?) vertical exaggeration currently shown. As well, omitting the top kilometer of ocean here further misrepresents the actual challenges to recovery. I do think the graphic adds to the article, only wish it more closely approximated what is out there.Drienstra (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search and rescue

The the Atlantic ocean is full of garbage, trust me I go fishing on Matagorda Peninsula, Texas is not pretty, I find milk cartons from Portugal, shoes from Spain, little plastic knick knacks from Latin America, foriegn garbage on the beach outnumbers US garbage by 5:3 ratio, its a big ugly mess, I pick up trash from almost every port in the Atlantic ocean and the Mediterranean. Their are literally tons and tons of garbage that have floated all the way from Europe and Africa and right to Matagorda beach, right across the Atlantic 24/7/365. There is nothing newsworthy about garbage floating in the Atlantic with regard to AF 447, except singly the effort it will cause in the search.PB666 yap

Maybe it needs to be mentionined just ONCE in the article that rubbish in the ocean affected the search for the plane? Not a recorded date and area where each item of rubbish was found? BananaNoodle (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Site

There is no crash site. If there was a crash site it is now split between floatsum which is 'headed for Matagorda' (I tell you when it gets here, promise), and a sunken airframe, or whats left of it. Neither are known. The search area now is the size of France and growing, still no signs of AF 447 debris. There may be dozens of craft involved to find this site before the search reaches full force and there is no need to mention each one or speculate on each one.PB666 yap 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

BEA is the authority on the investigation and they have said next to nothing up this point. The investigation section is full of speculation on speed and stalls. BEA (Frances TSB) says there will be a second press conference on "Flight AF 447 on 31 May 2009 at Le Bourget on Saturday 6 June from 1000 to 12000.

A large quantity of more or less accurate information and attempts at explanations concerning the accident are currently being circulated. The BEA reminds those concerned that in such circumstances, it is advisable to avoid all hasty interpretations and speculation on the basis of partial or non-validated information. At this stage of the investigation, the only established facts are: the presence near the airplane’s planned route over the Atlantic of significant convective cells typical of the equatorial regions; based on the analysis of the automatic messages broadcast by the plane, there are inconsistencies between the various speeds measured.

The weather section and airspeed sections, although parts of the investigation represent information that were concurrent or preceded the disappearance of the aircraft. There is no further information, and I reemphasize the point that it is currently unclear where or when the aircraft crashed.PB666 yap

I agree. It's ridiculous that the most respected source, the accident investigators (BEA), have not been referenced. I'd support the removal of all speculation from media sources. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weather (2nd subsection)

"rime icing, possibly to clear ice or graupel.[24]" there is no evidence that the plane was low enough or suffering from rime icing, the critical fault at the moment is the havoc turbulence might have played in the inertial reference computers. The Weather (1st subsection) has been updated with weather analysis.

Incorrect airspeed

This is largely an interpetation of what Airbus said. Airbus has said that the computers that calculate airspeed were giving different values. The Accident Automated message and equipment malfunction has been updated with all publically known information.PB666 yap

