Why is it that Air France/Airbus are replacing in a hurry all their pitot tubes? I think they already have a pretty good idea what brought the plane down-and I don't think they think it is a bomb.Speaking of bombs-in an average thunderstorm, the energy released amounts to about 10,000,000 kilowatt-hours (3.6

Why is it that Air France/Airbus are replacing in a hurry all their pitot tubes?

The same reason we saw National Guard troopers eating donuts and 'protecting' terminals after 9-11, to make the public feel like they are being proactive. They could replace the fifth lug nut on the nose gear and it would have the same effect. Replacing those tubes is a drop in the financial bucket for the good PR it will generate.I can just see the uneducated flying public thinking, oh ok, they fixed the problem, it's safe to fly again, when the truth is they still haven't a clue what caused the crash.

The same reason we saw National Guard troopers eating donuts and 'protecting' terminals after 9-11, to make the public feel like they are being proactive. They could replace the fifth lug nut on the nose gear and it would have the same effect. Replacing those tubes is a drop in the financial bucket for the good PR it will generate.I can just see the uneducated flying public thinking, oh ok, they fixed the problem, it's safe to fly again, when the truth is they still haven't a clue what caused the crash.

That would make sense-except that they are not making a big deal about it and doing it as fast and quiet as they can. Speaking of which-remember the kjfk crash where the plane hit wake turbulence and the pilot snapped the tail off by jiggling the rudders back and forth too rapidly? That was just wake turbulence.In any case, I can think of many scenerios other than a bomb that seem more likely considering the situation the plane was in.

... I can think of many scenerios other than a bomb that seem more likely considering the situation the plane was in.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact of apparent mid-air disintegration of the airframe. Not only that, while we can't be certain, the distribution of wreckage suggests that the aircraft was in horizontal flight as it came apart. There certainly are many ways to achieve airframe disintegration, and a jet upset and overspeed resulting from incorrect airspeed readings due to (asymmetrical) pitot static port icing is one way to initiate it, and AirBus Industrie apparently thinks this is a strong enough possibility to warrant a static port redesign (or whatever), but ...Static port icing is very unlikely, I do believe. So is engine icing or wing icing. The heating systems on modern jet transports are very robust, with no corners being cut.So I think we're back to either an explosion on board, or to something that caused a devastating airframe overload in horizontal flight. Could fire result in relevant loss of control? Yes, it could, but think about disintegration in level flight. So could loss of fly-by-wire for whatever reason. (I'd love to see a schematic of the control system.)As I suggested earlier, a tornado spawned by a CB might also do the job, but this too seems unlikely because it's unlikely that the crew would have let themselves get anywhere near a thunderhead. Almost certainly they would have turned around had they not been able to find a clear path through the squall line.So I'm still favoring bomb-on-board. That doesn't make me right, it just means that I haven't yet been persuaded that some other scenario is more likely.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact of apparent mid-air disintegration of the airframe. Not only that, while we can't be certain, the distribution of wreckage suggests that the aircraft was in horizontal flight as it came apart. There certainly are many ways to achieve airframe disintegration, and a jet upset and overspeed resulting from incorrect airspeed readings due to (asymmetrical) pitot static port icing is one way to initiate it, and AirBus Industrie apparently thinks this is a strong enough possibility to warrant a static port redesign (or whatever), but ...Static port icing is very unlikely, I do believe. So is engine icing or wing icing. The heating systems on modern jet transports are very robust, with no corners being cut.So I think we're back to either an explosion on board, or to something that caused a devastating airframe overload in horizontal flight. Could fire result in relevant loss of control? Yes, it could, but think about disintegration in level flight. So could loss of fly-by-wire for whatever reason. (I'd love to see a schematic of the control system.)As I suggested earlier, a tornado spawned by a CB might also do the job, but this too seems unlikely because it's unlikely that the crew would have let themselves get anywhere near a thunderhead. Almost certainly they would have turned around had they not been able to find a clear path through the squall line.So I'm still favoring bomb-on-board. That doesn't make me right, it just means that I haven't yet been persuaded that some other scenario is more likely.

Well once again we have a recent Airbus overload on the tail with only wake turbulence. Something with the power of a nuke doing the same does not seem far fetched to me...

Well once again we have a recent Airbus overload on the tail with only wake turbulence. Something with the power of a nuke doing the same does not seem far fetched to me...

