Talk:Air France Flight 447/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Conjecture, please consider rewording/removing

The very fact that Airbus is issuing this new advice gives some credence to the claim that the pilots miscalculated the required speed to continue flying through the storm, causing a high-altitude aerodynamic stall.

This implies the result based on one of the possible causes and preemptive, precautionary action.

Pls remove this line, or at least reword it.

News

the debris recovered from the ocean are NOT from flight 447 airplane, check your sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.138.107 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

अभय नातू (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

excised Wreckage map External link

I've removed this external link to a wreckage map, because the wreckage has been announced to be not part of the plane.

• Map of areas where wreckage has been found from the Brazilian Air Force

70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:F-GZCP.jpg

Moved to Talk:Air_France_Flight_447/Image_discussions#5_June_12.54. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC News claims that fault created speed inaccuracies

[Drafted from deleted text in Laws of Airbussing, now moved to Archive 2 since it now becomes relevant] If the reports it was much to far north are correct (errors started in the navigation system) apparently the autopilots (steering) not responding to meteorological report could be blamed(?). I guess it combined, the navigational errors made the pilots take a wrong 'bumpy ride'. This leaves questions whether the meteorological and steering systems shouldn't interact and or warn more independently (from the navigational set and (its..) pilots interpretations). Not improbably it was also struck by lightning while suffering from unexpectedly heavy turbulence limiting the pilots window for reactions, and somewhat explaining the lack of floating victims. Obviously they did put on belts, before entering the worst turbulence. 24.132.171.225 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the question of weather and Alternative Law. It is possible if turbulence was high enough that then IR and ADR (ADIRU) became overwhelmed and were no longer giving consistent information to the computer then it is possible that the flight was automatically switched to Alternative Law and warning lights for various malfunctions occurred. These are computers and the inertia references algorithms probably assume that their will be no 'food processor' turbulence scenarios. . . . . by PB666 yap 12:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Adding to this that there is no precedence for a failure of the Honeywell ADIRU inflight. All the failures were in Northrup Grumman ADIRU in clear flight at night.PB666 ^yap 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Also See "Stall"

Article says:

French air accident investigators said automatic messages broadcast by the jet in its final moments showed the plane's systems were giving different readings.[1]

Consequently Airbus has reissued guidelines with respect to airspeed. Elsewhere in the article it claims:

The BBC's Tom Symonds says erratic speed readings could have been caused by heavy turbulence and might have caused the plane's automatic throttle to power up or down as it passed through heavy storms.

I think this can be added to the Accident section in some abbreviated form, please. We know that the ADIRU and Flight computers are responsible for formulating airspeed and we also know that the ADIRU can fail, but it is speculation to add this to the article as a cause for the IAS inconsistencies. I recommend mentioning these two systems as responsible for airspeed calculation and append this as a sentence to the above reference.PB666 ^yap 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Satellite image for weather section

Would it be appropriate to use a satellite image (non-free only, I suppose?) for the weather section of the investigation? Here is one from Discovery Channel. It indicates the area whereas some other images I have seen just give you the whole area with nothing to indicate where the flight was. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I have removed a paragraph from the lede, specifically the paragraph outlining the discovery of debris. The lede should generally not exceed four paragraphs, and given that the debris has turned out to be not from flight 447, this is probably a relatively non-critical detail that is better suited to (and adequately covered in) the body of the article anyway. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the Flight Number 447 or 477?

I have noticed that the plane is now being cited in some places in the news (including CNN and TIME) as "Air France Flight 477" instead of 447.

This article from CNN was updated on 6/05/09 and has the flight number as 477. [2]

Also, in the title of this 6/01/09 TIME article is "What Brought Down Air France Flight 447?". [3] But later in the article the author calls it Flight 477.

Which flight number is correct? Hds44 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)hds44

The flight number according to Air France is 447 [4] There is a red banner on top of the web page. This is yet another reason why we cannot take media as a first hand account of information. They cannot even get the flight number correct.PB666 ^yap 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the aircraft

Colombian online newspaper El Tiempo has come up with an article that states that the Department of Airspace from Brazil has announced that the debris found does not belong to flight 447. Can anyone confirm that? Here is the link.[5] --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press seems to say similar: [6]. The article should probably corrected to reflect this.--GregRM (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

According to "O Globo", Lt. General Ramon Borges Cardoso of the Brazilian Air Force stated today (2009-06-04) that "No material collected until now came from Flight 447" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhilden (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes about half this article false. It needs a major revamp Schnarr 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to doubt that the newest available information requires such dramatic changes. Please see my comments below.--GregRM (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As of this evening, no confirmed parts have been recovered. Therefore this aircraft, has not been confirmed as having crashed, and is only missing. This entire article should be revised to relect this data, as it is insensitive to the families of the missing people aboard.

ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1190760/Debris-Atlantic-NOT-Air-France-jet-say-red-faced-investigators.html

Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanobrien08 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this acceptable as an external link?

The Brazilian Air Force maintains a portal about AF447 here: http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?page=voo447 - It is entirely in Portuguese. It contains a lot of supporting information regarding the Brazilian Air Force's efforts. Is this an acceptable external link for this article? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Language should not be a barrier in Wikipedia; link in the above by WhisperToMe is hereby duplicated with translation to English which is automatic and on-the-fly. The translation may not be linguistically accurate in usage or contextual meaning. Translation to many other languages is possible/available by following the logic of the link to translation or talk to me.Patelurology2 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Translation Link: The Brazilian Air Force maintains a portal about AF447 (original is in Portuguese)- English traslation here ..>[7]

Since this is an important conceptual point about a language not being a barrier, this link system should be in open on the main discussion page and not be just relegated to archive page alone.Patelurology2 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Air Comet 'witnesses'

About the same time, three eyewitnesses, on the Air Comet flight from Lima to Lisbon, "saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up into six segments" in the direction of the crash site. Their position at the time was at location 7°N 49°W.

The location quoted for the Air Comet sightings is about two thousand kilometres from the position given for the last automatic radio contact with AF447! We should at the very least add a note to that effect, if not remove them altogether. Waht do people think? Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there were severe thunderstorms in the area also makes the whole claim somewhat spurious. However is the claim notable in itself, even if inaccurate? -- Rob.au (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! what logic! BY your very words, he cannot include that because it violates WP:OR, but at least I see you have verified my opinion that WP:tags are more often used for political reasons.PB666 ^yap 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this discussion just now, after I calculated the distance between "witnesses" and incident and added it to the article. It's definitely impossible that they really saw the plane, but on the other hand the big agency AFP reported the story, thus I think it should be mentioned in a side note. --94.221.92.176 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The quotation was removed (speculative in its association with AF447) as well as the critique(WP:OR) were both removed from the main.PB666 ^yap 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You should read WP:OR first:

This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived.

--94.221.92.176 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

All the assertions by the Air Comet crew must be considered wildly speculative and off-topic, considering the 2000 km distance to the accident site. I included some speculation about a possible meteoroid impact, considering that such a hypothesis was previously raised about TWA flight 800, but the paragraph I added was deleted. I agree that the link to a meteoroid is speculative, but considering what is known at this moment, it's not as unlikely as other possible causes of the accident that have been mentioned, for instance a lightning strike or the airframe being disintegrated by air turbulence. The accident happened exactly at the peak of the Arietids meteor shower, therefore what the Flight 974 crew saw was, with a very high degree of certainty, a meteor from that shower entering the earth's atmosphere. I think that, unless a meteoroid impact is considered as a possible cause of the accident, any mention of the flight 974 report is off-topic.User:vhilden200.152.98.65 (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree, the entire paragraph should be deleted, in fact I did delete it and it was reverted, so I will delete it again.PB666 ^yap 04:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost ALL media throughout the world report about this assertion (I saw/heard/read about it in German/Spanish/French/Swedish/Norwegian TV/radio/newspapers). Thus it is NOT relevant if the assertion is speculative, since the report is relevant itself. So it should be added again immediately, including the fact that it was 2000 kilometres away from the last message of the missing plane. --94.220.224.114 (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the Accident section, please do not return it their. If you want to create a section called False reports of Sightings or Misleading Reports, then be my guest, that is one way to clean of the boondoggle of highly speculative and false information that plagues the Main page.PB666 ^yap 16:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit silly i expect a pilot in the same corridor to make a different assesment (no relation with 477) when being 2000 km away, so i doubt he was. otoh the duration of the observation (some 7 seconds) , suggest a meteor to me.24.132.171.225 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I want to finalise the absurdity of this possible sighting. If both planes were flying at approx. 10,000m altitude, line of sight to horizon is ~ 500kms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.244.100 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How do we know the positioning data wasn't wrong? I think we'll have to wait for any official report to decide wether or not to include this information. BananaNoodle (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, previous unsigned comment sent by me.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcnally (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If these sightings are really impossible then links to the sources of location data should be supplied. Arydberg (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The original source was the Spanish newspaper El Mundo [8]. This is an English-language media report quoting El Mundo and giving the coordinates; this is a report from a Spanish news agency with confirmation from Air Comet of the sighting, and also saying that the Air Comet plane was "a fair way" to the North and West pf AF447. Physchim62 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the basic principles of Wiki content is reliable sources. From what I understand, the Air Comet "sightings" were about two thousand kilometres from the position of the AF 447 disaster, therefore I would have to be Michael Jackson to believe it. Bewp (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Debris (placeholder)

Bodies found

According to UK radio station "Talk Sport", perhaps via sky news, two bodies have been have been found, along with at least one suitcase bearing air france tags for flight 447.

Special note with regard to wikipedia tags such as OR, yes, Im noticing them getting used politically too, even by admins, its time the community did something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.0.107 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Debris from Flight 447?

Recent edits ([9] and [10]) have suggested that none of the debris of the plane has been located. Looking at the cited CNN article (as well as the most recent AP article [11]), however, it is only clear that the debris that has been picked up does not belong to Flight 447. As there are multiple debris fields that have been discovered, it is not clear to me from the sources available that all the discovered debris has been ruled out as belonging to Flight 447.--GregRM (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that while noting the confusion about the debris that was picked up (apparently a pallet of some sort), the AP article also notes the discovery of debris on Wednesday and Thursday including "a 23-foot...chunk of plane", buoys, and an airplane seat. It seems to me that all the confusion is regarding the debris that was picked up and there have been no questions regarding the other material that has been spotted (but not picked up).--GregRM (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Debris from Flight 447 (Part 2) and Archiving

It seems that edits saying that none of the discovered debris is from the flight are continuing (e.g. [12]). As I have noted recently, I don't think it is clear that all the discovered debris has been ruled out as coming from Flight 447. In fact, the latest revision of the CNN article ([13]) makes specific note of the uncertainty: "The announcement left open the question of whether other debris that had not yet been plucked from the ocean might be from the plane." As an aside, I would like to point out that active threads on the talk page should not be archived. --GregRM (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

NO authentic material has been recovered, or confirmedly seen

According to "O Globo", Lt. General Ramon Borges Cardoso, director of the Air Space Control Department of the Brazilian Air Force, "No material retrieved until now came from the Airbus 330 in the AF 447 flight. The wooden pallet that was retrieved from the sea was not from the aircraft. No material from the aircraft has been recovered up to now. That pallet is trash that fell from some ship and will be discarded. We were dedicated to the search for survivors and bodies. After a hundred hours from the accident, however, the chances of finding someone is remote. The rescue teams will turn now to search and rescuing any material evidence that could belong to the Airbus. Weather conditions are unfavorable at the moment. Predictions for this night are for a storm, which will make flights difficult, and will shorten visibility. Our intention is to return to those sites where objects have been sighted and to retrieve them".

