Tutto sull'aviazione civile

[Dodicicilindri]

Qualche dettaglio più preciso:

Brazilian ministry details last track of missing Air France A330

By David Kaminski-Morrow

Brazil's defence ministry has detailed the last known track of the missing Air France Airbus A330-200, and indicated that the jet may have reported a pressurisation problem as well as an electrical fault.

Flight AF447 had been en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris Charles de Gaulle with 228 occupants when it disappeared.

At 22:33 Brasilia local time, says the ministry, the aircraft made final radio contact with the eastern Brazilian Cindacta-3 Atlantic area control centre at Recife, one of four en route centres that oversee Brazilian airspace.

The aircraft contacted Cindacta-3 at the INTOL waypoint, some 350nm (565km) from Natal, a city on the Brazilian coast. It indicated that it would enter Dakar airspace, Senegal, at the TASIL waypoint - about 663nm (1,228km) from Natal just under 50min later, at 23:20 Brasilia time.

AF447 left Cindacta-3 radar surveillance from the island of Fernando de Noronha, at 22:48. At this time it was cruising at 35,000ft at 453kt, says the defence ministry, with indications that the flight was "normal".

The aircraft did not contact air traffic control around the time of the expected transit of TASIL.

The ministry says that Air France has informed Cindacta-3 that, about 54nm (100km) from TASIL the flight transmitted a technical message concerning loss of pressurisation and an electrical failure.

Brazilian Air Force rescue teams from Recife initiated a search at 02:30 Brasilia time, involving a Lockheed C-130 Hercules and Embraer P-95 Bandeirante.

Learmount: Missing Air France A330

Map: Search and rescue area

Profile: Air France

Profile: Airbus A330

AirSpace discussion: Air France aircraft from Brazil to France disappears

fonte:flightglobal.com

Quindi c'è stato anche un problema di depressurizzazione oltre a quello all'elettronica.

(ANSA) - ROMA, 1 GIU - «Nella storia dell’aviazione non c’è mai stato un fulmine tanto forte da

distruggere un aereo come l’Airbus dell’Air France sparito tra Rio de Janeiro e Parigi». Questo il

giudizio di Sandro Raccanelli, uno dei più esperti piloti dell’Alitalia sulle rotte sudamericane, ora in

pensione.

«L’ipotesi del fulmine è molto improbabile - dice Raccanelli raggiunto telefonicamente dall’Ansa -.

Valgono di più le ipotesi di un cedimento strutturale o di una bomba».

Per il cedimento strutturale si può fare riferimento alla comunicazione di turbolenze, trasmessa dai

piloti poco prima che l’aereo scomparisse dai radar? «C’è sempre stato in quella zona un forte fronte

intertropicale - ha precisato l’ex pilota Alitalia -. Avvisare per radio sulle turbolenze è una comunicazione

normale, che facciamo più che altro per informare gli aerei che seguono nella stessa zona». A cavallo

dell’equatore ci possono essere turbolenze anche forti, «ma mi pare difficile che possano portare ad un

cedimento strutturale improvviso. Mi sembra molto improbabile con un aereo collaudato come l’Airbus

330».

«La cosa strana - conclude Raccanelli - è che i piloti non hanno neppure avuto il tempo di trasmettere il

’mayday’. È strano anche se in mezzo all’Atlantico c’è un’area dalle comunicazioni difficoltose. Io non

scarterei affatto l’ipotesi della bomba». (ANSA).

PLU 01-GIU-09 18:42 NNN

Modificato 1 Giugno 2009 da Dodicicilindri

[Dodicicilindri]

PARIGI - Con approssimazione di qualche decina di miglia nautiche e' stata localizzata la zona tra Rio de Janeiro e Parigi dove questa mattina e' scomparso l'Airbus A330 dell'Air France con a bordo 216 passeggeri. Lo ha comunicato il direttore generale della compagnia francese, Pierre-Henry Courgeon. (Agr)

Agr dice: RIO DE JANEIRO - Alcuni sms sarebbero partiti dai cellulari dei passeggeri dell'Airbus dell'Air France scomparso sull'Atlantico. Lo dice il sito del quotidiano portoghese Jornal de Noticias. I messaggi come "ti amo" e "ho paura" sarebbero giunti ad alcuni parenti quando l'aereo si sarebbe dovuto trovare nel raggio delle antenne di trasmissione dell'Isola del Sale a Capo Verde. L'Airbus, pero', non e' mai entrato in contatto radar o radio con il controllo aereo di Capo Verde. (Agr)

Questa storia degli SMS mi sembra inverosimile, ma l'ha battuta l'agr, quindi prendiamola per buona.

