The Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses today released an Update on Investigation regarding flight Air France 447. AF 447 was an Airbus A330-203 on a scheduled flight from Rio de Janeiro Galeão to Paris Charles de Gaulle on the 1st of June 2009. Contact with the flight was lost in the early hours of the morning. A week later, a few pieces of the aircraft were found.
The crash made international headlines because the aircraft appeared to simply disappear: there was no mayday call nor radar information and initial attempts to find the crash site and wreckage has failed.
Last month, an expedition ship, the Alucia, discovered the wreckage at the bottom of the South Atlantic Ocean and was able to recover the black boxes. This Update on Investigation is a result of the data recovered. It is not a final report.
The BEA have released an English translation of the document which I am using for this post. However, it includes a foreword to state that the original text in French should be considered the work of reference.
You can read the full document online: Update on Investigation in PDF format. The French original is also available: accident survenu a l’Airbus A330-203. The report is also available in German and Portuguese translations.
I’ve written this to help people keep to the facts in mind when reading news coverage, which traditionally gets somewhat confused and over-excited when reporting on this incident.
Here are the highlights of the document, hopefully in an easy-to-follow format.
The report confirms that there were no initial issues with the crew nor the weight and balance of the flight.
22:29 The flight took off.
Initially, the Captain was Pilot Not Flying and one of the co-pilots was Pilot Flying which was in accordance with standard procedure. During the flight, the Captain took a rest break and the other co-pilot took his place as Pilot Not Flying.
This is important to understand as I’ve already seen media headlines screaming that the Captain was not in the cockpit when the problems began. This is a non-issue. There were three flight-crew members on board, all fully trained, in order to ensure that the pilots can have rest breaks.
SKYbrary – Pilot Flying and Pilot Not Flying
When two pilots fly a fixed-wing aeroplane which requires a two-person flight crew, the aircraft commander, who must be appropriately qualified and hold the rank of Captain, occupies the left hand seat and the First Officer or Co-Pilot occupies the right hand seat.
Before the commencement of each flight sector, the aircraft commander decides which pilot will take direct responsibility for flying the aircraft for the complete flight or for particular parts of it such as the Descent/Approach and Landing and they become ‘Pilot Flying’ (PF) for that sector or the specified part of it. The other pilot is then designated for that sector or relevant parts of it as ‘Pilot Monitoring’ (PM) or alternatively as ‘Pilot Not Flying’ (PNF) and in that role must monitor the flight management and aircraft control actions of the PF and carry out support duties such as communications and check-list reading. The Operations Manual will specify fully the roles for the PF and PM/PNF, but one of the most important aspects of the duties of any PM/PNF is the cross-check of the actions of PF. Indeed, this part of the role represents one of the most important single reasons why a two-pilot flight crew is specified.
01:35 The crew were in contact with air traffic control. Everything seemed normal.
01:55 The Captain woke the second co-pilot to take his place as Pilot Not Flying.
Between 1 h 59 min 32 and 2 h 01 min 46, the Captain attended the briefing between the two co-pilots, during which the PF said, in particular “the little bit of turbulence that you just saw […] we should find the same ahead […] we’re in the cloud layer unfortunately we can’t climb much for the moment because the temperature is falling more slowly than forecast” and that “the logon with Dakar failed”. The Captain left the cockpit.
At this stage, everything was normal. Ten minutes later, the incident begins.
02:06 The Pilot Flying warns the cabin crew about upcoming turbulence.
02:08 The crew make a slight turn to the left. The turbulence increased and they reduce the speed to about Mach 0.8.
At this point, it’s worth watching the timeline including the seconds.
02:10:16 The autopilot and then the auto-thrust disengages. The Pilot Flying says, “I have the controls.” The plane begins to roll to the right. The Pilot Flying rolls left and raises the nose. The stall warning sounds. The plane appears slows right down.
The recorded parameters show a sharp fall from about 275 kt to 60 kt in the speed displayed on the left primary flight display (PFD), then a few moments later in the speed displayed on the integrated standby instrument system (ISIS).
The autopilot and auto-thrust remained disengaged for the rest of the flight.
Now in my opinion, the notes in the Update on Investigation are very interesting:
Note 1: The angle of attack is the angle between the airflow and longitudinal axis of the airplane. This information is not presented to pilots.
Note 2 : In alternate or direct law, the angle-of-attack protections are no longer available but a stall warning is triggered when the greatest of the valid angle-of-attack values exceeds a certain threshold.
Alternate Law means that there is a disruption to the aircraft flight control system(s). As the data input could not be trusted (the speed displays in this case), some of the monitoring protective functions of the control system are not available.
It’s interesting that this is pointed out: the angle-of-attack was critical to the incident and that the Airbus A330 does not display this information as flight information for the flight crew.
At any rate, the angle of attack increased and the plane began to climb.
The recordings show that the Pilot Flying made nose down control inputs. The Pilot Not Flying attempts to call the Captain back to the cockpit.
The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees.
If I understand this correctly, the speed displayed on the left side increased but the integrated standby instrument system had not updated yet, so would have shown 60 knots. I’m not quite clear on this though.
02:10:51 The stall warner triggers again.
The thrust levers are moved to the Take Off/Go Around position. The Pilot Flying maintains nose-up inputs on the controls. The recorded angle of attack continues to increase.
Around fifteen seconds later, the speed displayed on the ISIS increased sharply towards 185 kt; it was then consistent with the other recorded speed. The PF continued to make nose-up inputs. The airplane’s altitude reached its maximum of about 38,000 ft, its pitch attitude and angle of attack being 16 degrees.
