|
BEA
It is almost the end of September, and I guess that since no report has been mention here, no word from the BEA on any further search effort has been forthcoming. Anybody giving odds?
|
wes wall
Callous to take bets on such an important issue, my friend. But you are right, and I remain cynical in the extreme, believing all here (and elsewhere) who have tried in every way to goad BEA into action have failed. The final is most predicatable, but will most likely even more favor, protect, hold harmless, etc. those who have a financial interest in keeping aviation subject to easily avoidable catastrophe. bear |
Wes...
I believe BEA will undertake another search within the next few months, as there is immense pressure to do so. What form that will take is anyone's guess, as this accident has already had a severe effect on BEA's budget. I also believe there needs to be a change in the funding for search / recovery for accidents such as this. That could be accomplished through a special ICAO fund and / or an insurance carriers fund. The insurers end up paying out in the end anyway, so it makes sense that a structure be devised wherein certain amounts could be freed up if and when necessary (i.e. in cases like this where the crash occurred in "international territory" and great effort is required to locate and then recover the aircraft remains). grizz |
there needs to be a change in the funding for search |
With respect, I believe the obstacle is not lack of money. The authority has the influence to garner far in excess of what has been expended to date. Further, given the Political will, and an honest format, this accident would not be subjected to complaints of lackluster searching.
Once proffered, conclusions take on the ring of "Truth" to most, and when any further evidence might challenge the "results", the excuses start................ bear |
The difficulty for BEA is that, given the known facts, several perfectly viable but dissimilar scenarios describing the event and, more importantly, its cause cannot be ruled out. These range from a (simple) mechanical failure leading to upset (pitot blockage) to super turbulence/shear and the hand of God knocking the aricraft from the sky (unusual attitudes and airspeeds causing pitot disagree). Each of the viable scenarios implies different "parties at fault or blame" and each implies the application of differing safety measures and industry recommendations.
Unless BEA is in possession of significant information not placed yet in the public domain (and discussed in this exaustive forum), they need more data to reach a conclusion that will satisfy the community; best, of course, the CVR and FDR to tell them in detail what the pilots and the aircraft went through at 0210 on June 1, 2009... France is obligated by international treaty to "solve" this mystery and can't just bail out of the search for AF447 wreckage because it's too expensive. This is not a third-world country and France would suffer a world-wide loss of face, especially for a country that prides itself in underwater exploration and technical prowess. So the promised early September announcement from French Secretary for Transport, Dominique Bussereau, about continuing the search is delayed. From BEA, no updates since May. Time will not sweep AF447 under the rug and out of the world's eye, so patience is required while the authorities scramble to get their ducks in a row and their financing in place. Only if the search is called off and BEA presents a slippery conclusion will the conspiracy theories begin. I, for one, can't see that happening. GB |
Only if the search is called off and BEA presents a slippery conclusion will the conspiracy theories begin. I, for one, can't see that happening. They wouldn't be that stupid.... Moreover, the uncertainty about what happened cannot be in the interest of Airbus either. It implies there is an unresolved risk of an Airbus plane to be knocked out of the sky. Only if they know (and everyone knows that they know) what happened they can credibly make sure and also clear to the public that it won't happen again. As long as the real cause remains somehow unclear they can't make this claim... So there must be also a vested interest of AI to find the recorders as well. |
henra
BEA is of course not stupid, we must look elsewhwere for the apathy and ignorance. It lays with the flying public, and cowed pilots. Even the pilots threw in when AB flipped in the new pitots. I think it is most unlikely the pitots were at fault. At cruise, especially that high, they would not ordinarily drown in air laden with super cooled Water. If it was the pitots, it most certainly involved an excursion into a cell. This brings up an even more unacceptable trail of fault. BEA will satisfy as many as they can (it will be a majority), and lay off any residual doubts on weather, Radar, Training, Radio vacuum, etc. until all but the most stalwart acquiesce. I have seen this too many times. Oh, and the dead Pilots. (They have the "answer", the pitots). cheers, bear |
