Part 15 in particular saw a lot of wild speculation over one or two emerging details. This will not be tolerated. Please try and keep the thread as factual as possible.
As ever, the forum rules apply; remember to focus on the topic in-hand and not other users.
Regards,
The Forum Moderators.
Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
LTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 83507 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 320):
Is that a mangled/entangled escape slide/slideraft????
If it were from the plane, they would have recovered it and we'd have pictures of it as part of the wreckage. Recovery of a slide/raft would be noteworthy.
My guess, as I said before, is that it belongs to the Brazil Navy
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4702 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 82256 times:
Thanks for that... at least I can stop thinking about it. I was thinking that if it were a mangled slideraft, it could point towards some form of airframe separation... (since we've been debating about where and when the tailfiin snapped...
Quoting Pihero (Reply 316): Not so fast ! The deflection of the rudder before it was lifted from the ocean was assumed by some to be jammed at the position where it caused the airplane break-up in flight.
I'm just glad theat theory has been disproved.
Hmmmm ! someone said anything about eggs on some faces ?
And if it were jammed, they would have taken care for the displacement to be preserved.
Eggs? Time to do grocery shopping, but I didn't have eggs in mind!
Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 315): when an aircraft goes down and there is no evidence as to why the court can not infer that the pilot or owner are at fault.
That comment is so asking for someone (eggs anyone?) to start screaming "Conspiracy!" and/or "Cover Up!"
*yawn*
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 2900 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 82219 times:
Quote: Ellehammer09 From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 319, posted Wed Jun 10 2009 16:57:48 your local time (23 secs ago) and read 0 times:
Just to keep things straight, I am in no way supporting theories of a terrorist attack - in contrary I'm sure we would have known by now, unless the basic strategy of terror has changed over night. Again the media is diverting facts to sell more papers - and the aspect of terror is known to have a great effect on the numbers.
But when it comes to excluding terror from this incident, isn't it pretty obvious that the messages on the ACARS is inconsistant with an explosion on board? And how would the interference by any terror act have influenced on the planes monitoring/controlling systems? I find it very unlikely that terror has anything to do with it..
I concur with your view on terrorism, however good old fashioned greed or revenge as a reason for a bomb I don't think can be excluded yet. Nor an accident if someone was transporting a explosive device.
I also don't think the ACARS messages exclude the possibility of an explosive device rupturing the hull which started a breakup of the aircraft.
A sudden massive explosion, yes the messages exclude that possibility. But a smaller one which lets the aerodynamic forces tear apart the plane must still be a possibility. A very small possibility in my opinion.
StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 2274 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81989 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 5): I concur with your view on terrorism, however good old fashioned greed or revenge as a reason for a bomb I don't think can be excluded yet. Nor an accident if someone was transporting a explosive device.
From the MSNBC.com news website:
"The French magazine L'Express reported Wednesday that French intelligence services had matched the names of two passengers on board Flight 447 with those of suspects linked to Islamic terrorism. But it noted that the passengers' birthdates were not available, and that it might only be a case of people with similar names. The names themselves weren't reported.
A senior judicial official in France, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said he had received no information to back up the claim. French police and British intelligence officials would not comment on the report."
Source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31207960/
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!
Ellehammer09 From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81755 times:
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 8): This deflection appears to be the same as when it was in the water. Not saying it is jammed.
Mandala already pointed out the fact, but here its even more obvious
that they are taking no effort in maintaining the rudders deflection - and the visible strap around it, seems to be deflecting the rudder to its max.. Resting on the aft deck, its clearly that there is no deflection.
Sniffmom From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81697 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 7): "The French magazine L'Express reported Wednesday that French intelligence services had matched the names of two passengers on board Flight 447 with those of suspects linked to Islamic terrorism. But it noted that the passengers' birthdates were not available, and that it might only be a case of people with similar names. The names themselves weren't reported.
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3302 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81691 times:
That's a great picture, Pygmalion, of a site nobody wanted to see.
Considering this plane crashed a little more than a week ago, it must still rip the heart out of any AF people on here to see this snap. Even if they didn't know any of the passengers or crew personally. I know we have all had time to absorb the crash but it still seems impossibly hard to believe...
Let's hope the search for the boxes is a successful one. Its certainly going to be a monumental effort.
StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 2274 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81650 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1): If it were from the plane, they would have recovered it and we'd have pictures of it as part of the wreckage. Recovery of a slide/raft would be noteworthy.
Associated Press is reporting "that a French frigate, the Ventose, had already gathered 130 pieces of debris, big and small. The debris was being cleaned of salt and was to be taken to an undisclosed location for further analysis". Furthermore, "a total of 41 bodies have been recovered so far from the scene of the crash... The remains are being flown daily to Recife, where investigators hope to identify them and uncover clues into the crash based on the victims' injuries."
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 18610 posts, RR: 59 Reply 12, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81617 times:
Quoting Ellehammer09 (Reply 9): Mandala already pointed out the fact, but here its even more obvious
that they are taking no effort in maintaining the rudders deflection - and the visible strap around it, seems to be deflecting the rudder to its max.. Resting on the aft deck, its clearly that there is no deflection.
Looks like it's been strapped beyond it's max and has become displaced.
One has to remember that before it was moved it was photographed from various angles by the forensics team, so that once it was moved, any evidence would not be lost.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
GlenP From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 43 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81526 times:
Correct me if I'm wrong,but wouldn't the cable that is slung around the V/S & rudder assembly from front to rear; & presumably tightened, cause the rudder to move?
