A theory:

Following the money, Airbus, Thales, and AF will be declared innocent. Pilots will be blamed for actions and/or not following training and/or protocol.

The data will be shaped to fit the verdict rather than the opposite.

Do I believe this theory?

If the 0 hour rumor proves correct, I will certainly be wondering...

Sorry if I am ten steps behind here, but what exactly has caused the talk about a possible crew change event?

The only way I could possibly see an actual pilot change is if the head captain wanted to be in the left seat to navigate through the unforeseen major weather event, and that I would suppose would be a long shot that he would have done that at such a time. "Here, let me help....oops, sorry, killed us all." I just can't imagine that.

Lemurian,

One of the objectives posting about the journalist (responsible for transport at Figaro) was to show he wrote a book on Air France´s "performance".

This could mean something to be considered by us before any premature (risky) conclusion.

But there is something very important to be considered by us in this magnificent and serious thread: The speed and the schedule from them to deliver results. And the mention to Safety. IMO this points to cause(s) simpler than the ones many of participants diligently elaborated.

Your comments are with the proper tone and i am concerned also.

This is very assertive, "loud and clear":

I posted #1517 imagining they reached a "good understanding" yet today.

But this Figaro´s news "shocked" me.

Pointing that the "Why´s phase" seems no longer necessary.

SaturnV wrote:

This is intriguing, as, if I remember correctly (no time to check at the moment) just a few pages ago, someone (Lemurian?) suggested that the changeover time could have been at 2:10.

If I remember correctly:

• the Captain's body was recovered in 2009.
  
• one body was recovered on about 5 May 2011 reportedly still strapped into a seat
  
• a second body was recovered the next day, also reportedly strapped into a seat
  

If they were trying to confirm location of all pilots, it would make sense for them to have tried to identify and recover the two remaining pilots and to recover all 4 seats up front, shown in the pic the PJ2 recently posted (post #1482).

What we don't know (assuming both bodies recently recovered were indeed still strapped in, and are indeed the pilots), is which seats they were still strapped into.

Is there a candidate seat in the rest area (I also seem to recall that the flight was full, suggesting we could rule out them being in a revenue seat in the cabin?).

It would be unfortunate if the initial significant upset coincided with changeover, slammed the door, only one pilot was up front, and no-one else could get in because of these "security measures" or even for no other reason that he was trying to aviate alone with everything FUBAR. To add to all other problems that have been discussed for so long.

I expect this might be quite apparent on first listening to the CVR, hence the speed this "leak" seems to have become apparent?

(By the way, it occurred to me recently: there must be something like easily 500+ accumulated years of flying experience represented in posts on the last 20 pages or so... From a layman my reaction is: Wow...)

Hi,
DFDR would not provide enough information in order to exactly understand what happened in this cockpit, as it is mentioned as "resolved". We could speculate about it but it won't really lead us anywhere until it is officially released. As it might be as soon as tomorrow (in a few hours from now), quoting Le Figaro, maybe we'll know it pretty soon!

This reporter is also talking about a full report that could be released in a week instead of the several months previously planned.... Hence, they could have something (New) but it would certainly not come from a DFDR quick analysis (as written).

A safety issue, which is not yet determined between the responsability of the company or the pilots, could cover a wide range of possible. Now, how it would have caused a crash without other factors is a bit puzzling at this point, until further information.

A bit puzzling
 

Takata,

I observed you put "a bit puzzling" instead of puzzling.

To imagine the possible results (we should watch Figaro H24:)) why not use the K.I.S.S. approach.? :}

The rumor network this way is going fast to suffer from "rumor starvation" :sad: in our thread.

Who to blame? The journalist :}

ll ask again:

What we can do (next morning :}) with the multidisciplinary and ingenious models diligently elaborated? :8

I´m also concerned on the "lack of motivation" that can assaults BEA investigators if the simple scenario is confirmed. :confused:

Unique case in air accidents investigation?
 

I remembered briefly the "simple cause'' in (A310) Aeroflot Flight 593. But was just a "brain glitch" i hope.

What if
 

What if the body/bodies found strapped in the pilot seats were not the pilots?

