Air France Flight Missing

[StaySeated]

Iced over probes. GMAFB, I have read a number of different ECAM warnings but not one of them were related to probe heat. Why can't we have an investigation like they used to do it back in the day. Everyone STFU, and wait until the pro's actually get a chance to analyze the facts.

 

[scoreboardII]

probably will be the most intensely investigated aircraft accident in history. .

I predict not.

They "find debris" now they have "found nothing".

Odd? No.

They don't want to find the black box on this one. Airbus and AF both want this to be end of story. They don't want to know why a modern jet can fall apart crossing the ocean.

 

[embpic1]

I predict not.

They "find debris" now they have "found nothing".

Odd? No.

They don't want to find the black box on this one. Airbus and AF both want this to be end of story. They don't want to know why a modern jet can fall apart crossing the ocean.

I don't know about AF, but you can bet Airbus secretly is praying the black boxes are never recovered.

 

[MCDU]

I bet the airplane went into alternate law due to the severe upset entering the storm. It went to abnormal attitude law that does not give you protections in pitch and bank angle. This happens when the airplane gets into such an upset that the airplane thinks it entered such an unusual attitude which should not have happened. This Abnormal law is when the airplane exceeds parameters. After recovery the plane would be in Alternate law without bank or pitch protections because the airplane sees a fault, ( it should never have exceeded certain bank or pitch protections).

(Plane would not have gone to direct law with gear extension).

M

 

[poppi]

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE
ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX
SUBJECT: AF447 ACCIDENT INTO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
OUR REF: AF447 AIT 2 June 4th 2009
PREVIOUS REF:
- Ref 1: AF447 AIT 1 dated June 1st 2009

This AIT is an update of the previous AIT n°1 concerning the AF447
accident into the Atlantic ocean on June 1st, 2009.
In line with the ICAO Annex 13 recommendations, the French
investigation Board - BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) is
leading the technical investigation, with accredited representatives
from the Brazilian Investigation Board and US NTSB, with Airbus
providing technical support.
The following data have been approved for release by the French BEA.
The route of the aircraft was crossing a tropical multicell
convective area at the time of the accident.
Failure/ maintenance messages have been transmitted automatically
from the aircraft to the airline maintenance center.
The above mentionned messages indicate that there was inconsistency
between the different measured airspeeds. Therefore and without
prejudging the final outcome of the investigation, the data available
leads Airbus to remind operators what are the applicable operational
recommendations in case of unreliable airspeed indication.
The following operational procedures are available for the Airbus
Aircraft Type :
-A300: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 8.05.10;
-A310: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 2.05.80;
-A300-600: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 2.05.80;
-A318/A318/A320/A321 family: QRH 2.15 thru 2.18A, FCOM 3.02.34;
-A330/A340 Family: QRH 2.21 thru 2.23B , FCOM 3.02.34;
-A380: ECAM not-sensed procedures, FCOM - Procedures / ECAM
Abnormal and Emergency Procedures / 34 Navigation.
An update on the accident data will be provided as soon as further
valuable information is approved for release by the Investigation

 

[Redmeat]

They don't want to find the black box on this one. Airbus and AF both want this to be end of story. They don't want to know why a modern jet can fall apart crossing the ocean.

Exactly.

I don't know about AF, but you can bet Airbus secretly is praying the black boxes are never recovered.

France (therefore AF) has a vested interest in the success of Airbus...

Edit: Here's my opinion on the Airbus... they are easy to fly and do everything for ya except make martinis and toast, but when the feces starts hitting the fan I wouldn't want that carbon fiber plastic piece of crap strapped to my behind!

AHhhh Aluminum...my favorite material.

 

[freightdogfred]

This story has some very interesting info.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090605/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane

Looks Like Airbus and the French have started some serious spin on this.
It's a shame that info on safety matters may be buried to protect a brand name.

