Exactly what we (and others around the globe) have been surmising here..........an inflight break up.
.."hambuger" doesn't last too long, in the ocean........ It'll be interesting, to see how much more of the plane they can bring up, and assemble in the hanger.... So there's obviously various states of condition, in the recovered passengers, clothed, naked....unbelted..belted......broken legs, no broken legs....I guess the sharks have the rest of the answers, at this point.
That is Bloomberg's interpretation, not the BEA's. BEA says two simple things: - the elements identified came from all areas of the airplane, - visual examination showed that the airplane was not destroyed in flight; it appears to have struck the surface of the sea in level flight with high vertical acceleration To my knowledge, none of the dozen experts from many countries who joined the investigation dissented. So there are a few possible explanations: 1) BEA is correct, you and Bob (and others around the globe) are wrong. 2) BEA is wrong, you and Bob (and others around the globe) are correct, and all the experts are either incompetent or corrupt or both. Your pick.
It's not that simple. NONE of the information gleaned so far is conclusive which would explain why nobody is dissenting the speculations so far, because they are SPECULATION. I'll say it again, NONE of the information gleaned so far is conclusive. I think it would be best if everyone would quit arguing about this based on INCOMPLETE information.
Wily: If the plane fell into the ocean intact as claimed, please explain why the ACARS sent a message of cabin pressure loss prior to the total loss of the aircraft. Most crashes are a series of small problems that become one big fatal one. Failure of the speed sensor, allowing greater rudder authority, entrance a thunder storm with severe turbulance, utilization of that increased rudder authority, resulting in vert stab failure which ruptured the pressure dome is not an implausable scenario. This fits with prior known failure scenarios with Airbuses. What is known is that the plane crashed having sent several ACARS error messages. Claiming that it hit the water intact is irrelevent unless a plausable series of events can be put together explaining the messages and the resulting crash. It would be easier with the Boxes.
agree. no way that aircraft hit belly first, maybe some large sections of it, after the tail broke off and it split up, but it was not a dive and belly flop maneuver. it is key that the rudder was over traveling relative to the actual airspeed of the aircraft. it was said somewhere that it was thought they were in a left hand banking turn to go around or turn around due to the weather. then the tail failed. the end. i agree its best to wait and see what the boxes and evidence say. but the messages are a better indication of a major structural failure, and a rapid decompression at speed. the rest is just gravity at work.
Okay. I'm wrong to have used strong words about what I thought was a clumsy analysis and what to me was a quick and superficial report. I shouldn't have been too harsh but i have "Airbus experiences" from the 777 program that left me with a dislike of and distrust of the outfit. I should not have conclusively evaluated what facts I have available even though "I have been there before" a few times. I apologize for stepping out of bounds but I don't apologize for my analysis .At least you all know my identity. So. I'm gonna sit back and watch some pretty girls. Switches
The problem is that the information that is available may be all of the information that is going to be obtained. I still hope that they can find enough of the aircraft to piece it back together and even more, hope they can find the boxes.
ACARS never sent such a message. ACARS sent an advisory message: "This message indicates a cabin altitude variation greater, as an absolute value, than 1,800 ft/min for five seconds." As you may now realize, this is message does NOT mean "cabin pressure loss".
This is the correct choice. Corrupt more than incompetent is also how I would put it IMHO......we have a multi-trillion dollar multi-national conglomerate from a dying continent, as well as several nationalistic points of pride that require face saving. Worse has been done over the time of recorded history that a quasi-regulatory body lying about the circumstances of an airline accident to protect jobs and investment. Here is the ACARS message that I believe leads to the cause of the inflight break up. * at 0210, a 2723 rudder travel limiter fault (27 is flight controls, 2720 is the rudder control system). At higher airspeeds, the rudder travel is limited by the Rudder Travel Limiter; far less movement is allowed than at lower airspeeds.
