AF447

[ARFOR]

Commonality of hypothesis:-

The question remains, the mode of upset?, and the descent to the surface (with or without flight crew intervention)?

re: attempted ditching, what would they have needed?

1) An intact or at least flyable airframe; AND
2) Attitude reference (visual or synthetic); AND
3) Airspeed indication and thrust for [N1 and pitch] procedure until through the air data anomalies; AND/OR
4) Descent into thicker air where thrust/underspeed would become less critical (increased handling margin); AND/OR;
5) Following thrust loss (no indication that happened) a glide descent.

It follows that:-

A. If the aircraft had descended, or flew through a rare WX generated air data collection systems problem (still hypothesis only) and eventually exit (in a recoverable/flyable state with thrust available):-

1) - If no other damage had occurred, the lost air data would eventually return (as per similar events) and the crew could fly out presumably (as per similar events) and recover/return to normal flight (including ACARS output); OR
2) - If the aircraft suffered engine failure, it could be recovered to a glide for troubleshooting (would it still output ACARS?), relight/restart and return to normal flight, or ditch; OR
3) - The aircraft suffered structural failure due to airframe overloading (commanded or aerodynamic loads/or both) + possible engine failure resulting in terminal descent in one of the ‘uncontrolled/uncontrollable modes’ discussed at length in this thread; AND/OR
3a) - The aircraft may have been in a situation with (any of the following) combinations of unusual attitude, O/speed, Stall, Spin, Thrust loss, Asymmetric thrust, insufficient or incomplete control authority (surfaces/systems) with insufficient airframe AND/OR control authority AND/or altitude remaining to affect a recovery to normal flight

B. Clearly, unfortunately it did not recover normal flight. Why? Possibilities:-

- Loss of flight instrumentation systems (continued)
- Loss of other systems after 02h13+
- Loss of thrust; and/or
- Loss of airframe components critical to controlled flight; and/or
- Stalled flight, unrecoverable

Outcome:-

Water impact flat at high (vertical) speed is going to be similar to the BOAC 707 at Fuji.

For those that have not seen them, the photos from above of the wreckage of the 707, latitudinal parts layed out pretty much as expected with a vertical profile (FLAT), main gear legs, wing roots, fuse parts, unsurprisingly where they were expected to be, flat as a lizard drinking!. The compression on impact reduced most components to less than 1m in vertical dimensions. That is the fuse, wings and all else;-

A water impact flat (at high speed) is little different to a hard surface!
BEA says (they think) a horizontal fuse (or near enough), vertical impact with the water??

Q1. Would a galley wall with packs installed not compress to a foot tall or so with that sort of vertical inertia impact?
Q2. Would the other visible (photo) items recovered such as medical kit be as ‘uncompressed’ as shown in a fuselage high g flat impact?
Q4. would an attached VS look as pristine along its vertical proflie if it had hit the hard deck at high G?
Q3. Why would most of the debris sink (not much on the surface to recover)?

Some of you have narrowed in on the ‘likely’ failure scenario. Is that important? Only if, there is an inherent weakness in the airframe! Do I think there is an inherent weakness in the airframe? NO

Do I wonder about the flight management/C of G/protections that will ensure the airframe is not put in an ‘outside of reasonable/design envelope’ mode, YES!

WHY?

You all are close me thinks!!