Talk:Air France Flight 447/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

228 fatalities, 0 survivors

There is a truly sickening case of double standards going on in the infobox. Various editors (I'm not going to be so obsessive as to find out who) have been adding "(presumed)" to the infobox tallies of fatalities and survivors, in the line of "fatalies=228 (presumed)". and "survivors=0 (presumed)". There is no reliable source to suggest that there are any survivors, and there has not been for more than a week now. There have been memorial services in two countries for the victims of the disaster, which are described (with references) in the article. This is far more reliable sourcing than is needed for any other WP article to describe these people as DEAD. To do otherwise is a slap in the face to those who have personally suffered, and I refuse to hide my contempt for those editors who place Wikipedia policies higher in their personal moral framework than common sense and humanity.

And now it's getting worse. As I write this, there have been 17 bodies recovered from the mid-Atlantic Ocean in a region where debris from the plane has also been found. These editors who will not accept the reality that these passengers are dead are now placing this information in the infobox as if it were confirmed that these bodies are those of victims of the crash, something which no reliable source has wished to assert so far. The bodies are probably from the plane, given their proximity to identifiable debris, but there is a huge case of double standards at work with regards to WP:OR and WP:V. Some editors seem so desperate to see dead bodies that I can only suggest that they apply for a job in a morgue.

I would note that the article has tried to be nuanced in its description of the deaths and the findings, insofar as its sources have permitted. The infobox is supposed to give a summary of currently available information, which it does perfectly well with the plain, verifiable figures: 228 dead, 0 survivors. Anything else is dispicable. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly a touchy subject. Until the bodies are found, it's usually reported as "presumed dead" or "missing", as they are not confirmed "fatalities". The militaries involved have "standard operating procedures", it would be reasonable to follow their guidelines in reporting casualities. Maybe a member of one of the WikiProjects can help out here? --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
For the British victims on the flight, if their bodies aren't recovered it will be another 7 years before can can be legally pronounced "dead". Personally, I see nothing wrong with the presumed/confirmed status in the infobox. Until it is officially announced by the French authorities that they are satisfied that there are no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to resort to ad hominem argumentation here, you could also normally tell everyone that you prefer emotional objections against 'missing' or 'presumed dead' over the ideals of presenting what is known, not what is 99% known. All we can do is write about the events as we know them: the plane crashed and so far, some bodies have been recovered. The lack of a source that suggests there are survivors is no 'source'/'proof' that the opposite must be the case. It is not up to us to declare people dead. Is it reasonable to think that the passengers are dead? Yes, but it can't be factually presented as such because it is not established as fact. - Simeon (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There are calmer complaints in the archives, where discussion favoured the idea of keeping the infobox free of such idiocy. However, certain editors are still replacing these pathetic and offensive WP:OR comments. As for official declarations, is not a memorial service attended by the President of France, or the opening of a judicial case for "involuntary homicide", sufficient official recognition of the deaths of these people? That's far more official recognition than is given to most deaths reported in Wikipedia. All this, of course, still doesn't answer the case of double standards applied to recognised deaths and unrecognised bodies, which really shows the low taste of the editors involved. Physchim62 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, Physchim62, you are assuming ghoulish motives in error. Different cultures apply different criteria in accepting deaths. For Swissair Flight 111 the ID operation continued untill every last passenger was confirmed to legal standards, most using DNA or dental evidence. Until then it is only human nature to cling to the faint hope that someone didn't get on the flight or somehow escaped on a raft, seatcushion, or whatever. There is real resolution for the families in getting that final determination, however slight. Until then, using precise language such as "presumed" or "declared" is the best thing we can do for those families, it is not just slavish adherence to WP guidelines.LeadSongDog come howl 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. What if some guy is found tomorrow, alive? Or the list ends up being wrong after all. Very unlikely, but a lot stranger things have happened. Do we then have to be accused of having been inhuman and rash by declaring "all fatal"? It isn't Wikipedia's job to make those calls. Use what official sources do - "presumed".—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
In the text we do use the word "presumed" and I don't object to that. But I've just had to remove a claim from the infobox that there are 24 "confirmed" deaths and 202 "presumed" deaths. If a survivor comes along and tells us that he or she had a great time as one of the chosen few to go on an intergalactic holiday, then we need to update the article… In the meantime, not a single one of those bodies has been formally identified. I'm sorry to say, but there are plenty of human bodies floating in the Atlantic, for various reasons. Granted, most of them don't appear close to plane wreckage. But to pretend that an unidentified body should be associated with AF447 by common sense, but that we should cast doubt on the fate of other passengers against all the evidence, that is ludicrous. The people that do that are obsessed with dead bodies, and should become undertakers rather than Wikipedia editors. Physchim62 (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The "what if" here is exactly what we want to avoid. Frankly, "what if someone is found 20 years from now?" is just as valid as "what if someone is found tomorrow?" Neither one is a verifiable question. Right now, we know one thing: the chances anyone survived are negligible. The overwhelming, verifiable evidence is that all aboard are dead. We can't leave this as "presumed" forever and, given the likelihood of finding all of the bodies, that's what we'd end up with if we took that line of argument.
At this point, it's safe to say that all aboard are deceased until verifiable information that there is a survivor comes out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Evercat (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, it is common to miss a flight. Passenger manifests, even on first rate airlines operating domestically, are frequently in error. Add linguistic confusion and the error rate goes way up. Consider the Finn that didn't crash on Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 because he was safe at home, never having been near the flight from Turkey. It took several days to clear that up. We don't create facts, we republish them. This is Wikipedia. When we have a RS saying all are declared dead we can publish and cite that source. Until then, the others are presumed.LeadSongDog come howl 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We're not talking about names, we're talking about numbers, and numbers in a summary table attached to a prose article at that. It's of no consequence that Air France didn't know the exact and full nationality details of each passenger, but they knew the number of people on board. None of those people are alive today, according to numerous reliable sources. If you doubt that it's because you want to see the bodies – admit it… go on, admit it… now tell me a plausible situation in which there are any survivors. Physchim62 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hasn't the infobox already been updated to an acceptable description of this? No ifs, ands or buts. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems so. And our theories about survival don't matter, it's what the sources say that matters. However, the cabin being suddenly depressurized at 35,000 feet would almost certainly suffocate everyone on board, long before they hit the water. Consider what happened on the Payne Stewart flight, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Tons of speculation and borderline OR from BOTH sides here. On an article like this, there is no excuse for not following the official phrasing (whether this is "presumed", "confirmed" etc... at whatever stage in time you are at). Use what the government agencies use. Ingolfson (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I already suggested that above, in the first reply. I wasn't speculating, either. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I once missed a flight transfer. Arrived to Spain from the UK, and had to fly to South America with a two hour wait. I forgot to set the clock and the plane left without me, carrying my luggage. Nobody ever noticed. When I went to the help desk they seemed concerned that the plane had left with my bag inside, as that was a serious security risk. The point is, I was in the list of passengers of the flight, and I was never there. I am also a scientist, and that is why I was horrified (scientifically) that someone wrote "all 228 passengers are confirmed dead". Unless all bodies are found and identified there will never be scientific confirmation. Certainly, there is little hope to have any survivors, but as somebody said above, being 99.99% sure is not the same as being 100% sure. At some point all 228 people will be declared legally dead by their respective countries, but even in such case, if not all bodies are found, 100% confirmation will never be established. Dycotiles (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You never have 100% confirmation of anything. Evercat (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the sources would be saying "confirmed dead", unless they've recovered 228 bodies. "Presumed dead" would be the normal phrasing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Recurrent Material in Airspeed inconsistency

I am all for cleaning it up, and correcting poor syntax, but we need to be careful that we are not so zealous for that goal, that we toss out valid and highly relevant information. I have again restored this to the Airspeed Inconsistency section:

"The airspeed numbers which are presented to pilots on the Primary Flight Display (PFD) are derived from pitot probes and static ports, which measure the pressure of the air that passes by the nose of the plane. That pneumatic information is then converted to numerical data by the Air Data Modules (ADMs), and then fed into the ADIRU units, which supply the numbers to the pilots on their respective PFDs.[24]
"For redundancy, the plane has 3 pitot probes with associated static ports, 8 ADMs, and 3 ADIRUs. Each ADIRU is divided into two parts, each of which can operate separately in the event of the failure of the other part.[24]
"The Air Data Reference (ADR) part of the ADIRU supplies barometric altitude, speed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and warnings for too much speed. The Inertial Reference (IR) part of the ADIRU, supplies attitude, flight path vector, track, heading, accelerations, angular rates, ground speed, vertical speed and the position of the plane.[24]"


For redundancy, the plane has 3 pitot probes with associated static ports, 8 ADMs, and 3 ADIRUs. Each ADIRU is divided into two parts, each of which can operate separately in the event of the failure of the other part.<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> The Air Data Reference (ADR) part of the ADIRU supplies barometric altitude, speed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and warnings for too much speed. The Inertial Reference (IR) part of the ADIRU, supplies attitude, flight path vector, track, heading, accelerations, angular rates, ground speed, vertical speed and the position of the plane.<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>[Added by PB666]

Since we are focusing on the many previous incidents and accidents, where icing of the pitot probes caused the loss of vital information in glass cockpits----because computers failed, then the fact that the planes were designed with a great amount of redundancy (which I have specifically itemized), becomes vital and highly relevant information. That is especially true, since all that redundancy is virtually ruined and made worthless, unless at least one pitot probe and its associated static port is functioning properly. In other words, all of the glass cockpit computer redundancy seems to be packed into one essential basket: That of properly functioning pitot/static systems. Not unlike how all the hydraulic controls redundancy in the 747, became naught, when the rear bulkhead failed, causing the rupture of all four of those redundant hydraulic systems, which resulted in the deaths of 520 SOBs.

I can see no good reason why that detailed redundancy information should be removed, nor how such a removal will improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. EditorASC (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Pdeitiker (AKA .PB666 yap):
“Only 3 ADM are connected to Pitot tubes or Pitot lines, according to the manual, the other 5 ADM are connected to 6 static lines...”
Therefore what? All the lines from static ports and pitot probes, connect directly to the input side of the ADMs. Then, all output lines from the ADMs, connect to the ADIRUs. Apparently you do not understand that to measure IAS accurately, there has to be a comparison between the pressure of the air being rammed into the pitot probes and the “static” pressure that is sensed by the static ports. Pitot probes and static ports are integrated systems, which function properly only so long as both parts are connected, without any kinds of obstruction.
The fact that there are 8 ADMs, connecting all the pitot probes and static ports to 3 ADIRUs, as well as to the standby IAS and the standby altimeter, indicates the great importance of that many layers of redundancy, which you seem determined to cavalierly dismiss with your favorite word of “trivia.” I think all that redundancy should be mentioned, since most or all of it seems to have failed, as indicated from the stream of 24 Acars messages, shortly before everything suddenly went silent.
The last Acars message, at 02:10Z, was “All pitot static ports lost.” Immediately after that, at 02:11Z, Acars transmitted “Failure of all three ADIRUs” and “Failure of gyros of ISIS” (attitude information lost). That means that the pilots had no indications of airspeed or attitude and probably no altitude information either, since the standby IAS and altimeter failed also.
It is virtually impossible to keep a plane upright, in the dark over a black ocean, without accurate attitude and airspeed information. If they were in strong turbulence at the time (almost a certainty), it would be only a matter of seconds before the plane would upset and go into an unrecoverable dive. Without that essential information, it would be impossible for the pilots to prevent such an upset, and impossible to make a safe recovery during the dive, before it hit the water.
So, therefore, what is the point of your mentioning that “Only 3 ADM are connected to Pitot tubes or Pitot lines...the other 5 ADM are connected to 6 static lines...” ??? Just another of your dangling non sequitur statements, in a vain attempt to justify your “trivia” label? EditorASC (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


I have tagged this section as OR, as none of the other incidents has been linked to AF447 by a reliable source. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BS, See below.PB666 yap 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are 2 comments on the crash. The "smart cockpit" link above verifies that the plane carried 4 standby instruments. These are compass, artificial horizon, airspeed and altimeter. While the artificial horizon is electrical powered the rest use no power of any kind. They are basic to flying and are intended for emergency use. This is in section "standby instruments" page 2 & 3. Also if something happened at altitude it would probably take 3 to 4 minutes for the plane top fall the 30,000 feet to the ocean. This assumes terminal velocity of 100 mph. Arydberg (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Woman who missed Flight 447 is killed in car crash

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6479203.ece

!!!!.do add this. need to watch the other 3 passengers who missed the flight. eerily reminiscent of final destination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.128.124 (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be stupid! she was killed in a car crash, happens all the time, it's just bad luck, no Final Destination relevance! Zaps93 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't be insulting just because you don't agree. And see the discussion farther down the page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
And missing a fatal plane crash and dying soon after in a car crash does not "happen all the time". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
OK! Read before typing! I was not being insulting, and secondly you misunderstood, I mean car crashes happen all the time! Zaps93 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Saying "don't be stupid" is an insulting comment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

What's the verdict on official and referenced speculation like this: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=as_IAXADNn1c, which provides support for the idea that the plane broke up before impact? Jddriessen (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's somebody's speculation, so it doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen similar speculation in the Spanish press regarding the tail section that has been recovered. I think we can safely wait before including it: we are not the accident investigation commission, and many of our "data" have passed by many mouths before being reported in the press (simply because of the operational difficulties in the mid-Atlantic), so conservatism should be a watch-word. Physchim62 (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. Newspapers are in the business of finding news, and if they can't find facts about a hot story, they'll find speculation. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing against WP policy in citing reliable sources (which can include news media, the accident investigators, the aircraft manufacturers, etc) that discuss likely causes or that dismiss unlikely causes as long as we make it clear by citations who is saying what. 91.187.80.104 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not appropriate for the article to parrot baseless speculation. Once the investigators come up with something, then you've got something you can use. Anything else is just individual opinions, i.e. guesswork. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's avoid sinking into hyperbole; nobody is "parroting baseless speculation". If it is made clear who said what, it is perfectly acceptable by WP policies to cite reliable sources that discuss likely causes or unlikely causes. 91.187.80.104 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
But we love sinking into hyperbole, it makes us feel powerful without having to reflect much on our own hypocrisy, WP:OR appears about as frequently on this page as the rebel yell at a Nascar race.
BTW, if we look at what the media said during the 1st 6 days after the crash and look at what we know now, we all should be somewhat hesitant to use media sources without some rumination of the facts ourselves.PB666 yap 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with "It's somebody's speculation, so it doesn't belong." As the reporter references a newspaper (O Estado de S. Paulo ) perhaps some spanish speaking person could read and translate the source article. According to wikipedia this is the the sixth largest newspaper in Brazil. Arydberg (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it's still pure guesswork. No one knows what happened to that plane beyond the fact that it crashed into the ocean. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the fact that the clothes were missing from the bodies means they were separated from the aircraft at great height. It also states that some bodies were found 50 miles from others. It also states there was no water in the lungs. What we need to do is to judge the verifiability of this source and not dismiss it out of hand.

Arydberg (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I put this into the article yesterday, and it was removed. The condition of the discovered bodies (including the lack of clothing) and the large chunks of aircraft found shows it did break up in midair. That has been proven by the autopsies. Whether it broke up because of an explosion or slow air speed has yet to be determined. All of this is from www.airfranceflight447.com so why are we arguing with that source?

From a beginner: Having read above and being around you all who have been in this circle for much longer, an acceptance of the fact that meaning behind some news that comes around( though needs to be verified) should be topic of discussion on this main discussion page (and you can channel if needed to other sub-topic discussion page if needed), but let there be a free dicussion. On this sub-section on speculation, let there be explanation( speculative explanation is fair game)of any and all speculation; one individual's vs other's speculation is not the main topic. In-fighting can be less productive, though rules need be followed but for beginners like me, every bit of intellegence of the masses, whom Wikipedia recognises as volunteer contributors, be recognised unhindered- the dictum primum:

Using the following blockquotes, an example is given below for an item mentioned therein.

All the following passage are from above discussion on speculation with possibly some confusion if an item belong on main page vs this discussion page. I surely feel discussion should be just discussion about information at hand and how it can be included in main page.

... similar speculation in the Spanish press regarding the tail section that has been ..................

There is nothing against WP policy in citing reliable sources (which can include news media, the accident investigators, the aircraft manufacturers, etc) that discuss likely causes or that dismiss unlikely causes as long as we make it clear by citations who is saying what. ...

It's not appropriate for the article to parrot baseless speculation. Once the investigators come up with something, then you've got something you can use. Anything else is just individual opinions, i.e. guesswork. ....

This is all subjective, what is good and bad speculation. The media are ruminating on what professionals are thinking or saying. On the issue of the Stabilizer, if it did not break up in flight then in broke up on impact, in either case its presence does not indicate really anything. Whereas those faults and warnings were going on before the breakup, immediately before, and as a consequence they are less speculative. The problem is that currently we have no objective interpretation of what they mean. .....

... disagree with "It's somebody's speculation, so it doesn't belong." As the reporter references a newspaper (O Estado de S. Paulo ) perhaps some spanish speaking person could read and translate the source article. According to wikipedia this is the the sixth largest newspaper in Brazil. .....

It doesn't matter, it's still pure guesswork. No one knows what happened to that plane beyond the fact that it crashed into the ocean. ......

