Graphic: The search for debris from flight 447

By Reuters Staff
June 2, 2009

Maps locating wreckage found by the Brazilian military which could belong to missing Air France flight 447. Includes illustration of Airbus A330-200.

7 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

How is this possible. We operate helicopters and we have satellite tracking system on each aircraft that gives us the exact location and time at 30 seconds interval. How can a airline company that is in business to transport passengers do not have a flight following system at the maine base of operation.

Posted by Richard Morin | Report as abusive

One possible explanation:

As:

1) The catastrophic event must have occurred just before the automatic transmital of 4 min, indicating physical damage, loss of pressure and failure of the electrical system, which seemed to indicate that there was nobody alive by then.
4 minutes could be the time of the fall of the wreck from 11 km to the sea.

3) Such catastrophic event could be the result of an explosion or of an implosion caused by resonance or metal fatigue of the hull.

4) Because of the known fact that the aircraft was flying witin severe turbulence, which could provoke anormal amplification of the normal vibrations of a jet,
the hull being subject to cabin internal – and speed related external presions, the possibily of a resonance implosion, which would explain the loss of internal presion, damage to parts and failure of the electrical system as 1), seem the best bet. I assume that the alarm
signal transmitter has its own independent power sysrem or battery!

I would welcome comment

Tom
caminito@netzero.com

Posted by caminito | Report as abusive

A modern aircraft flying at 30,000 feet (or above) is unlikely to encounter severe lightening or turbulence that could cause catastrophic failure. The greatest severity of turbulence and electrical discharges is found between ten and twenty thousand feet, although I have encountered moderate turbulence and lightening up to 38-40 thousand feet (very unusual).

When I attended flight school in Pensacola, Florida, there was a huge sign hanging in the ready room that read: “Flying is inherently safe, but it is totally unforgiving of human error.” This was long before Islamic extremists started blowing things up.

Perhaps today’s ready rooms should now contain an additional caveat: “flying is . . .totally unforgiving of human error OR TREACHERY.” I would say the odds are 50-50 that the catastrophic failure was due to the latter.

Posted by C. F. Schramm | Report as abusive

Because the airlines are not willing to pay for the satellite link that would allow for real time flight following while over the oceans out of range of land communications.

Air France did have something of a long range nature, obviously, or they wouldn’t have had the fault indications, but it doesn’t seem at the level of flight following. I find it interesting that the hardware would be in the A330 to report system failures via long range communication, but not to also report position along with the failure report.

Engineers…

The problem is the price of this technology. The company have to have their profit.

Posted by Bivis | Report as abusive

We don’t know much right now and we probably won’t learn any more unless we recover the black boxes. Let’s stop all this speculation until we have the facts.

Posted by SafetyWONK | Report as abusive

They were flying through the South Atlantic Anomaly…

Posted by r tist | Report as abusive