They will certainly be interested in knowing the truth.Whether they'll be interested in revealing the truth or drawing the best conclusions from it is another matter entirely.Al

Never was a fan of Airbus in general or Boeing's move towards FBW. Gives me the creeps.

I am starting to wonder how much are they (France, Air France and Airbus) interested in knowing the truth. Too much money at risk. I guess we will find out if they keep on looking after the Ping dies out.Cheers,MAB

I think Air France would prefer not to know. Or at least not to make it public. This pitot tube problem is very small. Having said that Air France are already in trouble for not having implemented all the changes even after a year of knowing. Why is the pitot tube problem small in this incident? Because take a look at the storm images they flew through. Even with pitot tubes working satifactorily the AIS would have been all over the place . A Blur to put it mildly. So the AP would not be able to control the a/c by itself. The AIS indicator dances about wildly even in mild turbulence!Why then do AF not want to know what really happened? Because it is pilot error and if proven the law suits would put them out of business. As PanAm TWA and SwissAirWhy is it pilot error? a. The pilot saw the storm and took a chance!! (not many pilots have ever survived that chance!! You DON'T fly through a tropical convergence storm PERIOD!) b. The pilot didn't see the storm (what was he doing? eating a garlic sandwich? instead of keeping his eyes open for anything showing up on his radar. Other pilots did just that. So why didn't he?So, pilot error sadly is the reason for the accident.Vololiberista

I think Air France would prefer not to know. Or at least not to make it public. This pitot tube problem is very small. Having said that Air France are already in trouble for not having implemented all the changes even after a year of knowing. Why is the pitot tube problem small in this incident? Because take a look at the storm images they flew through. Even with pitot tubes working satifactorily the AIS would have been all over the place . A Blur to put it mildly. So the AP would not be able to control the a/c by itself. The AIS indicator dances about wildly even in mild turbulence!Why then do AF not want to know what really happened? Because it is pilot error and if proven the law suits would put them out of business. As PanAm TWA and SwissAirWhy is it pilot error? a. The pilot saw the storm and took a chance!! (not many pilots have ever survived that chance!! You DON'T fly through a tropical convergence storm PERIOD!) b. The pilot didn't see the storm (what was he doing? eating a garlic sandwich? instead of keeping his eyes open for anything showing up on his radar. Other pilots did just that. So why didn't he?So, pilot error sadly is the reason for the accident.Vololiberista

Oh well, that's that then, glad to see it was all solved so easily. You could've saved the Brazilian & French governments a whole lot of money if you had just rung them up and told them that. Give them a ring now - get those subs looking for the black boxes to call off their search.

