Air France passenger jet drops off radar

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Brazilian military has said, according to Le Monde, that there is now "no doubt" that the wreckage is that of AF 447.
 
Last edited:
Elevate your business spending to first-class rewards! Sign up today with code AFF10 and process over $10,000 in business expenses within your first 30 days to unlock 10,000 Bonus PayRewards Points.
Join 30,000+ savvy business owners who:

✅ Pay suppliers who don’t accept Amex
✅ Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
✅ Earn & transfer PayRewards Points to 10+ airline & hotel partners

Start earning today!
- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

I've always thought that black boxes should have some kind of very strong tracking device.. a la 'lo-jack' on cars.

Perhaps they do already, but maybe it's not powerful enough?
 
Perhaps they do already, but maybe it's not powerful enough?

That's a big part of the problem as I understand it - if it's down as far as what's been reported, it would be very difficult to get any sort of tracking signal up to the surface.
 
I've always thought that black boxes should have some kind of very strong tracking device.. a la 'lo-jack' on cars.

Perhaps they do already, but maybe it's not powerful enough?

When wet, an underwater locator beacon activates, which sends out a signal every second for up to 30 days and can be located from a depth of up to 6KM.

In a Yahoo News or BBC News article (forget which), they said the plane should be about 4.7KM down.
 
Journalists and editors in the mainstream media are quite adept at drawing tenuous linkages between unrelated events. I think it's going to be a tough enough investigation as it is, without all the media noise around it.
 
I'm havnig this little debate with a work colleague regarding why there was no reported distress communications / calls made.

My very newbie premise is the plane was leaving Brazilian air space, into semi-open air space, before entering Senegales air space. There was a 40 minute window where the pilots were not required to make any contact with any ATC centres as having left Brazilian ATC before needing to contact the new ATC at 20 past.

It was just prior to needing to report into the new ATC that the plane endured severe problems and thus the communication to Brazil was either 1) out of distance or 2) the communication frequency to the new ATC was not set - so even though the pilots may have made an emergency call - it was not picked up due to (1) and/or (2).

I guess the thrust of my argument to this colleague of mine is that 1) when changing over to new ATC, the pilots need to contact ATC where they are assigned a controller who then gives the pilots a unique communication frequency channel. Am I correct, somewhat correct or completely off track?
 
I would surmise that if it was something that happened suddenly there would simply not be time for the pilots to send a distress message. In my simplistic understanding in an emergency the pilots first priority is to keep the plane flying, secondly to get somewhere out of harms way, and after that to tell someone about your situation.

The plane itself got out some messages, and I have just thought that the pilots had too much else to deal with.
 
Ok very logical.

However let me clarify, my current debate;-

A plane flies from SYD to AKL, somewhere in flight, the pilots need to disconnect from SYD ATC and contact AKL ATC, I would assume Yes. If yes, do the pilots manually change communication frequencies? Or are all the settings pre-set in the computers - so at a point of travel, it switches to the new ATC.

I'm arguing its set manually.
 
I heard this on Sky not long ago (earlier in the day). Seems the debris isn't from the plane now, so where is it?
 
I think the articles i saw suggested there was one large piece which they subsequently realised was from a cargo ship (a piece of a shipping container), and also the "oil slick" was shipping oil on analysis (heavy, sludgy) but the other slick was "light" fuel (ie. aviation fuel).
 
I would surmise that if it was something that happened suddenly there would simply not be time for the pilots to send a distress message. In my simplistic understanding in an emergency the pilots first priority is to keep the plane flying, secondly to get somewhere out of harms way, and after that to tell someone about your situation.

The plane itself got out some messages, and I have just thought that the pilots had too much else to deal with.

I tend to agree with this. Sometimes I read about passengers who complain that during an emergency situation the pilots "told us nothing"... Well, duh... They're trying to keep the bloody thing in the air, running through checklists and generally attempting to solve the problem at hand. Rule number one - FLY THE AIRPLANE.
 
Tail fin from downed Air France jet recovered | The Australian
BRAZIL'S navy has recovered the tail fin from an Air France jet that plunged into the Atlantic a week ago, and was transporting 16 bodies to shore for identification.
The recovery of the fin on Monday was seen as important to the search for answers as to what knocked the Airbus A330, flight AF 447, out of the sky on June 1 as it was flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris with 228 people on board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top