AirFrance A330 missing

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

Every accident is the result of a chain of events, whereif any one of those events was prevented, the accident would not have happened. The lack of a FOD inspection prior to takeoff can just as easily be the primary cause. The lack of address by the manufacturer to a known and previously seen failure mode of the fuel tanks can also be labeled a primary cause of the loss of 113 lives. What one decides to call "primary cause" is only a result of where one sits and whom one wants to cast the blame towards. But in truth, numerous events that happened that day, and through the years before the crash, are equally to blame.

Exellent post ...Can't be better way to return to the main subject .. AF447 missing and the "Pitot" problem :)Regards.Gus.

[mabe54 17]

the two first officers.the the most experienced one, probably, was in the left side.

The Captain and one flight attendant, not the two first officers. I bet those two are down there wishing they had called the Captain. No disrespect intended.http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/25...e.brazil.crash/Since we still do not know the whereabouts of the two boxes and to bring at least the subject back on track (AF 447 pure speculations at this time of course):http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/0...askthepilot322/Cheers,MAB

[ZachLW 37]

I consider it either structural or some other deficiency when, by simply exercising the rudder at speed, it leads to catastrophic structural failure. You can sugar coat and blamestorm all you want, but it's a real problem that had to be addressed by Airbus Industries after the crash of flight 587.I hate to bring up those horrible rudder hard overs first experienced (at least to a fatal degree) by US Air and their much prided 737, but the full deflection, right then left, of the rudder at speed brought the aircraft down-- not because of a structural failure, but loss of control by the extreme yaw and subsequent roll induced. The stabilizer, even in the dive, never separated. Seemingly, that is the first part of an Airbus that will peel away, as evidence by 587 and the recent AF crash. Investigators still believe it to be a possible cause to the crash.All the aforementioned leads me to believe Airbus builds aircraft structures cheaply to a fault. Nothing more than my opinion... Nonetheless, flame away! Hope there's no Frenchmen reading this :( I should also mention me and my old instructor used to have Airbus bash sessions when on cross countries for the private license, so I'm partial to Boeing regardless. I also know my instructor to be a highly experienced, philosophical, and very well studied man. And Al, they are literally dropping out of the skies, all over the place!!! :( (for all sorts of reasons, though)

[tmab11 0]

I consider it either structural or some other deficiency when, by simply exercising the rudder at speed, it leads to catastrophic structural failure. You can sugar coat and blamestorm all you want, but it's a real problem that had to be addressed by Airbus Industries after the crash of flight 587.I hate to bring up those horrible rudder hard overs first experienced (at least to a fatal degree) by US Air and their much prided 737, but the full deflection, right then left, of the rudder at speed brought the aircraft down-- not because of a structural failure, but loss of control by the extreme yaw and subsequent roll induced. The stabilizer, even in the dive, never separated. Seemingly, this seems to be the first part of an Airbus that will peel away, as evidence by 587 and the recent AF crash. Investigators still believe it to be a possible cause to the crash.All the aforementioned leads me to believe Airbus builds aircraft structures cheaply to a fault. Nothing more than my opinion... Nonetheless, flame away! Hope there's no Frenchmen reading this :( I should also mention me and my old instructor used to have Airbus bash sessions when on cross countries for the private license, so I'm partial to Boeing regardless. And Al, they are literally dropping out of the skies, all over the place!!! :( (for all sorts of reasons, though)

....ahh...couldnt of said it better myself.

[mabe54 17]

The plot thickens. That AF-447 might have stumbled into a well known and hidden ticking bomb. Maybe the rudder did it.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1727...f447-crash.htmlFollow all the leads please specially the PDF file.Not good for composite materials specially when they are about to switch over (Boeing & Airbus & Bombardier & the rest).Get those boxes France. Drain the whole area if you have to.MAB

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

Get those boxes France. Drain the whole area if you have to.

Don't hold your breath for any report in that way from the "independent" BEADon't count of any intervention in the report of the NTSB or others...BEA is the sole authority to be responsible of a final report release.I guess it will be the neccesity of many other crashes and deaths before BEA (under wich pressure ??) will involve a Airbus aircraft defect design (if any) in a report.Think as you want about.. but some specialised press comments .. the many polemicals court of justice trials after some Airbus crashes in France make me think like this.The wolves did not eat themself :)Regards.Gus.

