Why did AF447 never return to normal law? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How does an A330 detect stall without airspeed?What improvements did Airbus make as a result of the Air France 447 accident?Do Airbus pilots have to practice flying in alternate law?Why does Airbus suppress stall warnings in certain situations?What are the differences between direct law and mechanical back-up?Why disable stall warning based only on low airspeed, rather than multiple criteria?What has Airbus done to address the dual input issue?Why is the A330/A340's angle-of-attack protection disabled in alternate law, even if the AoA vanes are operating normally?On a modern Aircraft like the A320 or B737, is it possible to disable computer interference with the control inputs of the pilots?Why does the A320 use the rudder for lateral control in mechanical law?
Do wooden building fires get hotter than 600°C?
How many time has Arya actually used Needle?
What to do with repeated rejections for phd position
Did Mueller's report provide an evidentiary basis for the claim of Russian govt election interference via social media?
Draw 4 of the same figure in the same tikzpicture
Crossing US/Canada Border for less than 24 hours
What does Turing mean by this statement?
Google .dev domain strangely redirects to https
Strange behavior of Object.defineProperty() in JavaScript
Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?
How can I set the aperture on my DSLR when it's attached to a telescope instead of a lens?
Dyck paths with extra diagonals from valleys (Laser construction)
How could we fake a moon landing now?
An adverb for when you're not exaggerating
The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?
1-probability to calculate two events in a row
How long can equipment go unused before powering up runs the risk of damage?
How to compare two different files line by line in unix?
Why weren't discrete x86 CPUs ever used in game hardware?
Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?
How does Belgium enforce obligatory attendance in elections?
How would a mousetrap for use in space work?
Antipodal Land Area Calculation
AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network
Why did AF447 never return to normal law?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How does an A330 detect stall without airspeed?What improvements did Airbus make as a result of the Air France 447 accident?Do Airbus pilots have to practice flying in alternate law?Why does Airbus suppress stall warnings in certain situations?What are the differences between direct law and mechanical back-up?Why disable stall warning based only on low airspeed, rather than multiple criteria?What has Airbus done to address the dual input issue?Why is the A330/A340's angle-of-attack protection disabled in alternate law, even if the AoA vanes are operating normally?On a modern Aircraft like the A320 or B737, is it possible to disable computer interference with the control inputs of the pilots?Why does the A320 use the rudder for lateral control in mechanical law?
$begingroup$
Air France Flight 447 degraded from normal law to alternate-2B law when its pitot tubes were temporarily filled with ice crystals, resulting in a loss of airspeed data. As a consequence of being in alternate-2B law, most of the aircraft's flight envelope protections were lost, allowing the first officer to stall the aircraft with his counterproductive control inputs, causing the aircraft to experience unplanned high-speed hydrobraking.
However, according to the BEA report on the crash, after only about a minute, the pitot tubes had unfrozen, and all airspeed data was once again valid. At this point, the aircraft was still climbing, and, although its airspeed was steadily bleeding off, it was still approximately 30 seconds away from stalling (although it was still dangerously close to doing so, and the stall warning horn was sounding); had the aircraft automatically returned to normal law, with all its associated envelope protections, the aircraft would have rapidly recovered itself from the impending stall.
And, yet, despite the clearance of the fault that had caused the aircraft to fall from normal law to alternate-2B law in the first place, it did not transition back into normal law at this point, instead remaining in alternate-2B law all the way up (or down) until impact occurred over three minutes later.1
Why did AF447 remain in alternate law, even after airspeed data from all sources was once again valid?
1: Once the aircraft actually stalled, the airspeed data once again started being invalid (interspersed by periods of validity), but this was due to the aircraft's extreme attack angles during its descent, and would have been avoided had the aircraft not stalled.
flight-controls airbus-a330 af447-accident
asked Apr 14 at 4:16
SeanSean
6,32132979
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Air France Flight 447 degraded from normal law to alternate-2B law when its pitot tubes were temporarily filled with ice crystals, resulting in a loss of airspeed data. As a consequence of being in alternate-2B law, most of the aircraft's flight envelope protections were lost, allowing the first officer to stall the aircraft with his counterproductive control inputs, causing the aircraft to experience unplanned high-speed hydrobraking.
