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

Where did you read that???Cheers,MAB

That's hard to believe, judging that many items of the plane broke off intact. When a plane impacts something, it breaks into smaller pieces; larger pieces indicate an in-air disintegration. Now the French say the plane fell and was not in cruise when it broke, which strongly suggests a graveyard spiral or a graveyard spin, which seems highly likely when you factor in that:* the plane's panel was offline from the electrical failure, * the plane was at cruise at high altitude,* resultingly, the crew was flying by-hand in IFR conditions with little to zero horizon reference, even if it was daylight.With all that in the mix, the outcome is only certain. $20 says the pilots experienced spatial disorientation, the plane progressed into a graveyard spin and disintegrated on its way down. The large pieces scream this. I don't know they're trying to con, but it seems nobody is buying their latest...and for good reason: it doesn't add up.

Where did you read that???Cheers,MAB

CNN...DJ

Where did you read that???Cheers,MAB

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/...port/index.html

That's hard to believe, judging that many items of the plane broke off intact. When a plane impacts something, it breaks into smaller pieces; larger pieces indicate an in-air disintegration. Now the French say the plane fell and was not in cruise when it broke, which strongly suggests a graveyard spiral or a graveyard spin, which seems highly likely when you factor in that:* the plane's panel was offline from the electrical failure, * the plane was at cruise at high altitude,* resultingly, the crew was flying by-hand in IFR conditions with little to zero horizon reference, even if it was daylight.With all that in the mix, the outcome is only certain. $20 says the pilots experienced spatial disorientation, the plane progressed into a graveyard spin and disintegrated on its way down. The large pieces scream this. I don't know they're trying to con, but it seems nobody is buying their latest...and for good reason: it doesn't add up.

Again, makes me wonder if the vert stab was lost in flight. Much of the aircraft could have spun down intact, shedding pieces such as control surfaces. There is no knowing whether the wings were still attached to the fuse at impact, has there been any factual discussion on that? But why would they be trying to con anyone at this point? They are not denying a cause of the crash, just suggesting the state of the aircraft at the time of crash. I'd think if the aircraft crashed intact, it opens up Air France for greater liability as it points further away from a bomb and closer to some type up catastrophic or negligent failure, or both.

When an aircraft hits water or ground, it breaks into small pieces, with varying factors including impact angle and speed. Small pieces are the gauge of high speed, and vice-versa. The energy of a falling aircraft impacting land/water must dissipate from the sudden deceleration, and it does...throughout the airframe, which is not designed for those forces at all.In this instance of inflight breakup, various appendages encounter shear forces: constant resistance from a softer medium, that being air, from side-loads or a Vne condition. After awhile, fatigue and failure from those forces are imminent, and the weakest link in this instance is almost always the juncture of an appendage to the fuselage. The structural integrity there is at the lowest anywhere in the airframe. However, there are instances of appendages remaining intact and the weak link occurrring in a circumferential fuselage seam nearby, evidenced by tears at the rivet holes, longitudinal skins either ripped or torn out fore or aft of the split, J- and hat-section aluminum stringers forcibly ripped from surrounding skins.Without a doubt, you know that airliners simply aren't designed for those forces. Smaller aircraft can deal with them, yes, but we're talking size, weight, arms of momentum, leverage forces, and so on when a plane's size increases. The best an airliner can cope with is turbulence, some yaw and bumpy landings. No one in their right mind dares to intentionally spin or stall a commercial aircraft for those very reasons.As unfortunate and tragic as the Air France story is, the real tragedy is how the officials and the media make an ever-changing story out of what is plainly evident to those of us who know better.

Hello,Original BEA preliminary report in englishhttp://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601...090601e1.en.pdfOriginal BEA preliminary report in frenchhttp://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601...-cp090601e1.pdfRegards.Gus.

Hello,Original BEA preliminary report in englishhttp://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601...090601e1.en.pdfOriginal BEA preliminary report in frenchhttp://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601...-cp090601e1.pdfRegards.Gus.

The last of the findings is interesting:"visual examination showed that the airplane was not destroyed in flight ; it appears tohave struck the surface of the sea in a straight line with high vertical acceleration."

Hello,

"visual examination showed that the airplane was not destroyed in flight ; it appears tohave struck the surface of the sea in a straight line with high vertical acceleration."

