Debris not from air france.. WELL..

[xxweekxx]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...ash/index.html

PS I got 6 seasons of air crash investigastors.. very good fucking series.. anyway.. the funny thing is that pretty much ALL the plane crashes were a result of MANY things gone wrong. Its never one thing...

Its one mistake, after another, after another, before a plane crashes..

This show actually has made me realize how safe airplanes are.. These new airbuses and boeings are pretty much uncrashable.. it takes a lot to down it.. They can even fly on one engine, and chances of even one or two engines going out are close to nil.

Even if they lose both engines, they can glide to an airport in a nearby island..etc etc (It was done by an airbus.. saw it in the show)

Anyway, i feel bad for the family members.. I hope they find them soon..

[polish_aristocrat]

well in the plane that landed in Hudson River, two engines went out...

BTW people say planes are safe from a lightning but it's not really always the case, see - positive lightning


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightni...tive_lightning

[LiveDose]

It's so funny how there is not one mention of what everyone is thinking may have caused the 'crash'...

Allah akbar!

[Choopa Phil]

Originally Posted by LiveDose

It's so funny how there is not one mention of what everyone is thinking may have caused the 'crash'...

Allah akbar!

im sure if it was terrorist related, they would be boasting about it right now and not keeping quiet

[Scott McD]

Originally Posted by xxweekxx

This show actually has made me realize how safe airplanes are..

Apparently not...

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by LiveDose

It's so funny how there is not one mention of what everyone is thinking may have caused the 'crash'...

Allah akbar!

It's funny to assume that in a situation where a plane has encountered severe turbulences and bad weather and 10 minutes later it's been sending automatic messages that all systems are out, that it have been destroyed by a bomb..

or are you saying the terrorists hijacked the plane during the turbulences, killed the pilots and just directed the plane into the ocean... ?

[polish_aristocrat]

it might have been a combination or lightning, icing, turbulences etc

perhaps sume human error as well...

[LiveDose]

It's funny how the assumption of cover ups and misinformation always seem to be one sided...

I'm just taking the other side,,, Why believe everything we are being told in this case???

[LiveDose]

I know some of you read this blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_210657.html

Good to look at all sides...

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by xxweekxx

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...ash/index.html

PS I got 6 seasons of air crash investigastors.. very good fucking series.. anyway.. the funny thing is that pretty much ALL the plane crashes were a result of MANY things gone wrong. Its never one thing...

Its one mistake, after another, after another, before a plane crashes..

This show actually has made me realize how safe airplanes are.. These new airbuses and boeings are pretty much uncrashable.. it takes a lot to down it.. They can even fly on one engine, and chances of even one or two engines going out are close to nil.

Even if they lose both engines, they can glide to an airport in a nearby island..etc etc (It was done by an airbus.. saw it in the show)

Anyway, i feel bad for the family members.. I hope they find them soon..

who will know, lost

[Manowar]

wonder what happened to it

[gmr324]

I hope they at least find the black boxes. I saw an interview of a person who has invented a floatable black box. It would save hundres of man hours in the search time to collect the necessary crash data. Very tragic.

[LiveDose]

Originally Posted by gmr324

I hope they at least find the black boxes. I saw an interview of a person who has invented a floatable black box. It would save hundres of man hours in the search time to collect the necessary crash data. Very tragic.

So simple and so brilliant...

[pornguy]

I find it odd that no debris has been found yet, and that nothing has been seen on satellite. But I don't think it was blown up.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by gmr324

I hope they at least find the black boxes. I saw an interview of a person who has invented a floatable black box. It would save hundres of man hours in the search time to collect the necessary crash data. Very tragic.

hmmm...it wont help if it is trapped under the plane.


but not a bad idea

[InternetIsForPorn]

I was rewatching the LOST finale when the news hit... and for some reason I think they won't find it

The plain WAS on a straight course, it can't be that hard to find at least something. SOMETHING should've washed up on shore by now or would be detected by random boats.

[cwd]

there was a report from another airline flying to Peru from Spain that said they saw a white flash of light and a stream of that light for like 6 seconds, and then nothing...this is so strange. It must be so tough for the relatives and friends to not know what is going on.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by xxweekxx

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...ash/index.html

Even if they lose both engines, they can glide to an airport in a nearby island..etc etc (It was done by an airbus.. saw it in the show)

if a similar jet was at cruising altitude and at cruising speed.. it might have glide range of 25-30-40-50 miles depending on weather. these planes have very poor glide ratio's... they're flying rocks. its not like they can just cut power and glide to any location they choose.

[Klen]

Strange how no one said yet reason could be ufo.

[crockett]

90% of all airplane crashes are human error. Granted I pulled that number out of my ass but I know it's up there and close.