Please sign your post so that we know which statements in the archive post belong to whom. Does anyone know why the {{update|date=June 2009}}tag was placed and who placed it? There is alot of speculative material that needs to be removed, apparently claims about crash coordinates are not correct, or the currents have carried material far out of range.PB666 ^yap 03:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's rather easy to deduce sth about the crash location from the sighted, and at times confirmed parts and slicks. given waveheight current wind and impact velocity of the wings or parts ,the slicks will have expanded a set (altho not very precise) factor. Then to make a guess, it may have drifted some 40-60 nautic miles in two days, wich would be rather much, but not "far out of range", in an ocean. where wreckage apparently has been strewn over 60 km or more, since the slicks suggest much of the plane impacted at once, it should be doable to retrieve evidence even from the ocean floor in 3 weeks. one may assume the tail part to be designed to remain some integrity for that.afaik also the wrecking had been confirmed through floating materials beyond doubt 3 days ago.(several news reports stating just that,"a chair, a lifebelt", not a pallet.)the position when the autopilot disengaged is known, most probably 1 minute later it stalled or started falling/descending rapidly, to partly disintegrate in 3 minutes, that correlates with other incidents, and thus the vector for it's impact is also not very unclear.not being a specialist again i have to guess, but it would have been airborne for about just one more minute, after its last signal. these two vectors should lead to a rather precise location (potentially even less then 100 km2), wich 2 submarines equiped to search can cover in few days. also the suggestion people did not put on lifebelts (and possibly airmasks) is strong, since the calmer sea would usually leave some dead victims floating. i am still surprised they didn't find any.24.132.171.225 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

So what is the current status? Are any sources currently claiming any debris has been recovered and confirmed? MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Debris and Search Map

if anyone interested: debris and search map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.225.117 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible stall

Maybe a link to http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7547/acarsaf447d.png and to the Airbus telex?

41.6.207.208 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ctm

Hello,

The section on the stall suggests that the plane was flying too fast, while the source says it may have been flying too slowly, but the Wikipedia article says it was too fast. Could you guys who know better tell me? Tony (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a strong suggestion the pilots were making the best use they could from winddrift. (being 'to fast' ie. to far north). since this is to preserve fuel the planes independend (from 'wind') airspeed may well have been (to) slow. (enigines under to low power to prevent stall).24.132.171.225 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Stall and Overspeed. For minor stalls in which there is small amount of turbulence behind the wing tip the nose can drop a few degrees and throttles checked; however with a large stall the turbulence does not immediately dissipate at high altitude, and the nose needs to go to very low angled (-60 to -80) depending on air speed. At 35000, if this occurs the aircraft will quickly accelerate to operable speed however the indicated air speed(IAS) almost doubles within a stretch of 3 to 4 miles because the atmosphere becomes dense quickly, as a consequence the aircraft can go, if not properly handled, into overspeed, a situation where control surfaces also don't work well. 35000ft (6.6 miles verticle), 15000ft (2.8 miles verticle) 3.8 verticle miles = 1 minute 30 seconds at 400knts, if we assume 2/3rds of that time is spent trying to recover from the stall then pilot has 30 seconds to correct from a plunge and potential overspeed.

Large stalls can occur if the aircraft is near stall speed with autopilot altitude set at constant or climb, at high altitude the turbines cannot accelerated quickly because of high N1/N2 relative to thrust and relatively low air pressure in front of the inlet. The movement from an airmass with a high headwind to an airmass with a high tailwind relative to aircraft direction can drop the IAS below stall speed. If IAS drops well below stall speed for level flight (This means if the AOA for level flight increases well beyond a certain positive angle, rapidly) then the nose of the aircraft must be dropped to pitch-low immediately, the longer pitch-high is held, the lower the IAS, the lower the nose will need to be dropped to recover. Consequently on recovery the slower the speed the more rapid the acceleration, and the harder it will be to control airspeed as the aircraft drops and recover level flight, the harder it will be to prevent overspeed. There is a scenario, now, with the lack of a widefield of debris (indicating a mid-air explosion) that AF447 plunged nose first into the Atlantic. Please read the references on predicted thundestorm activity in J12009 tropical Atlantic and pay attention to the issue of strong updrafts. We can avoid speculation by assuming there are many different ways to enter and exit the anvil of a powerful thunderstorm, consequently we cannot ascertain precisely what changes the pilot would need to make to correct from stall or overspeed. I am not convinced that AF 447 went through powerful storms, alot of things the media has said and claimed have been BS.PB666 ^yap 13:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to this statement:

"There is a strong suggestion the pilots were making the best use they could from winddrift. (being 'to fast' ie. to far north). since this is to preserve fuel the planes independend (from 'wind') airspeed may well have been (to) slow. (enigines under to low power to prevent stall).24.132.171.225 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wind drift is automatically corrected for by the autopilot, so that the plane tracks the desired FMC programmed course. In other words, it doesn't matter what direction the wind is coming from, nor how many kts. the wind blows. The plane will automatically track the correct course by crabbing the nose to the right or left, however much is required, to maintain that course. If the pilots hand-fly the plane (that would be unusual during normal cruise), their Flight Directors would tell them how much to crab the nose, to keep the plane on course.

Neither does wind drift have anything to do with the IAS of the plane, nor the RPMs and thrust output of the engines. Stalls are caused by the plane going too slow, or in the case of Mach wave shock (flying too close to the speed of sound), flying too fast. Wind drift has no bearing on the kind of situation which could cause a plane to stall.EditorASC (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Although extremely rare, it is possible for a plane to stall if it enters extreme turbulence which contains powerful up and down drafts. But, that has nothing to do with navigation that automatically corrects for "wind drift," while keeping the plane on the desired course.

The desired speed during cruise, is usually in the MACH .80 to .85 (80% to 85% of the speed of sound) range, and is part of the FMC flight plan. That is the speed range which provides the best fuel economy for most modern jetliners. The plane will not stall while it is flying in a speed range that is considerably broader than that. It would have to go above MACH .88, before wave separation over the wings would begin to cause control problems, and it would have to fly slower than MACH .77, before it would be getting close to a slow-speed stall.

The important point, is that wind drift has nothing to do with the IAS of the plane, nor with the RPMs and thrust of the engines. EditorASC (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to get into 'coffin corner' arguments here, so I will stear clear of Mach limits on AC. I hate to make correction to aircraft magazine editors, but stalls are caused when the forward pointing angle of the wing is heading into the wind at an angle such that airflow coming over the top of the wing is turbulent at the lagging edge, therefore destroying the lift created by Bernoulli effect. In level flight as an aircraft slows down, an Autopilot or pilot will correct by raising the nose of the plane up to increase force on the bottom of the wing, this increases the angle of attack and appends bernolli's effect, which is declining with lowering diffential pressures. In level flight there is a maximum nose pitch up and therefore a minimum speed that allows the plane to remain aloft, under that speed and over that Angle of Attack greater Angles of attack cause a rapid collapse of lift and the control surfaces are no longer capable of compensating for the turbulance behind the wings, the aircraft will exit level flight enter an uncontrolled situation. The corrective action to exit a stall is to move the stick/yolk forward until turbulance subsides and airspeed is capable of sustaining lift.PB666 ^yap

An aircraft can, if it has a high thrust to weight ratio, enter into a projectile-like climb and descent in which at the top of the climb its speed is close to zero, but if the craft can manage to keeps its nose pointed in the direction of travel, it can avoid a stall. However at any point in the manuever if the pilot pulls back to heavily on the stick he may enter a stall. In general when airspeed is high, forces on control surfaces inhibit this, and at slow speeds it is relatively easy.PB666 ^yap 20:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that flying with a tail wind and lowering speed to stay on time is not a wise strategy as .24.132.171.225 seems to imply, the most economical speed of an aircraft is not its stall speed (far from it). For aircraft with heavy loads higher angles of attack below stall angles can markedly lower efficiency and there is a generally optimal vertical angle for aircraft in level flight. Aircraft can take advantage of this by increasing altitude as fuel weight declines to reduce drag while maintaining a given ground speed.PB666 ^yap 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to PB666: Please do not break up another editor's post like that. Everything I said was in response to the statement that I quoted, and was relevant to what he said. If you desire to comment on what I said, have at it, but please be courteous enough to quote whatever of my comments, that you are responding to and then post your reply. Don't cut apart a continuous response that was addressed to someone else. After you cut it apart, any new reader who might read my last paragraph, would not know that part was in response to the statement that I quoted.

It wasn't necessary for me to explain all the fine details of what a stall is (angle of attack, bernolli's effect, lowering differential pressures, etc.) to answer the erroneous implications that came from his statement. I simply wanted to correct the erroneous idea that correcting for wind drift, would slow the airplane down below the desired cruise Mach speed. Wind drift correction is for the purpose of maintaining a desired course line and is unrelated to how fast the flight plan wants the plane to fly (usually for purposes of best fuel economy).

I know all about the stall being a function of the angle of attack of the airfoil, to the relative wind. That is why a plane can enter a "high speed stall," when trying to pull out from a jet upset and subsequent dive, if the pilot pulls back on the stick too fast. But, that was not the issue I was discussing. I was responding to his implication that correcting for wind drift could cause the plane to fly too slow and cause the plane to stall, which is completely erroneous. I was discussing what is normal, during the cruise portion of the flight of a modern jetliner.

As to your statement of "In level flight as an aircraft slows down, an Autopilot or pilot will correct by raising the nose of the plane up..." That would be the case only where the pilot intends for the plane to stall, as in the simulator or in a real plane, where stall recovery practice is intended. Neither the autopilot or the pilot would respond that way, during the cruise portion of a normal jet flight, where the FMC is commanded to maintain a desire Mach Speed (which is the issue I was discussing with another editor). If the plane begins to slow below the target speed, the normal response of the autoflight system is to advance the thrust levers, if the pilot and FMC still want to maintain their current altitude. If the plane should encounter severe mountain wave conditions, so that advancing thrust to METO power, will still not be enough to maintain the target speed, then the pilot is forced to descend from his current altitude, however much he has to, to keep the speed from getting too slow. Like it or not, a plane will eventually stall, if the speed is allowed to get too slow. Doesn't take away from your detailed explanation as to why that is true, but it does remain true, whether or not one throws in the nitty gritty details, every time the subject of stalling is broached. EditorASC (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said I did not want to get into a debate, my point was that a stall first is a turbulence issue. there is a common misconception among the public that stalls are caused directly by slow speed. Autopilot without engaged autothrust can enter a stall, or an open question in this discussion, whether the autothrust is responding to the wrong airspeed, then certainly the AOA can increase to a stall with autoflight on. In response to the statement below, I made that point such that we could get out of the speculative scenarios, because there was and still is too much material on the main about search and recovery.PB666 ^yap 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As to statement by BS:PB666 " There is a scenario, now, with the lack of a widefield of debris (indicating a mid-air explosion) that AF447 plunged nose first into the Atlantic " is in agreement with my view (long shot) expressed in my circuit, held before finding tail but possibly before finding the first two bodies(since no deris was located before), that the plane went in almost intact, possibly with frozen iced-'balled' surface( modifield semi terahedron ) to hold it together and breaking of the tail to release some unbuckled passengers and loose objects and going nose first releasing all the air and filling it water sinking it relatively intact; news of finding floating tail fits this scenario.Patelurology2 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Box and Alternatives

It seems reasonable a title to start a thread on. Shouldn't there not be a continuous data transmision from plane to recording station via satellite or other relays to get all the needed info that the recorder would house in a so called Black Box system? Looking for Black Box is often a difficult task, possibly the cost of which more than would pay for systems, which do not require extraordinary technology save storage of a lot of data; considering storage contrants parsing for importance can be done on ongoing basis. Patelurology2 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Weather section

Weather info is a huge improvement on yesterday. Unfortunately we now have 2 of them! JRPG (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it could be better to have one section on the weather. At the moment one is in the context of the time of the accident and the other is in the context of the following investigation. Do you think these should be merged? Bewp (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the weather was quite exceptional for the area, I think one merged section should suffice.
Does the meteorologist need to be named, he's not familiar in the UK?
I also note the shortage of citations. Having read most UK newspaper sources, it appears the main contributors have more expertise than these journalists so this will be a problem until an authoritive report is issued. JRPG (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the meteorologist in question did quite a lot of original research into the matter, and as such he did not want to have his diagrams et cetera uploaded to Wikipedia. I also would tend to agree with you that the people dealing with this website have more expertise than journalists. In that respect, do you think the "weather" section should be best integrated at the beginning or the end? Bewp (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to merge the two weather sections if there are no objections. Bewp (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to extend the first section slightly. I suspect there will be multiple causes and that the type of severe weather routinely seen in this area will be relevant, hence an early description is needed. JRPG (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Completed Bewp (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

