PARIS (Reuters) - An Air France plane with 228 people on board was presumed to have crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on Monday after hitting stormy weather during a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.

The airline offered its condolences to the families of the passengers, making clear it did not expect any rescue.

"It's a tragic accident. The chances of finding survivors are tiny," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said at Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport after meeting some of the relatives.

The 216 passengers included seven children and one baby, Air France said. Most of them were French or Brazilian but they included around 20 Germans and several other nationalities. Twelve crew members were also on board.

The Airbus jet flew into storms and heavy turbulence four hours after take-off from Rio and 15 minutes later sent an automatic message reporting electrical faults, the airline said.

There was no sign that the crew had sent a mayday message or any indication that signal-emitting emergency locators had activated on impact as is normally the case in crashes.

A company spokesman said several of the plane's mechanisms had malfunctioned.

"It is probably a combination of circumstances that could have led to the crash," he said, adding that the airliner might have been hit by lightning.

Aviation experts said lightning strikes on planes were common and could not alone explain a disaster.

The Brazilian air force said the plane was far out over the sea when it went missing.

If no survivors are found it will be the worst loss of life involving an Air France plane in the firm's 75-year history.

INTERNATIONAL SEARCH EFFORT

Military planes took off from the island of Fernando de Noronha off Brazil's northeast coast to look for it and the Brazilian navy sent three ships to help in the search.

France sent one of its air force planes from west Africa and several ships. Sarkozy said Spain was helping in the mission and Paris had asked the United States to assist in locating the crash site using U.S. satellite data.

"It is going to be extremely difficult because this is a huge area, hundreds of (square) kilometers, and obviously this tragedy happened in the middle of the night over the Atlantic," Sarkozy told reporters.

The passenger list was not released, but French tire company Michelin said the head of its Latin American operations, Luis Roberto Anastacio, had been on the flight.

Tearful relatives and friends were led away by airport staff after they arrived at Roissy expecting to greet the passengers.

About 20 relatives of passengers also arrived at Rio's Galeao airport on Monday morning seeking information.

Bernardo Souza, whose brother and sister-in-law were on the flight, complained he had received no details from Air France.

"I had to come to the airport, but when I arrived I just found an empty counter," he said.

Senior French government minister Jean-Louis Borloo ruled out the possibility of a hi*******.

"It's an awful tragedy," he told France Info radio.

If no survivors are found it will be the worst loss of life involving an Air France plane in the firm's 75-year history.

The plane was an Airbus 330-200 powered with General Electric engines. If the plane is confirmed to have crashed, it would be the first time an A330 has been lost during an operational airline flight.

Air France said the plane had 18,870 flight hours on the clock and went into service in April 2005. It last underwent maintenance in a hangar in April this year.

The last major incident involving an Air France plane was in July 2000 when one of its Concorde supersonic airliners crashed just after taking off from Paris, bound for New York.

All 109 people on board were killed along with at least four on the ground.


source


Earlier today it was missing and not known what happened to it.
Passengers are from various countries like Germany, Brazil, France among others.

What a tragic accident, let's hope there are some survivors out there.

Actually I would like to see Davdah's and Brits Responses??? Can this aircraft be Flown manualy???

Maybe they had a system-wide electrical failure. That would account for no radio messages or transponder codes only the automatic computer messages (probably a battery backup system). Probably got hit by lightning in the storm. If the turbulence was severe enough, it could break up in flight. Yes any airplane can be flown manually but trying to in a storm with no electrics could be just a bit too much to do. If the hydraulics failed as well, it would be like trying to fly a rock at night in a coal mine. Lets hope they find the ELT beacon. That is battery operated and the new digital ones give very accurate position reports.

RIP for all those onboard.

It could be flown to the extent they still had hydraulics available to them. I would guess the reason for no radio contact as being they were too busy trying to fly the plane and being bounced around to re-tune the radio. It can get worse than an amusement park ride flying through the rough stuff. What would be a good idea is to have a voice activated radio much like a cell phone.

Turbulence would have set off the elt before they hit the water.

Narayee Takbeer - ALLAH HU AKBAR

Go s.**** a camel d.ick you worthless scum.

definitely terrorists/muslims but it will be covered up to protect obama

A Secondary bypass To access Hydraulics for control In Case Of Electrical Malfunction????

I Am Just Being Detailed! . Everything Is Controlled Electronically These days! Imagine human power Providing 2000 Plus PSI for the flaps and gear. And Manali Is road Kill!!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MakeItRight!,

quote:

A Secondary bypass To access Hydraulics for control In Case Of Electrical Malfunction????

Might be an idea. I dunno if the A330s have such a thing. Remember this accident from 1989 in Sioux City, IA?:

United Airlines flight 232

The DC-10 had a fatal flaw in the design in that all 3 engine hydraulic lines ran together in the empennage:

Examination of the wreckage showed that portions of the number 2 engine fan blades were embedded in the empennage. Missing from the wreckage was number 2 engine fan module, which had seperated in flight. The failure of the number 2 engine sent fregments through the empennage, rendering all three hydraulic systems inoperable, all of which had critical components that ran together near the engine casing. Several farmers living northeast of the city reported finding various parts of the aircraft on their properties.

