Talk:Air France Flight 447

228 fatalities, 0 survivors

There is a truly sickening case of double standards going on in the infobox. Various editors (I'm not going to be so obsessive as to find out who) have been adding "(presumed)" to the infobox tallies of fatalities and survivors, in the line of "fatalies=228 (presumed)". and "survivors=0 (presumed)". There is no reliable source to suggest that there are any survivors, and there has not been for more than a week now. There have been memorial services in two countries for the victims of the disaster, which are described (with references) in the article. This is far more reliable sourcing than is needed for any other WP article to describe these people as DEAD. To do otherwise is a slap in the face to those who have personally suffered, and I refuse to hide my contempt for those editors who place Wikipedia policies higher in their personal moral framework than common sense and humanity.

And now it's getting worse. As I write this, there have been 17 bodies recovered from the mid-Atlantic Ocean in a region where debris from the plane has also been found. These editors who will not accept the reality that these passengers are dead are now placing this information in the infobox as if it were confirmed that these bodies are those of victims of the crash, something which no reliable source has wished to assert so far. The bodies are probably from the plane, given their proximity to identifiable debris, but there is a huge case of double standards at work with regards to WP:OR and WP:V. Some editors seem so desperate to see dead bodies that I can only suggest that they apply for a job in a morgue.

I would note that the article has tried to be nuanced in its description of the deaths and the findings, insofar as its sources have permitted. The infobox is supposed to give a summary of currently available information, which it does perfectly well with the plain, verifiable figures: 228 dead, 0 survivors. Anything else is dispicable. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly a touchy subject. Until the bodies are found, it's usually reported as "presumed dead" or "missing", as they are not confirmed "fatalities". The militaries involved have "standard operating procedures", it would be reasonable to follow their guidelines in reporting casualities. Maybe a member of one of the WikiProjects can help out here? --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For the British victims on the flight, if their bodies aren't recovered it will be another 7 years before can can be legally pronounced "dead". Personally, I see nothing wrong with the presumed/confirmed status in the infobox. Until it is officially announced by the French authorities that they are satisfied that there are no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to resort to ad hominem argumentation here, you could also normally tell everyone that you prefer emotional objections against 'missing' or 'presumed dead' over the ideals of presenting what is known, not what is 99% known. All we can do is write about the events as we know them: the plane crashed and so far, some bodies have been recovered. The lack of a source that suggests there are survivors is no 'source'/'proof' that the opposite must be the case. It is not up to us to declare people dead. Is it reasonable to think that the passengers are dead? Yes, but it can't be factually presented as such because it is not established as fact. - Simeon (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are calmer complaints in the archives, where discussion favoured the idea of keeping the infobox free of such idiocy. However, certain editors are still replacing these pathetic and offensive WP:OR comments. As for official declarations, is not a memorial service attended by the President of France, or the opening of a judicial case for "involuntary homicide", sufficient official recognition of the deaths of these people? That's far more official recognition than is given to most deaths reported in Wikipedia. All this, of course, still doesn't answer the case of double standards applied to recognised deaths and unrecognised bodies, which really shows the low taste of the editors involved. Physchim62 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, Physchim62, you are assuming ghoulish motives in error. Different cultures apply different criteria in accepting deaths. For Swissair Flight 111 the ID operation continued untill every last passenger was confirmed to legal standards, most using DNA or dental evidence. Until then it is only human nature to cling to the faint hope that someone didn't get on the flight or somehow escaped on a raft, seatcushion, or whatever. There is real resolution for the families in getting that final determination, however slight. Until then, using precise language such as "presumed" or "declared" is the best thing we can do for those families, it is not just slavish adherence to WP guidelines.LeadSongDog come howl 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What if some guy is found tomorrow, alive? Or the list ends up being wrong after all. Very unlikely, but a lot stranger things have happened. Do we then have to be accused of having been inhuman and rash by declaring "all fatal"? It isn't Wikipedia's job to make those calls. Use what official sources do - "presumed".— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

In the text we do use the word "presumed" and I don't object to that. But I've just had to remove a claim from the infobox that there are 24 "confirmed" deaths and 202 "presumed" deaths. If a survivor comes along and tells us that he or she had a great time as one of the chosen few to go on an intergalactic holiday, then we need to update the article… In the meantime, not a single one of those bodies has been formally identified. I'm sorry to say, but there are plenty of human bodies floating in the Atlantic, for various reasons. Granted, most of them don't appear close to plane wreckage. But to pretend that an unidentified body should be associated with AF447 by common sense, but that we should cast doubt on the fate of other passengers against all the evidence, that is ludicrous. The people that do that are obsessed with dead bodies, and should become undertakers rather than Wikipedia editors. Physchim62 (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The "what if" here is exactly what we want to avoid. Frankly, "what if someone is found 20 years from now?" is just as valid as "what if someone is found tomorrow?" Neither one is a verifiable question. Right now, we know one thing: the chances anyone survived are negligible. The overwhelming, verifiable evidence is that all aboard are dead. We can't leave this as "presumed" forever and, given the likelihood of finding all of the bodies, that's what we'd end up with if we took that line of argument.

At this point, it's safe to say that all aboard are deceased until verifiable information that there is a survivor comes out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Evercat (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, it is common to miss a flight. Passenger manifests, even on first rate airlines operating domestically, are frequently in error. Add linguistic confusion and the error rate goes way up. Consider the Finn that didn't crash on Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 because he was safe at home, never having been near the flight from Turkey. It took several days to clear that up. We don't create facts, we republish them. This is Wikipedia. When we have a RS saying all are declared dead we can publish and cite that source. Until then, the others are presumed.LeadSongDog come howl 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about names, we're talking about numbers, and numbers in a summary table attached to a prose article at that. It's of no consequence that Air France didn't know the exact and full nationality details of each passenger, but they knew the number of people on board. None of those people are alive today, according to numerous reliable sources. If you doubt that it's because you want to see the bodies – admit it… go on, admit it… now tell me a plausible situation in which there are any survivors. Physchim62 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't the infobox already been updated to an acceptable description of this? No ifs, ands or buts. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems so. And our theories about survival don't matter, it's what the sources say that matters. However, the cabin being suddenly depressurized at 35,000 feet would almost certainly suffocate everyone on board, long before they hit the water. Consider what happened on the Payne Stewart flight, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tons of speculation and borderline OR from BOTH sides here. On an article like this, there is no excuse for not following the official phrasing (whether this is "presumed", "confirmed" etc... at whatever stage in time you are at). Use what the government agencies use. Ingolfson (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I already suggested that above, in the first reply. I wasn't speculating, either. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I once missed a flight transfer. Arrived to Spain from the UK, and had to fly to South America with a two hour wait. I forgot to set the clock and the plane left without me, carrying my luggage. Nobody ever noticed. When I went to the help desk they seemed concerned that the plane had left with my bag inside, as that was a serious security risk. The point is, I was in the list of passengers of the flight, and I was never there. I am also a scientist, and that is why I was horrified (scientifically) that someone wrote "all 228 passengers are confirmed dead". Unless all bodies are found and identified there will never be scientific confirmation. Certainly, there is little hope to have any survivors, but as somebody said above, being 99.99% sure is not the same as being 100% sure. At some point all 228 people will be declared legally dead by their respective countries, but even in such case, if not all bodies are found, 100% confirmation will never be established. Dycotiles (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You never have 100% confirmation of anything. Evercat (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the sources would be saying "confirmed dead", unless they've recovered 228 bodies. "Presumed dead" would be the normal phrasing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Recurrent Material in Airspeed inconsistency

I am all for cleaning it up, and correcting poor syntax, but we need to be careful that we are not so zealous for that goal, that we toss out valid and highly relevant information. I have again restored this to the Airspeed Inconsistency section:

"The airspeed numbers which are presented to pilots on the Primary Flight Display (PFD) are derived from pitot probes and static ports, which measure the pressure of the air that passes by the nose of the plane. That pneumatic information is then converted to numerical data by the Air Data Modules (ADMs), and then fed into the ADIRU units, which supply the numbers to the pilots on their respective PFDs.[24]

"For redundancy, the plane has 3 pitot probes with associated static ports, 8 ADMs, and 3 ADIRUs. Each ADIRU is divided into two parts, each of which can operate separately in the event of the failure of the other part.[24]

"The Air Data Reference (ADR) part of the ADIRU supplies barometric altitude, speed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and warnings for too much speed. The Inertial Reference (IR) part of the ADIRU, supplies attitude, flight path vector, track, heading, accelerations, angular rates, ground speed, vertical speed and the position of the plane.[24]"

For redundancy, the plane has 3 pitot probes with associated static ports, 8 ADMs, and 3 ADIRUs. Each ADIRU is divided into two parts, each of which can operate separately in the event of the failure of the other part.<ref name="A330_fc">{{cite web |url=http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/airbus/A330/systems/0010/ |title=Airbus 330 - Systems - Flight Controls |work=Flight crew operating manual |format=PDF |accessdate=[[2009-06-07]]}}</ref> The Air Data Reference (ADR) part of the ADIRU supplies barometric altitude, speed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and warnings for too much speed. The Inertial Reference (IR) part of the ADIRU, supplies attitude, flight path vector, track, heading, accelerations, angular rates, ground speed, vertical speed and the position of the plane.<ref name="A330_fc">{{cite web |url=http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/airbus/A330/systems/0010/ |title=Airbus 330 - Systems - Flight Controls |work=Flight crew operating manual |format=PDF |accessdate=[[2009-06-07]]}}</ref>[Added by PB666]

Since we are focusing on the many previous incidents and accidents, where icing of the pitot probes caused the loss of vital information in glass cockpits----because computers failed, then the fact that the planes were designed with a great amount of redundancy (which I have specifically itemized), becomes vital and highly relevant information. That is especially true, since all that redundancy is virtually ruined and made worthless, unless at least one pitot probe and its associated static port is functioning properly. In other words, all of the glass cockpit computer redundancy seems to be packed into one essential basket: That of properly functioning pitot/static systems. Not unlike how all the hydraulic controls redundancy in the 747, became naught, when the rear bulkhead failed, causing the rupture of all four of those redundant hydraulic systems, which resulted in the deaths of 520 SOBs.

