NOTE: This writeup is from an acquaintance of mine who wrote some powerful meteorological software, Digital Atmosphere, that I use in my office. He used that software (and others) to analyze the Air France 447 crash from the meteorological perspective. h/t to Mike Moran – Anthony
by Tim Vasquez
Air France flight 447 (AF447), an Airbus A330 widebody jet, was reported missing in the equatorial Atlantic Ocean in the early morning hours of June 1, 2009. The plane was enroute from Rio de Janeiro (SBGL) to Paris (LFPG). Speculation suggested that the plane may have flown into a thunderstorm. The objective of this study was to isolate the aircraft’s location against high-resolution satellite images from GOES-10 to identify any association with thunderstorm activity. Breakup of a plane at higher altitudes in a thunderstorm is not unprecedented; Northwest Flight 705 in 1963 and more recently Pulkovo Aviation Flight 612 in 2006 are clear examples.
Back in the 1990s I did flight route forecasting for the Air Force. One of my assignments in summer 1994 was forecasting was the sector between Mombasa, Kenya and Cairo, Egypt for C-5 and C-141 aircraft. The Sudan region had tropical MCS activity similar to this with little in the way of sensor data, so this incident holds some special interest for me as one of our C-5s could easily have followed a very similar fate. Using what’s available to me I decided to do a little analysis and see if I could determine anything about the fate of AF447 and maybe through some circuitous, indirect means help give authorities some clues on where to look.
1. Reports and evidence
Reports indicate AF447 reported INTOL (S01 21.7′,W32 49.9′ or -1.362,-32.832) at 0133Z and was to proceed to TASIL (N4 00.3′,W29 59.4′, or +4.005,-29.990) in 50 minutes (a true track of 28.1 deg) (source) indicating that it flew high altitude route UN873 (see below).
Enroute High Altitude Caribbean and South America H-4, 30 AUG 2007 (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) |
Though the actual flight plan data was not accessible to me, this corresponds well with an actual flight plan found on the Internet for a Varig B767 from Rio de Janeiro to Frankfurt:
|
I decided to project the flight forward from INTOL. An altitude of FL350 and speed of 520 mph was given. Presumably this is ground speed according to the ACARS specification. Compensating for a 10 kt headwind as given by the SBFN sounding this yields an airspeed of M.80, which correlates well with the A330’s typical early cruise profile. This yields the following aircraft coordinates:
|
2. Meteorological analysis
Surface analysis showed the suspected crash region to be within the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ), which at this time of year is usually found at about the 5-10N parallel. A region of strong trade winds covered most of the tropical North Atlantic and this kept the ITCZ in a somewhat southerly position. The linear convergence along the ITCZ and the unstable atmospheric conditions combined to produce scattered clusters of thunderstorms.
Surface analysis for 0000Z. (NCEP) |
Using McIDAS I acquired satellite GOES-10 satellite data from UCAR and centered it over the region between INTOL and TASIL. I then plotted the waypoints using McIDAS’s built-in coordinate entry panel. Since the source satellite images are georeferenced NOAA/GINI datasets, the points shown here are very accurate and are NOT placed by hand but by lat/long coordinates to the nearest 0.001 deg (0.06 mile). In the image below, the stationary southerly point in blue is INTOL and the aircraft’s estimated location from the above table is marked with a cross. Graticule spacing is 5 degrees. For the orange temperature plots I used the NCL/3aw curve; the sharp gradient of the enhancement from dark to light occurs at 243K (-30 deg C), indicating a cloud top of FL310 assuming the satellite pixel is completely overcast with that layer (which is not always true).
NOTE: If you have trouble seeing some of the large images, the source link is here -Anthony
| Frame Controls | Satellite images |
|---|---|
Loop Mode:
Adjust Speed:
Dwell First/Last:
Frame No: Omit Frame: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
![]() |
(Hit reload if you don’t see the satellite images in the looper above)
Raw infrared images are also available here: 0145Z, 0200Z, 0215Z, 0230Z.
And finally this image shows a zoomed image at 0215Z when AF447 made its last transmission:
click for a larger image
About 90% of the cloud material seen on this image is actually multiple levels of convective debris fields from dying storms and activity that occurred previously during the day, with only scattered cirrus fields at flight level. The active thunderstorm areas are defined by small-scale mottled areas of cold cloud tops. Compare with this structural diagram below of a similar tropical MCS in the same area in 1977. It illustrates that planes inflight are clear of most dangerous weather throughout a tropical system except when directly above an active updraft area.