But it wasn't only wake turbulence. It was a combination of the first officer tromping on the rudder pedals to compensate for wake turbulence plus the fact that the AirBus rudder control software was badly designed so that increasing airspeed caused increased rudder effectiveness rather than decreased effectiveness. (The software was subsequently redesigned.)Again, I've read a lot of accident reports very closely, including this one. My memory isn't perfect but as I recall, this first officer had a history of overly agressive use of rudder pedals, to the point where when he was in 727s several captains kept him under close watch, one captain lectured him repeatedly about use of the rudder pedals, one captain would never let him touch the controls, and another captain simply refused to fly with him.

But it wasn't only wake turbulence. It was a combination of the first officer tromping on the rudder pedals to compensate for wake turbulence plus the fact that the AirBus rudder control software was badly designed so that increasing airspeed caused increased rudder effectiveness rather than decreased effectiveness. (The software was subsequently redesigned.)Again, I've read a lot of accident reports very closely, including this one. The first officer had a history of overly agressive use of rudder pedals, to the point where when he was in 727s several captains kept him under close watch, one captain would never let him touch the controls, and another captain simply refused to fly with him.

Agreed-but what do you think a crew when faced with the same 10 fold might react? In any case-I'll bet you a dollar it wasn't a bomb....if I am wrong send me your address and I'll pay up. :(

Agreed-but what do you think a crew when faced with the same 10 fold might react?

I don't think they would react at all because the airframe would simply come apart very quickly. That doesn't seem to be what happened here. The disintegration seemed to be slow else the wreckage would have been concentrated in one spot.Now it's possible that the wreckage WAS concentrated but then got scattered by wind and wave action. It's very hard to see through the conflicting news stories but again, I don't think this is likely. (That doesn't make me right, it's simply my line of thinking.)

I don't think they would react at all because the airframe would simply come apart very quickly. I agree-and that is what I think happened....

No, we don't have any witnesses reporting fireballs, you probably mean midair fireballs, and no, no witnesses reporting aircraft falling down while on fire, we have some potential sightings of spots of fire on water, that is all. Sorry you keep bending the facts to suit your agenda. Assuming for a moment it was a bombing, who? motives? So far all attempted or successful acts of terrorism against aircraft had well understood political motives behind them, no "fuzzy" logic here.

Michael...this is what is being reported.http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/170335.aspTwo pilots of an Air Comet flight from Lima to Lisbon saw a bright flash of light in the area where Flight 447 went down, the Madrid-based airline told CNN. The pilots have turned in their report to authorities."Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds," the captain wrote in the report.bt

Michael...this is what is being reported.http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/170335.aspTwo pilots of an Air Comet flight from Lima to Lisbon saw a bright flash of light in the area where Flight 447 went down, the Madrid-based airline told CNN. The pilots have turned in their report to authorities."Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds," the captain wrote in the report.bt

If they were in a 55,000 tstorm as it appears and the wings were ripped off-is there anything inconsistent here?

... followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds ...

And if they were viewing the accident aircraft more or less nose-on, what looked to them like a vertical descent might actually have had a considerable horizontal component, consistent with what we think is known about the wreckage distribution.However ...Apparently there were several minutes of unusual transmitted maintenance data so what they saw must have been the end of the accident sequence. Again, I'll preliminarily go with small bomb followed by gradual loss of airframe integrity followed a few minutes later by complete disintegration.

Hello,

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact of apparent mid-air disintegration of the airframe. Not only that, while we can't be certain, the distribution of wreckage suggests that the aircraft was in horizontal flight as it came apart.

I will be happy if people still rely to facts ...http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8So far any wreckage of anything has been found ...Please be informed and read the latest declarations of the french and brazilian officials...

On 4 June, the Brazilian Air Force claimed they had recovered the first debris from the Air France crash site, 340 miles (550 km) northeast of the Fernando de Noronha archipelago.[50] However, the Brazilian Air Force later said that the debris did not come from the flight in question.On 5 June, around 9:00 AM EDT, Brazilian officials announced that they had not, in fact, recovered anything from Flight 447, as the oil slick and debris field found on 2 June could not have come from the plane.[51] Even so, a Brazilian Air Force official maintained that some of the material that had been spotted (but not picked up) during earlier searches originated from Air France Flight 447. However, poor visibility prevented search teams from relocating the material.[52] Also on 5 June, the French defence minister, Herv

Hello,

Michael...this is what is being reported.http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/170335.aspTwo pilots of an Air Comet flight from Lima to Lisbon saw a bright flash of light in the area where Flight 447 went down, the Madrid-based airline told CNN. The pilots have turned in their report to authorities."Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds," the captain wrote in the report.

Please .. don't jump here and post :)This report is ruled out by experts ..Please read ....http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...t&p=1587159Regards.

So it seems that officials are dealing with an airliner that went amiss and nothing can be found of it. I'm not sure whether this brings some closure to family or alienates them more. :(