There are no valid, reliable sources as for yet, but Chinese websites are going crazy about some conspiracy theory. People are claiming that the crash was an attack by the United States, as one of the passengers is a Chinese nuclear physicist, who had travelled to Brazil to exchange data regarding nuclear submarines. It appears rather far-fetched, and may be a hoax; we'll see if further information arises in the future. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah the whole thing is just viral marketing for the next season of Lost--86.8.176.85 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

that is interesting and it sounds like it might hit the point of RS at some point, keep us informed. While now is not the time, eventually a cultural impact section will be needed and should not succumb to a bunch of engineering fanboy types who are currently running the page. It is the same with the Bermuda triangle mentions which some are mocking; no RS on those yet but instead, the justification is that this isn't "close enough" to the "boundaries" of the triangle. This was a few days ago, but funny that with all the computer messages and competing debris fields, the investigation is getting more confused and not less. 67.204.145.88 (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

• I erased this section. Somebody added a reference to the TV show Lost, which I think is out of place in the article, at least during the first few days after the accident. There are references to popular culture in other air disasters articles, but adding them less than one week after the crash is a lack of sensitivity to the relatives of the passengers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.131.174.111 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree that adding this is insensitive. Facts are facts regardless the time frame. I do believe we should keep the section at the barest minimum. (Nobody cares if the plane from Lost was traveling through time.) This would seem to provide some compromise for those closest to the incident while allowing editors to improve completeness. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree this popular culture reference has some relevance, but the section should be kept extremely brief. The copy I recently removed was poorly written and irrelevant. There is no need to provide advance spoilers for some television series here. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think this has no enciclopedic value whatsoever. What does it add to the content? Not to mention some due respect for the feelings of people, less than a week after the fact. --Raistlin (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree - this section is completely irrelevant, unnecessary, potentially insensitive. This is a current event - it wasn't referenced in any pop culture. For consistency, we may as well list all movies, TV programs, and other media that depict plane crashes in the ocean. It should be entirely removed until there is something actually relevant in pop culture.
  • I agree - unless more popular culture material is collected it should be left on the sidelines. Would someone please cleanup the Search and Rescue section, it is getting difficult to read.
  • While I also agree this section is superfluous, let me play "Devil's Advocate" and note that there may be interest in how popular culture treats these tragedies. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • At any rate, we have waring editors repeatedly deleting and restoring the content here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAhlers (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I would agree that there is interest in how pop culture would treat these tragedies - but wouldn't such a discussion be better-suited for a page about airline disasters in general, and not on a page for an unfolding, single event? It makes it more complicated, as one may wonder why this page has an "In Pop Culture" section, but the article about, e.g., Iran Air Flight 655 does not have such a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.228.142 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it is relevant to this crash because it was in the ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.193.134 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem with this is that we would need to find all the articles about planes that crash in the ocean, and reference pop culture that deals with oceanic crashes. We'll need to edit the article on Swissair Flight 111, then Air India Flight 182, etc. ... Additionally, this is a current event, which is really the main point -- it's not "in pop culture" yet. Yokwephil (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm with those that say it's insensitive. Let's leave it out for now; if and when it proves to be of more interest then perhaps we can reconsider. As it stands, it looks like only one or two people are responsible for re-inserting it, whereas the majority is content to leave it out. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Further - I just removed it, and it was promptly re-inserted. Can we get some kind of consensus on this? The wording never changes, which leads me to believe that only one or two individuals are responsible for putting it back in. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't the "Popular Culture" thing just clearly misused? Nobody has put Flight 447 into popular culture yet. No movies on 447. No television shows. Just Lost--and they made that before 447! QSUNG 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The consensus here is to remove it, but its contributor keeps reverting all redacts. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I believe he's well pass the three revert rule. Reporting to an admin to get him/her blocked might help. QSUNG 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. The policy version: If no reliable source picks up the significance of the relation, it is original research to suggest they are even remotely relevant. The ethical version: it's irrelevant pop cruft nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The user keeps reverting, and claims "no consensus" - counting up the unofficial "anti" votes here leads me to believe otherwise. I'd keep re-reverting, but I'm bumping up against the three-revert rule myself, and I'd rather not. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User warned for potentially breaking 3RR. QSUNG 16:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It keeps being added. I can't see how it is involved in popular culture when these TV and films were made before. Also it is a bit premature and insensitive. 86.131.9.6 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• In what way is e.g. Qantas Flight 72 a significant relation picked up by source, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.193.134 (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Good question. If you disagree with that reference, start another discussion thread. --MichaelAhlers (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I think it's too early to have a "see also" section - we don't know what caused the crash. That's not the issue here, however. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree too, because the cause of the accident is uncertain at best. However this is far more relevant than pop culture references to plane crashes into an ocean. Problems with the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit is a specific technical issue that makes those handful of flights significant; it actually relates to how the incident happened in the first place. Crashing into the ocean is neither significant nor unique, and it doesn't relate to the issues that brought down the plane. I did read that the aircraft did transmit ADIRU problems in its final moments. However this is best left to the article about ADIRUs. Pop culture section should still be left out. Yokwephil (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me state as well that this section is completely irrelevant as none of the things mentioned in it refer to this particular event. Therefore, the whole section does not cover this event in popular culture and it should therefore be removed. - Simeon (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly believe that this section has no encyclopedic value, and ought to be left off the article. Cochonfou (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm just trying to offer ideas as to where we can find the plane. Maybe the people on it survived and are on some weird island somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.193.134 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Assuming that's a serious comment, that kind of conjecture doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article about an unfolding disaster ... Yokwephil (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A noble gesture, but an encyclopedia article is not the appropriate place for original research and speculation. I doubt the search teams are checking Wikipedia for ideas anyway; have you tried contacting them directly? ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Pop culture sections usually refer to pop culture media based upon or referring to the topic, and not the other way round (that is, if a TV show was based on flight 447, it would belong, but not a previous one that may or may not be similar). In addition, any such inferences of similarity must be sourced, an author drawing such inferences on their own constitutes original research and so this section should be removed on that basis as well. I only see one editor arguing for conclusion and quite a number arguing against, so consensus is quite clearly to remove. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly! There are so many reasons that the section does not belong. I'll try removing it again. Luminifer (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

People, please wait for new (real) facts and forget about this article for awhile. It will be salutary for everybody here. If Wikipedia cannot be considered a newspaper, try to eliminate all the press speculation - what rests? Nothing...RobertoRMola (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to those protesting that the Popular Culture section is wrong in so many ways, and should be removed. I've removed it. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the removal. Untill the actual AF447 makes it to notable popular culture, any reference to popular culture is speculation and as such must be removed. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I was really shocked that anyone thought fit to add this section in the first place. I hope none of the relatives saw it or thought their grief would provide fictional entertainment.JRPG (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Any decision to include the section or not should be agnostic to the feelings of the relatives. I think it is of interest to see reactions to this event in popular culture, in the same way we are interested in the memorials for the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.226.167 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but we are not going to accept the addition of "In the poem "Ode to Flight 447", flight 447 was compared to the fictional Oceanic flight 815, which deviated from course and crashed. That crash was later revealed to be caused by time travel, or something like that." to this article. This is not a reference to this event in popular culture. It is not even popular culture. There has been no time for popular culture to assess the event, and no legitimate culture has made an entry notable enough to warrant this section. The IP adding this has been continually warned, and if the edit is made again I believe we should be considering further action. SGGH ^ping! 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Final Warning has been given to the IP. SGGH ^ping! 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

24 hour block given. I did not deem it appropriate to protect this article at this time, as other IPs are making good edits. I have thus blocked the IP adding this section for 24 hours. I do not see anything in the section that is even remotely suitable. There can be a popular culture section if and when popular culture ever makes a comment or reference to it. SGGH ^ping! 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reaction. I followed recent changes and discussion and was just asking for it.Mawijk (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for blocking this timewaster. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless we want to see Wikipedia turned into just another forum for postings by idiots, I agree that all the "Popular Culture" postings be promptly eliminated and that those who keep putting them back, be blocked from doing it again. There should never be any room in Wikipedia for Shirley MacLaine's "create your own Reality" drivel, unless it is in an article solely about those who posit such gibberish. EditorASC (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Accident location

I think the exact location of the accident location should be removed. At the moment the exact location is unknown. In the beginning the location was out in there as an extrapolation of the flight plan, then it was thought that the location would have been transmitted with the ACARS maintenance information - which is not the case. If AF 447 deviated from their course, they could be anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.141.137 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, however the last location given by ACARS is what it is, the last known location of the aircraft. In addition some information regarding the ADIRU makes sense with regard to what malfunction was occurring, and so we have better reasoning that the other parts of the system may have not been malfunctioning, such as the GPS and its link to the reporting computer.PB666 ^yap 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Exactly that is the problem. The ARCAS did not transmit a location. To put the other ARCAS information here is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.170.144.228 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • There is a great deal of misinformed speculation as to positions said to have been reported by AF447. The sources quoted are newspaper articles, themselves without identifiable sources. INTOL 1 21 39S 32 49 53W at 0133(UTC) and expecting TASIL 4 00 18N 29 59 24W within 50 minutes. The distance between these way-points is 364 nautical miles, and if an ETA of 0223(UTC) at TASIL is assumed, the aircraft will need a Ground Speed of 437 knots.

The Flight Plan filed showed 0.82 Mach at a flight level of 35,000 feet. Conversion at sea level of 0.82 Mach gives 543 knots, but when corrected for the forecast air temperature of -46C at FL350, a factor of 0.88 needs to be applied, resulting in a True Air Speed of 477 knots. Meteorological data derived for this period indicated a head wind factor of 10 knots which results in a ground speed of 467 knots.

Based on the information provided in the preceding paragraph, the aircraft's position report at INTOL would have been in the following format:-

"Air France 447, INTOL 0133, Flight Level 350, next TASIL 0220, Ground Speed 467, Temp -46".

As mentioned by others, the 0214(UTC) position was not provided by ACARS and is someones "guesstimate" of where the aircraft was at that time. Also consider that 0.78 Mach is the aircraft type recommended turbulence penetration speed, and the aircraft would most likely have been slowed prior to 0200(UTC) - flight parameters permitting.

The Brazilian Air Force are basing their search on the following 0214(UTC) position:-

3 16 28N 30 22 28W, which is at variance with the 3 34 40N 30 22 28W position attributed in this article.

