Air France 447 Reported Missing

[Clearwater]

.

[Ogee]

The wreckage clumps were found about 35 miles apart, which would indicate the aircraft came apart at a great height. That's pretty well certain. As long as they are parts of the same airplane.

As I see it, this is the sequence...

Structural damage, leading to structural disintegration

The possible causes are:

Turbulence
Lightning
Bomb
Midair

One or both of the first two accounting for 90% of the probability, maybe more.

I would like to hear what anybody might know about positive lightning, which I understand aircraft are not protected against, which is many more times more powerful than negative lightning, and which exists at the top of thunderheads, and which can destroy an aircraft.

It certainly is critical to get some kind of info on what caused this crash. The implications of not knowing are enormous, especially for Airbus.

[Intentional Left Bank]

"I would like to hear what anybody might know about positive lightning, which I understand aircraft are not protected against, which is many more times more powerful than negative lightning, and which exists at the top of thunderheads, and which can destroy an aircraft.

Positive lightning makes up less than 5% of all strikes. However, despite a significantly lower rate of occurrence, positive lightning is particularly dangerous for several reasons. Since it originates in the upper levels of a storm, the amount of air it must burn through to reach the ground usually much greater. Therefore, its electric field typically is much stronger than a negative strike. Its flash duration is longer, and its peak charge and potential can be ten times greater than a negative strike; as much as 300,000 amperes and one billion volts."

More info from the NOAA

[mabcan]

4. Crew incapacitation. Then flew straight into a very large cell on autopilot.
(maybe one in the bunk, two sleeping on the flightdeck)

Might explain the lack of communication with ATC, or other aircraft, and the inability to recover from flying into a very large cell.

Other aircraft in the area never heard AF447 request or advise of a deviation after their INTOL position report at 01:30z

Since when a lack of communication shall be interpreted as a sleeping crew ???
What tells you that they were not trying to contact desperately ATC or other planes ?

[TurnandPull]

Some hints on Forex about rumors out of Buenos Aires that Air France recieved bomb threats on a Paris bound flight on May 27th, delaying the flight just days before the disappearance.

Edited by Widow to add a link to what appears to be a news article from an Argentinian source, dated May 27th: http://momento24.com/en/2009/05/27/bomb ... ce-flight/

[YHZChick]

4. Crew incapacitation. Then flew straight into a very large cell on autopilot.
(maybe one in the bunk, two sleeping on the flightdeck)

Might explain the lack of communication with ATC, or other aircraft, and the inability to recover from flying into a very large cell.

Other aircraft in the area never heard AF447 request or advise of a deviation after their INTOL position report at 01:30z

Since when a lack of communication shall be interpreted as a sleeping crew ???
What tells you that they were not trying to contact desperately ATC or other planes ?

Far more likely is either
a) the could not establish verbal communication because of systems failures
or
b) they did not attempt to because thing were going sideways too quickly.

The suggestion that 3 pilots would all be resting while transiting the Atlantic on a route taking them through the ITCZ in sever weather is ludicrous. Chances are NONE of the flight crew was resting given the weather they were entering.

[YHZChick]

Widow...this post from PPRuNe may clarify things for you:

AF447 SAR effort

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Guardian 11
I'm not a pilot. But I have a question to the FAB (Brazilian Air Force); The last tower contact with cindacta 3 was 22:33 right? At 2:20 FAB started to search for the lost aircraft. My question is; why did it take 4 hours for them to realize that?

Perhaps to better understand the problem, it would be best to review the timeline leading up to the mishap...

At 2233LT, AF447 performed a VHF contact with CINDACTA III (SOLANT ACC), reporting INTOL, indicating that it expected to report TASIL at 2320LT;

At 2248LT, AF447 exited CINDACTA III radar coverage. At the time the flight was cruising at FL350 and 453kts - as per the flight plan;

At 2314LT, AF447 issued a number of ACARS messages to AF maintenance center;

At 2320LT, AF447 failed to report its passage by TASIL and entry into Dakar ACC.

