Air France BEA investigation update from 27 May 2011

The latest BEA update on the Air France Flight 447 investigation, which was released on 27 May 2011, is based primarily on data recovered from the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder. This update is not a full or final report on the investigation, and only provides a small amount of the data that was contained in the black boxes.

The update indicates that the aircraft experienced a stall at high altitude, and remained in a stall condition until the aircraft struck the surface of the ocean. While the update implies that combination of pilot inputs and faulty flight data may have played a role in the crash, no probable causes or contributing causes were given.

Below is a summary of the events in the latest update:


- Three pilots were on board, (two-pilot cockpit)

- Captain takes rest break about two hours after takeoff

- About eight minutes later at 2:08:07, flight crew adjusts heading to avoid area of turbulence

- Starting at about 2:10:05, the autopilot and autothrust disengaged, and the crew took over manual control of the aircraft. Shortly thereafter, the airspeed indicated in the cockpit dropped from 275 knots to 60 knots and the stall warning sounded twice. Note that the flight data recorder only recored some of the airspeed indicators in the cockpit, not all of them.

- At 2:10:16, one of the pilots stated that airspeed indication had been lost, and that the flight control system was in a condition where it would no longer automatically prevent the aircraft from going beyond an angle of attack limit. This limit prevents the aircraft from losing aerodynamic lift and entering a stall condition. The A330 would however still provide stall warnings. Note that there is no angle of attack indicator available to the pilots. Angle of attack is the angle between the airflow and the longitudinal axis (an imaginary line running through the middle of the fuselage).

---

Angle of Attack
The angle of attack is the angle at which relative wind meets an airfoil. The angle is formed by the chord line of the airfoil and the the direction of the relative wind over that airfoil. The angle of attack changes during a flight as the pilot changes the direction of the aircraft. Increasing the angle of attack increases lift up to a point. Too high an angle of attack results in a loss of lift, and can cause an aircraft to stall.

---

- Aircraft pitched up and climbed from about 35,000 feet to about 37,500 feet

- At about 2:10:50, one of the pilots attempted to call the Captain back to the cockpit, and about a second later the stall warning sounded again. The engines were at a high thrust setting, and the pilot flying maintained a nose-up flight control inputs and the recorded angle of attack continued to increase, with altitude increasing to about 38,000 feet and angle of attack increasing to 16 degrees at about 2:11:06.

- At about this same time, the speed recorded on a standby instrument system increased to 185 knots, and was now consistent with the speed recorded on the primary flight display.

- The Captain entered the cockpit at around 2:11:40 (about 90 seconds after the autopilot disengaged), and in the following seconds, all of the recorded speeds became invalid and the stall warning stopped. This may not indicate that the plane exited the stall condition since the flight control system considers the angle of attack value to be invalid when measured speeds are below 60 knots. Also, speed values become invalid below 30 knots.

- The aircraft rapidly lost altitude, dropping to about 35,000 feet with a vertical descent rate of -10,000 feet per minute.

- The recordings stopped at 2:14:28. The last recorded values were a vertical speed of -10,912 feet per minute, a ground speed of 107 kt, a pitch attitude of 16.2 degrees nose-up,and a roll angle of 5.3 degrees left.

- The descent lasted about three and a half minutes, during which time the airplane remained in a stalled condition, with the angle of attack increasing to and remaining above 35 degrees.

---

Join the AirSafe.com Discussion on Air France flight 447
AirSafe.com has started a new LinkedIn discussion group on the crash of Air France flight 447. Whether you are a LinkedIn member or not, feel free to add your comments to the discussion.

---

Related AirSafe.com and AirSafeNews.com articles

Initial AirSafe.com Reports on This Event (4:10)
Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV | YouTube

Additional Resources
AirSafe.com Flight 447 page
Synopsis of second BEA interim report (English)
Complete second BEA interim report (English)
Complete second BEA interim report (French)
First BEA Interim Report (English)
First BEA interim report (French)
Other Air France Plane Crashes
Other Airbus A330 Plane Crashes
BEA Flight 447 page
Wikipedia Flight 447 page

Most Recent AirSafeNews.com Articles
Air France AF447 Flight Data Recorder Recovered - 1 May 2011
AirSafeNews.com article from 4 April 2011 about first sightings of wreckage