 

[B-atch]

I suspect that this AC did not break-up in flight as some "Experts" are claiming. An in flight break-up would litter the ocean with Ac parts and bodies. The fact that nothing has been found leads me to believe that contact with the ocean surface was close to vertical. If this is the case, the wreckage should be clustered within a fairly compact area.
I remember back in the 80's an Iranian A-300 was blown out of the sky by a US frigate. The in flight break-up littered bodies and AC parts throughout the area. I believe this happened some were in the Persian Gulf, or the Straits of Hormuz

 

[Lear70]

Depends how it broke up.

If the tail separated, it most likely would have come down intact, maybe losing the wing(s), but the fuselage wouldn't automatically start disintegrating with the loss of just the tail and/or the wings.

What you're talking about is an in-flight explosion. What they're talking about is a separation of the tail or the wings or both.

 

[B-atch]

Point taken however, in the thin air at FL 350 at .80 mx a separation of the tail or wing would inevitably cause this ac to tumble and fragment.

The "scatter pattern" of an inflight structural break-up would be similar to an inflight explosion.
I'm no expert, just an observation.

 

[embpic1]

Ok, this is getting weird. According to a news report I saw, none of the recovered wreckage is from the A330. There is definitely debris out there including an aircraft seat. Could they have had a midair with someone flying through the airspace illegally (drug run, transponder off etc..)?

 

[B-atch]

Drug smugglers normally don't fly at FL 350.......

 

[embpic1]

Drug smugglers normally don't fly at FL 350.......

Drug smugglers have been known to use 727s, DC-8s, G2s etc. Trust me, they can get to FL 350.

The point is that they are finding aircraft parts that are not from the 330.

 

[airplane wizard]

The pilots should have direct control of the aircraft...no moving of a joystick...which signals a computer to signal a flight control actuator. Bound to cause an accident sooner or later.

 

[PropPiedmont]

Drug smugglers have been known to use 727s, DC-8s, G2s etc. Trust me, they can get to FL 350.

The point is that they are finding aircraft parts that are not from the 330.

If I were flying drugs, up high, I don't think I'd be at FL350.....Maybe FL355 or 345, you know, a little safety cushion.

 

[SennaP1]

The pilots should have direct control of the aircraft...no moving of a joystick...which signals a computer to signal a flight control actuator. Bound to cause an accident sooner or later.

Thank you Captain.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

The pilots should have direct control of the aircraft...no moving of a joystick...which signals a computer to signal a flight control actuator. Bound to cause an accident sooner or later.

I guess boeing didn't get that memo when they designed the 777.

 

[poppi]

The pilots should have direct control of the aircraft...no moving of a joystick...which signals a computer to signal a flight control actuator. Bound to cause an accident sooner or later.

Direct law is the lowest level of computer flight control and occurs with certain multiple failures.

• Pilot control inputs are transmitted unmodified to the control surfaces, providing a direct relationship between sidestick and control surface.

 

[SennaP1]

I guess boeing didn't get that memo when they designed the 777.

Someone tell the USAF, Navy, Marines, ... too.

And Embraer.

Who else?

 

[Lear70]

Thank you Captain.

Beat me to it... :smash:

 

[~~~^~~~]

Whoops - already reported. Disregard.

 

[poppi]

As it pertains to this AF thread, the ability to hold any kind of pitch to within a degree or 2 at FL350 is nullfied by the presence of severe or extreme turbulence, the definition of which is the aircraft is at least sometimes "impossible to control", especially in a sluggish, wallowing aircraft. That means your pitch may be at least partially controlled not by you, but by outside forces you're merely fighting to counteract.

Throw in being knocked around on the roll axis with the corresponding sudden rises in wing loading (which will further serve to degrade speed and raise the low-speed buffet margin) threatening to stall one or both wings because you're high, and the only answer arises....pitch for a descent if possible to help maintain and increase aerodynamic control, and keep it right side up.