The article states that the fact that the clothes were missing from the bodies means they were separated from the aircraft at great height. It also states that some bodies were found 50 miles from others. It also states there was no water in the lungs. What we need to do is to judge the verifiability of this source and not dismiss it out of hand.

Possible use of information 'that passengers were found 50 miles apart' can mean that the first few found might have come from the tail section and the second larger group possibly from the main body and same may also indicate that tail broke up in air rather than at impact for the same reason i.e. passengers found in two separate groups.

In summary, ideas come to all of us and these need to be expressed as some meaning will come out of our effort. This is all for the Speculation sub-section only).Patelurology2 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Patelurology2 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Patelurology2 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The following, appeared in news: "Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the French air accident investigation agency BEA, expressed "a little more optimism" about the investigation as the discovery of so much debris has narrowed the vast search zone off the northeast coast of Brazil. Arslanian said the debris that has been found came from "all zones" of the plane, but he did not describe it in detail or say what proportion of the plane had been retrieved. The wreckage, some in sections so large and heavy that cranes were required to move it."

If otherwise secure objects from all over the plane were in the above wreckage, it appears that the bulk of the plane broke up in air which would be more likely than on impact. This would be fair speculation.Patelurology2 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, Patel, if you give a quotation, cite it. Your "appeared in news" doesn't cut it, even in talk pages. It appears you are quoting from this:
It's fine to relate statements by the official accident investigators from the major agencies. They are trained to not speculate publicly. What they release to the press is considered opinion of informed experts. Care is needed in ensuring that poorly informed speculation by reporters doesn't change the meaning of the official statements. Given the importance of the Paris Air Show we can be reasonably confident that AP have assigned reporters who are informed about aviation topics, though it never hurts to check their track record. What we must avoid is the temptation to insert our own ideas. We edit, we don't originate content.LeadSongDog come howl 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some news, regarding autopsies with multiple fractures and large pieces among the debries being reported, suggests mid air break up of the main bulk of the plane. By Stan Lehman and Emma Vandore, Associated Press Writers Stan Lehman And Emma Vandore, Associated Press Writers [1] 17 june, Sao Paulo: (AP)
Patelurology2 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the following blockquote previously detailed before in prior submission: The Link is from Yahoo and Associated Press. [2] 17 June, Le Bourget:(AP)
Patelurology2 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The following, appeared in the news(source is as above):

"Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the French air accident investigation agency BEA, expressed "a little more optimism" about the investigation as the discovery of so much debris has narrowed the vast search zone off the northeast coast of Brazil.

Arslanian said the debris that has been found came from "all zones" of the plane, but he did not describe it in detail or say what proportion of the plane had been retrieved. The wreckage, some in sections so large and heavy that cranes were required to move it."

Patelurology2 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to learn how to contribute to it in accordance with rules that, judging from the content of most articles that I've read, work very well. But I have to say that I'm mistified by the debate regarding how to report in Wikipedia on the autopsies and the debris. Swiss television showed images of the jump seats: there were no bodies in them (I referenced their article on that, but somebody deleted it). And they reported that the bodies showed no signs of burns or explosion, but multiple fractures that would be consistent with the plane breaking up at altitude and the bodies falling into the ocean[3]. The article I found on AP[4] says the same (use the referenced link at search for AF 447). Why shouldn't such information be posted on Wikipedia? It is verifiable.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ADIRU

Under the section Airspeed inconsistency reference is made to previous incidents and accidents linked with ADIRUs on board A330s. A paragraph at the bottom of this section should be added to note AF447's ADIRUs were manufactured by a different company. This fact has an arguable impact on readers unfamiliar with the technical details and really ought to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.64.102 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It was noted (I noted it) and it was removed as speculative, problem is that we know Northrup Grumman the manufacturer is for the Qantas A330, and it has been mentioned that the ADIRU on the Air Frances are Honeywell, although it is not certain that all are Honeywell. If you can find a bonafida source of information then it can be put back. People here have been real snipers about references, particularly when it involves a line of thought they don't want on the page. PB666 yap 03:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And rightly so. The official accident investigation has hardly started, yet there many amateur air crash investigators, including the press, who are eager to push their own armchair theories or parallels with other accidents. This is supposedly an encyclopedia article, so until the official accident report is published, expect any speculation about the cause to be challenged. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but Airbus did say privately that, guess what, the ADIRU were different. I agree we should not be speculating about causes and any accounts that are contributed should have a NPOV so that they are not attributed to the wiki page as the origin of that speculation. I removed that sentence myself, but I did so reluctantly since it provides the best NPOV stance.PB666 yap 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
After doing yet another search I found a reference we have already used According to Airbus spokesman Justin Dubon, any comparisons between the Qantas and Air France flights are fundamentally misleading. "One thing that has got to be clear is that there are more than one manufacturer of ADIRUs, and the ADIRU manufacturer for the Qantas case is not the same for the Air France case," he tells TIME. As reported in the aviation trade magazine Air Transport News, manufacturer Northrop Grumman makes the ADIRUs for Qantas, and Honeywell for Air France. "There are no similarities in ADIRUs between the two cases," says Dubon.[1]
However, I went to Air Transport News and could find no mention of the connection between Air France and Honeywell, Justin Dubon, or Northrup Grumman ADIRU, ADIRS, etc. which would be the best news source. It appears there are only 2 manf of the ADIRS for the A330 and if we can have some lineancy on the reference we can add this statement.PB666 yap 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Airspeed inconsistency

Have removed the paragraph that was attempting to describe ADIRU operation and airspeed calculation. It is too detailed and technical for this article and contained a number of factual errors that disagreed with the given citation. The only thing we need to convey here is that pitot tubes are one of the sensors used in calculating airspeed. Readers seeking further information can still drill into the related articles - have added a note to this effect. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why couldn't we have done this is the first place? lol.PB666 yap 14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447 - page title may include flight was in accident

The concept is that possibility of using the same numbers on a flight, train, bus or other mode exists despite accidents; awareness of this in title creation can be incorporated.

If Air France Flight 447 is a currently operating flight(which may be untrue), then the title of the current page Air France Flight 447 may need should be changed to reflect this possibly indicating a notation regarding accident of the fateful date. Confirmation of this is not available but Air France web site indiates no flight AF447 for current dates possibly meaning that the flight number may have been retired.

This is from another website( could be lagging in recognising that there may be no flight AF447) is the current schedule below indicates timing though may need to verify Departure Status Details Airport: (GIG) Galeao Antonio Carlos Jobim International Airport City: Rio De Janeiro, RJ, BR Scheduled: 7:00 PM - Sun Jun 14, 2009 Terminal: 1 Local Time: 6:37 PM - Sun Jun 14, 2009

Same applies to any accident train bus etc where same number is not always terminated and can forever lock up the page naming into though meaning referrence to accident, can be confused with current flight 447. This comes from a beginner.65.51.38.194 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Patelurology2 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Rewording. Patelurology2 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article follows the naming standards of Wikiproject Aviation. Suggest you discuss there if you have concerns about the naming scheme. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And just to repeat the same answer I gave to the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Same_numbers_on_a_flight.2C_train.2C_bus_or_other_mode_may_exist_despite_accidents - Not an issue as only one Air France Flight 447 is notable none of the others are. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

100th Paris Air Show

I'm not sure how this would work into the article, but the press is commenting on the effect of the crash on the 100th Paris Air Show. There is even an extraordinary statement by the CEO of Boeing that the A330 is a proven aircraft. See Reuters article.LeadSongDog come howl 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

American Names?

Seeing as this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, shouldn't we list the names of the brave Americans who risked and ultimately lost their lives for the sake of the others on the plane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.63.221 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can list the names of passengers if they are notable, normally for air accidents articles that means they have a related article of their own not connected with the accident. No reason why Americans should be treated any different to any other passengers they all have to meet the notability threshold to be listed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, excuse my ignorance on the subject, but how did they "risk, and ultimately lost their lives for the sake of the others on the plane"?
How do we know who did what? FFMG (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:TROLL? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Position of last ACARS 0214 UTC

Hello! The Automated messages section in this article says: "... the two final messages, transmitted at 02:14 UTC at location 3°34′40″N 30°22′28″W ..." How do we know that this position is the one where last ACARS was sent from, thus where AF 447 has been at that time? Is there a source that can be specified concerning these coordinates? If yes: which source? I´ve been checking Aviation Herald, PPruNe, German Wiki (not mentioning one) and French Wiki (saying the Bazilian Forces published it - I couldn´t find it in their press releases either...) and some others the last days. Can anyone bring some light into this? Thank you! --Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • good question. Av-herald had it at one time. I have the complete ACARS message as presented on french TV. There is nothing there to indicate the coordinates but the official sources on the crash say that a GPS coordinate was communicated. Hope you find the answer.PB666 yap 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sharing what you know! If Av-Herald has withdrawn this info (I can´t check they had it on their page, but I believe if you say so) there is probably a reason, and I´d guess it was because they can´t find a proper source either? You could help me a lot if you´d remember which official source could have notified that GPS coordinate was communicated! Air France? Força Aérea Brasileira? BEA? I thought I checked all of them three times all over, but maybe I missed something! Thank you! --Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know how folks want to handle this one: Forca Aerea Brasileira (FAB) reported that in the 0214 UTC ACARS message "Sources within Air France reported, that the automatic message did not only report an electrical short circuit, but also the loss of cabin pressure. This information has been confirmed by FAB, who also stated, that the position of the airplane was given as N3.5777 W30.3744 in that message."av-herald In addition this was the flight plan from 0133UTC (INDOL) next TASIL ETA 0223z, FL350 GS 543KT. This places the position at 3 34 40N and 30 33 28W, 331nm past INTOL(1.36083°S 32.83139°W / -1.36083; -32.83139) therefore the speed should have been 484 kts (I copied this calculation, but I got the same answer for distance). Therefore it is not likely a calculated position but part of some transmission. How reliable is the source (FAB)? Is this the position at 200 UTC-communicated to Brasil or 214 UTC communicated to Air France? If the 0200 UTC is the point Average GS = 735KT At 214 GS would be 484KT. If the aircraft had held constant speed it would have been between N4.12 and N4.23, W30.04 and W30.12 (my calculation), therefore it is not a calculated position based on airspeed unless the person who calculated the speed messed up. I say leave the coordinates. PB666 yap 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • PB666, that’s great news to me! Excuse me for being picky and prussian, but: the position you found in Av-Herald (N3.5777 W30.3744 = 3°34'40"N, 30°22'28"W) is not (!) on the flight track of UN873 airway. It is 35km = 18,9nm north of it. "Ultimo Reporte" (FAB used in their plotting) would be 3°16'28.00"N 30°22'28.00"W. That would be on the estimated flight track. I could tell a long rigmarole, but in the end I would and do agree with you at this point: N3.5777 W30.3744 is likely to be a transmission, not a calculated position (and not an outcome of some speed typing journalist).
I´m not absolutely convinced, but you gave a good point for going on and to find the source in FAB. Thanks a lot! And I agree: leave the coordinates. But put a reference to Av-Herald for the moment. I´ll comb through FAB press releases once more, maybe there is some better source to replace it.--Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I created 364 equidistant coordinate pts between TASIL and INDOL in Excel. I confirmed this by flying a B777sim on MSFS from FEMUR to INTOL to TASIL FL350 M 0.85 GS 490KN 299 KIAS using real weather (not that there is any real weather to be had), the distance was 364NM and I took GPS positions at 300, 200, 100, 50, 33, 20, 15,10 and 5 nm from TASIL. At the GPS coordinates 50 and 33NM from TASIL the deviation of 'Excel' coordinates NS was 0.04 NM and EW 0.1 of a Nautical mile from MSFS GPS coordinates on UN873, which was about the deviation of the B777sim from its flight path (by the GPS). The closest point on the UN873 was 33.5 NM from TASIL, that point was 8.5 nM from 3.5777°N 30.3744°W, at that point 4nm North and 7.5nm West of that point on UN873.PB666 yap 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BEA on last coordinates, problem for the main page

BEA (Bureau d´Enquêtes et d´Analyses por la Sécurité de l´Aviation civile) as investigating authority of AF 447 accident announced in their last press release on 17.06.2009: "The last position message from the airplane was broadcast by the ACARS automatic system at 2 h 10 UTC."06-17-2009 News Conference I find it implausible that BEA would affirm this if any information about position at 0214 UTC was available to them. Thus I don´t believe this information exists. Nobody knows at this time where AF 447 has exactly been at 0214 UTC. --Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • GoodFind! Then those coordinates were probably from 0210 and not 0214. That puts GS at 540KT for the 37 minutes (very close to what was stated). If the AC had continued on strait for at least 4 minutes then its position would have been 366NM +/-3.66NM NNE of INTOL and 36NM from the 0210 report or at 4.10°N and 30.1146°W. Looks like we are going to have to pull those coordinates afterall, unless the BEA released the coordinates we have either a synthesis of reporting the "0214 Coordinates" at 210 or the synthesis of computing the 0214 coordinates based on 0210. Even if the plane pitched to -90 it would have taken less than 40 seconds to hit the water, therefore it could not (impossibly) have produced messages for 4 more minutes at that location. The minimum average descent would have been -9.2' net still travel about 35 miles. The minimum turn diameter of these large jets is about 16NM at that altitude and speed, probably greater at 540, say 18NM. That means a radius of 9NM. In that case 35NM would represent the ability to turn no more than 222' Either direction. It is possible if one wanted to do it, create an ARC of positions -222 to +222 whereby one could estimate all possible positions of the AC at 0214 traveling 540KT. The time between the 0210 message and 214 message is 4min +/-24 seconds. One could assign also a probability of a 30'bank turn initiated at any given point. This creates a three dimension probability set of where the aircraft could have been when it gave its final report, the 96' confidence interval I would estimate to be almost 50NM apart with no single point closer than 15NM from the 0210 coordinates.PB666 yap 02:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you're reading too much into the BEA announcement. The BEA is scrupulous not taking a position as to whether the ACARS messages form a "series" or not, but their announcement is not inconsistent with a position sent in the latter part of the ACARS messages that were emitted. I think that quoting the coordinates as "sent between 0210 and 0214" is OK and consistent with what we have RS for. Physchim62 (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is what is it. The problem is that the FAB claims to have gotten its coordinates and time of coordinates from Air France, which makes that second hand information, and then you have the BEA contradiction the FAB, the BEA is closer to the investigation than the FAB regarding Air France, the ACARS, and Airbus Industries.PB666 yap 11:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hello Physchim62, I don´t think the scope of interpretation is too wide in a sentence saying: "The last position message … was broadcast … at 2 h 10 UTC". I´m well aware that BEA is (and has to be) scrupulous, therefore I don´t assume they´d affirm anything arguable.
  • Hello anon editor! The history of this talk page shows that there is plenty of room for lame speculation, such as your intensive textual analysis of the BEA press release. The solution adopted on {{Air France Flight 447/flight path}} seems to be perfectly conservative. Of course F-GZCP didn't hover over a point for four minutes, something for which it was aerodynamically incapable, but this is no reason to enter into speculation as to where it actually crashed into the ocean (or was zapped up into a spaceship from the planet Zorg, or blown up by terrorists, depending on your favorite conspiracy theory). As no one quite knows what happened, the last reliable data are the ACARS coordinates: their position is quite sufficient for a lay reader to locate the site in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. All speculation as to "exactly" where the accident might have happened is in fact speculation as to what the accident was, and so to be discouraged as far as possible. Physchim62 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hello Physchim62! The above was in fact signed by Ursula Hofbauer at 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC), but you posted in the middle of her post, which is signed below. See the talk page history.LeadSongDog come howl 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • PB666: I think we´re on the same track, still I have a remark: BEA is not contradicting FAB. BEA is contradicting Aviation Herald, citing an unknown source in Air France and saying FAB would have confirmed that information (in a document or statement unknown to me). FABs "Ultimo reporte" is plotted in their early SAR maps at about 03º 16′ 28” N, 030º 22′28” W. Brazilian ministry of defense gives the exact coordinates in a press release from 01/06/2009: 01/06/2009 - AERONÁUTICA 3 - Relatório das buscas do vôo 447 da Air France It is 18' south of the one Aviation Herald gives. There is another press release from FAB on 01/06/2009 saying that Air France informed Brazilian ATC early morning of 01/06/2009 about the loss of AF 447 about 100km from TASIL: "A Companhia AIRFRANCE informou ao CINDACTA III, às 08h30 (horário de Brasília), que a aproximadamente 100 quilômetros da posição TASIL, o vôo AFR 447 enviou uma mensagem para a companhia informando problemas técnicos na aeronave (perda de pressurização e falha no sistema elétrico)". I guess they were not talking in kilometres but in nautical miles, they are flying guys. 100km = 54nm. I guess the Air France guy didn´t say "about 54nm from TASIL" but "about 50nm from TASIL". 50nm = 92,6km. Measure from 03º 16′ 28” N, 030º 22′28” W to TASIL on UN873 airway, it´s exactly 92,6km = 50nm. So at least this position is very likely no ACARS transmission. And yes, FAB got that information from Air France. L., --Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder of av-herald has updated their page since the news conference, you checked, I will read it again? It has now changed

Air France reported, that they had received an automatic message from the airplane reporting an electrical short circuit and the failure of multiple systems at 02:14Z. . .[5].

