AF 447 Search to resume (part2)

[auv-ee]

TurbineD, lomapaseo, Bear and others interested in the engines:

There are a lot more views of the engines now available in the latest video posted by BEA:

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/videos/remontee.des.pieces.mp4

[jcjeant]

Hi,

The BEA isn't a press agency, its missions don't include, AFAIK, to release ASAP all gathered data.
They have (and will) release intermediate & final reports when those are finished/ready/approved. Indeed .. but methink his mission is also:
"If necessary, recommendations of security measures will be made urgently to prevent the accident from happening again"
And it's seem that BEA (maybe in the shadow) had made already one concerning the AF447 case ... as AF revised by a technical note how manage plane when incoherent speeds are read and also send all the pilots to a new (improved?) sim training for that.

[Jazz Hands]

Would anyone like to speculate on how these boxes survived in 10,000 feet of water for so long?



Flight recorders are designed to withstand immersion to 20,000ft - double the depth and, if my physics knowledge is correct, double the pressure.

[Annex14]

Quote:
Unfortunately 228 souls had to lose their lives to prove, . . . .

Excactly that thought of the sad side of I&A investigation is what made me stop that job some 30+ years ago.

[RR_NDB]

Do you have any idea how much the airlines should be spending on training for a 30 year old system?

Older subsystems can provide good results. With proper operation and operated taking into account and respecting it´s limitations.

The Economic downturns affecting air transport perhaps played a role.

IMO much more serious is the "Pitot´s" issue. For new and critically dependent machines.

The new concept of Laser principle AS sensors (some patents filed by EADS) (http://www.google.com/patents?q=airbus+laser+air+speed&btnG=Search+Patents) shows we will be during some time still vulnerable.

So is crucial respect the limitations. (obviously including here the ones of "FBW" highly optmized airliners)

[tubby linton]

"slats11, I suspected that this problem was known and a suitable bludgeon was needed to get the airlines to switch rapidly. I noticed the pilots unions got on the BEA, AirBus, and the airlines pretty quickly, too. So they took advantage of a handy crisis to get the job done. (God that sounds slimy.) And, indeed, it probably did need doing."

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that given the acars messages and any other data that was gathered,that Airbus did not input all the data into a 300 flight simulator in TLS and have known exactly what happened for a very long time.
I have seen flight the engineers doing just this sort of work when my airline used to use TLS for recurrent simulator checks.
Recovering the recorders will simply prove their assumptions and provide a reason as to why adverse weather was penetrated by this crew.

[JPI33600]

Turbine D

You will probably want to have a thorough look at these two screenshots extracted from BEA's most recent video ("remontée des pièces"):

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9114/vlcsnap2011051619h21m09.png

http://imageshack.us/m/641/2627/vlcsnap2011051619h19m15.png

According to the comments of the BEA engineer, the state of the blades is proof that the engine was delivering thrust.

[3holelover]

In fact, if you watch to the end of that latest video, you'll see the other engine being lifted out of the water as well. That one is indeed missing the fan blade hub. Perhaps an indicator that it was first to begin absorbing the energy of impact?

[rotor12]

According to the sources questioned by Le Figaro, of new elements on the responsibility for Air France or its crew will be communicated by the BEA on Tuesday. The final report of investigation of the BEA should be written during several months but it is possible that the scenario of the drama is definitively established from here the end of the week. Contacted by Le Figaro, the spokesperson of Air France refused with any comment, “as long as the BEA will not have concluded the whole of the checks necessary”. On its side, Airbus also refused with any confirmation.

Such a fast outcome was rather unhoped-for a few months ago still. The wreck of the AF 447 was discovered just six weeks ago. “All that occurs since the discovery from the wreck: the localization of the black boxes, their increase and the fact that they are still completely readable after having spent two years by 4000 meters basic, is completely extraordinary”, Monday evening a government source recalled.

[PJ2]

Graybeard;

Thank you for the links...the list from the Collins site is impressive.

As per my history here, I am not anti-automation. But I think you will agree that efficacy, reliability and "truth-telling" in automated systems must be inherent and obvious (to those suitably trained and experienced). I would adopt the system, as described, in a heartbeat and then take the experience of learning and utility from there. "If it works well why look back at older systems?", is the approach.
You can buy the automated radar with 20 years of improvements one time, or forever train and re-train pilots. Do you have any idea how much the airlines should be spending on training for a 30 year old system?
This isn't a "Plug-'n-Play" system so let's acknowledge that with each change and improvement, continuous training and the benefits of experience are necessary aspects of this, and any kit today.

[Centrosphere]

Graybeard,

OverFlight™ Protection (prevents inadvertent thunderstorm top penetration)

I´m not a pilot, but I find telling that a weather radar maker feels that airlines should demand this capability.

Maybe something to factor in the AF 447 incident?

[PJ2]

JPI33600;

I am looking carefully (and haven't seen the new video yet, so I may be stating the obvious!), but I think these are photographs of the other engine.

The entire front section is missing from the engine of which the photograph was posted earlier, (lomapaseo and others) but here, the N1 remains fastened, with blades damaged (struck by shrapnel during rotation) and bent in ways with which we are familiar in other accidents.

[Turbine D]

auv-ee,

Thanks for the video, it answers some real questions!

[Lonewolf_50]

Graybeard, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment here. The C-130 is still in use, a fifty year old design.

If the radar system has 30 years of operational use, then it would seem to me that most of how it works is known, and the amount of documentation in pilot operational manuals would be on record, and whatever new tweaks that come out are disseminated. If pilots do not routinely actually use the radar while flying, or are not interested in how that piece of gear works i suspect more are interested). Do not pilots want to get the most out of their gear? (Maybe how I was trained biases my opinion on this). Periodic refresher training isn't optional. Would not use of weather radar be part and parcel of the annual (or bi annual) training requirement?

I found that using radar became easier by using it frequently, and by exploring the features.

Granted if you are on 40-80 minute sectors routinely, there is less time do a bit of working the system, comparatively, than when you have 4-8 hour sectors. Perhaps me idea is only applicable to part of the workforce.

But use it or lose it seems to be a theme on these boards (in re hand flying, approaches, takeoffs, landings, and more). Likewise with radar skills -- use it or lose it.

I do appreciate that the state of the art does advance. Nice piece of kit that you are presenting, no question. :ok:

I note that you feel that it would be good to offload pilot work load, yet again, so that the folks on the flight deck have one more robot at work, doing what pilots used to do.

As I noted to PJ2, some of this is a question of philosophy. I consider my question well answered. Much obliged.

Thanks again for your explaining the suggested upgrade.

[robertbartsch]

The non-human cost of retreving all wreckage must be huge. If you have the FDRs, some engines, the cockpit electronics, and can take pictures of the rest, will they continue to raise all the pieces at all cost?

I'm not intending to be morbid, but the press reported that two bodies were recently recovered and that DNA testing is being done. If the DNA tests are not conclusive, the press report said that no more bodies will be raised.

I can't image why the DNA would not be conclusive; how could that be possible?

[Turbine D]

JPI33600,
Thanks for the still photos of the first engine hoisted onboard the ship. It is a classical indication the engine was running at impact with the fan blades bent in the opposite direction of rotation. In the top photo, the bottom of the engine is facing the camera and suffered the most vertical impact damage, as you can see, the fan frame struts and casing are totally missing.

3holeover,
I would agree with you. The second engine to be hoisted onboard is severely damaged, fan totally missing. It was the one photographed laying on the sea floor. It is probably the one that hit sea first, on the low wing?

[klakmuf]

In the paper quoted by Rotor12 above 2 informations : no responsability for Airbus and details regarding responsabilty of Air France or the crew could be revealed as soon as tomorrow.

[RR_NDB]

At this time i guess they yet known what (how)* occurred during the more important last 40+ minutes of recorded data. They had time to hear CVR and see the FDR most important parameters to correlate (timing) to the Audio and "construct a global picture". And yet started the "why´s" study.

Now the many players are about to enter the "organizational turbulent climate" where huge interests are present.

With big clusters of CB´s in their path to the new, summer interim report.

In the meantime we hope to be able to observe some "wave shocks" from the accident.

I hope we could see Recommendations, etc. before summer.

* From 01:35:43 to end of recording estimated for sure after last ACARS msgs and before the next, scheduled and never received.

[Teddy Robinson]

having stayed out of the debate .. which remains my policy until findings are released by BAE, I wish to add my comments regarding weather radar from personal experience.

If it is not pointed at the correct part of the cloud, there will be no return, ie no water droplets to give a return. It means scanning a vertical profile from surface (clutter) returns upwards to get a vertical section through something active.

My ex, working as c/c along with her colleagues were horribly bounced over the roof structure and galley areas because flying in high overcast with no look down, a very active cell failed to paint. One girl was medivac'd out and never flew again having flown 4 rows forward from the aisle and head first into the 'F' foot well.

Own experience from the flightdeck, the number of times I entered "WX radar failed to paint visually active TS cells" together with the Fl, range, angles, and gain used, only to have it signed off as "tested on ground found satis" are too numerous to mention.

Of the manufactures mentioned one was worse than the other in this respect, & I will leave it at that.

[Squawk_ident]

In addition to rotor12 post


Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : Airbus semble tre mis hors de cause (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/05/16/01016-20110516ARTFIG00713-af-447-airbus-semble-etre-mis-hors-de-cause.php)


INFO LE FIGARO - Selon nos informations, les premiers éléments émanant des boîtes noires orientent les enquêteurs vers une erreur de l'équipage d'Air France.

According to our informations, first elements from the black boxes lead the investigators to a crew mistake.

Les boites noires ont vite parlé. Selon des sources au gouvernement et des proches de l'enquête interrogées par Le Figaro, les premiers éléments extraits des boites noires mettraient Airbus hors de cause dans le drame qui a couté la vie à 228 passagers le 1er juin 2009.

The black boxes have spoken very quickly. According to sources in government and close to the investigation interviewed by Le Figaro, the first elements extracted from the black boxes would put Airbus out of cause in the tragedy that claimed the lives of 228 passengers June 1st 2009.

Les enquêteurs du Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses (BEA) ont pu exploiter dès ce week-end les données du Data Flight Recorder (DFDR), l'une des deux boites noires, qui a enregistré les paramètres du vol et en conclure assez rapidement que l'Airbus A 330 était hors de cause. Le travail du BEA va maintenant consister à déterminer ce qui s'est passé dans le cockpit, et si les erreurs commises sont de la responsabilité de l'équipage ou de celle d'Air France, notamment du fait des procédures de sécurité imposée par la compagnie.

(...)
BEA Investigators were able to read data from the DFDR (...) the last week-end (...) and have concluded rather quickly that the A330 was out of cause.
The work of the BEA consists now to determine what happened in the cockpit and if the errors made are the responsibility of the crew or the one of Air France, especially because of the security procedures imposed by the company.


Selon les sources interrogées par Le Figaro, de nouveaux éléments sur la responsabilité d'Air France ou de son équipage seront communiquées par le BEA dans la journée de mardi.
.../...
According to sources questioned by Le Figaro, new elements on Air France responsability or its crew will be communicated by the BEA Tuesday.

Le rapport définitif d'enquête du BEA devrait être rédigé durant plusieurs mois mais il est possible que le scénario du drame soit définitivement établi d'ici la fin de semaine. Contactée par Le Figaro, le porte-parole d'Air France s'est refusé à tout commentaire, «tant que le BEA n'aura pas mené à bien l'ensemble des vérifications nécessaires». De son côté, Airbus s'est également refusé à toute confirmation.

.../...
Air France, contacted by Le Figaro declined to answer and Airbus refused to confirm the information.
.../...

[Shadoko]

Hi,

It seems they have recovered cockpit seats and door: do they think there was only one people there? Reengaging AP too early (would originated the december 2009 "advice" about not doing that before assuming speed semsors are right) > rough pitch (up or down), cockpit door slamed and only one people (even nobody!) left in?
CVR had told that, now ...

[Teddy Robinson]

I pray that a full decade old, US driven security paranoid dogma had nothing to do with this.

[RR_NDB]

Squawk_ident,

Another shock to (Air) France less than 48 hours the one at week end?

What we will do now with the elaborated models we imagined during these almost two years? :8 Indeed was a good exercise.

[RR_NDB]

I pray that a full decade old, US driven security (p*******) dogma had nothing to do with this.

And surfacing less than two weeks after the other "deep sea dive"?

We don´t deserve!

[jcjeant]

hi,

Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : Airbus semble tre mis hors de cause (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/05/16/01016-20110516ARTFIG00713-af-447-airbus-semble-etre-mis-hors-de-cause.php)

In fact the investigation is already over.
I understand why so many countries are envious of France to have an investigation office so performant.
In fact .. with the BEA .. there is never any unpleasant surprises (for some .. of course)
Again fame and efficacy of the BEA are shown :)

Next ................... :(

[lomapaseo]

I do hope that we yet establish the various layers of swiss cheese that may have played a part.

I don't like blame related leaks in an investigation, they sound so self serving

[SaturnV]

For the BEA to rush out with findings one day after hearing the CVR suggests that the cause is basic and fundamental, and there is concern about AF training and/or procedures that require immediate attention. (Assuming Figaro is pretty much correct with its news.)

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Now .. that the rush is over for the BEA .. I have a question for them ....
600 days since they examine the black boxes of Yemenia (remember ... it's so old) .. and no results .... :ooh:
Amazing when you see the BEA performance about AF447 :sad:

[bearfoil]

PJ2

I cannot agree with you that the photo in #1464 posted by lomapaseo is the engine without Fan Blades and rotor. In it, we see the remnants of those blades which were completely shorn off, the ones still attached are out of view. Note the Stator ring aspect at the 2:00 and see it matches the engine in the later pic posted by JP133600. I think the leading edge damage on the remaining blades is not so much due to shrapnel, as hydraulic "machining"..... At 2500rpm and one hundred knots down, perhaps a total velocity of 200knots, the hydraulics are.....destructive of titanium, and most certainly CFRP. (Let's see, at ten foot diameter, 2500 rpm, the Blades themselves have a tip velocity of ~~83,000 fpm, 1000+ mph,+

[Lazerdog]

lomapaseo... I tend to concur. What makes me a bit suspect is that only one news source has published this. If it was more substantiated, I would think many news agencies would be on top of it.

[deSitter]

This entire worldview of the computer flying an airplane is a catastrophe. I will never fly on any Airbus product for the remainder of my life. I want my life in the hands of pilots, not mediocre IT personnel.

[wozzo]

Now .. that the rush is over for the BEA .. I have a question for them ....
600 days since they examine the black boxes of Yemenia (remember ... it's so old) .. and no results .... :ooh:
Amazing when you see the BEA performance about AF447 :sad:

Wouldn't you have to put this question to the investigation authority of the Comores?

[mm43]

What makes me a bit suspect is that only one news source has published this. If it was more substantiated, I would think many news agencies would be on top of itThe author of the Le Figaro article - Fabrice Amedeo, has demonstrated a number of times that he has some sources close to the investigation. It has previously been commented on in Part 1 of this thread.

When the smoke clears, there may well be some substance to what has been reported, but until then I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions.

[takata]

Hi jcjeant,
In fact the investigation is already over.
I understand why so many countries are envious of France to have an investigation office so performant.
In fact .. with the BEA .. there is never any unpleasant surprises (for some .. of course)
Again fame and efficacy of the BEA are shown
Please, refrain from commenting about this investigation's fairness simply based on Le Figaro's Newsline. There is absolutely nothing in this article showing that "Airbus" may be discharged for anything about this crash.

Europe 1, citing Le Figaro "sources" is now titling "Airbus is out of cause" when the Figaro only titled that "Airbus might be out of cause".
From the article reading, you'll find that it is only a rumor as the CVR was not even cited. The FDR can't reveal that so fast and all by itself.

For my part, I'm discarding this information until tomorrow.
If something very new was revealed about the flight (charging pilots/AF), I would expect that it would be find in the CVR reading instead of the FDR. In fact, The BEA can't remotedly say anything like that at this point of their investigation. Maybe the journalist simply misunderstood a source saying that "nothing wrong was found about this aircraft's behavior so far", badly deducing that FDR data were fully analysed!
This is again a very bad reporting from Le Figaro anyway! (and not the first one from this journalist).

[RR_NDB]

Saturn V

Groupe Dassault propriétaire du Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2011/05/16/04015-20110516ARTFIG00518-dassault-elargit-sa-gamme-falcon.php)

Mac

[Machinbird]

Takata
Europe 1, citing Le Figaro "sources" is now titling "Airbus is out of cause" when the Figaro only titled that "Airbus might be out of cause".
From the article reading, you'll find that it is only a rumor as the CVR was not even cited. The FDR can't certainly not reveal that all by itself.

For my part, I'm discarding this information until tomorrow.
If something very new was revealed about the flight (charging pilots/AF), I would expect that it would be find in the CVR reading instead of the FDR. In fact, The BEA can't remotedly say anything like that at this point of their investigation. Maybe the journalist simply misunderstood a quote saying that "nothing wrong was found about this aircraft's behavior so far", badly deducing that FDR data were fully analysed!
This is again a very bad reporting from Le Figaro anyway!I too noticed that the DFDR was cited as the source of the Le Figaro information.

Takata is 100% on target. I would like to know what the crew had to say before forming a judgement.

[Graybeard]

Thanks for all the good comments.

It is not my opinion that the last generation of radars are unsafe, rather that the airlines give only lip service to radar training. UAL used to have an excellent radar training program in Denver, but it is long gone. I have heard of no other airline that does an adequate job. That's the main basis for my believing the new multi-scan radar provides a better margin of safety.

At this point, is it more economical to upgrade the radar and provide a basic understanding of it, or to provide extensive training to all pilots in optimum use of the old prior generation radar?

[infrequentflyer789]

hi,

Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : Airbus semble tre mis hors de cause (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/05/16/01016-20110516ARTFIG00713-af-447-airbus-semble-etre-mis-hors-de-cause.php)

In fact the investigation is already over.
I understand why so many countries are envious of France to have an investigation office so performant.
Again fame and efficacy of the BEA are shown :)

To be fair, once the wreckage was found, the recovery seems to have been impressively open and efficient. Looks like we could have had the answer a few weeks after the crash if the search had worked the way its supposed to. It also seems like the current black box system works. On the other hand, the pingers and/or the procedure for searching for them, definitely needs work.


