The Pilots' View on Air France 447

I just hope it wasn't what many flight professionals believe it might have been! It sure seems like it might have been. God rest the souls on board.

First the tail of an Airbus plane fell off over NYC. Sheared right on the assembly joint. Airbus blames it on the pilot - the pilot should not have used the tails of a plane. Now an Airbus fell out of the Atlantic skies. They blame it on lightning - no plane have ever been hit by lightning before. ______ How about just looking at how Airbus is constructed? It's built in various massive pieces in various different countries then shipped to France (no stress on the parts here). And in France, the French assemble all these pieces together - when they're not on strike. Who in their right mind trusts French assembly? If you hate someone, book them on an Airbus.

Given the human factor is it possible to get inverted and the pilot be very confused in a very high mental stress situation and thinking they are climbing but in all reality dive into the ocean inverted at high speed? Disoriented pilots have been known to disbelieve the warnings being given to them from aircraft warning systems.

I'm deeply sorry for the tragedy of flight 447. I can't even imagine how horrible those passengers felt. My condolence to all the relatives and friends of flight 447. I'm a believer in god but i can't understand how such things like that happen!!! In 2001 I went across the atlantic from Chicago to Paris, France. I was not feeling well on that flight. I was very nervous, it was a very bumpy most of the way. And sometimes I thought we were going crash in the middle of the Atlantic. I been following the news very close and hoping to hear someone survive the crash. My prayers to each and everyone on that flight. Sincerely, Freddie Rivera from Costa Rica.

That's just an ignorant comment. Planes are hit by lightning at least once a year, and Airbus planes have a pretty good flight record, and what does the manufacturing location have to do with anything.

But the Airbus supposedly would not let the pilot do something that is actually counterintuitive.

Sorry DanTe, but aircraft do get struck by lightning. As a mechanic I've seen the damage it can do on the outside, and recently I was on a flight in an A330 and we were struck during landing. It's quite a sight to see a blue flash and loud crack in the cabin. And I hate to say it but Boeing also imports parts from all over the world, like the wing of the 787 being made in Japan.

DanTe......They blame it on lightning - no plane have ever been hit by lightning before.....You obviously do not know what you are talking about in regards to an aircraft being struck by lightning. I have a 37 year career with an airline. I know for a fact aircraft do get lightning strikes. In my own aircraft, a Cessna 310, I too have received a lightning strike. It was not a figment of my imagination. I was not in or near a thunderstorm. The conditions were such at the right temperature, altitude and precipitation, it does happen. Read the USAF report on lightning strikes. Do a little research on the lightning strike issue. It's amazing how you armchair aces think you know all the answers.

I've always been a pretty confident flyer, unlike my wife, but my confidence has diminished in the wake of this tragedy. We flew Air France on an Airbus last year to Paris without cause for concern and this coming weekend we are flying to London on an A380. I was looking forward to it, but after what I've heard from pilots who currently fly the Airbus I'm not so sure. I believe most pilots prefer the 747's. Anyway, it will be out of my control so I look on the positive side of things being a) you have 1 in 9 million chance of being killed in an air accident b) about 760 people each year die in air accidents out of 2.5 billion flyers. The odds are with me!!

Gawd you french loonie toons are dense. Can't recognize sarcasm there? Hint: First Airbus says pilot should not use tail of plane. (sarcasm here - obviously). Rolls into: no plane were ever struck by lightning (deep sarcasm here.) ________ Basically Airbus will claim everything and anything, except looking into how their "workers" (deep deep sarcasm here) assembles the parts. That conveniently falls apart.

DanTe: You're already posting way too many stupid comments on Businessweek. Now here too? What's the matter with you? Are you some toothless hick from the South who just can't get used to the fact that the US is no longer the superpower it once was? Here is my suggestion: Get used to it!!

The ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) started sending automated messages at 35,000 and stopped 4 minutes later. If the plane remained relatively intact during the plunge, it fell at nearly 9,000 feet a minute. I wonder if that descent rate would exceed structural loading limits. We also know that the fly-by-wire (FBW) system reverted to “Alternate Law” mode which gives the pilot somewhat less restrictive control (less second-guessing of pilot inputs by the computer). This apparently triggers when there are sensor disagreements, computer blackouts, hydraulic system failures, etc. The more drastic “Direct Law” mode was not indicated while the system was able to send messages.

Hi, Dante. Let me look at your post and tell you why it is misinformed.

Dante said: "First the tail of an Airbus plane fell off over NYC. Sheared right on the assembly joint. Airbus blames it on the pilot"

And the NTSB wrote about it. The pilot did not just move the rudder once. He made multiple unessecary rudder commands that eventually tore the tail away. The NTSB blamed BOTH the American Airlines training and the A300 tail assembly. The A330 is a different model from the A300.

You said: "Now an Airbus fell out of the Atlantic skies. They blame it on lightning "

They? This is not Airbus, Dante. It's a bunch of media people. Airbus will say NOTHING until the CVR, FDR, and wreckage are recovered.

Dante said: "Who in their right mind trusts French assembly? If you hate someone, book them on an Airbus."

Dante's post is an alarmist and inappropriate post. Please ignore it.

Dante: Please make serious posts, and please stop the unwarranted anti-French sentiment.

Last year a manager who works for a major airline told me that it's only a matter of time until more accidents are realized from flying in planes. He said that many of the planes are no longer checked, & properly inspected as they used to be. He told me that many of the airlines will send their planes over to China, where, in his words- "wrench-turners" will inspect the planes. He said that thousands of good mechanics lost their jobs in California years ago. He then told me that the "skins" of the planes are not checked by these mechanics, or in his words- "wrench-turners" in foreign countries. I asked him why these planes are not inspected here in the USA like they used to be. He said it's all about CUTTING COSTS, and saving money. I think that people's lives are more important, don't you?

DanTe,
what is your problem with France?
We are talking about people losing their lives in here.

Stop with your stupidity, ok?!

Sad to argue possibilities when the victims of this have none.
My concern: overloading of electrical wiring for seat back entertainment. I read an article a few years ago how this contributes to many problems in electrical fixes. Again God be with those souls .... Horrible way to pass.

karl

dont rant off some manager told or some director advised piece of crap...give some evidence or an article to support your stupid claim of wrench turners..gee...such village idiots..

People have to accept the fact accidents do happen and sometimes they're beyond human control and understanding. For those like DanTe who deliberately blame French construction or things similar with little relevance have no facts and wrongly base their decision on opinion.

A long time ago, I was flying a bug smasher from Ohio back home to Dupage. On my left, I saw a building thunderstorm and asked ATC if I could get a little farther north to avoid it. They informed me that the storm was a super cell, over 100 miles to the south. It was my first experience in the air with a storm over 80,000 feet high. I have a huge level of respect for these storms.

If I have my history right, only two planes have ever been certified to fly through thunderstorms. It took a lot of armor plating to get there. Anything less gets its wings torn off.

The growing trend towards cost reduction in the commercial flying industry always says that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

Maybe not.

I really hope everything will be all right. Bless!!!

Relax folks. Dante and Karl are both just not taking their medication. That is all. At some point the authorities will act when the signs of mental illness become far too severe to ignore.

1. I rode in a cockpit of an Air France 'heavy' crossing the Atlantic some years ago. Over the late night and early morning, the Captain slept below as the two junior officers chatted with me. Neither was wearing oxygen. I wonder if something catastrophic happened, and if a depressurization occurred, then might the AF 447 cockpit crew not have had oxygen on?
2. I doubt lighting alone could bring down a big jet, if so why has it not happened in recent decades?
3. And would the crew have changed from the flight plan (altitude and or course) to avoid a bad storm?
4. Why is no one considering a bomb or sabotage as a possibility? This would explain much.
5. I read the Capt had about 11k hours of flight experience, the FO about 6k, and the other FO about 3 or 4k. If the Capt. is usually awake on take off and landing, I wonder who was flying the plane and if this might have mattered?

All in all, lacking facts this is a wasteful mental exercise.

