That was my first thought too, but OTOH Airbus has issued :

AF447 AIT 6 dated April 03rd 2011

IMHO the contents of AIT 6 can be nothing more than the announcement, that the wreckage was discovered.

I find it hard to believe that they weren't listening to the CVR within seconds of it arriving at the BEA lab. Whether or not there's been an official analysis, a bunch of people already have a good idea what was going on in that cockpit, surely? Whispers and leaks were inevitable.

Would the FDR show whether either seat altered weather radar settings?(Suspect it wouldn't.) Or whether one seat showed a long period of inactivity?

Infrequent flyer, without excessively getting into semantics, I would note that Airbus said the information in AIT #7 had been approved by the BEA, and the AIT closes with this paragraph:

I don't have the texts of telexes 1-6, though the substance of AIT 1 or 2 addressed the recommended procedure for flying in weather conducive to rapidly changing airspeeds.

The question is whether knowing a negative is knowledge, and whether such 'knowledge' is what Airbus was conveying in its AIT #7.

How much of the quoted paragraph is standard boilerplate, or was this written to be specific to this investigation and its present state? What, if any, other information does Airbus have that it is not yet authorized to share?

New Questions
 

SaturnV

After reading the AIT, I do not think it really says anything.

I do have a couple of questions for all:

Per the first report:

FLAG ON CAPT PFD FPV and FLAG ON F/O PFD FPV (2h 11)

Symptoms: Disappearance of the FPV (bird) on the PFD's, Captains and First Officer's sides, and display of the red FPV flag.

Meaning: This message indicates that the FPV function is selected and unavailable.

1. Does this indicate that at least one person was in the cockpit at 2h 11?

2. Does this indicate that two people were in the cockpit at 2h 11, or would the selection on one "side" trigger and ACARS for both sides as two messages were generated?

3. This probably rules out intrusion as well?

4. The visitor theory does not fit well with the weather unless they were completely oblivious to the cell. Stated differently are guests appropriate (if at all, of course) when trying to thread the needle with the CB?

thermalsniffer, how would your flag scenario work if the cockpit is one pilot flying, and cabin crew in the #4 jump seat, as the captain is at rest, and the other FO has stepped away from the cockpit?

The speculation of an unauthorized guest (though tantalizing for those who write news stories) seems premature without supporting input, doesn't it? That creates a mystery (whose bodies were those and what seats were they strapped into) that seems extraneous, since as I understand the retrieval events, it was FOs bodies, strapped in, that were recovered. Perhaps I have missed a detail.

The fundamental concern, to me, remains: "If either of the pilots on the flight deck saw the nasty weather up ahead on the radar (the Christmas Tree :D ), what crew of any airline would blythely ride through it (with a guest in the front or not)?" (My answer is "None," particularly as this crew was reasonably experienced).

Would not the CVR hold the answers to that question? Discussion of weather (or lack of it) between those in the seats, or between those handing over duties at a crew change, should indicate what they perceived as the weather issues at hand.

Graybeard's, and PJ's, and Teddy Robinson's comments on Wx radars and how to use them rise to the fore.

Teddy, thanks for the experiential points on what can happen when one doesn't "see" what one is flying into. I have a mind's eye picture of (possibly) a crew change interrupted by one of those "tossing people about" events you mention. A crew might be playing catch-up as soon as that happens. :( Back in the tube, CC might be dealing with sudden chaos, as a few are tossed about, and a few are now tending to passengers who (not strapped in) are also tossed about depending upon their being in or near seats, or up and going to the bathroom, etcetera.

Itching to find out what was being said in the cockpit.

Listening out the CVR
 

Airwise publication
 

A more trueful and probable accounting of current status published by Airwise today.

No Urgent Safety Worries From Air France Black Box

Translating French
 

Just had an interesting thought - some long-forgotten French knowledge just woke up and reminded me that "sécurité" can also translate as "safety" (google chooses "secuirty as primary translation)

The Figaro article put blame on AF "procédures de sécurité" - can anyone with better French than me confirm whether, in aviation context, this would mean:

Security Procedures or Safety Procedures

If the latter, then all the intruder discussion may have been a red herring, and it would also fit with the reporter guessing things ("security procedures" implies to me much more specific information)

Wow.
 

Absolutely! Some here seem to be feeding on this little rag-selling tidbit from figaro like coyotes on a fresh killed deer.

Hang in folks, real answers will come.

SaturnV

First and foremost, I have no more knowledge of these systems then the village idiot. However, I am frustrated this morning after almost two years of intriguing and well-reasoned discussion to see claims that perhaps no one was on deck from 2:10-2:15, when there is at least one (FPV), if not possibly more events in the ACARS messages indicating crew action during this period. (I am referring to the PRIM and SEC shutdowns).

So all I am really asking is to contrast the speculation that no one or only one person was in the cockpit, with the ACARS messages. I cannot as I do not understand how ACARS generates the two messages---Captain and F/O.

If one selects the Flight Path Vector function and it is unavailable, does this generate messages for both?

Can you select the FPV of one seat from the other seat?

If the answer to either one of these question is yes, then the one person theory is possible, if the answer to either one is no, then it is false.

infrequentflyer, I think sûreté is the primary French word for safety.

Translating French
 

100% with you Frequent Flyer - Securite is used within French aviation circles to mean Safety and is frequentlty mistranslated even by French speakers as Security...causes me a great deal of consternation in meetings regularly. I think that in this context it should be taken to mean safety - sorry to disappoint all the conspiracy theorists out there.

I just checked the press release for this quote "Le constructeur y indique par la voix de Yannick Malinge, le patron de la sécurité," and googled Yannick Malinge He is described as Airbus' Director of Flight Safety

Translation
 

infrequentflyer789

You make a good point on the translation of the French word "sécurité". I checked several on-line translation sites and they translate this word to mean safety, not security.

Two days worth of discussion (based on rumor) of who's in the cockpit.

Keeping in mnd that the aircraft appeared to have reached the water relatively flat with engines running, How does this tie into a pure piloting action or inaction with an advanced aircraft?

A simple cause should not be put forth without tieing all the chain links together

I read this as "We are still wrapping our minds around what are observing in the record." I.E. not a cut and dried explanation for the accident.

With one of the earliest findings being a probable airspeed disagreement it seems unlikely that the airframe could be completely blameless in all of this. However as someone said earlier, recommendations have already been issued in that regard.

What has been the primary remaining mystery has been the failure of the crew to work through the problem. Hopefully this is what we will get the answer to in the next few days.

The secondary unknown has been the precise mechanics of the final fatal upset. That should always be of some considerable interest to the airframers even if the causes are not directly attributable to the design.

@ Dont Hang Up

As you are doubtless aware, "design" includes man/machine interface, so perhaps "design" issues require serious attention and consideration. ;)

Non French speaker grateful for all of you who have cleared this up. :ok:

Just Turn Over the Data
 

What right does BEA have to withhold the data? It's been shared with all of the "inside parties". Just post it and let people draw their own conclusions.

By maintaining exclusive control of the data, and teaspooning it out, these self-impressed insiders get to show just us how important they are by issuing the "official report."

Why So Long to Synchronize?
 

It is hard to believe that it would take "several weeks" to synchromize the flight data with the the cockpit voices. You would think that a program already exists to task this.