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 9015 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81523 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Ellehammer09 (Reply 7): I am in no way supporting theories of a terrorist attack
Until such time as each possible cause is eliminated, everything must be considered as a possibility, however remote.
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 8): This deflection appears to be the same as when it was in the water. Not saying it is jammed.
The pictures of the VS on the deck of the Brasilian Navy ship appear to show it lying completely flat, certainly not at the angle in the picture you've posted.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 4983 posts, RR: 65 Reply 15, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81423 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 229): But now please get a bit constructive and tell all of us what might, in your opinion, be the RIGHT information?
And I'll ask a question of you that I should have asked much earlier. As an experienced (and highly capable) Airbus pilot - has anything like that torrent of failure messages ever happened to you?
NAV, I will not speculate on here, I do not think you will find anyone who has my sort of background will, we just do not have all the facts.
The list of ACARS messages are MAINTENANCE messages, I generally never get to see maintenance messages until I shut down (unless I choose to look at the onboard central maintenance computer [CMC]) list in flight, as they are not displayed to the pilot). When I shut down, the first thing that comes out of the printer is the post flight report, that contains all the maintenance messages, and it is formatted nicely so you can actually read it. All I do is I scan through that list for any class 1 hard warnings, write those up in the aircraft technical log, and then put the post flight report it in the tech log for the mechanics to have. Class 2 and 3 messages do not make it to the tech log, they are captured on the post flight report, and then into in the airline maintenance system to be addressed at the next schedule service.
You can have a heap of maintenance messages in the CMC, and the pilots and passengers can be blissfully unaware of them due to all the system redundancy, pilots only get told about class 1 warnings, either by an ECAM or a flag. The CMC may generate a fault message, and still continue to function correctly, the built in test equipment (BITE) in these systems will pick up on lots of things that mechanics may need to look at some stage, but would not prevent the aircraft being dispatched on the next sector. The messages are classified as class 1 (must be looked at before by next sector), class 2 in the next 600h, and class 3, no specific time.
The differance between these ACARS messages and the FDR messages, is that on the FDR we can actually see the state (normal or fault) of each device in a time series, see which flag was displayed etc, can see what was and was not functioning in a time series. The ACARS list only gives the mechanics a time stamp and flight phase when a message was generated, the component may have been in that state for 1 second, 30 seconds or remain in a fault state, it will generate the same message in the CMC.
Quoting GlenP (Reply 14): Correct me if I'm wrong,but wouldn't the cable that is slung around the V/S & rudder assembly from front to rear; & presumably tightened, cause the rudder to move?
Yep, just like wind will cause a rudder to move when it parked at the gate.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 246 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81104 times:
Anybody has an estimate of the distance this honeycomb tail fin can travel floating in the ocean in a day or two ?
Giving the fact that the torque box looks ripped out of the fuselage ( See pics in post 61 Part 15 ), and considering the close proximity of the CVR and FDR with this part of the aircraft, the search area for the boxes can be reduced a lot with this.
I wish the best luck to the Emerald Sub crew in its effort to find them. They have three weeks before the ping start to fade....
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13702 posts, RR: 67 Reply 17, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81050 times:
"brouaviation
This wasn't just a celebrity, it was a founder and owner of two highly respected companies in the aviation industry, being Lauda Air and FlyNiki. Second, he knows were he's talking about, as 'his' Lauda Air lost an aircraft in kind of the same way as AF447 crashed. "
"In kind of the same way"? Not at all. The Lauda Air 767 crashed because of in-cruise reverser deployment. There have been no indications that the same thing happened here. I'm assuming an ACARS message would report it.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 2900 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 81007 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 17): Anybody has an estimate of the distance this honeycomb tail fin can travel floating in the ocean in a day or two ?
People on the other thread quoted the Brasilian Navy as saying surface currents in the area run 3 to 5 kts per hour. I assume the tailfin would be moved only by surface currents, not significantly influenced by winds due to the way it was floating. But I could be wrong about that.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4702 posts, RR: 60 Reply 19, posted (8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 80710 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 19): People on the other thread quoted the Brasilian Navy as saying surface currents in the area run 3 to 5 kts per hour. I assume the tailfin would be moved only by surface currents, not significantly influenced by winds due to the way it was floating. But I could be wrong about that.
Thank you...
OK, let's say it's 3kts... that gives it 72NM per day... give it 5 days and it's 370NM to which there is no guarantee that (and evidently) the debris and bodies will all move at the same rate and in the same direction resulting in a conveniently right cluster... So, even if the aircraft did breakup upon water impact, or shortly before, a 90km spread after a few days isn't hard to achieve... therefore, NAV20, it doesn't prove or explain that it was a high-altitude breakup, although it cannot be ruled out at this stage.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
B707forever From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 326 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 80229 times:
Call me whatever but I'm so curious to know what's really happening behind the scenes with the lawyers. What's the positioning between Airbus and AF litigation teams and how are the families bonding to prepare to sue.
And as the backdrop, what are the positioning points being played out. If it turns out to be the pitot and the speed issue, it's going to be very interesting to see how it's all settled.
Versabob From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 80094 times:
I only occasionally follow this forum, so the following question may be a possible repeat. At a cruising altitude of 30,000+, is there signficant risk of ice obstruction inside pitot tubes? At that altitude, air is very cold but typically also very dry.
< nitpick >
"Knot" means "nautical mile per hour". Saying "knot per hour" is redundant. Or, I guess, a measure of acceleration.
< /nitpick >
Quoting Versabob (Reply 22): At a cruising altitude of 30,000+, is there signficant risk of ice obstruction inside pitot tubes? At that altitude, air is very cold but typically also very dry.