Failure to report waypoint passage at the expected time does not entail the immediate launching of a SAR operation. Unless, of course, a distress call is made or an ELT transmission is detected - and neither occurred. Under those circumstances, there is a standard waiting period before placing SAR resources on alert status. At the moment I cannot recall the duration of that waiting period, but I very faintly recall a 90min period - but I might be in error.

Hence, should memory be serving me correctly, the Brazilian SAR system would only be placed on alert footing at around at 00:50LT. Once placed on alert status - and in the absence of solid information as to where the event took place - you can add an hour for mission planning and preparation.

As for resorting to Mirage 2000s, bear in mind that these are based at SBAN - which entails a 1.880 km flight to SBNT - easily a 2:30hr flight. They would have to land at SBNT, refuel and then take-off to fly some 1.200 km to the general area where the mishap might have taken place. Although I do not have the Mirage 2000C performance charts at hand, I think it would be safe to say that a pair of Mirage 2000Cs would be unable to execute a meaningful search pattern, in the dark of night, for more than 10min before reaching "bingo fuel"...

Cheers

(posted by Tail Chase)

[YHZChick]

When you combine the ACARS critical alerts with lack of call-in, inability to contact and known weather, the aircraft was known to be missing. Missing does mean

1. not in its proper or usual place and unable to be found
2. not able to be traced and not known to be dead

If the ACARS alerts were not known until hours after the failure to call-in, then I can understand a delay in calling SAR – that is why I asked if an actual person would have been aware of the critical alerts.

I am not jumping to conclusions, second-guessing or comparing a missing aircraft to inoperable cancer. I have asked questions and made comments, based on my personal experience.

For the last time I will tell you the lack of call in means nothing. Commincation in that part of the world can be extremely difficult, and if the flightcrew is in severe weather, making radio communications IS NOT the priority.

You are questioning why SAR wasn't activated in a more timely manner. Even the limited evidence available at this point does not suggest an untimely delay in activating SAR. The debris was located within 24 hours in one of the remotest areas of the world (How long did it take them to find Steve Fossett, and he was in friggin' North America!). Families were notified of issues well before the news hit the media. Air France and the French government have been very forthright with the fact that there is no chance of survivors (I'd take that over the 'holding out hope for 24 hours approach we seem to take here--i.e. the Cougar crash in March.).

What more do you want?

When the FDR is recovered, we'll have more answers. But for now, this will have to do.

[c170b53]

I'm just adding this info as general information on aircraft communication. Large modern aircraft have a central defect reporting system. I don't know specifically what equipment Air France had in this plane but I would guess its the typical system. Acars will operate in three basic modes, automatic (transferring data automatically based on triggers selected by the operator,(ie engine failure, pack-off) manual mode (pilot enter data via scratchpad to ground) or selective polling (ground requests selected parameters from aircraft). Generally regardless of the mode, the aircraft comm system will automatically use and transmit on VHF first as its the cheapest, if unavailable then HF and if HF is unavailable then Satcom. Data on aircraft position will be encoded in the message and as with any Satcom system (as long as its powered) it will be transmitting aircraft position data to the satellite even if it is not transmitting voice (so that the system knows where to direct the transmission beam when someone wants to make a call). So when the aircraft got into trouble the system automatically began to relay that info. (By which comm system I don't know) That doesn't mean that on the ground air France knew the full extent of the problem and depending how they manage that data stream they may not have been alerted right away, as most of their planes as well as this one will be using Acars to relay information.
Again this is a very general overview of how the system works and operators vary in how they use aircraft information management systems.

[Widow]

Thank you c170b53.

That doesn't mean that on the ground air France knew the full extent of the problem and depending how they manage that data stream they may not have been alerted right away, as most of their planes as well as this one will be using Acars to relay information.

This is what I was getting at - is there a system in place by which critical transmissions result in an alert, or do they just disappear until someone retrieves them?

For the last time I will tell you the lack of call in means nothing. Commincation in that part of the world can be extremely difficult, and if the flightcrew is in severe weather, making radio communications IS NOT the priority.