I think it is most unlikely the pitots were at fault. I wouldn't necessarily say they were not involved at all. But I fully agree they can't be the only reason for the accident. Although there were incidents with the pitots in the past, a really simultaneous freezing of all three appears rather remote to me. I'm sure the path to the accident was way more complex and just replacing the pitots is not a satisfactory answer to the mystery. Making sure it won't happen again can only be achieved by knowing more about how it happened. And BEA and AI know that. And that's what makes me confident we haven't seen the last search for the recorders yet. regards, henra |
henra
I can't disagree, your statements are logical and appropriate. My points I make knowing that the investigation is polluted by human nature. All human endeavour is subject to an agenda. Isabella didn't floor Columbus hoping to enrich the Global culture or invent Anthropology. And there is nothing 'wrong' with this. Without motive, humans would die a lethargic extinction for want of desire. Here, the motive should be Safety, alone. We all know Safety is a result of analysis; the safest a/c might be a 380 carrying six passengers with eject seats and Mars surveyor air bags. Any economic decision is based in this way. My point is that if the search were a bit more energetic (read expensive), the long term effect on aviation would bolster bottom lines everywhere, even for carriers who do not deserve the windfall. Any excursion into parochial interest diminishes any endeavour. Short sightedness did not get aviation to where we are today (here I mean progress). At some point, the effort must career into Safety alone, if only for the positive effect on business. (I too am human, and despise short term selfishness, all too evident here in this accident). I rue the environment of quick "buckitis", it destroys "vision", something in short supply, imo. cheers, bear |
Perhaps the following is relevant here: (from AF447 2nd int.rept. p.58):
1.17.6.4 Continuing airworthiness (...) 1.17.6.4.1 Obligations of the manufacturer, holder of a type certificate Article 21 A.3 of Part 21 stipulates that: 1) (...) 2) (...) 3) for any deficiency that may reveal a dangerous or catastrophic situation, the manufacturer must look for the cause of the deficiency, report the results of its investigations to EASA and inform it of any action that it undertakes or proposes to undertake to remedy this deficiency. HN39 |
Ominous signs?
Originally Posted by GreatBear
So the promised early September announcement from French Secretary for Transport, Dominique Bussereau, about continuing the search is delayed.
regards, HN39 |
PBS Documentary
Does anyone know if the upcoming PBS documentary is a rehash of the BBC work or something new?
NOVA | Crash of Flight 447 |
Mr Bussereau's earlier press release where he said an announcement on a new search would be made following the commencement of a review in September shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Le Point.fr reported on 17 September 2010 the following:-
On the night of 31 May to 1 June 2009, Air France flight AF447 disappeared between Rio de Janeiro and Paris. On board the Airbus A330-200 F-GZCP were 216 passengers and 12 crew members, who perished when the aircraft crashed into the sea. More than a year after the crash, many mysteries remain. To know the causes of the accident, the recovery of the wreck and especially that of the two flight recorders, is essential. But after three search phases that led to the recovery of bodies and floating debris, and in an unequalled interest in the investigation; the investigation has made little progress. To revive the investigation, the Civil Aviation Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA) has undertaken an inventory phase of all actions since the crash. Databases were created to classify all the evidence gathered since June 1, 2009, by ships, aircraft, underwater vehicles and even satellites for a year. "There is an enormous task of sorting. This should enable us to determine which areas have been fully explored, those where there is no hope, lastly, those already searched where further research/searching could still be done," said John Paul Troadec, director of the BEA, speaking to Le Point.fr. "Then we can define the strategy of a fourth phase of searching." The BEA is expected to complete its investigation in October. The budget will then be determined. Without public funding, a new call to Airbus and Air France is possible for an expense that should be less than (euro) five million. Technical resources - specialized ships, robots, sonars and their operators - particularly in high demand by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, should then also be available. mm43 |
Bearfoil;
