French airliner missing over Atlantic

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thank God and all that's Unholy for Ifremer.

I've always loved the exploits of the French government maritime research institute, and now they're at it again, sending the Nautile down more than 20,000 feet in response to these "extremely weak" signals from the black boxes of the lost flight, as detected by that French nuclear submarine's hydrophones. It's not even likely that they'll pull of the recovery, but if anyone can they'll certainly manage it, and this will certainly go down in the annals of history as perhaps the most difficult deep sea recovery operation ever, stretching the very limits of our technology.

French military ships have reportedly detected signals from the black boxes of the doomed Air France flight that crashed into the Atlantic last month.

The French newspaper Le Monde reported this morning that a research mini-submarine, the Nautile, had dived to search for the flight recorders based on a "very weak signal". The report gave no source or other details.

Authorities have been searching urgently for the black boxes, which will continue to emit signals only until the end of the month and which could contain vital clues as to what happened on board the Airbus A330, which crashed en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, killing all 228 people on board.

The cause of the disaster, the worst in the history of Air France, is still not known. Investigators suspect that a mix of bad weather and computer malfunctions, such as faulty speed readings and electronic failures, may have contributed to the crash.

French-chartered ships have been searching an area with a radius of 50 miles, pulling US Navy underwater listening devices attached to 19,700ft of cable. The black boxes send out an electronic tapping sound that can be heard up to 1.25 miles away.

Yesterday officials said that they had identified 11 of the 50 bodies so far recovered from the crash site off the coast of Brazil, by using dental records and fingerprints. Of those identified ten were Brazilian, although no names have been released.

The passengers on board Flight 447 came from 32 countries, including France, Brazil and Germany. There were five Britons.

Officials with the French military and the French marine institute that operates the mini-submarine and French air accident investigators could not by reached immediately for comment.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

One thing we should remember is that the Nautile is a manned submersible, so this operation is going to involve three men risking their lives and diving very deep indeed in a complicated area of underwater terrain, which hasn't been so well charrted and prepared for manned operations. So those brave men will very much be putting their lives on the line, true and courageous French aquanauts, who will be rivalling journeys into space in complexity and danger in the attempt to recover these black boxes from the very bottom of the abyssal deep, and indeed, the Nautile has already begun her first dive by that account.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I decided to go ahead and include a picture of the Nautile being launched to give people an idea of what these extremely deep-diving submersibles look like. You can see the one man on deck and the one standing on the submersible during her launch operations (which the most extremely dangerous part, especially in the rough seas of the open ocean, the launching). That submersible you see there, will, holding a crew of three, conduct a dive for a duration of up to eight hours at a depth of up to six kilometers; apparently the ocean depth in the area is fortunately only around 4 kilometers, though this is still at a level of incredible difficulty; the recovery of the black boxes from the Adam Air crash in 1998 took place at a depth of only 2 kilometers, for example, and that involved a months-long operation after the initial fix on the location was carefully recorded before the transponders stopped.

[Dargos]

Official: No black box signals from Flight 447

ANGELA CHARLTON, Associated Press Writer Angela Charlton, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 1 min ago

PARIS – French military ships searching for the black boxes of Flight 447 have detected sounds in the Atlantic depths but they are not from the Air France plane's flight recorders, a French official said Tuesday.

The official and French investigators denied a report on the website of the French newspaper Le Monde that French ships had picked up a signal from the black boxes.

French military ships searching in the area where the plane crashed have "heard sounds" but "the black boxes have not been detected," said an aide to France's minister in charge of transport, Jean-Louis-Borloo. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to be publicly named.

The two recorders, key to helping determine what happened to the Air France plane that plunged into the ocean May 31, will only continue to emit signals for another eight days or so.

The Airbus A330 plane fell into the Atlantic after running into thunderstorms en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. All 228 people aboard were killed. The cause of the crash remains unclear.

The French air accident investigation agency, BEA, said in a statement Tuesday that "no signals transmitted by the flight recorders' locator beacons have been validated up to now."

The BEA said work is continuing "aimed at eliminating any doubts related to any sounds that may be heard, and any findings will be made public."

