Le Monde is reporting that Air France Pilot’s Union will “refuse” to fly A330/340
Only sixteen in total bodies have been rescued in the Atlantic by the Brazilian and French forces in search of the Airbus A330 Air France lost between Brazil and France on 1 June, a Pilots union of the French airline called, Monday 8 June, to “refuse” to fly on the A330 and A340 as technical changes to the speed sensors have been introduced on these aircraft.
“Reject any 330/A340 A flight without at least two modified pitot probes” launched pilots union ALTER. This organization is the third force at Air France after the SNPL and SPAF.
The union regrets that, pending the replacement of all defective pitots, [union] management “have not taken the decision to stop the A330 and A340 not yet equipped with new models Pitot and whose replacement “provided that “in the coming weeks.”
The pitot tube is attached along the fuselage, in front of an airplane. This probe is used to calculate the speed of the aircraft. Since the eve of the weekend, it became a significant element of the investigation into the disappearance of the Air France flight 447 between Rio and Paris on the night of 30 May to 1 June
The probe whose dysfunction is proved by the report Acars (automatic messages sent by the aircraft maintenance for Air France at Roissy) could have a role in the chain of events that caused the loss of the aircraft.
Air France has acknowledged in a statement that, since May 2008, “incidents of loss of information airspeed in cruise flight on A340 and A330 were found.
Asked about the progress of the procedure for the replacement of pitot (three per aircraft), the management of Air France said Monday evening that the company operated current fifteen A330s and ten A340-nine. Of this fleet, she added, all aircraft have at least one pitot latest-generation aircraft and nine have at least two or three. “
Updated English Translation (Used Mozilla Ubiquity Translation Command)
Back on an historical note, the ocean between Brazil and Africa s a graveyard of French aircraft. Several pioneers disappeared in the same area as the Airbus in the early decades of air transport.
The most famous was Jean Mermoz, a colleague of Antoine de Saint Exupéry, who disappeared mid-ocean in December 1936 flying an Air France Latécoere 300 amphibious plane.
Unlike Air France 447, however, Mermoz had time to report by radio that he was shutting down a failed engine before his plane vanished.
Updated Credito La CatrachoWings – HT: Charles Bremner
Air France is a French company but Airbus is also partially owned by the French state. It is possible that one or the other could face some critcism. For once, it is vital that the French put jingoism aside and produce a report that is comprehensive and will be respected by all parties. Airbus will be particularly anxious for this because their worldwide credibility is at stake.
After one of the longest and most complex judicial investigations in French legal history, six people will appear in court in Colmar accused of partial responsibility for the crash of an Airbus A320 on the snowy slopes of Mont Sainte-Odile near Strasbourg in January 1992. The six accused include the designer of the Airbus A320, the retired director general of civil aviation in France, and the air traffic controller on duty at Strasbourg airport at the time of the crash…
…The six are accused of manslaughter and involuntary wounding and risk up to two years in prison and a €4,500 fine. All are pleading not guilty. They include Bernard Ziegler, retired technical director of Airbus and designer of the A320, who is accused of creating a pilot position which was too cramped (and has since been changed)…
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998), PART 39 – 105
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
For the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below issues the following Airworthiness Directive (AD) under subregulation 39.001(1) of CASR 1998. The AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate considers necessary to correct the unsafe condition) be taken in relation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in the compliance section.
Airbus Industrie A330 Series Aeroplanes
AD/A330/79 Rudder Control Rod 11/2007
Applicability: Model A330-200 and A330-300 series aircraft, with the following serial numbers: 0315, 0323, 0333, 0337, 0338, 0342, 0344, 0346, 0349, 0350, 0351, 0356, 0357, 0370, 0375, 0388, 0389, 0398, 0400, 0404, 0407, 0408, 0412, 0427, 0432, 0454, 0493, and 0539.
Requirement: Action in accordance with the requirements of EASA AD 2007-0246. Note: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3157 original issue, or later EASA approved revision, refers.
Compliance: As specified in the Requirement document, with a revised effective date of
25 October 2007.
This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 25 October 2007.
Background: A report was received of a disbond on the composite rudder control rod on a Model A320 aircraft. Investigation revealed the disbond was due to an incorrect low volume of resin in the fibre composite. The supplier and Airbus have confirmed that some rudder control rods installed on A330 aircraft before delivery or delivered as a spare are also affected. Rudder control rod rupture can lead in the worst case, in combination with a yaw damper runaway, to an unsafe condition.
Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
13 September 2007
FOOD FOR THOUGHT