The both independent black boxes have resisted to the BEA savoir faire the same way ...

Where did you read such specific words ?

BEA wrote on December 03 :
"The protected cases have resisted and the memory boards appear intact"

Not only that, but a later news article also talks about reading the memory boards at Honeywell, not the chips.

J.O.,
In post #403 I was talking about the memory chips from non-FDR type avionic boxes, such as, e.g., FADECs or flight control computers. The manufacturers of such boxes would not have any need for reading individual chips.

In post #406 I was talking about the Honeywell boards, and of course Honeywell has the expertise to read them, since they manufactured them.

CJ

If I’m not too confused, the mentioned dates are also of interest :

October 17
Airbus has issued All Operator Telex A320-71A1045

October 20
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive

November 26 (the day before Perpignan)
FAA AD issued

December 26
This AD becomes effective

Interesting.

Can someone say how much time is normally allowed to incorporate an EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive?

It would be a remarkable coincidence....

Would the engine mounts have been taken off for a paint job?

Also, would the engine have stayed on the aircraft? The witnesses, of which there were several, and some fairly close, did not report anything falling off.

With the current lack of information, all we can do is add it to the (meager) list of hypotheses.

CJ

Why stop at just one AD?

At any given time every fleet type has multiple Ad's (emergency or not) that are waiting to be complied, These are all part of the match of postulations for and against that the investigation considers.

To be worthy of a discussion point as postulation you would at least have some factual Pros to connect a series of dots pointing at such an AD as worthy of being considered.

So did a passing ship report seeing an engine come off and fall into the water?

Is one engine widely separated from the aircraft?

Just having a weak bolt is insignificant to the engine to pylon to wing load path unless a massive engine failure occurred leading to a significant challenge to this load.

I haven't seen one shred of evidence supporting this uniquely suggested AD and expect that somebody is just shopping unsupported speculation

You are probably right lomapaseo, but mentioning such AD, in this case is, I think, absolutely relevant.

I have no specific knowledge in this AD world, but how many of them warn of a possible "consequent hazard to the airplane and persons and property on the ground" ?

The little we know on Perpignan is there was some unusual attitude, therefore a possible loss of control.
Also, partial engine separation may be more problematic than a full ...

Anyway, let's wait and see what the BEA will have on the menu ?


But main point remains :
Airbus / BEA have been waiting for one month before getting the easy recoverable data ... sorry, but I don't buy that one.

Separation or just partial detachment?
 

Confiture cited:
.
Partial Detachment due to failure of the rear bolt (as against total eng separation) would possibly cause the engine thrust line to point skywards...... and cause the observed pitch-up (perhaps).

The French authorities should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately from a safety perspective, they won't be: they are French.

ChristiaanJ wrote: Would the engine mounts have been taken off for a paint job?

I can't speak for the Airbus that was involved in this incident, but I drive past this facility quite often and the majority of aircraft being refurbished are parked next to the road with their engines removed: whether this includes the mount I can't say.

OFSO, aren't those just the old hulks being broken up? 727s etc.

Yes, there are some old 727's there. Some from airlines with interesting names. BlairAir ? But that's more a subject for JetBlast.

I'm using driving by on the way to the airport so just have a quick glance over to see what's in the park.

The EAS parking lot is full of old airframes, some are there since more than 10 years. The engines were removed because they were valuable at some point, the rest is just canibalism for spares .
The 72's were at one point owned by them , as they ran an airline in the 80's.

Do not draw any conclusions regarding engines being removed (or not) for normal Checks or paint jobs done by them. 2 different things.

Some progress expected today: "investigators expected to hear the last words of the pilots" which should mean that the CVR recording is available:

Air NZ crash victims to be identified tonight - bodies to return to NZ - National - NZ Herald News

With reference to the engine barrel nut AD.
EASA required the inspection/rectification to be carried out within 7 days of the effective date of the AD. IE 28th October, quite some time before the crash.

Lest we forget
 

It's too early to let this tragedy slide quietly into page two.

Quite so Dysag.

Six Air NZ crash victims identified, data analysis ongoing - NZ Herald

Some excerpts...

And...

Released to the media here in New Zealand this morning (NZ time) were the identity of the New Zealanders whose bodies have been recovered and now formally identitifed by the French judicial system. 4 of the 5 NZ's are named thus one can assume that the bodies of the two German Pilots from XL Germany have also been recovered.

The person whose body has not yet been recovered, is that of an Air New Zealand Engineer based in Auckland.

From the New Zealand Herald (morning newspaper) Website

"The investigation into the Air New Zealand Airbus crash has moved into a higher gear, as experts analyse the aircraft's flight recorders and officials complete identification of six of the seven dead.

