Air France - latest info

Even if all 4 engines stalled at that height they could have attempted re-start several times. I remember the B747 incident where they flew into the ash of a volcanic eruption. Re-start was done 3 times (they kept flying back into it) and they landed OK. The AF crash happened mid Atlantic so I doubt volcanoes were involved (!) but it's likely thunderstorms were. I reckon they strayed too close to a Cumulonimbus (CB's), something like severe icing or massive turbulenece has happened, which rendered the A340 helpless. There is of course the teeny possibilty of pilot suicide or terrorism. I'm sorry but from 37000 feet (or thereabouts) there is plenty time to recover from a stall and airliners fly well above the speeds required to cause one anyway. HOEWEVER, CB's are hugely unpredictable and we won't know for sure unless the black boxes are found.
Even if it didn't break up in the air, the fact the life jackets weren't donned suggests no-one would have known much. It is a very very odd situation though.

You guys that work as crew....I know it plays on your mind but this was a totally freak accident. I seriously feel for you, a Tornado F3 crashed today (Hubby is Tornado GR4 pilot) and the news does disturb. You must remember that flying is BY FAR safer than your drive to work.

NOT a good few weeks for aviation....thoughts are with all.
 
Wasn't it an A330? In which case it would have had two-engines and not much of a chance if both engines had failed. And my sympathies to the families of the F3's flight crew. The aircraft was based at RAF Leuchars which I go to annually for its airshow. Might even have seen it display.
 
Yes you are quite right it was an A330.....see what a few glasses of wine do to you!! Even still, both engines failing at that height would be very bizarre and plenty time to try a restart. There are so many theories being thrown around....one of them is a meteorite strike!!!

PS Comments in my post were aimed at the media speculation not the OP.
 
It can - and they can be re started but an article some of the pilots were reading today says it may have been going too slowly for engine re start.

Plus no one knows exactly how bad the supposed storm was and what damage that did to the aircraft.

Im positive there is more to this story that we will never know.
 
you don't have to join to have a nose in there. some seriously brilliant and experienced techs and pilots on there. enjoy! (and kiss goodbye to a few hours... latest thread on this is 157 pages and counting...!)
 
Just a minor point but when an aircraft stalls it has nothing to do with engines failing. A stall in flight terminology relates to the airspeed being insufficient to allow the wings to generate enough lift to keep the plane in the air. In this case it will basically fall out of the sky....rather like a stone. The lack of airspeed does suggest as previously thought that there may have been problems with the air speed indicators (pitot tubes)...

All very sad :-(
 
Thats what i said above - it may have been going too slowly through the storm causing the stall.

So yes could have been the indicators - which i think was in the press within a day as a possible reason.

It is very sad - but even sadder that the real reasons may never be known.
I feel for the families that will never have a body to bring home and the closure that brings.
 
An engine stall and a 'flying' stall are 2 completely different things. Let's say all the engines stop (ie aircraft runs out of fuel) it won't drop out the sky like a stone. A 'flying' stall happens when the angle of attack of the wing exceeds its stall angle (which is something like 15 degrees and relates to the angle the airflow hits the wing so yes it is related to airspeed). You need the engines to maintain this in level and climbing flight. If the engines failed the aircraft would need to go into a lower attitude (ie a descent) to maintain the angle of attack. When landing the slats and flaps come out to increase the stall angle and create more lift thus the aircraft can fly slower and at a higher angle of attack. Even a big airliner can glide a considerable distance. Think how far away airliners start to descend.....and the engines are on idle. Years ago a Boeing 767 ran out of fuel and managed to land without incident at a disused airfield.

An engine stall is caused by massive disturbances in the airflow going into it. Remember in top gun when they eject? Both engines stalled there due to flying through the wake of the aircraft in front. Fast jets are by nature very unstable hence the spin that happened after this. Jet engines can also surge. I know this was a film (!!!) but that can happen. This is why more time is left before take off when following a 'heavy' which relates to the amount of wake turbulence created.

So, if the engines stalled (and the forces in a CB could potentially cause this) a re-start would be attempted. I can't remember (some time since I did all the exams) if the APU can be used to force air into the engine whilst in the air. When they start aircraft engines on the ground the APU starts the first engine then they can use it to start the second engine. In the air a shallow dive would be used to get the air flowing through the engines to re-start.

I also think that unless they find those boxes, it will remain a mystery.
 
Dear suzy sparkle, I,m going to have to start marking your replies to aviation questions.I think at least a B plus for this one.
cool.gif
 
LOL
I did do the ATPL exams allbeit 8 years ago so my knowledge is a tad rusty!! I have a fair few hours too but again haven't flown in as long. Not the easiest to explain though is it!!
 
Thanks Suzysparkle - a really good overview - particularly about the angles of the wings plus flaps etc. I don't like flying at all - I have to go all over Europe for competition- so find this helpful. Have been to Florence Airport ( for Arezzo Tours ) so many times that I think I could tell pilot the way to go, but don't think said pilot would be too impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top