What brought Air France flight AF 447 Down?

This forum is for friendly discussion among DesignCommunity members on weather, sports, politics, fishing, and those other parts of life that don't fit into the topic-specific DesCom discussions.

Postby justellus » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:53 pm


A discussion on the Bermuda triangle is interesting as well, and the suggestions you made were very good. One can only wonder how many of the aircraft lost in this area were due to the same reasons expounded upon. The causes of plane's disappearances in that area may be varied, but certainly the "river of wind" effect is among these.

The entire theory that this particular French plane may have hit a river of wind is very interesting. It brings up one very plausible explanation.

In the particular incidence with the French plane, the gushes of wind rushing up at 100 MPH and sucking up water from the ocean may indeed have provided a similar scenario as you describe. Once the tail section was damaged, it may have broken off a large part of the tail very quickly, causing the plane then to begin to disintegrate just as quickly, loss of cabin pressure and the string of automated messages reported. The effect of the loss of consciousness would have been immediate as well, as you suggested.

Your last statement was well put as well:

The 4 minute electronic signal was probably the main fuselage, glide-plunging to the ocean like a missile, with crew and passengers disabled/killed instantaneously.

Several bodies have already been identified but still no word on what sections of the plane those bodies are from. This is a very revealing clue and must be disclosed to the public right away as well, as it will demonstrate rather the tail broke off first or not. This information is being with-held for some reason, and one can only wonder if it will reveal a structural weakness in these planes that the company would like to hide from the prying eyes of the public.

No telling how long the investigation will drag out now, with ever less revealing information conveniently coming out at the same time that it could begin to get very revealing....

And again, some very good points made.
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

Electrostatic Implications and Problems

Postby Ed Ziomek » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:16 pm

I cannot recall the few individual comments that were lost, but I do remember suggesting an electrostatic possibility of complications caused by an aluminum body of the aircraft, connected to a carbon fiber tail.

No need to remind, I am purely guessing here, tieing several loose observations together to try and make some sense.

First of all, let me show a recent article on the surviving -'s story...

Joyandet said the - recounted her ordeal a bit to him.
"She says instructions were given to passengers and that then she felt something like electricity ... as if she had been a bit electrocuted," Joyandet said. "And suddenly there was this big sound. She found herself in the water."

Comoros crash survivor welcomed back home in Paris
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_ ... lane_crash

Two things on this remarkable statement by the survivor...

One: Before lightening hits you, we are all taught... you feel your hair stand on end, like you are charged with electricity, and then BAM, you get hit.

The protective advice is of course, immediately drop to the lowest point on the ground and get into a fetal position.

Two, a Space Shuttle Mission from ten years ago was doing static electricity tests, and sent a one mile metallic antenna out the back, into the space void, to see its effect on electrical static collection. Astoundingly, it reached a point of +3000 to +5000 volts before it snapped in space, like a flash bulb I am told, from too much voltage.

Three: With two Airbus disasters within 30 days, and both seeming to be weather related, and one probably lightening related, I am again asking the question, is the aluminum body and carbon composite tail creating some form of static "bulls eye" or charged "battery" effect, for attracting lightening bolts?

Full aluminum bodies of older aircraft may more easily dissipate intense lightening hits, but the differentials between materials (aluminum to laminated, carbon composite) may have "electrostatic logjams", very much like the hysterisis loops of inductor fame, which do not release their energies immediately.

Normally, the intense electrostatic charges pass over the skin of the aircraft and out into the atomoshere with rapid expulsion, but if the interior of the aircraft, and the passengers are feeling the "electric-charged effect", followed by a large boom noise, then I think the electrostatic logjam idea is a culprit of some sort.

And in the case of large oak trees, filled with watersoaked wood that offers resistance to electric energy flow, that lightening energy can cut that large tree in half.

Or could that electrostatic logjam blow off even a small portion of the tail, rudder, or airleron sections making the plane unstable?

And mentioned before... A320 in crosswinds problem at Hamburg...

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviati ... fvga5us0r5

Video clip, shown before...
Ed Ziomek
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Stamford, Connecticut

An attempt to recover the lost discussion

Postby justellus » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:54 pm

Hello Ed,

Sad to see the problems occurring at DC, where a substantial amount of the posts were lost, for some unknown reason.

With this said, and trying to pick-up where we left off, I do recall all your comments on the possibility of problems in carbon composite materials that may make them more susceptible to failure under certain conditions, or that they may not dissipate effectively the electrostatic charges in the same manner as aluminum. Or even as you suggested, they may even attrack lighting in a manner thus far not well considered, due to their different composition of carbon components as compared to aluminum.

All these ideas are very good points as they bring much weight to bear upon the original hypothesis that lighting was the cause of the AF 447 crash.

And as I had shared with you and readers before in this post, many Airbus planes have been involved in various accidents recently which indicate structural problems and weakness in these planes, as well as the French authorities continual efforts to cover-up the facts, distort the facts and even manipulate flight data recorders, so as to make it look like the planes themselves were not at fault. I will look for this information to prove this to post it again.

So much information was lost from the recent posts that it is difficult to re-trace our steps and recover all that was lost. The discussion went on to discuss the different scenarios of how the crash played out, rather there was a partial destruction of a portion of the plane in the air, the possiblity of a section of the tail braking off in the air, and the sequence of events as reported by the automated messages received prior to complete brake-up and the possible scenario the plane faced in it's final moments. All this must be recovered in this discussion, so that after this we may advance on.

As a start, here are a few of my previous posts which I was able to recover:

From June 26 th:

The search for the remains of the plane has formally ended, as announced by the search crews.

The bodies of the Air France captain and a stewart were found. Thus, we know that a body from the front of the plane was found. This may not be indicative of anything, but if the entire plane remains plunged into the ocean after the tail section broke off, few bodies would be found from the frontal section. The plane may have broke up in the air, including the frontal section where the captain was. This front section may have split off.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ ... index.html

The NTSB is to proble problems also on other Airbus flights recently also

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/2 ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- United States accident investigators are probing two recent failures of airspeed and altitude indications aboard Airbus A330s -- the same type of plane that crashed into the Atlantic nearly a month ago.

The planes landed safely and there were no injuries or damage, the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday. One flight was between the United States and Brazil in May and the other between Hong Kong and Japan in June.

The probes were launched in the aftermath of the June 1 crash in the Atlantic Ocean -- when Air France Flight 447 was flying to Paris, France, from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All 228 people on board the plane, an A330, were killed.

Investigators are looking at the possible role of airspeed sensors known as pitot tubes, among other factors, as a possible cause of the Flight 447 crash.

That flight sent 24 automated error messages in the four minutes before it crashed, the head of the French accident investigation board, Paul-Louis Arslanian, has said. The error messages all indicate there were problems with on-board information about the plane's speed, which can cause some of the plane's instruments to stop functioning, Arslanian said.

Search teams are looking for the bulk of the plane's wreckage and for its flight data recorders.

The first of the two incidents being investigated by the NTSB happened May 21, when a TAM Airlines flight from Miami, Florida, to Sao Paulo, Brazil, experienced a loss of primary speed and altitude information while in flight, the NTSB said.

"Initial reports indicate that the flight crew noted an abrupt drop in indicated outside air temperature, followed by the loss of the Air Data Reference System and disconnections of the autopilot and autothrust, along with the loss of speed and altitude information," the NTSB said.

The flight crew used backup instruments and the primary data was restored in about five minutes, the NTSB said.

Another "possibly similar" incident happened June 23 on a Northwest Airlines flight between Hong Kong and Tokyo, Japan, the NTSB said.

Investigators from the NTSB are gathering data recorder information, monitoring system messages, crew statements and weather information, the NTSB said.

So indeed there are indications that the pilot tubes and air-speed reading failures would have caused other system failures and loss of control of the aircraft. After this, it would be susceptible to brake-up.

In the case of this Air France Flight 447, the speed at which it all happened indicates something beyond just air speed reading failures, such as a structural problem causing the tail section to split off quickly, once the plane was maintaining an incorrect air speed.