In fact .. with the BEA .. there is never any unpleasant surprises (for some .. of course)
If it is anything like Le Figaro is suggesting, then I am suprised already. I was expecting some kind of technical cause, probably compounded by Wx and/or crew mishandling the situation. The way the article puts it (unless my French is a lot worse than I think), this was primarily a crew/SOP screw-up, with technical issues possibly just incidental. I agree with SaturnV that it must be a really basic and fundamental issue for them to conclude that so quickly (if Le Figaro is right).

I don't think that outcome would be a pleasant suprise for anyone (I'd suggest not even AB).

I can't figure out how this could all fit with the evidence we've had so far though - unless the LOC came first and then caused the ADR issues ? But the automatics were in until ADR issue kicked them out - so who / what lost control ? I await the next BEA release with interest (and it has to be said, with a slight suspicion that Le Figaro might be completely wrong).

[takata]

Groupe Dassault propriétaire du Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2011/05/16/04015-20110516ARTFIG00518-dassault-elargit-sa-gamme-falcon.php)
Which mean strictly nothing as EADS and Dassault are far from being very "close friends" (Rafale/Eurofighter and loads of divergent intersts). Also, note that Airbus do not comment this "news", as usual.

[bearfoil]

So they are saying that the autopilot dropped out due to a too lively ride??

I got slammed for suggesting that 4 days after the deal. The weather overwhelmed the a/p, and the weather discreped the pitots, and the ADR's fubared along with the others?? TCAS, WindShear (was there "actual" w/s)??

So the last ACARS was loss of altitude faster than the CPS could deal with it??
Probably at altitude? The descent was then as we thought, steep, fast, and quick??

Machaca's last pic of the a/c heading at 018.8 T could easily be spot on spot.

If the pilots kept wings level, there may have been no rotation, only one last steep descent.??

wish I spoke francais

[RR_NDB]

Fabrice Amedeo


Author (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/slideshow/ALeqM5irM5AEwAo8Agt4kHKYoImOLqL6Dg?docId=CNG.d068c1ef8939f2a 7d5bb5cca564f9d0b.6b1&index=0)

[Hedge36]

This entire worldview of the computer flying an airplane is a catastrophe. I will never fly on any Airbus product for the remainder of my life. I want my life in the hands of pilots, not mediocre IT personnel.

:rolleyes:

I'm no fan of excessive reliance on automation, but I bet a lot of crusty old guys weren't too keen on non-recip engines (to be fair, the early failure rates were a bit obscene) and VORs, either.

A Chicken Little-like Luddite's view isn't doing anyone any favors.

[bearfoil]

If ACARS ended at altitude, I think it may be time to reinvigorate the proposition the a/c lost some parts, on the way down, even just post the last vertical speed message.

If this flight punched into the demon, fbw, or cables and pistons, no one survives. FBW, MeatPilot, Boing, or Bus, All are Moot.

[takata]

Hi Bearfoil,
So are AirBus claiming the a/c was upset by weather only??
Humm Bear... don't make a fool of yourself as you perfectly know that Airbus [please, note the right spelling] didn't say a word about it and, a fortiori, didn't claim anything. Those reporter "sources" are always the famous "close to the investigation" noise.

Other engine picts:

http://takata1940.free.fr/8197.jpg

http://takata1940.free.fr/8217.jpg

http://takata1940.free.fr/8277.jpg

[bearfoil]

takata

It was a sincere question, if AB is saying nothing, then this so-called source is premature?? Asking a question is not allowed?? hmmmm..........

TurbineD

In takata's third picture, are the two "plates" at 11o'clock and 1o'clock the pylon mounts?? If so, then the engine lifted back into the pylon, and the plates punched through the Stator??

[CogSim]

The work of the BEA consists now to determine what happened in the cockpit and if the errors made are the responsibility of the crew or the one of Air France, especially because of the security procedures imposed by the company.

What the heck can they possibly find in the FDR traces that would lead them in this direction?? :eek:

[Turbine D]

Bear,

I think you misunderstood PJ2's post regarding the engines. What he said was the engine photographed on the sea bed was fan rotorless. This was the 2nd engine brought onto the recovery ship. Read his post again. also, don't you think some of the nacelle inlet pieces might have entered the fan causing the damage to the LE of the fan blades? Just a thought.

[deSitter]

hedge36, it's becoming clear what happened here - problems developed for which there were no stick-and-rudder guys aboard, and indeed there is no stick-and-ruddering to be done with this flying cybernetic organism. I guarantee that what happened is, the pilots flew the airplane into the ocean while dicking around with the flight manager. They had little time to react, and they pissed it away trying to reconnect the AP or some such IT task better left to H1Bs. I'll eat my ailerons if that's not what happened. The airplane, the philosophy of "computers are cheaper than pilots", is a disaster.

What you need is an airplane with high wing loading that will not turn into a falling leaf if the computer that flies it, decides to fart to the north instead of to the south.

[mojodaso]

For some reason yet unknown this crew appeared to fly into a radar shadow and then into a monster updraft scenario. A pilot friend of mine tells me it is almost indescribable flying into such a nightmarish event. I was schocked at the crash location being just about 5 miles from the LOC. I tend to think that violent storm just took that plane and flung it into the ocean. I have rehearsed this with a legacy pilot and the terror of those last minutes much have been heart rending. My juvenile guess is that the constraints and pressures placed on pilots today to fly on the edge was a factor in this flight crew making a fatal decision. My sympathies lie with the crew and the incredible job they do day in and day out.

Thanks to all on this thread that have answered so many of my questions.

[kilomikedelta]

deSitter USAF generals I'm sure would agree with you with respect to the the F-22.

[SaturnV]

Was the procedure to be that a representative of the French judicial police, and representatives from the UK, Brazil, Germany and maybe the U.S. would listen to the CVR along with the BEA?

If so, it would be as some of the comments in Le Figaro exclaim, 'Extraordinaire!' to have the BEA come out with findings so quickly. And to presumably do so with the concurrence of the French magistrates conducting the criminal investigation.

Under French judicial procedures, if a party under investigation is determined not to be at fault or involved, must the court quickly remove that party as a subject of the investigation? Perhaps that is a reason for the speedy release of the findings.

[bearfoil]

TurbineD

I think I read PJ2's post correctly. Nacelle ingestion is remote for that damage. I think the ingestion would be at forward speed only, no time to contact the Wheel. The engine Fan Blades are moving at roughly 1200 mph relative to the water, the Fan Blades were likely "still" by the time the first fragment ambled back into the Fan. The Fan had stopped, the Blades were still, and any fragments in front would be hitting the Blades at 1/15 the speed of the initial contact. In other words, I think the blades incurred leading edge damage before they hit the debris. Instant stop v. 60 mph aft, covering 18 inches?? I think it possible that the Nacelle debris was not ingested at all, but expelled forward, in the ram created by the incredible displacement of water by the Fan "Disc". Disc in the sense of an energetic and dynamic "wall". What is also possible is that the disintegrating Fan Blades created a metallic and composite 'Slurry' creating an hydraulic cutting medium in the adjacent chaotic spool down.

[takata]

It was a sincere question, if AB is saying nothing, then this so-called source is premature?? Asking a question is not allowed?? hmmmm..........
Sorry then. I wrongly supposed that you had first read the news (who say what from who), the comments about it (bad, look at my post above), before adding some fuel or credancy about those informed tabloid's scoop.

Anyway, I posted those engine picture for you to look at as I'm not that a bad boy. [Note also: AB mean nothing; AI (Airbus Industry) meant something; now it is Airbus SAS, an EADS company]

[SaturnV]

Le travail du BEA va maintenant consister à déterminer ce qui s’est passé dans le cockpit, et si les erreurs commises sont de la responsabilité de l’équipage ou de celle d’Air France, notamment du fait des procédures de sécurité imposée par la compagnie.
[Bolding mine]

Is this a hint there was only one pilot in the cockpit?

[takata]

What you need is an airplane with high wing loading that will not turn into a falling leaf if the computer that flies it, decides to fart to the north instead of to the south.
As an A330 fully loaded glided without engine for more 90 Nautic Miles before landing safely in the Azores (It would be a world record in its category), Those aircraft capabilities, as their "flying" capability is concerned, should be more than proved (with or without computer help) after tens of millions of hours flown.
Beside, do you know a single large transport aircraft which is built without a flight computer today? More likely, the biggest issue is that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

[Lemurian]

jcjeant

I understand why so many countries are envious of France to have an investigation office so performant.
Your anti-french bias leads you, again, astray.
And it's bloody annoying.
Get a life.
Secondfly, your silly comments about the Yemenia missing report is also way out of base as the BEA was subject to the necessities of the Comorrean authorities.
Same thing about the Ethiopian jet that crashed out of Beyrut. The publication - or not - is the Libanese government responsibility. Not the BEA

And this leak has nothing to do with the BEA, nor the NTSB representative....or any of a few others allowed in the investigation.

RR_NDB,
That piece of video is a self-serving operation by a sensationalist journalist of the Fig trying to sell his book.
Among the pearls of this interview is "a serious breach of safety against all rules as an AF 380 took off from JFK to CDG with only two pilots at the controls !!!"
I rest my case.

This said, we have two possibilities here :
1/- The article has managed some serious sources, or
3/- There is nothing of material substance behind that announcement.

What is astonishingt is how quick someone, apparently au fait of the investigation has come to a conclusion that completely exonerates Airbus (which I find really difficult to understand as the ACARS were bringing a dark picture of a situation that caused a major stressful situation in that flight deck ) and at the same time putting the blame on Air France and the pilots for causing the accident.
The first possibility is frightful : we are talking about a major safety breach here and way beyond my theory of a less-than-optimum operating flight deck crew.
The only thought that comes to my mind is, that close to the crew change-over, that there was only one pilot up front when the chips went down.
In this speculation, the flight deck door is locked, without any possibility for the other pilots to regain their seat as the one left on his own was too busy .
Why am I thinking about that possibility ?
It was a theory, one among others, said a long time ago when it was learned that one of the pilots was travelling with hids wife in J.

[Turbine D]

Bear,

In takata's third picture, are the two "plates" at 11o'clock and 1o'clock the pylon mounts?? If so, then the engine lifted back into the pylon, and the plates punched through the Stator??

My answer is no from what I can see. There are some other features of the fan by-pass area that may have folded back and that is what you are seeing and calling plates. I can't tell for sure but I think I see one of the yoke to platform links (rods).

Also, we actually don't know what the N1 speed was in the end.

[CogSim]

The only thought that comes to my mind is, that close to the crew change-over, that there was only one pilot up front when the chips went down.

Does the FDR record flight deck seat occupancy parameters, effectively ruling out incapacitated pilot(s)?

[deSitter]

Beside, do you know a single large transport aircraft which is built without a flight computer today? More likely, the biggest issue is that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

So? What difference does that make for actually being in charge of an airplane? Stick and rudder guys fly the 777 and are amazed. The 777 behaves like a big airplane, it doesn't turn real nifty but just try to knock it out of the air.

[Plasmech]

Would any crew in their right mind change shifts with the forward-looking weather radar display looking like a Christmas tree?

[Khashoggi]

A theory:

Following the money, Airbus, Thales, and AF will be declared innocent. Pilots will be blamed for actions and/or not following training and/or protocol.

The data will be shaped to fit the verdict rather than the opposite.

Do I believe this theory?

If the 0 hour rumor proves correct, I will certainly be wondering...

[Plasmech]

Sorry if I am ten steps behind here, but what exactly has caused the talk about a possible crew change event?

The only way I could possibly see an actual pilot change is if the head captain wanted to be in the left seat to navigate through the unforeseen major weather event, and that I would suppose would be a long shot that he would have done that at such a time. "Here, let me help....oops, sorry, killed us all." I just can't imagine that.

[RR_NDB]

Lemurian,

That piece of video is a self-serving operation by a sensationalist journalist of the Fig trying to sell his book.

One of the objectives posting about the journalist (responsible for transport at Figaro) was to show he wrote a book on Air France´s "performance".

This could mean something to be considered by us before any premature (risky) conclusion.

But there is something very important to be considered by us in this magnificent and serious thread: The speed and the schedule from them to deliver results. And the mention to Safety. IMO this points to cause(s) simpler than the ones many of participants diligently elaborated.

This said, we have two possibilities here :

Your comments are with the proper tone and i am concerned also.

This is very assertive, "loud and clear":

INFO LE FIGARO - Selon nos informations, les premiers éléments émanant des boîtes noires orientent les enquêteurs vers une erreur de l'équipage d'Air France.

Selon les sources interrogées par Le Figaro, de nouveaux éléments sur la responsabilité d'Air France ou de son équipage seront communiquées par le BEA dans la journée de mardi. Le rapport définitif d'enquête du BEA devrait être rédigé durant plusieurs mois mais il est possible que le scénario du drame soit définitivement établi d'ici la fin de semaine.

Un dénouement aussi rapide...rappelait lundi soir une source gouvernementale

I posted #1517 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/449639-af-447-search-resume-part2-76.html#post6454750) imagining they reached a "good understanding" yet today.

But this Figaro´s news "shocked" me.

Pointing that the "Why´s phase" seems no longer necessary.

[auraflyer]

SaturnV wrote:

Is this a hint there was only one pilot in the cockpit?

This is intriguing, as, if I remember correctly (no time to check at the moment) just a few pages ago, someone (Lemurian?) suggested that the changeover time could have been at 2:10.

If I remember correctly:



the Captain's body was recovered in 2009.

one body was recovered on about 5 May 2011 reportedly still strapped into a seat

a second body was recovered the next day, also reportedly strapped into a seat



If they were trying to confirm location of all pilots, it would make sense for them to have tried to identify and recover the two remaining pilots and to recover all 4 seats up front, shown in the pic the PJ2 recently posted (post #1482).

What we don't know (assuming both bodies recently recovered were indeed still strapped in, and are indeed the pilots), is which seats they were still strapped into.

Is there a candidate seat in the rest area (I also seem to recall that the flight was full, suggesting we could rule out them being in a revenue seat in the cabin?).

It would be unfortunate if the initial significant upset coincided with changeover, slammed the door, only one pilot was up front, and no-one else could get in because of these "security measures" or even for no other reason that he was trying to aviate alone with everything FUBAR. To add to all other problems that have been discussed for so long.

I expect this might be quite apparent on first listening to the CVR, hence the speed this "leak" seems to have become apparent?

(By the way, it occurred to me recently: there must be something like easily 500+ accumulated years of flying experience represented in posts on the last 20 pages or so... From a layman my reaction is: Wow...)

[takata]

Hi,
Does the FDR record flight deck seat occupancy parameters, effectively ruling out incapacitated pilot(s)?
DFDR would not provide enough information in order to exactly understand what happened in this cockpit, as it is mentioned as "resolved". We could speculate about it but it won't really lead us anywhere until it is officially released. As it might be as soon as tomorrow (in a few hours from now), quoting Le Figaro, maybe we'll know it pretty soon!

This reporter is also talking about a full report that could be released in a week instead of the several months previously planned.... Hence, they could have something (New) but it would certainly not come from a DFDR quick analysis (as written).

A safety issue, which is not yet determined between the responsability of the company or the pilots, could cover a wide range of possible. Now, how it would have caused a crash without other factors is a bit puzzling at this point, until further information.

[RR_NDB]

Takata,

Now, how it would have caused a crash without other factors is a bit puzzling at this point, until further information.

I observed you put "a bit puzzling" instead of puzzling.

To imagine the possible results (we should watch Figaro H24:)) why not use the K.I.S.S. approach.? :}

The rumor network this way is going fast to suffer from "rumor starvation" :sad: in our thread.

Who to blame? The journalist :}

ll ask again:

What we can do (next morning :}) with the multidisciplinary and ingenious models diligently elaborated? :8

I´m also concerned on the "lack of motivation" that can assaults BEA investigators if the simple scenario is confirmed. :confused:

[RR_NDB]

Originally posted by Takata
Now, how it would have caused a crash without other factors is a bit puzzling at this point, until further information.


I remembered briefly the "simple cause'' in (A310) Aeroflot Flight 593. But was just a "brain glitch" i hope.

[Nvrsaynvr]

What if the body/bodies found strapped in the pilot seats were not the pilots?

Terrorism would absolve AI and put the investigation to rest very quickly.

[auraflyer]

Nvrsaynvr wrote:

What if the body/bodies found strapped in the pilot seats were not the pilots?

Terrorism would absolve AI and put the investigation to rest very quickly.

Yes it could, though I recall no serious claims for responsibility from any perpetrator group (which you would expect if that was the cause) and also the BEA finding (based on non-deployment of oxygen masks) that no depressurisation event occurred suggests no explosion at cruising altitude.

True, the latter would not rule out eg cockpit intrusion, just as it would not rule out eg, fire (eg SwissAir) or some other event not really discussed to date here.

But surely it would be improbable in the extreme for some other cause to be primarily responsible given the ACARS data indicating pitot problems and that the flight computers were messed up, and the enormous weather system in which it disappeared.

[Old Carthusian]

deSitter - there are forces in a storm that would knock a 777 or even some of the bigger stuff out of the sky in the blink of an eye. Let's have no more of this nonsense.

With regard to the rumour - we should treat it as it is, a rumour and nothing more. It may indeed be that the pilots were to blame or it may not. We should remember at all times that pilots are human beings and human beings do strange and unaccountable things. That being said we may be looking at some strange technical phenomena as well.

[RR_NDB]

just as it would not rule out eg, fire (eg SwissAir)

After "today rumor"(*)from this journalist you can forget this possibility that was practically "ruled out" before.

* high pressure, high flow, super cooled water

[takata]

Sorry if I am ten steps behind here, but what exactly has caused the talk about a possible crew change event?
Relief time, possibly just before event at 0210. How the slots were filled then? But live radar picture in cockpit is unknown (as really see by crew, be it true or false) and can't be derived from the satellite.
Maybe we'll learn much more about crew issues today.

[takata]

given the ACARS data indicating pitot problems and that the flight computers were messed up
Contrary to your belief, those ACARS are just pointing at the opposite: no messing up of the flight computers because they detected those probe issues, and then disconnected the flight envelope protections that could have been affected as they were supposed to do.