However, according to the BEA report on the crash, after only about a minute, the pitot tubes had unfrozen, and all airspeed data was once again valid. At this point, the aircraft was still climbing, and, although its airspeed was steadily bleeding off, it was still approximately 30 seconds away from stalling (although it was still dangerously close to doing so, and the stall warning horn was sounding); had the aircraft automatically returned to normal law, with all its associated envelope protections, the aircraft would have rapidly recovered itself from the impending stall.
And, yet, despite the clearance of the fault that had caused the aircraft to fall from normal law to alternate-2B law in the first place, it did not transition back into normal law at this point, instead remaining in alternate-2B law all the way up (or down) until impact occurred over three minutes later.1
Why did AF447 remain in alternate law, even after airspeed data from all sources was once again valid?
1: Once the aircraft actually stalled, the airspeed data once again started being invalid (interspersed by periods of validity), but this was due to the aircraft's extreme attack angles during its descent, and would have been avoided had the aircraft not stalled.
flight-controls airbus-a330 af447-accident
asked Apr 14 at 4:16
SeanSean
6,32132979
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Air France Flight 447 degraded from normal law to alternate-2B law when its pitot tubes were temporarily filled with ice crystals, resulting in a loss of airspeed data. As a consequence of being in alternate-2B law, most of the aircraft's flight envelope protections were lost, allowing the first officer to stall the aircraft with his counterproductive control inputs, causing the aircraft to experience unplanned high-speed hydrobraking.
However, according to the BEA report on the crash, after only about a minute, the pitot tubes had unfrozen, and all airspeed data was once again valid. At this point, the aircraft was still climbing, and, although its airspeed was steadily bleeding off, it was still approximately 30 seconds away from stalling (although it was still dangerously close to doing so, and the stall warning horn was sounding); had the aircraft automatically returned to normal law, with all its associated envelope protections, the aircraft would have rapidly recovered itself from the impending stall.
And, yet, despite the clearance of the fault that had caused the aircraft to fall from normal law to alternate-2B law in the first place, it did not transition back into normal law at this point, instead remaining in alternate-2B law all the way up (or down) until impact occurred over three minutes later.1
Why did AF447 remain in alternate law, even after airspeed data from all sources was once again valid?
1: Once the aircraft actually stalled, the airspeed data once again started being invalid (interspersed by periods of validity), but this was due to the aircraft's extreme attack angles during its descent, and would have been avoided had the aircraft not stalled.
flight-controls airbus-a330 af447-accident
asked Apr 14 at 4:16
SeanSean
6,32132979
$endgroup$
Air France Flight 447 degraded from normal law to alternate-2B law when its pitot tubes were temporarily filled with ice crystals, resulting in a loss of airspeed data. As a consequence of being in alternate-2B law, most of the aircraft's flight envelope protections were lost, allowing the first officer to stall the aircraft with his counterproductive control inputs, causing the aircraft to experience unplanned high-speed hydrobraking.
However, according to the BEA report on the crash, after only about a minute, the pitot tubes had unfrozen, and all airspeed data was once again valid. At this point, the aircraft was still climbing, and, although its airspeed was steadily bleeding off, it was still approximately 30 seconds away from stalling (although it was still dangerously close to doing so, and the stall warning horn was sounding); had the aircraft automatically returned to normal law, with all its associated envelope protections, the aircraft would have rapidly recovered itself from the impending stall.
And, yet, despite the clearance of the fault that had caused the aircraft to fall from normal law to alternate-2B law in the first place, it did not transition back into normal law at this point, instead remaining in alternate-2B law all the way up (or down) until impact occurred over three minutes later.1
Why did AF447 remain in alternate law, even after airspeed data from all sources was once again valid?
1: Once the aircraft actually stalled, the airspeed data once again started being invalid (interspersed by periods of validity), but this was due to the aircraft's extreme attack angles during its descent, and would have been avoided had the aircraft not stalled.
flight-controls airbus-a330 af447-accident
flight-controls airbus-a330 af447-accident
asked Apr 14 at 4:16
SeanSean
6,32132979
asked Apr 14 at 4:16
SeanSean
6,32132979
asked Apr 14 at 4:16
SeanSean
6,32132979
asked Apr 14 at 4:16
SeanSean
6,32132979
asked Apr 14 at 4:16
SeanSean
6,32132979
6,32132979
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If the system detects anomalies for more than about ten seconds, alternate law becomes locked in for the remainder of the flight.
