Air France Flight 447 Disappears?

[Breton]

Re: Air France Plane Goes Down Over Atlantic


I would like to just add a bit more about the subject of the choice of words that have been used to describe the crash up until now.
I want to once again emphasize that “plunged into the Atlantic” has been used quite a lot before this July 2 press release given by the French lead investigator Alain Bouillard.

22 Jun 2009, 0326 hrs IST, AFP
SAO PAULO: Eleven of the 50 bodies recovered from an Air France jet that plunged into the Atlantic three weeks ago have been identified by fingerprints and dental records, Brazilian officials said on Sunday.
[…]

Brazil calls off search for Air France victims
June 29 2009 , 12:34:00
Brazil's Air Force and Navy have called off the search for additional victims and wreckage from Air France Flight 447, which crashed over the Atlantic on June 01 carrying 228 people.

Uh… how does one CRASH OVER something? Well I suppose the point is, since the article does not say anything about “breaking up” then I guess the PTB (powers that be) are ok with this wording. Maybe a little bit of independence being shown by some editor?

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:37:39 PM (IST)
Brazil Ends Search for Bodies from Air France Jet
AFP
Brazil, Jun 27: Brazil's military has said it had ended its search for more bodies and debris from an Air France jet that plunged into the Atlantic nearly four weeks ago.

Updated Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:27 am TWN, By Bradley Brooks, AP
Search for Air France recorders likely to go on
SAO PAULO -- Brazil called off the search for more bodies and debris from the Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean but an American officer said the search for the black boxes would likely continue for at least another 16 days.

Official: No black box signals from Flight 447
By Angela Charlton, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 23, 2009
The Airbus A330 plane fell into the Atlantic after running into thunderstorms en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. All 228 people aboard were killed. The cause of the crash remains unclear.

French nuclear sub begins search for jet's black boxes
Searching for the black boxes ... the French nuclear-powered submarine Emeraude.
June 11, 2009
A French nuclear submarine launched a high-tech undersea sweep on Wednesday to track down the black boxes missing after an Air France flight plunged into the Atlantic.

Possibly, the wording “plunged into the Atlantic”, was borrowed from the previous plane mishap of EgyptAir:

October 31, 1999, EgyptAir Flight 990, en route to Cairo from New York, plunged into the Atlantic Ocean sixty miles south of Nantucket, taking 217 lives.
[…]

_Breton_

 

[Laura]

And, are you ready for it? With all the evidence that has been revealed thus far, day by day by day, they actually have the nerve to write this hogwash!!!

_http://theusdaily.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=790015&type=home

Doomed Air France plane was not destroyed in flight
By Barbara Lewis

PARIS (Reuters) - The state of the wreckage from Air France flight AF 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, which crashed on June 1 with 228 people on board, suggest the plane was not destroyed in mid-air, French investigators said on Thursday.

Alain Bouillard, who leads the investigation on behalf of France's BEA air accident board, said the search for the flight recorders, or black boxes, from the Airbus A330 aircraft would continue until July 10.

_http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124654219866085907.html#mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

Air France Jet Crashed Intact
Doomed Plane Hit Water at Steep Angle, Investigators Say

By DANIEL MICHAELS and MAX COLCHESTER

PARIS -- The Air France jetliner that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean last month, killing all 228 people onboard, hit the water largely intact at a steep angle and broke up on impact, French accident investigators said Thursday.

At a news conference, officials of France's Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses, or BEA, said they still don't know what caused Airbus Flight A447 to plunge into the ocean less than four hours after it had taken off from Rio de Janeiro en route to Paris. BEA officials said they were also still grappling with another question: why the plane was reported missing a full seven hours after reporting its last radio contact.

By establishing that the plane did not break up in midair -- a discovery made by examining wreckage pulled out of the water -- the investigators are starting to piece together the flight's final moments. They are likely to eliminate certain scenarios, such as a midair explosion or that the plane came apart from excessive speed.

An early focus of the investigation into the June 1 crash has been the possible malfunctioning of the plane's speed sensors, or pitot tubes, which have a history of freezing and giving faulty speed readings on certain models of Airbus planes. Automated maintenance messages transmitted by the plane moments before it disappeared indicated that the jetliner's flight computers received faulty speed data.

Officials said Thursday that the pitot tubes, though a factor, weren't the primary cause of the crash. The full chain of events that prompted the accident is still unknown because salvage teams haven't yet recovered the plane's digital recorders, known as black boxes. "We are very far from establishing the cause of the accident," said Alain Bouillard, the BEA official leading the probe. He said there were no traces of fire or explosion in the wreckage.