[takata]

As I suspected it, the BEA has just posted a (quite hard) denial of yesterday Le Figaro article (called "sensationalist", "prematured", "invalid", etc.)

End of story, nothing NEW.
This inquiry is continued as planned, an interim report would be released this summer, but they are near-sure now, from their elements, that "all the light will be shred on the crash cause(s)". Nonetheless, they would certainly not make any conclusion at this stage.


Selon un article paru dans le Figaro dans la soirée du lundi 16 mai 2011, les « premiers éléments extraits des boîtes noires » mettraient Airbus hors de cause dans l'accident de l'A330, vol AF 447, qui a coûté la vie à 216 passagers et 12 membres d'équipage le 1er juin 2009.
Sacrifier au sensationnalisme en publiant des informations non validées alors que l'exploitation des données des enregistreurs de vol ne fait que commencer est une atteinte au respect des passagers et des membres d'équipage décédés et jette le trouble parmi les familles des victimes qui ont déjà subi de nombreux effets d'annonce. Le BEA rappelle que, dans le cadre de sa mission en tant qu'autorité d'enquête de sécurité, lui seul peut communiquer sur les avancées de l'enquête. De ce fait, toute information sur l'enquête provenant d'une autre source est nulle et non avenue si elle n'a pas été validée par le BEA.
Le recueil de l'intégralité des données contenues dans les enregistrements phoniques et des paramètres du vol nous donne aujourd'hui la quasi-certitude que toute la lumière va pouvoir être faite sur cet accident.
Les enquêteurs vont maintenant devoir analyser et valider de multiples informations. Il s'agit d'un travail long et minutieux et le BEA a déjà annoncé qu'il ne publiera pas de rapport intérimaire avant l'été.
A ce stade de l'enquête aucune conclusion ne peut être tirée.

[mm43]

The following, is hopefully a literal translation into English of the press release alluded to by takata in the post above.

According to an article in Le Figaro on the evening of Monday, May 16, 2011, the "initial data extracted from the black boxes would eliminate Airbus as responsible for the accident to the A330, Flight 447, which killed 216 passengers and 12 crew members on 1 June 2009."

Unconfirmed information, while examination of data from the flight recorder has just begun, is a tribute to sensationalism, an affront and lack of respect to the passengers and crew members who died, while causing concern amongst the families of victims who have already suffered trauma from such announcements. The BEA said that, as part of its mission as the authority for safety investigation, only it can communicate on the progress of the investigation. Thus, any information about the investigation from any other source is null and void if it has not been confirmed by the BEA.

The collection of all data contained in records both of voice and flight parameters downloaded today, makes it virtually certain that total light will be shed on this incident.

Investigators will now have to analyze and validate the various information. This is a long and painstaking process, and the BEA has already announced it will not issue an interim report before the summer.

At this stage of investigation, no conclusion can be drawn.

[HazelNuts39]

Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/05/17/01016-20110517ARTFIG00426-af-447-la-piste-d-une-erreur-de-l-equipage-air-france.php) reveals its source ...

[Annex14]

So we are confronted with another mad example of the socalled "investigative jornalismn ??
Seems to be a very bad case of someone jumping on the bandwagon !!!

I must admit I feel more comfortable - as far as one can be in such a sad case - with a cautious and serious readout of all data available.

[tubby linton]

INFO LE FIGARO - Airbus on Tuesday morning a telex sent information to all airlines in the world to tell them that the black box analysis confirmed the reliability of the A330.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/icones/coeur-.gif Information to escape and brush the Office of Investigations and Analysis (BEA) at Le Bourget. From yesterday evening, Le Figaro announced that the first elements analyzed on the black boxes seem harmless to Airbus (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/05/16/01016-20110516ARTFIG00713-af-447-airbus-semble-etre-mis-hors-de-cause.php&usg=ALkJrhiRqB4yDeiwSyqFprYPkylibexKgQ) in the tragedy that claimed the lives of 228 people on 1 June 2009. Tuesday morning, the scenario seems to confirm puisqu'Airbus just sent a "Accident Information Telex" including Le Figaro has obtained a copy, to all its customers worldwide. The manufacturer shall indicate the voice of Yannick Malinge, head of security, "at this stage of preliminary analysis of the Flight Data Recorder (recorder flight parameters, Ed), Airbus has no immediate recommendation to to its operators. Updates will be provided as soon as significant items that Airbus will be available or will be authorized to issue more information in accordance with the investigation. "
Translation: nothing in the initial analysis of black boxes and gives no reason for Airbus to alert its customers of any technical fault of the A330 or any change in procedure. "Airbus has been approached over the weekend by investigators on the BEA flight parameters and technical details found in the FDR, Le Figaro said an expert on aviation safety. Airbus top management should now have a fairly clear idea of ​​what happened. "
Tuesday morning, the manufacturer had no comment, like Air France, which "looks to reliable and evidence based BEA," according to his spokesman. "We should know more in the day, Le Figaro said a government source. We do not yet have information on the data from Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR that records conversations in the cockpit). They should be critical, especially to understand what makes the crew. "

[SaturnV]

If there is even a small kernel of 'fact' in the Le Figaro "sensationalist" story, it may be associated with the BEA recovering, as a priority, the captain's seat, the co-pilot's seat, and the "fourth occupant's" seat, and two bodies in seats.

The bodies are being subjected to DNA analysis because of decomposition once they were raised from the pressure and temperature that preserved them. Other descriptions are that the 50 or so bodies in the wreckage area are in a waxen state, and possibly, or even probably, all have already been photographed. Presumably these two bodies were photographed as well before ascent. Beyond the prior photography, one could also use clothing, jewelry, dental records to help identify bodies from these depths.

The BEA and the French judicial authorities were surely told well in advance what was likely to happen to AF 447 bodies if raised to the surface as these were, so it would seem that these bodies were raised not as a random test, but in the course of recovery of those three seats in the cockpit.

So was the BEA, on the basis of the seats and bodies recovered, already anticipating to hear something on the CVR?

And to get in the realm of sensationalism, are the bodies those of the two FOs, or is only one that of a FO?
_____________

A lurking question in my mind is why would the Le Figaro reporter specifically call attention to Air France's security procedures? (And I don't for a second believe this is terrorism related in any way.)

[takata]

bla bla bla, rubish rubish rubish (see above)
This so-called "investigation journalist" considered as an "expert" is simply a nuisance for the public opinion and the readers of Le Figaro.
I was pretty sure yesterday of something like that after reading his first draft:
"In fact, The BEA can't remotedly say anything like that at this point of their investigation. Maybe the journalist simply misunderstood a source saying that "nothing wrong was found about this aircraft's behavior so far", badly deducing that FDR data were fully analysed!"
Now, after reading his source (Airbus communiqué to type users), his huge incompetence is even more apaling.

[takata]

Hi SaturnV,
So was the BEA, on the basis of the seats and bodies recovered, already anticipating to hear something on the CVR?
And to get in the realm of sensationalism, are the bodies those of the two FOs, or is only one that of a FO?
Please, give us a break with your questions about those people bodies here and there. Hopefully, there was strictly no com about that, and be sure that you won't be able to find any single (verified) comment on this subject in the close (or not so close) future. They've got the full CV recordings and it is quite enough for the investigators to understand the cockpit situation.
Per decency, any other matter about this subject should be left now to the families and authorities concerned.

[fran35780]

Bonjour,

Triste Exemple de Désinformation

Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : la piste d'une erreur de l'quipage Air France (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/05/17/01016-20110517ARTFIG00426-af-447-la-piste-d-une-erreur-de-l-equipage-air-france.php)

AF 447 : la piste d'une erreur de l'équipage se confirme
Mots clés : af447, af 447, air france, RIO-paris
Par Fabrice Amedeo



INFO LE FIGARO - Airbus a envoyé mardi matin un télex d'information à l'ensemble des compagnies aériennes de la planète pour leur annoncer que l'analyse des boîtes noires confirmait la fiabilité de l'A330.

Les informations s'échappent au compte goutte du Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyse (BEA) au Bourget. Dès hier soir, Le Figaro annonçait que les premiers éléments analysés sur les boîtes noires semblaient mettre Airbus hors de cause dans la tragédie qui a couté la vie à 228 personnes le 1er juin 2009. Mardi matin, le scénario semble se confirmer puisqu'Airbus vient d'envoyer un «Accident Information Telex» dont Le Figaro s'est procuré une copie, à l'ensemble de ses clients dans le monde. Le constructeur y indique par la voix de Yannick Malinge, le patron de la sécurité, «qu'à ce stade des analyses préliminaires du Data Flight Recorder (l'enregistreur des paramètres de vol, NDLR), Airbus n'a aucune recommandation immédiate à faire à ses opérateurs. Des mises à jour seront fournies dès que des éléments significatifs seront disponibles ou qu'Airbus sera autorisé à délivrer davantage d'informations en accord avec l'enquête».
Traduction : rien dans les premières analyses des boîtes noires ne donne de raison à Airbus d'alerter ses clients sur une quelconque faille technique de l'A330 ou sur un quelconque changement de procédure. «Airbus a dû être sollicité ce week-end par les enquêteurs du BEA sur certains paramètres de vols et détails techniques découverts dans le DFDR, explique au Figaro un expert en sécurité aérienne. Le haut management d'Airbus doit maintenant avoir une idée assez claire de ce qui s'est passé».
Mardi matin, le constructeur ne faisait aucun commentaire, tout comme Air France qui «attend des éléments fondés et fiables du BEA», selon son porte parole. «Nous devrions en savoir un peu plus dans la journée, explique au Figaro une source gouvernementale. Nous n'avons pas encore eu d'information sur les données du Cockpit Voice Recorder (le CVR qui enregistre les conversations dans le poste de pilotage). Elles devraient être capitales, notamment pour comprendre ce qu'a fait l'équipage».

En effet , DESINFORMATION , car , ce même jour 17 05 2011


PARIS (Reuters) 17 mai 2011 10h30

<<- Aucune conclusion ne peut être tirée à ce stade de l'enquête sur les causes de l'accident du vol AF447 Rio-Paris, qui a coûté la vie à 228 personnes au-dessus de l'Atlantique en juin 2009, déclare mardi le Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses (BEA).>>

[amos2]

Translation please!

[OleOle]

This article names afp as source. According to the article an actualisation of the 6th AIT has been issued on monday by airbus.

Boîtes noires AF447: pas de mesure à prendre sur les A330, indique Airbus - LExpress.fr (http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/actualite/boites-noires-af447-pas-de-mesure-a-prendre-sur-les-a330-indique-airbus_993505.html?actu=1)

[Centrosphere]

Wondering about the data analysis methodology:

I just read in another forum that one could input the FDR data in an A330 simulator in order to have a picture of what happened.

Is that true?

[takata]

Translation please
No need. It is a repost of tubby linton, a couple of posts above, which posted the same thing in English.

[kit344]

New press release on BEA site communiqué de presse 17 mai 2011 (http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/pressrelease17may2011.fr.php) currently in French only.

French to English translation from Google:

According to an article in Le Figaro on the evening of Monday, May 16, 2011, the "first elements extracted from the black boxes would put Airbus out of the accident on the A330, Flight 447, which killed 216 passengers and 12 crew members on 1 June 2009.

Tribute to sensationalism by publishing unconfirmed information while exploiting the data flight recorder has just begun is an affront to the respect of passengers and crew members died and causes trouble among the families of victims who have already undergone many announcement effects. The BEA said that, as part of its mission as the authority for safety investigation, only he can communicate on the progress of the investigation. Thus, any information about the investigation from another source is null and void if it has not been confirmed by the BEA.

The collection of all data contained in records voice and flight parameters gives us today is virtually certain that all light will be shed on this incident.

Investigators will now have to analyze and validate various information. This is a long and painstaking and the BEA has already announced he will not issue an interim report before the summer.

At this stage of investigation, no conclusion can be drawn.

[cats_five]

Translation please!

Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/)

[amos2]

Thanks Cats!:ok:

[john_tullamarine]

The discussion has been relatively disciplined to date.

Let's please NOT have any conspiracy theories. There are other places where such may be aired.

[SaturnV]

So does the sequence of this 'news' in Figaro start with Airbus sending a telex to its clients and customers and suppliers saying that from a preliminary reading of the FDR, the cause is not an Airbus hardware or software problem.

One of the companies receiving the telex is Dassault Group or one of its subsidiaries (Dassault Aviation). A person in Dassault reading the telex calls the reporter for Le Figaro who has reported on the AF 447 accident, and tells him about the telex. (Le Figaro is another subsidiary of Dassault Group.)

The reporter, then with a copy of the telex in hand, calls several of his sources in the government and/or at Airbus and asks 'What does this telex mean?' From their answers, he then writes the story, but first omitting the mention of the Airbus telex.

The BEA then issues a statement that basically says the Figaro story is premature, unofficial, and sensationalist, and that no such conclusions or findings have been reached. and that analysis of the recorders is continuing. However, the BEA does not say that the Figaro story is contradicted by information already read from the recorders.

[auraflyer]

Takata wrote: Contrary to your belief, those ACARS are just pointing at the opposite: no messing up of the flight computers because they detected those probe issues, and then disconnected the flight envelope protections that could have been affected as they were supposed to do.


Thanks - I think it was very bad phrasing on my part.

What I meant to say was that they (metaphorically) threw up their hands and said "the data are so messed up that we can't do our normal job".

This was my understanding of the meaning of the ADR disagree and IR1/2/3 disagree messages + possibly the Prim1 and Prim2 faults that followed. ie pitot faults, then AD goes, then IR goes. If I am wrong on that, I stand corrected.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

SaturnV : Correct IMO. I would just add that there is no need to appeal to capitalistic links between Airbus/Dassault/Le Figaro to explain the leak. I think that "just" wanting to sell paper is enough... :mad:
Mr. Amadeo (author of the article) may also be trying to sell his book "the hidden side of Air France", and seems to do so regardless of any ethics the journo profession may have concerning a full balanced truth. :rolleyes:

I was pleasantly surprised a few weeks ago along with the NYT article. :D
I am now much more negative about the "journalism" as practiced by Le Figaro yesterday and this morning. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Beyond the non-compliance with the grief of the families, mentioned by the BEA in its press release, another thing that bothers me deeply into this kind of "journalism " is illustrated by the french proverb : "Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose."
Literally : Slander, slander, there will always be something left.
:*

[takata]

This was my understanding of the meaning of the ADR disagree and IR1/2/3 disagree messages + possibly the Prim1 and Prim2 faults that followed. ie pitot faults, then AD goes, then IR goes. If I am wrong on that, I stand corrected.
There was no such IR 1/2/3 disagree sent! neither loss of any IR unit at all.

[oldengmkr]

Re. Lemurian's post 1555,

"---- The first possibility is frightful : we are talking about a major safety breach here and way beyond my theory of a less-than-optimum operating flight deck crew.
The only thought that comes to my mind is, that close to the crew change-over, that there was only one pilot up front when the chips went down. In this speculation, the flight deck door is locked, without any possibility for the other pilots to regain their seat as the one left on his own was too busy .
Why am I thinking about that possibility ?
It was a theory, one among others, said a long time ago when it was learned that one of the pilots was traveling with his wife in J."

This speculation seems to fit much of the circumstances reported by Le Figaro - A330 exonerated, crew and AF security the causation, and dovetails with other subsequent post speculation. i.e. post 1580.

Sadly, as mentioned in prior posts, there is/are precedent(s) of an "unauthorized guest" in the cockpit contributing to the loss of an aircraft.

Speculating further - perhaps in the case of AF 447 there is a coincidence with an undetected weather event occurring immediately after a crew change with the "guest" in other than the jump seat.

[OleOle]

In the italian forum of pprune there is already a copy of the AIT
http://www.pprune.org/italian-forum/451757-af447.html#post6454065

[w1pf]

AIT7 is Ole's post is worth reading.

it says, basically, "we haven't found anything yet".

"Data from DFDR and CVR have been successfully downloaded.
At this stage of the preliminary analysis of DFDR Airbus has no immediate recommendation to raise to operators."

[SaturnV]

it says, basically, "we haven't found anything yet".
w1pf, your poor phrasing perhaps. What Airbus has said is they (the BEA) haven't yet found anything that implicates the plane, based on the preliminary read of the FDR.

This is the seventh of the AIT's that Airbus has issued re: AF 447 since June 1, 2009. So I doubt Airbus would now send out an AIT simply to announce that the BEA has started reading the recorders. That would be superfluous, and be passing on information that its customers and suppliers already knew.

[infrequentflyer789]

So does the sequence of this 'news' in Figaro start with Airbus sending a telex to its clients and customers and suppliers saying that from a preliminary reading of the FDR, the cause is not an Airbus hardware or software problem.

Not quite. Another article has the telex saying:A ce stade des analyses préliminaires du DFDR (Flight Data Recorder, ndlr), Airbus n'a pas de recommandation immédiate à faire aux opérateurs
Rough translation:At this stage of the preliminary analysis of the DFDR, Airbus has no immediate recommendations to make to operators
If that quote is accurate, it absolutely does not say anything like "because the aircraft was not the problem". It could mean the problem is complicated (not understood yet), or is the pitots (recommendations already issued), or any number of other possibilities. If this is the sole source for the Figaro article, then the journalist might as well be just making things up.


However, the BEA does not say that the Figaro story is contradicted by information already read from the recorders.No, it doesn't - but their press release (now in english and german also) is pretty blunt.

Further, all the articles seem to be referring to FDR analysis only (ie. not CVR yet - in fact I'm sure I've seen one this morning that explicitly states the CVR data is yet to be analysed). I can't see how you would infer anything about "security procedures" or similar from the FDR.

[TeachMe]

+1 to infrequent above.

My first thought was that 'no immediate recommendations' meant that the issue as best as understood at this point has been dealt with thought changes already made. Thus if it was icing of the tubes then the replacements are felt, at least for the time being, to be sufficient to prevent a similar occurrence. In no way does the it mean the manufacturer did not make a mistake

[OleOle]

So I doubt Airbus would now send out an AIT simply to announce that the BEA has started reading the recorders

That was my first thought too, but OTOH Airbus has issued :

AF447 AIT 6 dated April 03rd 2011

IMHO the contents of AIT 6 can be nothing more than the announcement, that the wreckage was discovered.

