AirFrance A330 missing

[Guest belga1]

Hello,The following don't intend to be representative or not of my opinion .. it's just a documentation.

To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>Subject: Fw: The Airbus Problems, interesting. From an Eastern Airlines Pilot.From an ex-EAL pilot

[gman! 1]

Hello,The following don't intend to be representative or not of my opinion .. it's just a documentation.And waiting the 22 September 2009http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8Original source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...oxmvX5svHS5NctARegards.Gus.

These were my an many others thoughts exactly. Airbus has NO redundancy in the case FBW fails, and it has NO direct links at all from the FBW, not even the hydraulics. They have NO option to turn off the computers other than FBW and only the computers can turn themselves, which I can partly understand, because there were no direct connections, but if something were to malfunction and the pilot can't turn of that certain computer, it could have minor or serious consequences, and if something looked like it was fine, but the computer turned off, it could mean a loss of critical systems. I also don't like how they think that the computers are somewhat higher than the pilots, and how FBW has to decide if its "safe" to do a maneuver. There are some incidents before where there was a maneuver done to evade trouble that was done in a matter of seconds, with no time to switch overhead panel buttons, or turn off some logic, that Airbus FBW would count as an unsafe attitude and/or bank. The thing with Airbus is when it comes in training to Boeing aircraft, it seems like there is less requirement of what to know, and one accident that displays that very well was the A320 that crashed in the trees due to auto-retard... Airbus says the crash was due to the lack of pilot knowledge, and I, personally, think that it was Airbus' fault if they did not set good standards for training, or tell the pilots to avoid, or do something to perform a certain maneuver or flyby. These are Airbus' biggest flaw which break done it to smaller flaws, such as FBW combined with composites (AAL crash in Nov. 2001).

[vololiberista 205]

Bear in mind that "everybody" now uses composites including Boeing!!!!! And they, are also going down the fly by wire route!! In order to fly, and to fly economically ALL jet transports have limitations in their contruction strengths. As I have stated before the industry norm for "normal" flight is a gust load of 66ft per second. This reduces to 44fps in turbulence and 25fps in a sever upset. If a/c were designed to fly directly through a tropical convergence storm they would have to be built like tanks and would probably never get off the ground! These figures are very important because the pilot if he is manually controlling the a/c puts additional loads on the airframe simply by moving the control sufaces and he has to know just how much movement he can do safely.To take a simple example: A crash depressurisation dive:(airframe load rated at a gust ratio of just 25fps)Depending on the a/c type one can initially extend speed brakes and gear. But the manouevre itself is a wing over let the nose drop keeping the needle inside VNE. As you approach and pass FL240 the air thickens quite suddenly and you have to be already starting to pull the nose up otherwise the a/c will go very quickly into an overspeed sittuation and will start to break up. (some sim a/c models will demonstrate this clearly) If you overcook the manouevre pulling too far into the buffet zone then you exceed the gust ratio by a considerable margin and probably the first pieces of a/c to say goodbye are the control sufaces themselves!!!!!!Why do "most" pilots avoid flying through storms. Firstly it is part of our training (in the UK) Secondly, it is very uncomfortable for the passengers and can result in personal injuries. Thirdly and probably most important, the safety of the a/c itself.This Air Chance crew took a decision to fly directly through an enormous storm whilst every other pilot (flying just minutes either side) avoided it. Even if you fly through a "normal" thunderstorm you are most likely (if you survive) to come out with some structural damage.All the systems failed on the Air Chance flight simply because the storm was well outside their design parameters. Logic being that the pilot was not expected to deliberately put his a/c into a situation that was/is regarded as unsurvivable. And this is the point. Any a/c flying through that storm would not have survived. There is no passenger jet transport flying that has a design strength to resist such intense weather. Composites or no.Vololiberista