Now, about a train hydroplaning on just 3 inches of steel, this as well is difficult to understand. Perhaps over a large section of railway with very wet conditions, the accumulated water above the railway could cause this effect if the area was entirely flooded.

The manufacturing errors pointed out are very interesting as well. The same welding problems of attaching carbon fiber parts to aluminum parts most likely explain the weakness in the tail section of the Airbus A330. So this is a very interesting piece of information indeed.

Thus, the cross-polination of engineering ideas is a fantastic proposition. Perhapes engineers could gather online in a web site, to exchange ideas on this particular flight but on other models of planes as well. Or it may be such a site already exists. A little research will reveal this.

It is not only in third world countres where authorities refuse to take action unless there are deaths, such as at traffic lights, intersections, dangerous road conditions and the like. This applies certainly the the airline industry as well. If the public is not aware of the real and present dangers with particular models of aircraft, and the authorities are slow to investigate the same, then the problems will continue until there is a major accident such as this one with Air France. Now, they are finally conceding to investigating the A330. But note how it is a US initiative, not a European initiative. This, because it would be their interest to protect their own industry. This is where the cross pollination of engineering ideas would be most useful.

So, now, with the search formally over, we are left to the mercy of the French investigation and for a final brief to be published on all the findings and data recovered from the ocean that might indicate probable causes.

We may never be able to get to fully prove the exact cause of the crash in this case. But we have come very close to explaining the most probable cause and scenario.

Thank you again also Ed for the interesting discussion and exchange of ideas.

Then, prior to June 28th, you mentioned this post was something like De Ja Vu, or twilight zone for some reason, to which I responded as follows:

Perhaps the uncertainties around the reasons for this crash create the type of conditions to engender such mental states and remind us of similar incidents in the Bermuda Triangle.

It is absolutely incredible how sometimes a very small error can trigger a cascade of failures. It is the snowball effect. Such is the case in wars, likewise. Sometimes a major war can be triggered by one small event. The small spark that sets a huge forest ablaze. This is why politicians are treading eggs at times, to know what to do with rogue countries and must measure what they say and do in the best way to express national interest.

In the case of this Air France Flight, the same scenario would have played out the same manner:

1. An incorrect air speed reading leads to system failures.
2. An attempt is made to make use of back-up equipment for readings. But it is too late. The plane has hit a "wall of wind" and the structure is damaged, beginning with a small section of the tail.
3. This leads to brake-off of the tail section.
4. This leads the plane to fly immediately out of control.

Additionally, as has been expounded upon, even small errors in the orientation of the plane with respect to a strong wind or a vacuum zone could spell loss of control of the craft, incorrect heading, superior wind shear and resistance against the wing components, and loss of control of the aircraft. Once the plane rolls into the wrong angle it is as a large train out of control. A simple loss of the rudder section or small portion of the tail section would be enough to swing the large plane into an angle of highly extreme resistance to the wind forces in the storm, causing a very quick brake-up.

In fact, many un-explained accidents of large jets are most likely due to the same reasons, such as those in the Bermuda Triangle.

Fully Automated Planes to Blame

Now, when we look at these fully automated planes, that leave out the pilot, this is the result --->>


Date: June 26, 1988 Time: 14:45 Location: Habsheim, France Operator: Air France Flight number: 296Q Route: Basel - Basel AC type: Airbus A320-111 Aboard: 136 (passengers: 130, crew:6) Fatalities: 3 (passengers: 3, crew:0)

Summary: The plane was scheduled to perform a series of fly-bys at an air show. The plane was to descend to 100 ft. altitude with landing gear and flaps extended. The automatic go-around protection was inhibited for the maneuver. During the maneuver, the plane descended thru 100 ft. to an altitude of 30 feet and hit trees at the end of the runway. The aircraft was totally destroyed by the successive impacts and violent fire which followed. The pilot allowed the aircraft to descend through 100 ft. at slow speed and maximum angle of attack and was late in applying go-around power. Unfamiliarity of the crew with the landing field and lack of planning for the flyby.

How about an Airbus landing with the front wheel sideways?

Various problems with A320 Model of Airbus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEKbNfss ... re=related

And we have again an Airbus crashed by the plane's computer, the Airbus A320 FLIGHT JJ3054 TAM - 17/07/2007 - in CONGONHAS Brazil. Again, the computer out of control and the pilots frantically trying to land the plane and correct the error, which resulted in another tragedy.

And we have another Airbus A320 crash that went down in history:

France Airbus a320 Crash

An Air New Zealand Airbus A320 on a training flight, with seven people on board, crashed into the Mediterranean Sea off of the coast of France on November 27, 2008.CNN: Official: Airbus A320 Crashes into Sea Off France (November 27, 2008) The crash occurred shortly before 5:00 p.m. local time off the coast of France. As of December 1, two bodies had been recovered, with all other passengers presumed dead.The Australian: Paint job probed in Air New Zealand crash (December 1, 2008) Authorities were investigating whether the plane's recent paint job had caused the crash by disrupting its external instruments.

And this is most revealing of All

Air France and French Government are Hiding Defects in their Airbus Planes


Airbus - The Lies


August 23, 2004

The story in a few facts

"Why are the French institutions dead set against Mr Jacquet, who seems to know too much?
Couldn't it be to hide some major defects of the Airbus technology? Then, why?"

Lies concerning defects related to Airbus technology

This Air France Pilot who formed a labor union speaking out against an Air France accident is harassed by the French authorities, sent to a mental asylum and his financial life is ruined for exposing the manufacturing errors in the Airbus A320.

He demonstrates clear manipulation of the flight data recorders on the planes by the French authorities so as to hide the manufacturing defects from the public and this was confirmed by the IPSC. He demonstrates how the French investigators themselves lied about the accident at Mont Sainte-Odile as well, claiming the aircraft was not at fault.

He wrote an entire book on this. And then, the false airline pilot licenses. The cover-up of illegal activity on the part of the French goes on and on. This is literally a bombshell against the safety of these planes and the practices of the French authorities in these cases.

Addendum, December 11, 2005: The lawyers, the president of the Bar, the judicial services, the Office of the Minister of Justice, the Office of the Prime Minister and the European court of human rights still refuse to answer me. I wrote to them again to say that their attitude is the perfect confirmation that they want to hide major defects in the Airbus technology
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

Postby justellus » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:35 pm

Air France Flight 447 Fell Belly Flat into the Ocean? Really?

From yesterday, we have a report on CBS news that an accident investigator has stated that the Air France Jet was not destroyed in the air:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 9458.shtml

Report Says Flight 447 Fell Vertically Into Atlantic Ocean Off Brazilian Coast

Air France Flight 447 slammed into the Atlantic Ocean, intact and belly first, at such a high speed that the 228 people aboard probably had no time to even inflate their life jackets, French investigators said Thursday in their first report into the June 1 accident.

This event, if correct, matches a previous incident reported of a plane pancaking down into the sky, an event which follows a vertical beam of light:

As a user had commented in a previous discussion:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... tpop_story

The Spanish airliner report of a "strong and bright flash of white light that took a downward and vertical trajectory and vanished in six seconds" is consistent with fire on board during the final seconds of the breakup. Whether that fire came from a lightning strike or was consequent to the breakup may never be known.

And the very related comment of another user:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... 3424.shtml

Both pilots of the Air Comet flight from Lima to Lisbon sent a written report to aviation authorities, i.e, Air France, Airbus, describing what they saw. They reported that "Suddenly, we saw a bright flash....an intense flash of white light, ....in a descending and vertical trajectory....." in the area of Flight 447.

Recalling the January 7, 1948 incident of Kentucky Air National Guard Captain Thomas Mantell, Jr., who was ordered to intercept a UFO sited over Mansville, Kentucky, one notices a strange similarity in eyewitness testimony. Witness farmer Glen Mays of Franklin, KY. He said he saw Mantell's plane "enveloped by a brilliant white flash of light...so bright....it was like looking at the sun". Captain Mantell's aircraft then "appeared to fall out of this light and pancake into the ground" Mays said.

