That sure isn't what the news is reporting-but it wouldn't be the first time they were wrong...

I must stand corrected on my first post, as there has indeed been a second round of pitot-tube replacements underway in the Airbus fleet. In 2007. a problem was first noted in the 320 fleet, with several instances of excessive water ingress into the tubes while flying in heavy precip. The 330/340 fleet was originally thought to not be affected, but in 2008 the same problem was noted in the 330/340.Airbus has developed an improved model pitot tube - at present, its installation is part of a manufacturer's recommended (not mandatory) service bulletin. As of yet, this has not become part of a government-mandated airworthiness directive, as happened in 2002.Air France began a program to replace all pitot tubes on its fleet beginning in late April of this year. No info as to whether this modification had yet been implemented on the accident airplane. (I tend to think not). In any case, Air France has now fast-tracked the modification program fleetwide.Jim Barrett

Air France began a program to replace all pitot tubes on its fleet beginning in late April of this year. No info as to whether this modification had yet been implemented on the accident airplane. (I tend to think not).

It wasn't.

From what I just read, now confirmed five victims found. One of them apparently still in the seat with belt fastened...?! :(

From what I just read, now confirmed five victims found. One of them apparently still in the seat with belt fastened...?! :(

Seventeen now.

The latest news has the transmission of maintenance error messages lasting four minutes, not fourteen. This re-elevates the probability of a bomb on board.

Hello,Very interesting to read:The Google translation:http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8The original linkhttp://www.eurocockpit.com/archives/indiv/E009426.phpRegards.Gus.

Hello,Very interesting to read:The Google translation:http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8The original linkhttp://www.eurocockpit.com/archives/indiv/E009426.phpRegards.Gus.

I'll point out that if the accident aircraft's nose had been blown off by a small bomb as in the Lockerbie accident, and if the nose had been descending on its side as in the Lockerbie accident, you can be sure that the airspeed readings would be different because the static port pressures would be different.Furthermore, four minutes is a credible time for the resulting wreckage to reach the ocean, transmitting error messages on the way down.So, in advance of solid information from the wreckage and passenger remains, if there ever will be, there's plenty of room for debate regarding the cause of this accident. (It's unlikely that the black boxes will be recovered, though it's certainly possible.)

I think they might be in with a shot at finding the flight data recorders. There's a good chance they will have remained with a large section of the rear fuselage, which would make for a fairly large sonar target.There is a French military submarine on the way to the general area, due to arrive later this week, specifically tasked to find it, and several other nations also have stuff on the way. The FDR should transmit its beacon for another twenty days or so, and even if it takes longer, large pieces should give fairly hefty sonar returns that would probably show up from an active ping.Hauling stuff up from those depths might be another matter entirely of course.EDIT: Just seen that they have found some large parts of the aircraft, including the tailfin, which appears to have totally separated from the fuselage, looks like the rudder is still attached.Al

Hello,Interesting to visit:http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/voo447/Check the photos section at least ...Warning...Site will sometime be out cause of intense traffic !!Regards.

Hello,

I'll point out that if the accident aircraft's nose had been blown off by a small bomb as in the Lockerbie accident, and if the nose had been descending on its side as in the Lockerbie accident, you can be sure that the airspeed readings would be different because the static port pressures would be different.

Methink .. in case of nose separation .. it will be no more messages (ACARS or others) due to the location of the radio equipement ... (Antennas .. etc ..) ... it's no more coms possible during the hypothetical descent to sea of the nose part A warning from a union:Google translation:http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8Original link:http://pagesperso-orange.fr/syndicatalter/I think .. Airbus Industry and Air france are making prayers for the cause was a bomb ......Regards.Gus.

Hello,Methink .. in case of nose separation .. it will be no more messages (ACARS or others) due to the location of the radio equipement ... (Antennas .. etc ..) ... it's no more coms possible during the hypothetical descent to sea of the nose part A warning from a union:Google translation:http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...fr&ie=UTF-8Original link:http://pagesperso-orange.fr/syndicatalter/I think .. Airbus Industry and Air france are making prayers for the cause was a bomb ......Regards.Gus.

We'd have to look at the drawings, or at an exploded view, but in jet transports the electrical equipment bay is usually directly under the floor of the cockpit.

