LF is equivalent to the National Enquirer? Their sensationalistic claims seem to belong within the latter's frame of reference. (That's especially true given their apparent data input they chewed up and regurgitated in a scrambled sensationalist form.)

I thought I remembered that but I was not sure. I, too, figured it was an O-Ring keeping out the water. But I was not sure if they meant a bakeout without opening or after or both. (Again, I'd have done both. I'd not want to open the mailing tube and contaminate what was inside.)

Actually if it got wet inside I'd expect it to be VERY wet. And semiconductors do not like VERY wet at all. I'd expect the memory to have its own packaging. But that would be nothing to 3900 meters of ocean. If the O-Ring leaked an effective hydraulic machining effect would enlarge the hole and fill the tube. Hence, I suspect it was dry inside. Or else they got heroically lucky.

I'm posting this because to me it seems very plausible, plus the source is one I trust and have trusted with my life.

I had a rather enlightening conversation today with said source who from another friend who is in a similarly senior position in a relevant and related business has heard the following, and I paraphrase:

The sequence of events leading to this tragedy appear incredibly trivial: Two young F/O's left at the controls, discussing a two day layover in Rio with a couple of flight attendants present on the flight deck (most PAX asleep), are completely unaware of where they are headed weather wise.

Sad if that's what led up to this, and a serious self management challenge...

Le Figaro replies to BEA ...

So lets see

YOU ---------> SAID SOURCE --------> SAID SOURCES FRIEND----------> SAID SOURCES FRIENDs FRIENDs (OVERHEARD FROM ANOTHER SOURCE).

Sounds like a game of Chinese whisper :sad:

Chris and Mac, thank you very much for that info re the CVR.

ZeeDoktor, how sad if you are right. Somewhat reminiscent of delta 1141.

:ugh: No, read the search reports

First they searched in the right area but didn't find anything - why is still unknown, either both pingers failed or the search method failed. They didn't fail due to not looking in the right place - they looked and failed to find.

Then they looked in an area calculated from wreckage drift - not a simple calculation, took a lot of people a lot of work to do it, and it wasn't right. Bad luck - not an easy area of ocean.

Then they went back to the first search area, to look again, and this time found the wreckage

Looking at what LF and perhaps others others are now pointing at - let us remind ourselves about the sparse communications & reporting for some time before and 'apparent' flight into what looks like an intense area of the storm (with just a small diversion late in the day c.f. other flights that night).

HN39;

There's a fair bit of fancy foot work in that story. How to extract yourself from the s**t and come up smelling of roses! On the other hand, the boot is still well and truely being planted into Air France.:hmm:

@Wannabeflyer: Well it is a rumour forum isn't it... ;-)

Still, I'm not in the habit of posting utter nonsense...

If what I heard indeed turns out to be true, there will be a whole new set of self management and CRM issues we all need to address (not just AF).

Having been doing electronics design since the 1970s I am impressed by the survival of the data.

IMHO, either the memory chips are in a separate sealed module (which can itself withstand great pressure) or the cylindrical capsule did not leak.

If the chips themselves got wet, under the 4km pressure, for 2 years, there would be nothing left because the data is stored in the form of microscopic charged capacitors, and the only protection is the ~ 1mm thick plastic package.

If however the PCB was encapsulated in a suitable epoxy, and this was done under a vacuum to avoid any air-filled voids (which would collapse under the 4km pressure and destroy the module) then the PCB could have survived the total immersion.

It would be interesting to know how these things are made.

It's awfully hard to make a watertight package which can hold 4km pressure for 2 years and which uses just o-rings...

Well i for one am glad Le Figaro (and ZeeDooktor's friend's friend friend:)) has very nicely wrapped this up in very simple layman's terms. This convenient leak has absolved the aircraft, airbus/EADS and AF leaving only the crew to swing. Surprised? I'm not. This 'news' of crew screw up will become the one accepted 'fact' with little attention on the before and after (swiss cheese). The real story is the seconds and minutes before and after initial upset, importantly, why were they unable to recover?

This was not an inexperienced crew, even if their actions lead them in, the real story still lies in what they were trained for and obviously how airbus logic and design works when things go pear shaped. Again, these are billion euro questions and answers that may never see the light of day given we MAY have pilots talking about a weekend in Rio w cabin crew (let's hope some mention of sex was included). Much easier to understand and accept by Joe public who want a sound bite or tweet.