[overthewing]

I find it hard to believe that they weren't listening to the CVR within seconds of it arriving at the BEA lab. Whether or not there's been an official analysis, a bunch of people already have a good idea what was going on in that cockpit, surely? Whispers and leaks were inevitable.

Would the FDR show whether either seat altered weather radar settings?(Suspect it wouldn't.) Or whether one seat showed a long period of inactivity?

[SaturnV]

Infrequent flyer, without excessively getting into semantics, I would note that Airbus said the information in AIT #7 had been approved by the BEA, and the AIT closes with this paragraph:

Further update will be provided as soon as new significant information becomes available or as soon as Airbus will be authorized to share more information in compliance with investigation rules.

I don't have the texts of telexes 1-6, though the substance of AIT 1 or 2 addressed the recommended procedure for flying in weather conducive to rapidly changing airspeeds.

The question is whether knowing a negative is knowledge, and whether such 'knowledge' is what Airbus was conveying in its AIT #7.

How much of the quoted paragraph is standard boilerplate, or was this written to be specific to this investigation and its present state? What, if any, other information does Airbus have that it is not yet authorized to share?

[thermalsniffer]

SaturnV

After reading the AIT, I do not think it really says anything.

I do have a couple of questions for all:

Per the first report:

FLAG ON CAPT PFD FPV and FLAG ON F/O PFD FPV (2h 11)

Symptoms: Disappearance of the FPV (bird) on the PFD's, Captains and First Officer's sides, and display of the red FPV flag.

Meaning: This message indicates that the FPV function is selected and unavailable.

1. Does this indicate that at least one person was in the cockpit at 2h 11?

2. Does this indicate that two people were in the cockpit at 2h 11, or would the selection on one "side" trigger and ACARS for both sides as two messages were generated?

3. This probably rules out intrusion as well?

4. The visitor theory does not fit well with the weather unless they were completely oblivious to the cell. Stated differently are guests appropriate (if at all, of course) when trying to thread the needle with the CB?

[SaturnV]

thermalsniffer, how would your flag scenario work if the cockpit is one pilot flying, and cabin crew in the #4 jump seat, as the captain is at rest, and the other FO has stepped away from the cockpit?

[Lonewolf_50]

The speculation of an unauthorized guest (though tantalizing for those who write news stories) seems premature without supporting input, doesn't it? That creates a mystery (whose bodies were those and what seats were they strapped into) that seems extraneous, since as I understand the retrieval events, it was FOs bodies, strapped in, that were recovered. Perhaps I have missed a detail.

The fundamental concern, to me, remains: "If either of the pilots on the flight deck saw the nasty weather up ahead on the radar (the Christmas Tree :D ), what crew of any airline would blythely ride through it (with a guest in the front or not)?" (My answer is "None," particularly as this crew was reasonably experienced).

Would not the CVR hold the answers to that question? Discussion of weather (or lack of it) between those in the seats, or between those handing over duties at a crew change, should indicate what they perceived as the weather issues at hand.

Graybeard's, and PJ's, and Teddy Robinson's comments on Wx radars and how to use them rise to the fore.

Teddy, thanks for the experiential points on what can happen when one doesn't "see" what one is flying into. I have a mind's eye picture of (possibly) a crew change interrupted by one of those "tossing people about" events you mention. A crew might be playing catch-up as soon as that happens. :( Back in the tube, CC might be dealing with sudden chaos, as a few are tossed about, and a few are now tending to passengers who (not strapped in) are also tossed about depending upon their being in or near seats, or up and going to the bathroom, etcetera.

Itching to find out what was being said in the cockpit.

[1978]

I have no knowledge in these matters but regarding the listening to the CVR, I don’t think one should be too eager to listen to it. You don’t know what you will be witness to so you better make sure there is a psychologist or someone present. Also are there strict procedures regarding the order in which information is accessed? I can imagine you don’t want to draw premature conclusions by listening to the CVR before you understand the FDR, especially if this would wrongly put blame on the pilots and if information were to leak out. If I am not mistaken only a small number of people are allowed to ever listen to the CVR itself, a transcript would be available to a wider audience?

[wes_wall]

A more trueful and probable accounting of current status published by Airwise today.

No Urgent Safety Worries From Air France Black Box (http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1305639833.html)

[infrequentflyer789]

Just had an interesting thought - some long-forgotten French knowledge just woke up and reminded me that "sécurité" can also translate as "safety" (google chooses "secuirty as primary translation)

The Figaro article put blame on AF "procédures de sécurité" - can anyone with better French than me confirm whether, in aviation context, this would mean:

Security Procedures or Safety Procedures

If the latter, then all the intruder discussion may have been a red herring, and it would also fit with the reporter guessing things ("security procedures" implies to me much more specific information)

[3holelover]

While the speculation of an unauthorized guest is tantalizing for the story behind "what went wrong" it seems premature to present possibility that without supporting input.

Absolutely! Some here seem to be feeding on this little rag-selling tidbit from figaro like coyotes on a fresh killed deer.

Hang in folks, real answers will come.

[thermalsniffer]

SaturnV

First and foremost, I have no more knowledge of these systems then the village idiot. However, I am frustrated this morning after almost two years of intriguing and well-reasoned discussion to see claims that perhaps no one was on deck from 2:10-2:15, when there is at least one (FPV), if not possibly more events in the ACARS messages indicating crew action during this period. (I am referring to the PRIM and SEC shutdowns).

So all I am really asking is to contrast the speculation that no one or only one person was in the cockpit, with the ACARS messages. I cannot as I do not understand how ACARS generates the two messages---Captain and F/O.

If one selects the Flight Path Vector function and it is unavailable, does this generate messages for both?

Can you select the FPV of one seat from the other seat?

If the answer to either one of these question is yes, then the one person theory is possible, if the answer to either one is no, then it is false.

[SaturnV]

infrequentflyer, I think sûreté is the primary French word for safety.

[Cytherea]

100% with you Frequent Flyer - Securite is used within French aviation circles to mean Safety and is frequentlty mistranslated even by French speakers as Security...causes me a great deal of consternation in meetings regularly. I think that in this context it should be taken to mean safety - sorry to disappoint all the conspiracy theorists out there.

I just checked the press release for this quote "Le constructeur y indique par la voix de Yannick Malinge, le patron de la sécurité," and googled Yannick Malinge He is described as Airbus' Director of Flight Safety

[Turbine D]

infrequentflyer789

You make a good point on the translation of the French word "sécurité". I checked several on-line translation sites and they translate this word to mean safety, not security.

[lomapaseo]

Two days worth of discussion (based on rumor) of who's in the cockpit.

Keeping in mnd that the aircraft appeared to have reached the water relatively flat with engines running, How does this tie into a pure piloting action or inaction with an advanced aircraft?

A simple cause should not be put forth without tieing all the chain links together

[Machinbird]

At this stage of the preliminary analysis of DFDR Airbus has no immediate recommendation to raise to operators.I read this as "We are still wrapping our minds around what are observing in the record." I.E. not a cut and dried explanation for the accident.

[Dont Hang Up]

With one of the earliest findings being a probable airspeed disagreement it seems unlikely that the airframe could be completely blameless in all of this. However as someone said earlier, recommendations have already been issued in that regard.

What has been the primary remaining mystery has been the failure of the crew to work through the problem. Hopefully this is what we will get the answer to in the next few days.

The secondary unknown has been the precise mechanics of the final fatal upset. That should always be of some considerable interest to the airframers even if the causes are not directly attributable to the design.

[Lonewolf_50]

@ Dont Hang Up

As you are doubtless aware, "design" includes man/machine interface, so perhaps "design" issues require serious attention and consideration. ;)


Specifically, the investigation team has yet to synchronize readings from the data recorder with voice recordings taken from the cockpit, a crucial process expected to take several weeks.

You make a good point on the translation of the French word "sécurité". I checked several on-line translation sites and they translate this word to mean safety, not security.

Non French speaker grateful for all of you who have cleared this up. :ok:

[Wikiworks]

What right does BEA have to withhold the data? It's been shared with all of the "inside parties". Just post it and let people draw their own conclusions.

By maintaining exclusive control of the data, and teaspooning it out, these self-impressed insiders get to show just us how important they are by issuing the "official report."

[Wikiworks]

It is hard to believe that it would take "several weeks" to synchromize the flight data with the the cockpit voices. You would think that a program already exists to task this.

[bearfoil]

Le BEA

"...Thus, any information about the investigation from any other source is null and void if it has not been confirmed by the BEA.".....

The authority has not denied the rumor. It is possible they merely wished not to respond to it, granting it a small credibility...... BUT, if they consider this possible, neither can they revoke it, they cannot foreclose what may be the conclusion in the end

[vanHorck]

"At this stage of the preliminary analysis of DFDR Airbus has no immediate recommendation to raise to operators"

The question is much more WHY this bulletin was sent out by Airbus.

1. Because Airbus (with the approval of the French authorities) felt, now that the recorders data had been extracted, that many Airbus operators were expecting a bulletin?
(is it customary for the manufacturer to release such a bulletin immediately after data extraction if no new knowledge has been derived from the extraction?)

2 Because Airbus (again with the approval of the French authorities) wants to say something other than "no news so far"

[SaturnV]

Thanks Cytherea and others for the clarification. French is getting to be as bad as English with a certain lack of precision.

Les mesures de sûreté en bref
Concernant les articles interdits dans les avions, en soute comme en cabine :

Pour des raisons de sûreté ou de sécurité, certains objets sont interdits au transport :

^^^^From Aeroports de Paris, sûreté and sécurité in the same sentence.

In the above quote, I'd translate 'mesures de sûreté' as 'security measures', and 'pour raisons de sûreté ou de sécurité' as 'for safety or security reasons'.

I sometimes have enough trouble with English, and disambiguation in English, without attempting to tackle French.

[oldchina]

Yes it is very customary for Airbus to issue such a bulletin. They often get many people asking "why did they say that?"
However when the investigators' reports come out the pieces of the puzzle match up.

Sometimes Airbus just means the plane performed as designed: "you crashed it but it wasn't our fault". Whether or not they issue a reminder of best operating procedures can also be significant.

[glad rag]

Security | Define Security at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/security)

something that secures or makes safe; protection; defense.

[bearfoil]

Airwise....

"Specifically, the investigation team has yet to synchronize readings from the data recorder with voice recordings taken from the cockpit, a crucial process expected to take several weeks.


It (BEA team) reacted angrily to a French report that pointed the finger directly at Air France or its crew, calling it "sensationalist" and premature."

Sounds like......

"How dare they impugn the crew, or the Carrier. Then again, we haven't analysed the Cockpit VOICE recorder, have we??" Dear.


We are watching the table being set.....

Zo..we cannot trust the Press.... If they are lying about the data, would they lie to protect Airbus?? In this country, it is not illegal for the Press to LIE.

What is it en France??

[CogSim]

Can you select the FPV of one seat from the other seat?

If you are implying the other seat may have been unoccupied, what would be the point of this action?

Absent a specific DFDR parameter indicating such and such seat is unoccupied, I'd find it extremely hard to believe there were less than two fully qualified pilots on the flight deck at any time during the flight.

[bearfoil]

I think there is one switch for both ? Center panel ?

[tubby linton]

The button is on the FCU(autopilot control panel).

[glad rag]

We are watching the table being set.....


bear, with the greatest of respect, I think you are taking thigs a bit too far.

[bearfoil]

tubby linton

howdy Captain.
Does its location (FPVpb) have anything to do with a possible impatient a/p reselect?? Other. I noticed my favorite A300 on the ramp sporting four pitots last March, is that current install ?

glad rag

Define "a bit too far" ?? BEA has all the cards, all the power, and all the attention. They are not scrupulously objective. It would be nice, but perhaps superhuman to be that judicious. In an arena that allows, even fosters shading the data, there are billions of euros at stake here. It is perfectly possible a person could shade the truth without knowing s/he was in fact doing it.
Judges, agancies, etc. have recused their participation for far less than what we have seen in the past. These guys are BUDS, professionally deferential at the least, and no formal "conspiracy" need be suggested. The fact of the matter is that objectivity is compromised, on its face.

It will be interesting to see how much of the traces and other evidence will be supplied to the FAA. Once shared, it is in the public domain. I accuse no one, but I do notice the history, and it is not squeaky.

[Turbine D]

There seeming is a great deal of desire for instant explanations of what caused the demise of AF447 now that the data has been recovered from the CVR & FDR. IMO, it isn't going to happen if the investigation is done properly by the BEA and the participating contributors. In fact, the next interim report by the BEA, thought to be forthcoming in mid-summer, may be a summary of general observations derived at that time, far from complete and only factual information without any speculation as to cause or where responsibilities may rest. I would be surprised if it turns out differently. To understand the complexity and the time it takes to draw the correct conclusions may be to examine another complex aircraft accident mystery and how the investigation was both organized and carried out to conclusion. I speak of TWA800. Here is the way that investigation and the organized teams were assembled:

NTSB - TWA800 exhibits on the web (http://www.ntsb.gov/EVENTS/twa800/exhibits_web.htm)

Note the various teams and their areas of expertise and the work scope each had to accomplish to report their factual findings in a written report. For example, the powerplant report (my major area of interest) contains factual information and observations of each engine after recovery, photographing and tear down to inspect the various components. No speculations were made as to engine operating conditions in the report that was issued. Now multiply this by all the various teams working while thinking the time to accomplish. Granted, the teams and makeup will be different in the case of the AF447 investigation.

After this stage comes the step of putting all the reports together and examining one against the others to then begin the process of identifying the complete story as to what actually took place, if possible, in some instances. This leads a public hearing of sorts where the findings are revealed and if there might be any objections by the parties involved that could result in additional studies or investigations. Only after this will the final accident report be developed and issued with known causes and probable causes or unknown causes denoted along with proposed safety recommendations to be instituted, or not, by the responsible authority (EASA?)

There is no instant coffee, it is a process that takes time to get right and there is only one chance to get it right.

[bearfoil]

TurbineD

I take your point, so I will henceforth re-read AA587, instead. Then again, maybe Perpignan. No, Habsheim. Sabe amigo??

[wes_wall]

There is no instant coffee,

Agree, but there are leaks, and inevitably will find there way into hard print, and appear on this forum. Even the Canadians who are super sensitive to the voice recordings, could not keep the lid on the CVR transcript from SR111 - the WSJ printed it verbatum almost the day it was physically transcribed. We are already seeing it, and this is only the beginning. There will be more, but are they planned (?) .... and as the saying goes, where there is smoke .......

[MurphyWasRight]

Bearfoil
"...Thus, any information about the investigation from any other source is null and void if it has not been confirmed by the BEA.".....

The authority has not denied the rumor. It is possible they merely wished not to respond to it, granting it a small credibility...... BUT, if they consider this possible, neither can they revoke it, they cannot foreclose what may be the conclusion in the end


I aggree. the BEA response is exactly what I would have expected whether the rumor contains elements of the truth or not.

Any other response would lead to an inevitable game of twenty questions.

[GarageYears]

Specifically, the investigation team has yet to synchronize readings from the data recorder with voice recordings taken from the cockpit, a crucial process expected to take several weeks.I don't understand this?

From the CVR System Description Note:

The SSCVR is synchronized with the 2nd aircraft recorder (SSFDR) by means of an audio signal corresponding to the GMT sent by the FDIU to the audio system and received by the SSCVR on the third occupant channel.Therefore the necessary time encoding information is embedded with the audio data. Having worked with several different synch systems (in particular IRIG B per Boeing data packages) and understanding the replay mechanisms to support reading the SSCVR would implicitly include the necessary decoding of the synch data, and would assume the same time stamping is available for all the SSFDR data, how can this "synch" task take several weeks???

Sorry, but I just do not buy that.

[SaturnV]

Egyptair 990 crashed Oct 31. CVR recovered Nov 9. Leaks of CVR content by Nov 16. Investigation turned over to the FBI shortly thereafter. ---And that certainly was a politically charged investigation.
____________________

With regard to the "fourth occupant seat" which was recovered along with the captain's and co-pilot's seats, why was it an item to be recovered? (The other jump seat is not on the list of recovered items.)

Possibilities:

a.) Had to be recovered to access/retrieve other parts of the wreckage; or,
b.) Non-essential item, but was useful for a practice run of recovery procedures on Ile de Sein; or,
c.) Source of valuable information for the investigation.

[Machaca]

how can this "synch" task take several weeks???

They don't simply connect a laptop to the FDR and CVR and download a PowerPoint presentation. :ugh:

It takes quite some time and effort to derive the most accurate transcription possible from the CVR.

Once finalised by the working team, the transcript may be matched up to the FDR traces using the synchronised time code.

[SaturnV]

Machaca, that may be true, but one should presume the priority for synchronization would be from 02:08 until 02:15, which covers the period from before the first ACARS maintenance messages until impact. Surely that can't require several weeks. --Or is the transcription and synchronization process such that the BEA must start at the very beginning of the tapes?

[bearfoil]

Machaca

"They don't simply connect a laptop to the FDR and CVR and download a PowerPoint presentation. :ugh:"

I note the use of sarcasm, well done. A supercomputer, then, to analyse each bit on an audio analysis?? Time is no object, the 'correct' conclusion must be painstakingly crafted. After all, with so much at stake, and time being of the essence....etc.

BEA can have no hope of 100 per cent acceptance by the public of its ultimate position. There is a line between "Scrupulous" and foot dragging.

There is NO mystery to the process, only politics, imho.

It is inconceivable the reporter was the beneficiary of an inadvertent leak. Airbus responded, and BEA made comment. So quick, then, but the data, oh, let's wait for the final report...... No one likes a tease.

[Lonewolf_50]

Respectfully, SaturnV, I'd say the priority starts about 15-20 minutes prior, to see what the crew were discussing and doing as they approached the time where things began to go wrong. Without the stage being set, some very wrong assumptions may be made regarding how and why crew responded as they did ... response being more along the lines of your timeframe. That allows the first run through of the synched "crisis period" to dispense with a variety of "they did what? why? how did that get into the equation" questions ... and this means fewer errors in various utterances coming out of BEA.

Regarding conflict of interest and the BEA.

It's there, the question is in what degree. It may be small, or large, and if it stays close to small, would be low risk to a quality investigative finding.