Identified debris has now been recovered from near 3 41N 30 47W, or 35 Nautical miles (69.5 kilometers) north-west of 3 16 28N 30 22 28W.Kiwi Kousin (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

External links section

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If there is relevant material, it should be incorporate into the article and cited. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• We all understand that. However, what that means is that we are not here to list every single external link under the sun. We limit the external links to the most relevant, most useful ones. That is what we do. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the template message as the section is looking OK now. Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to publish a link to the list of passengers? Even of other news service use these kind of information in my opinion wikipedia should respect the anonymity of the families and not participate to the general sensationalism. 20:22, 6 June 2009 JST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.62.75 (talk)

ACARS Codes

Removed text - A transcript of the messages,<ref name="af_acars">{{cite web |url=http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/376433-af447-3.html#post4975386 |title=Air France ACARS |author=selfin |date=[[2009-06-05]]}}</ref> first made public on French TV France2 on 4 June,<ref>http://jt.france2.fr/20h/</ref> shows that they consist of 5 failure reports (FLR) and 19 warnings (WRN). According to the Airbus operating manual, failure messages capture equipment data and are generated by the built in test equipment system (BITE) and captured directly in maintenance reports, while warning messages capture operational data that appear on cockpit interfaces, but are also fed into maintenance reports.<ref name="A330_ms">{{cite web |url=http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/airbus/A330/systems/0018/ |title=Airbus 330 - Systems - Maintenance System |work=Flight crew operating manual |format=PDF |accessdate=[[2009-06-07]]}}</ref> The messages concern four aircraft subsystems: navigation (codes starting with 34), auto-flight (codes 22), flight controls (codes 27), and pressurization (code 2131). The messages are not in sequence within the one minute time stamping intervals. According to the transcript of the transmissions, for the first minute, two fault and twelve warning messages were captured.<ref name="af_acars" /> According to failure and warning codes provided from A330 maintenance manuals, the first two fault messages, at 02:10 UTC, indicate a fault in the pitot probe (code 341115) and a fault in the primary computer of the flight control system (279334).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/376433-af447-6.html#post4976146 |title=Breakdown of the ATA messages|author=greenspinner |date=[[2009-06-05]]}}</ref> The twelve warning messages with the same time code indicate that the [[autopilot]] and auto-thrust system had disengaged, that the rudder travel limit was removed, that the [[TCAS]] was in fault mode, and the [[fly-by-wire]] went into '[[Flight_envelope_protection#Boeing_and_Airbus|alternate law]]' flight control mode. The autopilot will disengage and the flight control system will go into "Alternate Law" in case of a fault in an ADR (air data reference), which in turn depends on airspeed as a key data input.<ref name="A330_fc">{{cite web |url=http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/airbus/A330/systems/0010/ |title=Airbus 330 - Systems - Flight Controls |work=Flight crew operating manual |format=PDF |accessdate=[[2009-06-07]]}}</ref> Similarly the rudder travel limit function depends on airspeed input and will disengage without that data input.<ref name="A330_fc" /> Next, the transcript of the aircraft transmission shows several messages indicating faults and subsequent warnings in the computerized navigation, auto flight and flight control systems. At 02:11 UTC the ACARS transmitted a fault message for the Inertial Reference unit 2 in the computerized navigation system (code 341234) and fault and warning messages for the electronic backup navigation system (Integrated Standby Instrument System, ISIS, FLR code 342200). According to Airbus documentation, the ISIS gets data input from the navigation computers (ADIRU 1 and 3), the backup pitot probe and static ports, and contains a gyrometer and accelerometer to measure aircraft attitude and speed change rates. <ref name="A320_isis">{{cite web |url=http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/airbus/A320/systems/0040/|title=Airbus ISIS|work=Flight crew operating manual |format=PDF |accessdate=[[2009-06-08]]}}</ref> At 02:12 UTC a warning message indicated a disagreement between the independent air data systems. The last fault message came at 02:13 UTC, related to the primary computer in the auto flight system. At the same time two warning messages indicated a fault in one computer in the primary and one in the secondary flight control system. According to the Airbus flight control systems operating manual the A 330 has three primary flight control computers, and two secondary computers; and any one of the five is capable of controlling the aircraft and of assuring safe flight and landing.<ref name="A330_fc" /> The transmitted ACARS messages concern fault conditions in 2 out of the 5 flight control computers and no evidence has been made public that the remaining 3 computers were affected. One of the two final messages transmitted at 02:14 UTC at location {{coord|3.5777|N|30.3744|W|type:landmark|display=inline|format=dms}}.<ref name=AvHer090602>{{cite web |url=http://avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1/0004&opt=0 |title=Crash: Air France A332 over Atlantic on June 1st 2009, aircraft lost|publisher=Aviation Herald|date=2009-06-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm |title=Airbus Flight Control Laws |publisher=[[Airbus]] |accessdate=2009-06-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.airbus.com/index.php?id=276 |title=Avionics Product Range |publisher=[[Airbus]] |accessdate=2009-06-03}}</ref> was a warning referring to the air data reference system, the other was a "cabin vertical speed warning". The cabin vertical speed warning indicates a high aircraft descent rate (>1800 ft/min.). According to Airbus operating manuals, cabin pressure is managed automatically to match the outside air pressure upon landing. A [[cabin pressurization|cabin depressurisation]] would have triggered an “excess cabin altitude” warning, which does not appear on publicly available ACARS transcripts. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/airbus/A330/systems/0002/ |title=Airbus 330 - Systems - Air Cond/Pressurization |work=Flight crew operating manual |format=PDF |accessdate=[[2009-06-07]]}}</ref> According to the Airbus A330 operating manual<ref name="A330_comm">{{cite web |url=http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/airbus/A330/systems/0005/ |title=Airbus 330 - Systems - Communications |work=Flight crew operating manual |format=PDF |accessdate=[[2009-06-07]]}}</ref>, ACARS messages can only be sent while operating on the normal electrical system, ruling out a loss of electrical power as the primary cause of the control and navigation system problems. While the fault and warning messages indicate problems in the navigation, flight control and autopilot systems, which would have resulted in increased pilot workload, the automated messages do not indicate a loss of aircraft systems required for safe flight and landing. The "cabin vertical speed" warning indicates that AF 447 was in a steep descent at the time of the final messages.

Brevities sake here - took me the better part of the afternoon to assemble this going over very fuzzy images of the ACARS report and I am sure there are errors. There is no other way I know to verify what was written in the section. There are, as of this moment no news sources other than video tape of the conference and intepretation of the codes at a pilots forum. They agree with the information posted in the Automated messages section. I will have to read it carefully however to make sure, I did not rewrite it so....

I found this weblink that has a much better resolution:[14](However this transliteration has an error it reports code 3422006 as 3412006). They explain the codes, but in French. I have also found the Code translation table[15] so that now we have an objective source of information to reference. I think we should remove all references to french TV shows and Airflight rumour networks from the sections on accidents and investigations.PB666 ^yap 15:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WRN = Warning, FLR = Failure, FLT = Flight, AP = Autopilot, CODE #######06 where #06 = Cruise
090601#### Where 090601 = YR-MONTH-DAY Where #### = Time.

WRN ..0906010210..221002006AUTO FLT AP OFF
= 01-06-2009 2:10AM CODE 22-10-02-006 Cruise Automatic pilot is off.
WRN ....210..226201...AUTO FLT
FLR.......210 ..341115....EFCS2 1 EFCS AFS - Failure - pitot probe electrical flight control system 2
FLR.......210 ..279334....EFCS1 X2,EFCS2X, - Failure - Primary control flight computer 1 ,as reproted by EFCS2 which has a failed component. May not be a false failure
WRN ....210 ..279100-5-..F/CTL ALTN LAW - Operational configuration is now Alternative Law
WRN ....210 ..228300-2-..FLAG ON CAPT PFD - Flag on captains primary flight display (hey, something boo-booed)
WRN ....210 ..228301-2-..FLAG ON F/O PFD - Flag on first officers primary flight display
WRN ....210 ..223002-5 ..AUTO FLY AT OFF - Autothrusters is off
WRN ....210 ..344300-5 ..NAV TCAS FAULT - Navigational traffic and terrain collison avoidance system fault
WRN ....210 ..228300-1 ..FLAG ON CAPT PFD - Flag on captains primary flight display (hey, something else boo-booed)
WRN ....210 ..228301-1-..FLAG ON F/O PFD - Flag on first officers primary flight display
WRN ....210 ..272302-2 ..F/CTL RUD TRV LIM FAULT - Rudder and pedal travel limiting actuation fault
WRN ....210 ..239045-1..MAINTENANCE SYSTEM - For what system?
FLR.......211 ..341234....IR2 1 , EFCS1x, IR1, IR3 - Failure Inertial Ref. 2 (in ADIRU-2) as reported by EFCS1, IRU1 and IRU3^[1]
WRN ....211 ..341200-1..FLAG ON CAPT PFD - Air Data Intertial Reference (2) System flag on Captains primary flight display
WRN ....211 ..341201-1..FLAG ON F/O PFD - Air Data Intertial Reference (2) System flag on 1st officers primary flight display
FLR.......211 ..342200....ISIS 1,,,,,,ISIS(22F) - Failure - ISIS
WRN ....211 ..279002-5..F/CTL PRIM 1 FAULT - Primary control flight computer 1 fault
WRN ....211 ..279004-0..F/CTL SEC 1 FAULT - Secondary control flight computer 1 fault
WRN ....212 ..341040-0..NAV ADR DISAGREE - Navigation- Air data references disagree (no kidding, is ADIRU 3 working?)
WRN ....213 ..279002-5..F/CTL PRIM 1 FAULT - Primary control flight computer 1 fault
WRN ....213 ..279004-0..F/CTL SEC 1 FAULT - Secondary control flight computer 1 fault
FLR .....213 ..228334.....AFS - Failure - flight management guidance and envelope computer
WRN ...214 ..341036-0..MAINTENANCE STATUS - ADIRU-2 "Im broken".
WRN ...214 ..213100-2..ADVISORY - Air conditioning - pressure control and monitoring - cabin vertical speed

^[1]EFSC1x - Primary Control Flight Computer 1 = Captains(see below) has failed, or at least ECFS2 believes ECFS1 has failed. Inidicates that the First Officers Inertial reference has failed? Going by the precedences of the F-GLZL incident(below), this message appears to indicate that both pilot and copilots systems are compromised. This is why I eliminated the sentences in accident that only 2 of 5 computers where down, it looks as if 2 computers were down, and 2 more are compromised by potentially faulty data, leaving only the standby (hard-wired) indicators as accurate.

What I see from this is that primary control flight computer 1 is brought down, looks like two attempts to restart fail, that a pitot tube in control flight system fails and inertial reference 2 also fails. The traffic and terrain collision avoidance system has a fault, which no-one seems to mention. And finally that system that one is never supposed to turn off during the flight, ISIS, fails. This F-GZCP was ___ed and I mean that all but literally that took out two systems in different ways, and a radar system. Possible the pitot-ARS-ADIRU 2 is wired into PCFC 1 and that might explain appearance of 2 system failures. The TCAS is not essential, but the fact that it faulted indicates something more than just ice on the pitot tube. These are done at least 3 minutes before its end. Please correct any errors that you may find. PB666 ^yap 05:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a report that the transcript contains an error 3412 which pertains to air temperature sensor should be 3422 however I have placed both. Here is a summary of the codes from 2 sources.

Prefixes and suffix

The codes are set up as follows WN ## ## ## # ## for warnings and
FR ## ## ## ## for failures (Spaces added for clarity)
The first four (WN####..... or FR####....) are the larger sections, see below and major subsections.
The next two (WN....##... or FR....##..) are the Aircraft and or Airline specific codes
The next code I understand to be a qualifier (WN......#..)
And the final 2 (WN.......## or FR......##) ## = 06 indicates the Aircraft is in cruise mode when warning or failure occurred.

Sections

21 Air Condition
2131 Cabin Pressure Controller
"For the reports pertaining to the controller units only and not for the system. The defective part should be identified by the part name and part number whenever possible."

22 Auto Flight
2210 Autopilot System
"For reports of miscellaneous parts associated with the autopilot system used for controlling attitude and direction. Typical parts are yaw damper, cable, switch, sensor, relay, etc. The major components such as computer, servo, and controller are to be filed in the specific JASC 2200 series code."

2230 Auto Throttle System
"The system that automatically controls the position of the throttles to properly manage engine power during all phases of flight/attitude. This includes engaging, sensing, computing, amplifying, controlling, actuating and warning devices. Typical parts are amplifiers, computers, servos, limit switches, clutches, gearboxes, warning lights, etc."

27 - Flight Controls
2720 Rudder Control System
"The system components and parts from the cockpit pedals to the rudder surface which cause movement. Includes manual and power assisted systems other than the actuator and autopilot actuating mechanism. Also includes brackets for the support or attachment of pulleys, pushrods, and bellcranks. Does not include control surface hinges or structure (filed in JASC code 5540) or the yaw dampers (filed in JASC code 2210). Typical parts are cable, rod end, turnbuckle, bolt, pedal, spring, torque tube, control valve, stops, etc."

34 - Navigation
3410 Flight Environment Data
"The system which senses environmental conditions and uses the data to influence navigation."

3411 Pitot/Static System
"The system which provides a source of ram or static air for distribution to using instruments and pressure differential units such as automatic landing gear extender, altimeter, airspeed and rate of climb. Does not include the using units, instruments, the anti-ice heating elements, or the associated circuitry and switches which are filed in JASC code 3030. Typical parts are air pick up heads, lines, fittings, drain valves, static port, selector valve, etc."

3412 Outside Air Temperature Indicator/Sensor
"The unit mounted in the engine induction air intake to sense and transmit temperature to the cockpit indicator. Also for the sensors and instruments which measure and indicate the temperature of ambient air outside the aircraft. Includes associated circuitry and related parts. Typical parts are sensor, indicator, case, etc."