Mr. Bouillard said search teams will continue efforts to locate the recorders' audible beacons using ultra-sensitive undersea microphones until July 10, when batteries on the "pingers" will almost definitely have died. They will continue using an autonomous unmanned submarine to search the sea floor for wreckage using sonar until mid-August, after which the search will end, Mr. Bouillard said.

It remains unclear how or where passengers died, Mr. Bouillard said, partly because French investigators still don't have access to autopsies being performed in Brazil. A BEA spokeswoman said that Brazilian police wouldn't give BEA medical experts access to autopsy reports, although the agency doesn't know why. She said it is unclear when the BEA will gain access, and that a French doctor had returned home after traveling to Brazil.

BEA officials said they were also looking into why the plane was only reported missing almost seven hours after its last radio contact. Another five hours passed before Brazilian authorities launched a search and rescue mission.

Mr. Bouillard said that when the plane passed from a Brazilian air-traffic control region to a Senegalese zone at 2:20 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time, controllers in Dakar, Senegal, should have contacted Brazil's Atlantic center to confirm the hand-off. But the Dakar center never received the plane's flight path, as it should have, and never confirmed it was tracking the jetliner. The Brazilian center didn't contact Dakar to check why controllers hadn't been in contact, Mr. Bouillard said -- a lapse that the BEA plans to investigate further.

Air France flight 447 was reported missing by controllers in Madrid and Brest, France between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. GMT, after the plane failed to report in to its stations after leaving the Dakar zone, Mr. Bouillard said. Brazilian search teams set out four hours later, he said. Search teams have recovered 51 bodies, including that of the captain.

Mr. Bouillard said that wreckage indicated the plane descended steeply and fast. The tail fin, for example, appears to have been ripped off from back to front, suggesting that as the plane stopped suddenly, the tail kept moving forward.

_http://avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1/0037

Crash: Air France A332 over Atlantic on Jun 1st 2009, aircraft impacted ocean
By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Jul 2nd 2009 16:37Z, last updated Thursday, Jul 2nd 2009 19:12Z

The BEA have released their preliminary reports in both English (3MB - without attachments) and French (13MB) reporting, that the airplane had taken off from Rio de Janeiro at 232.8 tons near its maximum takeoff weight (233 tons) at 22:29Z. The airplane was subsequently cleared to FL350. At 01:35Z the crew contacted Brazil's Atlantic air traffic control control on the HF frequency reporting, they had just overflown waypoint INTOL, giving estimates for waypoints SALPU at 01:48Z and ORARO at 02:00Z. The crew also transmitted their SELCAL code and a test was performed.

The controller subsequently asked them to maintain FL350 and provide an estimate for TASIL, repeating the request for three times without reply.

The airplane's ACARS was programmed to transmit its own position about every 10 minutes. The last position transmitted at 02:10Z was 02 degrees 58.8 minutes North and 30 degrees 35.4 minutes West (N02.98 W30.59).

Analysis of the weather infrared images produced by the Meteosat 9 satellite every 15 minutes, with an image taken about 7 minutes before and another 7 minutes taken after the last position report at 02:10Z, does not allow conclusions, that the weather was exceptional, but shows the existance of a cluster of powerful cumulonimbi along the planned flight path starting at 00:30Z. The cluster is the result of 4 smaller clusters combining, its east-west extension was some 400km (216nm). By around 02:00Z those cumulonimbi had reached their maturity, it is therefore highly probable that some produced notable turbulence at FL350. It is also possible, that there was significant electrical activity at that flight level. The existance of supercooled water however is not very probable.

Dakar Air Traffic Control requested information about flight AF-447 from Brazil's Atlantic Control by phone on 01:48Z as he had no flight plan, and later coordinated the airplane with Cape Verde Control. He told Cape Verde at 02:48Z, that he had not made contact with AF-447. At 04:21Z Dakar asked Brazil's Atlantic control by phone to confirm, that the airplane had passed TASIL. Brazil confirmed that the airplane was estimated TASIL at 02:20Z at FL350, but no contact was made. Dakar computed an estimate of 03:45Z for entering the airspace of Cape Verde, but Cape Verde reported at 04:39, that no contact had been made. At 05:09Z Brazil's Atlantic Control had rechecked the estimates and called Dakar about news from flight AF-447 asking, whether the airplane was already under Cape Verde Control, to which Dakar replied "Yes, no worry."