Modificato 1 Giugno 2009 da Dodicicilindri

[Autodelta85]

IMHO iniziano a girare troppe voci discordanti e ci sono troppi lati oscuri.

Insomma non è il primo aereo che cade in emzzo all'Atlantico eppure qui qualcuno parla di missile,poi di errore di elettronica,poi c'è la smentita,poi la depressurizzazione e infine questa storia degli sms che salta fuori qualcosa come 18h ore la tragedia...senza contare poi il fatto che le "preoccupazioni" per la scomaprsa dai radar sono avvenute verso le 12 ore francesi quando l'aereo è sparito tra le 3 e le 4 di notte e in un mondo post 11 Settembre dubito che gli aerei possano sparire facilemnte dai radar.

Insomma a me iniziano a puzzare troppe cose

[Dodicicilindri]

In effetti è così, sembra che non sappiano neppure loro che versione dare. Chissà cosa è veramente accaduto, e se lo sapremo mai.

Tra l'altro ieri subito dopo questo volo son decollati per la stessa rotta (per CDG) un 747 AF e un A332 TAM, e nessuno ha avuto problemi di turbolenze o cose simili.

Qui qualcosa non quadra

[Autodelta85]

In effetti è così, sembra che non sappiano neppure loro che versione dare. Chissà cosa è veramente accaduto, e se lo sapremo mai.

Tra l'altro ieri subito dopo questo volo son decollati per la stessa rotta (per CDG) un 747 AF e un A332 TAM, e nessuno ha avuto problemi di turbolenze o cose simili.

Qui qualcosa non quadra

Ricordo infatti che a bordo c'erano diversi dirigenti di imortanti multinazionali non vorrei pensare male ma a volte ci si azzecca

Stasera ho sentito alcune interviste a piloti AZ con ore di volo su quella rotta (anche il nostro amico Berti che si bullava ai microfoni dicendo che ora vola regolarmente tutti i mesi anzichè fare il sindacalista ) e tutti concordavano nel dire che le rotte equatoriali sono le più "stronze" con questi cumulonembi alti fino a 18.000m non e molto estesi impossibili da aggirare se non con grosse variazioni di rotta.

Per fortuna però che la tempesta dal satellite c'era ed è ben visibile (seppure molto localizzata) se no iniziavo a pensare che il triangolo delle Bermuda si sia spostato qualche km a sud

[Dodicicilindri]

Anche oggi notizie confuse e frammentarie. Sembra che i resti dell'aereo siano stati avvistati da una nave francese nelle acque territoriali senegalesi, ma è tutto ancora nebuloso.

Intanto cito da airliners.net questa testimonianza:

As I mentioned yesterday, a bunch of us at my university returned from Rio to Barcelona on that night. Two flew on AF443 which left GIG for CDG three hours before AF447, I was on TP178, GIG-LIS, which left around an hour before AF447, another one was on IB6024, GIG-MAD, which left 15 minutes after AF447. None of us experienced more than light (maybe moderate at times) turbulence during the flight. So if there was a line of nasty thunderstorms, it was avoidable.

Altri aggiornamenti (che smentiscono la pista del Senegal):

Breaking news: Brazilian Air Force spots oil leak and debris 720km off Fernando de Noronha. It is now confirmed by Brazilian media and headlines in Brazilian news agencies.

The position is near the archipelago of São Paulo e São Pedro and coincides with the report of TAM pilot as the place where he has seen something "orange"

Ancora:

Dal sito ANSA

Rottura del finestrino in cabina possibile causa

ROMA - Soltanto un evento "improvviso e dirompente" che abbia messo fuori combattimento nello stesso istante i due piloti - come la rottura di un finestrino in cabina - può spiegare la sciagura dell'Airbus Air France AF447 partito da Rio de Janeiro e diretto a Parigi. E' quanto ha detto all'ANSA un esperto aeronautico italiano residente in Turchia che ha chiesto l'anonimato. Secondo l'esperto - un ex controllore di volo - "é impossibile che l'aereo dalla quota di crociera di 35.000 piedi (12.000 metri) sia precipitato in mare senza che i due piloti abbiano avuto la possibilità di intervenire per risolvere una qualsivoglia avaria.

