Airbus crash/training flight [Archive]

billyt

27th Nov 2008, 19:56

From New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz)

Five Kiwis dead in Air New Zealand crash
9.50AM By MICHAEL FIELD - Stuff.co.nz | Friday, 28 November 2008

AFP
RECOVERY: Rescuers recover the body of the one crew member recovered from the sea.

LATEST: Seven people - including five New Zealanders - were onboard the Air New Zealand Airbus A320 which crashed off the coast of France this morning, reportedly leaving no survivors.

It is understood three bodies have been recovered. Radio New Zealand is quoting the French Coastguard as saying there are no survivors.
An Air New Zealand captain and three engineers, as well as a New Zealand CAA inspector, were onboard the Airbus.
At a press conference this morning, Air NZ chief executive Rob Fyfe said he did know the status of the New Zealanders but the company, and CAA, were liaising closely with the families of those onboard.
"We have grave concerns for the situation."
The captain on the plane was described as a very experienced pilot.
Mr Fyfe said the aircraft had been leased to German company XL Airways for the past two years and had undergone maintenance in anticipation of a return to New Zealand at the end of this week.
The plane took off on a technical flight from Perpignan, France, this morning (NZ time) destined for Frankfurt in Germany. It was flown by two XL Airways pilots.
After a brief touchdown it crashed into the Mediterranean.
Searchers have located much of the wreckage, which is spread over a 300m area in rough seas.
Divers hope to be able to locate the plane's black box, in up to 45 metres of water tomorrow.
The crash happened on the anniversary of the Air New Zealand DC 10 crash into Mount Erebus on November 28, 1979, in which 257 people died.
“It adds a dimension to the tragedy. This is a very poignant day for Air New Zealand… to have this aircraft operated by XL Airways, to have this incident occur on the same day just adds to the tragedy.”
An Airbus statement this morning confirming the crash said the aircraft had accumulated 7000 flight hours during 2800 flight cycles.
The statement said Airbus would be providing technical assistance to crash investigators and a team of five specialists had been sent to the site.
The A320 is a twin-engine single-aisle aircraft, capable of seating 150 passengers.
Airbus said its concerns and sympathies went to the families, friends and loved ones of those affected by the accident.
The manufacturer was dispatching five specialists to the site to help French authorities determine the cause of the crash.
"The investigation remains the entire responsibility of the relevant authorities and it would be inappropriate for Airbus to enter into any form of speculation into the cause of the accident," the company said in a statement.
Five launches, two helicopters and a patrol airplane have been dispatched to the area of the crash, said First Officer Sandrine Parro of the Regional Operational Centre for Monitoring and Rescue (CROSS) for the Mediterranean.
A maritime affairs officer, Nicolas Renaud, said they were alerted by a pleasure boat skipper who saw the plane go down. "The plane appears to be in several pieces," he told BFM television.
A French minesweeper boat with bomb disposal expert divers was due to arrive at the site on Friday morning to search for the aircraft's black box recorders, said Bernard Celier, spokesman for the maritime prefecture for the Mediterranean.
The sea was choppy on Thursday evening, with southwesterly winds of around 30 knots (around 35 miles) per hour, he added.

The French daily Le Figaro says the plane was on a one hour 30 minute test flight and was approaching the airport when it went down.
The spokesman for XL said the plane tried to make an emergency landing on the sea.
The Mayor of Perpignon says wreckage has been recovered from many hundreds of metres around the crash site.
They mobilised five rescue boats, two boats from the marine division of the Gendarmerie, an aircraft and a civil helicopter. A naval mine sweeper has also been sent to the site to search and recover the black box
The office responsible for enquiring into this type of accident has mobilised a team consisting of five French and two German investigators. They will be joining a team from the Dept of Civ Av (DGAC) and airbus specialists.
Le Figaro say these types of accidents are very rare when an aircraft is going thru maintenance.
The most recent was an Airbus A340 which smash a parapet at Toulouse Airport during an engine test on the ground. Three people were seriously injured.

Dani

27th Nov 2008, 20:12

Paint job? Reminds me of the famous pitot tubes forgotten to remove the tape from...

But I agree it's way too early to know the reason or the way it happened.

Dani

Mercenary Pilot

27th Nov 2008, 20:30

Maintenance sorties are by their very nature, hazardous non-standard operations. My sincerest condolences to the families involved and to Air New Zealand staff on this tragic (and infamous) day.

I hope the cause is quickly established, procedures modified and lessons learnt to make this type of operation safer for all of us whom partake in them.

Due to the many complex technical procedures involved with most maintenance/check flights, especially with an aircraft as advanced as the A320, I would say speculation is absolutely pointless.

DaveReidUK

27th Nov 2008, 21:16

> Maintenance sorties are by their very nature, hazardous non-standard operations.

Do explain.

Flare-Idle

27th Nov 2008, 21:49

Having performed myself dozens of airliner technical acceptance flights after scheduled heavy maintenance checks and unscheduled maintenance checks after incidents on the line, my sincerest condolences to the crew members, the base maintenance team and their relatives.
Airlines normally assign the technical pilot of the corresponding fleet to plan, execute and analyze technical acceptance flights together with the involved base maintenance team. Normally, the aircraft manufacturer supplies a dedicated acceptance flight program which is basically a streamlined flight program of the initial certification process. Yet, this is NOT a testflight program which certified test pilots of the aircraft manufacturer perform.
Technical acceptance flights in airlines are performed by the technical pilot, specially trained “normal” airline pilots and one acceptance flight engineer on the jump seat in the cockpit. It is normally the flight engineer who leads the program and who is responsible for the acceptance flight protocol. Close cooperation and information flow between the technical pilot and the base maintenance team during the maintenance visit of the aircraft and during the extensive pre-flight briefing is of utmost importance for a safe and successful acceptance flight.
The workload during those flights is extremely high because you do things, you should not do on line.

I am eager to learn what went wrong on this tragic flight.

captplaystation

27th Nov 2008, 21:50

My experience of picking aircraft up post maintenance (from several " reputable" establishments) would tend to support Mercenary Pilots statement.
Absolutely amazing what crocks of sh@t I have been presented with as "fit for service" . . . . . Er excuse me , why is this light illuminated / this guarded switch unguarded / why is the Autopilot disconnecting and the Aircraft rolling violently left etc etc. I hated my previous company's policy that any line pilot was qualified to accept an aircraft post maintenance , certainly no way I would have volunteered for these particular "experiences" thanks. :ooh: :=

ExSp33db1rd

27th Nov 2008, 21:57

Catplaystaion - #48 I agree, the most dangerous aircraft to fly is one that has just come out of maintenance, or a routine check, and that's no criticism of the integrity of engineers, nobody deliberately leaves bolts untightened etc. but it happens. If it 'ain't broke - don't fix it, up to a point.

NotPilotAtALL

27th Nov 2008, 22:30

Hello,

From a post on other forum (french .. I let you the work for eventual translation)
It's a recount of what he ear on radio....... nothing official of course .. to take with a big pinch of salt.

Re: /!\ Air New Zealand A320 crashes off France during training (http://www.pprune.org/#p131674)

http://www.pprune.org/./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (http://www.pprune.org/./viewtopic.php?p=131674#p131674)de Philippe/AIB1017 (http://www.pprune.org/./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2746) le 27/11/2008
Bonsoir,
je vous mets en copie le post que j'ai mis sur un autre forum:

"Bonsoir,

J'ai écouté les fréquences Approche et Tour de Perpignan tout l'après midi et je peux vous assurer que vivre un crash en direct live, en habitant à quelques kilometres du lieu, ça fait froid dans le dos.
L'appareil en question a contacté l'approche vers 16h45. il etait direct PPG en descente FL120. Il a été pris en guidage radar car le traffic précédent, un Ryanair, etait sur la STAR. Cap au 090, je me souviens plus du niveau. Puis le précedent etant établit, le controleur ( notre charmante controleuse Perpignanaise), donne un direct LANET, clear LANET ILS 33, descend 4000fts qnh 1016. Le pilote a collationé et c'est la dernière fois qu'on a entendu le pilote. Pas un seul mayday, rien... Puis un pilote d'un PA28 à crié "un appareil crashé, un appareil crashé". La tout s'est accéléré: "Ulysse 34, confirmez un appareil carshé ? position ? " "on est au large de Canet en Roussillon sur le 110 PPG, 10.5nm, Ulysse 34, on commence à tourner sur le lieu du crash, 300 pieds mer". Très rapidement l'hélico de la sécurité civile à decollé de Perpignan "Dragon66, autorisé décollage immédiat de la position,vent calme, virage a gauche".
Une fois l'hélico sur la position, il à annoncé "aucun visuel sur l'appareil, grande tache blanche dans l'eau, on distingue des débris sur plus d'un kilomètre".
je vous passe tous les autres détails... Les contrôleurs on gardé leur calme, ont fait posé tous les VFR en évolution dans la zone. EAS qui devait accueillir le 320 a annoncé 7 personnes à bord. A l'heure ou j'écris ce message, j'écoute les différents appareils qui sont sur le lieu du crash, et à priori ils ne trouvent personne. J'espère qu'il y aura des survuivants, mais vu le froid et la température de l'eau....
Un Dauphin est attendu dans les minutes qui viennent, avec un equipement spécialisé. Une vedette de la SNSM est aussi sur place.
Voila les infos sur ce drame..."

En espérant qu'on rapidement des explications ! J'ai un collègue qui à vu l'avion "tomber" dans la mer. Il a vraiment piqué alors qu'il venait d'amorcer son arc dme pour aller s'établir. Vraiment bizarre...

Philippe

Philippe/AIB1017 (http://www.pprune.org/./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2746)

Source:
www.avionic-online.com • Afficher le sujet - /!\ Air New Zealand A320 crashes off France during training (http://www.avionic-online.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=13795)

Cheers.

C172 Hawk XP

27th Nov 2008, 22:45

I agree, the most dangerous aircraft to fly is one that has just come out of maintenance, or a routine check

It happens throughout aviation, big and small. One of my partners was taxiing our C172 out prior to flying when it became apparent one of the wheels was not properly tightened. It had just come out from a 100 hour service ! Further investigation showed that the engineer who was putting the wheels back had got called away to the phone, then forgot where he was up to.

Also very sad to note that a crash of today's magnitude got NOT A SINGLE MENTION on the BBC's main ten o'clock news. Because so much of the programme was devoted to the tragic events in India.

BGQ

27th Nov 2008, 22:49

LATEST: The search for survivors of a crashed Air New Zealand Airbus A320 – carrying five New Zealanders and two Germans – has been called off for the night.

The plane crashed off Perpignan, in southeast France, about 4.45am (NZ time) today. It had been undergoing maintenance checks at Perpignan airport before a test flight ahead of a return to New Zealand.

The New Zealanders on the flight included two airline engineers from Christchurch, an engineer from Auckland and a pilot from Auckland, all working for Air New Zealand. A New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority expert was also onboard. All are presumed dead.

The Airbus was being flown by two XL Airways pilots aircraft. The Air NZ-owned plane had been leased by XL for the past two years and was being tested ahead of its return this week.

Jean Dunyach, head of Civil Security at the Prefecture in Perpignan, told Stuff.co.nz that the search had been called off for the night, in heavy seas, and would resume at 5am local time. The area is 12 hours behind New Zealand.

“Unfortunately, the conditions are very difficult, it is raining, there are 30kms of wind with big waves and operations have been complicated further because it is now dark,” he said in a telephone interview.

He did not believe there were any survivors and confirmed that bodies of two of the seven crew had been recovered, although not yet identified. They had been transferred to the morgue at Perpignan Hospital, where a member of the French Transport Ministry, Dominique Bussereau was expected tomorrow.

“It is a difficult night for the rescuers… the remaining bodies may well be in pieces.”

Mr Dunyach said the maximum had been done this evening to locate the missing crew members, with five rescue boats, 17 specialised divers, a helicopter and a search aeroplane scouring the scene. Thirty divers were expected tomorrow when he hoped the black box would be retrieved from the wrecked aircraft, currently 40m underwater.

He said the New Zealand and German embassies had been told of the accident and families were being informed. He did not believe there were any survivors.

"It is too early to speculate about the reasons for the crash, only the black box can tell us."

There was a strong feeling of solidarity amongst the local fishermen from the Le Cannet en Roussillon area, as they had been asked to help in the rescue effort.

Better weather was forecast for Friday (French time), and although some were quite shocked by what had happened they were only too happy to lend assistance, he said.

Both the New Zealand and German Embassy have been notified about the accident and the Prefecture was keeping staff closely informed.

Earlier, a French journalist had said searchers battled the dark and strong wind and rain to find survivors.

However, he said there was no hope of survivors.

"It's not really clear on what happened … the plane was flying for one hour and a half and suddenly fell down to the sea," he told Radio New Zealand.

"There was no explosion, it was flying (at) 300m and suddenly fell down into the sea, but no explosion."

There were many witnesses, and emergency services were quickly at the scene.

The aircraft was believed to be 45m deep in the sea and divers would try and recover the black box tomorrow.

Some wreckage was floating on the surface, but the pieces were "very difficult to find because of the big waves and the dark".

A surveillance plane, two rescue helicopters and five ships scoured the seas around the crash site about 3km from the shore. About 20 specialist frogmen also took part in the operation.

SOMBRE MOOD

The mood at Air New Zealand and CAA headquarters in Wellington was sombre this morning, as staff waited for news from France.

The aircraft was owned by Air New Zealand and had been on lease to XL Airways for the past two years. It was four years old and when delivered and had flown for Freedom Air for about a year before being leased.

Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe said it was being flown to Frankfurt, where it was due to be handed back for a ferry flight back to New Zealand this week.

"Naturally, this is an extremely difficult time for us all and the full resources of the airline are being put into investigating what may have happened and providing support to our people and their families," he said.

Fyfe said he had not given up hope of finding survivors. He had briefed Prime Minister John Key.

The pilot was a very experienced captain, "which is typically what we want when we are going through one of these acceptance processes. We have our most experienced people ensuring the aircraft is up to Air New Zealand standards".

Several staff were waiting in Frankfurt, Germany, to take over the aircraft on its flight back to New Zealand.

The crash comes 29 years to the day that an Air New Zealand DC10 crashed into Mt Erebus, killing all 257 passengers and crew.

Mr Fyfe said today was already very poignant for Air New Zealand because of the Erebus tragedy and the anniversary added a new dimension to the tragedy.

PRIME MINISTER

A spokesman for Prime Minister John Key said he would hold a press conference early this afternoon in Wellington to talk about the crash.

"This is obviously a tragic situation for the families of the people killed and also for the airline. We are in touch with Air New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority."

Transport Minister Steven Joyce said the Government was getting regular updates, and seeking briefings from officials.

“The Government is getting briefings from Air New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority.

“Obviously the New Zealand Government has grave concerns and is being updated on developments.”

Mr Joyce said it is premature to comment on what shape any investigation might take, although he fully expected New Zealand agencies to play a part.

“But our thoughts right now are with the families, friends, and colleagues of those who were on board.”

AVIATION AUTHORITIES

CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said the authority was still waiting on confirmation there had been no survivors, and the names of the people involved.

"Till that happens we won't be making any comment," he said.

The CAA investigator was in France to recertify the plane for its return to New Zealand. The certification engineer was on the trip as part of the process by which aircraft and handed over from the European operator.

Mr Sommer sad he did not know when they would hear, but he was hoping it would be as soon as possible.

The CAA was not involved in investigating the crash, which he expected was being led by French authorities with German assistance.

It was possible New Zealand's Transport Accident Investigation Commission might be involved. The Commission was not available for comment.

Aviation and Marine Engineers Association national secretary George Ryde said all engineers on temporary assignment in France were association members.

The mood among its members was "sombre", he said.

"People want information to help them deal with it," Mr Ryde said.

So far there were no clues as to what went wrong with the flight, he said.

The association would be offering support "in any way we can" to the family, friends and colleagues of those who perished in the crash, he said.

Mr Ryde said there were about eight Air New Zealand engineers on temporary assignment in France.

AIRBUS

The jet had been undergoing servicing at EAS Industries in Perpignan and flying circuits for 90 minutes before it crashed, an emergency services spokesman said.

Six French aviation accident investigators and two from Germany were being sent to help an inquiry with experts from the French civil aviation authority (DGAC) and Airbus.

