I don't understand why such modern planes don't have at least two sets of black boxes - both designed to float on water (considering that two thirds of the Earth is water), with one programmed to automatically eject before/during/after a crash. It's such an obvious solution, so why hasn't it been implemented??? The ideal variant would be three sets: one to eject during a crash, one to eject after a crash, and one to stay inside the plane until the wreckage is recovered.

gbaturin wrote: ' I don't understand why such modern planes don't have at least two sets of black boxes - both designed to float on water (considering that two thirds of the Earth is water), with one programmed to automatically eject before/during/after a crash. It's such an obvious solution, so why hasn't it been implemented??? The ideal variant would be three sets: one to eject during a crash, one to eject after a crash, and one to stay inside the plane until the wreckage is recovered.' ----------------------------------------------- 1) For a floating Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) to be of any use, it would need to be unattached to the structure in which it was being carried, so it would not be dragged to the bottom of the ocean along with the rest of the wreckage. That would leave it more prone to damage during a crash, in much the same way that unbelted car passengers tend to experience the most trauma during collisions. 2) The unit which would be meant to eject after a crash would need this mechanism built so robustly, that weight would certainly be an issue. And how do you know exactly when it should be ejected ? Some crashes do not kill anyone. Do you eject it at the tiniest bump? Moderate to severe turbulence would then cause a premature ejection of a system calibrated to that standard. 3) DFDR's are heavily constructed. More DFDR's, means fewer passengers, higher costs for each and every of the millions of passengers who will fly on that jet over the span of 15 years, and / or lower cargo capacity and / or range for that aircraft. Every pound is accounted for on modern jet airliners, due to the fact that competition is so fierce, and profit margins so tight. Sorry to rain on your parade, but some of these issues have been dealt with by people with much more experience in airccraft safety, construction, and crash scenarios than you and I. They continue to do things the way they do, often for good reason.

I don't know a thing about aircraft design, but nothing's going to make me believe that installing a reliable floating DFDR on a modern plane is going to increase its weight by a lot or make tickets much more expensive. When should they be designed to eject? When the plane drops to a certain minimum altitude, or when a certain number of the plane's systems have failed, or when the hull depressurizes, or whenever - that's up to those mega-clever designers to figure out, and I'm sure it won't be difficult for them with all their diplomas, brain power and experience. As I already said, a modern plane should have at least two floating DFDR's - and they sure aren't supposed to cost or weigh more than a single passenger. Mankind's been launching people to OUTER SPACE for decades, and you're telling me we can't get aircraft safety right??? (Oh, and don't start telling me about space crashes either).

So, and aircraft is taken down because global warming caused a phenomenon of “the perfect storm”? The same phenomenon noted by sailors as “the doldrums” for centuries, back before automobiles, electrical plants, and everything else all of the green eaters complain about? Who knew!

Considering that global warming is a HOAX, the story is not very credible. Also considering La Nina is in effect in the Atlantic Ocean, it's not like it's really "warm" this year. Go write some REAL NEWS.

I win! Hours after the dissapearence, I started betting people that within a week, some "expert" would claim it was caused by "global warming", the 21st century's universal bugaboo to explain the supposedly unexplainable.

The 'Greens' are on safe ground here: nothing that happened to AF447 could possibly refute their belief; it could only serve as a failed confirmation. The psuedoscience of global warming: confirmations everywhere but never contenance one refutation. This is more like a belief system than real science, which progresses by refutations. But perhaps 'science' is now corrupted and is more concerned about research grants and careers than the truth. The 'Greens' are the people being controlled: How can they now object to nuclear power stations? More coal fired stations will produce more CO2. And how will Britain and America fund the building of these nuclear power stations? Why, by carbon tax, of course! It's beautiful. France, the only country realistic about the need for nuclear power (renewable energy is total nonsence: a wind farm will never in its lifetime generate the energy used to make the steel it's made of) will be the gainer, making billions building Britains nuclear power stations. The 'Greens' have been shafted!

Recently, I send to you a comment, concerning that accident which was confirmed by knowledgeable peoples who know better than you and I, certain realities of that aeronautic industry. I suppose than russian airliners also use that american computer (Adirus) implicated in other incidents. I am convinced that nobody will never know what really happen. One thing is certain: global warming has nothing to do with the crash, even if it did not occur too far from the "Bermuda Triangle"...Sincerely...Jean-Claude Meslin

These climatologists can't have it both ways. This is a bitterly cold winter, here in the US. When someone asks these "experts" how can this be possible with all this catastrophic global warming you claim is happening. In a smug and condescending manner, we are told that climate is NOT the same thing as weather. But this plane crash and Hurrican Katrina are chaotic weather patterns they claim are caused by global warming. An advanced degree isn't necessary to tell that something isn't write here!

I have a good friend who is a very experienced professional aircraft mechanic and a pilot , and his take on that particular accident is that the Airbus 330 aircraft is simply a faulty aircraft , "it's tail tends to fall off , and I would never take flight serviced by one of those death traps" were his exact words , and that this aircraft type should be grounded and taken out of service asap , and I got the impression that he was echoing an opinion shared by a good number of his colleges around the world.