The system detected a change in the median value of the three airspeed sources of more than 30 knots within one second (it actually dropped from 274 to 52 knots within 3 seconds). That started a process where the system monitors the difference for a verification period (about 10 seconds). Alternate Law was triggered, along with limiting the rudder travel limit (which was not annunciated to the crew). The flight control law would have returned to Normal Law if the median speed value was within 50 knots of the original speed prior to the loss, at the end of the verification period. If the speeds remain outside of those parameters, Alternate 2 is locked on for the remainder of the flight, and the rudder travel limit fault is displayed.
emphasis mine
From “Understanding Air France 447” by Bill Palmer
answered Apr 14 at 6:11
TomMcWTomMcW
18.3k969162
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
It's clear that it doesn't get automatically reset. Can it be manually reset during flight?
$endgroup$
– Roger Lipscombe
Apr 14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
The flight crew have no way to know why it stopped working, or whether it has restarted working correctly. (The fact that they are now "seeing" airspeed data on the instruments doesn't prove that what they are seeing is correct, unless they are at low enough altitude to check by looking out of the window!) So restarting or attempting to restart it simply adds more unknown behaviour into the system -- not a good plan.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 14 at 9:24
1
$begingroup$
If true, that does seem to mean that a crew can be doomed to try to land the plane in alternate law, even if the problem that originally caused the switch was fully diagnosed and fixed hours before. If that is safe (which I suppose it must be) it makes one wonder what having the normal law in the first place provides that is worth the additional cost in conceptual complexity.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 14 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm significant protections in other areas, such as envelope protection et al. Protections that can be applied safely when the aircrafts systems agree nothing is abnormal with the system itself.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Apr 14 at 21:37
1
$begingroup$
@RogerLipscombe AFAIK they will have to stay in alt law. It's possible that resetting the flight computers might bring back normal law.
$endgroup$
– TomMcW
Apr 14 at 23:34
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62338%2fwhy-did-af447-never-return-to-normal-law%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If the system detects anomalies for more than about ten seconds, alternate law becomes locked in for the remainder of the flight.
The system detected a change in the median value of the three airspeed sources of more than 30 knots within one second (it actually dropped from 274 to 52 knots within 3 seconds). That started a process where the system monitors the difference for a verification period (about 10 seconds). Alternate Law was triggered, along with limiting the rudder travel limit (which was not annunciated to the crew). The flight control law would have returned to Normal Law if the median speed value was within 50 knots of the original speed prior to the loss, at the end of the verification period. If the speeds remain outside of those parameters, Alternate 2 is locked on for the remainder of the flight, and the rudder travel limit fault is displayed.
emphasis mine
From “Understanding Air France 447” by Bill Palmer
answered Apr 14 at 6:11
TomMcWTomMcW
18.3k969162
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
It's clear that it doesn't get automatically reset. Can it be manually reset during flight?
$endgroup$
– Roger Lipscombe
Apr 14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
The flight crew have no way to know why it stopped working, or whether it has restarted working correctly. (The fact that they are now "seeing" airspeed data on the instruments doesn't prove that what they are seeing is correct, unless they are at low enough altitude to check by looking out of the window!) So restarting or attempting to restart it simply adds more unknown behaviour into the system -- not a good plan.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 14 at 9:24
1
$begingroup$
If true, that does seem to mean that a crew can be doomed to try to land the plane in alternate law, even if the problem that originally caused the switch was fully diagnosed and fixed hours before. If that is safe (which I suppose it must be) it makes one wonder what having the normal law in the first place provides that is worth the additional cost in conceptual complexity.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 14 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm significant protections in other areas, such as envelope protection et al. Protections that can be applied safely when the aircrafts systems agree nothing is abnormal with the system itself.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Apr 14 at 21:37
1
$begingroup$
@RogerLipscombe AFAIK they will have to stay in alt law. It's possible that resetting the flight computers might bring back normal law.
$endgroup$
– TomMcW
Apr 14 at 23:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If the system detects anomalies for more than about ten seconds, alternate law becomes locked in for the remainder of the flight.
