What's up with Airbus? Another crash today
Jun 30th, 2009, 08:29 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's up with Airbus? Another crash today
October 2008, Qantas A330-300, Flight 72, the aircraft reportedly experienced some type of sudden and unexpected altitude change. The crew issued a mayday call before diverting the aircraft to an airport 680 miles north of its intended destination of Perth. About 36 passengers and crew members were injured, with over a dozen severe injuries.
November 2008, XL Airways Germany A320-200, on approach into Perpignan, the aircraft was seen to enter a rapid dive before it crashed in the Mediterranean Sea just off the coast.
January 2009, US Airways A320-200, Flight 1549, the aircraft struck a flock of birds shortly after takeoff and experienced a loss of power to both engines. The crew was able to successfully ditch the aircraft in the Hudson River near midtown Manhattan.
June 2009, Air France A330-200, the aircraft crashed in the Atlantic Ocean about 220 miles (354 kilometers) off the northeast coast of Brazil.
On Monday, Air India A320 from Delhi to Hyderabad, landed under emergency conditions after the pilot informed the Air Traffic Control (ATC) that he wanted to land as the cockpit panel had signalled problem with the hydraulic system.
Today a Yemeni A310 crashed in the Indian Ocean.
November 2008, XL Airways Germany A320-200, on approach into Perpignan, the aircraft was seen to enter a rapid dive before it crashed in the Mediterranean Sea just off the coast.
January 2009, US Airways A320-200, Flight 1549, the aircraft struck a flock of birds shortly after takeoff and experienced a loss of power to both engines. The crew was able to successfully ditch the aircraft in the Hudson River near midtown Manhattan.
June 2009, Air France A330-200, the aircraft crashed in the Atlantic Ocean about 220 miles (354 kilometers) off the northeast coast of Brazil.
On Monday, Air India A320 from Delhi to Hyderabad, landed under emergency conditions after the pilot informed the Air Traffic Control (ATC) that he wanted to land as the cockpit panel had signalled problem with the hydraulic system.
Today a Yemeni A310 crashed in the Indian Ocean.
Jun 30th, 2009, 08:59 AM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rkkwan - OK, here goes - same approx time period
Boeings:
September 2008, Aeroflot-Nord 737-500, Flight 821, aircraft on a scheduled domestic flight from Moscow to Perm, Russia. Contact with the aircraft was lost shortly before landing at about 3,600 feet above the ground. The aircraft was completely destroyed in the crash, coming down outside of the city of Perm and near the tracks of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
December 2008, Continental Airlines 737-500, Flight 1404 Denver to Houston, the aircraft departed runway during takeoff and skidded across a taxiway and a service road before coming to rest in a ravine several hundred yards from the runway. The aircraft sustained significant damage, including a post crash fire, separation of one engine and separated and collapsed landing gear. There were about 38 injuries among the 110 passengers and five crew members, including two passengers who were seriously injured.
February 2009, Turkish Airlines 737-800, Flight 1951, scheduled international flight from Istanbul to Amsterdam, crashed in a field about a mile short of the runway. Preliminary reports from the Dutch accident investigators suggest that a malfunctioning altimeter may have led the flight control system to command a reduction in thrust, as well as a significant drop in airspeed and altitude, during final approach.
Embraers:
February 2009, Manaus Aerotaxi Embraer Bandeirante, near Santo Antonio, Brazil, aircraft on a scheduled domestic flight from Coari. The crew reportedly encountered heavy rain and attempted to turn back about an hour into the flight. The plane crashed into the Manacapuru River, killing both crew members and 22 of the 26 passengers.
For various reasons, the Airbus incidents look more like a pattern ... ?
Boeings:
September 2008, Aeroflot-Nord 737-500, Flight 821, aircraft on a scheduled domestic flight from Moscow to Perm, Russia. Contact with the aircraft was lost shortly before landing at about 3,600 feet above the ground. The aircraft was completely destroyed in the crash, coming down outside of the city of Perm and near the tracks of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
December 2008, Continental Airlines 737-500, Flight 1404 Denver to Houston, the aircraft departed runway during takeoff and skidded across a taxiway and a service road before coming to rest in a ravine several hundred yards from the runway. The aircraft sustained significant damage, including a post crash fire, separation of one engine and separated and collapsed landing gear. There were about 38 injuries among the 110 passengers and five crew members, including two passengers who were seriously injured.