I think that there would be a distress call if the cause of the incident was due even partially to crew error. I can definitely understand the importance of finding the plane and determining factors related to the incident, as knowing causes would be of value to aviation engineers and current and future pilots. However, simply learning from this would still seem not be enough to honor the memory of people who perished. Thanks to pilots who's professionalism and intellect contribute to my personal courage to move forward from this news.

DanT, where the hell do you come from to write these stupid comments. In case you have not yet noticed it, some people are missing in the middle of the ocean. But I suppose you are just blinded by your hate for french, so I suggest you go there and meet up with the local anti americans, they are just as "open-minded" as yourself, it will make for a great debate.

There are several possible scenarios for the tragedy over the Atlantic. A lightning strike might have "leaked" into to the avionics and flight control electronics bays, which could have caused massive and interconnected system failures. Maintenance of the aircrafts is key for ensuring the integrity of the aircraft electrical shielding. Given the Fly by Wire system on the Airbus aircraft and the restricted ability for the pilots to take control, this may have caused a rapid plunge and possible aircraft structural failures. Think of the of an especially strong lightning strike with the air high in moisture as the similar to a high power microwave weapon strike.
A second scenario might be an explosion in the aircraft, possibly caused by terrorists.
A third scenario would be a suicidal pilot as occurred in a previous Trans Atlantic 767 flight years ago on from NY.
Other possible scenarios might be related to some kind of structural failure of the aircraft as a result of the extra ordinary turbulence due to an intense cyclonic updraft. Volcanic eruptions have also been known to produce lots of ash which would impact aircraft engines. However, I am not aware of any volcanic eruptions in the flight path.

@ DanTe.... I'm presuming you have no IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

The FRENCH (AIRBUS, DASSAULT) and AMERICAN (BOEING) are the most common used commercial aircrafts in the world. It's totally and I MEAN TOTALLY your prerogative whether you'd fly on an Airbus.

Before being such a Racist towards the French think about it. As the article says there are a number of factors involved not just the lightning strike. as the Airbus recorded multiple system failures the conclusion everyone seems to have landed on is lightning strike which would fry the systems.

There are plenty of other possibilities too so until the NTSB and other investigating authorities complete their thesis on this disaster GROW A BRAIN!

I think it will be a while before they solve this one. Although I'm hoping they solve it quick!

@Mark.. these airbus I'm certain have oxygen systems such as quick donning masks which take the pilot 5 seconds to wear it. So obviously if they had to they were wearing the mask.

As I said earlier we will never know until the mystery is solved by the experts. Yes you are correct about the mental exercise bit.

@Karl: not all planes have to be "checked" in the states for best maintenance. Airlines spend a lot on maintenance and some airlines cut costs which is wrong! all over the world, happened this has. I don't know if the rule exists but i believe that every aircraft should be maintained by the original manufacturer once every five years. go through a complete part by part maintenance check. But if an accident occurs between the two checks it will be the airline's fault. also if a major glitch is found the airline is to be blamed again for not having found it!

After all said and done I'd like to send my deep deep condolence to the family's of the people on board AF 447! This was a very unfortunate accident and I hope it does not put people off flying.

I say the digital fly by wire system failed if the plane had electrical problems. There is no mechanical backup system because new airliners are trying to save weight and fuel by using computer controlled stick driven airplanes. To explain further: older jets use rods, cables, pulleys, and sometimes chains to transfer cockpit controls to the hydraulic system. Fly by wire is fully electronic and does not have these mechanical parts.

Being in the avionics field myself, I would like to comment that an aircraft is a complex system and eventhough there is a very high level of valuation and tests before an aircraft actually is commisioned, there are situations that cannot be tested. Nature is too good for us humans. My heartfelt commiserations for the family of the passengers who are no more.

It's interesting to see why an aircraft goes down. In this case I believe that it was not one single event that brought the airbus down, but rather a series of events. Lightning strikes do happen maybe it wasn't one lightning strike, but a couple of them, maybe a lightning strike fried a critical circuit or it took out more than one critical component, possibly a fire broke out on board as a result of the excessive heat release from the lightning.
In many ways this accident is similar to SAA's helderberg disaster.
A good idea as to what happened can be formulated but no one will ever really know for sure.
It is sad though.

This is very sad and I can't imagine the pain the relatives are going thru. My thoughts and prayers are with them during this difficult times.

Dan Te,

I guess you have no idea what you are talking from. Still thinking of the "Old Europe". Maybe never sit in an Aircraft so far, but give stupid comments in a time when everything is speculation. By the way, the most accidents so far in the last 20 years happened with US build aircrafts.

My prayer for all at 447.

anti americans,
anti french,
anti indians
anti blacks.
as long as you are having
two legs,
two arms,
two eyes & so on identical with others other than the color which is more due to the geographical location everybody is human.
Though there are no indians on board the AF 447 I pray for the possibly departed souls to rest in peace. We are all human first. Then you are a,b,c, & on.

I just returned yesterday from Ho Chi Minh City with Air Asia. I watched our plane land from KL & within 15mins we were sitting in our seats. Sitting behind me was a young Air Asia staff member with 'Engineer' written on the back of his shirt.He would have been all of 21years of age.I asked the flt attendant why he was on the flight out of curiousity & she said that there are no ground crew for Air Asia in Ho Chi Minh City. This engineer literally spent no more than 10mins inspecting the aircraft before he was sitting behind me, as it only took 15mins from the time the people got off the flt from the time I was in my seat. I am very curious to know how much time is spent by ground staff checking the larger planes before takeoff?

I am from Australia & a frequent traveller with Qantas. After travelling the world with many other airlines I can honestly say how brilliant Qantas are with their on-board safety. I never see Flight Attendants or pilots sitting next to me sleeping, nor do I see people wandering around the aircraft when the seatbelt sign comes on when turbulence is encountered. Other low-cost airlines should maybe look at Qantas & how they operate - why wouldn't they want the same record & learn from the safest airline in the world??

My heart goes out to the families of the Air France flight.

The same thing applies to me. I have this huge phobia and the belief that flying will be the end of me. When I heard the news, I was so scared for those people. I hope that they will come out alive even though the news are not so hopeful. I guess there's nothing to do but wait.

DanT, we try to find out the cause, not the culprit.

Would someone know what pressures the "black box" can withstand? I pray they recover them intact so that at least we can be sure of wat happened on this fateful day.

I have a problem with Mark when he asks why catastrophic events have not happened before (like the lightning strike on a plane). Mark be careful what you wish for.

DanTe actually has a point, if you can ignore his anti-French bigotry.

Lightning strike? This is just too easy of an explanation. With thousands of flights criss-crossing the globe daily, how is it possible for lightning NOT to strike airplanes every single day at numerous locations around the world? Also, there were other flights which went through that very same thunderstorm - how did they avoid being hit by lightning and AF 447 did not?

The fact is, not only are lightning hits on airplanes extremely common but also modern technology enables airplanes to withstand such activity.

Unfortunately, modern technology is a double-edged sword. Airplanes made today are not the same as the airplanes made even a few years ago.

When you fully computerize the flying of an airplane, to the extent even the flight crew cannot overide its system for the most part, so as to prevent *pilot error*, things are going to go very wrong if the electronic system malfunctions somehow.

There was an incident in 2008 where the electronic system of a A330 malfunctioned during flight, which sent the airplane into a steep dive, causing serious injuries to the passengers.

May their souls rest in peace!

Some people are just ignorant how can he be so stupid and send this kind of comments. u r so sick. MAY THEIR SOULS REST IN PEACE

Its also possible that the pilots simply missed the building thunderstorm coz they may be fast asleep in the cockpit due to the stressful nature of their work harming the biological clock

Welcome to the uncertain world of flying by wire! With such complex computers controlling most of the airplane's flight functions we are now going to be vulnerable to software bugs as well as electric short-circuiting! Just look at all the hassles each of us have with our own personal computers. This makes a case for some degree of manual backup. At the same time in this electronic world why do we still have black boxes? All the aircraft data and pilot conversations should be continuously fed by satellite to a server somewhere in the world to record it. Then at least when these accidents happen there is some chance of diagnosing the problems. Do I completely trust French Engineering? No. As someone in the Chemical industry I can tell you our French competition literally fabricates untruths to sell their technology.

