Any updates on the Airbus lost in the Atlantic?

Please fill me in on the tail cracks on the 707's. I'm not aware of any horizontal tail failures on that aircraft.

 

While his excessive rudder inputs caused it to over load the vertical stab the rudder control design of the A300 and AA training program contributed to the crash.

http://ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20011130X02321&key=1

 

Yes, the NTSB attributed cause of that accident to agressive use of the rudder by the FO.

In the Aviation Herald article they said that the vertical stab had evidence of a vertical input greater than 36 G's (the rudder fixture apparently failed due to vertical forces and the parts they were looking at would fail at 36 g's). This would indicate the rudder was attached when it hit the water (something that Airbus has been saying since they recovered the tail). If that is indeed the case you start to look more at how it could end up in such a small grouping of pieces even after hitting the water and falling to the bottom the dispersal was very small. That's indicative of very little forward speed at impact.

 

The horizontal tail is joined to a stabilizer center section by forged steel terminal fittings. The center section aft terminal is a three legged forging joined to the swivel fitting that allows for the "flying tail". This arrangement has never had a failure, in fact, in the Gander Dive the horizontal tail not only remained intact after a Mach 1- plus dive but the horizontal stabilizer was deformed to the point where it had to be removed and replaced. Perhaps after a length of time there could be some fatigue in some of the surrounding structure but I question that the assembly was " weak". The vertical tail is also connected by some massive forgings that have never failed. Early on there was a fin failure in the first KC-135 due to a lack of a shear web in the front spar but that was fixed. The early KC-135's and 707's had a folding fin because the hangars could not accept the height of the tail so Boeing made damn sure that the terminal fittings were above strong enough.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/05/16/france.jet.crash/index.html?hpt=T2

Investigators trying to determine why an Air France plane crashed mysteriously two years ago have recovered the complete contents of the flight data recorder and the last two hours of cockpit conversation, they announced Monday.

It will take several weeks to analyze the data, French air accident experts said.
All 228 people aboard Air France 447 were killed when the Airbus A330 belly-flopped into the ocean June 1, 2009, in stormy weather. The cause of the crash is still not known.

The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were found at the beginning of May after an unprecedented series of submarine searches of a mountain range 3,900 meters (12,700 feet) under the ocean. They were brought to the surface and taken to Paris by ship and plane.

The investigators also recovered two bodies from the fuselage -- after finding only about 50 bodies in the days immediately after the crash.

They will not bring more bodies up from the ocean if they cannot identify the two they already have, they said Thursday.

Those two bodies are being examined to see if there is enough DNA to identify them, investigators said, adding that they hope to have results by Wednesday.

If they can identify the remains, they will consider bringing up other bodies from the wreckage.

The bulk of the plane was located earlier this year and contains many more human remains, according to investigators from France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA).

Recovering more bodies will be a difficult task, with miles of cable required to bring each one up over a period of three hours, they said.

Investigators also brought an engine and an avionics bay containing computers to the surface, they said.

The pilots of Air France 447 lost contact with air traffic controllers on June 1, 2009, while flying across an area of the Atlantic known for severe turbulence, officials said. But exactly what caused the plane to plunge into the ocean remains a mystery.

The plane slammed into the water while en route from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Paris, falling so fast that air masks did not have time to deploy.

The fuselage was discovered in April with bodies still inside, investigators said.
Some relatives of those who died have expressed reservations about remains being brought to the surface.

Last month Robert Soulas, head of a support group for families of flight victims, said: "For me, personally I would like to leave the bodies of my children, my two children, on the seabed."

Other relatives have called for the bodies to be recovered.

 

Well I'd like to hope this puts to rest all the conspiracy talk about how Air France, Air Bus et al wanted to sweep this under the rug. Say what you will, but AF spent 2 years and several large piles of cash to get that data. The odds of finding something that small in an ocean that big were enormous. But it happened thanks to a lot of hard work and (again) a very large budget.

Let's hope the data is as promising as it sounds.

 

It really depends on what the "data" shows.

 

http://gizmodo.com/5802709/air-france-flight-recorders-dont-show-airplane-failure

"According to an Airbus telex sent to all airlines using their A330, the flight recorders on Air France flight 447 confirm that their airplane didn't suffer any failure and they shouldn't take any precautionary measure:

...at this stage of preliminary analysis of the Flight Data Recorder, Airbus has no immediate recommendation to to its operators. Updates will be provided as soon as significant items that Airbus will be available or will be authorized to issue more information in accordance with the investigation.

According to Le Figaro, the flight data recorder points to an error by the crew as the origin of the accident that killed 228 people aboard the Airbus A330. The data will be disclosed soon by the agency investigating the accident. Le Figaro's sources say that they still don't have data from the Cockpit Voice Recorder, which will probably reveal more about the actual source of the accident."

 

Certainly nobody will be surprised if they blame it on the dead guys.

 

I would think that AF would certainly not want their crew to be liable. That alone has ramifications for AF.

CW

 

That has happened in the past.

Well that's true, but unfortunately for AF they are a spectator in this proceeding. The investigation is being run by the government, with technical assistance from Airbus. Both of those entities will be very happy to pin it on the pilots. If the pilots get blamed there is no cost to Airbus for anything.

The pilots could easily get thrown under the bus even if they were confronted with a situation that nobody ever anticipated and you would have had to have been superman to ever recover from.

 

So now you're going to accuse them of replacing the real data with their own?

 

News release:

BAE has just announced initial data shows that the recorder data show Airbus as essentially 'blameless'.

Hinted that AF is NOT blameless. That they have Safety, Security and Procedural issues.

For instance, the captain was not in the cockpit when they entered severe weather.

AF has STILL not replaced the old pitot tubes with the new, better version that's more immune to icing. Still have not, even today.




