Air France jet missing off Brazil coast

Christ on a treadmill, don't get them started again.

According to TT members' statistics, there are about 11,000 of us. Even before a full list of passengers has been published, some 0.03% of us have some sort of personal connection to one of the 228 or so passengers lost on a flight from Brazil to France. How much of a statistical coincidence is this, I wonder?

Here's a link from CNN that gives more info on who was on board. I'm flying to Chicago in three weeks and I know I'm not going to feel at ease on that flight. It's the thought of being over water that's quite unsettling for me.

Don't know, I just barely passed statistics in graduate school. Hated it.

I don't really find the fact that people on TT had some personal connection that surprising or even coincidental. It's an international group of people here on TT and that was an international flight.

According to the 6 degrees of freedom (you know 100 people, for example, who also know 100 people, who also know 100 people etc.) and removing the Chinese and Indians as they're all the same you probably are 'connected' to almost everyone on the planet and with Facebook and the like here to help you figure it out you're more likely than ever to discover some distant relationship between you and any other random person.

That was the premise for the movie Six Degrees of Separation. I really believe there's some truth to this premise.

Did Computer Failure Bring Down Air France 447?

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/a...LPCKH0CJUNN2JVN

Quotes from link above:

As for the Air France crash, in which it's believed 228 tragic souls perished in the sea off Brazil, the Airbus 330 involved reportedly transmitted warnings to Air France maintenance that its ADIRU was not functioning properly.

Also last year, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued an Airworthiness Directive warning airlines about an "unsafe condition" associated with ADIRU's aboard Airbus 319, 320, and 321 models.

And the fact is, wonky ADIRUs have been identified as the culprits in several recent near-catastrophes. Last year, for instance, authorities blamed the ADIRU after a Qantas Airbus 330 started porpoising wildly while at cruising altitude. There were 51 passenger injuries, ranging from broken bones to spinal damage, before pilots regained control.

LR, you won't be on an airbus, nor going across tropical waters. There's only one source saying anything at all about a bomb threat. I'd imagine your chances of an accident are about the same as they would be if you had taken a flight before hearing of this news. That said, I can understand your heightened sense of unease. Still, I really, really doubt you'll need to worry.

Breitbart.com is also reporting the air bomb threat story.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

Is it safer to fly British Airways?



BA: We will lose your luggage but we wont lose you.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...339487620090603

Apparently oil slicks on the ocean mean that there wasn't a fire or explosion.

Also implies that plane did not break up in the air. Nasty.

Anyone reckon that hail or very heavy rain could have knocked out the 2 engines?

Found one with a tekkie analysis of the weather:

http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

First, what does that mean?

Second, how do you know that?

Sky news said this morning that Air France had indeed received a bomb threat but it was supposed to be for a flight earlier in the week.

It was also confirmed by an Air France official:

http://www.france24.com/en/20090604-brazil...cident-atlantic

Heavy hail could choke and stall the engines, but there would still be enough battery power and hydraulics for at least 30 minutes (although the plane could probably only glide for maybe 8 minutes max from that altitide). Loss of engines does not explain why the FCS changed to alternate law control, reported short circuits and the sudden cabin depressurisation.