This Le Figaro leak is doing exactly Everything needed by those who have the most at risk....BEA is not obliged to respond w any additional information or answer any difficult questions, AF and Airbus the same. The sooner this 'fact' is spread the sooner the story is accepted and forgotten leaving the crew at fault alone. I hope LF digs deeper and does not leave things as they are.

Not sure if I agree with that! It seems that the actions of the pilots are directly attributed to AF SOP's...which have been under scrutiny for some time. When all is said and done, IMHO the airline will be to blame just as much as the pilots....

Joe public doesn't really care... it's those that stand to sue AIB or AF for an epic fail on their part. Of course those parties have a vested interest.

Occam's razor once again: Complex and rare systems failure vs. inattentive crew cockup. It sadly comes back to the latter time and time again.

The problem needs addressed (and has needed addressed for ages) how to avoid these kinds of mishaps. I fear until we are flying 100% automated from gate to gate, there's always ample room for human error of this dimension.

So a first scan of the DFDR data has not revealed a systems malfunction other than those already known from the ACARS messages, at least not one that requires immediate action;

So the BEA is going to have a look at the CVR;

Is that a leak?

@ Katlpax (and others)
 

About the "Leaker) - He was interviewed on TV recently, partly to boost a book he has written whose main theme seems to be to attack Air France as being a creaky organisation with a lot of "old school" people on board, resistant to change and anything which might possibly weaken their own position.
Thus, he seems to have been tempted to use the "Nothing to Report" telex from Airbus to announce that, therefore, the AF crew must be to blame, because of failings within the airline. (And to get attention for his apparently tendendtious book).
No wonder the BEA was incensed.
Personally, I thought Le Figaro was one of the more reliable papers, but then, I haven't read it for a long time. Other papers seem to have held their horses, and rightly so.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/graph/...ASH-AF-447.jpg

I note Figaro's graphic borrows from the BEA interactive where one could see the routings of other planes that night. However, for reasons known only to the BEA, the BEA no longer references LH507 which preceded AF447 along the UN873 airway by 20 minutes, nor (if I recall correctly) does the interactive include IB6024 which followed AF447 on UN873 by 12 minutes. Instead, the BEA interactive mostly plots flights on a parallel airway over a 100 NM distant.

Both the LH and IB deviated off the track because of the weather, and one would think their deviations would be the most relevant to what AF447 did not do. The benign explanation for the 'disappearance' of LH507 and IB6012 from the BEA reports is that their experience, including the communication they had with ATLANTICO, is directly relevant to AF447, and the BEA does not want to describe or discuss it further at this time.
___________

The five questions center on the actions of the crew and AF procedures.

4km is about 6000psi, and according to Wikipedia - Hydraulic Machinery:

I'm not saying that building one of these memory modules is a simple task, but then again pressures in the 6000psi region are common in hydraulic machinery. I believe the A380 hydraulics operate at 5000psi.

As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?

I don't actually think the Le Figaro reply is of any value and worthy of any attention. I did post that human beings do strange and unaccountable things but I am not prepared to assign blame or responsibility for this incident to the flight deck crew based on what has come out. I am also happy to trust BEAs conclusions - I do not buy any of the rubbish posted about bias, it is just that rubbish. BEA has always been a reliable entity on accident reporting and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool (and no I have absolutely no connection with BEA). When I was young I was taught that patience is a virtue and this is something I continue to believe. Let us wait shall we?

ZeeDoktor


The third or 4th hand rumor you posted would fit quite nicely in the Rumor and News section.

However, it won't stand up to technical scutiny until it is connected to the loss of flight control itself.

It simply explains a possible reason for the contribution of weather which has been discussed forever in the old thread.

Since day 1 there has always been the question of possible pilot and aircraft reactions to weather.

The mystery continues until facts are linked.

Airbus Yesterday Statement
 

Hi,
As nobody posted it, here is Airbus official statement about those Figaroleaks which are revealing... well, nothing but very old stuff!
It was dated from yesterday: Statements*| Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer
_______________________________
Airbus statement regarding media reports about the AF447 investigation

17 May 2011
Some recent media reports about the AF447 accident mention an information note issued by Airbus to its customers. The purpose of this document, known as an AIT (Accident Information Telex), is to provide operators with information related to potential safety recommendations that may derive from an accident investigation.