The system detected a change in the median value of the three airspeed sources of more than 30 knots within one second (it actually dropped from 274 to 52 knots within 3 seconds). That started a process where the system monitors the difference for a verification period (about 10 seconds). Alternate Law was triggered, along with limiting the rudder travel limit (which was not annunciated to the crew). The flight control law would have returned to Normal Law if the median speed value was within 50 knots of the original speed prior to the loss, at the end of the verification period. If the speeds remain outside of those parameters, Alternate 2 is locked on for the remainder of the flight, and the rudder travel limit fault is displayed.
emphasis mine
From “Understanding Air France 447” by Bill Palmer
answered Apr 14 at 6:11
TomMcWTomMcW
18.3k969162
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
It's clear that it doesn't get automatically reset. Can it be manually reset during flight?
$endgroup$
– Roger Lipscombe
Apr 14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
The flight crew have no way to know why it stopped working, or whether it has restarted working correctly. (The fact that they are now "seeing" airspeed data on the instruments doesn't prove that what they are seeing is correct, unless they are at low enough altitude to check by looking out of the window!) So restarting or attempting to restart it simply adds more unknown behaviour into the system -- not a good plan.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 14 at 9:24
1
$begingroup$
If true, that does seem to mean that a crew can be doomed to try to land the plane in alternate law, even if the problem that originally caused the switch was fully diagnosed and fixed hours before. If that is safe (which I suppose it must be) it makes one wonder what having the normal law in the first place provides that is worth the additional cost in conceptual complexity.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 14 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm significant protections in other areas, such as envelope protection et al. Protections that can be applied safely when the aircrafts systems agree nothing is abnormal with the system itself.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Apr 14 at 21:37
1
$begingroup$
@RogerLipscombe AFAIK they will have to stay in alt law. It's possible that resetting the flight computers might bring back normal law.
$endgroup$
– TomMcW
Apr 14 at 23:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If the system detects anomalies for more than about ten seconds, alternate law becomes locked in for the remainder of the flight.
The system detected a change in the median value of the three airspeed sources of more than 30 knots within one second (it actually dropped from 274 to 52 knots within 3 seconds). That started a process where the system monitors the difference for a verification period (about 10 seconds). Alternate Law was triggered, along with limiting the rudder travel limit (which was not annunciated to the crew). The flight control law would have returned to Normal Law if the median speed value was within 50 knots of the original speed prior to the loss, at the end of the verification period. If the speeds remain outside of those parameters, Alternate 2 is locked on for the remainder of the flight, and the rudder travel limit fault is displayed.
emphasis mine
From “Understanding Air France 447” by Bill Palmer
answered Apr 14 at 6:11
TomMcWTomMcW
18.3k969162
$endgroup$
If the system detects anomalies for more than about ten seconds, alternate law becomes locked in for the remainder of the flight.
The system detected a change in the median value of the three airspeed sources of more than 30 knots within one second (it actually dropped from 274 to 52 knots within 3 seconds). That started a process where the system monitors the difference for a verification period (about 10 seconds). Alternate Law was triggered, along with limiting the rudder travel limit (which was not annunciated to the crew). The flight control law would have returned to Normal Law if the median speed value was within 50 knots of the original speed prior to the loss, at the end of the verification period. If the speeds remain outside of those parameters, Alternate 2 is locked on for the remainder of the flight, and the rudder travel limit fault is displayed.
emphasis mine
From “Understanding Air France 447” by Bill Palmer
answered Apr 14 at 6:11
TomMcWTomMcW
18.3k969162
answered Apr 14 at 6:11
TomMcWTomMcW
18.3k969162
answered Apr 14 at 6:11
TomMcWTomMcW
18.3k969162
answered Apr 14 at 6:11
TomMcWTomMcW
18.3k969162
18.3k969162
3
$begingroup$
It's clear that it doesn't get automatically reset. Can it be manually reset during flight?
$endgroup$
– Roger Lipscombe
Apr 14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
The flight crew have no way to know why it stopped working, or whether it has restarted working correctly. (The fact that they are now "seeing" airspeed data on the instruments doesn't prove that what they are seeing is correct, unless they are at low enough altitude to check by looking out of the window!) So restarting or attempting to restart it simply adds more unknown behaviour into the system -- not a good plan.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 14 at 9:24
1
$begingroup$
If true, that does seem to mean that a crew can be doomed to try to land the plane in alternate law, even if the problem that originally caused the switch was fully diagnosed and fixed hours before. If that is safe (which I suppose it must be) it makes one wonder what having the normal law in the first place provides that is worth the additional cost in conceptual complexity.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 14 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm significant protections in other areas, such as envelope protection et al. Protections that can be applied safely when the aircrafts systems agree nothing is abnormal with the system itself.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Apr 14 at 21:37
1
$begingroup$
@RogerLipscombe AFAIK they will have to stay in alt law. It's possible that resetting the flight computers might bring back normal law.