February 2009, Turkish Airlines 737-800, Flight 1951, scheduled international flight from Istanbul to Amsterdam, crashed in a field about a mile short of the runway. Preliminary reports from the Dutch accident investigators suggest that a malfunctioning altimeter may have led the flight control system to command a reduction in thrust, as well as a significant drop in airspeed and altitude, during final approach.
Embraers:
February 2009, Manaus Aerotaxi Embraer Bandeirante, near Santo Antonio, Brazil, aircraft on a scheduled domestic flight from Coari. The crew reportedly encountered heavy rain and attempted to turn back about an hour into the flight. The plane crashed into the Manacapuru River, killing both crew members and 22 of the 26 passengers.
For various reasons, the Airbus incidents look more like a pattern ... ?
Jun 30th, 2009, 12:51 PM
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dfr4848 - you may be right, but most bird strikes don't bring down the planes involved. I've been on two, both of which lost significant power but returned to land safely.
Possible pattern?
October 2008: sudden and unexpected altitude change
November 2008: seen to enter a rapid dive before it crashed
June 2009 Air France: growing speculation about faulty air speed monitors
June 2009 Air India: cockpit panel signaled problem with the hydraulic system
June 2009 Yemenia Air: no information about cause as yet, but second Airbus to crash into the sea this month
Possible pattern?
October 2008: sudden and unexpected altitude change
November 2008: seen to enter a rapid dive before it crashed
June 2009 Air France: growing speculation about faulty air speed monitors
June 2009 Air India: cockpit panel signaled problem with the hydraulic system
June 2009 Yemenia Air: no information about cause as yet, but second Airbus to crash into the sea this month
Jun 30th, 2009, 02:02 PM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying is NOT an exact science.
The airplane is a complex mechanical bird, designed by, built by and finally operated by humans.
Few years ago, one could have said that 747s were not safe. Seemed like quite a few went down, crashed into each other, dove into a mountain sides, etc. etc. Then it was MD-80s series.
Yet today there are thousands of 747s and MD-80s are flying, transporting millions of people across the planet.
So, whatever the problem may be, we, as the designer, the engineer, the caretaker and the operator will get it fixed and in the long run keep on improving the safety of airplane travel,
but don't ever think that any chunk of metal flying at incredible speeds, high above the ground, <u>designed by, built and operated by the weakest link (humans)</u>, transporting tons of human and commercial cargo will ever be totally safe. There will always be a "new" problem that will come up and we will have to deal with it. It's sad, but it's the reality.
OTOH, if you just realize that there are hundreds of thousands of retired pilots and FAs, who flew few days a week for many, many years, and are enjoying their retirement today, you must tell yourself that air travel is just about the safest way to travel.
We have been building ships since almost day one and yet we still lose one here and there on occasion. What makes anybody think that airplanes should be different?
The airplane is a complex mechanical bird, designed by, built by and finally operated by humans.
Few years ago, one could have said that 747s were not safe. Seemed like quite a few went down, crashed into each other, dove into a mountain sides, etc. etc. Then it was MD-80s series.
Yet today there are thousands of 747s and MD-80s are flying, transporting millions of people across the planet.
So, whatever the problem may be, we, as the designer, the engineer, the caretaker and the operator will get it fixed and in the long run keep on improving the safety of airplane travel,
but don't ever think that any chunk of metal flying at incredible speeds, high above the ground, <u>designed by, built and operated by the weakest link (humans)</u>, transporting tons of human and commercial cargo will ever be totally safe. There will always be a "new" problem that will come up and we will have to deal with it. It's sad, but it's the reality.