3421 Attitude Gyro and Indicating System
"The gyroscopic unit which supplies attitude information to the necessary systems; for instance, vertical reference outputs for use as roll and pitch data to the autopilot computer. Includes the instruments operating by the gyroscopic principle, driven by air flow or an electric motor. Typical parts are vertical gyro and the gyro horizon." [Note the A330 uses electronic gyroscopes which are apparently fed data from the ADIRU 1 and 2] (I think this is the right code bunch, 3412 was erroneous reported instead of 3421). FWIW PB666 ^yap 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

3422 Directional Gyro and Indicating System
"The unit operating by gyroscopic principle and driven by airflow or an electric motor, which provides heading (direction) references relative to a preset heading in degrees of the compass. Also for the flux unit detector which senses the earth's magnetic field and uses this data to correct for gyro drift. Typical parts are gyro, rotor, bearing, etc."

Finally. Here are the base codes for systems that did not fail or warn, to eliminate speculation about hull failure, fire or bomb. Code #Errors...System....When
23 0 Communications 0
24 0 Electric Power 0
25 0 Equipment and Furnishtings 0
26 0 Fire Protection 0
28 0 Feul 0
29 0 Hydrolyics 0
30 0 Ice and Rain protection 0
31 0 Indicators and Recording equipment 0
32 0 Landing gear 0
33 0 Lights
35 0 Oxygen
36 0 Pnuematic
37 0 Vacuum
38 2 Water/Waste 2009-05-31 22:45
45 0 Onboard Maintenance
46 0 Information systems
49 0 Airborn Auxiliary power
51 0 Structural
52 0 Doors
53 0 Fuselag
54 0 Nacelle and pylons
55 0 Stabilizer
56 0 Windows
57 0 Wings
70 0 Engines Operations
71 0 PowerPlants
72 0 Engine
73 0 Engine Feul and Control
74 0 Ignition
75 0 Engine Air
76 0 Engine Controls
77 0 Engine Indicators
78 0 Engine Exhaust
79 0 Engine Oil
89 0 Engine Starter

Subsections

Here are the refined codes used above MMC A330 Air France:
34-22-25 - INDICATOR - ISIS (INTEGRATED STANDBY INSTRUMENT SYSTEM)
34-43-00 - TRAFFIC AND TERRAIN COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM
34-12-00 - AIR DATA/INERTIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM (ADIRS) ((ADIRU & CDU))
34-10-00 - AIR DATA/INERTIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM (ADIRS)
27-90-00 - ELECTRICAL FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM (EFCS)
22-83-34 - FMGEC (FLIGHT MANAGEMENT, GUIDANCE AND ENVELOPE COMPUTER)
22-62-00 - FLIGHT ENVELOPE COMPUTATION
22-30-00 – AUTOTHRUST
27-23-00 - RUDDER AND PEDAL TRAVEL LIMITING ACTUATION
27-93-00 - FLIGHT CONTROL PRIMARY COMPUTER (FCPC)
34-11-15 - PROBE – PITOT
27-93-34 - FCPC (FLIGHT CONTROL PRIMARY COMPUTER)
21-31-00 - PRESSURE CONTROL AND MONITORING
27-91-00 - OPERATIONAL CONFIGURATION (F/Ctl Altn law)

Abbreviations

EFCS1: Pitot probe and static probe 1 and other probes (1) link to the ADR 1 (controls speed tape and altitude on Captains PFD) which link with IR1 inside the ADIRU1 and provide information to the Captains PCFC 1 and SCFC 1. (please correct if error found)

EFCS2: Pitot probe and static probe 2 and other probese (2) link to the ADR 2 (Speed and Alt on F/Os display) which link with IR 2 inside the ADIRU2 and provide information to the first officer's PCFC 2 and SCFC 2. (please correct if error found)

EFCS3: Pitot tube 3 linkes to ADR3 which link with IR3 inside ADIRU3 which is in standby but ADR 3 provide direct analog information on the back up gauges. System 3 also feeds information to ISIS. ADIRU 3 data can be hard switched to captains or first officers PFD. (please correct if error found).

Exploitation by scammers

Air France Flight 447 Search Results Lead to Rogue Antivirus Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

BrE/AmE spellings

Is there a need to be quite so zealous about the spellings? In the case of ise/ize in particular even our own article accepts ize as a valid BrE spelling. I write "organize" myself etc but am British. Ise/ize is not a cut-and-dried matter like color/colour but runs more on personal beliefs. I worry that it disrupts the editing flow and perhaps unnecessarily annoys other editors to be too picky about this. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree: who cares when a plane is being sought with potentially 228 dead people? Bewp (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the British English tag on the top of this talk page. It's a broad consensus that should be followed. This is an encyclopaedia and it's best to try and keep articles at the best quality we an get and yes it's a sad incident (and I feel for those who have lost love ones) but we must keep in mind that we are not a memorial as well. Lets move on and keep improving this article for encyclopaedic purposes. Bidgee (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your comment. Bewp (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Criminal inquiry

The Paris public prosecutor has opened a formal inquiry for "involuntary homicide" of the passengers [16]. It should be said that this is a fairly standard procedure in France. Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC reporting some bodies recovered

BBC televion breaking news, attributed to the Brazilian Air Force. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fox News and Sky News also reporting that some bodies being found/recovered. Bidgee (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Already put it in. Also, an IP keeps trying to put this "in popular culture" section. Please tag with a vandalism warn if he or she does so again. SGGH ^ping! 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Undid and warned them. Would having the article protected from IP's help? Just that the large number of edits are from IP's and it's getting a little hard to review all the edits and sometimes harder to undo vandalism. Bidgee (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't in the lede. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Should this information be put in the lede?BananaNoodle (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It don't matter who reported it first, to keep mentioning all the news agencies by name could be seen as tantamount to advertising. One source used as a ref is sufficient. No need to ref the same info from dozens of different sources. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather Section - references needed.

References are needed for this section. There are a few comments about "experienced pilots.." etc, does anyone know the source for these?BananaNoodle (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. If not, I will delete them! Bewp (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be an idea to give it a few days but yeah - if they aren't referenced we shouldn't really have it here.BananaNoodle (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

F-GZCP.jpg

FYI, File:F-GZCP.jpg has been deleted. Curiously, discussion was closed, and the file deleted several days earlier than the deadline. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Map based on flight plan

Google Maps for AF447 flight plan --TAG (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Senegalese Radar?

I'm became curious about the following statement: "After the aircraft failed to appear on Senegalese radar..." Well, last time I've flown through Dakar Control Area (1999), there was no radar service in its whole area and Control was accomplished by radio contact (on HF-SSB-SELCAL) and flight progression (based on position messages from the aircraft). Anything changed ever since?RobertoRMola (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• News reports, AFAIK, describe it as Senegalese radar. I believe that Senegal likely would have received radar in a 10-year span between then and now. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another possibility is that they are referring to the radar at Sal, Cape Verde, which covers some of the ocean region controlled from Dakar. AF447 shouldn't have appeared on Dakar radar unless it was heading to land, but it should have (and didn't) appear on Sal radar. Even before then, it should have contacted the Dakar control centre, but didn't. Physchim62 (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

News report? I simply do not believe on the press when they describe any technicality in aviation (even when they refer to the omnipresent "specialists" on duty). I trying to download any chart from that specific area in order to clarify my doubts with no success so far. Cape Verde Archipelago didn't provide any radar service in 1999, also.RobertoRMola (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My take is is that it is expected that aircraft entering Senegalese air space (or any other country) would contact them by radio. This was expected and never happened. I also agree that the news media has a problem with technology. Some of the reports from the New York Times reference "flaps" when they are referring to control surfaces. Arydberg (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Investigation

I think we need a comment such as "two of the areas under investigation are" then have the Bomb threat and air speed sections. Though the quote above this from the BEA does make clear that "the only established facts are:

• the presence near the airplane’s planned route over the Atlantic of significant convective cells typical of the equatorial regions;
• based on the analysis of the automatic messages broadcast by the plane, there are inconsistencies between the various speeds measured."

therefore perhaps we should just say this? rather than further comments about it? I am not too sure myself.

I am just concerned that perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the Air Speed 'theory' in this article as a possible cause of the incident.

What are your thoughts?

BananaNoodle (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Valid comment. The main reason I can see that the bomb theory has so far been discounted is that no one has claimed reponsibility. Several sources quote that air speed discrepancies were the cause of a number of previous plane crashes. Bewp (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason that theory is broadly discounted is that it makes no sense. It doesn't explain the messages. It doesn't explain the coincidence of happening in the middle of the weather system.LeadSongDog come howl 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research/speculation

The amount of unreferenced original research and speculation in the article has increased, especially the theories around flight computers, ADIRUs, weather and similarities with other incidents. Until the BEA/Airbus draw conclusions like this, they are unreliable, even if mentioned in the press. This article is not entitled "Conspiracy theories around AF 447". Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if anyone has references for any of this information then please add them, it has been marked up where it is needed. If not it may have to go. BananaNoodle (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here also are the two previous issues with pitot tube issues. There have been at least two similiar incidents preceding AF-447 (dates of both flights are unknown):

First incident synopsis An Air France Airbus A340-300 F-GLZL AF-279 Narita (Japan) to Paris CDG (France), enroute at FL310. After travleing though thunderstorms, the captain's ASI rapidly fell to 140 kts IAS and an alert was issued 'NAV IAS DISCREPANCY'. The display showed a tail wind component of 250 kts. The first officer took control while the captain tried to switch his display from ADIRU1 to ADIRU3. The autopilot/autothrust disconnected and the fly by wire changed into Alternate Law. Noticing icing conditions, the crew switched pitot heating systems from automatic to on. The speed indications became normal again and agreed again, the autoflight systems were reengaged. When the crew reset and reengaged ADIRU 1 twice, the system again brought the message "NAV IAS DISCREPANCY" on both attempts, although the speed data appeared consistent. Later, the drainage holes of all three pitot tubes had been clogged, rendering it very likely that weather combined with the clogged drainage holes caused the incident. Airbus is aware of other incidences of clogged drainage holes on A330 and A340 aircraft. (Again no good references, but the base information looked like a direct quote from some TSB)

Second incident synopsis AF A340-300, (F-GLZN) Paris-CDG (France) to KJFK (NY,NY,USA) encountered turbulence. The autoflight systems dropped offline, "NAV IAS DISCREPANCY", "NAV PRED W/S DET FAULT". For two minutes stall alerts were issued.

Given this I think the discussion of the Qantas A330 issues is now tangential as a precedence.PB666 ^yap

The connections being made to QF72 are making less and less sense. The section Investigation > Airspeed unclear to pilots is particularly scattered, being a conglomerate of theories that have been thrown around at various stages and stuck together instead of being purged of the older ones (let alone having the speculation removed entirely). Several comments create a distinctly false impression. The third paragraph makes numerous implications and references to the ADIRU unit in situations where they aren't valid. For example, the following line is positioned inside a discussion of ADIRU units and QF72:

Paul Arslanian, of France's air accident investigation agency, confirmed that F-GZCP previously had a problems calculating its speed as did other A330 stating "We have seen a certain number of these types of faults on the A330 ... There is a programme of replacement, of improvement".

...implying that the quote relates to the ADIRU units. It doesn't... it's referring to Air France's replacement programme for pitot tubes. [17] The Wikipedia article goes on to state that

Both chain of events started with the autopilot disengaging on its own and sending ADIRU failure messages. Incorrect speed indications were also observed.

...offering only one of the ATSB reports into QF72 as a citation. There is no confirmation as yet of the reason for the AF447 autopilot's disconnection... and critically, at this stage there are many unknowns about the sequence of events due to the limitations of ACARS. There are conclusions being jumped to here without a reliable source to back them up.

