Hi Jeff,
Hyperveloce:
For the U-turn hypothesis and the infered crash area, is it possible that an airliner (at the assumed flight point, airspeed and altitude) bank with such a short radius curve ? (as plotted on the map)
Certainly not as I have no clue of what happened between 0210Z and 0214Z (and later) - beside the ACARS which are revealing nothing about the course- up to the zone
where the plane might have crashed.
The point (as it is specified) was not to reconstruct an accurate course between 0210Z and the hypothetical crash zone. The body drift infered a position where a U-Turn was mandatory for F-GZCP to end there. The first hypothesis then was an heading to Fernando de Mononha for an emergency landing, the second, taking into account the wreckage spotted on 02 June, pointed to another spot and a more desesperate alternative (crash landing near St Paul's Rocks?).
But the third logical hypothesis would be that they had no plan left at all with an aircraft uncontrolable which ended in this zone.
Just remembering the order for the recovery of the debris and bodies: the first piece collected (on june 6) was the crew rest cabin remain (where is the mobile crew rest deck in the A330 ?), less than 2 days later, the vertical stabilizer was found, and latter other groups of bodies/debris (the whole with a large dispersion)
Yes I remember. The large rigid pieces of the airframe are much more exposed to the wind than nearly fully immersed bodies. The wind was turbulent and somewhat contrary to the drift at some point (this is ITCZ where the weather is fairly complex).
Doesn't it suggest that these people and pieces were first lost in flight after the last ACARS, that the VS was lost and the rear part of the A330 fuselage may have been severely damaged in mid air ? (In this case, the airplane didn't try to make a U-turn but simply tried to control its attitude and its altitude)
It seems unlikely that the aircraft broke up just after 0214Z, loosing passengers, and end there (my only hypothesis is to show that, not to explain it). The distance is about 110+ NM back South-East and more than 12 mn at cruise speed @ FL350 in straight line.
Apart from a stall, how can an airliner break up in mid-air in cunjunction with all the reported avionics faults ? (a cumulonimbus breaking a plane does not need the ACARS faults: would-it explain them ? whereas the stall possibility can stem from these).
The ACARS do not suggest the plane was breaking up in mid air. The end of the ACARS and the lack of further communications only suggest that the plane could not communicate any more, but not that she was unable to 'pilotate' and possibly 'navigate' for a while...
Why isn't it interesting to consider the early leakage from the LAV L54 (which had already problems on the 10th of May) toward the rear of the plane: isn't the BEA right when it suggests that combined to the very low temperatures encountered may have frozen a part of the composite structures, weakening them, making them more prone to a structural failure under heavy stress ?
The BEA did not suggest anything like that. The press did. It is like those so-called 'autopsy' reports 'close to the investigation'. Let's see what will be actually released by the officials and we will compare the report to those 'leaks'. I have read two completely opposite versions of the 'autopsy leaked' published at about the same time
To conclude, can't there be a large initial dispersion that was increased by the several days drift ? The A330 airspeed gradually decreasing between 02:10 and 02:14, then a final trajectory initiated by a stall with a right bank, loss of VS/rear part of the fuselage, gradually loosing passengers and pieces, ending 10-20 NM south east of TASIL. Then a few days NW drift of this initial distribution)
Look at the map scale and the sea drift speed. There is 11 NM between 2014Z and the first bodies recovered. Adding 20 NM is not going to make a good count for a nearly crash zone. Everything else is very hypothetical but this pattern of body and their drift speed is nearly certain as well as the utlimate positional report following by the ACARS sequence.
S~
Olivier