This in itself is interesting because there is no ACARS on electrical failure only a Maintenance status on 0214 dealing with the navigation system. But in the next paragraph.

Sources within Air France reported, that the automatic message did not only report an electrical short circuit, but also the loss of cabin pressure. This information has been confirmed by FAB, who also stated, that the position of the airplane was given as N3.5777 W30.3744 in that message.[6]

There is nothing we can do now but speculate. My opinion is that in the wee hours of the morning someone at Air France tried to deal with the developing situation as best as they could, they appear to have gotten the nature of the failure wrong, it was not an electrical failure but a failure in the avionics electronics, maybe a translation problem for a non-portuguese or non-english speaker. That same error has been reported by others. So it is possible that the first reports did have a GPS coordinate but the wrong time stamp, if that is what the av-herald is going by. I repeat this again, I have the entire ACARS report for AF 447 from 0531 2245 to 0601 0214 as was presented to the media, and there is nothing in that which indicates a GPS coordinate.PB666 

yap 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The first time stamp on this is 11:30 Brasil local time, and apparently shipped of to news organizations around 11AM. Original is Forca Aerea Brasileira (Minister

Às 22h48 (horário de Brasília), quando a aeronave saiu da cobertura radar do CINDACTA III, de Fernando de Noronha, as informações indicavam que a aeronave voava normalmente a 35.000 pés (11 quilômetros) de altitude e a uma velocidade de 453 KT (840 quilômetros por hora).

Translated (by my bad spanish inferences for portuguese) At 22:48 local time when aircraft left radar range of CINDACTA III(at Fernando de Noronha), indicated that the aircraft was traveling normally at FL350 with a groundspeed of 453 KT

GS 453 KT sounds alot more reasonable for the aircraft than 543. I did use a 'sucky' A330 Sim and I could not push it to 543, that was well above the OS limit so the AC would have to have had a massive tailwind. Even the 777 had problems at 35,000 feet with a full load of fuel.

A Companhia AIRFRANCE informou ao CINDACTA III, às 08h30 (horário de Brasília), que a aproximadamente 100 quilômetros da posição TASIL, o vôo AFR 447 enviou uma mensagem para a companhia informando problemas técnicos na aeronave (perda de pressurização e falha no sistema elétrico).

Translated (by my bad spanish inferences for portuguese) The company AirFrance informed CINDACTA III at 8:30 [June 1 2009, Brasil local time] that at approximately 100 kilometers from waypoint TASIL, of AF 447 sent a message for the purpose of informing the company of technical problems with the aircraft (loss of pressure and fault in the electrical system)

Well ((33.5NM ^ 2) + (8.5NM ^ 2)) ^ 0.5 = 34.6NM. This can be converted to 64 KM, that would be a very speculative approximation, Who knows. What I do know is if that A/C had traveled for 4 minutes from the position given, then it would have been ~10nM or about 20KM from TASIL on the deviant track. I think by the fact we are saying who knows means that we cannot present the coordinates on the main. I will look at the french page, my french is all but nothing.PB666 yap 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The EW component is the same, the NS component is different by 18.2NM and by memory this would place the coordinate 3.2744N 30.3744W right on the high-altitude jetway.PB666 yap 19:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I left the coordinates embedded in hidden text in the section, if anyone can get a set of coordinated with a 210 timestamp we can move them. Otherwise we will have to wait for a clarification. OK so I want to speculate now, the weather reports that have been posted showed F-GZCP coming out of Tstorm activity at 0210 and well out by 0214 based on these coordinates for 0214, but if those coordinates were for 210, then by 214 the AC was almost 75 NM out of the deep convection. What are the possibilities now for hail? lightning? almost zero. The weather section appears now to be more speculative. It the AC was in trouble why would it turn back in the direction of the storm activity.PB666 yap 02:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don´t know if the position discussed (3° 34′ 40″ N, 30° 22′ 28 W) is originally from 0210 UTC, but I don´t think so. BEA uses another position in a PDF document released on Wednesday: sea.search.ops 17/06/2009 unfortunately without coordinates. Easy access to the map/picture I´m talking about here. There is a position marked "Dernière position connue" = last position known. It´s not the position discussed here as "last ACARS" (3° 34′ 40″ N, 30° 22′ 28 W) and also not FAB´s "Ultimo Reporte" (3° 16′ 40″ N, 30° 22′ 28W). If you use the scale given in that map "Dernière position connue" is about 130km from TASIL. As there is no GMS grid in that map I don’t have a direction from TASIL, therefore it´s hard to estimate a position.Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am going to cut into your post Ursula, at the bottom of the image one can see the line of the flight path, the image is N/S (although I don't know if this is magnetic or geographic). Indeed it is over 130Km or about 70NM, this point is all but meaningless,IMHO. To Summarize the problem
  • We have two (possibly 3) contesting time stamps
  • We have two (possibly 3) contesting geographic positions
  • one from av-herald cannot be substantiated and is off the flight path.
  • one from FAB's "Utimo Reporte" which is 18.2 NM due south of the av-herald and on the flight path. The sum of distance of 34 + 18 = 52NM for the second point is about 100KM from TASIL. So that at least reconciles, but it assumes they understood the coordinates correctly from Air France. Assuming that 100KM is correct then:
  • Most of the scattered debris is north of Ultimo Reporte but alot is out of the av-herald, and the surface currents travel from SE to NW in that position this time of year. As the days went on the material tracked north. That position is consistent the rate of Northward drift. Maybe they places the position of TASIL wrong?
  • Standard descent rate for aircraft is 1000ft per 3NM. Therefore at 35000 feet one expects 200km, so that 130km northward even adding 50KM is not expected for an AC disentegration. It is rather easy to produce a descent rate of 1000ft per 1.5NM, by extending spoilers. An aircraft that disintegrates is not going to fly another 100KM as the aircraft rolls and rotates its coefficient of drag will increase rapidly and it will slam into the wind and fall.
  • Using Google earth I was able to align the relief of the sea floor on the pdf with geographic coordinates TASIL is in the correct position on the pdf map.
  1. The map position on the pdf for last known point is:2 58' 40" N 30 35' 10"W (N2.9778 W30.5861)
  2. The position of the FAB is 3 16' 40" N, 30 22' 28W (N3.2778 W30.3744)
  3. The position of the av-herald is:3 34' 40" N, 30° 22' 28 W (N3.5777 W30.3744)
Maybe Av-herald is wrong, IMO. To easy to mistake 2 for 5 and explain the problem. Assuming FAB is right then could there be two time stamps. One at 210 and the other at 214 We have to make a base assumption, I argue 500KT at 4 minutes = 33.5NM. Next what is the distance between pdf and FAB answer 22NM. Next what are the possible times, shortest possible times are 3.1min and longest possible time is 4.9 minutes. Is it possible and at what speed could the ac travel. For 3.1 minutes (02:10:55) send and (02:14:05) resend the Aircraft could travel this at GS425. If the AC had slowed down for turbulence this is within the flight envelope. 22NM over 4.9 minutes (02:10:05) send and (02:14:55) resend the Aircraft could travel this 22NM at GS 270, however only with a strong headwind, the IAS would be close to stall speed otherwise, unless the Aircraft had decreased altitude. In which case that would be a completely expected position. Ergo the BEA could be talking about a 0210 position that is correct on the pdf and the FAB could be talking about a 214 position that is correct for other unknown reasons. PB666 yap 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But "last ACARS" is 66 km from TASIL, "Ultimo Reporte" 92,6 km from TASIL. It can´t be the one nor the other. I guess it is the last broadcast position at 0210 UTC. But I don´t know.Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)--
  • I looked at the images, I immediately came to a conclusion that I am not going to give here, the positions are consistent with the av-coordinates/time but . . .This is simply not something we should discuss as it becomes original research. Those red dots are almost in a strait line, the base of the line would be approximate if the coordinates were from 0214 as av-herald stated, assuming EW current. Since it is highly unlikely the AC turned back after the 0210 then the westward position is likely due to drift and splay of debris. If NS drift is unlikely and particles should move WNW according to surface currents, then the southern most points are markers for the initiation of structural failure. The trail of red dots indicates that the plane did not likely turn back toward its SSW path since the NS dimension it too great and the time too small to allow for this.PB666 yap 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll draw the attention of editors to this blog by CNN's Miles Obrien which, over several days from 1-10 June, presented some carefully done analysis in terms that are intelligible to laymen. Well worth reading. I'll also point out this Accuweather special coverage that identifies the surface current as West to East at an average of 5 miles per hour. The inference drawn by the Accuweather analysis was that debris would be washing up in Africa by now. If that's right, we should be checking for local reports in west African media.LeadSongDog come howl 17:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • With respect to the following block quote from prior submission by PB666, a need for translation program is apparent; previously made available in Ext link for direct conversion of Brazilian Air Force Portal when it was listed erronously as Portuguese only portal. This language conversion link was ?deleted when it was discovered as a dual language portal. Basic translation programs will be attached to Ext link section of this discussion page if this may help discussion of information that comes along in other languages. See External link -coming soon.

Automatic translation can help you understand the gist of the translated text but is no substitute for a professional human translator.

The first time stamp on this is 11:30 Brasil local time, and apparently shipped of to news organizations around 11AM. Original is Forca Aerea Brasileira (Minister

Às 22h48 (horário de Brasília), quando a aeronave saiu da cobertura radar do CINDACTA III, de Fernando de Noronha, as informações indicavam que a aeronave voava normalmente a 35.000 pés (11 quilômetros) de altitude e a uma velocidade de 453 KT (840 quilômetros por hora).

Translated (by my bad spanish inferences for portuguese) At 22:48 local time when aircraft left radar range of CINDACTA III(at Fernando de Noronha), indicated that the aircraft was traveling normally at FL350 with a groundspeed of 453 KT

GS 453 KT sounds alot more reasonable for the aircraft than 543. I did use a 'sucky' A330 Sim and I could not push it to 543, that was well above the OS limit so the AC would have to have had a massive tailwind. Even the 777 had problems at 35,000 feet with a full load of fuel. A Companhia AIRFRANCE informou ao CINDACTA III, às 08h30 (horário de Brasília), que a aproximadamente 100 quilômetros da posição TASIL, o vôo AFR 447 enviou uma mensagem para a companhia informando problemas técnicos na aeronave (perda de pressurização e falha no sistema elétrico).

Translated (by my bad spanish inferences for portuguese) The company AirFrance informed CINDACTA III at 8:30 [June 1 2009, Brasil local time] that at approximately 100 kilometers from waypoint TASIL, of AF 447 sent a message for the purpose of informing the company of technical problems with the aircraft (loss of pressure and fault in the electrical system)


Patelurology2 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Link for Language Conversion program: Original and Translation side by sidePatelurology2 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That translation looks fine to me. I wouldn't certify my Portuguese translations, but I do use the language professionally on a weekly basis. The FAB have released English translations of many of their press releases, but not this one as far as I can see. Physchim62 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I've originally put coordinates in wiki page as 4°N 30°W taking in account 100 km precision per Wikipedia:COORD#Precision. Somebody has corrected them to 3.5°N / 30.5°W by assuming 50 km precision. But I agree with PB666 50NM estimation. --TAG (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Over 500 edits ago I made reference to the unreliable position reports. The following is a link in Tim Vasquez's Weather Analysis and has derived positions from the FAB and extrapolated the BEA "last known position". Flight Path from INTOL.

Kiwi Kousin (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is such a wonderful analysis of the problem I´m thinking about since many days. Thank you!--Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

PB666, Kiwi Kousin: I´m impressed by your ability to calculate possible airspeed! Not ironic! But I don´t fully understand. I´m a sailor. We are much slower! Let me make my point, I gave all the sources for it above:

  1. Ultimo Reporte is not a transmission. It is an outcome of communication Air France > FAB early morning 01/06/2009, when information available was little. AF told FAB there is an aircraft missing about 50nm from TASIL. FAB made a position out of this information, tracking 50nm backwards on UN873 airway. They did not know about any deviance. That is where Ultimo Reporte = 3° 16' 28"N, 30° 22' 28"W derives from.
  2. Speed reading, speed typing journalists or hectic informants took a 2 for a 5. It´s been copypasted hundreds of times in thousand editorial offices from 01/06/2009 to 05/06/2009. Consider translations from/into 3 languages at least. 3° 16' 28"N, 30° 22' 28"W mutated into 3° 34' 28"N, 30° 22' 28"W and/or N3.2778 W30.3744 into N3.5777 W30.3744. Somehow this "information" came to Av-Herald. They have been cited. Someone added a timestamp 0214 UTC and called it last ACARS. Some stories are too good to be checked.
  3. Air France and BEA have gained information since 01/06/2009 about the last transmitted position = Dernière position connue. It is about 130km from Tasil, at about 2° 58' 40"N, 30° 35' 10"W (N2.9778 W30.5861), transmitted at 0210 UTC.

My best guess at this time.--Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd put it slightly differently:
  1. "Dernière position connue" was always known. BEA makes it quite categoric that this was 0210 (my bad for above, I apologise).
  2. "Último reporte" is a calculated position, knowing that the aircraft stayed in the air, but assuming that it stayed on course and at the normal (or estimated) speed. It corresponds to where the FAB thinks the plane should have been when the last ACARS signal was sent.
  3. 3° 34' 28"N, 30° 22' 28"W comes from a typing error, as Ursula suggests (well spotted, the single digit error in the decimal coordinates)
To answer another point above, the BEA say that the surface currents in the region of the wreckage are northwards (press release of 17 June). Physchim62 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur, I just went over this in the simulator, I played MACH 0.82 (GS 470 - 500) AT FL350 with Real weather. By GPS the 3 16' 28"N, 30 22 '28 was only 5/60ths of a mile off, that coordinate was exactly 50 NM from TASIL. The coordinate was probably contrived. The coordinate presented by the BEA on the graphic that I 'groped' from Google Earth was 2 58'40N and 30 35'10 was 3NM from the INTOL-TASIL path with the closest point being 2 55'55"N 30 33'55"N on the simulator at 72 NM from TASIL and 292 miles from INTOL. This is probably (+/-3 NM) the last known point and the 02:10 report. Unfortunately we don't have any hard coordinates. We have gotten this far, maybe someone can scour the french media and see if these coordinates ring a bell. Try N2.8 N2.9* or N3.0* by W30.4 W30.5 or W30.6. Maybe well find something. BTW I don't convert MACH to AIRSPEED, I let the MSFS do it, lol. I think we can use the low resolution coordinate on the side map and the 2:10 coordinates. The groundspeeds agree also, the 1SD range would be GS 463KT (M0.76) to GS 481KT (M0.79)[Mach depending on winds aloft], relatively safe range at this altitude, not to fast, not to slow the ac would have to fall below 300 to enter a stall. Also to answer one other question, if stress is not a factor from 35000 to 0Alt in a methodical dive terminal velocity with engines shut off is 820KT or Mach 1.1. At idle engines went over the stress limit first, even at idle EPR was 3.02. It all took about 1'20" Minutes.PB666 yap 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Data published by BEA shows surface and 1000m depth currents are somewhat different than expected. Reference to the very first page of the document gives the 0210UTC position - 2.98N 30.59W, or 2° 58' 48"N 30° 35' 24"W. It doesn't say that that's the position, but I'd put a penny or two on it!
Kiwi Kousin (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not significantly different from the coordinates I derived from google (N2.9778 W30.5861) = N2.98 W30.59. I think it is fair to say that the coordinates on the illustration/map are incorrect they are not the last known position, we can either place the 0210 timestamp and possibly add these low resolution coordinates. What do the other editors here think?PB666 yap 04:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Extlinks: Photographs of the aircraft

Does anyone have an issue with reducing the number of links to airline photo sites? Currently three are listed and this seems a bit over the top when in all likely hood one would suffice (say airliners.net?). Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment do we need any image links?, none actually add to the article as we already have a picture of an A330. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is in need of a good clean-up anyway.PB666 yap 16:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A play on words in title(may need to insert somewhere else)-if any photos or recording system of exterior of any plane exists, it may help assessment of environment which plane traverses and exterior conditon of the airframe.Patelurology2 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Terrorism

I have a question. Was the early official determination by the investigators that terrorism was not the cause of the crash original research, or was it supported by facts. If there were facts to back up this statement I would like to hear them. It seemed too early to make that type of announcement and, in the absence of the flight data recorders, it still is. How does Wikipedia treat original research ( if that is what this is) when it comes from official sources? Thanks Arydberg (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. There are different quality sources, and WP does not treat all as authorative all for all scenarios. For example, we would be reasonable to consider an air crash investigator to be a reliable source for the accident cause; but if some government official had a theory about this incident and happened to get some press coverage over it, we should not consider his opinion any more authorative than the next person without first reviewing his credentials. This article is particularly tricky given that everyone wants answers now and public/press speculation is so rife. So yes, you're right to challenge this information. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So is there any reason to discount the possibility of terrorism other then the lack of people taking credit for the crash. There was at least one South American crash where it was suspected that drug cartels were involved. Arydberg (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source that states this explicitly - and I think you'll find that will be the official investigation. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually just added a link before I saw this discussion. This is from The Independent, a very strong RS:
Air crash autopsies rule out terrorism
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html
-Classicfilms (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right but consider, 1) 12 other flights flew that same path at about the same time and none experienced difficulties. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/05/france.plane.investigation/index.html?iref=mpstoryview 2) There were reports of another pilot and others seeing an intense white flash at the time of the accident. "Suddenly we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, followed by a downward, vertical trajectory which broke up into six segments," the chief pilot of an Air Comet plane from Lima to Madrid told the Spanish newspaper, El Mundo. He has reported his observations to investigators". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5444168/Air-France-pilots-battled-for-15-minutes-to-save-doomed-flight-AF-447.html 3) And then there was a report of a pilot seeing fires described as "orange dots" on the ocean. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wreckage-pilot-spots-orange-dots-on-atlantic/93947-2.html?from=rssfeed 4) Also while your link is not disputed here it should be noted that the bodies had been through a lot of trauma. This is also supported by the fact that some bodies were 50 miles form others. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=as_IAXADNn1c Regardless of the above if the government has an agenda not to publish a finding of terrorism then they will not find terrorism . I lost my faith in the government after the TWA 800 crash when it was determined that the fuel tank exploded. Cal Tech spent 2 1/2 years trying to get jet fuel to explode. The best they could do was to get a continuos burn that subjected the tank to 60 PSI.... and this was supposed to sever the nose section from the rest of the airframe.

