Post mortem on an IEC connector

[Arfa Daily]

"Ron" <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
newsMOdnQkjSLnAVL7XnZ2dnUVZ8rZi4p2d@bt.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A201650.750881A7@notmail.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for being a bunch of technically ignorant twats. Why do they
think
lead was used
in solder in the first place ? For fun ?
In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this
occasion I
am
with you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free
solder
has only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.
As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry
still
has an exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why
that
could be
... ?
They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't
risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.

There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it.
There is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded
solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such
repairs.
As well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in
important
fields such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I
wonder
why
that could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military
will
not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How
eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our
convictions
to stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...
Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together
So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly
built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and
which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows
more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the
co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\
Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot
error' !

Graham


Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with 238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the
Atlantic. Hard to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing
at 38000 ft in the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at
around 3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one
of these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|


I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact was
lost.

Yes, I too heard that it flew into a lightning storm, but as such weather
patterns are common in many parts of the world, I would have thought that on
a jet airliner specced for long haul operation, the electronics, avionics
and general electrical systems, would have been hardened against any
potential damage from lightning discharge ... ??

Arfa

 

[Meat Plow]

On Sun, 31 May 2009 20:05:34 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:2rqqeq.3bc.19.1@news.alt.net...
On Sat, 30 May 2009 20:42:31 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com>wrote:



N_Cook wrote:

There was that French ? air show one, where the pilot quite gracefully,
(no
frantic movements appeared on control surfaces or engine speed) flew
into
woodland.

THAT ONE is highly controversial. Not least an apparent 'black box' swap
to
cover up possible technical faults. Incidentally, the 'graceful' crash
coutesy
of the automation meant very few lives were lost. NO further A320 was
fitted
with that specific model of engine.

The A320 has been using the CFM56 powerplant since its been flying.
Boeing uses a variation of it (different thrust) in their 737 stretch
models. All are based on General Electric's military core high end
compressors, combustion and turbine. CFMI makes 6 models all
designated CFM56.

I'm certain the original models probably the CFM56-A weren't scrapped
but rather retrofitted with redesinged controls to allow quicker
throttle up response at low altitude. After all the core of the engine
was designed for the US B1 bomber and F-108 fighter so it wasn't a
design flaw of the entire engine.

You seem remarkably well versed in all this, Meat. Very informative info.
Did you have a career background in it ?

I watch a lot of educational TV. Military Channel, Discovery, History,
National Geographic, Science channel. Also have a friend who flies the
Airbus now training on the Boeing 767 and talked to him about the
Mulhouse 320 crash. He said that the automatic go around program was
canceled on the flight system and it wasn't a throttle response issue.
Well at least that's what the Airbus folks told him Personally I
believe there were many factors involved that neither side are or will
ever be willing to fully disclose because of the popularity of the
airframe. Remember this was very early in the 320-100's career and
I'm sure there were some bugs in the flight controls. I don't think it
was pilot error. If you look at the video the pilot tried to correct
with a nose up attitude but the engines failed to spool until it was
sucking tree tops.

 

[N_Cook]

Ron <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
newsMOdnQkjSLnAVL7XnZ2dnUVZ8rZi4p2d@bt.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A201650.750881A7@notmail.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.

How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy as the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

 

[Meat Plow]

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:20:00 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A201650.750881A7@notmail.com...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for being a bunch of technically ignorant twats. Why do they
think
lead was used
in solder in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this
occasion I
am
with you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free
solder
has only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has an exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that
could be
... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.


There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There
is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded
solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such
repairs.
As well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in
important
fields such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I
wonder
why
that could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military
will
not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our
convictions
to stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows
more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\

Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot
error' !

Graham


Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

 

[N_Cook]

--
--
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h00ucr$hf6$1@news.eternal-september.org...

Ron <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
newsMOdnQkjSLnAVL7XnZ2dnUVZ8rZi4p2d@bt.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A201650.750881A7@notmail.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:




I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.



How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy as
the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

According to my paper , no Faraday cages these days. Apparently "static
wicks", wires buried on the edges of wings and tail is supposed to do the
job that an overall shell of aluminium used to do.