I'm wondering if they are partly trying to reassure worldwide users of Airbus planes that they are safe.

Keep in mind that BAE is part of the French government. The French government is part owner of AF and Airbus.

 

Do you have a link for this 'News Release?'

 

Maybe not but they are free to interpret the "data" any way they wish.

Nothing is off the table with millions of Euros at stake. I find it rather amazing that they found the recorders at all, tantamount to a miracle.

I don't personally know any of the players in this and don't have any reason whether or not to trust them but the whole thing sends my "spidey senses" a tingling.

 

Not according to this press release from the BEA

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/pressrelease17may2011.en.php

 

"At this stage of the investigation, no conclusions can be drawn."

 

So... what we have here is a bunch of people spreading FUD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

They have a hard on for Airbus but don't want to expose themselves as an idiot crank conspiracy theorist so they will make vague allusions to mysterious unnamed bad deeds.

First they said AF was never going to look for the plane. But AF did.

Then they said that AF was going to look but not real hard... But AF spent two years and millions of dollars on the search/..

Then they said AF (et al) would make sure the 'black boxes' were never found. But they were.

Then they said "AH HA The memory modules were conveniently missing"... but then those were found too.

Then they said "Well the they'll claim they can read the data' But they did.

So now they are saying that AF will just fake the data.

In other words, there is NOTHING that AF or BEA could ever do to satisfy these folks.

=========================

Now I don't mind them having a hard on for Airbus. I really don't. And I don't care if they have a high hard one for Air France... Lord knows the French have never done anything to garner my affection....

But here's my thing.

If you're going to accuse someone of wrongdoing, man up, grow some balls and accuse them.

If you think there is a conspiracy to hide the real cause of the crash, then by all means proudly proclaim yourself a conspiracy kook. Don't make us wonder if you're a kook, remove all doubt.

Just post "I'm a kook and I'm proud" and we'll all know.

But if all you're going to do is be a coward and whisper vague innuendo, save us the time.

 

Thank you for that... I was reading the 'Le Figaro' article.

Shame on me...

 

I actually said I thought the crew flew it out of control in the coffin corner trying to go over a storm and admit I said I did not think Airbus would go to such lengths to find the answers. So I was wrong there.

From what I have read, the money for the search came from Airbus, and not Air France. Did I read that wrong?

Admission: I still do not like Airbus aircraft and choose flights to avoid them whenever possible.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I have no dog in this hunt or axe to grind other than knowing what happened and preventing it from happening again. And, I expect that if there's a problem with the Airbus design, they'll have enough sense to do the right thing. If there is, it has severe ramifications, but the alternative is to continue to allow a known-to-be-unsafe design to fly and risk passenger and crew lives. If that were to be condoned, and if that were to ever come to light, Airbus is done-for. PERIOD.

So, I am hopeful that we will at least learn what the problem is that caused the crash, and if it's a design issue, the fleet will be grounded while fixes can be developed and rolled-out. But, maybe I'm too trusting in people doing the right thing. We'll see...

CW

 

It was reported that AF and Airbus both chipped in (each contribution not reported) to the tune of $12.5 mil to get the guys who know what they are doing (Woods Hole) to get it done. I think the political pressure got heavy and they had to do something so they got the people who could find the airplane, and who, btw did a fantastic job. I am surprised it took them 2 years to get somebody who could do the job and find the thing, but they dorked around with it for a long time. You can't blame people for being suspicious of motives when there is no concerted effort to find the aircraft. They finally got the right team on it and found it in a few weeks.

Airbus is betting they can find a cause that will exonerate the aircraft and AF would rather have it found that they did nothing wrong and the airplane is at fault. The French courts are notorious for finding fault and awarding damages (witness the Concorde that crashed where the found Continental Airlines (I think it was) at fault for dropping a piece of metal on the runway).

If Airbus can pin it on the pitot tubes they could be off the hook since they told AF to change them to address a problem they knew they had. Or, if they can pin it on the pilots, training, or something else that AF did they can skate. If AF can pin it on the airplane, then they are off the hook and Airbus ponys up the settlement.

The damage awards coming out of this will end up into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Like I said, this is high stakes poker, and the loser goes home a couple of hundred million dollars poorer.

 

If I'm not mistaken (and I probably am), I recall that there are limitations on the awards to passengers of something like $250K per. At least, that's the way the US carriers operate(d). Anyone up to speed on that?

Thanks,

CW

 

I wouldn't expect any better from you solo but for the record, there were 3 expeditions in 18 months costing a total of 25 million BEFORE Woods Hole could take the job. And it should also be noted that the 3rd expedition narrowed the search area for the 'black boxes' to a 5km x 5 km area before the Alucia even left port.

Saying that AF and Airbus "dorked around" for 2 years then caved to political pressure is about as accurate or as true as anything else you have said.

So please... we all know you hate Airbus... get a Tee shirt that says you hate Airbus for all I care.... But please stop distorting the truth.

 

Airbus didn't spend $25m, the first three searches were funded by the French government Airbus did add funding in the last part of the third search and Airbus and AF funded $12.5m in the fourth search. They became more involved in funding the searches when it became in their interest to find the black boxes.

To say that there wasn't massive political pressure being applied in this situation is ignoring the facts. Airbus was indicted in March by a French magistrate (which in not uncomon) and in the AvWeek (March 18th) article announcing that action they mentioned that there was tremendous political pressure on the BEA not to issue a final report, but to continue looking for the black boxes.

Without a final report Airbus wouldn't have a BEA finding that the aircaft wasn't at fault and might well be found liable. Retreiving the black boxes and getting a ruling from the BEA that the aircraft wasn't a fault became critical to Airbus. The action of the French courts was forseeable and expected, and Airbus was under huge pressure to find the black boxes.