I can see no good reason why that detailed redundancy information should be removed, nor how such a removal will improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. EditorASC (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Pdeitiker (AKA .PB666 yap):

“Only 3 ADM are connected to Pitot tubes or Pitot lines, according to the manual, the other 5 ADM are connected to 6 static lines...”

Therefore what? All the lines from static ports and pitot probes, connect directly to the input side of the ADMs. Then, all output lines from the ADMs, connect to the ADIRUs. Apparently you do not understand that to measure IAS accurately, there has to be a comparison between the pressure of the air being rammed into the pitot probes and the “static” pressure that is sensed by the static ports. Pitot probes and static ports are integrated systems, which function properly only so long as both parts are connected, without any kinds of obstruction.

The fact that there are 8 ADMs, connecting all the pitot probes and static ports to 3 ADIRUs, as well as to the standby IAS and the standby altimeter, indicates the great importance of that many layers of redundancy, which you seem determined to cavalierly dismiss with your favorite word of “trivia.” I think all that redundancy should be mentioned, since most or all of it seems to have failed, as indicated from the stream of 24 Acars messages, shortly before everything suddenly went silent.

The last Acars message, at 02:10Z, was “All pitot static ports lost.” Immediately after that, at 02:11Z, Acars transmitted “Failure of all three ADIRUs” and “Failure of gyros of ISIS” (attitude information lost). That means that the pilots had no indications of airspeed or attitude and probably no altitude information either, since the standby IAS and altimeter failed also.

It is virtually impossible to keep a plane upright, in the dark over a black ocean, without accurate attitude and airspeed information. If they were in strong turbulence at the time (almost a certainty), it would be only a matter of seconds before the plane would upset and go into an unrecoverable dive. Without that essential information, it would be impossible for the pilots to prevent such an upset, and impossible to make a safe recovery during the dive, before it hit the water.

So, therefore, what is the point of your mentioning that “Only 3 ADM are connected to Pitot tubes or Pitot lines...the other 5 ADM are connected to 6 static lines...” ??? Just another of your dangling non sequitur statements, in a vain attempt to justify your “trivia” label? EditorASC (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged this section as OR, as none of the other incidents has been linked to AF447 by a reliable source. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BS, See below.PB666 ^yap 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are 2 comments on the crash. The "smart cockpit" link above verifies that the plane carried 4 standby instruments. These are compass, artificial horizon, airspeed and altimeter. While the artificial horizon is electrical powered the rest use no power of any kind. They are basic to flying and are intended for emergency use. This is in section "standby instruments" page 2 & 3. Also if something happened at altitude it would probably take 3 to 4 minutes for the plane top fall the 30,000 feet to the ocean. This assumes terminal velocity of 100 mph. Arydberg (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Woman who missed Flight 447 is killed in car crash

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6479203.ece

!!!!.do add this. need to watch the other 3 passengers who missed the flight. eerily reminiscent of final destination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.128.124 (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be stupid! she was killed in a car crash, happens all the time, it's just bad luck, no Final Destination relevance! Zaps93 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be insulting just because you don't agree. And see the discussion farther down the page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And missing a fatal plane crash and dying soon after in a car crash does not "happen all the time". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK! Read before typing! I was not being insulting, and secondly you misunderstood, I mean car crashes happen all the time! Zaps93 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying "don't be stupid" is an insulting comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't this happen in a movie once? HalfShadow 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

What's the verdict on official and referenced speculation like this: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=as_IAXADNn1c, which provides support for the idea that the plane broke up before impact? Jddriessen (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's somebody's speculation, so it doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen similar speculation in the Spanish press regarding the tail section that has been recovered. I think we can safely wait before including it: we are not the accident investigation commission, and many of our "data" have passed by many mouths before being reported in the press (simply because of the operational difficulties in the mid-Atlantic), so conservatism should be a watch-word. Physchim62 (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Newspapers are in the business of finding news, and if they can't find facts about a hot story, they'll find speculation. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing against WP policy in citing reliable sources (which can include news media, the accident investigators, the aircraft manufacturers, etc) that discuss likely causes or that dismiss unlikely causes as long as we make it clear by citations who is saying what. 91.187.80.104 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for the article to parrot baseless speculation. Once the investigators come up with something, then you've got something you can use. Anything else is just individual opinions, i.e. guesswork. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid sinking into hyperbole; nobody is "parroting baseless speculation". If it is made clear who said what, it is perfectly acceptable by WP policies to cite reliable sources that discuss likely causes or unlikely causes. 91.187.80.104 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But we love sinking into hyperbole, it makes us feel powerful without having to reflect much on our own hypocrisy, WP:OR appears about as frequently on this page as the rebel yell at a Nascar race.

BTW, if we look at what the media said during the 1st 6 days after the crash and look at what we know now, we all should be somewhat hesitant to use media sources without some rumination of the facts ourselves.PB666 ^yap 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with "It's somebody's speculation, so it doesn't belong." As the reporter references a newspaper (O Estado de S. Paulo ) perhaps some spanish speaking person could read and translate the source article. According to wikipedia this is the the sixth largest newspaper in Brazil. Arydberg (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it's still pure guesswork. No one knows what happened to that plane beyond the fact that it crashed into the ocean. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states that the fact that the clothes were missing from the bodies means they were separated from the aircraft at great height. It also states that some bodies were found 50 miles from others. It also states there was no water in the lungs. What we need to do is to judge the verifiability of this source and not dismiss it out of hand.

Arydberg (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I put this into the article yesterday, and it was removed. The condition of the discovered bodies (including the lack of clothing) and the large chunks of aircraft found shows it did break up in midair. That has been proven by the autopsies. Whether it broke up because of an explosion or slow air speed has yet to be determined. All of this is from www.airfranceflight447.com so why are we arguing with that source?

From a beginner: Having read above and being around you all who have been in this circle for much longer, an acceptance of the fact that meaning behind some news that comes around( though needs to be verified) should be topic of discussion on this main discussion page (and you can channel if needed to other sub-topic discussion page if needed), but let there be a free dicussion. On this sub-section on speculation, let there be explanation( speculative explanation is fair game)of any and all speculation; one individual's vs other's speculation is not the main topic. In-fighting can be less productive, though rules need be followed but for beginners like me, every bit of intellegence of the masses, whom Wikipedia recognises as volunteer contributors, be recognised unhindered- the dictum primum:

Using the following blockquotes, an example is given below for an item mentioned therein.

All the following passage are from above discussion on speculation with possibly some confusion if an item belong on main page vs this discussion page. I surely feel discussion should be just discussion about information at hand and how it can be included in main page.

... similar speculation in the Spanish press regarding the tail section that has been ..................

There is nothing against WP policy in citing reliable sources (which can include news media, the accident investigators, the aircraft manufacturers, etc) that discuss likely causes or that dismiss unlikely causes as long as we make it clear by citations who is saying what. ...

It's not appropriate for the article to parrot baseless speculation. Once the investigators come up with something, then you've got something you can use. Anything else is just individual opinions, i.e. guesswork. ....

This is all subjective, what is good and bad speculation. The media are ruminating on what professionals are thinking or saying. On the issue of the Stabilizer, if it did not break up in flight then in broke up on impact, in either case its presence does not indicate really anything. Whereas those faults and warnings were going on before the breakup, immediately before, and as a consequence they are less speculative. The problem is that currently we have no objective interpretation of what they mean. .....

... disagree with "It's somebody's speculation, so it doesn't belong." As the reporter references a newspaper (O Estado de S. Paulo ) perhaps some spanish speaking person could read and translate the source article. According to wikipedia this is the the sixth largest newspaper in Brazil. .....

It doesn't matter, it's still pure guesswork. No one knows what happened to that plane beyond the fact that it crashed into the ocean. ......

The article states that the fact that the clothes were missing from the bodies means they were separated from the aircraft at great height. It also states that some bodies were found 50 miles from others. It also states there was no water in the lungs. What we need to do is to judge the verifiability of this source and not dismiss it out of hand.

Possible use of information 'that passengers were found 50 miles apart' can mean that the first few found might have come from the tail section and the second larger group possibly from the main body and same may also indicate that tail broke up in air rather than at impact for the same reason i.e. passengers found in two separate groups.