For this reason, an AIT has to be approved by the authority that manages the investigation; in this case, the BEA (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses – French civil aviation safety Investigations and Analysis Bureau). This AIT was approved by the BEA before being issued by Airbus to its customers and does not include any safety recommendation at this stage of the investigation.

Airbus strongly disagrees with any form of speculation in the scope of the safety investigation and regrets any inappropriate communication concerning such a serious event that should always be handled with utmost professionalism.

In cooperation with Air France and the authorities, and since the very first days of the accident, Airbus has been supporting the search for the aircraft as well as the technical investigation to identify all lessons to be learnt in the sole interest of air transport safety.

In this context, Airbus continues to support the BEA which is leading the investigation with expertise.
____________________________
Whatever Airbus is saying, anyway, it certainly won't change Bearfoil/jcjeant (and few others) points because of their own agenda against Airbus and the BEA. From day one, they are charging to shed the descredit over every aspect of this technical investigation, so deep is their hard belief that everything is aimed at "covering up" Airbus/Thales/AF (Whoever French) liabilities.

In this context, "Airbus continues to support the BEA which is leading the investigation with expertise" should sound at their ears like: "Airbus is very confident that it will be fully cleared by its BEA old friends".
And so on...
Those speculations based on previous speculations will certainly be confirmed by future speculations based on the previous ones and might end, at some point, by sounding enough like some "truth" if it is repeated ad nauseam.
That's their goal.

@TurbineD thanks for the link to http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdf...For_Pilots.pdf
there is a graphic for whigt and balance (CG limits) on s.10
the range for an A330-200 with 210t is from 17 to 39%

there is no advice that the stability is badly different in this range...
and no advise what is the most stable position of CG (24...26% ???)

• No crew action is required for normal operation except initiation and termination ( s101)

and s.101ff........
• Abnormal operations :
- forward and (some) inter tank transfers may be initiated manually

so forward transfer of fuel will be possible even without the use of the gravity - Fuel transfer from the trim tank to the inner tanks is performed by the trim tank forward transfer pump through the trim pipe isolation valve (s.97)

again, I am wondering why one can not just switch the system between economical (aft CG) and most save flying (CG=25%) for turbulent weather......

More info in the SSCVR
 

Something not identified in the previously posted info relating to the CVR:

This is written rather poorly, what is meant is that the most recent 30 minutes is individually stored, while data from channels 1,2 and 3 are mixed to a single track for 30-120 minutes.

So the recorder is not really a true 4 channel recorder for the 2 hours duration - the area mic is always individually stored, but we really have a hybrid 4/2 channel recorder.

This seems overly complicated and unnecessary given the low cost of solid-state memory. In fact the idea that the 'recorder' is manipulating (mixing and storing) the data once recorded seems astonishing to me... but then I suppose the design is some 20 years old or so (haven't checked that - it is a guess!).

Next of kin
 

Quote from Golf-Sierra:
As far as checking if there was water in the module prior to powering it up - would not the simplest way be to weigh it?

Nice one. Perhaps the experts can comment?


Garage Years,

Are there no "hot" (pilot-headset) microphone channels?
___________________

Re the subject of alleged leaks: it seems to me that the BEA is on a hiding to nothing here. And so, to a lesser extent, is AI/EADS. Damned if they release anything; damned if they say nothing. And to demand instant publication of raw DFDR data into the public domain would be ludicrous.

What I think we may all agree is that, as the BEA points out, any public speculation about crew performance at this stage – based purely on inference of the AI communiqué to Airbus operators – is unjustified, unnecessary (in the context of current safety), and can only add to the trauma of the next-of-kin.

@GY did you think it can be possible to extrakt a speed info from chanel 4 in case of UAS if you compare the chanel 4 with the sound before an UAS event? (with given altitude...)

Zeedoktor
It may not be "versus" but "combined with" in this case ... if the rumors are founded in fact.

If not, back to the drawing board, but the question remains ... why were they not able to regain control?

They had 30,000+ feet in which to do so, based on FL selected.

What prevented regaining control?

Training?
Simple mechanical failure?
Robot gone made or become counterproductive?
Simple human error?
Man Machine Interface issues?
Complex human error?