There's a commonality between the Air France Flight 447 tragedy and Captain Mantell's crash---- reports of a mysterious intense flash of white light preceding the doomed aircraft. Just coincidence?... or something more frightening?

The similarity of these two distinct events is indeed astounding. In the January 07th incident in 1948 with Captain Mantell, first there was a bright white light which enveloped the plane, then the plane pancaking to the ground.

So the latest report from French investigators is suggesting this scenario:

1. A bright white light is seen which descents vertically as reported by the Spanish airliner report.

2. The plane pancakes into the ocean in this case, instead of into the ground.

Now, one can stop and ask oneself. Are the French now trying to suggest the plane may have been knocked down by a UFO so as to exume themselves from responsibility and cover-up the defects in these planes, as they are so good at doing?

But wait, we have not forgotten the previous reports and evidence which DOES suggest the plane broke-up in the air, at least partially. These facts cannot be denied! So it is becoming ever more obvious the latest French investigator reports simply cannot be trusted! This because they have to way to prove the plane pancaked into the ocean in one piece. To many pieces of evidence point to the contrary, and to an at least partical mid-air brake-up:

Here are only a few of many links which corroborate this:

Air France Crash Autopsies Suggest Flight Broke Up in Air

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/17/A ... Up_in_Air/

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/17/A ... _in_sky_j/

Bodies Suggest Plane Broke Up In Air

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... 4148.shtml

Broken bodies show Air France jet ripped apart

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... l#comments

Broken bodies show Air France jet ripped apart

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/18/B ... ped_apart/

Experts: Autopsies on Air France victims suggest jet broke apart in the skies

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/17/E ... _broke_ap/

So at one point in time, ALL THE EVIDENCE indicated the plane broke up in the skies, and now they are trying to convince us for some reason it pancaked?

Even the manner in which the tail section split off suggested a head first plunge into the ocean, followed by the shearing off of the tail, not a pancake crash into the ocean! So the facts are not adding up and the investigators are coming to illogical conclusions, most likely as an attempt to confuse the public and as a campaign of dis-information to confuse the causes of the crash. (The same as the campaign of dis-informaition in Iraq recently, trying to confuse everyone and make us believe Ahmadinejad was indeed fairly elected).

Further, could such a large jet such as this one really fall belly first? This is not even logical. It would go into a nose dive and would not maintain itself stable in a horizontal position until it hit the ocean! A jet flying at a fast speed, if damaged, will go into a nose dive. It will not slow down in the air in a horizontal position, stall-out in this position, then come down flat in this position. This simply does not happen with a large aircraft such as this one.

And if the crash site was really found, why was the black box not recovered?

BREAKING NEWS: Air crash site found as victims are named

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/02/B ... are_named/

Even with the ocean currents, the black box should have been located if indeed the plane pancaked into the ocean. But bodies and debris have been found, but still no black box? This suggests clearly that the bodies came from different sections of the plane and were not at the crash site nor near it simply because there was a multiple break-up, with several sections of the plane splitting off in the air, and the main section plunging into the ocean in another location. Nothing else would explain why the black box would not be found somewhere in the same regions of the debris and 50 some bodies recovered.

And on the problems with many Airbus Jets, the focus on the Qantas A330 is indicative indeed of similar problems:

Disaster focus on Qantas A330 incident over WA

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/02/D ... t_over_WA/

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 89,00.html
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

Postby justellus » Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:33 pm

Upon reading the article, one can see all the obvious contradictions, and not even the victims are swallowing the new investigator reports:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 9458.shtml

And here are what readers have to say:

by cbsblogger July 2, 2009 7:03 AM PDT

So how did the investigator come to this conclusion? The news story makes a statement but provides no rationale.

Just last week they said the condition of recovered bodies with broken bones and lack of clothing indicated it broke up in flight. Like many explanations it comes down to an opinion by someone who might have some knowledge on the subject, but the rendered opinion is by no means conclusive.

Of course they are making no sense and they are trying to cover-up or confuse the facts and the minds of the public.

by rainbowroosie July 2, 2009 2:01 PM PDT

The "investigator" is trying to ensure no one loses faith in AIRBUS. The aircraft needs a full investigation of its flaws, not a cover up by a French official worried about job losses.

Obviously they are not concerned with the truth, but only on protecting Airbus!

by Ordflyer July 2, 2009 5:11 PM PDT
How in earth does Airbus know the plane "landed flat on its belly?"

Seriously - Airbus makes some great products (not as good as Boeing, IMO) but this smacks of spinning to make it sound like an external cause created the crash.

They need to find the black boxes before they start saying things like , " it fell out of the sky."

They have obviously no evidence to prove this theory that the plane pancaked into the ocean.

I no longer trust our own government or the governments of others to be candid and honest with the public, when such honesty will result in economic harm to the elite.

Truth is always the best agenda but governments have always had interests that usurp the truth.

And here is a good one :)

by major-domo July 2, 2009 7:46 AM PDT

Pardon me, but when a B-52 drops bombs they leave the aircraft with the same velocity. Air resistance slows them down, but they still move in the direction of their release. So for the Air France aircraft to go "vertical", there must have been one hell of a headwind strong enough to cancel out the aircraft's forward momentum. And since I suspect it was traveling at approx. 450 mph I have my doubts there's ever been a recorded wind speed on the earth of that magnitude. Unless, there's something to global warming we haven't been told.

Exactly! It would take an enormous force to stop the plane dead in it's tracks and cause it to fall vertically down in a horizontal position all the way to the ocean! Even in such a fall, the horizontal position would not be maintained all the way down, as the front of the plane would go off center, causing the plane to tilt heavily in one direction and then enter into a spin, not a horizontal fall!

One has to laugh that the investigators actually expect the public to believe the jet pancaked or was knocked down by a UFO! :)


One can just see the glee in the eyes of the French investigators, bent on protecting Airbus and Air France. :)

And nothing unusual about the weather in the area on the day of the disaster? This is under question also:

by SusanStoHelit July 2, 2009 9:55 AM PDT

There were huge up and downdrafts going on with the storm - 100 miles per hour - they get that plane at a bad angle, and it's done for.

Now 100 MPH vertical winds which are sucking up water from the ocean up to extremely high altitudes, freezing it and turning it into ice is a "normal" every day event for this area? Then what the heck are they doing flying into the area in the first place if it were so "normal". And what about the "grounding effect" of lighting striking all the way down to the ocean and sending the current directly through the plane, braking off sections of the plane? This theory still stands as well.

And another user comment on the contradictions:

by truthseeker60 July 2, 2009 8:03 AM PDT

Funny how the story keeps changing. If the plane went into the water the debris field would not have extended for approx 20 miles as reported in the first few days. The bomb theory everyone seems to be ignoring seems more valid now after the change in verbage. I guess the media feels we're getting gullible enough and have the power to change the story as they go.

He starts off well in his comment, stating the contradictions in the initial radius of debris, but goes off track in suggesting a bomb, as this user picks-up on:

by SusanStoHelit July 2, 2009 9:57 AM PDT

The bomb theory is the one and only one that just does not work. Unless you have a bomb that for several minutes before it goes off causes faulty readings in a multitude of instruments, and only goes off in an EXTREME storm - you have to assume that somehow, just by coincidence, all the faulty instrument readings, this storm that is on the record and avoided by other planes, is all just a coincidence. It doesn't fit - doesn't fit the data - and doesn't fit to assume this is all a coincidence.

by zonkzilla July 2, 2009 8:22 AM PDT

That is consistent with the previous accidents involving that particular type plane where the composite tail structure broke off.

You fly on that plastic grim reaper, I won't.

The plastic grim reaper. That is a good one.

