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.

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?

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:

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?

New Questions
 

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?

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?

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.

Listening out the CVR
 

Airwise publication
 

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

No Urgent Safety Worries From Air France Black Box

Translating French
 

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)

Wow.
 

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.

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.

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

Translating French
 

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

Translation
 

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.

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

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.

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.

@ Dont Hang Up

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

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

Just Turn Over the Data
 

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."

Why So Long to Synchronize?
 

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.

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

"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"

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

^^^^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.

vanHorck
 

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.

Security | Define Security at Dictionary.com

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??

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.

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

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

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

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.

There Will Be No Instant Coffee
 

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

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.

TurbineD

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

TD
 

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 .......

Bearfoil 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.

Why so long to synchronize?
 

I don't understand this?

From the CVR System Description Note:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.