I flew last year from paris to budapest and no tropical storm, I got the worst flight of my life going up and down on last row of seats. Never anybody said anything on intercom. However when I came from Paris to NY last Sept. I had the best flight of my life on A330.

perhaps the plane was caught in a very strong updraft, and the pilots countered this movement by pushing the nose down. Then there was an very strong gust that created a wing stall or a downdraft that forced them into the sea?

I, too, am curious as to why an act of terrorism is being ruled out at this point? it seems too sudden for a pilot to not be able to make a radio call, especially flying that high. Regardless of a total system failure, there are always backup radios to make calls, and as a last resort, the RAT.

Lightning may cause failures to electrical systems in an aircraft, I believe severe turbulence is the culprit. One simple flaw in design, worn parts, or extreme stress on the aircraft could very well cause structural failure. Is it possible for an engine to fall off due to worn parts or an incorrect assembly, perhaps due to an engine change?
Just tossing some scenarios around.

Thanks everyone for all the comments. The Air France case is truly puzzling and has summoned the inner detective in all of us to a certain degree. Some people both here and elsewhere online are wondering why terrorism seems to have been eliminated as a cause of this terrible incident, but I would think (and hope) that nothing has been ruled in or out at this early stage in such a complex inquiry. However, terrorists tend to claim credit for their acts and that doesn't appear to have occurred, at least right now. Additionally, there's some good evidence that the weather around Flight 447 was truly awful late Sunday, early Monday. A Texas-based meteorology firm produced a detailed technical analysis of the conditions in the area, and has been widely praised by pilots, scientists and engineers for the information. If interested, you can read the report here: http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/. Let us hope that the data recorders are recovered so that further knowledge can be gained.

Facts:

The A300 rudder issues were not limited to the AA JFK accident. Let's consider the Air Transat A300 over Cuba in cruise flight. They LOST their rudder (the actual control surface). The vertical stabilizer did remain attached to the aircraft (what a consolation!!) Given these facts, perhaps the Airbus design (on the A300) leaves something to be desired?

Fact: An Airbus 330 jet whose flight computer put it into an uncommanded dive over northwestern Australia last October. Following an investigation of the A330's uncommanded dive, Australian aviation officials, assisted by U.S. and French authorities, blamed a pair of simultaneous failures for the near disaster. the same thing happened again, involving a different aircraft, on Dec. 27, Airbus combed its computerized flight files and found data fingerprints suggesting similar Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) problems had occurred on a total of four flights.

What can we make of these FACTS?? Can they be related to what happened on May 31st?? While we can "suppose" one thing or another, one thing that being an airline pilot has taught me is that we need to be careful about finger pointing. As an industry, we can only hope to learn as much as possible from this tragedy in hopes that we can avoid the same in the future. God Bless every single soul on that flight and every one left "behind" to grieve their loss.

This has been a terrible mystery in the aviation history relating lives of 228 onboard persons in Flight-447 to the Bermuda triangle. The world deeply mourns the incident. I am really very sorry for our brothers and sisters who boarded the Flight-447 on its last flight. Let they be from any country but for India and me it's like losing our own relatives. As a student of science I know that the myths about that death valley is unexplainable till now but I really want to advise to each and every body to remain away from that area and let us leave happily without losing our people anymore.

This Time article states that A330s and A340s have a history of uncommanded dives.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1902421,00.html

If this information is accurate, the root cause is likely an uncorrected software defect.

Until there's a definitive analysis, I will be avoiding A330s and A340s.

My god some of you need to stop posting comments about an industy you obviously know nothing about.

Let's clean up a few points. Planes are hit by lightening usually 10 times a year. I know as I repair that damage every maintenance check.

Maintenance checks are carried out by approved organisations; the plane never goes back to maufacturer.

Maintaining a plane is very simple: follow the manual. It's just like an oversized car so any facility that has approval and properly trained machanics and engineers can do this. Obtaining this approval is a huge and expensive process. Just because a plane is maintained in China makes no difference. The cost saving is due to local wages being low, not shoddy maintenance practices.

Lightning has never been reported as taking down a plane. Never, not once. Airplanes are bonded so electricity flows around components and dissipates through static discharge points.

Dante you're so out of order it's not even amusing. Airbus actually has a better safety record than Boeing but mind you it has been around a much shorter time. Airbus are historically known to be a more comfortable plane to fly through turbulence on as they have technology on board to reduce discomfort.

Fly By wire may sound more dangerous but it has reduced the number of possible components that can fail or be improperly figged by 100s so it's actually safer. In a major electric failure yes cable systems are safer but many pilots find the huge aerodynamic loads almost impossible to move by muscle alone. Just because a computer shuts down does not make a plane fall. It will continue in steady state flight until a computer can be restarted usually by pusing back in a circuit breaker situated behind the pilot's seat.

Every computer on an Airbus is triple redundant ie there are three of each one and if one disagrees or fails the others take over.

Very heavy turbulence can damage planes but they are stress tested to withstand total failure and have redundant structure points. 2 years ago I spoke to friends who were flying an A330 across the Atlantic that dropped 400 feet in a matter of seconds without structural damage. Scary but not fatal.

The A300 that crashed lost its rudder as the pilot overstressed it by moving it too quckly in large osccilations this proble is now fixed by a leaglly binding modification that all operators must do called an CN or AD. It limits the movement in flight.

Planes are constantly modified to be more safe or to rectify problems during their life time by applying these AD CN's or Service bulletins which while not mandatory are advised by the manufacturer.

Pilots sleep on flighst as they are the spare or extra pilot, they usually take off then hand over to another pilot then take over again for landing. It's a policy controlled by the inductry's authorities. Nothing strange.

A 21 year old mechanic has spent 4 years training and then had to pass an intense exam on the type of aircraft he is maintaining. He is then constanly reexamined and refreshed during his carrer. And 15 miutes to do a Transist check on a plane on the ground is about right for commercial airliner. Then once a week a weekly check is carried out and then more in depth checks after longer time periods. Specified by the manufacturer and local Authority.

Now What Exactly happened...

We will likely never know if they don't retrieve the Black boxes... It could have been a terrorist attack. I read elsewhere that a bomb threat was received 4 days prior to this flight against an Air France flight in Brazil. That could explain the large debris field which indicated an in-flight break up.

Perhaps a lightning strike caused depressurisation and the pilots did not react quickly enough and don their oxygen masks (which can be put on in about 2 seconds). Perhaps they did get the mask on but then had to descend below 10000 feet so passengers could breath and hit a very large thunderstorm.

Perhaps the lightning strike knocked out the weather radar and at night they flew into a thunder storm.

We will have to wait possibly years to find out.

I fly thousands of hours yearly and take part in flight testing and take my word for it a plane can take a huge amount of throwing around before it is damaged. Most passengers will never experience a plane at these limits.

The fact that the debris has been found scattered over a very wide area -- rather than either concentrated over a particular area or trailing out gradually from a central point -- suggests to me that the plane broke up in the air rather than on impact. If the plane exploded at cruising altitude (a bomb, explosive cargo, a freak accident like the TWA central fuel tank), the pilots would have had no time to report. Would the plane's automated system still have been able to broadcast while it fell, assuming it remained in a big enough chunk?

re "Every computer on an Airbus is triple redundant ie there are three of each one and if one disagrees or fails the others take over."

Triple redundancy can mitigate hardware failures, but not software defects. The Time article I posted earlier cites a failure in the voting logic as the cause of an uncommanded dive over Australia.

Sigh... dodo's have such a big problem with truth. Everyone knows about French production quality: from the chauchat that has to be urinated on to operate, to the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier with propellers that falls off and a deck that is too short for planes. All this is in written history. Just do a search on it. And now it's Airbus - with tail falling off cleanly at the seams (it shows on the news pictures) and it's the only plane that can't take a lightning strike. Oh, I love the one french response here that claims a pilot should not use the rudder controls for the tail. What a hoot. Put your money where your mouth is - fly Airbus.

I prefer to fly with Boeing aircraft. I always check before booking a flight. I´d rather pay more but fly Boeing.