BEA will satisfy as many as they can (it will be a majority), and lay off any residual doubts on weather, Radar, Training, Radio vacuum, etc. until all but the most stalwart acquiesce. My points I make knowing that the investigation is polluted by human nature. All human endeavour is subject to an agenda. I believe this for two straightforward reasons: 1) A transport aircraft is not caused to fall vertically without substantive reason, and, 2) Failed pitots do not cause an airliner to lose flying ability. The study of the ACARS messages has been exhaustive but is a dead-end as to pin-pointing those factors from which loss of control originated. There is nothing in the ACARS necessitating LOC - Attitude information and engine power information was not entirely lost. Any final report must account for the loss of control without the use of "sky-hooks" to bridge unknowns. If you will, any final report must rely solely upon "cranes" to do the heavy explanatory lifting. All anyone, including the BEA, can say at the moment is, the aircraft crashed. There is not even agreement that it was intact, although there is no evidence in the wreckage found of a high forward speed impact with the sea nor is there strong evidence for a high-altitude in-flight break-up; the vertical compression of disparate sections of the aircraft exhibit similar effects of high-vertical 'g' impact. As you say, the BEA is not stupid. At obviously great risk of losing all credibility in the broader community, (which acknowledges loss of credibility with some already), any explanation of the accident must necessarily coherently explain these two steep improbabilities. That cannot be done without skyhooks, with the present level of knowledge of the flight and accident sequence. Therefore I think the pressure to find the recorders is greater than the pressures to avoid same. But we'll see. PJ2 Great Bear; I should have read more carefully as I see you have covered these thoughts very well. Obviously I concur with your views. I post not in disagreement with Bearfoil as I have also seen enough of this industry to know it happens. The stakes are very high regardless, so we'll see what comes of plans for the next search. |
Databases were created to classify all the evidence gathered since June 1, 2009, by ships, aircraft, underwater vehicles and even satellites for a year. "There is an enormous task of sorting. This should enable us to determine which areas have been fully explored, those where there is no hope, lastly, those already searched where further research/searching could still be done," said John Paul Troadec, director of the BEA, speaking to Le Point.fr. "Then we can define the strategy of a fourth phase of searching." Bearfoil -- it's far too premature to propose conspiracies or complain of bias; not too early, though, to wish for more transparency and better public relations on the part of BEA, particularly because there is "an unequalled [worldwide] interest in the investigation." A Report from BEA describing the data sorting algorithms used and outlining precisely how Phase 4 search areas were chosen would be in line with good PR. PJ2, John Paul Troadec does seem to have his arms properly around this mystery, and it sounds like a Phase 4 search will take place! Cheers, GB |
The decision will be made in November. A decision could be taken in November at the launch of a fourth-year search of the wreckage of the Airbus A330-200 Air France , disappeared on June 1, 2009 in the Atlantic Ocean during a flight to Rio Paris. After the failure of the third season in May, the Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA) has decided to return all data collected since the accident, analyze and assess which areas were covered how, with what tools etc.. . This analysis should be completed in early November. At that time, BEA and its main partenaires_ - Air France and Airbus - will have all the elements in hand to assess the technical feasibility of a fourth phase of research, a quote and make a decision. Objective: To locate the wreckage, hoping thereby to find the famous black boxes if they are not too damaged, could deliver information about the reaction of the airplane and the words in the cockpit. The financial aspect should not be an obstacle. "If that's the price of truth, we will pay," said a close case. Air France et Airbus ont déjà contribué à hauteur de 13 millions d'euros à la troisième campagne. Air France and Airbus have already contributed 13 million euros in the third season. |
Just a note:
"... le Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses (BEA) a décidé de reprendre toutes les données collectées ...." does not mean "... the Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA) has decided to return all data collected ..." but "... the Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA) has decided to examine anew all data collected ..." Just to avoid confusion from a less-than-adequate translation. CJ PS "fourth-year" in the first sentence is also a mistranslation of "quatrième" which simply means "fourth". |
ChristiaanJ
