Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter
Back to Squawk list
  • 63

AF 447 fell so fast the oxygen masks did not deploy. Flight recorders in good shape.

Soumis
 
Air France 447 fell so fast the oxygen masks did not have time to deploy. It looks like they will be able to get all the information from the flight recorders. Many bodies are still in fuselage but it is miles deep in the ocean and recovery is a very long process. (www.cnn.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


makonyy15
Chris Shumeyko 0
Great news to hear that the data has been recovered. Speaks very highly of modern engineering that something so essential to getting answers about this crash withstood some of the harshest conditions on Earth for 2 years.
zcolescott
I'm very anxious to hear the results of all of this. However, reading some other news sites and newspaper articles, it already seems like the French BEA is trying to pin it on the pilots. That's what I got from reading the articles anyhow and is purely an opinion based on the choice of words they used.
wjcandee
William Candee 0
Oxygen masks don't deploy because the plane "falls fast". They don't deploy because the plane is falling. The deploy because there is a loss of cabin pressure. It has been established a long time ago that the aircraft was largely intact until it hit the water. Intact aircraft equals no loss of cabin pressure equals no masks deploying. Really dumb headline.
TXCAVU
There are several factors involved here. Soon the facts will leak out and Airbus will, depending on the severity, correct the errors. There has to be some catastrophic series of events to put this plane in this position and to incapacitate the pilots at the same time.My questions is why did this get recovered so quickly after criminal charges were filed, yet not after the original loss? There is much more to this one than we know.
indy2001
indy2001 0
The parallel system for investigating crashes that is used in France (and elsewhere) invariably leads to early targeting of scapegoats for prosecution in the courts later. In the past, these targets have been named very publicly early in the investigation and then the "facts" are twisted to condemn them (e.g. the Concorde crash). Airbus and Air France are officially supported by the French government, so any guilt on the part of either one is going to make the government at least partially culpable. The pilots, on the other hand, are mere pawns and can't rebut any statements against them. The NTSB may be maddeningly objective and tight-lipped during the early stage of an investigation, but in the long run that is the best way to handle these accidents.
chalet
chalet 0
There are conflicting reports, on one hand they say that airplane hit the water largely intact but it came down so fast that the oxygen masks did not deploy but that implies that it was on a free fall easily passing Mach 1+ in which case it should have destroyed in mid air as the wings should have snapped away from the fuselage. If it plunged largely intact sort of gliding downwards giving enough time for the pilot to send out a Mayday call on 121.5 or whatever the new frequency is alerting other aircraft and the Sarsat system but he did not.
csonger
csonger 0
Good call on the headline Mr. Candee. No depressurization does equal no deployment. Glad that data and voice can be analyzed to maybe give some clarity to the causes of the accident string. As to no comm, with likely conflicting data to the FMS systems, no doubt the pilots had their hands full just trying to figure out how to fly the plane. (aviate,communicate,navigate) I cant even imagine being in their situation.
csonger
csonger 0
Cant believe I just did that. Aviate, NAVIGATE,then communicate, Glad I caught it before you guys did :)
jicaro
Good call csonger, and Mr. Candee, no depressurization no mask deployment, also, as you say csonger, depending on what the FMS was shoing these guys really had there hands full. The interesting thing here that one must mention is, the apperent failure of all system redundancy of this aircraft. It is almost a perfect storm of issues. I do feel safe to say what ever happened, happended very very fast, on top of that at night in a storm with no visual referances, and the instrumentation possibly not functioning properly [Oh Lord} I could just imangine.
Some people are mentioning BEA, Airbus, Air France, want to blame it all on Pilot error, this might be so, but what I just mentioned above to have all these issues happening, and your instumentation failing, that opens up a great possiblity of an error, so in essence it is very difficult now days to fly a state of the art aircraft in a storm, with apperent major system failures, no auto pilot, instruments, visual referrences. Personally i feel the pilots did the best they could for what was happening, unfourtunatly it was not a good outcome. I do Hope the reason does come out so it does not happen again, and if may people feel that there is too much bias with BEA and the other french company, maybe it would be wise to include in the investigation NTSB, and a British couterpart.
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 0
The article mentioned that the aircraft was in an area known for severe turbulence. I can see that if -IF- they penetrated a towering thunderstorm that was mature and about to collapse they could have experienced a severe downdraft, but I'd think this would be rare, considering that they should have had some wx radar information that would encourage them to avoid such a cell. It's certainly a mystery, and I, for one, would not want to criticize a flight crew without more knowledge of the facts. I think we all probably share the sentiment that dead pilots are easy to blame, and slow to defend themselves.
TXCAVU
I have the radar of that system at the time of loss. There was a plane in front and 2 behind. None of them reported problems though both deviated slightly for a smoother flight. It reported that the crew were actively switching over to Senegal Control. Then nothing.To go from routine transmissions to nothing is strange. To fall like a rock but remain intact with engines running...is really scary.
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 0
Yikes! Elizabeth, that is scary! Thanks for the add'l info.
TXCAVU
The initial report lists the Capt and FO at the controls at the time. The Captains' body was recovered but neither the FO nor the FB which suggests he (Capt) was on crew rest and in the bunk at the time. There was no evidence of bone breaks due to violent shaking. They know full well what killed the passengers and crew but aren't sharing.
jicaro
Jim and Elizabeth:
I share your fellings in regards to this totaly, and I think and try to analize what you and Elizabeth are saying. We do know that the storm that hit them, apart from the turbulance appeared to be moving fast, so even though there were aircraft ahead and behind, they could have been clipped by part of the storm thinking they would of missed it if there wx was working. Now many things could of happend like for example what you are saying on a severe down draft, but again to possibley have instruments fail would not help. These types of storms can cause also severe icing on a a/c in flight, and if for expample the PITOT's froze over this would complicate things severley including the autopilot disengaging. WOW this is scary, either stalling or plunging at high spped into the ocean, but being intact, probably stalling???
One last thing Jim> yes you are right people are quick to blame dead pilots, but like on my previous comments, are they really at fault, or were they really victims of everything failing around them, I kinda feel this might be probably the situation so far, and hope the recorders will shed light on this.
jicaro
sorry I miss wrote there, in regards to wx working.
What i meant was the proabability of wx not working and hitting the rough weather blindly> sorry
TXCAVU
Agree with Robert. The last transmission was the routine switchover to Senegal Control. No big deal and there was the usual chatter before this. Then there was no response from 447 to confirm the handover. No May Day...nothing. What happened to incapacitate the flight crew so quickly and completely, that they don't get out a "May Day" with the mic in their hands?
jicaro
Yes Elizabeth agreed.