I just got an e-mail from a retired pilot buddy of mine titled - Air France Accident: Smoking Gun Found.I deleted all the addresses and individual comments. Here's the body of the message:Forwarded by Norman Polmar. A Brazilian Naval unit reportedly found the complete vertical fin/rudder assembly of the doomed aircraft floating some 30 miles from the main debris field. The search for the flight recorders goes on, but given the failure history of the vertical fins on A300-series aircraft, an analysis of its structure at the point of failure will likely yield the primary cause factor in the breakup of the aircraft, with the flight recorder data (if found) providing only secondary contributing phenomena. The fin-failure-leading-to-breakup sequence is strongly suggested in the attached (below) narrative report by George Larson, Editor emeritus of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine. It's regrettable that these aircraft are permitted to continue in routine flight operations with this known structural defect. It appears that safety finishes last within Airbus Industries, behind national pride and economics. Hopefully, this accident will force the issue to be addressed, requiring at a minimum restricted operations of selected platforms, and grounding of some high-time aircraft until a re-engineered (strengthened) vertical fin/rudder attachment structure can be incorporated. Les --------------------------(George Larson's Report)--------------------- This is an account of a discussion I had recently with a maintenance professional who salvages airliner airframes for a living. He has been at it for a while, dba BMISalvage at Opa Locka Airport in Florida. In the process of stripping parts, he seesthings few others are able to see. His observations confirm prior assessments ofAirbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero structures communitiesby those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series vertical fin failures. His observations: "I have scrapped just about every type of transport aircraft from A-310,A-320, B-747, 727, 737, 707, DC-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, MD-80, L-188, L1011and various Martin, Convair and KC-97 aircraft.Over a hundred of them.Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far asairframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize compositematerials. I have one A310 vertical fin on the premises from a demonstration I just performed. It was pathetic to see the composite structure shatter as it did,something a Boeing product will not do.The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators isthe worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I amnot surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering thecomplete Vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crashsite. The Airbus line has a history of both multiple rudder losses and a verticalfin and rudder separation from the airframe as was the case in NY with AA.As an old non-radar equipped DC4 pilot who flew through many a thunderstormin Africa along the equator, I am quite familiar with their ferocity. It is notdifficult to understand how such a storm might have stressed an aircraftstructure to failure at its weakest point, and especially so in the presence ofinstrumentation problems. I replied with this: "I'm watching very carefully the orchestration of the inquiry by Frenchofficials and Airbus. I think I can smell a concerted effort to steerdiscussion away from structural issues and onto sensors, etc. Now AirFrance, at the behest of their pilots' union, is replacing all the air datasensors on the Airbus fleet, which creates a distraction and shifts themedia's focus away from the real problem.It's difficult to delve into the structural issue without wading into theBoeing vs. Airbus swamp, where any observation is instantly tainted by itsorigin. Americans noting any Airbus structural issues (A380 early failureof wing in static test; loss of vertical surfaces in Canadian fleet prior toAA A300, e.g.) will be attacked by the other side as partisan, biased, etc. "His follow-up: One gets a really unique insight into structural issues when one hasfirst-hand experience in the dismantling process. I am an A&P, FEJ and an ATP with 7000 flight hours and I was absolutelystunned, flabbergasted when I realized that the majority of internalairframe structural supports on the A 310 which appear to be aluminum areactually rolled composite material with aluminum rod ends. They shattered. Three years ago we had a storm come through, with gusts up to 60-70 kts.,catching several A320s tied down on the line, out in the open. The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had beenremoved shattered and the rudder and elevators came off. Upon closer inspection I realized that not only were the rear sparscomposite but so were the hinges. While Boeing also uses compositematerial in its airfoil structures, the actual attach fittings for the elevators,rudder, vertical and horizontal stabilizers are all of machined aluminum." -----------------(end of narrative)---------------

don't know what role, if any, the vertical stab will play in the eventual unwinding of the causes of this accident, but I am always amazed at people who appear to have no training in structural engineering offer authoritative conclusions about structural failure in materials.scott s..

Hello,

don't know what role, if any, the vertical stab will play in the eventual unwinding of the causes of this accident, but I am always amazed at people who appear to have no training in structural engineering offer authoritative conclusions about structural failure in materials.

+ 100 :)Very interesting statement of a Air France pilot (Pilot of the A330-200 who followed the down one 20 minute after)Think yourself about this statement .. how .. why.. and all the time passed before talk to press.Dunno .. but for talk to press .. he need Air France green light IMHO.http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/20...-vol-af447-.phpUse a translator (Google or else) as it's in french :)Regards.Gus.

Not sure how the guy is going to manage to remain anonymous when it's on record that he was the P1 on AF 459 that same night. Can't be hard to find out who that is for anyone who really wants to know and has a mind to check a roster.My French is terrible, but the gist of it was (from what I could gather) is that he thinks he did a better job with the radar interpretation of the weather than the other crew by taking it off automatic and ramping up the PRF, but doesn't think it was pilot error on the other guy's part that he perhaps didn't try that? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Maybe my French is worse than I thought, but then again I'm not that clued up on technical terminology in French, I get stuck not much further along than after asking for two beers and how to find the railway station. :( With regard to the other point above about the A320's control surfaces being damaged in high winds at a wrecking yard when they had the actuators removed is fairly meaningless. Any control surface is likely to flap itself to destruction in a 70 mph wind under those circumstances, otherwise there'd be no such thing as control locks. And I don't think assessing the structural integrity of an aircraft that is being scrapped is the best way to determine overall airworthiness of an aircraft type. He may have a point, but an appraisal like that is hardly conclusive.Al

Hello,

My French is terrible, but the gist of it was (from what I could gather) is that he thinks he did a better job with the radar interpretation of the weather than the other crew, but doesn't think it was pilot error on the other guy's part? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Yes you right .. that's is in short...And about anonymous .. ROFL Regards.Gus.

