Blogs and Stories
7 Theories on the Crash of Flight 447
Ricardo Moraes / AP Photo
Was it a lightning strike, an electrical failure, or violent turbulence? As possible debris of Air France 447 surfaced 600 miles off the coast of Brazil on Tuesday morning, The Daily Beast tracked down seven expert theories on the cause for the mysterious crash that killed all 228 on board.
1. Lightning Strike
Lightning appears to be the most plausible cause for the disappearance of Flight 447. But it’s still unlikely that lightning alone could bring down such a big jet like an Airbus 330. After all, jets are engineered to weather lightning strikes without severe damage. When lightning hits, it usually does so on the aluminum body of the plane at the wings—far from the engine and the insulated plastic cabin where the passengers sit. Only 50 minutes after making contact via radar, Flight 447 reported via an automatic transponder that it had an “electrical circuit malfunction,” which means it could have fallen victim to an electrical storm. If a lightning strike did indeed damage the fuselage, aviation expert Clive Irving writes, it should be regarded as a serious warning for engineers of new planes like the carbon-fiber Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which is being designed without metal. "Because no airliner has ever been built this way before," he writes, "the 787’s ability to demonstrate a level of lightning protection at least equal to a conventional all-metal airplane is crucial."
“A completely unexpected situation occurred on board the aircraft," said Air France’s CEO.
2. Violent Turbulence
We know that Flight 447 encountered heavy turbulence associated with a thunderstorm before losing signal. At 4:14 a.m. Paris time, the plane released an automatic message that it had suffered an electrical problem and lost cabin pressure. But what caused that? It's possible that the plane flew into a fierce tropical storm over the Atlantic Ocean, The Washington Post reports, but pilots are trained to go around tropical storms—never through them. And the pilot of Flight 447 must have known that: He had clocked more than 11,000 hours in the air—including 1,100 hours on the Airbus jets. According to a senior meteorologist for AccuWeather, the thunderstorms in that part of the Atlantic Ocean towered up to the 50,000 feet that night—which could mean that the plane flew into the most treacherous part of the storm. Thunderstorms at that altitude, the Times of London reports, can have the “energy of nuclear explosions.” According to Pierre Henri Gourgeon, chief executive of Air France-KLM: “Lightning alone is not enough to explain the loss of this plane, and turbulence alone is not enough. It is always a combination of factors… A completely unexpected situation occurred on board the aircraft.”
3. Hail Storm
Just before the plane fell off the map, it reported a loss in cabin pressure—which could mean a break in the body of the aircraft. If Flight 447 flew into a particularly violent storm, The New York Times reports, it’s possible that hail could have broken the windshield. But pilots would have immediately reported distress had that happened—not just drop off the radar altogether.
4. Electrical Failure
We know that Flight 447 experienced an electrical failure before losing contact. But experts say a simple electrical fault doesn’t bring down an Airbus—so if the electrical outage is responsible, it must have developed into something greater. The Airbus was as “fly-by-wire” plane, which means that the flaps on the wings are commanded by wires rather than manual tubes. This allows planes, in many circumstances, to automatically correct if something goes wrong. But this electronic control can also backfire, as it did with an Australian Qantas A330 last year: When something goes wrong on some fly-by-wire planes, the pilot is blocked from overriding commands. On the Qantas jet, inertia sensors overrode manual commands, causing the plane to correct something that wasn’t wrong—and a nosedive resulted.
5. Fire on Board
The electrical fault may have also caused a short circuit, which, according to David Learmount, operations/safety editor of FlightGlobal, can create an intense heat or sparking on the plane. That could have resulted in a fire, which brought down a Swiss Air Boeing jet in 1998. There’s been a call for smoke detectors to be placed throughout aircrafts—not just in the bathrooms, cargo area, and engines—so that crew members can be informed of fire on board, but it's so far been largely ignored by airlines.
6. Hijacking or Sabotage
Theories of sabotage or hijacking circulated following news of the disappearance, but have been all but dismissed as aviation experts weigh the facts. There were no suspicious people on board, the Times of London reports, and had a hijacking occurred, the crew would surely have time to radio to the base.