In summary, ideas come to all of us and these need to be expressed as some meaning will come out of our effort. This is all for the Speculation sub-section only).Patelurology2 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Patelurology2 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Patelurology2 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The following, appeared in news: "Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the French air accident investigation agency BEA, expressed "a little more optimism" about the investigation as the discovery of so much debris has narrowed the vast search zone off the northeast coast of Brazil. Arslanian said the debris that has been found came from "all zones" of the plane, but he did not describe it in detail or say what proportion of the plane had been retrieved. The wreckage, some in sections so large and heavy that cranes were required to move it."

If otherwise secure objects from all over the plane were in the above wreckage, it appears that the bulk of the plane broke up in air which would be more likely than on impact. This would be fair speculation.Patelurology2 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, Patel, if you give a quotation, cite it. Your "appeared in news" doesn't cut it, even in talk pages. It appears you are quoting from this:

• Emma Vandore, Greg Keller, French: 400 pieces of Air France debris found" 17 June 2009, Le Bourget: (AP)
  

It's fine to relate statements by the official accident investigators from the major agencies. They are trained to not speculate publicly. What they release to the press is considered opinion of informed experts. Care is needed in ensuring that poorly informed speculation by reporters doesn't change the meaning of the official statements. Given the importance of the Paris Air Show we can be reasonably confident that AP have assigned reporters who are informed about aviation topics, though it never hurts to check their track record. What we must avoid is the temptation to insert our own ideas. We edit, we don't originate content.LeadSongDog come howl 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some news, regarding autopsies with multiple fractures and large pieces among the debries being reported, suggests mid air break up of the main bulk of the plane. By Stan Lehman and Emma Vandore, Associated Press Writers Stan Lehman And Emma Vandore, Associated Press Writers [1] 17 june, Sao Paulo: (AP)
Patelurology2 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the following blockquote previously detailed before in prior submission: The Link is from Yahoo and Associated Press. [2] 17 June, Le Bourget:(AP)
Patelurology2 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The following, appeared in the news(source is as above):

"Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the French air accident investigation agency BEA, expressed "a little more optimism" about the investigation as the discovery of so much debris has narrowed the vast search zone off the northeast coast of Brazil.

Arslanian said the debris that has been found came from "all zones" of the plane, but he did not describe it in detail or say what proportion of the plane had been retrieved. The wreckage, some in sections so large and heavy that cranes were required to move it."

Patelurology2 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to learn how to contribute to it in accordance with rules that, judging from the content of most articles that I've read, work very well. But I have to say that I'm mistified by the debate regarding how to report in Wikipedia on the autopsies and the debris. Swiss television showed images of the jump seats: there were no bodies in them (I referenced their article on that, but somebody deleted it). And they reported that the bodies showed no signs of burns or explosion, but multiple fractures that would be consistent with the plane breaking up at altitude and the bodies falling into the ocean[3]. The article I found on AP[4] says the same (use the referenced link at search for AF 447). Why shouldn't such information be posted on Wikipedia? It is verifiable.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ADIRU

Under the section Airspeed inconsistency reference is made to previous incidents and accidents linked with ADIRUs on board A330s. A paragraph at the bottom of this section should be added to note AF447's ADIRUs were manufactured by a different company. This fact has an arguable impact on readers unfamiliar with the technical details and really ought to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.64.102 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It was noted (I noted it) and it was removed as speculative, problem is that we know Northrup Grumman the manufacturer is for the Qantas A330, and it has been mentioned that the ADIRU on the Air Frances are Honeywell, although it is not certain that all are Honeywell. If you can find a bonafida source of information then it can be put back. People here have been real snipers about references, particularly when it involves a line of thought they don't want on the page. PB666 ^yap 03:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And rightly so. The official accident investigation has hardly started, yet there many amateur air crash investigators, including the press, who are eager to push their own armchair theories or parallels with other accidents. This is supposedly an encyclopedia article, so until the official accident report is published, expect any speculation about the cause to be challenged. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Airbus did say privately that, guess what, the ADIRU were different. I agree we should not be speculating about causes and any accounts that are contributed should have a NPOV so that they are not attributed to the wiki page as the origin of that speculation. I removed that sentence myself, but I did so reluctantly since it provides the best NPOV stance.PB666 ^yap 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

After doing yet another search I found a reference we have already used According to Airbus spokesman Justin Dubon, any comparisons between the Qantas and Air France flights are fundamentally misleading. "One thing that has got to be clear is that there are more than one manufacturer of ADIRUs, and the ADIRU manufacturer for the Qantas case is not the same for the Air France case," he tells TIME. As reported in the aviation trade magazine Air Transport News, manufacturer Northrop Grumman makes the ADIRUs for Qantas, and Honeywell for Air France. "There are no similarities in ADIRUs between the two cases," says Dubon.

However, I went to Air Transport News and could find no mention of the connection between Air France and Honeywell, Justin Dubon, or Northrup Grumman ADIRU, ADIRS, etc. which would be the best news source. It appears there are only 2 manf of the ADIRS for the A330 and if we can have some lineancy on the reference we can add this statement.PB666 ^yap 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Airspeed inconsistency

Have removed the paragraph that was attempting to describe ADIRU operation and airspeed calculation. It is too detailed and technical for this article and contained a number of factual errors that disagreed with the given citation. The only thing we need to convey here is that pitot tubes are one of the sensors used in calculating airspeed. Readers seeking further information can still drill into the related articles - have added a note to this effect. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why couldn't we have done this is the first place? lol.PB666 ^yap 14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447 - page title may include flight was in accident

The concept is that possibility of using the same numbers on a flight, train, bus or other mode exists despite accidents; awareness of this in title creation can be incorporated.

If Air France Flight 447 is a currently operating flight(which may be untrue), then the title of the current page Air France Flight 447 may need should be changed to reflect this possibly indicating a notation regarding accident of the fateful date. Confirmation of this is not available but Air France web site indiates no flight AF447 for current dates possibly meaning that the flight number may have been retired.

This is from another website( could be lagging in recognising that there may be no flight AF447) is the current schedule below indicates timing though may need to verify Departure Status Details Airport: (GIG) Galeao Antonio Carlos Jobim International Airport City: Rio De Janeiro, RJ, BR Scheduled: 7:00 PM - Sun Jun 14, 2009 Terminal: 1 Local Time: 6:37 PM - Sun Jun 14, 2009

Same applies to any accident train bus etc where same number is not always terminated and can forever lock up the page naming into though meaning referrence to accident, can be confused with current flight 447. This comes from a beginner.65.51.38.194 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Patelurology2 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Rewording. Patelurology2 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article follows the naming standards of Wikiproject Aviation. Suggest you discuss there if you have concerns about the naming scheme. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And just to repeat the same answer I gave to the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Same_numbers_on_a_flight.2C_train.2C_bus_or_other_mode_may_exist_despite_accidents - Not an issue as only one Air France Flight 447 is notable none of the others are. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

100th Paris Air Show

I'm not sure how this would work into the article, but the press is commenting on the effect of the crash on the 100th Paris Air Show. There is even an extraordinary statement by the CEO of Boeing that the A330 is a proven aircraft. See Reuters article.LeadSongDog come howl 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

American Names?

Seeing as this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, shouldn't we list the names of the brave Americans who risked and ultimately lost their lives for the sake of the others on the plane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.63.221 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can list the names of passengers if they are notable, normally for air accidents articles that means they have a related article of their own not connected with the accident. No reason why Americans should be treated any different to any other passengers they all have to meet the notability threshold to be listed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, excuse my ignorance on the subject, but how did they "risk, and ultimately lost their lives for the sake of the others on the plane"?

How do we know who did what? FFMG (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TROLL? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Position of last ACARS 0214 UTC

Hello! The Automated messages section in this article says: "... the two final messages, transmitted at 02:14 UTC at location 3°34′40″N 30°22′28″W ..." How do we know that this position is the one where last ACARS was sent from, thus where AF 447 has been at that time? Is there a source that can be specified concerning these coordinates? If yes: which source? I´ve been checking Aviation Herald, PPruNe, German Wiki (not mentioning one) and French Wiki (saying the Bazilian Forces published it - I couldn´t find it in their press releases either...) and some others the last days. Can anyone bring some light into this? Thank you! --Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• good question. Av-herald had it at one time. I have the complete ACARS message as presented on french TV. There is nothing there to indicate the coordinates but the official sources on the crash say that a GPS coordinate was communicated. Hope you find the answer.PB666 ^yap 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for sharing what you know! If Av-Herald has withdrawn this info (I can´t check they had it on their page, but I believe if you say so) there is probably a reason, and I´d guess it was because they can´t find a proper source either? You could help me a lot if you´d remember which official source could have notified that GPS coordinate was communicated! Air France? Força Aérea Brasileira? BEA? I thought I checked all of them three times all over, but maybe I missed something! Thank you! --Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how folks want to handle this one: Forca Aerea Brasileira (FAB) reported that in the 0214 UTC ACARS message "Sources within Air France reported, that the automatic message did not only report an electrical short circuit, but also the loss of cabin pressure. This information has been confirmed by FAB, who also stated, that the position of the airplane was given as N3.5777 W30.3744 in that message."av-herald In addition this was the flight plan from 0133UTC (INDOL) next TASIL ETA 0223z, FL350 GS 543KT. This places the position at 3 34 40N and 30 33 28W, 331nm past INTOL(1.36083°S 32.83139°W / -1.36083; -32.83139) therefore the speed should have been 484 kts (I copied this calculation, but I got the same answer for distance). Therefore it is not likely a calculated position but part of some transmission. How reliable is the source (FAB)? Is this the position at 200 UTC-communicated to Brasil or 214 UTC communicated to Air France? If the 0200 UTC is the point Average GS = 735KT At 214 GS would be 484KT. If the aircraft had held constant speed it would have been between N4.12 and N4.23, W30.04 and W30.12 (my calculation), therefore it is not a calculated position based on airspeed unless the person who calculated the speed messed up. I say leave the coordinates. PB666 ^yap 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• PB666, that’s great news to me! Excuse me for being picky and prussian, but: the position you found in Av-Herald (N3.5777 W30.3744 = 3°34'40"N, 30°22'28"W) is not (!) on the flight track of UN873 airway. It is 35km = 18,9nm north of it. "Ultimo Reporte" (FAB used in their plotting) would be 3°16'28.00"N 30°22'28.00"W. That would be on the estimated flight track. I could tell a long rigmarole, but in the end I would and do agree with you at this point: N3.5777 W30.3744 is likely to be a transmission, not a calculated position (and not an outcome of some speed typing journalist).