You are questioning why SAR wasn't activated in a more timely manner. Even the limited evidence available at this point does not suggest an untimely delay in activating SAR.

Okay, for the last time I will tell you that if the flurry of ACARs critical alerts did not trigger a great deal of concern for the aircraft - then IMHO, they should have.

New information provided by sources within Air France suggests, that the ACARS messages of system failures started to arrive at 02:10Z indicating, that the autopilot had disengaged and the fly by wire system had changed to alternate law. Between 02:11Z and 02:13Z a flurry of messages regarding ADIRU and ISIS faults arrived, at 02:13Z PRIM 1 and SEC 1 faults were indicated, at 02:14Z the last message received was an advisory regarding cabin vertical speed. That sequence of messages could not be independently verified.

http://avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1&opt=0

I am not questioning whether SOPs (or whatever they're called) were followed, I'm questioning whether the SOPs could be improved. I am questioning why equipment improvements (such as ELTs that detach on impact and float) have not been implemented.

The Transportation Security Administration, prodded by lawmakers for years, plans this summer to test a recorder that detaches from an airplane in a crash, agency spokeswoman Kristin Lee said. House Democrats began urging a test shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The cockpit-voice and flight-data recorders never were found for the two planes that hit the World Trade Center.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009 ... side_N.htm

Unless I'm mistaken, ejectable ELTs are already used on military aircraft.

[YHZChick]

Okay, for the last time I will tell you that if the flurry of ACARs critical alerts did not trigger a great deal of concern for the aircraft - then IMHO, they should have.

What are you basing that assumption on, that a "great deal of concern" was not triggered at Air France? You must be reading different information than I have....

[TTJJ]

Widow, (and I am gritting my teeth as I write this) 3 hours passed before a "search" in your words was launched because it would have taken that long to have a meaningfull idea of what was happening out over the ocean.

When you combine the ACARS critical alerts with lack of call-in, inability to contact and known weather, the aircraft was known to be missing. Missing does mean

1. not in its proper or usual place and unable to be found
2. not able to be traced and not known to be dead

As has been stated earlier, an aircraft that does not make a position report on time is not "missing", unlike your dictionary definition of #1) that would seem to apply to scizzors in one's kitchen drawer and #2) MIA's. It just didn't call in on time.

I fly that route a couple times per month. On hand off from Atlantico Oceanic (Brazil) to Dakar Oceanic (Senegal) a new HF (look it up) frequency, of many available, is given to the aircraft. The frequency depends on the time of day and atmospheric conditions at the time. (I will let you look up as to why)

A SELCAL (look it up) check is made, which sometimes works 1 in 3 tries, and the aircraft then turns off the volume of their HF radios so as to not go nuts listening to static. They then just listen to 121.5 and 123.45.

A problem is that everyone from all over the South Atlantic is using the same frequency due to the same atmospheric constraints and at times the radio is too congested to get a word in sideways. Then there is the problem of being too far from the station for them to receive the ground wave of the HF, yet too close for the sky wave to reflect off the ionosphere. (There is another one for you to look up.)



This is how it would play out:

Air France would probably not check in with Atlantico Oceanic at the FIR boundary outbound (the rules notwithstanding) because normally Atlantico gives you Dakar’s frequencies about 45 minutes ahead of time with orders to contact them directly.
Dakar would not think too much about not calling at the boundary because they know it is hard to get hold of them at times. About 30 minutes after not calling Dakar would send a SELCAL to the aircraft. It may or may not work.

If the aircraft does not call at the next position Dakar would start to search via the radio. Other aircraft would be asked to call on 121.5 and 123.45. That may or not work as 1) there may not be any aircraft close enough, 2) their VHF radios may very well be turned down due to the incredible amount of useless chatter that occurs on these frequencies over the oceans of the world.
(I have gone right across the ocean without once talking to Atlantico or Dakar due to HF reception problems. It is not normal, but it happens.)

There is no ELT hit, no distress call on HF and no distress call relayed through another aircraft or their own company network. Therefore there is NO confirmed emergency and absolutely NO reason to send an aircraft 1000 miles into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean at night in thunderstorms at that point. None.