Airbus said it delivered the jet in July 2005 and it had carried out 2800 flights with about 7000 hours of use since then. The constructor gave no details of the accident.

There are about 3700 A320 jets in service with almost 3000 more to be delivered. Air New Zealand own two Airbus aircraft, and lease 10.

Their average age is four years, and they seat about 150 passengers

SIDSTAR

27th Nov 2008, 23:31

Reported as some sort of test flight after a C check. To my knowledge, the A320 doesn't normally require a test flight after a C check (unless some elements of the flight controls have been worked on/replaced).

Most items for a test flight are done with the on-board BITE equipment on the ground pre-flight, thus removing the need for switching off major control power during flight. Having done dozens of post-maintennce test flights on non-fly-by-wire a/c I totally agee that things can be discovered that one wouldn't want a line pilot to have to deal with. I've had an engine not spooling up at stall recovery (15000 ft) and a 737 that would turn only one way in Manual Reversion (hydraulic power off) but was fine with the hydraulics on. None of these items are normally required on an A320 test flight.

If it was doing circuits it sounds more like a training flight.

J.O.

28th Nov 2008, 00:55

What a shame for all involved at XL Germany, Air NZ and the NZ CAA.

The "test" flight would not be connected to the C-check. More likely, they were flying an acceptance flight profile which is quite common when a used aircraft changes owners / lessors.

spagiola

28th Nov 2008, 01:16

Here's a quick translation of the French language post from a few posts up.

"Good evening,
I was listening on the Perpignan approach and tower frequencies all afternoon, and can assure you that living a crash "live", and living a few km from the location, gives me cold shivers.
The aircraft in question contacted approach about 1645. He was direct PPG descending through FL120. He was taken under radar control because the preceding traffic, a Ryanair, was on the STAR [approach, I presume]. Heading 90, I don't recall the level. Once the preceding traffic was established, the controller (our charming Perpignanaise controller) gave it a direct LANET, cleat LANET ILS 33, descend 4000 feet, qnh 1016. The pilot acknowledged and that was the last time he was heard from. No mayday, nothing. Then the pilot of a PA28 yelled "an aircraft crashed, an aircraft crashed" and everything went very fast. "Ulysse 34, confirm an aircraft crashed? Position?" "We are off Canet en Roussillon on 110 PPG, 10.5nm, Ulysse 34, we are beginning to orbit the crash site, 300 feet above sea level." Very quickly the Securité Civile helicopter took off from Perpignan. "Dragon66, authorized immediate takeoff from position, wind calm, left turn." As soon as the helicopter was on site, he announced "no visual on the aircraft, large white spot on the water, we can see debris over more than one km."
I will spare you the other details. The controllers kept their calm, made all the VFR traffic in the area land. EAS, who was to have met the A320, announced there were 7 people on board. As I write this, I am listening to the various aircraft at the crash site, and so far they are not finding anybody. I hope there will be survivors, but given the cold and the water temperature...
A Dauphin with specialized equipment is awaited in the next few minutes. An SNSM launch is also there.
I hope we'll quickly have explanations. I have a colleague who saw the aircraft 'fall' in the sea. It really dove as it had just begun its DME arc to establish. Really strange....

Philippe"

BGQ

28th Nov 2008, 01:43

LATEST: Three of the five New Zealand victims from this morning's Airbus crash off the coast of France have been named.

They are: Captain Brian Horrell, 52, of Auckland; Murray White, 37, engineer, of Auckland; Michael Gyles, 49, engineer, of Christchurch.

The name of a fourth Air New Zealand observer will be released later today once family have been notified. A fifth New Zealander - a Wellington based CAA expert - was also on the flight but is still to be identified.

Seven people - including two German pilots - were onboard the Air New Zealand Airbus A320 when it crashed into the Mediterranean, just off Perpignan in southeast France, about 4.45am (NZ time) today. It had been on a test flight - involving several maneuvers - ahead of a return to New Zealand.

French daily Le Monde reported three bodies had been found. All seven crew were presumed dead.

A choked up Air New Zealand Chief Executive Officer Rob Fyfe told a press conference this afternoon that he had spoken to the partners of each of the missing men.

"This is an unbelievably difficult time for the families of those who are missing. I conveyed to them my deepest sympathies and those of all Air New Zealanders as we await further information on their loved ones.

"I was also able to re-assure them that Air New Zealand is receiving the full support of the New Zealand Government and the Search and Rescue authorities in France and we are confident that everything is being done to locate those still missing."

Fyfe described today as the toughest day in his career. He will travel to France later today with the family of at least one of the Kiwi victims. Other families are considering their options.

Air New Zealand deputy chief executive Norm Thompson left for France about midday and Fyfe expected to follow later today. England-based Air New Zealand management were also en route.

Fyfe said Prime Minister John Key had offered his full support. The level of cooperation with French authorities was very good, with most communication now happening through Government channels.

CRASH WITNESS

The plane was seen flying low over the French Mediterranean shortly before the crash. It had taken off from Perpignan Airport and had reportedly carried out a touch-and-go landing before heading for Frankfurt, Germany, when it plunged into the sea.

Lydie Benedicte, who works on the information desk at Perpignan Airport, told ABC radio that the plane had dipped down into the sea very quickly.

"The aircraft crashed direct,'' she told the station. "It's not far from the airport. That's why the aircraft was not very high in the sky … that's why a lot of people saw the crash near the coast of Cannes.''

SEARCH

Jean Dunyach, head of Civil Security at the Prefecture in Perpignan, told Stuff.co.nz that the search for survivors would resume at 5am local time (5pm today, NZ time) when specialist divers would be sent in.

“Unfortunately, the conditions are very difficult, it is raining, there are 30kms of wind with big waves and operations have been complicated further because it is now dark,” he said in a telephone interview.

The water temperature in the area was believed to be about 13C.

He did not believe there were any survivors. The bodies already recovered had been transferred to the morgue at Perpignan Hospital, where a member of the French Transport Ministry, Dominique Bussereau, was expected tomorrow.

“It is a difficult night for the rescuers … the remaining bodies may well be in pieces.”

Mr Dunyach said the maximum had been done to locate the missing crew members, with five rescue boats, 17 specialised divers, a helicopter and a search aeroplane scouring the scene. Thirty divers were expected tomorrow when he hoped the black box would be retrieved from the wrecked aircraft, currently 40m underwater.

He said the New Zealand and German embassies had been told of the accident and families were being informed.

"It is too early to speculate about the reasons for the crash, only the black box can tell us."

There was a strong feeling of solidarity amongst the local fishermen from the Le Cannet en Roussillon area, as they had been asked to help in the rescue effort.

Better weather was forecast for Friday (French time), and although some were quite shocked by what had happened they were only too happy to lend assistance, he said.

Earlier, a French journalist had said searchers battled the dark and strong wind and rain to find survivors.

"It's not really clear on what happened … the plane was flying for one hour and a half and suddenly fell down to the sea," he told Radio New Zealand.

"There was no explosion, it was flying (at) 300m and suddenly fell down into the sea, but no explosion."

There were many witnesses, and emergency services were quickly at the scene.

Some wreckage was floating on the surface, but the pieces were "very difficult to find because of the big waves and the dark".

SOMBRE MOOD

The mood at Air New Zealand and CAA headquarters in Wellington was sombre today, as staff waited for news from France.

The aircraft was owned by Air New Zealand and had been on lease to German charter company XL Airways for the past two years. It was four years old when delivered and had flown for Freedom Air for about a year before being leased.

Fyfe said it was being flown to Frankfurt, where it was due to be handed back for a ferry flight to New Zealand this week.

"Naturally, this is an extremely difficult time for us all and the full resources of the airline are being put into investigating what may have happened and providing support to our people and their families," he said.

"I certainly haven't given up hope … I'm hopeful there still may be survivors." However, he acknowledge searchers' hope was fading.

“Here at Air New Zealand it's a really tight-knit team and people are feeling ... a deep concern at the moment.

"It's a very, very difficult time when there's any possibility that any of our colleagues have been hurt ... or potentially killed."

Fyfe said Air New Zealand was drawing on the experiences of other airlines that had been in similar situations before.

The Air New Zealand pilot on the flight was a very experienced captain, "which is typically what we want when we are going through one of these acceptance processes. We have our most experienced people ensuring the aircraft is up to Air New Zealand standards".

Several staff were waiting in Frankfurt, Germany, to take over the aircraft on its flight back to New Zealand.

The crash comes 29 years to the day that an Air New Zealand DC10 crashed into Mt Erebus, killing all 257 passengers and crew.

Mr Fyfe said that today was already very poignant for Air New Zealand because of the Erebus tragedy, and the anniversary added a new dimension to the tragedy.

AVIATION AUTHORITIES

CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said the authority was still waiting on confirmation there had been no survivors, and the names of the people involved.

"Till that happens we won't be making any comment," he said.

The CAA investigator, believed to have been from Wellington, was in France to recertify the plane for its return to New Zealand. The certification engineer was on the trip as part of the process by which aircraft was handed over from the European operator.

The CAA was not involved in investigating the crash, which he expected was being led by French authorities with German assistance.

However, the deputy chief investigator of the Transport Air Investigation Commission, Ken Mathews, would head to the crash site to support the French investigation. Two officials from the NZ Embassy in Paris are also en route.

Aviation and Marine Engineers Association national secretary George Ryde said all engineers on temporary assignment in France were association members.

The mood among its members was "sombre", he said.

"People want information to help them deal with it," Mr Ryde said.

So far there were no clues as to what went wrong with the flight, he said.

The association would be offering support "in any way we can" to the family, friends and colleagues of those who perished in the crash, he said.

Mr Ryde said there were about eight Air New Zealand engineers on temporary assignment in France.

AIRBUS

The jet had been undergoing servicing at EAS Industries in Perpignan and flying circuits for 90 minutes before it crashed, an emergency services spokesman said.

Six French aviation accident investigators and two from Germany were being sent to help an inquiry with experts from the French civil aviation authority (DGAC) and Airbus.

Airbus said it delivered the jet in July 2005 and it had carried out 2800 flights with about 7000 hours of use since then. The constructor gave no details of the accident.

There are about 3700 A320 jets in service with almost 3000 more to be delivered. Air New Zealand own two Airbus aircraft, and lease 10.

Their average age is four years, and they seat about 150 passengers.

- with agencies

Tahitimax

28th Nov 2008, 02:15

Message received from Airbus :

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE

SUBJECT: XL AIRWAYS Germany GmbH accident in Perpignan, France

OUR REF.: D-AXLA AIT 1 dated November 27th 2008

ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX

AIRBUS regrets to confirm that an A320-232 aircraft operated by XL
AIRWAYS Germany was involved in an accident during a check flight at
Perpignan, France, at about 4:00 pm UTC on 27 November 2008.

The aircraft crashed into the Mediterranean sea about 3nm East of
Perpignan coast.

The aircraft involved in the accident, registration number D-AXLA,
bearing serial number MSN 2500 was delivered to Air New Zealand on July
2005, and was currently operated by XL AIRWAYS Germany. It had logged
around 7000 flight hours and 2800 flight cycles since it entered into
service. It was powered by IAE V2527-A5 engines.

According to available information, there were 7 persons on-board.

At this point, there is no report of any survivor.

In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, Airbus will
provide technical assistance to the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et
d'Analyses). A go-team of Airbus investigators is being dispatched to
Perpignan to assist the BEA.

Further update will be provided as soon as relevant information becomes
available.

Airbus expresses its sympathy to the families and relatives affected by
this event.

Yannick Malinge
Vice-president Flight Safety
Airbus

Cypher

28th Nov 2008, 03:34

I'd like to re-iterate 6080ft's post. Please do not talk to the media.

Air New Zealand's press releases are more than adequate.

I''m fairly sure that the release of any radio transmission recorded or transcripted to the public of an incident before the investigation is complete is against aviation law.

Panop

28th Nov 2008, 04:00

Please don't anyone talk to the media they only mess up the story, sensationalise it and get it wrong!

Lets not speculate about the accident out of respect to the crew and their families.Sadly true but not giving the media accurate information just leads to even wilder and more distressing stories and prompts "Shock, Horror, Cover Up!" type reporting.

The modern media's job is to provide a marketable product to a deadline first and accurate information second because that's what "we" the public apparently want.

I wish that were not true but that's the world we live in. Remember that when you read/hear/see stories in the media about subjects you don't have an insider's viewpoint on. Those other stories will mostly be the same.

If approached for information don't speculate - just give the facts. If you don't know the facts just refer the enquirer to a reputable source and politely explain that speculation is unhelpful and potentially distressing to those involved. That goes for postings on sites like this as well as the media (hi guys!) read these as well.

The investigation will take its course and its publication will lead to greater safety and less tragedy in the future.

A sad loss for all concerned.

NZ_Girl

28th Nov 2008, 08:27

I think with this particular event the most up to date and informative news seems to be coming directly from NZ. Everything else seems to be confused and lacks in some fact. Which is the norm after something like this i guess. Visit the nzherald.co.nz for what seems to me to be the most up-to-date news. We also have to remember that details are still emerging...

It sounds to me like something went very wrong, and on speaking to my partner (who flies these aircraft in NZ) he too has said he would not like to speculate and would prefer to hear the outcome of the flight deck recorder.

:)

HotDog

28th Nov 2008, 10:24

NZ Girl, allow me to disagree. The posts from spagiola and Airbus are more accurate and up to date than the New Zealand Herald.

Huck

28th Nov 2008, 11:25

I do these flights for a living, for my employer, on MD10/MD11's.

We use a standard, ~120 page checklist for both ground and flight checks. The same checklist is used for both post-maintenance and acceptance flights, though sections are omitted/expanded at the PIC's discretion, or at the request of maintenance.

All of our jets are tested after every C check. Over time we have found this to be quite cost-effective, and every time the bean counters cut back on flight test, they inevitably change it back after they start seeing service failures.

It is sobering to see what we find. In two years of doing this I've had two dump valves fail open and one fail closed. I've had a CF-6 refuse to airstart, ultimately resulting in an engine change. I've found a short in an APU ignition circuit that only manifested itself in the air. Also found two ADG's that refused to operate after we dropped them out. And a host of other things.

Right beside us in the hangar at Changi is a major international carrier's 747-400 C check line. Many times I've seen them button it up, tug it over to the terminal and launch full of passengers without so much as a turn around the patch. Oh well.....

hambleoldboy

28th Nov 2008, 11:28

According to eyewitness reports from a group of surfers as detailed in the local newspaper MidiLibre.com the aircraft pitched up and down violently before diving in vertically.

Remember the A330 accident at Toulouse...?

BRE

28th Nov 2008, 11:29

As for accurate reporting, the crash site was identified as Cannes (which is near the Italian border, separated by about 1000 km of coastline) and Cannet (which is near Spain, but on the Atlantic coast) within the same article.

It is actually Canet-Plage which is a part of Canet-en-Roussillon, close to the Spanish border.

Dani

28th Nov 2008, 12:08

Huck, it was not a C check...

Meikleour

28th Nov 2008, 13:22

Strongresolve

28th Nov 2008, 14:00

Pitching up and down before diving down.

Seems like an Alpha prot.

But no one is going to test alpha prot at 1000´, isnt it?

PA 804

28th Nov 2008, 14:13

Dani

According to an Air NZ engineer on another website:
"The aircraft had just finished a 3C check and repaint back into the NZ colour scheme. Acceptance flight was a normal part of returning the aircraft off lease, to us."

PA 804

Sharpie

28th Nov 2008, 14:25

Post #65. Observers state. "a Violent pitch up then down."

I wonder if any similarity to the QF72 330 incident that landed at Learmouth a month ago after an incident where some 50-60 passengers were hurt after an unexpected and uncontrolled pitch up then down in cruise?

dmussen

28th Nov 2008, 14:33

Steady boys and girls,
The frogs will get the answers for us on this one.
A 330 ops in Aus. All I can say that my Shiras did not spill Perth-Singers and back.
However, I commend all of you to the ATSB site so you can check out electroic interference with systems on Australian aircraft, worth a look.
I am an old military flyer. We had hyds. to help us but we basically pushed and shoved to do the job. I worry about auto-systems and computers.
I trust me.
Enough, I shall say no more.
KEEP HER LIT
Victor B1a

tubby linton

28th Nov 2008, 15:21

For those of you only interested in the know facts not speculation I would recommend reading the report at the Avherald(.I am in no way associated with the website--I just value clear reporting of facts.)
The Aviation Herald (http://avherald.com/h?article=410c9cec&opt=0)

ChristiaanJ

28th Nov 2008, 15:25

Before the speculation starts...