What makes me think are all the maintanece transmission the A330 sent via satilite to Air France HQ before the tragity, that makes me wonder, what the ECAS was saying.

Another thing if for example playing devils avocate, lets say the PITOT froze over, the instruments, would not function correctly, hitting severe turbulance, most PIC, will slow the a/c down at this point, but if the planes instruments are not reading properly, quickly you can hit the a/c envelope, and Stall, if this were the case maybe putting a/c in a flat spin, thus w/ a heavy a/c, bad instruments very difficult to recover.
Now if that were the case Elizabeth I think, none of the Pilots in my opinion would be sending a Mayday, PAn Pan or even tmst 7700, there would have been no time if this was what happened> they were way to busy, also i think I might be wrong but they were very close to the area if not in where no radio or radar service can reach {GAPS in communication]> and if they did stall it is like you said Elizabeth hitting the water intact w/engines running SCARY, makes sense since I believe they were saying the debris field was around 100 yrds>300 feet in diameter??? interseting.
TXCAVU
Robert...interesting you should post this as the pitot/flat spin scenario was the first assumption by Airbus drivers. Good call.
jicaro
Elizabeth-

Interesting did not know that Airbus had said this, what I do know is that particular model of Airbus, had problems w/ pitot icing,and that a/c still had not gotten the upgrade apperently, I know what hell a non funtioning Pitot can cause, specially at high altitude, so it can really make someones mind wonder on a plethera of senerios. Elizabeth thanks for pointing out in regards to Airbus, I will look it up, interesting
TXCAVU
According to Air France, the captain of Flight AF 447 had a record of 11,000 flight hours and had already flown 1,700 hours on Airbus A330/A340 aircraft. Of the two first officers, one had flown 3,000 flight hours (800 of which on the Airbus A330/A340) and the other 6,600 (2,600 on the Airbus A330/A340). The aircraft had totaled 18,870 flight hours and went into service on 18 April 2005. Its last maintenance check in the hangar took place on 16 April 2009.
Also: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6624798.ece
jicaro
Elizabeth-
Thank you, have not read these articles before, and also crew was expirienced, thanks again
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 0
There is a PBS documentary on this crash. I'll be looking forward to an update. Anyway, the frozen pitots was one of the things mentioned as a likely culprit, exacerbated by wind shear from a double storm they flew into. An animated reconstruction of the weather at the time was presented.

You can probably view it online.
TXCAVU
YouTube: Air France 447, One Year Out pbs
jicaro
Thanks

This is new to me, I will watch the series of videos, and see what they thought happened, cool thenks Elizabeth and Victor
allench1
allench1 0
The only conclusion that can be derived at this point with the help of both Elizabeth's and Roberts comments is the following: a condensed debris field, body's intact and in close proximity to their seats,the plane in tack as it reached the ocean, lack of a may day = lost of airspeed indicator which confused the on board flight computer and was unable to understand what was happening therefore giving the pilots bad info coupled with turbulence which would have been associated with the icing of the pitot tubes would have most likely caused the pilots to retard the throttles to insure safe stress levels on the airplane, from experience they would know the approximate location to put the levers at, but more than likely they hit a sever updraft which stalled the airbus and putting the aircraft in a flat spin which is all we can conclude until further evidence is brought to light. The pilots did all they could considering their predicament they were put in. one footnote, as pilots, the one most terrifying outcome we fear for ourselves and our passengers is the long ride to a sure demise God bless all on board, most likely those pilots were giving it everything they had till they hit the water.
vettdvr
James Corkern 0
For it to fall so fast makes me wonder did it come apart in the air?
allench1
allench1 0
James if it had broken up in flight there would have been a much larger debris field on the bottom of the ocean. All parts of the airplane were in a 300' field, that is very small indication the plane hit the water with very little forward momentum and the lack of oxygen mask deployment meant the cabin was intact and did not go through de-pressurization which would have occurred had the plane broken up in air. When an airplane gets in a flat spin it is in a stall and will fall very fast, just not nose down, therefore pancaking on the surface at a very destructive vertical speed. hopr this helps
boughbw
Brian Bough 0
I wonder if the problem might be a bit different: maybe there was a slow loss of cabin pressure leading to a lack of oxygen impairing the pilots. This is what happened with the Payne Stewart crash a decade ago -- the oxygen masks then did not deploy as the depressurization was too slow. That makes more sense to me than the oxygen masks not deploying because the fall was too fast -- is that even really possible? It also explains the lack of more conversation on the matter at the end: if there was a lack of oxygen, likely one of the pilots was incapacitated while the other was doing a poor job of managing the plane. I may be a bit married to this idea as it avoids the long, conscious fall to death Allen mentions.
Jungle31
Robert Jones 0
What Candee said:
"Oxygen masks don't deploy because the plane "falls fast". The deploy because there is a loss of cabin pressure. It has been established a long time ago that the aircraft was largely intact until it hit the water. Intact aircraft equals no loss of cabin pressure equals no masks deploying. Really dumb headline."