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

 

[Arfa Daily]

Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one
of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|


Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say a
747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy sitting
behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially catastrophic
situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something which maybe puts
the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I can understand of
the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to do this, and in the
event of a total electrical systems collapse, your little joystick, and the
computer(s) that it's connected to, are not going to be of any use to
control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly, no
pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just flying into
a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an aluminium-bodied
plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and re-discharge and carry on
its way from the opposite side or wherever. He questioned whether the same
would happen on a carbon composite bodied plane, as the A330 apparently is,
or whether the higher electrical resistance of such a material, would cause
the lightning to 'stick around' as it were, and just fry the internal
systems, or even heat the material to the point where it just exploded. He
reckons that unless there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the
airframe, a distress signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all
the way down, as the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure
that it can still operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or
systems failure. Sobering thoughts ...

Arfa

 

[Ron]

N_Cook wrote:

--
--
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h00ucr$hf6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Ron <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
newsMOdnQkjSLnAVL7XnZ2dnUVZ8rZi4p2d@bt.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A201650.750881A7@notmail.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.


How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy as
the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/




According to my paper , no Faraday cages these days. Apparently "static
wicks", wires buried on the edges of wings and tail is supposed to do the
job that an overall shell of aluminium used to do.

It`s some kind of light wire mesh laminated into the CF. General chat on
the PP forum would suggest that composite based airframes seem to
attract lightning more than aluminium clad ones do.

Ron(UK)

 

[Ron]

Arfa Daily wrote:

Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one
of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say a
747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy sitting
behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially catastrophic
situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something which maybe puts
the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I can understand of
the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to do this, and in the
event of a total electrical systems collapse, your little joystick, and the
computer(s) that it's connected to, are not going to be of any use to
control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly, no
pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just flying into
a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an aluminium-bodied
plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and re-discharge and carry on
its way from the opposite side or wherever. He questioned whether the same
would happen on a carbon composite bodied plane, as the A330 apparently is,
or whether the higher electrical resistance of such a material, would cause
the lightning to 'stick around' as it were, and just fry the internal
systems, or even heat the material to the point where it just exploded. He
reckons that unless there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the
airframe, a distress signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all
the way down, as the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure
that it can still operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or
systems failure. Sobering thoughts ...

From reading the boards, it appears that, rather than flowing arond the
outside of the aircraft, lightning is more inclined to punch holes right
through composite skins, thereby getting into the metalwork and wiring.

Ron(UK)

 

[N_Cook]

Ron <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:2_OdncI8kOCpYLnXnZ2dnUVZ8lRi4p2d@bt.com...

N_Cook wrote:
--
--
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h00ucr$hf6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Ron <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
newsMOdnQkjSLnAVL7XnZ2dnUVZ8rZi4p2d@bt.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A201650.750881A7@notmail.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather,
there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.


How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy
as
the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/




According to my paper , no Faraday cages these days. Apparently "static
wicks", wires buried on the edges of wings and tail is supposed to do
the
job that an overall shell of aluminium used to do.


It`s some kind of light wire mesh laminated into the CF. General chat on
the PP forum would suggest that composite based airframes seem to
attract lightning more than aluminium clad ones do.

Ron(UK)

Suely its not whether they attract, that is how lightning conductors work.
But how easiily the current passes around the frame and out the other side,
with as little ohmic heating on the way, to continue its cloud to cloud
path.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Ron" <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:2_Odnf08kOCXY7nXnZ2dnUVZ8lRi4p2d@bt.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:
Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic.
Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft
in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at
around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on
one of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say
a 747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy
sitting behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially
catastrophic situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something
which maybe puts the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I
can understand of the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to
do this, and in the event of a total electrical systems collapse, your
little joystick, and the computer(s) that it's connected to, are not
going to be of any use to control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly,
no pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just
flying into a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an
aluminium-bodied plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and
re-discharge and carry on its way from the opposite side or wherever. He
questioned whether the same would happen on a carbon composite bodied
plane, as the A330 apparently is, or whether the higher electrical
resistance of such a material, would cause the lightning to 'stick
around' as it were, and just fry the internal systems, or even heat the
material to the point where it just exploded. He reckons that unless
there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the airframe, a distress
signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all the way down, as
the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure that it can still
operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or systems
failure. Sobering thoughts ...

From reading the boards, it appears that, rather than flowing arond the
outside of the aircraft, lightning is more inclined to punch holes right
through composite skins, thereby getting into the metalwork and wiring.

Ron(UK)

So, perhaps not the best choice of material to make a long haul aircraft
from, given that it is going to fly to areas of the world where
thunderstorms are prevalent, and at cruising altitudes where it is well up
amongst the crap, as it were.

I have actually flown in and out of both Orlando and Las Vegas, with
thunderstorms in the area, without giving them a second thought. But then
that was in a nice 747 aluminium cigar tube ...