And here is an interesting comment:

by 45ford July 2, 2009 8:47 AM PDT

Why aren't the issues with Airbus planes getting greater visibility? there have been 4 substantial incidents since late May... the crash of Air France flight 447 in the Atlantic and the crash of Yemenia Air flight this week -- both flights encountered bad weather and ended up crashing in the ocean and resulting in catastrophic death of innocent passengers.

Plus were two other serious incidents involving Airbus planes. one on May 21 with TAM Airlines flight 8091 (Miami to Sao Paulo, Brazil) which experienced an abrupt loss of primary speed and altitude information while cruising which caused an abrupt disconnect of the autopilot and autothrust systems resulting in the plane suddenly pitching. the flight crew scrambled to use backup instruments to control the plane, and it was 5+ minutes before the on-board systems restored essential airspeed and altitude data. there was also a similar incident on June 23 involving a Northwest Airlines flight from Hong Kong to Tokyo. both planes landed safely, BUT it could easily have ended much differently.

How many other serious instances are occurring with Airbus planes that the NTSB is squelching? how many more innocent lives are going to be snuffed out before somebody steps to the plate and orders a thorough examination of the on-board systems on these planes?

Ground the Airbus?

by AlwaysSmiling July 2, 2009 8:54 AM PDT

I have to agree with zonkzilla here. Here's some interesting reading for you all.


I have to agree that I won't be flying Airbus anytime soon.... Maybe they should group all of the Airbus planes into one airline and call it "TLA" "Tail-Less Airlines" Their motto can be "You won't fly very far, but it will be one H*LL of a ride."

Have a great day:)

Ground the Airbus?


This article is fantastic and zeroes in exactly on the problem we have been discussing!

1. The problems with the tail section falling off.
2. Problems with the composites used in this plane.

And the exact problems as pointed out by Ed of the composites!
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

Too early to blame anything on anyone

Postby Ed Ziomek » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:24 pm

Justy, as you know, I am not blaming anyone, if not Mother Nature herself.

She's a beast.

We keep pushing the envelope, and pushing the envelope on technical capabilities, thinking we have outsmarted Mother Earth, all the while knowing full well that 80% of most crashes are caused by pilot error, which is a misnomer!

It is more like "pilot overload" of multiple, simultaneous, conflicting, error signals, and decisions that may be right for one mini-second followed by catastrophic consequences in the next millisecond, for the identical response.

I know I don't have to remind you, but if I could I would advise all the nega-bloggers, "Please, please, let's not even think of blame as much as, think of scenarios we know about; Storm pattern on the approaching horizon. Massive Electrical malfunction. Possible bright light of falling aircraft. Tail section separating from aircraft. Multiple fractures on passengers."

We know very little.

Mother Earth, Father Sky. First rule, we are not smarter than they are.

We are like Icarus, still students to the masters!
Ed Ziomek
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Stamford, Connecticut

The link that says it all

Postby justellus » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:26 pm

The Link that Literally Says It All

What really has brought so many Airbus planes down, including the recent Air France crash?

Again, here is the key link which explains exactly what is going on and the problems with these Airbus planes:


Since entering service in 1974 with many technological innovations, such as computerized fly-by-wire control systems, user-friendly cockpits, and extended use of composite materials, 5,717 aircraft have been manufactured by Airbus, an European aerospace company. More than 5,100 Airbuses remain in service.

Not including losses attributable to terrorism, rebellion or military action, Airbuses have been involved in 23 fatal crashes causing the deaths of 2,584 passengers, crew members and people on the ground. In addition, there have been five nonfatal accidents causing 21 serious injuries.

While the overall number of accidents and fatalities are not disproportionate to the crash experience of Boeing aircraft, three of the Airbus crashes involved a separation of the composite vertical stabilizer (tail fin) from the fuselage. Five hundred, or one in five of the Airbus deaths, including 228 from Air France Flight 447, resulted from these three crashes.

In addition, Airbus composite stabilizers, rudders and couplers have also been involved in a number of other emergency in-flight incidents that did not lead to crashes, injuries or deaths.

There is now a question whether all Airbus aircraft equipped with composite stabilizers and rudders should be grounded until the cause of the crash of Flight 447 can be identified and it can be determined if the aircraft can be inspected, safely repaired, and returned to service.

Used in law, science and philosophy, a rule known as Occam’s - scam rip-off - requires that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex, and/or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

We do not know if Air France Flight 447 was brought down by a lightning storm, a failure of speed sensors, rudder problems or pilot error. What we do know is that its plastic tail fin fell off and the plane fell almost seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard

What are Composites?

This article is fantastic and zeroes in exactly on the problem we have been discussing!

1. The problems with the tail section falling off.
2. Problems with the composites used in this plane.

And the exact problems as pointed out by Ed:

Among the risks of using plastic composites are: (a.) Strengths varies from batch to batch and it’s difficult to detect voids; (b.) lightning protection is very poor since the material does not conduct electricity; c.) materials degrade in the sun due to ultraviolet rays; (d.) delamination problems are caused by moisture; and (e.) composites tend to break without warning at failure loads, unlike aluminum which can bend and still survive and usually provide some warning prior to failure. [4]

If plastic composites “are bumped, beaten or excessively shaken, they can develop microscopic cracks that, if allowed to fester, can widen and critically weaken” the material. Delamination is another concern “in which heat, cold, humidity or manufacturing errors cause layers of the composite to separate.” [5]

And the vertical stabilizer itself is made of plastic and 79 feet in length! What type of structural safety does this give us? None! Literally, a plastic grim reaper!

Almost 25 percent of the new Airbus A380, which can seat more than 800 passengers on two decks, is constructed of composite materials. For the first time, the wings of the aircraft are stabilized and attached to the fuselage using a composite center wing-box, and the plane is equipped with a plastic vertical stabilizer that is almost 79 feet in length, nearly the height of an eight-story building. [10]

Missed Opportunities to Avoid Air France Flight 447 Disaster

A series of in-flight emergency incidents and fatal crashes extending back 12 years provide a clear record of missed opportunities to correct what increasingly appears to be a basic design error in Airbus commercial aircraft that may have caused the crash of Air France Flight 447.

And even the NTSB was somewhat negligent in the conclusions of the incident:

The NTSB determined that the incident was caused by the flight crew failing to maintain adequate speed to prevent a stall. It did “not mention the rudder reversals or the fact that the tail nearly separated from the plane.” [17]

And worse:

Airbus Conceals Defects in Plastic Tail Fin and Passes a Defective Plane on to American Airlines!

The plane had already been damaged and was passed on this way to AA!

So the result? The death of innocent people because of the Airbus design flaw and irresponsible actions ! The plastic rudder is torn completely off the plane! The pilots were killed along with everyone else aboard the plane and five people on the ground.

And what is worse, the pilots were never informed of the defect and sensitivity of the controls, which could cause the brake-up of the rudder section!

“The pilots operating the accident airplane were highly-skilled, fully-qualified, proficient aviators who were never informed of the unusual limitations of their airplane.” [30]

And the NTSB investigation was subject to intense inappropriate lobbying by Airbus which potentially contaminated the results of the NTSB investigation!

The result? NTSB finds no fault in the composite plastic design of the tail fin.

Why? It would cost over $1 million to fix each plane tail section, a cost that Airbus or Air France and other airlines do not want to take on.

So again, we have the media, the authorities, the investigators favoring the elite, those who wield the power and produce and fly the planes, and the public is being kept from the truth, so that the corporate groups are not damaged.

So we are not being told the truth! The public is at risk and we don't even know it!

And, indeed, defects have been already found:

Following the crash of AA587, United Airlines decided to go beyond the required visual inspection to conduct ultrasound tests on three of its A320 jets, whose plastic tail fins had also been repaired at the factory before delivery. The test found a flaw in a six-year-old A320 on the opposite side of the stabilizer from where the factory defect had been repaired. In spite of the defect, Airbus spokesman David Venz said the defect is in an area that doesn’t support the weight of the tail. He said, “We are confident this airplane is fit to fly.”