Yes. A really dumb headline. I would add that it doesn't have to be intact to the water. It might have begun a breakup at low altitude, anything below cabin altitude (~8,000') probably wouldn't deploy masks.
allench1
allench1 0
Brian brings in an interesting thought path, although in Stewart's airplane it was an immediate loss with no oxygen in the cannisters that caused the crash also the auto pilot on the airbus had become disengaged and the airplane would have either dived to earth or entered into a climb,stall,descend,climb,stall,descend until it crashed if it had neutral trim and the pilots were incapacitated as did in the Japan airways 747. All this is speculation however again I agree with Robert that indeed it could have started it's breakup at below 10,000' at least with the wings as the bodies indicate the body was intact at impact. Brian I understand your not wanting to accept the long fall, none of us do. Again it is my belief that the pilots did their jobs.God bless them all
Laurence
I simply can't believe the size of the debris field. Having hit the water, presumably intact, but at some considerable vertical speed, it then descends through how many miles of water in pieces and they all end up 300 feet apart?
allench1
allench1 0
I understand but that is what the official report said,however it is France doing the reporting. I would imagine that it would mostly depend on the current in the water at that location. The pictures of the debris field seems to back up the size being quoted. Let us not forget the Titanic broke into 2 parts with over 90% of the debris from each section being very close to those individual sections.
Laurence
Fine, but a vertical impact at 200? mph would have caused significant structural damage. Then the hydro dynamics of the debris passing separately through literally miles of water - vertical (gravity) and lateral movement (currents), different shapes, sizes, etc., surely wouldn't have seen them all arrive at the bottom 300 feet apart? Fairies or mermaids?
FaisalNahian
Faisal Nahian 0
James, my thinking is that something happened to the vertical stabilizer in the air and I assume that is the root of all.
allench1
allench1 0
It is what it is, but I think mermaids over fairies Laurence. All we can use to try and resolve ourselves as to what happened is what has been said by the (and I use the next words with a great deal of skepticism) AUTHORITIES OF THE FRENCH INVESTIGATION.
boughbw
Brian Bough 0
Allen, there was an episode a few years back with an A-10 pilot suffering from hypoxia who just kinda went crazy in the cockpit and crashed--he was flying oxygen-deprived and was otherwise a very good pilot. The reason I suggested that might be what happened here is that there is no clear reasoning that is so far evident behind why this plane went down. My guess is that a pilot impaired by hypoxia would probably not be making good decisions (but not realizing that he is making bad decisions because of the impairment). So if turbulence depressurizes the cabin, no oxygen masks drop, and the pilot is slow to react, taking the plane off autopilot and diving might be responses he could employ to try to reduce the danger of the situation. If the depressurization was not recorded, but the otherwise functioning system showing the pilots otherwise performing normally prior to the catastrophic dive, the facts seem to fit the situation as well as any other explanation. The whole Pitot tube question might be just a random element that the pilots were actually successfully dealing with--it was simply the problem that got reported.
Laurence
Allen, The problem here is there is no point in even trying to have a vaguely intellectual discussion or speculation on a subject when the French 'authorities' insult the intelligence of the public.
So, aircraft hits water at significant speed (vertical or horizontal) A total breach of the structural integrity of the aircraft is certain (without needing a degree in physics). All the debris descends through two miles of fluid, (the aircraft in tact measures how many feet?)and it all arrives within a debris area encompassing 300feet?! My view is that it cannot make any sense to even speculate on the cause when the outcome, as depicted, is so clearly flawed?
flyinpro
Jim Jeffries 0
Ok, so I have taken my lumps for a "really dumb headline", but in my defense it did come directly from the article and I'm not an expert. Below is what was written in the article.

