Fears for 228 as Air France jet vanishes

CNN ^ | June 1, 2009

[rdl6989]

(CNN) -- A French passenger aircraft carrying 228 people has disappeared off the coast of Brazil, airline officials say. A file photo shows an Air France jet on take off. Some 228 passengers are aboard the missing aircraft.

A file photo shows an Air France jet on take off. Some 228 passengers are aboard the missing aircraft.

Air France told CNN the jet was traveling from Rio de Janeiro to Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris when contact was lost.

The airline said flight AF447 was carrying 216 passengers in addition to a crew of 12. The plane is listed as an Airbus A330.

State radio reported a crisis center was being set up at Charles de Gaulle where the plane had been due to land at 11.15 a.m. local time.

Reports said an air force search and rescue operation was underway around the Brazilian island of Fernando de Noronha, 365 kilometers (226 miles) off the mainland.

[2111USMC]

My gut feeling, no evidence to prove it, is that something really bad happened to this plane really fast. The pilots didn’t have time to even send a Mayday call out.

Something broke causing other things to break in rapid succession.

It’s so frustrating that they still haven’t found anything yet. I suppose they are 6-8 hours ahead of us over there so it may be a couple more hours before daybreak.

[1066AD]

Another report said Lufthansa planes ahead and behind the Air France flight by an hour or two also reported no undue wx problems.

[1066AD]

Saw a report the Brasilians are concentrating on an area NE of St Peter & St Paul Rocks (at approx 1 N, 29W).

[BP2]

Here's a precise aviator chart, depicting important points on flight path as we know them.

In red boxes in center are points INTOL (last actual radio contact) and TASIL (the next reporting point that it failed to make).

St. Peter & St. Paul (Rocks) are South of the flight path (light blue). There IS a scientific station there, but it's probably not inhabited year round as there is no permanent fresh water on the islets:

[boomop1]

Bermuda Triangle.

[Peter Horry]

They have found wreckage that could be from the crash, link here http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/810622.html .

[wolf78]

If so, then why does the control system allow it ?

That was an A300, an early 70s design without FBW.

[wolf78]

Forget Air Transat 961, did we?

No. Also, my point was a different one: accidents happen and not only on Airbuses. There was also the United Flight 811 incident, among others. If you look at the statistics, both Airbus and Boeing make very safe planes. All modern Boeings are also fly-by-wire "plastic" planes with lots of international suppliers. The differences are minor.

[2CAVTrooper]

“It’s an Airbus. Usually those just break into pieces and fall out of the sky for no apparent reason,”

Ah you mean like what happened with Lauda Air flight 004?

OR
TWA flight 800
JAL flight 123
Air India flight 182
Far Eastern Air Transport flight 103
United Airlines flight 389
ANA flight 60

All these flights were a small sample of Boeing jets that broke into peices and or fell out of the sky for no apparent reason.

[txhurl]

?bump?

[2CAVTrooper]

Nice mischaracterization of the incident.

That was a low speed low altitude pass for a charter flight on behalf of the Mulhouse Flying Club.

The pilot failed to maintain proper airspeed and altitude for recovery after a low/low approach to a runway with obstacles near the departure end.

This was PILOT ERROR and not some fault of the FCS

[Spktyr]

Except Boeings aren’t made by Gasçcon in France, who thinks it’s a good idea to go on strike every 20 minutes and leave his work unfinished.

See, carbon fiber parts have to be finished all in one “sitting” as it were, or you have some serious problems. Since the French like to go on strike a lot, there’s a lot of Airbus CF parts that are flying around on airplanes that Boeing would reject.

[wolf78]

Except Boeings aren’t made by Gasçcon in France, who thinks it’s a good idea to go on strike every 20 minutes and leave his work unfinished.

See, carbon fiber parts have to be finished all in one “sitting” as it were, or you have some serious problems. Since the French like to go on strike a lot, there’s a lot of Airbus CF parts that are flying around on airplanes that Boeing would reject.

You are kidding, right? You do know that since the 787 program Boeing has outsourced approx. 60% of the fuselage production to Alenia, Italy? And if there's one country that's more strike-prone than France, it's Italy.



Ironically, the center fuselage of Airbus' competing A350 widebody aircraft is made by Spirit Aerosystems Aircraft in Kansas / North Carolina. So by your logic you'd prefer an Airbus if your seat have a seat above the wing, but a Boeing if you're sitting in the aft section?



Aircraft manufacturing is an international business. Having the 787 built in Japan is the price Boeing has to pay for large ANA/JAL orders and to keep Japan from setting up its own Boeing competitor.

[Spktyr]

My point is that the wings and control surfaces are made as a piece on the Boeings, and “however they feel like it” on the Airbuses.

It’s not Boeing that is known to have a problem with CF panels disintegrating in flight.....

[Cindy]

FOX NEWS.com: "AIR FRANCE BOMB THREAT BEFORE FLIGHT 447 CRASH" (SNIPPET: "Brazilian authorities reportedly delayed an Air France flight from Buenos Aires to Paris after the airline received a bomb threat over the phone, just days before the mysterious crash of Flight 447 over the Atlantic Ocean.") (June 3, 2009)

[VaBthang4]

I’m sorry but this plane did not come down as a result of a bomb.

Some of the information coming out about the ACARS message exchange with AF maintenance center seems similar to those given by a Qantas Airbus in December.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_2_23/ai_n31189475/

I think we have a design/computer error that led to this aircraft’s autopilot disengaging and the pilots losing control (especially considering the time and atmospheric circumstances).

Also from the article:

“On Oct. 7, 2008, 70 of the 313 people onboard a Qantas A330 (also flying from Singapore to Perth) were injured when the aircraft pitched up and then dove twice after a failure of its ADIRU 1.

Australian air safety investigators said a fault in one of three Northrop Grumman air data inertial reference units is likely to have caused the Qantas A330-300 upset.

Flight QF72 from Singapore to Perth abruptly lost altitude. The A330 made an emergency landing in Manila. The ATSB said in its preliminary report, citing flight data recorder information, that the ADIRU likely fed incorrect information to the main flight computer.”

______________

Uhm, we have a problem.

[Cindy]

Thank you for the additional info/feedback VaBthang4

[RayChuang88]

I would agree if the recovered flight data recorders showed major flight control problems like wild spikes in the movement of the rudder, tail surface elevator tabs, and wing surfaces and major changes in pitch, roll and yaw before the crash, but if the FDR’s suddenly cut out after what seemed like a normal flight, then the terrorist bomb angle has to be taken seriously.

[VaBthang4]

"...then the terrorist bomb angle has to be taken seriously."

Not sure what that means but it definitely has to be considered. With that said...it is becoming clear that this aircraft type has experienced several sudden and EXTREMELY serious attitude issues as a result of poorly designed electronics.

At this point, that has to trump even the atmospheric conditions as the main focus. But as you alluded, it will all be preliminary until more data can be recovered.

[RayChuang88]

The reason why I mention this was the data recovered from Pam Am 103’s flight data recorders. According to the data from the recovered FDRs on that plane, everything seemed to appear normal, then we heard a distinct “thud” on the cockpit voice recorder and in a fraction of second later both the cockpit voice recorder and data recorder stopped recording new data.