If you're flying near or in a thunderstorm, I would say yes.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Pdoucy From France, joined Jun 2009, 3 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 79428 times:
Quoting Versabob (Reply 22): Call me whatever but I'm so curious to know what's really happening behind the scenes with the lawyers. What's the positioning between Airbus and AF litigation teams and how are the families bonding to prepare to sue.
I don't understand why it is a given that families will sue. At this point, sue whom, for what ?
Yes there is a significant risk especially if you are above/near a thunderstorm or another type of large weather system, remeber icing is pretty much possible at any level if the weather conditions are right
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1981 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 83387 times:
Quoting Pdoucy (Reply 24): I don't understand why it is a given that families will sue. At this point, sue whom, for what ?
Because 228 family members are dead and the surviving family members want answers and someone will be blamed. Whether it's the crew, the aircraft manufacturer, the guys who predicted the weather on route, whatever, once a cause or fault is found the families will want some type of restitution to be made "whole" after their loss. Look at what happened after 9/11 and who was to blame there?
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 2900 posts, RR: 5 Reply 27, posted (8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 83304 times:
From the previous thread
Quote: Ellehammer09 From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 317, posted Wed Jun 10 2009 15:57:06 your local time (3 hours 45 minutes 12 secs ago) and read 2334 times:
Quoting JBH (Reply 322):
Could be. Seems to me it is some kind of floatation device used by the Brazilian navy to lift and/or ensure the fin would remain floating, though....
That was my first thought, but why use a floating device on something that is obviously floating on its own? Maybe to be sure that it doesn't sink before they can get it aboard the destroyer...
Navy and salvage experts around the world have learned very hard and deadly lessons to never trust any large item to float. Always expect it to sink without warning. Safety of the men trying to salvage the item is most important.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 82750 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1): If it were from the plane, they would have recovered it and we'd have pictures of it as part of the wreckage. Recovery of a slide/raft would be noteworthy.
My guess, as I said before, is that it belongs to the Brazil Navy
My guess is that it is bags that held all the ropes and straps that they are securing around the fin to prepare it for hoisting.
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 2900 posts, RR: 5 Reply 29, posted (8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 82811 times:
Quoting Pdoucy (Reply 24): I don't understand why it is a given that families will sue. At this point, sue whom, for what ?
This was an international flight, while some folks will cite the Warsaw Conventions and the $75,000 limit on damages, those limits no longer apply. The 1999 Montreal Conventions replace the liability of the Warsaw Conventions.
Quote: The Montreal Convention creates a two-tiered system of compensation.
First, it imposes absolute liability on an international carrier to the extent of 100,000 “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs) (providing the plaintiff can prove damages up to that amount). SDRs are a type of international monetary reserve currency or accounting system created in 1968 by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is a specialized agency of the United Nations that determines the value of SDRs relative to the currencies of the five largest exporting nations. The value of an SDR is published everyday by the IMF. As of April 15, 2009, 100,000 SDRs are the equivalent of about $148,500 United States dollars..............
Note that the Montreal Convention and its predecessors (the Warsaw Convention, Prague Protocol, Montreal Agreement, and other agreements) apply only to the airlines. It does not apply to others who may have caused the victim’s injuries or death, such as the manufacturer of the airliner or the maker of component parts or systems installed in the aircraft.
Take a typical US death involving an accident crash.
For a male under age 40 with a wife and children, his family compenstation would normally be 5 to 10 years of his salary. For a person making $75,000 per year - that would be $375,000 to $750,000. The convention limits of approx $148,500 are obviously inadequate.
There will certainly be lawsuits. That is the only somewhat objective decision process for liability and to evaluate the adequacy of damages/ payments.
The companies not protected by the convention limits - Airbus, the manufacturers of the various instruments and systems will have no requirement to make payments to families without lawsuits.
But be assured that they all have insurance policies which can cover those payments even into the multi-million dollar per victim amounts.
Multi-million dollar awards to not set people up for a life of luxury, nor do they compensate for the loss of a husband, spouse, father, etc.
It would be best if the companies involved were forced into an objective arbitration process with the victims families, but that will never happen.
Most of the insurance policies the airlines and other companies use to pay such damages will only make payment if it is the result of an accepted judgement in a lawsuit.
Ac888yow From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 472 posts, RR: 1 Reply 30, posted (8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 82503 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting DaBuzzard (Reply 25): When the investigation is complete the courts will decide who pays what to whom.
As an aside, a relative of mine who is legal counsel at PWC (Pratt Canada) told me that "who" is obviously the party(ies) deemed to be negligent or at fault, and "what" is typically on the order of 2-3 million dollars per passenger in North America.
I've never been up close to a tail before, and it may be an optical illusion...but is the hinge really about in the middle? I didn't realize that the rudder portion of the stabilizer was so large!
When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13702 posts, RR: 67 Reply 33, posted (8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 81979 times:
Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 34): I've never been up close to a tail before, and it may be an optical illusion...but is the hinge really about in the middle? I didn't realize that the rudder portion of the stabilizer was so large!
I have noticed that more modern fins tend to be more "slender", that is less extended along the long axis of the aircraft, than their older counterparts. The rudder tends to be the same size, so you do get that effect.
Bravo1six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 283 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 80972 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 30): That is the only somewhat objective decision process for liability and to evaluate the adequacy of damages/ payments.
While I agree with the premise regarding how the system works, just because an accident has occurred doesn't immediately mean that there is any liability involved on the part of anyone that needs to be decided upon.