The Midi Libre reported windsurfers saying the aircraft "pitched up and down". Difficult to judge from a wind-surf board, IMHO !

A local 'gendarme' (usually a more reliable witness) stated he was watching the aircraft, when at some point it started a turn and then dived into the water.

I think for the moment that's all we know. With the big size of the search team, we can hope the FDR and CVR will be found fairly soon.

CJ

Edit: thanks, Tubby, for the AvHerald link. The map and approach plate explain why there were eye witnesses from both Canet and Saint-Cyprien.

mingocr83

28th Nov 2008, 17:17

Everything wrote in that article from the Aviation Herald, is taken from this Forum. Watch out folks... don't even mention bomb/sabotage 'cause that will be the next scandal.

People is looking.....

DC-ATE

28th Nov 2008, 17:53

Mercenary Pilot - "Maintenance sorties are by their very nature, hazardous non-standard operations."

DaveReidUK - Do explain.
------------------------
I am in NO way trying to make light of this incident, but it does bring to mind a "test hop" I was a Flight Engineer on after a DC-6 of ours had an aileron change. The Captain showed up and wanted to know why we were doing a test hop. He was told because of the aileron change. He said, "Fine, I'll do it but I want the mechanic who did the work and signed off on the work to be aboard." After some doing, the mechanic showed up and we took off. I have never seen such a true "white-knuckle" flyer in my life! The Captain was putting the aircraft through some pretty sharp turns, etc., giving the ailerons a good workout. It even made ME nervous. We completed the flight, no problem. The mechanic got off but he was soaking wet with sweat!

Normally test hops are done by "management" pilots these days, as "line" pilots are not paid to do that kind of flying as it CAN be dangerous if something were to go wrong.

Manflex55

28th Nov 2008, 19:12

the Av Herald just seems to be reprinting reports elsewhere (with no attribution)... without even double-checking:

according to the chairman of XL Airways the airplane had been flying for around 2 hours
and 3 lines below:
The airplane had taken off Perpignan one hour earlier

Take-off in Z time, crash in local time?

ChristiaanJ

28th Nov 2008, 19:27

Take-off in Z time, crash in local time?Possible.
The crash was about 16:45 local, anyway.

CJ

Enderby-Browne

28th Nov 2008, 20:01

What? Are you seriously suggesting there is any logical reason to draw even the most tenuous of comparisons between the A330 test-flight accident and this A320 crash? How irresponsible.

The causes of the A330 crash were eventually well documented. This A320 crash has just taken place. You got a nuclear-powered crystal ball?

Many pilots will already have a plausible scenario in mind for this A320 crash but rightly will not speculate or draw tenuous conclusions with innuendo and crass generalisations. Pity this reserve is not more widespread.

Enderby-Browne

28th Nov 2008, 20:06

Yes I do!

Am very familiar with that accident which was a simulated engine failure, carried out with a very high rate of initial climb then subsequent ALT* which led to a rapid speed loss below Vmca. I am sure it has no relevence to the accident near Canet.

Exactly. The main point of legitimate comparison between the two accidents is they both involved Airbuses. That's it until the investigation into the A320 crash is concluded.

It has only just begun. Remember?

Enderby-Browne

28th Nov 2008, 20:13

Dysag, I'm sure you're just making a point here but for clarification, the PIC of the A330 came from an airline and the right-hand seat was occupied by Airbus' chief test pilot. I'm sure you are aware too, as I am, that there were a number of other issues concerning the flight crew choice.

I too have strong memories of this crash. Unfortunately, they are personal ones. So I take great exception to the careless chattering of others here who seem to forget that accidents involve people, not just aircraft.

vanHorck

28th Nov 2008, 21:31

AP reports black boxes have been located

The Associated Press: French locate black boxes after Airbus crash (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hxBI5gVjGQgryJ8d2Cc17mXSuqjAD94O5Q6O1)

cavemanzk

28th Nov 2008, 22:53

Please get your information from the official sources.
Air New Zealand is putting press releases out every few hours and they can be found here Media Releases - 2008 - Cheap Flights, Airfares & Holidays - Air New Zealand Official Site - NZ (http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/aboutus/mediacentre/pressreleases/default.htm).

Also please stop titling it Air NZ crash in the head lines the aircraft was legally operated why XL Airways at the time of the event.

Finally can the media please be respect full to those involved, i know 2 people that knew people on board this flight.

I agree with NZ Girl about that the NZ press releases are enough information

armchairpilot94116

28th Nov 2008, 23:20

Taipei Times - archives (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2008/11/29/2003429860)

AFP, WELLINGTON
Saturday, Nov 29, 2008, Page 6

Air New Zealand yesterday was mourning the expected loss of four staff after one of its Airbus A320 aircraft crashed during a test flight in the south of France. French authorities said two bodies had been recovered and five people were missing and believed dead after the plane crashed into the Mediterranean Sea near the southern city of Perpignan on Thursday.

The aircraft had been leased to charter firm XL Airways since 2006 and two of the German airline’s pilots had been flying the aircraft in the test flight before its scheduled return to Air New Zealand.

Hundreds of shocked Air New Zealand staff gathered at the airline’s headquarters in Auckland where they were told it was unlikely any of those on board had survived.

An Air New Zealand pilot and three engineers were among five New Zealanders on board as observers during the flight ahead of the return of the Airbus to Air New Zealand.

The Air New Zealand pilot is Captain Brian Horrell, 52, and the three engineers are Murray White, 37, and Michael Gyles, 49 and Noel Marsh, 35.

The fifth New Zealander on the flight was Civil Aviation Authority official Jeremy Cook.

Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe was due to fly to France later yesterday, along with family members of at least one of the airline’s staff on the crashed plane.

He said he had been told by the leader of the French search and rescue team there was little optimism any survivors would be found.

Witness reports suggested the aircraft was relatively low in the sky just before the crash, as it prepared to land in Perpignan, he said.

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said a New Zealand air accident investigator was traveling to France to observe the inquiry into the crash.

“I think I speak for all New Zealanders when I say this is a great tragedy. We’ll work with Air New Zealand and the families to help in any way that is appropriate,” Key told reporters.
This story has been viewed 144 times.

SIDSTAR

28th Nov 2008, 23:38

There have been numerous instances of ELAC failures in the recent past on the worldwide A320 fleet. (ELAC = Elevator Aileron Computer which controls pitch and roll). These have allegedly been put down to a faulty batch - made by Thales, I think. However, a single ELAC failure should simply be a non-event and even a dual ELAC failure should only result in the aircraft switching from Normal Law to Alternate Law. In Alternate Law it would still have most of the flight envelope protections but would revert to Direct Law when the gear is put down. Even in Direct Law it is easy to control being a bit like a normal non-fly-by wire aircraft but a bit sloppy in control response. Still easy to fly, though.

The Qantas A330 incident seems to have been related to spurious speed signals from the ADIRS so the two may not be connected in any way. In the Qantas incident, why did the systems not disregard the spurious IRS speed if the other two ADIRS were giving a correct one? And did this ANZ A320 have the same ADIRS as the Qantas A330. This unit is fitted to lots of A320s, I understand.

The implications for all 320s are enormous if it is discovered that there's a flight control problem that wasn't known up to now. Aircraft flown by very experienced airline pilots don't usually suddenly dive into the sea. Whatever happened in this case, happened so fast that there was no time for a radio call. The DFDR and CVRs should tell us quite soon (if the French are honest about it - there are hundreds of thousandsof jobs depending on these aircraft!). Would it be a surprise to discover that the recorders were damaged and could give no useful information.

Strongresolve

29th Nov 2008, 00:46

I also agree with that.

We are not going to have usefull info from the recorders.

Maybe this time the pilot also did something strange with the throttles or didnt follow or know a recovery procedure.

Airbus still have to give a lot of answers. This is only plane that 10,000 hours pilots one day forgot how to fly, always with disastrous consequences.

cavemanzk

29th Nov 2008, 00:53

I think that Air New Zealand should use next weeks bio flight as a tribute to the staff on board and do a low pass over Auckland City and Airport to give a tribute to them.

GeorgEGNT

29th Nov 2008, 00:55

"The DFDR and CVRs should tell us quite soon (if the French are honest about it - there are hundreds of thousandsof jobs depending on these aircraft!). Would it be a surprise to discover that the recorders were damaged and could give no useful information."

Isn't this exactly the type of thing that we've been warned about talking about? I'm not sure personally but it sounds pretty dangerous saying stuff like that with journalists ready to quote word for word posts on this thread.

I'm only reading at the moment that the CVR and the DFDR have been located and not in fact recovered yet , probably due to the weather still, any confirmations/corrections?

Terrible accident.

cavemanzk

29th Nov 2008, 02:02

This is the latest undated on NZ's website
Air New Zealand A320 Accident Update

29 November 2008, 1.28pm
French search and rescue teams are working in deteriorating weather conditions to try and retrieve the two flight recorders from the A320 on lease to Germany's XL Airways that was lost in the Mediterranean yesterday.

Air New Zealand Group General Manager International Airline Ed Sims has today been in direct contact with the head of the search and rescue operation in Perpignan.

Mr Sims said the operation had continued during the night with up to 75 personnel actively involved, with a focus on recovering bodies, locating the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, and recovering debris that may be useful for the investigation.

Signals had been located for the two flight recorders but they had not yet been recovered. The search and rescue team had a real urgency to retrieving these today as weather conditions were forecast to worsen overnight, Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims said that flags at Air New Zealand locations were flying at half-mast as a mark of respect following news from the French authorities that there was no realistic change of survivors.

"The airline will be immeasurably poorer for the loss of our colleagues, and we again express our deepest condolences to the family and friends of those who have been lost."

Condolence books will also be made available to Air New Zealanders from this afternoon, to allow staff to express their feelings for their colleagues Captain Brian Horrell, Michael Gyles, Noel Marsh and Murray White, who were onboard.

Mr Sims this morning briefed Transport Minister Stephen Joyce who has undertaken to keep Prime Minister John Key informed.

Air New Zealand Rob Fyfe, who is en-route to Perpignan, has also been kept abreast of developments while travelling. Air New Zealand has team of London-based staff in Perpignan to provide on the ground support to the operation.

Due to the difference in time zones, with Europe now entering late evening, Air New Zealand does not expect to provide further updates until 8pm tonight.

ENDS

Issued by Air New Zealand Public Affairs

Gretchenfrage

29th Nov 2008, 05:34

The DFDR and CVRs should tell us quite soon (if the French are honest about it - there are hundreds of thousandsof jobs depending on these aircraft!). Would it be a surprise to discover that the recorders were damaged and could give no useful information

followed by

Isn't this exactly the type of thing that we've been warned about talking about?

To summarize:
Some don't trust the journos and others don't trust the AB guys. Where does that leave us? Should we shut up until the official reports are out? Should we trust them? Should we stop reading newspapers, as all they publish is trash? Are only the self proclaimed AB specialists allowed to voice their opinion here? Shall we disregard the achievment of free speech in our society just because we might not be the rocket scientist others pretend to be?

Get a grip. Speculation is part of the function of our superior brain. Apparently it has evolved and learned to speak by beeing able to extrapolate from itself and reason about others non present. To impede speculation is to shut someone up, present in many dictatures and archaic religions, but not in modern society. Everything gets abused, just as is demonstrated here. But the choice would be to shut down such forums or to let them run more or less as society runs, with certain rules, but mostly free. The pretense to allow only a chosen few to speak, even if they are (or claim to be) more competent is to the very least arrogant if not preposterous.

It is absolutely legitimate to voice concerns about a technology. If concerns are categorically classified as speculation, it points more to censorship than joining a healthy debate. The contribution of SIDSTAR in this respect seems apropriate.

lhr_syd

29th Nov 2008, 05:56

Anyone care to speculate on this report in the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/qantas-stands-by-airbus-a320-after-france-disaster-20081128-6muq.html)

Airbus was investigating the technical issue thought to have caused the crash and was communicating with Qantas, Mr Joyce said.

[Alan Joyce is the new CEO of Qantas]

skol

29th Nov 2008, 07:10

I get sick of the dreamers who lecture us about speculation, there's nothing wrong with informed speculation.
However, one thing I've noticed is after there's an accident like the BA glide approach we have all kinds of 'experts' come out of the woodwork with 1 or 2 posts, talking generally a lot of codswallop.
Like cavemanzk.
It is after all the 'rumour network'.

Cypher

29th Nov 2008, 08:09

Radio calls before plane hit water... but 'not a single mayday'
NZ Herald
Radio calls before plane hit water... but 'not a single mayday' - 28 Nov 2008 - Air NZ plane crash in France - NZ Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-nz-plane-crash-in-france/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502793&objectid=10545564)

10:00AM Friday Nov 28, 2008

An aviation enthusiast in France who monitored radio traffic at the time the Air New Zealand Airbus crash killed seven people said shortly afterwards on a website that the incident sent shivers up his spine.

The plane - registered in New Zealand as ZK-OJL, but flying for Germany's XL Airways as D-AXLA - contacted air traffic control at 4.45pm and was directed to descend to "flight level 120" (12,000 feet or 3650m altitude) while a Ryanair plane was on the standard terminal approach.

The listener - listed as Phillippe/AIB1017 on an aviation enthusiasts' website, PPRune.org, which promotes itself as a bulletin board for professional pilots to exchange information - said a woman air controller cleared the Airbus 360 to descend to 4000 feet to a circuit east of the airport and extending several kilometres out to sea. The air pressure at sea level was given as 1016 millibars.

"The pilot read (it) back and this is the last time we heard the pilot," Phillippe said, according to a translation of his comments. "Not a single mayday, nothing."

Then the pilot of a nearby PA28 Piper Warrior shouted over the radio: "an aircraft crashing, an aircraft crashing".

That plane, with the callsign Ulysses 34, began turning to the crash scene as a security helicopter took off from Perpignan, nearly 10km away.

At the scene, the helicopter pilot announced: "no visual on the aircraft, large white patch in the water". He said there was debris over more than 1km.

"I hope that there will be survivors, but given the cold and the water temperature ...." Phillippe wrote.

A copy of the posting was made on crash-aerien.com.

I think the thermomiester failed resulting in a alpha foot protection... you can quote me on that one.....

BALLSOUT

29th Nov 2008, 10:19

I hink you wil find the DGAC's priority wil be to protect Airbus. If they find it was the crews fault they will blame the crew. If thy find it was an engineers fault, they will blame engineering. if they find it's Airbus's fault, they will blame the crew. then fix the problem through the back door! Only in my opinion of course!

drivez

29th Nov 2008, 10:22

Wasn't that flight flown at night though, with this one in the day with light if there was a instrument failure due to the pitot tubes being covered, at least you could have some idea of your attitude and height.

TechnicalSupport

29th Nov 2008, 10:56

There are similarities with the A330 QF72 flight incident
QF72 incident may lead to the grounding of Airbus A330-300 models - Airbus (http://www.eturbonews.com/5633/qf72-incident-may-lead-grounding-airbus-a330-300-models)
only if it is confirmed if the adirus are of the effected P/N type and subsequent AD applicability. http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGAD.NSF/0/3e35bd72f00bc2e9862574b3004dfbaa/$FILE/2008-17-12.pdf

The mistake it seems they made in QF72 was not to switch off the IR 1 and corresponding ADR 1 when NAV IR 1 was annuciated on the ECAM. This still caused pitching down on 2 occasions of the a/c with the autopilot disengaged under manual control due to the incorrect flight data values sensed by one of the adirus translated to the fcc - which remains in ultimate control. See emergency operational AD http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/over/a330/A330-095.pdf
http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGAD.NSF/0/3e35bd72f00bc2e9862574b3004dfbaa/$FILE/2008-17-12.pdf

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to
certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes equipped with certain Litton air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs). That AD currently requires modifying the shelf (floor panel) above ADIRU 3, modifying the polycarbonate guard that covers the ADIRUs for certain airplanes and modifying the ladder located in the avionics compartment for certain airplanes. This new AD requires those modifications on additional airplanes.