Other AirSafeNews.com Articles
Initial AirSafeNews.com article 3 June 2009
Air France Flight 447 Update 9 June 2009
Air France Flight 447 Update 10 June 2009
Air France Flight 447 Update 15 June 2009
Air France Flight 447 Update 19 June 2009
Air France Flight 447 Update 26 June 2009
Todd Curtis BBC Interview about Air France Flight 447 - 9 July 2009
FAA orders A330 pitot tube replacements - 3 September 2009
Article on Second Interim Report from the BEA - 18 December 2009

Why box cutters found on a jetBlue flight is not a cause for concern

The recent news about a pair of box cutters being found on a jetBlue flight may at first seem frightening, but it is probably not a cause for concern for the average passenger. Last Saturday, on February 26th, several box cutters fell from the carry on bag of a passenger on jetBlue flight 837 shortly before the aircraft was due to depart New York's JFK airport for a flight to the Dominican Republic.

A flight attendant who saw the box cutters fall out of the bag informed the captain. The passengers were evacuated, the aircraft searched, and the passengers rescreened before the aircraft was allowed to depart. The passenger who owned the box cutters, who was reportedly a factory worker from New Jersey, was interviewed by authorities and released without being charged.

Why box cutters are a big deal
According the the 9/11 Commission Report (see page 9), a passenger on American Airlines flight 77 (which was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon) reported that the hijackers were armed with box cutters. The Commission did not mention whether such weapons were used on the the other three hijacked flights. Although knives with blades less than four inches (about 10 cm) in length were allowed in the passenger cabin prior to 9/11, knives of any length have since joined a long list of items banned from the passenger cabin.

The TSA, which was formed after 9/11, has numerous procedures in place to prevent knives, box cutters, and other contraband from entering the secure area of the airport. No security procedure is perfect, and clearly in this case the procedures did not work. Ann Davis, a spokesperson for TSA, stated that three screeners will be disciplined and given remedial training for failing to spot the box cutters. She did not mention if TSA also considered changing any of their current procedures. If procedures are changed, it is unlikely that the public will be notified, unless of course TSA accidentally releases sensitive security information to the general public, as they did in late 2009, when they released for public review a report on security procedures without completely deleting the most sensitive security information.

Why box cutters are not a big deal
While box cutters can certainly be used as a weapon, and keeping them off airplanes is a good idea, the fact that some box cutters accidentally ended up on the jetBlue flight did not expose passengers to any danger because there was no plot by any individual or group to cause harm to the aircraft or its occupants. There are many other reasons why the presence of box cutters should not be of great concern to the flying public:

• Knives and other potential weapons are readily available in the airport terminal or allowed on board by TSA: While the TSA thoroughly screens any individual who wants to access the secure area of an airport terminal, there are many items that the TSA allows in the passenger cabin of aircraft or that are available in the terminal that could be used as weapons. Items which are currently allowed in the passenger cabin include matches, cigarette lighters, screwdrivers that are shorter than seven inches (18 cm) long, and sharp pointed scissors less than four inches (10 cm) long. Also, while passengers and flight crews may be prohibited from taking knives into the secure area of an airport terminal, the restaurants, bars, and other eating establishments in the secure area of an airport will likely have knives and many other potential weapons at hand.
  
  
• Additional layers of security added after 9/11: In addition to hardened cockpit doors, and updated flight crew and cabin crew procedures for preventing or dealing with attempted hijackings, some flight may also have armed federal air marshals or armed flight crew members.
  
  
• Passengers more likely to confront a hijacker: Prior to 9/11, hijackers may have had many motivations for taking control of an aircraft, including killing passengers or taking them as hostages, but with rare exceptions like the 1987 hijacking of a Pacific Southwest Airlines airliner, forcing the aircraft to crash was not a goal. In the pre-9/11 era, passengers and crews would comply with hijacker demands, rather than attempting to intervene. Since 9/11, passengers have consistently demonstrated a willingness to immediately confront hijackers, including Richard Ried (the Shoe Bomber), who attempted to set off an explosive on an American Airlines flight in December 2001, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber), who attempted to set off a bomb on a Northwest Airlines flight in December 2009.
  