And the Airbus claims here are ludicrous as well:

Airbus claimed that damage that couldn’t be seen cannot weaken the plastic tail fins and that visual examinations were sufficient. One official said, “Invisible damage cannot produce a significant sub-surface flaw.” [35]

Unconvinced, some American Airlines pilots called for more detailed inspections, such as ultrasound to locate hidden flaws. [36]

More than 20 American Airlines pilots asked to be transferred to Boeing aircraft, “although this meant months of retraining and loss of earnings.” One pilot wrote that “he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them.” [37]

Saying there was no way to adequately inspect the plastic tail fins, dozens of American Airlines pilots demanded that the company ground its fleet of Airbus A300 jets until the cause of the crash of AA587 could be determined.

More than 70 pilots signed a statement stating, “Until a definitive cause for the crash of Flight 587 can be determined, along with ways to prevent a similar occurrence, and/or a definitive test can be developed to truly check the structural integrity of the vertical stabilizers of our remaining 34 A300s, I recommend that American Airline's fleet of A300s be grounded.” [38]

Will The World Really be a Safer Place to Fly, ,after this flight 447 crash? It really does not look that way after all.

The amount of information on this link is extensive and now the truth about Airbus, accident investigation teams and campaigns of mis-information finally coming out and can no longer be kept away from the prying eyes of the public who is demanding answers in the same manner as the victims of this crash are. We all want to be sure air travel will be safer. As long as there are unsafe planes in the sky and a spirit of repression of the facts, the public will be no safer to fly today then it was before this crash of Air France Flight 447.
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

Postby justellus » Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:58 pm

As a continuation of the last post, regarding the Airbus statements that only visual inspection would be sufficient to indicate flaws in the plastic composites, here is what an MIT professor has to say:

Weighing in on the side of the pilots, Professor James H. Williams, Jr., of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, stated that the Airbus position regarding the adequacy of visual inspections was “lamentably naive policy. It is analogous to assessing whether a woman has breast cancer by simply looking at her family portrait.”

The article goes on to demonstrate how Airbus superficial repairs in areas which have been damaged is inadequate and leads to sub-sequent structural failure.

And this doctors conclusions demonstrate the design errors on the part of Airbus:

“Finally,” Dr. Williams concludes, “Airbus’s extensive design and testing programs for the A300-600 composite vertical stabilizer may be currently deficient if they were based on outmoded or flawed engineering assumptions or an inadequate certification process. No amount of analysis can overcome faulty assumptions or insufficient requirements.”

And even dis-considering a catastrophic event, the extending testing of many of these composite materials has not been fully performed, the article states.

So we have:

- Flawed engineering assumptions.
- Inadequate certification process.

And then we have the separation of composite materials caused by repeated journeys to and from sub-zero temperatures which causes condensation inside composites and separation of the carbon fiber layers as the moisture freezes and thaws.

And we have the case of an Airbus Freighter A-300 which made strange rudder movements without the pilot moving his control pedals! Fedex did it's own test on the rudder on the ground, and in this test the planes actuators (the hydraulic system which causes the rudders to move) tore a large hole around it's hinges! In this case, it was the hydraulic fluid which had caused some of the composite material in the plane's rudder to come apart.

So what type of a material is this that is being used in these planes - this so called "composite material" ? We are all certainly facing a grave risk in flying planes with use this composite material and with such weak tail sections.

So we have planes full of mechanical failures, with rudders acting up, composite materials subject to failures and with faulty design and weaknesses.

Truly the effort to reduce fuel consumption on these planes by substituting aluminum components for composite materials has made them less safe, and no accident investigation is going to change this, particularly when it is bent on protecting the very industry under investigation.

And to make matters worse, we have other cases of de-lamination, such as this one:

March 2005 - Aboard Air Transat Flight 961 Over the Caribbean Sea. On March 6, 2005, an Airbus A310-300 with 262 passengers was cruising at 35,000 feet when the “flight crew heard a loud bang followed by vibrations that lasted a few seconds. The aircraft entered a repetitive rolling motion, known as a Dutch roll, which decreased as the aircraft descended to a lower altitude.” [48]

The crew was able to turn the plane around and return to Varadero, Cuba, where they carried out an uneventful landing. Upon arrival, it was discovered that the aircraft rudder had been torn off the plane, except for its “bottom closing rib and the length of spar between the rib and the hydraulic actuators.” [49]

“An examination of the vertical tail fin of the aircraft, to which the rudder is attached, determined that the two rearmost fin attachment lugs were delaminated, likely the result of stresses that existed during the rudder separation.”

And the older the plane gets, the more it is subject to the separation of the tail section. According to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation on this event:

“The separation of the rudder from Air Transat Flight 961 and the damage found during the post-occurrence fleet inspections suggest that the current inspection program for Airbus composite rudders may not be adequate to provide for the timely detection of defects. In addition, the recent discovery that disbonds could grow undetected and the increasing age of the composite rudders suggest that increased attention is warranted to mitigate the risk of additional rudder structural failures. The consequences of a rudder separation include reduced directional control and possible separation of the vertical tail plane.”

The rudder on these planes must be fully drained so as not to accumulate water or fluids in the composite materials. This precaution is not always taken and has led and will continue to lead to composite material brake-up.

This disbonding was found upon the inspection of a Federal Express plane in 2005, according to the report. Damage was caused in this case by hydraulic fluid.

It was not until Decemer 2007 that Airbus finally tested the composite rudders of the Airbus A300/310 series due to safety concerns. It is not known if the A330 operated by Air France Flight 447 was ever tested for it's composite materials. This order of testing by the European Aviation Safety Agency was a direct repudiation of the Airbus claim that simple visual inspections would be sufficient.

The article goes on to describe another A320 incident over the Mediterranean sea on a New Zealand flight. In this case, the airplane disintegrated when it crashed into the water and it's tail fin was found floating near the crash site. This was another go-around accident at low altitude, where the full autopilot loss caused the pilots to loose control of the craft which went from 136 to 99 knots in 35 seconds all on it's own.

And the best part now:

This article confirms as well the previous hypothesis and description of events!

May 31, 2009 - Aboard Air France Flight 447 Over the Atlantic Ocean 400 Miles Off the Coast of Brazil

Two of three pilots aboard an Airbus A330 were monitoring the autopilot controls on a flight carrying 216 passengers from Rio de Janeiro as it cruised at 550 mph at an altitude of 35,000 feet. It was just before midnight and the captain may have been asleep in preparation to landing the plane in Paris the next morning.

The pilot reported that the plane was flying through a towering thunderstorm containing black, electrically charged clouds confirmed by satellite data to be charging upwards to 41,000 feet at 100 mph.

Due to the frequency of equatorial storms in the area, it is likely that the flight crew and Air France management were aware of the impending storm before it was encountered, and a decision was made to fly through the storm, rather than to turn back or to navigate around it.

Ten minutes later, the autopilot switched off and a four-minute series of automatic failure and warning messages from the plane’s Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System were relayed by satellite to Air France headquarters.

It is difficult to imagine the scene within the cockpit of the plane being thrown about by a raging hail storm in the middle of the night, but the automatic messages provide some clues.

With the autopilot disengaged, the pilots had to manually contend with an ever-escalating series of failures in the flight control systems. All of this had to be done with alarms sounding, in absolute darkness, with no natural horizon to observe and with aerodynamic forces erasing all sense of up or down. The pilots were entirely dependent upon the plane’s instruments and the sensors that provided electronic data.

Then, there was a cascading series of failures within the flight control computer and systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction.

The pilots were flying blind.

The wing spoilers failed, the rudder limiter became inoperative and the rudder may have locked into place. At this point, it is likely that the plastic stabilizer was ripped from the plane. [64]

There is little or no likelihood that we will ever know whether the tail fin was blown off by the storm, as a result of the pilot’s attempt to control the plane, or by uncontrolled movements of the rudder.

What then happened, aerodynamically, is that without the vertical stabilizer and engine control, the airplane was like a giant Frisbee spinning through the storm until it fell apart.

