AF 447 Search to resume

[bearfoil]

PJ2

Thanks. Whatever the fallout, it is extremely important to keep this accident in front of the people who fly. It should be obvious to anyone that "Spin" can be used in other ways than aerodynamically; I have seen too many investigations of all types pass into the mist of the past without proper attribution of responsibility.

With an activation speed of 250 knots, is the limit/blow back system dependent on indicated air speed? likewise, is the 2g threshold reliant on equipment that may have been reporting falsely, as other sensors were?

It is not difficult to envision the impact as BEA reports it. What they describe is a hydraulic "Flat Plate", similar to an actual airborne maneuver, though executed in smaller and more robust airframe. May as well get some of the more impossible things out of the way, can a wide body "Flat-Plate" at altitude? My question is prompted by how minimal the damage of Galley and crew rest was. Doesn't look at all like a flat impact on what may as well have been concrete. Bear in mind these are modular installations, and have little "critical" strength engineered into them.

The pressure of the cabin as the a/c hit "flat" must have been quite high, assuming the hull was intact, as maintained by BEA. Would this explain some of the materials' failure relative to delamination (crew rest module), and some of the tearing and shredding of other thin materials, cabin liner, carpeting, seats, etc. The MedPak was quite unblemished, as other materials were, VS, laptop, FA seats, etc. I've not seen any crash scene of land impacts that show any relics 'undamaged', as here.

The crack in the Pin/Sleeve of the Rudder attachment, as well as the missing piece of "vertical arm" suggest a serious overload of the Rudder loading/attenuation system, but in its normally operating 'plane' of stress. This in itself doesn't mean the VS couldn't have been attached at impact, neither does it exonerate that conclusion. With the VS' condition relative to most of the other recovered aerodynamic surfaces, there is at least some doubt about the attachment at impact.

There is, of course, a popular thought that one needs to wait to be told what occurred. In my experience, that is reasonable. However, please understand that the ones who own the evidence own the conclusion, and truth be told, if one has a bias, it is humanly impossible to be objective.


So none of this should be taken as gospel. Similarly, there is no moral judgment here, but let me say that I have caught myself building a case one way, without knowing I was. There is a bias here, it is not mine.

It's human nature.

bear