Regarding the speculation about incorrect sensor readings (in particular, blocked pitot tubes) it is not clear to me why this would necessarily cause the pilots to bring the airplane to an inappropriate speed. Presumably, the aircraft would also have a GPS system giving speed accurate to within a fraction of a mile per hour. (Granted, the GPS would give ground speed, rather than airspeed, so maybe that is part of the explanation.) I am not a pilot, so I would be interested to know if there are any references that address this issue, and if so, perhaps this information could be included in the article.--GregRM (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GPS is not used as a primary means for airspeed indication. If the aircraft was flying through very turbulent conditions with strong windshear, then the groundspeed and the airspeed could have been substantially different. For background on accidents where blocked pitot tubes have caused incorrect airspeed indications, see Aeroperú Flight 603 and Birgenair Flight 301. With a total or partial blockage of the pitot information, primary or standby, the aircraft would have difficulty in calculating altitude, airspeed and mach number, and would probably have been throwing a number of warnings at the pilots as a result. Johnwalton 08:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Occam's razor needs to be applied here. First pitot tube and airspeed. The airspeed of an aircraft has little to do with ground speed or GPS. Aircraft travel as if they are in a fluid, a fluid that moves as fast as 200 knts relative to the ground. With the exception of calculating ETAs and timed turns in dead reckoning, there is relatively little use of ground speed in real time. Airspeed in the old days is calculated by the differential pressure on the front and rear of the pitot tube. The differential pressure for any given speed relative to the surrounding air changes (decreases) with altitude (i.e pressure, and not barometric pressure (i.e. at sea level), but absolute air pressure). Indicated Airspeed (IAS) is a indirect measure of the force (ke = mass * velocity^2, where pressure is surrogate for mass, and velocity is the speed of air relative to the aircrafts forward motion, the change of ke of the air as it travels around the wind provides force, the shape of the wing and angle of attack determine the direction of the force applied, and with positive AOA provides lift) of the surrounding air that can be applied for lift, or in excess, for aircraft stress. For jet aircraft it is also a body of air in front of the turbines that can increase the performance (output) of the turbines, lack of airpressure in front of the turbine can cause flameout. Wikipedia is not the place to learn about the 4 forces of flight, there are wonderful programs outthere including MS Flight Simulator whereby one can learn about how the basic theories of flight work, they are cheap and misconceptions about airspeed can be immediately identified (as ones stalled AC pummels in a deadman's sprial to the ground, weeeeeeeee!)PB666 yap
The issue with the ARS and ADIRU as we currently understand has nothing to do with ice or pitot tube malfunction. Several of the flights were in clean air at the time of malfunction, the fault in most instances appears to be spontaneous, much like a computer lockup, it appears to be electronic in nature. Again I don't want to speculate on contributing factors except to say it is my opinion that there is a potential with the Honeywell ADIRU that turbulence and lower frequency horizontal and vertical wind speed changes may have exceeded the operable range of the unit, causing the units algorithm to create wrong calculations. I have also worked with electronics, and I have done extensive Monte Carlo statistical analyses (often hours or days of continuous peak CPU utilization) on software I have designed and on machines that I have built myself and I have observed the malfunction of CPUs as a consequence of use-based heat overload. In one case I fried the motherboard and the CPU of a Prescott based machine (open case, fully cooled CPU, 4 hours into a MC run). Therefore it is my tendency to believe that either there is a program tolerance bug, or an overwhelmed processor. Belief however is nothing more than that.PB666 yap
I have redone the section on Airspeed to bring it inline with the known parameters. I am collecting references for the statements. PB666 yap 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the involvement of the pitot tube can be ruled out. Air France has been replacing the affected pitot tubes on it's A330 aircraft (as reported and by BBC), but the aircraft in question had not yet had it's pitot tubes replaced. Johnwalton 14:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing can be ruled out, but the BEA and Airbus are talking about the ADIRU/PCFC interface. The pitot tube and ARS are primary sources of information, they don't actually mix the information, however the IR (inertia Reference) that is part of the ADIRU adds signals from the ARS creating a calculated and more constant Airspeed in turbulent situations. The problem that has been identified in the Qantas cases appears, and I say appears with an emphasis because these devices episodically fail, do not malfunction when tested. Its like the car that never behaves badly at the mechanics shop. The principle issue in the precedences (Northrup Grumman ADIRU) however is why the PCFC continues to use ADIRU-1 even when it has faulted for whatever reason, and why the system does not try to see if there is parsimony between ADIRU-2 and automatically actuating ADIRU-3 before making a change in pitch. This appears to be the underlying problem in Airbus flight control design, IMO.PB666 yap 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry JW, I have been trying to download a transcript of this mornings news conference and bits and pieces have been coming over the web. It does appear that PA of France's BEA did single out the Pitot, and that Airbus has been advised to replace these. All former incidences occurred on the A320 as far as I know from these reports. I should also point out that I am not an afficionado of Airbus and have not looked at the configuration of controls in the Cockpit, however on other Jet Aircraft there are pitot tube heaters that can be activated or shut off by pilots. Generally at 35,000 feet the pitot tubes are so cold and precipitation is so hard that they do not stick to the surface. The argument of increase atmosphere height is not valid for Jet Aircraft because the general rule is that Altimeter is set to 29.92 at 18,000 feet so that altitude is a measure of airmass above the aircraft, not elevation. At that level of airmass temperatures are very low, especially at night. In fact this is the way satellites measure cloud heights because precipitation becomes increasingly cold as it rises and emits at lower infrared frequencies as it climbs. It is certainly possible as mention in one report that rising deep convection can draw moisture out of equilibrium (before it becomes really cold) but that there simply is not enough bouyancy to produce large ice at this altitude. New information on Pitots was added to the main page.PB666 yap 18:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Folks, lets get this page cleaned up, seriously, it looks like Matagorda.PB666 yap 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploitation by scammers