To use an example, if an aircraft suffers a double engine failure and subsequent ditching because wildlife were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the impact of such wildlife on the aircraft was well beyond the required certification requirements of the aircraft, should anyone be sued at all (other than the now deceased wildlife)?
Sometimes things just happen through no fault of anyone.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 9542 posts, RR: 7 Reply 35, posted (8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 79875 times:
While it may be distasteful to discuss about potential litigation or otherwise seeking of money compenstion by families of victims of this crash, there are important issues as to the investigation process and results that could affect them. For example, it may take more time to investigate and determine the 'cause' than victims families have to file lawsuits - usually 1-3 years depending on the country or other jurisdiction.
The Montreal Convention assure a certain minimum is paid out in a reaonable time period for the death of anyone on a air flight, anywhere in the world. This would usually paid by the airline involved and their insurers. For some, this may be sufficient compensation but for some it may not, especially if in some countries it may be taxable income so they may need to seek parties and a place to sue to get 'just' compensation. Some may not seek to sue in court as they feel it is wrong, or not want to go through the trauma multiple times in discovery, depositions, a trial or other hearing as well as the long time such lawsuits may take.
As to any lawsuit, where to sue is very important. Different countries like the USA have very loose rules to file a lawsuit and lawyers can represent a client to be only compensated with a percentage (usually 25-40%) of any settlement or judgement amount. If any component involved with this loss or work done on this a/c that contributed to this loss took place in the USA, they would have the possible right to sue in the USA. France would be the most likely place to sue as AF, Airbus, the probable maker of the pliot tubes parts (if proven to be a contribution to the cause of this loss) is based in France. Problem with France and most other countries in the right to sue is that the Plaintiffs, if they lose may have to compensate of all attornies, even for the Defendants and their could be stict money limits as to compensation amounts.
With the potential difficulties with gathering sufficient physical evidence, as this loss of AF 447 has shown so far, the many possible scenarios as to what happned, it may be very difficult to sue anywhere for any amount, so victims families may have to accept the Montreal amounts along with any life insurance amounts or other govenment compensation they may get.
FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 77906 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 26): Because 228 family members are dead and the surviving family members want answers and someone will be blamed. Whether it's the crew, the aircraft manufacturer, the guys who predicted the weather on route, whatever, once a cause or fault is found the families will want some type of restitution to be made "whole" after their loss. Look at what happened after 9/11 and who was to blame there?
At the same time, they can't bring any lawsuit against anyone too hastily, because I know that if I was a judge, a case like this would have to have overwhelming evidence during legal preceedings against whoever the lawsuit is against. I keep seeing horrible lawsuits that happen after accidents, but I never really hear much more, only that the airline has settled and so on. But the reason why I would not be so lenient is because despite of the loss, people see the words "plane crash" and after they've grieved their loved ones , they start to see dollar signs.
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2320 posts, RR: 5 Reply 37, posted (8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 77860 times:
Quoting B707forever (Reply 20): What's the positioning between Airbus and AF litigation teams and how are the families bonding to prepare to sue.
I think if I had just lost someone in a crash only a few days ago I wouldn't yet be thinking of ways to sue the airline. There would be more pressing things to think about like 'Are they still alive somehow?' and 'What happened?'
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
I don't understand the rudder deflection concern...the deflection evident in the photos is a result of counterbalance weights attached to the leading edge of the rudder...when the rudder is suspended horizontally, the rudder trailing edge will always deflect upwards.
Soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1346 posts, RR: 2 Reply 39, posted (8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 76330 times:
Has this airframe been in Chicago?
Is it possible the TSA had a field trip to visit an A332 and climbed on the pitot tubes to look inside the cockpit...they do that you know...Yeh, thats it...they did it!
FCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 922 posts, RR: 2 Reply 41, posted (8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 74370 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 4): And if it were jammed, they would have taken care for the displacement to be preserved.
Eggs? Time to do grocery shopping, but I didn't have eggs in mind!
I couldn't tell if pihero was dis-crediting my idea or the others...all I saw was eggs for someone...which coincidently is what we mostly ate in ST. Martin because we were cheap
I seriously doubt it. After what the bodies have been though they won't be a pretty sight. At best you'll see a body bag, but I'd imagine the media won't go there..
Man City p3 w3 d0 l0 f4 a0 P9 - hey it may never happen again!
(But we did sell a s**tload of newspapers for a while there.........
But that's the same as "stasis's" Post but in french...its just because they cant prove the birth dates...which is strange as they would have someone like a friend or family which would know them wouldn't they...
A380Heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 154 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 72569 times:
With us being on Part 16 of this thread it is easy to miss some information so please forgive me.
Do we know yet whether the aircraft broke up at cruise altitude, during descent or on impact with the ocean?
Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
I know at approximately 7 miles up the air is very cold so would there be sufficient time for bodies to be affected by the icy conditions at altitude - even if they were only momentarily exposed before a rapid descent?
I am just wondering if the condition of the bodies will help reveal when and how the aircraft met its end.
Finally, were there any radio messages from the crew?
I read early on in the thread that it isn't unusual for there not to be radio contact for some time in trans-oceanic flights. But wasn't there a 'Pan Pan' or 'Mayday' call.
From my layman's point of view it would seem that the catastrophe happened very quickly indeed. I imagine even in a rapid descent - controlled or otherwise, that the crew would attempt at least some form of radio communication.
Again apologies for repeating questions that may have been asked before.
777DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 124 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 72282 times:
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): With us being on Part 16 of this thread it is easy to miss some information so please forgive me.
