Doomed Air France plane was not destroyed in flight

Washington Post ^ | 2 July 2009 | N/A

[Erik Latranyi]

PARIS (Reuters) - The state of the wreckage from Air France flight AF 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, which crashed on June 1 with 228 people on board, suggest the plane was not destroyed in mid-air, French investigators said on Thursday.

Alain Bouillard, who leads the investigation on behalf of France's BEA air accident board, said the search for the flight recorders, or black boxes, from the Airbus A330 aircraft would continue until July 10.

[Erik Latranyi]

Getting interesting....back to rudder separation theories.

[DuncanWaring]

So the theory now is nominally-controlled flight into the water with no radio declaration of emergency?

I don’t think so.

[IYAS9YAS]

What about the fact that the bodies they found were stripped of their clothing? Didn’t that indicate they were basically exposed to the outside air at high speed?

[jws3sticks]

I like the phrase seen a few days ago on a related posting: "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!"

I have never liked the Airbus planes, especially in a "cross wind" landing. It was like flying on the top of one of those electronic bull riding machines.

[militant2]

It wouldn’t matter if they found bomb fragments or notes praising Ally Akbar for their martydom.......we would never hear the true story through the MSM anymore. Afterall, is-slum is the religion of peace!

Militant

[Vermont Lt]

Yeah, and flight 800 went down because of a bare wire in the gas tank. Yeah, that happened.

[Carley]

Actually it was the center fuel tank.

[Erik Latranyi]

If AF447 went nose-first into the water, they would not have recovered the pilot’s body....it would have been little pieces.

Something does not smell right about this entire investigation.....right from the begininng.

I fear this was a test-run for a new explosive used by Al Qaeda....who is keeping quiet until they can roll this out on a grander scale....perhaps Sept 11 2009?

It would be consistent with hitting Bush in his first few months.

[Travis T. OJustice]

“Zoom climb” and all that. Good stuff for a work of fiction.

[mreerm]

didn’t early reports say that wreckage was found in 2 separate areas?

[Jonah Hex]

Tagged for monitoring. On the face of it this finding doesn't makes sense, based on the wreckage scatter (especially the tail/rudder combo dozens of miles away from the main body), the state of the bodies, the sudden commo drop, etc. I'd like to see more on this.

I really want to see what, if anything, NTSB contributes since they're acting as an interested party (U.S. engine manufacturer).

[Blogger]

agreed. something isnt right.

[ClearCase_guy]

I don’t believe anything anyone says about anything anymore.

[F15Eagle]

Yes, seems unlikely. Some sort of mid-air catastrophic failure. Structural failure seems most likely. Terrorism might be possible.

I hope they can recover the FDR’s but it’s not looking too good.

[Jewbacca]

I always been of the mind that they had some sort of emergency, stopped paying attention to altitude and flew into the ocean.

It’s a more common error than one would think.

[mad_as_he$$]

My current theory (with no inside info) is a fire or explosion in the avionics bay which could of taken the radio out.

[Erik Latranyi]

I don’t believe anything anyone says about anything anymore.

I don't believe you.

[TalonDJ]

I don’t believe anything anyone says about anything anymore.

I don't believe you.

I think you are both lying.

[DuncanWaring]

...stopped paying attention to altitude and flew into the ocean.

"Controlled Flight Into Terrain" is certainly far-too-common, thus the rise of the Ground Proximity Warning System industry.

But that sort of thing doesn't happen from seven miles up.

[paulycy]

I think you are both lying.

Liar.

[JayNorth]

I always been of the mind that they had some sort of emergency, stopped paying attention to altitude and flew into the ocean. It’s a more common error than one would think.

The classic was the L1011 in Florida where they focused on the gear down light and flew into the ground. Eddie Albert played the pilot in the TV docudrama version.

[Jewbacca]

“But that sort of thing doesn’t happen from seven miles up.”

Sure it does, especially in a storm at night with 0 visibility and an ocean that looks the same from 7 miles and 7 feet.

I (flying for an air force) had a serious combo engine and instrument problem over the Med and dropped several miles while messing around with the computer before I caught myself (or G-d caught me, one of the two).

[JayNorth]

I have never liked the Airbus planes, especially in a "cross wind" landing.

I don't like the hydraulics 'barking' on the 320 series. I know what it is, it doesn't scare me, it just seems like poor design. I was on a flight recently when the 'woof woof woof' started and the woman in my row on the DEF side came unglued. Her voice kept going up and she was saying 'does anyone else hear that'. We tried to calm her down by telling her it was 'normal'. I was worried she would get up and start running down the aisle because you know that will mean a return to the gate, remove her luggage, then requeue for a takeoff slot, and inevitably miss your next connection...I hate when that happens.

[DuncanWaring]

I’d believe that, but it probably took you a lot longer than four minutes to lose those several miles.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Tail section fell off?

[McGruff]

Actually it was the center fuel tank.

It's beginning to sound that way.

[Carley]

I recall an Egyptian airliner going down in the ocean after the co pilot went berserk and brought the plane down.

That said, the automatic computer messages may give some inkling of whether the plane was actually suffering electronic malfunctions while still in the air.

[Huebolt]

All this reminds me of the airliner that crashed because a piece of tape had been left over the static port. The following occured:
Higher altitude=Higher Indicated airspeed (IAS)
Higher IAS = Lower throttle settings
Lower throttle = lower true airspeed (TAS)
lower TAS = stall (stick shaker stall warning)
High IAS + stick shaker = “Must be Mach overspeed warning”
Above = Lower throttle
All leading to unrecoverable spin into the ocean at night with no visual horizon.

[Erik Latranyi]

Sure it does, especially in a storm at night with 0 visibility and an ocean that looks the same from 7 miles and 7 feet.

We also have conflicting reports about the weather that night. Most other flights along a similar route reported no issues. One flight reported seeing something "flash" at night.

That is not a zero visibility night.

There are no hard "facts" here that we can rely upon.....there is lots of speculation and mis-reporting...either intentional or erroneous, but still mis-reporting.

[smokingfrog]

"The plane went straight down ... towards the surface of the water, very very fast," air accident investigator Alain Bouillard said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/02/air.france.report/?iref=mpstoryview

Yeah, that might tend to happen if the tail of the airplane broke off.

[Species8472]

Quote: (from the BEA report)

The tail fin was damaged during its recovery and transport but the photographs available made it possible to identify the damage that was not the result of the accident.

The middle and rear fasteners with the related fragments of the fuselage hoop frames were present in the fin base. The distortions of the frames showed that they broke during a forward motion with a slight twisting component towards the left.

[cynwoody]

What about the fact that the bodies they found were stripped of their clothing? Didn’t that indicate they were basically exposed to the outside air at high speed?

They are now saying the bodies were clothed. The French are still waiting for results of autopsies being conducted in Brazil.

More info here.

Something like Huebolt's scenario (#28) seems increasing likely.

[Huebolt]

I always wondered when a body-cavity search would start. Remember Paul Lind’s response on “Jeopardy” to the question, “What is usual profession chosen by a retired hooker”?

His answer “Hmmmmm. A SMUGGLER!”

(general laughter and disbelief that he could say that)

[BikerJoe]

They are now saying the bodies were clothed.

I have NEVER seen an investigation with such contradictory statements (at least since Flight 800).

Honestly, "the clothes were off", "the clothes were on", "it broke up in flight", "it hit the water intact"...

Next it's gonna be "Oh, it landed in Paris a month ago, we don't know what they've been finding out in the ocean..."

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Thanks.