7. Missile or Bomb
The Times of London also speculates that a missile could have caused the disappearance, but that it’s “highly unlikely given the altitude.” It’s also conceivable that a bomb may have exploded on board—explaining its immediate disappearance from radar—as the Times reports that security at the Rio airport is widely thought to be lax.
Xtra Insight: The Daily Beast's Clive Irving: Why Lightning Is the Most Troubling Theory
Isabel Wilkinson is a Daily Beast intern who attends Columbia Journalism School. She has written for New York magazine and Women’s Wear Daily.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Week in Political Cartoons
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Week in Red Carpet
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Oprahs of the World
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Point number 2: you do mean the Atlantic ocean, not the Indian ocean, right?
Don't you guys have editors for these articles?
The editor must have failed simple geography, as did the author of the article.
Unless, of course, the storms in the Indian Ocean were SO strong that they affected flights in the south Atlantic.
atlantic ocean does have tropical storm, so it is not incorrect
Whatever the cause fly by wire aircraft with mechanical backup flight control systems aren't airworthy.
...and mechanical systems don't break?
With all of the redundant systems onboard a modern jet, it's hard to justify your claim.
flyboy, although markklein may be overstating his belief, it is easier to imagine a situation where even redundant fly-by-wire electrical systems could be overwhelmed than a situation where mechanical linkage to all control axis of an aircraft would fail.
The slim chance that a triple or even quadruple redundant fly-by-wire system being overwhelm causing a crash has to be weighed against the number of times the fly-by-wire system saved lives that you didn't hear about. Fly-by-wire prevents pilots from fly outside of the flight envelope such stalling, or into buffet, events that has caused numerous crashes in before the introduction of fly-by-wire. Fly-by-wire is safe, in my opinion, more safe than mechanical linkages, and enhances the performance of the aircraft. You won't build large commercial aircraft these days without some sort of computer controls augmentation, just like you won't design a luxury car these days without some form of ABS or Traction control.
nec81, your point about fly-by-wire combined with computer systems has no doubt prevented Airbus accidents has also to be weighed against another argument.
As you say, the system prevents a pilot from flying outside of the flight envelope. But, that also means that the system may, and probably has, prevented pilots from taking unusual and unanticipated measures to avert crashes.
You may remember the notorious crash of an Airbus during a demonstration flight where, flown by experienced test pilots, it sank into trees at the end of the runway while on a fly-by.
I don't have all the documentation on this event, but there was a fair amount of commentary that the Airbus robot may have caused that crash by overriding the pilot.
Pilot error is often a factor in air accidents. But, the robots, the programmers, and the engineers of Airbus are capable of error, too. And they can't forsee every possible contingency.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
chan, you're referring to Air France Flight 296 on 26 June 1988. There were issues, as you mentioned, with the computer thinking that it knew better than the pilot, and I agree that there should be a way to manually take over in extenuating circumstances. But there should be a distinction between computer errors like this one, that have been addressed and corrected, and the claims that are being made about the fly-by-wire system being totally knocked out.
In response to your comment:
"flyboy, although markklein may be overstating his belief, it is easier to imagine a situation where even redundant fly-by-wire electrical systems could be overwhelmed than a situation where mechanical linkage to all control axis of an aircraft would fail."
It's really only easier for laypeople to imagine this situation because they may compare these systems to the wiring in their house, where a circuit may trip occasionally during a thunderstorm, but this comparison is not entirely accurate. The flight data recorder may prove me wrong (if it is found) but the likelihood of all of the redundant systems failing, even during a storm, is marginal at best.
Marginally likely events do occasionally occur, however. Just look at United 232 where a fan disc blew and severed all three hydraulic systems, controlling the mechanical linkages. Or Japan Air Flight 123 where a ruptured bulkhead caused the four hydraulic systems on the 747 to be lost. The list goes on.
I guess what I'm saying here is that even though on the surface it might look like fly-by-wire systems are more likely to fail, in the field that's not necessarily the case.