Indeed ... but note the word "appears"The BEA is not sure at all it was like this .. it's a speculation.It can be challenged by big parts of the plane hiting water ...In fact .. it's not really new facts or elements than in the BEA press meeting of 17 June.It's also a other interesting remark as they notice they have not the brazilian forensics results of the already bodies autopsied.The answer from the officials of Brazil to this :no officials from France asked to have the results !!If you don't ask .. don't be astonished to receive nothing !The BEA guys are certainly shy ones lol.Regards.Gus.

no officials from France asked to have the results !!

What evidence do you have for that statement?

What I found interesting is the complexity of the ACARS message protocol.Unfortunately if they don't get the FDR/CVR data we might not ever know much more. Maybe if they can do some simulations, but the problem that seems insurmountable is how does an aircraft crash after loss of airspeed indication? We can speculate about weather and other things, but no obvious way to confirm or disprove. scott s..

Hello,

What evidence do you have for that statement?

AFP:Originalhttp://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2009/07/...redit-paris.phpGoogle translation:

AF447/autopsie Brasilia contradicts Paris AFP 02/07/2009 | Updated: 21:34 | 3 Comments | Add to my selection The Brazilian Federal Police said she had not communicated the results of autopsies of the bodies of victims of the Air France Airbus Rio-Paris because it had not been sought by French authorities. "We have received no request (official information) of the Embassy (in France) or someone in France. If there is no demand, it is clear they will not receive what they have not requested, "said a spokesman for the federal police. The Office of surveys and analysis for the investigation of the crash a month ago of the Airbus A330 which was 228 dead, once again Thursday lamented the lack of results of autopsies performed in Brazil Of the 51 bodies found. "We have submitted applications to obtain," said Alain Bouillard responsible for BEA's investigation, arguing that the lack of autopsies could slow down their work. The BEA had already complained two weeks ago not to be kept informed of the results of autopsies. The Brazilian authorities had replied that four doctors french, dispatched by the court, attended autopsies made in Recife (north-east) and they were not informed of the presence of another examiner of BEA.

but the problem that seems insurmountable is how does an aircraft crash after loss of airspeed indication?

Cause the lost of airspeed indication start a chain of events in the computerised systems.See the link(s) under.Also a other analyse very interesting to read.Unfortunately it's in french so Google translation can be not accurate at 100%http://www.eurocockpit.com/archives/indiv/E009454.phpGoogle translation in english:http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8Regards.Gus.

First: From the beginning I think they adopted a self defeating attitude by stating again and again that the black boxes might never be found.Second: I read somewhere that they might stop searching for the boxes on July 10th. Hopefully they mean that the submarine will be taken off since the pinging is expected to be off by then if not already.Third: I do not understand why the French are turning publicly against the Brazilians right out in the open. Yes, as always things didn't workout like a Swiss clock in the handing over that night but that is not enough to turn against Brazil, Dakar and Sal. Four: They know the whole world is comparing them against the NTSB and in my opinion they are already coming out shortFive: They better watch it or there will be a backslash from the Internet. They days of keeping everything secret from passengers are long over. People already have disembarked form an A330 for weight balancing, they might start avoiding A330 or Airbuses all together.Six: We all want an explanation, but I think without the boxes nobody expected a preliminary one that wasn't worth a grain of salt. At this point it is all speculations and saving faces. Cheers,MAB.

The French are indeed being very coy. Firstly because there IS very little evidence and secondly they want to protect the reputation of their national airline "Air Chance" They don't want it to go the same way as Pan Am, TWA, Swiss Air and Japan Airlines "almost"! Because as I have explained earlier I am of the opinion that the crash was a result of pilot error.As far as the "airspeed" debate goes It is perfectly normal and part of pilot training (in spite of some accidents resulting) to be able to maintain flight without reference to the AIS. I'm not speaking of the AP. It cannot. Only a pilot hand flying can do it once it is recognised that the AIS is at fault.It may be that the a/c "was" "largely" intact when it impacted but in those weather conditions it is absolutely certain that bits came off before. Large commercial jets are not designed to survive the most intense of storms. And intentionaly or "unintentionaly" flying through a tropical convergence storm is asking for trouble. It could be and quite likely that the fin was torn off and thereafter the rest of the a/c went quickly out of control.

I agree with you. They probably wish that it could all go away. But it can't. Time will tell. But, if they decide not to look for those two box until they find them, this will be an open wound that will never heal.Time,MAB