Air France Flight 447 Search Results Lead to Rogue Antivirus Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrE/AmE spellings

Is there a need to be quite so zealous about the spellings? In the case of ise/ize in particular even our own article accepts ize as a valid BrE spelling. I write "organize" myself etc but am British. Ise/ize is not a cut-and-dried matter like color/colour but runs more on personal beliefs. I worry that it disrupts the editing flow and perhaps unnecessarily annoys other editors to be too picky about this. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: who cares when a plane is being sought with potentially 228 dead people? Bewp (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the British English tag on the top of this talk page. It's a broad consensus that should be followed. This is an encyclopaedia and it's best to try and keep articles at the best quality we an get and yes it's a sad incident (and I feel for those who have lost love ones) but we must keep in mind that we are not a memorial as well. Lets move on and keep improving this article for encyclopaedic purposes. Bidgee (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks for your comment. Bewp (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC reporting some bodies recovered

BBC televion breaking news, attributed to the Brazilian Air Force. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News and Sky News also reporting that some bodies being found/recovered. Bidgee (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already put it in. Also, an IP keeps trying to put this "in popular culture" section. Please tag with a vandalism warn if he or she does so again. SGGH ping! 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undid and warned them. Would having the article protected from IP's help? Just that the large number of edits are from IP's and it's getting a little hard to review all the edits and sometimes harder to undo vandalism. Bidgee (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't in the lede. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should this information be put in the lede?BananaNoodle (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It don't matter who reported it first, to keep mentioning all the news agencies by name could be seen as tantamount to advertising. One source used as a ref is sufficient. No need to ref the same info from dozens of different sources. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal inquiry

The Paris public prosecutor has opened a formal inquiry for "involuntary homicide" of the passengers [13]. It should be said that this is a fairly standard procedure in France. Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Section - references needed.

References are needed for this section. There are a few comments about "experienced pilots.." etc, does anyone know the source for these?BananaNoodle (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. If not, I will delete them! Bewp (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be an idea to give it a few days but yeah - if they aren't referenced we shouldn't really have it here.BananaNoodle (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research/speculation

The amount of unreferenced original research and speculation in the article has increased, especially the theories around flight computers, ADIRUs, weather and similarities with other incidents. Until the BEA/Airbus draw conclusions like this, they are unreliable, even if mentioned in the press. This article is not entitled "Conspiracy theories around AF 447". Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if anyone has references for any of this information then please add them, it has been marked up where it is needed. If not it may have to go. BananaNoodle (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material in the paragraph I was working on (modifying) earlier today was removed. I have some problems with the Codes listed in section accident Is there any independent confirmation of the code other than the French Media blurp? All web reference revert back to wikipedia as the source. The code for the Primary Control Flight computer checks out. Also someone has butchered the accident section into dangling sentences, some of the stuff is no longer referenced.

Pitot static backup system which supplies backup data input to the ADIRU 3 as well as providing speed and altitude information on two basic analog instruments (Altimeter and Airspeed indicator) to pilots in case of a complete electrical failure[100].

but the code linked to a Alternate Airspeed Indicator not the Pitot tube. PB666 yap 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brevities sake here - took me the better part of the afternoon to assemble this going over very fuzzy images of the ACARS report and I am sure there are errors. There is no other way I know to verify what was written in the section. There are, as of this moment no news sources other than video tape of the conference and intepretation of the codes at a pilots forum. They agree with the information posted in the Automated messages section. I will have to read it carefully however to make sure, I did not rewrite it so....

WRN = Warning, FLR = Failure, FLT = Flight, AP = Autopilot, CODE #######06 where #06 = Cruise
090601#### Where 090601 = YR-MONTH-DAY Where #### = Time.