At 04:11Z Dakar Control had asked flight AF-459 to contact AF-447. By 04:18Z AF-459 asked Air France Dispatch to contact AF-447. At 4:24Z Air France sent an ACARS message to AF-447.

At 05:50Z after several unsuccessful attempts to establish contact with AF-447 Air France contacted the Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking center, but no emergency beacon had been registered.

At 06:13Z Brest Center contacted by Air France and coordinating first attempts to locate the airplane said, that according to an indirect source that had not been validated flight AF-447 had been in contact with Moroccan ATC.

At 06:35Z Madrid Center told Brest, that flight AF-447 was in touch with Casablanca and would enter Lisbon control zone within 15 minutes.

At 06:44Z Air France Dispatch established, that Casablanca was not in touch with AF-447, but AF-459.

After verifying with a number of control centers Brest raised alert at 08:15Z.

Following 25 ACARS Messages were received from the airplane:

2:10:10 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 221002006 AUTO FLT AP OFF
2:10:16 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 226201006 AUTO FLT REAC W/S DET FAULT
2:10:23 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 279100506 F/CTL ALTN LAW
2:10:29 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 228300206 FLAG ON CAPT PFD SPD LIMIT
2:10:34 #0210/+2.98-30.59
2:10:41 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 228301206 FLAG ON F/O PFD SPD LIMIT
2:10:47 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 223002506 AUTO FLT A/THR OFF
2:10:54 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 344300506 NAV TCAS FAULT
2:11:00 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 228300106 FLAG ON CAPT PFD FD
2:11:15 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 228301106 FLAG ON F/O PFD FD
2:11:21 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 272302006 F/CTL RUD TRV LIM FAULT
2:11:27 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 279045506 MAINTENANCE STATUS EFCS 2
2:11:42 - .1/WRN/WN0906010210 279045006 MAINTENANCE STATUS EFCS 1
2:11:49 - .1/FLR/FR0906010210 34111506 EFCS2 1,EFCS1,AFS,,,,,PROBE-PITOT 1X2 / 2X3 / 1X3 (9DA),HARD
2:11:55 - .1/FLR/FR0906010210 27933406 EFCS1 X2,EFCS2X,,,,,,FCPC2 (2CE2) /WRG:ADIRU1 BUS ADR1-2 TO FCPC2,HARD
2:12:10 - .1/WRN/WN0906010211 341200106 FLAG ON CAPT PFD FPV
2:12:16 - .1/WRN/WN0906010211 341201106 FLAG ON F/O PFD FPV
2:12:51 - .1/WRN/WN0906010212 341040006 NAV ADR DISAGREE
2:13:8 - .1/FLR/FR0906010211 34220006 ISIS 1,,,,,,,ISIS(22FN-10FC) SPEED OR MACH FUNCTION,HARD
2:13:14 - .1/FLR/FR0906010211 34123406 IR2 1,EFCS1X,IR1,IR3,,,,ADIRU2 (1FP2),HARD
2:13:45 - .1/WRN/WN0906010213 279002506 F/CTL PRIM 1 FAULT
2:13:51 - .1/WRN/WN0906010213 279004006 F/CTL SEC 1 FAULT
2:14:14 - .1/WRN/WN0906010214 341036006 MAINTENANCE STATUS ADR 2
2:14:20 - .1/FLR/FR0906010213 22833406 AFS 1,,,,,,,FMGEC1(1CA1),INTERMITTENT
2:14:26 - .1/WRN/WN0906010214 213100206 ADVISORY CABIN VERTICAL SPEED


The position report was timestamped at 02:10:34Z between two maintenance messages.

The message protocol required, that the airplane's ACARS system requested communication, got assigned a channel, transmitted the data, awaited acknowledgement (after the data were transmitted from the satellite to the ground station) and closed down the communication for each message. The messages therefore arrived with a spacing of at least 5-6 seconds.

No satellite phone communications were registered from the aircraft.

The fault message "PROBE PITOT 1+2 / 2+3 / 1+3 (9DA)" means, that a speed decrease of more than 30 knots was detected within one second. The three air data units were considered valid at that time.

The fault message "FCPC2(2CE2)/WRG:ADIRU1 BUS ADR1-2 TO FCPC2" indicates, that the information provided by ADR1 via bus 2 is no longer considered valid by the primary flight controls computer 2, the code indicating, that the other primary flight control computers had not detected that fault according to the ATA code 27 (otherwise ATA code 34 would follow). This message has not yet been explained.

