Air France Plane Drops Off Radar Over Atlantic

[jackdanielsesq]

This one works - for now

BR>Jack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_...0157/html/1.stm

[jackdanielsesq]

The more one reads of aircraft crash causes, the more one realizes the paradigm 'catastrophic sequence of events' has much more added input to the real cause & effect on modern technology. Gone are the days when the John Wayne's of the world wrestled the yoke and they safely land on some tropical island where all lived happily ever-after, sipping on ripened coconut milk.

These days, George does all the heavy lifting and the flight deck has little input. Thats were they paying attention, and were the PIC even on the flight deck. This is perhaps, one of the many scenarios, that might have put them in harms way from the get-go. Thereafter it is all downhill. Often its the benign - the seemingly innocent event, that is indeed the catalyst. That the craft had managed to get itself into harms way is of course the $64,000 question?

Were the weather that inclement, the crew would have paid it a lot more attention. By at least 12 other accounts, it was not. Perhaps its these boring long-hauls that do it. Everybody chills. ACARS sent 4 minutes worth of messages - one would believe the cockpit must have lit up like an Xmas tree - prior to - and that they must have attempted some serious damage control, prior to. But, this is all much too late as the 'damage' had already been done - the AP was off - according to ACARS - so was the crew still unaware or not capable of restoring manual control?

Pilot error is so often to blame, but perhaps it is indeed time for computer systems to accept some responsibility. If not all.

Did this craft simply fly itself into a hole?

Where no amount of human intervention could rescue it?

Did the software totally override all manual inputs?

Was it already shutting down and rebooting?

Surely their GPS does interface with the onboard nav system?

On balance it would appear that both Airbus & Air France have a massive homicide lawsuit pending.

BR>Jack

[Datsun240Z]

I think we just have to wait for some more debris and recording boxes found on the ocean floor, which maybe investigators can flind a clue on.

[isanb]

" Amen, Brother

BR>Jack

I shudder every time I step foot on those Airbus tin cans.

Inferior product in all phases of air worthiness."

"A specialist from Pratt and Whitney will also join the committee ( engines on this bird are US made, there is a RollsRoyce version too) as well as an expert from Honeywell US (the manufacturer of the fly by wire components/system on this plane, there is an Northtrop Grumman version too)."

If i understand some people try to explain that airbus are not safe plane. But is it just because airbus is not an american company ?

I saw the list of the previous Airbus disaster that jack put in a post to explain why airbus is not safe.

Could you please jack edit also a list of Boeing previous disaster ? It will allow us to compare (even if i think this kind of list mean nothing).

Previous Airbus disasters

* August 2000: Gulf Air A320 crashed in Gulf off Bahrain

* January 2000: 169 killed when A310 crashed off Ivory Coast.

* February 1998: 197 killed when A300 crashed in Taiwan.

* September 1997: 234 killed when A300 crashed in Indonesia.

* July 1994: Seven killed when A330 crashed in Toulouse, France, when crew were testing simulated engine failure

* April 1994: 259 killed when A300 crashed in Japan.

* March 1994: 75 killed when A310 crashed in Siberia.

* September 1992: 167 killed when A300 crashed in Kathmandu, Nepal.

* July 1992: 113 killed when A310 crashed in Kathmandu.

* January 1992: 87 killed when A320 crashed in Strasbourg.

* February 1990: 90 killed when A320 crashed in Bangalore.

* June 1988: Eight killed when A320 crashed in Habersheim.

If they discover at the end that was a bomb i can't wait to see how they are going to explain why it would have been safer in a boeing.

As far as i know safety matters are the same for airbus and boeing but shit happen everywhere.

[Datsun240Z]

I still go with the bom theory

[Carib]

I still go with the bom theory

Not sure about that, I think if it had been a bomb some idiot, or group would have claimed it by now.

[isanb]

I still go with the bom theory

Not sure about that, I think if it had been a bomb some idiot, or group would have claimed it by now.

not always

And the brazilian gvt will not talk about that = lack of security in the aiport as for the french gvt they will certainly not talk about that 2 days before the european election.

as for me i still don't understand why the pilot or the 1 officer have no time to send a message if it's something else than a explosion ?

Edited June 9, 2009 by isanb

[bdenner]

The blocked pitot tube theory has some predecessors.