Thank you for that. My apologies I should have made it clear that it was a google translation. |
Originally Posted by John47
(Post 5987986)
ChristiaanJ
Thank you for that. My apologies I should have made it clear that it was a google translation. No apologies needed! There were enough details to indicate already it was a Google translation, but those Google translations have improved so much the last couple of years (compared to the ancient 'babelfish'...), that nearly everything was perfectly clear even if the grammar was less than perfect. - which is all I ask of a machine translation! It was only the "return" that was less than clear and made me go back to the original. CJ |
Relatives of victims of Flight 447 to Paris will ask for resumption of the search pla
Google translation from brazilian newspaper "Estado de São Paulo":
Relatives of victims of Flight 447 to Paris will ask for resumption of the search plane October 13, 2010 | 00 0h The president of the Association of Families of Victims of Flight 447 Air France, Nelson Marine, will defend in Paris on November 5, the resumption of the search of the wreckage of the Airbus A330, which disappeared in the Atlantic Ocean on the 31st of May last year. The plane went from Paris to Rio de Janeiro. The accident killed 228 people. Three searches were made after the accident, but there were no parts nor the black boxes from the aircraft. Among the 50 bodies found in searches, 20 were from Brazil. In France, Marino and members of associations of other countries, seeking compensation for the relatives of victims of the flight, will meet with officials of the Department of Transport of France. On occasion, he hopes to take note of steps that have been taken by the French government to resume the search for wreckage, which depends on resources that must be released by the Ministry of Finance in that country. |
It may now appear that the associations have little faith in the BEA ...
Press release dated October 9, 2010 Association Entraide & Solidarité AF447 On Tuesday, October 5, 2010, the associations of families of victims of Flight AF447 attended the second meeting of the information committee set up at the request of Mr Dominique Bussereau, Secretary of State of Transport. Partial responses to the questions asked failed to restore confidence already badly shaken after the successive failures of the searches at sea. Transparency repeatedly requested was still not apparent and many facts show that the searches were not conducted with the rigor that we are entitled to expect from an official investigation body. Allow us to doubt the constancy to take on commitments. The BEA has clearly stated the desirability for a fourth phase of research at sea, we do not understand this procrastination to delay a decision with so unconvincing reasons. |
Originally Posted by CONF iture
(Post 5993392)
....Please, do not hesitate to improve or correct the translation.
The actual press release is much longer, but I think you've picked out the key phrases. CJ |
How to read a PR
In the interest of transparency, BEA has failed miserably, and for reasons well discussed here. In any search for conclusions, intent is paramount; it is also the driving force of our legal system. As a benchmark, the authority will ordinarily aim high, to deflect criticism, especially from invested parties. An out of balance motivation is easily identified: Who stands to "win", who will "lose"? In issuing presumptive statements, BEA tipped its hands from the outset, and precious little has been done to rectify the impression of bias. The damage has been done, and partisanship (bias) sullies the potential to recapture credibility. It must be noted that the complaints derive from an involved party(s); BEA should have expected this. Communication is paramount; failing that, "faux" communication is an insuperable hurdle. bear |
US Courts - "forum non conveniens" - AF447 accident
From a Brazilian press report - a tidied up Google translation:-
A U.S. judge refused last week to open a case for compensation to relatives of victims of the flight AF 447 Air France accident, which killed 288 people on June 1, 2009 when flying the Rio de Janeiro - Paris route. The information was released on Friday by attorney Leonardo Amarante, who represents some victims' families. In his ruling, Judge Charles R. Breyer, of the Court of California, said the U.S. court is not appropriate and dismissed the case, just as happened with the lawsuit by relatives of the victims of Gol Flight 1907 filed in the United States. "In the opinion of the court, the law shows that this is not the appropriate forum for a trial in this case," said the judge, on October 4. "This Court has great sympathy for all families who lost loved ones in this horrible accident and is interested in examining the case for a fairly timely compensation, but sympathy can not be a substitute for the impartial application of the law" he added. According to Leonardo Amarante, this type of decision aims to avoid a run on the U.S. courts, recognized worldwide for securing more favorable compensation to victims. "This experience has shown, the U.S. court is now completely closed to the trial of cases relating to accidents that have not happened in their country," he said. "The judge said the issue was 'forum non conveniens' for the trial of the case, and sent the case to another country, France. This is unfortunate, but it is a fact that all who wish to use American courts should be informed" said the lawyer. mm43 |