This Is Certainly an interesting crash scenario. Unfortunately there's not that much information at the time to make a conclusion to the cause of such an incident.

Kaizaad: I wouldn't quite assume that the Pilot's oxygen masks were deployed. Although oxygen masks in the passenger cabin are deployed automatically during decompression, the pilots must deploy their own oxygen. Engineers design them this way so no flight controls or switches are accidentally activated if the masks were to drop down in the middle of a flight. In 2005 two pilots of a helios 737 failed to realize a gradual decompression and DID NOT don their oxygen masks. The pilots later passed out and the auto-pilot continued to fly the plane until it ran out of fuel over Greece.

Sparky: Great job clearing up some of the misinformation posted on the forum.

DanTe: Take it easy on airbus. I'm a fan of boeing, and buying american too, but there's nothing significantly wrong with the way Airbus builds their aircraft. May I remind you that the longest air-crash investigation in NTSB history was on an engineering defect on the Boeing 737 series. This caused three catastrophic failures in the rudder controls, and wasn't solved until one lucky and skilled pilot managed to land his plane after two uncommanded rudder movements almost took down his plane.

From what I hear now, it looks like two likely scenarios.

1: Terrorism. some sort of well planned explosion or fire could definitely impair the aircraft's ability to remain airborne, and withstand the weather conditions described.

2: Avionics failure. As mentioned by many of us the Airbus A330 ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) has a history of glitches that can severely impair the aircraft. It's very suspicious that the avionics diagnostics computer broadcast information to Air France that the aircraft did experience some sort of avionics failure just prior to the estimated time of the crash. If avionics failure is to blame, it would make sense. A failure similar to the Qantas 330 during a major storm could have caused a rapid loss of control of the aircraft. Not only would the aircraft undergo intense structural stresses in such weather conditions, but events could unfold so quickly there would be no time to relay a distress call.

I really hope investigators can find the cause of this incident to prevent this from happening again. Don't let the passengers of flight 447 die in vain!

It does concern me that in airbus aircraft, there are situations where the flight control computer can cause a crash, and CANNOT be overridden by the pilots. This was demonstrated by the crash into the trees at the end of the runway at the Paris Air show in '88, and in my opinion might be a contributor to the recent Hudson river ditching (clog up those pitot tubes with bird debris and the engines will throttle back to idle, and this cannot be overridden by the pilot. I'm not saying this happened in this case, but it does cross my mind every time I climb onto an airbus.
That being said, whatever happened, happened FAST. I hope the boxes are found. We need to know what happened.

It's so pathetic for the people to ponder about one nation's quality in handling their aviation system. Accidents happen and unfortunately human lives are lost in this case it's more miserable. It's immature to blame a nation's technological and engineering capabilities based on a single incident. France is one of the most advanced nations completely depending on nuclear power so far without any major hazards, top 5 nations in space programs with launch capabilities, excellent tourist destination with full support to tourists.. and the list goes on.....so with coming to Airbus 330, how many of us exactly know where the parts are designed, prototyped, manufactured, assembled, tested, analyzed and cleared for mass production? In the current global village, manufacturing of an airplane will definitely involve multi-national talent and productivity be it airbus or boeing no exceptions. If one does not want to live with french fries, indian curry, american coke n burger, chinese products, hibernate yourself till last breath cause that's not possible to humans anymore.

Yes "Kris", "accidents" do happen. Accidents of genetics and accidents at the assembly line. And "Aero" the longest investigation of airplane crashes was the British Comet which had a tendency to come out of the skies like a comet. They found it was due to square windows. The Boeing 737 crashes involved more than just the rudder. They also involved catastrophic hull failures. They were the results of an aging fleet undergoing wear and tear stress. Airbus planes so far are new and they just fall apart at the seams - literally.

Go to this website to see a definitive explanation of the weather conditions and satellite coverage.

http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

Dante, who in his right mind trusted French assembly?
Gustave Eiffel did.
And Marcel Dassault.
And André Citroen.

Three of the best engineers in history.
Who in their right mind trust your comments?

Well we seem to bail out the French over two World Wars and in many other instances.

They can't seem to make cars why should we want to fly in the "Scarebus."

Oh and by the way if you're a wine enthusiast, we have some wines better than they do, they just hate to admit it.

Computers may be great but I would like my pilot to have the option of stick and rudder. Just remember the incident in Utah where the plane that should have not been able to fly at all was flown by the seat of the pants by three experienced pilots who intelectually came up with a plan based on "human intuition" rather than computers totally and landed a doomed air craft.

While some died many were saved based on the heroic efforts afforderd to them by using "gut" command descisions.

Those are heroes we can never give the proper credit they deserved.

I would still rather fly a Boeing!

Naturally, the French government would like to know why this tragic accident happened, but not if it's the result of aircraft and aircraft systems design. The economic risks are too high.

Imagine if the aircraft acted up on its own (like the Qantas incidents). For example, the A330 computers commanded a drastic altitude change within the ITCZ causing damage to one wing's control surface. The aircraft instantly and violently rolls so quickly a total loss of control is experienced. The aircraft dives past its maximum dive speed and the wings shear off. The initiating event is caused by faulty Airbus software.

Would the French government release this as the cause? No. They would say "weather." The want continued A330 sales (they still own big chunks of EADS/Airbus), and the large USAF tanker competition is once again around the corner.

I think the hint is the pressurization warnings. That would take a massive structural failure. The electrical system would then fail from wiring damage. This tells me that lightning was not the primary culprit, but that the electrical failures were probably due to physical damage during catastrophic structural failure. I am a former broadcast station engineer, so I have seen lightning damage many dozens of times. Lightning isn't going to spread far enough to take out today's redundant fly by wire systems in a well grounded large metal frame.

I had a dream the night before this happened that aliens were shooting down airplanes.

With all the pilots here, why has no one mentioned that the cause of the crash is very likely vertical wind shear? Horizontal wind shear has caused plenty of crashes on take-off or landing over the years. The Delta flight that crashed into the Hilton across Airline Hwy from MSY (New Orleans) in 1968 or 1967 was caused by wind shear, and so was the May or June crash of a 747 flight from MSY to NYC Kennedy. I think the 1968 crash woke me up briefly from a pretty sound sleep. My New Orleans house is just about 5 miles from MSY. One of my recently graduated Newcomb class mates was on the 1975 flight to NYC, on her way to meet her parents in Amsterdam. I still have her obituary from the Times-Picayune in the the 1975 Tulane University year book.

Honestly, doesn't any pilot have a basic understanding of physics to even consider that wind shear jut might be the cause of this crash as well, even if the plane was at high altitude? Since 110 mph wind can bend 1.5 foot high bill-board supports 90 degrees when Katrina winds were impacting the bill-board, why can't wind shear with 100 mph component rip apart an Air Bus? I have photographs of those 90 degree bill-board supports that I took in November 2007, and flood-waters got to within less than 1/2 mile of my house when an open to air drainage canal went over its banks, so I do understand the basic physics, even though I was 650 miles away in central OK when Katrina's storm surges flooded greater New Orleans. I'd better stop there, or I'll go into another physics of Katrina flooding rant. Why does everyone rely on black boxes to explain everything? Can't anybody else analyze logically, objectively, and scientifically?

Please send PK down south so he can call us toothless hicks to our face. I'm sure he is eager......

The plane was brought down by Al-Qaeda. Reason 1: a senior Al-Qaeda operative was arrested in Brazil in the days before the explosion. Reason 2: An attempt to place a bomb an Air France flight out of Argentina was made in the days before the explosion. Reason 3: France has antagonised Al-Qaeda by recently establishing a military base on the Arab Peninsula. Reason 4: The weather scenarios for bringing down a plane in the absence of any non-automatic communication from the plane are not credible.

Hey RV, You are correct about the crash and the 3 pilots. However you have the wrong state. It Sioux City, Iowa, and it was an United Airlines DC-10. The center engine compressor wheels separated and severed the hydraulic lines in the tail section.

Fellow Big Bus Drivers....there is the point about massive electrical failure and it's effect of the Pin Ball Wizard technology ie: FBW - Fly By Wire. With a total loss of electrics, the A330 can possibly then become a lawn dart.