Here are 4 examples of TOTAL LOSS accidents involving blocked ‘pitot tubes’ or taped over ‘static vents’ causing the pilots to react incorrectly to the situation in most cases reducing the throttle settings ignoring stall warnings and other indicators like the artificial horizon :-

1994 North West B727 Iced over Pitot Tube

1996 Birgenair B757 Wasp nest in the Captains Pitot Tube (both pilots chose to ignore the co pilots ASI which was correct).

1997 Austral Lineas Aeras DC 9 Iced over Pitot Tube

1996 Aeroperu B757 Mechanic failed to remove masking tape placed over the static vents during cleaning.

All 4 gave the pilots false ‘Overspeed’ reports.

Surely pilots these days are given extensive flight simulation training to cover these events. They must know where the normal throttle settings are in a given flight situation WHY keep pulling the throttles back when the angle of incidences is increasing.

Sure weather conditions and turbulence as well as multiple alarms would be a confusion factor but IMO one of the pilots should be aware of the actual situation with some lateral thinking.

Just my two cents worth.

[Carib]

The blocked pitot tube theory has some predecessors.

Here are 4 examples of TOTAL LOSS accidents involving blocked 'pitot tubes' or taped over 'static vents' causing the pilots to react incorrectly to the situation in most cases reducing the throttle settings ignoring stall warnings and other indicators like the artificial horizon :-

1994 North West B727 Iced over Pitot Tube

1996 Birgenair B757 Wasp nest in the Captains Pitot Tube (both pilots chose to ignore the co pilots ASI which was correct).

1997 Austral Lineas Aeras DC 9 Iced over Pitot Tube

1996 Aeroperu B757 Mechanic failed to remove masking tape placed over the static vents during cleaning.

All 4 gave the pilots false 'Overspeed' reports.

Surely pilots these days are given extensive flight simulation training to cover these events. They must know where the normal throttle settings are in a given flight situation WHY keep pulling the throttles back when the angle of incidences is increasing.

Sure weather conditions and turbulence as well as multiple alarms would be a confusion factor but IMO one of the pilots should be aware of the actual situation with some lateral thinking.

Just my two cents worth.

It is very true that pitot tubes have lead up to trouble/crashes, there are many more examples out there.

The Airbus 330 has 3 pitot tubes, and I cannot get my head around a simultanous failure, especially when there are two different types of tubes ( by manufacturer) used.

I will add a statement made by Air France concerning these tubes and some other now known facts.

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE

ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX

SUBJECT: AF447 ACCIDENT INTO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN

OUR REF: AF447 AIT 3 June 8th 2009

PREVIOUS REF:

- Ref 1: AF447 AIT 1 dated June 1st 2009

- Ref 2: AF447 AIT 2 dated June 4th 2009

This AIT is an update of the previous AIT n°2 concerning the AF447

accident into the Atlantic ocean on June 1st, 2009.

Research activities coordinated by the BEA are on going. Recovery of

some AF447 aircraft parts has started and additional research means

(submarine from French Navy and dedicated water search vessel with

ROV) have been dispatched to the accident zone to locate & recover the

2 accident recorders.

At this stage of the investigation, there are no new available data

than the messages which have been transmitted automatically from the

aircraft to the airline maintenance center.

The above mentioned messages indicate that there was unreliable

airspeed indication. This unreliable airspeed situation is

consolidated by several messages which show system reconfigurations

which are per- design consequences of the unreliable airspeed

indication.

The last transmitted message corresponds to the ECAM Advisory message

indicating a change of cabin altitude at a rate greater than 1800

ft/min, which remains to be explained.

Some messages might be consistent with unreliable airspeed indication

but require further analysis. Other messages likely result from

further aircraft evolution and/or crew actions. Finally system status

messages have also been transmitted but are not relevant for the

understanding of the event.

The data available at this stage of the investigation:

- does not suggest any loss of electrical power supply,

- does not suggest a loss of instrument display,

- does not suggest an ADIRU misbehaviour as encountered in a

recent A330 event for 2 reasons: the ADIRU supplier and the signature

of failure related messages are not the same as on AF447,

- does not explain the complete sequence of events which led to

AF447 accident.