mm43
Bonjour, a long time awaiting, no? Given the accuracy of the translation, the denial is probably one of jurisdiction, a first consideration of any court. The a/c was built (assembled) in France from parts created worldwide, flown by another nation's flag carrier, on a route that was not even tangential to US' territory. Those Americans on board were undoubtedly not thinking of jurisdiction, they were perhaps lost in thoughts of France, vacation, business, etc. A Court, acting as a matter of "conveniens" must establish a thread of interest, legally. American citizens are quite helpless when travelling in the manner of AF447. Reason to fly United, on Boeings? Probably not, the odds are no doubt similar, and no one expects litigation. Jurisdiction and compensation are exceedingly narrow, given the safe nature of Aviation as a whole. The Public interest is served here by an objective and energetic investigative authority; the aim should be to determine the cause and direct solutions. Make up one's own mind re: the former. ciao bear |
http://i25.servimg.com/u/f25/11/75/17/84/af447_10.gif
http://i25.servimg.com/u/f25/11/75/17/84/af447_11.gif I know it has been discussed already from around mid august 2010 here But none of the main daily or monthly newspapers (Le Figaro, L’Express, Le Point, LeMonde, ...) has made mention of it … !? The closest I could find was in Le Point here The communiqué de presse du 09 octobre 2010 by the Association Entraide & Solidarité AF447 is only partially transcribed but no mention of the concern regarding that pollution spot …? And no link for the communiqué itself ! For reference : 4ème phase de recherche en mer, quelle est la situation ? AF 447 : la nappe qui dérange |
CONF iture
It would seem that the relevance or otherwise of the 'pollution spot' has not been spotted by the media, or those with a vested interest in keeping the BEA "on its toes". For the same reasons I expressed in my original post on the subject; the fact that the spots presence could not be explained, should signal further investigation. I have a feeling that Xmas is fast approaching, and the likelihood of not much happening until the New Year, probably sums it up. mm43 |
It is good to see sanity in US courts though it is sad to see the crtisicm of the BEA from people who really don't understand the challenges of subsea searches.
|
For the record, I believe "criticism" is indicated in this case. Forget "SubSea", and consider the debris and pollution found within days of the accident on the surface.
Vague "explanations" were expressed "From a passing ship", the "slick is not relevant" etc. The most likely impact location appears to have been actively avoided, and criticism of BEA is "Unfortunate"? A pallet was found, but it was wooden in manufacture, so could not have been "aboard". Really? Containers hold all manner of odd material, but lumber is evidence of absence? Ill considered pronouncements from the investigators were flying thick at the outset, to include the rejection of loss of hull contents prior to impact. Unproven. Autopsies were denied, and path results were limited (publicly) to conclusions which supported narrow and "beneficial" statements. Sad? Mildly insulting, in the face of the circumstances, imo. bear |
i do not think anybody is interested in founding the black boxes and give the results to the public. neither airfrance nor airbus.
basicly on the one hand we would see there that this plane flew into CB,s with hard turbulence and participation which would blame the skills of the airfrance pilots and on the other hand we would see at whatkind of turbulence and icing the airbus systems started to quit . in this case i bet boeing would find data from similar events that at similar circumstances an e.g 777 would probably survive to blame airbus. i bet airfrance, airbus and bea have a gentlemen agreement not to provide details to the public... |
aerobat77
In my experience, it is not quite so "spoken". It is what is called in English "Tacit". An "Unspoken" bond of common goals. It frequently is even somewhat "Innocent". Call it "Groupthink" bear |
Any Update
Has anyone an update on the serch or future investigation? This seems to be too serious and sad event to just quietly go away...
|
Originally Posted by TiiberiusKirk
(Post 6001003)
Has anyone an update on the search or future investigation? This seems to be too serious and sad event to just quietly go away...
