Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 63 Reply 1, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 52395 times:
This is the final part of the sleuthing work we did.
It's about how these ACARS messages could have been translated into the flight-deck environment and the piloting issues that we could see.
Once again, I tried to keep as factual as possible except in two cases where there is some uncertainty as to the meaning of a message.
I also refrained from speculating as to the check-lists they could have performed, except the "unreliable airspeed" QRH procedure.
THE COCKPIT ENVIRONMENT
AUTO FLIGHT AP OFF : Red Master Warning light / Cavalry Charge
REAC W/S DET FAULT : Red Flag on PFDs
F/CTL ALTN LAW : Amber Master Caution / Chime
Flags on PFDs : Red “FD” Flags on PFDs
AUTO FLIGHT ATHR OFF : Amber Master Caution / Chime *
IR2 FAULT : Amber Master Caution / Chime (With extreme caution: It was only a “Maintenance Status at 0211Z,
If an ECAM fault was announced later, it would mean the loss of HDG
And ATT for the F/Os PFD and ND.)
F/CTL PRIM1 FAULT : Amber Master Caution / Chime
F/CTL SEC1 FAULT : Amber Master Caution / Chime
As one can see from this list, there is only one red warning : The Auto-pilot disconnect.
All the rest of the ECAM or PFD/ND messages are at a lower level and present no real urgency.
On the other hand, the annunciations, both aural and visual coming at a very high rate couldn’t have helped the crew to keep or regain any SA they had.
(*) See the A/THR issue below
FLIGHT MANAGEMENT AND PILOTING SITUATION
Task attributions in an abnormal situation are generally well defined in a modern flight-deck: One flies and communicates, the other manages the systems and the check-lists..
There is some uncertainty, though, as to who the “Pilot Flying” was. With the Captain in the LH seat, either one could have been it. During the Captain’s rest, only the most experienced co-pilot could have been PF and only from the RH seat, the second co-pilot being in charge of the systems, radio-com and navigation.
It was then up to him to keep an update of the weather at alternates, keep a sharp eye on the PETs between the alternates in an ETOPS environment, help with the radar… It’s also his job to compute at every reporting waypoint engine and speed parameters for turbulence penetration, altitude capability and possible step climb…etc.,..
-What piloting instruments were available ?
It looks from the messages that they, quite early in the chain of events, lost SPEED and Mach information, both on the PFDs and the ISIS, and the FPV, flight path vector.
They, of course were without Flight Directors and auto thrust. The A/THR disconnect, apart from the amber caution light would have triggered a “Thrust lock” indication on the ECAM, indicating the need to use manual throttle.
Nothing else was lost…….until the possibility after 0211Z of an IR #2 failure, causing the loss of attitude and heading indications on the RH side. A “switching” to the IR #3 would have been needed to recover these indications on the F/O’s side.
The ISIS, also minus speed indication could have been used...but from the RHS ? Not easy and vertigo-inducing.
So, we’re left with the necessity of an “UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED INDICATION” check-list, in itself a non-event in most conditions. In this case, they had the speed, they had the thrust..just match the T/Ls with the present N1 and they would have been very close to the needed parameters for level flying at the same speed.
-Alternate Law handling issues.
With the “ADR DISAGREE” situation the flight control laws would have reverted to “ALTERNATE LAW 2”, with most of the envelope protections unavailable except the load factor in pitch.
-Roll Direct : there is a direct stick-to-surface relationship. All ailerons are available and spoilers 2, 3 and 6 are used for roll augmentation (until 0213Z that is, as the loss (?) of SEC1 would render spoiler #6 on both sides unavailable).But there is enough surfaces to guarantee a minimum of 20°/s roll rate if needed.
By personal experience, alternate law flying is hardly noticeable : the ailerons feel a bit heavier and slower to respond but that’s about it.
Reltney From United States, joined Jun 2004, 162 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 51508 times:
Great info! Sounds factual and ugly. Small correction needed to be correct
Quoting Moderators (Thread starter): With the Captain in the LH seat, either one could have been it. During the Captain’s rest, only the most experienced co-pilot could have been PF and only from the RH seat, the second co-pilot being in charge of the systems, radio-com and navig
Not true! If the Capt was the PF and went back to rest, the relief pilot taking his seat is now the PF. If he is the most experiencec F/O is not the issue because he is filling in for the pilot taking the rest and believe it or not, is the PIC of that flight at that time (FACT) . Unless air france has different rules ...That is how most other airlines operate but some go against standards set up by other airlines for their own reasons. An Air France pilot will know and only an air france pilot can provide the truth to the issue.
Alberchico From United States, joined Sep 2004, 2080 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 51449 times:
So now that its been officially 30 days and the signal on the black box is either dead or very faint what will happen ? Will they keep looking for it or give up ?. And even if it's found in the wreckage can it be extracted ?
Can they find the cause without the wreckage or black boxes ???
[Edited 2009-07-01 21:20:56]
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
Theredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1187 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 51419 times:
I am no expert on Black boxes (actually orange), but I guess that if they are no t able to locate them before the beacon signal is lost due to exhausted batteries the probability of recover is almost zero.
Also We have to take into account that they have been in a terrible environment close to 0 C of temperature and very high water pressure.
I really hope they recover them for the sake of the victims and the crew, so this tragedy can have some form of closure.
Mascmo From United States, joined Mar 2008, 84 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 50938 times:
That is all I keep thinking about...we may never truly know what happened to AF flight 447. I hope this is not the case and by some miracle they do find the black box and data recorder.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 63 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 50555 times:
Quoting Reltney (Reply 2):
Not true! If the Capt was the PF and went back to rest, the relief pilot taking his seat is now the PF.
What I described is the AF SOP. A pilot, unless he/she is LH seat-qualified must operate from the RHS..
In your description, there would have a transfer of control to the RHS and transfer of A/P, from 1 to 2.
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4283 posts, RR: 54 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 50276 times:
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 4): I am no expert on Black boxes (actually orange), but I guess that if they are no t able to locate them before the beacon signal is lost due to exhausted batteries the probability of recover is almost zero.
Also We have to take into account that they have been in a terrible environment close to 0 C of temperature and very high water pressure.
In the South African Airways 295 (Helderberg) accident, the CVR was recovered from the Indian Ocean around a year after the accident I believe,using a remotely operated vehicle - have a look at http://www.strumpfer.com/Papers/HelderbergSearch.htm for a discussion of the methodology used in determining the location.
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 63 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 49599 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 7): a discussion of the methodology used in determining the location.
Thanks, VF. Methodology and human resources management.
Contrarily to quite a few posters, I believe that Flight447 will be found and its mysteries solved, with or without the recorders.
Now, let's see what the BEA has to say as we need to be confirmed some unknowns, like the value of their flight plotting and those communication messages transmitted or received by the aircraft as the maintenance ACARS are just a small portion of the flight communications.
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1061 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 49339 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 7): In the South African Airways 295 (Helderberg) accident, the CVR was recovered from the Indian Ocean around a year after the accident I believe,using a remotely operated vehicle - have a look at http://www.strumpfer.com/Papers/HelderbergSearch.htm for a discussion of the methodology used in
As far as i know they found several watches from passangers which had stopped at the impact. They could extrapolate the approx. position from the plane and so narrow the search radius. I doubt the same procedure could be applied on this disaster.
FCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 720 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48636 times:
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 9): As far as i know they found several watches from passangers which had stopped at the impact. They could extrapolate the approx. position from the plane and so narrow the search radius. I doubt the same procedure could be applied on this disaster
But then again...We already know the approximate time it broke up...and i bet a watch could be 2 minutes out if we only found 1 person...and alot are water proof
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48151 times:
Quoting FCA767 (Reply 10): But then again...We already know the approximate time it broke up...
Strictly speaking, FCA767, we only know the (approximate) time that the signals stopped.
I gather that the next step, if they can't locate the boxes by hearing their pings, is to search the seabed for actual pieces of the aeroplane with sonar. If they can find the fuselage they'll be in business.
At this point I have to start guessing - but I imagine that they'll have to decide at what stage to 'change horses,' given that you surely can't listen for tiny locator-beacon pings while a full-blown military sonar is sending out much bigger pings of its own......
Best guess is that they'll complete their 'listening watch' over the whole search area (the locator pings are quite likely to go on for some time after the minimum 30 days) and then, if they find nothing, start using sonar.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 47010 times:
A bit more detail here:-
The key sentences so far have been:
- The airplane did NOT break up in flight
- The 24 ACARS messages refer to the loss of airspeed (pitot tubes)
- The airplane also lost information about the direction the airplane was going to (editorial note: pointing to the IRS, not just the air data part).
- no technical problems with the airplane before the takeoff
- The airplane went down vertically plunging into the ocean
Nothing had been found before June 6th, then the first bodies and parts have been found. Parts from the nose to the tail have been found including parts of the structural body of the airplane, one part of the engine and parts of the main cabine have been recovered. No clothes have been found. 51 bodies were recovered.
One of the cockpit walls has been found deformed. Part of the crew rest room has been found, impact marks indicating that something came from the bottom up to the top. The debris recovered so far suggests, that the airplane did not break up in flight."
UALWN From Spain, joined Jun 2009, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 46923 times:
Quoting Meta (Reply 12): According to the breaking news on msnbc and cnn, "French investigators say Flight 447 was not destroyed in flight, fell vertically"
You just beat me to it. Same news in Le Figaro (in French):
Bsalako From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 46385 times:
PARIS (Reuters) - The state of the wreckage from Air France flight AF 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, which crashed on June 1 with 228 people on board, suggest the plane was not destroyed in mid-air, French investigators said on Thursday.
Alain Bouillard, who leads the investigation on behalf of France's BEA air accident board, said the search for the flight recorders, or black boxes, from the Airbus A330 aircraft would continue until July 10.
(Reporting by Tim Hepher, editing by Estelle Shirbon)
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 46191 times:
Press conference is over. Apparently all the BEA said was:-
"The BEA has concluded their press conference introducing the results of their investigation and their preliminary report so far.
The key sentences have been:
- No technical problems with the airplane before the takeoff.
- The airplane did NOT break up in flight.
- The 24 ACARS messages refer to the loss of airspeed (pitot tubes)
- The airplane also lost information about the direction the airplane was going to.
- The airplane went down vertically plunging into the ocean.
- Weather was a classic ITZ scenario."
AVLNative From United States, joined Oct 2006, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 46177 times:
Quoting Meta (Reply 12): "French investigators say Flight 447 was not destroyed in flight, fell vertically"
Quoting Golftango (Reply 16): But wouldn't a nose dive into the Atlantic make for little or no human remains like SR111? I find it hard to believe this.
I am no pilot and don't pretend to be, but the way I read this is that vertically does not necessarily mean nose dive. If the plane were to go into a non-recoverable spin, could that account for falling vertically while not nose diving?
MadameConcorde From French Southern Territories, joined Feb 2007, 4650 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 45684 times:
This is a long thread so I am not sure if this was already posted.
LE BOURGET, France – A French investigator says speed sensors were a factor but were not the cause of the crash of Air France flight 447.
Alain Bouillard, leading the investigation into the June 1 crash for the French accident investigation agency BEA, says the sensors, called Pitot tubes, were not the only factor.
He says "it is an element but not the cause."
There was a better way to fly. It was called Concorde.
Comorin From United States, joined May 2005, 2392 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 45680 times:
Quoting AVLNative (Reply 21):
I am no pilot and don't pretend to be, but the way I read this is that vertically does not necessarily mean nose dive. If the plane were to go into a non-recoverable spin, could that account for falling vertically while not nose diving?
From avherald.com:
The Original BEA English translation said: The airplane went down vertically, a review of French wording offers a different picture however stating, that the airplane came down in a flat attitude at high vertical speed.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 63 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 46045 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 13): - The airplane also lost information about the direction the airplane was going to (editorial note: pointing to the IRS, not just the air data part).
Nothing was said to that effect only that the messages related to (I quote) : "incoherent measured airspeed"
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 13): The airplane went down vertically plunging into the ocean
Completely wrong : The French words were " l'avion a heurté la surfacec de l'eau en ligne de vol mais avec une composante verticale forte", which can be translated as :"the airplane hit the water surface with a level attitude but with an important vertical component"
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 13): No clothes have been found.
No. Nothing was said about the clothes - or the bodies, to that effect - The sentence was "No lifejacket was found inflated"
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 13): Part of the crew rest room has been found, impact marks indicating that something came from the bottom up to the top.
Again,. as a sign of the vertical "acceleration he was mentioning, the official said that"the bucking of one of the retrieved LDMCR walls showed a force acting from the bottom up"
That's how news are twisted when one wants the scoop, and become truth for the sweating crowds.
All the above is a complete misinterpretation of the BEA official's statement
What I got from a read of the CNN story is that the plane "pancaked" into the sea. I think that's the key concept here -- not a nose dive, but a belly flop. Am I wrong.
If that is the case, does that make it likely that the bulk of the wreckage might be in one place? Is there still hope to find the CVR/FDR if the aircraft came down intact, broke up on impact and sank in a relatively confined area?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 27, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 48847 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 26): All the above is a complete misinterpretation of the BEA official's statement
Perfectly possible, Pihero. Thing is, the whole darned 'conference' brings us not one inch (or even a centimetre!) closer to knowing how and why 228 people died....
PS - Just one point that begins to bother me. You persist in quoting my quotes as if i said them? Whereas, of course, I was actually quoting someone else myself. Easily avoided by quoting quotes as follows:-
"Quoting NAV20 quoting Aviationherald."
I'd appreciate the courtesy......
[Edited 2009-07-02 07:33:15]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 63 Reply 28, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 48577 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 32): Perfectly possible, Pihero. Thing is, the whole darned 'conference' brings us not one inch (or even a centimetre!) closer to knowing how and why 228 people died....
Nav, it's not only perfectly possible, it is the truth.
As for what the conference brought, I have said and I'm not surprised that we didn't get a sensational headline claiming that the case was solved.
But there are still quite a few aspects of the accident that have been put into a m,ore clearer light.
More later as I've got to go simming.
Osteogenesis From Germany, joined May 2003, 564 posts, RR: 4 Reply 29, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 47994 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 32): Thing is, the whole darned 'conference' brings us not one inch (or even a centimetre!) closer to knowing how and why 228 people died....
Hello NAV20. Do you have a link to the content of the conference? I am still having problems to find out what was actually said. The media report is not correct as has been shown by Piheros post.
Giopan1975 From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 48165 times:
Quoting HangarRat (Reply 31): What I got from a read of the CNN story is that the plane "pancaked" into the sea. I think that's the key concept here -- not a nose dive, but a belly flop. Am I wrong.
I guess a belly flop would explain the large pieces found. It could also suggest that the plane was stalling seconds before impact.
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3476 posts, RR: 6 Reply 32, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 47928 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 26): Quoting NAV20 (Reply 13):
The airplane went down vertically plunging into the ocean
Completely wrong : The French words were " l'avion a heurté la surfacec de l'eau en ligne de vol mais avec une composante verticale forte"
Wow ! This is absolutely not the same level of precision. The French original version is very clear that the plane fell down but didn't nose dive into the sea.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 35, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 47279 times:
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 40): Wow ! This is absolutely not the same level of precision. The French original version is very clear that the plane fell down but didn't nose dive into the sea.
Please see my earlier post, Sebolino - I didn't 'say' that, I just quoted the Aviation Herald site as saying that........
In any case, I've repeatedly said, over the last few days, that IMO it doesn't matter a damn whether the aeroplane broke up or nosedived or 'pancaked' - except that, as I've also said, in the former case we can at least be sure that the 'PBP' - 'Poor Bloody Passengers' - died a somewhat more merciful death than being conscious all the way down......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Osteogenesis From Germany, joined May 2003, 564 posts, RR: 4 Reply 37, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 47089 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 42): I don't think a lot of people, including news media rewriters, under stand the concept of a flat spin or steep vertical component without a nose dive.
Well then they should not write about it.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 20): Many thanks to the Aviation Herald for being, in General Nathan Forrest's famous words during the American Civil War, "Firstest with the mostest...."
Fast but not acurate.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 32): Thing is, the whole darned 'conference' brings us not one inch (or even a centimetre!) closer to knowing how and why 228 people died....
I suggest that we all first analyse what has been said and then we see how much new things we have learned. I can see pretty much new information so far.
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 46847 times:
Does this information implicate the aircraft was actually in a flat spin, probably caused by a stall? Can this flat spin have anything to do with the RUD LIM fault?
Ogre727 From Switzerland, joined Feb 2005, 429 posts, RR: 1 Reply 39, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 46909 times:
"The Air France plane that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off Brazil last month with 228 people aboard "did not break up or become destroyed in flight," the French air investigation agency announced Thursday. Flight 447 "went straight down, almost vertically, towards the surface of the water, very very fast," air accident investigator Alain Bouillard told reporters at a news conference in Paris. full story"
This is from CNN.... it does seem to imply a nose dive... I am not saying that this is correct, but what can be implied.
Golftango From United States, joined Feb 2006, 261 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 46853 times:
Quoting AF2323 (Reply 22): May I remember you the crash of the NZ A320 near Perpignan last year? Nose dive into the sea, but bodies and tail fin recovered.
Apples to Oranges. That A320 was at 3,000 feet and hit the water with a 14 degree nose down pitch. AF447 was at cruise altitude and would have hit the water at a much greater speed and velocity.
I'm still calling shenanigans on this new finding.
GRIVely From United States, joined Dec 2006, 116 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 45468 times:
This is a very puzzling case. It seems the more we hear the less we understand. Let's see:
It wasn't weather, according to the latest theories.
The pitot tubes weren't really the main cause.