Do we know yet whether the aircraft broke up at cruise altitude, during descent or on impact with the ocean?
Unknown
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
Unknown, the bodies are still in transit to the morgue
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): I know at approximately 7 miles up the air is very cold so would there be sufficient time for bodies to be affected by the icy conditions at altitude - even if they were only momentarily exposed before a rapid descent?
probably not , but unknown at this time
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): I am just wondering if the condition of the bodies will help reveal when and how the aircraft met its end.
yes, once the autopsies are done
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Finally, were there any radio messages from the crew?
one report of an ACARS text message to AF before the MX messages
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72):
I read early on in the thread that it isn't unusual for there not to be radio contact for some time in trans-oceanic flights. But wasn't there a 'Pan Pan' or 'Mayday' call.
unknown, they were out of range of any VHF ground receivers, no reports from other aircraft that i have heard of , and no satcom that I have heard of.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): From my layman's point of view it would seem that the catastrophe happened very quickly indeed. I imagine even in a rapid descent - controlled or otherwise, that the crew would attempt at least some form of radio communication.
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. they were probably too busy at that point to communicate, especially since HF was the only real option
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 7090 posts, RR: 10 Reply 47, posted (8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 72334 times:
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): With us being on Part 16 of this thread it is easy to miss some information so please forgive me.
I guess 99% can´t follow this so closely they can keep track with the 2000+ posts so far.
As for the ones so intensely looking at the rudder and a possible relation to the AA accident 8 years ago I want to post this from avherald.com:
"The NTSB concluded in their final report, that unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs caused the rudder and tail fin to separate from the aircraft causing the crash. In the report the NTSB stated, that "the entire rudder separated from the vertical stabilizer except for portions of the rudder spar structure that remained attached to hinge arm assembly numbers 2,3,4,5 and 7" (first sentence on page 52/last paragraph of chapter 1.2.12). However, the pictures of the vertical tail of Air France show the rudder still attached to the vertical stabilizer (fin). This is a very decisive difference disallowing any comparism of the accidents without further research and additional facts."
And this: "Airbus Industries said in an internal e-mail leaked to the public, that there is no evidence of any electrical failure as had been initially claimed by Air France."
Moreover, a LH captain is quoted in "Stern" magazine when looking at the weathercharts of the time at the accident that the thunderstorms appeared to be so severe, he would have diverted to Recife.
The IB flight directly (10 minutes) behind AF447 deviated for a few hundreds kms.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Do we know yet whether the aircraft broke up at cruise altitude, during descent or on impact with the ocean?
No.
Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
Sources I read say that in a few days bodies will be so decomposed they will be unidentifiable. No words about burns.
Tietkej From Germany, joined Jun 2009, 66 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 72203 times:
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): With us being on Part 16 of this thread it is easy to miss some information so please forgive me.
We forgive you.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Do we know yet whether the aircraft broke up at cruise altitude, during descent or on impact with the ocean?
No, seems impossible to narrow down at this stage.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
I think the bodies that have been recovered so far are being brought to an undisclosed location and will be examined then.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): I know at approximately 7 miles up the air is very cold so would there be sufficient time for bodies to be affected by the icy conditions at altitude - even if they were only momentarily exposed before a rapid descent?
Gruesome thought. What do you mean by 'affected'?
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): I am just wondering if the condition of the bodies will help reveal when and how the aircraft met its end.
Possibly. But impossible to say at this stage.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Finally, were there any radio messages from the crew?
None after 0133Z.
EDIT: Sorry, this has already been replied to by now - I was too slow.
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 2900 posts, RR: 5 Reply 49, posted (8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 72014 times:
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Is there any indication of the condition of the bodies recovered i.e. is there any evidence of burns?
I know at approximately 7 miles up the air is very cold so would there be sufficient time for bodies to be affected by the icy conditions at altitude - even if they were only momentarily exposed before a rapid descent?
I am just wondering if the condition of the bodies will help reveal when and how the aircraft met its end.
We really know nothing about the bodies other than the reported number which have been picked up. They are using DNA for identification - not unusual in today's highly technical world where that capacity for 100% positive identification can be done easily. The only report on condition I've seen is one report which listed x number male, x number female and x number unknown gender. Since the bodies were in the water for several days that would not be unusual.
In the preliminary and final accident reports several months from now, we will find out if the condition of the bodies provided an important information as to the cause of the crash.
Since France is leading the accident investigation, and Brasil is leading the recovery efforts, including processing remains - I would expect information on the exact condition of the bodies to be very closely guarded.
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 72): Finally, were there any radio messages from the crew?
I read early on in the thread that it isn't unusual for there not to be radio contact for some time in trans-oceanic flights. But wasn't there a 'Pan Pan' or 'Mayday' call.
From my layman's point of view it would seem that the catastrophe happened very quickly indeed. I imagine even in a rapid descent - controlled or otherwise, that the crew would attempt at least some form of radio communication.
We do not know if there were any radio messages from the crew. The crew may well have broadcast on the emergency channels and being out of range of VHF communications, would not have been picked up except by nearby aircraft / ships. The nearest aircraft that I have heard was approx 150 km away. That may not be close enough in stormy weather to be heard.
The open ocean communications are done by HF radio, which requires more active work than pressing a button the yoke and speaking into the mike. Work which would have required the pilots to take time/ attention away from trying to save the aircraft.
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 401 posts, RR: 1 Reply 50, posted (8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 69851 times:
I'll ask this again because it's not an easy question and probably the forum experts on this topic might have not seen it (it was on a previous part of this thread).
