French: Air France plane hit the sea belly first

Associated Press ^ | Thursday July 2, 2009, 4:18 pm EDT | Greg Keller and Emma Vandore,

[BenLurkin]

Air France Flight 447 slammed into the Atlantic Ocean, intact and belly first, at such a high speed that the 228 people aboard probably had no time to even inflate their life jackets, French investigators said Thursday in their first report into the June 1 accident.

...

Problematic speed sensors on the Airbus A330-200 jet that have been the focus of intense speculation since the crash may have misled the plane's pilots but were not a direct cause, Bouillard said...

;...

The plane was flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris when it went down in a remote area of the Atlantic, 930 miles (1,500 kilometers) off Brazil's mainland and far from radar coverage.

...

The speed sensors, called Pitot tubes, are "a factor but not the only one," Bouillard said. "It is an element but not the cause," Bouillard told a news conference in Le Bourget outside Paris.

Other elements that came under scrutiny in the immediate aftermath of the crash, such as the possibility that heavy storms or lightning may have brought down the jet, were also downplayed in the BEA's presentation.

Meteorological data show the presence of storm clouds in the area the jet would have flown through, but nothing out of the ordinary for the equatorial region in June, Bouillard said, eliminating the theory that the plane could have encountered a storm of unprecedented power. Other flights through the area shortly after Flight 447 disappeared didn't report unusual weather, Bouillard said.

"Between the surface of the water and 35,000 feet, we don't know what happened," Bouillard acknowledged. "In the absence of the flight recorders, it is extremely difficult to draw conclusions."

[narses]

Pictures taken from a passenger before the air craft crashed. The plane crashed and all its passengers were killed. However the rare photographs were recovered.

In September 2006, a collision occurred between a Gol Airlines 737 and an Embraer Legacy business jet over the Amazon in South America. The 737 crashed into the jungle with the loss of all passengers and crew. Although damaged, the smaller jet was able to continue to a nearby airport and land safely without injuries to those on board.

The images you see here are taken by one of the passengers of the ill-fated Gol Airlines 737, minutes before he and his fellow passengers died.

Last Weekthe world saw the disappearance of an A330 Air France during a trans Atlantic flight between Rio to Paris. Very ironic that a day before we got a mail of the photos taken by a passenger on a flight mins after a mid air collision, and mins before the crash of the said aircraft

Two shots taken inside the plane before it crashed. Unbelievable! Photos taken inside the GOL B 737 aircraft that was involved in a mid air collision and crashed.....

A B737 had a mid air collision with the Embraer Legacy while cruising at 35,000 feet over South America. The Embraer Legacy, though seriously damaged with the winglet ripped off, managed to make a landing at a nearby airstrip in the midst of the Amazon jungle. The crew and passengers of the Embraer Legacy had no idea what they had hit. The B737 however crashed, killing all crew and passengers on board.

The two photos attached were apparently taken by one of the passengers in the B737, just after the collision and before the aircraft crashed. The photos were retrieved from the camera’s memory stick. You will never get to see photos like this. In the first photo, there is a gaping hole in the fuselage through which you can see the tail plane and vertical fin of the aircraft. In the second photo, one of the passengers is being sucked out of the gaping hole.

These photos were found in a digital Casio Z750, amidst the remains in Serra do Cachimbo. Although the camera was destroyed, the Memory Stick was recovered. Investigating the serial number of the camera, the owner was identified as Paulo G. Muller, an actor of a theatre for children known in the outskirts of Porto Alegre. It can be imagined that he was standing during the impact with the Embraer Legacy and during the turbulence, he managed to take these photos, just seconds after the tail loss the aircraft plunged. So the camera was found near the cockpit. The structural stress probably ripped the engines away, diminishing the falling speed, protecting the electronic equipment but not unfortunately the victims. Paulo Muller leaves behind two daughters, Bruna and Beatriz.

[Richard Kimball]

Thanks for posting that. Absolutely unbelievable.

[opticks]

More here:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/172815.asp

[ProtectOurFreedom]

That was the first thing I wondered when I heard it landed intact. Very strange indeed. Can you imagine flat spin from 35,000 feet? My God.

[2111USMC]

Problematic speed sensors on the Airbus A330-200 jet that have been the focus of intense speculation since the crash may have misled the plane's pilots but were not a direct cause, Bouillard said..

Hell, I'm not even a pilot and that doesn't make sense.

First they tell us the thing dropped like a rock on it's belly at a gazillion miles per hour (which to me would indicate a stall of some type).

Then they tell us that the pilots inability to know their air speed was not a direct cause. Huh?

[BenLurkin]

Interesting.

[GAB-1955]

The incredible acceleration caused at impact killed them and ripped clothes off. It isn’t the speed so much as the sudden stop.

[cynwoody]

Then they tell us that the pilots inability to know their air speed was not a direct cause. Huh?

It's not a direct cause because it does not guarantee the loss of the plane. Rather, it's an indirect cause because it puts the plane at risk unless the crew does exactly the right things.

Here's a recent example, described here on rec.aviation.piloting, dated 25 June, in which the crew responded correctly:

Well, I'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident. I fly the
same plane, the A330.

      Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo, a 1700nm 4hr.
flight, we experienced the same problems Air France had while flying
thru bad weather.
I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447. My list is almost
the same.
http://www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php
            
      The problem I suspect is the pitot tubes ice over and you loose
your airspeed indication along with the auto pilot, auto throttles and
rudder limit protection. The rudder limit protection keeps you from over
stressing the rudder at high speed. 
      
      Synopsis;
Tuesday 23, 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT. Entering Nara Japan airspace.

      FL390 mostly clear with occasional isolated areas of rain, clouds
tops about FL410.
Outside air temperature was -50C TAT -21C (your not supposed to get
liquid water at these temps). We did.

