AF447
 

Fine! I'll start with some thoughful advice:

Just a reminder that this was a real aircraft carrying real people which really crashed in a real ocean due to some real cause - while flying in the vicinity of real weather. Winning points of logic or quoting more unnamed sources than the other guy does not - in the long run - count for anything in the face of the tragic reality. We aren't a Talmudic debating society, there is no jury to persuade, and a "convincing" argument will still carry no water if, in the end, it does not match up with the real event. Which, we hope, will eventually become clear(er).

"No Captain is going to go through thunderstorms to stay...". = "No Captain is going to let his airliner stall while talking to other cockpit personnel while the speed decays" (Schipol, Buffalo) = "No Captain is going to land downwind on a short, high-altitude, rainslick runway" (Toncontin) = "No Captain is going to take off on an unlighted runway less than 1/2 the required length for his aircraft." (Lexington). Never say never....

At this point, almost anything is "possible", far fewer things are "probable" consistent with the limited evidence, and only one is "correct".

BTW, as a sometime reporter (yes, I confess) I find most of the press accounts quoted so far dismally below standard. We'd never quote someone else's "unnamed" source because there is no direct way to determine that source's credibility. We'd rarely even quote another publication's report, because we'd have no idea how competent - or lazy - that publication's reporters were.

>>>one more to close raise ur hand<<<

[journo raises hand.]

I want facts. I read nearly all the speculation on the original post. Now we wait. Some people contributed wise information, but it's time to go for coffee and check AF every so often for solid info.

While I never subscribed to the notion that some threads in PPRuNe should be limited to "experts", I think it is time to require some kind of qualifying standards just like Bluecoat, AVSIG. The reputation of PPRuNe is on the line here and something has to be done to retain the level of expertise and intelligent, thoughtful discourse.

The focus should be on learning and enquiry as opposed to the diarhea that followed the re-opening of the thread. I think it is time to find some way to qualify participants for certain threads. Not most, but some - qualifying is a least another layer of entry which may assist in raising the level of the dialogue.

In a world that has flattened all experience, training and "time in" and which permits an unbridled, automatic disrespect of the thoughts, opinions and offerings of those who do this work including those who fly transport aircraft safely thousands of times every day without result, thanks to all the other unsung professionals, it is time to take back what Sully and others have shown to those who have no clue that they have no clue, what aviation itself has lost.

The internet experience and presence of "instant experts" have done a lot of serious damage, not to aviation but to society. They have neutered and otherwise destroyed through anonymity, the ability to feel, think and sense as a human being. In this, "pattern_is_full" is absolutely correct but then goes on to break his/her own rule. There were people, families, "our" families, on every accident we choose to discuss here and because we are anonymous and because we have been digitally separated from our humanity, we can proceed as if we are discussing an ordinary, everyday occurence. We are not.

We are not discussing dinner or when to pick up the kids from school, but it is absolutely plain from the nature of most contributions that many simply never read these threads beyond the page they're on and instead shove an oar in without the slightest bit of thought or feeling. In a thread and a forum which is serious about aviation and it's issues, that kind of discourse is simply unacceptable and at times, shameful. It is certainly not what I joined PPRuNe for.

From day one, the AF thread was and is, deeply embarrassing for those who are experienced professionals in aviation, engineering and human factors. It is time to come up with a fix that helps us retain the great value that has been PPRuNe.

PJ2

I think I agree but, it has to be said, a new thread will appear after each exorcism 'cos that's the nature of the beast.

PJ2 is a much respected trainer and is fed upness is understandable but even that doesn't change the basic reason of PPRuNe.

Do you have a source for this at all? Who did they report this to?

Meteorite
 

Has everyone now discounted the Meteorite theory now ?


Clearly you are aware how much work these threads are causing for the mods yet you still chose to create a new persona and post this idiotic comment. Take a forum ban for a week, perhaps the temptation of this thread will have dissipated by the time you come back.