The plane didn't break up in mid-air but rather struck the water in a flat attitude but with a large vertical component.
Okay. Lot's of questions for the investigators.
What was the cause then?
Was the aircraft rotating (flat spin) on the way down and just happened to hit the water facing the original heading (in the direction of flight according to the BEA) that certainly sounds like a fantastic coincidence. If it wasn't rotating at a high RPM what state was it in?
How great WAS the vertical component? And how do you get that much vertical component if the aircraft was level when it hit the water? Had the wings come off?
The way this is being reported at the moment will certainly add to the average listener/reader/viewer's impression that the plane "just fell out of the sky for no apparent reason." That is not going to add to their confidence flying on airplanes.
Let us hope we can learn more about this so that all of us can have our minds convinced this is not an endemic problem.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4555 posts, RR: 60 Reply 44, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 45249 times:
Many has said, hitting water at high speed is like hitting concrete...
Prior to this preliminary brief, we were stuck at 2 possible scenarios...
1. High Speed inflight breakup in a dive, then broke up
2. High vertical speed, low longitudinal & lateral speed on water impact.
Based on the wreckage the discussions we had, largely already dismissed breakup at cruise altitude.
The clues into the wreckage provided enough to narrow it down to those 2, but, of course, doesn't solve the whole mystery. The investigators had more info... obviously.
What supports #2 above was the galleys, the cabin crew bulkhead & seats, and the lineral crumpling of the LDMCRM...
The tailfin did show signs of rotational motion on separation, but did was inconclusive at our level of information.
In our roughly 6000 posts so far, the truth lies somewhere within and often between the lines, and the preliminary findings support such opinion.
Despite the fights, post deletions, debates, wild goose chases, etc, take a look back at those 6000 posts or so, and realize the quality of most of the posts, as proof that, despite all of us being a loose collection of theorists, conspiracists, professionals, self loading freight, armchair pilots/ceos/etc, by discussing it in a coherent manner, analysing the information that came out in a systematic manner, does bring the discussion into something not too far from what the investigators found... Only that, we are NOT the investigators..
I am not going to laugh at those who were wrong, and I'm not going to gloat on what I wrote or what those who wrote what turned out to be close to the truth so far, but all of us played a role into bringing the discussion closer to the findings, regardless of one's position or whose side of the fence you're on... Why? For me, I find what I analyzed to be close, and there are still stuff that I and those that are involved in the discussions with me outside this forum have not disclosed... but if it wasn't for the people who argued from the other side, I wouldn't get anywhere near what I wrote.
There are still heaps of stuff I'd like to churn through... who knows what those will bring us towards, we hope it'll be closer to the truth, and we can then gauge the quality of the good work the investigators have done, are doing, and will continue to do.
Quoting HangarRat (Reply 31): What I got from a read of the CNN story is that the plane "pancaked" into the sea. I think that's the key concept here -- not a nose dive, but a belly flop. Am I wrong.
Pancaked/bellyflopped...
I wish I can show you some of the private discussions... *sigh*
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 32): Perfectly possible, Pihero. Thing is, the whole darned 'conference' brings us not one inch (or even a centimetre!) closer to knowing how and why 228 people died....
NAV, read what I wrote above... We were somewhere near there all along, it's just that you didn't realize it... And we got there thanks to you too! There are still some interesting points you raised that needed a look into (not going to disclose what that is, in case you gloat! LOL, Just Kidding about the last part mate!)
Quoting Golftango (Reply 41): I'm still calling shenanigans on this new finding.
Oh that's a pity... but then, no one's gonna stop you
So, let's continue, we now have a new basis to continue the discussions/analysis/rants/whathaveyou...
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 45, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 44954 times:
From the BEA report - English translation
Quote: Sailors from the Frigate Ventôse recovered about thirty bodies. A visual examination of the bodies showed that they were clothed and relatively well preserved.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 46, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 45097 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 40): For those interested, the BEA has just published the interim report HERE
Thanks, Pihero. Read it through, and a few sentences sort of 'leapt out' at me:-
"1.13 Medical and Pathological Information
"Sailors from the Frigate Ventôse recovered about thirty bodies. A visual examination of the
bodies showed that they were clothed and relatively well preserved. All of them were handed
over to the Brazilian Navy to be transferred to the Recife morgue.
"At this stage of the investigation, the BEA has not yet had access to the autopsy data."
Just plain mystifies me.......the pathological findings are absolutely crucial to finding out what happened in this case. In particular, did the people concerned die by asphyxiation or by drowning? Did they inhale smoke, suggesting terrorism? If they suffered fractures, again, were those before or after death, or simultaneous with it?
'Jumping the gun,' maybe, I'm rapidly becoming famous for it. But it seems to point to a complete lack of cooperation between the French investigators and the Brazilian ones. Not to mention the US NTSB...........
Honestly at a loss....................
[Edited 2009-07-02 09:21:21]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 47, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 44814 times:
Regarding the 'panic' of the NTSB in investigating A330 speed issues - from the BEA report
Quote: The BEA asked Airbus, the NTSB, IATA, the DGAC and all French operators to provide
information relative to incidents in cruise flight during which a loss or inconsistency of speed
indications was observed or reported by the crew. The collection of this information is ongoing
and analysis of the events already received is in progress.
The NTSB is investigating A330 incidents at the REQUEST of BEA.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 44584 times:
Quoting Golftango (Reply 41): Apples to Oranges. That A320 was at 3,000 feet and hit the water with a 14 degree nose down pitch. AF447 was at cruise altitude and would have hit the water at a much greater speed and velocity.
You do not know what speed it hit the water. Its not like the plane necessarily dropped out of the sky; nose dive, flat spin, flying in control but losing height would all result in very different speeds. AF447 might well have hit the sea slower than the A320. Or faster. It all depends on what happened before.
Quoting Golftango (Reply 41): I'm still calling shenanigans on this new finding.
That's your choice. However, the BEA report does give us significant new information.
In any case, I think we all are focusing a bit too much on the end of the accident. What's far more important is why did it flat spin (if that's what it did)?
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 49, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 44451 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46): Just plain mystifies me.......the pathological findings are absolutely crucial to finding out what happened in this case. In particular, did the people concerned die by asphyxiation or by drowning? Did they inhale smoke, suggesting terrorism? If they suffered fractures, again, were those before or after death, or simultaneous with it?
This is only an early preliminary report - of the investigation and the actions of only one of the agencies / countries involved in the fact gathering.
This is no where near a comprehensive report of the entire investigation.
The Brazilian authorities will release the pathological results in accordance with their procedures. This type of thing occurs all the time when accidents involve multiple jurisdictions.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 50, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 44291 times:
Regarding communications with the missing plane - and how 'easy' or 'hard' it is to communicate in that region - from page 66 of the report describing AF459 which was approx 37 min behind the missing plane
Quote: At about 2 h 00, he observed a first echo that differed significantly depending on whether the radar’s gain was in CAL or MAX mode. The TILT was set between -1° and 1.5°. He decided to take evasive action to the west, which resulted in a deviation of 20 NM to the left of the route.
ATLANTICO control, informed by the crew of their decision to avoid this squall line by taking evasive action to the east, asked them to return to the airway as soon as they could. This evasive action meant the aircraft flew between 70 and 80 NM to the right of the planned
route. In addition, the crew was authorised to climb from FL350 to FL370.
On leaving the ATLANTICO FIR, through the TASIL waypoint, the crew attempted in vain to contact Dakar control in HF on the 5565 KHz and 6535 KHz frequencies, and on the other HF frequencies given in the on-board documentation. Likewise, the attempted ADS-C
connection was unfruitful.
The crew returned to the airway around the ASEBA waypoint, that is to say more than 28
minutes after the first theoretical contact with Dakar control. They reported slight turbulence
on the edge of the convective zone.
Radio contact was established with Dakar control at about 3 h 45, close to the SAGMA
waypoint. The SELCAL test was performed and the controller asked the crew to try to
contact AF447. Several attempts were made on various HF frequencies, and then on 121.5
MHz and 123.45 MHz, without any success.
This second Air France plane was unable to contact Dakar for somewhere up to 105 minutes - possibly as short as 80-90 minutes.
This was the time period in which the AF447 aircraft went down.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 43835 times:
Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 51): If it went into a flat spin, could that have been the result of the tail snapping off (ala AA587) due to turbulence?
The BEA report describes the tail fin damage - both the damage caused during the recovery and that presumably in the separation. Page 35 which photos
Quote: The tail fin was damaged during its recovery and transport but the photographs available
made it possible to identify the damage that was not the result of the accident. The middle
and rear fasteners with the related fragments of the fuselage hoop frames were present in
the fin base. The distortions of the frames showed that they broke during a forward motion
with a slight twisting component towards the left.
So I would say NO - this is conclusive that the tail fin did not separate from the aircraft in the manner of the AAL aircraft.
The middle and rear "fuselage hoop frames" are intact on the AF tail fin, though distorted.
Pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 448 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 43442 times:
We are really lost in enterpreting.
The Russian News Channel translated the press conference live.
But translation was pretty bad: they constantly mixed up feet and meter, radio bands and many other things.
What got:
- mid-air break up is ruled out;
- aircraft made what in English is well expressed by "belly flop" with high vertical speed;
- high (negative, obviously) vertical speed didn't mean nose dive; it was high - but how high it was not suggested. Clearly high to classify it as resulted in catastrophe. But not high for breaking everyhting into a million of pieces.
- pitot tubes might contribute - but could not cause the disaster.
- HF radio transmission was disturbed by storm.
Nothing new - but based on that we can rule out mid-air break-up - what we had started from 19 pages ago.
AirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 43061 times:
Wouldn't a flat spin induce some pretty unreliable airspeed data? Maybe this was only a symptom of the aircraft being out of control and not the reason. The 4 Minutes from 2:10 to 2:14 would be the about time needed to "spin" down from cruising altitude...
So 20 threads of discussion about faulty pitot tubes for nothing. Coffin Corner anyone?
ULMFlyer From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 319 posts, RR: 1 Reply 55, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 43098 times:
When I read the "straight down, almost vertically" quote (attributed to Reuters) on Avweb this morning, I almost spilled my coffee on the keyboard. Especially in view of the captain's body having been recovered and what is known from SR111. So, thanks Pihero for the corrections of all mistranslations.
After skimming through the BEA report, I found no mention of the supposed "forte turbulence" PIREP. I've been trying to catch up with the PPRUNE thread and up to p.80, there was still considerable doubt about whether this PIREP was factual. It seemed to have originated in a Brazilian media report where a FAB official was quoted as saying that AF had told them about this communication from flight 447. So, is it now correct to assume now that this never happened?
Avweb also reports that searches for the CVR and DFDR are supposed to end on July 10th. I sure hope this is another mistake and found nothing supporting it on the report.
Canoecarrier From United States, joined Feb 2004, 765 posts, RR: 2 Reply 56, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42865 times:
Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 55): Avweb also reports that searches for the CVR and DFDR are supposed to end on July 10th. I sure hope this is another mistake and found nothing supporting it on the report.
Kieran is reporting that during the conference they said that a second phase of the search using different methods (e.g., uautonomous underwater vehicle) will begin on the 14th of July.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6935 posts, RR: 9 Reply 57, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42611 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46): "At this stage of the investigation, the BEA has not yet had access to the autopsy data."
Just plain mystifies me.......the pathological findings are absolutely crucial to finding out what happened in this case. In particular, did the people concerned die by asphyxiation or by drowning? Did they inhale smoke, suggesting terrorism? If they suffered fractures, again, were those before or after death, or simultaneous with it?
Valid point. I cant believe that the BEA has not has had access to autopsy data yet. If thats true, then either
- the Brazilian forensic doctors are veeeerrrry slow or veeeery bad (unlikely), or
- the communication between the two investgating authorities is very bad, or
- they dont tell the truth in this respect
That they dont have any info about the autopsy data three weeks after the first bodies were recovered is impossible - as the autopsy of these bodies will have happened at least two weeks ago.
Golftango From United States, joined Feb 2006, 261 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42545 times:
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 48):
You do not know what speed it hit the water. Its not like the plane necessarily dropped out of the sky; nose dive, flat spin, flying in control but losing height would all result in very different speeds. AF447 might well have hit the sea slower than the A320. Or faster. It all depends on what happened before.
Quoting Golftango (Reply 41):
I'm still calling shenanigans on this new finding.
That's your choice. However, the BEA report does give us significant new information.
In any case, I think we all are focusing a bit too much on the end of the accident. What's far more important is why did it flat spin (if that's what it did)?
Now that I understand this was more or less a flat spin, then I retract this. I was reacting to the source that this was a nose down plunge into the sea.
Goooooaaal From United States, joined Apr 2000, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42205 times:
surprising to me that if it was not a mid air breakup, and it hit the water at high vertical velocity, that the bodies that were found were in such relatively good condition, unlike the remains found in SA111. Also, knowing that the AF flight from Sau Paolo was unable to reach anybody via HF transmission, it would not surprise me at all if AF 447 made attempts to communicate its situation as the tragedy unfolded, only that these messages were never heard. But we will only know for sure with the recovery of the CVR.
Spacecadet From United States, joined Sep 2001, 2057 posts, RR: 20 Reply 60, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42162 times:
Quoting Ogre727 (Reply 39): This is from CNN.... it does seem to imply a nose dive... I am not saying that this is correct, but what can be implied.
The CNN article I'm reading right now says this directly after the part you quoted:
Based on visual study of the physical remains of the Airbus A330 that have been recovered, "we were able to see that the plane hit the surface of the water flat. Therefore everything was pushed upwards -- everything was pushed from the bottom to the top" of the plane, he said.
That's pretty clear, I think.
And it seems that those of us who were arguing not to jump to conclusions about the plane breaking up in the air were correct.
Those of you still arguing that the plane might have broken apart and that this evidence is not definitive need to disavow yourselves of your preconceptions right now. This is an official report by the official investigative body.
It crashed intact.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Giopan1975 From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41877 times:
Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 55): I found no mention of the supposed "forte turbulence"
No mention at all! How come? Also, AF447 seems to be the only flight not avoiding big cloud masses.
What impresses me a lot is that the two co-pilots were ONLY 32 and 37 years old, the younger one with experience of only 5 South America rotations. Imagine you are flown in the middle of the night, stormy weather, over the Atlantic Ocean by two 34-year-old boys. I am 34 and I would have been nervous had I known the age of the guys in front. I remember a MAD-GIG flight on an Iberia A340, after landing in Rio I noticed the two members of the crew walking by us passengers waiting for luggage, whom I recognized as captain-copilot. They were both over 50 years old and looked really, really tired as if the flight had required lots of their attention. I also remember flying inside thick clouds - light turbulence - no lightning - all the way from Recife to GIG.
Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 54): So 20 threads of discussion about faulty pitot tubes for nothing.
Why for nothing?? Faulty airspeed readings, apparently deriving from unreliable tubes, were actually present and are still very probable major contributing factors.
Are they suggesting that the plane hit the water in either a flat-belly or a vertical nose dive pattern?
777Daedalus From Brazil, joined Oct 2005, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41843 times:
Wih respect to today's BEA transcript, can any pilots comment on the degree of "back and forth" between ATLANTICO - DAKAR centres (and other centres) after AF447 failed to report at TASIL. Did too much time elapse before AF centre was notified of possible missing plane? Of course we do not have the actual transcripts between centers but some of the communication sounds redundant / casual / inefficient / not worried about the situation. Let me preface by saying this is simply my impression of the ATC centres' communication based on no technical knowledge of my own.
Also, thanks to Pihero and Mandala for their astute observations - made the BEA report much easier to understand.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4555 posts, RR: 60 Reply 63, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41934 times:
Just like to point out the following:
We have FPV unavailable and ATC Altitude Report leading to TCAS fail... I seem to have missed this... after looking for other things apart from pitot problems...
Static ports affected???
It looks like the altitude data portion of the ADRs were rejected or self rejected by the ADRs themselves?
And the pitots require statics to get the speed...
Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 53): Nothing new - but based on that we can rule out mid-air break-up - what we had started from 19 pages ago.
Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 54): So 20 threads of discussion about faulty pitot tubes for nothing. Coffin Corner anyone?
No... problems from pitot tubes is a factor, but was not what brought the plane down (we ruled that out too a while ago)
Coffin corner? We ruled that out a while ago too...
Note, that the max alt here is max recommended alt... it gives more than adequate stall margin..., for you to stall at 0.82 or thereabouts means at 210Tons, you'd be above FL400... (1.3G stall margin @ 0.82)... and the max mach speed for the 330, is definitely NOT M0.82!
Enough coffin corner discussions! If stall means coffin corner, I guess you stalling at 10ft above sea level is coffin corner? Wide corner eh? If you say coffin side curbs then yes, but coffin corner? NO.
Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 55): After skimming through the BEA report, I found no mention of the supposed "forte turbulence" PIREP. I've been trying to catch up with the PPRUNE thread and up to p.80, there was still considerable doubt about whether this PIREP was factual. It seemed to have originated in a Brazilian media report where a FAB official was quoted as saying that AF had told them about this communication from flight 447. So, is it now correct to assume now that this never happened?
Someone mentioned there that the press conference stated that no such communications occured (hence not in the report). If it did, maybe it was AF449 instead.
Quoting Golftango (Reply 58): Now that I understand this was more or less a flat spin, then I retract this. I was reacting to the source that this was a nose down plunge into the sea.
Well, dun worry about it too much...
This does pose the question... WHY did they literally bellyflopped?
They're likely to have lost speed somehow, and this leads back to the major difference between F-OFDF's case, and F-GZCP's case...
F-OFDF had switched off their A/T in turbulence. F-GZCP had their A/T on which gave the A/T OFF message. What was the N1?
