Hello,

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?

Methink that's because people know about the Colgan Q400 (and this was certainly a crash resulting of the inexperience or bad training of the pilots in a icing situation rather than arrogance) .. and people don't know about the AF447.Regards.Gus.

Why people are still talking about this accident is plainly obvious!!!On the one hand we have the French air industry and their accident investigation branch (which I have to say has a notorious reputation for producing ambiguous and ambivalent reports).On the other hand we have an a/c designed for normal flying duties that is +3.5G positive force and -1.5G negative force. Designed to withstand a maximum gust factor of 66fps. (not an a/c specially strengthened for storm research!!) This a/c penetrated a weather system known to exceed these limits by a factor of 4 or even 5!!!So, question. Why did it penetrate the weather system? answer the crew took it there.another question. Why did they take their a/c into a situation that had at best a 20% survival prospect?Another relative question. Why did every other flight avoid the weather?Too much emphasis is being put on to the "failure?" of the pitot tubes both by the BEA and the media. The reality is that in such a storm every instrument would be giving wild potentially false readings. Perhaps the only instrument that could be relied upon was the artificial horizon. Only, however if it was a model designed not to topple. We are of course talking here about the standby horizon. Being a glass cockpit the standby instruments are the only reliable source of information if you have an on board systems failure.It is perfectly normal for pilots to fly safely without reference to airspeed. Indeed one is trained to do so! Not in a tropical convergence storm however!!! The training in such a case is not to penetrate I repeat "Not to penetrate!"So a. They knowingly flew into storm (if one has a faulty weather radar the flight MUST be abandoned)b. Within the storm, control became progressively more difficult with the AP dropping out because the a/c was exceeding its designed flight envelope.c. Instruments were behaving widly due to the extreme turbulence. Thus being difficult or impossible for the crew to interpret.d. With temperatures of minus 100c it is no wonder the pitot tubes iced up!!!e. The a/c allegedly hit the water in a stable upright flat attitude. If so the tail fin would have had the least stress and wouldn't have sheered off.Even if the wreckage is found we may never know the exact answer knowing the record of the BEA.vololiberista

Why people are still talking about this accident is plainly obvious!!!...So, question. Why did it penetrate the weather system? answer the crew took it there....They knowingly flew into storm (if one has a faulty weather radar the flight MUST be abandoned)

You seem to have all the answers.You know everything, that they knowingly penetrated the storm, etc, etc, etc.In fact if you read serious information related to this accident nobody has any definite answers yet. With a good probability they penetrated some convective weather system but its strength is far from certain, in fact 12 other flights shared a very similar route at the time and they survived unscathed. And how knowingly they flew into a thunderstorm is again far from certain - weather radar is far from perfect device.So if I were you I would adopt a more humble and open minded attitude about the cause of this crash instead of this cocky "know-it-all'. Unless the black boxes are found we may never be able to fully close this case.

You seem to have all the answers.You know everything, that they knowingly penetrated the storm, etc, etc, etc.In fact if you read serious information related to this accident nobody has any definite answers yet. With a good probability they penetrated some convective weather system but its strength is far from certain, in fact 12 other flights shared a very similar route at the time and they survived unscathed. And how knowingly they flew into a thunderstorm is again far from certain - weather radar is far from perfect device.So if I were you I would adopt a more humble and open minded attitude about the cause of this crash instead of this cocky "know-it-all'. Unless the black boxes are found we may never be able to fully close this case.

You obviously have not seen the weather radar for that flight!! The 12 other flights "did not" fly the exact same route, sorry! Whereas the Air France made no deviation from its flight plan and headed directly into the heart of the storm. I am perfectly within my rights to express my opinion especially as I am a retired ATPL. I would not go anywhere near such weather (period).would you??????????????Vololiberista

Sick? Well, I guess that puts me in my place -- or would if I thought at the reptilian level of my brain. (By the way, some advice: Don't bother to try out for your high school debating team.)There are many fundamental rules regarding weather. Here are two ...1 - Don't penetrate squall lines or thunderheads. Don't. Request alternate routing.2 - Don't fly in icing conditions with the autopilot engaged. Don't. Because it disguises the aerodynamic condition of the airframe.Let's see whether the airline pilots among us disagree with either of these statements. Now ...When you deliberately violate common sense rules you must think you're somehow immune to the consequences, yes? That's a good definition of arrogance, yes?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAre you a pilot? How widely read are you regarding aviation and regarding aircraft accidents?

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

Not much yet. Just talk no walk.http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/id...-45949020100205Cheers,MAB

Sick? Well, I guess that puts me in my place -- or would if I thought at the reptilian level of my brain. (By the way, some advice: Don't bother to try out for your high school debating team.)There are many fundamental rules regarding weather. Here are two ...1 - Don't penetrate squall lines or thunderheads. Don't. Request alternate routing.2 - Don't fly in icing conditions with the autopilot engaged. Don't. Because it disguises the aerodynamic condition of the airframe.Let's see whether the airline pilots among us disagree with either of these statements. Now ...When you deliberately violate common sense rules you must think you're somehow immune to the consequences, yes? That's a good definition of arrogance, yes?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAre you a pilot? How widely read are you regarding aviation and regarding aircraft accidents?