Duck

No one has discounted a meteorite theory... or a bomb... or a fire... or aliens for that matter! What we will be discussing is known facts based on reliable sources and educated theorising. :ugh:

Legislating for quality debate
 

PJ2, as a one-time PPL but full-time scholar of public discourse, I absolutely understand the frustration of informed professionals like you, but no amount of 'cleansing' is going to stop this. From my experience across many media, and from my observations of PPruNe, you can't legislate for quality. Instead, IMHO, what works is the public availability of information sources that do not have a vested interest, such that competing views get fed into forums like this.

Compare this thread with the Buffalo Q400 thread, or the Hudson ditching. What characterises those threads is not that the people commenting were any less fallibly human, but that many of those fallible fellow-creatures who did leap in had instantaneous access to high quality, publicly-available tracking, ATC and other data direct from the sources. While even the Buffalo thread, nonetheless, descended at times into ill-informed nonsense about tail-stalls etc, the base level quality information was there.

Now look at things like the EK tailstrike incident at MEL. No publicly available data sources -- the only source was EK themselves and the Australian authorities, plus some quick-thinking MEL groundcrew -- and the quality there is likewise poor. The same is panning out in the AF447 case - little publicly available alternative sources of data with the notable exception of some fantastic meteo analysis. It is not surprising that the quality discussion is on the meteo facts, on which there is good, alternative-source data; the crap is based on information drip fed without alternatives by AF and the Brazilian military.

Given all that, we should either be lobbying for flight data to be publicly available worldwide; or we should give up and have some sort of professional pilots only forum. How you would get that is something I can't tell you; whether that would be a good thing, given the excellent meteo, engineering and retired pilot contributions made every day, is another matter entirely.

The short-term lesson -- if you're going to have a good quality discussion forum, pray no-one in the media finds it. Once they do, you not only attract them, you attract all the goons have made the AF447 discussion the mess it is today.

I assume the probability of all these "theories" is the same as the case of 3 (three) ADIRUs failing, close to 10exp-9 (for those of you better versed in the terminology). For others - 10exp-9 is close to 0. In general, reliability and maintainability analysis usually treats this as a non-existent case, only theoretically possible.

In addition, for all the speculations regarding structural capability of A330-200, documentation on certification of that article is widely available. Simply said this airplane was tested (and proven airworthy) as per relevant transport aircraft category requirements (Part 25). Everything outside of the tested envelope is purely theoretical and can be covered with additional documentation from delegated authority (EASA in this case).

Everything else is unfounded speculation.

Just 2p from the structural/certification side.

Cheers

AF447 SAR effort
 

At roughly 1300LT the first Brazilian Navy vessel to arrive at one of the debris fields (patrol ship NPa Grajau) began collecting items found floating in the water. Regrettably, none of the items could positively be identified as coming from AF447.

Among other items retrieved were a 1.2m x 1.2m wooden bed for pallets and two buoys - and none of these carried any sort of inscription, stencilled data or a mfg. plate indicating its origin.

Unfortunately, the Brazilian Navy press release does not clearly indicate which of the three debris fields was being surveyed by the NPa Grajau.

Cheers

I think Danny was right about the first thread. I think that's the first time I've said he was right about anything.

For the record, the "speed" story in Le Monde says ONLY that Airbus and BEA are going to issue a bulletin today (4th June) that Airbus crew should maintain thrust - conserver la poussée des réacteurs - during difficult weather conditions - en cas de conditions météorologiques difficiles.

That's the first paragraph. Everything else in the story is Brazilian newspapers quoting each other reporting the same bloody ACARS sequence everyone reported days ago. They also say that Alternate Law is an emergency power supply. :suspect: Further, they say that the various Brazilian papers involved have really good sources in AF.

Well, I'd be stunned if anyone had better sources in AF or indeed in any other big French seminationalised industry than Le Monde, which is after all a Gaullist postwar national project itself, and like most of them does a damn good job.

I find post #2 by huskerdu very interesting indeed.

In other words, the oil spill has nothing to do with AF-447 :confused:

Has Airbus Industrie issued anything yet, and if so, is it in line with what Le Monde etc. is claimed to have published? If the theory is a reasonable explanation, I guess pilots understand what it implies, and it is exactly the sort of post-analysis theorising that Danny wants.