The fault message "ISIS (22FN-10FC) SPEED OR MACH FUNCTION" indicates, that there had been an internal failure of the calibrated air speed or mach computation, or calibrated air speed or mach were outside certain limits.

The fault message "ADIRU2 (1FP2)" has not yet been explained.

The fault message "FMGEC1 (1CA1) (2 h 13)" has not yet been explained.

The warning messages indicate, that various monitoring processes have been triggered, at least one of them related to air speed measurement inconsistency.

The cockpit effect messages mean:

- AUTO FLT AP OFF: The autopilot disconnected without crew intervention
- AUTO FLT REAC W/S DET FAULT: windshear detection is unavailable
- F/CTL ALTN LAW: FBW switched into alternate law (protections lost)
- FLAG ON CAPT PFD SPD LIM and FLAG ON F/O PFD SPD LIM: characteristic speeds (green dot, VLS, ...) lost due to loss of calculating function
- AUTO FLT A/THR OFF: Autothrottle disconnected other than by crew intervention or throttle levers were moved into the idle notch
- NAV TCAS FAULT: TCAS is inoperative, the message has not yet been explained
- FLAG ON CAPT PFD FD and FLAG ON F/O PFD FD: flight director bars have been removed from primary flight displays
- F/CTL RUD TRV LIM FAULT: The rudder limiter value computation is unavailable, the rudder remains limited to the present values until slat extension
- MAINTENANCE STATUS EFCS2 and MAINTENANCE STATUS EFCS1: not brought to the crew attention
- FLAG ON CAPT PFD FPV and FLAG ON F/O PFD FPV: flight path vector displays removed from the primary flight displays, red flags shown instead
- NAV ADR DISAGREE: Computers have rejected one ADR and then detected a disagreement between the remaining ADRs on one of the monitored paramenters.
- F/CTL PRIM 1 FAULT: Primary Flight Controls Computer 1 has stopped functioning either as result of a command or failure
- F/CTL SEC 1 FAULT: Secondary Flight Controls Computer 1 has stopped functioning either as result of a command or failure.
- MAINTENANCE STATUS ADR2: not brought to crew attention
- ADVISORY CABIN VERTICAL SPEED: cabin pressure changes at a rate of 1800 feet/minute or greater for 5 seconds.

Visual inspection of the recovered debris showed, that the tail fin broke during a forward motion with a slight twist to the left. The galley recovered and identified as G2 was basically intact, but baskets and racks were compressed in the lower part of both galley carts. A toilet door showed evidence of great compression force. The floor of the crew rest module was bent upwards under the effect of a strong upward pressure from below, the connecting brackets between floor and wall were bent backwards.

The BEA concludes the analysis: "Observations of the tail fin and on the parts from the passenger (galley, toilet door, crew rest module) showed that the airplane had likely struck the surface of the water in a straight line, with a high rate vertical acceleration."

The bodies of about 30 victims recovered were all clothed and relatively well preserved. At this time of the investigation the BEA still did not have access to the autopsy results, the report states (English version, end of page 37).

Map of locations of recovered debris, red circles mark locations of bodies (Graphics: BEA):

The BEA has concluded their press conference introducing the results of their investigation and their preliminary report so far.

The key sentences have been (according to simultaneous English translation by BEA):

- No technical problems with the airplane before the takeoff.
- The airplane did NOT break up in flight.
- The 24 ACARS messages refer to the loss of airspeed (pitot tubes)
- The airplane also lost information about the direction the airplane was going to.
- The airplane hit the ocean in a flat attitude at high vertical speed.
- Weather was a classic ITZ scenario.

Nothing had been found before June 6th, then the first bodies and parts have been found. Parts from the nose to the tail of the airplane have been found including parts of the structural body of the airplane, one part of the engine and parts of the main cabin have been recovered. No clothes have been found, recovered life vests were not inflated. 51 bodies were recovered.

One of the cockpit walls has been found deformed. A large part of the crew rest room has been found, impact marks indicating that something came from the bottom up to the top. The debris recovered so far suggests, that the airplane did not break up in flight, but went down vertically.