      As we were following other aircraft along our route. We approached
a large area of rain below us. Tilting the weather radar down we could
see the heavy rain below, displayed in red. At our altitude the radar
indicated green or light precipitation, most likely ice crystals we
thought.

      Entering the cloud tops we experienced just light to moderate
turbulence. (The winds were around 30kts at altitude.) After about 15
sec. we encountered moderate rain. We thought it odd to have rain
streaming up the windshield at this altitude and the sound of the plane
getting pelted like an aluminum garage door. It got very warm and humid
in the cockpit all of a sudden.
Five seconds later the Captains, First Officers, and standby airspeed
indicators rolled back to 60kts. The auto pilot and auto throttles
disengaged. The Master Warning and Master Caution flashed, and the
sounds of chirps and clicks letting us know these things were happening.
      Jerry Staab, the Capt. hand flew the plane on the shortest vector
out of the rain. The airspeed indicators briefly came back but failed
again. The failure lasted for THREE minutes. We flew the recommended
83%N1 power setting. When the airspeed indicators came back. we were
within 5 knots of our desired speed. Everything returned to normal
except for the computer logic controlling the plane. (We were in
alternate law for the rest of the flight.)  

      We had good conditions for the failure; daylight, we were rested,
relatively small area, and light turbulence. I think it could have been
much worse. Jerry did a great job fly and staying cool. We did our
procedures called dispatch and maintenance on the SAT COM and landed in
Narita. That's it. 

[dangus]

Are you supposing that the auto pilot countered the updraft, but when the updraft ended, the controls were lost so what appeared to be holding a steady course was really plunging to the ocean?

[dangus]

Maybe it was flying end over end, and when it hit it just happened to be horizontal?

Pardon the crudity of this illustration:
\
|
/
-
\
|
/
_
SMACK!!!

[dangus]

That’s footage from a TV show.

[opticks]

I read through the whole report. Interesting indeed. The sudden loss of comms, computer failures, autopilot disengaging, and now the pancake crash. Add this up with the storms reported by both preceding and trailing aircraft, and this sounds like a weather crash.

[Kozel89]

Please do not perpetuate these hoaxes by posting photos from known urban legends. It hurts the credibility of this site as well as the contributors.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_photos_gol_737_crash.htm

[Admin Moderator]

That’s a fake story in your story in #21 & the photos are from the TV series “Lost”

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/brazil737.asp#photo
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/air-collision-photos-hoax.shtml
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_photos_gol_737_crash.htm

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I think the photos are from the ABC series “Lost.”

[TankerKC]

Very few people stop to think about things.

As you have demonstrated so well.

[Chode]

The speed sensors, called Pitot tubes, are "a factor but not the only one," Bouillard said. "It is an element but not the cause," Bouillard told a news conference in Le Bourget outside Paris.

Other elements that came under scrutiny in the immediate aftermath of the crash, such as the possibility that heavy storms or lightning may have brought down the jet, were also downplayed in the BEA's presentation.

"Between the surface of the water and 35,000 feet, we don't know what happened," Bouillard acknowledged. "In the absence of the flight recorders, it is extremely difficult to draw conclusions."

they don't know what DID bring it down, but they sure as hell say what DIDN'T bring it down... is that it???

there are three kinds of Critical Failure, Crit-1, Crit-2 and Crit-3

pitot tube failure sounds like a high Crit-2 to me, add another one, and, well...

[theBuckwheat]

>> We flew the recommended 83%N1 power setting. When the airspeed indicators came back. we were within 5 knots of our desired speed. Everything returned to normal except for the computer logic controlling the plane. (We were in alternate law for the rest of the flight.) <<

IIRC, "alternate law" is Airbus-speak for a condition where the fly-by-wire software is in alarm mode so it turns off the envelope protection it normally enforces on the flight crew.

In instrument flying there is a technique called attitude flying where a known power setting and a known pitch angle with a known aircraft configuration will always yield a certain airspeed and rate of climb/decent. This is one way to deal with the loss of the airspeed indicator. Sounds like that occurred here.

In the several accounts I have read since this horrible disaster, I have not seen a single mention if the navigation system has a groundspeed reading available to the pilot. That is commonly displayed on GPS systems. That would be another way of keeping your airpseed constant, and at least within the ballpark of where it was before your airdata system failed.

Maybe these aircraft have become so automated that they cannot be operated reliably in the event too much of the system becomes degraded.

In any case, there is a lesson here:

Airbus takes the approach that the engineers know what is best for aircraft operation. The pilot controls are filtered through rules and limits so that it is forbidden for him to command the aircraft to do something that would cause it to exceed the approved and tested envelope.

Boeing takes the approach that the pilot should have full authority, even when it might result in the aircraft being overly stressed. The reason I read was that they would rather have the pilot end up with a bent, but flyable aircraft than have a perfectly good one that crashed.

I think this is a great metaphor for the difference between the command-and-control attitude compared to the liberty-oriented approach to design

When an Airbus went down on Long Island shortly after 9/11, it was determined that the VS was lost due to excessive rudder authority being exercised during recovery from a wake turbulence encounter. The upshot? Train the crew not to use so much rudder!

[Robe]

.. Considering the “Rudder Limit Reached” was the first fault reported by the ACARS, I would guess that the vertical stabilizer separated right after that, with the aircraft entering a flat spin. A flat spin could explain the resulting speed errors. Remember the Rock-Away crash, the first thing they found/recovered was the intact vertical stab with the rudder attached, the same as in this instance. They blamed that on the copilot inducing rudder movement in response to wake turbulence. I submit that the Airbus FBW system is capable of “uncommanded” full rudder movement resulting in structural failure of the vertical stabilizer attach points