Terrorism would absolve AI and put the investigation to rest very quickly.

Nvrsaynvr wrote:

Yes it could, though I recall no serious claims for responsibility from any perpetrator group (which you would expect if that was the cause) and also the BEA finding (based on non-deployment of oxygen masks) that no depressurisation event occurred suggests no explosion at cruising altitude.

True, the latter would not rule out eg cockpit intrusion, just as it would not rule out eg, fire (eg SwissAir) or some other event not really discussed to date here.

But surely it would be improbable in the extreme for some other cause to be primarily responsible given the ACARS data indicating pitot problems and that the flight computers were messed up, and the enormous weather system in which it disappeared.

deSitter - there are forces in a storm that would knock a 777 or even some of the bigger stuff out of the sky in the blink of an eye. Let's have no more of this nonsense.

With regard to the rumour - we should treat it as it is, a rumour and nothing more. It may indeed be that the pilots were to blame or it may not. We should remember at all times that pilots are human beings and human beings do strange and unaccountable things. That being said we may be looking at some strange technical phenomena as well.

After "today rumor"(*)from this journalist you can forget this possibility that was practically "ruled out" before.

* high pressure, high flow, super cooled water

Relief time, possibly just before event at 0210. How the slots were filled then? But live radar picture in cockpit is unknown (as really see by crew, be it true or false) and can't be derived from the satellite.
Maybe we'll learn much more about crew issues today.

Contrary to your belief, those ACARS are just pointing at the opposite: no messing up of the flight computers because they detected those probe issues, and then disconnected the flight envelope protections that could have been affected as they were supposed to do.

Figaro is wrong
 

As I suspected it, the BEA has just posted a (quite hard) denial of yesterday Le Figaro article (called "sensationalist", "prematured", "invalid", etc.)

End of story, nothing NEW.
This inquiry is continued as planned, an interim report would be released this summer, but they are near-sure now, from their elements, that "all the light will be shred on the crash cause(s)". Nonetheless, they would certainly not make any conclusion at this stage.

The following, is hopefully a literal translation into English of the press release alluded to by takata in the post above.

According to an article in Le Figaro on the evening of Monday, May 16, 2011, the "initial data extracted from the black boxes would eliminate Airbus as responsible for the accident to the A330, Flight 447, which killed 216 passengers and 12 crew members on 1 June 2009."

Unconfirmed information, while examination of data from the flight recorder has just begun, is a tribute to sensationalism, an affront and lack of respect to the passengers and crew members who died, while causing concern amongst the families of victims who have already suffered trauma from such announcements. The BEA said that, as part of its mission as the authority for safety investigation, only it can communicate on the progress of the investigation. Thus, any information about the investigation from any other source is null and void if it has not been confirmed by the BEA.

The collection of all data contained in records both of voice and flight parameters downloaded today, makes it virtually certain that total light will be shed on this incident.

Investigators will now have to analyze and validate the various information. This is a long and painstaking process, and the BEA has already announced it will not issue an interim report before the summer.

At this stage of investigation, no conclusion can be drawn.

Le Figaro reveals its source ...

HOAX
 

So we are confronted with another mad example of the socalled "investigative jornalismn ??
Seems to be a very bad case of someone jumping on the bandwagon !!!

I must admit I feel more comfortable - as far as one can be in such a sad case - with a cautious and serious readout of all data available.

