# Air france flight from Brazil to Paris



## Torch (Jun 1, 2009)

is missing, lost contact after reporting electrical failure northeast of Natal Brazil.....


----------



## seesul (Jun 1, 2009)

That´s a bad news, I just heard it on radio
Missing Air France jet 'hit by electric fault' - CNN.com


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 1, 2009)

I'm kinda fearing the worst. Hopefully the pilot was able to put the plane down as soft as possible so people can get out.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 1, 2009)

Sh!t, not looking good. I'm hoping for the best, pray the pilot managed to safely land in the water, though it's extremely difficult.


----------



## fly boy (Jun 1, 2009)

maybe he pulled a hudson i hope there aren't any man eaters out there.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jun 1, 2009)

It's not looking good. Lastest report states the aircraft was only just entering African radar range, which means the plane could have gone down in the middle of the ocean. That will be even more difficult locating anything. French and Brazilian navies and aircraft have been dispatched to formulate a search pattern. 

I've flown this route only once before, not a problem. Very long flight though. I have a cousin who regularly flies this route for his business, and when we talked this morning he said there are times when the flight can hit amazingly strong turbulence, not the kind of stuff usually encountered over the Northern Atlantic, but really scary rough stuff. Anyone else familiar with this route?

RIP to all those on board. It terrible when things like this happens, but even worse when people and plane simply vanish without a trace. There's no closure for their families.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 1, 2009)

I think radar coverage would be scanty unlike the North Atlantic which is surrounded by heavy radar i doubt if there is even Air Defence radar in tha area


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2009)

Hoping for the best!


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2009)

Pb's right. Not radar, but might likelybe periodic position reporting.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 1, 2009)

Yeah, it doesn't sound good. The latest reports are saying a possible lightning strike. If all was well hopefully they could put it down safety but if it is in the middle of the Atlantic I don't think there is much hope .


----------



## v2 (Jun 1, 2009)




----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2009)

Lightning strike? Not another fuel tank catastrophe, I hope. Wait and see is the game now. Too many variables. ETOPS operations, flyby wire architecture, bad weather...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2009)

There is still hope of survivors, but it is very slim. Lets hope for the best and that some may have made it out.

As Matt said, all we can do is wait now.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jun 1, 2009)

Ouch. Not a good area to get lost in, and trying to set down in the Atlantic in the middle of a thunderstorm....I fear the worst, but pray for a miracle.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jun 1, 2009)

I suspect a miracle might well be needed. Terrible news.


----------



## muller (Jun 1, 2009)

Sad news, radio here confirmed the were 3 Irish people were on board.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Jun 1, 2009)

Scary -knowing there could be people floating out there in the middle of the atlantic 

Lets hope that pilot did a good job putting her down (if it was possible at all)

The ones that don't make it -lets hope they didn't have it too painful


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2009)

Flying in the proximity of T storms don't paint a rosey picture, one could only speculate at this time.

God's speed to the passenger's families.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2009)

whatever (lightning, electrical, structural, bomb) - it was a sudden and complete catastrophic failure with not even a peep from the flight crew.

maybe they will find some seat cushions or even a fuel cell


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2009)

Even if there was a controlled landing on the water, doesnt the emergency locator beacons start working?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 1, 2009)

drgondog said:


> whatever (lightning, electrical, structural, bomb) - it was a sudden and complete catastrophic failure with not even a peep from the flight crew.
> 
> maybe they will find some seat cushions or even a fuel cell


I don't think there is much in the SAR equipment in that hemisphere so getting the crews and such there may take days before they could mount a proper search they have one P3 and 20 Hercs in Brazil but I fear that might be beyond their capabilities , another thing to ponder is if their ATC system has improved since the Legacy/GOL midair


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Even if there was a controlled landing on the water, doesnt the emergency locator beacons start working?



The ELTs would start working as soon as they got wet. Same with the recorder underwater locating devices. But the 406MHz ELT satellite coverage may not include the area around the Azores. But I've been asking the same questions. With Brazil and France both sending extensive SAR airborne assets, I would have thought that they would have found the wreckage by now.

Indications are that a data link message was sent indicating loss of cabin pressure. Without masks, you have only a score of seconds before you are completely incapacitated. And that in and of itslef would likely be catastrophic. Especially if the flightcrew was fighting multiple emergencies preventing them from aviating their airplane.

Truly sad.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2009)

Matt, even if electrical power fails due to a dual complete engine failure, isnt there battery power to operate the instruments for emergency use? Just long enough for a pilot to hit a panic button or for the automated message system to get more information transmitted?

And considering that this might be the first modern low air time "heavy" aircraft to [possibly] fail catastrophically in mid air due to turbulence, something just doesnt add up. 

I hope I am wrong, but maybe this is a terror attack. Just like to that Air India Flight 182 in 1985.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 1, 2009)

Still hoping for the best, although I can imagine the seas in the Atlantic wouldn't be favorable for a water landing during a thunderstorm.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Matt, even if electrical power fails due to a dual complete engine failure, isnt there battery power to operate the instruments for emergency use? Just long enough for a pilot to hit a panic button or for the automated message system to get more information transmitted?.



Yeah sys there are multiple degradations that can occur in a modern Part 25 airplane. First you have multiple levels of electrical busses that allow load shedding under ideal scenarios. I'm not an electrical expert of the A330 in particular, but can tell you that electrical degradation can include:

* Starting the auxilary power unit (APU) if both engines fail.

* Load shed of various systems on electrical busses based upon critical electrical load support of continued safe flight and landing of the airplane (e.g., the galley is the first to go and the flight controls last)

* Deployment of Ram Air Turbines (RATs) to generate electricity (i.e., think of the Me-163 nose 'prop")

* Permanant magnet generators in the engines that allow electrical power even if 'windmilling'

* Battery backup that is required to operate critical electrical loads for 30 minutes for Part 25 airplanes.

As you can see the electrical redundancy is rather phenomenal.



syscom3 said:


> And considering that this might be the first modern low air time "heavy" aircraft to [possibly] fail catastrophically in mid air due to turbulence, something just doesnt add up.
> 
> I hope I am wrong, but maybe this is a terror attack. Just like to that Air India Flight 182 in 1985.



Nobody has said "turbulence" had anything to do with the loss of hull. Rather this was just a state of the environment. Only thing in the news is that the aircraft condition monitoring system reported an 'electrical anomoly' (whatever that might be.. overvoltage? undervoltage? loadshed scenario? system loss?, etc) and that cabin depressurization occurred. The latter certainly might be catastrophic. But then we can make suppositions all damn day. Hell it might have been another fuel tank explosion from a direct lighting strike for all we know.

But terror attack? No evidence... yet. But remember Egypt Air off of Nantucket? That was the 767 that went down with the pilot screaming Allah Akbar the whole way in, evidence that he had home problems, and the co-pilot conveniently in the shitter. But that is another story where the flag carrier was representing a country (Egypt) whose primary income is tourism. So certainly their own investigation findings were not influenced by economic needs. 

We are just gonna have to wait.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jun 1, 2009)

Accoring to the latest RF 1 radio report, some debris has been spotted far off the Senegal coast. So far all signs point to a break-up of the aircraft while at altitude. I heard on the news that they suspect that the aircraft flew right into a storm system. Their radar may have spotted the storm , but that they did not know the density of the storm system, therefore unknowingly flew into the thick of it at nighttime. 

Can one assume then, that all passengers died at high altitude before the aircraft hit the sea? Horrible scenario in any case.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2009)

Likely if they lost cabin pressurization at altitude. But only if. Otherwise, that is a long fall of terror.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 1, 2009)

Man, this is just a sad story.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 1, 2009)

Man, what a terrible event...

That region is known for spawning tropical storms, some becoming hurricanes.


----------



## Von Frag (Jun 1, 2009)

So the sent signal indicating electrical failure and loss of cabin pressure was maybe the indication of a/c breakup?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2009)

No. Just a data link sent by the onboard maintenance diagnostics. Typically these typse of messages are used for pre-positioning/planning of maintenance personnel/material. In this case, they appear to be somewhat telling. But then again, their contributions to the accident...?


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 2, 2009)

One thing I pray for...

It seems as if barring an absolute miracle worthy of being included in Guiness and Ripley's believe it or not, all those on board are gone.

