Air France A330 "Crash Revelations" tonight [Archive]

PJ2

26th Oct 2009, 21:05

FlyBoy737800;
Open our minds to what? Some scintilating new insight from a journalist,... from television? Sorry, but you have to be kidding.

They will show some amateurish animation made up out of nowhere (because no one has the data) and show it over and over and over as kapoc-filler as the audio drones on about they know not what. This is just another media attempt to grab ratings with a made-up program masquerading as "insight" or "the truth".

I've seen a number of these including one broadcast by the CBC on safety in Canada and it was a complete, utter waste of time because while it soft-pitched the real questions, it provided a platform for a few personal grievances on issues only dimly related to the real, and serious issues.

For those who know aviation, these kinds of programs are a complete waste of viewers' time. For those who like a good, vicarious scare once in a while, they're jam, but don't expect to learn anything.

Teddy Robinson

26th Oct 2009, 21:07

To what ?

have you read the piece ?

What has this hack got to offer that has not already been considered ?

It had better be good !!

Or are we perhaps in for a rehash of speculative syndicated news warmovers with this individual's "personal touch" ?

Call me biased but I have seen this before and it is not worth a moment of anybody's time least of all here.

TR

bnt

26th Oct 2009, 21:17

Here we go: Faulty radar may have caused Air France crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/27/2724895.htm?section=justin)

The "revelation" appears to be that the plane's radar is unable to see ice particles in the air, so the pilots would have had no warning of pitot icing.

gravity enemy

26th Oct 2009, 21:19

It's programmes like these which make my mother ask if I have taken off the sticky tape off the pipe thing, so my radar can work!

Useless apart from giving the public stupid played down messages, which really don't make much sense without proper knowledge.

FN-GM

26th Oct 2009, 21:33

Hi,

Do you have some more information about when it is on please?

I have had a look at the ABC website and i cant see it on ABC 1 or 2

Thanks

bnt

26th Oct 2009, 21:55

This page (http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/) says Foreign Correspondent is on Tuesdays @ 8PM on ABC1. (It's already Tuesday dunnunda, hence the "tonight".)

SKI

26th Oct 2009, 22:03

Listen..until they recover the black boxs..if ever? all this speculation, is what it is speculation!!! The only way for a successful conclusion and flight safety is find those boxes!

Cheers

SKI

Teddy Robinson

26th Oct 2009, 22:03

France - AF447
Reporter: Andrew Fowler

What brought down Air France flight 447? The families, friends and fellow workers of the 228 people who perished when the Rio-Paris flight ditched in the Atlantic mid-year are all desperate for answers. But with airlines relying on outmoded technology that may never happen.

yes .. right ..lets just let journalists replace the AAIB :yuk:

Switch off the TV, bin the flight sim and start thinking please before posting here.

Do we need a news feed to the red top press on pprune ?

Really ?

Do we ?

Mods please do what you do.

TR

Flintstone

26th Oct 2009, 22:06

He should be fired QED.(sic)

When you're done being 'Angry of Suburbia' you might want to choose some different letters ;)

mercurydancer

26th Oct 2009, 22:16

Just to interject, it may be because Air France understand the media quite well. Not perfectly but well. They have been very open from the very beginning and being open means that there is a possibility for misunderstanding but on the whole this is preferable to stonewalling and the inevtiable consipracy theories filling that void of speculation

Teddy Robinson

26th Oct 2009, 22:22

"One of the biggest problems for investigators has been their failure to find the all important black box flight data and voice recorder."

Actually no.

One of the greatest problems for hacks is avoiding presenting anything that could be construed in a court of law as fact as fact.

Hacks want to make money.

Hence aviation stories are littered with " Heroes narrowly avoiding schools/covents/hospitals" and similar BS.

These journalists should be taken to court by the unions representing the flight crews and made to publicly retract the hysteria they are spreading.

They are underpinning the culture of fear that is destroying the aviation business, and life beyond aviation as well.

Nail em up.

FlyBoy737800

26th Oct 2009, 22:28

" Listen..until they recover the black boxs..if ever?"

With respect - this is naive SKI

Air France = French Owned = National Prestige

Airbus Industries = French Owned (Partially) = National Prestige

Airbus A330 outstanding orders around 330 = Billions of dollars

The Black Boxs will Never be found !!!

SKI

26th Oct 2009, 22:39

You said it mate? I am not getting into arguments here I am just stateing the facts, regardless of airbus france etc.......for the familys and relatives who were lost, we need to know what happened...so it won't happen again, that's not nieve...is it!

Teddy Robinson

26th Oct 2009, 22:46

Ahem .. Captain Flintsone excuse me.

do you disagree with my point ? this thread is being driven by drivel, non facts and journalese bunkum ?

I don't have the answers, nor do the French / Airbus and actually nor do you .

Do you support unsubstantiated speculation on this site ?

Retract or we will have to replay that nasty incident with the Engeesh archers. :D .. OK Welsh archers ... did anyone say Agincort ? (ps how doth one spell it ?)

TR :D

I understand we were accused of cheating ! :)

Di_Vosh

26th Oct 2009, 22:47

Before anyone else replies to Flyboy737800, I suggest you look at his/her previous posts in D&G, and the responses given to said posts.

DIVOSH!

GobonaStick

26th Oct 2009, 22:50

Your sweeping generalisation of journalism, Teddy Robinson, is as full of top-of-your-head, made-up-on-the-spot poppycock as this programme appears to be. Bit like saying all pilots are as slack and careless as the pair in the Northwest cockpit. See how dumb and insulting you sound when you apply the same logic to another profession?

fc101

27th Oct 2009, 08:44

FlyBoy....what is it, 20-odd posts and a username that clearly reflects your prejudices and dogmatic beliefs and comments such as:

"I am pilot, really, honestly"

sums it up really...

Now, please tell us how the A330 compares with the DC10?
Would it be too much to ask if you can provide a good technical discussion of the AF crash without resorting to childish comments?