INFO LE FIGARO - Airbus on Tuesday morning a telex sent information to all airlines in the world to tell them that the black box analysis confirmed the reliability of the A330.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/icones/coeur-.gif Information to escape and brush the Office of Investigations and Analysis (BEA) at Le Bourget. From yesterday evening, Le Figaro announced that the first elements analyzed on the black boxes seem harmless to Airbus in the tragedy that claimed the lives of 228 people on 1 June 2009. Tuesday morning, the scenario seems to confirm puisqu'Airbus just sent a "Accident Information Telex" including Le Figaro has obtained a copy, to all its customers worldwide. The manufacturer shall indicate the voice of Yannick Malinge, head of security, "at this stage of preliminary analysis of the Flight Data Recorder (recorder flight parameters, Ed), Airbus has no immediate recommendation to to its operators. Updates will be provided as soon as significant items that Airbus will be available or will be authorized to issue more information in accordance with the investigation. "
Translation: nothing in the initial analysis of black boxes and gives no reason for Airbus to alert its customers of any technical fault of the A330 or any change in procedure. "Airbus has been approached over the weekend by investigators on the BEA flight parameters and technical details found in the FDR, Le Figaro said an expert on aviation safety. Airbus top management should now have a fairly clear idea of ​​what happened. "
Tuesday morning, the manufacturer had no comment, like Air France, which "looks to reliable and evidence based BEA," according to his spokesman. "We should know more in the day, Le Figaro said a government source. We do not yet have information on the data from Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR that records conversations in the cockpit). They should be critical, especially to understand what makes the crew. "

If there is even a small kernel of 'fact' in the Le Figaro "sensationalist" story, it may be associated with the BEA recovering, as a priority, the captain's seat, the co-pilot's seat, and the "fourth occupant's" seat, and two bodies in seats.

The bodies are being subjected to DNA analysis because of decomposition once they were raised from the pressure and temperature that preserved them. Other descriptions are that the 50 or so bodies in the wreckage area are in a waxen state, and possibly, or even probably, all have already been photographed. Presumably these two bodies were photographed as well before ascent. Beyond the prior photography, one could also use clothing, jewelry, dental records to help identify bodies from these depths.

The BEA and the French judicial authorities were surely told well in advance what was likely to happen to AF 447 bodies if raised to the surface as these were, so it would seem that these bodies were raised not as a random test, but in the course of recovery of those three seats in the cockpit.

So was the BEA, on the basis of the seats and bodies recovered, already anticipating to hear something on the CVR?

And to get in the realm of sensationalism, are the bodies those of the two FOs, or is only one that of a FO?
_____________

A lurking question in my mind is why would the Le Figaro reporter specifically call attention to Air France's security procedures? (And I don't for a second believe this is terrorism related in any way.)

This so-called "investigation journalist" considered as an "expert" is simply a nuisance for the public opinion and the readers of Le Figaro.
I was pretty sure yesterday of something like that after reading his first draft:
"In fact, The BEA can't remotedly say anything like that at this point of their investigation. Maybe the journalist simply misunderstood a source saying that "nothing wrong was found about this aircraft's behavior so far", badly deducing that FDR data were fully analysed!"
Now, after reading his source (Airbus communiqué to type users), his huge incompetence is even more apaling.

Hi SaturnV,
Please, give us a break with your questions about those people bodies here and there. Hopefully, there was strictly no com about that, and be sure that you won't be able to find any single (verified) comment on this subject in the close (or not so close) future. They've got the full CV recordings and it is quite enough for the investigators to understand the cockpit situation.
Per decency, any other matter about this subject should be left now to the families and authorities concerned.

AF 447 Recherche de reprendre (part2)
 

Bonjour,

Triste Exemple de Désinformation

Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : la piste d'une erreur de l'quipage Air France

AF 447 : la piste d'une erreur de l'équipage se confirme
Mots clés : af447, af 447, air france, RIO-paris
Par Fabrice Amedeo



INFO LE FIGARO - Airbus a envoyé mardi matin un télex d'information à l'ensemble des compagnies aériennes de la planète pour leur annoncer que l'analyse des boîtes noires confirmait la fiabilité de l'A330.