Note: The inconsistency between the speeds displayed on the left side and on the ISIS lasted a little less than one minute.
02:11:40 The Captain re-enters the cockpit. The report says that the recorded speeds “became invalid” which means that the measured speeds were shown as below 30 knots. The stall warning stopped.
The altitude was then about 35,000 ft, the angle of attack exceeded 40 degrees and the vertical speed was about -10,000 ft/min.
This means the plane was falling out of the sky. The Pilot Flying holds the sidestick to full left and nose-up position for around 30 seconds.
There is a lot of speculation that this is what caused the crash. Based on the information given here, it would seem that the plane was in a stall and the nose needed to come down. Pitching the nose-up to the full extent would be a bad response in a stall situation.
However this is a preliminary report and no such conclusion is drawn in the report. It is not stated in the report that the crash was caused by this action, simply that the action occurred.
02:12:02 The Pilot Flying says, “I don’t have any more indications” and the Pilot Not Flying responds with, “we have no valid indications”.
By now, the thrust levers are in the idle position and the engine power is at 55%.
The Pilot Flying pitches the nose down, decreases the angle of attack and the speeds become valid again. The stall warning sounds again.
02:13:32 The pilot says “we’re going to arrive at level one hundred”. Fifteen seconds later, both pilots manipulate the sidesticks and the Pilot Flying passes control to the Pilot Not Flying.
02:14:28 The recordings stop.
The document includes a list of new findings. The penultimate point is chilling:
After the autopilot disengagement:
- the airplane climbed to 38,000 ft,
- the stall warning was triggered and the airplane stalled,
- the inputs made by the PF were mainly nose-up,
- the descent lasted 3 min 30, during which the airplane remained stalled. The angle of attack increased and remained above 35 degrees,
- the engines were operating and always responded to crew commands.
The information in this report would seem to imply that the pilot became overwhelmed and incorrectly interpreted the situation. I recommend reading the full Update on Investigation. The initial problem remains the pitot and the bad speed data. The pilot was handed control of a plane (when the autopilot and auto-thrust failed) that was incorrectly configured. There are many aspects to any incident and AF 447 is no exception. It is possible that the BEA will conclude that pilot error was a primary cause but, as yet, we do not have a full report.
So remember: be wary of news reports that state any cause as fact until the BEA release their conclusions!

They were kind enough to allow me to join them for an afternoon out at the Abbey Mills Pumping Station in West Ham, an industry event that included a descent into the sewers at the Wick Lane Depot. “Wear comfortable clothes,” they told me. “We’ll provide protective clothing including a harness and oxygen masks.”
Jokes were made about how long the speaker, Ben Nithsdale, would bore us about the history of London’s sewers. I squirmed in my seat. I shouldn’t have sat in the front row where the speaker would see if I dozed.
Thames Water staff speak about the architecture (Neogothic Italianate, apparently) and brick work (simply gorgeous) with clear admiration and affection. A heated argument was in progress as to whether the carved plants on the far side of the building were strawberries (the leaves, we were told by one adamant gentleman, were all wrong) or some other plant and he admitted that they had only just positively identified the peonies carved near the main entrance. The detail in the building is amazing, especially when you consider that it was built as a pumping station in the middle of the marshes. Even the drain pipes were beautiful.
He led us into the main pumping station and my mouth fell open. It was brilliant, a perfect Steampunk Fantasy. Disney could not have done it better. Robotic looking devices, gleaming brass, moulded stone around the pillars and twisted iron rails along catwalks, all towered over by ornamental arches.
And oh, the archive! I’ve never been so close to such ancient books. Detailed maps of London were spread on broad tables. The modern maps were explicit: streets were marked with the pipelines detailed underneath with their diameter and depth. As we stepped back in time, we saw the maps with the pipelines marked but without an overlaying roadmap and with no information as to how deep the pipes were laid. The version before that looked like something from a teenager’s science project: brightly coloured lines and very little hard information. The bookshelves were stuffed with large leather-bound books. A further display of photographs showed the sewer workers – we were told they are called flushers – over the past century. I could have spent a day in that tiny little room alone. I tried to dawdle.
Then they took a photograph of the group of us in all our glory. You can stop laughing now.
I stepped back into the liquid, the quick current snatching at my rubber heels. I was thigh high in green-grey water streaming past me at a fast rate. I’d done it! I stared at the darkness around me spotlit by the helmet lights of the flushers. I was in a real Bazalgette tunnel, wading through real sewage. The rubber of the thigh-high wading boots felt chilly against my calves and I realised that although it was warm in the tunnels, the water was cold. I felt like I had entered some other world, an underground labryninth. An evil dungeon full of hate and bile.
I wasn’t. I’m of a shape that naturally bobs to the surface and I was wearing rubber waders that were two sizes too big for me. The current dragged at my legs. Every step I took, I worried that I was going to slip backwards and over. The flushers were vigilant and I regularly felt a hand at my elbow. Piles of grit crunched beneath my feet. I peered at the muck unhappily.
I slithered my feet forward, feeling for the gravel and slippery rocks through the rubber boots and woolen socks. The flusher, also known as the kindest person in the entire universe, took my hand and the hand of the woman behind me, making soothing noises as he walked alongside us. I tried not to clutch, my eyes firmly on the running water coming well past my knees now. 
The Chief Flusher offered to answer any questions we might have but I couldn’t think of a single one.
Daniel of the 