The last automatic message confirmed a complete electrical failure and a loss of cabin pressure, as the plane plunged down almost seven miles in less than a minute to the ocean surface.

We can try to imagine the scene on the flight deck and in the passenger compartment; however, we cannot possibly feel the terror experienced by everyone aboard, including seven children and one baby.

During the long 14 minutes, as the pilots fought to control the aircraft, everything trusted by those who boarded the aircraft failed – catastrophically. In addition to their terror, they must have felt terribly betrayed.

To date, several large pieces of the aircraft fuselage, and the virtually intact vertical stabilizer, have been recovered from the ocean. All indications are that the plane broke up in midair. There is no evidence of fire.

50 bodies have been recovered, and almost all had multiple fractures, but no burns. Water was not found in the lungs of any victims. They were spread up to 53 miles apart, further confirming that the plane undoubtedly broke apart at high altitude.

A concentrated, multi-national effort, including nuclear submarines, is being made to locate the flight data and voice recorders from ocean depths of more than 15,000 feet and very rugged underwater terrain, before the attached “pingers” become silent after approximately 30 days.

There are early indications that speed sensors may have iced up in the storm and provided inconsistent speed readings, which may have initially caused the cascading failures of flight control systems aboard the plane. We may never know for sure exactly what initiated the collapse of systems unless the “black boxes” are found, which is increasingly unlikely with each passing day.

All we know for sure is that the plastic tail fin separated from the fuselage under conditions that should have been expected to occur at some time during the life of the airplane.

Would metal stabilizers, rudders and couplers have failed under the same or similar circumstances? They never have.

Obviously this was written before the latest news that the plane fell belly flat.

Now we can see how investigators are trying to throw everyone for a loop, suggesting something which is not matched by the facts, as demonstrated previously.
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

too soon to tell...

Postby Ed Ziomek » Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:23 am

Justy, excellent research, but maybe quick on the conclusions.

Imagine 300 separate and conflicting clues.

Imagine 10,000 junior Dick Tracy wannabees like myself trying to get an answer with just 5 of those clues.

I can't see cover up, only confusion.

Nothing is seeming to make sense to me, except one glaring exception.

When you get moisture in layers of overlays of lamination, you get weakness.

Whatever happened to that aircraft, moisture corrupted the strength of the parts, that is what I am hearing loud and clear.

Wind stress, lightening stress, weather stress, flying stress, temperature stress, all happening at the worst possible time, on weakened, moisture or fluid compromised parts.

Let's not place blame here at this time, even if all indications are that you are 100% in the neighborhood of ... TRUE!

It still could be 27 other things.
Ed Ziomek
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Stamford, Connecticut

Postby justellus » Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:26 am

And getting back to yesterday's article, some more interesting user comments:

by pizzanick July 2, 2009 11:13 AM PDT

As I said before, I smell a coverup by the French and Airbus. This story doesn't agree with what I read on CBS over a week ago saying that the bodies looked like they were asphyxiated in midair and the lack of head trauma is not consistent with an ocean crash, but an inflight breakup. I would bet that they will let the search for the black boxes go another 10 days and then the homing beacons will stop working. The French Navy may find the black boxes later, but I doubt it will be publicized. I used to like flying on Airbus planes more than Boeing, but I find it disturbing that in many recent crashes, the Airbuses seem to be vulnerable to tail section failures.

by pegalys July 2, 2009 11:17 AM PDT
As far as I'm concerned, it was due to a fundamental ogic issue with the pitot tube sensors. There are tre of them and the system is designed to poll them and pick the date from the two (or three) that agree. What apparently was not considered was what happens if two sensors suffer the same fault, and provide the same reading. In this case the computer selects the majority input by a democratic poll, and if two sensors are frozen it will use that data assuming the odd man out is incorrect. In this case the odd man was correct. The autopilot responded to this error by speeding up the plane, and then the plane oversped into a tropical updraft with violent winds. Under these circumstances the plane could break up because of overstressing the airframe.

by pegalys July 2, 2009 12:31 PM PDT
The kind of failure we have here would be instantaneous and catastrophic. My guess would be that the wing literally tore off and took a large part of the cabin along with it. Instant depressurization. The passengers that were found may have been the ones thrown clear during the wing breakaway, the rest may have torpedoed into the ocean in a relatively intact fuselage. Most of the passengers were never found. The tail is very fragile and would most likey have detached.

by pegalys July 2, 2009 1:54 PM PDT
Errors can creep up on the autopilot slowly because it is only responding to signals it gets from various sensors. If the pitot tubes gradually frost over evenly, and fool the autopilot into thinking it needs to add power, the plane will start accelerating, and this exacerbates the frosting over. Pretty soon the plane is up against the sound barrier, and the slightest turbulence it encounters can be disasterous.

by stickdog3 July 2, 2009 1:56 PM PDT
Why do they keep putting up these kinds of reports, why don't they just wait for the final conclusion, instead of all this rhetoric, and fairy tales. I'm not a structural engineer, but, I do have common sense. If something that large, falls that far (35,000 feet) that plane is going to break up into a literally million pieces. Not one of those bodies would be intact like they're finding them. The rudder and tail wouldn't be intact like they were found last month, come on please, give me a break.

And this link is most interesting as well, with many user comments:



http://www.airfrance447.com/07/02/air-f ... ertically/


No unusual weather conditions in that area on that day?

Pat July 3, 2009 at 11:02 am

I read also a very complex meteorological report that clearly indicates that the airplane might have encountered the Tcells at their worst possible time and that the conjunction of three or four anvil storms into one single monstrous one happened just when the airplane was flying through it.

And on the issue of turbulence and the plane going down 35,000 feet in 4 minutes, this is what he has to say:

Now, I flew private airplanes many years ago while working on a pilot license. Forces in a thunderstorm are unpredictable and from the pilots I know who were unfortunate enough to get into one and survive, it is the most frightening thing they have ever experienced in their life. The turbulences are beyond belief and you go up and down hundreds of feet in a matter of seconds.
But going down 35,000 feet in 4 minutes? That is unheard of.

What can bring a plane down so fast? As all pilots will tell you, either a stall or on over-speed. At that altitude the window between going to slow and going too fast is between 25 and 50 mph maximum.
If they had faulty anemometric readings on all three displays, and if indeed at least two of the three pilot tubes were clogged, then the plane would have been doomed with very little the crew could do to recover the plane.

My belief since the beginning is that there was no fowl play.
The airplane may have encountered icing while entering the storm that clogged the pilots. At that point the computer decided that it can no longer trust its own inputs and outputs and switched the autopilot off giving back some control to the pilots. In a normal situation, the airplane can recover as was the case recently with a Qantas Airbus.
But in the middle of a nasty storm with unpredictable updrafts, convergences and other turbulence, that is almost impossible.
Then the catastrophic failures of all electrical is also something else. Was lightning involved?

With many more interesting comments, such as this one, which demonstrates how the loss of cabin pressure during descent indicates also mid-air brake-up.

Claudio July 3, 2009 at 11:21 am

At 11 p.m. (10 p.m. EDT), pilot Marc Dubois sent a manual signal saying he was flying through an area of “CBs” — black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that carry violent winds and lightning.

Satellite data show that the thunderheads — towering up to 50,000 feet — were sending 100 mph updrafts into the jet’s flight path.

“Such an updraft would lead to severe turbulence for any aircraft,” AccuWeather said.

“In addition, the storms were towering up to 50,000 feet and would have been producing lightning. The Air France plane would have encountered these stormy conditions, which could have resulted in either some structural failure or electrical failure.”

At 11:10 p.m., a cascade of horrific problems began.

Automatic messages relayed by the jetliner indicate the autopilot had disengaged, suggesting Dubois and his two co-pilots were trying to thread their way through the dangerous clouds manually.

A key computer system had switched to alternative power and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged.

An alarm sounded, indicating the deterioration of flight systems.

At 11:13 p.m., more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers also failed.

The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., indicated complete electrical failure and a massive loss of cabin pressure — catastrophic events, indicating that the plane was breaking apart and plunging toward the ocean.