Could it be that the aircraft's last moment under autothrottle gave a higher than desired speed resulting in a lower N1 than was actually needed? But then, the speed decay should have been slow, and as the aircraft slowed, the trim would have been spinning up as the aircraft tried to maintain level flight (and 1 G), and they believed the stall warning was false because, theoretically, they should have had the pitch-thrust relationship... but they didn't... Would 3 minutes be enough to cause a loss of speed to such magnitude? (of course, they weren't chatting, but could have been distracted by doing the ECAMs or required procedures).
Just a wild idea... (there are still other possibilities of (if I may use the term) transition into phase 3 of the accident)...
The report covered Phase 1, parts of Transition A, and Phase 3... nothing substantial on Phase 2 and nothing on transition B... Not surprising, need the CVR for that.
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Spacecadet From United States, joined Sep 2001, 2057 posts, RR: 20 Reply 64, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41060 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 61): Are they suggesting that the plane hit the water in either a flat-belly or a vertical nose dive pattern?
No. They are clearly stating it hit the water in a belly flop. They provide visual evidence of the wreckage to support the claim in the report, including a section of floor that has been crumpled upwards, a galley with racks that have been pushed straight downwards, and a lavatory door with crumple damage on the bottom.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 65, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 40983 times:
Quoting 777Daedalus (Reply 62): Wih respect to today's BEA transcript, can any pilots comment on the degree of "back and forth" between ATLANTICO - DAKAR centres (and other centres) after AF447 failed to report at TASIL. Did too much time elapse before AF centre was notified of possible missing plane? Of course we do not have the actual transcripts between centers but some of the communication sounds redundant / casual / inefficient / not worried about the situation. Let me preface by saying this is simply my impression of the ATC centres' communication based on no technical knowledge of my own.
There was a lot of back and forth spread over HOURS.
To me the one big missing question is how many other aircraft did Dakar or Atlantico or SAL have trouble contacting? Was AF447 the only plane out of contact, or where there others?
Was their similar question about the location and lack of contact with AF459?
I also note that at 0420 - AF459 told Dakar that Air France (HQ?) had been made aware that AF447 was out of contact with ATC.
Air France tried to contact AF447 at 0424. Finally at 0550 - Air France contacted the SARSAT centre.
At 0741 - when the plane had been out of contact for five hours and 21 minutes - DAKAR contacted the Dakar Rescue Control Centre.
While I fully understand the difficult of corrdination and verification, having dealt with similar incidents in the Pacific.
Five hours is a long period of time.
I wonder when/ if Air France operations noted they had not received anything from the aircraft after 0210. I was not aware until this report that AF had the aircraft setup to send automated position reports every 10 minutes.
Airzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 959 posts, RR: 2 Reply 66, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 40762 times:
I've been privy to some speculative chatter in the pilot community particularly since the NW incident from HKG-NRT.
The consensus from these Boeing and Airbus pilots is the fate of the AF jet is same as the AA accident at JFK. The pilots over-stressed the rudder causing the tail to separate from the fuselage during severe turbulence. Multiple factors occurred at the same time which precipitated this tragic event. This would also explain the fuselage remaining intact during rapid decent to the ocean.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4794 posts, RR: 65 Reply 67, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 40766 times:
Quoting Golftango (Reply 58): Now that I understand this was more or less a flat spin, then I retract this.
I would strongly suggest that the aircraft was not in a spin, a large airliners are very very stable. US Airways flight 1549 exhibited crushing of the under floor area, and that was a reasonably controlled ditching done in a frailly calm river during the day, it was not in the open ocean, at night, with a reasonably sea state with little or no horizon to judge when to flare. We see enough hard landings at airports from pilots misjudging normal landings , in those conditions we have seen aircraft register high rates of descent and "g" when hitting the runway.
I am not suggesting for a second that AF447 was or was not in the process of a controlled ditching, just that if I were to put myself in that position, it would be very difficult to correctly judge when to flare if you were to ditching in those conditions.
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 60):
And it seems that those of us who were arguing not to jump to conclusions about the plane breaking up in the air were correct.
Thank you.
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 63): And the pitots require statics to get the speed...
Only CAS, not needed for mach number, and the aircraft has 6 static ports, very unlikely they all became blocked.
What I was happy in a way to see was the radome pieces, a destroyed radome could have explained many airspeed related problems, it rules out that avenue as well.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Spacecadet From United States, joined Sep 2001, 2057 posts, RR: 20 Reply 68, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 40321 times:
Quoting Airzim (Reply 66): The consensus from these Boeing and Airbus pilots is the fate of the AF jet is same as the AA accident at JFK. The pilots over-stressed the rudder causing the tail to separate from the fuselage during severe turbulence. Multiple factors occurred at the same time which precipitated this tragic event. This would also explain the fuselage remaining intact during rapid decent to the ocean.
Except that this did not happen. Read the report. It's linked above. The tail was torn off by impact forces, just like every other piece of the plane that's been found so far. This airplane crashed intact into the ocean.
There is no use anymore for speculation on many of these matters that we've gone over for the past 20 pages. Some things that now need to be put to rest:
a) The airplane did not break up in flight
b) The tail did not come off in flight
c) The passengers were not all naked (at least 30 were found clothed)
d) The airplane did not deviate course, which at least three other flights in the area did
There are still many unanswered questions to talk about, including what actually caused the accident. But a lot of the questions we had that could have pointed us in one direction or the other have now been answered, definitively.
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 65): To me the one big missing question is how many other aircraft did Dakar or Atlantico or SAL have trouble contacting? Was AF447 the only plane out of contact, or where there others?
According to the report, all of the other flights that went through the area around that same time had trouble contacting Dakar. This seems like it should be considered a pretty big problem. Who knows if there could have been survivors of this accident if only ATC had been in contact with it and known that it was down?
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Jokestar From Australia, joined Apr 2008, 123 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 40253 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 61): What impresses me a lot is that the two co-pilots were ONLY 32 and 37 years old, the younger one with experience of only 5 South America rotations. Imagine you are flown in the middle of the night, stormy weather, over the Atlantic Ocean by two 34-year-old boys. I am 34 and I would have been nervous had I known the age of the guys in front.
I'm 18 and currently hold 158 hours of flying time, having flown since I was 15. If I'm still flying when I'm 34, I will have 19 years of experience behind me. I hope to be in an airline by the time I'm 25 and there's nothing to say that these pilots weren't the same, if not more experienced. Why would you not trust someone who has at least 10 years in the cockpit of jet airliners? Those guys were trained to do their job as well as anyone else and I would trust them just as much as a check captain at cruise level.
Widebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1126 posts, RR: 11 Reply 70, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 40051 times:
Quoting Airzim (Reply 66): I've been privy to some speculative chatter in the pilot community particularly since the NW incident from HKG-NRT.
The consensus from these Boeing and Airbus pilots is the fate of the AF jet is same as the AA accident at JFK. The pilots over-stressed the rudder causing the tail to separate from the fuselage during severe turbulence. Multiple factors occurred at the same time which precipitated this tragic event. This would also explain the fuselage remaining intact during rapid decent to the ocean.
This is potentially devastating for Airbus.
You'd better tell your pilot friends to update their training then. The A330 has built in protection against this possibility, the A300 didn't. And this incident occurred in cruise. No pilot worth their salt would suggest the facts known so far imply a rudder detachment.
Wexfordflyer From Ireland, joined Jun 2009, 205 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 39275 times:
Not sure if this has been metioned already. I have had a look back through but you will appreciate there is an awful lot to trawl through. Has there been any mention of the nationalities of the bodies found?? I thought I heard something on the radio last night that one of the bodies was irish but i was only half listening so am not sure.
Come with me, there's a place I want you to see, where the leaves are dark, I've got a hiding place in central park.
Airzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 959 posts, RR: 2 Reply 72, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 39439 times:
Explain why the tail was 50 miles from the rest of the wreckage. Please find e-mail below. I have redacted the name of the author and pilot. I continue to have serious reservations regarding the on board computers on Airbus aircraft.
*******The problem I suspect is the pitot tubes ice over and you loose your airspeed indication along with the auto pilot, auto throttles and rudder limit protection. The rudder limit protection keeps you from over stressing the rudder at high speed.*******
Synopsis;
Tuesday 23, 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT. Entering Nara Japan airspace.
FL390 mostly clear with occasional isolated areas of rain, clouds tops about FL410.
Outside air temperature was -50C TAT -21C (your not supposed to get liquid water at these temps). We did.
As we were following other aircraft along our route. We approached a large area of rain below us. Tilting the weather radar down we could see the heavy rain below, displayed in red. At our altitude the radar indicated green or light precipitation, most likely ice crystals we thought.
Entering the cloud tops we experienced just light to moderate turbulence. (The winds were around 30kts at altitude.) After about 15 sec. we encountered moderate rain. We thought it odd to have rain streaming up the windshield at this altitude and the sound of the plane getting pelted like an aluminum garage door. It got very warm and humid in the cockpit all of a sudden.
Five seconds later the Captains, First Officers, and standby airspeed indicators rolled back to 60kts. The auto pilot and auto throttles disengaged. The Master Warning and Master Caution flashed, and the sounds of chirps and clicks letting us know these things were happening.
"REDACTED", the Capt. hand flew the plane on the shortest vector out of the rain. The airspeed indicators briefly came back but failed again. The failure lasted for THREE minutes. We flew the recommended 83%N1 power setting. When the airspeed indicators came back. we were within 5 knots of our desired speed. Everything returned to normal except for the computer logic controlling the plane. (We were in alternate law for the rest of the flight.)
We had good conditions for the failure; daylight, we were rested, relatively small area, and light turbulence. I think it could have been much worse. "REDACTED" did a great job fly and staying cool. We did our procedures called dispatch and maintenance on the SAT COM and landed in Narita. That's it."
Airzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 959 posts, RR: 2 Reply 73, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 39191 times:
Quoting Widebody (Reply 70): You'd better tell your pilot friends to update their training then. The A330 has built in protection against this possibility, the A300 didn't. And this incident occurred in cruise. No pilot worth their salt would suggest the facts known so far imply a rudder detachment.
Pliersinsight From United States, joined May 2008, 194 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 39207 times:
Quoting GRIVely (Reply 43): How great WAS the vertical component? And how do you get that much vertical component if the aircraft was level when it hit the water? Had the wings come off?
Reminds me of Private training when I first started doing stalls and was once or twice was stupidly thinking I could feel the slowdown without checking airspeed ...the nose appears pretty level on the HSI because you have a touch of back pressure in to slow for the manuver, but if you wait much too long and don't pitch up enough for the stall, the airspeed is actually hanging just above stall speed...but the vertical speed is down is massive....just falling out of the sky in a level attitude with little forward speed.
A question for the experts, can you pull the same kind of manuver in a airbus, sort of nose level, wings level, reduced power and with a big descent rate..sort of any area much below best glide speed but still above stall speed?
KPIT - More daily touch and go departures than any other Class B airport.
LTC8K6 From United States, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 38581 times:
Quoting Airzim (Reply 72): The problem I suspect is the pitot tubes ice over and you loose your airspeed indication along with the auto pilot, auto throttles and rudder limit protection. The rudder limit protection keeps you from over stressing the rudder at high speed.
Why would a pilot repeat the error about losing rudder limits?
I know little about how Airbus FBW works at all. But even I understand that the protection system doesn't just quit because it lost data. It uses the last good data that it has and uses that to provide rudder travel limiting.
Sniffmom From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 38330 times:
Quoting Wexfordflyer (Reply 71): Has there been any mention of the nationalities of the bodies found?? I thought I heard something on the radio last night that one of the bodies was irish but i was only half listening so am not sure.
I haven't seen any figures lately for how many having been identified. The last number I saw was 14, and that was (according to FAB website) inclusive of the two French crewmembers. Other than that, it has been stated in the media that several embassies on behalf of the victims' families have asked the Brazilian authorities not to reveal the nationalities of the ones identified.
Cyberflyer From United States, joined Aug 2001, 44 posts, RR: 2 Reply 79, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 38177 times:
I am not buying any of this. They recovered bodies? From a "vertical" carsh? No way bodies, in any part survive. Hitting water is worse than htting concrete. There would be no body parts.
Spacecadet From United States, joined Sep 2001, 2057 posts, RR: 20 Reply 81, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 37174 times:
Quoting Airzim (Reply 72): Explain why the tail was 50 miles from the rest of the wreckage.
You obviously did not do what I asked you to do in my last reply and read the report. That's all you need to do. It will answer all of your questions, it will do so authoritatively, and it will do so much more quickly than posting a bunch of uninformed stuff in a discussion forum and then waiting for a reply from people who are third degree removed from the investigation.
The answer to this one is, as someone else said, that it was not found 50 miles from the rest of the wreckage. It was found almost directly in the middle of the debris field.
I'm sorry if I am coming off as a little irritated. But I see this in every thread about every accident: the throwing out of "facts" that are in fact not facts, and the questioning of things by people who have obviously not read the official accident report that are answered and explained clearly in said accident report. I have no patience for this type of "discussion". It is actually kind of insulting both to the people here and to the official accident investigators. Are you smarter than them? Do you have information that they don't? If not, then you should not be questioning them, nor insulting the intelligence of those of us who have put our faith in them.
Speculation is one thing and it is fine. I do it, other people do it, there's no problem with that in the absence of facts. But once those facts are known, you digest them, you accept them and you move on. It is time for you to come up with a new narrative that fits the facts that are now known.
Quoting Cyberflyer (Reply 79): I am not buying any of this. They recovered bodies? From a "vertical" carsh? No way bodies, in any part survive. Hitting water is worse than htting concrete. There would be no body parts.
And, cue the conspiracy theorists... (rolls eyes)
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Movingtin From United States, joined Oct 2006, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 36879 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 44): Many has said, hitting water at high speed is like hitting concrete
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 44): What supports #2 above was the galleys, the cabin crew bulkhead & seats, and the lineral crumpling of the LDMCRM...
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 68): Except that this did not happen. Read the report. It's linked above. The tail was torn off by impact forces, just like every other piece of the plane that's been found so far. This airplane crashed intact into the ocean.
I for one, am not going to just accept a preliminary report as the gospel truth, when in fact they have virtually no hard evidence at all, much less the CVR/FDR. I am still not ready to buy the fully intact A/C pancaking into the water, Several large pieces OK, but not a fully intact A/C.
look at the pictures of the Mid Galley and explain to me the upward crushing evidence on that galley! Galley's are made of Composite panels glued/screwed together, they are made as light as possible. The LH mount is PULLED from the composite panel, the RH mount still has the floor structure attached to it, how could an upward force not have crushed the composite sidewalls at the mounts? how come the shelves are fully intact, yet they are full of several 100 lbs of catering supplies that should have ripped right thru them ?
Spacecadet From United States, joined Sep 2001, 2057 posts, RR: 20 Reply 83, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 36725 times:
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 82): I for one, am not going to just accept a preliminary report as the gospel truth, when in fact they have virtually no hard evidence at all, much less the CVR/FDR.
Yes, they have no hard evidence except the wreckage of the tail. Criminy.
I'm done with this. The investigative team has dozens of engineers specializing in metallurgy and with many years of experience in dealing with accidents. Yet you claim by implication to be smarter than them. Well, great. Believe what you want, based on absolutely no first-hand knowledge or experience, absolutely no examination of the physical evidence and absolutely no training in the field in question. Clearly, you are uniquely qualified to say that the engineers who have examined this piece of wreckage up close, both with their trained eyes and using advanced equipment, and have come to the conclusion that the tail detached from impact forces acting in a forward direction are wrong.
Facts are facts. A tail that broke off from an impact force acting in the forward direction is not suddenly going to change to an aerodynamic force acting in the opposite direction based on some new evidence. If you take a piece of metal and break it, it is pretty easy to tell what broke it and in what direction, and nothing is going to change that. If you can accept neither that common-sense lay-person's explanation nor the explanation by the scientists involved in this investigation, then there is no use discussing it further because clearly the world is flat to you.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Movingtin From United States, joined Oct 2006, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 36593 times:
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 76): It uses the last good data that it has and uses that to provide rudder travel limiting.
The problem with that is the only way it knows its good is comparing to itself to another, what if they both are wrong? Which goes back to the fact that we have know way of knowing how much rudder travel they were given.
Movingtin From United States, joined Oct 2006, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 36271 times:
[/quote]
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 68):
Except that this did not happen. Read the report. It's linked above. The tail was torn off by impact forces, just like every other piece of the plane that's been found so far. This airplane crashed intact into the ocean.
I for one, am not going to just accept a preliminary report as the gospel truth, when in fact they have virtually no hard evidence at all, much less the CVR/FDR. I am still not ready to buy the fully intact A/C pancaking into the water, Several large pieces OK, but not a fully intact A/C.[/quote]
If you read what I SAID, not what you think I said, you would see I am talking about the their conclusion that it pancaked in, which you have matter of factly said in your quote above!
Movingtin From United States, joined Oct 2006, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 87, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 36083 times:
looking at the pictures of the Galley laying on the ship, the 2 upper galley stabilizing attach points look to me as if they have been bent sideways, if the floor was coming up due to a pancake, i would expect to see these mounts pushed completly thru the top of the composite ceiling of the galley.
Picture taken from:
blog.flightstory.net/category/aviation-safety/
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 63 Reply 89, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 34812 times:
I had time to watch the press conference on BFM-TV this afternoon before going to work and the BEA spokesman, Alain Bouillard confirmed quite a few things :
Flight preparation was as usual, the only maintenance item was an unserviceable RMP, which they swapped with # 3 and MELed as such.