This new AD also requires replacing all three ADIRUs with improved ADIRUs. This new AD also adds Model A318 series airplanes to the
applicability. This AD results from reports that ''NAV IR FAULT'' messages have occurred during takeoff due to failure of an ADIRU and subsequent analysis showing that the shelf modification has not sufficiently addressed failure of an ADIRU.

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of an ADIRU during flight, which could result in loss of one source of critical attitude and airspeed data and reduce the ability of the flightcrew to control the airplane.

captplaystation

29th Nov 2008, 11:25

No doubt this post will result in me being accused (again) of being Anti-French or a luddite but I still believe that Airbus (and now Boeing) FBW will continue to throw up surprises for decades to come, possibly even more so as the hardware gets older and falls into less experienced hands.
It has to be faced that since it's introduction many Airbus
accidents/incidents have resulted in accusations of slightly "clandenstine" conclusions / investigations. Having said that the Concorde accident could be accused of the same lack of emphasis on certain factors,draw your own conclusions from that.
Boeing are not immune to this either, I believe the 737 rudder problems were probably known about but down-played as long as possible. Finally, money has a habit of influencing dissemination of safety information whether it is Dollars or Euros.
Does anyone know how closely they were following the other ( Ryanair) aircraft ? I have had some fairly dramatic wake turbulence encounters following similar aircraft types, not of the magnitude perhaps to lose control & plunge into the sea, but certainly alarming in their intensity. Unlikely I know, but this accident is going to throw up some rather left-field cause in any case I think. As previous posters have alluded to, I hope we will be allowed to know the cause & fix, rather than it just being serruptitiously inserted into a software update sometime in the future.

Litebulbs

29th Nov 2008, 12:30

Captplaystation -

Was it a FBW failure? Why did you then comment on B737? You you mean that either electrical or hydro-mechanical flight is unsafe?

captplaystation

29th Nov 2008, 12:47

Of course it is unsafe. . why do you think they pay us all this money ? :}
Not implying it is FBW failure, but loss of control on a FBW aircraft is normally prevented ( or facilitated ? ) by FBW, unlike a 737 where you either foul up , or ARE fouled up by ( for example) maximum rudder deflection at an innoportune moment. But anyhow, I am still a non-believer as far as Airbus/FBW/(B777) is concerned. Perhaps one day I will be dragged kicking & screaming into the 21st century, but for the moment at least I prefer stone-age connections to the bits that keep me the right way up ( shame about all those electric connections to the thrust levers though :rolleyes: ) Yes, unashamed luddite sums it up fairly in that respect I guess.

lomapaseo

29th Nov 2008, 12:50

captplaystation

No doubt this post will result in me being accused (again) of being Anti-French or a luddite but I still believe that Airbus (and now Boeing) FBW will continue to throw up surprises for decades to come, possibly even more so as the hardware gets older and falls into less experienced hands.
It has to be faced that since it's introduction many Airbus
accidents/incidents have resulted in accusations of slightly "clandenstine" conclusions / investigations. Having said that the Concorde accident could be accused of the same lack of emphasis on certain factors,draw your own conclusions

Time to face reality. Of course there will be surprises. The intent is that they will be relatively few over the lifetime of the product.

And as for "clandenstine" conclusions, one should not lose sight of the fact that most accident investigations are contributed to by a party system representing what some may call competing commercial interests albeit with well qualified technical expertise in establishing facts.

It is the analysis of the facts afterwards that the casual arm-chair orbserver typically tries to second guess.

At this point in the investigation we are trying to read among this hash for bonafide facts not Nostradamas predictions

John Farley

29th Nov 2008, 13:26

Some reports have suggested that the lack of any R/T call following the last routine message is an indication of a very short time interval between what went wrong and impact.

While this is obviously possible, in my experience there is another possible reason for the silence - the crew were too busy trying to sort things out and had not given up on recovering from whatever had gone wrong.

Whenever I have lost control due to a mistake on my part or an issue with the aeroplane I have always got on with doing everything I could to recover the situation first before climbing on the R/T.

Off-hand I can only remember one example of a crew saying they were going to crash ("We are falling") and that was when their tail had detached in the cruise at height. Not much you can do about that hence the R/T call.

ChristiaanJ

29th Nov 2008, 13:36

... with this one in [daylight] if there was a instrument failure due to the pitot tubes being covered, at least you could have some idea of your attitude and height.They'd already been flying for at least an hour, so it's unlikely they wouldn't have noticed that.

...but for the moment at least I prefer stone-age connections to the bits that keep me the right way up...The stone-age solutions were pushrods and cables to directly move the control surfaces, and maybe servotabs. No longer feasible on anything with the size and speed of an A320 or B737, leave alone anything bigger.

I have the impression you're confusing the "connections" (which in practice are as reliable as your rods and cables) with the electrical and electronic 'bits' at either end of those connections.

FBW as such is nothing new. Concorde had it forty years ago and the Vulcan even before that. Concorde had two separate "electrical signalling" (as it was then called) channels and a mechanical 'rods and cables' backup. While it was tested, and trained for, in service reversion to mechanical signalling was essentially unknown.
The difference with present-day FBW was that you still pushed and pulled a control column, turned a yoke, and pushed the pedals, and the control surface deflections were directly related to your control inputs. The autopilots moved exactly the same controls (through relay jacks) giving your direct feedback on what the autopilot was doing.

CJ

captplaystation

29th Nov 2008, 14:00

My misgivings were always related to the concept that you make a demand, and rather than being electrically/mechanically transmitted directly to the control surface, it instead passed through microprocessors which then interpreted what you wanted and moved the surface accordingly( my somewhat simplistic thinking being that if the computer can stop you doing the wrong thing/or too much, it can also prevent you doing the right thing or do more/less than you wished / intended. . as I said luddite thinking on my behalf.) So, I guess my misgivings are through passing by an interpreter rather than mechanically OR electrically moving the bit I want as much or as little as I want. Obviously the advantage of not being able to do so is that you can't whack the fin off a la the A300 with the heavy footed guys a few years back, the disadvantages ? ? well, time will tell but the recent Qantas "upset" comes to mind, and who knows what has befallen this aircraft. Could of course have been some purely mechanical failure that would have been equally applicable to a B732(Jurassic) but my gut feeling thinks not. Finally, I know as much or as little as the rest of you , and I guess this accident is no stranger than the 737's that rolled over on their backs and ploughed in due uncommanded rudder hardovers . . . so far.
Edited to say, having flown the DC9 I fully understand the meaning of "DC" and it's limitations to bigger ships, even if that one handled like a dream.

ChristiaanJ

29th Nov 2008, 14:14

Some reports have suggested that the lack of any R/T call following the last routine message is an indication of a very short time interval between what went wrong and impact.Most likely.
The aircraft was doing, say, 150kts, i.e., 250ft/sec, and was at something like 1000ft when starting the turn and then the "wing-over", impacting quite steeply. That corresponds to about 10 to 20 seconds between "something wrong" and impact. No time to communicate.

CJ

Tmbstory

29th Nov 2008, 14:14

John Farley:

I agree 100% with your comments, I know from my own experiences, that is the case.

Tmb

Cypher

29th Nov 2008, 14:59

Witness: Air NZ crew sacrificed lives to save town

NZ Herald
Witness: Air NZ crew sacrificed lives to save town - 30 Nov 2008 - NZ Herald: New Zealand National news (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10545744&pnum=0)

4:00AM Sunday Nov 30, 2008
Cliff Taylor

The crew of Air New Zealand's doomed Airbus jet were last night being hailed as heroes - a witness believes they saved dozens of lives by crashing the plane into the sea to avoid a small French town.

As the shattered jet lies in 20,000 pieces in the Mediterranean, new details began to emerge of the final seconds, including one witness report of a catastrophic engine failure.

"When the aircraft was over Canet, the pilot tried to restart it and it picked up," retired aviation mechanic Claude Pedro told Perpignan's L'Independant newspaper. "It ascended and then cut out. That was it, then nothing. It fell. I can tell you it was only flying on one engine, I'm sure of that, I would have heard the sound of the second. And with only one engine there was nothing to be done.

"What is certain, is that the aircraft could easily have crashed and fallen on Canet. I think that pilot really wanted to avoid the town and risk to the inhabitants, which is why he really pushed it. In some way, they sacrificed their lives to save others and to try to save the aircraft."

He said that once past the populated areas, the crew would have been able to descend to try to splash down but the aircraft probably "gave up".

According to several witnesses, it pitched in every direction before plunging into the ocean.

New Zealand-based aviation experts also speculated there was a catastrophic mechanical error on the German-operated plane. But questions remain over the final seconds - the pilots apparently had no time to correct the problem or issue a mayday.

A team of 10 divers last night returned to the crash site to try to retrieve the aircraft's two flight recorders, which are expected to yield significant clues to the cause of the crash. Air New Zealand urged the public and aviation industry to avoid speculating on possible causes until proper evidence emerged.

Five Kiwis - including four Air New Zealand staff - and the two German pilots were killed when the Airbus plunged into the Mediterranean, 3km from the French coast near Perpignan. Le Monde newspaper reported last night that three bodies have now been recovered, although search efforts are being hampered by bad weather and rough seas.

One experienced New Zealand pilot, speaking on condition of anonymity, had three theories: the plane either hit something, such as a bird; lost a vital piece of equipment such as an aileron or wing panel; or a mechanical defect brought the plane down. Another theory was that the wing flaps may not have deployed properly for the landing, causing the aircraft to bank suddenly to the right.

Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe arrived in Perpignan early today, following a 28-hour flight through Hong Kong and Heathrow with the partner and another family member of one of the victims, Murray White. There had been "a lot of tears, a few laughs, and a lot of sharing" on the flight to Europe, he said.

"It's bloody tough. I have sat next to them on the flight up to Hong Kong, and up to London," he told the Herald on Sunday. "We have got a team on board - there's police here, a TAIC [Transport Accident Investigation Commission] expert, people from the CAA [Civil Aviation Authority]. We have set aside space in the business class cabin. There's a real sense of team spirit developing, but also trepidation about what we are going to find when we get on the ground."

Family members of another victim flew out last night and a third family was leaving for France today.

Fyfe said he had received about 300 emails of condolence in the hours after the tragedy from staff, other airline CEOs, and members of the public, each of whom he was hoping to respond to by the time he arrived in France. He had also spent about four or five hours on a satellite phone on the flight to Hong Kong, liaising with senior management and families.

Fyfe had not seen photographs of the jet's koru fin floating in the water - an image eerily similar to an infamous Erebus crash photograph. "The aircraft was owned by Air New Zealand and was operated by another airline. Tragically, a number of our people were on board. XL was operating it. It's a tragedy and the fact there is imagery linking Air New Zealand, undoubtedly that connects the emotion to people, as much those inside the company as those outside."

He said the airline had not received any indication of the cause of the crash.

__________

RatherBeFlying

29th Nov 2008, 15:19

Quite a bit of coverage in the local paper: Midi Libre - Actualités et informations nationales et régionales en direct (http://www.midilibre.fr/)

Besides the surfers, the cop and the private pilot in the air, a sailboat was uncomfortably close to the scene.

The topic of a possible problem with flight controls has been brought up; also the fact that repainting often involves the removal and reinstallation of various parts, i.e. flight control surfaces leading to the possibility that something may have come undone.

Lots of details if you can read French.

Busbert

29th Nov 2008, 15:37

I hate to add to speculation... but my 2 cents worth...

The classic error is blockage of the static ports (on the side of the aircraft). There have been cases of aircraft coming out of repaint with the static ports still masked over.
This results in erratic airspeed indications, and it has been known that the pressure bleeds out at altitude, and then on descent the pressure in the static ports stays low, resulting in erronously high airspeed indication and a resultant stall on approach.

vanHorck

29th Nov 2008, 16:00

Pitot blocked unlikely due to flying for over an hour
Catastrophic engine failure due to only hearing one engine? B*llocks
Flap issue? Maybe
Bird ingestion? no explanation for the erratic last flying movements

Too much speculation by retired mechanics and other early commentators.
Lets wait for the CVR and FDR....

I m sure there will be something to learn for all. At least some PPRuNers should learn to stop nagging at each other here, fighting a fight which does not belong here

AirCrewBoi84

29th Nov 2008, 16:15

Its not on BBC or Sky News, odd!?
Sad news! I fly the A320 great little a/c.

ChristiaanJ

29th Nov 2008, 16:20

BTW, the Midi Libre does mention the flight recorders have been found yesterday afternoon. No other info.

CJ

Coquelet

29th Nov 2008, 17:56

The CVR has been recovered; the DFDR, not yet :
Crash : L'une des 2 botes noires de l'A320 repche - France - LCI (http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/france/faits-divers/0,,4176565,00-l-une-des-2-boites-noires-de-l-a320-repechee-.html)

Loose rivets

29th Nov 2008, 18:32

..but for the moment at least I prefer stone-age connections to the bits that keep me the right way up...

Having spent a memorable 35 minutes with elevator and elevator trim rock solid. Stone age controls are not always infallible.

This data could all have been sent to Spain, NZ and Germany within seconds of the crash - using satellite communications. Heaven knows, kids can play real-time games with people on the other side of the world these days. It's long past time that the black boxes are no more than backup system to a regular data transmission...any anomaly causing a huge increase of sampling.

J.O.

29th Nov 2008, 19:13

I get more than a little tired of the people on this forum who accuse the French and Airbus (or the Americans and Boeing for that matter) of trying to cover up safety issues with their aircraft. All you have to do is attend one of their safety conferences to see the depths they go to in ensuring that their products are highly reliable and safe.

duncano74

29th Nov 2008, 19:23

While I completely agree that random & uninformed theories about the cause of this particular crash are unwarranted, I greatly appreciate discussions about factors that are likely to be relevant and I particularly like to read of others experiences. Informative and highly interesting. Thanks to those who have made meaningful contributions and also for correcting those slightly less than meaningful :ok:

act700

29th Nov 2008, 19:25

I think this is what captplaystation is referring to:
Misconfigured A330 flight computers led to severe hard landing: EASA (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/29/319522/misconfigured-a330-flight-computers-led-to-severe-hard-landing-easa.html)

That there is alway a "middle man" (computer) who knows what's best for the situation.

If it ever comes to a war of "computer vs. mankind" (like in the Terminator movies) I sure would hate to be on an Airbus.

skol

29th Nov 2008, 19:35

In the company I work for most of the aircraft are configured for ACARS reporting in the event of certain parameters being exceeded, eg high rate of descent on final approach. Does anyone know if the A320 would have sent real time info via ACARS before the accident?

captplaystation

29th Nov 2008, 20:31

act700,
Actually I was thinking of the recent in-flight upset caused by the air data computers,(or ADIRU to be pedantic) but this "man-made" one wasn't too pretty either.
skol, Most , in fact probably all airlines ( including I imagine XL in Germany ) have the data sent out , but in some cases I believe it is sent after the aircraft is parked with parking brake set or engines shut down, which wouldn't have worked too well in this case. I believe other systems send data constantly in real time. As loose rivets said, in this day & age I can have a simulated motor race in real time with a teenager in Tokyo, so we really shouldn't be dependant on fishing bits of orange metal from 35m depth in the Med to know what has happened.

TechnicalSupport

29th Nov 2008, 20:40

The operator has a system called airman that shows the ECAM faults and data in real time to their ground station, so they will be aware of all system failures and anomalies.

snowfalcon2

29th Nov 2008, 22:13

I believe other systems send data constantly in real time. As loose rivets said, in this day & age I can have a simulated motor race in real time with a teenager in Tokyo, so we really shouldn't be dependant on fishing bits of orange metal from 35m depth in the Med to know what has happened.

The challenge here is that airplanes in the sky have such a big "radio footprint" i.e. the transmissions carry far away, which means re-use of the same frequency is only possible far away. This means you quickly would need a lot of frequencies. In contrast, land-based cellular systems can re-use their frequencies every few kilometer or so, which means thay have much larger capacity to handle many continuous data streams.

One possible solution is to use self-organizing multiplexing techniques to share a few frequencies in an intelligent way. There are techniques such as STDMA (Self-Organizing Time Division Multiple Access, used in VDL (VHF Data Link) Mode 4 for ADS-B) and CSMA/CD (carrier sense multiple access with collision detection, the basis of how Ethernet works but not directly suitable for aviation radio).

davidrnz

29th Nov 2008, 22:33

The aircraft was doing, say, 150kts, i.e., 250ft/sec, and was at something like 1000ft

There have been a number of reports that the a/c was flying at about 1000ft. I don't know whether these have all come from one source or from various.