They are however, searching for the aircraft at this point after only 45 minutes.

Dakar would call SAL, an island on the route, to keep a special lookout for them on Primary Radar as they MAY have had an electrical/pressurization problem and may be low and slow. (You are required due to the geography of the route to pass within radar distance of SAL). Atlantico Oceanic and Recife Center (Brazil) are alerted for a possible turn back, NOT a crash because, up until now aircraft haven’t disintegrate in flight with any regurlarity and there is still no ELT hit or distress call to confirm an emergency.

Atlantico issues a Warning Order to it’s SAR units.

About 20 minutes after crossing the SAL/Dakar FIR boundry the aircraft would be in Radar contact IF it were still at cruise speed and up high. If it descended for Pressurization problems it is obviously slower and later.

By now a turn back would be in RADAR contact in Brazil on the West of the Ocean. SAL has no RADAR contact on the East side. No ATC unit on the African Coast has contact with the NORDO flight.

ATC and SAR units now go into hyper drive, launch assets and contact merchant shipping.

Elapsed time: about 3 hours.

An "Atta Boy!" to the units involved for a job well done in finding the A/C so quickly and a general "Hats Off" to all SAR Units.

I am not jumping to conclusions, second-guessing or comparing a missing aircraft to inoperable cancer. I have asked questions and made comments, based on my personal experience.

But you are second guessing and you are jumping to conclusions about the SAR/ATC systems involved.

You insinuate the SAR operation was somehow bungled. That is a complete disservice to the brave men and women from 4 countries who selflessly headed out over the ocean at night, into the ITCZ at low altitude for hours on end with little or no concrete info to go on, to look for survivors.

It is not only a disservice to them, it is repugnant.

Maybe it is just me, but were I given the honour (and it is an honour) of being a Moderator on the largest, most read and influential Aviation board in all of Canada, I would strive to learn a little bit about Aviation before jumping into a topic with all my guns blazing and railing at the "System" you obviously know so little about.

But then again, that is just me.

[YCL Boy]

Well i'm also surprised that they found the wreckage so fast, great job from the SAR crews, it's clear that most people on here don't realize how vast it is out there.

And i am willing to bet that they will find those CVR & FDR, the French are an extremely proud Nation and you can be sure they will stop at nothing to find those Boxes, you also have to realize that were not playing with 80's technology here, the French Navy has some, if not the most capable ROV's in the world, if this would have been any other European Airline on the sea floor it still would have been the French Navy ROV's heading down there.

Oh and i'm guessing that Sarkozy has sent one of their six nuclear attack sub down there to do a sonar pinger search.
but i don't think well hear about that one...

For those of you who think the crew might have been a sleep well it proves that you never flew on such a route,
i'm guessing that all 3 crew member planned to be in the cockpit until they passed threw the ITCZ.

And one more clarification Brazil Air traffic system is run by the Brazilian Air Force, so its all military control.

This is a tragic time for many families, i can't even imagine!
Stay Safe!

As usual great post TTJJ.

[ez4u2say]

Well said TTJJ...I am now retired, however after having worked for an international carrier for 37 years I know that once over that part of the world communication becomes quite a challenge..even in the later part of my career it was still a challenge to communicate even over the northern part of Brazil...positions reports were usually given as a blind type communication transmition hoping that at least someone would pick it up. Your detailed info is right on....

[Big Pratt]

I am not jumping to conclusions, second-guessing or comparing a missing aircraft to inoperable cancer. I have asked questions and made comments, based on my personal experience.

But you are second guessing and you are jumping to conclusions about the SAR/ATC systems involved.

You insinuate the SAR operation was somehow bungled. That is a complete disservice to the brave men and women from 4 countries who selflessly headed out over the ocean at night, into the ITCZ at low altitude for hours on end with little or no concrete info to go on, to look for survivors.

It is not only a disservice to them, it is repugnant.

