Well there was a report of cabin pressure lost.

Must have missed that part. :( IF there was a structural failure this could explain the electrical short circuit message. It also could explain why there was no mayday call. It also could explain the "orange dots" which the news say here are reported at the time of the accident by a TAM pilot about 1,300kms from the island Fernando de Noronha. But we have to wait for the results of investigation.BTW: I never figured out why crash recorders of civil airliners do not swim. The one of the Tornado is mounted on top of the aircraft (IIRC right behind the canopy) and "ejects" under special circumstances. Unless not destroyed (for example by a weapon) it will swim when the aircraft crash-landed on water.

Must have missed that part. :( IF there was a structural failure this could explain the electrical short circuit message. It also could explain why there was no mayday call. It also could explain the "orange dots" which the news say here are reported at the time of the accident by a TAM pilot about 1,300kms from the island Fernando de Noronha. But we have to wait for the results of investigation.BTW: I never figured out why crash recorders of civil airliners do not swim. The one of the Tornado is mounted on top of the aircraft (IIRC right behind the canopy) and "ejects" under special circumstances. Unless not destroyed (for example by a weapon) it will swim when the aircraft crash-landed on water.

My guess is that they want it to remain with the wreckage. The boxes ping and if they were to float, ocean currents could take them hundreds or thousands of miles from the crash site and there would be no opportunity to recover victims, wreckage and other evidence of the event.Mark.

Someone brought my attention to this map:http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/redpuma/maps/worldmap.htmlIt shows seismic activities within the past 4 weeks. A dot is roughly at the position where the airliner might have come down. Well, but I don't know about the magnitude a plane crash could cause on the water surface and if it will be recognized.

Analysis of the recovered wreckage may (repeat may) reveal the cause of the crash. In advance of that I'll offer a couple of thoughts ...1 - I'm aware of only one airliner that was brought down by a lighting strike, a 707 in 1963 or thereabouts. However, I'm aware of a DC-9 that suffered total engine failure due to ingestion of hail.2 - Structural failure due to turbulence is possible but not likely, in my opinion. The 707 that crashed near Fuji got caught in a mountain rotor, which is a whole 'nother animal.3 - My guess is a bomb on board. I certainly could be wrong, but they'll be exploring this possibility, and if the right parts of the wreckage can be recovered they will show the effects of a high explosive detonation, assuming that this is in fact what happened.4 - Another possibility is a fuel tank explosion such as brought down TWA 800.But I'm guessing. Hopefully we'll learn the facts at some point.

Search planes have found pieces of wreckage, likely from 447.Here is a link.May the victims rest in peace.

Another possibility is a fuel tank explosion such as brought down TWA 800.

As far as I am aware, Air France long range Airbus aircraft have the Parker Hannifin fuel vapour inerting system on their centre fuel tanks, which one supposes would make a similar incident unlikely to be the cause, but that of course doesn't mean it was not the case.Al

Air France long range Airbus aircraft have the Parker Hannifin fuel vapour inerting system on their centre fuel tanks ...

Is that an inert gas blanket? If so that would pretty well knock out my speculation on that point.

If you are not familiar with the system, it fills the void in a fuel tank normally occupied by explosive fuel air mixtures with a non flammable gas. It's an expensive system, more common on military aircraft since they are more at risk from static build up during mid air refuelling, which is why the airlines were against it, but I seem to recall Airbus going for it following some sort of FAA or JAR directive.Al

... <The system> fills the void in a fuel tank normally occupied by explosive fuel air mixtures with a non flammable gas.

I suspect it would be nitrogen. The system may be expensive but nitrogen is low-cost and readily available and would be almost as effective as any of the noble gases or halogenated hydrocarbons like Halon. (I've got a master's in chemistry but not having done any research here I'm really guessing.)

You are correct, the system uses NEA (Nitrogen Enriched Air) and vents the OEA (Oxygen Enriched Air) overboard. It does not attempt to get rid of it completely, studies have shown that dropping the fuel tank atmosphere to a 12 percent oxygen level is sufficient to prevent ignition.The reason it is a costly system is that it takes a lot of pumps and associated gear to do it for a big commercial jet. Boeing's own inerting system, which is actually made by Honeywell (the one they put on the Navy's 737 Poseidon, and on the few commercial airliners that airlines have selected the option for) requires just one pump, but a 747-400 needs six pumps to do it properly, and presumably a similarly large number for an A330. It's an automatic system, the crew don't need to operate anything apparently.Al

Al,As I write this I'm listening to an interview with an A330 pilot who offers the following possible explanation for the crash ...He says that the aircraft maintenance data automatically transmitted back to some Air France base via satellite definitely showed some kind of electrical problem with the aircraft. He suggests that if the crew had then had a total electrical failure, or a partial failure that took out the weather radar, for example, then maybe they inadvertently flew into the known squall line of major thunderstorms.I'll observe that they probably were at or below maneuvering speed so if it was in fact up/down-draft induced structural failure, the gusts must have been fantasically strong and in some kind of shear configuration.

Analysis of the recovered wreckage may (repeat may) reveal the cause of the crash. In advance of that I'll offer a couple of thoughts ...1 - I'm aware of only one airliner that was brought down by a lighting strike, a 707 in 1963 or thereabouts. However, I'm aware of a DC-9 that suffered total engine failure due to ingestion of hail.

In Aug 1976, a USAF C-141A was destroyed in the air near Mildenhall AB, UK after entering a line of thunderstorms.It can happen...RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, You might not have seen my question in the temporary forum so I'll ask it again ...We used to live in Woodmen Valley, before the roads were paved. Where are you?

Bob, You might not have seen my question in the temporary forum so I'll ask it again ...We used to live in Woodmen Valley, before the roads were paved. Where are you?

No, I didn't see the other one. Sent you a PM.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I've heard reports that there are 2 widely spaced debris fields, so that may indicate that the breakup occurred at high altitude. The aviation specialist John Nance is the only person in the media that has speculated that an explosion or bomb may have brought down the plane. After he made that statement, no other mention of this possibility has come up in the media. Why do people have their heads in the sand that a bomb could've been put on board?These planes have modern weather radar and the pilots should have been able to avoid serious thunderstorms, so I find it hard to believe that this pilot would have flown into a violent section of weather. He obviously tried to go around an area of weather since the debris field was far off it's flight track.