The question that has been in my brain since the early going with this mishap is ... why did they (apparently) fly straight into a serious convective weather system? Answering that seems to me to be where ANY aircrew on ANY model passenger jet would be interested learning how easily "this could happen to me / us ... "

That answer is important to pilots, but perhaps not to bean counters and civil damges chasing attorneys.

Hi,

The study of some BEA old investigations show clearly some "cover up" .. and in my POV .. this is a discredit for the BEA
Note that "cover up" is not a conspiracy ... it's just hide some informations to the public.
You must also know (or I remind you) who is the owner of the "Le Figaro" :
Dassault.
And Dassault and the constructor of the AF447 A330 have tight financial link.
You can even suppose that the leak come in fact from the BEA .. or Airbus.
They can disapprove after the release of the article (this article was pasted in all the main french newspapers) but this will still in the mind of the general public and that exactly the same behavior you describe .....
It's a way to prepare the public to accept the fact that in their next official BEA report ... crew will be pointed as making errors.
At least it's a possible scenario I can't discard.

Very true; however the 6000psi is not present 24/7 for 2 years, and it is not present anyway without leaks. Leaks are common (which is why the fluid needs topping up periodically) and are ignored unless significant.

The vast majority of hydraulics are pressurised transiently.

Chris:

Not according to the Airbus SDN document I have in front of me.

The crew channels that are recorded are effectively the headset signals, hence only include 'PTT'd' signals, not the live (hot) mic signals from each crew member microphone. The inference in the SDN is that audio not 'transmitted' by either radio or intercom, will be picked up by the area mic.

grity:

Some estimation could be made of speed based on the audio signature, given we have altitude references, and some prior recording segments to act as baselines - you would need this since 250 kts CAS @ FL350, can sound the same as 300 kts CAS @FL200 (numbers made up for demonstrative purposes). However these would likely only be very rough numbers (say in a 30-50 kt range), but if the assumption is that the aircraft lost it's speed data sensors, then this would be one method to provide an estimation of speed.

@GY it is fascinating my, flying in future "sound and altitude" as backup system.....!

This is true also, but in the case of machinary it also has to contend with tempreture transients and high pressure spikes far higher than the relief's are set for. There is also higher 10000 psi systems in staionary systems.

Hence a good experienced engineer should have no problem designing for a static system.

Hi,

This can maybe appears in the next BEA report ...
Google Vertaling
All possibilities are open.

Chris Scott,

My reading of the Airbus release posted by Takata is that is says two things: (1) the language of the release was approved in advance by the BEA so don't blame Airbus, and (2), we, Airbus, probably shouldn't have sent it out in the first place. It wasn't needed, and the only thing it produced was premature speculation.

The conundrum of damned if you do, damned if you don't with respect to release of information in the current era is that the 'audience' today is inherently more suspicious and conspiracy-minded than ever. To my knowledge, the BEA has previously not had the experience of the NTSB in doing investigations where conspiracy theories took hold.

In the case of TW 800, aside from a persistent poster on this board who insisted there was a major design flaw in the forward cargo door of the 747, how to address theories propounded by, among others, a former White House press secretary living in Paris?

'Pierre Salinger Syndrome' and the TWA 800 conspiracies - CNN

Or of an academic of some repute well-connected in some government circles (appointed by George W. Bush to a government agency) that terrorists brought down AA587?

Why Did American Airlines 587 Crash? :: Daniel Pipes

I've come to believe that its better to provide preliminary information as soon as practical, --before alternative explanations fantasized by the conspiratorialists really take root in the public psyche.

"(2), we, Airbus, probably shouldn't have sent it out in the first place. It wasn't needed"

To the best of my recollection, Airbus has always issued updates on major accidents when there is any development, such as the downloading of the DFDR. Clearly the info downloaded hasn't raised any flags, and this would normally need to be communicated. All airline safety departments would require this information immediately.

True

The standard is requested by the operators (they do have pilots and passengers to appease) Manufacturer with the approval of the investigating agency clears what is to be released. The wording is precised, no more, no less to satisfy the safety departments at the operators. It is not intended to be interpreted by the public or publicity folks.

To not have adhered to a standard protocol would have started many more rumors.

The problem is with the source providing interpretation to the press and the press going for a scoop.

In my experience the more reliable press would have gone to the BEA for clarification or at least cited the sources of balanced interpretations.