[Chock 17,769]

It's a fair point you make Zach, and I think the tailfin on Airbus aircraft may indeed be questionable. (I'm more inclined to base that premise on the Lauda uncommanded thrust reverser accident over Thailand than the one over Queens though, which was of course a Boeing 767 and not an Airbus, but the point is the same).Just to clarify, the rudder problem with the 737, at least in the case of the two crashes potentially attributed to it before the mechanism was altered, did not occur at high speed, but on approach. The problem was one of crossover speed for the 737 (i.e, the ability to counteract a roll induced by the rudder with only ailerons). Most pilots were not even aware of crossover speed at the time of those 737 incidents (many pilots are still not aware of of crossover speed and what it means if you broach the subject with them).At approach speeds, the airflow is not only insufficient to give the ailerons enough control authority to counteract a full rudder deflection in the 737 (i.e the crossover speed) but is also insufficient to induce enough lateral force to fail the tailfin. That is why the tailfins did not separate on those two 737s.That does not mean that it isn't what happened to AF447, but there is a big difference in aerodynamic force at Mach .87 and 140 knots with the flaps down on approach. I'm quite a fan of the 737, but I wouldn't wish to imbue it with the strengths and abilities it does not posses based on an entirely different set of circumstances.What is more worrying in all this, is that Air France have supposedly said that the victim's relatives will get about 17,000 Euros in compensation, which by any stretch of the imagination is not a lot for losing a loved one. If we extrapolate that figure to take in composite aircraft proving to be less safe and therefore more likely to cause incidents requiring that kind of compensation, then stack it against how much the airlines will save in using such lighter more fuel efficient composite aircraft; you have to wonder if the figure they put on compensation against the potential saving, might lever the investigators into concluding that there is not a problem.There have been plenty of other economic decisions of a similar nature made where airliners safety is concerned, such as the cost of fuel tank inerting versus the likelihood of an occasional fuel tank explosion. With a lot riding on the 787 and the A350, there'll be no shortage of pressure on the investigators to come up with a more convenient explanation that doesn't stop the ball rolling when that is considered, and you can bet that pressure will be coming from Seattle as well as Toulouse.Al

[ZachLW 37]

It's a fair point you make Zach, and I think the tailfin on Airbus aircraft may indeed be questionable. (I'm more inclined to base that premise on the Lauda uncommanded thrust reverser accident over Thailand than the one over Queens though, which was of course a Boeing 767 and not an Airbus, but the point is the same).Just to clarify, the rudder problem with the 737, at least in the case of the two crashes potentially attributed to it before the mechanism was altered, did not occur at high speed, but on approach. The problem was one of crossover speed for the 737 (i.e, the ability to counteract a roll induced by the rudder with only ailerons). Most pilots were not even aware of crossover speed at the time of those 737 incidents (many pilots are still not aware of of crossover speed and what it means if you broach the subject with them).At approach speeds, the airflow is not only insufficient to give the ailerons enough control authority to counteract a full rudder deflection in the 737 (i.e the crossover speed) but is also insufficient to induce enough lateral force to fail the tailfin. That is why the tailfins did not separate on those two 737s.That does not mean that it isn't what happened to AF447, but there is a big difference in aerodynamic force at Mach .87 and 140 knots with the flaps down on approach. I'm quite a fan of the 737, but I wouldn't wish to imbue it with the strengths and abilities it does not posses based on an entirely different set of circumstances.Al

Very valid point you make as well!Though in training for the 737 rudder hard over, crossover speed is as high as 240 kts. Meaning the pilot flying will maintain at or ABOVE this speed throughout the flap schedule. Also, as stated in my last post, flight 427 was in a nose dive at speeds in excess of 300 kts indicated--that's fast! The vertical stab on flight 587 was lost around 230 kts. Flight 587 was not at cruise, and not close to cruise speed.I hope all this data I've researched through the NTSB's cryptic data reports/transcripts is decently articulated in my post. It takes a while to gather tiny bits of info from the NTSB reports. I guess that Air Transport Safety class I took is paying off... :(EDIT: Looks like what I'm trying to say in so many words is: Boeing planes are built better.

