Flight Data Recorder Time recorded = 25 hour continuous Number of parameters = 18 - 1000+ Impact tolerance = 3400Gs / 6.5 ms Fire resistance = 1100 degC / 30 min Water pressure resistance submerged = 20,000 ft Underwater locator beacon = 37.5 KHz; battery has shelf life of 6 years or more, with 30-day operation capability upon activation Cockpit Voice Recorder Time recorded = 30 min continuous, 2 hours for solid state digital units Number of channels = 4 Impact tolerance = 3400Gs / 6.5 ms Fire resistance = 1100 degC / 30 min Water pressure resistance submerged = 20,000 ft Underwater locator beacon = 37.5 KHz; battery has shelf life of 6 years or more, with 30-day operation capability upon activation The ULB, also known as the "pinger" usually have the following specifications Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB) Operating Frequency:37.5 kHz ± 1 kHz Operating Depth:Surface to 20,000 feet Pulse Length:Not less than 9 milliseconds Pulse Repetition Rate:Not less than 0.9 pulse per second Useful Life:Six years Operating Life:30 days (minimum) Acoustic Output, Initial:1060 dynes/cm2 rms pressure at 1 meter (160.5 dB)Acoustic Output, After 30 days:700 dynes/cm2 rms pressure at 1 meter (157.0 dB) Operating Temperature:28º F to 100º F Actuation:Fresh or salt water, surface to 20,000 feet Radiation Pattern:Rated output over 80 percent of sphere edit: in 20000 feet deep (6,09km) there's a pressure of 606psi (41.7 bar)
Well I'm not sure but Aircraft fly over deep water all the time so it would be inconceivable for the design engineers not to have created sufficient tolerance in the device to withstand the deepest waters! The problem is finding some thing the size or a brief case in several thousand feet of water! THe currents could pull the device, if detached from the fuselage, a long way from the crash site. Also, the pinger is not guaranteed to be still attached! I hope they find them, the relatives deserve to know what happened. The investigators will also want to make sure that if anything could have been done to prevent this, that such measures are introduced asap.
odds are it was lightning that took out the electrical systems and turbulence that took it down. Whats worse is that in particular area depths can exceed 24k feet. no way they fining that.
Although allot of people are saying it, i think its highly unlikely it was taken out by thunder alone, cause that would be a pretty big problem if one of those huge planes could be taken out by a stike of thunder. I heard that the plane did have known electrical, faults isn't the right word more problems as apparently it only just scraped through its last test ... but thats just a rummer.
Aeronautic engineering is not for amateurs, so I've little patience for cries of conspiracy at this point. Depth is 4-5km according to wikipedia. So that'd make it around 13-16k feet deep.
Airplanes are designed to conduct electricity, which would make them pretty much immune to a lightning strike. It would take exceptional circumstances to take an Airbus out of the air. If the rumours are true that the plane was a flying disaster with less than reliable electrics, then it seems viable that turbulance due to a severe storm possibly resulting and/or having some effect in causing instability in its electrical grid would spell disaster. The captain would have a hell of a time keeping his plane in the air without a working radar, auto pilot and status dashboard telling him his altitude and pitch. At the end of the day, planes can only fly when they have working engines, they dont glide... without engines they simply fall. I don't see where the conspiracy is to tell you the truth, other than the fact that the plane was less than worthy of carrying passangers.
Probably an unforseen mechanical failure caused by severe weather? EDIT: If the report shown here states that one of the bodies are still strapped to their seats, then that should mean that the aircraft came apart midair instead of when it smashed 'cuz the bodies are far from the wreckage... http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/06/06/air-france-investigation.html deltatux
Everything else is true, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_254 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM_Flight_867 and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_1549 Wouldn't have glided as far as they would have needed, but they don't simply fall.
I would have to agree with nm+ on this one. Oh and let's add the space shuttle orbiter to that list as well. And that one descends more steeply than others because of the extra drag at the unpowered engines--and yet they land it.
Obviously i was referring to commercial airliners and not "gliders" or civilian aircraft. Using common sense, its obvious they will "glide" to some extent, but not exactly to the extent that it will be airbourne for any length of time. Usually it's enough that a captain will be able to land his plane as quickly and safely as possible, and even that's in respectable weather... In stormy conditions with no electrics and severe turbulance, it's likey that the plane was either torn apart by shear or hit the sea at at speed... gliding would have been almost impossible given the information we currently have. r3claim3r: The Space Shuttle is designed to glide back down to earth... a commercial airliner is only designed to glide so far as to laned as safely and as soon as possible... as Cyber said, they are totally unrelated.
those planes cannot go in a total electrical failure... as i said they have 4 backup lines+ 1 eolic power generator for onboard instruments
The shuttle is designed simply to throw away as much of its kinetic energy as possible as heat and light. That is why it has small wings and a generally blunt shape. Typically the shuttle can glide 4-5ft forward for every ft lost at best. A commercial airliner will glide between 17-25ft (depending on the wing characteristics) for every ft fallen. As has been suggested initially by the news reports only multiple failures could have brought this plane down. I would not expect lightning to take down an aircraft. Although it seems the weather was a contributing factor to what I expect an already compromised aircraft.