What seems odd to me is that the last clearance they received was direct LANET, cleared LANET ILS 33, descend 4000 feet (source: this thread).

Looking at the approach plate for the LANET ILS 33, they were on or near the 11DME arc. The plate shows establishing on the ILS at or above 2000ft.

Based on those two pieces of information, they should have been nowhere near 1000ft. Were they below the flightpath or did someone just imagine that they saw the a/c at 1000ft?

Loose rivets

29th Nov 2008, 23:20

After the famous 320's excursion into the trees, the ITV's 'Chronicle' I think it was, had two long investigative programs about the accident and the strange goings on afterwords.

I'm not totally sure of the program name, but I am sure about a statement made - that local magistrates were certain that the recorders they saw in the trunk of the car at the site, were not the ones they later saw. I was puzzled by this because they would no doubt have been cleaned etc., but this was something that the magistrates were (reported to be) very unhappy about. There were myriads of other things, but what happened to the co-pilot was beyond credulity.

Data uploading would best be discussed in the tech forum, but just to say that sending packages of data to other aircraft might be a simple alternative.

It would be far easier to do than set up a cell/mobile phone system, but of course there wouldn't be the $$$$'s pouring in as a reward.

The sky is full of aircraft...pinging data to each other is mostly a case of organizing protocol.

Each data package would have to be sent back to confirm its integrity, so a limit could be made on how many aircraft held one given batch of data. Say ten other aircraft would hold that particular batch, then reject others from that aircraft. Any crisis or anomaly, and all surrounding aircraft start downloading that channel.

Longer term uploads - as previously discussed, so that the flying host units could be purged.

The thing about aircraft is that they have line of sight to a lot of orbital hardware. The signal strength needed, much less than ground-based transmissions. I'm sure the days of diving for black boxes is limited, but I'm astonished that they have gone on for so long.

BTW I recall one of my colleagues meeting his end in a Viscount. It was said that the recorder wire was in 20,000 pieces. Still they read it.

Ballymoss

29th Nov 2008, 23:48

local magistrates were certain that the recorders they saw in the trunk of the car at the site, were not the ones they later saw.

Loose, don't suggest conspiracy or your post will surely be deleted..........

Rgds
The Moss:ok:

ChrisVJ

30th Nov 2008, 00:27

Catplaystation and ChristianJ bring up an interesting debate.

On a very persona note, my plane has push rods and cables for controls and at the GA level I certainly would have some concerns if they became FBW and FBC (Fly by computer.)

It is easy to see how the FBW thing became the norm, and then the FBC thing crept in and it too became the norm and the stats seem to show that it is as safe as any other system, after all we hear often enough of physical control systems being jambed, either by mis installation or foreign objects or by minor structural damage that would not in itself bring an aircraft down. That said it still seems, at least to us very old SLF, that there is something inherently unsettling about flying without some direct connection between the controls and the control surfaces.

The assertion that it would not be possible to have physical connection in modern aircraft seems unwise. After all your car has power steering but there is still a physical connection. (And if FBW and FBC are so damned good why doesn't your car have it for steering?) If it was mandated then the engineering does not seem so difficult. The trade off would be the risk of physical jambing and in a long and possibly complicated system that might be as high as the risk of multiple electrical or computer failure.

I love flying in anything, even long tedious trips as SLF (As long as I get the window seat,) but sometimes, if I think about it just before boarding, I do get a frisson of worry about the controls having such a very tenuous connection to the bits that actually make it go where it should!

Let's just not even talk about "Plastic."

Porter1

30th Nov 2008, 00:34

No links, but sad accident it is..

a few facts,
1) just came out of maintenance
2) they flew at around 1400 feet or so (at 4 Nm from threshold)
3) there was not even a single radio transmission from the stricken aircraft.
point 2 & 3 make it reasonable to suspect that whatever happend happend so fast that they just did not stand any chance of recognising it, let alone coping with it.

if you start an agressive serious nose down dive, the vertical descent rate is easily in excess of 7000 feet per minute.
This means that they would have 12 second from the time the problem started till they met the water below, or far less..

a few possible scenarios

1) 'human error'
maintenance forgot something very vital (think of the lack of greasing MD80 Alaska airlines stabilizer trimspindel/jack for example leading to detachment & horrifying result)
Structural overloading)
mayor structural failure of a wing, or stabilizer, due to upset beyond ultimate load limit.
3) rudder hard over, or 'renagade' total uncommanded control surface deflection of fly by wire system. Commanding for example full nose down elevator and / or full aileron deflection and so on. Airbus does have flight envolope protection & computer systems are fail safe, or suppost to be.

4) trust reverser unlocked.
Think of 767 Lauda Air..

In any case it must have been something very sudden & at 1220 - 1400 feet AGL that left no room for recovery.

very curious what happend..

p.s. i prefere Boeing anyway over the 'scarebus'..:eek:

Tyres O'Flaherty

30th Nov 2008, 00:44

Oh dear.

Hope Rainboe's not about.

If you are sir, take blood thinning agents at your earliest convenience

Edit; please previous poster, stop.

You aren't helping anything or anyone.

Least of all the work colleagues or relatives of those concerned

Brian Abraham

30th Nov 2008, 01:55

Of course we can't jump to conclusions, the answers will come in the fullness of time, but abrupt pitch ups are not unknown.

24 SEP 1994 - Tarom Flight 381 approach to Paris-Orly Runway 26 and the captain was at the controls. He decided to perform an automatic approach and landing. The flight crew started to put the aircraft into the approach configuration, with slats and flaps at 15/0 at 10.42:05, then at 15/15 at 10.42:53. The landing gear was extended at 10.42:57. Approaching the OYE beacon at indicated speed 250 kt and heading 325, before lining up with the runway, the Captain noted that the aircraft was not capturing the ILS glide slope automatically. He disconnected the AP and continued the approach on manual control, keeping the Autothrottle in operation. As the aircraft descended through 1,700 feet, at 10.43:22, with a speed of about 195 knots, the Captain asked for flap extension to 20 . The VFE, the speed limit authorized for this new configuration, is 195 knots. When the flap control was set to 20 , the thrust levers advanced and engine thrust increased. The flight crew countered the nose-up effect resulting from the increase in thrust by using the pitch controls, with the auto-throttle (ATHR) remaining in automatic mode. The throttle levers were then quickly brought back to the idle position. At the same time, the trimmable horizontal stabilizer started to move in a nose-up direction. The nose up effect that resulted was countered by the flight crew through gradual nose-down action on the elevators. When the trimmable horizontal stabilizer reached its maximum nose-up value and the elevators also reached their maximum nose down value, the throttle levers, according to the FDR readout, moved rapidly to their stops. In a few seconds, the flight path started to rise and the pitch attitude went to 60 . Witnesses saw the aircraft climb. It banked sharply to the left and the right and stalled before adopting a strongly negative pitch attitude (-33 degrees) towards the ground. The maximum altitude reached was 4,100 feet, while a minimum indicated speed of 35 knots was recorded. The stall and ground proximity warnings sounded during the descent. The flight crew managed to regain control of the aircraft, with the lowest point being around a height of 800 feet, that is 240 meters from the ground. The flight crew then performed a visual circuit, followed from the tower by the controller. The second approach was made with a configuration with slats and flaps at 20/20. Landing took place at 10.52:25.

And many more.

FAA human factors report "The Interfaces Between Flightcrews and Modern Flight Deck Systems" http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-422Spring2004/5C356BFF-2264-4A2C-8845-B1904BFEB783/0/interfac.pdf

White Knight

30th Nov 2008, 02:03

Loose Rivet - no 330 has 'famously' gone into the trees... A 320 once did, but that's done and dusted.

ExSp33db1rd

30th Nov 2008, 02:46

I can tell you it was only flying on one engine, I'm sure of that, I would have heard the sound of the second. And with only one engine there was nothing to be done

Clearly each engine makes a different sound, don't they ? and a lightly loaded 2 - eng aeroplane clearly can't fly on one engine.

Enquiry complete.

davidrnz

30th Nov 2008, 04:25

2) they flew at around 1400 feet or so (at 4 Nm from threshold)

... and where did we get that choice piece of misinformation??

They were on or about the 11DME arc and were apparently cleared to 4000ft.

4NM from the threshold is not over water.

I'll go with Tyres here .. leave it.

Loose rivets

30th Nov 2008, 05:20

no 330 has 'famously' gone into the trees... A 320 once did,

Sorry, my mistake, will correct.

Done, yes. Dusted? Situations like that one always leave that nagging doubt. Well, to me anyway.

Mercenary Pilot

30th Nov 2008, 06:53

Porter1 go back to the flight sim forum from which you came and stay there, you're talking absolute bollocks about something you clearly know nothing about. :mad:

Mshamba

30th Nov 2008, 07:07

So you prefer the "all-electric" and largely plastic 787?
The days of cable and pulley flight controls are way behind us.
Even the antique 777 is fly-by-wire. Maybe you should explain, not delete.
I think its less being scared about fly by wire, more concerned about the microchips in between telling the aircraft what the intensions of the pilot might have been. 1:1 transmitting pilot signals "by wire" to the aircraft works fine. Understood the comments like that.

Airbus Unplugged

30th Nov 2008, 07:20

Ok. I'll cross you off that invite for a ride inthe B2 and the one for the F117.:ugh:

Finn47

30th Nov 2008, 07:35

"4 NM from the threshold" it definitely was not as the distance to the sea is at least 7 NM. Would have been easy to check.
If they were indeed descending through FL 120 and cleared for 4000 feet for an ILS approach, but were observed to be at roughly 1000 ft some 10 NM out, this would suggest to me their problems had already started a bit earlier and they could not control the descent for some reason. Hope for answers soon.

fun123

30th Nov 2008, 07:37

ChrisVJ #128

There are cars made in Japan with so called fly by wire steering, that is an electronic link between the steering wheel and the steering rack. The one that come to mind is the new Honda Legend, but no country outside of Japan will certify it for use on their roads so the export models get conventional systems. Makes you wonder why then that aircraft manufacturers can get acceptance from their fly by wire products?

esa-aardvark

30th Nov 2008, 07:42

The thing about aircraft is that they have line of sight to a lot of orbital hardware.

Back in my working day there was a project 'aerosat',
which could have been developed to enable data
forwarding. Before it's time and canceled around 1982 due to lack of interest by the aviation authorities.

L337

30th Nov 2008, 08:05

Makes you wonder why then that aircraft manufacturers can get acceptance from their fly by wire products?

How much knowledge do you have of aircraft fly by wire? Any at all? Because the above statement demonstrates to me that you have absolutely no knowledge of aviation, and in particular FBW.

Have you ever operated a FBW aeroplane? Do you understand the word quadruplex, triplex, redundancy or Control-Configured Vehicles? Have you any knowledge of the certification processes required? The flight testing regimes and requirements?

To arrive here with your first post and then condemn FBW aircraft by comparing them to a Honda Legend is brave.

international hog driver

30th Nov 2008, 08:58

I just discovered that I knew one of the XL cockpit crew involved in this accident and I must say I am a bit stunned.

Let me assure anyone here, there was no lack of experience on the XL crew involved as one was the DO and the other a TRI on type.

The only facts are that whatever happened happened quickly and was beyond normal (words from an Airbus TRE) make of it what you will.

RIP my friend, I hope its only blue skys in the beyond.

:(

ChristiaanJ

30th Nov 2008, 14:11

There have been a number of reports that the a/c was flying at about 1000ft. I don't know whether these have all come from one source or from various.
What seems odd to me is that the last clearance they received was direct LANET, cleared LANET ILS 33, descend 4000 feet (source: this thread).
Looking at the approach plate for the LANET ILS 33, they were on or near the 11DME arc. The plate shows establishing on the ILS at or above 2000ft.
Based on those two pieces of information, they should have been nowhere near 1000ft. Were they below the flightpath or did someone just imagine that they saw the a/c at 1000ft?Initially, various witnesses reported the roughly 1000ft I quoted. More recently, there is a report from the tower controller (presumably based on the approach radar?) that the a/c was at 2000ft when it started a turn and then descended rapidly until impact.

CJ

ChristiaanJ

30th Nov 2008, 14:23

..... after all we hear often enough of physical control systems being jammed, either by mis-installation or foreign objects or by minor structural damage that would not in itself bring an aircraft down. I forgot to mention....
On Concorde it was belts and braces and an elastic band and a piece of string....
Three hydraulic systems, two separate electrical signalling channels, mechanical backup (rods and cables) and finally, if the mechanical controls were jammed, strain gauges on the controls, that detected the forces being exerted by the pilots and controlled the system that way.
Don't know what's on more recent aircraft.

CJ

RatherBeFlying

30th Nov 2008, 14:54

Midi Libre - Fait du jour - Une première boîte noire a été repêchée hier (http://www.midilibre.fr/articles/2008/11/30/20081130-FAIT-DU-JOUR-Une-premiere-boite-noire-a-ete-repechee-hier.php5)Le second enregistreur, qui contient toutes les données du vol (vitesse, paramètres de navigation, réacteurs...) a été localisé mais, plus difficile d'accès, n'a pas encore été repêché. Il devrait l'être probablement aujourd'hui.Loose translation: The flight recorder has been found, but access is more difficult. It should probably be recovered today.

HundredPercentPlease

30th Nov 2008, 15:02

Don't know what's on more recent aircraft.

And nor do 90% of the "aviation enthusiasts" posting on this thread. The 320 is an extraordinarily capable and robust aircraft compared to many other similarly sized types. Triple hydraulics (yep, with a DEF you get plenty of electrics and hydraulics) and a flight control system that has that many redundancies, backups and internal checks that it makes even the most seasoned Airbus pilot get a minor headache.

This short thread is worth a read:

http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/225512-a320-electronic-flight-control-system-voting.html

It would be great if this thread could regain it's focus and be a source of useful information for the thousands of Airbus pilots who are wondering how on earth such an accident could happen. As usual, we need to know whatever it was, so that we can do our bit to make sure it doesn' happen to us. Those who want to copy and paste ridiculous newspaper inventions or spout some regurgitation from the Discovery Channel (or even those who have spend a lifetime in a 737 who want to vent their unfounded opinions on a more modern aircraft that they have never flown) could they please go elsewhere and leave this thread as a place for sensible and informed discussion?

beamender99

30th Nov 2008, 16:22

Flyingphil

I can not find the Report right now

A 2001 reference

Cross-wired Controls Almost Bring Down Lufthansa Airliner | Air Safety Week | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_23_15/ai_75307962)

DozyWannabe

30th Nov 2008, 21:31

I can understand why some become pitbulls, this is after all the professional pilots forum and not for amateurs to expound their crank theories on matters they don't understand.
In all fairness, it's not entirely unknown for some of the professionals on here to expound their own pet prejudices against technologies, borne possibly out of fear they don't fully understand said technologies. "Computer says no" is a funny one-liner on TV because it reflects real-life experience with unyielding technology at home or in the office, but it bears absolutely no relation to the functioning of a modern FBW aircraft control system.

I'm not going to say anything about this accident until we have some more concrete information about what did or did not happen, but it does sadden me to see the finger pointed at technology before any of the wreckage has been brought ashore.

767moose

1st Dec 2008, 04:42

To all us arm chair critics. Hindsight Bias is great but when things go wrong in the aircraft sometimes speed and altitude are your best friend.
No aircraft or crew is infallible. Look what happened the the QANTAS A330 near Learmonth. No 1ADIRU played up and the auto voting/switching system failed. If the incident had happened at a lower altitude then the situation could have been much worse. Automation is good to a point but if it fails revert to s submode or take over and fly manually (if you have the time).
Rumour mongering helps no one.

hautemude

1st Dec 2008, 07:00

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20081127-0

This website reports that the a/c was on it's second test flight of the day which to me suggests that blocked pitot/static sources are very unlikely.

Of course it leaves plenty of room for speculation that maybe it required some fault rectification before making it's second flight.

However I can find no confirmation that it was indeed on it's second flight.

Clandestino

1st Dec 2008, 11:34

The facts so far: the aeroplane was on post-maintance test flight, it ended up at the bottom of Mediterranean sea and all seven crew perished. Thats it, and for the time being, that's all there is to it.