However, a friend and fellow Airbus driver asked this:

The idea of electrical failure is one thing, but what scares the crap out of me, is it possible that it could be the result of just-another-day-at-the-office "computer thinking"?

I have been flying the A-330 for a little over a year now never flew any other FBW aircraft, so help me out here, gents.

Given: High gross weight, Max Altitude, Cruise at "Greendot", High speed pitch up protection and "Alpha Prot", accordingly narrow.

Surmised: Turbulence associated with possible 100k updrafts

My question. What would be the aircraft's FBW response in the following condition: A "wave" causes a rapid increase in IAS, exceeding the overspeed tic and the nose pitches up. In this nose high attitude, the wave now shears causing a rapid DECREASE in IAS below "Alpha Prot", possibly engaging TOGA lock. IAS fluctuates between the high speed and low speed "Prots" and the electronics play catch up until the a/c tears itself apart, ACARS reporting all the way. As an Airbus newbie, I need help here, guys...is this possible?

Aero:I believe this could not be explosion. As if there would have been any explosion then Brazil Military wouldn't have found oil scattered on the sea surface. Oil might have blasted before Airplane Crashed into the Sea.

God Bless all the passengers of the flight.

Gaurav,
India

Great point carol wind shear is something to think about.

I think weather played a critical role in the crash, but what troubles me is that the flight control systems could be involved. Just imagine that the aircraft experienced some sort of catastrophic control failure in the middle of such conditions.

It seams like this is a case of "the perfect storm" for a air crash. Bad weather, lightning, high winds, and an aircraft with a history of avionics glitches. Incidents like this are the kind that advance the aviation industry.

And DaTe, CHECK YOUR facts!!! The boeing 737 rudder incidents had nothing to do with wear and tear. I know because I wrote a term paper on it in engineering school. You are referring to the aloha airlines flight 243 explosive decompression, And the two incidents ARE NOT RELATED.
The Boeing 737 Power Control Unit had a defect which caused it to reverse itself when it encounters extreme thermal shock (the temperature difference between the piping hot hydraulic fluid and the freezing temperatures of high altitude flying). This was the longest investigation in NTSB HISTORY, the NTSB was not formed until after the comet disasters in 1967.

So, if you believe that the comet investigation is the longest in aviation history compare these numbers. The boeing 737 investigation lasted about 4 and a half years. The comet crashed in january of 1954 and re-entered service after the investigation closed, and after design modifications were made in 1958. Including the steps to fix the problem the "comet incident" took 4 years. Surprised?? It's still not the longest investigation!!

Remember DanTe, check your facts before you post something.

Maybe someone's shampoo bottle blew up. Seriously, in ruling out terrorists, what is the definition of a terrorist? If the definition of a terrorist includes taking credit for one's work, it probably wasn't a terrorist. May I suggest that there are "bad guys" out there besides the narrow definition of what we call terrorists? It could have been done for revenge, rather than to cause fear.

Very comentario ... What we know is that a loose object in the trunk of the 330, the plane tore in turbulence, due to altitude, and crashed it cut ... anyone know if it was in collision with another aircraft or small object falling "space junk re"

Ooooh.. Aero did a paper. So the Boeings were a design flaw. That was now caught and the fixes incorporated in all future planes. So what "design" flaw allows a plane to just fall apart at the seams like the Airbus? And the latest reports from the pieces found indicated that it did fall apart at the seams. No explosion holes. No impact ripped pieces. I would say evidence is bearing me out - no design flaw. Just assembly "accidents".

The fascinating thing about the Internet is that it has finally revealed how many stupid, ignorant, rude people there are in the world.

Gaurav: Oil slick just means that one or more of the fuel tanks was intact on impact, not that the whole plane was.

"Smart, skilled pilots don’t fly into thunderstorms" more like sane pilots do not fly into thunderstorms. Don't care if you are flying a military aircraft or a Cessna. Human technology pales compared to what a tropical thunderstorm can do to any plane. That said, Airbus better be transparent about what happened or else If it aint Boeing I aint going!!!!

Statistically speaking, flying is still the safest way to travel.

Boeing is a fine airframe builder, and so is Airbus. The competition between these two companies serves the airline industry and the flying public well. It's sad that DanTe and the likes jumped at this tragedy to feel good about their chauvinistic selves. I remember the DanTes of the 80s dismissing the Japanese car companies as nothing but cheap and ugly copies of the great american automobiles ...

There are FAR more prejudiced and hateful trolls like Dante posting comments on Internet than there are/will be victims of plane crashes.
Maybe we should redirect our attention to that bigger problem.

Thanks for the acknowledgement. There's a big difference between 100mph wind shear and 100 km per hour wind shear. 1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers, so 100 mph wind shear is almost 161 km per hour wind shear. Mixing up units like that has given NASA a lot of problems with screws. Pay attention to your units.

What I don't understand is why it is so hard to understand that when a plane is ripped apart by wind shear, of course the electrical systems fail. Of course, if the computers locked down flight control, that IS something that should be investigated. I hope the submersibles find the black boxes that aren't black. (Black boxes that are orange. Somebody, please let Schroedinger's cat out of the box.)

Fox news just reported that other aircraft flying parallel tracks, at the same altitude, saw a large flash from their position. This does suggest terrorism, however, no one has claimed responsibility to such an act.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time to stop dignifying DanTe with responses to his uninformed rants. Stop taking his bait and responding to these unfounded utterances. Clearly, he is a fraud and a charlatan with an axe to grind.

Whatever the cause for this disaster, it is time to wait for the recovery of parts, black boxes-if they can be found, analysis of the findings and hoping a conclusion can be drawn from the existing evidence. The loss to the families left behind is too great to allow this inane discussion from the uninformed. Out of respect for the dead, lets find the cause and fix the problem.

I have some questions: 1) Why would an obviously seasoned pilot fly into an obviously powerful storm system rather than going around it as others claim they have always done? 2) If the plane was inside a storm system when it failed, how could another pilot see a flash of light from it? Wouldn't the destroyed plane have been hidden inside the storm system when the destruction occurred? 3) What would happen if the weakest part of the plane, the luggage compartment, blew open? Would any of these cascades have happened? 4) Was anyone aboard crucial to the UN's work in Africa? Planes carrying these people seem to go down a lot.

Hey Terry, you mean DanT was actually writing each message? I thought it was just a schedule anouncement that came up every so many hours. "Lady and Gentlemen, the white zone is for loading and unloading only, and the airbus you see there is not assembled properly" I know I shouldn't joke, but reading all the messages, I think it is time for people to relax and understand that there will be NTSB teams helping the french authorities into finding out what exactly happened. It may take months or even years, but we will eventually know.

The AB 330 is a Fly-by-Wire flight control technology that can operate without electricity but not without hydraulics.If all the flight computers fail pitch and yaw (hence bank) is controlled mechanically albeit slower using the rudders and a pitch trim wheel as long as hydraulic pressure is available. Engine driven and electrical backup hydraulic pumps can fail an still a Ram Air Turbine extends from the belly of the aircraft to provide enough pressure for flight control operation. A third jet engine (Auxiliary Power Unit)located internally in the aft fuselage can be started which will provide electronic backup. If this doesn't work then the batteries will provide power for essential flight instruments (captain's only) and minimal lighting in the cockpit. I hope this clears up some of the myths about the AB 330 I have observed since this terrible accident. Gods speed to all involved.

Hope I never fly with Smith!

He's so wrong about the kind of thunderstorms in the ITCZ, that he allegedly flies through regularly.

Fact is, thunderstorms in the ITCZ can form extremely rapidly; and due to moisture being sucked up from the ocean surface toward much higher altitudes, these CBs can be very difficult to detect through on board radar.

Further, these are often not isolated, but stretch across for upwards of 500 miles, making evasion difficult.

It's mighty easy on a dark, moonless night, in cloudy conditions, to be suddenly swept up into a huge CB, which had not appeared on radar.