Obviously from what is known so far, there are a lot of questions being raised about this accident that need answering - and that includes the role the ADIRU unit played - but it is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia to be jumping the gun, applying WP:OR and speculating as to what these answers are. -- Rob.au (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That was unintentionally taken from a news blurb which I have been, in the process of gathering information to correct this and shorten the section. However, no-one has jumped the gun, as you imply, the section points out very clearly that QA 72 can be distinguished from AF447 based on the messages. A broad perspective on the airspeed fault was presented that was not WP:OR which you keep repeating, and is from a WP:NPOV. IT IS UNFORTUNATE that we see this material from the initial news reports and that were are disuaded from using information from blogs and bulletin boards, however these boards have been the most accurate. I have now and have posted most of the source information on the actual codes and meanings here with the expressed notion correcting the section and hopefully shortening the section which as become unwikified. It is taken the better part of a day to find reliable sources for material other people have added to the mainpage. BTW this section is far more accurate and relevant compared to other sections of this Main page, it is unfortunate that Saturdays news conference was not published in English so that we could see precisely what these News-goons screwed up. The reason the para has not been corrected because I cannot find the original source for the Tokyo-Paris flight writeup.PB666 ^yap

TAM flight

Someone who pays attention to this stuff needs to watch the investigation of the TAM Flight 8095 a330 which had injuries due to steep dives in turbulence. I agree there isn't enough connections yet to wikilink the articles, but if the TAM dives were uncommanded it might make some sense. So again now that we are looking at some systematic airbus problems I think it bears more attention. Still think it might unfairly disparage aribus unless there is more proof. However these other incidents from ATSB sound fairly similar to this TAM flight. Also it was a week before 447. 67.204.145.88 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)what happen to black box.

The problem of course is that we have no consumable details, aside from the this is covered in the News conference of BEA that Airbus is aware of Pitot probe and ADIRU problems.PB666 ^yap 14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This Talk Page

Please keep discussions to a minimum. This talk page has become a forum. Thanks. Please do not reply this.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather map

A weather satellite photo of two times of the area where the plane went down is available from Commons. 70.29.210.130 (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Air France Flight - Rio / London

Not sure if this has been overlooked or missed by the editors here, thought I'd post this here for you to decide (I'm no wikipedia editor, maybe did it once or twice on a minor scale). It seems quite relevant, Air France, same/similar route and it occurred in a similar location.

Source: Irish Independent [18] 07/06/09

"A second Air France plane out of Rio de Janeiro had a lucky escape when it "dropped like a stone" in virtually the same spot as the ill- fated Flight 447 disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean only hours earlier. Bizarrely, passengers on that flight from Rio to London included colleagues and close friends of the three young Irish doctors Aisling Butler, Eithne Walls and Jane Deasy who are among 228 people missing in the airline tragedy...

... "The strange thing is that as they headed out over the Atlantic on the same flight path their plane went down rapidly, it seems in around the same spot the other plane disappeared. There was consternation on board, people screaming and going hysterical, the whole lot. They said that 400 or 500 miles off the coast the plane hit turbulence and just dropped like a stone""

Small world, one of those three girls was my neighbour... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.43 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Air France do not fly from Rio to London? wangi (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• If there is an incident report published by a reputable source or government agency then it can be used.PB666 ^yap 12:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On ground collision

The mention of the plane being slightly damaged in a recent colision with another taxiing plane. Can we get more data on the damage? Very unlikely to be related to the accident, but people surely would be curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.217.145 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Still waiting for the official BEA report to be published on this one. Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Related articles for structural damage are Japan Airlines Flight 123 and China Airlines Flight 611 --TAG (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• The from what I understand the wing tip of F-GZCP struck the tail section of the other aircraft.PB666 ^yap 03:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather

Thank you for your article. The leading paragraph makes it seem as if the bad weather was the cause of the accident. — Adriaan (T★C) 14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"experts on human remains"

In "Bodies, debris recovered" subsection, why is "experts on human remains" within quotation marks? Does it mean they are called that but they aren't really that? Or, is it a quotation from someone? There is no source for that sentence.--ClaudioMB (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a quote from this article. 86.20.235.36 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So, there is no need to quote it, since it wasn't said by anyone. I'll removed it.--ClaudioMB (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

no evidence of any electrical or flight instrument displays failure or ADIRU malfunction

This I just saw at the "av-herald".PB666 ^yap 01:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Airbus Industries said in an internal e-mail leaked to the public, that there is no evidence of any electrical failure as had been initially claimed by Air France, no evidence of loss of flight instrument displays and no evidence of an ADIRU malfunction as had happened in the Qantas incidents (Qantas uses a different ADIRU manufacturer than Air France). The ACARS messages as available all indicate unreliable airspeed, although some messages suggest further aircraft evolution and/or crew actions. The last message (cabin vertical speed) indicates a loss of cabin pressure at a rate greater than 1800 feet per minute, which remains to be explained. 3 types of pitot tubes are available, 2 from Thales (BA and AA/Standard) as well as one from Goodrich. The standard Thales pitot tube AA was used on Air France's A330 F-GZCP. The BA type was developed to enhance water drainage encountered during heavy rain conditions during takeoff or landing.Crash: Air France A332 over Atlantic on June 1st 2009, aircraft impacted ocean

Also on that page they claim:

02:10Z: Autothrust off, Autopilot off, FBW alternate law, Rudder Travel Limiter Fault, TCAS fault due to antenna fault, Flight Envelope Computation warning, All pitot static ports lost

02:11Z: Failure of all three ADIRUs, Failure of gyros of ISIS (attitude information lost)

02:12Z: ADIRUs Air Data disagree

02:13Z: Flight Management, Guidance and Envelope Computer fault, PRIM 1 fault, SEC 1 fault

02:14Z: Cabin Pressure Controller fault (cabin vertical speed)

At issue here is the interpretation of the following messages which I have not, to this point, seen publicly translated.

FLR FR0906010210 34111506EFCS2 1,EFCS1,AFS,,,,,,1 appears to be the failure of one tube EFCS2 (F/Os).

FLR FR0906010210 27933406EFCS1 X2,EFCS2X,,,,,,FC appears to be the failure of flight control computers 1

They claim (not me) that two ADIRU must fail to get the following warnings on the PFD.

WRN WR0906010211 341200106FLAG ON CAPT PFD the code 3412 pertains to the loss of 2 ADIRU, since they claim the loss of one is automatically backed up by ADIRU-3.

WRN WR0906010211 341200106FLAG ON CAPT PFD

FLR FR0906010211 34123406IR2 1,EFCS1x,IR1,IR3 confirms ADIRU-2 was compromised but since 3411506 already indicates the Pitot was faulty . . .

FLR FR0906010211 34120006ISIS 1,,,,,,,ISIS(22FN is fed information by the third Pitot and ADIRU.

Oddly, the AI synopsis says and no evidence of an ADIRU malfunction as had happened in the Qantas incidents (Qantas uses a different ADIRU manufacturer than Air France), which means they are pointing out the ADIRU did not fail or did not fail the way Qantas ADIRU failed, since none of the Quantas ADIRU have been shown on testing to be faulted. This is the problem with quoting these sources, one is interpreting the rightness or wrongness of their interpretation.PB666 ^yap 01:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating, thank you. --John (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:F-GZCP.jpg

Image:F-GZCP.jpg has reappeared. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rota AirFrance 447

Airbus A330-203 AF447 Localização.jpg

• Portuguese
  Portuguese
• 
  French

A diagram is available from other language Wikipedias. Perhaps an English version should be created?

70.29.210.130 (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A similar image from a press conference is also available... File:Airbus A330-203 AF447 Localização.jpg 70.29.210.174 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"extinct throne of Brazil"

Probably the wrong page to find experts on this, but "extinct throne" sounds wrong. Can anyone confirm that this is the right phrase? Should we change to something like "former monarchy"? Ingolfson (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Extinct sounds alright to me... how about "abolished throne/monarch/monarchy" 70.29.210.174 (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably "defunct throne". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.107.62.118 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

JPG:Air France Flight 447 Empennage removal

File:Busca Voo 447 Air France - 20090609 1.jpg

File:Busca Voo 447 Air France - 20090609 1.jpg

File:Henry Munhoz exibe fotografia.jpg

• File:Air France Flight 447 Empennage removal.jpg
  File:Air France Flight 447 Empennage removal.jpg
• File:Air France Flight 447 Empennage removal 2.jpg
  File:Air France Flight 447 Empennage removal 2.jpg

The two images, File:Air France Flight 447 Empennage removal.jpg and File:Air France Flight 447 Empennage removal 2.jpg are up for deletion at Commons as they seem to be more fair use that CCSA because of incorrect licensing... 70.29.210.174 (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

An alternate image is available from Commons... File:Busca Voo 447 Air France - 20090609 1.jpg This image was also used in a press conference... File:Henry Munhoz exibe fotografia.jpg 70.29.210.174 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Recovery of vertical stabilizer

What is going on here? In most land crashes The most survivable part of the aircraft is the vertical stabilizer. For this reason the black boxes are mounted near the top of the vertical stabilizer. Now that they have found the vertical stab why don't they mention at least the possibility that the black boxes are inside of it. It looks in good condition in the pictures. If the boxes are not inside of it this too should be mentioned. Also apparently at least some of the black boxes have their own airspeed sensors. see:Flight Data Recorder manualArydberg (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Arydberg, despite its appearance this is not a AF 447 discussion forum, we are supposed to be addressing what belongs on the main page. If the investigators find the black box or they disclose why the black box is not attached, and that is published in a reputable source, then we can discuss it.PB666 ^yap 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any case of the black boxes being located in the vertical stabilizer. They are usually located at the tail end of the fuselage, which is usually under the vertical stabilizer for most commercial jets and the A330 in particular. Since no significant part of the fuselage was attached to the recovered vertical stabilizer, I believe you have your answer. --Ferengi (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The elephant in the middle of the page that nobody is talking about is the major structural failure of the vertical stabalizers on American Airlines flight 587 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587) and this Air France flight 447. They go on about pitot tubes giving the computer bad data, but the underlying major structural problem is that the vertical stabalizers are NOT STRONG ENOUGH. They fall off. The plane crashes. ALL PASSENGERS ARE KILLED. A vertical stabalizer coming off in mid flight is way beyond an acceptable flaw. Bad data should not kill the airplane and all the passengers. A pilot using wrong rudder peddals should not break off the vertical stabilizer and kill everyone. This is the only plane that has ever been known to have that problem in the long history of commercial aviation. The A330 shares the older tail with the A300, a cheap plastic part that has now killed 2 airplanes and about 500 people. User F203 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here is what the av-herald says:PB666 ^yap 01:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To allow comparism of the images of the tails The Aviation Herald posts two pictures of the tail fin of the American Airlines Airbus A300-600 registration N14053 [AA 587], that crashed at Belle Harbour near New York's John F. Kennedy Airport on Nov 12th 2001 shortly after takeoff, when the airplane went through wake turbulence. The NTSB concluded in their final report, that unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs caused the rudder and tail fin to separate from the aircraft causing the crash. In the report the NTSB stated, that "the entire rudder separated from the vertical stabilizer except for portions of the rudder spar structure that remained attached to hinge arm assembly numbers 2,3,4,5 and 7" (first sentence on page 52/last paragraph of chapter 1.2.12). However, the pictures of the vertical tail of Air France show the rudder still attached to the vertical stabilizer (fin). This is a very decisive difference disallowing any comparism of the accidents without further research and additional facts.Crash: Air France A332 over Atlantic on June 1st 2009, aircraft impacted ocean

This is not the place to speculate on the cause of failure, there are alot of people who pretty much have figured out by the ACARS messages what happened to flight 447 and if you read between the lines of the Airbus statements and the BEA statements you will figure out that it has something to do with Pitots that are not capable of clearing water fast enough, and a plane that just flew out of a massive thunderclapper. What is left are those little black boxes and then read the responses from Air France and then you will know why they are not talking about N14053's rudder.PB666 ^yap

The only place I've found where this major structural failure is talked about is on one blog http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/2009/06/airbus-hasnt-fixed-its-vertical.html Everyone else is dancing around avoiding the major structural defect in the A300/A330. They should all be grounded until the structure of the vertical stabilizer is made safe. Nobody will talk about it.

major problem with the source.The photo (tail of the plane in the water) is possibly illegal non-free use. A photo from the same source is on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. They (WSJ) are reliable. They credit the Associated Press as the real source. This Agence Brazil gives away free photos but they cannot give away others' photos.

