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

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

Huck, it was not a C check...

Yes I do!

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

Pitching up and down before diving down.

Seems like an Alpha prot.

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

Dani

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

PA 804

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

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

320 Down
 

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

For those of you only interested in the know facts not speculation I would recommend reading the report at the Avherald(.I am in no way associated with the website--I just value clear reporting of facts.)
The Aviation Herald

Before the speculation starts...

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

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

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

CJ

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

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

People is looking.....

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

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

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

... without even double-checking:

and 3 lines below:
Take-off in Z time, crash in local time?

Possible.
The crash was about 16:45 local, anyway.

CJ

Remember the A330 accident at Toulouse...?
 

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

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

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

A330 Comparison
 

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

It has only just begun. Remember?

Mixed operators?
 

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

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

AP reports black boxes have been located

The Associated Press: French locate black boxes after Airbus crash

To the New Zealand Media
 

Please get your information from the official sources.
Air New Zealand is putting press releases out every few hours and they can be found here Media Releases - 2008 - Cheap Flights, Airfares & Holidays - Air New Zealand Official Site - NZ.

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

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

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

Taipei Times - archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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