Three other flights (IB-6024 [A343, Rio De Janeiro GIG-Madrid MAD 12 minutes behind AF-447], LH-507 [B744, Sao Paulo GRU-Frankfurt FRA] 20 minutes behind AF-447, AF-459 [A332, Sao Paulo GRU-Paris CDG 37 minutes behind AF-447]) tracked the same route to TASIL between FL350 and FL370 around the time of the crash. They all had to avoid storm cells and diverted from the airway between 11 and 80nm. They experienced moderate turbulence. All three flights had problems to establish communication with Dakar. There were no satellite phone conversations from those crews.

The weather in the Intertropical Convergence Zone was a classic scenario with storm cells.

The airplane had started the engines at 22:10Z and got airborne at 22:29Z. Last radio communication was at 01:35Z. No transfer had been completed from Rio's control to Dakar control. An attempt by the AF-447 crew to establish contact with Dakar Control has been detected at 02:01Z (the wording to the means of communication was unclear, supposedly it was a digital data transmission via ACARS). No distress call was detected.

First alerts were sent at around 8:30 (unclear whether GMT, local Europe, local Brazil).

The BEA refuses to believe, the black boxes would not be found, however stated, that the search for the recorders will be terminated on July 10th.

The Original BEA English translation said: The airplane went down vertically, a review of French wording offers a different picture however stating, that the airplane came down in a flat attitude at high vertical speed.

The full preliminary report has just been published:

 

[Joe]

Re: Air France Plane Goes Down Over Atlantic

I would like to just add a bit more about the subject of the choice of words that have been used to describe the crash up until now.
I want to once again emphasize that “plunged into the Atlantic” has been used quite a lot before this July 2 press release given by the French lead investigator Alain Bouillard.
_Breton_

Nice collection of data there Breton.

So we have this one::

http://avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1/0037

The bodies of about 30 victims recovered were all clothed and relatively well preserved. At this time of the investigation the BEA still did not have access to the autopsy results, the report states.

And this one:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/06/17/9828756-ap.html

The paper also reported that some victims were found with little or no clothing, and had no signs of burns.

Sounds like a whitewash to me!

 

[Breton]

Re: Air France Plane Goes Down Over Atlantic

So we have this one::

http://avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1/0037
The bodies of about 30 victims recovered were all clothed and relatively well preserved. At this time of the investigation the BEA still did not have access to the autopsy results, the report states.

And this one:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/06/17/9828756-ap.html
The paper also reported that some victims were found with little or no clothing, and had no signs of burns.

Sounds like a whitewash to me!

I know what you mean!

Although I have seen it many times before, sometimes I am somewhat taken aback at the brazen audacity being shown by the powers that be.

If we take this information at face value, combined with reports in the Associated Press of 51 found bodies to date, then if only 30 victims were fully clothed, I suppose it logically follows that 21 victims were not. How did they get de-clothed then, which typically indicates a break-up in the air? The presence of even ONE de-clothed body should be enough for any investigator to keep an in the air break-up scenario on the table!

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/more-air-france-bodies-identified-20090702-d5fe.html
More Air France bodies identified
July 2, 2009
The remains of 51 people have been recovered, and 35 have been identified. [...]

What gall, to so stunningly obviously discard relevant data because it does not fit their explanation!

_Breton_

 

[nicklebleu]

I completely agree that this is all hogwash! There are too many conflicting issues...

Well, for starters, "vertical" is just what it says! It's head first and by no way "belly first", which would be HORIZONTAL.
And the other issue, which hasn't been covered enough by the report is the fact, that the bodies were found miles apart, which in my opinion is a pretty strong argument for a midair breakup.

For me the most likely explanation at this stage is still a tunguska-like catastrophe, which might also have been accompanied by a strong EM pulse, which may have thrown the avionics into complete disarray and may have contributed to the inability of the computer to rectify the problem soon enough (remember, the A330 is a fly-by-wire where the pilot do not have override authority - unlike their colleagues flying Boeings).

 

[rs]

I completely agree that this is all hogwash! There are too many conflicting issues...

Well, for starters, "vertical" is just what it says! It's head first and by no way "belly first", which would be HORIZONTAL.

You are confusing attitude with direction. The attitude is the orientation the aircraft relative to some fixed coordinate space. Imagine sitting in the cockpit.

pitch == up and down, like your head looks up or looks down, like nodding your head in a typical "yes". it can also be thought of as a rotation about a horizontal axis through the wings in the center of the plane.
yaw == left and right turn, like turning you head to the left or the right like nodding your head in a typical "no". It can also be though of as a rotation about a vertical axis through the center of the fuselage.
roll == tilting to the left or the right like a dog tilts its head to one side. It can also be though of as a rotation about a horizontal axis that runs through the center of the fuselage, right down the isle in the plane.

