AF447

[ArthurBorges]

Just to Add Some More schlitz to the Fan...

I'd started my own translation in a vain bid to beat Eurocockpit, if for little real reason other than idleness and a personal interest in AF, so here it comes -- if this has a stronger dose of sarcastic spin, I stand by it (once checked draft):


AF 447 Deviated West Just Like LH507


Page 71 of the BEA report lists the so-called "first established facts". Their order of presentation is semantically deliberate: words assume fullest meaning when in the right order. True, BEA did have a whole month to think things through.

Here's the demonstration:

"Up until its last automatically-reported position, received at 021034UTC, the flight was proceeding on the route given in the flight plan."

IN CLEARSPEAK: AF447 made no deviations.

"Weather conditions were consistent with what is normal in the intertropical convergence zone in June."

IN CLEARSPEAK: There are always storms there.

"There was a mass of powerful cumulonimbus formations on the flight path of AF447. Some of them may have been a source of significant turbulence.

IN CLEARSPEAK: There were just "huge" storms along its flight path and, as just said, the aircraft made no deviation..

"Several aircraft crossing the area before and after AF 447, at practically the same altitude, changed their route to avoid the cloud formations."

IN CLEARSPEAK: The other planes flying the same route -- the ones that didn't crash -- deviated in order to avoid the "huge" storms.

IN SHORT: All the aircraft that deviated survived; AF 447 that stayed on track, crashed.

So does anybody know who is responsible for not deviating the aircraft they were flying?

If you haven't figured it out, because we know it's complication, CEO Bourgeon gives you a clue in his Figaro interview:

(see translation of Gourgeon/Figaro interview: At issue is Mr. Gourgeon's statement that LH507 hit a weather bump that induced them to increase radar sensitivity; he went on to say that maybe AF447 "wasn't lucky enough" to hit such an heads-up weather bump)

IN CLEARSPEAK: the pilots of AF447 from Rio to Paris didn't know how to use their radar and "weren't lucky enough" not to get killed. Air France will be training mentally retarded pilots who'll losing their lives until they finally learn how to use the beautiful radars we let them borrow. As for his statement "regardless of whether this was the cause of the loss, we have to study all factors and upgrade the processes and procedures," you have to admit that Mr. Gourgeon doesn't talk that way when it comes to the pitot tubes -- because, as everybody knows, the pitot tubes are not, cannot be, and have been prohibited from being, the cause of the loss of AF447.

There you have it: it's all wrapped up! The plane creasehd because BEA and Air France speak with one voice: the aircraft stuck to its route on the flight plan straight into the "very big huge storms" described by Mr. Feldzer.

But is it really the case?

Is it the "established fact" the BEA says it is?

Page 13 of the BEA report show a map indicating transmission times for ACARS messages -- at 10 minute intervals as confirmed on page25.

AT 0200UTC, the aircrafte has not reached "ORARO". At 0210, it has passed ORARO but not reached TASIL.

On page 69, the BEA mentions LH507 that was about 20 minutes ahead of AF447 at the same altitude on the same route. That flight deviated "about 10 nm to the west" in order to avoid an area near ORARO that gave radar echos. Obviously, the Lufthansa B747 was smart enough to use its radar -- and therefore survived. It survived by deviating only 10nm west of the ORARO area. Think about it.

So what did AF447 do "about 20 minutes" later in the same ORARO region, i.e. between 0200 and 0210UTC?

"The flight followed the route in the flight plan," says BEA. End of story.

But before being as certain as the BEA is, you still need two things:

1. The BEA would need a continuous plot of the aircraft's positions, not a set of positions at 10-minute intervals.

2. It would have to be true.

Because, when you monitor somebody every 10 minutes, nothing proves that person's position during the nine unmonitored minutes in between. So, as Mr. De La Palice might have said, throughout each of the nine-minute intervals during which positions were not transmitted, those positions are unknown.

Thus, regardless of the BEA's somewhat hasty "established fact" nothing proves did not change course somewhere near ORARO betwen 0200 and 0210UTC just like LH507.

Quite the contrary: everything shows AF447 did deviate from the flight plan!

This is easy to show on a map alongside the "route (segment) in the flight plan" between ORARO and TASIL.

Between those two points, a straightline between them on a map amounts to the same thing as a direct curved line between them on a spherical globe. In effect, the distance between them is 119nm and the lateral gap between the two lines is negligible over so short a distance.

I'm letting go here because Eurocockpit has finished the job, but if anyone wants the rest, I'm just sitting here at home with no classes to teach till Sept. 1st.