Thus the only thing left to pray for is that there is enough physical evidence, and political will, to discover the complete truth behind this catastrophe. For this is an ALMOST BRAND NEW AIRCRAFT with a TOTALLY NEW CONCEPT - the totally electric and electronic fly-by-wire system. It is designed to be almost indestructible, and even when Murphy's law kicks in, NEVER TO BE DESTROYED WITHOUT WARNING. 

And yet it WAS destroyed with NO WARNING. Well, almost none. 

What went wrong? 

Let's find out...without any coverup by the EU powers that be, who have a HUGE financial stake in Airbus.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> One thing I pray for...
> 
> It seems as if barring an absolute miracle worthy of being included in Guiness and Ripley's believe it or not, all those on board are gone.
> 
> ...


Fly by wire IS NOT a new concept and been around for a few years and before we start even mentioning "cover-up" lets find some wreckage or evidence of what happened and then press on.


----------



## Cota1992 (Jun 2, 2009)

Man I really feel for the families. It has to be horrible enough to know you've lost a loved one in a crash but in this day and age to not know for a few days and not have any answers has to be just beyond words.
Prayers for everyone in this.
Art


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 2, 2009)

Brazilian AF is reporting they have found what appears to be a debris field about 700 miles of the coast of Brazil. The debris field and oil slick appears to be over wide 40 mile area in length. Ships are underway to the field. The water depth there is 13,000ft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Can one assume then, that all passengers died at high altitude before the aircraft hit the sea? Horrible scenario in any case.



I do not believe they would have died due to the high altitude, but they certainly would have lost consciousness. Lets hope they were not aware of what was going on...



FLYBOYJ said:


> Fly by wire IS NOT a new concept and been around for a few years and before we start even mentioning "cover-up" lets find some wreckage or evidence of what happened and then press on.



Exactly, none of us are in a position to really speculate. There are just to many things that could happened. Lets just hope they can find the wreck and can find out what happened.

On a side not, this was only the 2nd Crash of an A-330 since 1994 when one crashed in France on a test flight. There have been several mishaps, but this is only the 2nd crash of an A-330.



Matt308 said:


> Brazilian AF is reporting they have found what appears to be a debris field about 700 miles of the coast of Brazil. The debris field and oil slick appears to be over wide 40 mile area in length. Ships are underway to the field. The water depth there is 13,000ft.



At that depth it makes you wonder if they will be able to find the flight data recorders.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 2, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> At that depth it makes you wonder if they will be able to find the flight data recorders.



Adler, what was the depth for flight TWA 800?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2009)

I think that this aircrash was so unusual, there will be a big effort to find the debris/recorders and recover as much as possible.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Adler, what was the depth for flight TWA 800?



Not that deep. It was 9 miles off of the coast at a depth of 120 feet.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 2, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not that deep. It was 9 miles off of the coast at a depth of 120 feet.



Okay, thanks. Just thought if there was a crash as deep as this one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2009)

Well we do not know how deep the wreckage will be found. There is waters there as deep as 14,000 feet, but who knows where it lies.

Edit: Plane Crash site has been found, it looks like she is somewhere between 6000 and 9000 feet deep.

_*Brazil confirms Air France jet crashed in ocean*

By FEDERICO ESCHER and ALAN CLENDENNING, Associated Press Writers Federico Escher And Alan Clendenning, Associated Press Writers – 21 mins ago

FERNANDO DE NORONHA, Brazil – Brazilian military planes found a 3-mile (5-kilometer) path of wreckage in the Atlantic Ocean, confirming that an Air France jet carrying 228 people crashed in the sea, Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said Tuesday. Jobim told reporters in Rio de Janeiro that the discovery "confirms that the plane went down in that area," hundreds of miles (kilometers) from the Brazilian archipelago of Fernando de Noronha.

He said the strip of wreckage included metallic and nonmetallic pieces, but did not describe them in detail. No bodies were spotted in the crash of the Airbus in which all aboard are believed to have died.

The discovery came just hours after authorities announced they had found an airplane seat, an orange buoy and signs of fuel in a part of the Atlantic Ocean with depths of up to three miles (4,800 meters).

Jobim said recovery of the of the plane's cockpit voice and data recorders could be difficult because of the depth of the ocean where the debris was found.

"It's going to be very hard to search for it because it could be at a depth of 2,000 meters or 3,000 meters (6,500 to 9,800 feet) in that area of the ocean," Jobim said."_

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/brazil_plane


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 2, 2009)

Thanks for the news Adler. Sad to hear nobody survived.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 2, 2009)

I think this incident is so unusual that even giving a possible cause cannot be justified.

And to say the EU and Airbus will do everything to cover up the cause of the crash is pure X-files.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 2, 2009)

I believe they got the data recorders from about 6000ft in Air India 182


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2009)

The Basket said:


> And to say the EU and Airbus will do everything to cover up the cause of the crash is pure X-files.



Agreed.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 2, 2009)

I suspect that all assets will be used to retrieve the recorders before the ULDs are inactive. That likely means that an international effort will be made with to even include robot devices, if needed.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 2, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> I suspect that all assets will be used to retrieve the recorders before the ULDs are inactive. That likely means that an international effort will be made with to even include robot devices, if needed.



I think they're going to have to use DSRV's; the depth of the Atlantic Ocean where the plane went down is measured in thousands, not hundreds, of feet.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 3, 2009)

According to latest news, they are.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2009)

Retrieving Air France black box will be epic task - Yahoo! News

Retrieving Air France black box will be epic task
By Tim Hepher and Jason Neely Tim Hepher And Jason Neely – Tue Jun 2, 3:57 pm ET

PARIS/LONDON (Reuters) – The first sighting off Brazil's coast of possible wreckage from a missing Air France jet signals the start of what could be one of the most challenging operations ever mounted to retrieve the tell-tale "black box."

The box, which is in fact two separate devices containing cockpit voice recordings and instrument data, offers the best chance of finding out why the Airbus jetliner vanished in an Atlantic storm en route to Paris with 228 people on board.

The devices are designed to send homing signals when they hit water, but merely locating them presents one of the most daunting recovery tasks since the exploration of the Titanic and barring good fortune, could take months, experts said.

If they are in waters as deep as some people fear, 4,000 meters (13,100 ft) or more, unmanned submersibles would be tested to their limits. Yet past disasters have led to advances in equipment which do give hope for finding out what happened.

"There is a good chance that the recorder would survive but the main problem would be finding it," said Derek Clarke, joint managing director of Aberdeen-based Divex, which designs and builds military and commercial diving equipment.

"If you think how long it took to find the Titanic and that the debris would be smaller, you are looking for a needle in haystack. You are very quickly looking at a large area to survey and could spend months running sonars down to a deep depth."

Black boxes have an underwater beacon called a pinger which is activated when the recorder is immersed in water. The beacon can transmit from depths down to 14,000 feet, according to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

RECORD DEPTHS

Clarke spends time preparing for the unthinkable as part of an industry network on stand-by to help rescue submarines.

But the depths in this stretch of ocean far exceed the 600 meter maximum at which any navy could attempt a useful submarine rescue, a senior diving expert at Britain's Royal Navy said.

Brazil said on Tuesday its military planes had spotted wreckage 400 miles off its northern coast.

Speaking beforehand, based on reports of the plane's probable location, Neil Wells, senior lecturer in oceanography and meteorology at Britain's National Oceanography Center, said the black box could be more than 4,000 metres below the surface.

"There is no doubt about it; you will be pushing the limits of the technology. It is not a straightforward operation."

The oil industry has significant unmanned deep-sea capability but only operates down to 3,000 metres, Clarke said.

Such depths are well below the reach of manned craft.

A handful of deep-sea prowlers such as the U.S. Navy's Alvin, which surveyed the wreck of the Titanic at 4,000 metres below the Atlantic in 1986, could be equipped for such depths.

A U.S. Navy report based on similar disasters, released under the Freedom of Information Act late last year, found it was possible to recover aircraft wreckage including the black boxes from depths of up to 6,000 metres.

It cited advances since the 1980s in technology such as sonar for combing rugged sea floors, new software and acoustic beacons or "pingers" which indicate a position under water.

Both recorders were recovered from the crash of Air India Flight 182, which was blown up off the Irish coast in 1985.

They were recovered from some 2,000 metres in a search which lasted more than two weeks.

Two years later, South African Airways Flight 295 crashed into the Indian Ocean near Mauritius, triggering the deepest hunt for an airliner yet undertaken, with investigators recovering the cockpit voice recorder after a three-month search from a record depth of more than 4,200 metres.