Another factor which indicates mid-air brake-up is the bodies found without clothes, which would have been caused by their clothes being ripped off during the free-fall descent. The recent theory of a flat belly crash takes none of this into consideration and ignores the previous medical findings which indicated a mid-air brake-up as well.

And this latest report of a flat belly hit is already being challenged:

visual examination showed that the airplane was not destroyed in flight ; it appears to
have struck the surface of the sea in a straight line with high vertical acceleration.

This part of the report is already challenged by experts due to the bodies location .. debris location .. and the last ACAR message (drop of pressurization)
The BEA even’t have any forensic report about the bodies ….

This report of a belly flot obviously was written based on pure assumptions and even without access to the medical reports which contradict this theory.

And finally, we have reports of an unidentified light traveling West towards the location of the crash, then the vertical light... all this being suggestive of the plane crossing the path of a UFO.

Certainly this crash will go down in history as one of the most mysterious of recent history.
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

Re: too soon to tell...

Postby justellus » Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:38 am

Ed Ziomek wrote:Justy, excellent research, but maybe quick on the conclusions.

Imagine 300 separate and conflicting clues.

Imagine 10,000 junior Dick Tracy wannabees like myself trying to get an answer with just 5 of those clues.

I can't see cover up, only confusion.

Nothing is seeming to make sense to me, except one glaring exception.

When you get moisture in layers of overlays of lamination, you get weakness.

Whatever happened to that aircraft, moisture corrupted the strength of the parts, that is what I am hearing loud and clear.

Wind stress, lightening stress, weather stress, flying stress, temperature stress, all happening at the worst possible time, on weakened, moisture or fluid compromised parts.

Let's not place blame here at this time, even if all indications are that you are 100% in the neighborhood of ... TRUE!

It still could be 27 other things.

Hello Ed,

Your latest post just came in with mine trailing in a few minutes after it, so I just noticed it.

Your focus on the problem of humidity in the composite material is certainly interesting. Note how it is beginning to look like a series of factors coming together and as you say, very difficult to pinpoint exactly what happened. It is getting ever more complex, with Airbus hiding failures, evidence from previous accidents, the possible worst case scenario of the storm, conflicting investigation team reports which do not agree with medical reports, evidence from Air France pilots of data manipulation, facts which do not add up, such as 35,000 feet plunge in 4 minutes, with the plane remaining in a flat belly position as it hit the ocean? All this sounds like a practical impossibility.

The growing complexity of the research clearly indicates nobody knows for certain, when it comes to the official investigation team at least.

That is why the previous scenario still stands as the most plausible:

Either the pilot tubes or lighting is to blame, combined with structural failure and the loss of the tail section.

Mid-air brake-up continues to make the most sense.

And a portion of the plane going down in one portion with the bulk of the plane in another location still makes sense, after reading all the data.

Obviously the reports I am reading have not been able to keep up with the speed of the information and the changing data we are getting.... so this is obviously leaving everyone clue-less.

The high speed winds as you had suggested may have been involved as well, and this combined with an incorrect air speed would be catastrophic.

And then we have the aluminum to composite connections, the possible electrostatic weakness of the composites and related factors to consider.

In all this, how would you best gather all the data into a concise statement or theory of what happened?
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

Gather, yes; blame, no.

Postby Ed Ziomek » Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:04 am

Justy, yes we gather all the information we can, if we want.

But let's not blame, let's not give any conclusions.

This one will take time.

We are like Icarus, with the arrogance of thinking we have conquered flight, in his case -flying too close to the sun, and the heat melted the wax, and he died.

Like you mentioned earlier, on that Paris Air Show crash, we think computers can solve all problems, know everything all the time, in all conditions, and in the transition from the autopilot to manual (may have been a computer decision to relinquish controls), mother nature shows us the 100 billionth time,


Note: On the night of the small commuter turbo prop near Buffalo recently, I was standing 300 miles away at LaGuardia at about 7 PM, and the wind was so intense that it ripped my hat off. And I asked myself, why do they allow planes to takeoff and land in this weather?

End of the day, we take chances with mother nature every day.

No conclusion, but First strategy: Stay away from storms, Air France, Airbus, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Mikoyan, Messerschmidt, Mirage, it doesn't matter,

Ed Ziomek
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Stamford, Connecticut

Postby justellus » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:53 am

The flat on it's belly theory is hotly under dispute, and has proven itself to be an unreliable model to predict what happened.

1. Planes don't suddenly fall 35,000 feet in 4 minutes on their belly. A fall from such a height would generate a downward spiral and vertical plunge of the nose into the ocean.

2. To fall on it's belly in a forward vertical accelerated thrust at the same time is not possible aerodynamically. If they plane fell in a spiral and by chance one of the spins was a belly position, it could have fell on it's belly, but not at the same time in a vertically accelerated thrust position.

3. The body's with no clothes indicate they had fallen from a great height and the clothes were ripped off. The fractures in the bodies confirm this, as analyzed by the medical forensics teams.

If anyone is jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts, it is the official investigation team. This is obvious and plain to see and on all web sites online you can see other investigators puzzled by this bizarre conclusion and people realizing it simply does not make sense.

And again, this link tells it all:


Now, looking solely at the facts, we have begun to collect some very interesting data:

We can classify this data into certain, most probably and then that which is less certain. The data collected demonstrates the need for these categories.

Clearly, all the facts point out to:

1. Manipulation of data and facts on the part of French in the past.

Airbus - The Lies


2. Faulty tail sections which have already caused various proven disasters and near disasters. All the evidence demonstrates the tail section broke off in the air. The entire piece was found as a large piece which was basically sheared off. It it had been ripped off during impact in the ocean, nothing would be left of it. Further, some have suggested that the tare patterns on the tail indicates it would have been ripped off in a vertical plunge nose down position. But with the plane falling belly first, this is not possible. So the only option left is it being ripped off in the air.

3. On-board computer systems which have made it difficult for pilots to recover from slow speed maneuvers (video incident and one near New Zealand, among others).

4. Two planes which were on the same flight path chose to fly around the storm but for some reason AF 447 chose to fly through it. This has proven to be a fatal mistake.

5. The evidence does show that the weather conditions in the area were in fact unusual with the convergence of various storms, causing a gargantuous massive storm.

6. Pilot tubes have presented defects in the past and would have frozen up in the atmospheric conditions the plane faced, giving incorrect speed readings.

7. The auto pilot shut off due to the incorrect speed readings, handing control of the plane to the pilots, which is standard for these planes during a malfunction.

8. The pilots would have had a hard time to control the plane under these circumstances.

9. Something caused the pilots to quickly loose control and a disintegration of the flight systems very quickly, leading to the series of automated messages, final loss of pressure, then end of the messages.

10. A very serious event which happened very quickly during the 4 minutes of automated messages.

11. The vertical column of light seen must be connected to the fall of the plane. Whether it is fire from the craft or the lights of the craft going down we cannot be certain.

12. Incorrect air speed readings, loss of auto-pilot, extremely difficult flying conditions, incorrect air speed. This sequence is known to generate a sure disaster scenario.

13. Items were found attracted to the ceiling of the plane upon impact.

14. No fire or explosion on-board at least.

Items which are most probable under the circumstances and based on the data we have:

1. The pilots lost consciousness quickly, as no emergency signals were sent out.

2. If the plane had fell in one piece without brake-up in the air, it stands to make sense it would be emitting automated messages during the entire time it maintained basic structural and mechanical integrity. The fact that the messages last 4 minutes then contact is lost, the de-pressurization and the series of failures indicate a very serious event which happened very quickly, not giving the pilots time to communicate. They were either struggling to control the plane and not able to communicate, or they lost consciousness quickly. Even if they were struggling for a few minutes, there were 3 pilots and one of them should have sent out an emergency message, which was not done. The string of automated messages in a short period of time, all indicating drastic failures indicates something drastic happened in a very short period of time.