Da 35.000 piedi fino all'impatto con l'acqua, infatti, considerando una caduta in picchiata ad una media di 5.000 piedi (1.500 metri) al minuto, occorrono almeno sette minuti in caduta libera per arrivare a terra". "In sette minuti - sostiene l'esperto - i piloti avrebbero avuto tutto il tempo di comunicare la propria posizione agli enti di controllo del traffico aereo. In questi casi, infatti, i piloti sanno benissimo che la notifica della posizione è la prima e più importante cosa da fare per dare la possibilità ai soccorritori di individuare il relitto specialmente lungo le rotte oceaniche dal Sud America che non sono seguite da stazioni radar. Inoltre, l'ipotesi di un mancato invio via radio di un mayday (richiesta di soccorso) a causa di un'avaria radio è da escludere data la tecnologia moderna che prevede sistemi ridondanti".

"Deve essere successo quindi qualcosadi dirompente ed improvviso - prosegue l'ex controllore di volo- che abbia messo fuori uso i due piloti contemporaneamente. Escludendo altre ipotesi, ed escludendo il fatto che entrambiabbiano potuto avere contemporaneamente un malore, possiamo avvalorare l'ipotesi che i due piloti siano svenuti a causadell'improvvisa mancanza di ossigeno causata dalla rottura di unfinestrino in cabina di pilotaggio che ha provocato unadepressurizzazione immediata ed esplosiva. Le maschere adossigeno sono scese automaticamente ma i piloti avevano ormaiperso conoscenza".

"L'aereo, obiettano alcuni esperti, avrebbe potutocontinuare a volare con il pilota automatico, ma a mio parere -sostiene l'ex controllore di volo -, nel momento della rotturadel finestrino, il pilota automatico era disinserito perchéstavano volando manualmente, sia perché stavano cercando dievitare una forte perturbazione sia perché spesso in turbolenzesevere si ricorre al pilotaggio manuale per gestire evenienzeinattese. L'aereo, quindi - conclude l'esperto italiano -,sarebbe precipitato immediatamente proprio perché era inpilotaggio manuale ed i piloti erano svenuti".

Modificato 2 Giugno 2009 da Dodicicilindri

[Dodicicilindri]

Aereo sparito: trovati dei rottami

Sono in ampia area oceano a 650 km da isola Fernando de Noronha

(ANSA) - RIO DE JANEIRO, 2 GIU - L'Aeronautica brasiliana ha annunciato il ritrovamento di rottami in Atlantico: potrebbero essere dell'Airbus Air France scomparso. Il ritrovamento e' avvenuto a circa 650 km dall'isola di Fernando de Noronha. Avvistati 'una poltroncina, alcuni rottami bianchi, macchie d'olio e cherosene'. Secondo un militare, i detriti potrebbero avere 'i numeri di serie necessari per identificare' l'aereo scomparso ieri. 'I pezzi sono ad una distanza di 60 km l'uno dall'altro'.

[Dodicicilindri]

Il ministro francese della Difesa: «Ricerche fino a quando sarà necessario»

Aereo scomparso: avvistati alcuni resti

Un sedile, un giubbotto e tracce di carburante. «Nessun elemento fa pensare a un atto di terrorismo»

PARIGI - Un sedile di aereo, un giubbotto di salvataggio arancione, un recipiente, pezzi metallici bianche e macchie di carburante sono stati avvistati nel primo pomeriggio dall'Aeronautica brasiliana nell'oceano Atlantico a 650 km a nord-est dall'isola brasiliana di Fernando da Noronha. I ritrovamenti sono avvenuti in un'area vasta almeno 60 km. Jorge Amaral, portavoce dell'aviazione brasiliana, ha lanciato anche un'ipotesi, sottolineando che deve essere ancora suffragata dai fatti: «I detriti sono stati rinvenuti a destra del punto in cui è stato lanciato l'ultimo segnale dall'aereo. Forse, ma è solo un'ipotesi, il pilota ha cercato di invertire la rotta per provare a raggiungere lo scalo più vicino, sull'isola Fernando da Noronha». Non è sicuro che i detriti appartengano al velivolo dell'Air France finché non sarà accertato il loro numero di matricola. La prima nave da soccorso raggiungerà l'area del ritrovamento non prima di mercoledì.

corriere.it

[Dodicicilindri]

Aggiorno un po' la situazione relativa alla tragedia del volo AF447.

E' ancora tutto molto nebuloso e incerto, le dichiarazioni sono contraddittorie, adddirittura non si sa più se l'aereo l'abbiano trovato o meno.

