by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 6, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

         When Air France Flight 447 plunged into the south Atlantic off the north coast of Brazil May 31, fingers pointed in all directions, including possible terrorism.  More careful analysis of the plane’s final data transmissions points toward some type of instrument failure perhaps due to a violent electrical storm in the flight path.  As the Brazilian Navy plucked two bodies out of the water 70 kilometers [45 miles] south of where the plane lost radio contact, around 640 kilometers [400 miles] northeast of the Fernando de Noronha Islands off Brazil’s northern coast, Air France officials admitted that the Airbus A330 had not yet replaced potentially defective air-speed sensors, causing the plane to go too fast or two slow in difficult atmospheric conditions.  France’s accident investigation agency, BEA, acknowledged the plane flew into a massive thunderstorm before losing contact.     

            En route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, Flight 447 disappeared May 31 off the radar, stunning the aviation world.  BEA officials also admitted that instrument readings prior to disappearance indicated that airspeed readings showed inconsistency flying into a massive thunderstorm with wind downdrafts approaching 100 mph.  “They hadn’t yet been replaced” on the plane known as Flight 447, said BEA lead investigator Alain Bouillard.  Whether or not failure to replace airspeed censors known as Pitot tubes contributed to the plane’s disappearance is anyone’s guess.  No one in the press or connected with the investigation questioned why the Air France pilot proceeded to fly  into a dangerous weather system.  All reports indicate the plane hit dangerous winds in a massive thunderstorm.  Regardless of the sensors, changing the flight plan would have averted the storm.

            There’s no excuse for an airline’s weather control not to delay or divert flights based on atmospheric conditions.  It’s inconceivable that the pilot would have gotten the green light to fly into what meteorologists call a “massive thunder/lightening storm.”  With ocean depths near the crash area around 10,000 ft., it’s going to be difficult to recover the “black boxes” containing cockpit voice recordings and flight data recorder.  French authorities warned against jumping to conclusions, saying “it does not mean that without replacing the Pitots that the A-330 was dangerous.”  How about the BEA’s opinion about allowing their pilot to fly into the eye of a dangerous electrical storm?  Sensors or not, flight control should have never allowed Flight 447 to fly directly into a dangerous storm.  Whether the BEA rules in or out mechanical failure, maintaining the same flight plan involved negligence.

            Brazilian authorities confirmed recovery of two bodies, backpack with laptop computer and leather briefcase with an Air France ticket for Flight 447.  “It was confirmed with Air France that the ticket number corresponds to a passenger on the flight,” said Paul-Loius Arsianian, head of the BEA.  While investigators focus on whether airspeed sensors iced-over or malfunctioned, they ignore granting permission to fly into the eye of a dangerous electrical storm.  “Following similar problems frequently encountered on the A320 fleet, preventative actions have already been decided and applied,” read a report after an incident on a Tokyo to Paris flight where Pitot tubes iced over, causing erratic airspeed.  Air France took corrective action replacing Pitot tubes on its A320 fleet, making them “less susceptible to these weather conditions,” ignoring a change in flight plan.

            Air France’s head of weather forecasting indicated that weather conditions were typical for the south Atlantic, predicting violent storms.  If that’s true, it’s even more unthinkable that flight controllers wouldn’t have given the pilot of Flight 447 a new flight plan.  Former managing director of the National Transportation and Safety Board Peter Goelz said Airbus’s report urging replacement of airspeed sensors “certainly raises questions about whether the Pitot tubes, which are critical to the pilot’s understanding of what’s going on, were operating effectively.”  Maneuvering in a dangerous electrical storm would require all systems to be operating like clockwork.  All the talk about faulty airspeed sensors diverts attention away from the more basic question:  Why fly into a dangerous electrical storm?  Air France’s liability expanded from mechanical failure to flight control negligence.

            Recovering the cockpit voice recorder and flight dada recorder should shed some slight on what happened to Flight 447.  Two-hundred-twenty-eight souls plunged to their deaths in what looks like an avoidable accident.  Even with new Pitot tubes, the advisability of flying into a dangerous electrical storm has to be questioned.  Changing flight plans or delaying flights until the weather clears make perfect sense.  While hindsight is always 20/20, Airline personnel must error on the side of caution when dealing with inclement weather.  Upgrading planes only makes sense, especially when the manufacturer urges airlines to do so.  No one can blame unexpected acts of God for catastrophic accidents.  Weather forecasting, while not a precise science, gives enough warning to airlines about possible dangerous conditions.  Focusing on minutia often loses the bigger picture.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.