Whatever the challenges, industry experts say the stakes are too high to give up on the search. "Not knowing would be totally unacceptable to Airbus and to aviation in general," said David Learmount, safety and operations editor of British-based aerospace magazine Flight International.

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Saul, Helen Massy-Beresford, editing by Janet McBride)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2009)

I am sure they are going to have use a deep submersible to retrieve. I hope they find it soon.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 3, 2009)

NASA initial report...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
Accident description 
Status: Preliminary 
Date: 01 JUN 2009 
Type: Airbus A330-203 
Operator: Air France 
Registration: F-GZCP 
C/n / msn: 660 
First flight: 2005-02-25 (4 years 3 months) 
Total airframe hrs: 18870 
Engines: 2 General Electric CF6-80E1A3 
Crew: Fatalities: / Occupants: 12 
Passengers: Fatalities: / Occupants: 216 
Total: Fatalities: / Occupants: 228 
Airplane damage: Missing 
Location: Atlantic Ocean ( Atlantic Ocean ) 
Phase: En route (ENR) 
Nature: International Scheduled Passenger 
Departure airport: Rio de Janeiro-Galeao International Airport, RJ (GIG/SBGL) , Brazil 
Destination airport: Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG/LFPG) , France 
Flightnumber: 447 
Narrative: 
An Air France Airbus A330-200 on transatlantic flight from Rio de Janeiro-Galeao International Airport, RJ (GIG) to Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) went missing around the Brazilian island of Fernando de Noronha, 365 kilometers (226 miles) off the mainland. 
The airplane carried 12 crew members an 216 passengers. Flight AF447 departed at 19:03 local time (May 31) with a scheduled arrival time of 11:15 local French time (June 1). The aircraft went through a thunderstorm with strong turbulence at 02:00 UTC. An automated message was delivered by 02:14 indicating a failure of the electrical system.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2009)

More

Air France 447 - AFR447 - A detailed meteorological analysis - Satellite and weather data


----------



## seesul (Jun 5, 2009)

They say in our news today the debris they found don´t belong to Air France Airbus and the investigation starts from the beginning again...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 5, 2009)

Could metal fatigue have played a factor. I'm just speculating, but it might be a reason why no mayday was sent, if the plane broke up in mid flight.


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2009)

Roman is correct they have found nothing except they have found something ~ the wreckage then belongs to whom or what........... ? it is still very conceivable if the jet flew right int a cell that it was torn apart and scattered into a bazillion pieces all over the ocean with nothing apparent


----------



## The Basket (Jun 5, 2009)

This accident is just unaccountable.

it doesn't match anything I have ever read...

except for an explosive device....


----------



## Maximowitz (Jun 5, 2009)

The Basket said:


> This accident is just unaccountable.
> 
> it doesn't match anything I have ever read...
> 
> except for an explosive device....



Doubtful. Terrorists generally like to announce that they were the cause..... nothing but silence though.


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2009)

no proof yet at all what happened or how it happened, lets not go with the bomb explosion for the time being ok ?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 5, 2009)

Erich said:


> Roman is correct they have found nothing except they have found something ~ the wreckage then belongs to whom or what........... ? it is still very conceivable if the jet flew right int a cell that it was torn apart and scattered into a bazillion pieces all over the ocean with nothing apparent



So I guess the search area will be large, yes?

Is it true that the black boxes have a transponder, that can last for 30 days?


----------



## Torch (Jun 5, 2009)

Airbus is telling pilots that they will have new instrumentation in their medium and long range planes, could of been malfunction of actual speed indication .


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 5, 2009)

So the plane could have stalled? Sorry about asking a lot questions. Just curious about this.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2009)

With the additional data that has just come in, including the automated flight controls switching to manual - it sounds like perhaps a last moment change to ride the turbulence - to keep the ship from falling apart due to the huge indicial gusts in that monster (100mph+ winds).

At that altitude there is small difference between cruise and stall. If it stalled there in that storm - they were done - bend over and kiss it goodbye


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 5, 2009)

drgondog said:


> With the additional data that has just come in, including the automated flight controls switching to manual - it sounds like perhaps a last moment change to ride the turbulence - to keep the ship from falling apart due to the huge indicial gusts in that monster (100mph+ winds).
> 
> At that altitude there is small difference between cruise and stall. If it stalled there in that storm - they were done - bend over and kiss it goodbye



Do you have a link to this drgondog?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> So the plane could have stalled? Sorry about asking a lot questions. Just curious about this.



Yes - for a couple of reasons

One, a serious downgust pushing the airplane dowln violently and pilot reacts to pull up (not a good move).. when the downdraft is past him he is now in a climb/stall control position.

Two - major indicial gusts smashing the airplane leads pilot to attempt to pull the throttles back a little too much - in an attempt to reduce the effect of turbulence... and stalls it.

Both of these conditions more likely on manual than autopilot


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Do you have a link to this drgondog?



nope - i heard these additional reports on Fox and CNN


----------



## sabrina (Jun 5, 2009)

They've stated that the debris actually belongs to a ship and that they're back to square one concerning location.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 5, 2009)

Thanks Drgondog. 

So now I guess they have to keep searching.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> Doubtful. Terrorists generally like to announce that they were the cause..... nothing but silence though.



How about narco-criminals that quietly blackmail the airlines?


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 6, 2009)

An airbus 320 crashed into the Meditarranean in November 2008.

I still haven't seen the report of the cause, but it's well possible that I missed something.

Do any of you guys know the cause?


----------



## sabrina (Jun 6, 2009)

The crash you're talking about was initially declared a crime scene. Then they came out and said--sound familiar?--low speed stall. The strange thing is that they originally stated that the extensive wreckage indicated a violent crash at a very high speed and the French Justice opened an investigation after making it a crime scene.

Later, they issued news saying that the pilots lost control after stalling at low speed altitude.

It was a test flight with seven aboard--pilots, engineers, etc.--and all perished.


----------



## sabrina (Jun 6, 2009)

Once the passengers on this latest incident are confirmed dead, the A320 will have approximately 850 fatalities affiliated.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 6, 2009)

Pardon me if I sound obtuse and ignorant, but...

isn't it true that it is just not possible to stall an A 320 unless you're on full manual with all safeties disengaged?

And even if you do stall, shouldn't an experienced pilot be able to recover from it,, unless that stall was at very low altitude?


----------



## sabrina (Jun 6, 2009)

Bizarre, isn't it? Look up the history of A380 incidents...you'll find it interesting. Some of the explanations are beyond ridiculous...such as pilots flying into terrain after leaving it on autopilot, "failure to move forward on the throttles despite declining altitude", and other unbelievable statements.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 6, 2009)

The investigators are not going to rule out an explosive device and there was a threat to the airplane before take off.

Stalling is bad but it would only be a link of the chain in the crash.

This could be a chain of events but the idea that a modern jetliner could be torn to pieces by unknown forces is not exactly comforting.


----------



## sabrina (Jun 6, 2009)

A bomb threat OR a serious malfunction would be the last thing the industry would want the public to know about--think about the effects to the transportation industry, which is already suffering greatly under economic conditions. Air France has already experienced a large amount of cancellations since the incident. 

My own father and sister will be flying Air France on their visit to Paris this summer...


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 6, 2009)

To suggest there will be a coverup or any information will be held back because the EU/Air France/Airbus etc is having a bad time in the recession is just plain crazy. If the recorders can be found, the truth will be discovered. I personally think terrorist attack is highly unlikely - someone would have claimed responsibility by now, and in any case I would suspect France and Brazil are fairly low on any Muslim terror group's target list. Why anyone else would want to blow the flight up I do not know.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 6, 2009)

The news this morning is that there were 24 error messages sent from the plane before it lost contact. They are also saying the storm may not of been a bigger than average storm for the region. Seems like all the systems went down one after the other (looks like it wasn't in autopilot). Guess we'll find out at some point, until then it is just speculation, looks like a stall which was induced by mitigating circumstances to me though.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Plane 'sent 24 error messages'


----------



## carson1934 (Jun 6, 2009)

Well gentlemen we are all just speculating.
If and when the black boxes will be recovered (highly improbable) then we will know better . Having crossed the Atlantic almost 65 times over the last 40 years and having suffered terrible flights (especially in winter) with hefty turbulences, I'm more inclined to think that there was pilots' error or miscalculation.
Honestly I can't think of Al Khaida or an act of terrorism, we would have heard from them at this stage.
Let's bow in reverence to the poor souls who lost their lives and think of the terrible moments they must have gone through.
carson1934


----------



## seesul (Jun 6, 2009)

Air France passenger´s bodies found
Air France passenger's body found - CNN.com


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 6, 2009)

At least some famillies will have some type of closure.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jun 6, 2009)

If it were terrorists, it would've been someplace a lot more visible. They're not after mystery and intrigue. They're after publicity. It would've gone down over an airport or populated area somewhere. Al Ka'holik can't claim credit for something nobody sees, and expect to gain anything by it (not that they gain anything except international loathing anyway).


