Today's report is that they have recovered all of the data from both the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder. Considering that these have been sitting at the bottom of the ocean well beyond their specified maximum depth, it's quite a testament to good engineering.

Today's report is that they have recovered all of the data from both the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder. Considering that these have been sitting at the bottom of the ocean well beyond their specified maximum depth, it's quite a testament to good engineering.

I'm sure that the lawyers will muddy the waters!!! Air France's reputation is at stake if they find that the crew chose to fly through the storm!!vololiberista

I'm sure that the lawyers will muddy the waters!!! Air France's reputation is at stake if they find that the crew chose to fly through the storm!!vololiberista

I still believe it was a combination of radar attenuation and the documented pitot/static system's short comings in freezing weather.

I still believe it was a combination of radar attenuation and the documented pitot/static system's short comings in freezing weather.

The problem I have with that is that as soon as the pilot determines that the airspeed information cannot be trusted he is trained to fly as I was(at least he should be!!!)the a/c by the relation of thrust to rate of climb or descent. As for the radar point of view all other a/c made large deviations to avoid the storm (one even before take-off shortly after Air France!). The "possible" attenuation would have been more marked as they got closer to the storm. When the report finally comes out, hopefully we will discover exactly who was at the controls, what decisions were made and by whom.vololiberista

The one thing about this accident that leaves a question in the back of my mind is it happened 4 years after their last accident in Toronto (Air France flight 358) that landed during a thunderstorm and overshoot the runway.This was their next accident where the captain made a choice to fly into a storm whereas others made a decisions to avoid the storm. If I was an investigator I would question Air France policy on extreme weather seeing this was 2 in a row.In the USA plenty of studies have been done on 'Get-There-itis' or 'Beat the Storm'. It seams these mistakes are being made once again by Air France. A lot of focus has been made on the Pitot Tube however what affect would that storm have made on the equipment. None of this is known yet as the investigation is underway however this is one question I would be interested to see if they cover. Crash Investigators with the FAA have done a great job looking into this in the USA.

The one thing about this accident that leaves a question in the back of my mind is it happened 4 years after their last accident in Toronto (Air France flight 358) that landed during a thunderstorm and overshoot the runway.This was their next accident where the captain made a choice to fly into a storm whereas others made a decisions to avoid the storm. If I was an investigator I would question Air France policy on extreme weather seeing this was 2 in a row.In the USA plenty of studies have been done on 'Get-There-itis' or 'Beat the Storm'. It seams these mistakes are being made once again by Air France. A lot of focus has been made on the Pitot Tube however what affect would that storm have made on the equipment. None of this is known yet as the investigation is underway however this is one question I would be interested to see if they cover. Crash Investigators with the FAA have done a great job looking into this in the USA.

I agree with this. The pitot tube is a side issue bacause as I have said it is perfectly within the normal pilot training to be able to fly without airspeed reference. My feeling is that the crew elected to go for it. Parts of the a/c broke off. Bits of wing and possible the tail fin also broke of putting the a/c into an uncontrollable flat spin which explains the impact damage already known. If at any point it can be heard that the crew elected to fly through the storm then Air France may well go the same way as Pan Am and TWA as it could be proved that they did not have an "avoid thunderstorms" policy.vololiberistavololiberista

I agree with this. The pitot tube is a side issue bacause as I have said it is perfectly within the normal pilot training to be able to fly without airspeed reference.

In a thunderstorm at night? Yeah, right...

My feeling is that the crew elected to go for it.

You forget the storms occurred in the ITCZ where squall lines can be hundreds of miles long. You also don't know the fuel situation (the accident occurred close to the point of no return) such that "not going for it" could have meant returning to Brazil or a fuel stop in Africa. Finally, perhaps they did have a clear path throught the storms but it closed-up with a new CB cell as they were approaching.

Parts of the a/c broke off. Bits of wing and possible the tail fin also broke of putting the a/c into an uncontrollable flat spin

You have no basis to assert the aircraft ever entered a flat spin.

which explains the impact damage already known. If at any point it can be heard that the crew elected to fly through the storm...

