Air France 447

[Philip Argy]

Here are some comments today from a Brazilian pilot who wrote a book about aircraft crashes (from ABC News):

Doomed Air France flight 'crashed suddenly'

As more bodies are recovered, debris from Air France flight 447 seem to indicate the jet plunged suddenly into the Atlantic Ocean and did not explode in the sky, Brazilian experts said.
Almost two weeks after the Rio-Paris flight disappeared at sea, former pilot Ari Germano told O Globo newspaper that he was "struck" by at least one of the photographs released on Friday by the Brazilian Air Force.
According to Mr Germano, who has written a book about air crashes, the images suggested that the Airbus A330 passengers were caught by surprise and the tragedy unfolded so rapidly that the crew did not have the time to react.
In the photographs, the seats in the crew area were folded with the seatbelts hanging down, which "suggests that the crew was moving about the passenger cabin. If there had been an alert or a warning about a pending risk, the crew would have been seated," he said.
"They did not have the time to do anything," added the former pilot, who also recognised an orange first aid kit that was left intact.
Dozens of pieces of debris recovered by the Brazilian Navy have been brought to an airport hangar in the north-eastern city of Recife.
A French navy ship on Friday recovered six more bodies, bringing to 50 the number of bodies found in the wake of the crash of the plane, which went down over the ocean on the night from May 31 to June 1 with 228 people on board.
Captain Ronaldo Jenkins, a security consultant with the National Union of Air Carriers (SNEA), told Globo that he had identified a safety vest and part of the plane's internal covering, which showed no trace of fire or smoke, suggesting no explosion.
"On the photographs published in recent days, where we can see debris from the plane floating in the water and a restroom door, there were also no signs of fire," he added.

Although there are no signs of fire, in my view there was a high altitude break-up of the aircraft probably caused by structural failure and possibly caused by commands sent to the flight control surfaces from faulty avionics based on erroneous data from iced up pitot tubes. Totally speculative but just my personal working theory at this stage.

The autopsy results will be important. If any of the victims are found to have died by drowning, my theory will be dead in the water (no pun intended). Alternatively, if they are found to have died from hypoxia and have missing limbs, the high altitude break-up theory will be confirmed.

[Grahame Hutchison]

the seats in the crew area were folded with the seatbelts hanging down, which "suggests that the crew was moving about the passenger cabin.

This assumption would seem a little inconsistent with the weather conditions at the time. If the storm front and turbulence was as bad as indicated, the captain would have suspended cabin service and all passengers and crew should have been in their seats.

[Gerard M]

This article suggests that the flight broke up while in the air and not when it hit the water. I can't find anything recent on the black boxes, whether they have been located or the signal yet. Has anyone read anything about them recently?
Thanks for the explanation Mick and i remembered your post Philip just after i read Micks.
Cheers
Gerard

[Philip Argy]

The autopsy results put beyond doubt that the aircraft fuselage physically broke apart at high altitude. And in my view that occurred at well above stall speed. Now it's a matter of working out what could have generated the forces that are needed for that to occur.

My personal speculative guess remains uncommanded flight surface movement caused by faulty avionics, but I believe it's possible that a thunderstorm of the kind reported on the night might generate forces beyond those the airframe could tolerate.

[Gerard M]

Originally Posted by Philip Argy

My personal speculative guess remains uncommanded flight surface movement caused by faulty avionics.

Ok back up a second there lol. Could you explain for me what that is Philip lol..i get the faulty avionics bit but by gosh thats a mouthful
And would the plane not have broken up if it the engines stalled? Aircraft starts to fall, rapidly gaining speed and G's and tears apart before it hits the sea? Or would the pilots have been able to control it and glide it down into the sea or wherever if it stalled?

[Philip Argy]

This may assist: http://yssyforum.net/board/showpost....00&postcount=5

By uncommanded I mean control surface movements not commanded by the flight crew, such as the pitch downs that we saw in the Learmonth incident.

Another possibility raised by the material I've linked above is that the avionics entered direct law (possibly due to lightning) at high speed, creating the risk of overly sensitive control surfaces due to loss of auto trim.

There are many other possibilities, Gerard. I've simply outlined my thoughts for discussion. Most people will remain quiet until more evidence is in. I like to put my theories out for discussion and 'testing' as they develop. Some find my theories of interest and engage. Others think it's technical and esoteric. Some think it's disrespectful to the humans involved. I hope I've not said anything that would support that view.

This is, after all, a flying and technical discussion forum.

[Gerard M]

Thanks Philip, that explains most of it.even if i don't really understand but hey. By all means put your theories up, makes for a great read and is rather insightful, wasn't having a go at them just had no clue what it was.

[Mick F]

Gerard,
Turbine engines don't "stall", and neither do piston engines. What Phillip is referring to in this case of stalling, is when the airflow over the wings 'stalls'. I'm sure Google could come up with a million websites explaining it. I know what it is, but not being an instructor I wouldn't be able to explain it very well unless in person.

And even if the engines did shut down, the aircraft doesn't just drop out of the sky. Provided the crew maintained enough airspeed, then they can glide until such a point that they achieved a restart of the engines. This however, isn't any reference to this accident. I choose not to speculate as to the cause of accidents publicly, as it can be taken the wrong way by many.

Remember, the media do read this forum, .

Mick

[Guy W]

Sorry... I am no expert in engine or aircraft structure. But does anyone sees any similarity between this accident and the CI one happened between HKG and TPE a few years ago?

[Daniel M]

Originally Posted by Mick F

Gerard,
Turbine engines don't "stall", and neither do piston engines. What Phillip is referring to in this case of stalling, is when the airflow over the wings 'stalls'. I'm sure Google could come up with a million websites explaining it. I know what it is, but not being an instructor I wouldn't be able to explain it very well unless in person.

And even if the engines did shut down, the aircraft doesn't just drop out of the sky. Provided the crew maintained enough airspeed, then they can glide until such a point that they achieved a restart of the engines. This however, isn't any reference to this accident. I choose not to speculate as to the cause of accidents publicly, as it can be taken the wrong way by many.

Remember, the media do read this forum, .

Mick

ummmmmm.....compressor stall?