and it is usually for that very reason-to get away from the media frenzy and have meaningful discussions

Exactly Geoff. That is why even though I am not a pilot, I love to read this forumand of course this one too http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/f...x.php?board=1.0 Have a great day,Rodger

I think the plot of the aircraft and weather I submitted above is a fact, and a faulty airspeed indication is also.As far as the media-they are always out of control-but a discussion here of what might possibly have happened is not sensational. All my pilot boards have similar discussions and it is usually for that very reason-to get away from the media frenzy and have meaningful discussions that is not clouded by selling advertising.Fact of the matter in this case is the cause may never be determined as finding the flight recorder is like finding a needle in a haystack, and conjecture may be the only "answer".

The only information I have (and which I suspect all other posters have) has come from the media. I don't believe discussions based on that are really meaningful. It's interesting to compare similar threads (say the B777 at Heathrow) with the actual findings of the investigations.

As said earlier my belief is that the weather brought this a/c down. I also think that it "started" to break up as it came down out of control. How control was lost we won't know until/if they find the black boxes. In the mean time those simmers who have not practised a crash dive should try it out and discover just how close to oblivion one gets!!Try these two scenarios one with normal weather and one in stormy weather.Climb to FL350 (not above mountains) fly level for a while - your a/c suffers a decompression - time to get down quickly.If your a/c can drop the undercarriage at normal cruise then do so but don't wait for it. Wing over let the nose go down into the buffer zone (not replicated in the sim) so keep your AIS needle just short of the barber pole. As you get lower to the point where VNE MNE converge start to pull the nose up. Don't whatever you do let the a/c overspeed!! You are already going fast and at any overspeed especially at or below FL240 the a/c will start to come apart. Pull out smoothly at about FL100.Look back at your flight and check if you went over the MNE/VNE if you did for any length of time then "you aren't with us anymore!"The second scenario is to try the same but this time with heavy thunderstorms selected and maximum turbulence. Now you have to do the same but this time stay within your rough airspeed. Bearing in mind that the turbulence is going to push you to the edge. Also remember that any movement of the control sufaces can also take the a/c above its design limit. What this demonstrates is that in heavy turbulence even if the pilots did have control getting down safely would have been 50 50 at best!!I doubt whether any of the so called "experts" especially those in the media have ever been in turbulence as found in the inter tropical convergence. To say that it's not nice is an understatement !!!!!!!!!! It's scary even for seasoned pilots.Vololiberista

Hello,News from brazilian press (leaked from forensic center Recife)From the 16 bodies examinated:No sea water in lungsNo traces of burnsBodies dislocated (fractures .. etc ..)Clothes abscents or laceratedTo early for any sure conclusion but solid facts.Regards.Gus.

The second scenario is to try the same but this time with heavy thunderstorms selected and maximum turbulence. Now you have to do the same but this time stay within your rough airspeed. Bearing in mind that the turbulence is going to push you to the edge. Also remember that any movement of the control sufaces can also take the a/c above its design limit. What this demonstrates is that in heavy turbulence even if the pilots did have control getting down safely would have been 50 50 at best!!I doubt whether any of the so called "experts" especially those in the media have ever been in turbulence as found in the inter tropical convergence. To say that it's not nice is an understatement !!!!!!!!!! It's scary even for seasoned pilots.Vololiberista

Interesting details Vololiberista. Thanks for this. This brings up another question which others have already asked I believe: Did the pilots have any way of detecting this severe weather in their radar beforehand so that they could try to avoid it?John

I think the plot of the aircraft and weather I submitted above is a fact, and a faulty airspeed indication is also.As far as the media-they are always out of control-but a discussion here of what might possibly have happened is not sensational. All my pilot boards have similar discussions and it is usually for that very reason-to get away from the media frenzy and have meaningful discussions that is not clouded by selling advertising.Fact of the matter in this case is the cause may never be determined as finding the flight recorder is like finding a needle in a haystack, and conjecture may be the only "answer".