A plea from a non-professional viewer...
 

From a first-time (and probably last-time) poster:
While I earned an Aeronautical Engineering in France in the early 70's and saw lots of friends go work in the industry (Airbus, Boeing and all their subcontractors), I chose a different professional path (IT) and therefore would NOT dare to contribute any opinions or comments to this forum, as I have no working experience on most of the topics.
However, I have kept a fond interest in anything related to aviation, and while I have not kept up with all the technological progress of aviation, I have enough educational background on it to understand and learn, and I enjoy immensely the information, debates and arguments presented by the true professionals, even the barbs thrown at the French, the friendly rivalry between US and Europe, etc.
My plea is to not close the forum to non-professionals, but if you need to establish some type of credentials to allow posting and eliminate all the nonsense, to let the "rest of us" read the posts only, rather than exclude us altogether.
Thank you,
Gérard :ok:

The best way to find out, is email nasa @ NASA - Contact NASA as they near enougth keep track of anything bigger than a golf ball, so surely if somebody types them an email and asks if they tracked anything orbiting in the direction at LEO for a Re-Entry that would reach earths surface near enougth were AFR447 was, there might be a chance to prove that theory.

As I say NASA keep track of anything like this, with radars to help keep the ISS on its LEO out of the way, becuase at 25,000mph a golf ball could destroy the whole thing.

Just to add, something such as debris from the recent Sattelites de-orbitting, there trajectories place them in either the atlantic or pacific from there LEO to Re-entry to final phase.

Grunf, I think you are referring to the design criteria of a failure per 10^9 operational hours. You also mention probability. The probability of all three ADIRU's failing at once is more like 10^9*10^9*10^9!

That was probably about "Garbage Island" which is located in the Pacific. There have been a lot of articles on that recently as well as a few documentaries. If a plane went down there they would have a lot of trouble figuring out what is from the accident and what is just garbage floating out there.

Just a quick search shows that there are a few similar "oceanic gyres" in the Atlantic, though as yet there do not seem to be reports of garbage islands forming there - Oceanic Gyres - of course that does not mean they are not there.

Accident Information Telex - Accident Information Telex

Subject: A330-200 AF447 accident

Airbus regrets to inform that an A330-200 aircraft operated by Air France has been involved lost over the Atlantic during flight AF447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, CDG on June 1st 2009.

The missing aircraft, registration number F-GZCP bearing MSN 660 was delivered to Air France in April 2005 and had logged over 18800 flight hours and 2500 flight cycles. It was powered by General Electric CF6-80E1 engines.

Preliminary report indicates that communication with the aircraft was lost over the Atlantic after approximately 3.5 hours since departure.
Further information is not available at this time. In particular the exact location of the aircraft has still to be identified.

According to available information, there were 216 passengers and 12 crew members on board.

In line with international ICAO Annex 13 convention, Airbus has offered full technical assistance to the investigation board which should be the French BEA (Bureau Enquêtes et Analyses) as the aircraft is registered in France and has been presumably lost over international waters.

The concerns and sympathy of Airbus go to the families, friends and loved ones affected by the accident.

Further update will be provided as soon as reliable information is available and Airbus is authorised to release them.

----------------------------------------------

ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX

SUBJECT: AF447 ACCIDENT INTO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN

This AIT is an update of the previous AIT n°1 concerning the AF447 accident into the Atlantic ocean on June 1st, 2009.

In line with the ICAO Annex 13 recommendations, the French investigation Board - BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) is leading the technical investigation, with accredited representatives from the Brazilian Investigation Board and US NTSB, with Airbus providing technical support.

The following data have been approved for release by the French BEA.

The route of the aircraft was crossing a tropical multicell convective area at the time of the accident.

Failure/ maintenance messages have been transmitted automatically from the aircraft to the airline maintenance center.

The above mentionned messages indicate that there was inconsistency between the different measured airspeeds. Therefore and without prejudging the final outcome of the investigation, the data available leads Airbus to remind operators what are the applicable operational recommendations in case of unreliable airspeed indication.