If we improperly attribute non-free use as free use, we could damage Wikipedia's reputation and create a reputation that we are a bunch of teenage thieves stealing others' pictures and words. This cannot happen! User F203 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I acknowledge your concerns, but please leave the photo there until the deletion process you have started on Commons completes. Remember too that Agência Brasil is a Brazilian state-owned agency and the national broadcaster. Additional AP certainly did not take the photo. Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong about the placement of the flight recorders. It always seemed to me that the vertical stabilizer was the most survivable part of the aircraft and seemed the logical place for a flight recorder.

As to the strength of the vertical stabilizers we need to be careful. There were eye witness reports of flames coming out of the fuselage of flight 587 before the crash but these suggest a terrorist bomb so they get minimal press.

As to af447 there were reports of "orange dots" as well as reports of a bright flash being seen in the sky and reports of 12 planes that flew through the same airspace at about the same time as af447 with no difficulty but above all we must remember that what ever happened to Air France Flight 447 it was not terrorism and then go on from there. It's sort of like the story of the king that had no clothes. I think we need jail terms for people that suggest unacceptable ideas like terrorism. Arydberg (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not sure it was not terrorism, nobody really knowns which is why everbody is speculating about the cause. The longer it takes to find a reason the more theories and ideas are generated. But as this is an encyclopedia not a news service we should just report reliable information and just wait for the experts to work out what happened. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dual nationalities

Would the solution adopted in the Swissair Flight 111 article be a better way of showing those victims who had dual nationality? Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, does anyone know if there's a standardised way of showing this on wikipedia? We should do one or the other. BananaNoodle (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Airspeed inconsistency-part

I have removed this section:

The air accident investigation of [[Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553|Austral Flight 2553]] concluded that ice accumulation on the pitot tube during a high-altitude thunderstorm caused the indicated airspeed reading to be erroneously low, and that the pilots attempted to compensate by increasing the speed – exceeding the maximum safe cruising speed – and extending high-lift devices (such as slats and flaps), causing loss of control of the plane, which subsequently crashed with the loss of all 74 onboard.<ref name="af2553">{{cite web |url=http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19971010-0 |title=ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32 LV-WEG Nuevo Berlin|publisher=Aviation Safety Network |accessdate=2009-06-08}}</ref> Faults with pitot tubes (however due to maintenance error, not icing) have caused two other accidents with multiple fatalities: [[Birgenair Flight 301]] (189 fatalities) and [[Aeroperú Flight 603]] (70 fatalities).

for the following reasons:
1. They do not involve the type of aircraft in question, nor the Pitot tube in question (as far as we know).
2. ALA 2553 is a DC-9
3. BF301 Pitot failed because it had a mud-daubers nest in the pitot tube
4. Aeroperú Flight 6034 is all but tangentially related.
5. It needs to be shortened and crucial details mentioned, and placed after the F-GLZN incident.
PB666 ^yap 03:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• If it is determined that the cause of the accident was directly related to the pitot tube, then other accidents with that proven cause can be linked via a "See also" section. IMHO it don't matter why the pitot tube failed (icing, insect nests, maintenance error) as long as that was the primary cause of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• I had added the part about BF301 and Aeroperu 603 and I had of course pointed out that the reasons for failure were probably different, however I think this information was important as it shows the detrimental effects a pitot failure can have. We should at least include them in a See also section. --Ferengi (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not against adding them, at least the first two;however, can it be crunched down into something smaller, that distills out the most crucial points, for example investigators found ... as the cause.PB666 ^yap 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this should wait until it's been confirmed what the cause was. As adding information about different accidents involving these pitots seems to be a little premature to me.BananaNoodle (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Treating fault and warning codes

The transfered section which was quite large was moved to the archives in the section dealing with ACARS codes.PB666 ^yap 03:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The section needs reverting to a previous version. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original version of this section, it was rewritten including information about code numbers and the like in which I have spent almost a day trying to corroborate. I think all the code talk is too much, what do you think should be done? I am looking for a consensus, because I am not going to write the thing again and have it rewritten. There is, above alot of background that can be added, if you the PPRuNe cannot be used as a source and information is eliminated I can almost assure that with 48 hours some news organization will have the information up, in addition we can be using a patchwork of code and non-code. So either we go with the codes as the author of the section does or we go back to the original style and avoid codes altogether. IMHO the codes are borderline unencyclopedic for this style of article. I am going to make some small corrective changes and put this back and lets work on a strategy from here.PB666 ^yap 23:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple really - sit back and wait for the crash investigators do their analysis, then cite their findings. Any other interpretation of the primary data, regardless of how obvious it may seem, is original research.Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Socrates2008, per Wikipedia:PRIMARY - we have a France2 screen as primary source and flight crew operating manual as tertiary source. PB666 did a good decrypting codes from primary source and cite only messages and their decryption from manual. There is no violation. --TAG (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, I did not rewrite the section, and the section on the extended codes I could not find a reference for, technically it is original research (by someone over at PPRuNe), although it agrees with what was said in the news conference. I am trying to fix it by adding reference were I can, and where I can't, we'll see. PB666 ^yap 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:PRIMARY, the France 2 screen is not a primary source and the flight crew operating manual is not a tertiary source. 212.84.104.244 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have 'repaired' the section and will work more on the '12 warning' messages later. The sectioned was shortened and wikified, repeated referecnes to A330 manual were removed. More references were added to media were neccesary. For the most part I have replaced codes with the actual message on the on ACARS report. Reason is that these messages were visible enough to confirm and on the transcripts there are also no apparent errors. Second reasons are codes are unencyclopedic unless this is a page on Airbus A330 fault and warning codes. The WP:OR statements about power system, IMO were more of a NPOV as they propose only one possible conclusion. So that I removed the conclusions regarding electric power system and repressurization of the aircaft. There are still weaknesses in this paragraph. There are a number of warning messages that are not clearly defined, including two of the PFD flags and EFCS1..., ISIS 1,,,,,,,ISIS(22FN. We have to be very careful, on the Av-herald they concluded, I don't know how, that all three pitot tubes malfunctioned. My opinion is that on the intepretation of these messages we need public disclosure from Air France or Airbus Industries before we can interpret these.PB666 ^yap 14:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just cleared up more original research. The situation has escalated, with references being provided which do not substantiate the text, really screwing up the article. Can someone track down the culprit ? 212.84.104.244 (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some from User:gsthomas who I warned yesterday, so I'll escalate - [[19] One of the sources looks like a media blog and the auther, quite reasonably says (translated) "What follows is only one modest attempt at decoding with the probability of errors because the field is not simple." 212.84.104.244 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More here from User:Pdeitiker slipped through as a minor edit. 212.84.104.244 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire section was rewritten not just those that you claimed slipped through, it was rewritten from material placed here first. Sorry about the m tag, it is default.PB666 ^yap 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"I can almost assure that with 48 hours some news organization will have the information up" Irrelevent - it's a breach of reliable source and or original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it doesn't do speculation or original research. PPRUNE is a respected forum with insightful comment and informed speculation from aircrew. Don't confuse the two. 212.84.104.244 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That statement was made regarding the material cited at the PPRuNe 'Rumour network'. I don't think you are going to get agreement here on material cited here as being: Most of that material that had no media source. Of course they are not reliable source, again with an unlimited amount of time which I don't have, those things would be fixed also.

Analysis from the PPRUNE forum had been used and cited on WP, hence my comment. 212.84.106.129 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets make this quite clear, yesterday someone made a tonne of edits with codes, I found this information and the original research to be stuff obtained large from comments made at the PPRuNe which had references thrown in, some of the references, for example codes, did not check out. As a consequence someone posted a complaint. I have sought, via personal time limitations to correct as much as a could. I don't have time to fix every error that is entered. I cut alot of material out, as far as I could see, though for what I included there appears to be referenced back to the news conference (the overhead presentation), I don't consider it to be original material; however.Many edits were made that I could not verify the truth of the material in anyway or fashion to a news agency or a government source, I accept images of the news conference as material but those images were not very clear. Some material was deleted. There were edits I made based on a consensus of information, however I have not seen any clear source. I included them. The statement about the 12 warning messages and the statement about the nature of the PFD I could neither get a source to nor could I verify so these were not elucidated upon. Therefore instead of Using Code I used the message presented on the overhead and the transcipt of the overhead where the overhead was not clear.PB666 ^yap 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

PPRuNe is the professional pilots rumour network and the discussion came off a bulliten board, I strongly do not recommend this as a source of information and other independent sources should be used. I have used PPRuNe as a leaping point, for example seach words, and in most instances no valid sources are found, and I eliminated those conclusions (for example, that no electrical fault occurred or that the aircraft was in a steep descent), but I think the Wikipedia should not rely on a self-admitted rumour network. Lets stop this combativeness and use usernames when possible, people who don't use their username create an air of suspicion with they act as you have. PB666 ^yap 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, PB, you're being combative with the IP right there. People have the right to edit without a login name (with the obvious exception, of course). Please don't bite people who choose not to log in.

That said, you're absolutely right: forums are not reliable sources for information. 212, we can't use forum posts as citations here, no matter how respected the forum may be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"212, we can't use forum posts as citations here, no matter how respected the forum may be." I never said otherwise. 212.84.106.129 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please describe in some more detail why it is ok in the section as it is to link some of the ACARS transmitted codes to the ATA and Airbus documentation, but not others as were captured in previous sections. There is a lot more in content in the section that is shown in the France2 newscast. Specifically, what is missing from the section right now is mention that one of the first two FLRs relates to the pitot probe (code 341115; citable to 3411 "pitot/static system" with the existing JASC source, unless somebody can provide a citable source from the AMM). I would propose to add the following sentence to the section "One of the first 2 fault messages, captured at 02:10 UTC, indicate a fault in the pitot/static system (code 34111506)" unless objections Gsthomas (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sentence on pitot system failure now added to the section citing secondary source from French pilot union "Alter" as reported on the newswires today. Gsthomas (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving notes

I have returned the most recent threads from the most recent archive to this page and deleted them from the archive. In the future, when archives are made please retain the most recent or active threads as not to cause redundant thread creation. This message can be deleted in a few hours.PB666 ^yap 04:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive updated. Up to Senegalese radar.PB666 ^yap 03:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The section on codes was moved to Archive 3 at the end. This will free up some space on this page. Also the section on Law modes is pretty well now widely referenced and studied by those who want to study it. It will be deleted from archive 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs) 03:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a bot configured to archive dormant discussions on this page, so no need to do this manually. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Clean up Sections

I noticed that several sections are now top-loaded with out-of-date trivial. What I began warning about 3 days ago when the Bermuda Triangle speculation was put forth has come to past. Spurious speculation is everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Image File:AF447Cross-Section.jpg

While vertical exaggeration can clarify graphic representation of earth surface contours, this image would be more informative with less than the (fifty-to-one?) vertical exaggeration currently shown. As well, omitting the top kilometer of ocean here further misrepresents the actual challenges to recovery. I do think the graphic adds to the article, only wish it more closely approximated what is out there.Drienstra (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Search and rescue

The the Atlantic ocean is full of garbage, trust me I go fishing on Matagorda Peninsula, Texas is not pretty, I find milk cartons from Portugal, shoes from Spain, little plastic knick knacks from Latin America, foriegn garbage on the beach outnumbers US garbage by 5:3 ratio, its a big ugly mess, I pick up trash from almost every port in the Atlantic ocean and the Mediterranean. Their are literally tons and tons of garbage that have floated all the way from Europe and Africa and right to Matagorda beach, right across the Atlantic 24/7/365. There is nothing newsworthy about garbage floating in the Atlantic with regard to AF 447, except singly the effort it will cause in the search.PB666 ^yap —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Maybe it needs to be mentionined just ONCE in the article that rubbish in the ocean affected the search for the plane? Not a recorded date and area where each item of rubbish was found? BananaNoodle (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Crash Site

There is no crash site. If there was a crash site it is now split between floatsum which is 'headed for Matagorda' (I tell you when it gets here, promise), and a sunken airframe, or whats left of it. Neither are known. The search area now is the size of France and growing, still no signs of AF 447 debris. There may be dozens of craft involved to find this site before the search reaches full force and there is no need to mention each one or speculate on each one.PB666 ^yap 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Investigation

BEA is the authority on the investigation and they have said next to nothing up this point. The investigation section is full of speculation on speed and stalls. BEA (Frances TSB) says there will be a second press conference on "Flight AF 447 on 31 May 2009 at Le Bourget on Saturday 6 June from 1000 to 12000.

