|
This is the BEA press release :
Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP 16 May 2011 briefing Following operations to open, extract, clean and dry the memory cards from the flight recorders, BEA Safety Investigators were able to download the data over the weekend. These operations were filmed and recorded in their entirety. This was done in the presence of two German investigators from BFU, an American investigator from NTSB, two British investigators from AAIB and two Brazilian investigators from CENIPA, as well as an officer from the French judicial police and a court expert. These downloads gathered all of the data from the Flight Data recorder (FDR), as well as the whole recording of the last two hours of the flight from the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). In the framework of the safety investigation directed by the BEA, all of this data will now be subjected to detailed in-depth analysis. This work will take several weeks, after which a further interim report will be written and then published during the summer. |
Hi SaturnV,
Originally Posted by SaturnV
takata, do you consider the "fourth occupant seat" that was recovered to be the second of two jump seats in the cockpit?
Look, when they were talking about the wreckage, I was fighting with my video recorder and I was also trying to read the map on their slide at the same time! Then, it stopped, my recording had failed... and no video of the conference that I am aware of was even posted later. :-) |
Lemurian wrote:
In the framework of the safety investigation directed by the BEA, all of this data will now be subjected to detailed in-depth analysis. This work will take several weeks, after which a further interim report will be written and then published during the summer. |
Galley Storage Unit
grity, quote:
No Chris, ...the diver stands under the table, in the area the lost trolly-containers are normaly parked, you see the botton demage of the honycomb struktur, the boxes are on top. Don’t worry grity, I’m still listening! Methinks you are right. So the area where the diver stands would be the bottom of the storage unit, normally occupied by the TALL canisters with braked castor wheels (the ones that give rise to the expression: “trolley-dollies”), which are used to convey the meals along the aisles during meal times. The latter are, of course, all missing. |
That's good news about the recorders! A couple of questions that I haven't seen addressed: 1. Does the damage to the engines indicate that they were running at impact? This picture might be helpful to somehttp://fromtheflightdeck.com/MEL/PPRune/Eng.jpg |
takata - thanks. I'd been thinking in terms of time on type. So you confirmed what I was thinking regardless of what I said.
|
slats11, I suspected that this problem was known and a suitable bludgeon was needed to get the airlines to switch rapidly. I noticed the pilots unions got on the BEA, AirBus, and the airlines pretty quickly, too. So they took advantage of a handy crisis to get the job done. (God that sounds slimy.) And, indeed, it probably did need doing.
|
lomapaseo
Your arrow (fore), are you noting the sheared Fan Blades as evidence of high N1? The depression in the stator ring, does that indicate 12:00? Where the engine was lifted into the pylon? The extensive damage below (6:00), that would be water contact?? Brilliant photo, many thanks After two years at sea, this engine looks as though it was just removed from a mineral oil bath, very clean. What do you make of the integrity of the IP/LP turbine casing, very stout, yes? So much plumbing left, and reasonably continuous. The crinkled vanes, there's your forward acceleration, yes? A few milliseconds post water contact? |
The depression in the stator ring, does that indicate 12:00? Where the engine was lifted into the pylon? The extensive damage below (6:00), that would be water contact?? |
Originally Posted by JD-EE
(Post 6453691)
slats11, I suspected that this problem was known and a suitable bludgeon was needed to get the airlines to switch rapidly. I noticed the pilots unions got on the BEA, AirBus, and the airlines pretty quickly, too. So they took advantage of a handy crisis to get the job done. (God that sounds slimy.) And, indeed, it probably did need doing.
[From memory of what I've read] I believe: AB knew of the problem some time before the crash AB advised AF (and maybe others?) to fit new model probes. AF refused to do that without additional tests (that decision may yet come back to haunt them). By the time of the crash I think the regulators were also involved By the time of the crash AB had provided test results to AF and AF had, I think, started a replacement program across the fleet Perhaps more interesting is the ATSB report linked to a few posts back regarding an incident with Goodrich probes. That report seems (to me) to imply that aircraft are flying (possibly regularly) in environments well outside both the certification test region and the manufacturer test region for the pitots. So, that's a known problem too, and wider than the Thales probes ... |
News agencies are reporting that ALL the data from the flight recorders is readable....