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 7, 2009)

True RA and with latest news about Air France speeding up the replacement of speed sensors on their Airbus's then it is looking more and more like a stall to me. The way the news has panned out I think they had an inclination it was a stall all along because first the news that pilots must speed up in storms and now the increase in the rate of replacement of the speed sensors. I guess we have to wait for the definitive results from the black boxes if they ever find them but the investigators seem to think it was a stall if I am interpreting the news correctly.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Air France replaces speed sensors
BBC NEWS | Americas | The tortuous search for Air France crash clues


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 7, 2009)

One alternative is this was a criminal act, but not for terroristic [political] purposes. Perhaps a black mail attempt? Narco terrorists branching out to other lucrative fields?

As for the stalling, why would that cause the plane to fall apart in mid air? 

And I dont know anything of the airplanes systems, but arent there more than a couple of pitot tubes that are part of the design? If one is damaged, then the others should work.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> As for the stalling, why would that cause the plane to fall apart in mid air?



It depends on how abrupt the stall was. Remember, they were in adverse weather and if they were in an excessive attitude, be it bank or pitch, the pilot could have inputted control responses that could have put stress on the airplane (and no fault to the pilot in this situation). If you put extreme control inputs into airliners you will cause damage - case in point - American Airlines flight 191.



syscom3 said:


> And I dont know anything of the airplanes systems, but arent there more than a couple of pitot tubes that are part of the design? If one is damaged, then the others should work.


I think the several pitot tubes may have taken an "average" of indications and the computer will determine if one is operating in error, but if they were all iced over any computer would have received errors regardless.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 7, 2009)

How would a stall kill all electrical power though?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> How would a stall kill all electrical power though?


It won't unless structural failure caused a catastrophic failure in the electrical system


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 7, 2009)

Must of been freightening, been caught in a storm, and all of a sudden the stall warning sounds. I guess we won't know for certain until the black boxes have been found, if they are found.


----------



## seesul (Jun 8, 2009)

More bodies recovered...
Air France Plane Crash: More Bodies Recovered From The Atlantic Ocean | World News | Sky News


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2009)

Man I love when the conspiracy theorists come out.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that this was a terrorist or criminal act. All signs are showing toward either:

1. Caused by the severe weather in the area.
2. Some of kind of mechanical or system failure.
3. Or a combination of both...

There is absolutely no reason to believe that this was a terrorist attack or a crime. Sorry I do not understand why people even come up with such things. I guess it is because everyone wants to act like the press "experts" when something like this happens.

Oh well, only time will tell...



FLYBOYJ said:


> It depends on how abrupt the stall was. Remember, they were in adverse weather and if they were in an excessive attitude, be it bank or pitch, the pilot could have inputted control responses that could have put stress on the airplane (and no fault to the pilot in this situation). If you put extreme control inputs into airliners you will cause damage - case in point - American Airlines flight 191.



Come on Joe, that is not possible! Computers and automated cockpits don't make mistakes! Ain't that right Sys?


----------



## muller (Jun 8, 2009)

I caught the tail end of an interview with an Aer Lingus pilot on the news this eveneing, he was talking about the speed sensors on the airbus failing and the flight control system not knowing what speed the aircraft was going and hitting 'coffin corner'. Just googled it.


Wiki- Coffin Corner.

"The coffin corner or Q-Corner is the altitude at or near which an aircraft's stall speed is equal to the critical Mach number, at a given gross weight and G loading. At this altitude the aircraft becomes nearly impossible to keep in stable flight. Since the stall speed is the minimum speed required to maintain level flight, any reduction in speed will cause the airplane to stall and lose altitude. Since the critical Mach number is maximum speed at which air can travel over the wings without losing lift due to flow separation and shock waves, any increase in speed will cause the airplane to lose lift, or to pitch heavily nose-down, and lose altitude. The "corner" refers to the triangular shape at the top of a flight envelope chart where the stall speed and critical Mach number lines come together."

Consequences.

"When an aircraft slows to below its stall speed (or more properly, when the wing exceeds its critical angle of attack), the airflow over the top of the wing separates from the wing surface, and lift decreases dramatically (the wing "stalls"). Because the lift reduces while the aircraft's weight does not, the aircraft loses altitude. When the aircraft exceeds its critical Mach number, then drag increases or Mach tuck occurs, which can cause the aircraft to upset, lose control, and lose altitude. In either case, as the airplane falls, it could gain speed and then structural failure could occur.

As an aircraft approaches its coffin corner, the margin between stall speed and critical Mach number becomes smaller and smaller. Small changes could put one wing or the other above or below the limits. For instance, a turn causes the inner wing to have a lower airspeed, and the outer wing, a higher airspeed. The aircraft could exceed both limits at once. Or, turbulence could cause the airspeed to change suddenly, to beyond the limits."


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 8, 2009)

Below are the messages tied to coded ATA-JASC codes with time. Note that where the messages codes do not match my ATA-JASC codes, I have only included the major ATA-JASC chapter, but could not find the subchapters. You might have more luck. Also not being completely familiar with the A330 autoflight/autothrottle system acronyms, I have flagged those where I was guesstimating message content. 

The ATA-JASC codes/time indicate in rough order:

May 31st
2245
Water Waste/Wast Disposal System Maintenance Status warning
Water Waste/Wast Disposal System (message content unknown to me) references Lavatory and likely Lavatory location (X2?) failure


June 1st
0210
Pitot Probe failure
Air Temp Indicator/Sensor failure
Auto Flight System warning
Auto Flight/Autopilot System Off warning
Auto Flight (ATA 27-93?) Alternate Control Law warning
Auto Flight (ATA 22-83?) Flags on both Capt/FO Primary Flight Display warning (autopilot disconnect flags) warning
Auto Flight/Auto Throttle System Off warning
Navigation/Doppler System (ATA 34-43?) Navigation TCAS Fault warning
Auto Flight (ATA 22-83?) Flags on both Capt/FO Primary Flight Display warning (autothrottle disconnect flags) warning
Flight Controls (ATA 27-23?) Flight Control Rudder Travel Limiter Fault warning

0211
Navigation/Outside Air Temp Indicator-Sensor Flag on Capt/FO Primary Flight Display warning
Two failure messages ATA 34-12 Navigation/Outside Air Temp Indicator-Sensor (Message content unknown to me. IR1, IR2, IR3 Inertial Reference Unit failures perhaps?)

0212
Navigation/Flight Environment Data - Navigation ADR (Air-Data Intertial Reference Unit?) Disagree warning

0213
Two warning messages for Flight Controls (ATA 27-90?) Flight Control Primary/Secondary Fault
Autoflight (ATA 22-83?) message content unknown to me. AFS=Autoflight System?

0214
Navigation/Flight Environment Data Maintenance warning
Air Conditioning/Cabin Pressure Controller warning


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Come on Joe, that is not possible! Computers and automated cockpits don't make mistakes! Ain't that right Sys?



You score a point


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 8, 2009)

Also note that the ACARS messages summary are public domain. This is NOT considered any of the sensative accident information deemed not suitable for public consumption at this time.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 8, 2009)

If the pitot tubes were all frozen then the pilot wouldn't know his altitude or his speed.

He would have no visual references either.

If the aircraft had somehow entered into a steep dive but still not with the idea it broke up in midair. But the pilot was flying blind with all sorts of whistles and buzzers blaring.