Maybe it is just me, but were I given the honour (and it is an honour) of being a Moderator on the largest, most read and influential Aviation board in all of Canada, I would strive to learn a little bit about Aviation before jumping into a topic with all my guns blazing and railing at the "System" you obviously know so little about.

But then again, that is just me.

Totally agree with you TTJJ!
I'd say more but I don't want my post to be deleted by the "moderator"...

YCL Boy is right in describing French deep sea ROV capabilities. They would make Cousteau proud.
You can also bet that either a French or American SSN will be listening and trying to locate the ULBs on this one.

Once they are found (or a "smoking gun" piece of the wreckage is recovered) we'll know what happened, otherwise it is a pure waste of time to speculate.

BP

***edited because I confused YHZ Chick with YCL Boy... they'd make a cute couple, no?

[boeingboy]

I am questioning why equipment improvements (such as ELTs that detach on impact and float) have not been implemented.

Why?

You keep coming back to your only experiance - with AWQ. A beaver flying at 2000' - probably VFR - has absolutly no parallels to a large commercial airliner flying at 35,000'.

Sad as it is very rarely does anyone survive an airliner accident, they usually disintigrate. As for the survivable accidents in the past - Rescue personell know where they are (usually close to an airport) You will NEVER see 200 people bobbing on seat cushins in the middle of the Atlantic or sitting on the wings like the US Air 320.

How many successful ditchings have there been? 5 or 6 in the last 40 years? If by some mirical it does happen - then you will have multiple ELT signals as all the rafts are deployed and the portable ones are also activated.

[Lost in Saigon]

Much importance has been attached to the following:

at 02:14Z the last message received was an advisory regarding cabin vertical speed.

One very important piece of information is missing though. Was the cabin vertical speed indicating a climb or a descent?

Everyone has assumed it was climbing but I have not seen this officially. Can anyone provide a link to an official source that says the cabin vertical speed indicated a climb?

If there was some form of explosive decompression, it would of course be a climb. But the cabin cabin vertical speed advisory was the LAST in the sequence of advisories. That could easily mean that the cabin was intact and pressurized during the descent to the water.
It would only be when the cabin descended below approximately 8,000 feet that we would then see a cabin vertical speed indicating a rapid descent rate.

Again, who has a link to an official statement saying the cabin had a climbing vertical rate?

I think it is very possible that the aircraft cabin was descending intact until it hit the water.

[Ogee]

Well, I doubt it was intact when it hit the water.

This from the New York Times edition today.

The Brazilian military said Wednesday that search teams had spotted four more debris clusters some 55 miles south of the wreckage discovered on Tuesday, news services reported. The newly sighted debris included an unidentified metallic object 22-feet in diameter and a 12-mile-long oil slick. Drift may be causing the large distances between the debris fields, assuming all the flotsam is from Flight 447, or they may indicate the jetliner broke up before crashing

I'd say only two things cause that, one being high altitude disintegration and the other being mid-air collision, which pretty well leads to high altitude disintegration. Probability of storm related problems 99.99%. Probability of midair .01%.

I raise only the most minimal chance of midair and risk being identified as a wearer of tin foil hats because there are outlaw jet aircraft operations exactly where this accident happened. And because there are two wreckage fields on the ocean. If the fields are from the same aircraft, then that extinguishes the midair theory, which it pretty well is anyway.

Still, it seems to me that 55 miles apart is a long way apart for wreckage to fall assuming it came apart at 35,000. I suppose they could have been closer together and then drifted apart. It doesn't make sense that it was originally one field that somehow got pulled apart and drifted away.

[YHZChick]

Unless I'm mistaken, ejectable ELTs are already used on military aircraft.

Yes, they are. They pop off the side of the aircraft on command or automatically by hydrostatic pressure. And, sometimes, randomly in flight...

(edited to add: I know they are on helos, however a friend who flew fixed wing a/c until 2 years ago tells me they don't have them "to his knowledge". Perhaps a current fixed wing military pilot can clarify. I would not be surprised, given the obvious differences, if this is something that is only found on helos)

[Fox 3]

It's so unfortunate that things like this happen, I feel sick to know that a lot of people (very likely) have lost their lives. My thoughts go out to the families and friends of all those people.