[GarageYears]

They don't simply connect a laptop to the FDR and CVR and download a PowerPoint presentation. :ugh:

It takes quite some time and effort to derive the most accurate transcription possible from the CVR.

Once finalised by the working team, the transcript may be matched up to the FDR traces using the synchronised time code. Hahahaha... well done. :D

Firstly, please don't tell Microsoft... really no Powerpoint?

Ok, so now the comedy is finished... right? :rolleyes:

It DOES NOT take weeks - I routinely handle test flight data - audio striped with a timecode on one track on the audio recordings, and performance data striped on the data captures. Synching the two is not difficult, particularly since in this case the encoding is well known ahead of time.

What will take time is ensuring the exact transcription is provided, since in many cases the audio is not exactly the clearest, particularly when things are not exactly going as planned.

However, and this can be argued, the primary content of the CVR will be easily determined from the first few listens through I'm pretty sure, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to copy/format convert the recording to .WAV format to allow analysis on a standard soundfile editor (Adobe Audition or Audacity for example), which gives you simple view of the waveform against time. Since the recording is realtime, timing does not have to be millisecond accurate to make sense of the key events.

Whether or not, those initial broader findings can/should be released is not my place to argue, but I would be dumbstruck if it were not very easy to determine who was in the cockpit (FO1 and FO2, or some other combination of occupant) for example. But now my point is drifting.

It does not take weeks to synch the FDR to the CVR. And at that I will exit stage left...

[Turbine D]

Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009

A330-203, registered F-GZCP



Press release on 17 May 2011



According to an article that appeared in « Le Figaro » on the evening of Monday 16 May 2011, the « first elements extracted from the black boxes» would exonerate Airbus in the accident to the A330, flight AF 447, which killed 216 passengers and 12 crew members on 1st June 2009.

Sensationalist publication of non-validated information, whilst the analysis of the data from the flight recorders has only just started, is a violation of the respect due to the passengers and the crew members that died and disturbs the families of the victims, who have already suffered as a result of many hyped-up stories.

The BEA repeats that, in the framework of its mission as a safety investigation authority, it alone has the right to communicate on the progress of the investigation. Consequently, any information on the investigation that comes from another source is null and void if it has not been validated by the BEA.

Collection of all of the information from the audio recordings and from the flight parameters now gives us a high degree of certainty that everything will be brought to light concerning this accident. The BEA safety investigators will now have to analyse and validate a large quantity of complex data. This is long and detailed work, and the BEA has already announced that it will not publish an interim report before the summer.

At this stage of the investigation, no conclusions can be drawn.

[bearfoil]

A final point, and off to other things.

In any human endeavour, but especially those involving great investment, profit, and competition, there is a palpable corporate and institutional culture in play.

BEA is not feverishly working in isolation, they carry vectors of concern into the Lab. This investigation has hundreds of players, and thousands of close and privy PEOPLE. Keep an open mind, but please entertain that these are people, like you and I. Protect the Guilty? Line one's pocket? Keep quiet when to speak is demanded? Shade ever so slightly a finding in the interest of what may be ultimately security and survival? (and not for clients and personnel?).

All respect for all, keeping in mind that all data belongs to the people, and especially where the Public Safety is concerned, there is NO PROPRIETARY

edit... "Sensationalist publication of non-validated information, whilst the analysis of the data from the flight recorders has only just started, is a violation of the respect due to the passengers and the crew members that died and disturbs the families of the victims, who have already suffered as a result of many hyped-up stories."

my turn, :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[MurphyWasRight]

It does not take weeks to synch the FDR to the CVR. And at that I will exit stage left...



Although a "quick look" is likely just a few hours for the CVR the FDR probably will take a bit longer.
Have lost the link (buried many pages back) to a DFR problems report that discussed the dismal state of the documents that link the raw bits from the DFR to measured paramaters. It also discussed the typical process and problems with using the data:

Before using the DFR data it must be carefully checked to ensure that the calibration values are valid since there have been many instances of wrongly documented "gain/offset" valies or calibration drift after last inspection (which are also inadequate), not to mention totally incorrect channel to parameter maps.

This vetting is in partdone by comparing all 30 hours (or whatever it is) of normal operations to retrieved values - flap position on take-off etc).

Only after this is done can the CVR be synchronized to DFR tracings in a meaningfull way.
I suspect that is where most of the "weeks" will be spent the actual time stamp linking as you point out is very quick.

[wes_wall]

BEA has already announced that it will not publish an interim report before the summer.



Anyone care to comment on when BEA might think summer is? Officially, it is the day of the year when the Sun is farthest north (on June 20th or 21st). This day is known as the Summer Solstice.

[gums]

Salute!

I have to lean with Wolf, Bear and others here.....

- We shall finally see that no single design deficiency or crew action had the end result. As with most losses, it will be a chain of events. Hopefully, we will see procedural changes and mabe some "design" changes implemented to prevent future incidents.

- "design", as Wolf says, has lots more than basic airframe characteristics. The human interface with the "system" is an important component of the "design". To this old dinosaur that flew the first operational FBW system, seems that the 'bus has a convoluted sequence of reversion to basic control laws that are closely coupled to the autopilot and other considerations when things turn to worms. Seems that the crew should be able to use a single switch or button to get to the basic FBW control laws and let the plane do what it is aerodynamically and structurally capable of doing.

- I won't argue with the certification process. The FBW control laws for the 'bus appear to be in synch with the basic "requirements" for certification. This is a point I can wait to discuss over a few beers and "there I was" war stories.

For now, I can say my point is that all the reversion sequences do not seem to be considered in the certification process, and that is what is bugging me. Where's the consideration of reasonable crew actions when things go wrong? It's Wolf's point about "design".

All for now, and hope we get to see some "real" data versus speculation soon.

[lomapaseo]

This thread seems to have taken a turn to damn the torpedos full steam ahead.

The press leak is not the responsibility of the parties neither goverment investigators nor manufacturer experts, The BEA has already stated their opinion in this regard.

The public can clamor and fret about the data, but it is not them who have to fully understand it before releasing it. We already have enough folks on internet sites specultaing from all sides, less about technical things and more about somehow the answer may harm their pet theory.

What will happen is that when the data begins to point at major contributors, then begins the challenges to the data by the experts within the investigation Only after the challenges have been vetted will major releases occur, not necessarily as final findings, but more of areas being explored.

The time line for this is probably with a week or two, not months and not days.

It does not help an investiagtion to allow itself to become sidetracked by clammoring for data outside of the experts within the investigation.

If you want to turn this process into a coverup or political forum then there are other sites where it can be taken (JetBlast anyone?)

[KATLPAX]

I think the problem w your assumption Gums is that any "procedural" or "design" changes will be perceived as an admission of some level of culpability. The last thing Airbus wants is ANY question regarding their system logic as this has far reaching implications across their entire fleet. Any design or even training change would be a billion euro plus event. The lawyers would have a field day.

Likewise Air France (albeit at a far less euro payout) wants to avoid any mention of maintenance issue or shortfall in training. The foundation per today's leak is pointing squarely at the pilots who are no longer able to present their case.

The importance of a full release of data is obvious and as others have said can be presented as necessary to present a credible picture.

My hope is that we all have an opportunity to continue what this forum has done so well since the accident which is is question the available data and understand the conclusion the BEA comes too.

[tubby linton]

Bear the pb is above the AP engage pb but is of a different design.
I would say that for most pilots if an AP disengages that they will take control of the aircraft and then try and re- engage the AP.They do not have experience in hand flying these aircraft at high level with a rearward c.g and many simulators do not replicate tnis very well and in my experience it is never practiced. There may have been some repeated button pressing until they realised that it would not engage or function properly
I do not believe that selection of the fpv was accidental. Airbus philosophy is that if you are hand flying you select fpv and I would imagine that this is what they selected whilst they tried to cope with the situation before them.
The problem with this selection is that the Unreliable Airspeed checklist advises against its use if altitude information is unreliable. We will find out in the coming months what was the root cause of the upset and the wisdom of the selection of fpv.
The A330 is a beautiful machine and many of its systems have been developed to cater for shortfalls in the design of earlier Airbus types.When I first flew it I was very impressed that the designers had put a lot of effort into getting it right. It is an immensly complicated aircraft but also extremely reliable . I would imagine that this crew were aghast by how quickly their perfect machine turned ugly and their atrophied stick and rudder skills failed to cope

Finally I have not seen an A300 with four pitots,which operators aircraft did you see?

[Lonewolf_50]

KATLPAX:

Your post raised a worry, even though I had no friend or family on AF 447.

There is a pernicious route by which a safety investigation is corrupted by both penal and civil-tort investigations that have damages (money) and punishment (money/jail/cert revocation) as their ultimate outcomes.

Safety investigations, without those encumbrances, may uncover and report (via limdis) critical interface elements without fear of cost/lawyers etcetera. I remain eternally grateful to the judges in the U.S.A. They have time and again upheld the privileged status of mishap safety investigations (not the JAG investigations, which a FOIA can get released) in military crashes. (In which class are the mishaps I was a member of investigation teams a few years back).

As I watch the drama -- drama in part self-generated, and in part manufactured to position parties in legal proceedings -- unfold in re this tragic crash, I consider the Spanish incident (we discussed on these forums a few months back, problem with a configuration fault / flaps, leading to a crash) and the Italian incident more recently discussed on the forums.

If the aim and psychology of a party pursuing a case is not wholly air minded, the myopia and tunnel vision afflicing said parties -- flavored with either virulence or simple desire for financial gain/remedy, in my view blinds them to how complex and interrelated causal factors are (plural required here, even though we are mostly among aviation professionals). Those of you who are not, please take note.

The risk is that this whole proceeding distills down to a hunt for scapegoats rather than unearthing of root causes that can, in combination, be addressed to remedy whatever set of faults set up AF447 for arrival at the surface of the ocean ... not their intended point of landing. :{ This wasn't a rookie crew. That they were unable to overcome a challenge presented to them, for one reason or another, must be mitigated for the benefit of the entire flying public. It may not just be an Airbus issue here, even though the mishap aircraft is an Airbus.

BEA has a hell of a challenge in front of them in terms of remaining objective. I sincerely hope they are up to it.

I worry, for the sake of getting the procedural or mechanical fixes appropriate to this event sorted out and resolved, that the cross contamination of interests previously raised will leak into their work, and corrupt the findings.

My appeal to the hard working folks of the BEA team is to be mindful of the traps and risks of contamination, and to deflect them. It ain't gonna be easy.

[Squawk_ident]

The BEA seems to be very unhappy and one can understand easily their reaction. To my knowledge this is the first time in its history that a communicate with such straightforward terms is published.
Since the beginning of the AF447 tragedy, "Le Figaro" has been one of the French media that always has been very well informed. I have realized that months ago and already asserted that, here, some days ago, just before the CVR retrieval. All their sources seem to be, as LF itself writes, very "close the investigation".
In one of its latest release LF indicates that their sources is closed to the "government" but not from the BEA investigation team. This is the first time that LF states the origin of its informations.
The fact that LF writes "government" indicates that someone there directly communicates to LF without the consent, or even the knowledge of the BEA.
LF being a newspaper it is not a shocking matter that their journalist(s) in charge of the case, try to obtain and publish the maximum of informations pertaining this affair. And they do it well.
Politically LF is a right hand newspaper or conservative one would say. There may have some privileged relationships between LF and the political sphere that could play some role and explain the "leaks". Who is the "insider" in the Government may stay a secret but it would tend to show that someone there is really in a hurry to establish the truth. Whatever the BEA says is not that important right now but as we say here "il n'y a pas de fumés sans feu" (there's no smoke without fire).
I was rather surprised how fast LF published its latest news (about the AFR responsibility) but still, even if the LF is not my cup of tea in a general way, I do trust their journalist for what they publish.
If the politics enters in scene we may interrogates ourself on a "struggle for influence" at he head of the ministry, to be the first to "unsheathe" and give a valuable information. Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, NKM, Minister for Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing (in addition she finds time to sleep) is the minister in charge. There is also a junior minister (secrétaire d'état) specifically in charge of Transports ; Mr Thierry Mariani whom we do not hear a lot. Hopefully himself knows him as a Minister.
NKM made the announcement that there was bodies still in good conditions and attached to their seats the day after she came back from Japan, where she went because of the Tsunami and radioactivities disasters. I saw her at the television making this announcement and she looked tired. There was not an absolute necessity to communicate so quickly and the information(s) could have been delayed for a while but it was unveiled right away. By her.
Either someone at the minister wants to be the first to give the information and "short circuit" someone else or , because the AF447 disaster is an international matter, officials in France want to have the "scoop" on some important announcements before it might filter abroad. There might be a political will to bypass the necessary slow technical investigation. Hence the LF informations that are making, by the way, a "buzz" here. AFR unions are not happy at all with these latest informations.

Another important matter is the present situation at Air France. Pierre-Henri Gourgeon (65), the CEO of Air France-KLM should be renewed tomorrow in its fonctions. If AFR is designated as the only and sole responsible of the crash, PHG might be led to resign to assume the responsibility in the name of the company. This last assumption is quite personal.

[bearfoil]

tubby linton

Brown.

[ChristiaanJ]

With the "Figaro" already scoring an "own goal", who needs conspiracy theories?

[KBPsen]

There are no A300 with four pitot probes. It is seeing things which are not there, again.

[mm43]

Squawk_ident;

Thanks for that pragmatic look at the politics involved and the perceived pressure that goes both down and upwards.

At the end of the day, the BEA is just a name for a group of people charged with investigating and determining the cause(s) of an accident, making recommendations to prevent a recurrence, and publishing their findings on behalf of the French State. The people involved are professionals, and no person acting alone should have the ability to determine an outcome that is not supported by the majority.

We know full well that the justice system has the ability to turn facts around and make other determinations, but the BEA's Final Report will be the matter of aviation record.

There is one small point that will never change, and that is the time the FDR and CVR stopped recording. Neither politicians or the judicial system will ever change that.

[Turbine D]

Bear,

Don't know if you have seen this or not, but for your reading enjoyment:

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/plane/airbus/A330/misc/A330_Flight_Deck_and_Systems_Briefing_For_Pilots.pdf

It is sort of an introduction, not up to date, but does give you some unofficial reference information.

[Teddy Robinson]

If we all look back over the postings on both AF447 discussions, fair to say the standard quality of informed input has been very high especially considering that the main wreckage was found only a short time ago.

Personal guess is that broadly the impact criteria has been quite accurately described, though truth may lay somewhere in the middle.

With the DFDR and DCVR recorder being time matched, and harmonic analysis applied, we are gonna be faced with the third thread, the last piece of cheese with the holes in it to let this happen when procedures, technology and culture were all designed to say it should not.

Per previous post, it is the design interface (and all aspects of it) with the human element that has consistently proved to be the weakest link, often at the most trivial level.

Everything that we have pondered, analised and written could be overturned in a single press release, let's not forget that.
Everyone remembers landmark accidents that we have as core material on our CRM refreshers .. this may turn out to be just another one.
Who knows, but despite the conspirisy theorists, I sense that training, technology and culture may well have been a red herring here.

Having had the privilage to spend some time with investigators over the years, I know them to be dedicated people, when they have agreed a likely senario as a team, we will know much more in a substantiated form.

So lets wait on this one, and let them do their job.

Do not forget that this design, AP in or out wants to maintain zero roll rate and 1g .. it can get out of sync per the transatlantic incident, make it extreme and it's gonna be a nightmare with protections lost .. add a human in the loop, perhaps more so, perhaps being there in the first place is the best demonstration.

[OK465]

New guy to these discussions. I’ve read only about 200 pages of posts, some from Part 1, all of Part 2; so forgive me if I repeat something already covered.

The FPA/TRK discussion finally got me hooked.

The FPA-TRK mode, as I understand it, is an alternate FD display with command steering available for the FPV. The HDG-V/S mode is the primary FD display option with the dual-cue command steering for pitch attitude and bank.

The validity of the command steering for either FPA/TRK or HDG/VS is always a function of proper mode selection and annunciations per the FMA.

I guess what I’m getting at is once the FPV is selected is it always valid autonomously as an FPV regardless of the mode selected and the command steering indication. At high AOA, would the FPV not be visible on the PFD when outside the PFD displayed range of attitude versus actual FPA? Are the FD's removed?

Boeing allows the selection of the FPV on either PFD individually thru the individual EFIS control panels. In the HUD, if so equipped, Boeing always displays the FPV and command steering in the HUD is always for the FPV. If the FPV is out of the HUD FOV, it ‘ghosts’ (dashed outline) to indicate non-conformal situations. (The HUD & PFD FPV algorithms are very slightly different however.)

My other question: Is ADR "unreliable" the same as ADR "failed"? My understanding is that in ALT 2 you cannot re-engage the A/P with dual ADR failure.

I may know just enough to not really know enough however.

edit: the Boeing PFD FPV's, if selected, are added symbols to the PFD, the dual-cue FD steering is still for pitch attitude & bank

[snowfalcon2]

It takes quite some time and effort to derive the most accurate transcription possible from the CVR.
Once finalised by the working team, the transcript may be matched up to the FDR traces using the synchronised time code.

I would also expect there to be a lot of tedious manual cross-checking between the CVR and FDR to ensure data consistency. For example, ensure that a particular sound, e.g. from a setting of some switch or control, corresponds to a change in the corresponding FDR trace at exactly the same time. If not, the data might be unreliable. Add the ACARS messages, and possible recordings from QAR and internal memories of the instruments and FADECs, and the worst case time required for all this consistency cross-checking may be quite long.


On the CVR,
I'd say the priority starts about 15-20 minutes prior, to see what the crew were discussing and doing as they approached the time where things began to go wrong.
Preferably even before. IIRC the CVR records the last 2 hours. That requirement is not there by coincidence. The Swiss cheese theory says each accident has multiple contributing factors, some of which may have occurred long before the sh*t hit the f*n.

***

Can anyone provide a description of the parameters recorded by the A330 DFDR? That would be interesting to study while waiting for the analysis results.

[auraflyer]

Garageyears wrote:
What will take time is ensuring the exact transcription is provided, since in many cases the audio is not exactly the clearest, particularly when things are not exactly going as planned.

Pardon my ignorance, but is the CVR data in "stereo" (ie is there input from multiple mikes, positionally offset) or is it just "mono"?