If it is true that CC skins are not good in areas of electrical storm
activity, I'm sure pilots regularly flying such planes, must be aware of
this, so if the weather radar on this flight showed that he was heading into
bad air and storms, I wonder why he didn't go around it, or see if it was
possible to climb above the worst of it ? I understand that thunderheads can
extend above the maximum ceiling of airliners, but I would have thought that
there might have been a 'way through' between cells ? Fuel constraints maybe
? Looking on a map, the path from Rio to Paris looks awfully long for a
plane of this size.

BTW, is that Ron ex LVA ? If so, you haven't by any chance got a schematic
set for a Warwick Sweet 25.1, have you ? Or anyone else reading this ?
Warwick have refused to even acknowledge requests for assistance, let alone
supply info.

Arfa

 

[Meat Plow]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:49:57 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:

Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one
of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|


Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say a
747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy sitting
behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially catastrophic
situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something which maybe puts
the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I can understand of
the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to do this, and in the
event of a total electrical systems collapse, your little joystick, and the
computer(s) that it's connected to, are not going to be of any use to
control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly, no
pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just flying into
a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an aluminium-bodied
plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and re-discharge and carry on
its way from the opposite side or wherever. He questioned whether the same
would happen on a carbon composite bodied plane, as the A330 apparently is,
or whether the higher electrical resistance of such a material, would cause
the lightning to 'stick around' as it were, and just fry the internal
systems, or even heat the material to the point where it just exploded. He
reckons that unless there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the
airframe, a distress signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all
the way down, as the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure
that it can still operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or
systems failure. Sobering thoughts ...

Arfa

Nah the Airbus is Aluminum skin sandwiched with carbon fiber
inside.The same 'Faraday" effect applies.

If I were to fly the 747 I would surely think of the design flaws that
caused the fuel tank to explode on Flight 800. Or the one where the
rear section cracked and lost pressure on the dome that seals the rear
end of the fuselage. No I wouldn't enjoy flying through an electrical
storm in any aircraft but I wouldn't be any more worried in an Airbus.

Military aircraft with complete fly by wire don't seem to have
problems with electrical discharge on the skin. I can imagine say an
F/A 18E flying at mach two encountering some extreme static
electricity from the friction of air and water molecules. One can only
wonder how many Joules develope on the aircraft's skin.

 

[Meat Plow]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:25:07 +0100, Ron
<ron@lunevalleyaudio.com>wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:
Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one
of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say a
747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy sitting
behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially catastrophic
situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something which maybe puts
the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I can understand of
the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to do this, and in the
event of a total electrical systems collapse, your little joystick, and the
computer(s) that it's connected to, are not going to be of any use to
control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly, no
pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just flying into
a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an aluminium-bodied
plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and re-discharge and carry on
its way from the opposite side or wherever. He questioned whether the same
would happen on a carbon composite bodied plane, as the A330 apparently is,
or whether the higher electrical resistance of such a material, would cause
the lightning to 'stick around' as it were, and just fry the internal
systems, or even heat the material to the point where it just exploded. He
reckons that unless there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the
airframe, a distress signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all
the way down, as the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure
that it can still operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or
systems failure. Sobering thoughts ...

From reading the boards, it appears that, rather than flowing arond the
outside of the aircraft, lightning is more inclined to punch holes right
through composite skins, thereby getting into the metalwork and wiring.

Ron(UK)

That might be true if the skins of Airbus aircraft were made
completely of composite materials. But the truth is the wings and
fuselage are made of aluminum panels sandwiched with composite
materials inside. Logic dictates that a bolt of lightning with a
gazillion Joules of energy will no more impact an aircraft surface
of 100% aluminum than it would with a aluminum outside and composite
inside. Lightning just isn't that picky.

 

[Smitty Two]

In article <CZaTl.89703$iK7.15093@newsfe08.ams2>,
"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

As far as I understand it, the American military will not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment.

It's part of our plan to take over the world. Rather than stopping North
Korea from building nukes, we're just going to make sure they're RoHS
compliant.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:2rvv3v.ivq.17.1@news.alt.net...

