Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, RR: 62 Reply 1, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 52271 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 (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 51384 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, 2075 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 51325 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, 1174 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 51295 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, 82 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 50814 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: 62 Reply 6, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 50431 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, 4238 posts, RR: 54 Reply 7, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 50152 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: 62 Reply 8, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 49475 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, 1046 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 49215 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, 704 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 48512 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, 7156 posts, RR: 42 Reply 11, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 48027 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, 7156 posts, RR: 42 Reply 13, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 46886 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, 180 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 46799 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 (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 46261 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, 7156 posts, RR: 42 Reply 19, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 46067 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 (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 46053 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?
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, 2349 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 45556 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: 62 Reply 23, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 45921 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, 7156 posts, RR: 42 Reply 27, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 48723 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: 62 Reply 28, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 48453 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 (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 47870 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 (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 48041 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, 3474 posts, RR: 6 Reply 32, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 47804 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, 7156 posts, RR: 42 Reply 35, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 47155 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 (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 46965 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, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 46723 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 (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 46785 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 (4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 46729 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, 115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 45344 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, 4535 posts, RR: 60 Reply 44, posted (4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 45125 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, 2439 posts, RR: 1 Reply 45, posted (4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 44830 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, 7156 posts, RR: 42 Reply 46, posted (4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 44973 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, 2439 posts, RR: 1 Reply 47, posted (4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 44690 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, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 44460 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, 2439 posts, RR: 1 Reply 49, posted (4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 44327 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, 2439 posts, RR: 1 Reply 50, posted (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 44167 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, 2439 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 43711 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, 432 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 43318 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, 151 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 42937 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, 295 posts, RR: 2 Reply 55, posted (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 42974 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, 760 posts, RR: 2 Reply 56, posted (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 42741 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, 6794 posts, RR: 8 Reply 57, posted (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 42487 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 (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 42421 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 (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 42081 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, 2050 posts, RR: 20 Reply 60, posted (4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 42038 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 (4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 41753 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, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 41719 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, 4535 posts, RR: 60 Reply 63, posted (4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 41810 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, 2050 posts, RR: 20 Reply 64, posted (4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 40936 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, 2439 posts, RR: 1 Reply 65, posted (4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 40859 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, 955 posts, RR: 2 Reply 66, posted (4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 40638 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, 4701 posts, RR: 65 Reply 67, posted (4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 40642 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, 2050 posts, RR: 20 Reply 68, posted (4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 40197 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 (4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 40129 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 (4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 39927 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, 204 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 39151 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, 955 posts, RR: 2 Reply 72, posted (4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 39315 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, 955 posts, RR: 2 Reply 73, posted (4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 39067 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, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 39083 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, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 38457 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 (4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 38206 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 (4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 38053 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, 2050 posts, RR: 20 Reply 81, posted (4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 37050 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 (4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 36755 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, 2050 posts, RR: 20 Reply 83, posted (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 36601 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 (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 36469 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 (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 36147 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 (4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 35959 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: 62 Reply 89, posted (4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 34688 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, 3131 posts, RR: 24 Reply 92, posted (4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 34286 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, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 34031 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 (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 33982 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, 4238 posts, RR: 54 Reply 95, posted (4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 33593 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, 7156 posts, RR: 42 Reply 96, posted (4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 33631 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, 3131 posts, RR: 24 Reply 97, posted (4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 33529 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 :)
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2004, 261 posts, 
From France, joined Jan 2005, 1884 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1174 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4238 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1046 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 704 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2009, 180 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 217 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 4583 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 3781 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jun 2009, 74 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 308 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 4535 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 100 posts, 
From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 432 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 295 posts, 
From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 955 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4701 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1126 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2009, 64 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2491 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3131 posts,