Air France replaces speed sensors

Air France replaces speed sensors

news.bbc.co.uk

Air France has said it is accelerating replacement of speed monitors on Airbus planes following the disappearance of a jet over the Atlantic six days ago.

It said it had noticed problems arising from icing on the monitors last year and had begun changing them in April.

There has been speculation that faulty data on the old-type sensors may have caused the crash of the Rio de Janeiro-Paris flight with 228 people on board.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related Threads:
Air France Plane Down
Brazilian Search Crews find bodies of Air France AF447
Debris removed from the Atlantic is not from the airplane of Air France, says Aeronautics
Dick Eastman: I Know What Happened To Air France 447




[edit on 7/6/09 by pause4thought]

Everything from UFOs to Bilderberg assassination to the South Atlantic Anomaly has been given thorough examination on ATS with respect to the downing of AF flight 447. Could it be that we have missed the obvious? -Air France has known about a technical failing for months and has been dealing with the problem since April.

Should we have done a little more digging before speculating? Are we perhaps guilty of disseminating ignorance this time?

With hindsight we can ask whether A330s should have been grounded. But questions still remain regarding whether the monitors were being changed with sufficient urgency. It looks like Air France itself may well now form the focus of further investigations.

Reading the article it is clear AF is now shifting blame in the direction of Airbus, who "stressed that the manufacturers had not made [replacement] a safety requirement".

Then comes the excruciating comment fom Air France: "this did not necessarily mean the aircraft was not safe to fly". Hardly a rousing endorsement. Cue massive reluctance for people to board A330s, cue increased losses for airlines and all the consequent effects on airline share prices, not to mention shares in Airbus.

Far from being buried as some have feared, this is going to run and run.




news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

should the boeing 777 now be grounded - pemanantly because of the unresolved fuel freezing problems? the same problem which was the cause of teh throttle roll back for the BA flight which caused it to crash , and caused the US trip 7 to have an engine roll back?

no , of course not - there has been 7 incidents with the 777 over its life


yes 7 - thats all in 14 years of commercial flight operations


and with the A330 there has been 9 in the 15 years of operations;

they are both safe aircraft , good long range twins , and the air france flight was the first for loss of life in commercial flight for the A330.

shall we all panic because of the airworthiness directive for the 777 electrical systems?

www.flightglobal.com...

another article with another `spin` on it:

The carrier had already opted to switch probes on its Airbus A320 fleet, but not its long-haul aircraft, in the wake of a manufacturer recommendation in September 2007.

Air France points out that it was not obliged to follow the recommendation, and states that it had experienced pitot water ingestion only on the A320s at low altitudes.

"It was not implemented on the A330/340s as no such incidents had been noted," says the airline.

That's really the problem I have with computers flying aircraft instead of pilots. When multiple sensors lie to the computer the computer makes adjustments that can be catastrophic.

Regardless of the Aircraft having faulty sensors the computer software should not be able to crash an aircraft.

Seems to me Airbus has a problem that goes much further than poorly designed sensors.

I will avoid these aircraft when I have a choice from now on.

reply to post by pause4thought


Hem, I'm no pilot but are we really going to buy that they didn't know how fast they were going?

It seems awfully convenient to even begin assigning blame to specific equipment before the flight recorders are retrieved.

What's the rush?

We know almost nothing of the circumstances of this crash and yet somehow the speed sensors are to blame.

Hem ok then.

[edit on 7 Jun 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by verylowfrequency


thats ok - im going to avoid boeing airplanes , with freezing fuel in 777 , or the brake problems on the 767`s which mean it can`t stop well on rain covered runways , or the 100`s of 737 crashes - the latest being an autopilot problem relating to the computer


shall i go on?

This is really opening a can of worms.

Harlequin clearly knows what he is talking about. I agree with him that travel on public airlines is generally very safe. Technical weaknesses are no joke, though, especially if there are repeat occurrences - so the question is always going to be: where do you draw the line between company profits and public safety?

To my mind, this is an absolute classic from verylowfrequency:

Regardless of the Aircraft having faulty sensors the computer software should not be able to crash an aircraft.

This layman has my vote.


reply to post by schrodingers dog


Going on the evidence, as opposed to the speculation, it looks to me like this is the best lead to date. That's not to exclude all the theories - it's not at all my intention to disparage alternate explanations - it's just that it looks like we may have actually gone for more far-fetched ideas before examining and excluding evidence that was already out there.

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

Going on the evidence, as opposed to the speculation, it looks to me like this is the best lead to date. That's not to exclude all the theories - it's not at all my intention to disparage alternate explanations - it's just that it looks like we may have actually gone for more far-fetched ideas before examining and excluding evidence that was already out there.

I know pause, it wasn't a knock at the OP.

It's more that I find this jump to conclusions by AF and Airbus a little too convenient for my liking.

You know every time there's a crash in the US they won't even dare speculate as to the cause until they have conclusive evidence.