"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."
MichaelRoney
Michael Roney 0
Yes, great to have the data, but the authorities should not have had to spend million to search the bottom of the ocean to retrieve it. There's no good reason with today's technology that the flight and voice recorder data can't be constantly streamed to satellite in real time.
allench1
allench1 0
Brian what you have said makes a lot of sense. It could be many things and in regards to Laurence I also agree but the reason we are all doing this is our investigative instinct and our curious nature. Once it is all determined it will end the need for all this speculation until something else draws us into a new situation like the B200 that went down in California a few months back (read up I would like your opinion on that) . In earnest all of this awareness can only feed more info in our brains therefore making us all safer and better pilots.Jim do not pay attention to the remarks by someone that is so immature that he has to chastise someone else to feel important your comments were fine.
Laurence
Allen, all I am suggesting is, don't bother to hypothesise and develop your well placed and informed investigative instincts based on media fed 'facts' that defy the Laws of Physics:)
allench1
allench1 0
Got it Laurence sorry I certainly respect your knowledge and I'm in complete agreement with what you meant I guess it's been a boring week for me! I officially retired at 62 four years ago and stop counting hours at 22,000.
Oh but to be 30 again......an extra 300 for a few hours with Patty Wagstaff and then maybe to go back to 1955 and tour the USA in a J3 cub and a sleeping bag......what a way to go!
boughbw
Brian Bough 0
While I agree with Laurence complete regarding the way French courts operate in matters like these, I am not so conspiratorial about how the wreckage all ended up together at the bottom. I am sure that a massive plane of this size would cause enough hydrodynamic pull to cause the pieces to come together as the plane sank. Everything else floated back to the surface. In terms of conspiracies, I am surprised that the wreckage was ever found. Maybe the Frenchies will come out with something they can use to improve their aircraft and actually admit to some fault here.
As for me, on my last trip to Brazil, we opted for Delta and their 757 rather than TAM and their A330, paying $250 per ticket more.
jicaro
Allen Hi this is Robert, And Sir I cannot totaly agree w/ you more on you various posts, but I know many might think this is stupid, but for the others please let me enlighten just a bit on the Airbus system, which in the A/P all are kind of similar from the 318-1 to the 380-8
First of all the Pitot is the Life of most of the aircraft instruments, the 330 if I'm not mistaken has 4, 2 on each side, and behind there are 6 sensors 3 on each side these have various funtions, but in essence the Pitot has a important funtions, in movement and attitude etc. I say this cause I want to explain to others, who do not understand this and the Airbus system as I know it.
When the A/P is activated [auto pilot], this will control in essence where the plane is going and how it is going to get there, and it is connected to GPS, VOR,NDB etc....., the 2nd system is the A/T[Auto Thtottle] this controls the planes speed, and can be used in take-off climb, cruise, descent, and even in landing if you are CAT3 certified, and the field is equiped. that being said I will amplify what I said earlier and here you might be able to see more clearly what Allen was saying, by the way in who I agree with. And of course this is just speculation on what I am seeing and hopefully the BEA, will sort this out.
You have the 330-2, cruising, they start comming up on 2 weather systems the turbulance begins, and by SOP and being smart, the pilots brought the cruise speed down so to not over stress the A/C, how much was done is anyones guess but Airbus and AF have there limits, and of course this is all under guidelines of wheather, weight, speed etc. Now lets get into it Lets say the Pitots freeze, this giving conflicting information to computers, this will automaticly force the computer to disengage A/P, and logically the A/T does the same, then the plane an all essence is on manual, and if you read in regards to the ACARS, this happened, then I believe was followed by electrical issues, and the Fly by wire system whant to an aux mode. etc etc. The point I am trying to make is when the turbulance started, they slowed the plane, then A/p and A/T disengage, your instruments are giving conflicting info, or not at all,, you donot know now if your too fast, too slow, climbing or diving, you have no visual referrences to help, and in this case I think they had a small climb, and the plance kept slowing down. they went into a stall and in something that big w/o referrences, or instruments, Lord have Mercy, practicly irrecoverable stall, Flat spin, all the way down... In a Airbus that is working properly, it is almost imposible to stall the computer will not let you, it controls how much turn, angles etc, remember when I said that the A/T needs imputs from A/p to work, TRUE w/ 1 exception, if the computers feel the A/C is in jepordy, it will activate the A/T automaticly to a setting called A.Floor>in otherwards TOGO thrust.
In the Af447 aircraft this could not happen cause of the issues w/ the A/P, A/T, Pitots, and God knows what else.. Sorry to be long winded, but there is 1 more thing..
Allen I totally agree with you also in reference to the Pilots, in which I do also believe all 3 were up front fighting the battle. It is true, that the Pilots may have commited an error, but seeing the situation I DOUBT it, they did the best they could, and it would be ludicrist for anyone to say other wise, fore those who donot know and thanks to Elizabethe there was over 30000hrs expirience in the cockpit, and I think over 10000hrs on this type. One last thing I think Brian was asking, if the plane feel intact this means it practicllyfeel stright down, which again i agree w/Allen. Guys the bottom line is I feel a higher incline to say that the underlining issue to the accident is comming from A/C system failure, if the Pilots errored later that could be a probability too, but if everything is not working, this beuitiful state of the art place will have a hard time flying if at all bottom line.
Apologies if I've upset anyone but this is what I think at this point, and I am waiting on BEA
crk112
crk112 0
Wow whoever wrote this article doesn't know anything about aviation... and/or they are in 7th grade.

- We already covered that masks don't fall because the airplane "falls fast"
- Airplanes don't "belly flop" into the ocean
- Plural of "aircraft" is not "aircrafts"
jicaro
Again Sorry about my writing in the dark and on writing fast, and it is true a/c don't belly flop as you put it, but they do stall and can also do a flat spin cause of it, and heavy a/c, do not fly the same as light a/c but i'm not here to argue, nor to express to you my education.
But in your comment it is clear what your knowledge is in heavier A/C
Pretty good in grammer though
allench1
allench1 0
crk112 you must be a mind reader to have so much know how to project someones grade status. you must be one of those single engine know it alls, 112 either stands for your IQ or a commander 112. please teach oh great one of the sky's too we mere mortals with skills of heavy's and their systems.
crk112
crk112 0
Robert simply put mass media pisses me off.. especially when it comes to aviation. If they're going to write about something it's my feeling that they should do a little research and do it right and use proper terminology. My comment was directed at them and not any of the other commenters here so I didn't mean to offend.