  
• TSA security procedures are not designed to be 100% effective: As last year's public outcry over invasive TSA search procedures illustrated, the TSA has to balance the need to have a secure air transportation system with the need to have procedures that reduce risks from hijacking and sabotage, while at the same time not exposing air travelers to other kinds of unacceptable risks, including invasions of privacy and exposure to radiation from full-body scanners. In the recent jetBlue incident, the box cutters in the carry on bag were not spotted by either the screening devices used for carry on bags or by the TSA screeners who presumably should have searched the bag and found the box cutters. Even after additional training, there is no guarantee that those screeners, or any other airport screening professional, will be able to find every banned item.

---

Bonus Video - Space Shuttle launch seen from airliner
Below is a video of Space Shuttle Discovery's final launch (STS-133) on 24 February 2011. This has no bearing on any airline safety or security issue, this is just plain fun to watch. Please enjoy.

Photo: Duke Green
Video: NeilMonday

CBS Radio Interview about Suspicious Passengers

Dr. Curtis was interviewed by CBS Radio News about the August 2010 detention of two passengers in Amsterdam on suspicion of being involved in some kind of terror related event. The passengers were later released because they had done nothing wrong.

On August 30th, 2010, two men, Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al-Soofi and Hezam al-Murisi, who were both on their way to Yemen from the US, were arrested in Amsterdam after they had arrived on a flight from Chicago. They were arrested because they were suspected to be part of some kind of terror related activity, perhaps a dry run for an attempted bombing of an aircraft.

Al-Soofi had raised suspicion earlier in the day prior to his flight from Birmingham, Alabama to Chicago. After being chosen for additional screening, authorities found that he was carrying $7,000 in cash, and in his checked luggage were a cell phone taped to a small bottle, multiple cell phones and watches taped together, a knife, and a box cutter. Al-Soofi had violated no laws or regulations, so he was allowed to continue.

Later in Chicago, he had changed his flight, and his checked bags ended up going on a different flight. Coincidentally, Hezam al-Murisi, who also changed his flight to to one carrying Al-Soofi, also had his bags going on a different flight. US authorities asked Dutch authorities to detain the men, and they were both arrested after arriving in Amsterdam.

The CBS interview covered several subjects including whether the behavior of these passengers should have aroused suspicions. At the time of the interview, early reports suggested that they were traveling together. In fact, while the two were on the same flight out of Chicago, they did not know each other and were traveling independently, with only Al-Soofi starting his trip in Birmingham.

The Dutch authorities soon released both men, and dropped all charges. In short, although what the two men did during their trip looked unusual or even suspicious, they had done nothing wrong, and had broken no law or violated any regulation. The lesson to take away from this episode is that the US authorities, including TSA and Homeland Security, may be inclined to take all kinds of precautionary actions, including detaining passengers, if they suspect that someone is attempting to bring harm to an airplane flight.

Should passengers change their behavior to keep from being hassled? According to Dr. Curtis, that is a personal decision best left to individual passengers. In his opinion, you're free to act as suspicious as you want, just keep in mind that the price of freedom is an increased chance of being hassled or even detained.

Listen to the interview (10:19)

Related AirSafeNews.com Articles
AirSafeNews.com article on the attempted bombing
Description of four key US terrorist and TSA security databases
BBC interview with AirSafeNews.com's Dr. Todd Curtis

NTSB Update on Northwest A320 Incident Highlights Serious Potential Safety and Security Issues

The NTSB continues to investigate last week's incident where the pilots flying Northwest Airlines Flight 188, an A320 carrying 144 passengers and five crew members, stopped communicating with air traffic control while in cruise and later overshot its destination airport by about 150 miles. The incident was on October 21, and on Monday October 26th, the NTSB released some information about the the flight. The following key events in the flight and the early investigation include a combination of information provided by the NTSB, Delta (which owns Northwest), and others:

- The incident occurred during Northwest Airlines Flight 188, a scheduled domestic airline flight from San Diego, CA to Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN.

- The flight crew stopped communicating with air traffic control while the aircraft was cruising at 37,000 feet.

- The two flight crew members were interviewed separately on Sunday October 25 for a total of about five hours

- Neither pilot has had any previous accident, incident, or violation.

- Neither pilot reported any ongoing medical condition.

- Both pilots stated that they were not fatigued and did not fall asleep or doze during the incident flight.

- Both pilots had a had a 19-hour layover in San Diego just prior to the incident flight.

- Both pilots said there was no heated argument during the incident flight.