French forensic experts in Montpellier last night formally confirmed the names of the New Zealanders whose remains have been recovered.

They are Captain Brian Horrell, 52, from Auckland; Christchurch engineers Michael Gyles, 49, and Noel Marsh, 35; and Civil Aviation Authority airworthiness inspector Jeremy Cook, 58, of Wellington.

The body of Air New Zealand Auckland engineer Murray White, 37, has not yet been recovered.

Formal identification enables death certificates to be issued, and the bodies to be released. The bodies are expected to be handed back to the families within the next day or two with a short service to be held on the beach near where the crash happened. The bodies will then be brought back to New Zealand for burial.

Executives from Air New Zealand, accompanied by some relatives of the dead, are going to France for the handover of the remains.

Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe and general manager airline operations Captain David Morgan are due to arrive in Perpignan Friday and a ceremony is expected to take place on the beach at nearby Canet-en-Roussillon on Saturday.

Mr Fyfe said said it had been a long wait for family, friends and colleagues to have official confirmation of those who have been recovered."

"Whilst we know how important it is, and how much the families value getting their partners, sons and dads back, our hearts are heavy for the family of Murray White, who remains missing. We continue to be hopeful the ongoing search will deliver Murray back to us soon," he said.

Data analysis
"Work on analysing the data from the recorders is under way," an official at the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses pour la Securite de l'Aviation Civile said yesterday."But it can't be done in two days, that's impossible. We need time."

Crash investigators have been holding a series of working sessions at the BEA's headquarters at Le Bourget on the northern outskirts of Paris. New Zealand accident investigators are being represented by experts from Britain's Aviation Accident Investigation Bureau. The two "black boxes" recovered from the wreckage of the doomed Airbus 320 contain voice recordings from the flight deck and the aircraft's parameters, including its trajectory, altitude and speed.

They may explain why the plane - little more than three years old - plunged into the Mediterranean off southwest France last November 27 during a routine handover check.

The impact was so great that the two recorders were badly damaged. But the United States maker, Honeywell, was able to extract the information.

What has complicated progress is that the crash occurred at sea. Wreckage is scattered over a swathe of muddy seabed and a seventh victim has yet to be found. As the painstaking analysis began, other members of the accident inquiry are looking at the plane's maintenance records and fuel, and local air traffic at the time of the crash.

The findings will become part of a preliminary report, expected by the end of this month.

In parallel with the investigation, France has started a judicial inquiry for manslaughter.

It may not be a training flight then from the above report looks more like a test flight. Is there any details of exactly what was fixed or what they were checking for on the flight?

NW

If you bother to read thru the posts on this thread you might be able to answer your own question.

CVR/FDR
It's been two days now since the investigating authorities have had their first look at the data Honeywell extracted. There's been no comment even to say whether or not the data was any good. I would have thought there would have been some sort of comment by now or are the French typically French? First the delays they caused in allowing the boxes to go to Honeywell now this. I have heard murmurings on this side of the world about a French cover up.

27/09
 

If you bother to read thru the posts on this thread you might be able to answer your own....

The French themselves said the boxes went to Honeywell because only they could extract the data. Or you didn't bother to read thru the posts on this thread....

I think you mean Belair!

Oh, struth....
Does nobody here know and understand anything about FDRs, CVRs and crash data analysis?

"It's been two days now.... " is so far the dumbest remark I've seen.

It takes time to decode the raw data, and confirm they make any sense.

It's only then you start analysing the data, to try and reconstitute what "may" have happened. And try to correlate CVR and FDR and witness reports and wreckage. And if you're in luck, in the end you may even be able to reconstitute with a reasonable degree of confidence what "actually" happened.

Until then, a bit more decency, and a bit less in the way of conspiracy theories would be welcome.

CJ

Dysag

From what I have read on here and elsewhere the processes followed by the French actually delayed the sending of the CVR/FDR to Honeywell.

ChristiaanJ

I think it quite reasonable to have some indication as to the usefulness of the recovered data within a couple of days. My post did not ask about the actual information contained in the data just was the data in good condition?

I'm sorry if I've upset you with my comments about the French, but some people in this part of the world have a healthy disrespect for French authorities. Then we have some "official" reports with conflicting information (e.g. FDR in good condition, then unable to read FDR) coupled with what appear to be unnecessary delays in sending the CVR and FDR for analysis it is no wonder that suspicions start to arise.