Comunque, da airliners.net quoto questa lista di cose possibili che possono essere avvenute. E' molto interessante. Non chiedetemi però di farne una traduzione.

This is the third version of my list of speculated causes of the accident. Please contribute by adding theories, evidence, or suggesting revisions to the conclusions for existing ones. And I would like to thank everyone who has posted speculations, evidence, and arguments in these threads. The information below is entirely based on your input.

For currently known facts about the accident, please see the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

A. Terrorism or other malicious use of explosives

A bomb explodes in the cargo hold, crippling the aircraft's control systems or starting a structural break-up that eventually leads to loss of control.

Supportive evidence: According to Wikipedia, a bomb threat had been made on an earlier flight. Lack of communications from the flight crew indicates either a sudden event or something which lead to significant problems that the crew had to focus on. This would be consistent with the effects of a bomb. The automatic messages about computer system failures sent by the aircraft could be interpreted either as indications that the aircraft's movements have exceeded the limits that the systems can handle, or as indications about direct damage to the systems. A flash of light has been seen by other aircraft in the area.

Evidence against: While terrorist organizations exist both in France and Brazil, there has been no recent activity. No organization has claimed responsibility for the act. There is no specific evidence about a bomb. Nothing is known about any individuals or organizations who would have non-terrorism related reasons for malicious acts. It seems too big of a coincidence that a bomb would go off at the same time as the aircraft flies through very rough weather. Finally, what we know about the sequence of ACARS messages indicates that loss of cabin pressure was the last message in the sequence. This appears to rule out an explosion, unless it was contained in the hull and only damaged internal structures and components. This seems unlikely. The flash of light was apparently seen from too far to be caused by AF 447 related problems.

Open questions: Where are the cargo holds that are used to carry the passengers' luggage? Are they physically close to the computer and navigation systems that ACARS messages reported as failing? And obviously, physical evidence would be useful.

Verdict: Can most likely be ruled out

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#cite_note-58 A flash of white light has been reported by other aircraft in the area: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/0...orld/international_us_france_plane Distance calculation for the flash of light and AF 447 was in Pihero's post in thread 9: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4435136

B. Explosion or other rapid, harmful reaction from the cargo

The sequence of events is as in the terrorism theory.

Supportive evidence: The sequence of events fits this theory, as it does the terrorism theory. The cargo might have shifted at the time of turbulence, initiating the reaction.

Evidence against: See the evidence regarding the malicious use of explosives. In addition, there is no information that the cargo could have contained something harmful.

Open questions: More information is needed about what was in the cargo, and who cargo was taken from.

Verdict: Can most likely be ruled out

C. Fire

Fire starts in cargo hold, in systems, or somewhere else in the aircraft. Eventually the fire either disables a sufficient number of aircraft systems leading to a loss of control, or incapacitates the crew.

Supportive evidence: Systems turning themselves off one by one could be caused by fire. Cabin pressure warning might have been generated through the crew's actions to let the air out of the cabin in an effort to put out the fire. The location of the debris indicates that the crew might have turned back in an effort to get to the nearest airport (but it has now become uncertain if any debris has actually been found). The long duration of the ACARS messaging (4 minutes) seems to indicate a slowly progressing event like fire, as opposed to sudden event like a bomb or structural failure. The fire might have been initiated when the aircraft hit heave turbulence 10 minutes before the problems began.

Evidence against: It seems unlikely that the fire could have spread fast enough that the crew would not have notified air traffic control. Why would fire happen exactly at the same time as the aircraft flies through extreme weather? Wouldn't a cargo hold fire lead to an ACARS message?

Open questions: More information is needed about the ACARS messages and whether they could have been caused by fire.

Verdict: Possible, but there are several open questions

D. Weather

D1. Turbulence

Turbulence breaks up the plane, or causes it to enter an uncontrollable dive.

Supportive evidence: Very high winds and turbulence were detected in the area. Tim Vasquez's analysis indicates that there were strong updrafts in the exact area that the flight was expected to fly through. The crew manually sent a report of turbulence 10 minutes before the accident.

Evidence against: other flights in the same time frame and route did not encounter significant turbulence.

Verdict: Possible, but there are several unexplained questions. In particular, why was only AF 447 affected? Or did several issues contribute to the outcome, along with turbulence?

References: Tim Vasquez's analysis: http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ AP reports that the pilots sent a report about turbulence and timing of the various events: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...CJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

D2. Lightning

Lightning hits the aircraft and causes either structural or systems damage.