Strange thing is I was almost on a plane crash that killed everyone on board. The lucky thing that saved me was I had to work.

[xxweekxx]

yea i know it might seem ironic that the show on plane crashes shows how safe airplanes are, but honestly they are very fucking safe..

90%+ of the crashes could have been prevented... most people are afraid of both engines failing in the airplane, but there are other things to be worried about....

Even though airplanes do crash, the rate is so low.. in the USA alone there are thousands of flights a DAY, yet theres maybe 1 crash a year...... and its always some stupid pilot error or maintenance error or some silly shit that could have been prevented.

Maybe then again im biased cause i love airplanes and ive taken a few flight lessons.lol

Those single propeller engine airplanes scare the fuck out of me though. I rather be in an airbus A380 or a Boeing 767 Safe as heck

[crockett]

Originally Posted by xxweekxx

yea i know it might seem ironic that the show on plane crashes shows how safe airplanes are, but honestly they are very fucking safe..

90%+ of the crashes could have been prevented... most people are afraid of both engines failing in the airplane, but there are other things to be worried about....

Even though airplanes do crash, the rate is so low.. in the USA alone there are thousands of flights a DAY, yet theres maybe 1 crash a year...... and its always some stupid pilot error or maintenance error or some silly shit that could have been prevented.

Maybe then again im biased cause i love airplanes and ive taken a few flight lessons.lol

Those single propeller engine airplanes scare the fuck out of me though. I rather be in an airbus A380 or a Boeing 767 Safe as heck

There is a lot more than one crash a year in the US, it's just most involve small private aircraft. Not many big jets crash though, which is kind of amazing when you do think about how old many of them are and how many flights there are.

The problem with aircraft though is they aren't built to crash, so when they do it's pretty much a done deal that everyone on board is gonna be dead. That one in NY that landed in the river was a one in a million event.

On the flip side this vid was posted here a while back but this is a pretty good one where the pilot was on the ball and did it right.

[xxweekxx]

Originally Posted by crockett

There is a lot more than one crash a year in the US, it's just most involve small private aircraft. Not many big jets crash though, which is kind of amazing when you do think about how old many of them are and how many flights there are.

The problem with aircraft though is they aren't built to crash, so when they do it's pretty much a done deal that everyone on board is gonna be dead. That one in NY that landed in the river was a one in a million event.

On the flip side this vid was posted here a while back but this is a pretty good one where the pilot was on the ball and did it right.

Well i meant jet liner not small airplanes.. thats why i said the small airplanes scare the fuck out of me... take for example an airbus a330.. it has redundant wiring, backup computers, backup hydraulics, it can fly on one engine.. even if it loses power to both engines, a ramjet can generate power for the cockpit controls, etc etc

a single engined cessna propeller plane that loses the engine on takeoff = you are fucked..

a330 that loses one engine on takeoff = you are OK..

Besides, these jet airplanes have way more stringent maintenance procedures,plus they are basically built NOT to crash..

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by gmr324

I hope they at least find the black boxes. I saw an interview of a person who has invented a floatable black box. It would save hundres of man hours in the search time to collect the necessary crash data. Very tragic.

what wonders me is:

the plane sent out several warning and maintenance messages automatically. since there is nearly 100% satellite coverage why not stream the information constantly to a server that now still goes to the black box (you can keep that for backup). the amount of data cannot be that big (some text information and real time encoded mp3 at like 64 kbit/s bitrate). if you want you can always just keep the last 30 mins like its done also in the black box and delete everything before automatically - but storage is cheap anyways.

if now planes get internet this should be a piece of cake.

like Formula 1 cars constantly send all their settings - for example

[rowan]

Originally Posted by xxweekxx

a330 that loses one engine on takeoff = you are OK..

Depends on the airport and what's beyond the runway. Climbing at takeoff requires significantly more power than cruising or landing.

[JP-pornshooter]

Originally Posted by xxweekxx

Well i meant jet liner not small airplanes.. thats why i said the small airplanes scare the fuck out of me... take for example an airbus a330.. it has redundant wiring, backup computers, backup hydraulics, it can fly on one engine.. even if it loses power to both engines, a ramjet can generate power for the cockpit controls, etc etc

a single engined cessna propeller plane that loses the engine on takeoff = you are fucked..

a330 that loses one engine on takeoff = you are OK..

Besides, these jet airplanes have way more stringent maintenance procedures,plus they are basically built NOT to crash..

well actually you are only somewhat screwed in the single cessna, chances are if you are trained properly, you can get that back back to mother earth without too much injury..
that being said, the accident rate and fatality rate is much higher for general aviation compared to commercial aviation..
it is extremely rare that a commercial pax jet disintegrate in mid air..