So, the A330 is a perfectly safe aircraft - in very much the same was the 737-800 is a perfectly safe aircraft, I guess the pilots of Kenyan flight 507 and Turkish flight 1951thought of that prior to their crashes - to use your words.

In lieu of any technical discussion from you, I'll agree with "gravity enemy" and others that you're just a troll ... and apologies to the moderations for feeding you. Actually it would be very nice if you could actualy substantiate the point you're trying to make, as I and many others have no idea of what it would be...

By the way, you might be interested in the following extracts from the aviation-safety network's data base. I'll leave it up to others to discuss the particular incidents but it certainly refutes any argument that you can give regarding safety (perceived or real)..

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Type index > ASN Aviation Safety Database results (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=023)
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Type index > ASN Aviation Safety Database results (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=103-8)
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Type index > ASN Aviation Safety Database results (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=103-7)

Now there are some very good threads here (see the technical discussions forum and previous AF crash related threads here for example) which do go into details about these various incidents. I suggest you read those before spouting some journalistic crap as being "truth".

Right, now I've got that off my mind, its back to the day job

fc101
E145 driver

adsyj

27th Oct 2009, 09:50

Well there you go the pommy lawyers have solved that.

AF and EADS just need to deposit the cheque for damages into the solicitors trust account. The solicitors will quickly take their whack, plus of course reasonable charges for expenses and the poor relatives can split the 10% that is left between them. I hate lawyers far more than the media.

bia botal

27th Oct 2009, 12:42

lomapaseo

27th Oct 2009, 14:49

With regards to the question, "will we ever know what actually happened" . I wonder do Air France and or Airbus already know, would it be possible to recreate a series of test either in the sim or with a computer program that would stream the same infomation that air france recieved during the last moments prior to power lose and or break up of the aircraft?

I'm sure that Airbus and Airfrance have a short list of possibilities, but in all likelyhood no conclusions down to only one. The difficulty is not the simulation it's the validity to the assumptions that you would input. No doubt thousands of MSflightsimmers on these internet forums have crashed this flight hundreds of time with their own guesses (err simulations)

FlyBoy737800

27th Oct 2009, 20:26

The Big Picture problem is -

1. Air France = French Owned = National Prestige

2. Airbus Industries = French Owned (Partially) = National Prestige

3. Airbus A330 outstanding orders around 328 A-330s = Billions of dollars

The Black Boxs will NEVER be found !!! :mad:

gileraguy

27th Oct 2009, 21:23

I am stunned by the aggresive nature of some responses to this post!

I thought the show was interesting as well as being sympathetic to the families of the victims.

Interesting post mortem results indicate that some passengers survived the impact. This tends to indicate an attempted ditching or similar low speed impact and post impact break up of the AC.

Further reports of the French pilots union telling their members not to fly Airbus 330's and 340's without replacement pitots raised unanswered issues (in the accident report).

What about the lack of real time data streaming from passenger aircraft, so as to obviate the need for FDRs and their attendant searches in these scenarios.

I thought the report asked questions that STILL haven't been answered, without sensationalising the incident or the jounalist.

gileraguy

FlyBoy737800

27th Oct 2009, 23:25

I thought the report asked questions that STILL haven't been answered, without sensationalising the incident or the journalist.

So did I :ok:

martinmax69

27th Oct 2009, 23:33

Im not a pilot.But F.C. is a very reliable source of informative Journalism. What seems to be the problem with this thread is that the programe is aimed at lay-people such as myself.When the accident happened , we get a 2 min wrap-up and then the story dies.
The programe was not aimed a PP but for the rest of the population.They also covered the 'One-Two-Go' story some time back.Foreign Correspondent is at the opposite end to Fox News.

FlyBoy737800

28th Oct 2009, 00:13

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/393272-ek-a330-double-engine-failure.html

Scary Stuff :suspect:

PJ2

28th Oct 2009, 00:46

gileraguy;

Thanks for your comments. I have to say that the ABC is a favourite of mine and I wondered if they would "get it right". Perhaps they have, in which case, hat's off to a rare event in media. The North American experience is anything but, however.

PJ2

FlyBoy737800

28th Oct 2009, 04:42

All the tunnel vision, aggressive, Airbus A-330 supporters have now run for cover after MORE problems with this aircraft have been discovered. This time DOUBLE engine failure, see link above in previous post . . .

A double engine failure in a twin engine aircraft I would of thought to be pretty serious, especially when added to the list of "Challenges" the troubled A-330 is dealing with.

Their silence is deafening :)

Perhaps there may be something in what the enlightened ones like myself have been trying to highlight !

Plastic Bug

28th Oct 2009, 05:27

"Challenges"? "the troubled A-330"?

Please explain.

As in: Have no other aircraft have had problems crop up after 15 years in service?

The aircraft in question is neither "challenged" or "troubled".

It's a machine. Built by us, as in people, who invariably screw up, but being the intrepid sorts that we are, having survived for quite some time (that large brain, protein eating thing) usually overcome obstacles and move along.

I choose to look at each incident individually, because while it is easy to lump multiple incidents together, the variables usually indicate completely different circumstances leading to an event.

The old holes in the swiss cheese.

and they are NEVER the same.

I have no problem with he A-330. It's a great airplane.

You are, of course, allowed to believe differently, however, the record speaks for itself.

PB

PJ2

28th Oct 2009, 05:27

mercurydancer;

I tried to get my company interested in engaging the media. Rather than hide from flight safety issues I thought it was wise to address the issue head-on and tell the flying public what's being done to make everyone as safe as possible. The media may be the media but only if you let them be - they print what sells and I think an intelligent, engaging series of positive articles about this work would do well with most of the reading public - they're curious, after all. I think it is just smart business to be media-savvy.

Good to see you here, too.

PJ2

Damien1989

28th Oct 2009, 07:42

Does anyone know if the ABC will be repeating the program at some stage, late at night or on ABC2 ?

one post only!