Add to this the direction that the plane is going, which is not related to the attitude. To best imagine this "decoupling" of attitude and direction, imagine that the airplane is going through a vacuum.

forward/aft describes the motion going forward (or back) like walking forward or back
starboard/port describes the motion to the right or left, like stepping sideways to the right or left.
up/down (descend/ascend) describes the motion up and down, like climbing up or down a ladder.

With those six parameters you completely specify the motion of the aircraft relative to some other point.

What the "party line" means is that the aircraft was (mostly) level, i.e. no significant pitch, yaw or roll, and that the direction of flight had a significant vertical component i.e. it was descending rapidly.

This is outside the normal, but it is routine for aircraft to be mostly level (with the obvious pitch up or down) to be ascending or descending during normal flight.

I really don't think the description of the impact direction and attitude either clarifies or obfuscates the total picture, it just implies that much of the aircraft was intact when it hit the water. It does not explain why the aircraft descended 35,000 feet, nor does it say anything about what the ride from 35,000 feet to sea level was like. It is like seeing one frame of a movie, without the preceding frames, you have no context.

 

[Joe]

If the plane broke on impact with the water, why was there absolutely no communication from the crew during the fall time? Why, as reported, were no sercurity measures undertaken by passengers or crew during this time?

 

[rs]

If the plane broke on impact with the water, why was there absolutely no communication from the crew during the fall time?

The maintenance reports indicate wide spread avionics failure. Was their radio working?

Why, as reported, were no security measures undertaken by passengers or crew during this time?

The maintenance reports indicate a loss of cabin pressure. Were the passengers conscious?

There are three undisputed facts and a reasonable interpretation:

1) AF447 flew into a severe weather pattern under normal flight conditions.
2) there were a burst of automated maintenance reports over the course of several minutes, it could be as much as four, it could be just over two minutes.
3) debris demonstrably from AF447 was found floating on the Atlantic Ocean.

The reasonable interpretation on analysis of the damage patterns of the debris is that the airframe was in a more or less normal attitude with high vertical velocity.

In between fact #1 and fact #3 is a whole host of unanswered questions. Many of the answers to these question would be had by an analysis of the (so called) black boxes, the FDR and CVR. The better question to ask and answer is "do the PTB really want to find those black boxes? Are military submarines involved simply because they have the better technology to locate these devices in such difficult conditions or so they can more easily effect a cover-up of what they already know to be true?

 

[Joe]

If the plane broke on impact with the water, why was there absolutely no communication from the crew during the fall time?

The maintenance reports indicate wide spread avionics failure. Was their radio working?

Why, as reported, were no security measures undertaken by passengers or crew during this time?

The maintenance reports indicate a loss of cabin pressure. Were the passengers conscious?

Ok, in that case, what needs to be focused on is:

what could have caused a sudden and catastrophic loss of both communication devices and cabin pressure on such an aircraft

 

[kenney]

they found the flight recorder boxes, and then they didn't a few hours later. reeks of someone not in the "loop" going to the news first.

i have trouble believing that the signal from those boxes could be misconstrued with natural sounds of the ocean. they are designed to be found.

another flight crashes a few weeks later without even a storm for explanation and they just keep it out of the news all together

we will only find out what they want us to think,

 

[nicklebleu]

rs,

I don't quite agree with your reply ...

I am perfectly aware of the 3d attitudes of an airplane, as I used to fly them myself. Still, "vertical" means just that. A plane cannot fly vertically downwards in a horizontal attitude, as you are suggesting. If a plane slows down forward movement far enough, it will encounter a "stall", the loss of airflow over the wing, which usually leads to a nose-down attitude, also called a nosedive. Now I agree that the modern airliner may not perfectly adhere to this scenario due to supercritical airwing design. But the only way, a plane could come down the way you suggest would be in a flat spin, where the forward movement is almost entirely exchanged by a rotational movement around it's vertical axis. I am not an aerodynamic engineer, but from my limited knowledge I reckon this is pretty unlikely.

I cannot see any other way for an airliner to come down vertically in a horizontal attitude. Now I don't know if it is valuable to further deliberate about this point. The bottom line is, that the communique of the French aircrash investigator is hogwash, and one guy contradicts the other - which to me smells much of "damage control".