Since lightning strikes can be either positive or negative, if it had a double simotainious hit one positive and one negative. The raw current serge even over the skin of the plane would fuse all electrical and mechanical components in between. You can see this effect in industry when a delta electrical system has 2 phases short to ground everything in between is fused.
flyboy, I'm not really a layperson when it comes to aviation. And I'm in general accord with your last, especially that there ought to be a pilot override for extenuating situations where a human in the cockpit is going to be smarter than a robot programmed for every imagined contingency.
And, yes, I'm familiar with the concept of triple redundancy. I've also read quite a bit about the Airbus in particular in many publications, some very well informed, in connection with the Hudson River ditching.
There are some very high time airline pilots who strongly prefer Boeing to Airbus, and part of that is because of a preference for less robotry as well as less fly-by-wire. But, I believe that is soon to be a moot point with Boeing I think being fly-by-wire on the Dreamliner.
All this said, the suddeness of the recent Airbus event is indicative a catastrophic and nearly instantaneous airframe breakup. An encounter with extremely severe thunderhead activity could perhaps have done it. But more likely, a bomb.
chan, didn't mean to imply that you were a layperson in this regard. I was more pointing towards those who say things like "well yeah it got struck by lightning that's definitely why it lost it's electrical systems..."
I know that this was written in haste, to keep up with fast-moving developments...but 1) the plane crashed in the South Atlantic - not the Indian Ocean and 2) other coverage seems to indicate that the plane was out of radar range of both Brazil or West Africa and therefore would not have "dropped off the radar screen."
They say radar but what they really mean are advanced GPS systems
6 and 7 should be dropped and the title should be renamed "5 Extremely Speculative Theories on the Crash of Flight 447."
My hope is that one of the many flight data recorders is found so that we can have an idea of what went wrong. My money is on structural failure.
Flyboy
I don't fly planes, but I agree that 6 and 7 are merely speculative. And, because I'm not a pilot, I can only surmise that the true reason for this large plane going down in the ocean would be an unforseen change in the weather that ultimately resulted in the crash of that plane.
I'd agree that an unforseen change in the weather is the most likely cause. I agree with this because it doesn't make any specific conclusions. My problem with this article lies in lines like "Lightning appears to be the most plausible cause," when there is no hard evidence to back this up and years upon years of countless lightning strikes on planes with no effect.
All those reasons are sensible in a storm context, even with a brand new aircraft.
Scientists say storms will get meaner in global climate change days. Aircraft will need to fly around storms they once went through.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/aircraft-lost-hurricane-season-beg ins.html
It bears repeating... as lousy as The New York Times has become of late, I find it highly unlikely any of their reporters would confuse the Atlantic and Indian Oceans...as an ENTIRE
CONTINENT separates the two.
The Daily Beast's readers trump the The Daily Beast's editors.
You refer here, regarding one theory, "...that a bomb may have exploded on board-explaining its immediate disappearance from radar."
The aircraft did not disappear from radar. There is no radar coverage over that portion of the Atlantic.
This is not unusual. Radar coverage is mainly over land masses such as North America and Europe. Vast swaths of the Pacific, the North Atlantic, and the South Atlantic have no radar coverage at all. Air traffic control is provided by spacing and position reports.
Can you buy a GPS ? Does my phone have a GPS? The answer to both is yes. So why nit pick over the word radar when it is used by someone hastily writing an article as events develop over the course of the day. Commercial airplanes, especially one as large as the Airbus 330, all have advanced GPS systems and are never simply off the radar.
This is incorrect. Yes aircraft have GPS systems that show the pilots exactly where they are, but they do NOT transmit this information to ground control. When flying over the Atlantic - out of radar coverage - the pilots use their own GPS system to know where they are, but ground control can only see the aircraft on radars. Instead the pilots "check in" every certain amount of time / miles by giving their coordinates via radio. This leaves rather huge "blank" spots, so the aircraft could go down "anywhere" in between 2 checkpoints. This is why it's hard to know exactly where the plane went down, they have to calculate course and speed from last "check point" and make a qualified guess.
On a side note, i think the US and Europe are planing on updating their systems with GPS, but as you may guess it's a very expensive affair.