28th Oct 2009, 08:10

Flyboy, all the tunnel vision, aggressive A330 detractors keep coming out with tenuous "evidence"!!

Dual engine failure.....remember the "challenges" a few triple crews faced when that happened to them. One in particular at Heathrow?!?!?!

Have a look at the number of 73's that have gone down over the years. Remember the "challenges" brought about by uncommanded rudder hard overs!!! (I know that per million flight hours the A330 has a higher accident rate but the 73 has been flying longer and with statistics you can prove anything!!)

Mate, look at any aircraft and it has/had problems. The A330 is not unique in that regard.

I think if anyone here has tunnel vision its you. Desperate to get the facts to fit your mental model that the A330 is a death trap. Others might disagree. Like pilots, airlines, regulators, aircraft manufacturers, travelling public etc etc.

If you want to you could build an argument for most aircraft having "challenges" and being troubled.

I don't fly the 330 so slag it off for all I care. Just don't claim to do it from an "enlightened" point of view please. This is how the press start stupid stories................

FlyBoy737800

28th Oct 2009, 08:21

" - the A330 is a death trap. Others might disagree. Like pilots, airlines, regulators, aircraft manufacturers, travelling public etc etc." - one post only.

I appreciate your measured response one post only . .BUT
many of the parties you list above have vested interests to make SURE !! the Airbus A-330 is kept in the best possible light at all times

Big picture stuff .... peel back the layers and see for yourself.

one post only!

28th Oct 2009, 08:55

I have. I see an aircraft that has had a few problems. I stand by my argument that all aircraft have problems. If you dig around each aircraft type you could build an argument that each is troubled.

I agree some parties may want the A330 to be presented in the best light. I do understand what you are getting at here. I would very much hope however that the majority will want problems found and fixed!!!
Which should really include airbus as if they keep splashing in with what turn out to be fundamental flaws who would ever buy any aircraft from them in the future! I think all aircraft manufactures "could" potentially be guilty of presenting aircraft in the best light or trying to put a spin on accident reports.

But ok, here is your chance. Maybe I haven't really peeled back the layers. Maybe myself along with others have missed something.
If you are enlightened you have obviously done a lot of research on the matter. Therefore can you please peel back the layers for me so I can make sure I haven't missed anything. Can you list all your evidence. List all the problems the 330 has had. Not including pilot error unless that error was brought about by poor cockpit design.

It would then be interesting to compare this list to other types in use at the moment. List the accidents/incidents they have had and why in similar cases the A330 incident is worse.

Its your chance now to win me over. No "peel back the layers" type arguments. Give me cold hard facts. I am genuinely interested.

You will have to be quick though as I have to report in 2 hours from now but that should be enough as you sound like you have already done this research to allow you to come to your conclusion.

I eagerly await your post.

VR-HFX

28th Oct 2009, 09:21

FlyBoy

I would have thought as a journo with some powers in research that you would have done your homework for my learned colleague Titan 404 on the D&G thread.

This was the homework and I have already given you some clues...pls send answer in your next post.:ugh:

Are you really a B737-800 pilot? If you are you would know what the ACN is for the B737-800 and its relationship to PCN. If you can answer this question then we can all presume you are as you say. If you can’t then I suspect you are a journalist trolling this forum and therefore can be ignored.

You sir are a barking up the wrong tree...or maybe just barking.

Stop wasting our time.

layman

28th Oct 2009, 09:28

PJ2

25 minutes, 7 seconds of video (30 minutes show) available from:

France - AF 447 - Foreign Correspondent - ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2725746.htm)

Short outline with "play video" just below the photo of the reporter

cheers
layman

Big Bad D

28th Oct 2009, 10:16

FlyBoy, your head is up your arse and you do the aviation industry a severe injustice if you can seriously believe that any manufacturers, regulatory authorities and accident investigation bodies do not want to find the 'black boxes' after this or any such accident. The only reserve that may well understandably be shown is to avoid feeding ignorant journalists, who have no interest in safety, of any information that will inevitably end up being distorted and sensationalised.

ArthurBorges

28th Oct 2009, 10:55

FlyBoy737800, AF has been "partially privatized", a term we were not allowed to use at Reuters, because we would get a phone call from the Elysée Palace ("French white house", so to speak) every time we did. So we were stuck with "opening up of share capital".

Last I remember the French Government had an 18.6% stake and employees, another 14.1%. As with any other listed corporation, you can only access the folks who bought into the IPO. What the actual stakes are, after offstage resales and transfers are, um, nobody really knows except the Board, which only has a reasonable approximation.

For details of institutional holdings: AFLYY: AIR FRANCE KLM Institutional Ownership (http://finance.aol.com/company/air-france-klm-ads/aflyy/nao/institutional-ownership).

And if you really want me to lawyer the point, actually, Air France ceased to exist since the merger with domestic carrier Air Inter. Already a private airline thriving under protectionist policies prior to EU open skies policy, the legal engineering figured that the easiest way to merge the two was for Air Inter to gobble up Air France and then the merged unit could exploit the "Air France" trademark as if it had been the other way round.

But true, FlyBoy737800, AF is a symbol of French national prestige and you really oughta an "e" to "boxes" of the black sort before asserting they will never be found. My outsider's guess is that money may cap the search and that the actual findings may never be released, but both AF and Airbus Industrie really do want to know what happened. Unlike vacuum cleaners and hair dryers that electrocute individual consumers, airliners are just "too big to fail" and if Airbus products get too bad a reputation, the company will fail eventually.

Personally, I think Boeing needs strong competition, so I'm happy about Airbus and about Chinese initiatives to work towards a longhaul aircraft, but that is another issue.

(Con-Pilot may dispute this as some irrelevant posting of mine elsewhere seems to have cost me all credibility in his eyes, but hey folks! Check it like you check anything else anybody raps on about. Happy skies!)

ArthurBorges

28th Oct 2009, 11:11

How do I re-hash a dead story with no new clues, but sensationalize it for maximum impact ?

