Air France 447

Cimetière du Père-Lachaise, Paris

Cimetière du Père-Lachaise, Paris. Photo by Shadowgate.

p cemetery

Cemitério Igreja S. Francisco, S. João Del Rey. Photo by Murilo.

Cemitério Igreja S. Francisco, S. João Del Rey. Photo by Murilo.

3 responses to “Air France 447

  1. chromodynamix

    These aircraft have some 22% composite materials, and there have been warnings that not enough testing has been done on these.

    A standard test used to assess the safety of carbon-fibre composite airliners can be dangerously ineffective, according to air-safety investigators in Canada.

    In a report published on 22 November, the Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) says an aircraft can pass the “tap test”, even though its composites actually have small flaws.

    They took already damaged composite specimens – some from other A310 rudders – and placed them in a vacuum chamber. The samples experienced pressure changes simulating changing altitude during many simulated flights.

    “The areas of the damage almost doubled instantly,” the report says. “The rapid propagation event was explosively loud and violent.” The explosion even damaged their test chamber.….rous-flaws.html

    The aviation industry is still playing with peoples lives

  2. Thanks for your detailed coverage of the Air France 447 tragedy.

    However I think it’s misleading to refer to composite materials as “a type of plastic”.

    Plastics have a homogeneous (ie single-material) composition. Composites, by definition, are composed of at least two materials – some type of fiber (typically carbon or glass fiber) which provides tensile strength, imbedded in a matrix of another material (typically an epoxy or, in fact, a plastic) which provides compressive strength. The beauty of composites is that the fibers can be oriented to give different material properties in different directions.

    Just wanted to clarify this from a technical point of view.

  3. Thanks for your comment. I was flying blind on this one, and used sources that didn’t make this distinction. I appreciate the clarification.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s