The following operational procedures are available for the Airbus

Aircraft Type :

-A300: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 8.05.10;
-A310: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 2.05.80;
-A300-600: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 2.05.80;
-A318/A318/A320/A321 family: QRH 2.15 thru 2.18A, FCOM 3.02.34;
-A330/A340 Family: QRH 2.21 thru 2.23B , FCOM 3.02.34;
-A380: ECAM not-sensed procedures, FCOM - Procedures / ECAM

Abnormal and Emergency Procedures / 34 Navigation.

An update on the accident data will be provided as soon as further valuable information is approved for release by the Investigation Board.
-A300: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 8.05.10;
-A310: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 2.05.80;
-A300-600: QRH 13.01 thru 13.03, FCOM 2.05.80;
-A318/A318/A320/A321 family: QRH 2.15 thru 2.18A, FCOM 3.02.34;
-A330/A340 Family: QRH 2.21 thru 2.23B , FCOM 3.02.34;
-A380: ECAM not-sensed procedures, FCOM - Procedures / ECAM

Abnormal and Emergency Procedures / 34 Navigation.

An update on the accident data will be provided as soon as further valuable information is approved for release by the Investigation Board.

ZuluKilo66;

A thoughtful and welcome post, thanks.

I don't advocate exclusion, nor do I think that "cleansing" is the right thing. The most important aspect of discourse of any kind is a willing suspension of judgement and ego in favour of thought-full curiosity. Implied in that stance is a wholesome respect for those that know more than one, (I very much include myself in the latter category because I have learned a great deal from others about my own profession - I even include non-specialists who ask intelligent, seeking questions without pronouncing from afar).

I realize the job of creating another layer of qualification is a headache and another layer of rules. It can be done and has been but the sad thing is, a lot of very good learning is lost to those who may benefit the most when a thread is locked away from them. How does one judge while keeping the prole-factor down?

The key here, and it cannot be controlled (nor should it) but it can be engendered in an air of expectant reserve, is a modicum of self-discipline and plain old manners; - but we live in an age when such personal, human qualities are not only eschewed but intentionally trampled upon because, it is perceived, that "in-yer-face" trumps courtesy in a badly mistaken notion that "loud and rude is right". Take a look at the model that all television and not just public atrocities like Fox, offer as examples of attention-getting, argument-for-the-sake-of-it. Geraldo is calm by today's standards, but we see such qualities right here and I think it is unacceptable behaviour, (that someone would even express this is, in itself, a foreign and even "controlling" notion to many).

The agenda, as I perceive it, is a serious discussion for aviation people of all backgrounds and for those with a serious interest which they nurture and not just shove out into the public sphere for the sake of filling silence. Such a discussion should welcome disagreement but not ego.

Such a change would go a long way to re-civilizing the public discourse, (fascinating topic in it's own right).

Gerard13;
I have no say but that would be exactly my plea as well - perhaps even looser than that to keep the administration reasonable. For me there are no "the rest of us"; it's a subtle difference, a shift rather than a rule, that I would advocate.

I'll post this one more time only...

This thread is about the AF447 crash. If you want to debate the pro's and con's of closed forums/threads or limiting them to whoever, then there are plenty of threads on this website where those debates have taken place. Use the search function.

The points have been made and now, any more posts that are not about the thread subject or are outside the guidelines I specified in the old thread then you are wasting your time posting on here.

The rest of the mods and I need a break from continual monitoring of this thread. There may be periods when there is no one monitoring it and hence some posts will be made that deserve to be deleted but won't be until a mod gets a chance to review it. Either report the post using the 'report a post' link (bottom left corner of every post) or else ignore it and it will be dealt with eventually. If you post a response about a post you think shouldn't be here we only have to go and delete that too and it makes extra work for us. So, if you find you've been banned from posting on a thread, you'll have some idea why.

A high-ranked FAB official just confirmed on TV that those debris did not belong to AF 447, including the fuel patch. And the pallets used by that flight where made of aluminum, not wood.

I didn't want to participate in the rather ghoulish and idiotic mass of speculations by an awful number of self-appointed armchair accident investigation experts but as Danny changed the rules, here is some interesting factual information given by the French France2 channel.