Hi,I am no a pilot, just a flightsimmer with a science and experimental/analytic background. I tend to scrutinize every ounce of evidence and take it with a grain of salt. There has to be evidence beyond (almost) no doubt to make "conclusions". But the evidence is far from clear whether or not AF447 pilots knowingly went into bad weather. Since neither the flight data recorder nor the voice recorder have been recovered, we cannot rule out instrument malfunction due to bad weather. So to say that it was pilot arrogance is a bit pre-mature I would say. Let's see if they can find the black boxes in the new wave of searches starting at the end of February and then go from there. It is exciting and very encouraging that they are actually resuming their search ... amazing actually, knowing the vast area and the depth of the waters they need to search. My compliments to the search teams!John

Boy, If they locate two little boxes w/ no help from those boxes that really will be a story in itself. As for the crash, I always love to read thoughts and opinions and this one is no exception. We and the world may never know why the acrft ended up in the sea, but people have been sent to the gallows on circumstantial evidence and this may well be one of those circumstances. And as for the evidence, I think it cuts both ways, it could be bad decision making which has been the cause more than a few times, instrument failure, wx or a combination of these and other factors. When it comes to aviation accidents/incidents the well known "chain" which I do know something about, should not be ignored. I will say this, that chain in almost all cases ends up in the pilots lap. Vincent :(

Boy, If they locate two little boxes w/ no help from those boxes that really will be a story in itself. As for the crash, I always love to read thoughts and opinions and this one is no exception. We and the world may never know why the acrft ended up in the sea, but people have been sent to the gallows on circumstantial evidence and this may well be one of those circumstances. And as for the evidence, I think it cuts both ways, it could be bad decision making which has been the cause more than a few times, instrument failure, wx or a combination of these and other factors. When it comes to aviation accidents/incidents the well known "chain" which I do know something about, should not be ignored. I will say this, that chain in almost all cases ends up in the pilots lap. Vincent :(

This is "the" argument! Pilots (at least in the UK) are told until they are blue in the face "not" to fly into a storm! In doing so they will a) Put the airframe at risk :( Certainly encounter anomalous instrument readings C) require all the pilot's skill to recover the a/c from a certain upset D) Passenger injuries will be likely.It really is not a good idea is it?Vololiberista

Hello,Some days ago started the "Concorde" trial ...http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...l=&ie=UTF-8Original link:http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/autre%20cra...orde.htm#3.2.10Will be interesting to follow .. as in ten years or more it will be a remake .. the AF447 trial !Some more to read ...http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...l=&ie=UTF-8Original link:http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-blogs.fr/Regards.Gus.

The French are making a travesty and a sham of the Concorde Investigation and their Judicial System. This trial is a good example. It happened on their French watch, on a French Airliner with French pilots and on French soil. I think is a French duck alright. :( Cheers,MAB

This is "the" argument! Pilots (at least in the UK) are told until they are blue in the face "not" to fly into a storm! In doing so they will a) Put the airframe at risk :( Certainly encounter anomalous instrument readings C) require all the pilot's skill to recover the a/c from a certain upset D) Passenger injuries will be likely.It really is not a good idea is it?Vololiberista

There is got to be more than the weather. Yes, we can agree the weather was the triggering factor but those pilots missed "whatever it was" big time up there that night.Good for the UK pilots by the way since avoidance is always better than regrets later on. Unfortunately there is always one that doesn't get it and that is the only one it takes to crash a plane.Cheers,MAB

This is "the" argument! Pilots (at least in the UK) are told until they are blue in the face "not" to fly into a storm! In doing so they will a) Put the airframe at risk :( Certainly encounter anomalous instrument readings C) require all the pilot's skill to recover the a/c from a certain upset D) Passenger injuries will be likely.It really is not a good idea is it?Vololiberista

At some point I have to begin to question AF in general and possibly the company and/or cultural mindset of their crews and the attitudes towards their Acrft, Airbus. The Concord accident and the crews contribution to the chain of events is most interesting and the court case which is or will follow involving Continental is a sign of real self denial. CRM can work, and so can modern tech. but what do you do when both or all crew members suffer from the same affliction? Airlines will always come to the defense of their personnel right or wrong, but sometimes you just have to accept the facts as they appear and move on and take the necessary steps to TRY to insure it never happens again.And don't get me wrong, this is a widespread problem and you know the saying, "there are old Pilots, and bold pilots, but NO OLD, BOLD PILOTS". (That saying must have come from a Alaskan bush pilot where taking chances is the norm)I have the upmost respect for these individuals, (pilots) but this is a profession where for lack of a better word, gambling based on the odds will catch up with you sooner or later. Flying has always been dangerous and until the human factor is resolved in all areas of aviation, accidents will happen, Thats a fact. Vincent

From an old (not bold) pilot!The difference in procedures between London Heathrow and PAris CDG was very apparent immediately after the Concorde crash. And that is one of the mirriad reasons why the Brits were so sad to see its demise.I'm talking about rwy checking procedures. Paris CDG admitted that they checked the rwys 3 times a day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!At Heathrow they are continually checking the rwys and there was always a pause before a Concorde take-off to ensure the rwy was clear.The BEA I'm afraid has a poor record of publishing the truth. Most of their reports are ambiguous and sometimes one comes across different versions as on the Consellation crash on the Azores.Vololiberista

Middle of March now.http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...age-search.htmlMaybe this time they'll get the boxes but pessimism on BEA side is always looming. What a bunch!!! :( http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...al-minutes.htmlhttp://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...7-wreckage.htmlCheers,MAB