 

[John G]

But the only way, a plane could come down the way you suggest would be in a flat spin, where the forward movement is almost entirely exchanged by a rotational movement around it's vertical axis. I am not an aerodynamic engineer, but from my limited knowledge I reckon this is pretty unlikely.

Perhaps the idea is a bigger version of wind shear/clear air turbulence/microburst?

 

[Breton]

A plane cannot fly vertically downwards in a horizontal attitude, as you are suggesting. If a plane slows down forward movement far enough, it will encounter a "stall", the loss of airflow over the wing, which usually leads to a nose-down attitude, also called a nosedive.

So if I understand what you said above, then I suppose that I MAY be justified in my suspicion when I said the following?

... why does my mind seem to rebel at the physics of a plane slamming belly first into the Atlantic? Is something at a subconscious level trying to tell me something? Do planes crash belly first or nose first? What has past history of plane crashes tell us?

However, as quoted in the excerpt below from timesonline, it seems Bouillard and company (French BEA investigators) insist upon what increasingly looks like an improbable scenario: Air France 447 came down in 4 minutes (from near 35,000 feet!) and retained some kind of forward movement along with strong vertical velocity with the plane still being level the whole time!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6624798.ece
July 3, 2009
Air France flight 447 crashed belly-first into the Atlantic, investigators say

The pilots of the Air France aircraft that crashed off Brazil may have fought to control their stricken aircraft to the end, because it was intact when it hit the Atlantic ocean, investigators indicated yesterday.

In a first report on the disaster that killed all 228 aboard, the French accident bureau said that the Airbus A330 of Air France Flight 447 had not broken up at altitude as reported earlier by Brazil.

Neither was it in a nose or tail-down dive. A study of 660 pieces of debris showed that it had shattered only when it slammed belly-first into the sea, said the bureau.

“The plane was not destroyed while it was in flight,” said Alain Bouillard, the chief of the investigation into the disaster which happened on June 1. “It seems to have hit the surface of the water in level attitude and with a strong vertical acceleration.”

This could indicate that the crew had retained some control after the aircraft plummeted in little over four minutes from its cruising altitude of 35,000ft on its way from Rio to Paris, experts said. An aircraft falling belly first is likely to be in a stall or recovering from one. Aircraft diving fully out of control from high altitude usually break up before reaching the ground.

Notice also, that the French BEA investigators also suggested a possible "stall" in the above article, to explain how it could have hit belly first. However, nicklebleu, and wikipedia, suggests we really should be expecting "nose-down" not "falling belly first" in a stall situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight)
A fixed-wing aircraft during a stall may experience buffeting or a change in attitude (normally nose down in General aviation aircraft).

What does it mean? The report of the French BEA investigators is looking continuously more tortuous all the time, rather than logically bringing us closer to the truth of what happened. Reading other reports (not included in the quotes above) it seems the BEA is hanging all of their conclusions solely on the examination of wreckage pieces while ignoring the rest of the data. Of course when one does this, then the theory of Flight 447 hitting the Atlantic belly first can be seen to fit. As usual, the mainstream media, just blindly reports whatever is given to them, apparently oblivious to the mishandling of the available data.

My point for posting: Although to avionic experts I must appear to oversimplify the concepts of flight (stalling etc) and my ignorance must be excruciating for them to observe, nevertheless I think that this is a useful exercise in trying to make sense of the data presented the news. Perhaps I can be an example of a lay-person (not educated in aviation) who is honestly trying to wade through the news, and using what information he can get access to on the net, and applying perspicacity, and logic, to try to detect when he is being manipulated (or not) to believe a "story" that serves the powers that be. Developing this sort of skill is not encouraged in our society. People are told to believe whatever the mainstream media tells them to believe.

_Breton_

 

[RedFox]

Well, just to add a (possible) little data to this that gives us a clue to the nature of the failure perhaps.
I've read (but cannot confirm) that freefall from 35,000 feet would take 3 to 4 minutes.....if the plane still had some control, they could have glided for about 20 minutes

_http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2004/10/26/189183/a330-glider-drama-facts-revealed.html

A330 'glider' drama facts revealed

Praise and blame from accident investigators for crew forced to make emergency landing at Lajes air base in 2001

The Air Transat Airbus A330-200 crew who glided their aircraft to a safe landing at Lajes air base in the Azores islands in 2001 with empty fuel tanks have been praised for their flying skill by Portuguese air accident investigators, but have also been criticised for sloppy procedures that hindered their discovery of a severe fuel leak.