Last week, BEA director Paul-Louis Arslanian sternly warned against any unconfirmed leaks in the investigation, saying they could mislead the public and unnecessarily worry or encourage the families.

Le Monde said a mini research submarine, the Nautile, dived Monday to search for the boxes based on a "very weak signal" from the flight recorders picked up by the French ships.

French military spokesman Christophe Prazuck said he could not confirm or deny the Le Monde report. French air accident investigators and officials with the French marine institute that operates the mini-sub, Ifremer, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Brazilian and American officials said that as of Sunday evening no signals from the black boxes had been picked up.

Searchers from Brazil, France, the United States and other countries are methodically scanning the surface and depths of the Atlantic for signs of the plane.

French-chartered ships are trolling a search area with a radius of 50 miles (80 kilometers), pulling U.S. Navy underwater listening devices attached to 19,700 feet (6,000 meters) of cable. A French submarine is also searching.

The black boxes send out an electronic tapping sound that can be heard up to 1.25 miles (2 kilometers) away.

Ten of 50 bodies recovered from the Air France flight that plunged into the Atlantic three weeks ago have been identified as Brazilians, medical examiners said.

Dental records, fingerprints and DNA samples were used to identify the bodies. Investigators are reviewing all remains, debris and baggage at a base set up in Recife, Brazil.

Link to story.

Hope they find the boxes soon.

[FSTargetDrone]

An important update, I think...

It now appears that the previous story of the aircraft breaking up in flight may be incorrect. The French are saying that the airplane hit the water belly-first, breaking up upon hitting the water:

Page last updated at 16:30 GMT, Thursday, 2 July 2009 17:30 UK

Air France jet 'broke on impact'

French investigators trying to find out why an Air France plane crashed in the Atlantic say they believe it broke up on contact with water, not in the air.

They also found that the plane's speed sensors had been "a factor but not the cause" of the crash.

All 228 people on the plane were killed when it plunged into the ocean en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris on 1 June.

Teams looking for the plane's flight data recorders will continue operations for another 10 days.

Alain Bouillard, of France's BEA accident investigation agency, said the crash had been an extremely difficult one to understand.

"Between the surface of the water and 35,000ft [10,700m], we don't know what happened," Mr Bouillard said. "In the absence of the flight recorders, it is extremely difficult to draw conclusions."

But he said an examination of the recovered wreckage led them to believe the plane probably hit the water "in the direction of flight and with a strong vertical acceleration".

BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds said if the plane had broken up in the air, pieces of the fuselage would have been found twisted in a variety of directions.

Instead they showed signs of compression in one direction, resulting from the plane hitting the water on its belly.

Life jackets found in the wreckage had not been inflated, indicating that the passengers had little warning of a water landing.

Many factors

There has been speculation that the old-style speed sensors may have given the plane's pilots faulty information.

But Mr Bouillard said they had been "a factor but not the cause" of the crash.

In the wake of the crash, Air France accelerated an existing programme to replace speed monitors on its Airbus planes.

Mr Bouillard told reporters that investigators found "neither traces of fire nor traces of explosives."

He said there was also concern about the length of the delay - six hours - between the crew failing to contact air traffic controllers in Dakar, western Africa, as planned and the alarm being raised.

He said his team was "a long way from establishing the causes of the accident" but that the search for the Airbus A330's data recorders would be extended to 10 July.

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.

Mr Bouillard said France had not yet been given access to those autopsy reports.

Search teams have recovered 51 bodies from the ocean but said last month that finding any more remains was "impossible".

Note that the window for an expectation of finding the boxes is swiftly closing.

[Broomstick]

The airplane pancaked?

That's a very strange scenario. The next question is whether or not the descent from 35,000 feet to the water surface was at all controlled or completely out of the hands of the pilots. Even in a flat spin it would take significant time for the airplane to reach the water.

Despite the long odds, I'd really like to find the black boxes for this flight.

I had heard something in passing to this effect on the radio, but not in as much detail. Thanks for posting the update.

[FSTargetDrone]

The airplane pancaked?

