Why did the crew of AAL1420 attempt to land in Little Rock in such poor weather conditions?Why did the crew of SIA006 attempt to take off from 05R instead of 05L at Taipei?Why did KLM4805 take off from Los Rodeos without the proper clearance?...Why did AFR447 fly into a very large and powerful thunderstorm when everybody else was avoiding it?This aircraft was flying in a region well known for spawning powerful thunderstorms that can produce severe turbulence (and by severe I don't mean spilling your drink, I mean turbulence that can throw an aircraft weighing hundreds of tonnes all over the sky, rendering the flight controls useless and the crew helpless) and severe icing which can effect everything from the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft to the operation of its instruments. On the night in question there was one such storm in the area, and other aircraft were navigating around that storm. For some reason, the crew of AFR447 flew right into that storm, and the aircraft, its passengers and crew were lost.Some people with an anti-Airbus agenda are trying to use this incident to cast aspersions on the safety or reliability of Airbus types and their design philosophy. Had it been a Boeing, MDD, or any other type of airliner flying through that storm I feel the result would have been the same. Arguing over Fly-By-Wire modes, pitot tubes and air data computers is absolutely pointless, they make not one iota of difference when your aircraft is being thrown all over the sky by massive air movements and rapid, heavy ice formation encountered in these thunder storms.As I said before, the question is not "Why did AFR447 crash?" it should be "Why did AFR447 fly into such a large and powerful storm?"Were the crew aware they were flying into such a large and powerful storm?Did they have up to date information about the weather conditions?Was the weather radar functioning correctly?Were the crew using that weather radar correctly?What decision making process went on in the cockpit?Were there other pressures (commercial or operational) acting on the crew that made them feel they should abandon conventional wisdom and practice and fly into that storm?What are Air France crews trained to do when they enounter a large storm on their path?What does Air France *expect* them to do when they encounter a large storm on their path?Unfortunately there were no survivors, no eye-witnesses, and the major pieces of evidence are laying lost at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.When the final BEA report comes out I expect it to be more about damage control for both Airbus and Air France than attempting to find the real reasons why AFR447 was lost.

Why did the crew of AAL1420 attempt to land in Little Rock in such poor weather conditions?Why did the crew of SIA006 attempt to take off from 05R instead of 05L at Taipei?Why did KLM4805 take off from Los Rodeos without the proper clearance?...Why did AFR447 fly into a very large and powerful thunderstorm when everybody else was avoiding it?This aircraft was flying in a region well known for spawning powerful thunderstorms that can produce severe turbulence (and by severe I don't mean spilling your drink, I mean turbulence that can throw an aircraft weighing hundreds of tonnes all over the sky, rendering the flight controls useless and the crew helpless) and severe icing which can effect everything from the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft to the operation of its instruments. On the night in question there was one such storm in the area, and other aircraft were navigating around that storm. For some reason, the crew of AFR447 flew right into that storm, and the aircraft, its passengers and crew were lost.Some people with an anti-Airbus agenda are trying to use this incident to cast aspersions on the safety or reliability of Airbus types and their design philosophy. Had it been a Boeing, MDD, or any other type of airliner flying through that storm I feel the result would have been the same. Arguing over Fly-By-Wire modes, pitot tubes and air data computers is absolutely pointless, they make not one iota of difference when your aircraft is being thrown all over the sky by massive air movements and rapid, heavy ice formation encountered in these thunder storms.As I said before, the question is not "Why did AFR447 crash?" it should be "Why did AFR447 fly into such a large and powerful storm?"Were the crew aware they were flying into such a large and powerful storm?Did they have up to date information about the weather conditions?Was the weather radar functioning correctly?Were the crew using that weather radar correctly?What decision making process went on in the cockpit?Were there other pressures (commercial or operational) acting on the crew that made them feel they should abandon conventional wisdom and practice and fly into that storm?What are Air France crews trained to do when they enounter a large storm on their path?What does Air France *expect* them to do when they encounter a large storm on their path?Unfortunately there were no survivors, no eye-witnesses, and the major pieces of evidence are laying lost at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.When the final BEA report comes out I expect it to be more about damage control for both Airbus and Air France than attempting to find the real reasons why AFR447 was lost.