I´m not absolutely convinced, but you gave a good point for going on and to find the source in FAB. Thanks a lot! And I agree: leave the coordinates. But put a reference to Av-Herald for the moment. I´ll comb through FAB press releases once more, maybe there is some better source to replace it.--Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I created 364 equidistant coordinate pts between TASIL and INDOL in Excel. I confirmed this by flying a B777sim on MSFS from FEMUR to INTOL to TASIL FL350 M 0.85 GS 490KN 299 KIAS using real weather (not that there is any real weather to be had), the distance was 364NM and I took GPS positions at 300, 200, 100, 50, 33, 20, 15,10 and 5 nm from TASIL. At the GPS coordinates 50 and 33NM from TASIL the deviation of 'Excel' coordinates NS was 0.04 NM and EW 0.1 of a Nautical mile from MSFS GPS coordinates on UN873, which was about the deviation of the B777sim from its flight path (by the GPS). The closest point on the UN873 was 33.5 NM from TASIL, that point was 8.5 nM from 3.5777°N 30.3744°W, at that point 4nm North and 7.5nm West of that point on UN873.PB666 ^yap 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BEA on last coordinates, problem for the main page

BEA (Bureau d´Enquêtes et d´Analyses por la Sécurité de l´Aviation civile) as investigating authority of AF 447 accident announced in their last press release on 17.06.2009: "The last position message from the airplane was broadcast by the ACARS automatic system at 2 h 10 UTC."06-17-2009 News Conference I find it implausible that BEA would affirm this if any information about position at 0214 UTC was available to them. Thus I don´t believe this information exists. Nobody knows at this time where AF 447 has exactly been at 0214 UTC. --Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• GoodFind! Then those coordinates were probably from 0210 and not 0214. That puts GS at 540KT for the 37 minutes (very close to what was stated). If the AC had continued on strait for at least 4 minutes then its position would have been 366NM +/-3.66NM NNE of INTOL and 36NM from the 0210 report or at 4.10°N and 30.1146°W. Looks like we are going to have to pull those coordinates afterall, unless the BEA released the coordinates we have either a synthesis of reporting the "0214 Coordinates" at 210 or the synthesis of computing the 0214 coordinates based on 0210. Even if the plane pitched to -90 it would have taken less than 40 seconds to hit the water, therefore it could not (impossibly) have produced messages for 4 more minutes at that location. The minimum average descent would have been -9.2' net still travel about 35 miles. The minimum turn diameter of these large jets is about 16NM at that altitude and speed, probably greater at 540, say 18NM. That means a radius of 9NM. In that case 35NM would represent the ability to turn no more than 222' Either direction. It is possible if one wanted to do it, create an ARC of positions -222 to +222 whereby one could estimate all possible positions of the AC at 0214 traveling 540KT. The time between the 0210 message and 214 message is 4min +/-24 seconds. One could assign also a probability of a 30'bank turn initiated at any given point. This creates a three dimension probability set of where the aircraft could have been when it gave its final report, the 96' confidence interval I would estimate to be almost 50NM apart with no single point closer than 15NM from the 0210 coordinates.PB666 ^yap 02:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're reading too much into the BEA announcement. The BEA is scrupulous not taking a position as to whether the ACARS messages form a "series" or not, but their announcement is not inconsistent with a position sent in the latter part of the ACARS messages that were emitted. I think that quoting the coordinates as "sent between 0210 and 0214" is OK and consistent with what we have RS for. Physchim62 (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is what is it. The problem is that the FAB claims to have gotten its coordinates and time of coordinates from Air France, which makes that second hand information, and then you have the BEA contradiction the FAB, the BEA is closer to the investigation than the FAB regarding Air France, the ACARS, and Airbus Industries.PB666 ^yap 11:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hello Physchim62, I don´t think the scope of interpretation is too wide in a sentence saying: "The last position message … was broadcast … at 2 h 10 UTC". I´m well aware that BEA is (and has to be) scrupulous, therefore I don´t assume they´d affirm anything arguable.

• Hello anon editor! The history of this talk page shows that there is plenty of room for lame speculation, such as your intensive textual analysis of the BEA press release. The solution adopted on {{Air France Flight 447/flight path}} seems to be perfectly conservative. Of course F-GZCP didn't hover over a point for four minutes, something for which it was aerodynamically incapable, but this is no reason to enter into speculation as to where it actually crashed into the ocean (or was zapped up into a spaceship from the planet Zorg, or blown up by terrorists, depending on your favorite conspiracy theory). As no one quite knows what happened, the last reliable data are the ACARS coordinates: their position is quite sufficient for a lay reader to locate the site in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. All speculation as to "exactly" where the accident might have happened is in fact speculation as to what the accident was, and so to be discouraged as far as possible. Physchim62 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Physchim62! The above was in fact signed by Ursula Hofbauer at 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC), but you posted in the middle of her post, which is signed below. See the talk page history.LeadSongDog come howl 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• PB666: I think we´re on the same track, still I have a remark: BEA is not contradicting FAB. BEA is contradicting Aviation Herald, citing an unknown source in Air France and saying FAB would have confirmed that information (in a document or statement unknown to me). FABs "Ultimo reporte" is plotted in their early SAR maps at about 03º 16′ 28” N, 030º 22′28” W. Brazilian ministry of defense gives the exact coordinates in a press release from 01/06/2009: 01/06/2009 - AERONÁUTICA 3 - Relatório das buscas do vôo 447 da Air France It is 18' south of the one Aviation Herald gives. There is another press release from FAB on 01/06/2009 saying that Air France informed Brazilian ATC early morning of 01/06/2009 about the loss of AF 447 about 100km from TASIL: "A Companhia AIRFRANCE informou ao CINDACTA III, às 08h30 (horário de Brasília), que a aproximadamente 100 quilômetros da posição TASIL, o vôo AFR 447 enviou uma mensagem para a companhia informando problemas técnicos na aeronave (perda de pressurização e falha no sistema elétrico)". I guess they were not talking in kilometres but in nautical miles, they are flying guys. 100km = 54nm. I guess the Air France guy didn´t say "about 54nm from TASIL" but "about 50nm from TASIL". 50nm = 92,6km. Measure from 03º 16′ 28” N, 030º 22′28” W to TASIL on UN873 airway, it´s exactly 92,6km = 50nm. So at least this position is very likely no ACARS transmission. And yes, FAB got that information from Air France. L., --Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder of av-herald has updated their page since the news conference, you checked, I will read it again? It has now changed

Air France reported, that they had received an automatic message from the airplane reporting an electrical short circuit and the failure of multiple systems at 02:14Z. . .[5].

This in itself is interesting because there is no ACARS on electrical failure only a Maintenance status on 0214 dealing with the navigation system. But in the next paragraph.

Sources within Air France reported, that the automatic message did not only report an electrical short circuit, but also the loss of cabin pressure. This information has been confirmed by FAB, who also stated, that the position of the airplane was given as N3.5777 W30.3744 in that message.[6]

There is nothing we can do now but speculate. My opinion is that in the wee hours of the morning someone at Air France tried to deal with the developing situation as best as they could, they appear to have gotten the nature of the failure wrong, it was not an electrical failure but a failure in the avionics electronics, maybe a translation problem for a non-portuguese or non-english speaker. That same error has been reported by others. So it is possible that the first reports did have a GPS coordinate but the wrong time stamp, if that is what the av-herald is going by. I repeat this again, I have the entire ACARS report for AF 447 from 0531 2245 to 0601 0214 as was presented to the media, and there is nothing in that which indicates a GPS coordinate.PB666 

^yap 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The first time stamp on this is 11:30 Brasil local time, and apparently shipped of to news organizations around 11AM. Original is Forca Aerea Brasileira (Minister

Às 22h48 (horário de Brasília), quando a aeronave saiu da cobertura radar do CINDACTA III, de Fernando de Noronha, as informações indicavam que a aeronave voava normalmente a 35.000 pés (11 quilômetros) de altitude e a uma velocidade de 453 KT (840 quilômetros por hora).