There was a case of a South American airliner which had all its pitots taped up and the pilots ended up flying it into the ground at night. They had no idea what was going on. If you're told to trust your instruments and they go all crazy in zero visibilty then you're donald ducked.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 8, 2009)

And the ACARS messages would support that hypothesis.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 8, 2009)

Which brings us to the question: are not modern aircraft, and aircraft built to the Airbus design philosophy in particular, specifically built so that this sort of thing can not happen?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 8, 2009)

CAN NOT are strong words, BB. Modern air transport airplanes are built with fault tolerant systems. These systems have triple and quadruple redundancy built into them, as well as dissimilar designs to minimize common mode failures. But a system which 'CAN NOT' fail has never been been designed...Only the likelihood of that failure occurring minimized to an 'acceptable' level. And that equates to $$$. The dirty secret in the accident/incident investigative world is that deaths=$$$ when evaluating cost analyses for aircraft designs. And some deaths are actually 'acceptable'. Folks may not wish to believe this, but it is true. I know first hand.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 8, 2009)

Basket, you're talking about Aeroperu flight 603. Their static ports were covered with duct tape during cleaning, and were never taken off. The CVR recordings are on youtube. They had multiple alarms going off with no visibility. The pilots had no idea what their altitude was, until they hit the water. 

So I guess in essence, these two flights are similar. Both planes had problems with their instruments, and the pilots had no visibility.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2009)

I believe the flight panel does have a traditional artificial horizon and altimeter for the pilot to use in case the digital display blanks out.

It seems quite likely that the plane did stall due to the pitot tubes freezing. But a stall in itself shouldn't cause the aircraft to breakup.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> It seems quite likely that the plane did stall due to the pitot tubes freezing. But a stall in itself shouldn't cause the aircraft to breakup.



Would a stall/spin situation lead to a break-up? I can't imagine that something of that size would last too long with the forces generated in a spin.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 8, 2009)

if the stall was uncontrollable, no doubt the plane accerlated beyond it's safety limits. That may be why the plane broke up in midair.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 8, 2009)

muller said:


> I caught the tail end of an interview with an Aer Lingus pilot on the news this eveneing, he was talking about the speed sensors on the airbus failing and the flight control system not knowing what speed the aircraft was going and hitting 'coffin corner'. Just googled it.
> 
> 
> Wiki- Coffin Corner.
> ...



Nobody read (or perhaps understood) Muller's post.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 8, 2009)

It's really odd that the pilot never radioed anything.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 8, 2009)

Matt, I read it, but really didn't understand it. Sorry, got a little complicated, I'll take another gander.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 8, 2009)

Vassili, I'll try to paraphrase from what I understand. Matt, please correct anything which isn't correct.

As an aircraft flies higher, the stall speed increases, and the critical mach number decreases. Eventually you reach a point where the two are almost the same figure. Any faster and you will get mach tuck (nose pitch down, and more over-speed), any slower and you will stall the aircraft (nose pitch up in a swept wing aircraft). 

There are other things which affect the stall and cricical mach speeds, such as temperature, so I would guess, theoretically at least, severe up/down drafts could have placed them in 'coffin corner'.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2009)

Matt, I read it too.

But those airframes are quite strong. We've all seen the video's of wings being stressed to the breaking point. I cannot imagine anyone certifying (or insuring) the aircraft if it busts up during a stall.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 9, 2009)

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks Gumbyk!


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 9, 2009)

Once the any large Part 25 airplane departs normal flight, the stress on the airframe is enormous. I will not even postulate that is what happened. But if it did the implications are likely catastrophic.


----------



## seesul (Jun 9, 2009)

anoter article A week later, Air France mystery deepens - CNN.com


----------



## uberninja (Jun 9, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Matt, I read it too.
> 
> But those airframes are quite strong. We've all seen the video's of wings being stressed to the breaking point. I cannot imagine anyone certifying (or insuring) the aircraft if it busts up during a stall.



any aircraft could break up during a stall, it all depends on the severity of the stall, all aircraft are designed to with stand 3 G's, most airliners are designed to withstand 8 or more as a one of but it wouldn't be the first time an airliner has exprenced more than it could stand

epically if you took into account partially damage from hail, which would increase the stalls speed and damage the airframe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Matt, I read it too.
> 
> But those airframes are quite strong. We've all seen the video's of wings being stressed to the breaking point. I cannot imagine anyone certifying (or insuring) the aircraft if it busts up during a stall.


Remember, we are not talking normal 3 g stresses which most airlines are certified to. FAR Part 25 gives Specific requirements that are the minimum requirements and it is expected that for the most part commercial aircraft will be operated within the envelope established. What happened to this aircraft seems to be abnormal. We'll see as more more data is collected.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 9, 2009)

Aint the Airbus designed to stall nice?

Gentle nose drop? Not exactly 9g. And isn't the FBW to stop overstress? More questions.

More I know is the less I know in this crash as things contradict.

If the aircraft had pitot issues then the pilots would have had plenty time to radio and the aircraft would not fall apart because of this.

My view is that either went into the storm to slow and stalled but surely it would recover? Or it was attempted recovery and high speed close to sound and it couldn't take it and fell apart? But the FBW would have done a safe pull out.

Or it lost all electrics but why would it do that?

Only the black boxes will tell...


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 9, 2009)

What the Basket said!


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 9, 2009)

The Basket said:


> Aint the Airbus designed to stall nice?
> 
> Gentle nose drop? Not exactly 9g. And isn't the FBW to stop overstress? More questions.....



Yes you are right. But read the ACARS msgs. The FCC/Autothrottle disconnected. FBW bye bye.



The Basket said:


> More I know is the less I know in this crash as things contradict....



Yep. Thus not a good idea to speculate. There are more msgs with periodic reporting that includes winds, temps, lat/longs and time. [proprietary]



The Basket said:


> If the aircraft had pitot issues then the pilots would have had plenty time to radio and the aircraft would not fall apart because of this....



Not necessarily. Only if they immediately recognized the problems. Rather, they likely just recieved a series of fault messages on the EICAS that caused them to resort to the QRH/POM. Pilots are trained to perform tasks that are detailed in these manuals and NOT to deviate (in most ALL situations). Remember the rules of pilotage... aviate, navigate, communicate. In that order. It appears from the ACARS msgs that the time from faults to last communication was 3 min or less. Aviate.



The Basket said:


> My view is that either went into the storm to slow and stalled but surely it would recover? Or it was attempted recovery and high speed close to sound and it couldn't take it and fell apart? But the FBW would have done a safe pull out....



The time AF447 indicated its position (via both voice/data periodic surveillance reports) NOAA shows that inclement weather showed severe storm cells in the area (up to FL520 and with upper clouds indicating -80C temps). The FBW (as you say) is not a 'fail safe' technology. And again... note that the autopilot/autothrottle apparently disconnected. There is also another msg indicating "alternate control law" which might be a reversionary mode of operation from the FBW back to analog (note that this is my guesstimate as I am not an A330 FCC SME by any stretch of the imagination).



The Basket said:


> Or it lost all electrics but why would it do that?...



I keep reading this and from some official sources. Note sure where this comes from other than the ACARS fault codes. Yes, lots of the AF447 systems indicated faults. But this can also likely be attributed to the first loss of pitot probes (recall the A300 that augered into the ground after a maintenance action taped all the pitot probes closed and the pilots lost associated flight parameters IFR).



The Basket said:


> Only the black boxes will tell...



Yes. Thank God they aren't black. And let's hope we find them.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 9, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Matt, I read it too.
> 
> But those airframes are quite strong. We've all seen the video's of wings being stressed to the breaking point. I cannot imagine anyone certifying (or insuring) the aircraft if it busts up during a stall.



Yet remember the American A300 tail failure?

Note the ACARS msg indicating rudder travel limiter fault warning. A pilot induced oscillation (stop-to-stop) has been proven to bring down a Part 25 airplane. Sys, it's not the stall that is catastrophic. It's the recovery. Again. Only supposition and nothing yet to support this... except a relatively fully intact tail...


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 9, 2009)

Apparently the rudder limiter is governed by the airspeed. Loss of airspeed indication, could lead to loss of the rudder limiter/incorrect operation, which would allow pilots to make exessive control inputs. Would explain the ACARS warning regarding the rudder limiter.

One thing for sure, I'm learning a lot more about the systems in one of these aircraft than I ever did doing the ATPL pilots exam!


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 9, 2009)

Yeah? Well, welcome to the forum. And that can be a two way street. So don't hold back on your own thoughts.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 9, 2009)

This just keeps getting more interesting. Im kinda surprised about finding bodies as I would have imagined wild life would have taken over.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 10, 2009)

Two Air France Passenger Names Probed for Terror Links - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 10, 2009)

Another twist in the story.
You would think they wouldn't have been allowed to board the plane.