Evidence against: Tim Vasquez's analysis speaks against this.

Verdict: Unlikely, by itself

D3. Hail

Hail hits the aircraft and causes either structural damage, shuts the engines down, or breaks cockpit windows and incapacitates the crew.

Supportive evidence: There has been rumors about ACARS icing messages.

Evidence against: Tim Vasquez's analysis speaks against the occurrence of significant hail. Unless the crew was incapacitated, mere engine shutdown would have lead to the crew contacting the air traffic control. What we know about the sequence of ACARS messages indicates that the cabin pressure loss happened last, which speaks against the accident beginning with the breakage of the cockpit windows.

Open questions: The sequence of ACARS messages needs to be known in more detail.

Verdict: Unlikely

D4. Ice

Icing causes the aircraft to lose its flying capabilities.

Supportive evidence: See the evidence for the hail theory.

Evidence against: Tim Vasquez's analysis speaks against the existence of supercooled water at the flight level and conditions that the aircraft was flying through.

Verdict: Unlikely

D5. Sensor icing

Speed or other sensors are iced over or malfunction in some other way, leading to the computers or pilots taking incorrect action, causing the aircraft to stall and/or break up.

Supportive evidence: There are rumors of icing-related ACARS messages.

Evidence against: Normally the sensors (such as the pitot tubes) are heated. Icing should not affect them, unless the crew failed to turn the heating on, particularly severe icing conditions existed in the strom cell that they flew through, or hail hit the sensors. Also, Tim Vasquez's analysis speaks against the existence of suitable icing or hail conditions.

Open questions: More data is needed about the actual ACARS message sent by the aircraft.

Verdict: Unlikely

References: BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8083474.stm

E. Systems malfunction

A repeat of the Qantas incident: ADIRU failures cause the aircraft control systems to believe that a steep dive and/or nose-up is needed, leading to a loss of control and/or aircraft break-up.

Supportive evidence: See GlobeEx's posts.

Evidence against: It seems unlikely that the crew would have been unable to control the situation at FL35, when crews in the previous incidents were able to regain control with the loss of few hundred feet of altitude. There are some reports that AF uses ADIRUs from a different manufacturer. The long duration (4 minutes) of the automatic messaging speaks against a very sudden event.

Open questions: At this point, we do not yet know if AF used the same manufacturer's ADIRU (Litton) as was involved in the Qantas incident. Rumors indicate that the equipment comes from a different manufacturer, namely Honeywell. No previous incident is known on a Honeywell ADIRU.

Verdict: Unlikely, though more information is needed. Perhaps combined with a pilot error and the effects of the bad weather this theory is more likely, e.g., maybe the recovery was not executed in time.

References: GlobeEx's post, reply 71 in part 8 of the a.net thread: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4433331 and reply 129 in part 9 http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4435136 The Qantas incident is described in http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008070_interim.pdf Qantas downplays the link http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...tory/0,25197,25579625-2702,00.html

F. Collision

Collision with another flying object such as aircraft or meteor.

Supportive evidence: This could cause similar effects as a bomb, so in some sense it fits the sequence of events. A flash of light was seen, which might also be from a meteor

Evidence against: There is no known collision with another aircraft. Meteor collision is extremely improbable. The flash of light was apparently seen from too far to be caused by AF 447 related problems.

Verdict: Very, very unlikely

References: White flash of light: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/0...orld/international_us_france_plane

G. Fuel tank explosion

A TWA800 -like event.

Supportive evidence: Fuel tank explosion, like other explosions, would fit the sequence of events observed through ACARS and lack of a mayday message from the crew.

Evidence against: By this time, the center fuel tank would have been very cold. TWA800 accident required a warm fuel tank for the vapors to develop in suitable quantity.

Verdict: Can be ruled out.

H. Explosive decompression

A cargo door or other part departs the aircraft, leading to an explosive decompression.

Supportive evidence: ACARS message about cabin pressure.

Evidence against: The sequence of messages is wrong, as cabin pressure drop was not the first one.

Verdict: Can be ruled out

I. Crew error

I1. Flying into severe weather

The crew flies directly into the most severe part of the storm

Supportive evidence: Tim Vasquez's analysis of the weather system indicates that it would have been very hard for AF447 to avoid the weather system alltogether, but there is no evidence to suggest that they flew directly into the worst part.

Open questions: Exact flight path is needed.

Verdict: They did fly into the weather, but it is unknown if this was avoidable or if they flew to the worst part. Note that in combination with another problem, such as radar failure the likelihood of this theory would be much higher.