That's a very strange scenario. The next question is whether or not the descent from 35,000 feet to the water surface was at all controlled or completely out of the hands of the pilots. Even in a flat spin it would take significant time for the airplane to reach the water.

Despite the long odds, I'd really like to find the black boxes for this flight.

I had heard something in passing to this effect on the radio, but not in as much detail. Thanks for posting the update.

Sure thing. Now, what I find strange (merely as a layperson with an interest in airplanes in general) is how the Brazilian investigation team decided that the aircraft broke up in the air, yet the French have come to a completely different conclusion and are saying the aircraft came down (mostly?) intact and broke up upon striking the water.

If you look back a page or two at the AP/Google 17 June article, it says:

A spokesman for Brazilian medical examiners told The Associated Press that fractures were found in autopsies on an undisclosed number of the 50 bodies recovered so far. The official spoke on condition he not be named due to department rules.

"Typically, if you see intact bodies and multiple fractures — arm, leg, hip fractures — it's a good indicator of a midflight break up," said Frank Ciacco, a former forensic expert at the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. "Especially if you're seeing large pieces of aircraft as well."

The pattern of fractures was first reported Wednesday by Brazil's O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper, which cited unnamed investigators. The paper also reported that some victims were found with little or no clothing, and had no signs of burns.

That lack of clothing could be significant, said Jack Casey, an aviation safety consultant in Washington, D.C., who is a former accident investigator. "In an in-air break up like we are supposing here, the clothes are just torn away."

Casey also said multiple fractures are consistent with a midair breakup of the plane, which was cruising at about 34,500 feet (10,500 meters) when it went down.

"Getting ejected into that kind of windstream is like hitting a brick wall — even if they stay in their seats, it is a crushing effect," Casey said. "Most of them were long dead before they hit the water would be my guess."

Now, again, as a layperson, the description of the cause of those injuries, the lack of clothing and how it all points to an aircraft breaking up in the air seems sensible enough.

The AP 17 June article continues:

When a jet crashes into water mostly intact — such as the Egypt Air plane that hit the Atlantic Ocean after taking off from New York in 1999 — debris and bodies are generally broken into small pieces, Ciacco said. "When you've had impact in the water, there is a lot more fragmentation of the bodies. They hit the water with a higher force."

Lack of burn evidence would not necessarily rule out an explosion, said John Goglia, a former member of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

If something caused the lower fuselage to burn or explode, "passengers would not be exposed to any blast damage" and the plane would still disintegrate in flight," Goglia said. "These are scenarios that cannot be ruled out."

Now the BBC article from today, says:

...an examination of the recovered wreckage led them to believe the plane probably hit the water "in the direction of flight and with a strong vertical acceleration".

BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds said if the plane had broken up in the air, pieces of the fuselage would have been found twisted in a variety of directions.

Instead they showed signs of compression in one direction, resulting from the plane hitting the water on its belly.

Life jackets found in the wreckage had not been inflated, indicating that the passengers had little warning of a water landing.

Now, again, this also seems to make sense!

My confusion is, however, which is right? The Brazilian investigation says that the condition of the debris and that of the bodies suggest an aircraft breaking up while still in the air. The French investigation says that the condition of the debris suggests that the aircraft smacked into the water and then came apart.

Note, however, nothing is said in the BBC piece about the state of the bodies and how they might telegraph what kind of break-apart happened. All that is said is that the French don't have the autopsies yet (and I suppose this could change conclusions somewhat on the part of the French once they have the information?).

So what's so odd is that the French and Brazilian conclusions (such as they are, without more definitive data from flight recorders) aren't at all similar. It's not like the Brazilians think that it came apart at X height and the French say, no, it came apart at a different height, but it still came apart in the air. The French are saying, we think it hit the water and then went to pieces.

What do you think?

[Broomstick]

I think the French have an interest in blaming this on the pilots rather than Airbus, their technological pride and joy. In past accidents they have pushed very firmly all blame on the pilots, even when (to others of us) there seems to be legitimate involvement of mechanical failure as either a contributing or major factor.