Wheelsup


----------



## Njaco (Jun 10, 2009)

Whatcha takin' 'bout, Willis? I think ConspiracyCon was last week.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jun 10, 2009)

Heh. The doors never close at ConspiracyCon.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 10, 2009)

...hmmm. There is much truth to Occam's Razor. Usually the truth is much simpler than the theories.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 10, 2009)

Anybody gewt the feeling that truth is stranger than fiction? I mean, if this was a TV series, I would probalby be saying "Hold on, that's too much the screeplay writer put in, you can't have all these things happening at once in real life!"


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 10, 2009)

I betcha it was those Swiss!!

Of course V2 did post that article about the Poles causing WW2 so maybe it was them too.

But there is Sally Struthers..........


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 10, 2009)

Blame it on Lucky. I assure you he's not wired triply redundant.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jun 10, 2009)

This guy stripped the plane before takeoff:


----------



## seesul (Jun 11, 2009)

Got it by e-mail from a US friend of mine today:

_Subject: excerpts from various news about 447
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:21:15 +0000
What Thwy know so far..

.....the jet issued 24 system failure messages before it crashed. Fourteen of those messages were sent within the space of one minute, from 3.10am BST to 3.11am BST, a briefing in Paris was told today.

At 11pm (2am GMT) pilot Marc Dubois sent a manual signal saying he was flying through an area of 'CBs' - black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that carry violent winds and lightning.

At 11.10pm, automatic messages relayed by the jetliner indicated the autopilot had disengaged.

This suggested Dubois and his two co-pilots were trying to thread their way through the storm manually.

At this point a key computer system had switched to alternative power and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged.

An alarm also sounded, indicating that the 'fly-by-wire' system on the Airbus that controls the flaps on the wings had shifted to 'alternate law'.

Alternate law is an emergency back-up system that kicks in after an electronic failure. It enables the plane to keep functioning with less energy - but reduces stability, which would have been desperately needed as
the pilots battled to bring the jet safely out of the turbulence.

At 11.12pm, two key computers monitoring air speed, altitude and direction failed. These would have increased the pilot's loss of control over the plane.

The loss of instruments showing air speed in particular would have been detrimental. The pilot was trying to fly a fine line between slowing the plane enough to navigate through the turbulence, and not slowing so much
that the plane stalled mid-air, which would have been catastrophic.

The messages show there was an inconsistency between the different measured airspeeds shortly after the plane entered the storm zone.

At 11.13pm, control of the main flight computer, back up system and wing spoilers also failed.

The last automatic message, at 11.14pm, indicated complete electrical failure and a massive loss of cabin pressure - catastrophic events, indicating that the plane was breaking apart and plunging toward the ocean.

Last night Airbus warned airline crews to follow standard procedures if they suspect speed indicators are faulty.

The Airbus telex was sent to customers of its A330s late yesterday. An industry official said such warnings are only sent if accident investigators have established facts that they consider important enough to pass on immediately to airlines.

The recommendation was authorised by the French air accident investigation agency (BEA) looking into the disaster. It has said the speed levels registered by the slew of messages from the plane showed 'incoherence'.

Airbus said its message to clients did not imply that the doomed pilots did anything wrong or that a design fault was in any way responsible for the crash.

'This Aircraft Information Telex is an information document that in no way implicates any blame,' a spokesman said today._


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 11, 2009)

Excellent summary. thanks Seesul


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 11, 2009)

It seems that Murphy has struck again. 

"All these things surely can't fail at one and the same time". 

Well, it seems that they did...


----------



## seesul (Jun 11, 2009)

Miles O’Brien is a pilot, airplane owner and freelance journalist who lives in Manhattan. His blog is located at Miles O'Brien - Uplinks - True/Slant. The opinions expressed are his own.

Air France Flight 447 went down in a giant, dangerous, violent storm that might not have been survivable under any circumstances. But as the Airbus A-330 penetrated that huge system of thunderstorms, sensors, systems and computers on the plane started failing in a rapid cascade that would make any pilot’s head spin – even if he was not in the middle of extreme turbulence flying blind in the night.

The failures likely sealed the fate of the 228 souls sealed inside that thin metal tube as it hurtled through the dark, stormy night - but were they contributing causes with their own roots – or simply the unavoidable outcomes of a decision to fly such a perilous course?

Remember, more often than not, an airliner goes down at the end of a long chain of unrelated, seemingly innocuous decisions, malfunctions, mistakes and external factors. Remove any single link (or even change their sequence) and you have an on-time arrival at Charles de Gaulle.

So how do those system failures fit in the chain of calamity?

Consider for a moment two cockpits. This one is the granddaddy of jet airliners – the Boeing 707 – which first flew paying passengers in 1958. This is the Airbus A-330 – which started flying the line 35 years later. Now quick: which is the more complex airplane?

Looks can be deceiving. Relatively speaking, the 707 is a much simpler airplane – which is different from saying it is simpler to fly. Mastering and monitoring all those steam gauges required an alert three-person crew. In the 707, the burden of the complexity – and the opportunity for error – is on the human side of the instrument panel.

Because humans make mistakes and machines do not, airplane designers have steadily shifted that workload to the other side of the gauges over the years. The A-330 instrument panel is proof they have done a bang up job. It looks simple to fly, doesn’t it? It is.

The joke is that in the not too distant future, flight crews will consist of one human pilot and an ill-tempered junkyard dog. The pilot is there to watch the computers fly the airplane – and the dog is there to bite him if he tries to touch the controls.

Airbus has embraced the philosophy (if not the joke) with zeal. The company builds highly automated “Fly By Wire” (FBW) airplanes. NASA developed the first FBW aircraft in 1972 – an F-8C Crusader. On FBW planes, the movable surfaces on the wings, the horizontal and vertical stabilizer are not connected to the controls on the flight deck with cables, pulleys pushrods and hydraulic actuators as they were on the 707.

Instead, electrical wires transmit the pilot’s commands to hydraulic actuators that move the aero surfaces.

Between the pilot and those surfaces is a bank of computers that are actually flying the plane. The computers are programmed with some strict rules (in fact, Airbus calls them “laws”) designed to assess the human commands from the flight deck – and veto them if they would put the plane in harm’s way. Point the nose too high or too low – or bank too steeply and the computer will correct your bad airmanship. Who’s in charge here?

Pilots like to call their autopilots “George,” old phonetic shorthand for “gyro”, which makes the autopilot work. On an FBW airplane, “HAL” might be more apt.

Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
Dave Bowman: What’s the problem?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
-From 2001: A Space Odyssey

But what happens when the silicon co-pilot gives up the ghost? It gets very ugly - very quickly.

Just before Air France 447 went down, it transmitted a four-minute spurt of text data reporting five failures and 19 warnings via its Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS).

The data is cryptic and we will only know the full scenario if searchers find the black boxes, but we know the autopilot disengaged, the flight control computer failed, warning flags appeared over the primary flight data screens used by the captain and first officer and the rudder moved beyond its limits.

All of it is consistent with a flight control system that was getting some bad information about how fast the airplane was moving through the air. The device that performs this task is called a pitot tube. Pointed in the direction of flight, it measures the relative pressure of air as it flows in. For pilots this is a crucial device, like an EKG for a heart surgeon, I suppose. If you don’t know your airspeed, you can easily stall or overspeed the plane. That’s why the A-330 has three pitot tubes.

They tend to be ice collectors on an airplane flying through precipitation. If they glaze over, or get clogged with crystals, they won’t work – so that is why they are heated. Even so, A-330 pitot tubes were icing up and failing in flight so Airbus issued a “service bulletin” recommending airlines replace them with a newer model that has a more powerful heater. It was not considered urgent, and so the pitot tubes on the doomed plane had not been removed and replaced.

But I would not focus on this too much. The epic thunderstorm system that Air France 447 flew into would have been a huge hail and ice-generating machine that could have overwhelmed even the new and improved pitot tubes if they had been installed.

Regardless, the failure cascade chronicled in the ACARS text message hauntingly matches a 2008 event when an Air Caraibe A-330 flying the same route encountered some serious pitot tube icing. That plane was not in such severe circumstances so the crew was able to get things back under control – and lived to tell the tale.