OTOH, if you just realize that there are hundreds of thousands of retired pilots and FAs, who flew few days a week for many, many years, and are enjoying their retirement today, you must tell yourself that air travel is just about the safest way to travel.
We have been building ships since almost day one and yet we still lose one here and there on occasion. What makes anybody think that airplanes should be different?
Jun 30th, 2009, 07:59 PM
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAFF -
I have no problem agreeing with you when you say air travel is about the safest way to go. I fly 100,000+ miles each year - last year alone I was in Morocco, Turkey, Iran, UK, Italy, South Africa, Dubai, all over the US, and I live in the Pacific Northwest. And I know there are risks, just as there are with anything we do. But I was trained as a statistician and, while statistics can mislead, they can also point out trends that may turn out to be significant. For example:
In the last 8 months, Airbus have had 4 and possibly (probably?) 5 incidents that in all probability are attributable to aircraft systems failures. See above.
747 have had their problems, as you say, but for the most part the problems were caused by human error, mid-air collision, runway collision, bombs or being shot down. See below. I had to go back 32 years to find 5 incidents attributable to aircraft systems failures - marked with an asterisk <b>*</b> below.
<b>*</b>May 2002, China Airlines 747-200, the aircraft crashed into the sea about 20 minutes into a scheduled flight from Taipei to Hong Kong.
October 2000, Singapore Airlines 747, aircraft crashed and burned shortly after taking off from Taipei, reportedly attempted to take off on a runway that was undergoing repairs and struck construction equipment on the runway.
August 1997, Korean Air 747-300, aircraft crashed about three miles (4.8 km) short of the runway during a night time approach in heavy rain.
November 1996, Saudi Arabian Airlines 747, midair collision with an inbound Kazakhstan Air Lines Ilyushin 76 cargo jet about seven minutes after the 747 had departed New Delhi.
<b>*</b>July 1996, TWA 747, on a flight from JFK airport in New York to Paris, aircraft had a catastrophic in flight breakup shortly after departure.
<b>*</b>February 1989, United Air Lines 747-100, when aircraft was climbing through about 22,000 feet, the forward cargo door on the right side of the aircraft blew out and the resulting explosive decompression led to the loss of parts of the fuselage and the cabin interior, including a number of seats and passengers. Some of the ejected debris damaged the two right side engines, and the crew had to shut them down. The crew was able to return to Honolulu and land about 14 minutes after the decompression.
December 1988, Pan Am 747, near Lockerbie, Scotland, a bomb detonated in the forward cargo compartment.
November 1987, South African Airlines 747, aircraft crashed during a flight between Taiwan and South Africa apparently due to a fire in the main deck cargo area.
<b>*</b>August 1985, Japan Air Lines 747, Mt. Ogura, Japan, aircraft had a sudden decompression that damaged hydraulic systems and the vertical fin. That damage also disabled the flight controls for the rudder and elevator.
June 1985, Air India 747, Atlantic Ocean, near the Irish coast, aircraft broke up in flight and crashed into the sea after a bomb exploded on board.
November 1983, Avianca 747, aircraft was approaching the Madrid airport at night when it descended too low and hit the ground.
September 1983, Korean Air Lines 747, near Sakhalin Island, Soviet Union, aircraft was shot down by at least one Soviet air to air missile after the 747 had strayed into Soviet airspace.
<b>*</b>January 1978, Air India 747, aircraft crashed in the sea shortly after takeoff, due to a failure of an attitude detector.
March 1977;Pan Am 747, Flight 1736, Tenerife, Canary Islands, aircraft diverted to Tenerife after a bomb explosion at the Las Palmas airport. Because of limited visibility and communications difficulties between air traffic control and a KLM 747 aircraft, the KLM 747 started its takeoff and collided with the Pan Am 747 that was taxiing on the same runway.
I have no problem agreeing with you when you say air travel is about the safest way to go. I fly 100,000+ miles each year - last year alone I was in Morocco, Turkey, Iran, UK, Italy, South Africa, Dubai, all over the US, and I live in the Pacific Northwest. And I know there are risks, just as there are with anything we do. But I was trained as a statistician and, while statistics can mislead, they can also point out trends that may turn out to be significant. For example:
In the last 8 months, Airbus have had 4 and possibly (probably?) 5 incidents that in all probability are attributable to aircraft systems failures. See above.