If it broke up in flight then the structural integrity of the Airbus can be called into question (even though there are weather conditions that can tear apart any aircraft built today no matter how well engineered). If it was flown, under control, into the water then it's wholly a human error problem.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, if the force members failed under compression entirely than that does yield to a particular forensic conclusion from the analysis of the wreckage at odds with a midair breakup. What if the impact forces were so severe that everyone was killed instantly on landing? Possibly even that the aircraft skipped off the surface of the water at least once and broke up in the process of that? Both of course require incredible forces that would virtually require the aircraft to have impacted the water at fairly incredible speeds.

It could still be a technological issue. Something with the computers might have caused a powered dive and prevented the crew from recovering? Those random control movements in the Qantas bird were pretty bad, and they weren't in a storm, giving them a better chance to regain control.

[Broomstick]

Well, if the force members failed under compression entirely than that does yield to a particular forensic conclusion from the analysis of the wreckage at odds with a midair breakup. What if the impact forces were so severe that everyone was killed instantly on landing?

If the airplane hit belly-first the broken bones should have included shattered vertebrae. However, the broken bones noted have been limb bones.

Possibly even that the aircraft skipped off the surface of the water at least once and broke up in the process of that?

Sure, it's entirely possible for an airplane to skip like a stone across the water... wouldn't call it a typical scenario but it's possible.

You really need to recover a substantial portion of the plane to make a determination. It's possible it broke apart into several large pieces and that those pieces subsequently pancaked into the water.

Both of course require incredible forces that would virtually require the aircraft to have impacted the water at fairly incredible speeds.

"Fairly incredible speeds" is not a problem. Although the engines on such a jet are not sufficient to push it to Mach 1 in level flight the structure is certainly capable of exceeding the speed of sound in a dive, where gravity can assist the engine power. Once a big jet goes nose down it will accelerate to "fairly incredible speeds". I trust smashing into the water at 1200+ kph would qualify.

It could still be a technological issue. Something with the computers might have caused a powered dive and prevented the crew from recovering?

If you're headed towards the ground at Mach speeds you just don't have time to recover. You'd have to pull out of an edge-of-the-envelope-or-beyond dive without ripping the wings off the airplane. Which, please believe me, IS possible to do at those speeds if you mishandle the airplane. It may even be what happened - in pulling out of a dive they might have overstressed the airplane to the point it broke up. We just don't know. We might never know.

[FSTargetDrone]

I think the French have an interest in blaming this on the pilots rather than Airbus, their technological pride and joy. In past accidents they have pushed very firmly all blame on the pilots, even when (to others of us) there seems to be legitimate involvement of mechanical failure as either a contributing or major factor.

If it broke up in flight then the structural integrity of the Airbus can be called into question (even though there are weather conditions that can tear apart any aircraft built today no matter how well engineered). If it was flown, under control, into the water then it's wholly a human error problem.

Do you really think the French investigators may be skewing the information to something more, shall we say, "politically acceptable"? If that is so, we could speculate that it is in their interest to not find the data recorders. If the recorders are found and the information points to a catastrophic failure of the aircraft for some reason, it could be difficult to suppress that. If the recorders are not found, then at worst there is speculation about what happened, with nothing definitive. It could be easier to blame the pilots. Easier to lie when the information is lost.

Then again, blaming the pilots implies that Air France employs aircrews that are less than ideal, right? That could be a tarnish on the reputation for the airline as well, a company that probably generates similar national pride as Airbus, given that Air France is among the largest airlines in the world. Perhaps not as damaging as admitting there was a failure of the aircraft, but then again, Air France doesn't build the aircraft it flies. The French investigators (and presumably, by extension, the government) may not want to see Airbus have a black mark against it, but Air France can't be happy that its pilots might be blamed, even indirectly or by implication.

[Thanas]

Oh please. Have you all turned into conspiracy whackjobs? This is just like people screaming "the NTSB is biased because Boeing is an american company".

[Broomstick]

FSTargetDrone, you're overstating the effect.

Yes, there IS political pressure to blame the pilots rather than the airplane. It's not just in France, either - the default in any aviation accident is that the pilot(s) is either wholly or partially at fault. I don't believe there is a conspiracy, and I would expect that the direct investigators are largely impartial, but anyone can be influenced by both overt and subtle pressures.