Take off within 250 kg of max TOW which gave a weight of ~ 205 tonnes at the moment of the accident. (So forget any "coffin corner issue" and see Mandala's post above.)
The crew had programmed an automatic position report to AF base every 10 minutes, which again confirm Mandala's "last position report" at 0210Z as close to the exit of the convective area.
There had been no message or communication about a "strong" turbulence encountered by AF447. (Is this a case of mistaken identity with AF459 ? )
The maintenance ACARS messages are just a part of all the ACARS use by the crew ( weather requests and responses, OPS messages...etc...)
640 pieces of the aircraft structure or cabin furniture were retrieved, from all zones of the aircraft : vertical fin, pieces of elevator, flap canoe fairing, pieces of the radome...etc...
On the vertical fin subject, it was found still attached to the failed structure. Its examination revealed that it had been torn in a straight aft-to-forward movement with a very weak lateral left component. The cabin pieces of furniture - J galley, the LDMCR, the doors...- all present deformations indicative of a vertical moment.
The investigators have now determined that there was no in-flight break-up and that the airplane seemed to have hit the water "en ligne de vol" with a strong vertical deceleration.
The pinger search will be continued until July 10 and from July 14 onwards, a new search will be started with new means and methods.
In the prelim document there is a vast load of information that we need to sieve through and the 75 page annexes need to be studied carefully.
One information - about the 10 minute position report vs the 0215Z last message - allows us to narrow the moment of the crash between 0215 and 0220Z. We need some very careful hypothesis and speculation on that period. We need another look and update of Mandala's chain of events.
On a personal level, and considering the pre-flight activities (in particular the fuel planning), the R/T transcripts and the deliberate use of the ACARS system for weather queries, that crew was well ahead of the aircraft. The attempts to get Dakar on ADS C at 0201Z, for an FIR penetration 20 minutes later confirm that they were"on the ball"...
More later...
P.S : to Giopan : the wx synoptic chart used at pre-flight is in one of the annexes !
Air France Flight 447 slammed into the Atlantic Ocean, intact and belly first, at such a high speed that the 228 people aboard probably had no time to even inflate their life jackets, French investigators said Thursday in their first report into the June 1 accident.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3132 posts, RR: 25 Reply 92, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 34410 times:
Ok guys, questions here because I haven't seen *anyone* comment on this and maybe I'm missing something but...
Page 51 through page 53 of the report... thoughts.. comments... something doesn't read right about the faults, where they did (and more importantly didn't) come from.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
LTC8K6 From United States, joined Jun 2009, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 34155 times:
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 84): The problem with that is the only way it knows its good is comparing to itself to another, what if they both are wrong? Which goes back to the fact that we have know way of knowing how much rudder travel they were given.
Moman From United States, joined Aug 2004, 896 posts, RR: 6 Reply 94, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 34106 times:
Quoting Golftango (Reply 41): I'm still calling shenanigans on this new finding.
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 60): Those of you still arguing that the plane might have broken apart and that this evidence is not definitive need to disavow yourselves of your preconceptions right now. This is an official report by the official investigative body.
I don't buy it either. This is not meant as a slight to any of our French friends, but it seems a little suspicious to me that not only have no large portions of the fuselage been found, it seems they have went to great lengths to use the little found evidence to determine exactly what transpired. My "guess" all along was that the pitot tubes had nothing to do with the crash. I've also felt they've been downplaying the significance of the data recorders (and weather) from early on - these would probably show exactly what happened which may or may not be good for Air France/Airbus.
Aircraft have been brought down by turbulence before and it will likely happen again and may have with AF447.
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4283 posts, RR: 54 Reply 95, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33717 times:
Quoting Moman (Reply 94): it seems they have went to great lengths to use the little found evidence to determine exactly what transpired.
The problem is, they can only make conclusions from the evidence they have. If there is only little evidence found, then their conclusions have to be based on that. They can't reasonably make conclusions based on evidence they don't have. They can't just guess...
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 96, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33755 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 92): Page 51 through page 53 of the report... thoughts.. comments... something doesn't read right about the faults, where they did (and more importantly didn't) come from.
I too thought that that was the weakest part of the report, Osiris30. No attempt to explain the implications of all those systems 'dropping out.'
One thing it shows though, is something we haven't discussed much - the fact that the pilots both lost not just their Flight Director displays, but also the backup Flight Path Vector thing.
Presumably there's some sort of further backup among the standby instruments. But it must have been very difficult for them to maintain straight and level flight without the normal (very clear) displays?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3132 posts, RR: 25 Reply 97, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33653 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 96): I too thought that that was the weakest part of the report, Osiris30. No attempt to explain the implications of all those systems 'dropping out.'
Actually I think a pretty clear statement was made in the report, and I know I'll get flamed for days for this, but;
It reads an awful lot to me like they are seeing things that 'shouldn't be possible', and hence have no explanation. When I read things like one of the 3 computers saw bad values from one sensor and they aren't sure why the other two didn't, it really scares the s*** out of me.
There are numerous messages they can and do explain very clearly and very well, but then they get into the 'why the hell did this happen' items.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 96): Presumably there's some sort of further backup among the standby instruments. But it must have been very difficult for them to maintain straight and level flight without the normal (very clear) displays?
I just see that as a symptom. The various wordings used by the report and the subsequent press conference sound an awful lot like (and here's where I get flamed, even though I mean this *completely* honestly) they are concerned about the behaviour of the Airbus computer system and it's failure (or lack of failing properly).
There are too many unanswered question, and too many 'oddities';
Quote: This message indicates that FCPC 2 no longer considers as valid the information that is
delivered to it by ADR 1 (via bus 2). The ATA code beginning with 27 indicates that the fault
was not detected by any other FCPC during the three seconds that followed (otherwise this
message would have been classified ATA 34). This message has not been fully explained at
this stage of the investigation.
(emphasis mine).
Those three pages just don't sit well with me, and I'm eager for more explanation of those items.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 99, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 33349 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 97): Those three pages just don't sit well with me, and I'm eager for more explanation of those items.
There's another 'oddity' too - about the report saying that "At this stage of the investigation, the BEA has not yet had access to the autopsy data."
That directly conflicts with this press story, which says:-
"Brazil’s Federal Police in Recife denied any French doctor was excluded from the autopsies. Pernambuco state’s defense secretary said four French people, including a doctor, a dental surgeon, an investigator and a police officer, have been participating in the autopsies as observers since June 10."
Flood From United States, joined Feb 2009, 133 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 33207 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 99): the BEA has not yet had access to the autopsy data.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 99): four French people, including a doctor, a dental surgeon, an investigator and a police officer, have been participating in the autopsies as observers
Where's the oddity? Participating as observers is one thing, providing the actual data is another. There's no conflict between the interim report and what you quoted from the Bloomberg article.
Quoting Moman (Reply 94): but it seems a little suspicious to me that not only have no large portions of the fuselage been found
Thank you for injecting some comedy into what has otherwise been a serious discussion.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 101, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 33271 times:
Quoting Flood (Reply 100): Participating as observers is one thing, providing the actual data is another.
Yes Flood, on reflection you're probably dead right. Maybe the Brazilian police follow French practice and start off with a criminal investigation of any deaths? In that case the autopsy results would be 'evidence' at the moment.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4555 posts, RR: 60 Reply 102, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 33485 times:
Quoting Airzim (Reply 66): I've been privy to some speculative chatter in the pilot community particularly since the NW incident from HKG-NRT.
So have a lot of us... and some of us are privy to speculative chatter of the pilot/engineer/investigator community that are not open to the public... Point is... so what?
Quoting Airzim (Reply 66): The consensus from these Boeing and Airbus pilots is the fate of the AF jet is same as the AA accident at JFK. The pilots over-stressed the rudder causing the tail to separate from the fuselage during severe turbulence.
Have a look at the meaning of RUD TRV LIM... and how it works... I've repeated this again and again... so have others. Whilst some of us retain our positions on how the system should work in multiple ADR failures, we also have participants of the discussions (thanks NAV20) who have continued to poke various possible ways for that to fail from the ones that make sense to the ridiculous, in order for us to be more objective. So far, independent of the preliminary report, I am not convinced that the rudder failed at cruise, or during a high speed excursion (if it occured). The wreckage to me, does not support that, the pieces still attached to the fin require a weakening of the surrounding tailplane structure for it to occur.
I'll repost this (God knows how many times have I posted this!!!!!)
The aircraft's autopilot switched off on the rejection of 2 ADRs fluctuating and rejected by the AFS, leading to the autoflight system switching off, this was (later) followed by NAV ADR DISAGREE. That implies 1 ADR has been rejected by the flight control computers and that the 2 remaining ADRs have values of disagreement. In this case, the rudder travel limiter locks in at the last valid value before the air data going nuts.
Quoting Airzim (Reply 72): Explain why the tail was 50 miles from the rest of the wreckage. Please find e-mail below. I have redacted the name of the author and pilot. I continue to have serious reservations regarding the on board computers on Airbus aircraft.
Where is the wreckage???? Have you found the wreckage when the rest of the world hasn't? I would tend to go with:
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 81): The answer to this one is, as someone else said, that it was not found 50 miles from the rest of the wreckage. It was found almost directly in the middle of the debris field.
or... the pages in the report (and have a good read of it)
Quoting Airzim (Reply 72): The auto pilot and auto throttles disengaged. The Master Warning and Master Caution flashed, and the sounds of chirps and clicks letting us know these things were happening.
Consistent with 2 ADR fault or ADR disagree (1 rejected, remaining 2 disagreed).
Quoting Airzim (Reply 72): Everything returned to normal except for the computer logic controlling the plane. (We were in alternate law for the rest of the flight.)
Consistent with the the above. Nothing new, nothing bizzare.
Quoting Airzim (Reply 80): Would you like to explain this directly to him?
1. Search for the Air Caraibes F-OFDF incident company technical notes circulating around the net, be it the French version or the English version.
2. Open up the FCOM1 A330(any of -200/300 will do) or A340(any of -200/300/500/600 will do) and go to: 1.22, 1.27.10, 1.27.30, 1.34.10, 1.34.80, 1.34.25, see that A/P require 2 valid ADRs, and A/T require 2 valid ADRs, plus all the other stuff.
3. Open up QRH of FCOM 3, go to Abnormal Procedures and look at: ADR 1 (2) (3) Fault, ADR 1+2 (1+3) (2+3) Fault, ADR 1+2+3 Fault, Unreliable Speed Indication/ADR Check Fault, F/CTL ADR DISAGREE or NAV ADR DISAGREE (depending on which company's manuals U're looking up), ALL ADR OFF.
4. Search VH-QPA interim report by the ATSB.
Now get him to explain all the above to you.
-----
Quoting Pliersinsight (Reply 74): A question for the experts, can you pull the same kind of manuver in a airbus, sort of nose level, wings level, reduced power and with a big descent rate..sort of any area much below best glide speed but still above stall speed?
I'd get Zeke and/or Pihero to explain this...
But, at Alternate law, the aircraft would try to maintain a level trajectory... (Note: This is not to say that this is what happened on AF447)
- Conditions: A/P Off, A/T Off, ALT2 law, no pitch control surfaces faults. Maintain level flight, and go to very low thrust setting.
- Speed goes down, the nose comes up to maintain it... noticeable visual cues: rising pitch in PFD, trim wheel nose up movement. Elevator up movements may be there too.
- No stall protection. If you get the stall warnings... Ignore it for the purpose of this "test"
- Before you know it, the aircraft tries to maintain level flight with a nose up, but airplane cannot sustain, and begin to loose altitude.
- Flop.
That's my understanding... If you want the Boeing version... look at the THY in 738... if you want a high alt flat fall, look at BEA's HS Trident accident at Staines (albeit different circumstances)
Quoting Moman (Reply 94): but it seems a little suspicious to me that not only have no large portions of the fuselage been found
For the purposes of "no large portions of the fuselage been found"...
Have a look at THY's 738 in AMS or BEA's Trident in Staines, and picture it hitting water. And ET's 762 in Comoros video. It should give you an idea as to why.
Quoting Moman (Reply 94): My "guess" all along was that the pitot tubes had nothing to do with the crash
Nothing to do is a bit simplistic, contributory is probably closer to the truth.
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 82): I for one, am not going to just accept a preliminary report as the gospel truth, when in fact they have virtually no hard evidence at all, much less the CVR/FDR. I am still not ready to buy the fully intact A/C pancaking into the water, Several large pieces OK, but not a fully intact A/C.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 89): One information - about the 10 minute position report vs the 0215Z last message - allows us to narrow the moment of the crash between 0215 and 0220Z. We need some very careful hypothesis and speculation on that period. We need another look and update of Mandala's chain of events.
0215??? Did I miss something? Which version of the possible chain of events do you mean?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 96): No attempt to explain the implications of all those systems 'dropping out.'
They need to reach a certain degree of confidence before disclosing... they refrained from doing so.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 96): the fact that the pilots both lost not just their Flight Director displays, but also the backup Flight Path Vector thing.
If I read the FCOMs correctly (I might have missed it), FPV also require 2 valid air data channels...
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
35 of the 51 bodies have been identified (report is from wednesday 1 July).
From memory: when the first identified bodies were released for burial, it was reported that identification of all bodies would be the priority and autopsy data of all bodies pertinent to the investigation would be made available after identification effort would be finished.
15 persons were sent to follow identification efforts, but had not met legal and diplomatic accreditation requirements. The 4 who did meet de accreditation requirements are participating since the beginning of the efforts.
The FAB site has a link to the communication between Atlântico ACC and Dakar ACC:
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3476 posts, RR: 6 Reply 104, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 32394 times:
Quoting Airzim (Reply 66): The consensus from these Boeing and Airbus pilots is the fate of the AF jet is same as the AA accident at JFK. The pilots over-stressed the rudder causing the tail to separate from the fuselage during severe turbulence. Multiple factors occurred at the same time which precipitated this tragic event. This would also explain the fuselage remaining intact during rapid decent to the ocean.
I think it's a fact the the plane lost its rudder limit protection (at least the protection was maybe not the right one), but it doesn't mean that the rudder was over-stressed.
Just for comparison, what would happen on an 777 if the pitots ceased to work properly ? No loss of protection ?
Quoting Airzim (Reply 66): This is potentially devastating for Airbus.
I guess every accident is potentially very serious for the manufacturer, but in the end the safety statistics are the only important things. Otherwise very few airplanes would still be used.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6935 posts, RR: 9 Reply 105, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 32299 times:
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 87): looking at the pictures of the Galley laying on the ship, the 2 upper galley stabilizing attach points look to me as if they have been bent sideways, if the floor was coming up due to a pancake, i would expect to see these mounts pushed completly thru the top of the composite ceiling of the galley.
The aircraft hit the water on a even keel AND a forward movement. That explains it. Its in the report.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 89): Flight preparation was as usual, the only maintenance item was an unserviceable RMP, which they swapped with # 3 and MELed as such.
Thanks for all your explanations, but this is absolutely "foreign language" and surely not understandable for the vast majority here
Quoting Alhena (Reply 103): 35 of the 51 bodies have been identified (report is from wednesday 1 July).
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46): "At this stage of the investigation, the BEA has not yet had access to the autopsy data.(from yesterday)"
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 63 Reply 106, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 32250 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 102): 0215??? Did I miss something? Which version of the possible chain of events do you mean?
Shook me too, as it was repeated three or four times durimg the press conference.
I believe that they are rounding up the time to the nearest minute. As we did, rightly
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 102): Quoting Pliersinsight (Reply 74):
A question for the experts, can you pull the same kind of maneuver in an Airbus, sort of nose level, wings level, reduced power and with a big descent rate..sort of any area much below best glide speed but still above stall speed?
I'd get Zeke and/or Pihero to explain this...
Everybody - or almost everybody - has translated that sentence "en ligne de vol avec une importante acceleration verticale" or in English "in a straight line with a high rate of vertical acceleration" as a sign of a stall, a flat spin and God knows what else.
I don't have the answer but there is a possibility that no one has mentioned yet on any site or news media I've seen so far : "What about an impact with the water while in the middle of a resource, i.e the bottom part of a vertical circle when a climb is initiated from a descent state ?
Quoting NA (Reply 105):
The aircraft hit the water on a even keel AND a forward movement. That explains it. Its in the report.
I thought the report has been quite candid, yes.
Quoting NA (Reply 105):
Thanks for all your explanations, but this is absolutely "foreign language" and surely not understandable for the vast majority here
Sorry. An RMP is a "radio management panel", the box from which one selects the radio-aids frequencies, the main and secondary radio sets...etc...
Giopan1975 From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 31512 times:
Firstly, I find it difficult to understand people who doubt this initial report and invent conspiracy theories. If there is any cover up in favor of AF or Airbus, you should try to find it in what was NOT written in the report. I find it difficult to question the truth of what is written in the report. It does not add too much to what has been written in this forum mainly by Pihero & Mandala. OK, it adds the coclusion of the probable belly impact.
I also find it difficult to believe that the accident is in any way related to the bad usage of the rudder. I think there is already some evidence against such scenario. By now, It should have been planted in every Airbus pilot's head not to push the rudder above some limits. Even a lunatic would not consider pushing it even if he had though that such use could have got him out of an emergency.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 106): Shook me too, as it was repeated three or four times durimg the press conference.
This time span is a possibility because of debris/bodies found quite a long way to the north of point of final ACARS message?
So, are they thinking of something like a 5-10 minute descent that for some reason went unnoticed? I think Mandala brought up this possibility some posts ago?
UALWN From Spain, joined Jun 2009, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 108, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 31454 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 107): A330, come to that, its rudder isn't FBW
I thought that in one of the 20 parts of this thread it had been established that newer 330s, including AF447, did have FBW rudder systems. Not that I think it is particularly relevant.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4555 posts, RR: 60 Reply 109, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 31592 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 109): I thought that in one of the 20 parts of this thread it had been established that newer 330s, including AF447, did have FBW rudder systems. Not that I think it is particularly relevant.