Various arguments have been presented as to why Air France 447 was lost at sea. These include structural breakup, computer failure, sabotage, electrical failure, and an electrical fire. What has not been put forth as a possible explanation is unstoppable blinding smoke in the cockpit. I’m not suggesting that smoke in the cockpit is the answer. I’m only advocating that it is a possibility, one not previously offered, and no less plausible an hypothesis than any other. Let’s look at what is known.

Air France received a bomb threat several days before the crash on a different flight at a different airport. The aircraft was inspected but no bomb was found.

At 11 PM local time, the pilot sent a message that the he was flying though strong cumulonimbus thunderstorms. Other reports stated that the vertical speeds were as high as 100 miles per hour. Air France also said that the aircraft’s automatic reporting equipment reported a short circuit.

Ten minutes later, a series of automatic messages indicated that the autopilot had disengaged, stabilizing controls were damaged, and flight systems deteriorated.

At 11:13 p.m. the system that monitors speed, altitude and direction failed. The main flight computer and wing spoilers failed.

11:14 p.m. The final message indicates a loss of cabin pressure and complete system failure.

According to the DailyMail Online, the Spanish newspaper El Mundo reported that a transatlantic airline pilot reported seeing a flash of white light at the same time the Air France flight disappeared. “‘Suddenly we saw in the distance a strong, intense flash of white light that took a downward, vertical trajectory and disappeared in six seconds.’ ”

Sabotage, as with an on board bomb, does not always lead to destruction of the aircraft. In the case of Swissair 330, a bomb exploded on board. The aircraft remained flyable. The pilot attempted to land but could not see due to the smoke in the cockpit. His final sentences were that he could not see to land. His last words were “good-by everybody.” Similar events happened on at least two other aircraft, an Air Cubaña DC-8 and an Air Kuwaiti 737.

Short circuits inevitably lead to wire fires. In aircraft fires the aphorism, “where there’s smoke there’s fire” can as easily be re-stated as, “where there’s fire, there’s smoke.” Wire fires are notorious for generating copious amounts of smoke.

On average, there is one unscheduled or emergency landing in North America daily. Most aircraft land without incident. But In July 2007, a NASCAR corporate twin-engine aircraft crashed. It experienced a short circuit. The wire insulation burned and that led to a cry of “smoke in the cockpit.” The aircraft crashed two minutes later. A short circuit lead to the fire and smoke in the crash of Swissair 111. Its crash, like the crash of ValuJet 592 that preceded it, began with the cry “smoke in the cockpit.” These three examples and many others can be found in a 16-page report listing aircraft in which smoke was a cause or a factor in aircraft incidents and accidents. (See: http://www.smokeinthecockpit.com/references/List-of-Some-Smoke-Related-Accidents.pdf )

Electrical failures can lead to blinding smoke in the cockpit. Contrary to a common perception, pilots cannot see when unstoppable blinding smoke enters the cockpit. Air France 447 signaled that it was losing cabin pressure. When smoke invades the cockpit, the Federal Aviation Administration recommends that pilots depressurize the aircraft to force the smoke out. If the smoke were a one-time event, this procedure would likely work. However, when the smoke is continuous, depressurization cannot help. The pressure on the outside and inside of the cabin would be equalized. Continuous smoke would build up, blinding the pilots.

Let me reiterate. I am not stating that continuous blinding smoke brought down Air France flight 447. I am saying that continuous unstoppable blinding smoke in the cockpit is an equally worthy hypothesis to consider. For those interested in more information on the subject, you might want to read Air Safety Week’s overview of the unsafe condition of smoke in the cockpit: http://www.smokeinthecockpit.com/references/Air-Safety-Week-Smoke.pdf

You can also read a recent (May 21st) U.S. House of Representative amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill (http://www.smokeinthecockpit.com/references/GAO-Amendment.pdf) that requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the unsafe condition of unstoppable blinding smoke in the cockpit. For an in-depth article on unstoppable blinding smoke in the cockpit, see —
http://www.smokeinthecockpit.com/references/Blinding-Smoke.pdf

James P. Stevenson
Former Assistant Managing Editor
Air Safety Week

quite simply money has exchanged hands, or security concerns have surfaced which dictate that at the moment the truth cannot be told to the public.

This measn that confusion must continue.
It is often the case that honesty is not the best policy in international matters, especially related to aircraft.
The guy who is most tense is the CEO or MD of Airbus.
The amount of ugly profits companies make ensure that all the money does not go into perfecting the machine and nature uses just this small margin of error to expose engineering faults which have not been tested. Years later when the financial and legal risks of the matter are gone, a commssion takes up a study and reveals the truth.
By then the party is over and everyone has gone home. This is very common in engineering disasters.
You cannot blame the airlines either since they make vehicles that withstand lightning strikes regularly. This is something we consumers take for granted. But then profits are too tempting.
Yet it is surprising how inspite of all the satellites in the air such a thing can happen.
Short of being targetted by a new kind of energy weapon (NOT a new form of energy) this is close to inexplicable.
But then we have to wait till all the relatives of the crash victims die, since then they cannot sue Air France.
Suing has ensured that truth is supressed at the source. Legal reform is required in society.
This is all specualtion of course, but there is merit in pursuing this line of thought.

DanT you are a "pauvre con", ignorant, stupid, xenophobic, insulary and probably trigger happy.

Terrible and sad tragedy. But it's still safer to fly than to drive to the airport...

Dan te talks about French production quality. Plenty of people here in England (and in the rest of Europe) buy French cars and other manufactured goods. Nobody buys American cars or manufactured goods because the quality is so poor. That's why General Motors have just gone bust.

the 330 is actually also manufactured in Hamburg Germany. also the 319 and 321. SO why all the french bashing? anyway, I've been flying Airbus computer aircraft for the last 15 years including the 330,319, 320 and now on the 787 project for my airline while still flying the 330. Boeing is now doing what Airbus did 18 years ago. Including outsourcing the parts and using fully computer controls so this has nothing to do with this crash. Both Airbus and Boeing are the best at what they do and it is pointless to say one is better than the other. I feel safe on both. Pay more attention to the training of the pilots and crew, and think about this the next time you are looking for the cheapest tickets.. anyway, I would say that Airbus is the best thing that has happened to Boeing. IT has forced them to get with the times. Anyway, please wait for the facts to come out before we continue to point fingers. We owe the passengers and crew on this ill fated flight at least this much.

Why did the pilot of AF447 not reroute to avoid the storm? He made the wrong call and 220 lives are lost:

The Iberia aircraft took off from Rio de Janeiro at 00:07am (Madrid time – GMT+2), seven minutes after the Air France jetliner, according to the website of the Spanish daily ABC.

The IB 6204 crew members -- who prefer to remain anonymous -- explain that they were flying in the same air corridor as the French aircraft, ten minutes behind it, at a distance of about 128 km.

Facing difficult weather conditions, much like the AF 447, the captain and co-pilot decided to reroute 56 km to the east. “That’s how we navigated the storm, in order to avoid turbulence and electrically charged clouds,” says one of the Spanish pilots.

Why????????

Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group out there...there are plenty others. I believe that there was a bomb on the plane and I also believe that authority figures believe that there could of been one on the plane as well. I could be wrong but the last time I checked the publicated passenger list all names were listed except for the moroccans and the one lebanese and turkish person who was on the plane. This I found to be interesting. (I am not suggesting that any of those victims would have placed a bomb on the plane as I do not think that to be the case). The purpose of me bringing that to light is to criticize all foreign governments for not thinking outside the box and realizing that Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there. In 2003, the EU and the US were concerned about terrorist groups surfacing around the border of Argentina and Brasil. These groups were indirectly supported by Al-Qaeda. And how is the public to know whether or not a terrorist group has claimed this? The public and journalists are only released information AFTER it's filtered through the government. Further, perhaps tactics of terrorist groups have changed. Why claim something right away? By not claiming this right away no one suspects the group and they will easily be able to commit the same act again. Anyway, my main point is is that a bomb should not be ruled out so early in the investigation. And of course Brasil is quick to argue that it was not a bomb, b/c if that was the case then the Brasil would be responsible for the accident and not air france.

