paris-entrance

le cirque “Ringling Bros & Barnum & Bailey” à Paris continues…

The mystery of the cause of the Air France Flight 447 disaster  continues to grow each day due to the conflicting Government leaks in Paris. This is what happens when the Government owns part of the Airline.

How can the French Government investigate itself?  They have lost all credibility into the investigative process.

Why is no one investigating the possible Rio airport security breaches and its relationship to this disaster?

Is it not time for the NTSB to consider grounding all affected Airbus model flying into US airspace?

The Brazilian Press has confirmed from Air Force, Gen. Ramon Cardoso that the search for bodies of victims of the Air France flight 447 that crashed in the Atlantic on May 31 will continue until June 19 unless extended “Unfortunately, the work of collection of bodies has a time limit. Every day that passes the likelihood of new bodies there is less”

————————————————–

logo_lexpressIt would appear L’Express is NOT backing down on their terrorist story.  As a matter of fact, their updated article now quotes “The Interior Ministry and “the theory” of the accident “remains privileged.”

Pas de terroristes dans l’AF447

Par Pascal Ceaux, publié le 10/06/2009 17:30 – mis à jour le 10/06/2009 18:00

The Interior Ministry told LEXPRESS.fr on Wednesday that the checks on the passenger list of Air France flight from Paris Rio 1st June had resulted in the removal of passengers because of two suspects. During a routine check first, their names were intrigued services. They could in fact relate to those people known for their belonging to an Islamist terrorist organization. Failing to have the date of birth of passengers, it was impossible to know if they were real terrorists or homonyms. Refining their “screening” the investigators, they said, raised doubts. The theory of the accident, which killed 228 people, remains privileged.

————————————-

(1st Article)  Two suspects passengers on flight AF447

Deux passagers suspects sur le vol AF447

Par Pascal Ceaux, publié le 09/06/2009 11:02 – mis à jour le 09/06/2009 11:08

Intelligence agencies have identified two French names to people known for their links with Islamist terrorism. Lack of birth date, identification remains incomplete.

The hypothesis of an attack against the Air France flight 447 connecting Rio de Janeiro to Paris, on 1 June, has not been completely excluded, although it seems very unlikely. By checking the passenger list, the intelligence services have identified two french names to people known for their links with Islamist terrorism. The identification has remained incomplete, because the date of birth of suspects: it could be mere homonyms. No serious claim has also been recorded. In total, 228 people died in the greatest disaster in the history of Air France.

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

debkalogo

DEBKAfile Special Report

As long as the fog surrounding the tragedy remains impenetrable, a man-made disaster cannot be ruled out. Both the French defense minister and Pentagon have said there were no signs that terrorism was involved in the crash. This was short of an outright denial. But some terror experts are not excluding a terrorist attack.

Saturday, June 6, when the French and US president held a news conference at Caen, Barack Obama commented, apparently off the cuff: “…it’s not clear yet what happened to the plane but the two countries want to find discover what caused the plane to be lost.”

This sort of comment by a US president and America’s active involvement in the investigation of a foreign air disaster when the plane is not of US manufacture and no Americans were aboard are unusual – unless a serious crime or terror is suspected. So too is Sarkozy’s request to Obama for active US participation in the search without consulting with Air France.

Aviation authorities recall that another Air France flight from Buenos Aires to Paris was grounded temporarily on May 27 because of a telephoned bomb threat. The tri-border region where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet is home to a large Muslim population with a history of militancy.

Aviation experts were first puzzled by the time the airline took on June 1 – an hour and a half – to disclose that the plane had failed to land at Charles de Gaulle after dropping off radar screens. Later, Paris radio announced that there was no hope of survivors among passengers and crew, but offered no information to support this presumption. The delays, according to our Paris sources, indicated that French government and security officials were themselves scrambling frantically for information to establish the cause of the tragedy. They tried to impose a news blackout until they were wiser, but the dearth of facts only gave rise to wild rumors…

… The French government came out with its first official statement only when it was forced to admit it was stumped.Later, French investigators suggested that the cockpit was empty when the plane dropped without warning into the ocean. They offered no theories about whether the pilots had left the cockpit voluntarily or not

I’m not so sure I agree with Debka’s conclusions, however it worth noting that the US Press did not report the US participation into the investigation:  See  AF Flight 447 – Pitots, Terrorism, and Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Disinformation (BEA)

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

ON-LINE AVIATION CHATTER /

MSG BOARDS / DISCUSSIONS

Below are the most recent on-line aviation chatter and message board discussions.  Please understand the below are only chatter/discussions among aviation professionals world-wide and should not be considered fact until all official information is released by Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Disinformation (BEA).