3. The belly flop applies only to a section of the fuselage of the plane which plunged into the ocean. This does not mean the entire plane fell as one unit vertically while in the horizontal position.

Further, all the facts have indicated a mid-air brake-up.

Items which are more uncertain:

1. What type of mid-air brake-up? Partial?

2. What does the vertical column of white light represent exactly?

3. Was the plane struck by lighting?

4. Was there a fire on the external wings or outside the interior cabin?

5. Was the plane flying too fast or too slow during the final moments prior to the fall?

We can continue to adding many items to this list to make it more complete. This will aid into understanding the events more clearly.

Since we know there is some evidence to demonstrate at least a large part of the plane fell on it's belly, it is more reasonable that the scenario would have been more as this: Partial mid-air brake-up, with a large section of the plane spiraling down towards the ocean in all types of twits and turns. It so happens that upon hitting the ocean and spinning, the belly section hit first as the plane had spun into this position upon impact. At this point, it would have been without it's tail. Once the tail had been lost and due to the extreme g-forces and wind resistance of the fall, combined with the fuselage spin, would have caused the wing sections to brake-up. Either both or one of them. What hit the ocean was a large portion of the cabin without the tail and without either one or both wings. This explains the damage demonstrating the belly flop. Items were found attracted to the ceiling of the plane as well during impact. During a normal belly flot, items would be attracted down, not up. So this is still difficult to explain, even with a fuselage spin involved during the impact.

Various theories have been postulated and with an open mind, we can either re-vamp, discard, or prove these theories. Certainly the facts at this point do not support the main theory that the plane fell 35,000 feet all the way on it's belly.

To simply ignore the facts and say we don't know and blame mother nature is not going to make these planes any more safer to fly.

We know clearly what needs to be done with these planes and the time to do it is now. Clearly, some of the best suggestions begin to surface in this research:

1. Replace pilot tubes and insert more reliable speed reading systems not susceptible to freeze up.

2. Re-consider or ban the use of composites and require all critical plane sections be built of aluminum, until composites can be proven to be more reliable under the large variety of circumstances faced by these planes.

3. Do not allow pilots to fly into such storm conditions.

4. Inspect the tail sections on all these planes using the most sophisticated of equipment. Maintain constant and higher quality inspections.

5. Ground some of the planes which are older and which have already presented tail section problems, until the planes can be re-called and fixed, with the tails being substituted for more reliable aluminum materials or until more reliable composites are developed.

6. Create a team of cross engineering as has been suggested, so as to work out the bugs.

These are only a few initial suggestions of the most important steps which need to be taken.

Whether the black box is found or not, and independent of the crash investigation, we already know these steps will make aviation and these planes safer in the end to fly.
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide

F. Lee Bailey hat is on!

Postby Ed Ziomek » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:08 am


I am sure you are aware that persons who blog and make damaging comments on the internet are increasingly being sued.

And the websites that allow bloggers to make unqualified "guesses" and "conclusions" that are detrimental to corporations, they also are being sued for allowing the damaging comments to be published and not controlled.

Let's just say I am putting on the hat of my all-time favorite attorney, F. Lee Bailey, and reminding all of us, we are in dangerous territory here.

The accident could have happened to any manufacturer, under the conditions you describe: Massive thunderstorms, water funnels directed upwards, frost on sensors, mis-communications amongst competing sensors, errant unforeseen jet streams, lightening strikes...even UFOs shooting light beams...

All of those things individually or in concert with each other could have brought down any aircraft, from ANY MANUFACTURER!

I am guessing that F. Lee Bailey, if he was questioning you, he would put you on the stand and ask you...

"Well, if it was some form of UFO light beam, doesn't that exonerate Airbus?"

"Well, if it was an errant water spout, does any manufacturer in the world have technology to see the water-spout before it hits? And since no manufacturer in the world has prepared for such a freak act of nature, doesn't that exonerate Air France?"

"Do you really believe these experienced pilots chose to fly through the storm, or did they choose a path where the storm flew through them?"

"How do you know or not know, that the pilots chose what they thought was a path AROUND the storm, and as one pilot mention, the storm closes up from BEHIND YOU!"

I am sure he would use your own words against you.

I think you get the point. You have wonderful pieces of information, and you have purely gossip stuff, some even contradictory with each other, and the authorities have even more information than we do, even more confusing.

But with this foundation of guesses, your conclusions of responsibility AND BLAME, naming names, at a time when we are guessing everything from outer space causes to metallurgic failure under extreme stresses we can only guess about,

...this is very unfair to Airbus and Air France, and is dangerous legal territory which I am frankly shocked you are crossing over into.

I say you should absolutely, positively NOT blame corporations or manufacturers in any way, shape, or form, or the website should halt this discussion, and remove all our comments.

We can guess at the symptoms, be we can't make any conclusions at this time, we cannot fix blame, we are not experts.

And PS, F. Lee Bailey, if you are reading this, you gave us "The Defense Never Rests", one of my favorite books from the 70s. I am asking that you give America one more book, on the politicizing and the prostituting of our legal system, for which I feel you and Dan Rather, and Martha Stewart, all fell victim to.

And as for my son, I feel you saved his life, you know what I am talking about.

Thank you forever, God Bless YOU, write one last book, please!!!
Ed Ziomek
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Stamford, Connecticut

Postby justellus » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:09 am


Your comments are appreciated, however to much attention to the "fear factor" is being given.

Entire web sites have been and are devoted to discussing the different scenarios and nobody is being subjected or should be subjected to such an un-necessary fear factor either in those blogs or in any other such as this one. This fear is completely unfounded and unjustified in the world of the inter-connected web we live in, despite your comment to the contrary which are obviously intended to instill fear.

If information is being presented which has been collected by third parties, and it is amply verifiable, the transfer of responsibility becomes a darn complex chain, and for anyone to trace the web of intricate inter-linking pieces of information back to each source and attribute some type of responsibility would be a task that not even F. Lee Bailey and Associates would be able to take on.

Establishing a dialog of investigation, known facts, probably facts and less certain facts also should not be subjected to such an intense fear factor, unless of course you intend to support the very groups which are bent on protecting their own vested interests. It all makes sense. The large interest groups protect each other, fend for each other and also instill the fear factor into their opponents whenever any member of the group feels threatened. So one can only question the motives for intilling this type of fear factor in the first place.

Certainly we live in an era of big interest groups seeking to maintain their power while at the same time many seek freedom of expression, to know the truth and in this case, seek and support measures that will make travel safer for everyone. The interesting nature of the web and dialog make it also possible for individuals to exchange information in a manner never before possible. The speed of this information exchange is increasing at every minute. If they wish to try to take a few web bloggers down for getting to the root causes of the lack of safety of modern planes, then the price is justified. And, they will not get very far, as the interlocking nature and huge variety of web bloggers seeking to know the truth of what happened cannot be stopped. Just as in Iran, the repression can come but ultimately the bloggers will discover the truth.

It has been said you can fool some all of the time, all for some of the time, but not all for all of the time. Despite threats of fear, the truth will out sooner or later.

Further, the source of ideas, of twists and spins of opinions can go every direction and if anyone is truly afraid of the truth coming out, it is these vary same interest groups who would now rather confuse the public then allow for a free discussion and exchange of information on the most probable causes.

All the facts presented are only incriminating if negligence on the part of these corporations can be proven and complicity established. Web bloggers can have different opinions and these truly are only opinions.

So it is astonishing now that some would seek to instill a fear factor, rather then keep an open mind as to the true nature of events that have unfolded before us.

One not need to look far on the web and he will find the exact same comments and information as is being shared here, so it is nothing new. It is only being gathered in a manner here which can be fully understood, so that action can be taken in the future on the part of other bloggers and even institutions to make the world a safer place to fly.

So, there is nothing to fear but fear itself. The only result of this discussion can only be a safer place to fly.
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:37 pm
Location: World Wide


Return to Fireside Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


User Control Panel


Who is online

In this forum zone there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 508 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:21 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.