I understand that mainly passive sonar would be used to locate the FDR and CVR, listening for the pings hopefully coming from their locators. Since we're talking about at least one military submarine in the area, would it be feasible or useful to use active sonar to search for aircraft fragments? I understand searching on the bottom might not be as easy, but I have heard it has been used before to locate ship wrecks. Any thougts?
Jerblaine From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 7 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 69821 times:
It just seems to me that it is possible that the storm was just too strong. Do we have the technology to stay in flight through the most powerful storms? I'm not sure if they can even do it on Star Trek....so to me it is all pilot error. Why the heck did he fly straight for the ENORMOUS storm cells in the middle of the atlantic??
Doktor71 From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 68323 times:
As it is impossible to read all the posts in this topic, may I ask for a brief summary of the most important facts/details giving an idea or somewhat of a hint for possible cause(s) of this tragedy?
Everyone is very welcome to do it via private message if it would be redundant to do it here in public. Thanks a lot.
LH526 From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1931 posts, RR: 16 Reply 53, posted (8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 68323 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 1): If it were from the plane, they would have recovered it and we'd have pictures of it as part of the wreckage. Recovery of a slide/raft would be noteworthy.
What would be notewowrthy about it? A plane impacting the ocean with lot's of G forces and disintegrating into shrapnels wcould possibly rip a raft off it's case and int the vicinity of the tail, as every raft is packed so tight that 60% of it's inflation power is gained from self-relaxation of the material, even a floppily floating raft would be nothing noteworthy.
It's all chaos theory on impact!
Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
LTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 67862 times:
Quoting Doktor71 (Reply 102): As it is impossible to read all the posts in this topic, may I ask for a brief summary of the most important facts/details giving an idea or somewhat of a hint for possible cause(s) of this tragedy?
AF447 did not complete it's flight and crashed in the ocean.
Yep. That´s pretty much the size of it. Everything else is speculation (some of it very good), but essentially we need to keep remembering time after time that we just don't know much, and much of what is being written here and elsewhere qualifies as a WAG.
Goooooaaal From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 66764 times:
I think that we can make the determination at this point that this aircraft broke up in the air, albeit we do not know how it came apart, or why, or at what altitude. If you will recall in Swiss Air 111, the bodies were found in 15,000 pieces after the MD-11 crashed into the sea intact, where as in this disaster, the bodies that have been found seem to be more or less intact.
"New Signs That Air France Jet Broke Up in Flight
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — Two pieces of evidence have emerged that lend new credence to the theory that the Air France jet that crashed more than a week ago broke up in flight. "
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 401 posts, RR: 1 Reply 61, posted (8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 66576 times:
Quoting Doktor71 (Reply 112): So may I ask for the "good speculations" without embarrassing anyone?
You're absolutely right, and I didn't mean to come across as not caring about your question. If I did I apologize. Some of the speculation I've read (I have a hard time keeping up as well) refers to:
- Pitot tubes - There were apparently issues with the sensors for airspeed installed in this aircraft type (A330/A340). Airbus had recommended some time ago the replacement of these sensors (Thales built?). Air France was in the process of replacing them in the fleet gradually. Now due to Union or Pilots demands (I'm not clear which) AF is speeding up the replacement process. Faulty information from the pitot tubes could have caused the airplane to enter the storm at the wrong speed (too fast/too slow - not determined). In any case, the parameters were somewhat tight ("coffin corner" is a term I learned about in this thread). The airplane COULD have entered a stall from either being too slow or too fast.
- Weather - There are different reports on how severe the weather conditions were. Most people seem to agree that weather by itself could not bring an A330 down. No certainties here, however it could have been an important factor. Other flights deviated from this storm.
- Rudder - Personally I don't agree, but there were a lot of comparisons made with the AA587 crash in NY. This came about after the pictures of the VS were shown.
- Inflight breakup vs. impact against water - A lot of discussion on this. Some believe the aircraft broke up in flight, others that it impacted the water more or less intact. Debris patterns, currents and other factors are thrown in the discussions. Personally, I lean towards an inflight breakup but nothing is clear on this one.
DISCLAIMER:
As I said, I'm having a hard time keeping up too. I'm mostly LEARNING here so if what I said needs to be corrected feel free to point it out. I also realize I'm not covering many of the technical aspects being discussed in depth, many of which are part of that "good speculation". I just haven't had the chance to read slowly enough, and to learn and understand enough to even try to repeat it. By no means am I ignoring it. Thanks to all the experts who take the time to bring their knowledge to the thread (I just wish I had more time!).
Anyway, that was my attempt at compiling what I got out of the thread so far. Hope it helps a little.
"New Signs That Air France Jet Broke Up in Flight
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — Two pieces of evidence have emerged that lend new credence to the theory that the Air France jet that crashed more than a week ago broke up in flight. "
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1890 posts, RR: 62 Reply 64, posted (8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 65743 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 127): The article fails to live up to the headline.
Agree, except the very last paragraph :
"A Delta Air Lines spokeswoman, Betsey Talton, said Delta had replaced the tubes on some models and was replacing them on its A330s, the model in the accident."
,probably meaning that they had had some issues on their pitot tubes ?
What other "models" does Delta have , apart from the A300 and the A340 ?
Atlanta-based Delta is currently installing new Pitot tubes from Thales on its A330 aircraft per the manufacturer's recommendation, spokeswoman Betsy Talton said.
"Until these installations are complete, we are communicating with our flight crews to reiterate the correct procedures to be used in the event of unreliable airspeed indications," Talton said.