Allen you don't have to be a douchebag about it. Kiss my ass.
rocketperson393
Art Troutman 0
As a (retired) Lockheed engineer for 37 years, including participation in aircraft accident investigation and analysis, let me add my 2-centsworth. For me, it was always advantageous to encourage input from all quarters and specialties, no matter how trivial and unrelated it might seem. Sometimes, a seemingly trivial input might provide a vital clue that opens a new door, leading to a new avenue to further pursue. It's been fascinating to follow these different avenues, some of which intersect, overlap, and contribute to possible, logical explanations of what actually happened. Thank you all for those contributions!
allench1
allench1 0
well,well, crk112 got exposed, with that statement & language I would have to assume it was your IQ so go back a play with the little minds crk.

Art it is great to hear from an engineer that was with such a fine old company as Lockheed and the great 1011, what a great plane to fly and your comments make a very good assessment of what we are doing here. At the very least we are adding diff. possibilities that might come in handy one day for one of us. thanks for the additional input.A gentleman your are.
allench1
allench1 0
ups, I said "your are" instead of you are so crk112 will have a mind freeze over that one.
jicaro
Art and Allen; what both of you say is so very true, and kudos to you all I think Allen to have had the the most awesome opportunity to have driven the 1011 cool, liked it better than the DC-10, by far though I never sat up front.>
In regards to CRK, yes it is obvious, not only temper, temper but education level??, but it is not for me to judge, but single pistons or even twins, CRK are very different from Jet/ Multi jet, AND I AM NOT giving my opinion, from as you put it sir MASS MEDIA, though they might know a little more than you.
Allen and Art, you know as well as I do the truth of the matter is something fulmininent happened that night, and no matter how much imput we all put in, it will be very interesting the outcome that BEA / AirBus finds in there investigation, and I hope it can be used as an instructive tool, so this could never happen again.
And yes for the most part and well put, thanks to all for your opinions
allench1
allench1 0
Robert I think the reason we all care so much about this particular crash is the distrust we all have in the "cover up that has already started" and it's relationship to making the deceased pilots their scapegoats, so we as pilots and aviation lovers are compelled to make absolutely sure blame goes in the right direction so we can all benefit in improving safety from this terrible accident.
allench1
allench1 0
One other thought from an old retired pilot, I think the one thing that we can gleam from this accident is that the pilot has to be able to have the last say over a computer or soon we will not be needed. Just take a look at our space program and all the human back up on the ground to insure that the computers on the shuttle are being monitored for safety. Better to just pay 2 pilots and leave them in the cockpit. Real pilots do not want to become screen monitors. AGAIN GIVE ME A J3 CUB SEND ME BACK TO 1955 AND CUT ME LOSE, NO TOWERS TO DODGE HEDGEHOPPING TO WHEREVER I END UP AT THE END OF THE DAY. WELL A GUY CAN DREAM CAN'T HE!
allench1
allench1 0
One more added comment. I could also go for a late star filled clear night at the controls of a beech 18 letting those radials and the vibration nod me off in a cap nap state, somehow those engines just always sounded happiest with a few backfires every few min. You could almost feel as if you were on a WWII mission with flak coming up at you. Boy those guys were the stuff we all came from.....what a heritage we have
jicaro
HA Back to WWII, way before my time my friemd, but yes I can relate love those types, specially the P-51D, re your 3 posts back i answered you but this blasted log on screwed up, and I'll just say in essence this, I agree with you to tally, and feel BEA/Airbus, should bring in entities, like NTSB and AAIB, so things could be more UNBIAS results, and yes it is easy to pin stuff on Dead men, and may I restate M E N!!!!!,but these companies should get out of there own pride and being worried about getting sued, and realize something did go wrong, and that something could of been there fault, and that corrections must be made, to as you said IMPROVING SAFTEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jicaro
Allen Re those Aircraft, I've seen them and know them, but I can say never have had the most distinct privledge, and yes I've never been on a Beach18, though yes the DC3, and remember going through clouds and cause of the condensation having it rain in the cockpit> KID YOU NOT, but I say this cause of the backfires of the radial engines.
Allen wan't born until 1962, so I can just imagine that dream of hedge hopping. When i did fly, I was lucky got training FREE, on diffrent types, but by far my favorite single was the PC-7 Pilatus, AWESOME, and did some multi-Jet/turboprop, not to much vibration there, but fun just the same. Allen in a way i envy you, to have had the privledge of both worlds and eras, from piston to Jet, and hope to here more about it.
One more thing yes computers can galore, but it is the man in the seat / PIC, who must call the shots
for a while> but to fly is so awesome there is no other felling by far.
ddwinter
ddwinter 0
We know that France will defend Airbus, and we also know that even if the wings and engines fell off, the Captain would be to blame--so the truth is somewhere in between.
allench1
allench1 0
Robert take the time to find someone with an 18 or a stearman and you will never be the same after. I was flying a 1946 cub landing on a grass strip in southwest Ga. and had to have some friends grab the struts as I landed with 0 ground speed. plane doing 35 and wind doing 40, I could let the plane back up 2' off the ground by barely backing off the power. Another thing you could do is go to the mid west and fly in a cub in a area you do not have towers to worry about, really cool to do but not in the summer. Make as ADF approach to humble you. We get old to quick Robert so go grab some fun in the (upper) sun.
jicaro
Allen:

Thanks,
Will remember, and hope to see ya around, it is enjoyable talking to you, and hope this is not the last
JimmyZ777
Loyd Champion 0
Hard to fly when the verticle tail comes off.
boughbw
Brian Bough 0
@Allen: "I think the one thing that we can gleam from this accident is that the pilot has to be able to have the last say over a computer or soon we will not be needed." This is exactly right.
@Loyd: Airbus has had that problem, too.
JimmyZ777
Loyd Champion 0
Turbulat weather, lot of stress, all of the sudden the speed indicators drob to 0. They don't work flying sideways. Being thrown around in rough air, sudden change in direction... flight crew could have been passed out cold as well as all of the souls. Nothing else to do but ride it down. BTW, if I recall correctly, the tail was found some miles from the location on the sea floor where the wreckage is located.
allench1
allench1 0
I reviewed the reports and could not find any info on the tail being away from the crash site and would not that have decompressed the cabin! Plus they were in line to replace the pitot tubes because of this very problem. However Loyd that does make some sense as in over rudder control in the Boeing's when in extreme turbulence. In any case for some reason the pilot did not deviate a few miles from his flight path as the other flights in front and trailing him did, as that decision could have been the start of many events had the pitot tubes been the problem in which case he could not have foreseen the problem about to develop, however this could be what the French might use to scapegoat the pilots if that becomes the conclusion from the flight data recorder. Got to go have an early flight in our Falcon 900. see ya on the flip.
allench1
allench1 0
this might be worth reviewing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
boughbw
Brian Bough 0
I don't think it is possible (is it?) for the plane to belly-flop if it loses its tail, can it? I was under the impression it would be more or less like a lawn dart and go in nose-down.
I think parts of the tail were recovered as floating debris.
loghome1
Bob Morton 0
I take it that there are no back up steam gauge type flight instruments on these glass cockpit aircraft in case of a total instrument failure scenario.
It might have helped in a airspeed issue at altitude mentioned in these comments.
jicaro
Hey Guys, Hi Allen, Something that caught my attention that Loyd wrote.
The tail was not found on the sea floor but on the surface, I do not know location, but here, I guess we must take in account ocean currents since I think it was found a couple of days later, also in the senerio of turbulant weather, if the tail would have sperated, it is likley the A/C would of nosed over to one side [ like Brian was saying], and straight down also one other thing it would have not decompresed the cabin, tail [behind the bulkhead], I guess a good example of that is American airlines A300, after takeoff in NYC hit a heavy wake turbulance from a 47-4, and with over correcting of the rudder there was seperation. Also I would think the wreckage might have been diffrent, still like I was thinking, and what Allen is saying I am still siding with the PITOT issue and the flat spin senerio.
Also Loyd even zero readings in airspeed, still to me would point to PITOT because there should be some type of foward momentum in my opinion, though Loyd you still bring up a good thought though

Allen Falcon 900 wow, hey give me a yell if you are over in the DC area, fly safe
allench1
allench1 0
Brain you are right on and Robert you also are on target about the bulkhead which is why I used the explanation point as I was just bringing up a possible event however I agree with you.
jicaro
Hi Bob:

To answer your question, all Glass cockpits, and I've not seen any exception, do have a few analog intruments as backups just in case of failure. Ususally they are the Speed indicator, Inclinometor, Compass, Vertical Speed indicator, Hydralic presure load, and clocks.
If you are able to look at a picture of any airbus from series 318-1 to the 380-8, you will see these instruments, in the middle slightly to the left on the Capt side but also may me next or around the EICAS / ECAM, and the compass, in the middleup higher in between the 2 front windshields
so yes Bob there are backup systems, and also usually these A/C have backup to the backup for mors redundency
jicaro
Allen
Hey You should try hedgehopping with the falcon HA HA
hey man nice to hear from you again, It will be interesting to see if any news comes out from France this week.
Hope you had a good flight, and hope to talk to you soon, and I was serious if you are ever around the DC, hey look me up.
jicaro
sorry guys INCLINOMETER also known as Artificial Horizon, sorry
allench1
allench1 0
good you got that straight Robert or you would face the music with crk112 !!
JimmyZ777
Loyd Champion 0
First, I'm not a pilot to be clear, but I do a lot of work with commercial aircraft. In rough weather why would the pilot take an Airbus off of the autopilot? Something happened pretty quickly that told the crew that they had to get control of the plane. Throttles are up, engines are going at a spped that the plane should be flying... speed says zero or something that is not believeable. So an experianced pilot with 11,000 hours couldn't keep the bird flying? It would have been a rough ride, but one would think that at some point the pilot would have gotten the plane under control. The only part of the plane that was fount was the tail the morning it happened. That location was used as the starting point to locate he black boxes, and the wreckage. With the currents and all that tail could not have moved that far away from the wreckage. Hard to fly the plane with no verticle tail. I'm not an Airbus fan, but 330's don't just fall down from crusing altitude from a failed speed indicator with an experianced flight crew unless there is some flight surface with a major malfunction... like it ain't there. My 2 cents... we'll see how it all comes out, and who covers who. I don't put my money on pilot error however.
jicaro
Allen:

Your right and please do not give me goose bumps, but where I trained, in Central America, the artificial horizon, is also known in Spanish as the Inclinometro, instead of Horizonte Artificial, and it just comes natural to say it I guess, but please do not compare me with that one, and hope you give me your graces to forgive a minor compresion stall there ha
allench1
allench1 0
Loyd I would remind you of the airbus that flew low in an air show and the plane's computer would not let the pilot climb as it was anticipating a landing, It was designed to not let the pilot put the plane in certain envelop's for safety, however in critical circumstances that could be needed in order to save the airplane. I am not sure but as a pilot with 40+ years of being in different situations I do not think the tail is a factor, that being said we really do not know for sure. Your input does have merit.
allench1
allench1 0
Loyd I hit the post by mistake so to continue without the tail the plane would have come down nose first which has already been ruled out by evidence that has been collected to date.
jlr1408
I think this is going to end up being CFIT - controlled flight into terrain. The pitot and static lines iced up. The pilots were flying blind. Trying to hold straight and level flight, they didn't realize they were gradually descending until that awful moment when they saw the water in front of them.
allench1
allench1 0
I'll let someone else bring Jason up to speed other than saying data already retrieved showed an extreme descent rate not to mention the analog situation indicator on the panel between the two pilots.
jlr1408
The CNN article had the sentence "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." As far as I could tell, this was editorial speculation by CNN. They had information that the oxygen masks did not deploy. CNN speculated, incorrectly, that this was caused by an extremely rapid descent. I don't believe any data from the recorders has been released yet.
jicaro
Jason:
The only thing I'll say right now is that a few people here would agree with you in the PITOT situation including me, but ACARS did transmit to Air France Maintanence of a rapid decent to say the least,and the debris field indicate there was very little foward momentum if at all, I think if you read some of the stuff that has been written you could get an idea of what some of us are thinking, but at this point I do not believe they had a controlled flight, nor a slow descent and I'm really not sure if they ever did see any water even though I doubt it considerbaly, but yes either way the outcome was grave to say the least.
jlr1408
Robert, I went back and read your long post from 5/20. It makes more sense than my theory.
allench1
allench1 0
Robert going back to address the "look you up when I am in the Washington area comment" I will be glad too. Flying the Falcon 900 is fun although I let my First fly most of the time so he can move into my seat which I let him have when the Chairman is not on board after all though's years in heavies and at 66 I feel my importance is to accelerate his career.
jicaro
Jason:
As yours, it is also just a theory, seems to be a logical one, at this time, I just hope when it all settles and all the data comes out, so does the REAL CAUSE, and they just don't go and try to pin it on people [pilots] for conviennce. A good example is what Allen was mentioning on the Airbus at the airshow, if I remember correctly, The Pilot/ s??? where charged and incarcerated for Manslughter [could be wrong though], and yet Airbus had fault in it, but classic example of SCAPEGOATISM
jicaro
Allen:
You are very noble my friend, to have and give the opportunity to teach those who are willing to learn from your expierience//Funny my instructor/teacher/friend/cousin [wow], ended up becoming Chief Pilot for the whole TACA system whic ironicly fly's Airbus', as you he has now retired, only at 57, and now fly's Westwinds, for a Christian Org., had my chance last june to sit in the seat but could not make it by bottom still hurts for kicking it... It has been so long since I've done that.
But yes tell me when you are around and we can figure out how to establish contact, I would appriciate that very much..
allench1
allench1 0
Robert, allenchurchwell@gmail.com
allench1
allench1 0
Robert those Westwinds have a great range and are rockets, don't they cruise like around 450 kts. Need to land on the numbers under 4600' as I remember.
jicaro
Allen:
Personally I do not know I was going to have the opportunity in June but could not, I will Ask him Sergio, when I right him, he is do to come to Flight Saftey in NC soon I believe, and he is comming over.
What aI do know though about this particular A/C is that it is the Isreli version and the cockpit has the yoke for both sides, I believe that the earlier version only had one, and that is about all I know on this bird, but I will find out for you.
Will write you a quick note tonight to record your E-Mail, thanks Allen
allench1
allench1 0
Robert, Just got back from a meeting with the boss and we are getting a new 7x for more range so looks like I will be going up to Teterboro next week to help our CFO in putting the trade together so I wont be as available during the day. Maybe we could stop over for lunch on the way back, I'll have to ck but he is a fairly understanding kind a guy.
jicaro
Allen WOW a 7x your Boss must like his toys and has good taste too, I bet a little of your input maybe> almost 6000 nm and can cruise at FL 510, wow that is awesome will you still haft to train for this type>?.
Allen I will not be working from this Thur to Tue next week, if you are around and your CFO permits that he is a understanding guy., if it cannot be done well there will be another time.
I'll be shooting you an E-Mail so that way we are set. When your more sure of a date give me a letter and I'll see if doable, take care
allench1
allench1 0
Thanks to Robert the following site brings all of us an important update