Dreddblog writes, "...Scientists say storms will get meaner in global climate change days. Aircraft will need to fly around storms they once went through."
Uh, Dredd, any pilot will tell you that thunderstorms have always been avoided at all costs by all aircraft small and large.
Thunderheads, whether over Texas or the Atlantic, or anywhere, have always had the potential to destroy or bring down an aircraft. And several light aircraft are lost every year to this cause.
There is also a phenomenon known as "clear air turbulence" which over the years has brought down a couple of large commercial transports. The means of detecting and avoiding CAT has been approved since CAT disasters earlier in the Jet Age, but it is still possible.
Let's not invoke global warming for everything. Thunderstorms as a hazard have been a threat to aviation for 106 years.
The pilot mistook a regular storm for an 'Armada Storm'. The didn't have a chance!
Doubtful that it's CAT though, if they were lost in a storm then they lacked the Clear-Air part of it.
I agree about the storms though... that's usually flight weather rule #1, avoid cumulonibus clouds, period.
I didn't intend to say that this was a CAT incident. Based on the WX reports, that was unlikely.
The Clear Air Turbulence reference was just meant as an aside to indicate, that even in this advanced era of aviation, there are some phenom of nature that can best our technology.
CORRECTION: "The means of detecting and avoiding CAT has been improved since CAT disasters earlier in the Jet Age..."
poor Columbia Intern, Isabel Wilkinson, one mistake and the daily beast readers go crazy. Indian/Atlantic what's the big deal?;)
As a former student at Columbia myself...the 'big deal' are called FACTS.
Facts are the basis of excellent, well-researched and edited reportage.
Facts matter. The ocean in question is not a matter of opinion.
One more sign of the degeneracy of the American elite and the fundamentally nepotistic nature of Ivy league admissions. Hell, I went to a state school and even I know where the Atlantic and Indian Oceans are.
The winky face was meant to show that it obviously is a big deal. I agree with you CultureVulture.
If it was a bomb or missile - meaning terrorists, a group would have claimed responsibility by now.
gents...being a fighter pilot myself....a self contained bomb exploding from within the cabin would leave "multiple" shrapnel fragments strewn across a larger area to be harder to the naked eye, however, a contained bomb placed possibly in a "wheel well" where the landing gear are stowed after takeoff, and incidently closer to the fuel cells in the wings, could be a more probable possibility of what occurred in midair after it exploded....that's just a hunch of course
[(%u2032in·d%u0113·%u0259n %u2032%u014D·sh%u0259n)
(geography) The smallest and geologically the most youthful of the three oceans, whose surface area is 29,300,000 square miles (75,900,000 square kilometers); it is bounded on the north by India, Pakistan, and Iran; on the east by the Malay Peninsula; on the south by Antarctica; and on the west by the Arabian peninsula and Africa.]excerpted from http://www.answers.com/indian%20ocean
[The debris from Air France Flight 447 is spread over many miles in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. Rescue crews are still standing by with hopes of finding some survivors in the ocean.] excerpted from www.nowpublic.com/world/possible-air-france-flight-447-debris-found-atlanti c-ocean.
[(%u0259t%u2032lan·tik %u2032%u014D·sh%u0259n)
(geography) The large body of water separating the continents of North and South America from Europe and Africa and extending from the Arctic Ocean to the continent of Antarctica.] excerpted from http://www.answers.com/topic/atlantic-ocean.
Another theory, is it could have hit another plane, possibly one of those drug carrier small planes, and such a plane wouldn't be reported if it went down, that would explain one seat and one life jacket floating.
Wow...I was just saying to my husband that I think it hit a military plane and there's a cover-up (the most recent news is that the debris recovered--airplane seat, floatation device-- did NOT belong to the Air France flight)...but your theory (drug carrier plane) is f'ing BRILLIANT! Absolutely brilliant!
I am a "layperson", so this might sound really ignorant, but do small "drug carrier" planes fly at that high of an altitude?
i've never heard of any "small drug carriers" that would be capable of flying that high... I doubt columbian drug lords would use a business jet to smuggle drugs.
