Comments on: Air France flight 447: Why aren’t we using existing technology to make a difference?

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:46:00 +0000

There are so many accidents where pilots don’t know where they are, or their height or their airspeed. Why isn’t am independent GPS system (even a handheld one) mandatory? It could confirm location, height and speed over ground (next best thing to airspeed.
This would also confirm if a plane is climbing, descending or in level flight, another thing which has caused accidents. Of course a simple builder’s spirit level built into the cockpit would confirm this independently of computers!
Next accident? If it’s due to these causes, sue the FAA and other national air safety bodies for their failure to make these simple precautions mandatory, because it’s criminal negligence.

By: FAA and “Black Box” manufacturers looking at the wrong solution

FAA and “Black Box” manufacturers looking at the wrong solution — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 03:45:24 +0000

[...] my column in 2009, Air France Flight 447: Why aren’t we using existing technology to make a difference? of the “black boxes,” I said, “I don’t know about you, but I think it’s insane they [...]

By: Dino

Dino — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 04:25:00 +0000

I have to ask the same question but more preventative. Pilots depend on a few pitot sensors to detect air speed. The crash investigators speculate that the pitot probes iced over and failed. Why didn’t they have or use GPS as a backup speed sensor?!?

By: Air France flight 447: Why aren't we using existing technology to … | France Today

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:48:11 +0000

[...] a difference for the flight, and the determination what actually happened. See the original post: Air France flight 447: Why aren't we using existing technology to … Share and [...]

By: Air France flight 447: Why aren't we using existing technology to …

Air France flight 447: Why aren't we using existing technology to … — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:36:22 +0000

[...] the whole story here: Ned Levi aggregated by [...]

By: William John Cox

William John Cox — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:56:53 +0000

Ground the Airbus?

Used in law, science and philosophy, a rule known as Occam’s Razor requires that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex, and/or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

We do not know if Air France Flight 447 was brought down by a lightning storm, a failure of speed sensors, rudder problems or pilot error. What we do know is that its plastic tail fin fell off and the plane fell almost seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard.

Article at Consortium News: http://consortiumnews.com/2009/062009a.html

Article at Global Research:http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14025

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:50:02 +0000

Are the costs of search and rescue included in these cost benefit calculations? If the airlines had to pay for the S&R then they might have more incentive. What is the cost to deploy a nuclear submarine and several vessels to search the site? Since the government is picking up the tab, their cost benefit analysis should be incorporated into th equation as well.

By: James

James — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:23:16 +0000

I’m sure modern hightech planes already have a GPS System. Wouldn’t it be possible to change the programing, so that when there is failure event, the ACARS System simply appends the data to the ACARS Packet or simply sends a second packet if needed. (This wold prevent a significant waste of bandwidth, (though since it is not used 99.99% of the time, there would be some. Or it could be modified so that that packet is only added for certain event (i.e. Decompression) or if a treshhold is reached indicating cascade of events)*)

Also when there is a significant discrepancy in the output from different sensors (i.e. the Airspeed Sensors (pitot tube’s, etc) on Air France, or Radar Altimeter’s on the Turkish Airways). Could the Software be modified so that it is more obvious to the pilots and quickly provides a easy to understand side by side indicator.

In a crisis or stressful situation someone may not notice that 2 displays 2 feet apart don’t match. (I remember reading about a 747 where 1 of the artificial horizons failed, it was the one in front of the Pilot operating the aircraft. The one in front of the other pilot was ok and so was the one in the center of the instrument panel. )

Both of these changes would be primarily a change in the software. (Programers everyone are groaning at this comment, I know).

*I was on an A319 as we touched down , the wastewater system plopped up a warning indicating it needed service. (I was told that this always happens). This might be one of those case where a GPS packet is not needed.

By: RTLS - Real Time Location and Security » Air France flight 447: Why aren’t we using existing technology to make a difference?

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:51:17 +0000

[...] locate them in case of problems, and know what’s going on in them, on a real time basis? Click here for complete story from TRIPSO Share [...]

By: ken Mikolajchak

ken Mikolajchak — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:54:12 +0000

Help me. please….. ACARS has been around for years. The technology is VHF based and why the engine and flight data parameters have not been increased is beyond me .

This is not that hard.