747 have had their problems, as you say, but for the most part the problems were caused by human error, mid-air collision, runway collision, bombs or being shot down. See below. I had to go back 32 years to find 5 incidents attributable to aircraft systems failures - marked with an asterisk <b>*</b> below.
<b>*</b>May 2002, China Airlines 747-200, the aircraft crashed into the sea about 20 minutes into a scheduled flight from Taipei to Hong Kong.
October 2000, Singapore Airlines 747, aircraft crashed and burned shortly after taking off from Taipei, reportedly attempted to take off on a runway that was undergoing repairs and struck construction equipment on the runway.
August 1997, Korean Air 747-300, aircraft crashed about three miles (4.8 km) short of the runway during a night time approach in heavy rain.
November 1996, Saudi Arabian Airlines 747, midair collision with an inbound Kazakhstan Air Lines Ilyushin 76 cargo jet about seven minutes after the 747 had departed New Delhi.
<b>*</b>July 1996, TWA 747, on a flight from JFK airport in New York to Paris, aircraft had a catastrophic in flight breakup shortly after departure.
<b>*</b>February 1989, United Air Lines 747-100, when aircraft was climbing through about 22,000 feet, the forward cargo door on the right side of the aircraft blew out and the resulting explosive decompression led to the loss of parts of the fuselage and the cabin interior, including a number of seats and passengers. Some of the ejected debris damaged the two right side engines, and the crew had to shut them down. The crew was able to return to Honolulu and land about 14 minutes after the decompression.
December 1988, Pan Am 747, near Lockerbie, Scotland, a bomb detonated in the forward cargo compartment.
November 1987, South African Airlines 747, aircraft crashed during a flight between Taiwan and South Africa apparently due to a fire in the main deck cargo area.
<b>*</b>August 1985, Japan Air Lines 747, Mt. Ogura, Japan, aircraft had a sudden decompression that damaged hydraulic systems and the vertical fin. That damage also disabled the flight controls for the rudder and elevator.
June 1985, Air India 747, Atlantic Ocean, near the Irish coast, aircraft broke up in flight and crashed into the sea after a bomb exploded on board.
November 1983, Avianca 747, aircraft was approaching the Madrid airport at night when it descended too low and hit the ground.
September 1983, Korean Air Lines 747, near Sakhalin Island, Soviet Union, aircraft was shot down by at least one Soviet air to air missile after the 747 had strayed into Soviet airspace.
<b>*</b>January 1978, Air India 747, aircraft crashed in the sea shortly after takeoff, due to a failure of an attitude detector.
March 1977;Pan Am 747, Flight 1736, Tenerife, Canary Islands, aircraft diverted to Tenerife after a bomb explosion at the Las Palmas airport. Because of limited visibility and communications difficulties between air traffic control and a KLM 747 aircraft, the KLM 747 started its takeoff and collided with the Pan Am 747 that was taxiing on the same runway.
Jun 30th, 2009, 08:47 PM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<b>julie</b>,
I totally agree, but if you read my post again, I didn't just blame the 747s. I said that no matter how wonderful the latest design is, it's still designed, manufactured, assembled, taken care of, and finally operated by the weakest link - humans.
We will make mistakes, either in the design, the engineering, the maintenance or operation of the big birds. Regardless of the cause, we work through the collected data, and we hope to improve on whatever the problem may have been.
There will always be a "learning curve". Unfortunately there will also be a price to pay along the way.
It's not an exact science.
My main point is that there are ~70K commercial flights every day of every year. That translates to ~25M flights a year. Losing 5-10 is an acceptable risk, although if I was sitting on one of the birds at the time it decided not to cooperate, for whatever reason, I would not be happy. (just trying to make a little light of the situation...
).
Like I said, it's sad, but that's the reality.