References: Assumed flight path from the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8082241.stm Tim Vasquez's analysis http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/

I2. Flying too high

Trying to fly over the weather system and exceeding limits of the aircraft, leading to a "coffin corner" situation and an unrecoverable stall.

Supportive evidence: None, except perhaps the diffult and hard-to-avoid weather system. Tim Vasquez's analysis points to very high updrafts, which might have contributed to an involuntary gain in elevation.

Open questions: Additional information about the aircraft's altitude is needed.

Verdict: Unlikely, it is very hard to believe that an experienced crew would on purpose violate the aircraft's limits

I3. Excessive corrective action

The crew over-corrects the effects of turbulence or high wind in a manner similar to AA587.

Supportive evidence: This might have lead to separation of control surfaces, which in turn might have lead to autopilot and other control systems giving up. The sequence of ACARS messages might match this situation.

Evidence against: A330 is a fly-by-wire aircraft which may not allow excessive control input. On the other hand, the first ACARS message received indicated disengaging the autopilot and the control systems entering the alternate law mode. This mode has less protection against exceeding the safe flight envelope.

Open questions: More information is needed about the exact ACARS messages and in what conditions they will be sent. More information is needed about the effects of excessive control inputs in the A330 fly-by-wire system.

Verdict: Very unlikely, unless something else happened, disabling the autopilot and then the crew accidentally exceeded the structural limits of the aircraft.

J. Prior damage from a ground collision

The aircraft in question collided in 2006 with an Airbus A321 aircraft. An undetected problem in the wing of the A330 might have stayed dormant until the airframe was stressed in severe turbulence.

Supportive evidence:

Evidence against: The maintenance procedures for inspecting and correcting collision damage are quite extensive, and it is hard to image something was missed.

Verdict: Unlikely

References: http://www.jacdec.de/news/years/ALL2006.txt

K. Combination of factors

K1. Systems failure and crew error

A systems failure initiates an event and the crew fails to respond properly or in time. For instance, a radar failure might lead to the crew flying blind into the worst part of the weather. Or disengaging the autopilot or Airbus flight envelope protection leads the crew to overstressing the airframe.

Supportive evidence: There is no strong evidence of any single event that is know to bring down the airplane. There is evidence of some of the control systems (autopilot, ADIRU) shutting down. While these events should be recoverable, it is easy to imagine a crew error that exacerbates the situation, particularly in bad weather.

Evidence against: There is no information about any errors by the crew. Many of the systems, such as the radar electronics, have backups, and are not expected to completely fail.

Open questions: CVR and FDR are needed to find out more.

Verdict: Possible

K2. External event and crew error

Icing, turbulence, lightning or lightning causes an upset, and the crew reacts in an inappropriate manner or fails to recover in time. Or, alternatively the crew makes an error in setting the proper speed for the type of weather (turbulence, updrafts) which later leads to a stall or a spin.

Supportive evidence: There is no strong evidence of any single event that is know to bring down the airplane. There is evidence of conditions that are potentially harmful (like turbulence), but that are known to be experienced by a large number of aircraft, so its not clear why these events alone would have caused the accident. But it is easy to imagine a combination of two problems, or one problem and a crew error to lead to a disaster.

Evidence against: There is no information about any errors by the crew.

Verdict: Possible

Open questions: Again, CVR and FDR are needed.

References: Incorrect speed has been mentioned in the press as a possible cause of the accident: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/0...orld/international_us_france_plane

K3. External event leading to fire

Turbulence rocks the plane, leading to a short circuit and fire. Lightning hits the plane and causes a fire. The fire eventually spreads to the whole aircraft.

Supportive evidence: The crew reported turbulence, and at least turbulence and maybe even lightning is known to exist in the area. For the other evidence, see the fire theory.

Evidence against: See the evidence regarding fire; it is odd that no ACARS or crew message would have been received from a slowly progressing event such as fire in the cargo hold.

Open questions: Again, CVR and FDR are needed.

Verdict: Possible, but there are open questions

[GTI 150 97]

Non ho capito un'H ma il fatto strano e che non è affiorato nulla in superficie, neanche un giubetto di salvataggio, non credo sia sprofondato tutto intero, cavolo infondo i soccorsi sono arrivati il giorno dopo, e poi possibile che a bordo non ci fosse un trasmettitore satellitare per le comunicazione di emergenza? Volano ancora con segnale radio HF? Mi sembra tutto molto strano.