Schematic of a typical tropical MCS observed in the Atlantic southwest of Dakar on 4 Sep 1974. (Structure and Dynamics of a Tropical Squall-Line System, R. A. Houze Jr., Mon. Wea. Rev., 105, 1540-1567) |
It appears AF447 crossed through three key thunderstorm clusters: a small one around 0151Z, a new rapidly growing one at about 0159Z, and finally a large multicell convective system (MCS) around 0205-0216Z. Temperature trends suggested that the entire system was at peak intensity, developing rapidly around 2300-0100Z and finally dissipating around dawn. From a turbulence perspective, these cold spots would be the areas of highest concern as they signal the location of an active updraft producing new cloud material in the upper troposphere.
The last communication from the plane was at 0214Z (12:14 am local meridian time). This was an automated ACARS message reporting an electrical fault and pressurization problem. This would be about the time the plane was beginning to exit the cluster, but not before having flown for 75 miles of numerous updrafts. The exact aircraft location cannot be determined with certainty, however, since a 1-minute time error in position or reporting time translates to 9 miles of spatial error.
The Fernando de Noronha sounding is available here and shows typical tropical conditions with modest positive energy throughout the column from the surface up to 45,000 ft. There is what looks like anvil level material above 25,000 ft. The significant dry mid-level air is somewhat unusual and suggests the potential for enhanced evaporational cooling in the upper troposphere enhancing downdraft production, and any synoptic-scale lift (if present) enhancing instability through adiabatic cooling of the layer.
I modified this sounding (see below) using the prevailing temperature/dewpoint field across that part of the ocean and modifying for some cooling due to nighttime loss of heating. This is my best guess at the parcel profile that fed this storm. It yields a worst case instability of 1048 J/kg of CAPE, which is moderately strong but considered borderline for typical severe weather. Vertical velocity can be obtained by w=2*CAPE^0.5 yielding a maximum possible updraft speed contribution of 45.8 m/s or 102 mph, though in reality this is usually much less (on the order of half or less) due to precipitation loading and other factors.

3. Conclusions
The satellite imagery indicates that numerous cumulonimbus towers were rising to at least 51,000 ft, and were embedded in extensive stratiform anvils with tops of 35,000 to 45,000 ft. This kind of configuration is actually quite normal for equatorial storms due to the higher tropopause height, but it emphasizes that the aircraft was certainly within the bulk of an extensive cumulonimbus cloud field for a significant amount of time and that storms could indeed have been a contributing factor to the crash.
I’ve edited this section Monday night to cut down on the speculation about the accident chain, especially since I don’t know a whole lot about A330 systems. The airliners.net board and other sites cover the aircraft and CRM systems quite well. What I will try to do, however, is summarize what the aircraft probably encountered based on the data and my own experience.
* Turbulence — Turbulence is a definite candidate as a contributing factor. There is an isolated storm at (1.6,-31.5) that appears suddenly at 0200Z just as the A330 enters the main MCS cluster. From a turbulence perspective it is by far the most dangerous formation found on the loop. However it is 10-25 km to the left of UN873 and it is doubtful the crew would have been deviating at this time. Other cells like this one embedded within the main MCS may have caused severe turbulence. Young updrafts are particularly dangerous to flights because they contain significant rising motion yet precipitation fields have not yet fully developed and airborne radar signatures are weak, reducing the likelihood the crew will deviate around the cell. Another concern is the extensive upper-level dry air shown on the SBFN sounding (not counting the anvil debris at 350-300 mb), which may have contributed to enhanced evaporative cooling in and around the anvil and aggravated the turbulence experienced by the flight, especially around the margins of anvil clouds and towers. It is worth considering that cumulative periods of heavy turbulence crossing through the cluster may have caused minor internal damage that progressed in some way into an emergency.
* Icing — With a flight level temperature of -43 deg C suggested by the proximity sounding the A330 would have been flying mostly in rime ice and possibly some clear ice and graupel. At -43 deg C, water cannot exist even in supercooled form (see here for an explanation). The equivalent potential temperature throughout the profile is absolutely insufficient to bring warmer air with supercooled water to flight level. Without the supercooled water there is very little ice buildup on the airframe. My conclusion is that unless the plane descended below FL300 icing would not be the culprit.