I would like to respectively suggest that you keep an open mind toward a section on alternative theories on this crash.

Arydberg (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, what you have compiled above falls under WP:SYNTHESIS which qualifies as original research. Please review Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability mandates that the Wikipedia reflects the RS. This recent article I cited above:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html
states pretty clearly that terrorism has been ruled out by the French government and that is what we have to reflect here. It is not the place of the Wikipedia to speculate (see WP:SPECULATION). That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the issues pointed out above. The fact is that Wikipedia articles reflect information rather than create original arguments. So unless an RS directly states a contradiction to the position of the French government, we need to reflect what they are saying. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this debate. There is a single sentence in the current article (last sentence of the bomb threat section) that says the autopsy results preclude terrorism. That sentence cites this news article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html). However, an even more recent Associated Press article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane) states THE EXACT OPPOSITE, namely that the autopsy indicates injuries are CONSISTENT WITH MID-AIR BREAKUP. Also, an aviation expert in that article states that it is possible that an explosion took place even though there are no burns on the victims. In light of this, there is no justification to keep the "terrorism ruled out" sentence. I have altered it to more neutral wording, pending further developments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojamus (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nojamus, this is a really helpful article which adds to the debate. I liked your edits which were fair and tweaked them a bit, moving the two articles to its own section. Actually, both articles suggest that there was a mid-air breakup which could happen for a number of reasons. They differ in interpretation of the lack of burns found during autopsies. So, I've now set up the section to reflect the finding of both articles. This doesn't really contradict what I wrote above - the point is that this article needs to reflect what is being said rather than draw independent conclusions through original research. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing the article again, I realized that the reference you cited was already used above so I reformatted your reference and updated the title to the original reference. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
These were deleted, should I reinstate them? Bewp (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(Note: This comment was posted in the middle of mine above and I moved it here below as comments should always be posted separately - it is responding to my argument that there were a number of suggested possibilities for the break up) Sure, if they follow Wikipedia:Verifiability - meaning they should all be properly sourced. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to all the valid comments above, there is a fundamental point of law to be made here i.e. that because no one has claimed responsibility for attacking the aircraft it is unlikely that is was attacked. This gives credence to the fact that the plane regrettably either broke up mid-air or crashed into the sea because of a combination of bad weather and technical problems, clearly now with no survivors. This is a terrible tragedy and the investigators should be quick to issue the final analysis for the sake of the families and friends of the people who were on board. Bewp (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point all we can do is reflect the TIME article which states that no one has claimed responsibility. If more sources appear which draw larger conclusions, then we can add those. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are we presenting information on bomb threats and terrorism? The pitot and static tubes are at the front of the AC, if a bomb had gone off in the front of the aircraft unless it a very tiny bomb the AC would have disintegrated rapidly. The flurry of messages does not indicate why the AC crashed, but almost certainly the 'business' of what happened was in the forward section of the AC in the flight crew area, we can consider as far back as the static ports, there is nothing behind that static ports that appears to be involved in the warnings (except at 22:45 two warnings about the toilets). The static ports are redundant for each ADIRU, a port and starboard sensor for the Captain, a port and starboard port for the F/O and the ADIRU-3 which is fed by pneumatic information to a single ADM tied into both ports. Unless you had someone on the exterior of the AC bubble gumming up ports, it seems very unlikely that a bomb or terrorist could have caused these various systems malfunction. The avionics compartment sets below the cockpit, a place where passangers have little access. With all due respect to the BEA the odds that a AC, which was suppossed to report at 2:20 sents a flurry of failure and warning messages before 2:14 and disappears, that in the six minute interval someone decided to terrorize the AC are astronomically low. What are the odds that the failures and warnings not being connected to the disappearance given the precedences. Also bomb threats were made before the flight on a different airframe, the terrorism suspects were not terrorist. This really does not belong in the investigation section unless there is an ongoing official investigation regarding terrorism.PB666 yap
"1)12 other flights flew that same path at about the same time and none experienced difficulties.
Combination of aircraft weaknesses or faults, bad weather, and pilot error can explain the accident.PB666 yap
"2) There were reports of another pilot and others seeing an intense white flash at the time of the accident."
Those flashes occurred 2000 miles away could not have been AF 447. This has already been discussed.PB666 yap
"3) And then there was a report of a pilot seeing fires described as 'orange dots' on the ocean."
Mid-air failures often present fires when AC hit the water. Those fuel filled wings hit the water at 300MPH and any friction can create a fire. At high Mach turbofans can cavitate, resulting in fires associated with engine failure and breakup.PB666 yap
"4) Also while your link is not disputed here it should be noted that the bodies had been through a lot of trauma. This is also supported by the fact that some bodies were 50 miles form others."
One of the two explanations was the pitot port clogged and depressurized through the drain hole cause the appearance of loss of air speed. This then resulted in the AC responding with more thrust, exceeding the Mach limit. The IAS is greater than 300 KIAS at FL35000. The other explanation is the AC pitched down into a dive which the FC could not recover from, See above, at M1.0 the AC goes poof. If the AIS reached anything like 500 or 600 KIAS before disentegration, under such circumstances if the AC disintegrated it would have been violent. In slower moving AC it has been noted that the clothes of people next to the pressure hull break were ripped off, some were still strapped in their seats. At 12,000 feet, the intact bodies sink, in a very cold ocean were gases dissolve easily, you are probably seeing those individuals who were least protected when the AC disintegrated. There is nothing relevant about seeing dismembered bodies from a flight disappearance that began at 35000 feet, this is all but expected. In addition some of the bodies went down with the denser AC parts and are subject to deep currents while other bodies floated along with surface currents, days later some of the bodies have floated upward for whatever reason, a plane disintegrates at 7 miles over the ocean traveling at 550 MPH the bodies splay out in a radius of 60 degrees wait 6 days and you expect to find all the bodies in one spot? Mythology.PB666 yap
It really sounds like the proponent wants to believe a conclusion so that he/she has dug up every little news blurp (relevant or not) in support of that belief. It does not belong in wikipedia.PB666 yap 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To speak of the Wikipedia concept of original research when referring to the official announcements of the accident investigators is simply laughable. There is nothing to suggest that it was terrorism, and quite a few things that suggest that it wasn't. End of story, except for the conspiracy theorists. Physchim62 (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • PB666 In reference to your statement, "There were reports of another pilot and others seeing an intense white flash at the time of the accident." :Those flashes occurred 2000 miles away could not have been AF 447. This has already been discussed". :Where were or are the sources for this article?

Arydberg (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The original source was the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, which quoted a statement from the Spanish airline Air Comet. The crew and one passenger (a friend of the copilot) of the flight from Lima to Madrid saw a "white descending light" at "about the same time" the Air France plane disappeared. The article gave the coordinates of the plane at the time: it was more than 2000 kilometres (not miles) from where the Air France flight disappeared. A report was made to the Spanish civil aviation authorities, but the whole thing seems more like cheap publicity for this small airline! It is impossible (by the curvature of the Earth) that the Air Comet crew saw the Air France plane, and the "white descending light" could easily have been a large meteor. Physchim62 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Air Comet witnesses PB666 yap
  • Ok it's just that if the aircraft was at 7 deg north and 49 deg west and they were advised to head to the midpoint between Piarco and Cayennne then that midpoint is also at 7 degrees north and they were told to fly directly east... on a flight from Lima to Paris.Arydberg (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • …they were still way too far away to have seen AF447. The pilots must know this – they're professional pilots, they know how to calculate great circle distances – but, by putting in a report (which is their right), they get free publicity for their airline. Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You are actually weakening the case for adding this material the more you bring attention to the references. Read WP:Reliable Sources. I have transferred both sections to this page.PB666 yap 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that terrorism is unlikely, because someone would probably have claimed responsibility. Has anybody looked into the possibility of dangerous materials in the cargo? I just remembered the Valujet 592 crash, and although it was a DC-9, they still had a cargo fire that caused problems with the electrical system. Had AF 447 had corrosives in the forward hold, this, coupled with weather and pilot error could account for what we have. The SAA 747 that crashed in the Indian Ocean in the 80s had a similar problem. Are there any articles out there we could reference for a section? Mgw89 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

BEA News conference 06-17-2009

Quoting and paraphrasing(by associated press) Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the French air accident investigation agency BEAFrench: 400 pieces of Air France debris found

Arslanian:"We are in a situation that is a bit more favorable than the first days,"
Arslanian:"We can say there is a little less uncertainty, so there is a little more optimism."
Arslanian: "(But) it is premature for the time being to say what happened,"
Arslanian: 'messages "appeared as linked to this loss of validity of speed information."'
Arslanian: 'speed information became "incoherent"'
Arslanian: 'it affected other systems on the plane that relied on that speed data.'
Arslanian: 'stressed that not all the automated messages were related to the speed sensors.'
Arslanian: "it is premature for the time being to say what happened,"

Also: "Air France has replaced the sensors, called Pitot tubes, on all its A330 and A340 aircraft, under pressure from pilots who feared a link to the accident."(Associated Press) "One of those messages suggested that external speed sensors had iced over and destabilized the plane's control systems."(Associated Press)

A second article.Air France 447 crash: almost certain all parts will not be recovered Quoting and paraphrasing:

Arslanian: 'strongly criticised the media for creating "speculations" including, which includes the theory that a defective speed sensor could have led to the disaster.'
Arslanian: "For now, we cannot say, and no one can say what happened. It is much too soon to go imagining scenarios in one direction or another,"

Also: "Speculations that the speed sensors contributed to the crash gathered momentum after the BEA announced the speed probes gave inconsistent readings to the cockpit." "BEA, Airbus and Air France has strongly denied that faulty speed sensors were responsible for the crash and there exists no link between the speed probes and the crash. Airbus said that _a_ faulty speed probe will not make the flight dangerous."

I add to this that a common conclusion was that there was more than one faulty probe based on ACARS ergo they are insisting these interpretations are not credible. This is my point many of the ACARS messages which have levels of embedded code not yet translated, publically, make statements about the ACARS relatively irrelevant.PB666 yap 15:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I feel like someone is agreeing with me about the OR that's been going on in the press and mirrored in this article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on bomb threat

=== Earlier bomb threat === On 27 May, four days prior to this incident, ''Air France'' received a telephoned bomb threat regarding an earlier flight from [[Buenos Aires]] in [[Argentina]] to [[Paris]]. Authorities at [[Ezeiza Airport]] in Buenos Aires delayed the flight before [[take-off]] while conducting a 90-minute search of the threatened aircraft; passengers remained on the plane throughout. The search conducted by authorities yielded no [[explosive material]], so the authorities allowed the flight to depart.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abcnews.go.com/Travel/Travel/story?id=7742900&page=1|title=Searchers Find 23-Foot Piece of Airplane in Hunt for Missing Air France Flight|last=Kannampilly|first=Ammu|coauthors=Zoe Magee, Lisa Stark and Kate Barrett|date=June 3, 2009|work=ABC News|publisher=ABC|accessdate=2009-06-06}}</ref> Investigators examined possible links with Air France Flight 447.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/04/bomb-threat-4-days-before-jet-crashed-115875-21413591/|title=Air France bomb threat four days before jet crashed|last=Fricker|first=Martin|date=June 4, 2009|work=Mirror.co.uk|publisher=Daily Mirror|accessdate=2009-06-06}}</ref> To date, no group or individual has claimed any responsibility for a terror attack on the aircraft.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904137,00.html Spotlight: Air France Flight 447]</ref>

Several points

  • The discussion (First 3 sentences) should be shortened to one sentence, we don't need to present all the details.
    • The flight was from Argentina, not brazil
    • The only real connection is that it was against Air France and a flight from South America
    • It does not connect with the facts.
    • It does not appear to be mentioned as part of the current investigation.
  • The Mirror article itself is loaded with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, it should not be used as a reference.
  • Since when is the absence of a terrorist claim evidence of anything. The Unibomber went several years without making any claim.PB666 yap 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
What are the inconsistances and inaccuracies in this link.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/04/bomb-threat-4-days-before-jet-crashed-115875-21413591/
Arydberg (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. in "An anonymous caller made the threat to a plane heading from South America to Paris - just like the doomed jet." they make it appear that the caller was threating any plane from South AMerica, if so then why did authorities search a specific plane. I wiki-land that would be called weazle words.
  2. "One Air France pilot said he believed the Airbus 330 was blown up by terrorists after leaving Brazilian capital Rio de Janeiro. The long-haul captain, who did not want to be named, said: "It is highly likely a bomb went off. I've flown these jets 10 years. The chances of it being an electrical fault are unfeasible." These are exactly the type of expert opinions we want to avoid, as mentioned above this pilot has no official connection with the investigation, simply because he is a pilot, works for Air France, and has an opinion. The one official expert we have Paul Arlansian decries the use of non-official analyst proclaiming the cause of the crash.
  3. Claims the bomb threat was credible because fc did not communicate. The fc was outside of standard ATC communication range, which it the primary line of communication, often when pilots don't communicate because they are busy, such as progression of computer faults and possibly AC manuevers that require immediate pilot action.
  4. Other completely offbase speculation by their expert, such as plane collisions by drug smugglers. Problem there is when planes collide going 550 MPH, there would not even be a moment for computers to send ACARS.PB666 yap 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am placing this section also here, it really does not discuss autopsies, it is more along the lines of original research on terrorism theories.

===Autopsies=== There were conflicting reports on the autopsies. After they were conducted, ''[[The Independent]]'', stated that the reports noted that the bodies were found about 50 miles apart suggesting, "to some aviation experts that the aircraft may have disintegrated, fully or partially, in mid-air." At the same time, it argues that the autopsies "put to rest the theory that the aircraft was the victim of a terrorist attack. Details of the autopsies leaked to the Brazilian press, indicate that the bodies showed no sign of burning or damage from an explosion. The bodies were recovered whole, which is also said to be unusual after a mid-air explosion. Examination by X-ray revealed no evidence that the bodies had been penetrated by shards of metal. "<ref name="independent0614">{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html|title=Air crash autopsies rule out terrorism |publisher=''[[The Independent]]'' |accessdate=2009-06-16}}</ref> ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' also cited experts who suggested that the plane broke up in mid-air and who have also "all but ruled out a mid-explosion as the bodies reportedly show no signs of burns." <ref name="telegraph0617">{{cite web |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5562043/Air-France-crash-autopsies-suggest-plane-broke-up-in-air.html|title=Air France crash: autopsies suggest plane broke up in air |publisher= ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' |accessdate=2009-06-17}}</ref> On the other hand, the ''[[Associated Press]]'', while also noting that evidence indicated a mid-air break-up, stated that "lack of burn evidence would not necessarily rule out an explosion" if it occurred in the lower fuselage where "passengers would not be exposed to any blast damage."<ref name="Yahoo_400pcs"/>