Yes... Take your pick:
A330 with mechanical rudder:
A330 with FBW rudder:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 106): I believe that they are rounding up the time to the nearest minute.
They did mention this part actually...
Quoting Pihero (Reply 106): "What about an impact with the water while in the middle of a resource, i.e the bottom part of a vertical circle when a climb is initiated from a descent state ?
U mean impact whilst recovering from a dive? There's a problem with this in that there needs to be a intermediate sequence transitioning from high energy to low energy state... Although loss of engines during the dive is remotely possible... This however, adds to more questions... how did they end up in a dive in the first place...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Breiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1389 posts, RR: 3 Reply 110, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 31328 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 99): There's another 'oddity' too - about the report saying that "At this stage of the investigation, the BEA has not yet had access to the autopsy data."
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 101): Yes Flood, on reflection you're probably dead right. Maybe the Brazilian police follow French practice and start off with a criminal investigation of any deaths? In that case the autopsy results would be 'evidence' at the moment.
The Brazilian police has just clarified that the information was not forwarded to the French authorities because the French had not requested it ??!!??
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 63 Reply 111, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 31172 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 110):
U mean impact whilst recovering from a dive? There's a problem with this in that there needs to be a intermediate sequence transitioning from high energy to low energy state...
Yes. But the dive doesn't necessarily need to be high energy...I'll mail you that tonight. We might even have the transition or part of it...
Look at it this way : from a stall with a low forward speed, it should per force be tail down, tail first into the sea and an initial fin inertia movement to the rear, which was denied by the investigators.
From an attitude akin to a ditching : the horizontal component vastly supersedes the vertical one which is not very highunless the ground speed was very important, which the wreckage/debris states deny...
The "recovery from a dive", at the bottom of the trajectory matches the requirements of a sustenable flight with a "high rate of vertical acceleration" as the BEA says.
The very sad part of that idea is that they could litterally have been close to pulling it off...
But it's just a theory that needs work.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 112, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 30993 times:
Quoting Breiz (Reply 111): The Brazilian police has just clarified that the information was not forwarded to the French authorities because the French had not requested it ??!!??
Thanks, Breiz........honestly, if you put that sort of 'mal-administration' in a movie script, all the people leaving the cinema would be saying that the film was 'too far-fetched'......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
35 of the 51 bodies have been identified (report is from wednesday 1 July).
Thanks for the update! Reading it, I see they're still not going to disclose the nationalites other than saying whether they are Brazilian or foreign. It'll have to be up to the relatives then whether they want it published or not.
BAW716 From United States, joined Nov 2003, 1849 posts, RR: 39 Reply 114, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 30737 times:
Assuming that the A332 was at altitude when all of this occurred, this was just flat ugly. Reading through the ACARS synopsis, it would seem that there was some massive progressive electrical failure...they were also most probably flying at night and without any visual cues to work with, having unreliable instruments (even the backups) would make flying the airplane next to impossible for any length of time without any reference points.
Since I am reasonably familiar with the A332 systems, I am confident in the aircraft, its maintenance and flight crews and am not "worried" about another potential problem (I will be flying home from Paris to Seattle on AF on the 332 - although they have been subbing in a 343 lately on certain days). Outbound I'm flying SFO-CDG on the 744 (the routing is a long story).
That said, I am certain that Air France and the families of the people lost on board that aircraft need to have closure and to that end and for that reason only that I believe they will continue to search no matter how long it takes.
baw716
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 115, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 30533 times:
Please remember that the report that came out was indeed a preliminary report. That is, there's a lot that they have not had time to put in writing, obviously there's very little data to go on, they have not had much time to make many conclusions even based on this limited data, not all parties have had time to synchronize all information, legal and formal aspects of multi-national investigation effort take time, and so on.
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4283 posts, RR: 54 Reply 116, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 30568 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 108): Firstly, I find it difficult to understand people who doubt this initial report and invent conspiracy theories. If there is any cover up in favor of AF or Airbus, you should try to find it in what was NOT written in the report.
A few of us warned of this a while back - people who were stringently clinging to their theories of tails falling off or ADIRUs going mental (which I'll admit I was adamant the culprit for the first couple of days) or UFOs hitting the aeroplane or whatever, and then trying to fit any of the facts to this theory, rather than trying to fit the theory to the facts.
Mr Arslanian of the BEA made a very relevant comment a couple of days after the accident, when on France 2 8pm news he was repeatedly asked for theories on what might have happened:
"We don't work in terms of theories. We work in terms of facts."
If you look at some of the material being posted by Mandala and Pihero for example, you will notice that it is grounded in what is known, not what is guessed...
The thing is, to use the analogy I used back in one of the initial threads, we are still at the stage of trying to piece together the shape of the earth, and while we now have a large landmass instead of a few grains of sand, there is still an awful lot which is simply not known to us as the general public, and I'd dare say a significant amount which is not known to the investigation.
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 30420 times:
The report provides some new information on when and how the fact that AF447 was missing was understood. The report states that the information is "fragmentary", but some of it is still quite interesting. It seems that there was significant confusion among the various ATC centers:
Quote: At 5 h 09 min 15 s, the ATLANTICO controller asked the DAKAR controller if he had any news of flight AF447. The DAKAR controller replied that he hadn’t and then the ATLANTICO controller requested confirmation that the flight was already in the SAL FIR. The DAKAR controller replied: "yes, no worry". He also confirmed that SAL had not established contact with flight AF447.
...
Between 6 h 4 and 6 h 12 the Air France OCC contacted successively the SANTA MARIA,
SHANWICK and CANARIAS (Spain) centres to find out if they had had or could have contact with AF447, which could be in Moroccan airspace at that time. In parallel, the Air France OCC also informed the CNOA of the impossibility of getting in touch with AF447 and asked if there was any alternative means of detection. At the same time, the SHANWICK centre indicated to the BREST centre that the airplane would appear to be in Moroccan airspace.
...
At 6 h 13, the BREST centre told the Cinq Mars La Pile Regional Control Centre that, according to an indirect source that had not been validated flight, AF447 had been in contact with Moroccan ATC.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 119, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 30211 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 117): Mr Arslanian of the BEA made a very relevant comment a couple of days after the accident, when on France 2 8pm news he was repeatedly asked for theories on what might have happened:
"We don't work in terms of theories. We work in terms of facts."
If he's familiar with English slang, VirginFlier mate, he'd probably be grateful if you left the 'r' out of it! It's 'Aslanian' .....
On the other hand, he remains the guy who still maintains that the sole cause of the Concorde crash was a bit of metal that fell off an American aeroplane that took off a little earlier (a case that is still being fought out in the courts); and also, as far as I know, that it was the US Navy who shot down TWA800. He was in charge of both investigations.......
Still looking for confirmation of what Breiz says about the French investigators not even bothering to ask the Brazilians for the autopsy results. I'm perfectly sure that Breiz reported that 'in good faith;' but I need to see it 'in print.'
If it IS so, it introduces a principle of law (originally developed by the English about 1,000 years ago) called 'Uberrimae Fidei' - which basically means, "In the utmost good faith."
You can advance any arguments you like in a court - provided that you have researched them diligently, and gathered all the available information, and sincerely believe that they are the truth.
But if you haven't even bothered to ASK for readily-available information, and then offered false or flawed information to the court, two things follow immediately.
Your adversaries can save themselves a few bucks by using your report for sanitary purposes.
And YOU can use your law licence to light the last few cigars you'll be able to afford for some time......
[Edited 2009-07-03 06:55:10]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6935 posts, RR: 9 Reply 120, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 29945 times:
Quoting Breiz (Reply 111): The Brazilian police has just clarified that the information was not forwarded to the French authorities because the French had not requested it ??!!??
How can that possibly be (though the BEA comments point in that direction)? If true, its proof for ignorants at work - on both sides of the Atlantic.
Theredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1187 posts, RR: 6 Reply 121, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 29768 times:
I don't want to create a sense of conspiracy here because I think this tragedy demands respect, and a conspiracy theory needs a justification or a benefactor and its not in MY AGENDA. That said let me explain.
The report states that the AC fell flat and forward into the ocean, and the fin was found in the middle in the debris field, ok.
If they KNOW the plane was complete before impact and where it fell, they must have a pretty close area to search for the FDR and Voice recorder. Anything in the report to explain that? heck they even have a very small area to look for.
I have been to 2 emergency landings and I cannot fathom why if they were falling from FL370 rapidly or slowly, flat spinning or not, recovering from a stall or whatever you want to put it, there were no bodies with the life vest on, there were minutes till this was over, I don't think that NOBODY in that plane prepared for the worst.
I think that all this media report is a big mistake without the black boxes, and it only will add fuel to a non stopping fire of speculation.
I am dying to see one of my closest friends who happens to be a a332 first officer with a copy of the report on hand and ask questions about systems and procedures because quite frankly there are some big gray areas that need explanation and a lot of WHYs that need to be asked.
My greatest respect to Pihero, Mandala and others, who I know are trying to put all the pieces together to find why this happened but I guess we are still a long way from finding it....for example why on the ACARS it appears loss of cabin pressure if the aircraft was intact till crash?
Giopan1975 From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 122, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 29669 times:
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 122): for example why on the ACARS it appears loss of cabin pressure if the aircraft was intact till crash?
Good question! I asked myself exactly the same but as I tried to follow the link to BEA report and go the page with the tables in black where they explain the messages line by line I realised the link was broken.
Canoecarrier From United States, joined Feb 2004, 765 posts, RR: 2 Reply 123, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 29397 times:
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 122): My greatest respect to Pihero, Mandala and others, who I know are trying to put all the pieces together to find why this happened but I guess we are still a long way from finding it....for example why on the ACARS it appears loss of cabin pressure if the aircraft was intact till crash?
I could be wrong but I believe that was discussed in an earlier thread as not necessarily a loss of cabin pressure but that the plane could have been descending rapidly enough that the automated systems regulating inside air pressure couldn't keep up.
ULMFlyer From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 319 posts, RR: 1 Reply 124, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 29367 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 120): He was in charge of both investigations.......
So, he works for the NTSB too?????
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 122): for example why on the ACARS it appears loss of cabin pressure if the aircraft was intact till crash?
There was NEVER any msg about loss of cabin pressure. It was about cabin vertical speed exceeding certain limits (1800 ft/min). This has been established 15 or more parts ago in this thread.
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 122):
The report states that the AC fell flat and forward into the ocean, and the fin was found in the middle in the debris field,
Careful with interpretation.
You still don't know where the origin of the "fall "was, therefore you don't know where the wreck(s) is/are.
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 122): I think that all this media report is a big mistake without the black boxes, and it only will add fuel to a non stopping fire of speculation.
Considering what is happening on A.net, you seem to be , unfortunately, very right...but with or without the recorders, quite a few will still claim foul, and stay with their theories, conspiracies or not, French/Airbus bashing or not. C'est la vie.
On the other hand, I for one think that the investigators have made a lot of progress, considering what they had in hand.
So we'll see.
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 122): .for example why on the ACARS it appears loss of cabin pressure if the aircraft was intact till crash?
That's an area where a lot of discussion is happening, but it was not a"loss of cabin pressure", i.e a decompression, it was a"high cabin vertical speed rate" : Cabin pressure controller malfunction / loss of static pressure data / unplanned climb to a higher level / fast descent and cab alt trying to maintain positive pressure... Lots of possibilities.
It's not as if "There is the message, and it obviously mean THIS !".
And the most difficult part is to correlate every happening with other clues...
As for the Franco-Brazileiro misunderstanding, it's really not worth wasting one's time.
There are a lot of more important issues.
MrBasiat From United States, joined Jun 2009, 5 posts, RR: 0 Reply 126, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 29426 times:
Jul 3rd, 2009 | BRASILIA, Brazil -- Brazil's air force has released a recording it says proves it handed over control of Air France Flight 447 to Senegalese authorities before it crashed.
The audio has been posted on the air force Web site after a French official said air traffic controllers in Dakar, Senegal, never officially took control of the flight.
Lead French investigator Alain Bouillard made the accusation during the first public report on the June 1 crash in the Atlantic Ocean that killed 228 people.
But the Brazilian air force said Friday that the audio message proves it informed the Senegalese of the Air France flight's plan and turned over control of the flight.
The cause of the crash has not been determined. Searchers are looking for the plane's black boxes.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 10739 posts, RR: 51 Reply 127, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 29291 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 126): On the other hand, I for one think that the investigators have made a lot of progress, considering what they had in hand.
Looks quite like a Comet re-run to me. However, what was pioneering in the days of the Comet is now routine so the speed of some preliminary conclusions is not surprising. But it is still so preliminary, as they used to say in the North of England, fools and bairns (children) should never be allowed to see things half done.
Patience is needed. It is just a tad surprising to find some posters think they know more than the investigators but even so it must be a relief to said investigators to get so much valued advice on how to proceed next.
With some of the more suspicious posters on these threads, I would hate to get them to boil me an egg, it would be served after cooking for about 30 seconds!
Larshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 504 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 29019 times:
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 122): think that all this media report is a big mistake without the black boxes, and it only will add fuel to a non stopping fire of speculation.
It might be a big mistake, but tey are required to release a preliminary report after a maximum of 1 month after the accident.
Victrola From United States, joined Apr 2008, 362 posts, RR: 0 Reply 129, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 28917 times:
What is a flat spin? Is this like the motion of a Frisbee in flight? Forgive me if I missed something in this thread, but do they know if the plane was in a flat spin?
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 130, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 28912 times:
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 118): but some of it is still quite interesting. It seems that there was significant confusion among the various ATC centers:
The 'confusion' is something I saw first hand about 36 years ago.
What the reports reads to me is Air France and various sector controllers dealing with a night where many aircraft lost communications for extended periods of time.
They have one airplane they have not been able to reestablish communications and every one is hoping and praying that they find another sector is in contact with the aircraft. Far off course, but in contact.
Remember almost all of the air spaces listed in the report are not covered by radar to identify aircraft, but are out in the open ocean where radio position reports from the aircraft are the only way ATC can identify where the aircraft is located.
To me the report reads a lot like a missing aircraft we had from Guam to the Philippines - where everyone was hoping against reality that the plane is still in the air, and unwilling to make the call that an aircraft has likely gone down.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3132 posts, RR: 25 Reply 132, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 28586 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 132): I mentioned before in this thread, it would be impossible to do in a modern airliner, they are just toooooo stable.
Very very very minor point of order Zeke; it would be impossible to do in a fully intact modern airliner. If some part (and no I don't just mean the tail, *nor* do I think the tail came off in flight, or at least not until it was irrelevant FWIW) broke on the plane it *could* be possible for the AC to enter a flat spin, but it would be *highly* unlikely and 99.999% of the time what you said is correct. Unfortunately we aren't operating within the norms here, since > 99.999% of flights don't crash either.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Peergynt From United States, joined May 2009, 10 posts, RR: 0 Reply 133, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 28354 times:
Is it common that the country, to which the crashed aircraft belongs to, to carry the investigation of the accident?
Why is everything being sent to BEA? Also it seems they started doing some statements that are not true. Which makes me wonder how impartially this investigation is really being carried out.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 135, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 27848 times:
Quoting Peergynt (Reply 134): Is it common that the country, to which the crashed aircraft belongs to, to carry the investigation of the accident?
If the crash is in international waters, yes - the nation of registration of the aircraft has responsibility to investigate.
These responsibilities are laid out very specifically in treaties between most nations with aviation service.
BEA is the lead investigative body; however, AAIB, the NTSB and at least two other national investigative bodies are involved in the investigation.
It is almost impossible today for only one nation and that nation's organizations to handle an accident investigation.
Quoting Peergynt (Reply 134): Why is everything being sent to BEA? Also it seems they started doing some statements that are not true. Which makes me wonder how impartially this investigation is really being carried out.
I'm not sure we can say BEA made statements which were not true.
As was very obvious in the early stages of the press conference yesterday, the english speaking media intrepertaton of reports in french can be mangled and easily result in errors.
Also understand that most of the really stupid statements have come from French government politicians not connected with BEA.
Yes, there were some things in the report which some might question - but there are always items in these reports - NTSB, AAIB or whomever.
And bureaucratic inefficiency resulting in really stupid mistakes plagues all governments across the globe.
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 61):
What impresses me a lot is that the two co-pilots were ONLY 32 and 37 years old, the younger one with experience of only 5 South America rotations. Imagine you are flown in the middle of the night, stormy weather, over the Atlantic Ocean by two 34-year-old boys. I am 34 and I would have been nervous had I known the age of the guys in front.
I'm 18 and currently hold 158 hours of flying time, having flown since I was 15. If I'm still flying when I'm 34, I will have 19 years of experience behind me. I hope to be in an airline by the time I'm 25 and there's nothing to say that these pilots weren't the same, if not more experienced. Why would you not trust someone who has at least 10 years in the cockpit of jet airliners? Those guys were trained to do their job as well as anyone else and I would trust them just as much as a check captain at cruise level.
Thanks your that input Jokestar.. Giopan, I think you should not judge people soley by their ages. Wars, especially World War 2, have been won on the backs of pilots that are like 20, 22, 24 years old, and younger. Pilots younger than you helped win wars that guaranteed your freedom! And I bet they were quite competent and well-trained.
But back to the topic at hand, some questions... We can talk hours and still say nothing with no answers.