——————-

People on the other thread quoted the Brazilian Navy as saying surface currents in the area run 3 to 5 kts per hour. I assume the tailfin would be moved only by surface currents, not significantly influenced by winds due to the way it was floating. But I could be wrong about that.

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

The list of ACARS messages are MAINTENANCE messages, I generally never get to see maintenance messages until I shut down (unless I choose to look at the onboard central maintenance computer [CMC]) list in flight, as they are not displayed to the pilot). When I shut down, the first thing that comes out of the printer is the post flight report, that contains all the maintenance messages, and it is formatted nicely so you can actually read it. All I do is I scan through that list for any class 1 hard warnings, write those up in the aircraft technical log, and then put the post flight report it in the tech log for the mechanics to have. Class 2 and 3 messages do not make it to the tech log, they are captured on the post flight report, and then into in the airline maintenance system to be addressed at the next schedule service.

You can have a heap of maintenance messages in the CMC, and the pilots and passengers can be blissfully unaware of them due to all the system redundancy, pilots only get told about class 1 warnings, either by an ECAM or a flag. The CMC may generate a fault message, and still continue to function correctly, the built in test equipment (BITE) in these systems will pick up on lots of things that mechanics may need to look at some stage, but would not prevent the aircraft being dispatched on the next sector. The messages are classified as class 1 (must be looked at before by next sector), class 2 in the next 600h, and class 3, no specific time.

The difference between these ACARS messages and the FDR messages, is that on the FDR we can actually see the state (normal or fault) of each device in a time series, see which flag was displayed etc, can see what was and was not functioning in a time series. The ACARS list only gives the mechanics a time stamp and flight phase when a message was generated, the component may have been in that state for 1 second, 30 seconds or remain in a fault state, it will generate the same message in the CMC.

————

OK, let’s say it’s 3kts… that gives it 72NM per day… give it 5 days and it’s 370NM to which there is no guarantee that (and evidently) the debris and bodies will all move at the same rate and in the same direction resulting in a conveniently right cluster… So, even if the aircraft did breakup upon water impact, or shortly before, a 90km spread after a few days isn’t hard to achieve… therefore, it doesn’t prove or explain that it was a high-altitude breakup, although it cannot be ruled out at this stage.

————

Another airbus in 2005 almost precipitated in the same way to get lost in flight to 10000m much of impennage still for a structural collapse of its parts carbon .. the pilot miraculously managed to turn and to land in Cuba in disaster.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/TSB-SS/Air/2006/A05F0047/menu.html

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

The following is an excellent posting on an Aviation discussion board on Legal Liability:

This was an international flight, while some folks will cite the Warsaw Conventions and the $75,000 limit on damages, those limits no longer apply. The 1999 Montreal Conventions replace the liability of the Warsaw Conventions.

Quote: The Montreal Convention creates a two-tiered system of compensation.

First, it imposes absolute liability on an international carrier to the extent of 100,000 “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs) (providing the plaintiff can prove damages up to that amount). SDRs are a type of international monetary reserve currency or accounting system created in 1968 by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is a specialized agency of the United Nations that determines the value of SDRs relative to the currencies of the five largest exporting nations. The value of an SDR is published everyday by the IMF. As of April 15, 2009, 100,000 SDRs are the equivalent of about $148,500 United States dollars…………..

Note that the Montreal Convention and its predecessors (the Warsaw Convention, Prague Protocol, Montreal Agreement, and other agreements) apply only to the airlines. It does not apply to others who may have caused the victim’s injuries or death, such as the manufacturer of the airliner or the maker of component parts or systems installed in the aircraft.

Take a typical US death involving an accident crash.