Lacks also NPOV on cause of conditions. PB666 yap 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. Can you please explain why you consider that the section quoted above is original research? Thanks, --Gautier lebon (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
One and four are probably correct. The pilot in point two had a interesting point. His comment that the Airbus has 5 different sources of electricity was enlightening. Point 3 is wrong. there were other planes in the area and they all monitor the emergency frequency.Arydberg (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's what we call WP:UNDUE emphasis on a WP:FRINGE source. The idea that we would give The Daily Mirror comparable credence to The Daily Telegraph or The Independent would leave anyone familiar with the different publications rolling on the floor writhing in paroxysms of laughter. The US equivalent would be giving equal weight to The National Enquirer in a disagreement with both The Washington Post and the New York Times. We shouldn't even trust a photo in the Daily Mirror.LeadSongDog come howl 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The point is that they are either begging a synthesis by a pretending official (Pilot for Air France) or creating their own synthesis. However, the official source of information is begging the media not to do exactly this.
    1. is about as correct as saying the the planet earth is a planet in the Milky Way. What is its specific relevance to AF 447 from RdJ Brazil to Paris, France.
    2. elevating joe 'anonymous' pilot to the status of an official and then allowing him to speculate.
    3. speculative - original research. In terms of the frequency they monitor, planes coming off of Senegal would be on their last ATC frequency from the north east, planes from Brazil would be coming off the last ATC from the west. Each of these centers have many frequencies they communicate on in order to break traffic up between numerous controllers. There may have been no planes close enough of AF 447 frequency to monitor, and more over, AF 447 fc may not have even tried, given the state of affairs in the cockpit. A whole lot of things have to be just right for them to have sent a transmission of the Comm1 or Comm2 such that another pilot would pick it up and understand it.
    4. speculative cause, like hit by a missile from the US Navy, hit by a meteor, hit by UFO, was pulled apart by the Island in 'Lost', fell into the bermuda triangle.
  • Autopsies section speculates on a caused not currently in discussion by an official in the investigation, and then goes about refuting it. Would be like me saying the 'some say the sun comes up in the west, but I have nice evidence to show it comes up in the east'. More or less drivel. The telegraph is doing original research however the French and Brazilians are charged with autopsies and reporting on those autopsies they have no official capacity or reports.PB666 yap 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So do you dispute that the Airbus in question had 5 separate sources of electricity?Arydberg (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, have you ever heard of the Aquatic Ape Theory. You are using the logic of 'deny this cant be true'. When the first reports of the crash came up Air France reported to air safety officials in search or contact of the aircraft that there were automated reports of electrical failure, however this occurred in the wee hours of the morning before technicians had a chance to go over the report, since then there are no codes in the report related to the electrical system (Generators, charging, etc) and as a consequence it is not officially part what is being reported. In addition Airbus has leaked a memo since saying based on their read of the ACARS there is no evidence of electrical failure. Mentioning electrical failure is like saying 'some franitc secretary said missing plane might have a lack-of-fuel, but now we have learned the plane had five fuel tanks full of fuel'. This differs with the treatment of the ADIRU in which they claim, there is no similarity between ADIRU in Q72/71/68 and ADIRU AF447 however there are ACARS codes that present ADIRU faults. As Arlansian says no system is credited with the failure of the AC yet, but there were clearly problems with Airspeed determination (pitot/static, ADM, [ADR]ADIRU). There are no evident problems with electrical systems, structural integrity, engines, control surfaces (including stabilizer) and a host of other systems. The three areas of problems that are in play are: 'AirHanding', 'Flight Control' and 'Navigation' with the majority of problems in the later two. Don't ask yourself the basic question could it be true. If its placed in the investigation section, what is its special relevance to the investigation section, and by special is it being treated by officials close to the investigation such that its relayed to the media during official press conferences and reports. I find is surpising that you are relying on such unreputable sources to begin with.PB666 yap 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


My response was here. Where did it go? Arydberg (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See History tab : 13:31, 22 June 2009 MickMacNee ...(→What caused the crash: rm per NOT#FORUM). He removed several sections because you were attempting to bait people into a discussion/argument.

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. .WP:NOTFORUM

you might also look at WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:SOAP.PB666 yap 13:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was the other guy who was being extremely discourteous to me. Of course that is my viewpoint. Sorry if I offended someone. If everyone was in agreement there would be no horse races and some disagreement is good but it needs to be in a civil manor. Arydberg (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense was taken.PB666 yap

Debris comparison with other crashes at sea

This section has undergone a major expansion. Other than numerous punctuation errors, there are many unreferenced statements. The pertinence to the article is not clear, and no media sources have connected the other flights to the crash of AF 447.PB666 yap

I think the section should be removed as a whole until a reliable source actually draws a factual comparison. As is, it just fuels speculation and just seems wholly irrelevant.Danie.brink (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
All the other crashes listed (except for the Shuttle) are either the result of an explosion caused by a bomb, explosives or a missile or suspected of being the result of such an external cause - there is no evidence of any kind that suggests that the crash of Flight 447 had such a cause. I don't see how simply being things that flew that eventually ended up in the sea makes them relevant to the article.Danie.brink (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with delete. Irrelevant, unhelpful, tends to sensationalism and poorly referenced. Ex nihil (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this section? It seems to just be a list of other crashes at sea providing no insight into the crash of Air France flight 447 - there is certainly no comparison made between the various crashes that are listed. I don't see anything that would be relevant to this article. Danie.brink (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this section is border line POV, it is nothing more than a list of crashes, and even if there was any link between them all, it would be nothing more than a speculation as we don't know what happened to the AF flight.
I think the entire section should be removed, it adds nothing to the article. FFMG (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
'Tis done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Relevance of showing the ticket counter picture next to notable passengers section

They are the faces of death, why do we need to see them, its disturbing. (Pavelow235 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Not sure the image is really relevant it shows people enquiring about the flight, although that is probably OR. It was not taken before the flight so cant be disturbing, but it adds no value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the picture is not relevant. Even if the people in the picture were victims of the crash, which is unknown, it just looks like random people milling around an airport, and therefore adds nothing to the article. I'm going to remove the picture since nobody has argued for keeping it. I don't think it should be added back unless people in the photograph are among the "Notable passengers" to which the section refers, or unless it is shown to improve the article another way. – jaksmata 15:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes made on the last final position and map

I added two lines + ref. in the Automated messages section: >According to a press release of French bureau of investigation BEA on 17 June, the last known position was transmitted at 02:10 UTC by ACARS. Coordinates of this position are not published, but it is known to be about 130km (70nm) from waypoint TASIL, close to the original area of research indicated at 2°58′48″N 30°35′24″W.< I´m not native English so I welcome everybody to go over the text. I´m not able to change anything in the map. 2° 58' 48"N 30° 35' 24"W in the BEA document is called >zone de recherché< = area of research. Why not putting it into the map with exactly that title? I wouldn´t bet against Kiwi Kousin that it will turn out sooner or later as 0210 UTC position, but we don´t have a source at this time.--Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ursula, for now I think that is fine, I changed the map using the low resolution cordinates N2.98 W30.59, this is 100 fold more accurate than the previous anyway. I removed the 0214 time stamp, also. Thanks for bringing up the issue, I noticed the lack of transparency and documentation with the av-herald coordinates just really did not know what to do about it, it took at least 3 people here to figure it all out.PB666 yap 22:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I moved the two sentences up into a paragraph that deals now only with 0210 ACARS. I shortened BEA since BEA is already mentioned above and reworded the first sentence to shorten it. The exact distance between TASIL and 0210UTC-F-GZCP is 71.26NM or ~132KM which i did not change, I wonder however, should we be using coordinates that are accurate to seconds though we don't have a base coordinate that is accurate to seconds? PB666 yap 15:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I replaced {{coord|2|58|48|N|30|35|24|W|type:landmark|display=inline}} = 2°58′48″N 30°35′24″W / 2.98000°N 30.59000°W / 2.98000; -30.59000 with {{coord|2.98|N|30.59|W|type:event|display=inline|format=dms}} = 2°59′N 30°35′W / 2.98°N 30.59°W / 2.98; -30.59 which reflects the information as we have it with as least translation as possible. PB666 yap 15:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PB666, I see in the history you removed Av-Herald coordinates. So I just thought I´d let you know the following: I received an answer to an email request I sent to Aviation Herald. The answer is from Simon Hradecky, who runs the site. Unfortunately his message smashes my typo thesis on position N3.5777 W30.3744 (Dec) = 3° 34′ 40″ N, 30° 22′ 28″ W (GMS). He says there has been a press release by FAB on 01/06/2009 - giving this coordinates - that has been withdrawn since. He looked up his handwritten memos of that day and he is absolutely sure FAB published the above position (saying it was included in last automated failure message), because he remembers to have checked it twice. I believe him, he is experienced and trustworthy. When FAB reorganized their information site on 05/06/2009 this press release disappeared. If by any chance anyone would have a backup of that site before 05/06/2009, I´d be very interested to get it. Until then I´ll have my share of personal speculation silently beneath my fireplace.--Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! That is a faux-pas on FAB's part. I hope that is not the reason that it took so long to find crash evidence. This is what I was wondering about, however, Av-herald usually gets it pretty good, I wouldn't think they would make the type of common reporting error.
But, still the position 50NM from TASIL, lets think about this, the AC is traveling at ~470KT and it 72NM from TASIL. What should be its coordinates 4 minutes later. 50NM from TASIL is 22 NM from the LKC-0210-UTC which means in that 4 minutes that AC traveled 22NM or 5.5NM per minute. Its kind of slow, it should have traveled 31NM and have been approx 40NM from TASIL at the 0214 time stamp. So that the N3.5777 coordinate is closer to where the AC should have been at 0214 based on the 0210 but lies to ~10NM to the Northwest of were that last position was. I checking the av-herald page to see if they altered that sentence in anyway. Here is the only portuguese statement made using those coordinates, they are from the av-herald.[9]
I don't think we need the press release now, anyway, for two reasons concerning the path of information.(From Air France to FAB).
  1. Somewhere along that path of information they got the last known position wrong.
  2. Somewhere along that path they got the time for the last known position wrong.
  3. Somewhere along that path they confused estimated last position with last known position.
Ergo FAB, at that moment, was not a reliable source of the information.
My suspicion is that the approximate position (50NM from TASIL on UN873) was given to them by AF, ergo they may have not had alot of good info to begin with, and they further converted it to worse information.

Photo hoax

The photo's of people being sucked out the plane are a hoax. Please stop adding this info, which is factually incorrect, and fails the verifiability and reliable source tests. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Besides, it is practically irrelevant. Alandeus (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • there are apparent web-versions of the AF 447-pictures that have mal-ware embedded.PB666 yap 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC) BTW, You officially have your pop-culture connection, those pictures were from "Lost". Adding such links is not V or RELY its actually vandalism unless they are placed in a context, such as ==in pop culture==.

Memorials

Perhaps it is time to reduce the Memorials section as not all the religious services are notable to the accident. Isnt the memorial section for post-accident permanent memorials. Comment ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Article layout

As commented in a section now archived, 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. Is there a standard layout? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/page content MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As suspected, but thanks for the link. This seems to have led, in this case, to some overlap / duplication about the search for the black boxes, which I think still needs separating and/or rationalising in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This bomb threat stuff again

The autopsies also revealed no evidence of burning or charring, suggesting that there was no fire or explosion on the craft prior to the crash.[83] However, if the lower fuselage burned or exploded, "passengers would not be exposed to any blast damage and the plane would still disintegrate in flight," said John Goglia, a former member of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. "These are scenarios that cannot be ruled out."[85][86]

Bomb blast as a pertinent cause in the accident have not been cited by any official within the investigation. Should be removed.PB666 yap 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article we have no need to speculate it is not a news service, no rush we can just wait fo the official investigation and not try and do their job. Suggest remove all speculation. Time is not an issue at Wikipedia and Under investigation is all we really need. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If a member of the US NTSB states that blast damage below the passenger deck wouldn't necessarily harm passengers, that's not speculation because he's a competent authority. It's entirely legitimate to claim that this scenario cannot be ruled out until concrete evidence exists to do so. Absence of a proof does not equal proof of an absence. That's Argument from ignorance one would be committing by refusing the hypothesis at this stage. Mgw89 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If a meteor hit the pilot in the head that would not necessarily cause meteor fragments in passengers in the aft section. If a can of cheese-whiz exploded in a galley cabinet blowing the pressure hull that would not necessarily result in cheese on the passengers. If the NTSB official is not associated with the investigation, he has no more clout than an Air-France pilot speculation on whatever. The material was deleted, again. What you are doing is baiting an argument that is one of dozens of possible scenarios. If one entertaines one has to entertaine them all. Stick to the facts. I read in a newspaper article today that an embalmer noted that the injuries to the bodies were so severe they could have only occurred if the passengers died by being slammed into something at high speed (such as a mid-air collison or striking the water), so do we now include this line of speculation. Once you begin that dance of media x-spirts (= big drips of information) it does not stop with the first hypothesis.PB666 yap 05:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is another speculative sentence.

On 22 June 2009, French Navy ships detected a weak signal that was believed to be a black box locator beacon.[87] The minisubmarine Nautile was sent to investigate, but the signals had not come from either black box.[88]

However other newssources questioned the official sources of the information and they denied this. I think it should be removed. French vessels in the search area have picked up noises regularly, but subsequent investigation has revealed no link to the black boxes, French military spokesman Christophe Prazuck told Associated Press Television News. "The black boxes have not been found. The black boxes have not been located. We're still looking for the black boxes," Prazuck said in English."[10]. I don't think there needs to be entry added to the article every time someone on a ships thinks they heard a black box. Either they have found the black boxes or they have not.PB666 yap 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also removed.PB666 yap 05:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"notable" passengers

I feel that all the passengers on this flight, subject to a horrible, terrifying death, are "notable". Just because someone is heir to an extinct throne doesn't make him more "notable" than the stay-at-home mother of three who perished alongside him. Would it be possible to change the title of that subsection to something less demeaning for those not listed? Perhaps "Passenger details"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.4.241 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2009 June 24

The entirety of Wikipedia operates on notability, which relies on comparison — if everyone or everything is "notable", then nothing is. To suggest the passing of the third in line of a specific defunct monarchy (of which there is absolutely only one of) is no more noteworthy than that of a stay-at-home mother of three (of which there are millions), is unrealistic. This isn't about measuring a person's worth, only their relevance within the scope of this project. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but an encyclopedia. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I bet you wouldn't write that Reisio if it was one of your family or children on the flight....& I'm sure millions of stay-at-home mothers would like to chat to you about that too...perhaps an open forum if your game..Remy103 (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is irrelevant and I agree with Reisio, the section needs to be cleaned up to cite the most relevant events, individual memorials and tributes to all the passengers is just no possible.PB666 yap 13:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Aviation accident guidelines: Optionally notable passengers may be recorded but should be limited to individuals with a Wikipedia article. Information including ethnic or religious backgrounds and school affliations should not be included. --TAG (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Image box in Disappearance section

The image on the right in the Disappearance section contains an error and I can't figure out how to fix it. It currently says, "The area of original research." It should say, "The area of original search" (not REsearch). Can someone fix it? Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is my error I changes it to the exact translation. The French "Dernière zone de recherche" and English translation is "Last zone of research". If someone can provide a more appropriate translation I can change it. PB666 yap 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It doesn't make sense to say "research" as that has a very different meaning in English than "search." (A denotative (literal) translation is not adequate when a connotative (meaning) translation is needed.) It should say something like "The search zone" or "The zone of the search" or something like that. Renee (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Most recent search zone" (English can string nouns together, French can't!) Physchim62 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be on 06-04-2009. Should we say 06/04 search area.PB666 yap 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In flight breakup

The airplane did not "crash into" (which implies flown into either controlled or uncontrolled) the Atlantic but rather fragmented in flight as based on forensic evidence from the deceased victims. Whether this was caused by structural failure or sabotage is uncertain at this point, but there was no high speed collision with the whole aircraft into the ocean.

Is there a reference to this? The BEA says no such thing as yet.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Reading the reference to Yahoo news, I agree that in the section "Autopsies" that we can add that it is strongly suggested, albeit by an unnamed source (and the BEA themselves have not received any of the results), then speculated upon by former "experts"; however the lead seems to give unwarranted weight to this opinion.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it so difficult to wait for the authorities to make these statements?PB666 yap 13:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it isn't. But, notwithstanding the reliability of YahooNews, if the autopsy results themsleves can be included, common sense suggests that bodies stripped of clothing have almost certainly fallen from altitude. Use of the word "crash" thoughout this article (and probably many others) may be a separate, and perhaps more important, issue? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not true, bodies, particularly dismembered bodies will loose their cloths after several days floating around in the oceans. Particularly in rough sees the white caps tend to remove articles of clothing. Again we should let the experts do the interpretation, and frankly we don't need to present any information at this state on the state of the bodies.PB666 yap 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well we have a named and directly quoted "expert" (Jack Casey), and we have lack of burns and we have non-dismembered bodies, all of which suggest high altitide break-up in this case, apparently (if we can believe YahooNews). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Whilst only a proposed policy, Aviation accident guidelines has some valid suggestions:

  • Introduction - The introduction should be a summary of the accident and should reflect the content of the body of the article. It should as a minimum detail the location, airline and aircraft involved, the number of persons involved and when known the official cause of the accident.(my emphasis)
  • Investigation - A description or summary of the investigation it should only include information from the official bodies involved in the investigation. (my emphasis)

AlexandrDmitri (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree fully. The BEA is the reliable source here - we should wait for their conclusions rather than following public speculation. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the sentence on autopsies, though I am not fully against returning it in some very brief unopinionated form. Are their guidelines on the Search and Recovery section? Its a mess of facts with many now trivial or impertinent.PB666 yap 14:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Surprised all now removed. Perhaps the significance of the autopsy resuts rests to a large degree on whether or not one believes they provide any evidence of how the aircraft broke up. But in the light of proposed policy happy to leave for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on bomb threat