Now here is a key point to remember: as systems fail in an Airbus, the laws that the computers live by change from “normal”, to “alternate”, to “abnormal alternate” to “direct”. At each stage the computers surrender more authority to the humans – until finally silicon surrenders and the carbon pilots are on their own – with no help at all from HAL – at just the point they need him most.

They were in the dark, getting hammered by turbulence, flying blind, by hand, a plane that was designed and built to be controlled by machines – with human supervision.

Suddenly that deceptively simple cockpit was a riddle so complex it was unsolvable.

The Great Debate Debate Archive The paradox of “simplicity” | The Great Debate |


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 11, 2009)

Airbus has issued three AITs. The first was notification of the accident. The second reminds operators of FOM/QRH procedures for airspeed discrepancies. The third notes that the airspeed discrepancies resulted in system reconfigurations PER DESIGN, does NOT indicate loss of electrical power, does NOT indicate loss of PFDs, and notes some Thales pitot probe issues related to icing.

Seesul, your #128 post is really not consistent with the messages nor with system degradation behaviour.


----------



## seesul (Jun 11, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Seesul, your #128 post is really not consistent with the messages nor with system degradation behaviour.



That´s possible...you know my English
A friend of mine, a WW2 vet (not that one in my siggy) sent it to me. He got this e-mail from a retired Delta Airlines pilot. It would be unfair to show their names here but if you wanna have a full copy of our conversation, just send me a PM.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 11, 2009)

No that's okay, Seesul. I'm not challenging his position, just that it seems contradictory to the above information. Whether his conclusions are correct, I don't know. It's easy to speculate. I too want to make conclusions, but there really isn't enough information to conclude anything other than system status until we find the recorders. I did not mention, and perhaps it has been reported, France did send a submarine to the area with a remotely operated vehicle. Let's keep our fingers crossed.


----------



## seesul (Jun 12, 2009)

Yes, I know about this submarine. It is able to search 18 square miles a day as I heard. Hope it will find the black boxes and keep my fingers too. Black box sends a signal 30 days. So there´s no much time left...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Which brings us to the question: are not modern aircraft, and aircraft built to the Airbus design philosophy in particular, specifically built so that this sort of thing can not happen?



Normally aircraft have heated pitot tbues, but those too can malfunction.


----------



## seesul (Jun 12, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Normally aircraft have heated pitot tbues, but those too can malfunction.



I´ve read in our newspapers yesterday that Airbus sent the a Service bulletine to its customers about replacement the pitot tubes on A330/340 yet before the crash of Air France. The new pitot tubes have a more powerful heating system. The crashed Air France aircraft had the the old pitot tubes. As mentioned on the previous page, there´s a question, if the new pitot tubes would resist the conditions the Air Franc Airbus flew through...

Where are you Chris, in London yet? Got an e-mail from Lee (Trackend) that you´re going to meet each other if there´s a chance...be safe and enjoy the trip.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2009)

seesul said:


> Where are you Chris, in London yet? Got an e-mail from Lee (Trackend) that you´re going to meet each other if there´s a chance...be safe and enjoy the trip.



No, I am back in Germany. We flew back home today. I did not get a chance to meet Lee due to a tube strike kind of screwing everything up and making things hectic for us. I am planning on flying back to London this summer because I missed out on the RAF museum due to it being closed (talk about luck huh???). I am certainly going to try and meet up with him then.


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Jun 12, 2009)

Just heard on the radio about a couple that missed this flight and took a later one home. Reports says they were in a mojor car accident several days later in Austria where thier car swerved into an oncoming lane and hit a truck killing the wife and seriously injuring the husband. Have not confirmed this story, but if it's true what irony, to be thankful you survived a major tragedy only to be killed soon afterwards in another.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2009)

seesul said:


> Yes, I know about this submarine. It is able to search 18 square miles a day as I heard. Hope it will find the black boxes and keep my fingers too. Black box sends a signal 30 days. So there´s no much time left...



I've been wondering why its taken so long for the Fench authorities to get their subs in place to begin "listening".

Maybe one thing to come out of the crash, is the need for quickly deployable mini subs to begin searching within a couple of days of an incident at sea.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 12, 2009)

Bucksnort101 said:


> Just heard on the radio about a couple that missed this flight and took a later one home. Reports says they were in a mojor car accident several days later in Austria where thier car swerved into an oncoming lane and hit a truck killing the wife and seriously injuring the husband. Have not confirmed this story, but if it's true what irony, to be thankful you survived a major tragedy only to be killed soon afterwards in another.




Heard that too, Buck. So apparently true. And sadly ironic.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2009)

Bucksnort101 said:


> Just heard on the radio about a couple that missed this flight and took a later one home. Reports says they were in a mojor car accident several days later in Austria where thier car swerved into an oncoming lane and hit a truck killing the wife and seriously injuring the husband. Have not confirmed this story, but if it's true what irony, to be thankful you survived a major tragedy only to be killed soon afterwards in another.


Yeah, saw this on the news 

What are the freakin' odds of that happening?


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 13, 2009)

Sounds like a 'Twilight Zone' episode.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 15, 2009)

Terrorism not ruled out in Air France crash mystery - More food for thought!



June 9, 2009


Divers pull Air France tail fin out of Atlantic Ocean
A week after Air France A330's unexplained fatal dive into the Atlantic June 1, DEBKAfile reports from Paris that US, French and Brazilian investigators have begun going through the list of more than 200 passengers on the flight from Rio to Paris with a tooth comb. They are looking at the victims' countries of origin, family, social and denominational associations for possible clues to the mysterious disaster. 

After the recovery of 24 bodies, some personal possessions and large sections of the doomed aircraft, there is still no understanding of what happened aboard the craft in the few short minutes before the crash when its automated monitoring systems transmitted a series of 24 error messages indicating the shutdown of critical systems. 

As long as the fog surrounding the tragedy remains impenetrable, a man-made disaster cannot be ruled out. Both the French defense minister and Pentagon have said there were no signs that terrorism was involved in the crash. This was short of an outright denial. But some terror experts are not excluding a terrorist attack.

Saturday, June 6, when the French and US president held a news conference at Caen, Barack Obama commented, apparently off the cuff: "…it's not clear yet what happened to the plane but the two countries want to find discover what caused the plane to be lost."

This sort of comment by a US president and America's active involvement in the investigation of a foreign air disaster when the plane is not of US manufacture and no Americans were aboard are unusual - unless a serious crime or terror is suspected. So too is Sarkozy's request to Obama for active US participation in the search without consulting with Air France.

Aviation authorities recall that another Air France flight from Buenos Aires to Paris was grounded temporarily on May 27 because of a telephoned bomb threat. The tri-border region where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet is home to a large Muslim population with a history of militancy.

Aviation experts were first puzzled by the time the airline took on June 1 – an hour and a half - to disclose that the plane had failed to land at Charles de Gaulle after dropping off radar screens. Later, Paris radio announced that there was no hope of survivors among passengers and crew, but offered no information to support this presumption. The delays, according to our Paris sources, indicated that French government and security officials were themselves scrambling frantically for information to establish the cause of the tragedy. They tried to impose a news blackout until they were wiser, but the dearth of facts only gave rise to wild rumors, such as a bolt of lightening or extreme turbulence. Both theories were quickly dismissed; large airliners are designed to withstand extreme weather conditions. 

The French government came out with its first official statement only when it was forced to admit it was stumped. 

Later, French investigators suggested that the cockpit was empty when the plane dropped without warning into the ocean. They offered no theories about whether the pilots had left the cockpit voluntarily or not. 

The auto-pilot was also disengaged shortly before the stream of error messages went out. 

In a detailed analysis published Tuesday, June 9, a BBC aviation expert wondered whether it was "an un-commanded disengagement prompted by some other systems failure, or whether the pilot took control in a valiant but ultimately failed attempt to rescue his aircraft."

Sophisticated American sonar equipment will be deployed Thursday to trace the black boxes in several hundred square kilometers of deep Atlantic Ocean 1,000 km north-east of Brazil's Fernando de Noronha islands. The locators can detect pings to a depth of 6,000 meters. They will be working against the clock since these signals begin to fade after 30 days. After July 1 the recorders will be lost. 

If found in time, French deep-water unmanned subs aboard the oceanographic survey ship Pourquoi Pas will be lowered to retrieve the boxes from the ocean floor

Meanwhile, the recovered vertical stabilizer which must have sheared off the plane shows no signs of burn marks. One expert says this does not mean much since an explosion or fire in the fuselage would not necessarily reach the tail section.