Since 2000 I have put 100K BIS miles plus every year until last year so I have total trust of the aviation industry. It was fun but I'm glad to be home now. Now, the occasional flight with SO is actually fun.
I totally agree, but if you read my post again, I didn't just blame the 747s. I said that no matter how wonderful the latest design is, it's still designed, manufactured, assembled, taken care of, and finally operated by the weakest link - humans.
We will make mistakes, either in the design, the engineering, the maintenance or operation of the big birds. Regardless of the cause, we work through the collected data, and we hope to improve on whatever the problem may have been.
There will always be a "learning curve". Unfortunately there will also be a price to pay along the way.
It's not an exact science.
My main point is that there are ~70K commercial flights every day of every year. That translates to ~25M flights a year. Losing 5-10 is an acceptable risk, although if I was sitting on one of the birds at the time it decided not to cooperate, for whatever reason, I would not be happy. (just trying to make a little light of the situation...
).Like I said, it's sad, but that's the reality.
Since 2000 I have put 100K BIS miles plus every year until last year so I have total trust of the aviation industry. It was fun but I'm glad to be home now. Now, the occasional flight with SO is actually fun.
Jul 1st, 2009, 09:38 PM
#13
julia1, you haven't provided any statistics. What you have listed are facts without context.
You are engaged in what Michael Shermer defined in the December 2008, <i>Scientific American</i>: patternicity - noun. the tendency to find meaningful patters in meaningles noise.
I've summarized below the crashes that you listed.
- For most of them, your info didn't give any cause for what happened and I've noted those as such.
- Some had a root cause which was not related to an aircraft system failure (bombs, birds, ...).
- Some had an effect, in a chain of events, stated as a cause. I put a [why?] next to these. Saying that "cargo door blew out" does not identify the root cause. Fire, decompression, may have led to crashes, but they are not root causes.
- Three had speculative and apparent factual statements about root causes related to aircraft systems. In these cases I bolded the cause. Of the 23 incidents you listed there are only 3 of these and two of them are speculative.
October 2008, Qantas A330-300, Flight 72, -- no info about cause
November 2008, XL Airways A320-200, -- no info about cause.
January 2009, US Airways A320-200, Flight 1549, struck a flock of birds, <u>both engines</u>
June 2009, Air France A330-200, -- -- no info about cause
On Monday, Air India A320 from Delhi to Hyderabad
There are two possibilities
1) Maybe there was a hydraulic problem, which the warning signal correctly indicated (meaning the aircraft’s systems, built by Airbus, worked as designed and successfully prevented a crash), or
2) <b>Maybe was a faulty signal.</b>
September 2008, Aeroflot-Nord 737-500, -- -- no info about cause
December 2008, Continental Airlines 737-500, -- no info about cause.
February 2009, Turkish Airlines 737-800, <b>suggestion of a malfunctioning altimeter</b>
February 2009, , near Santo Antonio, Brazil, heavy rain
May 2002, China Airlines 747-200, -- no info about cause
October 2000, Singapore Airlines 747, -- no info about cause
August 1997, Korean Air 747-300, night time approach in heavy rain.
November 1996, Saudi Arabian Airlines 747, midair collision
July 1996, TWA 747, catastrophic breakup [why?]
February 1989, United Air Lines 747-100, cargo door blew out, [why?]
December 1988, Pan Am 747, a bomb detonated
November 1987, South African Airlines 747, fire in the main deck cargo area [why?]
August 1985, Japan Air Lines 747 sudden decompression was the cause? [why?]
June 1985, Air India 747, a bomb exploded on board.
November 1983, Avianca 747, it descended too low and hit the ground. [why?]
September 1983, Korean Air Lines 747, shot down
January 1978, Air India 747, <b>failure of an attitude detector</b>
March 1977;Pan Am 747, collided with the Pan Am 747
You are engaged in what Michael Shermer defined in the December 2008, <i>Scientific American</i>: patternicity - noun. the tendency to find meaningful patters in meaningles noise.
I've summarized below the crashes that you listed.
- For most of them, your info didn't give any cause for what happened and I've noted those as such.