He should be fired QED.

Re your first statement: Yes, mate, I have seen the difference between what we put out at Reuters and what some dailies twisted it into. Spot on!

Re your second: Nope. Fear is exactly what they are paid to instill and loyalty to the rag's advertisers are precisely why said advertisers lather them up generously in arcane little ways.

recceguy

28th Oct 2009, 12:56

Quote:
Personally, I think Boeing needs strong competition, and I'm happy about Airbus efforts...

Personnally, I think Airbus needs some competition, and I'm happy of Boeing efforts to keep trying making aircraft....

yggorf

28th Oct 2009, 16:59

FlyBoy737800

28th Oct 2009, 20:44

Check this out -

Airbus AF 447 : La France les a tués : Crash Airbus Air France AF 447 Rio-Paris (http://af447.20minutes-blogs.fr/archive/2009/07/05/airbus-af-447-la-france-les-a-tues.html#more)

Seeing the BIG picture yet Boys !!! and Girls ?

fc101

28th Oct 2009, 21:13

FlyBoy, you're still speaking s**t ... but, just for a moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt so, in your OWN words could you please tell us all what happened to AF477 - please do not spare the technical details. I'm sure we all want to hear your theory...

fc101
E145 driver

FlyBoy737800

28th Oct 2009, 23:17

I have an open mind - which is an endangered quality here.:hmm:

Razoray

29th Oct 2009, 00:35

It's not about being open or not. It's going back to the same Boeing vs. Airbus, France vs. USA :mad:......

Please there have been many Boeing crashes since 1988....and some that have not been solved 100%......:ugh:

swh

29th Oct 2009, 05:16

I have an open mind - which is an endangered quality here.

Most others on here have a brain where you claim to have that void.

So what is that answer on the ACN/PCN question ? .... been a while since it was asked, having trouble finding it in the MS Flight Sim manual ?

Zero creability, time waster.

ArthurBorges

29th Oct 2009, 07:36

"Not allowed" to use the term?
So Reuters obeys the Elysée palace?
Just like Agence France Presse...Just like every other news medium.

However, when it comes to such interference, postponement of release of an item, or simple direct archiving without release, a grrrrreat distinction is made between media from Countries We Don't Like and Countries We Like. In the first case, such deeds are called "censorship"; in the second, it is called "news management". :O

It is a matter of playing ball: either you do each other little favours or you risk receiving official press releases a few minutes later than other wire services. In extreme cases, accreditation is withdrawn and you simply stop getting invited to government press conferences. After all, nobody has to invite you.

When you're running a wire service, you give your journalists copies of the "timings".
These are slips of paper that list who got a given on the wire first, second, third and so on. If your folks are systematically getting notified only a few minutes after the competition, customers give you a reputation for being slow.

I don't know what's happened since Thomson bought up Reuters, but in the 1990s, if any piece of major economic and financial news hit the wire elsewhere, market prices would only start moving once Reuters had confirmed it.

That said, AFP long had superior overall coverage of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Reuters was best for Europe and sharp for the USA. US wire services were great for the USA.

ArthurBorges

29th Oct 2009, 07:57

I've followed Flyboy 738's link and the only observation I find of note, as a non-techie, is a philosophical one by French Parliamentarian Odile Saugues, sourced from "Journal de Dimanche", a decent Sunday rag with crosswords I could solve:

Le BEA français est extrêmement compétent et qualifié mais, contrairement au National Transport Safety Board américain, cet organisme dépend du gouvernement. Nous ne saurons que ce que l'on veut bien nous dire. C'est un des problèmes soulevés par les pilotes, qui dénoncent une certaine consanguinité entre les responsables de l'aviation civile en France. C'est un petit monde à part : les gens de la Direction générale de l'aviation civile (DGAC) passent facilement au cabinet du ministre et vice versa, les experts sont des anciens du BEA ou d'Air France. On a l'impression que certaines choses se règlent en famille. (Source : JDD (http://www.lejdd.fr/cmc//societe/200925/l-aeronautique-est-un-monde-opaque_220621.html))In substance, she says the BEA accident investigation bureau knows its job but, unlike the NTSB, is a government agency so it will only tell what it wants folks to know and some pilots call the relationship between BEA and the DGAC civil aviation authority "incestuous", with DGAC personnel shuttling into/out of ministerial cabinet jobs. Moreover, some DGAC folks are likely ex-BEA or ex-Air France. "You get the impression some dirty linen gets washed inside the family.

Is anyone surprised?

Bruce Wayne

29th Oct 2009, 08:09

I have an open mind

That is quite clearly not the case. You are subject to 'Confirmation Bias' several people have so far attempted to open a line of debate and discussion with you and all you have reverted with is that everyone has a closed mind.

That is the vestige of a kook, which you are sliding yourself into the category of.

You represent yourself as a 737-800 pilot, yet have been asked a simple question about the aircraft and ignored.

Meanwhile, as per Big Bad D, you do a great disservice, no I will go further, you *insult* professional people that have decades in this industry whom have invested much of their lives, often to their own detriment, in the safe operation of commercial jet transport category aircraft, as well as military, as well as non-commercial aircraft and non-commercial operations.

If you want to engage in serious informed discussion and debate then do so, armed with fact, not subjective conjecture.

Me Myself

31st Oct 2009, 08:13

I've watched the program on the net. They went to interview the smallest of the airline's union ( not even 200 members for 4200 pilots ) who dare portraying themselves as the white night saving the day.
For the record, the main union representing over 2000 members never said a word until they felt they were losing grip. Just slimy politics over dead bodies.
They alledgedly forced Air France to change the pitot ???
What a load of tosh !! The decision was made on April 24th the job was to take 3 months for lack of parts on the manufacturer side.
For the rest, rather rich to see a lawyer almost delivering the " solution " to the plot with £ signs written all over his face.
This should have been aired on channel 9. It's not worth more than that.

mixture

31st Oct 2009, 09:49

So what is that answer on the ACN/PCN question ? .... been a while since it was asked, having trouble finding it in the MS Flight Sim manual ?