* Lightning — Due to the high cloud tops and freezing level at 16,000 ft, there was extensive precipitation by cold rain process and it is likely the MCS was electrified. Lightning of course being considered with good reason since the A330 is one of the most computerized and automated airliners in service. I will say based on my 25 years of meteorology the storms were almost definitely producing lightning. As far what a strike would do to the A330, I have to leave that to to the avionics experts. Some answers might be found at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/.
* Precipitation — A dual engine flameout due to precipitation or ice ingestion is a noteworthy possibility as has been discussed on other sites (specific to the A330 type too). The precipitable water content in any tropical weather system can run very high. However a rain-induced flameout is not possible because supercooled water cannot exist at the -43C cruise altitude and insufficient equivalent potential temperature exists, even in updraft cores, to bring warmer air beyond a few degrees change to the flight level. Therefore the plane at FL350 was completely within some mixture of rime ice, graupel, or small hail. But again, as the link indicates, even ice poses risks to the engine.
* Hail — I got a few comments about hail. I am not entirely convinced that structural hail damage is a factor, partly because I can’t recall hearing much about large damaging hail at altitude in my experience with equatorial flight operations. This would require strong instability, which I’m not yet sure we have, not only to grow the stones but to loft large hailstones from the embryo “nursery” at FL200-250 up to flight level. A value of 1000 J/kg CAPE is really on the fence but not out of the question. The other problem is the mounting body of evidence (see SPC studies) suggesting well-sheared storms (this profile is poorly sheared) are the ones conducive to structures that support hail growth. Finally, another issue is airborne radars are be highly sensitive to hail because of the very high backscatter values of ice, making evasive action likely, and the “young updrafts” I pointed out earlier as a threat would not have provided the residence times necessary yet to contain hailstones; their main threat would be severe turbulence. I am not sure about the hail hypothesis, but I believe there is a high probability of graupel, small ice pellets, or small hail at FL350 in the storm complex (see Icing above).
Overall what we know for sure is weather was a factor and the flight definitely crossed through a thunderstorm complex. There is a definite correlation of weather with the crash. However the analysis indicates that the weather is not anything particularly exceptional in terms of instability or storm structure. It’s my opinion that tropical storm complexes identical to this one have probably been crossed hundreds of times over the years by other flights without serious incident.
Still, in the main MCS alone, the A330 would have been flying through significant turbulence and thunderstorm activity for about 75 miles (125 km), lasting about 12 minutes of flight time. Of course anything so far is speculation until more evidence comes in, and for all we know the cause of the downing could have been anything from turbulence to coincidental problems like a cargo fire.
My own opinion of the crash cause, as of Monday night, based on the complete lack of a HF radio call and consideration of all of the above, suggests severe turbulence (see the BOAC 911 and BNF 250 tragedies) combining in some unlikely way with CRM/design/maintenance/procedural/other deficiencies to trigger a failure cascade. We can almost certainly count on some unexpected surprises once the CVR is recovered. Until then, all we can do is await the investigation and hope that the world’s flight operations stay safe until AFR447’s lessons are revealed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Pete (07:33:07) wrote:
What about the Kenya Airways (a new 737- 800)flight out of Douala (last year) which crashed 30 secs after take off. There was deinitely a severe thunderstorm involved here. The black boxes were apparently found. What were the findings?
Actually the crash was 2 years ago.
Canada is handling the investigation on the request of Kenya.
AFAIK the final results of the investigation have not been released yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_Airways_Flight_KQ_507
Arthur
As one in the industry:
In general, lightening will not effect aircraft operations. I have been struck five times without any effect whatsoever. The widely reported Delta airline ‘strike’ was actually a fire.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/04/atlantic-southeast-airlines-cr.html
.
Hail, however, is a different matter. Normally aircraft will stay clear using radar, but if you have a radar failure for some reason, the results can be dramatic.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/abramsv/R48vQ0KUpNI/AAAAAAAAELk/AnqKnEk3NHo/ndi_hailstorm.jpg
http://rv8.ch/gallery/d/5288-2/111_1104.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/2941118.stm
Structural failure in a large cell is always a possibility but again this begs the question as to why the aircraft would ever get into that situation in the first place.
.
Say they flew into a big area of 5,000 fpm + lift. The auto-pilot would throttle back the engines and put the nose down to maintain height, this combined with the Stoke’s effect would give an alarming increase in airspeed. The pilots clock this, switch off the auto and pull back to stabilize the speed before they run up the engines. If at that point the plane flew from updraught to 5000 fpm + of downdraught then the total change of angle of attack to highly negative would completely stall the wing and maybe the engines as well.