- Some had a root cause which was not related to an aircraft system failure (bombs, birds, ...).
- Some had an effect, in a chain of events, stated as a cause. I put a [why?] next to these. Saying that "cargo door blew out" does not identify the root cause. Fire, decompression, may have led to crashes, but they are not root causes.
- Three had speculative and apparent factual statements about root causes related to aircraft systems. In these cases I bolded the cause. Of the 23 incidents you listed there are only 3 of these and two of them are speculative.
October 2008, Qantas A330-300, Flight 72, -- no info about cause
November 2008, XL Airways A320-200, -- no info about cause.
January 2009, US Airways A320-200, Flight 1549, struck a flock of birds, <u>both engines</u>
June 2009, Air France A330-200, -- -- no info about cause
On Monday, Air India A320 from Delhi to Hyderabad
There are two possibilities
1) Maybe there was a hydraulic problem, which the warning signal correctly indicated (meaning the aircraft’s systems, built by Airbus, worked as designed and successfully prevented a crash), or
2) <b>Maybe was a faulty signal.</b>
September 2008, Aeroflot-Nord 737-500, -- -- no info about cause
December 2008, Continental Airlines 737-500, -- no info about cause.
February 2009, Turkish Airlines 737-800, <b>suggestion of a malfunctioning altimeter</b>
February 2009, , near Santo Antonio, Brazil, heavy rain
May 2002, China Airlines 747-200, -- no info about cause
October 2000, Singapore Airlines 747, -- no info about cause
August 1997, Korean Air 747-300, night time approach in heavy rain.
November 1996, Saudi Arabian Airlines 747, midair collision
July 1996, TWA 747, catastrophic breakup [why?]
February 1989, United Air Lines 747-100, cargo door blew out, [why?]
December 1988, Pan Am 747, a bomb detonated
November 1987, South African Airlines 747, fire in the main deck cargo area [why?]
August 1985, Japan Air Lines 747 sudden decompression was the cause? [why?]
June 1985, Air India 747, a bomb exploded on board.
November 1983, Avianca 747, it descended too low and hit the ground. [why?]
September 1983, Korean Air Lines 747, shot down
January 1978, Air India 747, <b>failure of an attitude detector</b>
March 1977;Pan Am 747, collided with the Pan Am 747
Jul 2nd, 2009, 01:34 PM
#14
Your "pattern" may just be the result of a statistical phenomenon called a Poisson Distribution, where rare unrelated occurances appear to cluster. The civilian version is "Bad luck comes in threes," although that is not really the mathematical equivalent.
Jul 3rd, 2009, 03:43 AM
#15
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 19,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In most cases once one accident occurs then people are more likely to notice other accidents - though a lot depends on the accident & the timing of events. Thus if the Indian A310 had crashed before the AF Airbus then it wouldn;t have had the promience it got by crashing after the AF Airbus
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:15 PM
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's Daily Telegraph:
Speculation has grown over the speed sensors which fed inconsistent readings to the cockpit just before the Airbus A330 plunged into the Atlantic on June 1, with investigators saying they were a "factor", if not the cause of the crash.
The Union of Air France Pilots (SPAF) wrote to France's DGAC aviation authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), accusing both of ignoring a string of incidents involving defective airspeed, or pitot probes.
"For years the crews of A330/340 aircraft have been reporting cases of loss or variation of airspeed data in severe weather conditions," Gerard Arnoux, the head of SPAF, said in the letter.
"Appropriate measures" from either agency would have "helped prevent the sequence of events that led to the loss of control of the aircraft," which crashed en route from Rio to Paris killing all on board, he charged.
Arnoux said it was the "responsibility" of both agencies to "force the manufacturer Airbus to make the necessary changes" to the defective sensors.
The DGAC aviation authority declined to respond to the charges. The EASA was not immediately reachable for comment.
The SPAF letter mentioned a presentation made to the EASA in September 2007 as proof the agency was aware Airbus pitot probes had suffered "a significant number of operating incidents linked to icing over or heavy rain."