MS Flight Sim manual ? Are you serious ? Since when was that a document of any authority ? :rolleyes:

A reasonably authoritative document or two can be found on G in a matter of seconds... :ok:

B737-800 ACN = 51 with recommended ratio of 1.1 to 1.25 to listed PCN.

What's my prize ? :p

jcjeant

31st Oct 2009, 09:59

Hi,

They alledgedly forced Air France to change the pitot ???
What a load of tosh !! The decision was made on April 24th the job was to take 3 months for lack of parts on the manufacturer side.:=

What a load of tosh !! :)
Can I correct you ?
They forced Air France to accelerate the remplacement of the Pitot Tubes on A330-A340.
And this was made in fews days despite the "lack of parts" from the manufacturer.
As you see .. sometime union (even small) can make miracles happend !!

Me Myself

31st Oct 2009, 23:07

[QUOTECan I correct you ?
They forced Air France to accelerate the remplacement of the Pitot Tubes on A330-A340.
And this was made in fews days despite the "lack of parts" from the manufacturer.
As you see .. sometime union (even small) can make miracles happend quote]

...............which proved to be totally useless following an incident ( 15 seconds ) that happened on a 320 coming from or going to Rome. The probe was a Thales second generation, the very same that was being installed on the 340 / 330 fleet.
The european authorities then ruled that at least one Goodrich probe should be installed on each aircraft.
Amazing what haste can do !!

What this report implies is that Air France is the only airline having suffered such incidents. We all know that's rubbish.
However, they are the only one having lost an aircraft. This report is only made of cheaply used family emotions, greedy lawyers ( like there is another kind !! ) speculations who are going to find it very difficult to make Airbus, AF and the french governement cough without some hard evidence that, for the moment, are lying at the bottom of the ocean.
The amazing thing in this report, is that ABC was a lot luckier than the french investigating judge in charge of the case. The brazilian chief pathologist saw it fitter to give some of the evidence to a reporter than to the French authorities. I am sure it was to ensure the manifestation of the truth :))). It still remains a breach of international law.

Bobman84

1st Nov 2009, 02:16

Has there been much progress for Airbus or other private parties to start a new search for the recorders? Was some info on Wikipedia about it, but I really hope they are found one day soon.

Me Myself

1st Nov 2009, 06:47

Another search campain should start soon, Airbus and AF sharing the costs. Still, it would a huge bit of luck if the plane was to be found.

lelolo44

1st Nov 2009, 06:50

The small union people are talking about is ALTER and in fact there are two unions because SPAF is also a main charachter into the pitots story..sorry but i don't get informations via journalists !! that is to say Me myself is completely convinced he's the one knowing the truth, he looks at net interviews and gets enough informations to be able to say that a union is not powerful enough because they just represent 300 pilots ..well it is not because a union represents 2000 pilots that it is right versus smaller numbers unions ! Majority can be wrong..look at human history !!
Ok it has now been confirmed that an anglo/saxon company will audit AF operationnal dept..unions are forcing AF management to go deep inside the airline structure ...

Me Myself

1st Nov 2009, 08:59

Isn't that sweet mate !!! Over 2000 pilots chose to vote for AF ALPA over ALTER or SPAF and that doesn't tell you anything ???
I've had a good look at history............round about 1917 somewhere in the east and I remember that the smaller you are, the more noise you've got to make to get attention. But comes next election, you'll still get the same pathetic results and you know why ??? Because apart some dubious self proclaimed expert statements to the pundits and the press, you have absolutly zippo to offer and at the end of the day, people just want to move on and work and don't wish to blow up the shop to pieces even if it needs a lot of fixing up.
I suggest you click on Sully Sullenberger interview link and learn how one pleads a case with flare.
WNYC media player (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wnyc.org%2Fflashplayer%2Fplayer.html%23 %2Fplay%2F%252Fstream%252Fxspf%252F142617)
I also suggest you read " Sky Gods " written by an ex Delta captain. Bloody compelling read. You might llearn a thing or two about people who think they will be around forever.

So the way I understand your view is : Over 200O AF pilots are just a bunch of blind morons who don't know the difference between Friday and Sunday, while an homeopathic number is going to save the airline from doom and poor management. Do I read you right ??
Do you plan to set reeducation camps where everyone will chant " AF is lying.............." til the cows come home ?
There are still a bit less than 2000 non union pilots you could go shopping for. That's almost half of the airline !

The small union people are talking about is ALTER and in fact there are two unions because SPAF is also a main charachter into the pitots story..sorry but i don't get informations via journalists !!

Come to think of it, you seem to forget the third one of the lot...........even smaller, R'way, so secret that nobody knows how many they are. Got to laugh my head off !!

lelolo44

1st Nov 2009, 09:53

So in fact You have nothing to learn from other people, you know exactly what happened and nearly happened to AF pilots because of the main union you are talking about ...i wouldn't dare to talk about US unions or British unions myself as i have no idea of how they work inside their management ...but you do so because of course you have such a french experience and carrier ...
The management of our main union is changing every two year because there are huge power struggle between piltos wanting to get the power inside our main union ...to know why you must be french and know really more than what channel4 is telling you on the news !!! I have nothing against you because virtuallity is not enough to feed me, so i will learn you something ..you can ignore or just listen : in France and in our airline there are two ways of getting powerful seats : first is to be someone people notice when you get employed by the airline, they feel your natural leadership and abilities and you go up the hierarchy after years ...second is to become a union representative, there you get your pilot salary + a per diem for your union work that is really not peanuts...and after years of struggling against your company they offer you a better seat but not as a union representative...of course inside the airline hierarchy...we have many examples of that ....
The 2000 members (i was one of them until very recently) don't have any power except to pay their monthly rate and listen and read what the guys on top did under the name of the union ...never you will get any democratic procedure ...except when the =union is changing its heads..and as i said people fight for these while 2000 are voting....the guy who's now in the "hot shots" voted a "B scale " pay system for the union...he and his friends who had the power decided that ....and it is just because the small unions talked a lot about it that just before it was too late these representatives removed their project that was decided with the airline of course...these guys would have had a great position after such a vote !!!
I won't rewrite all the stories we had with unions in france, and as i said the fact that 2000 people are members of our main union is really not a warranty that facts coming out will be the best options...we have enough examples....
In 1939 a majority of germany was convinced Hitler was right ....just a minority was against ....in south africa during apartheid a majority of whites were ok with that, a minority was against ....
It would be great to be less agressive ...you are trying to make things personnal since you opened that thread...