I'm hoping exploora was joking...
er, the Boeing 787 is not "being designed without metal." Its makeup will be around 50% composite. A huge amount of effort has been spent mitigating the effects of lightning strikes on this and other modern airframes.
At least birds haven't beent blamed for this one, for a change. Guess they were flying too high for that. If you're going to die in an air crash, it's better that it happens really fast, as this apparently did, before anyone has time to get scared.
Probably a bomb on board. Semtex that can fit into a cigarette pack is enough to bring down a plane. A bomb also brought down the New York to Paris flight along Long Island about twelve years ago, but the government covered it up, as we were led to believe static electricity brought down that plane, which is idiotic. If it was known that a bomb was involved , it would have been disastrous to the worldwide airline industry, so the airlines, with the tacit approval of the U.S. government withheld the truth.You can disagree with this, if it makes you feel better.
Can I just disagree with it because you have no proof whatsoever that that is the case?
The mainstream media (and the Daily Beast) aren't picking it up, but Matt Drudge is linking to reports from south America that there were bomb threats were made to Air France shortly before the doomed flight.
I fly model R/C airplanes. About three years ago I got a plane with a carbon fiber landing gear. After about six months of flying, the plane did not sit level on the ground. Took off the gear to find that it would bend on one side like it was about to break. The outside skin looked fine but inside it was broken. Talking to a friend who had broken a carbon landing gear we both agreed that one day these carbon Boeing and Airbus planes were going to start coming apart in flight.That was three years ago. At the time I said it may take five years to happen, how old was this plane?
I really have to concur about completely dropping #6 and #7 from the list because both are quite ridiculous given the mounting evidence of the pilots indicating an electrical problem via their SATCOM system. I mean if we want to consider crackpot theories like those last two then we might as well throw in a couple other BS explanations:
#8: A UFO came in from space, and in seeing the ability of humans to fly in giant aluminum tubes, grew quite jealous at this sight and chose to shoot it down with an EMP device.
#9: A Dragon that had recently escaped from Scotland was on its way down to the Falkland Islands for holiday, because the islands are still owned by the UK and the Dragon (whom was unable to get his UK Passport to go visit any non-UK places) was interested in checking out the sights and getting a taste of the local sheep fare. However, en-route, the dragon got hungry and noticed a flying metal tube, upon which he figured he could get a free meal, considering the plane was in the middle of the Atlantic and no one would notice if he grabbed a bite...
P.S. I've been an Air Force pilot for several years, and let me tell you, every airline, every day, receives one bomb threat or similar threat everyday.
Don't forget the possibility that there are survivors on an island with polar bears, creapy black smoke, and a hatch that holds a computer that keeps an EMP at bay...
hahahaha...oh yah here's one more crackpot idea....
#10: A passing comet/asteroid/meteor happened to enter the atmosphere and grazed the Airbus jet, and caused it to disintegrate.
I would argue that this would be more likely than a hijacking or bomb on board considering how many objects that enter our atmosphere every second. Granted it's still a crackpot theory since the jet hit a bad tropical storm and was torn up by windshear in excess of 100mph!
Otherwise, I'll add my two-cents, in that what most likely happened was the plane was hit by a bunch of turbulence, and it might have caused enough structural damage to the aircraft that it caused electrical malfunctions along with the subsequent aircraft depressurization.
Several times while flying across the Atlantic we have hit some fairly moderate turbulence (in a C-17), and it caused several interesting malfunctions and other electrical problems in the airplane.
I fly model R/C planes. About three years ago myself and a friend started using carbon fiber parts on planes. After about six months of use the CF landing gear on my plane started to look bent. The outer skin appeared fine, but inside it had broken apart. My friends gear had broken. We both agreed that the carbon planes Boeing and Airbus where building had about five years before they started coming apart in the air. How old was the plane that crashed.
I hope they will find the cause. It could have been a bomb, even if ther wasn't any suspicious person on board.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Does anyone have an opinion on the Air Comet pilots that released this statement? "suddenly, we saw a strong and intense flash of white light in the distance, this was followed by a downward and vertical trajectory that broke up in about five or six seconds."
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.