I think the black boxes are being searched for in a diligent manner. If they are found and the evidence is that it was a problem with the Airbus that will not be suppressed. The first impulse will be to say that it was an "isolated" problem not affecting the rest of the fleet but if there is evidence that it is a widespread issue that will not be suppressed either.

What I think will happen is that in any case evidence is ambiguous the opinion of the French will lean towards "human error" rather than something wrong with the airplane. Yes, that impacts the reputation of the pilots involved, but then you can say the problem was those particular pilots and not the majority of the pilots flying.

In part I draw this stance based on based accidents. For example, Flight 587 which crashed in November 2001 involved an airbus whose tail fin snapped off during take off. Airbus maintained it was the pilots' fault for mishandling the airplane. A lot of pilots say that the maneuver performed by the pilot should not have resulted in such damage. I don't want to sidetrack this thread with the details, the wiki on the accident is here although I think it, too, slants a little too heavily towards "it's the pilots' fault" but the section on NTSB findings does cover the issues that are debatable. In a nutshell, prior to Flight 587 there were at least ten incidents of Airbus 300 tailfins being stressed beyond design limits whereas that is, as far as I know, unheard of in other makes of airplanes. Not all of those prior incidents resulted in a crash because, remarkably enough, an Airbus can lose a chunk of its tail and keep flying under some circumstances. This was also discussed in prior SD.net threads here and here although in the second one is a broader discussion of materials failures in aircraft and you'll have to scroll down to the relevant items. And one more thread about Airbus and structural failures.

So if there is clear, solid evidence that there was a structural or mechanical problem with the Airbus I don't believe that would be suppressed, but until such evidence comes to light (if it ever does) anything ambiguous or unresolved will be laid at the feet of the pilots even in the absence of any evidence of wrong-doing. In the case of Flight 587 and the Airtransat Airbus that lost its rudder while in cruise flight there was some evidence of structural problems and yet the pilots where still saddled with the blame.

I don't believe anyone at Airbus is deliberately building airplanes with problems, I do believe the company has a past history of having trouble admitting the possibility that their product may not be as perfect as they'd like it to be. They're hardly alone in that, but it's a terrible mindset to have in aviation. You have to deal with the facts, even when they're unpleasant.

[dragon]

The airplane pancaked?

That's a very strange scenario. The next question is whether or not the descent from 35,000 feet to the water surface was at all controlled or completely out of the hands of the pilots. Even in a flat spin it would take significant time for the airplane to reach the water.

Despite the long odds, I'd really like to find the black boxes for this flight.

I had heard something in passing to this effect on the radio, but not in as much detail. Thanks for posting the update.

Talked to one of my friends that was an airline pilot and did a few years at the NTSB, which if your not familiar with are the people that invistagte stuff like this. Anyways he says the conflicting stories is raising some eyebrows for various reason.

Like the one team said the clothes being ripped is usally a sign of case of being torn apart in the air. And as for belly landing he said that even without the electroinc systems you still have the mechanical systems and withthose a fiarly controled belly landing is possible. Also with the huge debris field is also an indication of an air disturbance.

But there are also evidence that french are claiming is right as well. And intill they or if they find the boxes then all the secenarios leave more questions than answers.

[Broomstick]

It wouldn't, however, be the first time that the evidence in an air crash started out contradictory and puzzling. That's why these investigations take time. It's also true that we don't always come up with a firm answer in these matters.

[dragon]

It wouldn't, however, be the first time that the evidence in an air crash started out contradictory and puzzling. That's why these investigations take time. It's also true that we don't always come up with a firm answer in these matters.

Thats true I rember one accident that took over 5 years before they released the final report and still had left alot of questions unanswered despite the fact they had the black box and several witnesses.

[FSTargetDrone]

Oh please. Have you all turned into conspiracy whackjobs?

Of course not. I don't believe in any conspiracy and if one was somehow attempted, I doubt it would stay secret for long. I clearly just misread what Broomstick was saying. Sorry about that, it was way after 2:00 am.