I would recommend watching the MayDay investigation on the SAA Heldeberg crash. In another AF447 thread I alluded to this accident. It is true that they found that black boxes a very long time after the accident. I recall that the investigators said it was a "miracle" that they found them, and that their retrieval was very much in doubt. It is true that watches from crash victims indicated when the plane impacted. That was determined long before when they boxes were recovered. However, I do not believe that fact was related to the location of the black boxes, it just indicated when the accident happened. In the Heldeberg crash there were more answers sooner than with this accident. The pilots were in contact with controllers in Mauritius informing them of their fire and emergency. Wreckage had obvious fire damage. The damage indicated that the fire was from a highly explosive substance. This is one accident where the exact causal substance was never determined. it was suspected that their illicit explosives being transported off the books.
Regarding this accident..
If they know that the plane crash in one piece, shouldn't the wreckage location be more determinable? If it crashed in one piece, the wreckage should be geographically quite concentrated.
What is the range of the pingers of the black boxes? How far does the signal go distance wise?
I am concerned that the full range of resources to locate the boxes have have not been deployed. I speculate that with full international efforts in place they might have already been recovered. The whole black boxes angle is troubling to me. This is the real key to the accident.
My aunt is married to a veteran crash investigator. He is quite elderly, and even know John McCain as a pilot back in the day. I have not talked to him yet, but I have spoken with her about the accident. She says that according to him the cause is that the tail fell off for some reason. For whatever that kind of hearsay is worth!
You either haven't read it or you haven't understood the report. Otherwise you'd never write this:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 107): We very rarely see the causes of any accident established 100%. AA587 seems to be out of the same box. The pedals moved and the rudder moved - but the A300/310 had conventional linkages with 'feedback' (so does the A330, come to that, its rudder isn't FBW) so no-one can ever be sure whether the pedals moved the rudder, or the rudder moved the pedals.
Unless you have some other motivation to make false claims.
JBirdAV8r From United States, joined Jun 2001, 3047 posts, RR: 21 Reply 138, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 26934 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 61):
What impresses me a lot is that the two co-pilots were ONLY 32 and 37 years old, the younger one with experience of only 5 South America rotations. Imagine you are flown in the middle of the night, stormy weather, over the Atlantic Ocean by two 34-year-old boys. I am 34 and I would have been nervous had I known the age of the guys in front. I remember a MAD-GIG flight on an Iberia A340, after landing in Rio I noticed the two members of the crew walking by us passengers waiting for luggage, whom I recognized as captain-copilot. They were both over 50 years old and looked really, really tired as if the flight had required lots of their attention. I also remember flying inside thick clouds - light turbulence - no lightning - all the way from Recife to GIG.
Age has little to do with it.
Boils down to:
Experience
Maturity
Decision-making ability (goes to experience and maturity)
All of which of course should increase with age, but just because they were -relatively- young means nothing. They were qualified A330 First Officers, and you don't get to be one of those by being a greenhorn.
And wouldn't you be tired at the end of a 10+ hour flight? Wow. I think you're trying too hard to draw a correlation that your flight crew was tired because of "bad weather."
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6298 posts, RR: 89 Reply 139, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 26868 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 107): I suppose that I'd better once again repeat my (now almost ritual) defence of Sten Molin, the F/O of AA587. A few years later the rudder (though luckily not the fin) came completely off an aircraft of the same age and design (Air Transat) while it was cruising on autopilot.
The only issue here is the tail came off AA587 at WAY more than the design load. So there was no fault either of the design of the rudder, or its manufacture in that instance.
So I don't see your point....
Quoting UALWN (Reply 109): I thought that in one of the 20 parts of this thread it had been established that newer 330s, including AF447, did have FBW rudder systems
Klwright69 From United States, joined Jan 2000, 1184 posts, RR: 6 Reply 140, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 26834 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 128): Quoting Pihero (Reply 126):
On the other hand, I for one think that the investigators have made a lot of progress, considering what they had in hand.
checkmark Looks quite like a Comet re-run to me. However, what was pioneering in the days of the Comet is now routine so the speed of some preliminary conclusions is not surprising. But it is still so preliminary, as they used to say in the North of England, fools and bairns (children) should never be allowed to see things half done.
Patience is needed. It is just a tad surprising to find some posters think they know more than the investigators but even so it must be a relief to said investigators to get so much valued advice on how to proceed next.
With some of the more suspicious posters on these threads, I would hate to get them to boil me an egg, it would be served after cooking for about 30 seconds! biting
You have made a good point...
I do not think there would be another "Comet" like defect in today's age of modern jet aerodynmics, but this accident certainly has that sudden catastrophe element to it. Ok, so Captain Mark DuBois was resting.. Was he able to make it to the cockpit???
Remember the EgyptAir crash in the North Atlantic? The captain Al-Habashi (I think), was able to make to the cockpit miraculously despite the plane speeding almost vertically toward the ocean..Again, there is a good MayDay crash investigation on Youtube for those interested. I have seen all of them so it offers interesting perspectives on current events!!
Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 135):
Quoting Peergynt (Reply 134):
Is it common that the country, to which the crashed aircraft belongs to, to carry the investigation of the accident?
Normally it is the country where the crash takes place. In international territory, normally the country where the airline is based.
Quoting Peergynt (Reply 134):
Also it seems they started doing some statements that are not true.
BackSeater From United States, joined Aug 2005, 10 posts, RR: 0 Reply 142, posted (5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 26576 times:
During Mr. Bouillard's press conference yesterday, I was puzzled to hear him make the following statement::
"Aucun gilet de sauvetage gonflé n'a été retrouvé. Ce qui montre que visiblement les passagers n'étaient pas préparés à un amerrissage", a-t-il ajouté. " (AFP)
or in English
" No inflated life jackets were found ((among the debris???)), said Bouillard, adding that "the passengers were obviously not prepared for an emergency sea landing." (AFP)
I was actually watching that part of the news conference on French TV and he indeed used the word "gonfle" (inflated), not "enfile" (having donned your life jacket).
I thought, after sitting through zillions of safety announcements, that life jackets are never to be inflated before exiting the airplane (I guess no one wants to be stuck floating against the ceiling of the cabin if it is filling up with water!).
So, what did he mean or expect?
In an earlier post, if I recall, there was mention of a crew station found empty with seat belts and shoulder harnesses stowed. That seems to be a stronger argument against passagers being prepared for ditching.
This is an argument over procedure, not a false statement by anyone.
In some jurisdictions - ATC control of an aircraft passes to the new sector when the old sector contacts the new sector and says the plane is coming.
In others - ATC control is not considered passed until the new sector contacts the aircraft.
In this case Brazil notified Dakar the plane was enroute.
Dakar acknowledged receipt of the notification from Brazil, but since they never contacted the aircraft - they do not consider that control of the aircraft was passed to them.
This is an issue which will be argued for a long, long time between the various jurisdictions - with no one being right.
Some might say after the GOL/Legacy collision - Brazil should be more proactive about aircraft when they lose contact. Others say there was nothing wrong with their procedures when they lose contact with an aircraft.
The tape is only one part of the communication which extended over hours - and it is and was very clear that ATLANTICO knew that AF447 had not made contact with DAKAR.
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1666 posts, RR: 53 Reply 144, posted (5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 26349 times:
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 122): If they KNOW the plane was complete before impact and where it fell, they must have a pretty close area to search for the FDR and Voice recorder. Anything in the report to explain that? heck they even have a very small area to look for.
The first floating debris were not found until six days after the crash, during which time they drifted and spread apart due to winds and ocean currents. This makes it difficult to pinpoint the location of the impact.
Quoting BackSeater (Reply 143): "Aucun gilet de sauvetage gonflé n'a été retrouvé. Ce qui montre que visiblement les passagers n'étaient pas préparés à un amerrissage", a-t-il ajouté. " (AFP)
or in English
" No inflated life jackets were found ((among the debris???)), said Bouillard, adding that "the passengers were obviously not prepared for an emergency sea landing." (AFP)
Minor quibble: 'visiblement' would translate better as 'apparently,' not 'obviously.' Nothing is quite obvious at this point.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10917 posts, RR: 13 Reply 145, posted (5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 26235 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 132): Quoting Victrola (Reply 130):
What is a flat spin?
Watch Top Gun, .... it in my view has nothing to do with AF447, but what would I know !!!
I mentioned before in this thread, it would be impossible to do in a modern airliner, they are just toooooo stable.
Not quite as "modern" although it was technically-advanced for the time, but a Hawker-Siddeley Trident was lost,killing the 4 crew, due to a flat spin following a deep stall on a test flight in 1966. I believe it basically pancaked into the ground with almost no forward speed. Witnesses said it was making one revolution approximately every 6 to 8 seconds. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19660603-1
Spacecadet From United States, joined Sep 2001, 2057 posts, RR: 20 Reply 146, posted (5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 26077 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 145): The first floating debris were not found until six days after the crash, during which time they drifted and spread apart due to winds and ocean currents. This makes it difficult to pinpoint the location of the impact.
If you look at the debris map in the accident report, it seems that they could come up with an impact point with some specified degree of probability. And I have little doubt that they have. It's probably near where they found the tail, which was in a concentrated area of debris to the southern end of the debris field (and fairly close to the predicted track of the airplane).
But that doesn't mean they're going to find the recorders in that spot. The recorders themselves would have drifted some, and anyway I think some people are underestimating the difficulty of this even if the general area is known. Think about how long it took to find Steve Fossett - and that was a search for an entire airplane in the mountains. Now imagine if those mountains were under a mile or two of water.
You're talking about locating a box that's a couple feet long and may or may not still be emitting a ping, over a general area that's probably several hundred miles in any direction, under a large amount of water. It can take weeks to find data recorders after an accident even when you know exactly where the impact point was and you're dealing with shallower water.
I'm confident they will find these things at some point, but I'm not wondering why they haven't found them yet.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Peergynt From United States, joined May 2009, 10 posts, RR: 0 Reply 147, posted (5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 25991 times:
Ok. I have a question about black boxes.
Finding these boxes is usually crucial to determine the set of causes leading an airplane crash. Since sometimes it proves to be so hard if not impossible in finding them, could these data maybe be recorded/stored somewhere else?
My question is if there is any technology already available that would allow the same data also to be sent in some sort of facility that is not the doomed aircraft? Or at least some sort of software that could be used in those flights crossing large bodies of water?
Would it be too expensive maybe?
The "This" in question is as follows : "Back to Google News
Brazil: Senegal took control of doomed flight
9 hours ago
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) --- Brazil's air force has released a recording it says proves it handed over control of Air France Flight 447 to Senegalese authorities before it crashed.
The audio has been posted on the air force Web site after a French official said air traffic controllers in Dakar, Senegal, never officially took control of the flight.
Lead French investigator Alain Bouillard made the accusation during the first public report on the June 1 crash in the Atlantic Ocean that killed 228 people.
But the Brazilian air force said Friday that the audio message proves it informed the Senegalese of the Air France flight's plan and turned over control of the flight..."
First, you have to know that the ATC organisation at the origin of the flight sends a copy of that airplane flight plan to all concerned ATC centers it has planned to fly through, in this case, outside Brazil, Dakar (GOOO), SAL, Canarias, Madrid and Brest and Paris, with the estimated times at the area entry point.
That flight plan did not reach Dakar as somehow, GOOO wasn't one of the addressees. although it was on the flight plan that the AF planning services have provided for filing.
That was the issue raised by the BEA, as Dakar then had to initiate a manual "control strip" after at 0135 a telephone link between Atlantico and Dakar started a hand-over sequence - which is not in dispute and which is in fact transcripted on the prelim report as an appendix.
Result : nothing new and once again misinformation from - if I'm charitable - someone who couldn't even read the report and start a nasty rumour based on obvious bias.
The level of journalism around this accident is nothing but appalling...and they have the gall to criticize others !
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4794 posts, RR: 65 Reply 150, posted (5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 25092 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 146):
Not quite as "modern" although it was technically-advanced for the time, but a Hawker-Siddeley Trident was lost,killing the 4 crew, due to a flat spin following a deep stall on a test flight in 1966.
Deep stalls are normally associated with aircraft like the HS121 Trident/DC-9/727/Learjets etc that have T-tails, the deep stall is caused/unrecoverable because the airflow from the wing is blanking out the horizontal stabilizer/elevator. This is not the case on the A330.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1666 posts, RR: 53 Reply 151, posted (5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 25246 times:
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 147): If you look at the debris map in the accident report
Of note is the French version of the BEA report that includes day-by-day maps of the debris discovery between 6 June and 18 June, in Appendix 4. There is indeed tight clustering (a few dozens of km) in the first few days.
There is also an in-depth meteorological analysis by Météo France in Appendix 1, supporting their conclusion that the weather was bad, but not unusually so.
The English translation of the report does not include these appendices.
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4283 posts, RR: 54 Reply 152, posted (5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 24857 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 120): If he's familiar with English slang, VirginFlier mate, he'd probably be grateful if you left the 'r' out of it! It's 'Aslanian' .....
While you're at it, you may also like to note the way in which my username here is spelt - not that it bothers me, but it'd be a shame if someone suggested your sloppiness with names was indicative of an equal lack of care in other analytical matters...
Quoting Peergynt (Reply 148): Ok. I have a question about black boxes.
Finding these boxes is usually crucial to determine the set of causes leading an airplane crash. Since sometimes it proves to be so hard if not impossible in finding them, could these data maybe be recorded/stored somewhere else?
My question is if there is any technology already available that would allow the same data also to be sent in some sort of facility that is not the doomed aircraft? Or at least some sort of software that could be used in those flights crossing large bodies of water?
Would it be too expensive maybe?
You may want to look through this thread in Tech/Ops which discusses just that issue. The long and the short of it is that there are a number of impediments to the concept, but it is being considered, and Airbus have just in the past few days announced they are going to set up study to consider it: Why No Transmitting FDR/CVR's? (by TOLtommy Jun 1 2009 in Tech Ops)
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
Giopan1975 From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 153, posted (5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 24822 times:
Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 154): Air France states that airspeed readings were not the cause
Excuse me, where did you find that?
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 139): Experience
Maturity
Decision-making ability (goes to experience and maturity)
All of which of course should increase with age, but just because they were -relatively- young means nothing. They were qualified A330 First Officers, and you don't get to be one of those by being a greenhorn.
And wouldn't you be tired at the end of a 10+ hour flight? Wow. I think you're trying too hard to draw a correlation that your flight crew was tired because of "bad weather."
How can one comment on any airliner's decision to have 2/3 cockpit crew members of ages 32, 37 on a transatlantic flight. They are the airliner, they should know better than me! All I am saying is that as a passenger I would feel more comfortable had I known that the plane I am on (flying over the middle of the ocean at midnight and inside a thunderstorm) is in the hands of two 50+ years old captains (which translates in more experience+maturity+better decision making+better troubleshooting).
And in the case of AF447, from a very speculative point of view and after making the assumption that the captain was not in the cockpit the moment real trouble started, one could point out that
weather was not good, a lot of decision-making regarding playing "hide&seek" with the CBs had to be made (not deciding to deviate or make small turns are still decisions that had to be made), the success of this kind of decision-making is positively correlated with experience (as far as pax comfort is concerned and not of course the safety of the flight). Then a few more assumptions: the flight at that time was already quite demanding because of bad weather plus crew was at its lowest point of their performance curve, then something extraordinary happened (the loss of correct airspeed readings?), possibly followed by a second extraordinary event that happened during their attempt to deal with the first extraordinary event. Maybe (just maybe), two captains of 10,000+ hrs of experience in the cockpit could have figured a more succesfull way out of it?
Well until this preliminary report, the only thing that can be ruled out was the aircraft being abducted by an alien mothership (we wouldn't be seeing the debris and bodies would we?)... but alien mothership abducting it then spewing the plane out later couldn't be dismissed... OK, time to get back to reality! *grin*
Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 121): I have been to 2 emergency landings and I cannot fathom why if they were falling from FL370 rapidly or slowly, flat spinning or not, recovering from a stall or whatever you want to put it, there were no bodies with the life vest on, there were minutes till this was over, I don't think that NOBODY in that plane prepared for the worst.
I woke up one day in a plane shaking as mad... (took a nap on the right seat), took me almost full minute to fathom what was going on and kick myself into gear. Now the average passenger asleep, woke up winding themselves either not knowing the aircraft was doing a re-enactment of a space shuttle entry, or the aircraft was in a dive with everyone else screaming... lifevest would be one of the last thing on most people's minds (praying would likely be somewhere on the top).
You either haven't read it or you haven't understood the report. Otherwise you'd never write this:
Someone's flogging a dead horse again?
Stalls, flatspins and A330 aerobatics...
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 145): Not quite as "modern" although it was technically-advanced for the time, but a Hawker-Siddeley Trident was lost,killing the 4 crew, due to a flat spin following a deep stall on a test flight in 1966. I believe it basically pancaked into the ground with almost no forward speed. Witnesses said it was making one revolution approximately every 6 to 8 seconds.
This does depend on the trajectory away from FL350. If the aircraft had entered a clean stall (no excessive icing on the fuselage), the speed would have to be very very low. Now the aircraft was in ALT 2 law which means roll direct. Entering a stall does not always mean your wings will stay level.... but at such a high AoA and low speed, aileron displacement can cause adverse yaw, but the aircraft has a yaw damper to counter it... the problem is, the rudder limit was locked at a much lower angle required for countering the adverse yaw at a low speed. However, that is IF the aircraft entered the flat spin. The impact explanation based on the minimum data does not indicate that, but I for one wouldn't rule it out based on the parts found. This opinion is separate to my opinion on whether the 330 can enter a flat spin or not... anhedral, dihedral, what have you.
Either that, or a compressor stalled somewhere in the flop leading to flatspin (sounds a bit like Top Gun...)... is that what happened with Flash' 737? *can't remember*
Quoting Zeke (Reply 150): This is not the case on the A330.