Hello Geof,I see your point about the difficulties of finding those black boxes. But when I made my comments about believing the media, I was specifically referring to the assumption that it could be terrorism which seemed a bit far-fetched (to me at least) since there was really no evidence (so far) to indicate this. Your facts above are not what I was questioning so I am sorry if I did not make my point clearly about this. And in fact, the latest data suggested by belga1 about 16 of the bodies being examined seems to agree that weather may be the mitigating factor. The "sensationalization" that I was referring to was the bit about these two names in the passenger list and nothing else really.At least you are sticking to a civilized discussion in this thread and avoiding cheap shots like some of the other members of this thread seem to be making already (they know who they are). Cheap shots simply ruin the discussion of the issue and shift the focus to personal attacks, which is not the purpose of this forum. Thanks again,John

Interesting details Vololiberista. Thanks for this. This brings up another question which others have already asked I believe: Did the pilots have any way of detecting this severe weather in their radar beforehand so that they could try to avoid it?John

They certainly would!! Firstly the airways crossing the equator (which are close to being great circle routes) are changed almost every day to account for the weather as it is so severe!Secondly they would have had an up to date weather forecast before they left and they could have received an update en-route forecast also they certainly would be equiped with doppler radar which can see the precipitation. (did they look far enough ahead?)Looking at their flightpath combined with the satellite images, I think they were heading for a gap but encountered a new storm just before. Major storms can erupt from nowhere in just 20 minutes!!!!Vololiberista

Hello Geof,I see your point about the difficulties of finding those black boxes. But when I made my comments about believing the media, I was specifically referring to the assumption that it could be terrorism which seemed a bit far-fetched (to me at least) since there was really no evidence (so far) to indicate this. Your facts above are not what I was questioning so I am sorry if I did not make my point clearly about this. And in fact, the latest data suggested by belga1 about 16 of the bodies being examined seems to agree that weather may be the mitigating factor. The "sensationalization" that I was referring to was the bit about these two names in the passenger list and nothing else really.At least you are sticking to a civilized discussion in this thread and avoiding cheap shots like some of the other members of this thread seem to be making already (they know who they are). Cheap shots simply ruin the discussion of the issue and shift the focus to personal attacks, which is not the purpose of this forum. Thanks again,John

John-I think it has been a very good discussion, including all the theories! :-)As to storm detection I attended a very interesting seminar a few weeks ago discussing the merits of present weather detection for thunderstorm avoidence-stormscopes, radar, and nexrad composite radar (only provided by xm weather). In my case I have only used stormscopes and nexrad-but from the seminar radar does not allows give as complete picture as it is "aimed" -nexrad composite is taking slices like a cat scan of the entire system and then displaying the worst it has to offer. Numerous examples were provided which showed radar showing ok, while the nexrad did not-with dire consequences. The presenter showed readouts of most of the commercial carrier accidents of the recent past and how the accidents could have been avoided with a nexrad feed in the cockpit. In simple terms the beauty of the nexrad is possibly in this case-a cell of 50,000 something high-the nexrad might show some really bad stuff way above your altitude which is about to drop on you.I took this debate to one of my flight boards and it was finally agreed that the composite gives the "big picture". Radar is more useful for weaving around general local cells. It is possible the crew did not get this "big picture" they needed-and yes these things develop rapidly!The seminar speaker suggested we go home and go to:http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/radar/Select an area of storms -then switch between the composite and the base. Notice how the composite shows much differently and shows much worse. But then it is showing slices of the whole cell, and the worst it has to offer. Very valuable info...