It does seem clear from the second "incident!" that Air Chance still expect their crew to fly straight and level regardless of what's ahead! I personally believe that it is pilot error. (perhaps due to company line pressure/training also). It is the crew's duty to ascertain the weather "before" take-off. Yes it is true that storm cells can develope in minutes, but they had allegedly a weather radar on board? If it was inoperative then the crew were duty bound to return.As far as the aircraft type argument goes. The major difference between older and more modern jets is the use of composites. The jury is still out as to whether composites are indeed an all-round improvement.Many years ago I was in a VC10 that flew into clear air turbulence causing the a/c to loose height like a brick. The wingtips deflected by at least 10ft. behaving just like bending a ruler on the edge of a table. It was very scary and the captain ordered the cabin crew to give out all the miniature brandys!! Had that a/c been a 707 the wings would most certainly have broken off.Vololiberista

Hello,Searching again ........http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8410375.stmRegards.Gus.

"Investigators will use sonar and robot submarines. However, they say the search will be challenging as ocean depths where the plane went down reach about 7,000m (22,950ft)."The same self defeating attitude since day two after the crash. We shall see in May or June, 2010 if there is a difference from resent past.Place a reward of a couple of millions of Euros per box and save some money at the end.Cheers,MAB

"Investigators will use sonar and robot submarines. However, they say the search will be challenging as ocean depths where the plane went down reach about 7,000m (22,950ft)."The same self defeating attitude since day two after the crash. We shall see in May or June, 2010 if there is a difference from resent past.Place a reward of a couple of millions of Euros per box and save some money at the end.Cheers,MAB

How do you suggest that a search at 22,920 feet below sea-level be carried out?

How do you suggest that a search at 22,920 feet below sea-level be carried out?

With a very long snorkel?I'm sure the armchair crash analysis specialists around here can easily come up with something much better than the evil French investigators.

Raise the now imaginary reward to 10 million Euros per box and you will see again Human ingenuity come about.This isn't a salvage forum, is it???Like I would tell you.Cheers, :( MAB

With a very long snorkel?I'm sure the armchair crash analysis specialists around here can easily come up with something much better than the evil French investigators.

Don't hold your breath!

Hello,Second interim BEA report released:http://www.bea.aero/en/index.phpRegards.Gus.

It shows the bureaucracy in full force to do nothing about the Thales Pitot Tubes. People paid the price for the negligence. Sad.Cheers,MAB

It shows the bureaucracy in full force to do nothing about the Thales Pitot Tubes. People paid the price for the negligence. Sad.Cheers,MAB

Your post should say "It shows the bureaucracy in full force to do nothing" The pitot tubes are a side issue. I don't believe they are calibrated down to -100c as was the temperature in the upper part of that storm. And in any case all the other instruments and sensors would be operating at their extremes and likely to be toppled as well. The question is why did they and "no one else!" fly directly into the storm. When a pilot is faced with the choice of flying through a storm or not his thoughts must be not "I wonder whether my pitot tubes are up to it", but "I must avoid penetration". A Tropical convergence storm will bring down any aircraft. That is why no one else flies through them. There was recently another Air Chance that experienced "difficulties" What's with that airline? If i have to fly across to South America I won't be using Air Chance.Vololiberista

The 2nd interim report makes interesting reading...The aircraft appeared to impact the water's surface wings level, with a slight nose up attitude and an exceptionally high rate of descent... falling out of the sky comes to mind...The aircraft apparently did not break up in the air, there was no apparent decompression of the cabin. To all intents and purposes, the aircraft dropped out of the sky in one piece and slammed into the water. The injuries to those onboard confirm vertical deceleration trauma and do not point to standard deceleration trauma in a forward direction as if the aircraft had impacted nose first...As if the aircraft had been "swatted down" to sea level... something akin to a large microburst event...Weird...My thoughts are still with those lost on board AF447, may they rest in peace.Andrew

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091231/wl_can...irfrance_canadaInteresting.Cheers,MAB

Imagine ... Here we are in 2010 yet this thread is still alive. What is it about this particular accident that causes people to want to talk about it rather than, say, the Colgan Q400 crash outside Buffalo a year ago? Both accidents involved crew arrogance toward weather, yes?

Both accidents involved crew arrogance toward weather, yes?

That statement is sick.....Sorry zzmikezz, a BIG THUMBS DOWN.RJ