Lonewolf... Investigations do indeed usually reveal one or more contributing factors that combine for the final outcome rather than just one single cause. I've also wondered about your question ".. why were they not able to regain control?
They had 30,000+ feet in which to do so, based on FL selected." The ACARS message at 2:12 seems to hint at an upset with the loss of the laser ring gyro integrity. I wonder how much simulator time on upset recovery is spent by flight crews? Avoidance of those situations is certainly stressed, but when it happens on a bumpy night in the middle of a cell with nothing to see outside the cockpit, that is a daunting task to put on anyone. The question still remains on how exactly they got to that point.

Olivier

I am posting in a timely fashion 'with permission' that there is nothing new to report. Since there is nothing to report, one could conclude that we are absolved of responsibility for anything, since anything is included in nothing.

Take a breath, open one's sensors, and enjoy. The Drama is underway, and the pilots have no allies. "Fraternite"???

To appear in high dudgeon whilst snickering sotto voce, it is a talent taught in the Boardrooms....

Are you kin to Sir Laurence??

************************************************************ ****

Since Lufty and the Spanish crew (the ones Captain Dubois chatted with pre launch) have receded into history, the number of paws holding the bag are diminishing.

To mold Public Opinion takes time, be patient......

As you claimed it everyday, even before this investigation started, without relying on other sources than few biased "testimonies" of such so-called "fact", I can not agree that:
1) what you are claiming is "clearly" founded; at best, it is based on "rumors" of wrong doings, some being clearly unfounded or very old stories;
2) such attitude you are supposed to be condemning is exactly how one may qualify your own behavior: your pre-established judgment (this will be a cover-up) was already affirmed on day one. No need to wait and take into account how this investigation would be actually conducted in reality; as everything public and contradictory to your mis-belief can be twisted as a new proof that the BEA is covering-up something, this is quite easy. You just need to claim it loud, nobody can ever prove to you the contrary (due to cover-up of the truth).
Purely rhetorical. Every conspiration I know start with: "the truth is hidden to us".
Well, sorry but Dassault and EADS are not close "partners", quite the contrary. Who told you that?
Don't you fear to sound ridiculous?
Did your read those people reaction to those papers?
How is that story making any "good" for Airbus, BEA, Dassault, Whoever you think, except for this so-called journalist and those paper printers? Even Le Figaro will end in deep embarasment after publishing so poorly researched papers in their front page. This can not be called an investigation and certainly not first class journalism: a big provocative headline, but strictly no content after the first line and very weak points barely adressing the claims. The end news is what we knew for the first hour: AF 447 flew in a storm, something wrong here!

Right.... it looks like it doesn't work then.
Maybe you may believe that those French people are stupid enough to read: "Scoop: Airbus will be cleared: it is all pilots and company fault" followed by strictly nothing proving the point? while, at the same time, everybody know that those data deep analysis was not even started.

Beside your bias, nothing of what one should realise about how much progress was made for AF 447, towards a far better transparency in investigation, never transpired in one single post of you. You are so zealously reporting everything seeming "so suspicious" to you that the only question it will rise at the end is about your own motivations.

widebody and lomapaseo, if the preliminary read of the FDR had indicated unreliable air speed perhaps associated with pitot failure, would Airbus (or Boeing or Dassault) have sent out the telex phrased as Airbus did?

I realize that you may not know the answer to that question, but I would assume such telexes are supposed to convey the totality of the information obtained from the reading of the FDR, not just any 'new' information that was not previously covered by an antecedent telex.

As I said before, knowledge of a negative can itself be knowledge, and from such, people, like reporters for Figaro, start drawing inferences.

IO540 :I would -much- prefer to design a system that had a static 6000psi pressure than one with dynamic pressures.

Think about the postulated O ring, with static pressure it will deform once at get squished (technical term that) into all the tiny bumps and nicks.

With a dynamic load it will have to do this many times, each cycle will result in (very tiny) degradation, with microscopic amounts of salt water getting a bit farther in each time.

BTW: There are many methods other than O rings to seal something that does not require frequent, if any, access.

Lastly on leaky hydraulics: Most of the leaks are at sliding seals, if you think sealing an enclosure is hard ponder a shiny rod moving in and out past the seal.

-----

For BearFoil and others on the search process:

I usually find things in the last place I look, of course if you keep on looking after you find it your mental status may be in question.:)

Looking back it is easy to see a better way but overall I would say a fairly rational plan.
There could have been different even better plans but it is important to have a single coherent plan.