Talk:Air France Flight 447

Archiving notes

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

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

Please Clean up Sections

I noticed that several sections are now top-loaded with out-of-date trivial.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

Image File:AF447Cross-Section.jpg

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

Search and rescue

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

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

Crash Site

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

Investigation

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

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

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

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

Weather (2nd subsection)

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

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

Incorrect airspeed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, A330-200 flightdeck seems to have one, see answer in this Yahoo blog: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I note a pilots union is advising members not to fly aircraft without new pitot tubes. [2] if anyone wants to include itJRPG (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Treating fault and warning codes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's some from User:gsthomas who I warned yesterday, so I'll escalate - [[3] One of the sources looks like a media blog and the auther, quite reasonably says (translated) "What follows is only one modest attempt at decoding with the probability of errors because the field is not simple." 212.84.104.244 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAM flight

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

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

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}}}#top|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)

On ground collision

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

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

Dual nationalities

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

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

This Talk Page

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

Airspeed inconsistency-part

I have removed this section:

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

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

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

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

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

Rota AirFrance 447

Airbus A330-203 AF447 Localização.jpg

• Portuguese
  Portuguese
• 
  French

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

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

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

Weather map

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

---

Recovery of vertical stabilizer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air France Flight - Rio / London

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

Source: Irish Independent [4] 07/06/09

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

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

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

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

Weather

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

"experts on human remains"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on that page they claim:

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

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

02:12Z: ADIRUs Air Data disagree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WRN WR0906010211 341200106FLAG ON CAPT PFD

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

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

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

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

Image:F-GZCP.jpg

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

"extinct throne of Brazil"

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

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

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

JPG:Air France Flight 447 Empennage removal

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

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

File:Henry Munhoz exibe fotografia.jpg

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

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

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

---

Crash de Habsheim external link

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

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

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

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