I also wanted to say something else. After reading through all the posts in this thread I find it really difficult to get my head around the bantering back and forth. Someone mentioned the "SOP of AvCanada" (well said btw) and how we all speculate and add our theories. I've never been to bothered by this in the past, and not being a pilot I actually appreciate all the ideas and theories, however I'm sorry to say I am bothered now.
From what I've seen Widow has always been pushing for safer flying and safer practices in aviation. The fact that she expects a quicker response time, or better technology to be used (floating ELT's for example) should not draw criticism from the rest of us. I think having high expectations and wanting to see industry wide changes made in the interest of every ones safety is something we should all have in common. Obviously she hasn't been "in" the aviation industry as long as some people, and some could argue she still isn't because she doesn't hold a pilot or AME license, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there should be 100's of other people just like her who question authority and strive for something better. After reading the idea of floating ELT's (which I had no idea even existed) I thought to myself, "wow, what a fantastic idea! why not have them on every airplane flying over water?". I think more time could be spent looking at the big picture and thinking in the interest of the "greater good"...and like someone said "in this day and age with all the technology we have" shit, we send people to the moon on a regular basis...I get a satellite to send radio transmissions and gps into my car...and the list goes on...surely to god we have technology that could make the aviation industry 10 times better. I know there are probably 20 reasons why it isn't 10 times better...#1 being money and cost...but there's got to be a way.

Regardless...I'm sorry for taking sides here, there were a lot of great points made and some fantastic information being shared by everyone...thank you for all of it.

my $0.02

~FOX~

[BTD]

shit, we send people to the moon on a regular basis

Better go do some reading on that one. People haven't been to the moon since 1972. 7 manned missions, 6 were successful.

[Widow]

First of all, allow me to apologize if anything I’ve said has appeared to criticize the incredible work done by SAR. It has not been my intent to criticize SAR or ATC actions. I fully understand and agree that given what they had to work with, locating the wreckage was achieved in extraordinary time. The informative contributions of many members (including those critical of me) are very much appreciated. If I appeared to jump in with “guns blazing and railing at the "System"(I) obviously know so little about,” perhaps a reread of my posts will help you see that I have asked questions and made comments related to my own experiences – in an effort to better understand said system.

I am satisfied with the explanations of the three hour “delay” in activating SAR – with the exception of the following point.

What I am still questioning is why the ACARS critical transmissions (which seem to indicate something dreadful was going on – or am I interpreting them incorrectly - maybe someone would be willing to fully explain them?) did not in themselves trigger an immediate SAR callout? Is it because the transmissions go into a void until retrieved, or would a live person have received a real-time alert but this does not/did not activate immediate action? The fact that areas of the world are problematic in terms of radio/radar/satellite communications, and the lack of ELT transmission (which often do not transmit in an emergency) should – again, IMHO – not be reasons to stall SAR activation if “we” knew there were critical system failures. I don’t understand why anyone thinks this is an unreasonable question/suggestion.

I am questioning why equipment improvements (such as ELTs that detach on impact and float) have not been implemented.

Why?

Because it isn’t just about rescue. It’s also about recovery – and finding out why the accident happened in the first place. Without recovery, we may never know why and therefore be unable to prevent future accidents with similar contributing causes. Can you not see how that relates back to AQW for me?

I'd say more but I don't want my post to be deleted by the "moderator"...

I have never, nor would I ever, remove or edit a post because it is critical of me - and I resent the implication that I would. I have always answered my detractors head on, and have never once submitted a report against someone for attacking me - even before I was a mod.

And to Fox 3, thank you for coming to my defense. I was hurt by the vitriol and prefer to assume it is due to misunderstanding.