This rush to judgement is to me highly suspicious. In this context the information in your OP is highly valuable, hence the star & flag.

[edit on 7 Jun 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Thank you that's a very balanced position, and a fair reminder that this is far from proven. Changing stories in the news and possible evidence of a cover-up is something I have flagged myself (reference this post). I just think the evidence emerging from these statements by Air France deserves serious attention- if only so it can be excluded - if we are to get nearer the truth of the matter.


[edit to add:]

On second reading I see you perceive this unusual rush to judgement on the part of Air France as possible evidence of a cover-up. That's some heavy lateral thinking their, SD.



[edit on 7/6/09 by pause4thought]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


[apologies - double post]

[edit on 7/6/09 by pause4thought]

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

On second reading I see you perceive this unusual rush to judgement on the part of Air France as possible evidence of a cover-up. That's some heavy lateral thinking their, SD.

Well it's definitely worth considering.

Of course it could just be the French being, well, French.

The interesting thing to note here is that, as I understand it, this speed sensor issue was originally brought up by Airbus not Air France. So it could easily be Airbus covering their butt by saying "we told them to do the maintenance but they failed to do so."

This explanation would be possible but rather unlikely as these are both major French corporations that tend to stick together.

So the question becomes why?

Why would either or both of those companies rush to speculate as to the cause of the crash?

reply to post by schrodingers dog


So the rational evidence to challenge the CTs becomes evidence of a conspiracy?

I've got to hand it to you, SD - pure genius.

Nice going spotting the link between Airbus and Air France too.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think you're on to something. Usually all we hear is "It's too early to speculate..." But here we have very public discussion of a particular technical fault.

It's going to be interesting to see if any other airlines comment on the issue of speed sensors on A330s & A340s.

of interest btw , its been reported that

operators have reported airspeed discrepancies while flying under heavy precipitations or freezing conditions, which sometimes led to the a/thr and the ap disconnection, the e/w "f/ctl adr disagree" and "f/ctl altn law"........

strong cumulo-nimbus containing a high density of ice crystals can bee encountered, particularly in the intertropical convergence zone (itcz)
in such and icy and turbulent atmosphere, the a/c air data parameters (pressure dependant) may be severely degraded, even though the probe heaters work properly.
it has appeared that the characteristics of such an environment could exceed the weather specifications for which the pitot probes are currently certified

what seems to be `concerning` is when temperature changes rapidily - there are reports of temps going from -46 to -18 in the space of seconds.

[edit on 7/6/09 by Harlequin]

AD/A330/1 Pitot Probes 12/2002


Applicability: A330-301, -321, -322, -341 and -342 series aeroplanes, all serial numbers without either Airbus Industrie modification 44836 or 45638 embodied during production or Airbus Industrie Service Bulletins (SB) A330-34-3038 or A330-34-3071 embodied whilst in service.


Requirement: Remove Rosemount pitot probes part number (P/N) 0851GR and replace them with either BFGoodrich Aerospace P/N 0851HL probes in accordance with SB A330-34-3038, or by Sextant P/N C16195AA probes in accordance with SB A330-34 3071.


Note: DGAC AD 2001-354(B) refers.


Compliance: Before 31 December 2003.

This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 28 November 2002

this aircaft , being a -200 series and built after the AD (2005) would have had the new probes allready.

and another:

# 1 August 2005 - Malaysia Airlines Flight 124, a Boeing 777-2H6ER departed Perth, Western Australia for Kuala Lumpur. Climbing through 38,000 feet a faulty accelerometer caused the aircraft's ADIRU and autopilot to command changes of altitude. The flight crew overrode the system and manually returned to land the aircraft at Perth. The subsequent ATSB investigation led the US FAA to issue emergency airworthiness directive 2005-18-51 on the fly-by-wire software.

# 6 August 2008 - The FAA issued airworthiness directive 2008-17-12 expanding on the requirements of the earlier AD 2003-26-03 which had been determined to be an insufficient remedy. In some cases it called for replacement of ADIRUs with newer models, but allowed 46 months from October 2008 to implement the directive.

# 7 October 2008 - Qantas Airlines Flight 72, an Airbus A330 departed Singapore for Perth. Some time into the flight, while cruising at 37,000ft, a failure in the No.1 ADIRU led to the autopilot automatically disengaging followed by two sudden uncommanded pitch down manoeuvres, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). The accident injured up to 74 passengers and crew, ranging from minor to serious injuries. The aircraft was able to make an emergency landing without further injuries. The aircraft was equipped with a Northrop Grumman made ADIRS, which investigators sent to the manufacturer for further testing.

# 15 January 2009 - The EASA issues Emergency Airworthiness Directive No 2009-0012-E to address the above A330 and A340 Northrop-Grumman ADIRU problem of incorrectly responding to a defective inertial reference.

hmmmm an AD had allready been issued .

reply to post by Harlequin


The data is a superb contribution. Could you mull it over & provide us with your thoughts on where it may all be leading? Thank you.