Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

AF447 wreckage found

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

AF447 wreckage found

Old 5th Aug 2011, 16:38
  #2621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

What do you want "explained" ?
It's the Honeywell part number and serial number of the FDR memory module.
Well ... put your spectacles again on your nose (or use binoculars)
The SN number of image and txt report are not corresponding (different !!)
Page 23
jcjeant is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 16:48
  #2622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by jcjeant
The SN number of image and txt report are not corresponding (different !!)
Of course they are not.

The image is of the CSMU, the memory module. The 'text' P/N and S/N is from the FDR chassis on which the CSMU was mounted.
KBPsen is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 17:01
  #2623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Of course they are not.

The image is of the CSMU, the memory module. The 'text' P/N and S/N is from the FDR chassis on which the CSMU was mounted.
If you right ... this is odd to the BEA to publish a image and a legend not corresponding ....
That's not serious ...

EDITED
And you no right !
For the FDR, only the protected unit (CSMU or memory module) was present. The CVR was
complete.

 Flight Data Recorder - FDR

 Manufacturer: Honeywell
 Model: 4700
 Part number (P/N): 980-4700-042
 Serial number (S/N): 11469
jcjeant is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 17:03
  #2624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,316
Originally Posted by KBPsen View Post
Of course they are not.
The image is of the CSMU, the memory module. The 'text' P/N and S/N is from the FDR chassis on which the CSMU was mounted.
Thanks KBPsen, I thought it was a genuine question, not another effort at a conspiracy theory 'à la Asseline'. I should have known better....
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 17:05
  #2625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Thanks KBPsen, I thought it was a genuine question, not another effort at a conspiracy theory 'à la Asseline'. I should have known better....
Read my post above !
jcjeant is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 17:28
  #2626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by jcjeant
That's not serious ...
So they should have published a picture of the FDR chassis that was neither found nor recovered? Who is it that is not being serious here?
KBPsen is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 17:44
  #2627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: asdf
Posts: 97
related to the thread:

AFP: Rio-Paris jet crash probe 'discredited': relatives
dlcmdrx is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 18:29
  #2628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 215
Do we know whether the FDR chassis was retrieved, or only the memory module?

Identifying a part that they didn't recover is confusing. If the identification is really based on an integrated component (the memory module), then additionally reporting the part /serial numbers of the memory module would seem sensible.
overthewing is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 18:46
  #2629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

So they should have published a picture of the FDR chassis that was neither found nor recovered? Who is it that is not being serious here?
Sorry but:
Or you don't understand .. or you are blind ..

They published a picture of a module .. and this with the legend FDR
This module on the picture have a plate with a SN
This SN is not 11469
And after they give the specifications (N°) of the FDR module (they have not the chassis)
The serial N° is 11469

For the FDR, only the protected unit (CSMU or memory module) was present. The CVR was
complete.

 Flight Data Recorder - FDR

 Manufacturer: Honeywell
 Model: 4700
 Part number (P/N): 980-4700-042
 Serial number (S/N): 11469
So I conclude this is not serious
This no rereading (verification) before the report release (no peers reviewed .. as it must be from a serious agency)

Last edited by jcjeant; 5th Aug 2011 at 19:01.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 18:49
  #2630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,470
PARIS — Victims' relatives and a pilots' union Wednesday said they had lost faith in a probe into the 2009 crash of an Air France jet that killed 228 people, alleging it sought to clear Airbus of responsibility.
The Goodrich probe or the Thales probe?

I note the semi-histrionic language, but I feel the pilot's union has a defensible point about the stall warning as possible factor influencing cockpit decisions during attempts at remedy/recovery.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 18:50
  #2631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 62
Posts: 0
Thank you for the clarification, so the "do you have your commercial license" is a procedural question and not a reflection of of the captains perception of his skills as an aviator. This leads me to a couple of follow up questions:

1) I always thought that routes like this one normally drew from a relatively small cadre of pilots with the seniority to bid on that route successfully, further that the crew origination was in Paris so this would be the return leg. I'd assume the captain would be aware of his crews credentials based on prior experience or would "interview" and review credentials for anyone he'd never flown with before flying with them....especially on a flight that called for him to be away from the flight deck at some point.

2) My second assumption is that in the event of any unusual circumstances the senior officer on the flight deck is in command in the captains absence regardless of who is "designated" as the "PF" (given both are in reality just monitoring systems). Once the AP kicked off and the 1st fault display occurred the senior FO had a clear cut responsibility to take control of the aircraft the moment he felt the need to correct the actions of the PF. Had he simply said "my aircraft" more then likely this would be no different then any other similar incident relating to A330/340 issues.

To me this is a clear cut failure in the command and control culture for the airline in question. I am also amazed that the captain did not immediately take his seat back. Regardless of any other circumstances for the aircraft to hit the water with the captain having never taken control of the aircraft speaks volumes about very serious cultural issues (again my opinion).

When you view this incident in the frightening context of its current representation it drives home the reality that we are on the cusp of some significant precipice. For a major "flag" carrier to have flight crew trained to such a low standard that they were incapable of handling what should have been a "minor emergency" is appalling. I can not fathom a company culture that would allow a more seasoned FO who actually knew what to do sitting by while he literally watched an obviously overwhelmed pilot kill not only himself but the souls for which he had responsibility in the captains absence.

While it might be possible to rationalize this accident within the context of a regional airline like Colgan, a "third world" airline like Libya (Afriqiyah) or a national flag carrier where significant cultural issues impede cockpit CRM (Turkish Airlines) how do you do so with a flagship western carrier?

