French Investigator “claims” AF-447 did not come apart in flight

Posted on 02. Jul, 2009 by in Featured

Bouillard said there was “no information” suggesting a need to ground the world’s fleet of more than six hundred A330 planes as a result of the crash.

“As far as I’m concerned there’s no problem flying these aircraft,” he said.

Based on what data? There are 36 documented “anomalies” with the A-330/340 fly-by-wire system.

A few questions:

  1. Why did the aircraft suddenly lose pressurization?
  2. How do they know this: radar hits, recovered wreckage?
  3. Why is the debris field fifty miles long?
  4. Why was the vertical stabilizer (tail/rudder) found intact, with no impact damage on the leading edge?
  5. AF 447 LE tail

  6. Why was the tail assembly found so far apart from the main field of wreckage?
  7. Where the vertical stabilizers attach points sheared by a side load (Beta Q) or a front load (VMAX), there certainly is no evidence of impact separation due to zero leading edge damage?
  8. Why were the bodies found intact (high speed impacts do not allow for this)?
  9. Why did the bodies have flail injuries consistent with high speed fighter-type ejections?
  10. Why were the bodies disrobed, again consistent with high speed ejection?
  11. Why were there two separate groups of bodies?
  12. Why did 12 other aircraft depart near the same time, fly the same area and report no severe weather problems?
  13. Why did the last two incidents similar to AF-447 not break up?
  14. Why was a galley found intact, including meals still in drawers?
  15. galley

  16. If the pilots fought for control for 35,000 feet (7 miles), and the aircraft was still intact, why no Mayday call?

Bouillard said the plane “was not destroyed in flight” and appeared to have hit “belly first,” gathering speed as it dropped thousands of feet through the air.

This statement defies not only the laws of aerodynamics but also physics. For an intact aircraft to pick up speed in a descent, it must be nose down. It could flat spin in belly first; however, to spin an aircraft must be slow, not fast and getting faster. It cannot hit flat on its belly at high speed, unless it broke apart, falling like a stone, not an aircraft.

Perhaps there was a translation problem; the statement simply does not make sense.

No Responses to “French Investigator “claims” AF-447 did not come apart in flight”

  1. Rick 2 July 2009 at 11:06 #

    I agree with you 1000%. I see something perhaps sinister here. France has a huge stake in Airbus. I imagine the last thing they want is for all of these aircraft to be grounded…not to mention that are they perhaps trying to deflect lawsuits?! I don’t think these French passenger groups are going to let them get away with this.

  2. Chip 2 July 2009 at 11:20 #

    I agree this is going to get ugly. They are now waaaayyyy out on a limb! Two more incidents since AF-447; if they loose one now, well, lets just say it won’t be pretty.

    They have, In My Opinion, painted themselves into a corner. what will the press/airlines/FAA/etc. say if they suddenly release an emergency airworthiness directive?

  3. Rick 2 July 2009 at 11:30 #

    Also, it is well known that impact on water at high speed might as well be impact on concrete. There’s no way that vertical stabilizer, the galley, and the bodies aren’t shredded on impact. Any competent lawyer would have a field day with this guys statements today.

  4. Chip 2 July 2009 at 11:39 #

    Yes; and they now have a low speed belly impact to compare it to. the Yemenia flight, the corner is getting tighter!

  5. Rick 2 July 2009 at 11:47 #

    I’m just going to speculate here, but I think that Brazil itself has demonstrated over and over again it’s strong aviation competency. They will likely have to conduct their own investigation and reach their own conclusions at some point that will be radically different than Bouillard’s.

  6. Chip 2 July 2009 at 13:46 #

    Unfortunately in the recent past they let politics influence an accident, the Legends Air mid-air. The NTSB took an extremely rare step, actually rebuking the official investigation. I think that many people are quietly hoping those FDRs are not found.

  7. ubergeek 3 July 2009 at 00:41 #

    Read Michael Crichton’s book “Airframe” for a better understanding of what factors in an accident investigation contribute to such nonsensical statements by accident investigators. It is laughable how the major media ran, uncritically, with this story today.

  8. Chip 3 July 2009 at 23:20 #

    I learned while on active duty in the Navy that the press was both lazy and very, very, gullible. I was in the Gulf when clinton wagged the gog. I flew over Bosnia watching the death/destruction every night while NATO command reported to the press “all was calm”. I believe 10% of what I hear and 50% of what I see.

  9. Chip 3 July 2009 at 23:20 #

    should read wag the Dog not gog.

  10. Frank 5 July 2009 at 05:04 #

    Surely this must be a translation problem; that they may have found some wreckage that suggests that at least part of the aircraft hit the sea intact, belly down, would never be interpretted by an experienced investigator as implying that the whole aircraft struck the sea in this manner. As has been stated already there is plenty of evidence suggesting that part of the aircraft did break open in flight.

  11. Chip 5 July 2009 at 14:36 #

    I would hope so however, he also claimed French authorities had not seen the autopsies. An un-named Brazilian authority denied that, saying french Dr.s were working side by side w/Brazilian. We will see.

  12. Neil 10 July 2009 at 15:04 #

    What on Earth is going on here?
    It appears that Flight AF 447 was in a rapid climb but still hit the sea belly first.
    How far away is the Bermuda Triangle?
    We are hearing stories about AF 447 that I used to hear that happened in The Bermuda Triangle.
    I am convinced the authorities are hiding something big with this one.

  13. Chip 12 July 2009 at 10:51 #

    The reference to climb is the altitude of the cabin. In summary the cabin is kept at 8,000 feet pressure altitude. The ACARs warning was that the cabin altitude was rapidly climbing. The aircraft coming apart could have caused this and many believe it is evidence of an in flight break up.

    The french investigator commenting that the aircraft; a. stayed intact, b. accelerated in the desent and c. hit near vertically on the belly is impossible. I agree with your last statement.

Leave a Reply