Les informations s'échappent au compte goutte du Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyse (BEA) au Bourget. Dès hier soir, Le Figaro annonçait que les premiers éléments analysés sur les boîtes noires semblaient mettre Airbus hors de cause dans la tragédie qui a couté la vie à 228 personnes le 1er juin 2009. Mardi matin, le scénario semble se confirmer puisqu'Airbus vient d'envoyer un «Accident Information Telex» dont Le Figaro s'est procuré une copie, à l'ensemble de ses clients dans le monde. Le constructeur y indique par la voix de Yannick Malinge, le patron de la sécurité, «qu'à ce stade des analyses préliminaires du Data Flight Recorder (l'enregistreur des paramètres de vol, NDLR), Airbus n'a aucune recommandation immédiate à faire à ses opérateurs. Des mises à jour seront fournies dès que des éléments significatifs seront disponibles ou qu'Airbus sera autorisé à délivrer davantage d'informations en accord avec l'enquête».
Traduction : rien dans les premières analyses des boîtes noires ne donne de raison à Airbus d'alerter ses clients sur une quelconque faille technique de l'A330 ou sur un quelconque changement de procédure. «Airbus a dû être sollicité ce week-end par les enquêteurs du BEA sur certains paramètres de vols et détails techniques découverts dans le DFDR, explique au Figaro un expert en sécurité aérienne. Le haut management d'Airbus doit maintenant avoir une idée assez claire de ce qui s'est passé».
Mardi matin, le constructeur ne faisait aucun commentaire, tout comme Air France qui «attend des éléments fondés et fiables du BEA», selon son porte parole. «Nous devrions en savoir un peu plus dans la journée, explique au Figaro une source gouvernementale. Nous n'avons pas encore eu d'information sur les données du Cockpit Voice Recorder (le CVR qui enregistre les conversations dans le poste de pilotage). Elles devraient être capitales, notamment pour comprendre ce qu'a fait l'équipage».

En effet , DESINFORMATION , car , ce même jour 17 05 2011


PARIS (Reuters) 17 mai 2011 10h30

<<- Aucune conclusion ne peut être tirée à ce stade de l'enquête sur les causes de l'accident du vol AF447 Rio-Paris, qui a coûté la vie à 228 personnes au-dessus de l'Atlantique en juin 2009, déclare mardi le Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses (BEA).>>

Translation please!

This article names afp as source. According to the article an actualisation of the 6th AIT has been issued on monday by airbus.

Boîtes noires AF447: pas de mesure à prendre sur les A330, indique Airbus - LExpress.fr

Wondering about the data analysis methodology:

I just read in another forum that one could input the FDR data in an A330 simulator in order to have a picture of what happened.

Is that true?

No need. It is a repost of tubby linton, a couple of posts above, which posted the same thing in English.

17 May news on BEA website.
 

New press release on BEA site communiqué de presse 17 mai 2011 currently in French only.

French to English translation from Google:

According to an article in Le Figaro on the evening of Monday, May 16, 2011, the "first elements extracted from the black boxes would put Airbus out of the accident on the A330, Flight 447, which killed 216 passengers and 12 crew members on 1 June 2009.

Tribute to sensationalism by publishing unconfirmed information while exploiting the data flight recorder has just begun is an affront to the respect of passengers and crew members died and causes trouble among the families of victims who have already undergone many announcement effects. The BEA said that, as part of its mission as the authority for safety investigation, only he can communicate on the progress of the investigation. Thus, any information about the investigation from another source is null and void if it has not been confirmed by the BEA.

The collection of all data contained in records voice and flight parameters gives us today is virtually certain that all light will be shed on this incident.

Investigators will now have to analyze and validate various information. This is a long and painstaking and the BEA has already announced he will not issue an interim report before the summer.

At this stage of investigation, no conclusion can be drawn.

Thanks Cats!:ok:

The discussion has been relatively disciplined to date.

Let's please NOT have any conspiracy theories. There are other places where such may be aired.

So does the sequence of this 'news' in Figaro start with Airbus sending a telex to its clients and customers and suppliers saying that from a preliminary reading of the FDR, the cause is not an Airbus hardware or software problem.

One of the companies receiving the telex is Dassault Group or one of its subsidiaries (Dassault Aviation). A person in Dassault reading the telex calls the reporter for Le Figaro who has reported on the AF 447 accident, and tells him about the telex. (Le Figaro is another subsidiary of Dassault Group.)

The reporter, then with a copy of the telex in hand, calls several of his sources in the government and/or at Airbus and asks 'What does this telex mean?' From their answers, he then writes the story, but first omitting the mention of the Airbus telex.