To me it's a very clear wake up call that the obvious benefits and economies of automation have led us to a point of not only diminished returns but significant risk. When even major western carriers have reached a point where 5,000 hr FO's no longer have the fundamental skill set (and cockpit culture) to handle readily foreseeable contingencies.
SLFinAZ is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 18:53
  #2632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

The Goodrich probe or the Thales probe?
Probe in the context is "investigation" !

PARIS — Victims' relatives and a pilots' union Wednesday said they had lost faith in a probe (investigation - my edit) into the 2009 crash of an Air France jet that killed 228 people, alleging it sought to clear Airbus of responsibility.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 18:53
  #2633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: France
Posts: 191
From Le Figaro's inside source: Unpublished CVR

An article hinting at some of the dirt yet to be thrown, but possibly also explaining the sudden withdrawal of cooperation ...

Il est 0h15 à bord du vol AF 447. Alors que tous les avions présents sur la zone ont choisi ou vont choisir de modifier leur route pour éviter une zone de cumulonimbus, le commandant de bord du vol AF 447 dit à son collègue: «On ne va pas se laisser emmerder par des cunimbs.» Les «cunimbs» sont les cumulonimbus chargés de glace qui peuvent entraîner un givrage des sondes Pitot. L'AF 447 est le seul avion, la nuit du 1er juin, à avoir poursuivi sur une route rectiligne. Il ne modifiera sa trajectoire que de 12 degrés en arrivant à proximité du phénomène météo. Il sera alors trop tard pour l'éviter. Vingt minutes avant le crash, le commandant de bord annonce: «Ça va turbuler quand je vais aller me coucher.» Puis au moment de quitter le cockpit: «Bon allez, je me casse.» Le commandant de bord est donc allé se coucher en connaissance de cause juste avant les turbulences qui ont marqué le début du drame.
For the benefit of non-francophones, the quoted speech translates as "We're not going to let ourselves be messed about by some CNs [i.e. reason for not deviating] ... that'll be [pretty rough] when I go for my rest ... Right, I'm off."

According to the article this section of the recording was excluded from the interim report because "it didn't add to the explanation of what caused the accident". I suspect the criminal investigation will think otherwise. The inside source also reports that Air France is dragging its heels with regard to providing the BEA with full details of the crew's training. You'd almost wonder if someone in the BEA lost a relative in the crash and has decided there's no honour in protecting AirFrance just because it's French ...
CelticRambler is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 18:59
  #2634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

From Le Figaro's inside source: Unpublished CVR
If this is true .. it looks like the beginning of a funeral march for Air France as to the quality of its pilots and for the BEA about it's transparency ....
jcjeant is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 19:09
  #2635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Regarding the question about a license... does that mean you can be pilot in a major carrier WITHOUT the license??

In my profession you cannot even touch a patient under your own responsibility and without supervision without proper certification!
grimmrad is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 19:13
  #2636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,104
So, as I read that, in order to get the THS even to start moving back to a sensible angle, the Perpignan pilots (and later the AF447 ones) would have needed to shove the stick full forward and hold it there for quite a while, until the THS 'accepted the situation' and started moving back from 'full up.'
Not quite. Manual pitch trim should have been available in both cases.
Neptunus Rex is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 19:25
  #2637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by jcjeant
Sorry but:
Or you don't understand .. or you are blind ..
Or I am not seeing the reports as an opportunity to find fault no matter how contrived or twisted.

As you obviously do not know what a FDR looks like or is comprised of, let me educate you.

There is a chassis, a CSMU and a ULB. The CSMU is mounted on the chassis and the ULB on the CSMU. Each has it's own part and serial number.

The entire assembly is called FDR.

BEA shows the recovered part of the FDR, which is the CSMU. They also list the FDR from which it came by maker, model, part and serial number.

It is only in your biased layman's mind that there are any inconsistencies.
KBPsen is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 19:30
  #2638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Boo to the BEA

I am sorry, but I do think the BEA has lost a tremendous amount of credibility here in the withholding such information, IF THIS IS TRUE.

IF TRUE, the failure to deviate is very relevant to the accident (one of the Swiss Cheese holes), otherwise why publish the deviation map of the other flights. Many in all the threads have asked a fundamental question of "why did they not deviate?" To me this is as fundamental as "why the zoom climb?" in the understanding of this accident.

IT MAY NOT BE TRUE. I remember some reporting about the Captain rushing into the cockpit and saying "this is a stall." I have yet to see that.

So PF is a bad pilot he pulled up.
Now CAP is bad pilot he did not deviate and flunked a check ride or sorts.
Next watch out PNF.
thermalsniffer is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 19:41
  #2639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 73
I haven't seen anything that suggests any lack of integrity with the BEA investigation. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of desperate attempts to avoid pinning any responsibility on Air France and SNPL. I was given an insight today into just how deep the animosity and frustration runs regarding the stance adopted by Air France and SNPL. The rot started with the BS over the "conspiracy" at Habsheim and doesn't seem to have dissipated.
Jazz Hands is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 19:41
  #2640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

Regarding the question about a license... does that mean you can be pilot in a major carrier WITHOUT the license??

In my profession you cannot even touch a patient under your own responsibility and without supervision without proper certification!
Well ... with the question about license from the captain in mind .. seem's that is possible .. at least on AF aircrafts ...
It's also possible to have a false license (as shown in the past and not particular to Air France)

In my profession you cannot even touch a patient under your own responsibility and without supervision without proper certification!
I suppose it's the medical sector
It's not the first time that press reports shown a plumber touching a patient in a hospital .. and even practising for weeks before it was discovered
jcjeant is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.