Most of the newer aircraft have redundent systems. The 89 crash was quite the feet under the circumstances. Landing using tbe engines to control speed, yaw, roll, and pitch. And under that kind of pressure. I've tried controlling pitch and speed with the throttle only. It ain't easy.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Most of the newer aircraft have redundent systems. The 89 crash was quite the feet under the circumstances. Landing using tbe engines to control speed, yaw, roll, and pitch. And under that kind of pressure. I've tried controlling pitch and speed with the throttle only. It ain't easy.

They went down over the water - why is it that this plane couldn't float like the one that went down in the hudson. Maybe there are survivors if they get to them early enough.

Let's all send a prayer!

quote:

Originally posted by Kollerkrot:

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Most of the newer aircraft have redundent systems. The 89 crash was quite the feet under the circumstances. Landing using tbe engines to control speed, yaw, roll, and pitch. And under that kind of pressure. I've tried controlling pitch and speed with the throttle only. It ain't easy.

They went down over the water - why is it that this plane couldn't float like the one that went down in the hudson. Maybe there are survivors if they get to them early enough.

Let's all send a prayer!

Prayers indeed. One big difference, Koller, is the plane that went down in the Hudson had only reached 3200 feet in altitude and the pilot was able to ease it down. The Air France flight was cruising at 35,000 feet. They have found some debris suspected to be part of the wreckage. More details: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...e.missing/index.html

Big difference. The hudson landing was a controlled emergency approach. With AirFrance the weather and subsequent loss of control is the most probable reason for the crash. The impact would likely have been at excessive speed and angle. In the Hudson crash they lost the engines shortly after take off. Lucky for them they had enough altitude and built up speed to use the controls to maneuver the plane into a landing configuration. Having the water close by was its saving grace. As is always the case. You should never fly through a thunder storm. Doesn't matter how big the bird, the weather is always the victor.

Manali's other boyfriend. Dead as a door nail. Killed by a Christian Crusader. Eat lead sukka.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Big difference. The hudson landing was a controlled emergency approach. With AirFrance the weather and subsequent loss of control is the most probable reason for the crash. The impact would likely have been at excessive speed and angle. In the Hudson crash they lost the engines shortly after take off. Lucky for them they had enough altitude and built up speed to use the controls to maneuver the plane into a landing configuration. Having the water close by was its saving grace. As is always the case. You should never fly through a thunder storm. Doesn't matter how big the bird, the weather is always the victor.

2 500 pound Pressurized hydraulic tanks Accessible as Bypass pressure "Pilot controlled" as backup allowing 15 minutes to lower Altitude In Extreme Emergency for a Hudson Style stop??? So 15 less Passengers Or 150 gallons less fuel!!!
Would That allow Enough For a Semi Controlled Escape?????

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MakeItRight!,

I heard on the radio this AM that this aircraft received a bomb threat four days prior to this flight. Makes one wonder if the threat was carried out.

God bless those poor people on that flight and their family and friends. Too sad.

quote:

Originally posted by MakeItRight!:

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Big difference. The hudson landing was a controlled emergency approach. With AirFrance the weather and subsequent loss of control is the most probable reason for the crash. The impact would likely have been at excessive speed and angle. In the Hudson crash they lost the engines shortly after take off. Lucky for them they had enough altitude and built up speed to use the controls to maneuver the plane into a landing configuration. Having the water close by was its saving grace. As is always the case. You should never fly through a thunder storm. Doesn't matter how big the bird, the weather is always the victor.

2 500 pound Pressurized hydraulic tanks Accessible as Bypass pressure "Pilot controlled" as backup allowing 15 minutes to lower Altitude In Extreme Emergency for a Hudson Style stop??? So 15 less Passengers Or 150 gallons less fuel!!!
Would That allow Enough For a Semi Controlled Escape?????

That would be enough but unnecessary. In the Hudson landing it was all of about a minute or so from bird strike to touchdown in the water. If a plane is high enough to where it will take 15 minutes to descend to a landing altitude they will be generating enough wind speed to keep the turbines spinning. Which power the hydraulics. No need for backup.

We'll find out soon enough but I hope that wasn't the case. It will just make things that much more difficult for all concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Most of the newer aircraft have redundent systems. The 89 crash was quite the feet under the circumstances. Landing using tbe engines to control speed, yaw, roll, and pitch. And under that kind of pressure. I've tried controlling pitch and speed with the throttle only. It ain't easy.

It was quite a feat and they re-created the situation in the sim afterwards and nobody, not even the original crew onboard at the time could pull it off.

As for the Hudson landing, that was a piece of cake compared to this flight.

Correction - it was a different Air France flight that a bomb was threatened days before this one took off.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524835,00.html