=== Earlier bomb threat === On 27 May, four days prior to this incident, ''Air France'' received a telephoned bomb threat regarding an earlier flight from [[Buenos Aires]] in [[Argentina]] to [[Paris]]. Authorities at [[Ezeiza Airport]] in Buenos Aires delayed the flight before [[take-off]] while conducting a 90-minute search of the threatened aircraft; passengers remained on the plane throughout. The search conducted by authorities yielded no [[explosive material]], so the authorities allowed the flight to depart.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abcnews.go.com/Travel/Travel/story?id=7742900&page=1|title=Searchers Find 23-Foot Piece of Airplane in Hunt for Missing Air France Flight|last=Kannampilly|first=Ammu|coauthors=Zoe Magee, Lisa Stark and Kate Barrett|date=June 3, 2009|work=ABC News|publisher=ABC|accessdate=2009-06-06}}</ref> Investigators examined possible links with Air France Flight 447.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/04/bomb-threat-4-days-before-jet-crashed-115875-21413591/|title=Air France bomb threat four days before jet crashed|last=Fricker|first=Martin|date=June 4, 2009|work=Mirror.co.uk|publisher=Daily Mirror|accessdate=2009-06-06}}</ref> To date, no group or individual has claimed any responsibility for a terror attack on the aircraft.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904137,00.html Spotlight: Air France Flight 447]</ref>

Several points

  • The discussion (First 3 sentences) should be shortened to one sentence, we don't need to present all the details.
    • The flight was from Argentina, not brazil
    • The only real connection is that it was against Air France and a flight from South America
    • It does not connect with the facts.
    • It does not appear to be mentioned as part of the current investigation.
  • The Mirror article itself is loaded with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, it should not be used as a reference.
  • Since when is the absence of a terrorist claim evidence of anything. The Unibomber went several years without making any claim.PB666 yap 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
What are the inconsistances and inaccuracies in this link.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/04/bomb-threat-4-days-before-jet-crashed-115875-21413591/
Arydberg (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. in "An anonymous caller made the threat to a plane heading from South America to Paris - just like the doomed jet." they make it appear that the caller was threating any plane from South AMerica, if so then why did authorities search a specific plane. I wiki-land that would be called weazle words.
  2. "One Air France pilot said he believed the Airbus 330 was blown up by terrorists after leaving Brazilian capital Rio de Janeiro. The long-haul captain, who did not want to be named, said: "It is highly likely a bomb went off. I've flown these jets 10 years. The chances of it being an electrical fault are unfeasible." These are exactly the type of expert opinions we want to avoid, as mentioned above this pilot has no official connection with the investigation, simply because he is a pilot, works for Air France, and has an opinion. The one official expert we have Paul Arlansian decries the use of non-official analyst proclaiming the cause of the crash.
  3. Claims the bomb threat was credible because fc did not communicate. The fc was outside of standard ATC communication range, which it the primary line of communication, often when pilots don't communicate because they are busy, such as progression of computer faults and possibly AC manuevers that require immediate pilot action.
  4. Other completely offbase speculation by their expert, such as plane collisions by drug smugglers. Problem there is when planes collide going 550 MPH, there would not even be a moment for computers to send ACARS.PB666 yap 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am placing this section also here, it really does not discuss autopsies, it is more along the lines of original research on terrorism theories.

===Autopsies=== There were conflicting reports on the autopsies. After they were conducted, ''[[The Independent]]'', stated that the reports noted that the bodies were found about 50 miles apart suggesting, "to some aviation experts that the aircraft may have disintegrated, fully or partially, in mid-air." At the same time, it argues that the autopsies "put to rest the theory that the aircraft was the victim of a terrorist attack. Details of the autopsies leaked to the Brazilian press, indicate that the bodies showed no sign of burning or damage from an explosion. The bodies were recovered whole, which is also said to be unusual after a mid-air explosion. Examination by X-ray revealed no evidence that the bodies had been penetrated by shards of metal. "<ref name="independent0614">{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html|title=Air crash autopsies rule out terrorism |publisher=''[[The Independent]]'' |accessdate=2009-06-16}}</ref> ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' also cited experts who suggested that the plane broke up in mid-air and who have also "all but ruled out a mid-explosion as the bodies reportedly show no signs of burns." <ref name="telegraph0617">{{cite web |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5562043/Air-France-crash-autopsies-suggest-plane-broke-up-in-air.html|title=Air France crash: autopsies suggest plane broke up in air |publisher= ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' |accessdate=2009-06-17}}</ref> On the other hand, the ''[[Associated Press]]'', while also noting that evidence indicated a mid-air break-up, stated that "lack of burn evidence would not necessarily rule out an explosion" if it occurred in the lower fuselage where "passengers would not be exposed to any blast damage."<ref name="Yahoo_400pcs"/>

Lacks also NPOV on cause of conditions. PB666 yap 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. Can you please explain why you consider that the section quoted above is original research? Thanks, --Gautier lebon (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
One and four are probably correct. The pilot in point two had a interesting point. His comment that the Airbus has 5 different sources of electricity was enlightening. Point 3 is wrong. there were other planes in the area and they all monitor the emergency frequency.Arydberg (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's what we call WP:UNDUE emphasis on a WP:FRINGE source. The idea that we would give The Daily Mirror comparable credence to The Daily Telegraph or The Independent would leave anyone familiar with the different publications rolling on the floor writhing in paroxysms of laughter. The US equivalent would be giving equal weight to The National Enquirer in a disagreement with both The Washington Post and the New York Times. We shouldn't even trust a photo in the Daily Mirror.LeadSongDog come howl 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The point is that they are either begging a synthesis by a pretending official (Pilot for Air France) or creating their own synthesis. However, the official source of information is begging the media not to do exactly this.
    1. is about as correct as saying the the planet earth is a planet in the Milky Way. What is its specific relevance to AF 447 from RdJ Brazil to Paris, France.
    2. elevating joe 'anonymous' pilot to the status of an official and then allowing him to speculate.
    3. speculative - original research. In terms of the frequency they monitor, planes coming off of Senegal would be on their last ATC frequency from the north east, planes from Brazil would be coming off the last ATC from the west. Each of these centers have many frequencies they communicate on in order to break traffic up between numerous controllers. There may have been no planes close enough of AF 447 frequency to monitor, and more over, AF 447 fc may not have even tried, given the state of affairs in the cockpit. A whole lot of things have to be just right for them to have sent a transmission of the Comm1 or Comm2 such that another pilot would pick it up and understand it.
    4. speculative cause, like hit by a missile from the US Navy, hit by a meteor, hit by UFO, was pulled apart by the Island in 'Lost', fell into the bermuda triangle.
  • Autopsies section speculates on a caused not currently in discussion by an official in the investigation, and then goes about refuting it. Would be like me saying the 'some say the sun comes up in the west, but I have nice evidence to show it comes up in the east'. More or less drivel. The telegraph is doing original research however the French and Brazilians are charged with autopsies and reporting on those autopsies they have no official capacity or reports.PB666 yap 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So do you dispute that the Airbus in question had 5 separate sources of electricity?Arydberg (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, have you ever heard of the Aquatic Ape Theory. You are using the logic of 'deny this cant be true'. When the first reports of the crash came up Air France reported to air safety officials in search or contact of the aircraft that there were automated reports of electrical failure, however this occurred in the wee hours of the morning before technicians had a chance to go over the report, since then there are no codes in the report related to the electrical system (Generators, charging, etc) and as a consequence it is not officially part what is being reported. In addition Airbus has leaked a memo since saying based on their read of the ACARS there is no evidence of electrical failure. Mentioning electrical failure is like saying 'some franitc secretary said missing plane might have a lack-of-fuel, but now we have learned the plane had five fuel tanks full of fuel'. This differs with the treatment of the ADIRU in which they claim, there is no similarity between ADIRU in Q72/71/68 and ADIRU AF447 however there are ACARS codes that present ADIRU faults. As Arlansian says no system is credited with the failure of the AC yet, but there were clearly problems with Airspeed determination (pitot/static, ADM, [ADR]ADIRU). There are no evident problems with electrical systems, structural integrity, engines, control surfaces (including stabilizer) and a host of other systems. The three areas of problems that are in play are: 'AirHanding', 'Flight Control' and 'Navigation' with the majority of problems in the later two. Don't ask yourself the basic question could it be true. If its placed in the investigation section, what is its special relevance to the investigation section, and by special is it being treated by officials close to the investigation such that its relayed to the media during official press conferences and reports. I find is surpising that you are relying on such unreputable sources to begin with.PB666 yap 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


My response was here. Where did it go? Arydberg (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See History tab : 13:31, 22 June 2009 MickMacNee ...(→What caused the crash: rm per NOT#FORUM). He removed several sections because you were attempting to bait people into a discussion/argument.

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. .WP:NOTFORUM

you might also look at WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:SOAP.PB666 yap 13:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was the other guy who was being extremely discourteous to me. Of course that is my viewpoint. Sorry if I offended someone. If everyone was in agreement there would be no horse races and some disagreement is good but it needs to be in a civil manor. Arydberg (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense was taken.PB666 yap

Memorials

Perhaps it is time to reduce the Memorials section as not all the religious services are notable to the accident. Isnt the memorial section for post-accident permanent memorials. Comment ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Article layout

As commented in a section now archived, 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. Is there a standard layout? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/page content MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As suspected, but thanks for the link. This seems to have led, in this case, to some overlap / duplication about the search for the black boxes, which I think still needs separating and/or rationalising in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Image box in Disappearance section

The image on the right in the Disappearance section contains an error and I can't figure out how to fix it. It currently says, "The area of original research." It should say, "The area of original search" (not REsearch). Can someone fix it? Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is my error I changes it to the exact translation. The French "Dernière zone de recherche" and English translation is "Last zone of research". If someone can provide a more appropriate translation I can change it. PB666 yap 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It doesn't make sense to say "research" as that has a very different meaning in English than "search." (A denotative (literal) translation is not adequate when a connotative (meaning) translation is needed.) It should say something like "The search zone" or "The zone of the search" or something like that. Renee (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Most recent search zone" (English can string nouns together, French can't!) Physchim62 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be on 06-04-2009. Should we say 06/04 search area.PB666 yap 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good. Thanks, Renee (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Names list

I reverted the inclusion of a names list for two reasons, which people may wish to discuss here with a view to reinclusion. First; the NowPublic list is not an official list but is a private attempt to construct a list from various unknown media sources and Wiki should wait on an official list given the sesitivity of the subject. Two; I am unconvinced that even an official names list belongs in an encyclopedia. It might be better to link to such a list, if it ever becomes official and public, or not at all. Ex nihil (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Was in the midst of asking whether 1. this list should be in the article or even 2. if it should be anywhere on Wikipedia at all. For more background info, linking to such a list has already been discussed at [[11]]. My personal view is that such a list (even an official one, should it be published) does not belong on an encyclopedia, is not notable and that the list you reverted was poorly sourced. I have my own personal opinions about the ethics of publishing such a list and respect for privacy, which I will not enter into here. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree with all the above arguments. Not even wholly convinced about the inclusion of the so-called "notable passengers" in articles such as this. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Particularly if passengers became "notable" (i.e. suddenly acquired Wikipedia articles) in June 2009. This seems to be unsupportable circularity. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For information the current guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/page content says Passengers - Information about the number of passengers, fatalities, injuries and survivors. Information on the nationalities involved should be included. Optionally notable passengers may be recorded but should be limited to individuals with a Wikipedia article. Information including ethnic or religious backgrounds and school affliations should not be included.MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree that names should not be listed.PB666 yap 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

ATC transcript

Any objections to adding this info from the BEA report of 2 July 2009 to the investigation section?

Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the table is that two classes of communications are out of time synch. The AF447 ACC-RE sequences end there should be a separator and something that identifies the exchanged between ACC-RE, -BS and DAKAR.PB666 yap 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
May 31 23:07:15 to 23:07:22 Brasilia control <-> To Recife control - Status of AF447
May 31 23:19:27 to 23:19:43 *AF447 <-> Recife Control a -Acknowledge radar contact and transponder code
May 31 23:28:41 to 23:28:52 *AF447 <-> Recife Control a -Mach and SelCode
June 01 00:00:35 to 00:00:41 *AF447 <-> Recife Control a -handoff to Recife b
June 01 00:36:12 to 00:36:55 *AF447 <-> Recife Control b - Acknowledge contact and give eitchef freqs.
June 01 01:04:37 to 01:04:42 Recife Control <-> Brasilia Control - Is AF447 past INTOL? No.
June 01 01:12:53 to 01:13:00 Recife Contol <-> Atlantico Control - Is AF447 past INTOL? No.
June 01 01:14:31 to 01:14:54 *AF447 <-> Recife Control b - AF447 past FEMUR, eitchef clarification.
June 01 01:14:58 to 01:15:07 Recife Control <-> Atlantic Control - AF447 is 32
June 01 01:31:36 to 01:32:10 *AF447 <-> Recife Control b - Change in eitchef freqs. Assign HF for DAKAR
June 01 01:33:25 to 01:35:12 *AF447 <-> Atlantico - [2 min lag] Past Intol, SALPU in 15 min, ORARO by 2:00 UTC.
June 01 01:35:28 to 01:35:43 *AF447 <-> Atlantico - Activate the ? code [Last contact]
June 01 01:35:26 to 01:35:46 Atlantico <-> Dakar control - AF447 at TASIL 02:20 UTC, at Mach 0.82, FL350, ...
June 01 01:35:46 to 01:36:14 Atlantico <-> -AF 447 what is ETA to TASIL (no response)


Not sure why this needs to be in the article it is in the BEA report so all that is needed is a link. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Recognising contributions by all above, it seems that the ATC synchronization needs further study and whatever will help, such as open file above or any link so labeled so that broad exposure may result in more understanding of the problem as noted in BEA report in block quote below:
Under section( of BEA report July 2. 2009) 1.15 Survival Aspects .. the following appears

Given the current lack of information regarding the end of the flight, this chapter only deals with the launching and organization of the search and rescue operations. The chronology of events is based on the recordings from the ATC centres at Dakar and Brest and the Air France OCC. At this stage of the investigation, the BEA has not yet had access to the data from the Recife (ATLANTICO) and Sal (SAL OCEANIC) centres. Synchronization of the exchanges between the ATC centres is difficult and remains uncertain. In this chapter, the times have been rounded to the nearest minute, which is the scale of uncertainty.

Patelurology2 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Right and if you look above one message ends at 1:14:54 to AF447 and the next message between Recife and Atlantico begins. Another message begins at 1:35:46 Atlantico to Dakar and another begins at 1:35:46 Atlantico to AF447.PB666 yap
I think it would be much more important to have a similar table with the codes and a basic interpretation.PB666 yap 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Still not sure why this is needed, we are not carrying out the investigation on wikipedia that is BEAs job, we are not in a hurry this is only an encyclopedia that can wait for official results. So what would adding the transcript and also re-jigging the order gain over a link to the the BEA report. MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The damage assessment has basically concluded the AC disintegrated on water impact, which means these codes are, in their essence, the investigation. It is in the BEA report and the BEA does discuss some of the meanings of the code, so I think it can be added without interpretation. Given that there is a high probability it will be part of the final investigation. BEA has already moved 4 maintenance status issues from this list which means they assert some significance to the 22 messages that remain. The issue is not whether it deserves to be in the investigation section clearly it does by official sources, the issues is whether it is encyclopedia to give the raw messages and how fairly should it be pruned down.PB666 yap 13:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I thought we were discussing the ATC transcripts! MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Recognising the above contributions and the need for some brevity as suggested above, first and foremost is the stress the importance of all the ATC records and it's discordance if any- as this is being studied above; same applies to ACARS code and similar facts as they come needing scrutiny and understanding of meaning with ultimate goal is to write better main page article. This is for anywhere in Wikipedia; one's interpretation or what to look for will differ from the other who is exposed to the same fact if is outlined somewhere. If the problem or information that one stubles upon can be shared with others on discussion page to make a meaning of, it should be detailed for broad exposure to make advance in our mission for better encyclopedia. Patelurology2 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
To answer the comments above, the information in the table is presented "raw" from the BEA report without synthesis, hence the non-chronological order. I'm happy to bury this, as there's no apparent consensus to include it. Thanks for your time. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think putting a blank line between the two would be a synthesis.PB666 yap 01:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Mine is not much of a synthesis, either, since the primary document states the following synopsis of communications.
on the BRASILIA frequency (126.55 MHz, then 125.45 MHz and 128.7 MHz).
At 23 h 18 min 37 s, it was transferred to the RECIFE frequency (126.5 MHz).
At 0 h 36 min 40 s, the RECIFE controller asked it to maintain the altitude of FL350 and to contact ATLANTICO on HF (6535 or 5565 kHz) when passing the INTOL point.
At 1 h 31 min 44 s, the RECIFE controller gave it the ATLANTICO HF frequencies: 6649 or 5565 kHz, then 6535 kHz after the TASIL point. The crew read back the three frequencies. Note: TASIL is on the boundary between the ATLANTICO and DAKAR Oceanic FIRs.
At 1 h 33 min 25 s, the crew contacted the ATLANTICO controller on the 6649 kHz frequency.
At 1 35 min 15 s, they informed the controller that they had passed the INTOL point at 1 h 33, at FL350. They announced the following estimates: SALPU at 1 h 48 then ORARO at 2. They also transmitted their SELCAL code: CPHQ.
At 1 h 35 min 26 s, the ATLANTICO controller coordinated flight AF447 with the DAKAR controller.
At 1 35 min 32 s, the ATLANTICO controller transmitted the following items to the DAKAR controller: TASIL estimated at 2 h 20, FL350, Mach 0.82.
At 1 h 35 min 38 s, the ATLANTICO controller sent a SELCAL call.
At 1 h 35 min 43 s, the crew thanked the controller.
At 1 h 35 min 46 s, the controller asked them to maintain an altitude of FL350 and to give a TASIL estimate.
Between 1 h 35 min 53 s and 1 h 36 min 14 s, the ATLANTICO controller asked the crew three times for their estimated time passing the TASIL point. The crew did not answer.
[Note: In the same document at 2 h 01, the crew tried, without success for the third time, to connect to the Dakar ATC ADS-C system,] AF447 may have desired to change course at that time, all other flights diverted around the ORARU - TASIL flight path.
  • Flight LH507 (AF447 -24min) The crew reported that it flew at the upper limit of the cloud layer and then in the clouds in the region of ORARO. In this zone they saw green echoes on the radar on their path, which they avoided by changing their route by about ten nautical miles to the west. While flying through this zone, which took about fifteen minutes, they felt moderate turbulence and did not observe any lightning. They lowered their speed to the speed recommended in turbulent zones." The atmosphere surrounding LH507 was extremely electrically charged.
  • Flight (IB6024 + 12 min) The crew saw AF447 take off while taxiing at Rio de Janeiro. When passing the INTOL waypoint, they encountered conditions typical of the inter-tropical convergence zone. These conditions were particularly severe 70 NM to 30 NM before the TASIL waypoint. They moved away from the route by about 30 NM to the east to avoid cumulonimbus formations with a significant vertical development, and then returned to the airway in clear skies close to the TASIL waypoint. The crew reported they had difficulties communicating with Dakar ATC.
  • AF459 (AF447 +37 min) On leaving the ATLANTICO FIR, through the TASIL waypoint, the crew attempted in vain to contact Dakar control in HF on the 5565 KHz and 6535 KHz frequencies, and on the other HF frequencies given in the on-board documentation. Likewise, the attempted ADS-C connection was unfruitful.
PB666 yap 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The codes, translated by BEA

BEA interim report of 07-02-2009 on F-GZCP

SPECIAL FOREWORD TO ENGLISH EDITION: This interim report has been translated and published by the BEA to make its reading easier for English-speaking people. As accurate as the translation may be, the original text in French should be considered as the work of reference.