Somehow, they managed to get the ACARS summary print-outs and had someone very briefly comment on them.

Here is how to get it :
france2.fr
then click on the "INFO" tab
then on the very small "JT" tab underneath (meaning journal televise)
then chose the 20 H - that's the eight o'clock news.
The two pages are quite clearly readable on time frames 5.50 and 6.45.and you don't need to understand French !
But they don't seem to have the complete list of faults.
What these messages show, however, is that events happened quickly, so people who know the 330 can now have a better picture of the events preceding the disappearance of flight 447.

" there was inconsistency between the different measured airspeeds. Therefore and without prejudging the final outcome of the investigation, the data available leads Airbus to remind operators what are the applicable operational recommendations in case of unreliable airspeed indication. "

Discuss

Question for A330 Rated Pilots !
 

Dear all !
Just to understand I think quite reasonable that they experienced a "Doble flame out" during the severe turbulence. Since they were flying on FL 330/350 they were unable to start the APU ( Elec Emergency ) and must fly with Stand-by instruments without Radar. Is this correct ? If so it sounds quite mandatory do Descent in order to start the APU. At night, with stand-by instruments and without Radar and flying inside the CB it seems a reasonable explanation of what happened. It makes sense ?
Thanks

Brief screengrab from above mentioned article. Sorry about quality but I'm sure someone with better skils will post it all eventually:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/19d08b3cb8.gif

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/67a469dac1.gif

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/acdb559ad4.gif

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/e2635fe88c.gif

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8569ff6b66.gif

AF447 reported INTOL at 0133z, next TASIL ETA 0223z, FL350 GS 543KT.

If the above is accepted as matter of record, then the ACARS 0214z position at 3 34 40N 30 33 28W placed the a/c on track at 331nm past INTOL at an average speed made good of 484KT. The much mentioned ACARS crew report at 0200z indicating heavy turbulence was 27min past INTOL, and assuming that 540KT had been maintained to this point, then over the next 14 minutes the average GS was 385KT.

Without speculation as to what may or may not have happened after 0214, the a/c was at that point most likely still heading 028T (046M) and should structural damage have resulted in the break-up of the a/c, debris would normally be found in an arc +/- 30 degrees of the final heading and at point from the last known position based on the expected trajectory of individual items (if more than one).

No one seems to have asked why the original debris reports were in positions that didn't follow any of the basic rules mentioned above.

It would seem that for those reported debris position(s) to be correct, the a/c would need to have made a right 180 degree turn - something I doubt would have happened in the circumstances. A 5 - 15 degree bank would seem not to be a controllable option in what may have been CB cell shear.

mm43

On marine debris, and the difficulty in finding debris related to AF447 - to gauge the task facing those trying to find the aircraft, the following link may be of interest:

Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The location of the 0214 message, as compared to the closest "island" - the rocks of St Peter & St Paul, 322km away - from: 3 34 40N 30 33 28W to: St Peter and St Paul Rocks - Google Maps


A slightly higher-quality screen-grab (click):

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uplo...d46500191c.png

Curious to hear from an Airbus engineer (ie without speculation) what they all mean.



(I have to say that this thread is refreshing, having actually read the previous one from the Quest school of journalism.)

For what it's worth, I've been watching the ship tracker site, and there was a cluster of ships that lingered around the equator at 30W. That is where the news reports have said debris was found, and it is to the right and back of the flight path projected by your suggestion.

Ship locations

If they have in fact found debris at that location, then the aircraft would have diverted from its projected course.