Delta subsidiary Northwest Airlines also has installed new Pitot tubes on its A319/320 aircraft, Talton said.
Delta, the world's largest airline operator, owns 11 A330-200s and 21 A330-300s. It owns or leases 57 A319-100s and 69 A320-200s.
Tempe, Arizona-based US Airways, the other major U.S. A330 operator, has begun replacing the Pitot tube component on its A330s out of an abundance of caution, spokeswoman Michelle Mohr said, though she declined to identify the manufacturer. Nine of the carrier's 11 A330s are in regular service.
StuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 1 Reply 66, posted (8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 63547 times:
I don't really understand people in every part of this 16 part discussion jumping in asking for a personal update. There's been a summary of what's known in every section. You don't have to read all 16 threads, maybe just do everyone a favor and read 50 posts or so. We've had an awful lot of duplicate posts and summaries for people who don't want to read anything prior to their post.
EI787 From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1425 posts, RR: 32 Reply 67, posted (8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 63498 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Many posts have had to be unnecessarily deleted in this thread due to people responding to posts which had to be removed. If you feel a post is in breach of forum rules (eg. due to wild speculation), DO NOT respond to it! Submit a 'Suggest Deletion' and we will deal with it.
Apologies to those who were inconvenienced with 'Referenced Post' Deletions.
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 2900 posts, RR: 5 Reply 68, posted (8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 63405 times:
Since my post was deleted, I won't reference other posts.
What is / was the supply status of the new model pitot assemblies?
Were there dozens/ hundreds of the new ones sitting in parts bins around the world? or was there a supply / production backlog?
It appears that Air France was replacing them as a part of normal maintenance. Are they now sending them to outlying stations so the aircraft can be upgraded in normal overnight downtimes?
It would also be a fair assumption that Delta has similar logistics issues, if the parts are not readily available in many locations and quantities.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4702 posts, RR: 60 Reply 69, posted (8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 62700 times:
Quoting EI787 (Reply 67): Apologies to those who were inconvenienced with 'Referenced Post' Deletions.
'Tis a minor one... for a much greater benefit!
-------------- Let me go back to the 3 phases of an incident/accident.
You have:
1. Normal phase
A. Transition into trouble phase
2. Trouble phase
B. Transition to outcome
3. Outcome...
Outcome can be "problem solved", "problem remained but safe outcome", "survivable accident", and "insurvivable accident".
There are cases where phases can repeat itself, although it is I believe, rare... often, the transitions overlap into the phases, but normally does not extend beyond 2 phases or a phase and the following transition (in cases of multiple phases, that is). Terrorist bombing of aircraft is unique because it overlaps A, 2 and B into one.
The facts that we have remain on the phases (normal flight, phase2 began in 0210, and phase 3 is that we're now finding bodies and aircraft pieces), and nothing in the transitions.
Phasing does ease discussions and investigations in a LOT of accidents and incidents. I must stress however, that the root cause can be before Phase 1... however, that is for the investigators... when causes start way before Phase 1, it requires data not available to the public domain.
I do wish (which is unlikely to happen) that we discuss it in a systematic manner, such as the division into phases as above. It will make things much easier, although many egos of the "one-upmanship" types will be severely burst.
So, where are we now?
We know that the ACARS messages point towards problems with the pitot static system. This is not definite, albeit likely. As many professionals have stated, these messages can only explain what may have happened. To be sure, go and find the FDR and CVR yourself. This is... Phase 2.
We know that pieces of the aircraft is found and so have bodies. Phase 3 is therefore an accident. We do not know whether it is a survivable accident, or an insurvivable one. It is safe however, to assume that this is an insurvivable accident based on the information available.
So, this leaves the transitions... A and B. Transition A has a few possibilities.
A1. Loss of reliable airspeed data. This explains some of the ACARS messages. This however, if the procedures are carried out promptly, should not have caused in loss of aircraft.
A2. Loss of all Air Data... This explains further the ACARS messages. Procedures following this extends beyond that of A1, and can (not does) explain the cabin pressure controller ACARS message as it is part of the QRH/ECAM action... amongst other things.
A3. Total loss of all ADIRU... This means loss of Air Data and Attitude Reference data. This, is extremely unlikely to happen. If someone can explain why TCAS was in the ACARS message then we can theorize objectively whether this was a likely scenario or not.
A4. Bomb. Only a small explosion can explain what then happened in phase 2, albeit in my opinion, explains less when incomparison with A1, A2 and A3.
A5. Lightning strike. It is unlikely to have affected a transition into phase 2, based on data for phase 2.
A6. Tailfin separation. It is unlikely to have affected a transition into phase 2, based on the data for phase 2.
A7. Excessive turbulence resulting in attitude upset. This has been deemed unlikely due to data supporting A1 and A2. Should this have happened, A1 and/or A2 and/or A3 is unlikely to have continued after aircraft recovered normal attitude.
A8. Pilots switching off the autopilot and autothrust. Whilst switching off autothrust is an option to the crew as part of the QRH for severe turbulence encounter, human action to switch off the autopilot and autothrust does not produce an ACARS maintenance message. This is therefore deemed as unlikely.
Note that A1 - A8 only goes to explain what may have caused entry to phase 2. Possible causes for the transition to happen, will be discussed below.
How about Transition B?
B1. Bomb, if in transition B, cannot be dismissed based on current info.
B2. Lightning strike, this is possible due to lack of ACARS messages from the aircraft after 0214UTC which can mean electrical failure. This can explain further resulting failures as per B3 and B4.