Investigators are also looking at the possibility that external speed monitors iced over and gave dangerously false readings to cockpit computers in a thunderstorm. The sensors aboard flight A330 had not been replaced as Airbus, the manufacturer, had recommended.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 15, 2009)

This just keeps getting odder and odder.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 16, 2009)

I'm still trying to find a reference to a discovery that two persons on that flight were Muslims on the highly classified terror lists and the theory that the pilot may have taken manual control to prevent a takepver... with speculation that Paris was the target for a hijacking.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 16, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I've been wondering why its taken so long for the Fench authorities to get their subs in place to begin "listening".
> 
> Maybe one thing to come out of the crash, is the need for quickly deployable mini subs to begin searching within a couple of days of an incident at sea.



Was thinking about that. I am not so sure it's going to be a great help to put a sub in that area. Not so much because the sonar doesn't work but because the depth a sub can get to (I'm guessing the max is about 1,000ft) and the depth of the wreckage (about 15K feet) mean there are a ton of layers of waters between the pinger and the sonar. Need to have the sonar in or close to the same layer to get the sound.

At least that is what I think is the situation. Somebody who actually was a sonar tech (I was an OS) would know it for sure.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 16, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Was thinking about that. I am not so sure it's going to be a great help to put a sub in that area. Not so much because the sonar doesn't work but because the depth a sub can get to (I'm guessing the max is about 1,000ft) and the depth of the wreckage (about 15K feet) mean there are a ton of layers of waters between the pinger and the sonar. Need to have the sonar in or close to the same layer to get the sound.
> 
> At least that is what I think is the situation. Somebody who actually was a sonar tech (I was an OS) would know it for sure.




Theres nothing complicated about a mini-sub cruising under the thermoclines with a tethered listening device "dipping" deep.

I also was amazed on how fast the French authorities came up with the excuse the black boxes are too deep and probably never will be found. And that was before they even tried looking for them. It was like they *DONT* want them to be found.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 16, 2009)

Where is He Whom Does Not Skim when you need him. Not that it matters for these depths Timshatz, but I think your max depth is likely way too conservative. In 1989 Russian held the world max depth record for a military submarine of 1000m. The Russians actually claimed over 4200ft. Pretty damn impressive for 30yo technology in either case.

But you are right about the depth. And compound that with geological impediments (undersea mountains, cliffs, etc) and/or the recorders covered in heavy debris only compound the points you make. Meanwhile time is running out for the ULD batteries.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 16, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I'm still trying to find a reference to a discovery that two persons on that flight were Muslims on the highly classified terror lists and the theory that the pilot may have taken manual control to prevent a takepver... with speculation that Paris was the target for a hijacking.



Drgondog,
The last I heard on this is that it was a coincidence. They had the same names as someone on the watchlist, but weren't the actual people. That was on radio, so sorry, I can't give a reference for this either.


----------



## seesul (Jun 17, 2009)

gumbyk said:


> Drgondog,
> The last I heard on this is that it was a coincidence. They had the same names as someone on the watchlist, but weren't the actual people. That was on radio, so sorry, I can't give a reference for this either.



Yep, I heard the same.


----------



## seesul (Jun 17, 2009)

BBC NEWS | Americas | Air France tail fin brought ashore


----------



## seesul (Jun 17, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I'm still trying to find a reference to a discovery that two persons on that flight were Muslims on the highly classified terror lists and the theory that the pilot may have taken manual control to prevent a takepver... with speculation that Paris was the target for a hijacking.



Here you go Bill:
DEBKAfile - Two radical Muslims identified on crashed Air France flight
Never Yet Melted Muslim Radicals Aboard Doomed Air France 447
FOX News Radio - 2 Radical Muslims Believed To Be Onboard Air France Flight?
Terror Names Linked To Doomed Flight AF 447: Two Passengers Shared Names Of Radical Muslims | World News | Sky News
Two terror suspects were on crash jet AF447 | The Sun |News
Air France Airbus A330: Radical Muslims Islamic terrorists bring down flight AF447? - Bild.de


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2009)

seesul said:


> Here you go Bill:
> DEBKAfile - Two radical Muslims identified on crashed Air France flight
> Never Yet Melted Muslim Radicals Aboard Doomed Air France 447
> FOX News Radio - 2 Radical Muslims Believed To Be Onboard Air France Flight?
> ...



Thx Seesul - the Debka article is the one I seem to recall


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2009)

Do you all know that a few weeks before the Air France flight going down the aircraft was grounded because of electrical issues on the plane?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 17, 2009)

No. What kind? Writeups are VERY common and "grounded" can mean different things depending upon the context. Reportable incident or dispatch issue? Aircraft have electrical "issues" all the time that are typically dealt with via redundancy and MEL relief. A reportable incident is different.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2009)

I don't know the details, it's something that's appeared amongst circles throughout the European civil industry. I was told the rough story while sweating my bollocks off in a 330 avionics bay, good times. the issue kept the aircraft grounded a good few days, apparently... it wouldn't have been mentioned had it been able to fly with MEL or redundant systems. 

I'm sure more details will arrive at my earhole while in another situation where I'm really not interested.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 17, 2009)

You can still have a "grounded" airplane due to redundant system failures not satisfying the MMEL. So without further info, we'll just have to wait and see what your...er... earhole... comes up with.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2009)

You can, I know...you can have 'em grounded 'cos a freakin' plaque is missing off the wheel.


----------



## seesul (Jun 19, 2009)

(CNN) -- A top executive for the company which built the flight data recorder aboard Air France Flight 447 says he hopes his firm's 100 percent recovery record from air accidents will be maintained despite concerns the device may be lost at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

Although some debris has been retrieved, air crash investigators remain in the dark about what caused the airliner to plunge into the sea off the coast of Brazil with 228 people onboard earlier this month. The wreckage is believed to be about 4,500 meters (15,000 feet) deep, amid underwater mountains and mixed in with tons of sea trash.

A French nuclear submarine and other vessels are searching for the flight data recorder by attempting to trace its locator beacon, which sends acoustic pulses, or "pings," to searchers.

The U.S. Navy has contributed two high-tech acoustic devices -- known as towed pinger locators -- which have been attached to French tug boats and can search to a maximum depth of 20,000 feet.

Honeywell Aerospace's Paolo Carmassi -- the firm's president for Europe, the Middle East, Africa and India -- told CNN that retrieving the flight data could help solve the mystery of the plane's fate and said his company had never lost a black box involved in an accident.

"We believe that our technology is well-positioned to, in this case, contribute to solve the big question around this particular accident," Carmassi said.

"We have a 100 percent recovery rate of all the black boxes that we have installed that unfortunately may have been involved in accidents so we hope that we will be able to maintain our record and be able to shed some light on what happened." Video Watch what clues investigators are looking at »

But Carmassi acknowledged it was hard to estimate how much battery life the locator beacon had left.

"There is a certain duration which depends on the particular environmental conditions, whether it's underwater or on land, whether it's at 10 meters or 4,000 meters; so it's very difficult to pinpoint exactly the duration," he said.

Yann Cochennec, an aviation expert with Air et Cosmos magazine, told CNN that a recorder had been retrieved from the seabed in 2004 after an Egyptian charter flight crashed into the Red Sea shortly after leaving Sharm el-Sheikh.

But he said the depth of the Atlantic, strong currents and bad weather would make retrieving the recorder from the Air France wreckage far more difficult.

The flight data recorder -- sometimes called a "black box" -- is actually an orange, metal cylinder weighing about 13 pounds. Inside is a stack of memory chips designed to survive high temperatures, strong impact and tons of pressure.

The devices record virtually every detail about how an aircraft is working, including cabin pressure, speed and altitude, remaining fuel and whether that fuel is flowing properly. They have played a crucial part in air crash investigations since they were first fitted to commercial aircraft in the 1940s.

Manufacturer optimistic of finding AF447 flight data recorder - CNN.com


----------



## seesul (Jun 23, 2009)

I just heard in the news that according the French Le Monde the French ship got the weak signal from the black box and they just sent a submarine Nautilus there. Air France didn´t confirm this news yet...


----------



## seesul (Jun 23, 2009)

Unfortunately...they just disclaimed this news about the black box signal as a false scent...


----------