Airbus continues to provide the full technical support to the BEA in

the frame of the on-going ICAO Annex 13 investigation.

Airbus also provides support to EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency)

to assess if there will be the need or not for further precautionary

steps. Airbus will inform operators should either Airbus and/or

Investigation Board and/or Airworthiness Authorities determine the

need for further precautionary measures

Regarding the pitot tube, the fleet is currently fitted with 3

different standards: 2 from Thales supplier (std -AA and -BA, AF447

standard was -AA) and one standard from Goodrich. Concerning the

Thales standard, the latest -BA standard has been developed to enhance

water drainage encountered during heavy rain conditions on take-off or

landing phases.

Pending further investigation inputs, Airbus confirms at this stage

that the fleet in its various pitot tube standards can continue

operations and take the opportunity to recommend operators to remind

their pilots on the applicable and existing operational procedures as

recalled in the AIT n°2.

Airbus understands the need to share accident data with operators in a

prevention objective, while complying with communication requirements

set by the Official Investigation Board. This is why update on the

accident data will be provided as soon as further valuable information

is available and approved for release by the Investigation Board.

Yannick Malinge

Vice-president Flight Safety

Airbus

[jetjock]

As many of you know, some of the current speculation on some of the possible factors leading up to this A330 crash has centered around the pitot systems and report of inconsistency in the airspeed indications. For those of you speculators that desire more information and are interested in what is being done in light of that possibility, attached is a bulletin from Airbus. Airbus issued this bulletin to all of its operators based on findings from the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA), an agency of the French government, responsible for investigating aviation accidents and making safety recommendations based on what is learned from those investigations.

Here is what they shared:

The route of the aircraft was crossing a tropical multi-cell convective area at the time of the accident.

Failure/maintenance messages have been transmitted via ACARS from the aircraft to the airline maintenance center.

The above-mentioned messages indicate that there was inconsistency between the different measured airspeeds.

Therefore and without prejudging the final outcome of the investigation, the data available lead Airbus to remind operators of the applicable operational20recommendations in case of unreliable airspeed indication.

Erroneous Airspeed Indications

An erroneous airspeed indication scenario may result in the following: one or both crew members airspeed indications may roll back to airspeeds between 60 and 80 knots which could be followed by A/P and A/T disconnects and stall warnings. The airspeed indications return to normal after anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds.

The FAA requires procedures for erroneous airspeed indications on all types of aircraft to ensure that pilots are prepared to handle such an event. Therefore, should you encounter such an event, follow the attached Airbus procedure from our COM (2.31.14).

Pitot Tubes

In 2006, Airbus issued a Service Bulletin for the A319/320 fleets to retrofit to a newly designed Pitot tube, which would be paid for by Airbus. The bulletin was issued after Airbus discovered that the Pitot tubes on some of its aircraft were failing to drain properly causing the tube to ice over and result in momentary unreliable airspeed indications. Per the Airbus advisory bulletin, Northwest has installed new pitot tubes on its A319/320 aircraft, the last of which is in work today. Per the manufacturers recommendation, we are currently installing new pitot tubes on our A330 aircraft.

We are working closely with Thales to determine the timeline for which we will receive additional pitot tubes to complete our installations on the A330s.

We are committed to sharing additional information with you as it becomes available.

As always, thanks for all you do to keep us safe.

EMERGENCY/ABNORMAL PROCEDURES

A-330 2.31.14

Jan 21, 2006

Erroneous Airspeed Indications/ Radome

Damage

1. Disconnect the autopilot, flight directors, and autothrust.

2. Maintain current flap/slat configuration and retract speedbrakes.

3. After takeoff and safely airborne, retract the landing gear.

4. Ensure that the PROBE / WINDOW HEAT pb is ON.

5. Use ND groundspeed and MCDU GPS ALT data (if available).

6. Adjust pitch attitude and thrust according to the guidance below.

Note: The drag associated with major damage to the radome may

require an increase of the NN up to 3% above the table

figures and a fuel flow increase of up to 13%.

Note: Respect stall warnings if in Alternate Law.

Flight Phase Weight Flt. Level Pitch Att. NN

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Message: N/A

Condition: Unreliable airspeed indications caused by

pitot/static probe obstruction or radome damage.