Agree... but I am interested in how load factor demand controls w/o protection behave in a situation of progressive loss of lift (and/or speed)...
maintain 1G/level flight as much as possible by nose up trim... but what about after the stall (assume with no ADRs)... still trying to reach 1G level flight? Your take?
Quoting Pihero (Reply 111): Look at it this way : from a stall with a low forward speed, it should per force be tail down, tail first into the sea and an initial fin inertia movement to the rear, which was denied by the investigators.
Low forward speed with significant nose up attitude is consistent with the lugs/attachment still stuck to the bottom of the fin... that is, if one believes there's structural weakening at the tailplane fuselage prior to the fin separating (can explain rudder's bottom part and fin's front bottom part missing).
Quoting Pihero (Reply 111): The "recovery from a dive", at the bottom of the trajectory matches the requirements of a sustenable flight with a "high rate of vertical acceleration" as the BEA says.
The very sad part of that idea is that they could litterally have been close to pulling it off...
With Load factor demand still effective, it seems that the final 'flop' was after speed has decayed. The entry into such a situation is very interesting though, thanks to the examples we received elsewhere. Somewhere between FL350 and the sea level, the plane ceased to behave like an airplane and became a 200 ton steel frisbee (analogy) or somewhere inbetween.
As to Hide and seek...
If I remember correctly, the last ACARS positon was 11NM left of track... so I would say, there was some deviation.
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
UALWN From Spain, joined Jun 2009, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 155, posted (5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 23808 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 153): as a passenger I would feel more comfortable had I known that the plane I am on (flying over the middle of the ocean at midnight and inside a thunderstorm) is in the hands of two 50+ years old captains
10 or 11 years ago, I used to read another aviation forum, where there was a frequent contributor who was a 23 year old UA A320 first officer. His contributions were outstanding, showing knowledge and maturity. By now, I guess he could very well be an FO (maybe even a captain?) on a UA 777. And I would feel perfectly safe crossing the ocean in a plane piloted by him.
On the other hand, a childhood friend of mine drives an IB A320 (not sure if left seat or right seat). He's in his mid-to-late 40s. I know him quite well. I have always said that if I ever hear "Captain his-name" welcomes you on board this IB flight to...", I'm stepping out of the plane.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 10739 posts, RR: 51 Reply 156, posted (5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 23486 times:
Quoting Klwright69 (Reply 140): I do not think there would be another "Comet" like defect in today's age of modern jet aerodynmics, but this accident certainly has that sudden catastrophe element to it. Ok, so Captain Mark DuBois was resting.. Was he able to make it to the cockpit???
Quoting Khobar (Reply 149): Quoting Baroque (Reply 128):
Looks quite like a Comet re-run to me
Nope - supposedly no in flight breakup.
Perhaps I was not clear, Comet style investigation not Comet style crash. They had sweet all to go on except from what they could reconstruct.
Still, from now on I can imagine Zeke and Pihero nipping up to check the ADF window in the roof! (NOT!)
Meanwhile let me remind you from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_781 At first the task of finding out what happened was difficult. In 1954, there were no black boxes, no cockpit voice recorders or flight data recorders so there was no way of knowing what was going on. Established protocol for aircraft accident investigation did not exist.[2]
An extensive search for the aircraft was organised including the Royal Navy ship HMS Barhill and the civilian salvage vessel Sea Salvor from Malta.
........
Wreckage of the aircraft was eventually found on the sea floor and subsequently raised and transported to the Royal Aircraft Establishment for investigation. Upon examination of the wreckage it became obvious that the aircraft had broken up in mid-air, and initially it was thought that the aircraft might have been brought down by a bomb. Suspicion then shifted to the possibility of an engine turbine explosion and modifications were put in hand to encase the turbine ring in other Comets with armour plate, to contain a possible disintegrating turbine disk.
And must more. This estabished the basic procedures. And even without the recorders they were able to solve the cause of the crashes. The main problem here is that the causes may be a lot more complex than those for the Comet. But expect a few wild goose chases such as the disintegrating turbine disk theory turned out to be. And probably a simulation of the event will not be as "simple" as it was for the Comet.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 157, posted (5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 23222 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 156): And even without the recorders they were able to solve the cause of the crashes.
Worth recording, Baroque, since I come from a 'de Havilland family,' that it was the company itself that finally identified the problem. Nothing at all was known about 'metal fatigue' prior to the Comet crashes - it was assumed that stronger structure made for longer life. The company (at its own expense) put Comet fuselages into water tanks and repeatedly pressurised and de-pressurised them until they broke. Turned out that they 'blew' at the equivalent of about 30,000 hours...
My uncle (a good friend as well, as many uncles are) told me that they all knew that Sir Geoffrey de Havilland 'gave up' after that. He'd been designing revolutionary aeroplanes ever since 1912 - his 'successes' included everything from the BE2, the FE2, and the DH4 to the Tiger Moth, the Mosquito, the Vampire, and the Comet.
But I was told that - having already lost two of his three sons to aeroplanes - one in WW2, the other one testing a sub-sonic new jet fighter - he lost heart after the Comet disasters, and retired......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Movingtin From United States, joined Oct 2006, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 158, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 23063 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 95): The problem is, they can only make conclusions from the evidence they have.
Quoting NA (Reply 105): That explains it. Its in the report.
They have less than 1% of the A/C recovered, no FDR/CVR Data, Have not had access to the bodies, there should be no "conclusions". They do not have sufficient evidence to explain anything.
It just a shame that on here if you don't "tow the line" then you must be a conspirasist, Airbus basher, not an expert, and don't know what your talking about.
Yet, nobody has posted a response to the questions about the Galley, or how they could determine from the little amount of wreckage found that the A/C was intact when it hit the water? If I broke the fuselage ,say just FWD of the front wing box, and the aft section hit the water as a pancake, wouldn't the Crew rest still show upward crushing Damage?
If the tail came off in an aft, and slightly left movement, then was the plane inverted? how do you explain a flat, vertical pancake with that kind of motion ripping the Vertical off?
Slinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 158 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22987 times:
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 158): They have less than 1% of the A/C recovered, no FDR/CVR Data, Have not had access to the bodies, there should be no "conclusions". They do not have sufficient evidence to explain anything.
Does the report contain any section called 'conclusions'? Yes it certainly contains some inferences, such as 'parts showed great compressive forces' or 'the floor was curved under the effect of strong upward pressure from below' both when refer to pieces of the aircraft found and in summary the report says it is 'likely' the aircraft struck the water. But I find the report very short on actual conclusions.
Perhaps people here are the ones reaching conclusions?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 160, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22963 times:
Quoting Slinky09 (Reply 159): But I find the report very short on actual conclusions.
Same here, Slinky09.......
In fact, their only 'conclusions' appear to be negative ones. They reckon that the aeroplane DIDN'T break up in the air, and that the (clearly sub-standard) pitot tubes DIDN'T cause the accident.
Looks very much like what the headshrinkers call 'denial.'
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
TUNisia From United States, joined Aug 2004, 1754 posts, RR: 8 Reply 161, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22941 times:
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 158): It just a shame that on here if you don't "tow the line" then you must be a conspirasist, Airbus basher, not an expert, and don't know what your talking about.
Well said. It's never a good environment where differing opinions are scorned and publicly shamed for the benefit of a select few. There are hundreds of people here on these forums from various professions and walks of life who should feel free to join in!
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 158): wouldn't the Crew rest still show upward crushing Damage?
Good point. If hitting water is like "concrete" as many have said here wouldn't the damage have been far worse to interior panels and enclosures?
"Someday the sun is going to shine down on me in some faraway place." - Mahalia Jackson
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8936 posts, RR: 51 Reply 162, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22961 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 158): They have less than 1% of the A/C recovered
How do you arrive at that figure? I think vertical stabiliser alone would count for significantly more than 1% of the airframe. They've also recovered seats, the crew-rest, a galley, parts of the wings. Less than 1%?
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 163, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22921 times:
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 158): Yet, nobody has posted a response to the questions about the Galley, or how they could determine from the little amount of wreckage found that the A/C was intact when it hit the water?
The way I read the BEA report and the photographs is that they have pieces from the rear, middle and front of the aircraft - all showing near identical upward crushing deformation on their lower parts.
Since they have items from areas far apart in the aircraft, all showing near identical damage due to near identical forces - the conclusion that the aircraft was basically intact and hit hard and flap is not unreasonable.
And before you ask, I was one of those who thought there was no way this plane came down in one piece.
Slinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 158 posts, RR: 0 Reply 164, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22905 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 160): In fact, their only 'conclusions' appear to be negative ones. They reckon that the aeroplane DIDN'T break up in the air, and that the (clearly sub-standard) pitot tubes DIDN'T cause the accident.
Looks very much like what the headshrinkers call 'denial.'
And nor did they say Pitot tubes were not a contributor ... so perhaps this is a reverse of in denial on your part (interested to note your 'clearly sub-standard' comment too, did the report say that or did you insert it)?
Isn't any, logically conducted investigation likely to go through iterations of what they can find based on the evidence they have rather than create supposition on evidence they don't have? I would expect interim reports to continually reduce the list of options for the crash until the final - if ever. If you choose to read this one way, that's up to you. I only see whittling down of options and not conclusions - pretty much as some people have said is the natural course of an investigation in previous posts.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 166, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22902 times:
Quoting Slinky09 (Reply 164): (interested to note your 'clearly sub-standard' comment too, did the report say that or did you insert it)?
My opinion only, Slinky09. But there have been over 30 such reported incidents in the past year or so involving that particular early-model Thales pitot tube - and every airline in the world is replacing them at a rate of knots........
Are YOU saying that the early-model Thales tubes are fine and that all the airlines are just panicking unnecessarily...?
If so, please put that viewpoint on the record.....
[Edited 2009-07-04 09:03:21]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
UALWN From Spain, joined Jun 2009, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 167, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22834 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 160): and that the (clearly sub-standard) pitot tubes DIDN'T cause the accident.
How do you define "clearly sub-standard"? Did they meet all the specifications they were required to meet in order to be approved for in-flight use? If so, they were most definitively "standard". (But, of course, that doesn't mean they could not have contributed to the accident.)
Did you read my post? because below is ALL of what I said!
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 158): If I broke the fuselage ,say just FWD of the front wing box, and the aft section hit the water as a pancake, wouldn't the Crew rest still show upward crushing Damage?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 169, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22992 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 167): How do you define "clearly sub-standard"?
Oh dear, mate. There is evidence that they have, quite recently, reported airspeeds as low as 82 knots when the aeroplane was actually doing about 275 knots indicated...... (that is, around Mach 0.82 at 35,000 feet).
That's 'clear' enough for me. Why is it so 'unconvincing' to you?
[Edited 2009-07-04 09:43:54]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1666 posts, RR: 53 Reply 170, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22861 times:
Quoting Slinky09 (Reply 159): Does the report contain any section called 'conclusions'? Yes it certainly contains some inferences, such as 'parts showed great compressive forces' or 'the floor was curved under the effect of strong upward pressure from below'
The BEA report contains a list of established facts, which reads quite conservatively until the last one on the subject of debris:
Quote: leur examen visuel montre que l’avion n’a pas été détruit en vol ; il
paraît avoir heurté la surface de l’eau en ligne de vol, avec une forte
accélération verticale.
They do indeed treat it as an established fact that the aircraft did not break up in flight. I tend to agree with other posters that such a conclusion is slightly premature.
Quoting TUNisia (Reply 161): If hitting water is like "concrete" as many have said here wouldn't the damage have been far worse to interior panels and enclosures?
Whether it's like "concrete" depends on the vertical component of velocity and the cross-sectional area that breaches the surface. Anybody who's jumped into a swimming pool can observe this relationship.
It is certainly established that many of the debris recovered show damage consistent with a very high vertical acceleration, of a magnitude that could not be produced in flight by aerodynamic forces alone. That's what I would have used as an "established fact," if I may second-guess the BEA investigators
UALWN From Spain, joined Jun 2009, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 171, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 22779 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 169): Oh dear, mate. Smile There is evidence that they have, quite recently, reported airspeeds as low as 82 knots when the aeroplane was actually doing about 275 knots indicated......
That's 'clear' enough for me. Why is it so 'unconvincing' to you?
I see. And do you know exactly how did that happen? And whether it would have happened with any other pitot probe? Do you know if, say, the rate of ice formation (or water ingestion or whatever) was above or below the rate for which this pitot tube (and all others), is certified?
Sub-standard means something very specific: that it doesn't comply with a standard. I don't think you can prove that this is the case here. Although it may be true, of course.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 172, posted (5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 22850 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 171): I see. And do you know exactly how did that happen?
Yes, in a manner of speaking. The bloody things didn't work properly when they were needed. Probably because the drainage or the heating or the ducting were badly-designed.
Quoting UALWN (Reply 171): And whether it would have happened with any other pitot probe?
Short answer is, it just HASN'T - on any other make. 'Please advise' as to whether 30-plus incidents have occurred recently with any OTHER make of pitot tube?
Quoting UALWN (Reply 171): Sub-standard means something very specific: that it doesn't comply with a standard. I don't think you can prove that this is the case here
I suspect that my phrase above - "The bloody things didn't work properly when they were needed" - amply covers that point? But please continue the discussion if you consider that that description is not 'specific' enough.....
[Edited 2009-07-04 09:39:49]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Klwright69 From United States, joined Jan 2000, 1184 posts, RR: 6 Reply 173, posted (5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 22643 times:
I think the discussion should be about how they are going to locate, and when they are going to locate the black boxes. That will give all the answers. How far out do the pinger sounds travel in terms of distance? If the plane went down in one piece a lot of the heavy wreckage should be fairly concentrated on the sea floor I would think.
Good point about the Comet investigation. But if the first Comet crash had happened in the middle of the ocean the investigators options would have been more limited.
The first comet crash happened right off the coast of Italy in shallow waters.
Movingtin From United States, joined Oct 2006, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 174, posted (5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 22681 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 167): How do you define "clearly sub-standard"? Did they meet all the specifications they were required to meet in order to be approved for in-flight use? If so, they were most definitively "standard". (But, of course, that doesn't mean they could not have contributed to the accident.)
The Thales Part number has been identified. Per the Advisories, this part should be replaced by any one of the acceptable replacements, So something had to been identified with this one part number that is a problem. which would make it "Sub-Standard"
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 10739 posts, RR: 51 Reply 175, posted (5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 22536 times:
Quoting Klwright69 (Reply 173): I think the discussion should be about how they are going to locate, and when they are going to locate the black boxes.
Correct, but the bit I don't like about that is the sea bed images included on the report maps. They are generalised and we will need to see the sonar scans, but it looks as if the debris is going to be in an area of moderate to high relief on the flank of the mid-ocean ridge. I had been hoping it would be a bit further W on the abyssal plain, but it seems not. However, how much relief there is will only be known once they start up the active scanners.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 172): Quoting UALWN (Reply 171):
I see. And do you know exactly how did that happen?
Yes, in a manner of speaking. The bloody things didn't work properly when they were needed. Probably because the drainage or the heating or the ducting were badly-designed.
"Probably"? I asked if you knew exactly what had happened. I'll answer for you: No, you don't. You don't even know if they didn't work "properly", because you are not defining what "properly" means. If the hard drive in my computer died after 2.5 million read/write sequences when it was certified to last for one million, did it work "properly"? Is it a "sub-standard" disk drive? Same thing could happen here. Was the pitot probe asked to do something it was not certified to do?
Quoting UALWN (Reply 171):
And whether it would have happened with any other pitot probe?
Short answer is, it just HASN'T - on any other make. 'Please advise' as to whether 30-plus incidents have occurred recently with any OTHER make of pitot tube?
I thought the 30-plus incidents were an exaggeration reported in newspapers. However, a LOT 767 did suffer a "unreliable airspeed" incident two weeks ago. Are the pitot probes in the 767s "sub-standard" too?
Quoting UALWN (Reply 171):
Sub-standard means something very specific: that it doesn't comply with a standard. I don't think you can prove that this is the case here
I suspect that my phrase above - "The bloody things didn't work properly when they were needed" - amply covers that point? But please continue the discussion if you consider that that description is not 'specific' enough.....
If you don't understand that saying "bloody things didn't work properly" is not specific enough, I'll be very relieve to learn that you do not work in a regulatory agency.
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 174): The Thales Part number has been identified. Per the Advisories, this part should be replaced by any one of the acceptable replacements, So something had to been identified with this one part number that is a problem. which would make it "Sub-Standard"
"Should be replaced"? Says who? Airbus long time ago sent a recommendation. Nobody had to replace anything.
ThrottleHold From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 177, posted (5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 22417 times:
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 153): All I am saying is that as a passenger I would feel more comfortable had I known that the plane I am on (flying over the middle of the ocean at midnight and inside a thunderstorm) is in the hands of two 50+ years old captains (which translates in more experience+maturity+better decision making+better troubleshooting).
I was qualified and flying as an A330 Relief Commander at 27. I have done many flights when the Captain has been in the bunk and myself and the other F/O have both been in our twenties.
Greater age doesn't always mean greater experience. Quality and consistent training makes the difference.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4794 posts, RR: 65 Reply 178, posted (5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 22322 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 154): maintain 1G/level flight as much as possible by nose up trim... but what about after the stall (assume with no ADRs)... still trying to reach 1G level flight? Your take?
Below Vls in any law, the aircraft should no longer auto trim.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 166): Are YOU saying that the early-model Thales tubes are fine and that all the airlines are just panicking unnecessarily...?
