Hi,

It seems they have recovered cockpit seats and door: do they think there was only one people there? Reengaging AP too early (would originated the december 2009 "advice" about not doing that before assuming speed semsors are right) > rough pitch (up or down), cockpit door slamed and only one people (even nobody!) left in?
CVR had told that, now ...

I pray that a full decade old, US driven security paranoid dogma had nothing to do with this.

Much simpler cause(s)?
 

Squawk_ident,

Another shock to (Air) France less than 48 hours the one at week end?

What we will do now with the elaborated models we imagined during these almost two years? :8 Indeed was a good exercise.

Simple cause?
 

And surfacing less than two weeks after the other "deep sea dive"?

We don´t deserve!

hi,

Le Figaro - France : AF 447 : Airbus semble tre mis hors de cause

In fact the investigation is already over.
I understand why so many countries are envious of France to have an investigation office so performant.
In fact .. with the BEA .. there is never any unpleasant surprises (for some .. of course)
Again fame and efficacy of the BEA are shown :)

Next ................... :(

I do hope that we yet establish the various layers of swiss cheese that may have played a part.

I don't like blame related leaks in an investigation, they sound so self serving

For the BEA to rush out with findings one day after hearing the CVR suggests that the cause is basic and fundamental, and there is concern about AF training and/or procedures that require immediate attention. (Assuming Figaro is pretty much correct with its news.)

Hi,

Now .. that the rush is over for the BEA .. I have a question for them ....
600 days since they examine the black boxes of Yemenia (remember ... it's so old) .. and no results .... :ooh:
Amazing when you see the BEA performance about AF447 :sad:

PJ2

I cannot agree with you that the photo in #1464 posted by lomapaseo is the engine without Fan Blades and rotor. In it, we see the remnants of those blades which were completely shorn off, the ones still attached are out of view. Note the Stator ring aspect at the 2:00 and see it matches the engine in the later pic posted by JP133600. I think the leading edge damage on the remaining blades is not so much due to shrapnel, as hydraulic "machining"..... At 2500rpm and one hundred knots down, perhaps a total velocity of 200knots, the hydraulics are.....destructive of titanium, and most certainly CFRP. (Let's see, at ten foot diameter, 2500 rpm, the Blades themselves have a tip velocity of ~~83,000 fpm, 1000+ mph,+

lomapaseo... I tend to concur. What makes me a bit suspect is that only one news source has published this. If it was more substantiated, I would think many news agencies would be on top of it.

This entire worldview of the computer flying an airplane is a catastrophe. I will never fly on any Airbus product for the remainder of my life. I want my life in the hands of pilots, not mediocre IT personnel.

Wouldn't you have to put this question to the investigation authority of the Comores?

The author of the Le Figaro article - Fabrice Amedeo, has demonstrated a number of times that he has some sources close to the investigation. It has previously been commented on in Part 1 of this thread.

When the smoke clears, there may well be some substance to what has been reported, but until then I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions.

Hi jcjeant,
Please, refrain from commenting about this investigation's fairness simply based on Le Figaro's Newsline. There is absolutely nothing in this article showing that "Airbus" may be discharged for anything about this crash.

Europe 1, citing Le Figaro "sources" is now titling "Airbus is out of cause" when the Figaro only titled that "Airbus might be out of cause".
From the article reading, you'll find that it is only a rumor as the CVR was not even cited. The FDR can't reveal that so fast and all by itself.

For my part, I'm discarding this information until tomorrow.
If something very new was revealed about the flight (charging pilots/AF), I would expect that it would be find in the CVR reading instead of the FDR. 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!
This is again a very bad reporting from Le Figaro anyway! (and not the first one from this journalist).

Figaro/Dassault
 

Saturn V

Mac

Takata
I too noticed that the DFDR was cited as the source of the Le Figaro information.

Takata is 100% on target. I would like to know what the crew had to say before forming a judgement.

Wx Radar Factor
 

Thanks for all the good comments.

It is not my opinion that the last generation of radars are unsafe, rather that the airlines give only lip service to radar training. UAL used to have an excellent radar training program in Denver, but it is long gone. I have heard of no other airline that does an adequate job. That's the main basis for my believing the new multi-scan radar provides a better margin of safety.

At this point, is it more economical to upgrade the radar and provide a basic understanding of it, or to provide extensive training to all pilots in optimum use of the old prior generation radar?

To be fair, once the wreckage was found, the recovery seems to have been impressively open and efficient. Looks like we could have had the answer a few weeks after the crash if the search had worked the way its supposed to. It also seems like the current black box system works. On the other hand, the pingers and/or the procedure for searching for them, definitely needs work.

If it is anything like Le Figaro is suggesting, then I am suprised already. I was expecting some kind of technical cause, probably compounded by Wx and/or crew mishandling the situation. The way the article puts it (unless my French is a lot worse than I think), this was primarily a crew/SOP screw-up, with technical issues possibly just incidental. I agree with SaturnV that it must be a really basic and fundamental issue for them to conclude that so quickly (if Le Figaro is right).

I don't think that outcome would be a pleasant suprise for anyone (I'd suggest not even AB).

I can't figure out how this could all fit with the evidence we've had so far though - unless the LOC came first and then caused the ADR issues ? But the automatics were in until ADR issue kicked them out - so who / what lost control ? I await the next BEA release with interest (and it has to be said, with a slight suspicion that Le Figaro might be completely wrong).

Which mean strictly nothing as EADS and Dassault are far from being very "close friends" (Rafale/Eurofighter and loads of divergent intersts). Also, note that Airbus do not comment this "news", as usual.

So they are saying that the autopilot dropped out due to a too lively ride??

I got slammed for suggesting that 4 days after the deal. The weather overwhelmed the a/p, and the weather discreped the pitots, and the ADR's fubared along with the others?? TCAS, WindShear (was there "actual" w/s)??

So the last ACARS was loss of altitude faster than the CPS could deal with it??
Probably at altitude? The descent was then as we thought, steep, fast, and quick??

Machaca's last pic of the a/c heading at 018.8 T could easily be spot on spot.

If the pilots kept wings level, there may have been no rotation, only one last steep descent.??

wish I spoke francais