Takeoff ALL <5,000 + 13� TO/FLX

Climb (250 KT) ALL <FL 200 + 8� CL

Cruise (260 KT) 400,000 FL 250 + 2� 72%

Descent (260 KT) (DO NOT USE SPD BRKS) 0� IDLE

Appr. Flaps 1 - 3 390,000 LEVEL + 8� 58%

Appr. Flaps FULL 390,000 LEVEL + 6� 64%

Approach GEAR /

FULL FLAPS

390,000 FINAL - ON

GLIDESLOPE

+ 3� 50%

[Absingjul]

I still go with the bom theory

Terror Names Linked To Doomed Flight

Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on the Air France flight which crashed with the loss of 228 lives, it has emerged.

French secret servicemen established the connection while working through the list of those who boarded the doomed Airbus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on May 31.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Absingjul

[jackdanielsesq]

Another Airbus in trouble - surely not a growing trend - one that all travelers should heed.

BR>Jack

An Australian passenger plane with 203 people on board has been forced into an emergency landing after a fire broke out in the cockpit. The Airbus A330, operated by Jetstar, was flying from Japan to Australia when a window in the cockpit caught fire.The pilots managed to put out the fire before landing in Guam. Jetstar said all of those on board were unharmed. A similar model of the Airbus, operated by Air France, crashed on a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris last week. All 228 passengers died in that incident.

[Carib]

Seems to be smoke and fire time now...

An American 767 jet enroute from New York to Zurich diverted to Halifax, Nova Scotia, last night after smoke was reported in a restroom.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/10/US-...99291244634435/

On the Australian bird with the window problem, I have seen windows with a short circuit, a very bright burning spot in the wiring followed by a fuse trip, also had windows cracking in flight, but never seen them burn.

Maybe things got lost in `translation` and they did mean the relay box which caused the smoke. Whatever, it is something you don't want in flight.

[CFIT]

I still go with the bom theory

Terror Names Linked To Doomed Flight

Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on the Air France flight which crashed with the loss of 228 lives, it has emerged.

French secret servicemen established the connection while working through the list of those who boarded the doomed Airbus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on May 31.

Let me guess; Abdul Abba Mohammed .. and Abu Abi Abdullah .. Give me a break !!! To the western ear , ALL middle eastern names sound the same..like a terrorist .

Besides even if these two guys were terrorists, no proof they were on that plane to blow it up, terrorists need to fly around to destinations too, ya know..

If the plane had exploded mid air , would there have been have been 24 ACARS messages over 4 minutes ?

There prior incidents with pitot tube sensors icing up, the conditions were ideal for pitot tube icing up - the air speed indicators were fouling as reported by ACARS as they would in pitot icing up ..

Maybe this is one of these mystery cases where it really is what all the initial evidince is pointing to; Bad info into the computers, Auto pilot shut off ( or partial shut off I'm thinking ) and pilots taken by surprise and unable to react properly becasue they too were getting incorrect flight data (Or, perhaps procedures need to be amended. )

I believe there was no Mayday call because they were too busy dealing with the emergency, then it got really ugly, really fast.

Replace the tubes ( even though the replacements aren't actually certified to fix the icing problem, they were concerned with water drainage on a different model aircraft,I believe. )

A pilots union in France ( but only representing 10 % of AF pilots ) has threatened to boycott the A 330 until the tubes are replaced.

Edited June 11, 2009 by CFIT

[CFIT]

It is very true that pitot tubes have lead up to trouble/crashes, there are many more examples out there.

The Airbus 330 has 3 pitot tubes, and I cannot get my head around a simultanous failure, especially when there are two different types of tubes ( by manufacturer) used.

Maybe because there wasn't 3 failures - but only one failure in the reporting mechanism..

Some of these guys at PRUNE are analyzing the ACARS - some of them are getting ridiculous in the suppositions, ( the VS conjectures ..) but this post is interesting ...

Post # 1119

http://www.freeproxyserver.net/index.php?j...3-af447-56.html

TyroPicard writes

Greybeard, Safety Concerns

Request for clarification..

Greybeard posted this on the previous page: ATA 34.12 IR2, EFCS1X, IR1, IR3 FAULT.