WilyB: While it may not directly mean "Cabin Pressure Loss", it does mean that there was an anomaly within the cabin pressure monitoring system. Cabin pressure loss is one possibility. Since you never explain why this anomaly occurred, perhaps we should start with what you believe relative to this crash. We should start at the beginning to find out just where you are coming from. In order to do so, I have a few questions. Do you agree that AF447 was approx 3.5 hours into a transatlantic flight at FL35 at 500+ Mph when it approached a large storm system? Do you agree that some aircraft diverted around this system and AF447 did not? Do you agree that the aircraft encountered some sort of trouble at approx 2:14 am and that trouble resulted in the cessation of the aircraft flight, with it ending up in the Atlantic ocean with the loss of life of all on board? Do you agree that it is very, very rare for an aircraft to be lost when not in either takeoff or landing configuration and that the loss of control of an aircraft at this elevation with substantial room for recovery is rare without some major compromise of the control surfaces, wings, tail, fuselage or crew? Do you agree that a series of messages were received from the ACARS indicating everything from Lavatory problems, airspeed anomalies, autopilot disengagement, a switch to alternate law for the FBW controls and various electrical malfunctions and that this occurred in fairly rapid succession toward the end of the flight? Do you agree that forensic reports from Brazil and France were widely reported to have found the bodies to have no water in the lungs, no clothes and major fractures consistent with high speed ejection into a high speed airstream? Do you agree that if the plane fell vertically, belly first from the sky as stated in the initial BEA report that many of the bodies would have remained with the craft, and if they departed the aircraft at impact would not have been found in two groupings 53 miles apart? Do you agree that is the aircraft fell into the water intact, that the debris field would be localized and that the submerged portions of the craft would be very close to that point of impact? Do you agree that if this had been an act of terrorism, there would have been a proud declaration of responsibility by this point and that there has been no evidence of a fire on any of the debris or remains that has been recovered? Do you agree that if the problem that occurred had been one of loss of thrust or similar problem, that the crew from FL35 would have had time to report such a problem even while not in direct communication with ATC? Do you agree that when FBW Airbus aircraft are at reduced speeds, the FBW Computer allows greater control authority over certain control surfaces then they do at high speeds? Do you also agree, that with this greater authority that it is possible for the tail to be stressed, either through crew error or turbulence, to the point of failure and separation from the airframe? None of us, as far as I know, are involved in the recovery or analysis of this crash and information is very limited and that all of us are involved in a discussion speculating on the reasons for this crash. From you postings, you write in both English and French and post on topics having to do with France. This would lead me to speculate that you are of French background and given your postings in this thread may be affiliated in some way with the French Government, Airbus or EADS. This would hardly make you a neutral observer. Should you have definitive information relative to this incident, I am sure that we would love to learn about it. What I have seen so far is a defense of Airbus with no analytical analysis of why this crash occurred. Recovery of the FDR and CVR would significantly help in resolving the mystery of this crash, but this may be unlikely at this point given time and depth.
I believe that it was FL350. I also believe AF447 took off at 2229 and was lost around 0215 when leaving a large storm system. So in fact I disagree with all your assumptions. This is not known at this stage, as ACARS report positions only every 10 minutes, but I would assume this is correct.. Yup Rare but certainly not unheard off. TW800 comes to mind, as well as the Airborne Express DC-8-63F. Yes, most of them related to erratic speed reading. No, I do not agree. Actually most serious reports indicate exactly the opposite: fully clothed bodies with injuries suggesting they were seated at the time of impact. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCX7YbZZwokM 1) Yes, the fact that only 50 bodies were recovered means that over 150 of the passengers are still trapped in their seats on the bottom of the Atlantic. 2) No, there were not two groupings 53 miles apart. Please read the report. The debris pattern is fully consistent with BEA claims and with local surface currents. 1) See above. 2) The Atlantic is very deep at the point of impact, and the flight path of AF447 from FL350 to the sea surface is unknown. I would however agree that if the point of impact was known, that would make the search much easier. Absolutely. I do not agree. Aviate, navigate, communicate--those priorities work and they will get you back to mom.
The guy being quoted here has more credibility than any of us. http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?a=jgsjSwjedeg&title=Autopsies_suggest_AF_447_broke_up_in_sky "The pattern of fractures was first reported on Wednesday by Brazil's O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper, which cited unnamed investigators. The paper also reported that some victims were found with little or no clothing, and had no signs of burns. That lack of clothing could be significant, said Jack Casey, an aviation safety consultant in Washington, D.C., who is a former accident investigator. "In an in-air break up like we are supposing here, the clothes are just torn away." Casey also said multiple fractures are consistent with a midair breakup of the plane, which was cruising at about 34,500 feet (10,500 meters) when it went down. "Getting ejected into that kind of windstream is like hitting a brick wall, even if they stay in their seats, it is a crushing effect," Casey said. "Most of them were long dead before they hit the water would be my guess." When a jet crashes into water mostly intact such as the Egypt Air plane that hit the Atlantic Ocean after taking off from New York in 1999 debris and bodies are generally broken into small pieces, Ciacco said. "When you've had impact in the water, there is a lot more fragmentation of the bodies. They hit the water with a higher force." Any reason you failed to address this post Wily ?