[JP-pornshooter]

Originally Posted by rowan

Depends on the airport and what's beyond the runway. Climbing at takeoff requires significantly more power than cruising or landing.

obviously there are (FAA and ICAO) rules which airports these jets are allowed to depart from (and land at but that is a different story)
one of the requirements is that the runway is long enough for a single engine climb out in case of a problem..
but in any case this jet can on one engine climb at a very steep rate of ascend, much higher that what would normally be required, mean we are taking 5000ft/min climb, you'd feel like you are in a space rocket...

[Pleasurepays]

and by the way.... uhmm... debris from a downed commercial jet, reportedly scattered over an area of 3 miles and they had a part of the tail section to confirm, found in the area this plane lost contact... is... suddenly not the debris of this particular aircraft?


really?

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

and by the way.... uhmm... debris from a downed commercial jet, reportedly scattered over an area of 3 miles and they had a part of the tail section to confirm, found in the area this plane lost contact... is... suddenly not the debris of this particular aircraft?


really?

that's the only 'suspicious' thing in this... I guess it comes down to premature opinions about what they found etc...

still I don't buy into the conspiracy theories related to this crash, a plane simply went down into the ocean, most likely weather conditions contributed to it, it's sad, it makes big news and it's even interesting to follow in this case, but it just happens every once in a while no matter what

"It was probably a combination of circumstance that led to the demise of 447," said Ken Reeves, director of forecasting operations at Accuweather.com. "What the exact combination is, we're going to have to piece it all together."

The winds likely slammed into the plane causing severe turbulence, analysts say.

From there, many things could have gone wrong. With the turbulence jerking the plane up and down, the aircraft could have experienced rapid decompression. If the plane was hit by lightning, a window could have broken out. The turbulence could have resulted in an engine failure, or some failure that caused parts of the blades to break off and pierce the plane's hull.

About 15 minutes after entering the storms, the A330 began sending out automated maintenance messages indicating problems with electrical components and pressurization. The A330 was supposed to radio a report a few minutes later but never made the scheduled call

^ this surely doesn't look like a bomb to me though

[Pleasurepays]

its not possible to say "we found the plane, we've identified parts of it and the debris field is 3 miles long" - and later say "oops, thats not it"

if thats the case... then the real news story is NOT the plane that went down... but that they found debris from a crash for a plane that does't exist.

how can you misidentify something like that? its not possible.... especially in the middle of nowhere in the ocean in the path of the plane.

[polish_aristocrat]

its not possible to say "we found the plane, we've identified parts of it and the debris field is 3 miles long" - and later say "oops, thats not it"

I agree, but this is what they did!

So... what do you think did they find and why would they deny it now?
IMO if they wanted to cover up something, then they'd find a smarter way to do it than admitting to finding parts of the crashed plane and denying it 1 or 2 days later....

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

I agree, but this is what they did!

So... what do you think did they find and why would they deny it now?
IMO if they wanted to cover up something, then they'd find a smarter way to do it than admitting to finding parts of the crashed plane and denying it 1 or 2 days later....

they said they found the debris field from the Air.

they later said ships arrived on the scene and confirmed it.

the brazillian government then announced they had found the plane "without a doubt"

they named specific things they found.

then they said "oh.. yeah... uhm... no... not really"

either there is a massive chain of incompetence or a cover up.

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

they said they found the debris field from the Air.

they later said ships arrived on the scene and confirmed it.

the brazillian government then announced they had found the plane "without a doubt"

they named specific things they found.

then they said "oh.. yeah... uhm... no... not really"

either there is a massive chain of incompetence or a cover up.

I'd go with incompetence.... (AND misinformation) here's a recent, long article about it

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/wo...nted=1&_r=1&em

some quotes:

"Brazil’s military forces said that the ONLY piece of the debris they RECOVERED thus far from the Atlantic Ocean on Thursday did not belong to the Air France Flight 447 that disappeared Sunday night on a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, throwing the investigation into confusion and angering the French government."

"The Brazilian military had not initially recovered the other debris spotted by search planes, including what they thought was an airplane seat and life jacket, because it was concentrating on finding survivors. "

"In a news conference at the investigation’s base in Recife Friday morning, the military said that it still believed the debris spotted Tuesday in a 2-mile stretch belonged to the Air France plane and that it was doubling back to recover the pieces while battling rain and poor visibility in the area"

"The confusion started when the Brazilian military said on its Web site Thursday that it had recovered an 8-foot long structural support piece, a pallet, used in the cargo area of airplanes. But by Thursday night, the military had retracted that and said that the pallet — wooden — did not, in fact, belong to Flight 447"


... so, basically the plane crashed somewhere in that area, the Brazillians might have seen life vests floating around, but they did not recover them, they just recovered a big part of something they believed it comes from the plane, and it turns out they were wrong...

and now we got GFY'ers making up conspiracy theories

It is likely that in a day or three some real debris from the plane will be found, recovered and confirmed.