I originally thought this meant failure of all three IR, an assumption I made several days ago, but I also remember reading that the "EFCS1X,IR1,IR3" bit refers to the equipment reporting the fault, which in this case is entirely logical. This would imply that IR1 and IR3 were not reported as failed.

So is IR2 the only IR to be reported failed?

Thanks, TP

[Carib]

It is very true that pitot tubes have lead up to trouble/crashes, there are many more examples out there.

The Airbus 330 has 3 pitot tubes, and I cannot get my head around a simultanous failure, especially when there are two different types of tubes ( by manufacturer) used.

Maybe because there wasn't 3 failures - but only one failure in the reporting mechanism..

Some of these guys at PRUNE are analyzing the ACARS - some of them are getting ridiculous in the suppositions, ( the VS conjectures ..) but this post is interesting ...

Post # 1119

http://www.freeproxyserver.net/index.php?j...3-af447-56.html

TyroPicard writes

Greybeard, Safety Concerns

Request for clarification..

Greybeard posted this on the previous page: ATA 34.12 IR2, EFCS1X, IR1, IR3 FAULT.

I originally thought this meant failure of all three IR, an assumption I made several days ago, but I also remember reading that the "EFCS1X,IR1,IR3" bit refers to the equipment reporting the fault, which in this case is entirely logical. This would imply that IR1 and IR3 were not reported as failed.

So is IR2 the only IR to be reported failed?

Thanks, TP

The redundancy of the systems is almost as fail proof as it gets with any of these systems, the deeper you look into it, the more confusing it gets, and the more speculative. It is like looking at a jigsaw puzzle but the lost parts keep on changing.

On lots of aviation sites there are some good theories, but one theory is as good as the next one....

The recorders if found and still in working order will have to fill in some of the missing pieces, if not all.

Even though there are some real 'fights" on the net, sometimes fuelled by nationalistic feelings, or pro fly by wire or against, pro composite material use or not, just to name a few, there is the overall consensus that everybody thinks that the whole industry will benefit from solving this crash.

[jackdanielsesq]

Does Airbus not use GPS?

BR>Jack

[churchill]

An Italian woman who missed Air France Flight 447, which crashed in the Atlantic, has died in a car crash, the ANSA news agency reports.!

[Carib]

Does Airbus not use GPS?

BR>Jack

Of course they do Jack, but as to true AIR speed references you need dynamic load readings. That is what the pitot tube system is for. It compares the incoming air to the surrounding air, and so creates airspeed readings which are necessary to see if the aircraft has the correct speed in comparison to the medium it uses (air), to be able to fly. ( very simplified)

If that is what you mean by your question ?.

GPS speed readings would be just be a reference to a point on earth how fast the aircraft would travel in comparison to to that point. It is GROUND speed.

The difference between ground speed and airspeed is caused by the influence of winds on the overall speed of the aircraft

Gps is ofcourse used for navigational purposes.

[jackdanielsesq]

I was being impetuous - sorry - 'tis not a funny topic.

One would believe that they would use every means at their disposal to check every parameter & source prior to.

That the command centre shuts down on some known bogus output from 17th century sensors is real spooky.

That catastrophic sequence of events keeps popping up, with these little guys starting (seemingly) the sequence.

For a craft like that to go from cruise mode to stall unnoticed is nuts. This has PE written all over it also.

We will find the boxes, trust me, just beware that Airbus dont switch them - again.

Give them to the NTSB.

BR>Jack

[Carib]

I was being impetuous - sorry - 'tis not a funny topic.

One would believe that they would use every means at their disposal to check every parameter & source prior to.

That the command centre shuts down on some known bogus output from 17th century sensors is real spooky.

That catastrophic sequence of events keeps popping up, with these little guys starting (seemingly) the sequence.

For a craft like that to go from cruise mode to stall unnoticed is nuts. This has PE written all over it also.

We will find the boxes, trust me, just beware that Airbus dont switch them - again.

Give them to the NTSB.

BR>Jack

Trouble is that we need those 17th century pitot tubes. The command centre doesn't `shut down`, but would act upon air misreadings, in the case of this type of airbus it would automatically throttle up, and put the nose on a 5 degree upwards angle. From that position the crew would be able to take further action.

Agree with you that it would be nuts to go to stall mode unnoticed, we can still only guess.