The BEA then issues a statement that basically says the Figaro story is premature, unofficial, and sensationalist, and that no such conclusions or findings have been reached. and that analysis of the recorders is continuing. However, the BEA does not say that the Figaro story is contradicted by information already read from the recorders.

Takata wrote: Thanks - I think it was very bad phrasing on my part.

What I meant to say was that they (metaphorically) threw up their hands and said "the data are so messed up that we can't do our normal job".

This was my understanding of the meaning of the ADR disagree and IR1/2/3 disagree messages + possibly the Prim1 and Prim2 faults that followed. ie pitot faults, then AD goes, then IR goes. If I am wrong on that, I stand corrected.

SaturnV : Correct IMO. I would just add that there is no need to appeal to capitalistic links between Airbus/Dassault/Le Figaro to explain the leak. I think that "just" wanting to sell paper is enough... :mad:
Mr. Amadeo (author of the article) may also be trying to sell his book "the hidden side of Air France", and seems to do so regardless of any ethics the journo profession may have concerning a full balanced truth. :rolleyes:

I was pleasantly surprised a few weeks ago along with the NYT article. :D
I am now much more negative about the "journalism" as practiced by Le Figaro yesterday and this morning. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Beyond the non-compliance with the grief of the families, mentioned by the BEA in its press release, another thing that bothers me deeply into this kind of "journalism " is illustrated by the french proverb : "Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose."
Literally : Slander, slander, there will always be something left.
:*

There was no such IR 1/2/3 disagree sent! neither loss of any IR unit at all.

Unauthorized guest
 

Re. Lemurian's post 1555,

"---- The first possibility is frightful : we are talking about a major safety breach here and way beyond my theory of a less-than-optimum operating flight deck crew.
The only thought that comes to my mind is, that close to the crew change-over, that there was only one pilot up front when the chips went down. In this speculation, the flight deck door is locked, without any possibility for the other pilots to regain their seat as the one left on his own was too busy .
Why am I thinking about that possibility ?
It was a theory, one among others, said a long time ago when it was learned that one of the pilots was traveling with his wife in J."

This speculation seems to fit much of the circumstances reported by Le Figaro - A330 exonerated, crew and AF security the causation, and dovetails with other subsequent post speculation. i.e. post 1580.

Sadly, as mentioned in prior posts, there is/are precedent(s) of an "unauthorized guest" in the cockpit contributing to the loss of an aircraft.

Speculating further - perhaps in the case of AF 447 there is a coincidence with an undetected weather event occurring immediately after a crew change with the "guest" in other than the jump seat.

In the italian forum of pprune there is already a copy of the AIT
http://www.pprune.org/italian-forum/...ml#post6454065

AIT7 is Ole's post is worth reading.

it says, basically, "we haven't found anything yet".

w1pf, your poor phrasing perhaps. What Airbus has said is they (the BEA) haven't yet found anything that implicates the plane, based on the preliminary read of the FDR.

This is the seventh of the AIT's that Airbus has issued re: AF 447 since June 1, 2009. So I doubt Airbus would now send out an AIT simply to announce that the BEA has started reading the recorders. That would be superfluous, and be passing on information that its customers and suppliers already knew.

Not quite. Another article has the telex saying:Rough translation:If that quote is accurate, it absolutely does not say anything like "because the aircraft was not the problem". It could mean the problem is complicated (not understood yet), or is the pitots (recommendations already issued), or any number of other possibilities. If this is the sole source for the Figaro article, then the journalist might as well be just making things up.

No, it doesn't - but their press release (now in english and german also) is pretty blunt.

Further, all the articles seem to be referring to FDR analysis only (ie. not CVR yet - in fact I'm sure I've seen one this morning that explicitly states the CVR data is yet to be analysed). I can't see how you would infer anything about "security procedures" or similar from the FDR.

+1 to infrequent above.

My first thought was that 'no immediate recommendations' meant that the issue as best as understood at this point has been dealt with thought changes already made. Thus if it was icing of the tubes then the replacements are felt, at least for the time being, to be sufficient to prevent a similar occurrence. In no way does the it mean the manufacturer did not make a mistake