So far no radar plot, no CVR transcript and no FDR readouts were made public, ergo we have no idea what really happened. It usually takes 2-3 weeks after data reorders are recovered to put bigger part of the puzzle together. If some signiffcant issues are find regarding aircraft's airworthiness, emergency ADs are issued at this stage. Whatever is found, Airbus industrie keeps their customers updated on progress of investigation, even if the relevant accident investigation authority shuns the public.

However, by the time we get the clear picture of the events, the story has lost its entertainment value and findings don't get reported by the general press.

Coquelet

1st Dec 2008, 12:04

The DFDR has indeed been recovered yesterday evening.
The CVR is said to be severely damaged and will be difficult to read.
The five other victims have not yet been found.

Crash de l'A320: la seconde boîte noire retrouvée - Yahoo! Actualités (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/3/20081130/tfr-pyrenees-orientales-airbus-accident-d0963a8.html)

snowfalcon2

1st Dec 2008, 19:53

So far no radar plot, no CVR transcript and no FDR readouts were made public, ergo we have no idea what really happened. It usually takes 2-3 weeks after data reorders are recovered to put bigger part of the puzzle together. If some signiffcant issues are find regarding aircraft's airworthiness, emergency ADs are issued at this stage. Whatever is found, Airbus industrie keeps their customers updated on progress of investigation, even if the relevant accident investigation authority shuns the public.

However, by the time we get the clear picture of the events, the story has lost its entertainment value and findings don't get reported by the general press.

ICAO Annex 13 prescribes the investigating body shall issue a preliminary report 30 days after the accident including facts established at that time. CVR and FDR recovered, so data should be available by then.

tubby linton

1st Dec 2008, 20:00

Thirty days from the accident will be in the middle of the Christmas period,I doubt if we will see an initial report before the first week of January.

CONF iture

1st Dec 2008, 21:15

From your link Coquelet ...The second black box rescued Sunday afternoon is "very difficult to exploit”, like the first one, has also said the magistrate
... tone is already set.

TripleBravo

1st Dec 2008, 21:33

And if FBW and FBC are so damned good why doesn't your car have it for steering?Simple answer: You can buy 10 (ten) brand new family cars for one ADIRU. An Airbus has three of it. And it's but ONE computer sub unit, worth 30 cars alone (including 30 brand new servos for steering).

Got the point? Then it's also obvious why we will never see such systems in general aviation anytime soon. You could buy a complete new Cessna / Piper / ... for just one device.

The very difference is, in my opinion, that people understand how a cable works, but not how a computer works. So they feel that they commit their lives to an electronic "thing", they do not understand. Absolutely.

What I see people missing is the fact that a mechanical system is nowhere near infallible. It can crack, it can jam, it can come loose, it can be misinstalled, it can corrode, it can loose fluid silently .... which an electric system can't, by the way.

Ahh, people correct me - there are other failure types for electronic systems, like loss of electric power? Exactly. And now experts can do the math and come up with stochastics of failures. No system wins, as they are designed to a certain failure rate, not the other way around. But the electronic does have other advantages.

This "I only trust the mechanic system (with the microcracks I can't see)" debate from the "I don't trust my home PC" and "it's not in my cheapo car" folks gets boring over time. Yes, you will never "see" inside an algorithm, but you would have been equally not able to see the microcrack in the compressor disc that brought down a DC-10 in Sioux City. 'nuff said.

sevenstrokeroll

1st Dec 2008, 22:02

there is a difference though...this crash killed everyone on board, the sioux city crash had survivors.

and now the dc10 has a special gadget to keep some hyrdaulic fluid available for flight controls if another disc burst happens.

'nuff said

Carnage Matey!

1st Dec 2008, 22:14

That old heave-by-cable MD80 of Alaska Airlines that ploughed into the sea off LAX killed everyone on board too. Best not fly on any aircraft with a screwjack drive for the stabilizer.:ugh:

Bula

1st Dec 2008, 22:20

There have been plenty of accidents involving both types: FBW or otherwise. It's useless and completely oblivious to endorse that one system is less falible then another.

silly silly silly......... I seem to recall many occassions where overspeed and stall warnings have occured at the same time on boeings and DC-9 leading to loss of life and liberty.

It's the ago old argument, and considering loss of control is now one of the biggest killers in aviation AHEAD of CFIT, I can't believe boeing still relies on a stick shaker for windshear recovery.... I cant believe Airbus doesn't allow the throttles to be firewalled (overboosted).....

PS Its the complication of the Airbus flight control systems which bambuzles people and that why people don't like it.. there is no off button. Just remember that if a protection is playing up, its good to know what computer drives what protection.

ELAC, SEC, FAC....... On the A320, if all goes to hell, the second AP is a great place to start, as the Flight envelope protection function on AP2 is driven through FMGS 2 via FAC 2 whose information is provided by ADIRS 2. How to turn the bus into a boeing in one foul swoop...

If that fails, in my misguided opinion (becasue it not written anywhere), both ELACs would be next, because with the AP disengaged the flight envelope protection is send from the FAC's directly to the ELACs..... so get rid of the ELACs. Ok where in ALTN Law, reduced protections, not quite a boeing but getting closer, but the trim is running away because of the static stability of reduced protections ... okokokokokok....... Turn off two ADIRS's to be in ALTN LAW no protections....... fffeeewww

Turning off the FAC might not work because if the computer thinks that the FACs are working fine, even if switched off, the envelope protection still works..... sssiiigggghhhh...... where is that circuit breaker?

its not confusing at all :)........ or maybe I place the aircraft into the emergency elec config..... but do I really want to do that?

no, not confusing at all :}

sevenstrokeroll

1st Dec 2008, 22:20

carnagey matey

nothing is wrong with the plane (md80_ ) that good mx procedures wouldn't fix.

alaska had come up with some really creative ways of saving money, until they lost the plane.

my airline flew this type and never had problems with the stab jack screw...of course we followed the manufacturer's ideas on how to keep the thing maintained.

Carnage Matey!

1st Dec 2008, 22:24

Quite right, nothing wrong with the good ol' 80, but that crash still killed all on board, just as this one did. Trying to claim that survivability in such a catastrophic incident is somehow related to whether an aircraft has traditional controls or FBW is ludicrous.

J.O.

1st Dec 2008, 23:33

Bula:

I cant believe Airbus doesn't allow the throttles to be firewalled.....

I don't know who told you that, but they were misinformed. TOGA thrust is always available in an Airbus. Unless of course you are talking about overboosting the engines. If that is the case, then you will find that Airbus is not alone. FADECs are used to control and limit thrust on all modern aircraft, not just Airbuses (or is that Airbi?).

Bula

2nd Dec 2008, 00:13

firewalling = overboosting...........

philipat

2nd Dec 2008, 00:30

It was touched on in an earlier post but it wasn't clearly answered. Could the A320 pilots confirm or otherwise that the ADIRU's in the 320 are the same as the 330?

oceancrosser

2nd Dec 2008, 00:49

Bula wrote:

firewalling = overboosting...........

No Bula, firewalling (in the sense that throttles are pushed to the stops) does not equal overboosting. In the Boeings I fly, I would have to start switching off things as well to be able to overboost. Simple.

Bula

2nd Dec 2008, 02:15

eeerrrrr........... some poepl are pickey arn't they......

Setting a higher thrust setting then TOGA.

you know what I mean... :rolleyes:

Firewalling an Airbus Is NOT the same as firewalling a 717, 747.

Carpe D.M.

2nd Dec 2008, 02:18

Would just like to put it out there that I knew the Kiwi pilot on board (the one in the observer seat). He was an immaculate and VERY proffesional guy. RIP Brian...

We know the DFDR and CVR have been recovered in "damaged condition" Could someone that knows more than I tell us all what the implication of this "damage" may or will be on the data recovery that the authorities most desperately want?

TechnicalSupport

2nd Dec 2008, 02:38

Its more of a waiting game, the authorities in this case wont be releasing information anyway for some time. From latest press release

"Meantime, it is important to note that over the coming days there will be limited information that Air New Zealand will be able to release on the search as the formal investigative process is now underway. This will see our ability to communicate developments increasingly constrained under local law.

Carnage Matey!

2nd Dec 2008, 02:39

Firewalling an Airbus Is NOT the same as firewalling a 717, 747

You can't go any higher than TOGA on a 747-400.

GMDS

2nd Dec 2008, 04:14

good post by Bula:
There have been plenty of accidents involving both types: FBW or otherwise. It's useless and completely oblivious to endorse that one system is less falible then another

Its the complication of the Airbus flight control systems which bambuzles people and that why people don't like it.. there is no off button. Just remember that if a protection is playing up, its good to know what computer drives what protection

Anything can go wrong. Cables, hydraulic actuators or lines, wires and computers. A broken hydraulic line leaves a computer in a bad place trying to actuate whatever surface, just as a jammed jackscrew withstands any physical pulling by its cable or motor. There’s no such thing as an absolutely failsafe system, therefore none seems definitely better than the other.
When you end up in a critical situation close to ground, having very little time to react, the taking manual, pulling up and shoving the levers full forward is the fastest and most instinctive way to get out. It might not be the most elegant, but once safe you regain time and can then sort out how to get back to a more comfortable state. I like the possibility of intervention in this manner.
If the system might not react in such a situation, you have to do the sorting out first and switch off some things, as to be able to get the desired reaction. However, when the surprise is huge, the scare is enormous, I tend to have a slower thinking processor and even with adequate knowledge of the system, I think I am too slow for a precise analysis and switching close to ground.
Having experienced some critical situations in my career, I prefer the earlier solution.

Loose rivets

2nd Dec 2008, 04:26

The FBW issue doesn't end with the failure of control runs, there's also the command authority issue.

People spent years arguing over protocols, but this post of mine says a lot about being able to demand that excursion out of the envelope.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/149721-fly-wire-airbus-vs-boeing.html#post1584468

skiingman

2nd Dec 2008, 04:39

TripleBravo: The unit cost argument you make leaves a bit to be desired. Those ADIRUs are so expensive in large part because they will be built in quantities over years that Toyota builds a single model in a single plant in a day.

The benefits available via FBW in autos or GA simply haven't justified the disadvantages and economics to this point. FBW made sense very early for large aircraft because of the tremendous advantages it gave designers. You'll note that FADEC is in all recent automobiles, and throttle-by-wire is increasingly popular. Certain luxury cars are nearly 100% brake-by-wire right now, and most cars have ABS and EBD.

Pure mechanical controls will be around in GA long after automobiles shun them, much like antique environmentally indefensible engines burning antique fuel still predominate in GA, despite being outlawed decades ago for new autos in civilized countries.

It is annoying how certain luddites refuse to recognize that good design is good design, and to the end user it really doesn't matter much whether it is mechanical or electronic if someone screwed up and it goes badly. There are many ways in which a simple hydraulic steering boost can go badly, and I've had one lock up on me before. That recently mentioned MD80 accident was all about failing to lubricate a pretty simple, pretty life critical component. Simple doesn't equal safe, and complex doesn't equal dangerous.

I certainly hope the DFDR is healthy enough, and I hope the authorities are successful in swiftly determining what went tragically wrong here.

c130airman

2nd Dec 2008, 06:40

The aircraft was not due to land back in france but was heading for Germany then Auckland for an Upgrade. To turn back to france meant it had a problem!

Flaperon777

2nd Dec 2008, 06:58

Now THAT make a whole lot more sense........

kiwiandrew

2nd Dec 2008, 07:12

sorry - I dont know how to use the quote function

c130airman

The aircraft was not due to land back in france but was heading for Germany then Auckland for an Upgrade. To turn back to france meant it had a problem!

According to previously published reports the plane was supposed to land at Perpignan after this flight before departing again for FRA and handover ... do you have some new information that contradicts this ?

lhr_syd

2nd Dec 2008, 08:04

c130airman said320 was on its way home
The aircraft was not due to land back in france but was heading for Germany then Auckland for an Upgrade. To turn back to france meant it had a problem!

And you know that because .....

Apart from an early news item in a NZ newspaper, this has never been repeated. Are you saying that the second flight was bound for FRA? Surely this would have come out earlier as flight plans to that effect would have been filed??

2nd Dec 2008, 08:33

It is interesting that the DFDR and CVR are reported as "damaged". Well they would be - it crashed - but to what extent are they damaged? The initial reports of the impact site stated wreckage spread over a wide area. This is normally indicative of a shallow(ish) impact angle as opposed to "spearing in" i.e. very steep impact angle.

By inference, the "damage" to the recorders should be less severe with the former scenario and in any case they are designed to withstand huge impacts. With this being a fairly young Bus they would also be the solid state variety so data recovery should be relatively straight forward compared to tape or wire.

If it subsequently turns out that the data was "not recoverable" then there will ineviatabley be accusations of a cover up.

I'm an experienced Bus pilot and I have to say I'm mystified by this accident.

A4

Obie

2nd Dec 2008, 09:26

Well, having flown the A320 from inception in 1989, like a few others, I don't have any concerns at all about the airplane!

Prangs happen! Fact of life! Probably nothing to do with FBW or any thing else you might like to conspire about!

grizzled

2nd Dec 2008, 10:44

A4, You wrote: "The initial reports of the impact site stated wreckage spread over a wide area. This is normally indicative of a shallow(ish) impact angle as opposed to "spearing in" i.e. very steep impact angle."

That is (generally) a "correct" statement for a land impact, but not necessarily so for water. The specifics of wreckage patterns on, and in, water vary of course, based on many factors that are quite different than the factors at play in ground contact scenarios. Having said that, your post also got me thinking about “impact damage” as opposed to “wreckage patterns”.

Actual “impact forces” are based on four (main) criteria regarding the impacting object (aircraft): forward speed, vertical speed, nose angle at impact, bank angle at impact. The fifth main ingredient is the physical nature of the impacted surface. In that regard there is one important aspect of water impact that many people don’t realise, or are possibly just not aware of the physics involved. Without going into unnecessary detail, water is nowhere near as easily displaced as most tend to think, meaning that the impact forces can be quite comparable to a very hard land surface (concrete, for example). One only needs to read this excerpt (for example) from the CTSB report on SwissAir111: “impact forces were in the order of at least 350 g (http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/01report/99back/glossary.asp#g)”. (http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_13_03.asp (http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_13_03.asp) )

In addition to SW111, there are many other examples of incredibly – almost indescribably – strong impact forces where the CVR and FDR were virtually undamaged or barely damaged. Most “failure to read” scenarios result from fire or heat damage as opposed to impact damage, and there are very few cases of water impact (no matter how severe) wherein the CVR and FDR have been damaged to a point of yielding little or no information. My point (finally . . .) is this: Given the known circumstances of this horrid occurrence, I will be quite surprised (and, I admit, a tad suspicious) if it turns out that either the CVR or the FDR are so damaged as to preclude them providing adequate and accurate information.

Grizz

ATC Watcher

2nd Dec 2008, 10:46

A4 : It is interesting that the DFDR and CVR are reported as "damaged".

Not quite : the "boxes" themselves seem to be physically OK, it is the contents ( at least of the CVR ) which is reported to be not "exploitable" as the BEA says.

This might indeed be the case, the problem is that in France,and surely by coincidence , this kind of things seem to arrive a bit too often, especially when involving AI types. Therefore the suspiscion.

To make matter worse for the BEA , the State prosecutor first declared that the CVR was recovered and readable, and 2 days later said the opposite.

forget

2nd Dec 2008, 11:04

What's the French for déjà vu?

The black box of an Airbus that crashed during an air show in France in 1988 was replaced with another after the accident, a report shows. Pilot Asseline was sentenced to ten months in jail by an appeal's court for manslaughter but he always maintained that the flight data used by investigators and displayed at the trial was a fabrication.

Acting on Mr. Asseline's request, the renowned Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) of Lausanne (Switzerland) examined documents from the crash and the trials and concluded that the black box of the aircraft had been switched after the accident. Along with its report, the IPSC published photographs of a French Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) official retrieving the black box from the wreckage of the aircraft. After enlarging, a photograph shows straight white stripes on the side of the black box. The black box presented at Mr. Asseline's trials as the original one had angled white lines on its side.

AirDisaster.Com: Investigations: Air France 296 (http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml#blbox)

OldChinaHand

2nd Dec 2008, 11:38

Modern CVR/FDR (black boxes) units are built to withstand 3600g for 6.5 milliseconds, this roughly equates to an impact velocity of 270 kts. In addition to the penetration resistance, static crush, high/low temperature fires, deep sea pressures, sea water immersion and fluid immersion.