[YHZChick]

From what I've seen Widow has always been pushing for safer flying and safer practices in aviation. The fact that she expects a quicker response time, or better technology to be used (floating ELT's for example) should not draw criticism from the rest of us. I think having high expectations and wanting to see industry wide changes made in the interest of every ones safety is something we should all have in common. Obviously she hasn't been "in" the aviation industry as long as some people, and some could argue she still isn't because she doesn't hold a pilot or AME license, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there should be 100's of other people just like her who question authority and strive for something better. After reading the idea of floating ELT's (which I had no idea even existed) I thought to myself, "wow, what a fantastic idea! why not have them on every airplane flying over water?". I think more time could be spent looking at the big picture and thinking in the interest of the "greater good"...and like someone said "in this day and age with all the technology we have" shit, we send people to the moon on a regular basis...I get a satellite to send radio transmissions and gps into my car...and the list goes on...surely to god we have technology that could make the aviation industry 10 times better. I know there are probably 20 reasons why it isn't 10 times better...#1 being money and cost...but there's got to be a way.

If you read into anything I wrote that I have no interest in improving aviation safety, I think you need to re-read my posts.

I do think it's very important to remember that things are rarely as simple and straight forward as they appear to be to the layman (which I also am). Before assuming something isn't done correctly, or has been mismanaged, and especially before publically making such claims or even insinuating the same, perhaps spend some time researching. Mounting a SAR mission takes time and planning. Ejectable ELTs ARE NOT perfect (see my previous post about them randomly deploying during flight), and would not have made a lick of difference here anyway.

There is a HUGE difference between challenging authority and suggesting that there was too long of a delay in launching a SAR, or assuming that once contact has been lost with an aircraft, there should be an immediate response in the form of sending out aircraft to locate them. That is PARTICULARLY true when there is very limited information available, period.

The time to challenge authority will be when the investigation is complete, if it is shown that Airbus, Air France, or whomever was somehow negligent and could have prevented this. At this point, there is nothing at all to suggest that when you look at the events and information in even a semi-imformed manner.

[Rockie]

What I am still questioning is why the ACARS critical transmissions (which seem to indicate something dreadful was going on – or am I interpreting them incorrectly - maybe someone would be willing to fully explain them?) did not in themselves trigger an immediate SAR callout? Is it because the transmissions go into a void until retrieved, or would a live person have received a real-time alert but this does not/did not activate immediate action? The fact that areas of the world are problematic in terms of radio/radar/satellite communications, and the lack of ELT transmission (which often do not transmit in an emergency) should – again, IMHO – not be reasons to stall SAR activation if “we” knew there were critical system failures. I don’t understand why anyone thinks this is an unreasonable question/suggestion.

Maybe I can offer a possible explanation Widow. Some years ago at a previous airline maintenance personel were doing some work on the landing gear of an A320 that required a gear retraction while the airplane was up on jacks. Normally this isn't a problem except this one time they forgot to first disable the system that sends critical monitoring messages to what in this case was the engine manufacturer. In essence when they retracted the gear the airplane sensed it was airborne without the engines running, which it interpreted as an airborne dual engine failure. Automatic warnings were sent that caused quite a commotion and lots of frantic phone calls.

What does this have to do with Air France? Electronic messages automatically sent in error are not unheard of, and without some other corroborating evidence to support a missing airplane it's understandable why SAR resources wouldn't be launched immediately. As has been stated there are other steps that must be taken first that could possibly result in finding a wayward, but otherwise perfectly serviceable airplane. In this case, once the airplane was definitely determined to be missing that same electronic message gave the authorities a very good starting place for their search.

[Widow]

Thank you Rockie, that helps a bit ... I'd still like to know if, in this case, someone somewhere would have been alerted to the ACARs transmissions. I can understand why the transmissions alone might be questioned as valid - but that is sort of the point of the original questions. The combination of known weather, no communication and the ACARs seem like pretty clear evidence of a serious problem.

If you read into anything I wrote that I have no interest in improving aviation safety, I think you need to re-read my posts.

I really don't think Fox 3 was saying you, or anyone else here, has no interest in promoting aviation safety. I think he/she was simply trying to point out that it is the sole reason for my participation. And again, I wasn't attempting to "challenge" the authorities, but to understand how the systems work and why they work the way they do. Getting informed of existant information, if you will.