B3. Electrical failure. See above and B5.
B4. Further loss of ADR or IR. This is possible.
B5. Wing separation. This can explain the lack of ACARS messages after 0214UTC due to lack of AC power based on engine electrical generators being severed from the fuselage (see B3).
B6. Loss of control. This is possible due to the flight control laws degrading to alternate or alternate 2 in bad weather. However, it is deemed unlikely that transition B is simply explained by crew inability to maintain control. Loss of control coupled with B3 and/or B5 is possible as with B3, aircraft would further degrade to direct law, and with B4, loss of attitude information in the dark.
B7. Tailfin separation. This is possible if after 0214UTC but require B6 as prerequisite(s).
B8. Airframe disintegration. This is possible with B6 as prerequisite.
B9. Crew task saturation. This is possible as in previous incidents, crew involved has cited overwhelming ECAM messages as a likely hindrance to prompt action to rescue the situation. This can easily explain B6, and subsequent possibilities.
B10. Meteor strike. Cannot be dismissed at this stage.
B11. Being shot at by alien spacecraft. As ridiculous as this sound, this too cannot be dismissed at this stage.
Please note that anything in transition B would mean it is not a single failure, as it requires transition A. So before jumping to simplistic conclusions, bear that in mind. Also note that B1 - 11 is a collection of what may have happened and what may have caused entry to phase 3 (different rules apply to phase 3). Any causes cited in phase 3 cannot be used as root cause, as it is "subsequent cause arising from the occurence of previous causes".
I do hope that reading this, one would realize that anything is possible for transition B (except for the aircraft being abducted by an alien mothership, unless later spewed out by the alien mothership).
So, if we want to discuss what may have caused transition A to happen, we will be discussing probable causes... which if we catalogue it.
O.1. Excessive Icing: This is possible and explains A1 and A2, and subsequently possibly explain several items in transition B. Icing is also hard to pick up on radar (if not impossible).
O.2. Radar insensitivity: No failure information was sent by the ACARS, however, manipulation of gain control do pose a risk of the colours produced in the displays depicting water precipitation no longer representative of the normal calibrated values. Radar attenuation in areas of heavy precipitation (where water sticks to the radome surface) is known to have resulted in poor ability for radar to detect clouds. The same applies for extremely dense precipitation may result in radar waves not reflecting back to the antennae but is instead "absorbed", resulting in no radar return for that particular location. This possibility can lead to O.1. above.
O.3. Lightning strike. Some may ask why this is again listed here. A lightning strike on the radome can cause damage not apparent to the ear (subtle increase in aerodynamic noise) or eyes. The damage, can lead to O.2, however this is deemed unlikely because of the lack in (voice/crew) communication.
If I am to bet... my bets will be: O.1/O.2, A.2. and B.5. leading to B.7. But that's strictly personal opinions/theory.
----
I do wonder though, why does this problem with the Pitot tubes only happen to Air Caraibes and Air France.
I see the Qantas A330 whilst being similar, is different.
I wonder who else have the same Pitot-static, ISIS, ADIRU set up (in terms of... "they got the same components") as AF and whether AF and Air Caraibes have the same set up.
The pitot tubes must have been certified to the required specs... otherwise they shouldn't be on the planes in the first place. The old and new Thales probes would have passed the certification as they did end up on planes carrying paying passengers. If they degrade in time, the lifetime of the tubes should have been included on the specs, but they wouldn't fail together for no other apparent reason.
Unfortunately, regulations that is used as standard settings by various countries, are based on those made for countries which don't have the excessive precipitations that happens from time to time in tropical regions. Manufacturers overbuilt components partly for that reason... but how overbuilt are they can be quantified, the problem is, freak conditions rarely do... they're rarely defined as freaky and excessive enough to require a research. On this matter, if you really need to sue someone for it, you're probably gonna have to sue God (for it is His creation), or sue the whole humanity (for not realizing human frailty against God's creations)... *bangs head on table*
There is another problem that I've noticed in the forums regarding this matter. It seems that the aviation community is slow to pick up on these things. I've read time and time again, pilots saying that "severe icing cannot happen at X temperature" or "severe icing cannot happen at altitude X"...Pilotaydin pointed this out which made me have a look at my notes and my memory on conversations with various people in the past, and it is unfortunately true. We learn something new everyday in aviation, the question is whether those up on the hierarchy openly embrace this or not... (I have had several heated exchanges with those types whose mindsets are literally "boxed in"). Several cases in the past regarding excessive precipitation have been dismissed by the industry's majority as "a freak occurence"... One 737-300 ditched in a river because of it (despite a previous no-engine landing because of the same thing years earlier)... There were calls to have another look at
water ingestion required standards... not sure if they've been modified since, but I remember the industry initially saying it was a freak occurence and that the crew made an error. I remember because I was at the airport when they called for "friends and relatives awaiting for flight XXX please contact the information desk" and then the arrivals board were switched off.
Either that, or I've been relatively closely surrounded by air accidents in my lifetime. *sigh*
-----
End of repeat I hope it is useful as a basecheck
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 297 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 214 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4702 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 4983 posts, 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 246 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13702 posts, 
From France, joined Jun 2009, 3 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2007, 118 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1271 posts, 
, they start to see dollar signs. 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 7090 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 401 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2005, 191 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1425 posts, ![_](javascript:compressPost('4443520','1','1','32','Luv2cattlecall',' " target=_blank>http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/voo447/...1.jpg I\'ve never been up close to a tail before, and it may be an optical illusion...but is th','')){kind=link}