And if you're caught in a CB-produced severe updraft that lets go while you're still in a nose-up, level flight attitude based on FL350 numbers, at FL370 that same attitude puts you in a world of hurt. What works as an answer for the single problem of erroneous airspeed readings at 10000' or FL350 in smooth air isn't necassarily the best answer or what should be applied to what the AF likely found itself in.


spot on

 

[glasspilot1]

The recovered parts of the Titanic from that depth so they should be able to get the recorders.

The problem is not the depth, it's "where are they"?

 

[Princedietrich]

at 0210Z : from bottom to top :
- AUTO FLT AP OFF
-F/CTL ALTN LAW
- FlAG ON Capt PFD
- FLAG ON F/O PFD
- AUTO FLT ATHR OFF
- NAV TCAS FAULT
- FLAG ON CAPT PFD
- FLAG ON F/O PFD
- F/CTL RUD TRV LIM FAULT
- EFCS2...1..EFCS1...AFS
- EFCS1...X2..EFCS2X

at 0211Z :
- FLAG ON CAPT PFD
- FLAG ON F/O PFD

at 0212z:
- NAV ADR DISAGREE
- ISIS ....ISIS
- IR2...1,EFCS1X, IR1, IR3

at 0213Z :
- F/CTL PRIM1 FAULT
- F/CTL SEC1 FAULT
- AFS 1 FMGEC1

Please forgive my lack of knowledge on this subject, but I'm not a glass cockpit jet pilot and therefore I'm not fluent in the failure codes. Any chance someone could translate these?

 

[Donsa320]

Please forgive my lack of knowledge on this subject, but I'm not a glass cockpit jet pilot and therefore I'm not fluent in the failure codes. Any chance someone could translate these?

OK I'll stick my neck out a little. The events suggest a cascading electrical failure. At the end there may have been no aircraft attitude instruments available. In cloud, at night, in turbulence, arg!

But what started it? That is the $64 question. Bomb? Static discharge? Structural failure? Mechanical failure? Mid-air? Meteorite strike? One can go as far out as you want at this point.

This will be a tough one to solve.

DC

 

[Mike man]

The pilots should have direct control of the aircraft...no moving of a joystick...which signals a computer to signal a flight control actuator. Bound to cause an accident sooner or later.

When did this become amateur hour?

The A320's have been flying for over 20 years now, which accidents have been caused by the flight computers? Do tell...please.

 

[Mike man]

I found this on a different site...

02:10Z:Autothrust off
Autopilot off
FBW alternate law
Rudder Travel Limiter Fault
TCAS fault due to antenna fault
Flight Envelope Computation warning
All pitot static ports lost

02:11Z:Failure of all three ADIRUs
Failure of gyros of ISIS (attitude information lost)

02:12Z:ADIRUs Air Data disagree

02:13Z:Flight Management, Guidance and Envelope Computer fault
PRIM 1 fault
SEC 1 fault02:14Z:Cabin Pressure Controller fault (cabin vertical speed)

 

[Fedora]

When did this become amateur hour?

The A320's have been flying for over 20 years now, which accidents have been caused by the flight computers? Do tell...please.

Try the Paris Air Show years ago when the flight computer landed the jet in the forest. Trying to do a low pass the crew didn't realize what "mode" the computer was in. It was landing. Crews advanced throttles and rotated the aircraft, both actions were overridden by the computer logic. Am I wrong here? It was a long time ago.

 

[Whine Lover]

"..the crew didn't realize what "mode" the computer was in. "

Therefore, Pilot error.

However, were there no FBW ( direct mechanical control ) and no "modes" to deal with there would have been no crash.

Hmmm. A conundrum.

Next: Which came first? The Chicken? Or, the Egg?


MKR

 

[Lear70]

That's one thing I don't like about the Airbus.

On a Boeing, if I override the autothrottles (just by moving them) or kick the autopilot off, I have control of the airplane. Period. The end.

Of course, this could have nothing to do with the accident sequence, it's just a personal pet peeve I have of Airbus. I didn't get this far to let a computer fly my plane,,,