- Both stated there was a distraction in the cockpit.

- The pilots said there was a concentrated period of discussion where they did not monitor the airplane or calls from air traffic control even though both stated they heard conversation on the radio. The discussion, which began during cruise, concerned a new flight crew scheduling system that was put in place after Northwest's recent merger with Delta.

- The pilots stated that at cruise altitude they were using cockpit speakers to listen to radio communications rather than their headsets.

- Neither pilot noticed messages that were sent by company dispatchers.

- Each pilot used a personal computer while they discussed the airline crew flight scheduling procedure.

- Delta Airlines, which has already suspended both pilots until the conclusion of the investigation, stated that using laptops or engaging in activity unrelated to the pilots' command of the aircraft during flight is strictly against the airline's flight deck policies and violations of that policy will result in termination.

- Both pilots said that they lost track of time.

- Neither pilot was aware of the airplane's position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before the scheduled landing time and asked about the aircraft's estimated time of arrival. It was at that point that the captain reviewed his instruments and realized that the airplane had passed the destination airport.

- Both pilots said there are no procedures for the flight attendants to check on the pilots during flight.

- When asked by air traffic control about the nature of their problem, they replied "just cockpit distraction" and "dealing with company issues".

- The NTSB planned to interview other company personnel, including the flight attendants, on Monday October 26th. They also plan to anlayze air traffic control communications.

- Preliminary data from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed that the recording was 30 minutes in length, and that it began during final approach and continued until the aircraft was at the gate, and that cockpit conversation were recorded by the crew's headset microphones (which were not used by the crew during at least part of the flight), but not by the cockpit area microphone. Also, part of the 30 minute recording included some period of time after the incident flight.

- The flight data recorder, which contains data from several hundred aircraft parameters, captured the entire flight, including the portion of flight where there was no radio communication from the flight crew. Investigators are examining the recorded parameters to see if any information regarding crew activity during the portion of flight where radio contact was lost can be obtained.

Issues Suggested by this Event
A number questions remain about this incident, some of which can't be answered by the NTSB, the FAA, or the airlines involved. Most deal with the national security implications of this event.

Potential Safety and Security Issues: Based on earlier reports, the aircraft was out of radio contact for well over an hour and flew over the Minneapolis area without being challenged by military aircraft. While the aircraft did not execute any maneuvers that would have been considered hostile, there were apparently no military aircraft in the air, or any other military assets on the ground to deal with the aircraft if it had been hijacked or otherwise no longer under the command of the flight crew.

Deficient Safety Databases: While some past incidents involving pilots overflying their destination or not responding to radio communications from the ground, there are no legal or regulatory requirements to report these events in publicly available aviation safety databases such as those managed by the NTSB and FAA. As a result, any estimate of the likelihood or frequency of these kinds of events will likely severely underestimate the risk to the public.

Cockpit Voice Recorder Technology: The cockpit voice recorder did not record the portion of the flight where the crew was out of radio contact. While the FAA allows airlines to install recorders with a 30 minute limit, there are models available with a two hour capacity, more than enough to have recorded for the entire time that the crew was not responding to the radio.

Sources for this Article:NTSB, Delta Air Lines, Flightaware.com, CNN

Other Resources
NTSB
Delta Airlines Statement 26 October 2009
NTSB Investigation Update 26 October 2009

Air France Flight 447 - the BBC Interviews

After more than a month, most of the wreckage and many of the victims of Air France Flight 447 remain lost at sea. The public's and the media's attention remain focused on the the causes of the crash and on the recovery of the black boxes.

This podcast features two interviews with Vincent Dowd from the BBC World Service. In the first interview on June 12th, 2009, we discussed several issues, including differences in flight control philosophy between Airbus and Boeing, and how aircraft manufacturers respond when one of their airplanes crash.

In the second interview, recorded on June 23rd 2009, we discussed the progress of the accident investigation. We also talked about how the circumstances of this accident showed how it may be possible to use advanced technologies to supplement or even replace the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder.

Please listen to the interviews, and feel free to send your comments or questions to AirSafe.com.