They have been certified by the FAA/EASA, do you know of a higher standard ?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 172): 'Please advise' as to whether 30-plus incidents have occurred recently with any OTHER make of pitot tube?
Air data problems happen all the time, more often in smaller GA sized aircraft. I would be very surprised if worldwide if you would not see 2-3 air data problems a week.
Quoting Klwright69 (Reply 173): How far out do the pinger sounds travel in terms of distance?
About 20,000 ft if you had a flat sea floor for a level that a standard receiver will get them, however the nuclear submarines should be able to pick them up from a much greater distance.
Quoting Movingtin (Reply 174): So something had to been identified with this one part number that is a problem. which would make it "Sub-Standard"
The standard is the FAA/EASA design regulations, all the probes meet those regulations, old or new.
What does happen from time to time is aircraft will fly in conditions that exceed the certification standard. For example, the A330, like all current build airliners is certified into known icing conditions, but like all current airliners, it is not certified for flight into severe icing conditions. Likewise for turbulence, the aircraft is certified for a specific g range, it is possible to experience turbulence that is outside that range, and numerous accident reports are available with results of that.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Quoting Giopan1975 (Reply 153):
All I am saying is that as a passenger I would feel more comfortable had I known that the plane I am on (flying over the middle of the ocean at midnight and inside a thunderstorm) is in the hands of two 50+ years old captains (which translates in more experience+maturity+better decision making+better troubleshooting).
I was qualified and flying as an A330 Relief Commander at 27. I have done many flights when the Captain has been in the bunk and myself and the other F/O have both been in our twenties.
Greater age doesn't always mean greater experience. Quality and consistent training makes the difference.
You won't believe how poor some of the older guys perform. Maybe they have great knowledge and seen a lot, but they actual flying skills are getting worse over the years, especially when flying long haul. You just don't do a lot of manual flying anymore.
The guys from the flight school or shortly after they changed from short to long haul usually have better flying skills and still better system knowledge as their type rating isn't too long ago.
I don't say that the 50+ pilots aren't doing a good job, but they can get rusty as the young ones don't have so much experience or they don't have seen so many things.
But when things go wrong, I'd call the captain from his rest ASAP. The more people are in the front, the better. 6 eyes see more than just 4 or even 2.
Klwright69 From United States, joined Jan 2000, 1184 posts, RR: 6 Reply 180, posted (5 months 1 week ago) and read 21674 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 178): Quoting Klwright69 (Reply 173):
How far out do the pinger sounds travel in terms of distance?
About 20,000 ft if you had a flat sea floor for a level that a standard receiver will get them, however the nuclear submarines should be able to pick them up from a much greater distance.
Is that a good range? Could they malfunction?
With multiple subs searching 24 hours a day, is it possible would no one pick up the signal?
Read his post! He is asking if something specific had happened wouldn't the damage pattern be the same. Nice work though, completely missing the point and being arrogant all at the same time!
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 3 Reply 182, posted (5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20911 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 170): It is certainly established that many of the debris recovered show damage consistent with a very high vertical acceleration, of a magnitude that could not be produced in flight by aerodynamic forces alone. That's what I would have used as an "established fact," if I may second-guess the BEA investigators Big grin
What pieces show damage consistent with a very high vertical acceleration?
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4555 posts, RR: 60 Reply 183, posted (5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 20663 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 160): In fact, their only 'conclusions' appear to be negative ones. They reckon that the aeroplane DIDN'T break up in the air, and that the (clearly sub-standard) pitot tubes DIDN'T cause the accident.
Typical when there's not enough data, cross out the reasonable possibilities that you can rule out based on what's available.
As to substandard pitot tubes... they were certified for use on the aircraft right?
For FAR certification on icing, the aircraft, and its equipment must be able to withstand the conditions set forth in Appendix C FAR25... The problem is, what's substandard is not in the pitot tubes themselves, but could be the certification standards instead. FAR25 Appendix C, considers continuous icing to occur only at altitudes below 22,000ft. This is a good read: http://sine.ni.com/cs/app/doc/p/id/cs-11189
With the following passage that is interesting: "Despite this, some icing conditions exist called Super Cooled Large Droplets which are droplets bigger than 50 micrometers, not defined by the standard yet, but that they will have to be included in the near future. The icing certification procedure includes flying in natural icing conditions for some flights under standards."
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 172): it just HASN'T - on any other make. 'Please advise' as to whether 30-plus incidents have occurred recently with any OTHER make of pitot tube?
There are more than 30+ or so... but then, you need to dig up Airbus' files for that and see the details... something which we do not have the access for. Such occurences are NOT limited to Airbus but to other manufacturers as well, using different probes and probe standards. I have friends flying the 320 and those flying the 737s, having gone through unreliable speed indication during flight, when encountering icing, and even when not. It happens (albeit rarely).
The initial pitot probes fitted to the A330/340 has the old standard. It was identified in the mid to late 90s that the old standard Rosemount probes produced numerous problems similar to F-OFDF, and AF447 in terms of the warnings and failures generated. Airlines was advised to change to the newer spec Rosemount probes, or move to the Thales ones.
Moving to the newer spec probes does not eliminate the problem, however an airline with significant exposure to ITCZ operations have noted that the occurence of pitot probe failures, ADR failures and reversion to Alternate Law have fallen to very low levels (ie: not eliminated).
Now Air France has been using the Thales old spec, and found problems and more so recently so they decided to change to the newer spec Thales (AF447 unfortunately had the old spec).
Hence, the conclusion is, you can't eliminate the problem, but you can reduce it significantly, despite the old spec probes meeting certification standard (which some has deemed, inadequate for today's requirements, but I am led to believe a newer standard is being worked on, even before 1JUN09).
Sub-standard would not be the accurate phrase to use, "poor tolerance beyond certification requirements" is probably more reflective of the truth.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 172): I suspect that my phrase above - "The bloody things didn't work properly when they were needed" - amply covers that point?
Again, "The bloody things didn't work properly when operating beyond certification requirements" is probably closer to the truth.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 178): Below Vls in any law, the aircraft should no longer auto trim.
MUCH APPRECIATED. So am I right to assume it will try to maintain level/1G flight with elevators and stabtrim until Vls? And below Vls would be ? Direct? or Altn with Elev only?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4794 posts, RR: 65 Reply 184, posted (5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 20688 times:
Quoting Klwright69 (Reply 180): Is that a good range? Could they malfunction?
With multiple subs searching 24 hours a day, is it possible would no one pick up the signal?
The range is adequate when you look deepest sea floor level, they are electronic, so yes they can malfunction, but unlikely both the CVR and FDR would at the same time. The area of the crash has a lot of valleys, the under sea terrain can mask the transmission.
Remain in the same law as you were above Vls, just need to keep applying back pressure on the side stick to get it back to Vsw, auto trim will stop at Vls. If you were to release the side stick back to neutral when below Vls, the aircraft should still be trimmed for Vls.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 185, posted (5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 20531 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 183): Again, "The bloody things didn't work properly when operating beyond certification requirements" is probably closer to the truth.
Sure, Mandala499 - or maybe just 'there are better-performing ones available now and airlines should lose no time in replacing them.'
There's no reasonable doubt, though, that the (evidently-sudden) loss of reliable speed indications sparked off a 'cascade of glitches.'
In that connection, that AviationHerald site offers interpretations of the various ACARS messages. Two of them that I hadn't seen explained before are:-
"The fault message "PROBE PITOT 1+2 / 2+3 / 1+3 (9DA)" means, that a speed decrease of more than 30 knots was detected within one second. The three air data units were considered valid at that time.
"The fault message "FCPC2(2CE2)/WRG:ADIRU1 BUS ADR1-2 TO FCPC2" indicates, that the information provided by ADR1 via bus 2 is no longer considered valid by the primary flight controls computer 2, the code indicating, that the other primary flight control computers had not detected that fault according to the ATA code 27 (otherwise ATA code 34 would follow). This message has not yet been explained."
That seems to say that the Air Speed Indicators reported a big speed reduction in the space of one second - and that, at that time, the ADIRUs and the flight computers accepted the (obviously wrong) reading as valid?
But maybe I'm misreading it? Or the AvHerald guy got it wrong?
[Edited 2009-07-04 21:00:28]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4555 posts, RR: 60 Reply 187, posted (5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 20476 times:
Zeke, thanks again! But that depends on the data being fed from ADR to the EFCS correct? Sorry I should have been more detailed in the previous question... which is for in the case of ADR Disagree or ADR123 fault.
---
Movingtin,
I am a bit frustrated with my internet connection. It appears to reject my posts when trying to respond to you. I've written up the response from a while back to respond to your question... parts range from over 2 days ago!
I think I touched on this a few topics ago. And a few posts above... and in the previous topics... the tailfin's remains (connecting parts still attached) indicate there was a structural weakening in the tailplane area prior to the detachment. Wings level (upright) tail first water contact with or without forward motion qualifies for that.
The report mentioned: "The middle and rear fasteners with the related fragments of the fuselage hoop frames were present in the fin base. The distortions of the frames showed that they broke during a forward motion with a slight twisting component towards the left."
If you see the photo in the report, it has a close up of the hoops and to me, the impact forces were predominantly forward along the longitudinal axis and the left side of the hoop does show detachment from the front with rear still stuck, consistent with forward & leftward direction or forward direction with anti-clockwise twist.
The crew rest did show upward crushing damage.
and: "Fragments of the walls of the flight crew rest module were crumpled and those of the ceiling were deformed downwards."
The galley: "The galley, identified as G2, located at the level of door 2 on the right-hand side, was not
very distorted. Baskets and racks were compressed in the lower part of both galley carts."
The floor structures does look like a predominantly vertical impact.
Whether the airframe was in 1 piece or several, those parts still require predominantly forward and vertical motion... it would be difficult to explain a water impact in several pieces all aligned the same way in longitudinal and lateral axes.
The crew rest is located in rear cargo on front most position... more crumpling there than the galley is logical if the fuselage broke just forward of the wing on water impact... it has a less downward velocity than the front of the aircraft upon water impact, and definitely less from the rear of the wing. From the galley 2 Right picture, it does show rotational forces (nose down pitch movement) on the top side (see the direction of the tears... forwards), and the wall facing forward (facing camera) does have frontal nose down rotational marks (fracture line & the curvature).
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4555 posts, RR: 60 Reply 189, posted (5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 20197 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 185): In that connection, that AviationHerald site offers interpretations of the various ACARS messages. Two of them that I hadn't seen explained before are:-
The ACARS messages given put up by Avherald isn't new... Did you read the preliminary report AT ALL???
On: PROBE PITOT 1+2 / 2+3 / 1+3 (9DA)
COMPARE:
Quote: Source: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1&opt=0
The fault message "PROBE PITOT 1+2 / 2+3 / 1+3 (9DA)" means, that a speed decrease of more than 30 knots was detected within one second. The three air data units were considered valid at that time.
WITH:
Quote: Source: Interim Report
PROBE PITOT 1+2 / 2+3 / 1+3 (9DA) (2 h 10)
ATA: 341115
Source: EFCS2
Identifiers: EFCS1, AFS
Class 1, HARD
This message, transmitted by the FCDC2 (EFCS2), means that the FCPCs (or PRIMs) triggered one of the speed monitoring processes: they have detected a decrease of more than 30 kt in one second of the “polled” speed value. The three ADRs were considered valid by the EFCS2 at the time the monitoring was triggered, because the prior rejection of an ADR would have generated a class 2 fault message and there would therefore have been an asterisk in front of the source. In this case, the “polled” value is the median value.
And on: FCPC2(2CE2)/WRG:ADIRU1 BUS ADR1-2 TO FCPC2
COMPARE:
Quote: Source: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1&opt=0
The fault message "FCPC2(2CE2)/WRG:ADIRU1 BUS ADR1-2 TO FCPC2" indicates, that the information provided by ADR1 via bus 2 is no longer considered valid by the primary flight controls computer 2, the code indicating, that the other primary flight control computers had not detected that fault according to the ATA code 27 (otherwise ATA code 34 would follow). This message has not yet been explained.
WITH:
Quote: SOURCE: Interim Report
FCPC2(2CE2)/WRG:ADIRU1 BUS ADR1-2 TO FCPC2 (2 h 10)
ATA: 279334
Source: *EFCS1
Identifiers: *EFCS2
Class 2, HARD
This message indicates that FCPC 2 no longer considers as valid the information that is
delivered to it by ADR 1 (via bus 2). The ATA code beginning with 27 indicates that the fault
was not detected by any other FCPC during the three seconds that followed (otherwise this
message would have been classified ATA 34). This message has not been fully explained at
this stage of the investigation.
I don't see anything that hasn't been explained by the report...
Back to PROBE PITOT 1+2 / 2+3 / 1+3 (9DA), I did mention in previous posts... incl: AF A332 Crash (F-GZCP) - Part 19 (by Moderators Jun 24 2009 in Civil Aviation)
Reply #179... I'll quote it again... from the F-OFDF technical note...
Quote: Source: Air Caraibes Technical Report (Both ENGLISH and FRENCH versions)
In such cases, there is a double protection called CAS MONITORING. The EFCS monitors any change in the CAS. In the event of sudden decrease of this parameter, there is elimination of the three "ADRs" and thus reconfiguring steering law F/CTL ALTERNATE LAW (PROT LOST).
Note 3: The CAS Threshold is 30kt for 1 second.
Now, if you said in reply #191...
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 101): Gosh, mate - just can't fathom what we're arguing about.....
I can see why you can't fathom it... because you do not read people's explanations. Likely that you're selective reading or selective amnesia (intentional or not, I dunno) has gotten you yet again! It's nice to play "keep it under 100 degrees please" while you're turning the burners to max by pretending to be clueless isn't it? You contribute a lot in contra-thinking when your brain is working... when not, you're degrading the discussion faster than a >21,000fpm irrecoverable dive!
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 185): That seems to say that the Air Speed Indicators reported a big speed reduction in the space of one second - and that, at that time, the ADIRUs and the flight computers accepted the (obviously wrong) reading as valid?
Don't bother going there again... next you're probably going to debate the RUD TRV LIM again!
Without FDR data, it cannot be known if the value of the CAS prior to the fluctuation was valid or not... BUT it is likely that it is! (Static monitoring per ADR, AoA estimator, etc etc etc functions built into the ADRs, AFS, EFCS (to which explaining it is probably going to be a waste of time... oh hang on, it has been explained before!)).
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 185): Sure, Mandala499 - or maybe just 'there are better-performing ones available now and airlines should lose no time in replacing them.'
Let's see... with that logic, perhaps if someone can come up with a pitot for A330/340 tomorrow, that eliminates all the problems, but costs 1/2 a brand new A330/340, everyone should loose no time in replacing their current pitots to that new one? No... It's back to risk analysis again.
So, what is "immediately" in your mind? Had F-GZCP still be flying today (to throw out the hindsight benefit), would you:
1. ground all the aircraft affected until they're fitted with newer probes?
2. When there's stock received, put them in whichever aircraft on the ground at the time... with schedule delay risks?
3. Put them on the aircraft according to a planned schedule?
OK... now, let's look a case where there's no fatal accident hindsight... Qantas & Jetstar A330 upsets... it hasn't killed anyone so far... but has injured people...
Would you:
1. Ground the aircraft and change the ADIRUs to a different model before you let it fly again?
2. As soon as there's stock of the different ADIRU model put it on an aircraft that's on the ground... with schedule delay risks?
3. Change them to the fleet according to a planned schedule?
4. Do nothing, wait till there is more information or a recommendation by Airbus?
Remember, we have no records of the Pitot probes of the AF 330/340s causing any injuries requiring a mayday/immediate medical diversion (and I would gladly be corrected on this, though it would make little relevance). But...
- We had 12 serious injuries on the VH-QPA case in 2008.
-- An ADIRU (IR) problem
-- Numerous ECAm messages was also observed.
-- Previous case of ADIRU problem on VH-QPA in 2006 also resulted in numerous ECAm messages.
- We had VH-QPG ADIRU (IR) problem in 2008
- We had VH-EBC ADIRU (IR) problem in 2008
Has Qantas changed ADIRU models? Why not? You said that airlines should lose no time in replacing them... and different models are available.
Why not? If you think QF should change it, why don't you mail QF about it...
Sorry, I can't fathom why you keep going around in circles if I am to trust you have no agenda.
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7199 posts, RR: 43 Reply 190, posted (5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 20120 times:
No, Mandala, didn't read the whole report - once I found that it came to no conclusions and offered no recommendations.
However, seems that the Avherald - and the Report itself - are right? that there is every possibility that the wrong (low) airspeed data was accepted by the systems for a period of at least one second. Which means, presumably, that the autothrust would have commanded a healthy slug of power to restore the set airspeed?
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 189): Let's see... with that logic, perhaps if someone can come up with a pitot for A330/340 tomorrow, that eliminates all the problems, but costs 1/2 a brand new A330/340, everyone should loose no time in replacing their current pitots to that new one? No... It's back to risk analysis again.
The airlines appear to be voting with their feet (or rather their spanners) and doing just that, urgently?
As to 'risk analysis,' 288 people just died a horrible death. And two other airliners (both A330s) have had similar incidents within the last five weeks (TAM and Northwest, the two cases that the NTSB is investigating). I don't myself feel that the risk requires a great deal of further analysis in this case.
[Edited 2009-07-04 23:24:49]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2004, 265 posts, 
From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1187 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4283 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1061 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 720 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2009, 272 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 224 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From French Southern Territories, joined Feb 2007, 4650 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 3787 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 74 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 354 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4555 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 106 posts, 
From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 448 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 319 posts, 
From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 959 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4794 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1126 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2497 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3132 posts, 
I thought the report has been quite candid, yes.
From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 504 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6298 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 459 posts, 