It's worth bearing in mind that all aviation authorities involved are gradually piecing things together. Until they can analyse the various parts of the plane, out of the ocean and in a hanger, they will not have any clear idea of the forces exerted on the metal at the time of the crash. What I'm sure of is that any pilot worth his salt would have worked like a demon to try to hold on to control for as long as possible, these guys are trained in simulators every year designed to take them through every possible potential scenario. One final comment, planes DO get hit by lightening. They are built to accommodate this, flying 35,000 ft in the air kind of indicates a common sense factor! There is no point dragging every other plane catastrophe in this equation, you can't take the sum of all crashes and draw a simple conclusion on this one because it maybe, might be, could be, possibly.... No doubt it will emerge that a series of events brought down that flight. All lives were lost, including the pilot and crew. Sometimes blame cannot be attributed to a single person or circumstance, but the media will no doubt bay for blood!

Maybe, I would put into consideration that it could have been a terrorist attack if it was flying out of the U.S. but since it didn't and almost all investigators are saying the possibility is very unlikely.

I have been crazy about this story and reading so much into this horrible, sad, unthinkable tragedy but Air France needed to react to the "recommendation" of new pitot tubes. What does that mean though? The makers of the PT's were "recommending" that airliners change them, why not make it mandatory and it's not like they just came out with that idea, they have been suggesting this for over a year for the A330 Airbus.

The statistics of lightning causing a plane to crash are very, very rare the most that happens are a few dents and that's why pilots slow down to prevent damage to the aircraft. Could that have been a possibility? That the pilot slowed down to prevent damage to the Airbus which caused the engines to stall and to lose cabin pressure? Which still is crazy because with aircraft they have back-up, plus more back-up and back-up for the back-ups.

I pray and hope they find the black box so the world and the families can understand how this horrible tragedy happened but I would think if this happened to any of my loved ones( God Forbid ) that finding there remains would be more important then finding the cause of the crash.
How can you move on never knowing where they really are, never being able to visit there grave or not giving them the proper burial. I hope for all those people who had someone on that flight that they receive the closure they need to try to move on with there lives. My thoughts and prayers are with there friends and families and a million thank yous to all of those helping and risking there lives to help the families with some sort of understanding. R.I.P.

I have just read that the CEO of Air France says that they are not sure the sensors caused the crash. What a surprise there!! Covering themselves in the face of an onslaught of lawsuits. As a pan-Euro biz traveller in the 1990's and early 2000's I elected to stop flying on Air France post Concorde crash at CDG, I felt more at ease with British Airways; let us not forget more recently another Air France crash crash/overshooting the runway in Toronto in the last three years. Too arrogant to accept responsiblity ever is Air France - they blamed air traffic controllers in that case I understand. Now onto the Airbus, let us not forget the trouble various Austalia carriers have had last year and as recently yesterday with the emergency landing in Gaum - all with the Airbus 300 series. All Airlines should committ to and deliver on putting ALL of our, the passengers safety FIRST before their squeezing their bottom lines. Spend money to ensure that the necessary and recommended changes are carried out BEFORE one of your carriers falls out the sky,ensure the aircraft is 100% airworthy - do not cut corners and endanger all of US, THE PASSENGERS and the likes of MY HUSBAND, an Airbus 300 series Pilot with one of the leading Airlines in North America. I worry each time he leaves the house to go and fly like I never have before!!! May they rest in peace all of the souls lost over the Atlantic ocean.

I saw the photo of the retrieval of the rear stabilizer by the Brazilian navy and what struck me is that it was in one piece.

This reminded me of a similar accident on flight AA587, Belle Harbor, USA where the rear stabilizer broke off due to overload stress as a result of heavy rudder pedal activitation.

Although not the cause, could this be one of the factors?

Had the aircraft hit the water intact I would expect the rear stabilizer to be severely damaged or have some rear fuesalage attached which in the Air France it appears it did not have.

Also on the airspeed indicators I am also reminded of an Air Peru crash in 1996 in which maintenance crew forgot to remove tape from the piezo tubes measuring altitude which caused the onboard avionics to report incorrect altitudes to the pilots.

Could a similar event occur with the airspeed indicators?

So let's sum up what we know so far. We know that the tail section was found, sheared off of the plane flying in a thunderstorm. We know that simmilar accident happened in 2001 in NYC when plane hit wake vortex. Again, tail was sheared off as if it were cut with gigantic blade. We also know that there is a potential for structural failure with Airbus A330/340 rudder, when fluid enters the rudder, as it can cause skin separation.

There is an AD out right now about A330/A340 rudders:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...18?OpenDocument

Combine this major design/construction flaw, with few other things that can go wrong in thunderstorm situation, then you get what happened.

Personally, as a passenger, I need to say that the ride on an Airbus, as opposed to 747, even during the calm flight, is full of squeeks, shakes, trembles, and I always thank god once I reach destination.

OK folks, it's important to remember that the reason we "speculate" on the possible causes of airline crashes is to prevent horrific tragedies like AF 447 from ever happening again. We do this by leaving no stone unturned and no possibility uninvestigated. It's important to respect the writers of these posts whether we respect their theories or not. As a 30 year veteran 757/767 - 737 - 727 Airline Captain, I've flown near, around, and closer than I'd like to similar severe weather, taken bird strikes, lightning strikes, and experienced all manner of systems failures successfully. Airbus and Boeing have both had issues that the manufacturer, FAA, and airline refuse to adequately address because of the legal and financial implications. The NTSB and Airline Pilots Association are the only two organizations that are interested in finding and fixing the true causes of these tragedies without regard to the cost incurred. This is not a blame-game but an honest search for clues to stop this from ever happening again. Severe to extreme turbulence combined with potential problems with (1) Airbus (and some new Boeing designs) composite carbon fiber composite's ability to withstand both lightning strikes (a)due to their lower "Faraday cage" abilities to transmit the electricity and (b) tendency to delaminate around hydraulic fluid as well as primitive "tap testing" where a technician taps the surface with a metal object and listens for a different sound to find fractures or bubbles in the product are problematic. Refer to "Airbus composite failure AD notes March 2005" on the Internet to bring up these official public documents. You'll see both the French Aviation Authority and the FAA stating that more detailed inspections must be done to avoid, in their words, "catastrophic failure". Both Airbus and Boeing are good aircraft, but Airbus prefers a computerized system that overrides a pilot's ability to make the final decisions and disconnect, while Boeing chose one that allows the pilots to override the computer if we see something amiss that the system doesn't. If my 44 years of flying and studying weather, aircraft systems, aerodynamics and accident investigation/avoidance have any merit, my OPINION is a mid-air in flight break up due to inadvertant flight into weather containing severe to extreme turbulence. This can happen when a series of factors such as darkness, lines of severe thunderstorms, loss of weather radar and rapidly building cells in excess of 6,000fpm occur. Hail can fall out of a cumulonimbus overhang as far as 50 miles from the main cell. I could be wrong, but I do have concerns that the composite structure of this aircraft may have been a factor in its ability to withstand certain severe turbulence structural loads. This is not intended as a "slam" to Airbus... just a potential problem that hasn't, in my opinion, been adequately addressed. Let's remember that all of us want to see a complete and honest resolution to what happened to AF447 so that families never again have to go through this. Thanks to all who care enough to comment.

Valkyrie

I agree that poor judgement and decision to fly into that weather can be attributed as a main cause of this accident. The Iberia flight 6024 A340 was flyng 7 minute behind the AF447, on the same corridor, and they decided to take a 60km detour.

I have no other reasons to dislike Airbus but for my personal flight experience in comparison to 747 and despite the experienced engine failure aboard 747 (PanAm), back in 1989 (or was it 90).

The main reason that I spent much time analysing and learning what went wrong in this accident is the reaction of Air France, Airbus and officials on the first news that Brasilian Navy located floating debris in the ocean, which in turn Navy officials had to refute soon afterwards, and then reconfirm again after couple of days.

It seems obvious now that officals must have known exactly what happened, that those service messages were sufficient for them to conclude and derive the sequence of events that preceeded the likely mid-air breakup. Every move they made afterwards, all statements, possible causes, frozen pitot tubes, in my mind is smoke and mirror.

It was by chance that the whole!!! tail section floated in the ocean and that it offered itself as an evidence of the weakest link in a higly complex A330 airplane system.