Translated (by my bad spanish inferences for portuguese) At 22:48 local time when aircraft left radar range of CINDACTA III(at Fernando de Noronha), indicated that the aircraft was traveling normally at FL350 with a groundspeed of 453 KT

GS 453 KT sounds alot more reasonable for the aircraft than 543. I did use a 'sucky' A330 Sim and I could not push it to 543, that was well above the OS limit so the AC would have to have had a massive tailwind. Even the 777 had problems at 35,000 feet with a full load of fuel.

A Companhia AIRFRANCE informou ao CINDACTA III, às 08h30 (horário de Brasília), que a aproximadamente 100 quilômetros da posição TASIL, o vôo AFR 447 enviou uma mensagem para a companhia informando problemas técnicos na aeronave (perda de pressurização e falha no sistema elétrico).

Translated (by my bad spanish inferences for portuguese) The company AirFrance informed CINDACTA III at 8:30 [June 1 2009, Brasil local time] that at approximately 100 kilometers from waypoint TASIL, of AF 447 sent a message for the purpose of informing the company of technical problems with the aircraft (loss of pressure and fault in the electrical system)

Well ((33.5NM ^ 2) + (8.5NM ^ 2)) ^ 0.5 = 34.6NM. This can be converted to 64 KM, that would be a very speculative approximation, Who knows. What I do know is if that A/C had traveled for 4 minutes from the position given, then it would have been ~10nM or about 20KM from TASIL on the deviant track. I think by the fact we are saying who knows means that we cannot present the coordinates on the main. I will look at the french page, my french is all but nothing.PB666 ^yap 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The EW component is the same, the NS component is different by 18.2NM and by memory this would place the coordinate 3.2744N 30.3744W right on the high-altitude jetway.PB666 ^yap 19:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I left the coordinates embedded in hidden text in the section, if anyone can get a set of coordinated with a 210 timestamp we can move them. Otherwise we will have to wait for a clarification. OK so I want to speculate now, the weather reports that have been posted showed F-GZCP coming out of Tstorm activity at 0210 and well out by 0214 based on these coordinates for 0214, but if those coordinates were for 210, then by 214 the AC was almost 75 NM out of the deep convection. What are the possibilities now for hail? lightning? almost zero. The weather section appears now to be more speculative. It the AC was in trouble why would it turn back in the direction of the storm activity.PB666 ^yap 02:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don´t know if the position discussed (3° 34′ 40″ N, 30° 22′ 28 W) is originally from 0210 UTC, but I don´t think so. BEA uses another position in a PDF document released on Wednesday: sea.search.ops 17/06/2009 unfortunately without coordinates. Easy access to the map/picture I´m talking about here. There is a position marked "Dernière position connue" = last position known. It´s not the position discussed here as "last ACARS" (3° 34′ 40″ N, 30° 22′ 28 W) and also not FAB´s "Ultimo Reporte" (3° 16′ 40″ N, 30° 22′ 28W). If you use the scale given in that map "Dernière position connue" is about 130km from TASIL. As there is no GMS grid in that map I don’t have a direction from TASIL, therefore it´s hard to estimate a position.Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am going to cut into your post Ursula, at the bottom of the image one can see the line of the flight path, the image is N/S (although I don't know if this is magnetic or geographic). Indeed it is over 130Km or about 70NM, this point is all but meaningless,IMHO. To Summarize the problem

• We have two (possibly 3) contesting time stamps
• We have two (possibly 3) contesting geographic positions

• one from av-herald cannot be substantiated and is off the flight path.
• one from FAB's "Utimo Reporte" which is 18.2 NM due south of the av-herald and on the flight path. The sum of distance of 34 + 18 = 52NM for the second point is about 100KM from TASIL. So that at least reconciles, but it assumes they understood the coordinates correctly from Air France. Assuming that 100KM is correct then:

• Most of the scattered debris is north of Ultimo Reporte but alot is out of the av-herald, and the surface currents travel from SE to NW in that position this time of year. As the days went on the material tracked north. That position is consistent the rate of Northward drift. Maybe they places the position of TASIL wrong?
• Standard descent rate for aircraft is 1000ft per 3NM. Therefore at 35000 feet one expects 200km, so that 130km northward even adding 50KM is not expected for an AC disentegration. It is rather easy to produce a descent rate of 1000ft per 1.5NM, by extending spoilers. An aircraft that disintegrates is not going to fly another 100KM as the aircraft rolls and rotates its coefficient of drag will increase rapidly and it will slam into the wind and fall.
• Using Google earth I was able to align the relief of the sea floor on the pdf with geographic coordinates TASIL is in the correct position on the pdf map.

1. The map position on the pdf for last known point is:2 58' 40" N 30 35' 10"W (N2.9778 W30.5861)
2. The position of the FAB is 3 16' 40" N, 30 22' 28W (N3.2778 W30.3744)
3. The position of the av-herald is:3 34' 40" N, 30° 22' 28 W (N3.5777 W30.3744)

Maybe Av-herald is wrong, IMO. To easy to mistake 2 for 5 and explain the problem. Assuming FAB is right then could there be two time stamps. One at 210 and the other at 214 We have to make a base assumption, I argue 500KT at 4 minutes = 33.5NM. Next what is the distance between pdf and FAB answer 22NM. Next what are the possible times, shortest possible times are 3.1min and longest possible time is 4.9 minutes. Is it possible and at what speed could the ac travel. For 3.1 minutes (02:10:55) send and (02:14:05) resend the Aircraft could travel this at GS425. If the AC had slowed down for turbulence this is within the flight envelope. 22NM over 4.9 minutes (02:10:05) send and (02:14:55) resend the Aircraft could travel this 22NM at GS 270, however only with a strong headwind, the IAS would be close to stall speed otherwise, unless the Aircraft had decreased altitude. In which case that would be a completely expected position. Ergo the BEA could be talking about a 0210 position that is correct on the pdf and the FAB could be talking about a 214 position that is correct for other unknown reasons. PB666 ^yap 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But "last ACARS" is 66 km from TASIL, "Ultimo Reporte" 92,6 km from TASIL. It can´t be the one nor the other. I guess it is the last broadcast position at 0210 UTC. But I don´t know.Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)--

• I looked at the images, I immediately came to a conclusion that I am not going to give here, the positions are consistent with the av-coordinates/time but . . .This is simply not something we should discuss as it becomes original research. Those red dots are almost in a strait line, the base of the line would be approximate if the coordinates were from 0214 as av-herald stated, assuming EW current. Since it is highly unlikely the AC turned back after the 0210 then the westward position is likely due to drift and splay of debris. If NS drift is unlikely and particles should move WNW according to surface currents, then the southern most points are markers for the initiation of structural failure. The trail of red dots indicates that the plane did not likely turn back toward its SSW path since the NS dimension it too great and the time too small to allow for this.PB666 ^yap 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll draw the attention of editors to this blog by CNN's Miles Obrien which, over several days from 1-10 June, presented some carefully done analysis in terms that are intelligible to laymen. Well worth reading. I'll also point out this Accuweather special coverage that identifies the surface current as West to East at an average of 5 miles per hour. The inference drawn by the Accuweather analysis was that debris would be washing up in Africa by now. If that's right, we should be checking for local reports in west African media.LeadSongDog come howl 17:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• NorthEquitorial CurrentsSouthEquitorial Currents, The position of 3-4'N and 29 - 30'W shows a northwest drift. Also for spring south-equatorial-AMJ, summer [7], and on the northern sidenorth-equatorial-cc-AMJ, summer[8]. Above 4' in August has the greatest counterflow. At 4'N and 29-30'W the surface flow is NW.PB666 ^yap 18:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• With respect to the following block quote from prior submission by PB666, a need for translation program is apparent; previously made available in Ext link for direct conversion of Brazilian Air Force Portal when it was listed erronously as Portuguese only portal. This language conversion link was ?deleted when it was discovered as a dual language portal. Basic translation programs will be attached to Ext link section of this discussion page if this may help discussion of information that comes along in other languages. See External link -coming soon.

Automatic translation can help you understand the gist of the translated text but is no substitute for a professional human translator.

The first time stamp on this is 11:30 Brasil local time, and apparently shipped of to news organizations around 11AM. Original is Forca Aerea Brasileira (Minister

Às 22h48 (horário de Brasília), quando a aeronave saiu da cobertura radar do CINDACTA III, de Fernando de Noronha, as informações indicavam que a aeronave voava normalmente a 35.000 pés (11 quilômetros) de altitude e a uma velocidade de 453 KT (840 quilômetros por hora).

Translated (by my bad spanish inferences for portuguese) At 22:48 local time when aircraft left radar range of CINDACTA III(at Fernando de Noronha), indicated that the aircraft was traveling normally at FL350 with a groundspeed of 453 KT

GS 453 KT sounds alot more reasonable for the aircraft than 543. I did use a 'sucky' A330 Sim and I could not push it to 543, that was well above the OS limit so the AC would have to have had a massive tailwind. Even the 777 had problems at 35,000 feet with a full load of fuel. A Companhia AIRFRANCE informou ao CINDACTA III, às 08h30 (horário de Brasília), que a aproximadamente 100 quilômetros da posição TASIL, o vôo AFR 447 enviou uma mensagem para a companhia informando problemas técnicos na aeronave (perda de pressurização e falha no sistema elétrico).