Just to reiterate I did find a number of translation errors in the English document.PB666 yap

I replaced the codes here with a table.

Note: Since BEA combined information from the satellite to generate times, but also information from Airbus on the meaning of codes the above table would fit under the investigation section, not automated message section at the top of the article.PB666 yap

With respect to the English translated verison of BEA report, a table is still in French for translation; copying for pasting for auto-translation programs was unsuccessful. Assistance needed for this. Also, reliability of traslation and especially omissions need close scrutiny; early warning has already been expressed as above.Patelurology2 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The missense is in the FC system translation or meaning. There are three Flight Control laws are 'Normal law', 'Alternate law 1' (Normal), 'Alternate law 2', 'Direct law' and 'mechanical law' as these are the words used by Airbus to describe the flight control behaviors and protections. Alt 2 occurs when: Double engine failure, Double IR failure, Double ADR failure, ADR disagree, All spoilers fault, etc. This questions a little bit the translation (Δt = 99) because the ADR DISAGREE message is found in a later packet (Δt = 161) of transmissions. IOW, to go into alternate law 2 at least aspects of two ADIRU, under these circumstances, must have failed. Either that or the BEA has not fully explained the message. To avoid synthesis I did not mark that passage as According to BEA the message is not fully explained..Flight controls p 1.27.30. There is evidence that both ADIRU 1 and 2 have faulted in different ways but that is clear in later transmission packets. (i.e. ADR 1 faulted as a consequence of Pitot 1 failure and EFCS 1 has faulted, IR 2 has faulted ADR 2 had a maintenance message sent, ADIRU-2 ergo it has all but faulted, and the ISIS system which contains the non-electronic airspeed indicator has a speed outside limit fault),

Preliminary report due out

English Version of BEA release July 2, 2009, a direct link for a full Interim Report


According to Yahoo], the preliminary report into the accident should be out soon. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the report is now available. I have added a summary of this report at the bottom of the "Investigations" section. It seems to me that much of the earlier material contained in the article can now be delelted, but I don't like to delete what others have contributed. Maybe the authors of those parts can now remove them?--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have updated "news sources are saying" to "the BEA stated in an interim report" with a link to the summary of the aforementioned report available on the BEA website. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not construct this sub-section, but it is still valid today with the interem report as it was back in early june.

French Transport Minister, Dominique Bussreau, said "Obviously the pilots [of Flight 447] did not have the right speed showing, which can lead to two bad consequences for the life of the aircraft: under-speed, which can lead to a stall, and over-speed, which can lead to the aircraft breaking up because it is approaching the speed of sound and the structure of the plane is not made for resisting such speeds".[107] On 11 June 2009, a spokesman from the BEA reminded that there was no conclusive evidence at the moment linking Pitot malfunction to the AF447 crash, and this was reiterated on 17 June 2009 by the BEA chief, Paul-Louis Arslanian.[85][108][109]

I see that somebody has added the following at the end of the paragraph that I added regarding the interim report: "However this conclusion contradicts the findings of autopsies conducted in Brazil on recovered passenger bodies, which indicated mid-air break up." I do not think that this statement is correct. The cited news reports (which I had added a couple of times a few weeks ago, and which got deleted each time) indicated that the bodies showed no signs of burns or explosion and showed fractures consistent with being ejected at altitude and hitting the water. I'm not a doctor, but I suppose that those types of fractures would also be consistent with being thrown out of an airplane when it disintegrates because it hits the water at high speed. The interim report includes a graph showing the distribution of the bodies and the debris. Both are closely grouped, which is consistent with the airplane breaking up on impact with the water, and not consistent with its breaking up at high altitude, in which case the debris and the bodies would be much more dispersed. Unlike others, I don't like to delete what others write, but I would like to invite the author of the statement cited above to remove it, because I don't think it adds to the article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understant the statement "(many bodies were found with minimal or no clothing, which suggests garment removal by wind, during fall from great height)". Terminal velocity for a human falling from great height is about 240 Km/h. I've done that (obviously with a parachute that opened after the free fall) and I can guarantee that your clothes are not torn off. Of course when you are ejected from a jet aircraft, you are going faster than that, say about 900 Km/h, but you rapidly declerate and I doubt that your clothes would be torn off. Maybe somebody with expertise in this area could comment on that?--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read numerous reports on this from various airplane mid air breakups. It has been established by NASA research, which was used for the design of astronaut suits for the Space Shuttle, in case they had to bailout at high altitude. A notable example was the bailout of a USAF pilot during a high altitude air balloon flight, where his suit glove if I recall correctly was pulled off by air during the fall. Obviously your suit was designed so that it didn't fail during the fall, but it's not the same for everyday clothing. I'll go dig up some references and be back shortly.--Ferengi (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding what I was wearing, it wasn't a suit at all. It was blue jeans, a T-shirt and non-laced shoes. During the fall, I started to worry that my shoes might be blown off, but they weren't.
Let me clarify the difference, when an AC undergoes mid-air disintegration there has to be a break in the pressure hold that initiates the disintegration. At 35,000 feet an AC has the pressure of less than 15,000 feet. about 3/4 to 2/3rds of an atmosphere, at 35,000 feet its is 1/3rd of an atmosphere. Therefore there is almost 1/2 of an atmosphere or 7 lbs/square inch of differential pressure. In that immediate instance as the crack first forms air rushes toward the back of the aircraft, clothes are immediately blown open and the force of the air is capable of ripping peoples clothes off close to the breach, immediately. Secondarily, as people are ejected from the Aircraft, the aircraft is not moving at terminal velocity (between 80 and 120kts) but is moving between 250 and 290 kts. KE = 1/2 mv2 2752/1002 = 8 times the kinetic energy. IOW you have two sets off forces acting at once, one air expanding under peoples clothes, and two a very fast wind blowing them off. IIRC during the pressure hull break that occurred at the rear of the airplane (china air 113 or something) people had their clothes removed and were still attached to their seats.PB666 yap


Ok, I found it: read section 3.2.3 Aircraft in-flight breakup case studies (starting at page 3-44), of the Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report by NASA, it will answer all your questions. --Ferengi (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this. The relevant part says:
• Air India Flight 182 was flying at 31,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean on June 23, 1985 when a terrorist bomb exploded in the baggage compartment. The Boeing 747 aircraft broke up in flight, and at least 21 of the 131 recovered bodies were denuded.
• Iran Air Flight 655 was mistakenly shot down by a U.S. Navy ship on July 3, 1988 while flying over the Persian Gulf. After missiles hit it, the Airbus A300 aircraft broke up in flight at an altitude of 13,500 feet. The denuded bodies of the passengers were recovered from the Persian Gulf waters.
• Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up by a terrorist bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. The bomb went off when the Boeing 747 aircraft was at roughly 31,000 feet and 313 knots airspeed; numerous passengers who had separated from the aircraft prior to ground impact were denuded.
• COPA Flight 201 broke up over the jungle in Panama on June 6, 1992. The Boeing 737 aircraft broke up at approximately 13,000 feet while in a high-speed dive (the pilots entered the dive because of a faulty attitude indication that was due to a wiring problem). Many of the passengers’ bodies were denuded.
The first three cases involve a bomb. It is well known that the shock wave from a bomb tends to blow people's clothes off, so I would surmise that the bodies in that case lost their clothes because of the bomb blast, not the fall.
The last case presents some similarities to the BEA's preliminary findings: a steep, high-speed dive. Maybe the shock wave induced when the aircaft breaks up (either in-air or when hitting the surface) can also denude the bodies. In any case, there is nothing in the citation that contradicts the BEA's preliminary conclusion, even taking into account the denuded state of the bodies. Also, the BEA didn't have access to the autopsies, but they did have access to the state of the bodies, the same as we do. So I think that we have to presume that they took that into account and that their preliminary conclusion is valid even given that the bodies were naked.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Woah, stop it right there :) You are starting to dig deep into original research territory. Our task as wikipedia editors is to report what reliable sources are reporting. Don't confuse verifiability with truth. Also we are simply reporting a contradiction, which has been aknowledged by the BEA as well. It does not necessarily mean that the BEA report is inaccurate, and our task is not to decide either way, but let the reader have what reliable sources are reporting. --Ferengi (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. The BEA does not acknowlege any contradiction at all. They merely said that they didn't have access to the autopsies. You are suggesting that there is a contradiction because (1) news reports indicate that some bodies were naked and (2) some sources have said that this indicates that the clothes were blown off during the fall. I can accept that a body ejected from a plane at 500 knots will likely have it's clothes blown off. But there is nothing to indicate that this happened at high altitude or that a fall from altitude will result in clothes being blown off. It seems to me that part of what you added is speculation, but maybe I don't understand the meaning of that term in the Wikipedia context. After all, I am a newcomer, and I'm trying to learn the Wikipedia conventions.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Fact:An official report by NASA attributes denuding to fall from great height due to aircraft breakup, establishing a scientific cause-effect link. Fact:Bodies were found denuded. Fact:The BBC reports: The French investigation appears to contradict earlier reports attributed to Brazilian pathologists. They said last month that the injuries sustained by the passengers whose bodies had been found suggested the plane had been in pieces before it hit the sea. Fact:The BEA does not deny, nor confirm that there is a contradiction.
All of the above facts lead me to conclude that this is a worthy addition to the article. I don't really have anything more to say on the subject, other than that all data I have added conforms to wikipedia policies on sources and verifiability. Let me add, since I feel you might have some understandable personal interest in this due to nationality (french I presume?), that I have absolutely no doubt that the BEA will conduct its investigation in the most professional manner possible. I'm also confident that the final report will look into this issue in depth. --Ferengi (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent). No offense meant to some of the contributors in this section, but this discussion is getting into Wikipedia is not a forum. We only include reported information, from reliable sources. Whilst your experiences are highly interesting, we are here to create an encyclopedia, not speculate and hypothesise about what may or may not have happened (even if it is based on your own personal experience, or previous accidents). The BEA Interim Report is out as of 2 July 2009, which is an authoritive source of information. Let's let them do the expert analysis (the Interim Report is over 200 pages), whilst we relay what they have said.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It seems to me that the most authoritative and reliable facts and conclusions available at this time are those reported by the BEA. We should quote that, and nothing else, since everything else is less reliable. Since Ferengi questions my personal interest due to nationality, I have to state that I am not French although I do speak fluent French. My nationalities are US, Italian and Swiss. French is spoken elsewhere than France and by people who are not French.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for presuming, and yes, I'm aware of the multitude of French speakers around the world. --Ferengi (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section on the informal Brazialian report more than a week ago. One report was a reporters synthesis of unverified facts. The other report came from an embalmer, who actually got it right, the bodies were damaged by sudden deceleration. These speculative conclusions should be removed from the article, the BEA even claims that the aircraft hit the water so hard that the verticle stabilizer was thrown forward and torn off, this means it was still attached to a functioning pressure hull on AC impact. Since I anticipated this finding I had previously removed the statements bout the VS being torn off by high speed or over-rudder. Most of the speculation people have placed on the main has been wrong and this is the reason it should be removed. There are two probable sources of failure with the AC, the failing ADR, the failing IR, both of which are in the ADIRU, and the secondary faults in a number of other systems. The primary faults are in the airspeed measuring equipment which are part of EFCS1, EFCS2, and EFCS3. Consequently precedences in these systems may be related.
I will remove the subsection again. And by the way, if we are to engage in OR or speculation, it should be here rather than the mainpage.PB666 yap 13:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
" this means it was still attached to a functioning pressure hull on AC impact." I disagree. This really means it was still attached to something on impact. Why do you assume it was attached to a functioning pressure hull? It may have been attached to a broken off section of the hull.
Arydberg (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the section being removed, if you are certain about your sources which discredit the story. Could you please provide them for verifiability's sake? --Ferengi (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We should not use 'disprove this can't be true' as a logic for inclusion. The BEA is an excellent source of information and as of yet no official investigative team other than the BEA has come up with a different conclusion. It fits the facts, it is consistent with a malfunction in speed indicator with at least some parallels with aircraft of the same type, and it fits the sudden impact damage that was evident in at least some of the bodies. Its the speculators responsibility to come up with an official source that supports their point of view. As far as I am concerned the page has a fitting primary hypothesis (failure of at least one pitot tube as an initiating event) and a major minor hypothesis (failure of one or more ADIRU) and if we wanted to, now we could add that the backup (low tech IAS indicator that was part of the ISIS) may have also failed. But that is it, we have no contrary evidence that contradicts the involvement of airspeed sensing, determination or FMGEC equipment involvement of these systems and the possibility of pilot error. There is no evidence of bomb blast, terrorist activity, mid-air explosion, windforce stripping people limbs off, etc. Pretty much many here have desired to place BS media speculation from the get-go and it has been a constant process of removing this speculation from the article. Most of what the media has said except their reporting of the BEA has been wrong, that is the precedence these informal reports have been background.PB666 yap

1.12.3 Visual inspection. The tail fin was damaged during its recovery and transport but the photographs available made it possible to identify the damage that was not the result of the accident. The middle and rear fasteners with the related fragments of the fuselage hoop frames were present in the fin base. The distortions of the frames showed that they broke during a forward motion with a slight twisting component towards the left.p.35

1.13 Medical and Pathological Information. Sailors from the Frigate Ventôse recovered about thirty bodies. A visual examination of the bodies showed that they were clothed and relatively well preserved. All of them were handed over to the Brazilian Navy to be transferred to the Recife morgue. At this stage of the investigation, the BEA has not yet had access to the autopsy data.p.37

1.16.2.4 Analysis of the messages received on 1st June from 2 h 10 onwards. the gap observed between the message sent at 2 h 13 min 14 s and the one sent at 2 h 13 min 45 s is due, at least in part, to a temporary interruption in the communication link between the aircraft and the satellite,p.46

PB666 yap 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I had read 1.12.3 but there still was the possibility that bodies could have been sucked out of an opening (regardless of cause; I'm not a fan of the explosion/bomb/terrorism theory) that would not have compromised the overall integrity of the plane (most notable example being Aloha Airlines Flight 243, but also United Airlines Flight 811). Regrettably I missed 1.13, since I read the report in haste and in French, which I do not know in depth. Had I seen it, I would have indeed not added the BBC comment. Not sure how 1.16.2.4 is relevant to the present discussion. --Ferengi (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
With respect to the comments above questioning one's nationality, let us remind ourselves, if this is not germane to the Wikipedia mission, it should not be questioned; we all belong to Wikipedia Nation.Patelurology2 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've already apologized for this higher up and I acknowledge I should have applied more good faith. However the reality is that I have seen more than my fair share of people trying to push their agendas in covert fashion, and my suspicious side got the better of me. Again my apologies. --Ferengi (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No apologies required, no offense was taken. But I do appreciate your apology and I thank your for that. As a newcomer, I have to say that I am very favorably impressed by this process. Within one day, we have come to a consensus and now offer to the public what appears to be very reliable information. I am impressed and I thank all involved.--Gautier lebon (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
With respect to release of bodies 50 kms apart, a possible explanation may be intial tail or body breach and release of some passengers and subseuqent separation on impact in confirmation of findings in the following posted by PB666, an offocial BEA news release included again in block quote below posted initially on User:AlexandrDmitri while posting regarding a spate of questions of nationality of someone who posted on Talk:Air France page(AlexandrDmitri was chosen for possible interest in the matter as such; nationality is best left at the border of Wikipedia as mentioned similarly by another of our active contributor on AF447 on the user page with symbolics describing the user's nationality and multi ancestory; ancestry best left at the national border in that case) and seeing some AF447 sub-section activity; work is being discarded from AF 447 discussion page because supposedly is a forum activity, could find a repository. This comes from a beginner.
When BEA mentioned finding pieces from all over the plane, that was not easily acceptable; separation of bodies and parts in two main locations 50 kms apart can possibly be explained if tail or some section opened and released intial passengers and parts. With the tail or the opened section still attached only to breakup(with impact damage as attached vs free falling which would not have much spash damage) on impact could be in an explanation of above and the news on July 2, 2009 about high speed belly contact.