The published descriptions are that the satellites watch for a nuclear bomb’s characteristic double-flash. X-Rays escaping from the bomb cause the atmosphere to flash while the fireball is still inside the bomb casing. A few milliseconds later the fireball becomes visible. Normal explosions aren’t noticed. We can conjecture that some lightning causes false alarms, but the engineers probably tried to minimize that.
adoucette: My favorite destructive test device is one which measures the forces needed to crush a mine jack. It breaks something designed to hold up a mountain.
Facinating discussion up above of load factors and I now understand why pilots slow down giong into turbulence, which then may give credence to the stall warning issued by Airbus. It seems like balancing air speed is a lot more critical than just arriving on schedule. (A comment I read somewhere – might have been here – talked of the “coffin shoulder” between too slow to fly and too high for the structural integrity od the aircraft.)
I guess we all think that with GPS, weather radar, electonic auto-pilots, fly-by-wire etc. the skill of the pilot is reduced to a minor factor. Events like this, and the landing on the Hudon earlier this year, are reminders that airline pilots still have a major role in flight safety.
As a regular long-haul traveller, to think that weather alone can still cause a catastrophic structural failure in modern jet aircraft is worrying. I guess this is why there are so many people trying to find some kind of other circumstances to explain this, if only to give us confidence that we can prevent it happening in the future. I’ve never thought this way about terrorism – maybe that’s the point, it is easier to see the response to these in enhanced security measures etc. (which probably do no more than reassure me – but they have worked in that respect).
At the end of the day (or in my case, tomorrow morning), we have to get “back on the horse” so to speak and remember that there are very very few plane crashes – a testament to the safety record of Boeing, Airbus et. al. and the airlines that operate them.
>>Spending my working life in the clouds, I have not, and
>>never will set foot on a ‘airbus’ product, it is a accident
>>waiting to happen ! Pieces are made all over Europe and
>>are not a product, but a political wet dream, wings in one
>>country, tail in another, electronics and engines all come
>>from different countries and if you are lucky
What utter (American presumably) rot. If that is the case, I presume you will never even touch a Boeing with a barge-pole, because their latest airplanes are thrown together from bits made all over the WORLD – not just a ‘United States of Europe’.
Boeing 787:
Tail Italy Alenia
Fuselage Italy Alenia
Fuselage USA Vought Aero
Fuselage USA Spirit Aero
Floors India Tata
Wings Japan Fuji
Wings Japan Mitsubishi
Center wing Japan Kawasaki
Landing gear France-UK Messier Dowty (with Russian castings)
Doors France Latecoere
Flaps Australia
Engines UK Rolls
Brakes France Snecma
etc: etc:
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature1690/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787
I think, with the 787, Boeing in Seattle might make the go-faster stripes.
.
>>Spending my working life in the clouds, I have not,
>>and never will set foot on a ‘airbus’ product, it is a
>>accident waiting to happen ! Pieces are made all over
>>Europe and are not a product, but a political wet dream,
>>wings in one country, tail in another, electronics and
>>engines all come from different countries
What (American presumably) rot. If that is the case, then I presume you would not touch Boeing’s latest offerings with a barge-pole, as they are manufactured from parts from all over the WORLD – not just a ‘United States of Europe’.
Boeing 787:
Tail Italy Alenia
Fuselage Italy Alenia
Fuselage USA Vaught Aero
Fuselage USA Spirit Aero
Floor India Tata
Wings Japan Fuji
Wings Japan Mitsubishi
Wing center Japan Kawasaki
Nose USA Spirit Aero
Doors France Latecoere
Landing gear France-UK Messier-Dowty (with castings from Russia)
Flaps Australia Boeing
Brakes France Snecma
Engines UK Rolls
http://www.dcvelocity.com/news/?article_id=1750
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787
With the 787, I think that Boeing in Seattle may make the go-faster stripes…
.
Arthur –
FAA and JAA (european) regulations require manufacturers to destructive test a new wing design to 150%. The original A380 wing failed at 140 something percent and required a redesign. Every airliner that has broken up in flight and was designed after the late 1950s passed the 150% test….
TP,
Since the crashes of the Lockheed Electra – (Flt 542 on 9-29-1959 and Flt 710 on 3-17-1960) I can’t recall a single crash caused by structural failure of the wing (in this case actually lack of stiffness in the engine nacelle mounted to the wing was the root cause).