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:49:57 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:





Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic.
Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft
in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at
around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on
one
of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|


Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say a
747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy sitting
behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially catastrophic
situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something which maybe
puts
the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I can understand of
the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to do this, and in the
event of a total electrical systems collapse, your little joystick, and
the
computer(s) that it's connected to, are not going to be of any use to
control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly,
no
pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just flying
into
a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an aluminium-bodied
plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and re-discharge and carry on
its way from the opposite side or wherever. He questioned whether the same
would happen on a carbon composite bodied plane, as the A330 apparently
is,
or whether the higher electrical resistance of such a material, would
cause
the lightning to 'stick around' as it were, and just fry the internal
systems, or even heat the material to the point where it just exploded. He
reckons that unless there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the
airframe, a distress signal should have been able to be broadcast almost
all
the way down, as the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure
that it can still operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical
or
systems failure. Sobering thoughts ...

Arfa


Nah the Airbus is Aluminum skin sandwiched with carbon fiber
inside.The same 'Faraday" effect applies.

If I were to fly the 747 I would surely think of the design flaws that
caused the fuel tank to explode on Flight 800. Or the one where the
rear section cracked and lost pressure on the dome that seals the rear
end of the fuselage. No I wouldn't enjoy flying through an electrical
storm in any aircraft but I wouldn't be any more worried in an Airbus.

Military aircraft with complete fly by wire don't seem to have
problems with electrical discharge on the skin. I can imagine say an
F/A 18E flying at mach two encountering some extreme static
electricity from the friction of air and water molecules. One can only
wonder how many Joules develope on the aircraft's skin.

Hmmm. I wonder if a couple of sheets of Bacofoil glued on a vaguely
conductive piece of plastic-y material, is actually as good a dissipative or
deflective surface for lightning, as a 5mm thick fully metal skin ? I have
watched the programmes on both of the crashes that you quote, and I agree
that they give a (small) degree of cause for concern, but at least they were
both pinned down to exactly what caused them, and I would think that
suitable protective measures were put in place to prevent a recurrence.
Considering the size of the 747, and the number of years that the basic
design has been flying now, I think that it has proven to be a fantastically
reliable and safe aircraft.

Still, apparently, they have now located some wreckage 400 miles out into
the Atlantic, so I guess that they have around 28 days left to locate and
recover the CVR and FDR boxes, which apparently are likely to be lying in
around 13000 feet of water. Seems like the batteries for the pingers are
good for about 30 days, and the transmitter is just about man enough to get
a signal through 15000 feet of salt water. I guess that if they can recover
them and they continued to function for any time after the initial 'event',
then we could know quite quickly what the primary cause of it going down
was.

Arfa

 

[Ron]

N_Cook wrote:

Ron <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:2_OdncI8kOCpYLnXnZ2dnUVZ8lRi4p2d@bt.com...
N_Cook wrote:
--
--
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h00ucr$hf6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Ron <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
newsMOdnQkjSLnAVL7XnZ2dnUVZ8rZi4p2d@bt.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A201650.750881A7@notmail.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather,
there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.

How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy
as
the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/



According to my paper , no Faraday cages these days. Apparently "static
wicks", wires buried on the edges of wings and tail is supposed to do
the
job that an overall shell of aluminium used to do.

It`s some kind of light wire mesh laminated into the CF. General chat on
the PP forum would suggest that composite based airframes seem to
attract lightning more than aluminium clad ones do.

Ron(UK)

Suely its not whether they attract, that is how lightning conductors work.
But how easiily the current passes around the frame and out the other side,
with as little ohmic heating on the way, to continue its cloud to cloud
path.

I`m just repeating what professional pilots have to say on the matter.

Ron

 

[Ron]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Ron" <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:2_Odnf08kOCXY7nXnZ2dnUVZ8lRi4p2d@bt.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic.
Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft
in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at
around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on
one of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.
Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say
a 747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy
sitting behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially
catastrophic situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something
which maybe puts the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I
can understand of the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to
do this, and in the event of a total electrical systems collapse, your
little joystick, and the computer(s) that it's connected to, are not
going to be of any use to control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly,
no pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just
flying into a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an
aluminium-bodied plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and
re-discharge and carry on its way from the opposite side or wherever. He
questioned whether the same would happen on a carbon composite bodied
plane, as the A330 apparently is, or whether the higher electrical
resistance of such a material, would cause the lightning to 'stick
around' as it were, and just fry the internal systems, or even heat the
material to the point where it just exploded. He reckons that unless
there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the airframe, a distress
signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all the way down, as
the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure that it can still
operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or systems
failure. Sobering thoughts ...
From reading the boards, it appears that, rather than flowing arond the
outside of the aircraft, lightning is more inclined to punch holes right
through composite skins, thereby getting into the metalwork and wiring.

Ron(UK)

So, perhaps not the best choice of material to make a long haul aircraft
from, given that it is going to fly to areas of the world where
thunderstorms are prevalent, and at cruising altitudes where it is well up
amongst the crap, as it were.