[Chris Scott]

auraflyer,

Even on the BAC 1-11 circa 1980 (UK-registered), the CVR had 5 channels:
each pilot's mic "hot", i.e, live even when pilot not transmitting on radio or intercom;
input to each pilot's headphones (mono);
area microphone.

Quality of audio was excellent (playback by AAIB, Farnborough). Area microphone(s) may not be as good as the others.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Jean-Paul Troadec interview

Google Vertaling (http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.letelegramme.com%2Fig%2Fgeneral es%2Ffrance-monde%2Ffrance%2Fvol-rio-paris-toute-la-lumiere-sera-faite-selon-le-directeur-du-bea-17-05-2011-1304457.php&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)



Original source:
Vol*Rio-Paris.*"Toute la lumière sera faite" selon le directeur du BEA - France - Le Télégramme (http://www.letelegramme.com/ig/generales/france-monde/france/vol-rio-paris-toute-la-lumiere-sera-faite-selon-le-directeur-du-bea-17-05-2011-1304457.php)

It is concluded that the means were good but we did not look in the right place. So we explored the rest of the circle starting with the area where probability find the plane were the greatestI dont understand this statement ... :confused:

So BEA know where find the plane were the greatest ... but anyways and contrary to this knowledge ... they searched firstly in other aeras ..... :sad:

[bearfoil]

jcjeant

I don't know how it is done in Europe, but when an a/c flies into a Thunderstorm in US, we look with 99 percent certainty directly underneath the storm, not miles away. Our hurricanes only get their start in the ITCZ, they finish up in Louisiana or North Carolina. In the midwest, it is thunderboomers. I never could follow the logic of the search for 447.

[JD-EE]

Would anyone like to speculate on how these boxes survived in 10,000 feet of water for so long? I would have thought the pressure alone at that depth would have made this unlikely.

As noted it is designed to withstand even greater depths. It is a multi-layer package of very strong materials. It may have some electronics within that pressure vessel package. All the electronics on the outside would be toast. But the contents of that pressure vessel, as long as it is not breached by an impact during the crash, should be OK.

The description given of reading the device indicated they mounted it on a new set of electronics and discovered it was fully readable. I am not sure if that is the "memory chips" were remounted in a new Solid State Disk package with its electronics or whether they just used the pigtail sticking out of the package to connect to the new external electronics box is not 100% clear. I am inclined to believe the latter hypothesis given that it came together remarkably quickly.

I did notice that the pigtail that connects to the larger electronics package appeared to have disconnected cleanly in the one case and was still connected in the other. So both should have been in useful condition for simply plugging it into a new box and proceeding. I'm not sure if they even bothered to open the cylinder to visually check the contents. I would probably have done that before applying power and risking there being water inside.

[slats11]

I never could follow the logic of the search for 447.

My understanding is that they did look around LKP from the very beginning. They found nothing on the surface initially until they searched further north. Nor did they hear the pingers.

So what would you have them do after this? Remember at that time they probably had more faith that the pingers were functioning than in their understanding of what had taken place and where the plane was. That is to say that they likely reasoned that the pingers were working elsewhere, rather than the plane was near LKP and both pingers failed. Yes this reasoning turned out to be incorrect, but I can certainly see what they were thinking.

Phase 3. They chose to search out NW, based on independent sophisticated drift analysis. This also turned out to be incorrect. But again, I can understand their thought processes.

Phase 4. Forget drift analysis. Forget pingers. Start at LKP with the group with the best credentials to do the search. And they succeeded.

I don't see a conspiracy here. To me, this reflects a determined search in the face of lots of unknowns, a few false leads, and the unexpected failure of both pingers.

Will there be lessons learned from this? Sure. But I don't believe you can question the methodology of the search.

Part of the problem here is that some of the involved parties have less that a perfect record. And so people are looking for any evidence of a repeat here. That is understandable, and on the whole it is a good thing. A degree of skepticism is healthy. Only a degree however, only up to a point. Beyond this it starts to resemble paranoia. Courts of law have to decide innocence or guilt on the facts presented - and not on the past record of the defendant.

The way this investigation is running and the involvement of external agencies gives me a degree of confidence that we can trust the conclusions. Sure there can still be bias - and as someone else hinted, subconscious bias can be the most dangerous type of all. But bias does not equate corruption.

[RR_NDB]

auraflyer,

but is the CVR data in "stereo"

4 channel ("stereo"), look the specs here: Info on AF447 CVR (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/449639-af-447-search-resume-part2-21.html#post6423288)

Observe the channel 4 has better specs

[JD-EE]

Would anyone like to speculate on how these boxes survived in 10,000 feet of water for so long? I would have thought the pressure alone at that depth would have made this unlikely.

And titanium.

[RR_NDB]

Hi, JD-EE

I would probably have done that before applying power and risking there being water inside.



Much safer!

What you think about LF info yesterday?

[mm43]

jcjeant

Jean-Paul Troadec has responded appropriately to the question asked. He did mention that the area in which the debris was found was originally searched (US Navy TPL towed by "Fairmount Glacier") and nothing was heard. That was during Phase 2 and between then and Phase 3, the BEA engaged the Drift Group to try and narrow down the area to search.

The group came up with a area of probability that was to the NNW and around 30NM from the LKP and encompassed around 2,000 ^2 km, which was searched using towed side-scan sonar and AUVs equipped with SSS. Phase 3 was extended and the areas to the west and south of those already searched were covered by AUVs. There was an unfortunate interlude which lead the search to be moved over 40NM to the West by South of the LKP and this deviation was responsible for the debris not being found during the extended Phase 3 search.

Following Phase 3, the Metron Report made a statistical analysis of all the data they had at their disposal and concluded that the aircraft would be found within 20NM of the LKP.

Phase 4 under the operational control of WHOI used 3 AUVs and resumed searching from where they had left off at the end of Phase 3, ie about 10NM NNW of the LKP. Working methodically through the remaining area north of the LKP, it took them about one week to come across the debris.

The reason for neither of the pingers being heard remains to be found, and as far as I know, there has been no report of the FDR's missing ULB being located. I am sure that that line of enquiry will be run in conjunction with the ongoing FDR/CVR data analysis.

Overall, the initial air/sea searches for floating debris failed badly, but the ongoing planned secondary searches for the ULB pingers and then using alternative methods was done well.

[Machinbird]

I'm not sure if they even bothered to open the cylinder to visually check the contents. I would probably have done that before applying power and risking there being water inside.Wasn't that why there was an extended drying time in a specialized oven before reading the chips? It wouldn't make sense unless they had opened the cylinders and taken out the cards holding the memory chips. I would think that the main thing holding the ocean out of the memory modules was a well situated O ring on an end closure.

[JD-EE]

Shadoko - regarding slammed cockpit door with everybody outside I'd simply comment that such a situation would be an unbelievable lapse of proper procedure or issuance of an official procedure with a glaring error. Three people can navigate around each other in the cockpit quite easily. So for changing crew and assignments there would be two procedures.

The first procedure simply substitutes one person in once seat. The new person moves into the cockpit over in front of the fourth seat. The person being replaced rises and exits past the new person. The new person emerges and enters the vacated seat. At that time the replaced person exits the plane. At no time is there nobody at the controls.

The second procedure puts the captain back in his seat when the person being replaced is the person in the other seat. Captain enters the cockpit and moves to the space in front of the fourth seat. The person in the captain's seat rises and moves to the door but does not exit. The captain moves into his seat, gets settled in. The person standing moves to the space in front of the fourth seat while the captain assumes control. The third person rises and moves to the door. The replaced person moves into the seat the third person vacated. Once everybody is comfortably at the controls the third person leaves the cockpit. At no time is there nobody at the controls.

It's a simple programming job, if you think about it. What on Earth would cause all three to vacate the cockpit? (Besides, doors I've seen of late have cipher locks on them so they can be opened from the outside. Before that I believe they could only be locked from the inside by a positive action by one of the cockpit crew. If that's still the case the person planing to leave the cockpit in the above two scenarios would exit the cockpit and the last crew member to sit back at the controls would lock the door from the inside.)

(How do you put an elephant in the refrigerator? How do you put a giraffe in that refrigerator? Think about it....)

[JD-EE]

We don´t deserve!

As if you Europeans didn't work hard to earn it?

(If you're going to get political, so can I. )

We'd best drop this line of discussion.

[JD-EE]

Shall we mark 2011 May 16 as the date deSitter gave up flying anything other than antique airplanes or third world airlines? They'll be all that still has direct control in a few more years. And I presume that broad statement of yours indicates you do not like autopilot at all. Didn't even the DC3 have some form of autopilot?

[JD-EE]

bearfoil, how many times do you remember me commenting about how unfriendly it is for the computers to toss up their metaphorical hands and deliver control to possibly surprised and unready pilots, especially when it could raise a flag and continue flying by the same rules the pilots are supposed to adopt in that situation?

I remember getting shouted down, too.

Of course, if THAT is what happened, AB would be into liability up to its neck unless it was following some higher authority's order. In that case the higher authority (the government?) would be at fault. Oh, my, would THAT be a picnic.

(Since when have governments been able to perform engineering? They do it nevertheless with the arrogance that comes with "POWER". "Because we can and we have a 'God given' right to do it.")

[JD-EE]

If ACARS ended at altitude, I think it may be time to reinvigorate the proposition the a/c lost some parts, on the way down, even just post the last vertical speed message.

Yeah, the hamsters died of hypoxia when the compressors slowed down. They then fell out of the engines at altitude.

Bear, you should know me well enough by now to know I really have a hard time passing up straightlines....

[JD-EE]

CogSim, regarding two seated pilots the Chinese fire drills I posted can be tweaked to permit both of the seated pilots having had a chance to empty their bladders as needed during the interchange without having only one person at the controls for more than 20-30 seconds at a time. And when there were only two in the cockpit both would be seated at the controls. All they need to do is work through the procedure to see it can come together naturally.

With the bad wx zone so close I am sure they'd be all settled in for the duration of the crossing. Then they'd work out whatever was needed for emptying bladders when it was safe again.

Of course, conversation regarding radar here seems to indicate they might not have had the foggiest idea there was bad weather ahead before the fit hit the shan.

[JD-EE]

GarageYears, I think "synching" in context would be more like deriving a full sequence of events: A leads to B leads to C and D. C leads to E ... D leads to H, I, and J... Once that is done they have to figure out what the precise timing of each of these events in the cascade mean.

Everything is in order with even times. Now, how do those times really evolve into an event tree? Did B really cause C and D or was something else the real cause? This is where the brain burns out from the complexity that can evolve. (I presume they have procedures derived from long experience to mitigate the complexity exceeding brain capacity. Computers will help. But without the human brain and its experience computers might give quite inaccurate results even accounting for reaction times.)

[JD-EE]

Anyone care to comment on when BEA might think summer is? Officially, it is the day of the year when the Sun is farthest north (on June 20th or 21st). This day is known as the Summer Solstice.

Have you ever heard the quaint phrase "Microsoft Minutes"? It comes from the presentation of estimated time until a task, say a large file copy, is complete. You often see it sit at 3 minutes for several minutes; you see it skip backwards even by large amounts; you see it skip forwards even by large amounts; it's all "Microsoft Minutes".

I propose a similar measure "BEA Summers". (Did they say WHICH summer?)
I want to see the results almost as much as those most anxious. But I am not going to break a sweat over it until at least the end of the warm portion of the year in the Northern Hemisphere.

[JD-EE]

gums, I'd be inclined to add another point to your fine set. There should be a procedural change that says a human pilot must control and fly the plane for at least one hour out of every 10 in the air in stretches no smaller than half an hour. That is probably not enough to give the pilots experience for what they will be handed if things get too rough. But, I suspect it will help.

[JD-EE]

What you think about LF info yesterday?

LF is equivalent to the National Enquirer? Their sensationalistic claims seem to belong within the latter's frame of reference. (That's especially true given their apparent data input they chewed up and regurgitated in a scrambled sensationalist form.)

[JD-EE]

Wasn't that why there was an extended drying time in a specialized oven before reading the chips? It wouldn't make sense unless they had opened the cylinders and taken out the cards holding the memory chips. I would think that the main thing holding the ocean out of the memory modules was a well situated O ring on an end closure.

I thought I remembered that but I was not sure. I, too, figured it was an O-Ring keeping out the water. But I was not sure if they meant a bakeout without opening or after or both. (Again, I'd have done both. I'd not want to open the mailing tube and contaminate what was inside.)

Actually if it got wet inside I'd expect it to be VERY wet. And semiconductors do not like VERY wet at all. I'd expect the memory to have its own packaging. But that would be nothing to 3900 meters of ocean. If the O-Ring leaked an effective hydraulic machining effect would enlarge the hole and fill the tube. Hence, I suspect it was dry inside. Or else they got heroically lucky.

[ZeeDoktor]

I'm posting this because to me it seems very plausible, plus the source is one I trust and have trusted with my life.

I had a rather enlightening conversation today with said source who from another friend who is in a similarly senior position in a relevant and related business has heard the following, and I paraphrase:

The sequence of events leading to this tragedy appear incredibly trivial: Two young F/O's left at the controls, discussing a two day layover in Rio with a couple of flight attendants present on the flight deck (most PAX asleep), are completely unaware of where they are headed weather wise.

Sad if that's what led up to this, and a serious self management challenge...

[HazelNuts39]

Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/05/17/01016-20110517ARTFIG00426-af-447-la-piste-d-une-erreur-de-l-equipage-air-france.php) replies to BEA ...

[Wannabe Flyer]

I had a rather enlightening conversation today with said source who from another friend who is in a similarly senior position in a relevant and related business has heard the following, and I paraphrase:

So lets see

YOU ---------> SAID SOURCE --------> SAID SOURCES FRIEND----------> SAID SOURCES FRIENDs FRIENDs (OVERHEARD FROM ANOTHER SOURCE).

Sounds like a game of Chinese whisper :sad:

[auraflyer]

Chris and Mac, thank you very much for that info re the CVR.

ZeeDoktor, how sad if you are right. Somewhat reminiscent of delta 1141.

[infrequentflyer789]

I dont understand this statement ... :confused:

So BEA know where find the plane were the greatest ... but anyways and contrary to this knowledge ... they searched firstly in other aeras ..... :sad:

:ugh: No, read the search reports

First they searched in the right area but didn't find anything - why is still unknown, either both pingers failed or the search method failed. They didn't fail due to not looking in the right place - they looked and failed to find.

Then they looked in an area calculated from wreckage drift - not a simple calculation, took a lot of people a lot of work to do it, and it wasn't right. Bad luck - not an easy area of ocean.

Then they went back to the first search area, to look again, and this time found the wreckage

[HarryMann]

Looking at what LF and perhaps others others are now pointing at - let us remind ourselves about the sparse communications & reporting for some time before and 'apparent' flight into what looks like an intense area of the storm (with just a small diversion late in the day c.f. other flights that night).

[mm43]

HN39;

Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/05/17/01016-20110517ARTFIG00426-af-447-la-piste-d-une-erreur-de-l-equipage-air-france.php) replies to BEA ... There's a fair bit of fancy foot work in that story. How to extract yourself from the s**t and come up smelling of roses! On the other hand, the boot is still well and truely being planted into Air France.:hmm:

[ZeeDoktor]

@Wannabeflyer: Well it is a rumour forum isn't it... ;-)

Still, I'm not in the habit of posting utter nonsense...

If what I heard indeed turns out to be true, there will be a whole new set of self management and CRM issues we all need to address (not just AF).

[IO540]

Having been doing electronics design since the 1970s I am impressed by the survival of the data.

IMHO, either the memory chips are in a separate sealed module (which can itself withstand great pressure) or the cylindrical capsule did not leak.

If the chips themselves got wet, under the 4km pressure, for 2 years, there would be nothing left because the data is stored in the form of microscopic charged capacitors, and the only protection is the ~ 1mm thick plastic package.

If however the PCB was encapsulated in a suitable epoxy, and this was done under a vacuum to avoid any air-filled voids (which would collapse under the 4km pressure and destroy the module) then the PCB could have survived the total immersion.

It would be interesting to know how these things are made.

It's awfully hard to make a watertight package which can hold 4km pressure for 2 years and which uses just o-rings...

[KATLPAX]

Well i for one am glad Le Figaro (and ZeeDooktor's friend's friend friend:)) has very nicely wrapped this up in very simple layman's terms. This convenient leak has absolved the aircraft, airbus/EADS and AF leaving only the crew to swing. Surprised? I'm not. This 'news' of crew screw up will become the one accepted 'fact' with little attention on the before and after (swiss cheese). The real story is the seconds and minutes before and after initial upset, importantly, why were they unable to recover?

This was not an inexperienced crew, even if their actions lead them in, the real story still lies in what they were trained for and obviously how airbus logic and design works when things go pear shaped. Again, these are billion euro questions and answers that may never see the light of day given we MAY have pilots talking about a weekend in Rio w cabin crew (let's hope some mention of sex was included). Much easier to understand and accept by Joe public who want a sound bite or tweet.

This Le Figaro leak is doing exactly Everything needed by those who have the most at risk....BEA is not obliged to respond w any additional information or answer any difficult questions, AF and Airbus the same. The sooner this 'fact' is spread the sooner the story is accepted and forgotten leaving the crew at fault alone. I hope LF digs deeper and does not leave things as they are.

[Razoray]

This convenient leak has absolved the aircraft, airbus/EADS and AF leaving only the crew to swing.

Not sure if I agree with that! It seems that the actions of the pilots are directly attributed to AF SOP's...which have been under scrutiny for some time. When all is said and done, IMHO the airline will be to blame just as much as the pilots....

[ZeeDoktor]

Joe public doesn't really care... it's those that stand to sue AIB or AF for an epic fail on their part. Of course those parties have a vested interest.

Occam's razor once again: Complex and rare systems failure vs. inattentive crew cockup. It sadly comes back to the latter time and time again.

The problem needs addressed (and has needed addressed for ages) how to avoid these kinds of mishaps. I fear until we are flying 100% automated from gate to gate, there's always ample room for human error of this dimension.

[HazelNuts39]

So a first scan of the DFDR data has not revealed a systems malfunction other than those already known from the ACARS messages, at least not one that requires immediate action;

So the BEA is going to have a look at the CVR;

Is that a leak?