Then again, the union for Air France pilots were also the organisation that claimed the Boeing 737 could not be safely flown by two crew and actively blocked Air France from buying it for years, simply so they could keep flight deck numbers up, so it's not as if they are unknown for having their own agendas not always related to safety.They also insist on communicating in French a lot of the time, despite English being the ATC language, which further compromises safety, so I wouldn't hold them up as the guardians of safe practices on all occasions.Al

Hello,

Then again, the union for Air France pilots

Just to be fair ..The warning issued (in the links above) is from one of the french pilots union .. it's many others ..I think this particular union was created long time after the B737 crewing problem ...

In 1997, the merger Air France / Air Inter, the SNPL Air Inter, founded in 1988 had decided to keep its designation of origin, brand of trade unionism PNT clear and determined. A different NTPs unionism "that we wanted to develop to Air France. General Assembly members on 17 January 2000 decided to change the name of SNPL Air Inter, which will now be: ALTER Through the regular publication of the BSPN, a website, forum, and the clear and consistent commitment to his team of delegates to represent the interests of our corporation, the action of ALTER is now widely known and appreciated to Air France for what it represents: PNT unionism which "simply" trade unionism! ALTER held the course initiated by the SNPL Air Inter, which has always practiced true unionism, ie given a "hard" without any compromise or cronyism. ALTER is very committed to the principles and rules that govern our condition of employee that some tend to forget and will remain a union closer to defending the interests of the NTP management advocated by certain organizations. ALTER is a strong team with experienced unionists, of various countries, who are not afraid of possible conflicts and know how to manage. It attaches great importance to the consistency of their choices and not just promises never sat in a CEO, by definition, a ejection seat. Our shop stewards working in a college: the result of decisions that can sometimes be difficult to take but which are never those of a single man. Our image is that of a determined team, we seek to offer a different NTPs design unionism closest real and lasting interests of our corporation. We need the NTP really adhering to these ideas, the union that had disappeared from the Air France Group. Our demands are not original, they are fair and we will continue to support them without weakness. Unionism simply do is to Alter improve our working conditions, and thus make a difference by taking this up to return to a quality of life that others have left for reasons sometimes obscure. In a union with poorly defined contours, which some forget the real interests of ETP, ALTER offers a clear alternative, a clear choice.

Regards.Gus.

That makes sense... Especially when looking at the pic above of the dead rudder...http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1727...f447-crash.html

I might add my penny's worth here!!!There was in fact a voice communication some 15 minures before the automated messages started. The msg was advising that the a/c was entering heavy turbulence.Having many times crossed to and from the tropical convergence zone over the Middle and Far East I can confirm it is SCARY!There was also an automated report regarding depressurisation. none of these automated messages wold have been sent if there had been a bomb!My feeling is that the a/c was brought down by the severe turbulence.First of all a/c manufacturers still use the calculations made during the last war to calculate rough air speed. This is the difference between gust stall and overspeed. Even today getting the best compromise is still regarded as an art rather than a science. All modern a/c are built to withstand a gust factor of 66 fps at best. That's only 45mph or 39 kts. In the tropics if you fly anywhere near a storm you will encounter gusts of at least that and more. In a thunderstorm cell an a/c can suddenly experience gusts of 100mph vertically in either direction. "In general" pilots do not go anywhere near them but some do and even fewer come out. If then the a/c as reported did experience a cabin depressurisation the pilots would have had no option but to initiate an emergency descent this reduces the gust factor loading down to 25fps which is only 17mph or 15kts. Therefore to have to do an emergency dive in a storm you can see leaves very little margin for error. Build in the weight factor as well (the heavier the a/c the closer are the boundaries of safety) What I'm trying to say in essence is that it appears that things started to go wrong whilst encountering heavy turbulence leaving very very little room for manouevre. also carbon fibre does not have a good track record. It is either 100% safe or 0% In other words you can't bend it!!VololiberistaI'd also like to add a note about the autopilot. Apparently one of the automated messages stated that it had dropped out. To me this would not be unexpected seeing as most autopilots are designed to do just that in turbulence of varying nature. Some don't but even these "will" drop out if the turbulence exceeds certain parameters. Besides pilots are instructed to disconnect the AP and fly manually if the AP is having difficulty.