FDRs are usually located in the rear of the aircraft, typically in the tail. In this position, the entire front of the aircraft acts as a "crush zone" to reduce the shock that reaches the recorder. Also, modern FDRs are typically double wrapped, in strong corrosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion)-resistant stainless steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainless_steel) or titanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium), with high-temperature insulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation) inside.

Judging by the impacts down through the years that black boxes have remained "exploitable" after, serious question will have to be answered if the "un-exploitable" report is true.

philipat

2nd Dec 2008, 12:00

It was touched on in an earlier post but it wasn't clearly answered. Could the A320 pilots confirm or otherwise that the ADIRU's in the 320 are the same as the 330?

At the risk of being repetitious, there has been no response to my earlier question. My contacts at Qantas feel that this might be relevant.

Dysag

2nd Dec 2008, 12:05

That article about the Air France A320 crash was written by Chris Kilroy.

His qualifications in the field of accident investigation are summarised below:

"Chris Kilroy is an IFR rated Private Pilot, and has been flying since 1998. He has over 150 hours logged in various types of aircraft. He brings knowledge of aircraft systems, flight rules, and meteorology, along with computer experience..."

joehunt

2nd Dec 2008, 12:14

Guys, you are getting this all wrong.

AI want to sell aircraft and things are moving a bit slow at the moment, so other measures have to be implemented, if this situation is not exacerbated.

Lets see, there was the TU 144 crash a LBG, the A320 into the trees as previously mentioned and now possibly this.

If the damned thing had to crash, it is a shame it had to be on French soil.

Re-Heat

2nd Dec 2008, 12:22

At the risk of being repetitious, there has been no response to my earlier question. My contacts at Qantas feel that this might be relevant.
Phil - as I am sure you know, each operator has different specs, and different ADIRUs may be installed on different types of similar aircraft, let alone different types in different fleets (google Honeywell ADIRU, and you can see that it might be on anything from 737s to A340s). While I am sure that someone would know exactly what is installed, in the interests of minimising speculation, I am not sure that anyone will be revealing here as to which ADIRU ANZ and Qantas ordered respectively for their fleets.

If you contacts at Qantas are in engineering or involved in the investigations on the A330, they will almost certainly know what was installed on each. If not, it is futile to speculate, as even if they are the same (it is certainly possible), then individual coding, version (if manufactured in a different year), updates etc could mean that the same base computer is operating in a very different way.

I cannot see how this information would be useful other than for uninformed speculation. There is no obligation on anyone to reply to all questions on a bulletin board!

Silver Spur

2nd Dec 2008, 12:51

The Airbus was on a post maintenance test flight. Had been leased, and was about to be delivered back to its owner. Latest news 7POB, none survived.
Any news on the most probable cause??

Cheers.

DC-ATE

2nd Dec 2008, 14:17

Am I to believe that no other agency, such as the NTSB from the US, will be allowed to try and examine the 'black boxes' from this accident?

Fix Info

2nd Dec 2008, 15:05

I fly 330's. Toga is throttles full forward, with max thrust still controlled by fadec's, and is not above max "rated" thrust.

In DC10 and 737's that I flew previosly, Go Around thrust was a setting slightly below throttles full forward, and at a position appropriate for max "rated" thrust. If I pushed the throttles all the way forward, i.e. firewall (which used to be a proper SOP term in some airlines), I would use max available thrust, which would possibly be above max rated thrust. This could lead to a complete failure of the engine/s if unlucky, and most surely would lead to some damage or life-time degradation, but could be used in a situation where the only other alternative was ground impact.

Is this not the case in B747-400? What about B777?

As a side-note, it's still possible to use "firewall thrust" in an airbus, but selecting N1 mode and set the levers to the Toga position regardless of outside atmospheric conditions. It'll just take a few seconds longer than on a classic steam driven airplane.

atakacs

2nd Dec 2008, 16:08

Regarding the black box being "too damaged to yield useful results" (assumning there is any substance to this): does anyone remember a similar case (impact into water, no fire, relatively quick recovery of the FDR/CVR) with such an outcome, especially with solid state based recorders ?

I muss say that I am very perplexed by this report.

Dysag

2nd Dec 2008, 16:29

"A senior accident investigator in France has dismissed claims one of the black boxes recovered from the wreck of the Air New Zealand Airbus A320 which came down in the Mediterranean last week is too damaged to yield useful results.

A member of the multi-national investigation team has told the NZ Herald that black boxes are tested at such length and extremes it is rare to find absolutely no data.

The source, a senior accident investigator with decades of experience, said he knew of only one or two incidents when the memory cartridges had been compromised.

The black box equipment will be sent to manufacturer Honeywell in North America to determine what data can be extracted."

Airbus_a321

2nd Dec 2008, 16:40

can anybody shed some light please why they haven't found the bodies of the other 5 guys, yet.

(does it mean the fuselage was obviously completely destroyed, broken into pieces and everything from inside plunged into the open sea?
Picking up the CVR and the DFDR, any information obtainable if the divers saw anything from the rest of the fuselage e.g. seperated in pieces or still intact ?

ChristiaanJ

2nd Dec 2008, 17:20

...can anybody shed some light please why they haven't found the bodies of the other 5 guys, yet.If you'd ever seen the effect of a relatively steep impact on an aircraft, or on the human body, you wouldn't ask such a macabre question....

CJ

Holodek7

2nd Dec 2008, 17:20

Is it possible that when one says that "...no useful information could be extracted...", that it's in the context of an easy 'plug- in- cannon plug or USB and play' was impossible, but that Honeywell will crack the case and retrieve full data? I'm suggesting that perhaps the comments regarding the CVR and FDR were not well expressed, or not in their entire context, but in fact, we'll see the data extracted successfully by the manufacturer(?)...

archae86

2nd Dec 2008, 17:20

does anyone remember a similar case (impact into water, no fire, relatively quick recovery of the FDR/CVR) with such an outcome, especially with solid state based recorders ?
I am not a pilot. I am, however, a retired electrical engineer who long worked for a semiconductor manufacturer in design, reliability, and manufacturing data analysis jobs.

Not very long after our first flash memory chips went in to one of the earlier solid state memory recorders, my reliability lab colleagues had quite a fire drill in assisting data recovery. It seems that in that case the recorder manufacturer's suspension had failed to provided a low-enough shock environment to at least one of the chips, and there was mechanical damage to the extent (if I recall correctly) of fractured wire bonds (yes--this was so long ago that chips were still connected to their pins by wire bonds). Anyway, the lab guys fiddled up an arrangement, the chip was read out, the accident investigation proceeded, and the reputation of solid state recorders was protected.

I suspect the housing/suspension was not very well done in that case. The old specs for bond wire integrity involved momentary accelerations in excess of 10,000 g, if memory serves me correctly.

They are not invulnerable. Actually as a crash survival medium, I'm pretty sure solid state memory of any kind is mechanically inferior to the old aluminum tape with scratchings, and probably also inferior to magnetic tape. But the survival has a lot to do with how well the recorder designer did his job, not just the medium. If it is going back to Honeywell, you only need to trust their greed to expect they will try really hard to get the data out. Their business and reputation have a stake in that outcome.

ChristiaanJ

2nd Dec 2008, 17:32

Holodek7,
I think you probably got it in one.
Getting data from a solid-state FDR or CVR can be as simple as hooking it up and reading it, or as complicated as having to remove every single memory pack from a smashed-up mess, reading it individually and reconstituting the data.
The problems in the wire and tape days were different, but of the same calibre....

archae86,
Nice one.
I know what you're saying.
Let's hope this time they don't actually need to get into the chip packs.

CJ

reynoldsno1

2nd Dec 2008, 20:34

such as the NTSB from the US

Yes. French manufactured aircraft, leased to German company by New Zealand company with German and NZ nationals on board crashed in France. Why would the NTSB have to be involved?

barit1

2nd Dec 2008, 20:47

If I pushed the throttles all the way forward, i.e. firewall (which used to be a proper SOP term in some airlines), I would use max available thrust, which would possibly be above max rated thrust. This could lead to a complete failure of the engine/s if unlucky, and most surely would lead to some damage or life-time degradation, but could be used in a situation where the only other alternative was ground impact.

You obviously do what you must to keep from "spoiling your whole day", but you'd have to be VERY unlucky to break an engine in the minute or two "max available thrust" is used. I've seen engines abused per above that required nothing more than a special inspection, or perhaps some shroud/air seal replacement to restore performance, but no distress beyond that.

But use your good judgement. :ok:

ChristiaanJ

2nd Dec 2008, 21:21

Quote: such as the NTSB from the US
Yes. French manufactured aircraft, leased to German company by New Zealand company with German and NZ nationals on board crashed in France. Why would the NTSB have to be involved?What's your issue?
Some of the odds and sods on the aircraft are American, so the NTSB might be able to contribute something. Seems the FDR is Honeywell, so there you go.

CJ

lomapaseo

3rd Dec 2008, 00:07

Quote:
Originally Posted by reynoldsno1
Quote: such as the NTSB from the US
Yes. French manufactured aircraft, leased to German company by New Zealand company with German and NZ nationals on board crashed in France. Why would the NTSB have to be involved?

What's your issue?
Some of the odds and sods on the aircraft are American, so the NTSB might be able to contribute something. Seems the FDR is Honeywell, so there you go.

CJ

I'm pretty sure that the NTSB won't get involved just to watch the french BEA because some folks think they ought.

The NTSB would likely ring up their BEA counterparts if there was a need for a thorough investigation of a US manufactured or designed part (I have not heard of any yet).

If the NTSB happen to have some black box readout experience that the BEA doesn't then the labs may get involved.

The long and short of it is that cross involvement under ICAO is mostly for technical reasons and not political reasons

NSEU

3rd Dec 2008, 10:19

You can't go any higher than TOGA on a 747-400.

A one-push GA only gives a 2000fpm climb at the required speed. A two push GA gives you full THR REF.

If you have Rolls Royce engines, selecting ALTernate EEC's could give you a lot more than you bargained for (That's why there are warnings in the manuals about selected ALTernate EEC's at full thrust). Definitely more than TOGA.

Rgds.
NSEU.

klakmuf

3rd Dec 2008, 10:24

cirr737

3rd Dec 2008, 10:45

If would say the result isn't too hard to predict.... :ugh:

Dysag

3rd Dec 2008, 10:52

I think this puts to bed the suggestion that they were returning to land as a result of a problem. A touch-and-go or simple overshoot was intended:

"L'avion était en approche sur Perpignan pour une remise de gaz et un départ sur Francfort"

KRH270/12

3rd Dec 2008, 11:44

Airbus Crash in France + recorder data missing....

haven't I heard that before..... :mad:

by the way, the CFM-56 on the 37NG I fly may be 'firewalled' as long as you have the EEC protections - it will produce slightly higher than max. rated thrust and Boeing even encourages you to do so during low level windshear or terrain avoidance.

Smilin_Ed

3rd Dec 2008, 13:33

Why would the NTSB have to be involved?

Simply because, depending on the final results, certification of the aircraft to be flown by U.S. carriers might be affected.

Carnage Matey!

3rd Dec 2008, 13:46

NSEU - true, but in reality are you going to start reaching for alternate EECs in a scenario where you need maximum thrust immediately? By the time you've identified the switches (taking care not to accidentally turn off the hydraulics) it'll all be over. So in all practical terms you won't get anything more than TOGA from the 744.

philbky

3rd Dec 2008, 14:05

Quote:
Why would the NTSB have to be involved?

Simply because, depending on the final results, certification of the aircraft to be flown by U.S. carriers might be affected.

There is no reason for the NTSB to be involved unless one of the parties (France, Germany or New Zealand) request their assistance for some reason.

The investigative process is none of their business and they have no remit.

The report that eventually will be circulated will be taken on board by the myriad certification authorities around the world (in the USA the FAA, NOT the NTSB) and each will decide on how it will act - most likely in concert with the others.

DC-ATE

3rd Dec 2008, 14:24

I was the one who brought up the idea of the (US) NTSB possibly being involved in this simply because there seemed to be some question from some here as to possible "cover-up" of facts if it made Airbus look bad.

Dysag

3rd Dec 2008, 14:57

If you hint at the possibility of any French cover-up your post will be deleted by the mods.

Coquelet

3rd Dec 2008, 15:12

The NTSB is indeed involved , like the BFV (Germany) and the TAIC (New Zealand):

Bienvenue sur le site du Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/perpignan/com03dec2008.php)

DC-ATE

3rd Dec 2008, 15:14

I was not the one "hinting" at a cover-up. There seemed to be some concern by others that a possibility existed. That is why I questioned whether or not any other agency would be involved in trying to "read" the recorders.

uncle_maxwell

3rd Dec 2008, 16:57

In theory there is always the possibility of a cover up or 'polished' report - there are too many parties involved (manufacturer, airline, insurances, politicians, victims' families etc.), many of which have clearly opposed interests and some of which would be ready to pay good money to have first look at the data and the possibility to 'edit' it.

Economists and anyone studying agency and game theory could write (and have written) theses on this.

I would personally argue for FDR/CVR data/readability to be independently verified by several parties and the data to be made public after incidents/accidents. This way everybody (including armchair theorists) can make their own interpretation and there can be a healthy discussion around the facts - potentially eliminating the possibility of cover ups or biased reports.

But then accidents are a sensitive issue - especially when people lost their lives - and of course CVR/FDR may only be a small part of the puzzle.

IMHO sunlight is the best disinfectant though. Transparency works wonders - in any latitude...

Mr @ Spotty M

3rd Dec 2008, 17:06

As pointed out the NTSB is involved as confirmed by Airbus e-mail today, reason is V2500 engines fitted, they come under US manufacture and l guess the FAA.

Massey AvMan

3rd Dec 2008, 19:17

I have read that XL Airways have said they are not now, and never will release the names of the German Pilots. Is this usual? :confused:

kiwiandrew

3rd Dec 2008, 19:34

"I have read that XL Airways have said they are not now, and never will release the names of the German Pilots. Is this usual?

My understanding of it was that the XL spokesperson said that it was out of respect for the wishes of the next of kin , and if the next of kin dont want the names released then they shouldnt be released. ( personally I have always thought the releasing of names a bit goulish ... if you didnt know the person what possible relevance can it have to you , and if you did know them personally presumably you will find out anyway ... preferably not by reading their names in the media )

KRH270/12

3rd Dec 2008, 19:34

@ uncle maxwell

'Transparency works wonders - in any latitude'

thats not allways true... imagine you are the first aicraft manufacturer with a brand new all fly by wire aircraft, but instead of flying and accepting thrust demands it turns into a giant harvester cutting down trees...

ups ! has anyone seen those recorders we recoverd... anybody... come on boys, they must be somewhere... ah there they are........

Dysag

3rd Dec 2008, 19:45

"Neither of the pilots had ever performed a demonstration flight, and neither had ever seen Habsheim airfield"

1990 | 1069 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%201069.html)

Furthermore, just read the cvr translation and then say who downed those pax.

Capt "Rambo" Asseline had no idea what he was getting into.

AirDisaster.Com: Air France 296 CVR Transcript (http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/af296tr.shtml)

Azzy

3rd Dec 2008, 21:20

I Hope at least one pilot of the A320 France flight test have past FLight Test experience. and the Flight test plan (Flight Test Schedule) is an approved flight test schedule.

philbky

3rd Dec 2008, 21:30

TripleBravo

3rd Dec 2008, 22:18

skiingman,

you are fully right, I didn't mention the scale effect of a "real" industrial production. But then - it might cost a hundredth, meaning a third of the value of a car? You won't get it down much further, because of huge developing and testing efforts of such equipment. Speaking rather about a billion to be amortized, not single-digit-millions.

And I share your view on GA...

-----
Anyway, internationally agreed law foresees that there are participants of the land of the manufacturer of the airframe, the engine(s), the land in which the incident occurred and the land where the aircraft was registered. Nothing unusual here.

ChristiaanJ

3rd Dec 2008, 22:27

KRH270/12,
Pity to see that, for your second post, you already show you have been taken in by the Asseline fiction.
...thats not allways true... imagine you are the first aicraft manufacturer with a brand new all fly by wire aircraft, but instead of flying and accepting thrust demands it turns into a giant harvester cutting down trees...
ups ! has anyone seen those recorders we recoverd... anybody... come on boys, they must be somewhere... ah there they are....Anybody else needs any comment?