[Jig Peter]

About the "Leaker) - He was interviewed on TV recently, partly to boost a book he has written whose main theme seems to be to attack Air France as being a creaky organisation with a lot of "old school" people on board, resistant to change and anything which might possibly weaken their own position.
Thus, he seems to have been tempted to use the "Nothing to Report" telex from Airbus to announce that, therefore, the AF crew must be to blame, because of failings within the airline. (And to get attention for his apparently tendendtious book).
No wonder the BEA was incensed.
Personally, I thought Le Figaro was one of the more reliable papers, but then, I haven't read it for a long time. Other papers seem to have held their horses, and rightly so.

[SaturnV]

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/graph/SOC-2011-19-CRASH-AF-447.jpg

I note Figaro's graphic borrows from the BEA interactive where one could see the routings of other planes that night. However, for reasons known only to the BEA, the BEA no longer references LH507 which preceded AF447 along the UN873 airway by 20 minutes, nor (if I recall correctly) does the interactive include IB6024 which followed AF447 on UN873 by 12 minutes. Instead, the BEA interactive mostly plots flights on a parallel airway over a 100 NM distant.

Both the LH and IB deviated off the track because of the weather, and one would think their deviations would be the most relevant to what AF447 did not do. The benign explanation for the 'disappearance' of LH507 and IB6012 from the BEA reports is that their experience, including the communication they had with ATLANTICO, is directly relevant to AF447, and the BEA does not want to describe or discuss it further at this time.
___________

The five questions center on the actions of the crew and AF procedures.

[Golf-Sierra]

It's awfully hard to make a watertight package which can hold 4km pressure for 2 years and which uses just o-rings...

4km is about 6000psi, and according to Wikipedia - Hydraulic Machinery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_machinery#Seals.2C_fittings_and_connections):


Elastomeric seals (O-ring boss and face seal) are the most common types of seals in heavy equipment and are capable of reliably sealing 6000+ psi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-force_per_square_inch) (40+ MPa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megapascal)) of fluid pressure.


I'm not saying that building one of these memory modules is a simple task, but then again pressures in the 6000psi region are common in hydraulic machinery. I believe the A380 hydraulics operate at 5000psi.

As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?

[Old Carthusian]

I don't actually think the Le Figaro reply is of any value and worthy of any attention. I did post that human beings do strange and unaccountable things but I am not prepared to assign blame or responsibility for this incident to the flight deck crew based on what has come out. I am also happy to trust BEAs conclusions - I do not buy any of the rubbish posted about bias, it is just that rubbish. BEA has always been a reliable entity on accident reporting and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool (and no I have absolutely no connection with BEA). When I was young I was taught that patience is a virtue and this is something I continue to believe. Let us wait shall we?

[lomapaseo]

ZeeDoktor

Still, I'm not in the habit of posting utter nonsense...

If what I heard indeed turns out to be true, there will be a whole new set of self management and CRM issues we all need to address (not just AF).


The third or 4th hand rumor you posted would fit quite nicely in the Rumor and News section.

However, it won't stand up to technical scutiny until it is connected to the loss of flight control itself.

It simply explains a possible reason for the contribution of weather which has been discussed forever in the old thread.

Since day 1 there has always been the question of possible pilot and aircraft reactions to weather.

The mystery continues until facts are linked.

[takata]

Hi,
As nobody posted it, here is Airbus official statement about those Figaroleaks which are revealing... well, nothing but very old stuff!
It was dated from yesterday: Statements*| Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer (http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/hot-topics/statement/)
_______________________________
Airbus statement regarding media reports about the AF447 investigation

17 May 2011
Some recent media reports about the AF447 accident mention an information note issued by Airbus to its customers. The purpose of this document, known as an AIT (Accident Information Telex), is to provide operators with information related to potential safety recommendations that may derive from an accident investigation.

For this reason, an AIT has to be approved by the authority that manages the investigation; in this case, the BEA (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses – French civil aviation safety Investigations and Analysis Bureau). This AIT was approved by the BEA before being issued by Airbus to its customers and does not include any safety recommendation at this stage of the investigation.

Airbus strongly disagrees with any form of speculation in the scope of the safety investigation and regrets any inappropriate communication concerning such a serious event that should always be handled with utmost professionalism.

In cooperation with Air France and the authorities, and since the very first days of the accident, Airbus has been supporting the search for the aircraft as well as the technical investigation to identify all lessons to be learnt in the sole interest of air transport safety.

In this context, Airbus continues to support the BEA which is leading the investigation with expertise.
____________________________
Whatever Airbus is saying, anyway, it certainly won't change Bearfoil/jcjeant (and few others) points because of their own agenda against Airbus and the BEA. From day one, they are charging to shed the descredit over every aspect of this technical investigation, so deep is their hard belief that everything is aimed at "covering up" Airbus/Thales/AF (Whoever French) liabilities.

In this context, "Airbus continues to support the BEA which is leading the investigation with expertise" should sound at their ears like: "Airbus is very confident that it will be fully cleared by its BEA old friends".
And so on...
Those speculations based on previous speculations will certainly be confirmed by future speculations based on the previous ones and might end, at some point, by sounding enough like some "truth" if it is repeated ad nauseam.
That's their goal.

[grity]

@TurbineD thanks for the link to http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdf...For_Pilots.pdf (http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/plane/airbus/A330/misc/A330_Flight_Deck_and_Systems_Briefing_For_Pilots.pdf)
there is a graphic for whigt and balance (CG limits) on s.10
the range for an A330-200 with 210t is from 17 to 39%

there is no advice that the stability is badly different in this range...
and no advise what is the most stable position of CG (24...26% ???)

• No crew action is required for normal operation except initiation and termination ( s101)

and s.101ff........
• Abnormal operations :
- forward and (some) inter tank transfers may be initiated manually

so forward transfer of fuel will be possible even without the use of the gravity - Fuel transfer from the trim tank to the inner tanks is performed by the trim tank forward transfer pump through the trim pipe isolation valve (s.97)

again, I am wondering why one can not just switch the system between economical (aft CG) and most save flying (CG=25%) for turbulent weather......

[GarageYears]

Something not identified in the previously posted info relating to the CVR:

Recording Channels
The recording system consists of four recording channels which simultaneously record audio as follows:
Channels 1, 2 and 3 have a narrow band and allow the recording of signals from the Captain, First Officer and 3rd Occupant via the Audio Management Unit 1RN.
Channel 4 has a wide band and allows recording of the ambient noises picked up by the area microphone and fed via a pre-amplifier to the input transformer for channel 4.
The three narrow band channels are recorded separately during the first 30 min. and are mixed together from 30 min. to 120 min.
This is written rather poorly, what is meant is that the most recent 30 minutes is individually stored, while data from channels 1,2 and 3 are mixed to a single track for 30-120 minutes.

So the recorder is not really a true 4 channel recorder for the 2 hours duration - the area mic is always individually stored, but we really have a hybrid 4/2 channel recorder.

This seems overly complicated and unnecessary given the low cost of solid-state memory. In fact the idea that the 'recorder' is manipulating (mixing and storing) the data once recorded seems astonishing to me... but then I suppose the design is some 20 years old or so (haven't checked that - it is a guess!).

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Golf-Sierra:
As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?

Nice one. Perhaps the experts can comment?


Garage Years,

Are there no "hot" (pilot-headset) microphone channels?
___________________

Re the subject of alleged leaks: it seems to me that the BEA is on a hiding to nothing here. And so, to a lesser extent, is AI/EADS. Damned if they release anything; damned if they say nothing. And to demand instant publication of raw DFDR data into the public domain would be ludicrous.

What I think we may all agree is that, as the BEA points out, any public speculation about crew performance at this stage – based purely on inference of the AI communiqué to Airbus operators – is unjustified, unnecessary (in the context of current safety), and can only add to the trauma of the next-of-kin.

[grity]

@GY did you think it can be possible to extrakt a speed info from chanel 4 in case of UAS if you compare the chanel 4 with the sound before an UAS event? (with given altitude...)

[Lonewolf_50]

Zeedoktor


Complex and rare systems failure vs. inattentive crew cockup.

It may not be "versus" but "combined with" in this case ... if the rumors are founded in fact.

If not, back to the drawing board, but the question remains ... why were they not able to regain control?

They had 30,000+ feet in which to do so, based on FL selected.

What prevented regaining control?

Training?
Simple mechanical failure?
Robot gone made or become counterproductive?
Simple human error?
Man Machine Interface issues?
Complex human error?

The question that has been in my brain since the early going with this mishap is ... why did they (apparently) fly straight into a serious convective weather system? Answering that seems to me to be where ANY aircrew on ANY model passenger jet would be interested learning how easily "this could happen to me / us ... "

That answer is important to pilots, but perhaps not to bean counters and civil damges chasing attorneys.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

In this context, "Airbus continues to support the BEA which is leading the investigation with expertise" should sound at their ears like: "Airbus is very confident that it will be fully cleared by its BEA old friends".
And so on...
Those speculations based on previous speculations will certainly be confirmed by future speculations based on the previous ones and might end, at some point, by sounding enough like some "truth" if it is repeated ad nauseam.
That's their goal.The study of some BEA old investigations show clearly some "cover up" .. and in my POV .. this is a discredit for the BEA
Note that "cover up" is not a conspiracy ... it's just hide some informations to the public.
You must also know (or I remind you) who is the owner of the "Le Figaro" :
Dassault.
And Dassault and the constructor of the AF447 A330 have tight financial link.
You can even suppose that the leak come in fact from the BEA .. or Airbus.
They can disapprove after the release of the article (this article was pasted in all the main french newspapers) but this will still in the mind of the general public and that exactly the same behavior you describe .....
and might end, at some point, by sounding enough like some "truth" if it is repeated ad nauseam.
That's their goal.It's a way to prepare the public to accept the fact that in their next official BEA report ... crew will be pointed as making errors.
At least it's a possible scenario I can't discard.

[IO540]

pressures in the 6000psi region are common in hydraulic machinery.

Very true; however the 6000psi is not present 24/7 for 2 years, and it is not present anyway without leaks. Leaks are common (which is why the fluid needs topping up periodically) and are ignored unless significant.

The vast majority of hydraulics are pressurised transiently.

[GarageYears]

Chris:

Are there no "hot" (pilot-headset) microphone channels?

Not according to the Airbus SDN document I have in front of me.

The crew channels that are recorded are effectively the headset signals, hence only include 'PTT'd' signals, not the live (hot) mic signals from each crew member microphone. The inference in the SDN is that audio not 'transmitted' by either radio or intercom, will be picked up by the area mic.

grity:

@GY did you think it can be possible to extrakt a speed info from chanel 4 in case of UAS if you compare the chanel 4 with the sound before an UAS event? (with given altitude...)

Some estimation could be made of speed based on the audio signature, given we have altitude references, and some prior recording segments to act as baselines - you would need this since 250 kts CAS @ FL350, can sound the same as 300 kts CAS @FL200 (numbers made up for demonstrative purposes). However these would likely only be very rough numbers (say in a 30-50 kt range), but if the assumption is that the aircraft lost it's speed data sensors, then this would be one method to provide an estimation of speed.

[grity]

@GY it is fascinating my, flying in future "sound and altitude" as backup system.....!

[rh200]

Very true; however the 6000psi is not present 24/7 for 2 years, and it is not present anyway without leaks. Leaks are common (which is why the fluid needs topping up periodically) and are ignored unless significant.

The vast majority of hydraulics are pressurised transiently


This is true also, but in the case of machinary it also has to contend with tempreture transients and high pressure spikes far higher than the relief's are set for. There is also higher 10000 psi systems in staionary systems.

Hence a good experienced engineer should have no problem designing for a static system.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

This can maybe appears in the next BEA report ...
Google Vertaling (http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.securvol.fr%2Factualite.php%236 1&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)
All possibilities are open.

[SaturnV]

Chris Scott,

My reading of the Airbus release posted by Takata is that is says two things: (1) the language of the release was approved in advance by the BEA so don't blame Airbus, and (2), we, Airbus, probably shouldn't have sent it out in the first place. It wasn't needed, and the only thing it produced was premature speculation.

The conundrum of damned if you do, damned if you don't with respect to release of information in the current era is that the 'audience' today is inherently more suspicious and conspiracy-minded than ever. To my knowledge, the BEA has previously not had the experience of the NTSB in doing investigations where conspiracy theories took hold.

In the case of TW 800, aside from a persistent poster on this board who insisted there was a major design flaw in the forward cargo door of the 747, how to address theories propounded by, among others, a former White House press secretary living in Paris?

'Pierre Salinger Syndrome' and the TWA 800 conspiracies - CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2006-07-12/us/twa.conspiracy_1_missile-theory-conspiracy-theories-internet-conspiracy?_s=PM:US)

Or of an academic of some repute well-connected in some government circles (appointed by George W. Bush to a government agency) that terrorists brought down AA587?

Why Did American Airlines 587 Crash? :: Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/2053/why-did-american-airlines-587-crash)

I've come to believe that its better to provide preliminary information as soon as practical, --before alternative explanations fantasized by the conspiratorialists really take root in the public psyche.

[widebody69]

"(2), we, Airbus, probably shouldn't have sent it out in the first place. It wasn't needed"

To the best of my recollection, Airbus has always issued updates on major accidents when there is any development, such as the downloading of the DFDR. Clearly the info downloaded hasn't raised any flags, and this would normally need to be communicated. All airline safety departments would require this information immediately.

[lomapaseo]

To the best of my recollection, Airbus has always issued updates on major accidents when there is any development, such as the downloading of the DFDR. Clearly the info downloaded hasn't raised any flags, and this would normally need to be communicated. All airline safety departments would require this information immediately.

True

The standard is requested by the operators (they do have pilots and passengers to appease) Manufacturer with the approval of the investigating agency clears what is to be released. The wording is precised, no more, no less to satisfy the safety departments at the operators. It is not intended to be interpreted by the public or publicity folks.

To not have adhered to a standard protocol would have started many more rumors.

The problem is with the source providing interpretation to the press and the press going for a scoop.

In my experience the more reliable press would have gone to the BEA for clarification or at least cited the sources of balanced interpretations.

[Lazerdog]

Lonewolf... Investigations do indeed usually reveal one or more contributing factors that combine for the final outcome rather than just one single cause. I've also wondered about your question ".. why were they not able to regain control?
They had 30,000+ feet in which to do so, based on FL selected." The ACARS message at 2:12 seems to hint at an upset with the loss of the laser ring gyro integrity. I wonder how much simulator time on upset recovery is spent by flight crews? Avoidance of those situations is certainly stressed, but when it happens on a bumpy night in the middle of a cell with nothing to see outside the cockpit, that is a daunting task to put on anyone. The question still remains on how exactly they got to that point.

[bearfoil]

Olivier

I am posting in a timely fashion 'with permission' that there is nothing new to report. Since there is nothing to report, one could conclude that we are absolved of responsibility for anything, since anything is included in nothing.

Take a breath, open one's sensors, and enjoy. The Drama is underway, and the pilots have no allies. "Fraternite"???

To appear in high dudgeon whilst snickering sotto voce, it is a talent taught in the Boardrooms....

Are you kin to Sir Laurence??

************************************************************ ****

Since Lufty and the Spanish crew (the ones Captain Dubois chatted with pre launch) have receded into history, the number of paws holding the bag are diminishing.

To mold Public Opinion takes time, be patient......

[takata]

The study of some BEA old investigations show clearly some "cover up" .. and in my POV .. this is a discredit for the BEA.
As you claimed it everyday, even before this investigation started, without relying on other sources than few biased "testimonies" of such so-called "fact", I can not agree that:
1) what you are claiming is "clearly" founded; at best, it is based on "rumors" of wrong doings, some being clearly unfounded or very old stories;
2) such attitude you are supposed to be condemning is exactly how one may qualify your own behavior: your pre-established judgment (this will be a cover-up) was already affirmed on day one. No need to wait and take into account how this investigation would be actually conducted in reality; as everything public and contradictory to your mis-belief can be twisted as a new proof that the BEA is covering-up something, this is quite easy. You just need to claim it loud, nobody can ever prove to you the contrary (due to cover-up of the truth).
Note that "cover up" is not a conspiracy ... it's just hide some informations to the public.
Purely rhetorical. Every conspiration I know start with: "the truth is hidden to us".

You must also know (or I remind you) who is the owner of the "Le Figaro" :
Dassault. And Dassault and the constructor of the AF447 A330 have tight financial link.
Well, sorry but Dassault and EADS are not close "partners", quite the contrary. Who told you that?

You can even suppose that the leak come in fact from the BEA .. or Airbus.
They can disapprove after the release of the article (this article was pasted in all the main french newspapers) but this will still in the mind of the general public and that exactly the same behavior you describe .....
Don't you fear to sound ridiculous?
Did your read those people reaction to those papers?
How is that story making any "good" for Airbus, BEA, Dassault, Whoever you think, except for this so-called journalist and those paper printers? Even Le Figaro will end in deep embarasment after publishing so poorly researched papers in their front page. This can not be called an investigation and certainly not first class journalism: a big provocative headline, but strictly no content after the first line and very weak points barely adressing the claims. The end news is what we knew for the first hour: AF 447 flew in a storm, something wrong here!

It's a way to prepare the public to accept the fact that in their next official BEA report ... crew will be pointed as making errors.
At least it's a possible scenario I can't discard.
Right.... it looks like it doesn't work then.
Maybe you may believe that those French people are stupid enough to read: "Scoop: Airbus will be cleared: it is all pilots and company fault" followed by strictly nothing proving the point? while, at the same time, everybody know that those data deep analysis was not even started.

Beside your bias, nothing of what one should realise about how much progress was made for AF 447, towards a far better transparency in investigation, never transpired in one single post of you. You are so zealously reporting everything seeming "so suspicious" to you that the only question it will rise at the end is about your own motivations.

[SaturnV]

widebody and lomapaseo, if the preliminary read of the FDR had indicated unreliable air speed perhaps associated with pitot failure, would Airbus (or Boeing or Dassault) have sent out the telex phrased as Airbus did?

I realize that you may not know the answer to that question, but I would assume such telexes are supposed to convey the totality of the information obtained from the reading of the FDR, not just any 'new' information that was not previously covered by an antecedent telex.