[jackdanielsesq]

You tell that to the guys over OZ - when there plane nosedived from cruise mode also - no thunderstorms, nothing.

The report is in here someplace. There is clearly something very wrong here, no matter ''shut-down'' or any similar verbiage would have been preferable to crashing into the ocean, killing all. Money is on a stall.

BR>Jack

Chinese proverb "if two people tell you your face is green, go look in the mirror"

The command centre doesn't `shut down`, but would act upon air misreadings, in the case of this type of airbus it would automatically throttle up, and put the nose on a 5 degree upwards angle. From that position the crew would be able to take further action.

Edited June 11, 2009 by jackdanielsesq

[isanb]

We will find the boxes, trust me, just beware that Airbus dont switch them - again.

Give them to the NTSB.

BR>Jack

Why they already did that ? it look like you have some info ? Share please.

[cgjtt]

The GPS question got me looking around to see if the Honeywell ADRU's use GPS for updates.The Honeywells are installed on Air Frances A-330. I don't think they use GPS. The ARDU's use laser ring gyros (IRU's are inertial reference units) to figure out positions and a bunch of other things. If they don't use GPS , they would use VOR's and DME positions to update the system.

I believe Airbus has suggested using GPS reference if airspeed data has been lost. If someone can correct me , please do.

The more I read, the more complicated this airplane is getting. To understand how complex the system is, I suggest you read this link. ( This link, in my view does not relate to to AF447 but my post is just to answer a previous question).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UB...0/ai_n26957235/

[Datsun240Z]

Just a question at CGJTT / Carib and CFIL: Are you guys airplane enthousiasts, play alot of Flight Simulator or are an employee with Airbus? Or anything else?

[cgjtt]

Just a question at CGJTT / Carib and CFIL: Are you guys airplane enthousiasts, play alot of Flight Simulator or are an employee with Airbus? Or anything else?

Definitely not working for airbus and never really liked fixing them either.

[Carib]

The GPS question got me looking around to see if the Honeywell ADRU's use GPS for updates.The Honeywells are installed on Air Frances A-330. I don't think they use GPS. The ARDU's use laser ring gyros (IRU's are inertial reference units) to figure out positions and a bunch of other things. If they don't use GPS , they would use VOR's and DME positions to update the system.

I believe Airbus has suggested using GPS reference if airspeed data has been lost. If someone can correct me , please do.

The more I read, the more complicated this airplane is getting. To understand how complex the system is, I suggest you read this link. ( This link, in my view does not relate to to AF447 but my post is just to answer a previous question).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UB...0/ai_n26957235/

You are right, inertial units are used, my remark about GPS use was a general one and not applicable to aircraft, at least not this one.

[Carib]

Just a question at CGJTT / Carib and CFIL: Are you guys airplane enthousiasts, play alot of Flight Simulator or are an employee with Airbus? Or anything else?

Never played flight simulator, but can be found in a real simulator sometimes. No ties with airbus or any other manufacturer, so that makes me " anything else" .

[jackdanielsesq]

Whilst y'all were sleeping ....

BR>Jack

Relatives of a victim of the Air France crash have joined a manslaughter investigation as a plaintiff, in an effort to access files on the case.

A lawyer for the family said that some of the relatives thought information was being withheld. The Paris prosecutor's office launched the investigation last week - a step automatically taken after the death of French citizens overseas The Air France flight went down on 1 June with 228 on board. Speculation about what caused the Airbus 330 to crash between Rio de Janeiro and Paris has so far focused on the possibility that the airspeed sensors, known as pitot probes, were not working.

[Carib]

Whilst y'all were sleeping ....

BR>Jack

Relatives of a victim of the Air France crash have joined a manslaughter investigation as a plaintiff, in an effort to access files on the case.

A lawyer for the family said that some of the relatives thought information was being withheld. The Paris prosecutor's office launched the investigation last week - a step automatically taken after the death of French citizens overseas The Air France flight went down on 1 June with 228 on board. Speculation about what caused the Airbus 330 to crash between Rio de Janeiro and Paris has so far focused on the possibility that the airspeed sensors, known as pitot probes, were not working.

We know we have you to stay on top of things jack, we can all sleep safe and still be informed about the worlds aviation ongoing events..