Hello,

So if the aircraft broke apart in WX

Just asking...

BEA preliminary report denies this assumption.Regards.Gus.

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

There is no doubt that the a/c broke up! To understand the nature and the violence of a tropical convergence storm take the photos in your post and magnify them by at least 10000 times. The BEA is trying to focus attention on the pitot tubes which in such an enormous storm would not be giving trustworthy information. Every instrument would be dancing from one extreme reading to the other continuously. In such a dire situation the only "barely reliable" indicator for the pilot would be the artificial horizon and the turn indicator. But having a "glass" cockpit means that when the power goes there's nothing. The standby instruments are small and not in the line of sight. The questioon remains, why was this the "only" a/c that attempted to penetrate the storm. Other flights not only avoided it but even took on extra fuel to ensure a wide detour.Vololiberista

Hello,

Other flights not only avoided it but even took on extra fuel to ensure a wide detour.

From the BEA report .. AF447 had also extra fuel .. so IF AF447 not avoided the bad weather .. this can be not caused by fuel matter.BTW .. the BEA certainly not focus especially on the pitot tubes .. (read carefully the report)Regards.Gus.

Hello,http://www.alpa.tv/DesktopModules/UltraVid...amp;portalId=14Regards.Gus.

I agree with him but not too many things will change. It is not only in the airline industry. Artificial but constant price increases across the board are choking humanity. We will not do anything until a big one falls out of the sky. Maybe AF447 was the one.Cheers,MAB

Not good but predictable.http://www.fleshandstone.net/healthandsciencenews/1599.htmlCheers, :( MAB

Question: How do you avoid a repeat of this accident?Answer: Avoid Thunder storms at all costs!!Vololiberista

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-t-halli...t_b_268672.htmlSeverely probable.Cheers,MAB

HelloA nice preface for a bestseller book.Wonder what will be in the next 600 pages .....Regards.Gus.

Without the black boxes it will be difficult to write even 20 pages beyond the preface as you called it. They haven't said anything about phase three anymore. Have they left port yet???Cheers,MAB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-t-halli...t_b_268672.htmlSeverely probable.Cheers,MAB

Very interesting reading.

The way I see it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_...ce_flying_blind The BEA is playing with words when they said that the Pitot Tubes didn't bring the plane down. Duh!!! If the BEA doesn't find the the plane remains and mildly blame the pilots (as it is now in a very general and benevolent terms), they will save AF and Airbus reputation. With humans always if they do not perform correctly it is because there is something affecting their decision making process which place everything back and squarely on AF and Airbus laps in this case. That piece of Atlantic real state sure came handy. IMHO,MAB

The way I see it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_...ce_flying_blind The BEA is playing with words when they said that the Pitot Tubes didn't bring the plane down. Duh!!! If the BEA doesn't find the the plane remains and mildly blame the pilots (as it is now in a very general and benevolent terms), they will save AF and Airbus reputation. With humans always if they do not perform correctly it is because there is something affecting their decision making process which place everything back and squarely on AF and Airbus laps in this case. That piece of Atlantic real state sure came handy. IMHO,MAB

On the contrary!! If I may say!! There is pilot error and pilot error! In this case it appears that the crew deliberately took a decision to fly through a mega storm whereas no one else even attempted. This would bode very badly against Air Chance. The amount of damages being so great that only the government would have enough funds. UK ATPL training clearly states that thunderstorms are to be avoided at all costs. So to attempt to fly through a storm some many magnitudes larger than normal is regarded as both careless and reckless.Such flying severely damages airline reputation sometimes to the point where the airline risks going out of business.Vololiberista

I still think that the storm was just the catalyst or initiator but not the actual cause. They lost control of the beast.Cheers,MAB

I still think that the storm was just the catalyst or initiator but not the actual cause. They lost control of the beast.Cheers,MAB

Tropical convergence storms are of such a nature that they will throw the a/c all over the sky causing confusion in the cockpit not just for the pilots but for the instrumentation as well. Once the instrumentation goes beyond the limits set by the computer programmes it drops out. Add to that pitot tubes beginning to ice up in temperatues of minus 100 celcius (they are not designed for that) The pilots are left with a dark cockpit at night with a very small reference stand by artificial horizon possibly unlit. The chances of surviving a tropical convergence storm at night are about as equal as winning the Italian Super Enalotto!!! So the question remains WHY did they fly directly into it without any course change.Did they forget or not bother to get weather info before take-off? In the UK for that they would loose their ATPL licence automatically.Was the weather radar not functioning? If not they should have turned back. Non functioning weather radar is a no go item!I suspect they thought "it's just a storm!" Thereafter followed an attack of superbia!Vololiberista