This is an opinion extracted from a captain of Iberia who flies A346 usually routing EZE-MAD.
pilotosdeiberia.com :: Ver tema - Pedida contacto radar Airbus 330 de Air France en Brasil

The ACARS summary
 

This is what I could gather :
at 0210Z : from bottom to top :
- AUTO FLT AP OFF
-F/CTL ALTN LAW
- FlAG ON Capt PFD
- FLAG ON F/O PFD
- AUTO FLT ATHR OFF
- NAV TCAS FAULT
- FLAG ON CAPT PFD
- FLAG ON F/O PFD
- F/CTL RUD TRV LIM FAULT
- EFCS2...1..EFCS1...AFS
- EFCS1...X2..EFCS2X

at 0211Z :
- FLAG ON CAPT PFD
- FLAG ON F/O PFD

at 0212z:
- NAV ADR DISAGREE
- ISIS ....ISIS
- IR2...1,EFCS1X, IR1, IR3

at 0213Z :
- F/CTL PRIM1 FAULT
- F/CTL SEC1 FAULT
- AFS 1 FMGEC1

at 0214z:
- MAINTENANCE STATUS
- ADVISORY.../...
Is this a chain of events (meaning related ? ) ?
Is it indicative of a major electrical fault ? of crew manipulation ? a fire ? or a structural failure ?
If the order of the faults is accurate, is the A/P disconnect from the pilots or is it an indication of an extreme upset or one or several sensors ?
Your opinions, please.

My interpretation of the screen caps
 

MAINTENANCE STATUS
MAINTENANCE STATUS
1,EFCS1,AFS,
X2,EFCSX,,,,,
FLAG ON CAPT PFD
FLAG ON F/O PFD
NAV ADR Disagree
1,,,,,,,ISIS (22F??
1,EFCS1X,IR1,IR3
CTL PRIM 1 Fault
CTL SEC 1 Fault

MAINTENANCE STATUS
1,,,,,,,FMGS????
ADVISORY


MAINTENANCE STATUS
VSC X2,,,,,,,LAV CONF
AUTO FLT AP OFF
AUTO FLT
CTL ALTN LAW
FLAG ON CAPT PFD
FLAG ON F/O PFD
AUTO FLT A/THR OFF
NAV TCAS FAULT
FLAG ON CAPT PFD
FLAG ON F/O PFD
CTL RDO TRV LIM FAULT


The last group appears to be page 2 of 3

I would say, yes, related faults. I'd also not put any great store by the precise sequencing within each 'group' - ACARS may be reporting them in its own order, not necessarily the order that they actually occurred in. (If two systems were to fail simultaneously, for example, ACARS still has to send one first.)

I wouldn't be surprised if a common cause for the 0210Z "group" was found to be an airspeed system malfunction. I believe that airspeed miscompares will drop the aircraft into Alt Law, kick the AT and AP off and would not be surprised if the rudder limiter posts a fault when it loses the airspeed data needed to schedule the limit with speed (I know of a case where that would happen on another type).
That only leaves the various 'FLAG' messages - and I'd imagine that faulty/failing air data sources would be flagged on the PFDs, so that could be the source too - and the TCAS message. I would not be at all surprised to find that an airdata error could trigger a TCAS fault of some kind.

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...47-ACARS_1.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...47-ACARS_2.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...47-ACARS_3.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...47-ACARS_4.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...47-ACARS_5.jpg

you have to start from the bottom of the page and the time flags are on the left of the messages with the dates and the zulu times .
The two bottom messages are from the previous flight.

Diver BR wrote:

Without links to sources, this is still confusing. Here:

DISPARITION DE L'AF 447 : Les avions français n'ont toujours rien découvert, actualité Défense ouverte : Le Point

a French airforce officer involved in the search is directly quoted as saying that *in the sector allocated to French SAR*, what little has been found does not come from any aircraft. He emphasises that the French and Brazilian forces, though co-ordinated, are searching different sectors.

Earlier today there were French and Brazilian newspaper reports (which, true to form, just referenced each other as sources....) that some aircraft wreckage had been recovered by Brazilian SAR from its sector, wreckage including a part of a baggage container:

AIRBUS A330 : Le Brésil annonce la récupération d'un morceau de soute, actualité Société : Le Point

So, is there a *link to a source* clarifying whether both French and Brazilian SAR now say they have have found nothing, or whether it's just the French who have found nothing, with the Brazilians having made a potential find of part of AF 447?

AGB
[just adding, as a French language note, that in an earlier post on the other AF 447 thread, I mis-translated French "assiette" as "attitude", whereas I'm now told that, for aviation, it means precisely "angle of pitch".]