It is apparent from reading through all the "evidence" supplied so far into the disappearance of AF447 , one of the main failures in the aircraft's systems prior to the accident , is that there was a discrepancy and failure in the Pitot-Static readings on board the aircraft . It appears that the crew DID carry out the correct procedures for this defect , in that they DISCONNECTED the Auto-Pilot and possibly the Auto Throttle , and tried to fly the aircraft manually .Pitot-Static failures have caused a large number of flying accidents in the past .However , in all these accidents , where the crews have needed vital information regarding the aircraft's speed , altitude and attitude , NOBODY has ever referred to the on board independent information contained in the FMC's , the GPS and other vital Navigational Systems on board giving these vital statistics ? It is in these Avionics , that the vital Doppler equipments produce the aircraft's GROUND SPEED , totally independent from any Pitot Static System . Radar Altimeters will give the correct Altitude above terrain , and are totally independent from other aircraft systems . Unfortunately , most Radar Altimeters only have a 0-500 or 0-5,000 foot range . There are more expensive versions available that give an accurate 0-50,000 foot range . Another thing that puzzles me , is that since this is a "Fly-by-wire" aircraft , with no direct physical link between the little "side-stick" controller and the aerofoil surfaces , a total electrical failure , including two simultaneous engine failures , alongside an APU failure , as well as a last resort of a RAT (Ram Air Turbine) failure , will leave the crew with absolutely no control over the aircraft .Surely , if this is the case , then it is high time to forget about "Fly-by-wire" technologies , and revert back to the good old fashioned steel cables and bicycle chain control links . Discuss gentlemen ,Cheers ,MONTY.

..............Surely , if this is the case , then it is high time to forget about "Fly-by-wire" technologies , and revert back to the good old fashioned steel cables and bicycle chain control links . Discuss gentlemen ,Cheers ,MONTY.

Will never happen as I assume you are on about no hydraulic assist either. The cockpit in the A380 is not big enough for the trained gorilla they would need to fly it. LOL.Back to reality and lets await for more official, accurate evidence to be released.

They certainly would!! Firstly the airways crossing the equator (which are close to being great circle routes) are changed almost every day to account for the weather as it is so severe!Secondly they would have had an up to date weather forecast before they left and they could have received an update en-route forecast also they certainly would be equiped with doppler radar which can see the precipitation. (did they look far enough ahead?)Looking at their flightpath combined with the satellite images, I think they were heading for a gap but encountered a new storm just before. Major storms can erupt from nowhere in just 20 minutes!!!!Vololiberista

Thanks Geof and Vololiberista for your information. Much appreciated... I did a google search to try to find a site with more technical information and fell across this intriguing weather/meteorological analysis by a man with much real-world aviation weather prediction experience, Tim Vasquez. While the details are highly technical meteorology, the overall conclusions and some details could be noteworthy:http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/The author concludes that, first of all, that he needs more concrete data to make more definitive judgements but he does use real-world actual satellite and meteorological data gathered from satellites, weather stations etc... to paint a picture of the kind of weather that AF447 could have encountered. He has some sophisticated graphics here and it is interesting to see. I just thought I'd provide this link for anyone who might be interested...John

Thanks Geof and Vololiberista for your information. Much appreciated... I did a google search to try to find a site with more technical information and fell across this intriguing weather/meteorological analysis by a man with much real-world aviation weather prediction experience, Tim Vasquez. While the details are highly technical meteorology, the overall conclusions and some details could be noteworthy:http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/The author concludes that, first of all, that he needs more concrete data to make more definitive judgements but he does use real-world actual satellite and meteorological data gathered from satellites, weather stations etc... to paint a picture of the kind of weather that AF447 could have encountered. He has some sophisticated graphics here and it is interesting to see. I just thought I'd provide this link for anyone who might be interested...John

Hello,Thank you very much for the link .. but this one was already posted in this message (Page 2 N

Another thing that puzzles me , is that since this is a "Fly-by-wire" aircraft , with no direct physical link between the little "side-stick" controller and the aerofoil surfaces , a total electrical failure , including two simultaneous engine failures , alongside an APU failure , as well as a last resort of a RAT (Ram Air Turbine) failure , will leave the crew with absolutely no control over the aircraft .Surely , if this is the case , then it is high time to forget about "Fly-by-wire" technologies , and revert back to the good old fashioned steel cables and bicycle chain control links .