Translated (by my bad spanish inferences for portuguese) The company AirFrance informed CINDACTA III at 8:30 [June 1 2009, Brasil local time] that at approximately 100 kilometers from waypoint TASIL, of AF 447 sent a message for the purpose of informing the company of technical problems with the aircraft (loss of pressure and fault in the electrical system)

Patelurology2 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Link for Language Conversion program: Original and Translation side by sidePatelurology2 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've originally put coordinates in wiki page as 4°N 30°W taking in account 100 km precision per Wikipedia:COORD#Precision. Somebody has corrected them to 3.5°N / 30.5°W by assuming 50 km precision. But I agree with PB666 50NM estimation. --TAG (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Over 500 edits ago I made reference to the unreliable position reports. The following is a link in Tim Vasquez's Weather Analysis and has derived positions from the FAB and extrapolated the BEA "last known position". Flight Path from INTOL.

Kiwi Kousin (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is such a wonderful analysis of the problem I´m thinking about since many days. Thank you!--Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

PB666, Kiwi Kousin: I´m impressed by your ability to calculate possible airspeed! Not ironic! But I don´t fully understand. I´m a sailor. We are much slower! Let me make my point, I gave all the sources for it above:

1. Ultimo Reporte is not a transmission. It is an outcome of communication Air France > FAB early morning 01/06/2009, when information available was little. AF told FAB there is an aircraft missing about 50nm from TASIL. FAB made a position out of this information, tracking 50nm backwards on UN873 airway. They did not know about any deviance. That is where Ultimo Reporte = 3° 16' 28"N, 30° 22' 28"W derives from.
2. Speed reading, speed typing journalists or hectic informants took a 2 for a 5. It´s been copypasted hundreds of times in thousand editorial offices from 01/06/2009 to 05/06/2009. Consider translations from/into 3 languages at least. 3° 16' 28"N, 30° 22' 28"W mutated into 3° 34' 28"N, 30° 22' 28"W and/or N3.2778 W30.3744 into N3.5777 W30.3744. Somehow this "information" came to Av-Herald. They have been cited. Someone added a timestamp 0214 UTC and called it last ACARS. Some stories are too good to be checked.
3. Air France and BEA have gained information since 01/06/2009 about the last transmitted position = Dernière position connue. It is about 130km from Tasil, at about 2° 58' 40"N, 30° 35' 10"W (N2.9778 W30.5861), transmitted at 0210 UTC.

My best guess at this time.--Ursula Hofbauer (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Extlinks: Photographs of the aircraft

Does anyone have an issue with reducing the number of links to airline photo sites? Currently three are listed and this seems a bit over the top when in all likely hood one would suffice (say airliners.net?). Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment do we need any image links?, none actually add to the article as we already have a picture of an A330. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The article is in need of a good clean-up anyway.PB666 ^yap 16:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Terrorism

I have a question. Was the early official determination by the investigators that terrorism was not the cause of the crash original research, or was it supported by facts. If there were facts to back up this statement I would like to hear them. It seemed too early to make that type of announcement and, in the absence of the flight data recorders, it still is. How does Wikipedia treat original research ( if that is what this is) when it comes from official sources? Thanks Arydberg (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. There are different quality sources, and WP does not treat all as authorative all for all scenarios. For example, we would be reasonable to consider an air crash investigator to be a reliable source for the accident cause; but if some government official had a theory about this incident and happened to get some press coverage over it, we should not consider his opinion any more authorative than the next person without first reviewing his credentials. This article is particularly tricky given that everyone wants answers now and public/press speculation is so rife. So yes, you're right to challenge this information. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So is there any reason to discount the possibility of terrorism other then the lack of people taking credit for the crash. There was at least one South American crash where it was suspected that drug cartels were involved. Arydberg (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source that states this explicitly - and I think you'll find that will be the official investigation. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually just added a link before I saw this discussion. This is from The Independent, a very strong RS:

Air crash autopsies rule out terrorism

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html

-Classicfilms (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right but consider, 1) 12 other flights flew that same path at about the same time and none experienced difficulties. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/05/france.plane.investigation/index.html?iref=mpstoryview 2) There were reports of another pilot and others seeing an intense white flash at the time of the accident. "Suddenly we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, followed by a downward, vertical trajectory which broke up into six segments," the chief pilot of an Air Comet plane from Lima to Madrid told the Spanish newspaper, El Mundo. He has reported his observations to investigators". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5444168/Air-France-pilots-battled-for-15-minutes-to-save-doomed-flight-AF-447.html 3) And then there was a report of a pilot seeing fires described as "orange dots" on the ocean. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wreckage-pilot-spots-orange-dots-on-atlantic/93947-2.html?from=rssfeed 4) Also while your link is not disputed here it should be noted that the bodies had been through a lot of trauma. This is also supported by the fact that some bodies were 50 miles form others. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=as_IAXADNn1c Regardless of the above if the government has an agenda not to publish a finding of terrorism then they will not find terrorism . I lost my faith in the government after the TWA 800 crash when it was determined that the fuel tank exploded. Cal Tech spent 2 1/2 years trying to get jet fuel to explode. The best they could do was to get a continuos burn that subjected the tank to 60 PSI.... and this was supposed to sever the nose section from the rest of the airframe.

I would like to respectively suggest that you keep an open mind toward a section on alternative theories on this crash.

Arydberg (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, what you have compiled above falls under WP:SYNTHESIS which qualifies as original research. Please review Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability mandates that the Wikipedia reflects the RS. This recent article I cited above:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html

states pretty clearly that terrorism has been ruled out by the French government and that is what we have to reflect here. It is not the place of the Wikipedia to speculate (see WP:SPECULATION). That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the issues pointed out above. The fact is that Wikipedia articles reflect information rather than create original arguments. So unless an RS directly states a contradiction to the position of the French government, we need to reflect what they are saying. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this debate. There is a single sentence in the current article (last sentence of the bomb threat section) that says the autopsy results preclude terrorism. That sentence cites this news article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html). However, an even more recent Associated Press article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane) states THE EXACT OPPOSITE, namely that the autopsy indicates injuries are CONSISTENT WITH MID-AIR BREAKUP. Also, an aviation expert in that article states that it is possible that an explosion took place even though there are no burns on the victims. In light of this, there is no justification to keep the "terrorism ruled out" sentence. I have altered it to more neutral wording, pending further developments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojamus (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nojamus, this is a really helpful article which adds to the debate. I liked your edits which were fair and tweaked them a bit, moving the two articles to its own section. Actually, both articles suggest that there was a mid-air breakup which could happen for a number of reasons. They differ in interpretation of the lack of burns found during autopsies. So, I've now set up the section to reflect the finding of both articles. This doesn't really contradict what I wrote above - the point is that this article needs to reflect what is being said rather than draw independent conclusions through original research. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article again, I realized that the reference you cited was already used above so I reformatted your reference and updated the title to the original reference. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

These were deleted, should I reinstate them? Bewp (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(Note: This comment was posted in the middle of mine above and I moved it here below as comments should always be posted separately - it is responding to my argument that there were a number of suggested possibilities for the break up) Sure, if they follow Wikipedia:Verifiability - meaning they should all be properly sourced. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to all the valid comments above, there is a fundamental point of law to be made here i.e. that because no one has claimed responsibility for attacking the aircraft it is unlikely that is was attacked. This gives credence to the fact that the plane regrettably either broke up mid-air or crashed into the sea because of a combination of bad weather and technical problems, clearly now with no survivors. This is a terrible tragedy and the investigators should be quick to issue the final analysis for the sake of the families and friends of the people who were on board. Bewp (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point all we can do is reflect the TIME article which states that no one has claimed responsibility. If more sources appear which draw larger conclusions, then we can add those. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are we presenting information on bomb threats and terrorism? The pitot and static tubes are at the front of the AC, if a bomb had gone off in the front of the aircraft unless it a very tiny bomb the AC would have disintegrated rapidly. The flurry of messages does not indicate why the AC crashed, but almost certainly the 'business' of what happened was in the forward section of the AC in the flight crew area, we can consider as far back as the static ports, there is nothing behind that static ports that appears to be involved in the warnings (except at 22:45 two warnings about the toilets). The static ports are redundant for each ADIRU, a port and starboard sensor for the Captain, a port and starboard port for the F/O and the ADIRU-3 which is fed by pneumatic information to a single ADM tied into both ports. Unless you had someone on the exterior of the AC bubble gumming up ports, it seems very unlikely that a bomb or terrorist could have caused these various systems malfunction. The avionics compartment sets below the cockpit, a place where passangers have little access. With all due respect to the BEA the odds that a AC, which was suppossed to report at 2:20 sents a flurry of failure and warning messages before 2:14 and disappears, that in the six minute interval someone decided to terrorize the AC are astronomically low. What are the odds that the failures and warnings not being connected to the disappearance given the precedences. Also bomb threats were made before the flight on a different airframe, the terrorism suspects were not terrorist. This really does not belong in the investigation section unless there is an ongoing official investigation regarding terrorism.PB666 ^yap

"1)12 other flights flew that same path at about the same time and none experienced difficulties.

Combination of aircraft weaknesses or faults, bad weather, and pilot error can explain the accident.PB666 ^yap

"2) There were reports of another pilot and others seeing an intense white flash at the time of the accident."