Greetings everyone.
There is a new spin on what happened, as Reported by the Scotland's Sunday Herald:

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55986.shtml

Remember the Iberia Pilot who saw a White Flash of Light that broke into 6 pieces & fell vertically?

There was no May Day Call...

RIP AF 447

Please share your comments.

Regards

Bon

Valkyrie / Abvillian,

Agree, why people with some knowledge on this topic and not necessarily associated with the accident comment is to try and prevent an event like this again.

Also I am neither pro and anti Airbus or Boeing, I am only pro safer travel for the passenger, whether it is a 757, 319, 747, 340 etc, does not matter to me. In my opinion in the history of flight that we as humans have, these devices are spectacular acehievements but can always be improved.

Lastly my comments about airbus are because it was an airbus involved in this incident. Very often I also do little city hops on 737's and I always getting this cold shiver up my spine just before take-off when I hear all the C-locks on the main cabin doors and cargo hold engaging (refering to an incident in the 70's).

Bottom line it appears the rear stabilizer was sheared off, whether overloaded beyond the design strength or inherent design flaw, we will never know till they recover the black box's to see the exact rudder pedal positions.

On the topic of poor judgment in flying into storms, I always think the folks on the flight deck also have families, I can't believe that they would not want to see there loved ones back, so I trust their judgment. I would be very hesitant to suggest that the flight deck took unnecessary risks flying into storms unless they had some external factor pressurizing them into doing so (saving fuel, time etc).

For the investigation I would think the most important thing right now would be finding the black boxes.

One last comment, I remember an Air Peru crash in which the pitot tubes were taped over on the ground during cleaning and they forgot to remove the tape which resulted in the altimeters failing and the loss of the aircraft.

Does anybody know if they are following up this avenue of investigation?

What still baffles me about this crash is why no radio communication?

Can anybody think of a scenario where all communication is taken out? My assumption is that immediately after the flight crew realising they had a distressed situation, would start transmitting there problem if not the ATC but to the company.

To hit the transmit button and say something takes about 2-3 seconds ...

Abvillion
Re: the Air France officials -
If memory serves me correctly, within 24 hrs of confirming that AF 447 had gone down in the Atlantic, the official line of Air France was to say that "it was highly unlikely the black box would be found". Wishful thinking on the part of Air France and Airbus?

Re A comment in early June "Smart, skilled pilots don’t fly into thunderstorms"
I beg to differ. My husband (Pilot Airbus 300 series) related an incident which he experienced in the last month; Whilst at the controls of a flight over the Atlantic, the Captain was navigating and very comfortable to take the plane on a course directly into a very, very narrow window of major thunderstorms; my husband was not. He opted for the safer option and flew around them.
Did the AF 447 Crew underestimate the impact that severe thunderstorms can have on an aircraft?
Did they have unrealistic levels of confidence in the performance of the Airbus 330?
Was the Captain in the crew rest and two less experienced First Officers taking on more than they could handle by flying into the storms?

Did they not even see the storms? (unlikely, as other Europe bound aircraft deliberately avoided them.)

Now that the autopsies on the initial victims of the crash have confirmed there was no evidence of fire or burns on bodies, no water in lungs therefore death was not from drowning and most were found with little or no clothing on at all. There is little to refute that the plane broke up in mid air. Poor souls.

Who will be held accountable for this tragedy to ensure that this does not happen in future? Airlines, Airline Federations, Aircraft manufacturers, and last but not least our Pilots, need to restore our confidence in them to get us, the passengers, from A-B without fear of falling out of the skies.

Abvillian, I think you're on the right track regarding the mid-air structural break up and the history of the Airbus tail structure. It definitely needs to be looked at. Just as a matter of interest... reading radar views of weather is a constantly moving three dimensional art form in itself. The aircraft is moving at approx. 500-600kts over the ground. Cells can build up at rates of 6,000 vert. fpm and move horizontally at 30-40kts in different directions at varying altitudes simultaneously. Put this together with a dark night, lightning flashes, and a line of cells sometimes a hundred miles long all moving and growing at once. Many accident reports involving severe weather and wind shear document several aircraft transiting an area of weather without problems while another entering the same location two minutes later experiences problems. All I can imagine is that these poor guys had their hands full battling severe turbulence, up and down drafts in excess of 100kts, audio and visual warnings going off, and a snowballing loss of anything they could use to tell them what was happening. The wind noise alone can be deafening. Many times because of the size of the storm system along their route and limited fuel, pilots have to pick their way through openings in the long line of cells. They really can't go around the whole thing or fly over 50-60,000ft. cloud tops. Commercial Aircraft service ceilings usually max out around 42,000ft. 99% of the time millions of airline flights accomplish this with no problem. It's not an unsafe procedure, just one that requires us to use caution and plan several "escape" routes in case things don't go as planned.

It is extremely difficult at the moment to recover the black box & a hopeless situation indeed. Hence depending on the recovery of the black box to ascertain the reason is most awful. Efforts should be made but meanwhile the experts & the scientists should work hands in hands to find out the most acceptable treason of failure.
All of us to remember that this man kind only learnt how to fly in the sky , hence can't we make the same flying safest after beating all kind of adverse situations viz thunderstorms , lightning etc. There must be having solutions & all of us should remeber the human lives are priceless.

With these words I pray to the almighty for peace to the departed souls & my condolences to the family members.

Gentlemen,

The computer nerds have now reaped the dire results of their Human Factors (HF)
Scientific Engneering Programs!

There is one very important problem! Although they are very qualified in their specialty, they are obviously lacking in their knowledge of Aerodynamics!

According to the reports of the weather people AF 447 was in the area of 100 mph up and down drafts in the thunder storm activity!

A Swept Wing Aircraft Design will pitch-up in a strong updraft!!! How will the Fly by Wire FBW aircraft respond to this input? Is it an increase in AOA, Yes! Is it a stall threat, Yes! Will it radically shove the nose down, Yes!
QANTAS QF72, Learmonth,AU!

The FBW program has contributed to many of the recent accidents and serious incidents that have occurred. It is time for a review of this program before more incidents occur!

There is never a time for hatred...

The 228 people that lost their lives on Flight 447 were all of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc. Whether it be in our every day lives or during a tragedy such as this, we need to embrace each other and admire the beauty and uniqueness we each bring into this world. Because, in this world there is truely only ONE race...the human race.

My condolences go out to the family and friends of the 228 lives lost. Please know that you are not alone. The world is grieving with you and your loved ones will always be with you.

My sincere thanks and admiration go out to all of the people that are tirelessly recovering bodies and debris, in the hopes of finding the answers the families, friends, and the world are hoping for.

Air speed indicators, similar type of problem occured on an Air Peru crash in which the ground crew taped over the pitot tubes for ground maintenance, flight left and onboard computers went crazy resulting in the loss of the aircraft basically because the flight deck did not know what altitude they were flying at also at night across the ocean.

The so called fuel slick they observed in the ocean, could this be hydraulic fluid as well? I can definitely see a scenario where the loss of the rear stabilizer severed the aft hydraulic lines causing the hydraulic fluid to bleed dry rendering flight with the primary control surfaces very difficult to impossible (Sioux City crash - DC10).

Last comment, black box signals will expire in 10 days approximately.

I am by no means an airline/aeroplane expert. However, as an historian, I am aware that the Germans dropped vehicles to the ground by means of parachutes. I have always wonderded, if there couldn't be two, three, or four areas of the bulkhead of an aeroplane with a mechanism that automatically deploys parachutes in the event of a catastrophic loss of power and overswift descent. Couldn't this slow the rate of descent and offer passengers some chance of survival, especially in crashes at sea?

Pedro,

This technique has been employed on smaller lighter aircraft, like Cesna etc, but for large commercial passenger liners it is not possible.

A larger commercial jet liners fueselage is designed to be strong in its longest direction, namely the direction of flight.

The lateral strength is a lot lower (perpendicular to flight) and the logintudinal strength.

So mounting parachutes and deploying them as the aircraft descends would merely destroy the fueselage.

Good idea but not possible with todays designs.