Don't worry, enough of us try to keep track closely on what's going on, and it will be mentioned here as soon as there IS more news. CJ |
I took a look at the background to the oil slick/pallet issue. These were investigated by the Brazillians who were the ones who concluded that these were not relevant. I do not think we can lay this at BEA's door.
I have been impressed by the level of analysis and intelligence that has gone into all the threads on this tradgedy. However, I have also noted the lack of knowledge of the maritime environment which has at times been quite glaring. Shell Management is right and everyone else who is hinting or suspecting conspiracies is wrong. Searching the sea surface let alone the ocean floor is incredibly difficult and and time consuming. Given the environment of the sea bed in that part of the ocean it is unsurprising that they have not found the wreckage or the black boxes yet. I would caution others not to suspect 'bias' or 'conspiracy' but just to accept that this is a very difficult process which will probably take more time and may never even be resolved. That is just the way things are. |
It is important to make some distinctions in the content of this thread. I don't think I have read where anyone has posted that Ocean floor survey is straightforward, or in any way "easy". Of course it is not. For the most part what has been seen is an attempt to put some "perspective" on institutional "mission", and bias.
People use the word "conspiracy" sometimes without regard to its meaning. Any conversation relative to any bias is considered such; scrupulous honesty in an industrial endeavour is too much to ask, it is naive. I would direct anyone who feels the BEA has been mistreated to review some of my own observations. Lack of openness and transparency is obvious. When divulged, there is inclusion/exclusion of narrow data. Laying off suspicious pronouncements on others (Brazilians?) has no place; the "fuel slick" was deserving of more attention. Any deposit of lights on the sea has a source, and when self contained, is considered "fresh". The autopsies were used predictably, to address only the single "seated" conclusion. I think disagreement is healthy, but to label criticism as "ill-informed", lay, or "conspiratorial" goes a bit far. I would be the first to abandon my position if what I think is a less than forthcoming and muddled handling of this investigation is found instead to be refreshingly and scrupulously direct and exhaustive. bearfoil |
A reading of the early stages of the investigation reveals that the Brazillian authorities investigated it and concluded that it was not kerosine and this was not linked to the accident. There is nothing suspicious about BEA accepting what they were told by others and basing their search on other information. There is a little bit too much paranoia (too strong a word?) here and a subliminal assumption that the French are trying to cover up and hide flaws in their aircraft design or construction. You yourself have expressed thoughts that the investigation is being directed along certain channels. This is veering towards the suggestion that there is a conspiracy so the reference is apposite.
It may indeed be that BEA possesses a bias but it must also be understood that finding the aircraft on the sea bottom is very difficult with the information available. The latter is the more likely reason for the non-emergence of information - there just isn't any information to release. It is difficult to grasp but the undersea environment is a totally different environment and what the BEA are attempting is a first at this depth. Patience is a vital factor in this search. |
I think it is fair to say that we see things differently; we disagree. What I get from your comments prompts me to think you not only disagree, you question my entitlement to my view. I disagree with you; I do not question your right to entertain a contrary view.
I respect your viewpoint, and I also understand it. I ask that you respect my opinions as sincerely held; You needn't understand them if that is your wish. regards bear |
Old Carthusian;
A reading of the early stages of the investigation reveals that the Brazillian authorities investigated it and concluded that it was not kerosine and this was not linked to the accident. mm43 |
mm43
Actually no - I am referring to the slick and debris referenced by Bearfoil in #2229. The pollution spot is a different issue but not necessarily one that is of a high priority. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:10. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.