Air France Flight 445, Airbus A330-200

SpiceWeasel

Tre Kronor
Interesting.... saw this somewhere else, and clicked on it.... looks the the weather may have played havoc again.... good thing they've changed those pitot-tubes....

Never seen this news source before though, so take it with a grain of salt...

af445_a332_f-gzck_atlantic_091130_sat.jpg


Incident: Air France A332 over Atlantic on Nov 30th 2009, Mayday call due to severe turbulence
By Simon Hradecky, created Monday, Nov 30th 2009 16:22Z, last updated Monday, Nov 30th 2009 17:20ZAn Air France Airbus A330-200, registration F-GZCK performing flight AF-445 from Rio de Janeiro Galeao,RJ (Brazil) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was enroute at FL380 overhead the Atlantic on airway UN741 just before waypoint DEKON about 680nm northeast of Fortaleza,CE (Brazil) and 750nm southwest of Praia (Portugal, Cape Verde), when the crew called Mayday on the international emergency frequency indicating, they encountered severe turbulence and were descending to a lower altitude. The airplane was seen enroute at FL280 overhead France and landed safely at Paris Charles de Gaulle 6:40 hours after the emergency call.

The Mayday call was relayed by the crew of a TAM Airbus A330-200 registration PT-MVG performing flight JJ-8055 from Paris CDG to Rio de Janeiro,RJ (Brazil) at around 03:50Z (Nov 30th).

Air France have not (yet) returned calls for comment.
 
Did anything ever come up with regards to the Air France that went down over the Atlantic a few months back?

No official cause.... just speculation. Changing of some instrumentation in A330s....

Air France and Airbus, sweeping accidents under the rug since 19somethingsomething....
 
That's a fairly sweeping indictment. Which accidents?

You're right. Probably not very fair or professional. It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I haven't been very impressed with the cooperation (lack thereof) shown by the airline or manufacturer in previous accidents/incidents.
 
You're right. Probably not very fair or professional. It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I haven't been very impressed with the cooperation (lack thereof) shown by the airline or manufacturer in previous accidents/incidents.

NO manufacturer or airline looks good in the accident review. You might review Boeing's position on the hard-over rudders on the 737. Try McDoug for the DC-10 era. Remember the rumors about the Colorado Springs 737 crash? Not pretty.

The first rule for any culture is to protect itself, be it a corporation, airline or whatever. And if that means blaming an outsider, so be it until proven otherwise.
 
Since I'm not familiar with the accident off the top of my head, maybe you could expound a little on your thougts about AF296?
 
LOL

You automatically go for the whole internet thing huh? Nice OA.

But sure, everything I've ever read about that accident was from the internet. :sarcasm:

Nothing automatic because we KNOW that anything automatic is BAD BAD BAD.

What are your other sources on the Mulhouse-Habsheim accident?
 
Since I'm not familiar with the accident off the top of my head, maybe you could expound a little on your thougts about AF296?


296 was the first Airbus A320 crash and it brought out every 'expert' in the world discussing how the FBW REFUSED to let the pilot fly the airplane. In fact, if you view the video, you will see a decelerating airplane with thrust in idle. The CFM-56 is not exactly known for rapid spool up and the guy is in the trees before the engines spool up. Like Sully's event, many argue that because of the FBW envelope, the airplane could not/did not stall and thus mushed into the trees. Had it stalled, the nose could have fallen through and the airplane cartwheeled killing many more passengers.

What the Capt (chief pilot) did not know or understand was the 'alpha floor' was biased out below 50ft and so the airplane continued to slow and descend. All conditions for a landing were met and when the Capt decided to go-around he was too low and too slow. This would have happened in any other airplane but because it was FBW, French, Airbus.. it had to be some fault with the airplane.

There was a program on PBS which fed a lot of misinformation. This is a clip. Note even the title is wrong.. not a takeoff but a low pass. Also note that the sound of the engines spooling up does not occur until :27 in the video when the 'bus is already chopping down trees.

[YT]bzD4tIvPHwE&[/YT]

There were some accidents where the crew misunderstood what was going on. For example, before it was changed, you could select VSI or path but the indication was not clear and a crew thought they had selected a 3.3 deg descent when they had in fact selected a 3300fpm descent. They missed mandatory altitude checks resulting in a CFIT.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2819826170241407507#

Here are 10 Airbus crashes and comment.
http://tinyurl.com/yhm4cqa

The Lufthansa crash was attributed to the 'bus 'not thinking it was on the ground' so no spoilers and no reverse. But then the same thing happened to a 737 in CLT (I was flying a 727 that night and got 3-4 cycles on the anti-skid due to standing water)

The 296 was not a cover up. It looks like a screw-up. The lesson learned is that the crew erred and in Europe there is a punitive culture which has to have a head on a plate for error.

I am no expert on the 'bus but have studied the FBW extensively and flew the 'bus for 2 yrs. But when I hear/read cover-up or comments on the FBW, I often find the individual has never flown the 'bus, never looked at the FBW and is just parroting stuff... and usually wrong stuff.
 
296 was the first Airbus A320 crash and it brought out every 'expert' in the world discussing how the FBW REFUSED to let the pilot fly the airplane. In fact, if you view the video, you will see a decelerating airplane with thrust in idle. The CFM-56 is not exactly known for rapid spool up and the guy is in the trees before the engines spool up. Like Sully's event, many argue that because of the FBW envelope, the airplane could not/did not stall and thus mushed into the trees. Had it stalled, the nose could have fallen through and the airplane cartwheeled killing many more passengers.

What the Capt (chief pilot) did not know or understand was the 'alpha floor' was biased out below 50ft and so the airplane continued to slow and descend. All conditions for a landing were met and when the Capt decided to go-around he was too low and too slow. This would have happened in any other airplane but because it was FBW, French, Airbus.. it had to be some fault with the airplane.

There was a program on PBS which fed a lot of misinformation. This is a clip. Note even the title is wrong.. not a takeoff but a low pass. Also note that the sound of the engines spooling up does not occur until :27 in the video when the 'bus is already chopping down trees.

[YT]bzD4tIvPHwE&[/YT]

There were some accidents where the crew misunderstood what was going on. For example, before it was changed, you could select VSI or path but the indication was not clear and a crew thought they had selected a 3.3 deg descent when they had in fact selected a 3300fpm descent. They missed mandatory altitude checks resulting in a CFIT.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2819826170241407507#

Here are 10 Airbus crashes and comment.
http://tinyurl.com/yhm4cqa

The Lufthansa crash was attributed to the 'bus 'not thinking it was on the ground' so no spoilers and no reverse. But then the same thing happened to a 737 in CLT (I was flying a 727 that night and got 3-4 cycles on the anti-skid due to standing water)

The 296 was not a cover up. It looks like a screw-up. The lesson learned is that the crew erred and in Europe there is a punitive culture which has to have a head on a plate for error.

I am no expert on the 'bus but have studied the FBW extensively and flew the 'bus for 2 yrs. But when I hear/read cover-up or comments on the FBW, I often find the individual has never flown the 'bus, never looked at the FBW and is just parroting stuff... and usually wrong stuff.
Very good post! :)
 
Back
Top