[vololiberista 205]

I am no aircraft designer but one thing is apparent with the airbus tailfin design is that the rudder assembly seems to be proportionately much larger that one would expect. Roughly 40-50% of the whole assembly. That would mean automatically that any large deflection of the rudder would create a large moment force on the tailfin itself. Many other a/c have had large tailfins aka the VC10 but the rudder is/was much smaller and just as effective. So why then is is so necessary to have such a large rudder?Vololiberista

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

What is more worrying in all this, is that Air France have supposedly said that the victim's relatives will get about 17,000 Euros in compensation, which by any stretch of the imagination is not a lot for losing a loved one

To be fair .. it's not really a compensation ... it's like a "gift" of Air France to the families and relatives.This money has nothing to do (not linked) with the compensation tell AF .. and is not contractual and does not in any way any further compensation under the rules in force and any court of justice decisions about other financial compensations.Regards.Gus.

[vololiberista 205]

Hello,To be fair .. it's not really a compensation ... it's like a "gift" of Air France to the families and relatives.This money has nothing to do (not linked) with the compensation tell AF .. and is not contractual and does not in any way any further compensation under the rules in force and any court of justice decisions about other financial compensations.Regards.Gus.

But in order to get a descent compensation the families have to fight through the courts!

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

But in order to get a descent compensation the families have to fight through the courts!

Sorry your had not read carefully :)

under the rules in force

Compensations are provided (and automatic) by international laws fixed by civil aviation authorities.Who paid those (and the amount who can vary for each individual victim ... yes the human life have a variable price in court of justice .. unfortunately) will be fixed by a justice trial.Any other compensations will be "Extras compensations" obtained by differents ways as negociations with the insurrances .. airlines .. aircraft manufacturer or by justice trials.So .. victims relatives don't need to go on justice trial for have compensation .. but they can go for have more if they feel the neccessity.The location of the trial can sometime be chosen (regardless of the victims nationalities and location of crash) .. regard of the aircraft manufacturer location .. or engines manufacturer location .. etc ..Many try to put on trial in USA (and in particular states) as this there where the biggest compensations are obtainables..Anyways .. all this is very complicated by the fact all this proceed by international laws as usual in aviation and shipping world.Regards.Gus.

[mgh 89]

Get those boxes France. Drain the whole area if you have to.MAB

Of course, why didn't Air France think of draining the Atlantic?

[vololiberista 205]

Hello,Sorry your had not read carefully :)Compensations are provided (and automatic) by international laws fixed by civil aviation authorities.Who paid those (and the amount who can vary for each individual victim ... yes the human life have a variable price in court of justice .. unfortunately) will be fixed by a justice trial.Any other compensations will be "Extras compensations" obtained by differents ways as negociations with the insurrances .. airlines .. aircraft manufacturer or by justice trials.So .. victims relatives don't need to go on justice trial for have compensation .. but they can go for have more if they feel the neccessity.The location of the trial can sometime be chosen (regardless of the victims nationalities and location of crash) .. regard of the aircraft manufacturer location .. or engines manufacturer location .. etc ..Many try to put on trial in USA (and in particular states) as this there where the biggest compensations are obtainables..Anyways .. all this is very complicated by the fact all this proceed by international laws as usual in aviation and shipping world.Regards.Gus.

Yes I understand fully, BUT the compensation automatically offered by Air Chance is not much more than a ticket refund!!! If pilot error is proven then the lawyers will have a field day and Air Chance will be finished!!

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

Yes I understand fully, BUT the compensation automatically offered by Air Chance is not much more than a ticket refund!!! If pilot error is proven then the lawyers will have a field day and Air Chance will be finished!!

Dunno why AF will be finished (unless no more people bought AF air fares)They are covered by insurrances .. so financially this can not be a disaster .. and I doubt this will be a commercial disaster .The only to be worry actually is Airbus Industries .. if a bad outcome about the plane performances is proofed it can be a moderate commercial disaster .It was already many airlines with same problems and nothing happened .. (people are prone to forget such events after sometimes).Can remind .. the 17.000 Euros given by AF is only pocket money (if I can call this like).Nothing to do with any official compensations .. this AF money is outside any official or justice decision .Regards.Gus.