The accident report observes, however, that the aircraft's electronic centralised aircraft monitor (ECAM) did not provide "a clear, unambiguous indication or warning that a fuel leak existed", and calls for it to provide a warning when any discrepancy between the engine fuel use and fuel on board (FOB) begins to develop.

The fuel leak did not start until nearly 4h into the 24 August 2001 scheduled flight from Toronto, Canada bound for Lisbon, Portugal. The leak was caused by chafing between fuel and hydraulic lines in the No 2 (right) engine that had been "mismatched" when a hydraulic pump was changed on the Rolls-Royce Trent 772B.

There is no system in the A330 for revealing fuel leaks, which have to be deduced from fuel readings. It is normal for the crew to check whether the FOB is reducing at a faster rate than engine fuel usage. Also, the report notes, the flight management control unit would show a continually reducing figure for fuel remaining at destination.

The first ECAM advisory that could have suggested a fuel leak showed there was significantly less fuel in the right wing tanks than the left. Within 2min of discovering this, the crew had opened the fuel cross feed valve and begun transferring fuel from the left wing to the right. They did not use the quick reference handbook (QRH) checklist, the report notes, explaining that, had they used it, they would have seen fuel leakage listed as a possible cause. However, the report comments: "All of the fuel-related information and messages were provided in the form of text-type status messages and digital counter displays, none of which conveyed a sense of urgency...The fact that this could occur highlights the limitations of the warning and alert system in this kind of situation."

For some time before the fuel imbalance notification, the crew had been preoccupied with an "unusual", but non-critical No 2 engine oil reading that was a secondary effect of the fuel leak.

When the crew realised how little fuel remained, they diverted to Lajes air force base, Azores. When the right engine flamed out, the aircraft was at 39,000ft (11,890m) with 278km (150nm) to go. The crew declared a full emergency just before the left engine stopped at 34,500ft, 120km from Lajes.

Lajes air traffic control provided radar vectors for approach to runway 33, and at 13,000ft on a heading of 270° with 15km to go, the captain elected to carry out a left-hand 360° turn to lose height. It was dark and there were 13 crew and 293 passengers on board.

With leading-edge slats extended, but no flaps or spoilers, the aircraft crossed the threshold at 200kt (370km/h), touched down hard 315m into the 3,315m runway and bounced once, then slid to a halt with the wheels locked by maximum braking.

Sequence of events

00:52 Take-off Toronto international airport, Canada, bound for Lisbon, Portugal

04:38 Fuel leak starts but "no noteworthy indications of fuel loss" for about 20min

05:04 Unusual No 2 eng oil readings. Extensive HF communications with base about engine oil occupied crew's attention

05:33 Fuel advisory on "ECAM TRIM TANK XFRD" (all fuel from stabiliser trim tank had been transferred automatically to the wing tanks). Unusually early in the flight for this to occur

05:34 ECAM fuel page selected, ECAM shows fuel imbalance between left and right wing tanks

05:36 Crew select fuel cross feed

05:45 Decision to divert

06:02 Cabin crew told to prepare for ditching

06:13 No 2 engine flames out at 39,000ft

06:26 No 1 engine flames out at 34,500ft

06:45 A330 lands on runway 33 at Lajes, Azores

DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON

So, would it be reasonable to conclude that whatever happened at altitude pretty much removed the pilots ability to fly the plane?

If the evidence shows from the wreckage that it did 'hit' belly first (given the timing seems to indicate it was at free fall speed or there abouts), is it possible (although maybe improbable) that it was doing cartwheels on the way down and just happened to land on its belly? Or would it fly appart?

*edit*

You know something just occurred to me, what if the impacts seen in the wreckage came from the shockwaves of a high altitude explosion (under the plane?) that would presumably look almost identical to hitting water with the belly....if the explosion was under the plane.

 

[Breton]

That is also what I was thinking at the present time:

You know something just occurred to me, what if the impacts seen in the wreckage came from the shockwaves of a high altitude explosion (under the plane?) that would presumably look almost identical to hitting water with the belly....if the explosion was under the plane.

I had been speculating that with an upper atmosphere cometary explosion, there is a possibilitythat you would find evidence of upward forces because we don't know how the force of the shockwave might have hit the plane - it may have come from below. Or perhaps when hit by such a shockwave, things are a bit more complicated than that?
FWIW,
_Breton_