Me Myself

1st Nov 2009, 10:55

In 1939 a majority of germany was convinced Hitler was right ....just a minority was against ....in south africa during apartheid a majority of whites were ok with that, a minority was against ....

Now, this is sounding a tad melodramatic, don't you think ? You are not going to compare yourself with beaten up to pulp black South Africans who spent half of their life in jail, or german jews who ended up as soap bars are you ? At over 10 000 euros a month I'm not about to pull out my hankie.
I urge you to listen to Sully's Sullenberger interview. This guy, after having done something that I fear I would never have been able to do, calmly tells you he's lost 40 % of his salary and 2/3 of his pension and voices real concerns about the state of the airline industry, in the US and worldwide. Now, I would call this something to worry about.
All you have to do is to convince the 2000, sorry, 1999 still lost souls to join the right path.
What I know however, is that there is a significant number of AF pilots who are just fed up with this constant public union / management bickering that makes the airline look like a cookoo's nest from the outside. They are too busy doing their job to even waste their time on the internet or union meetings where they're not invited as you said. They also say thank you to the **** who leaked that famous management letter that makes their life so much easier knowing the first next incident will be a meal for the media............and AF competitors.............And I didn't get this on channel 4.
I'm not making it personal, got nothing against you. I just get irked when facts get twisted and your naïvity is compelling. I am glad to hear an audit will take place. I'm sure management will get its fair share of blame.........sorry........recomendations, but if you expect to also come out like Snow White, don't forget to write to Santa come December.

Anyway, given the bad publicity the airline has received after the crash, I don't think any audit will publicly flog AF. It will be done in house, like it should, unless you wish the airline to go down and 10 of thousands of people with it. Mind you, there will no doubt be another " deep throat " ready to leak the report to the media I'm sure.
Don't think I am an altar boy who doesn't know a thing about french politics. I just think it's a lot of drama for very little results. Personal opinion..........backed up by history, that's all.
Channel 4 is brillant, don't you think ?
Anyway, the topic of the thread was : AF 447 on ABC Foreign correspondant : Not worth my time. Still, if you like this kind of Tv, the link is here somewhere. You would wonder why an australian channel has any interest in this.

lelolo44

1st Nov 2009, 11:27

No melodramatic wishing list...just reminding that majority is not always right ....that's all...anyway the 'very small unions" are working like mad to make sure that the audit will be very deep and totally independant ...the first idea of the main union was not the same !!

Me Myself

1st Nov 2009, 19:51

the 'very small unions" are working like mad

Good God, don't know wether I'm scared or reassured.

FlyBoy737800

2nd Nov 2009, 10:31

MS Flight Sim manual ? Are you serious ? Since when was that a document of any authority ? :rolleyes:

A reasonably authoritative document or two can be found on G in a matter of seconds... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

B737-800 ACN = 51 with recommended ratio of 1.1 to 1.25 to listed PCN.

What's my prize ? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif - mixture.

Thanks Mixture - I refuse to get personal and respond to these guys. Choosing in stead to focus on the beleaguered A330 subject.

Everyone knows by now that the A330 has a serious anomaly/fault concerning Pitots and ADR's !!

iceman50

2nd Nov 2009, 13:30

FlyBoy737800

Everyone knows by now that the A330 has a serious anomaly/fault concerning Pitots and ADR's !!

What absolute rubbish from a troll!:yuk:

Brakes on

2nd Nov 2009, 17:53

Flyboy,

I refuse to get personal and respond to these guys. Choosing in stead to focus on the beleaguered A330 subject.

What's personal about answering a technical question?

If the A330 is beleaguered it's only by you. What's more, you're using false data to make your point:

In another thread you quote the A330 accident rate as 0.53/million flight hours. Basic math skills might have told you that, with one A330 accident, this means around 2 million accumulated flight hours for the world-wide fleet since 1992. Not very believable.
If you look at the web site you quoted in the post mentioned above, it shows 0.53 for the A300, not the A330.
Furthermore, from the same post, the number for the Boeing -737 ( your text) is 0.19, which is the number for the 737-300/-400/500, which are no longer in production. The number for all 737 types is 0.34
You managed, however, to get the number for the DC10 (completely irrelevant for this discussion) right. Reading one number out of three correctly from a website : quite an achievement.
Puts all your posts into context really.

gravity enemy

2nd Nov 2009, 20:12

Flyboy, why oh why do you do this to yourself. Just about everyone on this website thinks you are a complete and utter imbecile, yet you continue with this self torture.

This is a forum where aviation events and topics are discussed in great detail and among professional pilots. Opinions here are strongly backed, often well justified and thoroughly examined by all who log in. You have made no such contribution towards you very narrow minded and technically limited opinion.

And by the way it's spelled instead not in stead. Go get a job kid!:=

35YearPilot

3rd Nov 2009, 00:48

As an ex 747 and A330 pilot and now an A380 pilot, I am interested in this forum, but wish it was limited to inputs from professionals.

If there is a moderator for this forum, please exclude FlyBoy737800. His input is uninformed and a waste of our reading time.

It is clear Northrop Grumman has issues with their ADIRUs. No problems - computers fail - that's why there are three of them.