Then with some luck, they might find the black boxes and then we might know more about the causes of the crash...

[JP-pornshooter]

the one thing i cant explain is this:
lets say they hit really really tough turbulence that could shatter a modern well designed and build jet, certainly it would take more than say 30 secs for it to fall apart, more than ample time for the pilots to call in a may-day
there was an automatic msg sent to airfrance that the plane had electrical problems and CABIN DECOMPRESSION which only would happen due to a serious rupture of the planes fuselage..

[rayadp05]

Can you imagine what people would be saying if the crash had taken place over the Bermuda Triangle? Perhaps, they flew into a time warp and are living in the year 1930.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by xxweekxx

These new airbuses and boeings are pretty much uncrashable.. it takes a lot to down it.

Pretty much unsinkable.

[DateDoc]

I am surprised there has been so little mention of what happened to the Quantas Airbus A330 and how it could relate to the Air France Airbus A330. The Quantas Airbus had a faulty ADIRU. It has 3 ADIRUs I believe but it failed to listen to the other two and went with the faulty one.

In October 2008 the Qantas Airbus A330-300 was carrying 303 passengers and 10 crew from Singapore to Perth when it experienced what the airline has described as a sudden change in altitude.

The incident, later blamed on a computer glitch, left 74 passengers with fractures, lacerations and spinal injuries.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) director of aviation safety investigation Julian Walsh said the plane was travelling at 37,000 feet and 177km north of Carnarvon when it suddenly climbed 300 feet and then abruptly pitched nose down.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

Pretty much unsinkable.

that was the media's claim... not the builder or architects claim, meter maid

[SilentKnight]

PleasurePays - don't take this personally...but go fuck yourself junior.

[mmcfadden]

i read most posts but what was online was possibly a massive "UPLIFT of warm air exceeding 100 mph" which likely froze the gauges causing the plane to either accelerate or slow down and then break apart in pieces in the air...

WHAT!!

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

It is likely that in a day or three some real debris from the plane will be found, recovered and confirmed.

they found two bodies, a seat and a suitcase, check out CNN...

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

PleasurePays - don't take this personally...but go fuck yourself junior.

why would i take a meter maid seriously?

[borked]

yeah, two bodies found - France is sending in a "human remains specialist" to analyse according to the beeb - huh? sounds like the bodies may well have been well picked out by the fishes

I don't think this kind of in-depth reporting is required tbh, the porr people that lost their lives have loved ones just wanting news, not details...

Apparently the plane sent out like 40+ automated messages and the auto-pilot wasn't on. Then some other pilot reports seeing a flash and trail. In my very unprofessional opinion, something went frikken wrong with the plane and it xploded. Storms, updrafts, posicles, doesn't make much difference, all those relatives' loved ones are dead, they just need to know that this wasn't some UFO terrorist jihad....

[moeloubani]

Originally Posted by crockett

The problem with aircraft though is they aren't built to crash, so when they do it's pretty much a done deal that everyone on board is gonna be dead. That one in NY that landed in the river was a one in a million event.

It's more likely that you DONT die in an airplane crash than you do. So like 550,000 in a million, not one in a million.

[Supz]

I was on a plane when it got hit by lightening. The scariest moment of my life. It really sounded like something on the plane exploded. The plane had no problems and kept on going.

[SilentSound]

Aircraft are not meant to be downed by lightning... it happens frequently, they are designed for this. Lightning alone isn't enough.

AF447 sent 24 automated (ACARS) messages reporting AF ops about system failures. The first is an autopilot disengage, the second is the aircraft's flight control systems switching to ALT LAW. This basically means (if the AP wasn't disengaged by the crew) the aircraft's flight parameters were not manageable by the AP anymore (the control system could not guarantee the aircraft to fly in it's designed envelope), therefore it disengages itself.

Switching to ALT LAW means the pilots have more direct control of the aircraft's control surfaces. It's the middle one of 3 flight laws an Airbus has, each law referring to the amount of direct control vs. computer protection of overstress, etc. Switching to ALT LAW is (as I recall), again a sign that the crew need to react to regain the aircraft's normal flight. This reaction most probably cannot be enough if in full protection mode, therefore ALT enables a more drastic one.

[Brujah]

[voa]

I also watch that show pretty much.Airplanes are the safest transport in the world

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by voa

I also watch that show pretty much.Airplanes are the safest transport in the world

actually I read that the fast trains in Japan are safer than planes

if that info is correct, there has never been a deadly crash yet and the only deaths were one or two passengers trapped in between the door

that's quite amazing considering the earthquakes-risk in Japan and the speed of these trains.