AF 447 Search to resume (part2)

[takata]

Hi SaturnV,

Originally Posted by 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]

AF 447 Recherche de reprendre (part2)

Bonjour,

Triste Exemple de Désinformation

Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : la piste d'une erreur de l'quipage Air France

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

[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]

Originally Posted by amos2

Translation please

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

[kit344]

17 May news on BEA website.

New press release on BEA site communiqué de presse 17 mai 2011 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]

Originally Posted by amos2

Translation please!

Google Translate

[amos2]

Thanks Cats!

[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...
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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by auraflyer

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]

Unauthorized guest

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/...ml#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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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