It is clear the 777 and A330 had logic problems eliminating faulty ADIRU inputs from the active system logic. This logic can and will be fixed. The longest incident on the Perth A330 incident occurred (in software) for a period of 0.5 seconds during which the software logic was inadequate given the conditions. No-one was killed in either of these 777 or A330 incidents. Only two A330 hulls have been lost with passengers on board, the recent AF flight and one that ran off a runway (no deaths).

It is also clear (when you look at the %hull losses and fatalities per fleet), that the 777 is one of the safest (0.1% hulls lost) large commercial aircraft in the sky and that the entire Airbus FBW hull loss rate of 0.4%, 1/6th of the same for all Boeing acft certified since 1960.

If you want more stats, then Boeing FBW aircraft are 18 times safer (hull losses) than their post 1960 non FBW versions. The Airbus FBW aircraft are 9 times safer than their non FBW versions. By the way, this does not imply the Airbus are less safe than the Boeing, rather that the Boeing non FBW fleets had a high hull loss rate (in comparison).

These are the facts.

FBW designs may not be perfect, but they are proven to be an order of magnitude safer than their non FBW alternatives. All problems that have been identified are being fixed.

All Airbus and Boeing FBW aircraft are remarkably safe.

VR-HFX

3rd Nov 2009, 11:47

35Yr

Could not agree with you more. The sad reality is that journalists can trawl this website with impunity. Flyboy is most certainly one.

I feel safer going to work today than when I started in the industry which was on the L1011. I must say that the 744 is my preferred mode of transport although I have done time on the Bus and the 777.

The A330 is a safe a/c. A bit sloppy in final config and below 1,000ft but a great a/c in all other aspects.

Whatever the cause of the AF loss, it was not the airframe. It may have well been the pitots, it may have been something else but you Flyboy need to get a life...outside of PPrune.

llagonne66

3rd Nov 2009, 20:47

That's surely a darn good first post !
And you may be the first A380 pilot in our community.

Some facts just posted on the EK330 thread.

A340-200/300 and A330 are two A/C but with the same basic design (the A340-500/600 being another story of course).

At end Aug 2009, the two fleets have accumulated the following flight hours and take offs :

A342/A343 : 11.600.000 flight hours and 1.700.000 take offs
A330 : 14.100.000 flight hours and 3.500.000 take offs

Let's our 737 flying ace do the maths !

jcjeant

4th Nov 2009, 02:15

Hi,

VR-HFX (http://www.pprune.org/members/50376-vr-hfx)
it was not the airframe That's interesting. From where you got this crucial information ? About safer planes of today : What make safer the plane is not only the FBW system ... it's also better general design and certainly huge progresses in the engines design and their better reliability. I wonder what is the quantified part of the FBW in this game ? FBW play certainly a huge part for a better and economical exploitation of the liners iinstead be a major player in the security aera. A 737-200 FBW will be safest than a standard one ?

35YearPilot

4th Nov 2009, 07:35

Dear VR-HFX

Thanks for your welcome message. I have actually been watching PPrune for years but have never been spurred into action to contribute until:

- A TV program (two weeks ago) on "Death by Automation" by a Boeing Pilot,
- Another TV program (last week) "Foreign ....." program on the AF and A330 Perth incidents, and
- FlyBoy

All three sources distorted the facts, made correlations where none were due, and (because they do not know the aircraft technically) displayed ignorance. It has been a constant interest to me that the pilots who are the most vocal to criticise Airbus are those that have never flown them!

I think the "Death by Automation" issue can be countered by the FBW statistics. That's why I offered them.

BTW: I agree with you 200% about the A330 being sloppy near the ground in CONFIG 3 and FULL. I researched this topic (and PIOs) extensively and came to conclusions that will be published later. You and other A330 pilots should know though that this issue has been solved in the A380 - which is much more quick to manoeuvre in roll in CONFIG 3 and FULL.

The A380 is everything the A330 could have dreamed to be - plus more! I think that, compared to the 747s and A330, it's the perfect aircraft.

justin w

4th Nov 2009, 07:36

First post...not a pilot...not pretending to be unlike others on this thread..:cool:

Actually I was quite scared of flying, and joined pprune a while ago to help cure my fear hearing from you folk talk about modern flying..which it did, thanks :D

That being said, from a consumers perspective, their is not a hope in the world you would get me on an Airbus. My staff have been banned from booking me on Qantas, Jetstar or Air New Zealand for this reason, and this reason only. Virgin get my $20k worth of business per annum for this reason only.

Qantas has had quite a major issue with a A330 over Perth, Jetstar had one last week on a Mel-Singapore flight, Air New Zealand crashed one in France a few months back, add to the the Air France flight and a couple of others...

Now for my two bob on the Air France Foreign Correspondant show: I watched the ABC show and agree with most on this thread that it was a bit of a beat up. We can speculate on what happened but until we know, we can only look at likely causes, put in place procedures to ensure those likely causes dont potentially occur again, but we cant string people or companies up without hard facts, it doesnt do anybody any good to do that. That said, Airbus is getting a perception issue.

As I said, might be a perfectly safe aircraft, but perceptions are everything.

35YearPilot

4th Nov 2009, 07:47

Dear llagonne66

Thank you for these statistics. I will put them into my basket of numbers for possible future use later.

It's fascinating that, had the 777 not crashed at LHR two years ago, that the 777 fleet would not have lost a hull (in an 800 or so production line).

It's also very sad that the AF loss is the first loss of an A330 with passengers in flight (over 1000 delivered).

Both aircraft have remarkable safety records.

a.carneiro

4th Nov 2009, 17:32

It is unfortunate that you would allow yourself to be swayed by headline-grabbing media.

The numbers are here for you to see. The option of where your 20K go is always, obviously, yours.

However, it seems that your decision, which I state again, is perfectly valid "per se", is being based in poor quality information. You strike me as a businessman, and I'm sure you wouldn't base your business decisions on poor info either.