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576341631579541512.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
allench1
allench1 0
Robert why not use GPS as a secondary source for airspeed, at least in bracketing within a certain safety range as I know it could be a second or so behind the actual speed but would have certainly helped the pilots focus on control. Here I go projecting what I believe the events that led to this crash after this info: 1 Capt. out of cockpit. 2 multipliable pitot tube malfunction.3 disconnect of auto throttles 4 pilots preoccupation with all the various alarms and warning lights.5 plane inters an unnoticed stall-recover scenario. 6. airplane either enters into an unrecoverable dive or a flat spin. Two factors that will be addressed will be Capt stays in cockpit when in serious weather and training for pilots to be retained to.....FLY THE PLANE FIRST
allench1
allench1 0
The above statement is given after reading the aforementioned http site
allench1
allench1 0
I post this from another thread that I have above:
Marcus also brings some new thought. After listening to the interview of facts now known it took about 16 min to descend from approx.35K so that equates to 2300' per min. I first thought somehow they got into a flat spin which I am almost positive would have caused a more rapid descent but it is hard to believe that with 3 trained pilots in the cockpit that no one noticed the autopilot was off, but I can not forget Eastern Airlines L1011 that had a nose wheel light not on so the flight engineer went into the hell hole to see if the target lines were together to indicate the gear was down and as the captain was trying to talk with him he pushed against the yoke and it disconnected the autopilot and as the plane was in a holding pattern it descending at about the same rate until it hit the swamp without either pilot noticing from being distracted. Sounds awfully familiar at this point. In that case the push to disengage the autopilot was suppose to be set a 20 lbs. pressure and it was at 5 lbs.
jicaro
Allen:
You do bring up a very excelent point and the only other thing that would make me think is what was the A/C speed ? i know it would rapidly decelerate, upon hitting the water, but still I don't think the debris field would still be confiend to 100 yds, like this craft???? Don't know if that would be possible, Thinking if the plane did ditch, I kinda remember the 767 that ditched off the coast of Africa, It stopped quickly, broke up, as expected. I do not have the facts on distance, but get the sense it traveled more than 100 yds, maybe I'm just not picturing it, but still I would think to descend at 2300 ft/min, I would think it would have been traveling around 200kts [+]???? I'm not sure on this one, I am not contesting what you are saying Allen it is just the foward speed factor i'm thinking about
jicaro
Correction> descending at 2300 ft/min, it would have to had some good momentum as to not descend so quickly
allench1
allench1 0
Ya you got that right remember the Sioux city CRASH his descent rate was less than 2300' per min. the water would have stopped the aircraft in very short order....and kept the pieces relative close to the impact point. what do you think Robert !
jicaro
Allen:
Have been thinking about this before I saw your answer.
I can see what you said, But the plane was in a storm the seas were high, 1. at first maybe 1 or 2 bounces???,then the plunge, and stop in short order, or 2. then again 1st bounce, grabs an engine on one side the plunge and a quick stop in a cartwheel manner, that too. If I had to choose from the two on what might of happened i think for the most logical, I'd go with the second, again looking at the debris field and the position of key parts of the A/C alot of the aft is N/East. But also any of those 2 senerios still would of spewed pieces of plane. I guess Al one of the big factors here just might be the size of the waves and how the A/C made contact
One last thing, the PITOT, we all agree were INOP due to ice, but with the sensors behind them what up with the TCAS, i know they had electrical issues, but do not know if they were affected [another wrench in the gears], if the A/C was at a slow descent, or did they ignore the warning???
allench1
allench1 0
Robert, here we go: More than likely the plane would have hit the water in a8 to 10 degree nose down and would not have bounced but submarined into the water, still an abrupt stop by any means therefore the condensed wreckage. by hte time they heard the words pull up, pull up, terrain and understood it with everything else they were dealing with at that rate of descent that would have given them about 3 to 5 seconds to initiate a climb and no more than 12 seconds to start climbing and remember in their minds they did not know what to believe. Robert it was just way to many task they were being directed to accomplish by the flight computer thrown at them with precious little time to comprehend, disseminate, prioritize and accomplish in the short time they had left to save the plane even if they did not recognize the A/P was off I believe that is a failure of the complexity of the flight computer program warning alerts and the lack of training especially with so many prier incidents involving the pitot tubes.Robert really it will become more evident if they release all the info from the boxes which I doubt.Airbus wants the pilots to take the heat and the French want Airbus to take the heat. Here I go pitting myself up for crk112 to chastise me: Pilots failure to fly the plane or recognize the A/P off, the French for not demanding the replacement of the pitot tubes, the airline itself for the same thing plus proper training and Airbus for not demanding the immediate replacement and training and for not redesigning the program to help prevent in info overload.
jicaro
Al:
Rob please

I can understand what your saying now, I was thinking nose up attitude, into the water, that is what my brain was jogeling with, but in what you are saying, yes that is totally clear my friend, sorry at first i did not see that. thanks
allench1
allench1 0
Robert we have two diff reports one says 15 min the other 2 or so min.until they hit the water. We have been on the 15 min. one if indeed the plane came down in only 2 min. then it stalled, fell off on a wing therefore the quick descent but does not really compute with the pilots talking in the cockpit as reported if nothing else other than the G force enacted on them at a descent rate of over 17,000' per min.
jicaro
Al Wow those are 2 very different reports.
Which descent is true though, figure this on the quick descent> at that rate if true from Aprox FL350 or ~ 6.68 miles, to crash in 2 minutes I'm calculating a rate of descent at aprox 200 MPH if ~17000ft/min [or about 3.2 miles/min with a tachymeter] . You are right though, if that were true at that rate of descent would have G's but if I did not miscalculate at that speed it would seem more as a stall???[spin}. You know Egypt air 767 when it made it's final plunge, they broke Mach 1.0 in I think it was around 30 sec the 2nd dive. Hope to see a update soon I will try to check in the AM tomorrow PS> hope I did'nt miscalculate or CRK this one
jicaro
Egypt air was around that alt to I think or maybe FL360-370
allench1
allench1 0
I think the descent rate would bring the speed well over 500 kts on the stall,fall. We will know more info in a few weeks MAYBE, at any rate we have projected about as far as we can given the info we have. The main point is to keep this from happening again, maybe one day we will quit using tombstone technology and start regulating without regard to politics and cost!

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!