Sorry WilyB, but no it does not fit the facts at all. At altitude the engine on commercial aircraft are actually working pretty hard. There isn't much air up there and rotor speeds as well as operating temperatures tend to be sufficiently high that icing is not much of an issue. The article from Boeing noted that most of these events happened during the decent phase. This happens because power at this time is reduced to idle, and the rotor speed is reduced, resulting in less normal shedding due to speed (slinging off the ice due to centrifugal force) and the fact that the fan isn't making much pressure ratio at that point and the heating of the air due do compression is now almost nothing. Consequently ice can form in the core and cause power reductions. If the power is up to a relatively high level, you will see sufficient temperaure increase at the end of the first couple of stages to to keep ice from forming in the engine. While it is possible, you are really reaching with this theory. In most cases loss of power was relatively short in duration and power came back with pilot action (restart procedure initiated by the pilot). Moreover, had they lost both engines, the crew would have been screaming to high heaven over the radios that they had lost power and were going down. The didn't, the stoppage of information was sudden, and if they had just lost power there would have been a lot more heard from them as they went down. What did happen was that the aircraft still had electrical power and was sending messages that it had all sorts of computer faults and had lost cabin pressure and then all the data suddenly stopped, with no reports from the crew of any problems. I backed off any comments on this thread a couple of days ago becuse I felt that we were indeed just speculating, and until we know more there wasn't much to be said, but I did jump back in because of WilyB's post. While that theory remains a remote possibility (but highly improbable), I am sure that there would have been transmissions from the crew and the data reporting system that would have told us more and that simply didn't happen. Two things could cause a sudden loss of all communication from the aircraft. The first is a sudden complete and total loss of all electrical power in the aircraft. The Airbus series of aircraft have a high level of redundency in that regard, since a sudden total loss of electrical power would result in an instant loss of the fly by wire control system, and would result in a catstrophic consequences. For that reason a complete loss of electrical power is, in my mind is highly unlikely, and without a total loss of power we would have had more transmissions from the aircraft as it went down. The second is an inflight breakup. If anybody has a different explanation of how you could suddenly lose communication like they did I'd like to hear about it.
TWA800 was a fuel vapor explosion sparked by shorted wires. This resulted in an inflight breakup which you claim did not happen. AE DC8 was a loss of control during intentional stall testing, hardly a mystery. Bloomberg is your serious source??? Read pages 4 and 5 of this thread and get back to us. Many reports speak of injuries and condition consistant with being ejected from the aircraft. No, it means that over 150 bodies are missing. The could be shredded to bits, eaten by sea life, or contained in larger pieces of debris on the bottom. Debris was 50 miles apart less then 2 full days after the crash. The currents would not have pushed the debris this quickly in that short a time, unless it had been distributed from altitude. If you think that they didn't have time to communicate after engine failure (your theory) at 35000 feet, you don't seem to have much credibility, as this is just silly. You may want to call home to mom for more advice. This was discussed earlier, and the overall design of the composite tail is similar between the two classes of aircraft. No confusion there. No, because you have posted revisionist history, we disagree and wonder exactly who and what you are trying to protect and why. I have no Spanish ancestry, just trying to find out what you believe. A least you actually agree that AF447 crashed. I find this unlikely, but for now will take you at your word. Based on the fact that you speak and write in french and tend to respond to posts that pertain to french topics, I suspect national pride may be part of your responses. As theorys go, this one is weak. As noted above, you can be sure that there would have been communication from the aircraft as it glided down from 35000 over several minutes. All of us are discussing theories, as I don't think that any of us are directly involved with the investigation. The most interesting item that you posted was the debris map, which, surprise, surrprise, had the tail located toward the southern edge of the debris field.