The following found on discussion page where points to look for are even being disregarded as speculation or forum activity. What information to look for and meaning behind all this should be part of discussion in order to improve the main page of anything in wikipedia; a writeup on this is needed so that when such points are presented, this should not be discarded as forum activity. Anyway, the following in block quote comes from posting by PB666 on talk page and seems to be a part of BEA official release. The content of the block quote seems to be in confirmation with tail release of bodies in air at a distance from location of separation on impact. This was originally posted on page User:AlexandrDmitri.

1.12.3 Visual inspection. The tail fin was damaged during its recovery and transport but the photographs available made it possible to identify the damage that was not the result of the accident. The middle and rear fasteners with the related fragments of the fuselage hoop frames were present in the fin base. The distortions of the frames showed that they broke during a forward motion with a slight twisting component towards the left.p.35

Patelurology2 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

English Version of BEA release July 2, 2009, a direct link ...a table on page 67 needs translation from French. Patelurology2

The French version is on AF447 main page in references; the English version in External links. ... Requesting PB666, who has given this link in several paces in this section but without mention of the link being BEA release of July 2, 2009, to help clear confusion and delete redundant link. This direct link has the contents that all contributors on this page would benefit for further study. Patelurology2 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Patelurology2 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


English Version of BEA release July 2, 2009, a direct link ...a table on page 67 needs translation from Frech. Patelurology2 Patelurology2 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am travelling and had limited access to the web. The table in question is the action list that the crew should take in case of inconsistency in indicated air speed. It is highly technical, so I don't thik that I can provide a meaningful translation. "Poussee" means thrust. "Assiette" means horizontal position (nose up or down). Basically, they appear to be instructions to ensure straight and level flight. The bit at the end says that, once straight and level flight has been achieved, the pilot should turn to the emergency procedure on how to fly in case of reported inconsistency in air speed indication. Clearly the black boxes would be very helpful in this context, because presumably the voice recording would indicate whether or not the pilots executed the procedures in question.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

...Flight Control Laws (Airbus)- Normal, Alternate, Direct, and Mechanical Law

Alternate law which linking to this article, which I knew is poor grammer. But other editor is delete it! Can you help me improvied it? Alternate law —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It was prodded as 'incoherent'. While I wouldn't have put it that insensitively, it wasn't really up to stub standard, so I've redirected it to Aircraft flight control systems for now. Hopefully someone will develop it, but a start would probably be to add material to Aircraft flight control systems. MickMacNee (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thats a really bad redirect, IMHO. I would rather see a page with poor grammar decent links that a redirect as this. Alternate Law is an Airbus solution to an obligate fly by wire system, it is not a general aircraft control system. I someone wants to create a page that discusses the Normal, Alternate, Direct, and Mechanic Law that would be a preferable situation. There is nothing wrong with having a stub.PB666 yap 13:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Grammar was the least of its problems. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I neither prodded nor deleted the article, but was in the midst of making some suggestions on the talk page, when the article was deleted. I also offered to help with the copywriting. As the article no longer exists, I left a few comments on B767-500's talk page. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose the page Flight control laws (Airbus) as an alternative to the page on Alternative Law. Here are the reasons:
  1. Alternate Law makes no sense unless normal Law is roughly outlined
  2. Direct Law makes no sense unless Normal law and Alternate Law are outline
  3. Mechanical Law makes no sense unless all the above 3 are outlined.
  4. Each (Normal, Alternate, Direct, and Mechanical can be directly linked to using the #section wikilink)
  5. all make no sense in a general context (such as general aviation article), they might make more sense in a fly-by-wire context, but that would require a separate section on Airbus, and still subsections for each Law.
PB666 yap 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External Cameras - Studying Environment & Effects on Aircraft and Flight

  • A340 has external camera for taxi aid and other purposes; youtube has a video mounted on tail [12]. Looking for information on all external cameras available on A330 and whether the images are recorded within black boxes or transmitted somewhwere besides being viewed in cockpit. For completeness of subject at issue what are the external images available to pilots which may possibly aid in study of the external environment and its effect on airframe and flight.Patelurology2 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The A340-500/-600 have them to make taxiing easier, the shorter ones and the A330 don't have them. Mgw89 (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Locator beacon battery life

I removed the unreferenced statement about 30-90 day battery life, as it appears to have been lifted directly from the underwater locator beacon article. It's WP:OR to assume that this aircraft used the particular make & model of beacon described in the manual referenced on that page. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the model # or 30-90 days mentioned in either of those links. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
At [13] the statement is "Each recorder is fitted with an underwater locator beacon (ULB). The ULB pinger has an acoustic frequency of 37.5kHz, transmitting initially with 1,060 dynes/cm2, and has a battery life of at least 30 days. Maximum detection range is 2–3km." This sound pressure level would normally be expressed as 1,060 pascals or, in underwater acoustics parlance, as 160.5 db re 1 micropascal. The frequency is standard for all ULBs. The figures given are consistent with the Dukane DK100 ULB (see data sheet here or here) or the Teledyne Benthos interchangeable part (manual here). Note especially that they both has a 90 day life option, which is a larger-capacity battery, but with the standard models the output drops to half power (157.5 db re 1 uPa) after 30 days. The FAA calls this an "Underwater Locating Device" (ULD) in its Advisory Circular AC20-141. The ULDs are regulated under FAA TSO C121.LeadSongDog come howl 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"The figures given are consistent with..." = original research & synthesis. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Minimum battery life a FAA requirement? Does A330-200 have a standard model fit? Use "ULB" throughout the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
See the advisory circular. This 1983 document called for a louder inital output (I don't yet know why the discrepancy) but otherwise reads the same as the DK100 or 362D data above. It called for 1,000 dynes/cm2 @ 1m when measured at the end of the initial 30 days. My reading is that the FAA wanted a ULD but didn't wish to tie the hands of inventors that just might someday come up with a better way to do it. The advisory circular says that if you make it do this, they'll certify it. It's a bit of regulatory craftsmanship.LeadSongDog come howl 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec):Yes regulatory craftsmanship certainly. Acoustical output after 30 days could gracefully degrade or could drop to zero. The advisory seems to says nothing about acceptable battery types - this would be a manufacturing choice. But the A330 was first flown in 1992. Is this 26 year old FAA requirement really still the most current? Mightn't the European standard be more relevant to Airbus (although probably not much different)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest do we known the type of ULBs used on the A330, and do we known if the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder use the same ULB? MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems we don't, yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the FAA database record, yes, 21-10A is still the current version, dated 04-19-1983. The topic of lithium batteries on aircraft is a very touchy one. Getting a new design approved is next to impossible, even though people can carry laptops on board. Go figure.LeadSongDog come howl 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I was asking about the physical hardware used rather than the regulations used, although I would agree they give clues to the minimum requirements. I would have thought the aircraft would be covered by EASA or JAR and not FAA regulations. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It would appear to be operated under JAR25. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So is JAR25 any different to 21-10A as a certification standard? And any info for typical or required A330-200 build standards? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Virtually indistinguishable. EASA JAR even uses the same paragraph numbering as in 14 CFR, 25.1457 and 25.1459. There is close international coordination on revising these things. See this for example.LeadSongDog come howl 21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes very sensble, I see it states:
"DFDRs to meet the underwater locator beacon (ULB) security-of- attachment standard specified in the EUROCAE ED-112 document. The ALPA noted that in some recent accidents there have been cases where the ULB has become nearly or fully separated from the CVR or FDR memory module.
The ULB standard of ED-112 standard is included in all of the new FAA TSOs on recorders (numbers 123b, 124b, 166 and 167)". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not diputing that there are locators with 30 or 90 day battery lives, however the editors above have failed to provide a reliable source that specifically mentions the manufacturer & model of beacon used on AF-447. Without that link, you can't quote specifications of arbitrary beacons that happen to comply with industry aviation standards, and present this data as fact for AF-447. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The AP article doesn't state the model but does state the expected life.LeadSongDog come howl 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly - and it states it as 30 days, not 30-90 days.  :-) Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The BEA interim report at section 1.16.1.2, says "Nevertheless, the duration of the beacon transmission is limited, being certified for a minimum transmission duration of thirty days from immersion." In other words, it has the standard ULD specs used everywere else. Nothing special to comment on.LeadSongDog come howl 04:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Weakest & Weaker Links in Contruct of Flight Execution

This seems to be a topic in order- to study all factors pertinent to conduct of flight where features of weakness can be identified; understanding of this may enhance our article. Many of these points have been covered and most are in archives; enumeration and on-going comments may be in order; comment is reserved, for now, not to show bias.

Patelurology2 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Post as it seems appropriate below a point below or as usual at the end of the whole section.


  • No radar Coverage Mid-ocean: Unlike many overland areas of the the world, some over the ocean areas have lack of continuous radar tracking by ATC/ARTCC or similar entity for the some segment of flight. Such an area was part of track for AF447. Whether lack of tracking facility gives less choices for a successful flight is an open question. Patelurology2 (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Sparse voice communication with remote ATC facilty with possible unrelabilty due to weather; backup via bouncing communication from aircraft to aircraft on airway or satellite might substitute. Patelurology2 (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Q Corner (Coffin corner ) at high altitude gives less room for speed errors especially with changing weather and resultant temperature air pressure giving smaller window for proper operating speed. Recognising that AF447 and other planes with similar fly-by-wire are possibly more suitable for auto-pilot adjustments but automatic engangement and disengagement system need study; violent changes in weather could be challenging. Patelurology2 (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Time & Schedule Constraints can have judgement straining effects; safety of flight is the foremost on minds of pilots; cost of deviations is a miniscule part in global scheme of flight execution.Patelurology2 (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Continuously changing Weather and Route specific experience in Pilotage, though componsated partially by technology, can have pilot straining effects since the technologies themselves are not totally automated; AF447 was marvel of highly automated technology sparing pilotage demand.Patelurology2 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Need for tweeking technology e.g. radar gain or other parameters to fit continuously changing weather patterns can exhaust pilotage resources especially with no other alternate source of information e.g. mid-ocean or other uncontrolled zones.Patelurology2 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Patel, could you please explain what you are trying to do here, remembering WP:FORUM?LeadSongDog come howl 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention original research, verifiability and reliable sources... Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Recognising a need to summarize all we have addressed so far and what might remain to be attended to. From a beginner: the concept of archiving something currently active is counter-intutive; an addition cannot be attached to that archive; on-going points in revisits simply need to be addressed.Patelurology2 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Have slowed down the archiving as the article is now less active than a month ago. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I needing help composite stress fracture section this article: Stress_fracture#Aircraft/airframe stress fratcture

I wroting good section, but other edit delete no explanation. Can you help wrote section, which relate issues for composite fractture or fatigue on AF447. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, nope. We're waiting for the BEA to conclude what happened. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, the Stress_fracture article is specifically about bones and therefore not the appropriate place for this material. I'm sure someone can suggest a better venue. Regards AlexandrDmitri (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Amendment

  • EXISTING STATEMENT
Forty minutes later, a four-minute-long series of automatic radio messages was received from the plane, indicating numerous problems and warnings. The exact meanings of these messages are still under investigation, but the aircraft is believed to have been lost shortly after it sent the automated messages.
  • SUGGESTED EDIT
Forty minutes later, 24 automatic ACARS maintenance alert messages were received from the aircraft within four minutes; the aircraft likely went down within minutes of these messages and their exact relevance to the accident is still under investigation.
  • COMMENT
It is not the relevance, not the meaning of the ACARS messages that is at issue.

--Arthur Borges (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • ANOTHER COMMENT
Or maybe the 4 minutes series of automatic messages were being sent as the plane having sustained some type of damage descended the 35,000 feet or so to the ocean. In setting a timeline we should remember that the aircraft did not instantaneously transit from 35,000 feet to the ocean surface. Perhaps the various readings of the pitot tubes were due to the plane tumbling out of control. Arydberg (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


  • EXISTING
The investigation continues, but is severely hampered by the absence of the flight data recorders and the lack of eyewitness accounts or radar tracks.
  • SUGGESTED
The investigation continues but is hampered by the absence of the cockpit voice and flight data recorders.
  • COMMENT
Either write "blackboxes" or distinguish them: only one is a flight data recorder.
lack of eyewitness accounts or radar tracks is from the BEA report and is relevant.Ex nihil (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)]
(Sorry my poor English): I suggest edit: 'The investigation continues but is hampered by the absence of devices, which they are include voice and data recorder.'

Any feathered eyewitnesses flapping around at 35,000 feet in the middle of the night would have little to contribute. There are three witnesses (two airborne) who saw a fireball of some sort around the time of the accident but so far its relationship to the accident is unclear. It also tried and failed to establish contact with Dakar ATC three times. --Arthur Borges (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    • I didn't wrote joke; other editor wrote, which I like it! --B767-500 (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That was not by radar but an advance long-range communication system. 4 other AC failed, in the same airspace, to make contact. The page is roughly fine for now, the lack of eyewitness accounts or radar tracks can be removed. The AC sent an ACARs GPS coordinate at 2:10:40 or so and within 3 to 4 mintues something catastrophic happened which ultimately lead all or most of the plane to end up nose first into the Atlantic. Lets not speculate based on what we don't know. There is only so much information that can be gleamed from the BEA report

  • 24 messages, problems were to be had with Air speed determination.
  • Bodies showed signs of rapid blunt force traumas.
  • The direction of damage to parts was a rapid decelerative motion of the aircraft in the direction of normal aircraft motion.

What we don't know and we should allow ourselves to patient on this aspect is: -Did the aircrafts computers issue a set of commands to the ACs control surfaces that forced the AC into a set of unrecoverable positions. Given the 4 minutes the AC survived after AP shutoff, I think this is unlikely. -Did the Pilots respond to an emergent situation incorrectly. -Was the pilot responding correctly to an emergent situation but to many of the environment sensing equipment had failed, was the pilot flying blind. -Did the aircraft become stressed in someway that was unclear to the pilot such that the pilot could not correct (for example did the failure of Airspeed sensors at different times cause the AC to overspeed resulting in some structural failures (horizontal stabilizer, for instance).PB666 yap 02:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for input from other Wikipedias

User:Patelurology2 has left me a note on my talkpage requesting input from other language Wikipedias, given that my mother tongues are English and French and I speak German and Russian to a near native level. The most logical choice to me is the French Wikipedia. Before I undertake the comparison of versions (9 pages on the FR Wikipedia) and given that I don't have much time at the moment (I have three hours of Arabic lessons per day and a final exam on Friday), does anyone have any comments on the pertinence me undertaking this? AlexandrDmitri (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Off topic discussion collpased - this is not the place for general discussion of the merits of auto-translation MickMacNee (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Contributions Across Languages is the End; Translations by Human or Machine are just the means. Patelurology2 (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
With respect to above the following may help understand the extent of problems and opportunities to learn from Wikipedias in other languages; Language barrier can be overcome.Topic title listed in Language barrier :

Same Topic in Different Language Wikipedia- Divergence & Similarities in Study of any Subject ..include also opportunities to learn and cross feed.

  • Different language Wikipedia pages for the same topic for e.g. the English page AF447 and the French page [14] and respective talk pages are likely to have divergence and similarities in evolution of study of any subject at hand; ability to cross contribute the content save Language barrier needs further study by active contributors of their respective language pages. ...Language is no barrier. Auto-translation programs can be used e.g. Bing Translator as possibly preferred for a such study for Side by Side feature of ability to view two languages, the original and machine translation to understand the gist; auto-translation is no substitute for a professional human translator.Patelurology2 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Any page in any Wikipedia should have a machine auto-translation feature to help understand atleast the gist of the article; existing links on all pages in languages are for the the original pages in those respective languages. Importance of translation of all the articles that Wikipedia has in different languages is emphasised; machine auto-translation feature on any page and talk pages in any langnguage Wikipedia would suffice and for intensive study human translators available in Wikipedias would help. Meta.Wikipedia Translation Requests Patelurology2 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • AF447 page Real Time Machine Translation Side by Side from French to English .... for-> From other Languages to English try click on that Language in Left (for Arabic and where sentence starts from right side, use reverse logic)( center column language tab can be used to translate to any other language) column and/or change language as required in Bing's From & To box above the page content. Contribution Across Languages is the End; Translation by Human or Machine are just the Means; Machine Translation is no substitute for Human Translation. Human Translation Request Patelurology2 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Patelurology2 (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Could a Computer Glitch Have Brought Down Air France 447? - TIME".
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference 07-02-2009 BEA Report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_France_Flight_447/Archive_4&oldid=1127396290"