I have actually flown in and out of both Orlando and Las Vegas, with
thunderstorms in the area, without giving them a second thought. But then
that was in a nice 747 aluminium cigar tube ...

If it is true that CC skins are not good in areas of electrical storm
activity, I'm sure pilots regularly flying such planes, must be aware of
this, so if the weather radar on this flight showed that he was heading into
bad air and storms, I wonder why he didn't go around it, or see if it was
possible to climb above the worst of it ? I understand that thunderheads can
extend above the maximum ceiling of airliners, but I would have thought that
there might have been a 'way through' between cells ? Fuel constraints maybe
? Looking on a map, the path from Rio to Paris looks awfully long for a
plane of this size.

There`s a lot of stuff, some useful some 'not so' on the PPrune boards
about this accident. Many of the posts are from people who fly these
birds everyday for a living, it`s a good read.

BTW, is that Ron ex LVA ? If so, you haven't by any chance got a schematic
set for a Warwick Sweet 25.1, have you ? Or anyone else reading this ?
Warwick have refused to even acknowledge requests for assistance, let alone
supply info.

Well LVA is still alive and well, I just don't do many repairs any more,
I`m concentrating more on live sound production. Sorry Arfa I don`t have
a diag for that amp.

Ron(UK)

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Ron" <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:3sadnXGY96RP8LjXnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@bt.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Ron" <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:2_Odnf08kOCXY7nXnZ2dnUVZ8lRi4p2d@bt.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to
Paris with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic.
Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000
ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at
around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on
one of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.
Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on
say a 747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control
surfaces, and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such
that in an unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and
experienced guy sitting behind those controls, might be able to recover
a potentially catastrophic situation by thinking outside the box, and
doing something which maybe puts the airframe outside of the 'safe'
envelope. From what I can understand of the FBW systems, they are never
going to allow you to do this, and in the event of a total electrical
systems collapse, your little joystick, and the computer(s) that it's
connected to, are not going to be of any use to control the aircraft,
anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down
(honestly, no pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it
than just flying into a storm. He says that in general, if lightning
hits an aluminium-bodied plane, it tends to pass around the outside,
and re-discharge and carry on its way from the opposite side or
wherever. He questioned whether the same would happen on a carbon
composite bodied plane, as the A330 apparently is, or whether the
higher electrical resistance of such a material, would cause the
lightning to 'stick around' as it were, and just fry the internal
systems, or even heat the material to the point where it just exploded.
He reckons that unless there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of
the airframe, a distress signal should have been able to be broadcast
almost all the way down, as the last voice transmitter is battery
powered to ensure that it can still operate, even in the event of a
catastrophic electrical or systems failure. Sobering thoughts ...
From reading the boards, it appears that, rather than flowing arond the
outside of the aircraft, lightning is more inclined to punch holes right
through composite skins, thereby getting into the metalwork and wiring.

Ron(UK)

So, perhaps not the best choice of material to make a long haul aircraft
from, given that it is going to fly to areas of the world where
thunderstorms are prevalent, and at cruising altitudes where it is well
up amongst the crap, as it were.

I have actually flown in and out of both Orlando and Las Vegas, with
thunderstorms in the area, without giving them a second thought. But then
that was in a nice 747 aluminium cigar tube ...

If it is true that CC skins are not good in areas of electrical storm
activity, I'm sure pilots regularly flying such planes, must be aware of
this, so if the weather radar on this flight showed that he was heading
into bad air and storms, I wonder why he didn't go around it, or see if
it was possible to climb above the worst of it ? I understand that
thunderheads can extend above the maximum ceiling of airliners, but I
would have thought that there might have been a 'way through' between
cells ? Fuel constraints maybe ? Looking on a map, the path from Rio to
Paris looks awfully long for a plane of this size.

There`s a lot of stuff, some useful some 'not so' on the PPrune boards
about this accident. Many of the posts are from people who fly these birds
everyday for a living, it`s a good read.


BTW, is that Ron ex LVA ? If so, you haven't by any chance got a
schematic set for a Warwick Sweet 25.1, have you ? Or anyone else reading
this ? Warwick have refused to even acknowledge requests for assistance,
let alone supply info.


Well LVA is still alive and well, I just don't do many repairs any more,
I`m concentrating more on live sound production. Sorry Arfa I don`t have a
diag for that amp.