WRN ..0906010210..221002006AUTO FLT AP OFF
= 01-06-2009 2:10AM CODE 22-10-02-006 Cruise Automatic pilot is off.
WRN ....210..226201...AUTO FLT
FLR.......210 ..341115....EFCS2 1 EFCS AFS - Failure - pitot probe electrical flight control system 2
FLR.......210 ..279334....EFCS1 X2,EFCS2X, - Failure - Primary control flight computer 1.
WRN ....210 ..279100-5-..F/CTL ALTN LAW - Operational configuration is now Alternative Law
WRN ....210 ..228300-2-..FLAG ON CAPT PFD - Flag on captains primary flight display (hey, something boo-booed)
WRN ....210 ..228301-2-..FLAG ON F/O PFD - Flag on first officers primary flight display
WRN ....210 ..223002-5 ..AUTO FLY AT OFF - Autothrusters is off
WRN ....210 ..344300-5 ..NAV TCAS FAULT - Navigational traffic and terrain collison avoidance system fault
WRN ....210 ..228300-1 ..FLAG ON CAPT PFD - Flag on captains primary flight display (hey, something else boo-booed)
WRN ....210 ..228301-1-..FLAG ON F/O PFD - Flag on first officers primary flight display
WRN ....210 ..272302-2 ..F/CTL RUD TRV LIM FAULT - Rudder and pedal travel limiting actuation fault
WRN ....210 ..239045-1..MAINTENANCE SYSTEM - For what system?
FLR.......211 ..341234....IR2 1 , EFCS1x, IR1, IR3 - Failure Inertial Reference 2 (in ADIRU-2)
WRN ....211 ..341200-1..FLAG ON CAPT PFD - Air Data Intertial Reference (2) System flag on Captains primary flight display
WRN ....211 ..341201-1..FLAG ON F/O PFD - Air Data Intertial Reference (2) System flag on 1st officers primary flight display
FLR.......211 ..342200....ISIS 1,,,,,,ISIS(22F) - Failure - ISIS 1
WRN ....211 ..279002-5..F/CTL PRIM 1 FAULT - Primary control flight computer 1 fault
WRN ....211 ..279004-0..F/CTL SEC 1 FAULT - Secondary control flight computer 1 fault
WRN ....212 ..341040-0..NAV ADR DISAGREE - Navigation- Air data references disagree (no kidding, is ADIRU 3 working?)
WRN ....213 ..279002-5..F/CTL PRIM 1 FAULT - Primary control flight computer 1 fault
WRN ....213 ..279004-0..F/CTL SEC 1 FAULT - Secondary control flight computer 1 fault
FLR .....213 ..228334.....AFS - Failure - flight management guidance and envelope computer
WRN ...214 ..341036-0..MAINTENANCE STATUS - ADIRU-2 "Im broken".
WRN ...214 ..213100-2..ADVISORY - Air conditioning - pressure control and monitoring - cabin vertical speed

What I see from this is that primary control flight computer 1 is brought down, looks like two attempts to restart fail, that a pitot tube in control flight system fails and inertial reference 2 also fails. The traffic and terrain collision avoidance system has a fault, which no-one seems to mention. And finally that system that one is never supposed to turn off during the flight, ISIS, fails. This F-GZCP was ___ed and I mean that all but literally that took out two systems in different ways, and a radar system. Possible the pitot-ARS-ADIRU 2 is wired into PCFC 1 and that might explain appearance of 2 system failures. The TCAS is not essential, but the fact that it faulted indicates something more than just ice on the pitot tube. These are done at least 3 minutes before its end. Please correct any errors that you may find. PB666 yap 05:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

I think we need a comment such as "two of the areas under investigation are" then have the Bomb threat and air speed sections. Though the quote above this from the BEA does make clear that "the only established facts are:

  • the presence near the airplane’s planned route over the Atlantic of significant convective cells typical of the equatorial regions;
  • based on the analysis of the automatic messages broadcast by the plane, there are inconsistencies between the various speeds measured."

therefore perhaps we should just say this? rather than further comments about it? I am not too sure myself.

I am just concerned that perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the Air Speed 'theory' in this article as a possible cause of the incident.

What are your thoughts?

BananaNoodle (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F-GZCP.jpg

FYI, File:F-GZCP.jpg has been deleted. Curiously, discussion was closed, and the file deleted several days earlier than the deadline. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/acidente-voo-447/mat/2009/06/04/voo-447-nenhum-destroco-recolhido-ate-agora-pertencia-ao-airbus-330-da-air-france-diz-fab-756201608.asp
  2. ^ http://flight447.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/an-ode-to-flight-447/
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F294927241
cs Czechda Danishnl Dutchen Englishfr Frenchde Germanit Italianlv Latvianno Norwegianpl Polishru Russiansl Sloveniansv Swedishuk Ukrainian
de German
✕
Bahnsport-Info

Kostenfrei
Ansehen