Looking at the posted faults i'm curious...

I know (from 411 here) that the 330 has various safeguards built in to protect the airframe in normal law. Not fully understanding the complexities or variation when switched to alternate law I have 2 questions.

1) Can you tell if its abnormal alternate law (unusual attitude) or ALTLAW:PROT Lost (computer issues if my understanding is correct). From what I gather the flight control modifications are a bit different in each. It would also seem to indicate if an upset was the trigger for the AP disconnect or came later....

2) the last fault is the CTL RUD TRV LMT FAULT, is this an indicator that the control limit has faulted out or an indication of excessive rudder travel. I know that rudder use at high speeds is a very delicate undertaking and that the software normally dampens inputs. From what I read on the locked post under abnormal alt yaw is mechanical and controlled by direct law...is that correct?

Bbc - Debris Not From Air France
 

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Debris 'not from Air France jet'

Debris recovered from the Atlantic by Brazilian search teams does not come from a lost Air France jet, a Brazilian air force official has said.
Brig Ramon Borges Cardoso contradicted earlier reports that debris had been found, saying "no material from the plane has been recovered".
A wooden cargo pallet was taken from the sea, but the Airbus A330 had no wooden pallets on board.









The above has just been released by the Bbc .

Can i ask What would happen if the aircraft or black box's are not recovered or ever traced in relation to the investigation into this accident ?


I mean do the Air accident investigators still proceed with their investigation when they have no actual physical evidence ?

Could they actually issue a report ?


Im no expert but surely there are legal ramifications for things like familys getting death certificates etc

For the time being, we only have a few factual informations :
- The flight was at FL 350
- Just after 0200z, the captain informs base that he's experiencing some serious turbulence (we don't know the exact terms)
- A weather study confirms some active convection and flight 447 is in the middle of a "bad" zone.
- A summary of the maintenance messages has been released.

Now, these messages (and I stress that they're only the "title" of the actual message ) can be expanded as they could give us , if not the detailed fault, the faulty component, and for that we have to use the ATA list of chapters appearing on the left of the title :For instance, 2283....FLAG on CAPT PFD points toward a warning linked with ATA 22, i.e AUTO FLIGHT. and the ...213100206 ADVISORY message on top of the last picture provided by Machaca relates to ATA 21 Air Conditioning and pressurization, item 31 : Pressurization control... 00206 should be the exact value of the code.
That is very probably the origin of the CAB Vertical Speed that some papers have reported.

As you see, quite a lot of information could be derived from thse sheets.
Problem is, as a pilot I don't have access to the maintenance manuals and the complete ATA listings.
Furthermore, it could be interesting to go back to each item and plot its power source from the electrical chapter and see whether there is one Bus that could be identified...
With the sort of FCOM we have been provided, it's going to be rather long.

Question please
 

I'll provide my credentials to any moderator on request.

Does the ACARS line item ISIS at 0211 indicate a fault in the Integrated Standby Instrument System, or that it is what is remaining? I suspect the former, please confirm.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/715/acarsaf447.png

When this reproduction was originally posted to this forum (June 5th, 04:09 BST) it contained a number of typographical inaccuracies. The most significant error was in copying the ATA section code for the 0211Z "ISIS" report. The inaccuracy was brought to my attention during the late afternoon on 5th and a replacement posted at approximately 20:00. A further typographical inaccuracy existed in the 0213Z "FMGEC1" report where "FMGKC1" had been typed.

On June 18th a copy of the facsimile presented by France2 was made available. On further comparing the reproduction, the following corrections were made:

• Page "29" changed to "14" on the second page.
• "REG" changed to "MSG" in two places (header field)
• "DEN" changed to "DBN" in the previous flight report line
• "??OT ENT" changed to "SECT.ENT" in two places (header field)
• A single digit, originally characterised by a question mark to denote uncertainty, was identified in the previous flight report as the number "8"
• A forward slash was added above the words "Libelle succint" in two places
• A zero was removed from the sequence code in the 0210Z "FLAG ON CAPT PFD" report.

See related posting addressing queries about the document's authenticity on June 17th.