Airbus crash - carbon?

I certainly hope they can recover enough pieces to identify _why_ it crashed. What concerns me is a report that debris was spread over a

36 mile diameter area. I haven't heard that repeated, so maybe it was an error. But, if true, that would suggest an explosion. It is also notable that there was no voice transmissions near the time of the "short circuit" data transmission.

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
 I love to cook with wine     Sometimes I even put it in the food

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

How long's it been... 48 hours? 36 mi / 48 hrs =3D 3/4 mph rate of the ditched aircraft pieces drifting apart in the storm, which is reasonable.

Michael

For aircraft systems, Google RTCA DO-160E. I'm not sure what the state of the art is for structural integrity, but it is true that composites are a much greater concern than metal skins were.

The transmitted messages related to electrical system failures don't necessarily suggest a lightning strike. Some of the first failures detectable by data recorders on fuselage breakup are wiring faults as things start to pull apart.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators
would be dead. -- Johnny Carson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Someone seems to have deciphered the acars messages on wikipedia.

Cheers

They fly the prototypes into thunder storms.

Bob

This link is especially interesting...

Cheers

s

so

=A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

You wouldn't have ACARS operation much beyond the limits of radar. ACARS is VHF, so you do get a bit more that line of sight, but not much more. So I still think the message was HFDL. Further, you don't get minutes worth of acars. The messages are short bursts. Even HFDL messages only run for seconds

Tin whiskers were mentioned regarding this Airbus model, as it is the first airliner that is ROHS.

It's highly unlikely that tin whiskers would simultaneously disable enough equipment to cause a crash.

Sylvia.

Agreed, but it's news to me that any civil aicraft are using ROHS or lead-free technology yet, particularly in safety-critical equipment.

Graham H

** All control and monitoring equipment is generally exempt from ROHS requirements.

So, very likely, most of the avionics on the A330 complies by being exempt.

Nice use of verbal sophistry - don't you think ?

.... Phil

I read somewhere that the aircraft sent two messages. One indicated a loss of cabin pressure, the other an electrical failure.

Take from that what you will.

On a sunny day (Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:21:48 -0400) it happened T wrote in :

On CNN it says debris is in 2 areas 90 km (about 56 miles) apart. That gives the impression something disintegrated at high altitude, fell down, and something else still kept flying for a while. That is also consistent with a 'pressure loss' message. Could be an explosion, or the plane broke apart due to ..., or lighting just burned a whole part of the airframe away? Last is unlikely, so bomb or very severe turbulence perhaps.

Since you seem to be familiar with DO-160 do you know why it is so strangely silent on creepage and clearance regs?

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Someone mentioned that if both engines fail that could trigger a loss of cabin pressure. My feeling is that when the messages started being sent, that?s when the plane was on its way down. What ever happened, happened before that time. It did come apart and half of it was still flying for another 4 minutes or so.

Cheers

Seen that before, To claim "Complies by Exemption" you can state that there is no equal or better performing ROHS part. So for any critical application.....

Cheers

Little, if anything, can be inferred, beyond that the aircraft was in trouble. Well, I think we knew that already.

Sylvia.

Because it specifies environmental and test conditions under which devices must perform. Its up to the engineer to figure out whether their design will perform under these conditions. Its not a design guide.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.
                      -- Tom Waits

...but...planes use "fly by wire" meaning electronics for control - so all that is "needed" is a whisker short in the "wrong" place?