Final moments of Air NZ crash revealed
 

3 News > National > Story > Final moments of Air NZ crash revealed

The last words from the crew of the Air New Zealand Airbus crash have revealed their final moments of life.
Experts began listening to the cockpit voice recorder on Monday and today the head of the investigation in Perpignan, Jean-Pierre Dreno, revealed the details of what they heard.
During the last seconds of recording the pilots said they were having a lot of difficulty controlling the plane, followed by screaming.
The second black box that records the flight data has shown that as the A320 was landing at Perpignan there was a surge in engine power.
This caused the plane to climb sharply towards the sky. Dreno says the sudden incline would have been too steep for it to recover.
“First it go up, and then it fall on its side. It falled and then it entered the sea with many force.”
Investigators say they still need to analyse more data before they can determine the cause.
Next week they will collect more debris from the crash site – Air New Zealand wants all 300 pieces of the plane recovered.
‘I don’t want any part of this aircraft left on the sea bed for souvenir hunters or divers to take away,” says Air New Zealand CEO Rob Fyfe.
He says it is out of respect to the men who died and that they and their families have been through enough.
Tomorrow representatives of the four men whose bodies were recovered will leave with them on a flight back home.
Air New Zealand has arranged for all of their friends, family and colleagues to meet them on the tarmac at Auckland airport Tuesday when they return.
3 News

What is the most common cause of engine surge other than advancing the throttles?

With modern electronically controlled engines would normally be some electrical hiccup? :confused: Nonetheless, under normal circumstances the aircraft would remain controllable even if both (or indeed one ) engine ran uncommanded to full power. So two probs here, 1- Why did they get (or select themselves) the sudden increase in power on base leg during a DME arc approach. . . and somewhat more worryingly, 2 - why were they subsequently unable to control the aircraft.

Another article here says there is some sort of contradiction between data from the two boxes which does not make sense yet to the investigators:

Doomed Air NZ flight's final moments revealed - National - NZ Herald News

The report suggests some sort of pitch up followed by a stall and departure from controlled flight, which begs the questions: what caused increase in engine power; why did the FBW system not prevent a departure from controlled flight?

Whilst what was said is vague, I do not interpret what he said as an engine "surge". He (apparently) said a "surge of power" (common language phrase), which seems very different from an "engine surge" (technical meaning).

Anyone who knows a modern Airbus will be able to associate a rapid pitch up (apprantely into a stall?) with a subsequent "surge of power"... but I will not speculate :oh:

NoD

That's what I've been wondering last couple of months and it seemingly puzzles the investigators too. We'll have to be patient a little bit more.

Carnage Matey


In some cases the computer can readily fly the aircraft while in other cases it requires the pilot to take control.

Examples have been shown in the two A300 accidents at Nagoya and Taipei.

Large inceases in thrust at low landing speeds typically cause pitch ups. So the investigation is probably going to be looking at the computer law in effect at the time vs pilot recognition and response.

From the news item:

We have to be careful in interpreting comments in the press, particularly when there is a language translation AND a "translation" of aviation terminology by the reporter. I'm not a Bus driver, but it is my understanding that if a Bus is pulled up, engine thrust will automatically increase to attempt to prevent a stall.

Did it pitch up causing the engines to accelerate or did the engine acceleration cause a pitch up?

Comments from Bus drivers?

Thrust/ pitch compensation
 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Bus automatically corrects for the pitching moment caused buy thrust increase/ decrease with pitch trim? :confused: (unlike the 737)
If so then why did it not prevent the reported pitch up.
Obviously there maybe more to it to induce the reported 'uncontroleability'

Appreciate input from Bus drivers

Rgds

CL747

It automatically compensates for speed and power changes in normal and alternate law, it doesn't in direct law, manual pitch trim wheel has to be used.
We still don't know in which law the aeroplane was when control was lost.
From news report it seems that there was pitchup, stall and loss of control. Everything else is open to interpretation.
There's mountain of data recovered from FDR and it waits for thorough analysis.
Patience is advised.

Clandestino, thanks. As you quite rightly say we have to wait for the 'powers that be' to give the final outcome of the investigation. In the meantime those with 'superior' knowledge will continue to speculate and come to their own conclusion and will continue to post such BS on this forum. Patience is a virtue and we will only find out the true facts once all the data has been put together.
Until then I tend to ignore all the 'experts' theories of what happened in the final moments of that fateful flight.

RIP to the 'crew'

Rgds

CL747

Yes and not to forget the similar TAROM and INTERFLUG incidents.

Forget it. There is no similarity between the A300/A310 and A320 flight control systems.

Pitch Moment?
 

CL747:

Would the pitching moment caused by a thrust increase be so great that it could not ordinarily be counter-acted by a pilot on the side stick?

I'm afraid in DIRECT LAW the 320 will react very similar in comparison to 300/310....