No crew ever chooses to fly through a CB if they can avoid it. But yeah, I can see all the reasons (liability, loss of prestige) why AF, Thales and the french government would prefer the pilots were blamed.Cheers,- jahman.

"The Passionate Eye" ran a TV program about what could have happened. Watch here: http://aircrashconsultants.com/airfranceflight447/?p=555RJ

In a thunderstorm at night? Yeah, right...YES RIGHT. It was in fact part of my BASIC training to fly without airspeed reference!!!! Though my basic training also taught me to avoid ANY thunderstorm at ALL COSTSYou forget the storms occurred in the ITCZ where squall lines can be hundreds of miles long. You also don't know the fuel situation (the accident occurred close to the point of no return) such that "not going for it" could have meant returning to Brazil or a fuel stop in Africa. Finally, perhaps they did have a clear path throught the storms but it closed-up with a new CB cell as they were approaching.Every other crew managed to avoid it. AF was the only a/c to not make any deviationYou have no basis to assert the aircraft ever entered a flat spin.From what wreckage had been discovered on the sea's surface. A flat spin could certainly be a possibiltyNo crew ever chooses to fly through a CB if they can avoid it. But yeah, I can see all the reasons (liability, loss of prestige) why AF, Thales and the french government would prefer the pilots were blamed.As has been said above this was at least the second incident where an AF crew "elected" to fly through a stormCheers,- jahman.

Why don't we wait for the outcome of the investigation?

I agree with this. The pitot tube is a side issue bacause as I have said it is perfectly within the normal pilot training to be able to fly without airspeed reference.

Why do you keep saying that? What real world experience do you have that makes you believe flying a Heavy jet near coffin corner at night in severe turbulence after the automatics have just dumped the aircraft into direct law is as simple as set N1 and maintain pitch? It is extremely stressful in the Sim, and no sim out there can recreate the actual conditions they would have dealt with.regards

I agree with this. The pitot tube is a side issue bacause as I have said it is perfectly within the normal pilot training to be able to fly without airspeed reference. My feeling is that the crew elected to go for it. Parts of the a/c broke off. Bits of wing and possible the tail fin also broke of putting the a/c into an uncontrollable flat spin which explains the impact damage already known. If at any point it can be heard that the crew elected to fly through the storm then Air France may well go the same way as Pan Am and TWA as it could be proved that they did not have an "avoid thunderstorms" policy.vololiberistavololiberista

Have you ever tried to maintain pitch after penetrating thunderstorms topping out at 60,000+ ft? Me neither... In a crippled aircraft at that. (Direct law, Master Caution blaring, extreme turbulence, autopilot broken, airspeed broken) Things happen and believe it or not, there is still a human factor involved (regardless of some folks tendencies to claim super human piloting skills). Especially in these Airbus aircraft aimed at making flying easier for less trained pilots. :( Personally I believe the crew definitely elected to fly through a TS. A TS they thought was much less severe than what they finally (probably) encountered. The pitot system failing wasn't just a side issue, but the reason for the pilots ultimately losing control of the aircraft.Then of course there's a chance the TS itself just ripped the aircraft apart, regardless of pitot blockage...Of course I speculate. We'll know soon enough!

Why don't we wait for the outcome of the investigation?

What? Deprive all the armchair quarterbacks from beating their hairy chests and loudly pontificating their (in)expert opinions?Where's the fun in that! :(

This is a forum. A place for discussion. I actually have the definition saved in a notepad file for comments like "Let the experts find out" or "what do you know?". Want to read it? :( fo·rum/ˈfôrəm/Noun1. A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. :Nerd:2. An Internet message board.

Why don't we wait for the outcome of the investigation?

Sure, this is when we will find out the whole story.But we can also tell a lot by what will be happening in the coming days, not months.Judging by past accidents if there is a hint of equipment fault, within days of getting to the data civil aviation authorities order inspections, parts replacement or even ground whole fleets. You get such actions way before final or even interim reports. Lack of such actions is in itself quite informative.