A large quantity of more or less accurate information and attempts at explanations concerning the accident are currently being circulated. The BEA reminds those concerned that in such circumstances, it is advisable to avoid all hasty interpretations and speculation on the basis of partial or non-validated information. At this stage of the investigation, the only established facts are: the presence near the airplane’s planned route over the Atlantic of significant convective cells typical of the equatorial regions; based on the analysis of the automatic messages broadcast by the plane, there are inconsistencies between the various speeds measured.

The weather section and airspeed sections, although parts of the investigation represent information that were concurrent or preceded the disappearance of the aircraft. There is no further information, and I reemphasize the point that it is currently unclear where or when the aircraft crashed.PB666 ^yap —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

I agree. It's ridiculous that the most respected source, the accident investigators (BEA), have not been referenced. I'd support the removal of all speculation from media sources. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather (2nd subsection)

"rime icing, possibly to clear ice or graupel.[24]" there is no evidence that the plane was low enough or suffering from rime icing, the critical fault at the moment is the havoc turbulence might have played in the inertial reference computers. The Weather (1st subsection) has been updated with weather analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

if (as seems so) they flew through the upper parts of a storm cell, they very much could have been in icing conditions. Did they? premature to say, but the first faults are speed sensors (pitot) and the fault mode for them, especially all at once, is ice. This is why Airbus called for the replacement of the pitot tubes - there were icing incidents in cruise-level flight which cleared up on descent and with a bit of waiting. See AF press release #12 (not unique to Airbus, all pitot tubes I'm aware of have heaters, it appears those on the A300 were not quite robust enough) So... "no evidence of icing" seems overdone. And there's no evidence the IR failed, as I understand it (from pprune, mostly). Loss of airspeed indication would itself have been sufficient to cause loss of control. therefore, I am thinking icing is relevant. Duckman49 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect airspeed

This is largely an interpetation of what Airbus said. Airbus has said that the computers that calculate airspeed were giving different values. The Accident Automated message and equipment malfunction has been updated with all publically known information.PB666 ^yap —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Regarding the speculation about incorrect sensor readings (in particular, blocked pitot tubes) it is not clear to me why this would necessarily cause the pilots to bring the airplane to an inappropriate speed. Presumably, the aircraft would also have a GPS system giving speed accurate to within a fraction of a mile per hour. (Granted, the GPS would give ground speed, rather than airspeed, so maybe that is part of the explanation.) I am not a pilot, so I would be interested to know if there are any references that address this issue, and if so, perhaps this information could be included in the article.--GregRM (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

GPS is not used as a primary means for airspeed indication. If the aircraft was flying through very turbulent conditions with strong windshear, then the groundspeed and the airspeed could have been substantially different. For background on accidents where blocked pitot tubes have caused incorrect airspeed indications, see Aeroperú Flight 603 and Birgenair Flight 301. With a total or partial blockage of the pitot information, primary or standby, the aircraft would have difficulty in calculating altitude, airspeed and mach number, and would probably have been throwing a number of warnings at the pilots as a result. Johnwalton 08:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Occam's razor needs to be applied here. First pitot tube and airspeed. The airspeed of an aircraft has little to do with ground speed or GPS. Aircraft travel as if they are in a fluid, a fluid that moves as fast as 200 knts relative to the ground. With the exception of calculating ETAs and timed turns in dead reckoning, there is relatively little use of ground speed in real time. Airspeed in the old days is calculated by the differential pressure on the front and rear of the pitot tube. The differential pressure for any given speed relative to the surrounding air changes (decreases) with altitude (i.e pressure, and not barometric pressure (i.e. at sea level), but absolute air pressure). Indicated Airspeed (IAS) is a indirect measure of the force (ke = mass * velocity^2, where pressure is surrogate for mass, and velocity is the speed of air relative to the aircrafts forward motion, the change of ke of the air as it travels around the wind provides force, the shape of the wing and angle of attack determine the direction of the force applied, and with positive AOA provides lift) of the surrounding air that can be applied for lift, or in excess, for aircraft stress. For jet aircraft it is also a body of air in front of the turbines that can increase the performance (output) of the turbines, lack of airpressure in front of the turbine can cause flameout. Wikipedia is not the place to learn about the 4 forces of flight, there are wonderful programs outthere including MS Flight Simulator whereby one can learn about how the basic theories of flight work, they are cheap and misconceptions about airspeed can be immediately identified (as ones stalled AC pummels in a deadman's sprial to the ground, weeeeeeeee!)PB666 ^yap —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

The issue with the ARS and ADIRU as we currently understand has nothing to do with ice or pitot tube malfunction. Several of the flights were in clean air at the time of malfunction, the fault in most instances appears to be spontaneous, much like a computer lockup, it appears to be electronic in nature. Again I don't want to speculate on contributing factors except to say it is my opinion that there is a potential with the Honeywell ADIRU that turbulence and lower frequency horizontal and vertical wind speed changes may have exceeded the operable range of the unit, causing the units algorithm to create wrong calculations. I have also worked with electronics, and I have done extensive Monte Carlo statistical analyses (often hours or days of continuous peak CPU utilization) on software I have designed and on machines that I have built myself and I have observed the malfunction of CPUs as a consequence of use-based heat overload. In one case I fried the motherboard and the CPU of a Prescott based machine (open case, fully cooled CPU, 4 hours into a MC run). Therefore it is my tendency to believe that either there is a program tolerance bug, or an overwhelmed processor. Belief however is nothing more than that.PB666 ^yap —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

I have redone the section on Airspeed to bring it inline with the known parameters. I am collecting references for the statements. PB666 ^yap 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the involvement of the pitot tube can be ruled out. Air France has been replacing the affected pitot tubes on it's A330 aircraft (as reported and by BBC), but the aircraft in question had not yet had it's pitot tubes replaced. Johnwalton 14:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing can be ruled out, but the BEA and Airbus are talking about the ADIRU/PCFC interface. The pitot tube and ARS are primary sources of information, they don't actually mix the information, however the IR (inertia Reference) that is part of the ADIRU adds signals from the ARS creating a calculated and more constant Airspeed in turbulent situations. The problem that has been identified in the Qantas cases appears, and I say appears with an emphasis because these devices episodically fail, do not malfunction when tested. Its like the car that never behaves badly at the mechanics shop. The principle issue in the precedences (Northrup Grumman ADIRU) however is why the PCFC continues to use ADIRU-1 even when it has faulted for whatever reason, and why the system does not try to see if there is parsimony between ADIRU-2 and automatically actuating ADIRU-3 before making a change in pitch. This appears to be the underlying problem in Airbus flight control design, IMO.PB666 ^yap 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry JW, I have been trying to download a transcript of this mornings news conference and bits and pieces have been coming over the web. It does appear that PA of France's BEA did single out the Pitot, and that Airbus has been advised to replace these. All former incidences occurred on the A320 as far as I know from these reports. I should also point out that I am not an afficionado of Airbus and have not looked at the configuration of controls in the Cockpit, however on other Jet Aircraft there are pitot tube heaters that can be activated or shut off by pilots. Generally at 35,000 feet the pitot tubes are so cold and precipitation is so hard that they do not stick to the surface. The argument of increase atmosphere height is not valid for Jet Aircraft because the general rule is that Altimeter is set to 29.92 at 18,000 feet so that altitude is a measure of airmass above the aircraft, not elevation. At that level of airmass temperatures are very low, especially at night. In fact this is the way satellites measure cloud heights because precipitation becomes increasingly cold as it rises and emits at lower infrared frequencies as it climbs. It is certainly possible as mention in one report that rising deep convection can draw moisture out of equilibrium (before it becomes really cold) but that there simply is not enough bouyancy to produce large ice at this altitude. New information on Pitots was added to the main page.PB666 ^yap 18:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, A330-200 flightdeck seems to have one, see answer in this Yahoo blog: [20] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Folks, lets get this page cleaned up, seriously, it looks like Matagorda.PB666 ^yap 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's an error with the pitot/static tube picture. I commented at the picture but am not sure anybody would see that. Duckman49 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I note a pilots union is advising members not to fly aircraft without new pitot tubes. [21] if anyone wants to include itJRPG (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[Section on Pitot tube, ADM, ADR and IR moved to end of talk page so older stuff can be archived]

Crash de Habsheim external link

I am a newbee, I may have added information in inappropriate format or I may have made an editing mistake. I added the link to the website "Crash de Habsheim" which I think does a good job in tracing the AF-447 disaster and which does not easily show up in search engines. You deleted the link with the following comment : "(fr, not a RS, copyright concerns)". I assume RS stands for reliable source. I am a scientist and, given the speculation that is going on concerning flight AF-447, I am not sure if all present links really qualify as reliable source. The wikipedia page on AF-447 is nevertheless an excellent source of information including secondary material in the form of links. I do not really see why the one I introduced does not fit and I would appreciate a more detailed argument. I am not associated with this website. I am only of the opinion that if I would search for information on the AF-447 flight (I am interested because I am a frequent flyer), I would appreciate to be linked to the website "Crash de Habsheim". I am trilingual, and I think that people can decide themselves if the want to follow a non-English link. Further, the Wikipedia AF-447 links to several sites where copyright is doubtful. However, prefer not to make semi-public accuses at the present time. Best, GD.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.79.210.225 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-10T17:13:24

This comment was posted to my talk page regarding the removal of this website (automated translation) from the external links section of this article as part of this edit. I do not think this link is suitable for inclusion as per our WP:EL guidelines:

• Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked - many obvious copyrighted images
• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article
• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting
• Links to English language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language

Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I found that link very informative in the pictures alone even though I do not speak or read french. Arydberg (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities

Catalonia should be included in the victims table (column: nationality) as it is defined and recognized as a nation in its Statute (confirmed by the spanish government). [[22]] It would be nice that those who do not agree with this statement, please point out their sources instead of deleting straight ahead any prior modification. --Civit cardona (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

List of sovereign states. Thanks/wangi (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this discussion page before deleting anything. We should write there "State" then. --Civit cardona (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tens un pasaport català? No, evidament no: sí viatges, viatges amb un pasaport o un DNI espanyol. L'informació de la taula estava recollida a partir dels pasaports dels viatgers. Hi ha algunes diferències entre fonts, qui estan notades en l'article. No siguis ridícul, si's plau, estes ridiculitzant una causa noble. Physchim62 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to offend no one. So please, watch your words. I don't care about passports, what I only care is about nations and states. Two different words that get mixed too often. --Civit cardona (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Search for the black boxes

There currently seems to be some overlap/ duplication in the article, between the subsections on Aerial search, ships dispatched and Investigation, over the search for the black boxes. I'm not sure if this needs separating and/or rationalising in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the two sections be combined into one, so that the "Psgr and crew details" section isn't in the middle of them. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm really not sure why Passengers and Crew Details comes after Search and Recovery. I would support the combining of Aerial search, ships dispatched with Investigation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

possible terrorism

This might be of interest. http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.2512885.0.0.php

Arydberg (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be convenient for arms dealers to off those guys, and it may have been easier to blow him out of the sky than attack them in public. A bomb would account for a structural problem that could cause the other problems with the flight control systems. At this point it's only speculation, but we can add a comment to the article. Mgw89 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is total original research. The source mentions absolutely nothing about any possible links to the cause of the crash at all, it is simply noting their loss as influential figures. As for listing them under 'notable passengers', they are no more notable imo than for example the national executives of Brazilian/French companies. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They were involved in fighting drugs. Here is another crash related to drugs. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/06/world/colombia-says-bomb-led-to-crash-last-month-of-plane-carrying-107.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.225.7 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources report this theory, it doesn't belong in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Generals Don't Travel Together & Fear of Flying

Fear of flying led afamily to practice splitting the family for travel by air.... Air France Plane Crash Tears Family In Half an article link ....> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090609/twl-air-france-plane-crash-tears-family-3fd0ae9.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patelurology2 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This kind of story fits with the previous paragraph - people who might have taken the flight but didn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)