Air France decided on June 12 to upgrade all pitot probes on its long-haul fleet after protests from pilots, but neither the DGAC nor the EASA have asked Airbus or airlines to replace the sensors.
Conflicting airspeed data can cause the autopilot to shut down and in extreme cases lead the plane to stall or fly dangerously fast, causing a high-altitude break-up.
The French bureau leading the investigation into the AF447 crash, the Office of Investigations and Analysis for Civil Aviation (BEA), said in a report last week that the airliner's defective speed sensors were a "factor but not the cause" of the accident.
The BEA also said that the plane did not break up in mid-air, explaining that it hit the water belly-first while moving at strong "vertical" speed.
Speculation has grown over the speed sensors which fed inconsistent readings to the cockpit just before the Airbus A330 plunged into the Atlantic on June 1, with investigators saying they were a "factor", if not the cause of the crash.
The Union of Air France Pilots (SPAF) wrote to France's DGAC aviation authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), accusing both of ignoring a string of incidents involving defective airspeed, or pitot probes.
"For years the crews of A330/340 aircraft have been reporting cases of loss or variation of airspeed data in severe weather conditions," Gerard Arnoux, the head of SPAF, said in the letter.
"Appropriate measures" from either agency would have "helped prevent the sequence of events that led to the loss of control of the aircraft," which crashed en route from Rio to Paris killing all on board, he charged.
Arnoux said it was the "responsibility" of both agencies to "force the manufacturer Airbus to make the necessary changes" to the defective sensors.
The DGAC aviation authority declined to respond to the charges. The EASA was not immediately reachable for comment.
The SPAF letter mentioned a presentation made to the EASA in September 2007 as proof the agency was aware Airbus pitot probes had suffered "a significant number of operating incidents linked to icing over or heavy rain."
Air France decided on June 12 to upgrade all pitot probes on its long-haul fleet after protests from pilots, but neither the DGAC nor the EASA have asked Airbus or airlines to replace the sensors.
Conflicting airspeed data can cause the autopilot to shut down and in extreme cases lead the plane to stall or fly dangerously fast, causing a high-altitude break-up.
The French bureau leading the investigation into the AF447 crash, the Office of Investigations and Analysis for Civil Aviation (BEA), said in a report last week that the airliner's defective speed sensors were a "factor but not the cause" of the accident.
The BEA also said that the plane did not break up in mid-air, explaining that it hit the water belly-first while moving at strong "vertical" speed.
Jul 9th, 2009, 07:57 PM
#17
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the absence of any flight data whatsoever, the BEA's opinion is pure speculation. Considering the spread of the floating debris field, a case could be made for either scenario. If anything, the instantaneous loss of communication from the plane strongly indicates these vital systems were inoperative from cruise altitude all the way to sea level. This <U>could</u> occur in a flat spin/vertical crash, but is far more likely to happen in a breakup at cruise altitude.
<I>Comment dit-on </i>"Cover Your Ass"<i> en français?</i>
<I>Comment dit-on </i>"Cover Your Ass"<i> en français?</i>
Aug 7th, 2009, 02:07 PM
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, no, not another crash today - an update.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090807/...ed_malfunction
My unease with Airbus grows. I think I'll side with the Air France pilots' union: "In June, the Air France pilots' unions urged its members to refuse to fly Airbus A330s and A340s unless their Thales sensors had been replaced."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090807/...ed_malfunction
My unease with Airbus grows. I think I'll side with the Air France pilots' union: "In June, the Air France pilots' unions urged its members to refuse to fly Airbus A330s and A340s unless their Thales sensors had been replaced."
Aug 7th, 2009, 07:59 PM
#19
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 45,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I so wish Fodor's would give the date when the thread is first posted! I thought there was another airline crash. Not your fault julia of course. But instead of showing the date of the last post..it is obvious as there are only 25 threads on each forum.. the date when the thread was first posted would be so much more helpful in my opinion. But maybe there is a reason Fodor's can't do that but I am going to flag this and send it to our Editor, Katie, as a good example as to my thinking.