Once fixed the plane went on for many more years, including the Navy variant, the Submarine hunter – P3 Orion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-3_Orion
Arthur
Really? A spike? What constitutes a spike? 3 out of 10,000 flights?
And it still amazes me how people completely disregard the “fasten seat belt” sign during flight, and the verbal instructions to keep seat belts fastened when in flight and seated (while the sign is off), and until the aircraft has come to a complete stop at the jetway. So many idiots think it doesn’t apply to them, for some bizarre reason. They’re the ones who’s bodies will become projectiles and injure the people who follow very sensible instructions.
Jeff,
3 out of 10,000?
Hardly,
There are ~28,000 flights each day in the US alone.
http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp
Arthur
So far none have landed on my house, only 3 miles from the NAS Whidbey runways 😉
Brazilian Navy Recovers First Pieces of Downed Air France Plane Bloomberg, June 4, 2009 14:00 EDT
I think this article in the Times of London could be on the right track. If the pilot slowed down in the turbulence and the wind suddenly changed when he crossed over or through a cell top from a head wind to a tail wind, he could have experienced a high altitude stall. It would be something like wind shear from a downburst in reverse. You have a column of rising air that then spreads out when it reaches some altitude … outflow at the top. You would have a headwind going into it and a tailwind coming out. If they were experiencing severe turbulence, slowing down is the normal course. If you suddenly get a 100mph tail wind when you aren’t expecting one and aren’t going fast enough, you are out of control.
The skin made of a composite embedded with relatively thin wire mesh or thin wires can never be as effective against lightning as a continuous aluminum skin.
Positive lightning current may reach 300 kA and they last longer than negative lightning.
Arthur –
Somewhat off my last post, but an old A model C-130 used for firefighting crashed at low level after catastrophic wingbox failure in 2003….or was it 2004? Of course, the C-130 was designed for the Air Force, and therefore did not adhere to Part 23 cert. requirements. But it was an inflight wing failure…
Outstanding meteorological analysis, as to the rest of the speculation, it is just that: Speculation. It has its place. If it was a bomb, which I seriously doubt, explosive residue will be present on the fragments.
TP
Yeah, you can’t compare military craft to civilian craft and you really can’t compare OLD military craft to modern civilian craft.
Now as far as stressful use of an aircraft I doubt anything but dogfighting comes close to fire-fighting.
The C-130 tanker that crashed in Walker California was the second C-130 to shed its wings doing low level high g pullouts while trying to suppress forest fires (let them burn is my motto)
The Walker C-130A was built in 1957 and had 21,863 hours on the airframe when the wing failed.
The wing box on the C-130A uses an alloy of aluminum 7075-T6 that unfotunately is susceptable to fatigue cracks. Lockheed changed the alloy on the C-130E models to 7075-T7531, an alloy which has much better fatigue tolerance and also redesigned the wing box to reduce loads near the point where the wing and the fuselage meet.
Arthur
Christopher wrote:
Speculation. It has its place. If it was a bomb, which I seriously doubt, explosive residue will be present on the fragments.
Considering the water its not that likely any residue will remain, but conclusive pitting from the explosive could be found. Still, this would only be on structures very near an explosion, and considering its location its highly unlikely that much of the airframe will be recovered.
Consider that the explosive that brought down the Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie was in a luggage container and only created a 20 inch hole in the fuselage.
Arthur
EUMETSAT analysis of the storm cell Met-9 IR image shows major thunderstorm clusters on extrapolated flight path of AF447 .
adoucette, I loved that link to video of a Boeing wing loading test.
The conclusion in the article atop these comments that extraordinary weather was *a factor* in this catastrophe seems like a safe bet to me. Was it a primary, secondary, or tertiary factor? The author makes no claim in that regard.
This is my first encounter with wattsupwiththat. Fantastic site, amazing commenters. Thanks to all.
They now say in the radio news that the wreckage found at sea was not from AF447…
So it is increasingly looking like speed of the aircraft was a factor. Either a sensor was giving incorrect input to the on-board systems causing improper flight operation or the pilots made a mistake.
That the incident happened as the plane was leaving the area of heavy weather. This is an area where one might expect to pick up a tailwind from the storm outflow.
More information may come to light if they can collect the boxes but so far there is “chatter” that the automatic data being reported from the plane showed “unintelligible” speed data, the plane appears to have been flying too slowly, and the rest of the data reported by satellite is consistent with a “high altitude stall” which may have been nearly impossible to recover from in heavy weather.
Hi
Thank You for your article…it is really sad and i pray for their family.
Ancy