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

This Air Chance crew took a decision to fly directly through an enormous storm whilst every other pilot (flying just minutes either side) avoided it. Even if you fly through a "normal" thunderstorm you are most likely (if you survive) to come out with some structural damage.All the systems failed on the Air Chance flight simply because the storm was well outside their design parameters. Logic being that the pilot was not expected to deliberately put his a/c into a situation that was/is regarded as unsurvivable

All already posted here and on a myriad of aviations forums ... are speculations.Even the preliminary BEA report contain only a few evident facts (the ACARS and some plane parts studies) and many speculations.The investigation team have also other electronics evidences sended by the AF447 and those are actually not public.On his press meeting after the release of the preliminary report P.L Arslanian statement was "even if we don't find the boxes we have already good material (ACARS and other electronics evidences and plane parts) for discover what happened"At his last meeting with the press (at the end of the second researches phase) .. P.L Arslanian statement was "actually we know nothing and it can be to 18 months to go before we issue a more consistent report".Also actually the BEA don't have already the brazilian forensic report.Nevertheless a intermediary report is to come in few months.Pilot puting deliberately the plane in the storm is also a speculationA fact is the last exact position of the plane (when last ACARS sended) is out the storm and offset 3 NM from is planned route.Regards.Gus.

[vololiberista 205]

A fact is the last exact position of the plane (when last ACARS sended) is out the storm and offset 3 NM from is planned route.Regards.Gus.

That I'm afraid means nothing! That distance off course can be achieved simply by falling out of the sky!!!!! He should have been at least 20 miles from the storm!Vololiberista

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

That I'm afraid means nothing! That distance off course can be achieved simply by falling out of the sky!!!!! He should have been at least 20 miles from the storm!Vololiberista

Or this can be a voluntary offset !! .. it's just speculation.The tangible fact is 3NM offset ... Why this offset ? no facts actually explain it.Can be the plane falling .. can be a controled offset ... P.L Arslanian"We know nothing"Regards.Gus.

[Guest belga1]

Hello,Some fuel ..... :( Interesting to read:http://www.podhurst.com/news/Veja%20Entrev...Marks%20eng.htmWho is who ?http://www.podhurst.com/marks.phpRegards.Gus.

[mabe54 17]

Lawyers do not need the truth just reasonable doubts to make their cases. AF447 will supply ample doubts and do you worry about that.Cheers,MAB

[vololiberista 205]

Lawyers do not need the truth just reasonable doubts to make their cases. AF447 will supply ample doubts and do you worry about that.Cheers,MAB

Lawyers?? They just take your money!!!Vololiberista

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

Lawyers?? They just take your money!!!

Urban rumour :)Not urban rumourNo cure .. no pay.Regards.Gus.

[vololiberista 205]

Hello,Urban rumour :)Not urban rumourNo cure .. no pay.Regards.Gus.

They always find a way to relieve you of your cash!!!!!Vololiberista

[Guest belga1]

HelloInteresting ... drawn your conclusions .....Pic 3 is very interesting .. when you know AF new trainning program in simulator (for lost or discripancies of speed indication )Pic 1http://nsa09.casimages.com/img/2009/09/12/...33806312552.jpgPic 2http://nsa09.casimages.com/img/2009/09/12/...33857902503.jpgPic 3http://nsa09.casimages.com/img/2009/09/12/...33930908916.jpgRegards.Gus.

[mabe54 17]

That for some reason reminded me of the definition of a camel."A camel is a horse designed by a committee." :( Cheers,MAB

[vololiberista 205]

"Handling the Big Jets" Davies Published 1967-1973 It would appear that UK pilots have undergone gross upset training for a considerably longer time than in the US!!!! Without the use of simulators!!!!! It was my bible then and still is. It has been a compulsory text book for the major UK airlines.Vololiberista

[btacon 1,888]

So if the aircraft broke apart in WX, perhaps this is a visualization of the type of WX it encountered as pictured from Terra-Firma? This is a postulation.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...r-Jim-Reed.html2nd picture down. A "SuperCell". I remember these well growing up in the Midwest and central east of the US.Just asking...Braun