$endgroup$
– TomMcW
Apr 14 at 23:34
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
It's clear that it doesn't get automatically reset. Can it be manually reset during flight?
$endgroup$
– Roger Lipscombe
Apr 14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
The flight crew have no way to know why it stopped working, or whether it has restarted working correctly. (The fact that they are now "seeing" airspeed data on the instruments doesn't prove that what they are seeing is correct, unless they are at low enough altitude to check by looking out of the window!) So restarting or attempting to restart it simply adds more unknown behaviour into the system -- not a good plan.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 14 at 9:24
1
$begingroup$
If true, that does seem to mean that a crew can be doomed to try to land the plane in alternate law, even if the problem that originally caused the switch was fully diagnosed and fixed hours before. If that is safe (which I suppose it must be) it makes one wonder what having the normal law in the first place provides that is worth the additional cost in conceptual complexity.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 14 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm significant protections in other areas, such as envelope protection et al. Protections that can be applied safely when the aircrafts systems agree nothing is abnormal with the system itself.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Apr 14 at 21:37
1
$begingroup$
@RogerLipscombe AFAIK they will have to stay in alt law. It's possible that resetting the flight computers might bring back normal law.
$endgroup$
– TomMcW
Apr 14 at 23:34
3
3
$begingroup$
It's clear that it doesn't get automatically reset. Can it be manually reset during flight?
$endgroup$
– Roger Lipscombe
Apr 14 at 8:19
$begingroup$
It's clear that it doesn't get automatically reset. Can it be manually reset during flight?
$endgroup$
– Roger Lipscombe
Apr 14 at 8:19
1
1
$begingroup$
The flight crew have no way to know why it stopped working, or whether it has restarted working correctly. (The fact that they are now "seeing" airspeed data on the instruments doesn't prove that what they are seeing is correct, unless they are at low enough altitude to check by looking out of the window!) So restarting or attempting to restart it simply adds more unknown behaviour into the system -- not a good plan.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 14 at 9:24
$begingroup$
The flight crew have no way to know why it stopped working, or whether it has restarted working correctly. (The fact that they are now "seeing" airspeed data on the instruments doesn't prove that what they are seeing is correct, unless they are at low enough altitude to check by looking out of the window!) So restarting or attempting to restart it simply adds more unknown behaviour into the system -- not a good plan.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 14 at 9:24
1
1
$begingroup$
If true, that does seem to mean that a crew can be doomed to try to land the plane in alternate law, even if the problem that originally caused the switch was fully diagnosed and fixed hours before. If that is safe (which I suppose it must be) it makes one wonder what having the normal law in the first place provides that is worth the additional cost in conceptual complexity.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 14 at 10:49
$begingroup$
If true, that does seem to mean that a crew can be doomed to try to land the plane in alternate law, even if the problem that originally caused the switch was fully diagnosed and fixed hours before. If that is safe (which I suppose it must be) it makes one wonder what having the normal law in the first place provides that is worth the additional cost in conceptual complexity.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 14 at 10:49
1
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm significant protections in other areas, such as envelope protection et al. Protections that can be applied safely when the aircrafts systems agree nothing is abnormal with the system itself.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Apr 14 at 21:37
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm significant protections in other areas, such as envelope protection et al. Protections that can be applied safely when the aircrafts systems agree nothing is abnormal with the system itself.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Apr 14 at 21:37
1
1
$begingroup$
@RogerLipscombe AFAIK they will have to stay in alt law. It's possible that resetting the flight computers might bring back normal law.
$endgroup$
– TomMcW
Apr 14 at 23:34
$begingroup$
@RogerLipscombe AFAIK they will have to stay in alt law. It's possible that resetting the flight computers might bring back normal law.
$endgroup$
– TomMcW
Apr 14 at 23:34
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62338%2fwhy-did-af447-never-return-to-normal-law%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