Ron(UK)

No sweat. I've found the problem now. Some moron had pinched a wire to the
fans under a board mounting pillar when reassembling after some previous
repair. It had nicked the insulation, resulting in an intermittent short to
the metal pillar. Very odd symptoms this caused. Sometimes, when you flicked
the "ground lift" switch on the back panel, the fans would start up at full
chat, and a sound that can best be described as a drone pipe on a set of
bagpipes, ramped up as the fans ran up. Very odd indeed.

So, where do I find this PPrune board ?

Arfa

 

[Smitty Two]

In article <sxcVl.269$_T2.64@newsfe28.ams2>,
"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Still, apparently, they have now located some wreckage 400 miles out into
the Atlantic, so I guess that they have around 28 days left to locate and
recover the CVR and FDR boxes, which apparently are likely to be lying in
around 13000 feet of water. Seems like the batteries for the pingers are
good for about 30 days, and the transmitter is just about man enough to get
a signal through 15000 feet of salt water. I guess that if they can recover
them and they continued to function for any time after the initial 'event',
then we could know quite quickly what the primary cause of it going down
was.

This whole "black box recovery" stuff seems silly to me. Given the
number of accidents in which the recorders are never found, or when
found are FUBAR, and given today's communications technology, I don't
know why data isn't being constantly streamed to ground recording
centers.

 

[Bob Larter]

Smitty Two wrote:

In article <sxcVl.269$_T2.64@newsfe28.ams2>,
"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Still, apparently, they have now located some wreckage 400 miles out into
the Atlantic, so I guess that they have around 28 days left to locate and
recover the CVR and FDR boxes, which apparently are likely to be lying in
around 13000 feet of water. Seems like the batteries for the pingers are
good for about 30 days, and the transmitter is just about man enough to get
a signal through 15000 feet of salt water. I guess that if they can recover
them and they continued to function for any time after the initial 'event',
then we could know quite quickly what the primary cause of it going down
was.

This whole "black box recovery" stuff seems silly to me. Given the
number of accidents in which the recorders are never found, or when
found are FUBAR, and given today's communications technology, I don't
know why data isn't being constantly streamed to ground recording
centers.

Technically, that'd be a bit tricky on (for example) a trip between New
York & London.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Smitty Two" <prestwhich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsrestwhich-35F38D.20591502062009@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...

In article <sxcVl.269$_T2.64@newsfe28.ams2>,
"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Still, apparently, they have now located some wreckage 400 miles out into
the Atlantic, so I guess that they have around 28 days left to locate and
recover the CVR and FDR boxes, which apparently are likely to be lying in
around 13000 feet of water. Seems like the batteries for the pingers are
good for about 30 days, and the transmitter is just about man enough to
get
a signal through 15000 feet of salt water. I guess that if they can
recover
them and they continued to function for any time after the initial
'event',
then we could know quite quickly what the primary cause of it going down
was.

This whole "black box recovery" stuff seems silly to me. Given the
number of accidents in which the recorders are never found, or when
found are FUBAR, and given today's communications technology, I don't
know why data isn't being constantly streamed to ground recording
centers.

Ah. A point that I made to my pilot friend yesterday, and apparently, some
of the flight data is streamed to the ACARS system continuously, via
satellite. He says that height, speed, heading, inertial nav position
estimate, and true GPS position, amongst other things, are transmitted.
Which then begs the question of why it is so difficult to locate the
position of a downed aircraft. I guess that if it is coming down from 7
miles up, with significant forward speed, and not necessarily in one piece,
that might make it more difficult. Still, I would have thought that it would
have given them a bit more of a 'ball park' area to be looking in, than
seems to be the case. In fact, I remember seeing an episode of ACI, where
they took the place of last transmission of an aircraft, and then plotted by
computer, how the pieces would fall, and came up with a location for a door
I think it was, which struck me as pretty clever.

But yes. Given the level of compression that can be applied to data streams
these days, it does seem archaic to record all this data on board the item
that you are trying to protect. I suppose privacy issues might come into
transmitting flight deck chat, but I'm sure that with the encryption systems
available, and operating the same rolling window system, that could be
overcome.

I also questioned the state these boxes are in when found, but he said not
to be misled by their appearance. Apparently, if they were working in the
first place - and that's not always a given, which is a bit worrying - the
chances are that they will still be working when recovered. Seems that the
actual recorder is inside a sphere, and the battered bit that you always
see, is just an outer case, which might contain some ancilliary electronics,
and is shaped to fit a rack in an equipment bay. Also, these days, they
employ solid state memory, rather than any kind of electro-mechanical
recording mech.

Arfa

Arfa