As I said before, knowledge of a negative can itself be knowledge, and from such, people, like reporters for Figaro, start drawing inferences.

[MurphyWasRight]

IO540 :
Quote:
pressures in the 6000psi region are common in hydraulic machinery.
Very true; however the 6000psi is not present 24/7 for 2 years, and it is not present anyway without leaks. Leaks are common (which is why the fluid needs topping up periodically) and are ignored unless significant.

The vast majority of hydraulics are pressurised transiently.

I would -much- prefer to design a system that had a static 6000psi pressure than one with dynamic pressures.

Think about the postulated O ring, with static pressure it will deform once at get squished (technical term that) into all the tiny bumps and nicks.

With a dynamic load it will have to do this many times, each cycle will result in (very tiny) degradation, with microscopic amounts of salt water getting a bit farther in each time.

BTW: There are many methods other than O rings to seal something that does not require frequent, if any, access.

Lastly on leaky hydraulics: Most of the leaks are at sliding seals, if you think sealing an enclosure is hard ponder a shiny rod moving in and out past the seal.

-----

For BearFoil and others on the search process:

I usually find things in the last place I look, of course if you keep on looking after you find it your mental status may be in question.:)

Looking back it is easy to see a better way but overall I would say a fairly rational plan.
There could have been different even better plans but it is important to have a single coherent plan.

[takata]

Bear,
I am posting in a timely fashion 'with permission' that there is nothing new to report.
Nice cut.
Once the sentence "there is nothing to report at this stage" is cut into "there is nothing to report", you can make big headlines like F. Amedeo, or say anything you imagine to prove any point of you, as you did.
But, hey, I wasn't really expecting that you will behave better than him!

[infrequentflyer789]

It's a way to prepare the public to accept the fact that in their next official BEA report ... crew will be pointed as making errors.
At least it's a possible scenario I can't discard.

Well that has been on the cards since the beginning, witness the previous reports noting lack of diversion, the excellent weather research of Tim Vasquez, and massive discussion here on weather radar etc. There is no way the plane decided to fly into a cb by itself (one day we may have a plane piloted by an artifical intelligence that choses to do that from a masochisitic sense of "fun", but that is not what FBW is). That only leaves pilot decision (or lack of) to explain it.

If the final report contains some criticism of the crew, I suppose you will now be pointing back to these posts of yours and saying that your conspiracy theory is thereby proved ? :ugh:

[SaturnV]

Murphywasright, as mm43 recently noted about the awful results, in retrospect, of the June 1 search by both plane and ship, I would hope the final BEA report addresses the failures of that search, the causes of such, and what seems to be the unfortunate reliance in subsequent days on those awful results.

[bearfoil]

Who says Vasquez' work is gospel?? Again with the "They flew into doom". Vasquez has shown error of up to 30 miles. At the outset, AF immediately reported, "The flight has reported "turbulences forte", then it was"Lightning", then the pilots were "unlucky with the Radars" (sic) (Gourgeon himself !!).

That was within the first month. All along with the bs, propaganda, and self-serving 'sacrifice' of the reputations of others. This has been a managed event, up to and including the "rabbit" of the leak. Do you for God's sake understand how much these suits spend on PR?? With more money than sense, (or integrity) the talking heads under contract have been spinning this since ORARO. If I am wrong, I will admit to it. In the mean time, scepticism is the fuel that fires objectivity.

[MurphyWasRight]

SatrunV Murphywasright, as mm43 recently noted about the awful results, in retrospect, of the June 1 search by both plane and ship, I would hope the final BEA report addresses the failures of that search, the causes of such, and what seems to be the unfortunate reliance in subsequent days on those awful results.


Totally agree, sorry that I was not clear that I was commenting on the pinger/sonar scan search phases, not the original search for wreck or hoped for survivors.

[RR_NDB]

Chris and GS

Quote from Golf-Sierra:
As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?

Nice one. Perhaps the experts can comment?

If i designed the "pressure vessel" i put a VERY SIMPLE SENSOR inside:

A humidity detector. There are several (one is VERY CHEAP) to implement it.

Electrically (using Ohms law) you EXTERNALLY check the electric resistance of a "sensor" inside the CSMU cylinder.

There are risks associated in powering up an electronic circuit contaminated by salt water.

My kids destroyed the processor area of an air band radio after a drop in a pool. ITHO if they washed and dried it before powering up very probably we saved the portable VHF.

The idea to weight is another possibility but may not indicate the presence of salt water moisture.

[MurphyWasRight]

Checking CSMU integrity (sealing) before powering up

Chris and GS

Quote:
Quote from Golf-Sierra:
As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?

Nice one. Perhaps the experts can comment?
If i designed the "pressure vessel" i put a VERY SIMPLE SENSOR inside:

A humidity detector. There are several (one is VERY CHEAP) to implement it.



Not sure I see the point in trying to detect water/moisture inside the module when it is very low risk to open it and have a look.

Things other than water such as a cracked PCB that can also cause problems.

[SaturnV]

bearfoil, for better or worse, your skepticism has not yet reached the level of a former poster on this board, who was not content to simply post an amalgamation of theories, propositions, facts, and conjecture on PPRuNe:

http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/home_files/SmithAAR182.pdf

(Note the sleight of hand on the domain.)

[KBPsen]

If the final report contains some criticism of the crew, I suppose you will now be pointing back to these posts of yours and saying that your conspiracy theory is thereby proved ?That is the beauty of conspiracy theories. Everything can be used to prove the theory. If the facts do not fit the conspiracy theory then the facts are part of the conspiracy and therefore proves the conspiracy. If facts do fit the theory then that also proves the conspiracy.

So much for keeping an open mind.

[kilomikedelta]

What is the variation in weights of brand new recorders? How do you compensate for the lost paint chips and the missing bits of labels? The amount of salt water which would cause corrosion of the electronics is probably a very small percentage of the weight of the recorder.

[HazelNuts39]

flying in future "sound and altitude" as backup system.....! Perhaps the cockpit noise is somewhat sensitive to sideslip and AoA. The AF447 analysis can (will?) use IRS-derived groundspeed together with last known wind speed at cruise FL, and from meteo data at lower altitudes, or alternatively, airspeed derived from Weight and AoA. The principle is shown in this graphical illustration (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0CqniOzW0rjYmViNmJjMzQtMDc2OC00ZWNlLTgyYjUtOGJmMDE 0YTgzZWE2&hl=en_GB&authkey=CMqoguEI). The latter method may also be useable as backup system

[Lonewolf_50]

For l@serdog
Lonewolf... I've also wondered about your question ".. why were they not able to regain control? They had 30,000+ feet in which to do so, based on FL selected." 1. The ACARS message at 2:12 seems to hint at an upset with the loss of the l@ser ring gyro integrity.
2. I wonder how much simulator time on upset recovery is spent by flight crews?
Avoidance of those situations is certainly stressed, but when it happens on a bumpy night in the middle of a cell with nothing to see outside the cockpit, that is a daunting task to put on anyone.

Many thanks, I italicized and numbered the two critical concerns that are hidden from the layman when people toss about the term "pilot error" without understanding contributors. My response is with the non-pilot in reader mind. Even sciolists may benefit from what follows.l :E

I had not remembered, nor quite grasped, from previous discussion that l@ser ring gyro integrity might be a system failure or malfunction facing the crew.

Note for the non-pilots on two words I use here. If you have a malfunctioning piece of equipment, sometimes a reset, or a bit of working with the equipment, or adjustment with its controlling knobs and switches, restores its operation. If you have an equipment failure, typically you don't get it back to functioning status until you land and the maintenance / engineering crew repair or replace whatever stopped working correctly.

The chance of l@ser ring gyro integrity failure (or malfunction) gives my many-pages-back-question on "tumbling gyros" part of an answer.

If I understand correctly, the l@ser ring gyro integrity being compromised leads to (may lead to?) unreliable attitude reference system on the pilot's display.

For the non-pilot reader.

If that happens in level flight, it's a matter of deliberate trouble shooting and dealing with the malfunction, and if needed, due to being in instrument conditions, using a partial panel scan by the flying pilot while the non flying pilot trouble shoots, resets, restores, whatever. If in less benign flight conditions, there's trouble ahead.

When the primary attitude reference instrument for flight in instrument conditions (which pilots are trained to refer to first, and to trust, when flying on instruments) is lost, or it gives false indications, it requires that the pilot use cross references to continue to fly in instrument conditions. Being good at this requires initial training, and practice. It's not easy, but if kept refreshed, it is a tool in every professional pilot's kit bag.

Here's the part that can kill you.

Until this failure or false indication is recognized, using this instrument as primary attitude reference (wings level or not, nose up or down) can lead to erroneous pilot inputs. (Think JFK, Jr., spiraling down off of Cape Cod due in part to not knowing how to correctly use, or to incorrectly using, flight instruments when flying in instrument conditions - no reference to outside horizon).

Once recognized, such a display failure requires the pilot(s) to transition to a partial panel scan to recover from what I assume in this case is an upset/out of control flight condition.

Even if, as might be the case, the attitude reference system might have been in "malfunction" rather than "failure" mode, the time constraint of falling in unstable flight can have precluded the crew being able to reset/restore the primary flight instrument (attitude reference) due to being up to their elbows in a partial panel, unusual attitude/upset/out of control recovery problem ... in turbulent air associated with a Tstorm. :eek: As l@aserdog notes, "when it happens on a bumpy night in the middle of a cell with nothing to see outside the cockpit, that is a daunting task to put on anyone." Pucker factor goes to 9.9 out of a possible 10 ...

If we go to the Rumors sub forum thread, I see "well, it's pilot error." If we get some of journalists involved, we get "pilot error," and if we get pilots talking, we get "how do you solve this flying problem, and are you prepared, trained, and experienced in this mode of flight?"

This takes me to the question (2) on what weight unusual attitudes and partial panel scans get in the sim training, and during refresher / annual / periodic training.

Does this vary by airline? I suspect so, but am ignorant of detail.

[lomapaseo]

SaturnV

widebody and lomapaseo, if the preliminary read of the FDR had indicated unreliable air speed perhaps associated with pitot failure, would Airbus (or Boeing or Dassault) have sent out the telex phrased as Airbus did?



Respectfully I'll treat this as an honest question :)

I'll leave it to our seasoned speculators on this board to propose an answer.

I predict that with little thought they will deduce a coverup :E

[Lonewolf_50]

loma:

IIRC, Airbus had already issued a service bulletin a couple of years ago (or an AD by BEA??) about pitot probes. If "nothing new to report" is what Airbus said, then even if FDR has indicated issues with A/S inputs, there had already been a remedy in the system for well over a year (nearly two or three?) to address that (possible) causal factor.

Have I missed a trick here? :confused:

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Anyone who know the AF rules (SOP) concerning the maning of the flight deck ?
EG .. how many pilots minimun in flight deck
What rule if one pilot leave for some time the flight deck .. etc .. ?

[snowfalcon2]

Lonewolf50:
But would a malfunction or failure of a gyro not show up on the FDR trace? And would Airbus in that case have sent out the AIT ?

Your scenario then seems to suggest initially an in-flight attitude upset beyond the gyro's limits, which then caused a "tumbling gyro" malfunction. Rather than a gyro malfunction leading to an attitude upset?

[RR_NDB]

GY,

This seems overly complicated and unnecessary given the low cost of solid-state memory. In fact the idea that the 'recorder' is manipulating (mixing and storing) the data once recorded seems astonishing to me... but then I suppose the design is some 20 years old or so (haven't checked that - it is a guess!).


It seems they designed this "architeture" to allow some flexibility in the a/c config. (microphones, etc.).

But i agree with you. IMO this shows there are "room for improvement". For example, why not a better fidelity in ALL channels (Nyquist) to allow an easier analysis. Memory chips are cheap like you mentioned.

On Pingers we will "soon" see in the market solutions that could avoid this ABSURD two years (3rd Interim report by summer) delay.

[Turbine D]

grity,

there is a graphic for whigt and balance (CG limits) on s.10
the range for an A330-200 with 210t is from 17 to 39%

there is no advice that the stability is badly different in this range...
and no advise what is the most stable position of CG (24...26% ???)

Interestingly, I noticed the same thing you did and ask the same question to myself. If I interpret the A-300-200 for a 205 ton weight, they were operating within the limits, but right at the edge. For the -200 the limit is just under 38% and they were at somewhere between 37.3-37.8%. I would have to believe one would have better control (absent the computers) if the CG was as you suggested. The capability is there to pump the fuel either way, from or to the trim tanks. I am not sure how long it would take to pump the quantity of fuel to the center tank from the trim tank to equal a 24-26% CG. Tubby gave an estimate of the amount of fuel in the trim tank in his post #1253. However, that said, it could be pumped back to the trim tank after the perceived turbulent episode was over to regain the desired efficiency. Perhaps one or more of the A-300 pilots could comment on the pros and cons of this idea.

[HazelNuts39]

RE: 3rd Interim report by summer;

I'm afraid "not before summer" means after summer - october?

[Lemurian]

jcjeant,

Anyone who know the AF rules (SOP) concerning the maning of the flight deck ?
AirFrance provides each pilot with a foldable chamber pot so that they stay at all times in the flight deck.:rolleyes:
Of course, not much attention to the flight instruments is given at these times when one is on his /her paper throne as etiquette requires the other pilot to look to the side window.:ugh:

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Jig-Peter
About the "Leaker) - He was interviewed on TV recently, partly to boost a book he has written whose main theme seems to be to attack Air France as being a creaky organisation with a lot of "old school" people on board, resistant to change and anything which might possibly weaken their own position.
Confusion there ...
It's not the "Leaker" .. it's only the messenger.
The"Leaker" is somebody from BEA or Airbus or french govt.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

AirFrance provides each pilot with a foldable chamber pot so that they stay at all times in the flight deck.:rolleyes:
Of course, not much attention to the flight instruments is given at these times when one is on his /her paper throne as etiquette requires the other pilot to look to the side window.:ugh:

Can you post official AF SOP please .. thank you.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Another "leak" from BEA .........

Sur LCI.fr

La première lecture des boîtes noires du vol Rio-Paris ne montre pas "de dysfonctionnement majeur" sur l'avion Airbus ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'il n'y a pas eu "des dysfonctionnements moins importants", a déclaré mercredi à l'AFP Alain Bouillard, directeur de l'enquête technique. "A la première lecture, on n'a pas mis en évidence de dysfonctionnement majeur", comme une panne électrique totale, de moteurs ou des alarmes incompréhensibles dans le cockpit, a expliqué M. Bouillard, du Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses (BEA).


On LCI.fr

The first reading of the black box flight from Rio to Paris does not show "major malfunction" on the Airbus plane that does not mean that there was no "malfunctions less important," he said Wednesday AFP Alain Bouillard, director of technical investigation. "On first reading, it did not reveal any major malfunction," as a complete electrical failure of motors or incomprehensible alarms in the cockpit, said Bouillard Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA).

Source:
Info et Actualité en direct - Toutes les actualités et infos - TF1 News (http://lci.tf1.fr/)

[promani]

HazelNuts39

I'm afraid "not before summer" means after summer - october?

My knowledge of the English language tells me that there is 'before Summer', 'during Summer', and 'after Summer'.
So I would expect that the BEA will produce an interim report not before Summer starts, but during the Summer months, maybe July/August. No doubt there will leaks before then, or even a press release.

[Turbine D]

Bear,

scepticism is the fuel that fires objectivity.

Really???

Now I will agree that a certain amount of skepticism may test the validity of findings based on data at hand, but, more often than not, it morphs into imagined theories, essays and blog sites on the internet by skeptics who are more interested in promoting themselves and seeing their name in print than the reality of the situation. If you don't believe me, Google TWA800 and count the skeptic sites before you get to the 4th page where the NTSB information is found (my laptop @ 10 posts per page), many more following. I suppose Googling AF447 will look the same in another 10 years, the way it is going.

[HazelNuts39]

Promani;

It's not based on my knowledge of the English language, but on that of the summer holiday season in France.

[BOAC]

Lonewolf - we are I believe, in danger of going off on another wild goose chase here.

1) There is no such thing as 'partial panel' in modern aircraft. There are standby attitude indicators, but 'p p' refers to the old 'turn and slip' which can be used to fly in IMC, but is not fitted on modern a/c

2) I thought we had eliminated attitude indication problems way back?

a) I don't think a laser-ring gyro can 'exceed' any limits and 'tumble'
b) I don't believe there is ANY indication of IRS problems in the ACARS, nor would the pitot problem cause such
c) There would be a separate IRS based standby attitude indicator.

Now, back to conspiracy theories and paper poo-pots:ugh: It certainly is an advantage to be mad here.

[Shadoko]

Hi,

First, thanks to JD-EE for his answer in post #1671. Hope all these procedures always fullfilled (but not sure IMHPO).

And (one more...) question: in the first BEA interim report (1st June 2009), we can read both co-pilots have to wear corective lenses ("Medical certificate .../... with compulsory wearing of corrective lenses.", p.15 and 16). Have those corective lenses to be contact lenses or glasses? Could he (they) have lost them if a sudden movement happen?
What are the minimum visual performances for AF pilots without corrective lenses?

This question is NOT to charge pilots. But it HAVE TO happen something very crazy for downing this probably million flying hours a/c model.

[RR_NDB]

MurphyWasRight,

Not sure I see the point in trying to detect water/moisture inside the module when it is very low risk to open it and have a look.

Things other than water such as a cracked PCB that can also cause problems.

MurphyWasRight, as you know "Murphy´s law" never fail. My idea is:

1) More you know about the internal condition of the "pressure vessel" safer and faster will be the job of the investigators. And this IMHO is very important. Not just for the lengthy bureaucratic processes but to ASAP understand what happened (the global picture)
2) The PCB´s inside the well designed CSMU certainly are not prone to crack.

There is a picture i guess i posted earlier with the internal view of a "non cylindrical shape" of a similar CSMU for the SSFDR 4700, the one of F-GZCP.

Probably the cylindrical shaped is even better than the one showed in mfr. website.

[pax2908]

CG position: would it be possible now, using the full data from the FDR (since t/o), i.e. using the dynamic behaviour of the a/c, to calculate the CG more accurately and independently from the load sheet?