The accident comes to mind of the Air Transat A330-200 that ran out of fuel halfway across the Atlantic to Portugal . Because it ran out of fuel due to (later discovered) a massive fuel leak in the Starboard engine , it therefore suffered a total electrical power loss , the APU could not be started due to lack of fuel , but however the crew managed to drop the RAM (Ram Air Turbine) into the slipstream , and this provided the bare minimum of electrical and hydraulic power to glide the aircraft to an emergency landing in the Azores . Should (God forbid!) the RAT have failed , then the Air Transat flight would just have become another statistic in mid Atlantic losses of modern aircraft .Fly-by-wire technology has been around for a long time , longer than people think . The Avro Vulcan B2 , first designed in the early 1950's , had this technology implemented in its design , where control rods moved upon hydraulic actuators (PFCU's , Powered Flying Control Units) to operated the aircraft's control surfaces . However today , the technology has moved from control rods to thin electrical cable with 4-20 mA's of electrical current to operate the PFCU's . Much the same as Industrial Plant Instrumentation . Therefore it is a very strong case of if you loose ALL electrical power on board the aircraft , there is very little means of maintaining any control over the aircraft in flight . An interesting report last night from Brazil , that the first Post Mortem examinations of some of the bodies recovered from the Atlantic so far , indicate that the pax did NOT die of drowning as was first thought , therefore they would have all been dead upon striking the Atlantic . Indications on the bodies showed that their clothing had been partially ripped off , indicating that there is a strong possibility of a massive break up of the aircraft mid-air . Since a cabin pressurisation fault was reported in the Automatic Data Transmission to Air France in Paris , this leads to the possibility of a total structural failure of the aircraft . The recent report of another A330-200 having to make an emergency landing at Guam , due to a windscreen over-heating and catching fire , leads one to strongly believe that design and equipment failures in the Airbus A330-200 have made it an unreliable and unsafe aircraft in which to fly . The Pitot-Static system at present , fails intermittently , and Rosemount have implemented the urgent replacement of the Pitot Tubes , to ones using a more reliable heater system . Bearing in mind that the Pitot tubes have to endure temperatures of up to -60 degrees C , heater elements must be used to effectively work at these temperatures . This does not appear to be the case at present . I am not sure of the heater range involved at the moment , but anyone "testing" the Pitot-Static probes on the ground , with find that the heater elements will burn the inside of your palms if left running for a few minutes . The rubber protective covers will MELT if left in place . Therefore I would think that the heater elements must be in the +100 degree C range . This would not be the case of those currently fitted to Airbus A330-200 aircraft , which have a known defect of freezing up in flight . No wonder Air France Pilots are REFUSING to fly that model of aircraft until the Pitot Tubes are replaced ! Cheers ,MONTY.

Hello,

No wonder Air France Pilots are REFUSING to fly that model of aircraft until the Pitot Tubes are replaced !

Air France Pilots are REFUSING? ?They are refusing nothing so far ....This was only a request formulated by the french pilots union called ALTERhttp://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8

So that a disaster does not recur, and pending the results of various investigations, ALTER invites the crew to comply with the instruction following association:NOT ON ANY FLIGHT A330 / A340 NOT AT LEAST MODIFIED TWO PITOT PROBE

Regards.Gus.

Pitot-Static failures have caused a large number of flying accidents in the past .However , in all these accidents , where the crews have needed vital information regarding the aircraft's speed , altitude and attitude , NOBODY has ever referred to the on board independent information contained in the FMC's , the GPS and other vital Navigational Systems on board giving these vital statistics ? It is in these Avionics , that the vital Doppler equipments produce the aircraft's GROUND SPEED , totally independent from any Pitot Static System . Radar Altimeters will give the correct Altitude above terrain , and are totally independent from other aircraft systems . Unfortunately , most Radar Altimeters only have a 0-500 or 0-5,000 foot range . There are more expensive versions available that give an accurate 0-50,000 foot range......Discuss gentlemen ,Cheers ,MONTY.

I fail to see the relevance of groundspeed in helping the crew avoid disaster. What matters is airspeed. None of the resources you refer to provide the required data for this most "vital" statistic.Dan