For a male under age 40 with a wife and children, his family compenstation would normally be 5 to 10 years of his salary. For a person making $75,000 per year – that would be $375,000 to $750,000. The convention limits of approx $148,500 are obviously inadequate.

There will certainly be lawsuits. That is the only somewhat objective decision process for liability and to evaluate the adequacy of damages/ payments.

The companies not protected by the convention limits – Airbus, the manufacturers of the various instruments and systems will have no requirement to make payments to families without lawsuits.

But be assured that they all have insurance policies which can cover those payments even into the multi-million dollar per victim amounts.

Multi-million dollar awards to not set people up for a life of luxury, nor do they compensate for the loss of a husband, spouse, father, etc.

It would be best if the companies involved were forced into an objective arbitration process with the victims families, but that will never happen.

Most of the insurance policies the airlines and other companies use to pay such damages will only make payment if it is the result of an accepted judgement in a lawsuit.

——————————————————————-

An Australian budget flight from Japan was forced into an emergency landing on the Pacific island of Guam after a fire broke out in the cockpit, company officials said on Thursday.

Nobody was hurt among the 203 passengers and crew, mostly Japanese, who were traveling to Australia’s Gold Coast from Osaka aboard the Jetstar Airbus A330-200.”

The model’s had better months.

[Note:  Looking for link. AFP?]

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

The best websites are those that allow comments.  Below are a few published comments on L’Express articles cited in the beginning of this post: (Translated From French to English)

” This would be so convenient for a lot of people.”

“Again we create news with speculation.”

“My last thoughts are “Lockerbie ‘?”

“Another bogus info or a diversion while they track speed sensors heater for Airbus?”

“qu’ obama thought he had settled [terrorism] with his speech in Cairo?”

“Not verified this information which, in my view, a plot leaves me skeptical”

“There is a passenger in Brazil who said that her mother had advised him taking a plane from Rio as not safe, then it should be about the operation of the airport.”

“How can we consider the track terrorist without checking the date of birth of these two passengers? They just ask the families who I imagine have arisen! Strange news.”

“I wonder if these new terrorists are not really maneuvre to divert attention from general problems of one of the most popular aircraft in the world ….?

“I think qu’ilne should not make unnecessary links between terrorist acts and defective parts, unless not change the refor (signaléées defective) is also a terrorist act.

“Looking at the published list, I found information on two strange people who actually deserved consideration …. At the very least. It should not be very difficult to know who they were, what they did on this flight, where they were … The Brazilian police she made her remarks on this subject?”

“If these people are not responsible, but they have a proven link with terrorism, they are now out of business !!!!!”

“Who benefits from this article? Mrs of journalism made express or find another job. Because there is as big as a truck and that it discredibiliser your newspaper. Think of the families and avoid you … by respet.”

“ah! Still the Islamist track which is taken hostage by the editors of French press. It is possible that it is no doubt Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, were both passengers. Maybe they are left in underwater portable that they can hide in the baggage? Or perhaps they are teletransporter directly in their caves in Pakistan after they detonated the plane or implode? Who knows …”

“Today, another 50 to 60 dead in Pakistan and Iraq caused by enturbannés, so why not an intrusion into the cockpit of the Airbus and the murder of the pilot leaving the aircraft mad.”

“There are only two solutions is either an accident or an attack is, Brazil is much more “passive” in that we disregard the trail of the attack proves that people are not very comfortable with this idea.”

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

LuckyBogey’s Favorite L’EXPRESS Comment: (Has everything covered!)

Storm, terrorism … You also have the possibility of earthquake

Flight AF 447: the incredible event of a seismic

http://www.rtlinfo.be/rtl/news/article/247207/

Flight AF 447% (a seismic event) or the UFO

http://ovniparanormal.over-blog.com/article-32333578.html

Vol d’Air France AF-447 crashé par un ovni ?

Air France Flight AF-447 crashed by a UFO?

Now the only question is where and when the bidding “journalism” is going to stop!

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

Related Links:

Aeronautical-Abbreviation-Dictionary

Uh oh: Terrorist names on doomed Air France passenger list?

————————————————–

paris-mccormick

Where’s the Pop Corn and Cotton Candy?

The Paris Circus continues…

————————————————–

Advertisements