Just think about it. ;)

Gulfstreamaviator

4th Nov 2009, 17:45

35yr pilot is perhaps the second 380 driver.

There is one in EK, who has been on the ME forum.

glf

SeenItAll

5th Nov 2009, 20:57

People can split hairs all they want, but the bedrock facts are as 35Yr described them.

1. All modern air travel is incredibly safe.
2. Air safety has continued to improve with each new generation of equipment.
3. Safety is provided by a combination of improved technology (such as FBW, etc.) and improved training and procedures.
4. While the pilot whose skills are already perfect may not have his flight's safety improved by more advanced technology or procedures, no pilot's skills are perfect.
5. Thus, it is the combination of technology, training and procedures that matters, and empirical experience has shown that this ever-evolving combination has improved overall safety.

Me Myself

5th Nov 2009, 21:45

. Thus, it is the combination of technology, training and procedures that matters, and empirical experience has shown that this ever-evolving combination has improved overall safety.

Absolutly right !! But as long as the remains of AF447 are not found, a lot of people will be scared to fly the Airbus and that includes some tech crews as well as cabin crew; As to paxs.........!!
Any answer to this tragedy will be better than no answer and by that I mean, evidence based answers not wild speculations coming out of some law firm, who I'm sure, has only its client's best interest in mind.:(
Actually, their appointed expert should run the inquest instead of those plodering BEA investigators who report directly their master.............the french governement.
Wouldn't that be a bargain ? An oceanic search vessel, governmental logistic and law agency all rolled into one individual. I say go for it, it's a bargain and will save tax payers a hoodle of money.
Did I put this right ??

PK-KAR

6th Nov 2009, 16:16

Flyboy737800...
So, dual engine rollback on an EK330... makes it unsafe?
Oh well, I guess you'll agree than the 777 is also unsafe because it had the same...

Oh hang on... let's see, dual engine failures??? 737s had it too!

Go and take your tunnel vision to yourself!!!!

----

Flyboy737800's view of an open mind is to agree to his (rather silly and nonsensical) point of view...

Thanks Mixture - I refuse to get personal and respond to these guys. Choosing in stead to focus on the beleaguered A330 subject.

Everyone knows by now that the A330 has a serious anomaly/fault concerning Pitots and ADR's !!
Bwahahahahahahahaha! It does not surprise me that I've received an email from someone in the Boeing Flight Test Department saying "someone's talking total rubbish about the Airbus! Gives us a bad light"...

Guys, fellas, just ignore flyboy737800... if my guess is right, this one is a repeat... This person sounds like some insistent person from a couple of months ago... and from other airbus accidents/incidents... either here in PPRuNe, and/or elsewhere!!!

Zoso

7th Nov 2009, 09:30

FlyBoy, you sound like a right muppet. I don't think you're a pilot? Just a wind up merchant. I would try to find yourself a life. :D

FlyBoy737800

10th Nov 2009, 07:45

>
> Like to respond to my fellow posters -

Thanks for your welcome message. I have actually been watching PPRuNe for years but have never been spurred into action to contribute until:

A TV program (two weeks ago) on "Death by Automation" by a Boeing Pilot,
Another TV program (last week) "Foreign ....." program on the AF and A330 Perth incidents, and
FlyBoy – 35 year pilot
What a complement !! from you " 35 year pilot" thank you, glad I was one of the catalysts in welcoming you here :ok:.

Qantas has had quite a major issue with a A330 over Perth, Jetstar had one last week on a Mel-Singapore flight, Air New Zealand crashed one in France a few months back, add to the the Air France flight and a couple of others... Airbus is getting a perception issue. - perceptions are everything. – Justin W
Yep good post ! I agree

“-as long as the remains of AF447 are not found, a lot of people will be scared to fly the Airbus and that includes some tech crews as well as cabin crew; As to paxs.........!!” - Me Myself
Again so true !

I am going to restrict my posts to this thread and just watch . . .

Traffic

10th Nov 2009, 08:18

Flyboy

I am going to restrict my posts to this thread and just watch . . .

Your best post to date:ugh: Make sure you are true to your word.

one post only!

10th Nov 2009, 12:45

That is the best news I have heard this year. Can we please please close this thread now and bin it! Its rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrruuubish!

You can't beat reading a thread of detailed arguments backed up with solid reasoning and fact. In case you can't be bothered to read the thread before its closed here is a summary for you:

"The A330 - Its a death trap"
Why?
"Because it is"
Oh ok what are your reasons for believing that
"because its a death trap and I read something somewhere from someone saying its unsafe"
Ok but what is your evidence.
"because its a death trap"
Ok but why do you say that
"because it is"
Uh hu, anymore facts for us.
"its a death trap"
etc
etc
etc

Yawn. If anyone has any hard facts great but in the absence of anything solid I shall gladly watch this thread slip away to obscurity!

Flyboy, If you are wondering what thread to start next may I suggest. Global warming its happening here and now and its all just solely because of aviation. Why you may ask...........because it just is!!!

Nothing like ignoring the facts. Are you a government minister by any chance?

sekant

10th Nov 2009, 19:09

Oh my ho my,

Dear flyboy, can you only differentiate an A320 from an A330?? Apparently, this seems to be beyond your capacity.

So I have news for you. Air New Zealand did not crash an A330. Air New Zealand never even exploited a 330. But even those basic facts seem to be beyond your grasp.

Me Myself

11th Nov 2009, 06:52

as long as the remains of AF447 are not found, a lot of people will be scared to fly the Airbus and that includes some tech crews as well as cabin crew; As to paxs.........!!” - Me Myself

Hoy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Listen mate, I have no problem being quoted, however what I resent like the plague is being quoted OUT OF CONTEXT, so butt out will you !!
I never implied the aircraft was unsafe, what I said or meant was as long the box hasn't been found people will be scared...etc however safe the aircraft may be. That's why the box has to be found.
Did this clarification make its way through your grey cells ???
You are some dishonest piece of work.