CJ

atakacs

3rd Dec 2008, 22:54

Press release to day from BEA :
Protected boxes (CVR and DFDR) have resisted and seem intact, but it was not possible to extract any data. Additional work will be becessary, without being possible today to predict their result.

So they where structurally intact (which is what one would expect given the circumstances of this crash) but BEA can't read them... Hmmm.... Could it be that there is nothing to read on them, i.e. that they where not recording ? This is really intriguing as I am pretty sure that the BEA is well equipped to be able to retrieve data from an A320 recorder. The fact that they could not read anything from both is really puzzling. :hmm:

reynoldsno1

3rd Dec 2008, 23:52

Not quite sure why this is legally or technically necessary
...which was the point I was trying to make ... obviously poorly. Thank you philbky...

krujje

4th Dec 2008, 01:02

Interesting that the NTSB have been asked to participate, seemingly because of the origin of the engines. Not quite sure why this is legally or technically necessary - normally the contribution from the engine manufacturer is sufficient, so either the French wish to have impartial observation or there is some other reason we are not party to. Today 17:20

If the expertise of the engine manufacturer is needed by the BEA, and the engine manufacturer is in the US, then the US is entitled to acc rep status, thus the involvement of the NTSB. The legal basis for this is Annex 13

ICAO Annex 13:
5.23 Any State which on request provides information,
facilities or experts to the State conducting the investigation
shall be entitled to appoint an accredited representative to
participate in the investigation.

Also see that, under 5.18, there is a note:
Nothing in this Standard is intended to preclude the
State that designed or manufactured the powerplant or major
components of the aircraft from requesting participation in the
investigation of an accident.

PJ2

4th Dec 2008, 03:15

ChristiaanJ;
Anybody else needs any comment?
This old chestnut just won't die, will it?

From the DFDR:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8244/habsheimtrace1rw3.th.jpg (http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=habsheimtrace1rw3.jpg)

Jofm5

4th Dec 2008, 11:08

PJ2 et al,

Asseline may or may not have been at fault within the Habsheim incident, I see references on the thread to both the CVR and DFDR information from that incidient - however if it is true that these mediums were witheld for a week, appear visually/physically different from what was taken off the ground to what was submitted to the investigation then there certainly looks to be something that needs to be explained - however here is not the right place to analyse the Habsheim incident and there are already previous threads covering it.

I dont personally think we can really compare the habsheim incident with what happened just off Perpignan as it would appear from reporting so far that the events are dissimilar: -

1) With the habsheim accident the lack of power resulted in a slow descent and impact into the forest, from the eye witness reports the NZ A320 impacted at a very great angle.

2) The habsheim incident occured whilst trying to recover from a low level flypast, whereas the NZ A320 was reportedly anywhere between 1000 & 3500 feet when apparent control was lost.

As SLF I am not qualified to say, but in the back of my mind it would appear to me to be more avionics related than power related (as Habsheim was) due to the nature and speed of the impact - but as we well know we will not know anything until the reports are released of the investigation.

Regards,

Clandestino

4th Dec 2008, 12:48

Regarding the Perpignan accident: still no radar plot, still no ATC transcripts, still no FDR readouts, still no CVR transcripts - still no idea what happened and don't let anyone convince you othervise.

Regardin the Habsheim: captain Michel Asseline has accepted that his actions during the flyby led to accident and does not support any of the conspiracy theories surrounding the crash. Habsheim accident was not power related, although Asseline's shell-shocked statement claiming that engines did not respond normally makes sense. You see, engines worked as designed and as certified but not as the crew had expected.

EDIT: The rest of the post was factually incorrect, I should have checked the report before replying. Thank you for correcting me and I apologize for making some untrue claims. Sorry folks.

Jofm5

4th Dec 2008, 13:03

Habsheim accident was not power related,

My reference to power related was exactly as you said, the late application of TOGA resulted in insufficient time for thrust being available to clear the trees in time. I was not asserting that there was any defect with the plane itself although I may not have made myself clear in that.

Regards,

bsieker

4th Dec 2008, 13:33

Clandestino,

I agree with most of what you said, however, since we are on the topic:

[...] flying at around 30 ft RA, with engines at idle, waiting for alpha-floor too kick in [...]

According to the report, the overflight was planned and briefed as follows:

1) at 100ft
2) with flaps in position 3 and landing gear extended
3) in level flight decelerating to maximum angle of attack [...]
4) after disengagement of automatic go-around protection [...] (alpha-floor)
[...]
7) with go-around initiated by the first officer

Whether or not they were aware of alpha-floor inhibition below 100ft agl is irrelevant, because, elaborating on point 4) above, ...

4) [...]
The inhibition in this case can only be achieved in practice by pressing and holding the two switches placed on the throttles. After 30 seconds, inhibition becomes permanent for the rest of the flight.

... they had disabled it anyway.

Note 1: The described procedure disables all autothrust functionality until a reset on the ground.

Although Alpha-Floor protection is a function of the autothrust system, it engages at high angles of attack approaching alpha-max, regardless of the prior autothrust state (disarmed, armed, engaged). Thus autothrust cannot be disarmed (as opposed to disabled) in such a way that alpha-floor protection is inhibited. It must be disabled to inhibit this protection.

Note 2:Concerning the unexpectedly long time the engines took to spool up, the report concludes that TOGA thrust application was planned from a thrust setting required for a slow, prolonged low-level flyby at alpha-max, i. e. a high power setting, from which maximum thrust would have been available very quickly.

Instead the engines had to spool up from idle. According to the FCOM I have seen it should have been in "Apprach Idle", which is a raised idle setting to allow faster acceleration to TOGA thrust, but this may have been introduced later than 1988, and it may still have taken several seconds to spool up.)

Bernd

Graybeard

4th Dec 2008, 13:38

If the FAA find a rare and unusual fleetwide problem for which there is no immediate fix, I have observed them to suppress the findings until a fix becomes available.

GB

PJ2

4th Dec 2008, 15:01

Jofm5 - no intent to take the thread off topic and re-open the Habsheim issue - I was just pointing out that the accident occurred as indicated and that those who once again leap all over Airbus because it is Airbus have much to learn. The posting of this information (the graph) has nothing to do with the Perpignan accident and shouldn't be accepted as anything more than an attempt to foreshorten any discussion about stolen/falsified DFDRs. We need to let the events unfold and for some to stop painting devils on the wall.

I have my own theories of why this accident occurred but will hold onto them for now and wait for the DFDR and, what may be more important in this case, the CVR.

Clandestino;
And despite rumors to the contrary, A/THR was not disabled but merely disconnected.
Berndt's post handles these points very well.

PJ2

Dream Land

5th Dec 2008, 00:46

By the time they realised that there was no automatic TOGA forthcoming and manually selected it, it was too late. And despite rumors to the contrary, A/THR was not disabled but merely disconnected. Sorry for stay off the thread, Habsheim as I have heard from people more informed than me, was never meant to be an "A" Floor demonstration as I thought, can anyone with knowledge expand?

PJ2

5th Dec 2008, 02:10

Dream Land;

The "Alpha prot" mode of the 320 is, of course, beyond the control of the crew but it is automatically disabled below 100' RA.

The decision was made by Captain Asselin to do the fly-past above 100' so he elected to permanently (for that flight only - it re-engages but only after the next landing), disengage the a/thr so it would not "spoil" a high angle of attack, gear-down, low-speed fly-past demonstration by engaging.

The fly-past was actually flown at and below 30' ostensibly because the grass strip was so narrow and so short that height perception made the field "smaller" and so they flew lower. Cockpit planning and discipline issues arise here but we won't be distracted from your question. When it became rapidly apparent to the First Officer first, that they were below the trees, Asseline "firewalled" (to TOGA) the thrust levers and the N1's, which were at about 29% or IDLE thrust, took the expected six to eight seconds to accelerate. They almost made it - another second or so and the airplane would have skimmed the treetops and the engines would have not have swallowed as much foliage. Academic though it may be, to some extent the fbw (yaw damper) kept the aircraft relatively straight as it descended through the trees.

That is the extent of the "intervention" with the autothrust and was never a "computer problem" as so many claim.

tyfilou

6th Dec 2008, 09:43

What happens if the aircraft being repainted, somebody puts adhesive tape on the static ports and nobody removes or spots the tapes before take-off on the flight test day...
Anybody remembering what happened on the Aéropéru 757 in a similar situation?

Indicated air speed lower than real, protection kicking in at the wrong time (stick shaker, pusher....)??? Any Airbus specialist to comment on these please?

IcePack

6th Dec 2008, 10:03

Hadn't it been airbourne for an hour before the accident ? :confused:

hetfield

6th Dec 2008, 10:03

@tyfilou

As mentioned earlier in this thread it was the second flight that sad day when they crashed. So taped pitot/static is very unlikely.

Rainboe

6th Dec 2008, 11:15

Can Habsheim be discussed on another thread? It bears no relation to this incident, and all Habsheim matters are completely irrelevant. I was banned from this thread for a week, and look how out of control it has got!

I just want to come to this thread to read up on the latest news, not go through a discussion of some totally unconnected incident from umpteen years ago! What is going on?

A and C

6th Dec 2008, 14:19

I find myself agreeing with Rainboe and would like The Habshiem subject dropped from this thread. I also find it hard to understand why things that I found out three weeks after the Habshiem accident are still being talked about years after the event as if it was new news.

BOAC

6th Dec 2008, 15:02

AH! But is it not the obfuscation of news with irrelevance that makes PPRune special? :ugh: It is of concern to me how quickly a thread on a tragic loss of life can be dragged into the mire.

ChristiaanJ

6th Dec 2008, 15:16

A simple and practical question.

The NTSB has an e-mail service, which personally I appreciate and find relevant.

Does the BEA have a similar service ? I haven't found one, but I may have been looking in the wrong place.

CJ

Finn47

6th Dec 2008, 17:12

The NZ media is openly discussing the compensation that the families of the perished Air New Zealand employees are believed to receive. Also, as the aircraft was officially operated by XL Airways Germany, they - or their insurance company - have agreed to compensate Air New Zealand for the value of the aircraft.

Aircrash: compo for families in new territory - Sunday Star-Times - National News (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4784825a6442.html)

hetfield

6th Dec 2008, 17:21

I'm also with Rainboe about Habsheim from a technical point of view.

BUT at pprune are obviously serious concerns about accident investigation on french territory and AIRBUS involved. And dear mods, you can delete this post as many others about this concern (for whatever reason...), but it will NOT help to regain trust to BEA.

Cheers

tubby linton

6th Dec 2008, 18:15

Back to the original thread...will the entire structure be recovered and reassembled for analysis?We have heard very little about what exactly has been taking place in the waters off Perpignan.

ChristiaanJ

6th Dec 2008, 18:55

tubby,
There is very little more news....

Which is mostly what prompted my question about a 'BEA e-mail service', actually....

The fact that there ARE people who feel directly concerned, and would like to keep track of the investigation, even if not being part of it, does not really seem to have sunk in.

CJ

bigPONDsmallfish

6th Dec 2008, 19:01

A reasonable summing up?

press.co.nz - Get the latest local, national and world news from Christchurch's daily newspaper (http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4785153a6009.html)

golfyankeesierra

6th Dec 2008, 19:43

The wreck, or whatever is left, is at about 40m, so recovery will be slow and difficult.
For a PADI, or some other blue water diver it's just out of reach, but for accident investigation I think you can consider 40m shallow.
I guess salvation won't be a big problem.

Baron rouge

6th Dec 2008, 20:36

Hi ChristiaanJ

I think this link is what you can use to contact the French BEA:
Bienvenue sur le site du Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (http://www.bea.aero/fr/contacter-le-bea/contactquestion.php)

Appart from that, good to see most people here have more hindsight than in France , and do not agree with the fancy theories about Habsheim.

Red Top Comanche

6th Dec 2008, 21:47

Golf

I thought the PADI Limit was 42m (but only about 7 minutes of bottom time.

RTC

bubbers44

7th Dec 2008, 07:15

Trimix, Heliox and hydrox air is used to 300 meters.

Rainboe

7th Dec 2008, 08:12

There won't be salvage of the full structure. It's not a complete mystery. Recovery of the flight recorder and CVR will help solve whether it was simply a control problem or a structural failure, then presumably the useful parts in the investigation can be searched for. It's not a total mystery like the Comet crashes or the TWA 747, so painstaking (and very expensive) rebuilding is not necessary.

But please stop harping on about other unrelated incidents in this thread!

ChristiaanJ

7th Dec 2008, 19:40

Baron rouge,
Thanks for that. Not sure whether they have the same 'e-mail subscription' service, but at least I've asked them the question through your link.

Rainboe,
Let's hope we can get some valid info from the FDR and CVR.
Even so, picking the right odds and ends from the wreck field, to confirm that info, will not be obvious.

CJ

Finn47

7th Dec 2008, 20:49

This short article says the investigators are in fact trying to recover as much of the debris as possible:

3 News > National > Story > Searchers take day off from Air NZ crash (http://www.3news.co.nz/News/NationalNews/Searchers-take-day-off-from-Air-NZ-crash/tabid/423/articleID/83295/cat/64/Default.aspx)

tubby linton

7th Dec 2008, 21:36

I am not surprised by the news item above.Investigators will attempt to recover as much of the airframe as possible.As the B777 incident at LHR showed just having the computer data doesn't always tell the whole story.

Oxidant

7th Dec 2008, 22:22

(From BOAC) AH! But is it not the obfuscation of news with irrelevance that makes PPRuNe special? It is of concern to me how quickly a thread on a tragic loss of life can be dragged into the mire.

Could not agree more.
Maybe it's our age/ sense of value. But, I wish some of he posters would take time to think & reflect on the contents & the potential damage or offense of their "contributions", before putting them in the public domain......

O.

ChristiaanJ

8th Dec 2008, 21:20

I do not envy the people who, at this moment, are trying to make sense of the mess that they were handed as being an FDR and a CVR, even if they appeared superficially intact.
As mentioned earlier in this topic, the deceleration during a water impact can be awesome.....

For once, can we show some respect to them, and also to the people who will be again looking for "bits and pieces" in the cold and the murk at a few degrees above freezing and forty-odd metres down?

CJ

Theoddkiwi

9th Dec 2008, 01:41

Hi this my first post here, but a long time AD and a LAME.

I agree that it is easy to jump to conclusions, and i am guilty of this fact, which i am sure we all are at times.

The comparision with Habsheim i feel is warranted, not so much im terms of the circumstances of the accident but the sense that something does not feel right about the picture that we are presented with.

In simple terms and A320 has crashed during the approach component of a flight which by history is when pretty much all A320 accidents have occured. Which is not statistically surprising. Given that it is the most risky and challenging part of flying.

If we remember the Russian A320 last year which would seem to be a very similar if not identical accident. We could possibly make some conclusions that there may be some issue with the A320 or piloting procedures.

My concern is with the CVR and FDR data or the apparent fact that so far the data cannot be recovered. This a very very rare circumstance.

Consider this: Two different components, located physically in different locations of the aircraft operating off different power circuits, have suffered the same technical failure.

Has that happened before? Silk Air? or this one here?
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008026_InterimFactual.pdf

Thing is that in both of these events the relevent data is missing, but previous data is recovered. Which tends to the theories that they have been disabled on purpose during flight (Silk Air) or before the flight (ATSB Report).

My eyebrows were rasied the minute i read that the Data from both recorders has so far been unrecoverable. From a techincal and statistical point of view the chances are incredibly small.

Impact with the water is indeed a lot harder than most would expect. But the dynamics of impact with water also tends to result in the tail sections to snap and rotate over the fwd section of the aircraft, which results in a much slower impact than the front of the aircraft. Of course this depends on angle of impact and speed, which we don't know in this case. An thus total speculation, which is human nature if anyone cares to argue with.

Eitherway the impact forces on the Recorders would normally be quite low with respect to the initial impact and they should easily be able to withstand an accident of this nature. Note the Metroliners recorders had reasonable damage, but there was no real problem getting the data which was on recorded tape, where the A320 would be solid state which is more robust.

So for me there is cause for concern, but i hope i am wrong.

If i might add, NZ and France do still have a strained relationship, given Frances antics surrounding the Rainbow Warrior bombing, so if I sound cynical about the BEA, you should not be surprised.