Those flashes occurred 2000 miles away could not have been AF 447. This has already been discussed.PB666 ^yap

"3) And then there was a report of a pilot seeing fires described as 'orange dots' on the ocean."

Mid-air failures often present fires when AC hit the water. Those fuel filled wings hit the water at 300MPH and any friction can create a fire. At high Mach turbofans can cavitate, resulting in fires associated with engine failure and breakup.PB666 ^yap

"4) Also while your link is not disputed here it should be noted that the bodies had been through a lot of trauma. This is also supported by the fact that some bodies were 50 miles form others."

One of the two explanations was the pitot port clogged and depressurized through the drain hole cause the appearance of loss of air speed. This then resulted in the AC responding with more thrust, exceeding the Mach limit. The IAS is greater than 300 KIAS at FL35000. The other explanation is the AC pitched down into a dive which the FC could not recover from, See above, at M1.0 the AC goes poof. If the AIS reached anything like 500 or 600 KIAS before disentegration, under such circumstances if the AC disintegrated it would have been violent. In slower moving AC it has been noted that the clothes of people next to the pressure hull break were ripped off, some were still strapped in their seats. At 12,000 feet, the intact bodies sink, in a very cold ocean were gases dissolve easily, you are probably seeing those individuals who were least protected when the AC disintegrated. There is nothing relevant about seeing dismembered bodies from a flight disappearance that began at 35000 feet, this is all but expected. In addition some of the bodies went down with the denser AC parts and are subject to deep currents while other bodies floated along with surface currents, days later some of the bodies have floated upward for whatever reason, a plane disintegrates at 7 miles over the ocean traveling at 550 MPH the bodies splay out in a radius of 60 degrees wait 6 days and you expect to find all the bodies in one spot? Mythology.PB666 ^yap

It really sounds like the proponent wants to believe a conclusion so that he/she has dug up every little news blurp (relevant or not) in support of that belief. It does not belong in wikipedia.PB666 ^yap 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To speak of the Wikipedia concept of original research when referring to the official announcements of the accident investigators is simply laughable. There is nothing to suggest that it was terrorism, and quite a few things that suggest that it wasn't. End of story, except for the conspiracy theorists. Physchim62 (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• PB666 In reference to your statement, "There were reports of another pilot and others seeing an intense white flash at the time of the accident." :Those flashes occurred 2000 miles away could not have been AF 447. This has already been discussed". :Where were or are the sources for this article?

Arydberg (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The original source was the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, which quoted a statement from the Spanish airline Air Comet. The crew and one passenger (a friend of the copilot) of the flight from Lima to Madrid saw a "white descending light" at "about the same time" the Air France plane disappeared. The article gave the coordinates of the plane at the time: it was more than 2000 kilometres (not miles) from where the Air France flight disappeared. A report was made to the Spanish civil aviation authorities, but the whole thing seems more like cheap publicity for this small airline! It is impossible (by the curvature of the Earth) that the Air Comet crew saw the Air France plane, and the "white descending light" could easily have been a large meteor. Physchim62 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Air Comet witnesses PB666 ^yap

• Ok it's just that if the aircraft was at 7 deg north and 49 deg west and they were advised to head to the midpoint between Piarco and Cayennne then that midpoint is also at 7 degrees north and they were told to fly directly east... on a flight from Lima to Paris.Arydberg (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• …they were still way too far away to have seen AF447. The pilots must know this – they're professional pilots, they know how to calculate great circle distances – but, by putting in a report (which is their right), they get free publicity for their airline. Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• You are actually weakening the case for adding this material the more you bring attention to the references. Read WP:Reliable Sources. I have transferred both sections to this page.PB666 ^yap 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BEA News conference 06-17-2009

Quoting and paraphrasing(by associated press) Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the French air accident investigation agency BEAFrench: 400 pieces of Air France debris found

Arslanian:"We are in a situation that is a bit more favorable than the first days,"

Arslanian:"We can say there is a little less uncertainty, so there is a little more optimism."

Arslanian: "(But) it is premature for the time being to say what happened,"

Arslanian: 'messages "appeared as linked to this loss of validity of speed information."'

Arslanian: 'speed information became "incoherent"'

Arslanian: 'it affected other systems on the plane that relied on that speed data.'

Arslanian: 'stressed that not all the automated messages were related to the speed sensors.'

Arslanian: "it is premature for the time being to say what happened,"

Also: "Air France has replaced the sensors, called Pitot tubes, on all its A330 and A340 aircraft, under pressure from pilots who feared a link to the accident."(Associated Press) "One of those messages suggested that external speed sensors had iced over and destabilized the plane's control systems."(Associated Press)

A second article.Air France 447 crash: almost certain all parts will not be recovered Quoting and paraphrasing:

Arslanian: 'strongly criticised the media for creating "speculations" including, which includes the theory that a defective speed sensor could have led to the disaster.'

Arslanian: "For now, we cannot say, and no one can say what happened. It is much too soon to go imagining scenarios in one direction or another,"

Also: "Speculations that the speed sensors contributed to the crash gathered momentum after the BEA announced the speed probes gave inconsistent readings to the cockpit." "BEA, Airbus and Air France has strongly denied that faulty speed sensors were responsible for the crash and there exists no link between the speed probes and the crash. Airbus said that _a_ faulty speed probe will not make the flight dangerous."

I add to this that a common conclusion was that there was more than one faulty probe based on ACARS ergo they are insisting these interpretations are not credible. This is my point many of the ACARS messages which have levels of embedded code not yet translated, publically, make statements about the ACARS relatively irrelevant.PB666 ^yap 15:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I feel like someone is agreeing with me about the OR that's been going on in the press and mirrored in this article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on bomb threat

=== Earlier bomb threat === On 27 May, four days prior to this incident, ''Air France'' received a telephoned bomb threat regarding an earlier flight from [[Buenos Aires]] in [[Argentina]] to [[Paris]]. Authorities at [[Ezeiza Airport]] in Buenos Aires delayed the flight before [[take-off]] while conducting a 90-minute search of the threatened aircraft; passengers remained on the plane throughout. The search conducted by authorities yielded no [[explosive material]], so the authorities allowed the flight to depart.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abcnews.go.com/Travel/Travel/story?id=7742900&page=1|title=Searchers Find 23-Foot Piece of Airplane in Hunt for Missing Air France Flight|last=Kannampilly|first=Ammu|coauthors=Zoe Magee, Lisa Stark and Kate Barrett|date=June 3, 2009|work=ABC News|publisher=ABC|accessdate=2009-06-06}}</ref> Investigators examined possible links with Air France Flight 447.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/04/bomb-threat-4-days-before-jet-crashed-115875-21413591/|title=Air France bomb threat four days before jet crashed|last=Fricker|first=Martin|date=June 4, 2009|work=Mirror.co.uk|publisher=Daily Mirror|accessdate=2009-06-06}}</ref> To date, no group or individual has claimed any responsibility for a terror attack on the aircraft.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904137,00.html Spotlight: Air France Flight 447]</ref>

Several points

• The discussion (First 3 sentences) should be shortened to one sentence, we don't need to present all the details.
  • The flight was from Argentina, not brazil
  • The only real connection is that it was against Air France and a flight from South America
  • It does not connect with the facts.
  • It does not appear to be mentioned as part of the current investigation.
• The Mirror article itself is loaded with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, it should not be used as a reference.
• Since when is the absence of a terrorist claim evidence of anything. The Unibomber went several years without making any claim.PB666 ^yap 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the inconsistances and inaccuracies in this link.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/04/bomb-threat-4-days-before-jet-crashed-115875-21413591/

Arydberg (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1. in "An anonymous caller made the threat to a plane heading from South America to Paris - just like the doomed jet." they make it appear that the caller was threating any plane from South AMerica, if so then why did authorities search a specific plane. I wiki-land that would be called weazle words.
2. "One Air France pilot said he believed the Airbus 330 was blown up by terrorists after leaving Brazilian capital Rio de Janeiro. The long-haul captain, who did not want to be named, said: "It is highly likely a bomb went off. I've flown these jets 10 years. The chances of it being an electrical fault are unfeasible." These are exactly the type of expert opinions we want to avoid, as mentioned above this pilot has no official connection with the investigation, simply because he is a pilot, works for Air France, and has an opinion. The one official expert we have Paul Arlansian decries the use of non-official analyst proclaiming the cause of the crash.
3. Claims the bomb threat was credible because fc did not communicate. The fc was outside of standard ATC communication range, which it the primary line of communication, often when pilots don't communicate because they are busy, such as progression of computer faults and possibly AC manuevers that require immediate pilot action.
4. Other completely offbase speculation by their expert, such as plane collisions by drug smugglers. Problem there is when planes collide going 550 MPH, there would not even be a moment for computers to send ACARS.PB666 ^yap 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am placing this section also here, it really does not discuss autopsies, it is more along the lines of original research on terrorism theories.