Now we have two crews that survived and both came behind AF-447. Also, both crews gave a detour of 60 miles (east) by the Spanish A340 and 70 miles (probably also east, but unconfirmed) by the French. If AF-447 went head on against those "great cloud mases that the second crew referred to in their report, things might have gotten seriously hairy. There used to be two schools of thoughts in severe cloudy conditions: 1.- Go fast and get it over as quickly as possible. 2.- Slow down and take a soft lengthy bitting but at a managed level that your aircraft can easily take. Chances are always better if one allows the airplane to go with the motion of turbulences. When going fast, the plane might be going through one shake in one direction (remember, six degrees of freedom) when another one from different direction starts to hit. It might take a few ones but not forever and ever. If the plane is not given the time to adjust its integrity soon will be compromised. Shake it too fast and violently at hight vibrations which can hurt the craft or shake slowly an softly at low vibrations that the plane can ride with it. I do not think the fin tail of the rudder was the cause. I think the fin piece just came off when the plane disintegrated. What happened with AA-A300-600 in New York was jut the product of a bad co-pilot that whack the hell out the rubber 5 times (left-right-left-right-left)) full deflection not knowing the plane was traveling too fast for it already. Against Airbus Manual. Too much too often for the 4 anchors that hold in place the Fin Tail to take it. No. You get in troubles, maybe no one check the weather radar correctly, they get in the thick of it, the plane entered troubles, someone may have decided to disconnect the autopilot. It is pitch black. Now there are in manual control and making things even worst. The plane snaps. System are starting to quit, control surfaces do not operate, computers are utterly out of wacko. Vibrations might go too higher due to high speed and strong shakes are coming into place so now the plane start disintegrating. I thing we got the coffin corners wrong. When you pass the max speed of the plane as per present altitude that is when the pilot gets there. Say you are flying at 0.80 match cause that is your max speed at that level entering a storm front, you can bring it down say to 0.74 which will not stall aircraft and avoid all discomfort or worst, loose the plane. Better to loose a minute in your life than you life in minute.Maybe or Maybe not,MAB :(

If you look back to one of my previous posts in this topic you will see that I talk about gust strength. All civilian a/c today are manufactured to more or less the same strength. Composite materials are in vogue at the moment because for the same strength rating they are much lighter and thinner. However.......... Composite materials behave in a different way to aluminium when put under stress. Aluminium will ripple, flex, bend and eventually tear. Composites will do...........bend a bit then..............SNAP!! Therin lies the problem!!Airframes are built to a gust limit strength of 66 feet per second. Not much. In turbulence the gust ratio reduces to 45 fps and in a steep descent/dive just 25 fps. Almost all a/c however their construction will break up when these limits are exceeded. That is why one avoids thunderstorms like the plague (that's why I'm still here!!!!) Whether the pilot "chose" to fly through the centre of the storm or "didn't see it" in either case he was at fault. The break up of the a/c was a consequence of this and not the cause because a/c are simply not designed to fly though such terrible weather.vololiberista

This hoax was already running when it was a collision between a TAM airliner and a corporate jet over Amazonia months ago .......

Hi,Small correction; Not TAM but a GOL B737-800 and a private Embraer Legacy 600Rgds,ALG

Hello,

Small correction;

Thank's .. you right.Confirmed by forensics at Recife and Air France management:The captain and one steward of AF447 indentified today from the bodies found so far.Regards.Gus.

Hello,26/06/2009End of the researches by the brazilian air force and navy.

26/06/2009 - 19h02Nota Final - 26.06.09T

Now it is being reported the airliner crashed intact and did not break up in flight. -John