|
Hi,
BEA communication 16/05/2011 10 May 2011 briefing These operations were filmed and recorded in their entirety. This was done in the presence of two German investigators from BFU, an American investigator from NTSB, two British investigators from AAIB and two Brazilian investigators from CENIPA, as well as an officer from the French judicial police and a court expert. A new way of working and communicating They know they are under scrutiny .... They know also that "old good time" is somewhat over due to the internet network communication |
Regarding previous history of probes and issues with reliable airspeed indication. From the Aus news release ... At the time of the occurrence, {Easyjet flt Japan to Australia} most of the operator's A330 pilots had not received unreliable airspeed training. Most of these pilots had transferred from the operator's A320 fleet, and the third-party training provider had not included the topic in its A320 endorsement training program, even though it was included in the aircraft manufacturer's recommended program since 2004. That's five years slip in a recommended topic for training and an agreed addition of a topic to a training syllabus. By training, does this mean classroom training, or do they mean incorporating this into simulator scenarios and simulator events for flight crew? The info is sparse in the article. The difference between simple ground training and awareness, and applying this info to a flying scenario in a crew training device would include the time and money to make a formal training course modification, complete with academic, software, and procedures validation steps to be taken. As each of them costs money, and given third party involvement, a requirements statement, SOW, and a contract (or contract mod) eventually agreed cost in time/effort/materials between parties. Is five years too long for this to take for a change (for upgrade training? not sure what endorsement training means) or is five years within one sigma of standard industry deviation? :confused: When one has a known systems issue, or in this case a systems difference issue, getting that knowledge into the hands of the aircrew in a usable form probably gets prioritized along the lines of "how critical to flying safety is this particular knowledge element compared to others?" How is that determined? Standard risk management/mitigation process? |
jcjeant, whatever the reason behind, it's good news, as "conspirationnists" will have a tougher time.
That said : "good old times" ? You're implying that this approach is somehow an admission of cheating earlier, aren't you ? :ugh: Is it the first time external personal are involved, or the first time BEA communicates so much about it, having learned about previous critics (Habsheim, Concorde...) ? :D Le verre à moitié plein, pour moi :ok: |
Hi,
Is it the first time external personal are involved For the Concorde case the AAIB was involved ... But the AAIB was under constraint and had no access to all evidences .......... I have not a link .. but all this is explained in a report of the AAIB about their findings for Concorde crash. If you can participate in a BEA investigation but can't access to some evidence .. what the heck ? Hope this will not be the case for AF447 |
NTSB would release FDR in about a week
I am worried that the BEA announcement hints that FDR readings will not be released until the next interim report "after analysis".
I can understand taking longer with CVR transcripts as considerable time is required to determine exactly what was said by whom when as well as redact utterings that should remain confidential. The FDR by contrast is simply raw data. |
In that depth, it is amazing the FDR data is intact. In the CNN report I read, it says the all the data was downloaded and recovered. Apparently, there were severl international witnesses and the procedure was taped.
Does that mean the data is not corrrupted and can be read or will we need to wait for the next preliminary report for confirmation on that? Obviously, downloading the data does not mean the data has integrity or I'm I reading too much into the press report? Thx. |
Originally Posted by jcjeant
(Post 6453955)
Hi,
Not at all ... For the Concorde case the AAIB was involved ... But the AAIB was under constraint and had no access to all evidences .......... I have not a link .. but all this is explained in a report of the AAIB about their findings for Concorde crash. If you can participate in a BEA investigation but can't access to some evidence .. what the heck ? Hope this will not be the case for AF447 The BEA, being French and used to such things, worked around it. The AAIB complained that they were impeded and that this was a breach of international conventions and EU directives. To my recollection, I don't think the AAIB complained that anything affected the validity of the conclusions, but it defintiely annoyed them and delayed things. |
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
So, that's a known problem too, and wider than the Thales probes ...
|
Wx Radar: the tilt should have been pointed down into the wet part of the storm, moving the tilt up and down to see maximum return. The decision for avoidance route should have been made 80-100 miles in advance.
AF chose not to upgrade to the Wx radar with automatic tilt, etc., including automatic sensitivity adjustments for lat/long. The newer radar has been available for about 7 years. The Collins WXR-700 on AF447 is a 1982 design. . Upgrades are rare at airlines, except by govt mandate, or extremely poor reliability of older equipment, neither of which applied here. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.