===Autopsies=== There were conflicting reports on the autopsies. After they were conducted, ''[[The Independent]]'', stated that the reports noted that the bodies were found about 50 miles apart suggesting, "to some aviation experts that the aircraft may have disintegrated, fully or partially, in mid-air." At the same time, it argues that the autopsies "put to rest the theory that the aircraft was the victim of a terrorist attack. Details of the autopsies leaked to the Brazilian press, indicate that the bodies showed no sign of burning or damage from an explosion. The bodies were recovered whole, which is also said to be unusual after a mid-air explosion. Examination by X-ray revealed no evidence that the bodies had been penetrated by shards of metal. "<ref name="independent0614">{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/air-crash-autopsies-rule-out-terrorism-1705212.html|title=Air crash autopsies rule out terrorism |publisher=''[[The Independent]]'' |accessdate=2009-06-16}}</ref> ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' also cited experts who suggested that the plane broke up in mid-air and who have also "all but ruled out a mid-explosion as the bodies reportedly show no signs of burns." <ref name="telegraph0617">{{cite web |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5562043/Air-France-crash-autopsies-suggest-plane-broke-up-in-air.html|title=Air France crash: autopsies suggest plane broke up in air |publisher= ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' |accessdate=2009-06-17}}</ref> On the other hand, the ''[[Associated Press]]'', while also noting that evidence indicated a mid-air break-up, stated that "lack of burn evidence would not necessarily rule out an explosion" if it occurred in the lower fuselage where "passengers would not be exposed to any blast damage."<ref name="Yahoo_400pcs"/>

Lacks also NPOV on cause of conditions. PB666 ^yap 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. Can you please explain why you consider that the section quoted above is original research? Thanks, --Gautier lebon (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One and four are probably correct. The pilot in point two had a interesting point. His comment that the Airbus has 5 different sources of electricity was enlightening. Point 3 is wrong. there were other planes in the area and they all monitor the emergency frequency.Arydberg (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's what we call WP:UNDUE emphasis on a WP:FRINGE source. The idea that we would give The Daily Mirror comparable credence to The Daily Telegraph or The Independent would leave anyone familiar with the different publications rolling on the floor writhing in paroxysms of laughter. The US equivalent would be giving equal weight to The National Enquirer in a disagreement with both The Washington Post and the New York Times. We shouldn't even trust a photo in the Daily Mirror.LeadSongDog come howl 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• The point is that they are either begging a synthesis by a pretending official (Pilot for Air France) or creating their own synthesis. However, the official source of information is begging the media not to do exactly this.
  1. is about as correct as saying the the planet earth is a planet in the Milky Way. What is its specific relevance to AF 447 from RdJ Brazil to Paris, France.
  2. elevating joe 'anonymous' pilot to the status of an official and then allowing him to speculate.
  3. speculative - original research. In terms of the frequency they monitor, planes coming off of Senegal would be on their last ATC frequency from the north east, planes from Brazil would be coming off the last ATC from the west. Each of these centers have many frequencies they communicate on in order to break traffic up between numerous controllers. There may have been no planes close enough of AF 447 frequency to monitor, and more over, AF 447 fc may not have even tried, given the state of affairs in the cockpit. A whole lot of things have to be just right for them to have sent a transmission of the Comm1 or Comm2 such that another pilot would pick it up and understand it.
  4. speculative cause, like hit by a missile from the US Navy, hit by a meteor, hit by UFO, was pulled apart by the Island in 'Lost', fell into the bermuda triangle.

• Autopsies section speculates on a caused not currently in discussion by an official in the investigation, and then goes about refuting it. Would be like me saying the 'some say the sun comes up in the west, but I have nice evidence to show it comes up in the east'. More or less drivel. The telegraph is doing original research however the French and Brazilians are charged with autopsies and reporting on those autopsies they have no official capacity or reports.PB666 ^yap 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• So do you dispute that the Airbus in question had 5 separate sources of electricity?Arydberg (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, have you ever heard of the Aquatic Ape Theory. You are using the logic of 'deny this cant be true'. When the first reports of the crash came up Air France reported to air safety officials in search or contact of the aircraft that there were automated reports of electrical failure, however this occurred in the wee hours of the morning before technicians had a chance to go over the report, since then there are no codes in the report related to the electrical system (Generators, charging, etc) and as a consequence it is not officially part what is being reported. In addition Airbus has leaked a memo since saying based on their read of the ACARS there is no evidence of electrical failure. Mentioning electrical failure is like saying 'some franitc secretary said missing plane might have a lack-of-fuel, but now we have learned the plane had five fuel tanks full of fuel'. This differs with the treatment of the ADIRU in which they claim, there is no similarity between ADIRU in Q72/71/68 and ADIRU AF447 however there are ACARS codes that present ADIRU faults. As Arlansian says no system is credited with the failure of the AC yet, but there were clearly problems with Airspeed determination (pitot/static, ADM, [ADR]ADIRU). There are no evident problems with electrical systems, structural integrity, engines, control surfaces (including stabilizer) and a host of other systems. The three areas of problems that are in play are: 'AirHanding', 'Flight Control' and 'Navigation' with the majority of problems in the later two. Don't ask yourself the basic question could it be true. If its placed in the investigation section, what is its special relevance to the investigation section, and by special is it being treated by officials close to the investigation such that its relayed to the media during official press conferences and reports. I find is surpising that you are relying on such unreputable sources to begin with.PB666 ^yap 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What caused the crash

• I have no idea of what caused the crash. I am very much concerned however by the conflicting reports I read. The bodies both indicate terrorism or indicate no terrorism depending on who you read. People see fires on the ocean and then the reports go away. I grew up with kerosene stoves and cannot believe that kerosene (AKA Jet Fuel) could self ignite on contact with the ocean. While investigating other crashes the government has done outrageous things and the only possible motive is to cover up terrorism. TWA 800 is the best example. Now as soon as the plane crashed there were reports that said it was not terrorism. This is very disturbing. How did they know?Arydberg (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• They don't know with 100% certainty, but because they did an investigation they can determine probable cause.PB666 ^yap

• All these emergency transmissions may have been the shutting down of a dying aircraft during it’s plunge to the ocean. As the terminal velocity of many objects is about 100 miles per hour this results in a fall time of 5 minutes or so.Arydberg (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Equilibrium velocity for any given altitude varies. For 35,000 feet the air is much thinner and humans fall much faster. What you are saying is incorrect, if disintegration is not a factor, consider that most aircraft have a fractional thrust to weight ratio. The A330 had a weight of about 400,000 lbs and a thrust of 140000 lbs, and at 35000 feet the maximum thrust is much less than that and yet the AC was traveling at GS 540KT, IOW if you pointed the AC nose down with engines at cruise throttle, that AC will accelerate down to the ocean and the only thing that would stop it would be its own violent disintegration. What impinges speed is the coefficient of drag, for commercial jets the coefficient of drag is lower than a human body.PB666 ^yap

• I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and wants all facts to be “verified” but how do you separate true facts from those being pedaled by people with an agenda. Somehow the “facts” presented need to make sense. There seems to be a lot of areas of omission and suggestion in the facts presented. Why do some reports on the bodies say all clothes were blown off and other reports say nothing. Whether it is true or not it should be reported. Pitot tubes and static ports have been on aircraft almost since day one. Are they really the cause. Don’t forget that with the computers this plane carried an old fashioned manual airspeed indicator for emergencies.Arydberg (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here are the facts:

During this press conference, the few validated facts available at this time were set out and detailed. The airplane was in cruise at flight level 350 (about 10,500 metres). No messages indicating problems were received on the air traffic control radio frequencies. Close to the planned route of the airplane above the Atlantic there were significant convective cells characteristic of the equatorial regions. The last position message from the airplane was broadcast by the ACARS automatic system at 2 h 10 UTC. Between 2 h 10 and 2 h 14 UTC, 24 maintenance messages were transmitted by the ACARS, including 14 between 2 h 10 and 2 h 11. Analysis of these messages shows inconsistencies between the various speeds measured. Most of the messages appear to result from these inconsistencies; they correspond to the loss of several flight assistance systems. 49 bodies were recovered between 6 and 11 June 2009.Press releases-Flight AF 447 on 01 june 2009 press release 17/06/2009

Everything else, based on the precedences of what the news has said and what later proved to be supportable, is mostly hype.PB666 ^yap 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Debris comparison with other crashes at sea

This section has undergone a major expansion. Other than numerous punctuation errors, there are many unreferenced statements. The pertinence to the article is not clear, and no media sources have connected the other flights to the crash of AF 447.PB666 ^yap

I think the section should be removed as a whole until a reliable source actually draws a factual comparison. As is, it just fuels speculation and just seems wholly irrelevant.Danie.brink (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All the other crashes listed (except for the Shuttle) are either the result of an explosion caused by a bomb, explosives or a missile or suspected of being the result of such an external cause - there is no evidence of any kind that suggests that the crash of Flight 447 had such a cause. I don't see how simply being things that flew that eventually ended up in the sea makes them relevant to the article.Danie.brink (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with delete. Irrelevant, unhelpful, tends to sensationalism and poorly referenced. Ex nihil (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this section? It seems to just be a list of other crashes at sea providing no insight into the crash of Air France flight 447 - there is certainly no comparison made between the various crashes that are listed. I don't see anything that would be relevant to this article. Danie.brink (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this section is border line POV, it is nothing more than a list of crashes, and even if there was any link between them all, it would be nothing more than a speculation as we don't know what happened to the AF flight.

I think the entire section should be removed, it adds nothing to the article. FFMG (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

'Tis done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)