Resources
Listen to the Interviews (18:38)
Additional Accident Information
Other Air France Plane Crashes
Other Airbus A330 Plane Crashes
Earlier AirSafe.com Audio and Video Podcasts About the Accident

Air France Flight 447 Update for 10 June 2009

Update for 10 June 2009: The number of bodies recovered has increased to 41, and Brazilian authorities have begun the process of identifying bodies. The Brazilian Air Force has also incorporated the recommended change of the pitot system in the presidential aircraft, an A319. Air France has accelerated its effort to replace pitot tubes on its A330 and A340 Airbus fleet after members of one pilots union threatened to refuse to fly the unmodified airplanes. The airline also estimates that all the affected pitot tubes will be replaced by the end of July.


The vertical stabilizer is the largest piece of the aircraft that has been recovered. It shows no outward sign of fire or explosion, and a closer examination of the damage on that stabilizer will provide clues about whether it separated from the rest of the fuselage on impact with the water or while in flight. AirSafe.com will continue to provide updates to the accident investigation as more information becomes available.

Latest Accident Updates
Other Air France Plane Crashes
Other Airbus A330 Plane Crashes
Accident Analysis from 7 June 2009 Issue of the Times (UK)

Air France Flight 447 Update for 9 June 2009

By Tuesday June 9th, the number of bodies recovered increased to 28, and a substantial amount of wreckage has been recovered, including the vertical stabilizer. The bodies and wreckage were recovered about 400 miles (640 kilometers) northeast of the Fernando de Noronha islands off Brazil's northeastern coast, and about 45 miles (70 kilometers) from where the jet was last estimated position. Equipment for locating the beacons attached to the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder is not yet in place, but will be in the next few days.

Naval forces from Brazil, France, and the US will all be actively involved in this search. In other developments, Air France revealed that their entire A330 fleet had been scheduled to have part of their airspeed measuring system replaced, specifically a device called a pitot tube. While some Air France A330 aircraft had the replacement done, the accident aircraft had not. There is no indication that the this device was related to the sequence of events that led to this crash. AirSafe.com will continue to provide updates to the accident investigation as more information becomes available.

Initial AirSafe.com Reports on This Event (4:10)

Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV | YouTube

Additional Resources
Accident Investigation Updates and Resources
Fatal Events for Airlines from Europe
Fatal Air France Plane Crashes
Other A330 Crash Events
Air France Wikipedia Page
Flight 447 Accident Wikipedia Page

Air France Flight 447 Debris Spotted

1 June 2009; Air France A330-200; Atlantic Ocean:: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Paris, France. The aircraft crashed in the Atlantic Ocean in an area roughly 390 miles (650 kilometers) northeast of Brazil's Fernando de Noronha islands, which are about 220 miles (354 kilometers) off the northeast coast of Brazil. Debris from the aircraft was found near the estimated position of its last radio communication. All 216 passengers and 12 crew members, together representing over 32 nationalities, are missing and presumed dead.


Recovery Efforts
Brazilian military aircraft have spotted several areas of suspected debris, and ships from Brazil and elsewhere are converging on these areas to recover any floating debris and the bodies of any crash victims. What isn't yet known is the location of any wreckage, including either of the black boxes (cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder). Each recorder is equipped with an underwater locator beacon, also called a "pinger," which is activated when the recorder is immersed in water. It transmits an acoustical signal that can be detected with a special receiver at depths of up to 14,000 feet (over four kilometers).

Investigation and Possible Causes
The investigation is headed by the French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA), the equivalent of the NTSB in the US or the AAIB in the UK, and the BEA will be assisted by a variety of other nations, including Brazil and the US. So far, the most direct evidence of the cause of the accident is the presence of aircraft debris on the ocean surface and a series of automatically generated maintenance messages that were transmitted from the plane shortly before the crash. According to Air France officials, these messages indicated that there were several problems with the aircraft, including some unspecified problems with the electrical system and cabin pressurization system.

While there were severe thunderstorms in the area of the crash, and some suspicion that the aircraft was hit by lightning or encountered severe turbulence, there is no direct indication that this occurred. The presence of the debris field on the ocean surface also does not imply that the aircraft broke up in flight.

AirSafe.com will update crash information as it becomes available.

Podcast About this Event (4:10)
Fatal Events for Airlines from Europe
Fatal Air France Plane Crashes
Other A330 Crash Events
Air France Wikipedia Page
Flight 447 Accident Wikipedia Page

Credits: A330 Accident photo by Garret Lockhart / Houstonspotters.net