Missing Plane Air Asia

a reply to: Rocker2013

The only reason I even saw them was having flight alerts on my phone. The Virgin is more serious, just because any time landing gear is involved it's serious.

But that said, I get an average of six to eight 7700 alerts a day, and so far not one of those has gone on to crash. So of course, you're right. I was just pointing it out as an item of interest.

If they can open your car doors or turn your car off, if you miss a payment; how hard can it be, to steal a plane, mid-flight? lol

a reply to: McChillin

A lot harder than that. The flight computers have no outside access.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Leonidas
You have made vague noises about the insurance company shareholders benefiting, now this is about the airline benefiting from crashing it's own plane...which is it?

The shareholders will not benefit from any of this.
The insurance company will lose out, the value of shares will decline. They will certainly not benefit in any way from this.
The Airline too will not benefit from any of this. If they were already in trouble financially, the loss of a plane would be far more damaging to it than the money from any imagined insurance claim.

I do believe the OP just has a suspicious mind and saw the same insurer involved in all three cases (not unusual given that there are so few insurers in the business of aviation). There really is no logical story here, just suspicion from a conspiracy theorist who wants to see something more than there is - like a lot of conspiracy theorists here do about everything.

Exactly. It's pretty much ruined this site. There's pretty much a race anymore just to be the first one to say "Something doesn't smell right." Like the pathetic Sony thread that can't make up its mind whether Sony did this to somehow magically make more money than they would have in the theaters or whether the government did it to...well, to do *something* anyway. People anymore are just playing the role around here, racing to be the first cool kid to say he doesn't believe the "official story." Again, it's sad and it waters down real thought and research with garbage and clutter.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen
ATC use groundspeed as their measure on their radar

And pilots use indicated airspeed for flying.
Not long ago we had about 110 kts tailwind on a cross country flight, saved us 30 minutes flighttime.

The groundspeed would have been supersonic, in an B737

uk.flightaware.com...


strange how this data shows a plane travelling yesterday/today with same ident.. crashing after 34 minutes into flight. is this data fake or from a data recorder?

(Note this link will take you to a radar site that shows the SAME ident being used today, i assume idents are recycled, anyway if you use your noggins go look up the last flight prior to the one shown, it shows a ditch into the sea. ( for some reason a lot of web radar sites are being blocked ))

The Virgin Flight landed safely

a reply to: DancedWithWolves
a reply to: Leonidas
a reply to: Nochzwei
a reply to: SheopleNation
a reply to: Chadwickus
a reply to: Zaphod58

I think we all agree that there is some discrepancy in the refusal of a change in altitude, and then ,not being given an alternative evasive action plan, since the pilot's #1 priority is to keep the flight as safe as possible. Chadwickus brought up a good point though, the storm could have hit the top of the troposphere, and obviously beyond the ceiling of the airplane.

I found this on Sky Fire

How high do thunderstorm go?

Almost all thunderstorm clouds grow to heights above 20,000 feet. With 35,000 feet being typical. The more intense ones continue upwards until they hit the top of the troposphere, called the tropopause. Since penetrating into the stratosphere takes a lot of energy, many cumulonimbus clouds flatten out on the tropopause into the classic anvil shape with the tip streaming off downwind. If the storm is unusually intense, the updraft may punch into the stratosphere in cauliflower-like turrets. These “trop busters” are usually severe storms, with internal updrafts perhaps exceeding 100 mph. At any given place and time the height of the tallest storms is thus controlled by the height of the troposphere. Over the U.S. the tops of the stronger storms range from 40,000 to 65,000 feet from spring through summer and from north to south, respectively. There are some radar reports of echoes exceeding 70,000 feet, but if these reports are correct, this would be a very rare event. In any case, most thunderstorms are high enough that commercial jet traffic does not fly over most storms but rather circumnavigates since there can be “surprises” inside thunderstorm tops including extreme turbulence, hail, lightning, and wind shears

I am amazed with all the technology we have today--Planes still go missing --

Thanks shayla mihaly

a reply to: charlyv

This one was reported as high as 48,000 with some reports over 50,000.

a reply to: shaylamihaly

Remember that AF447 took years to find. It is very early days for the Air Asia flight. Granted, given the truly immense search area MH370 may or may not be the Stendec of the 21st century.

I was involved in a forced landing in Indochina many years ago. The search for us turned up a crash from three decades previous that had apparently been the subject of an intense search at the time of it's disappearance.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Rocker2013

I was just pointing it out as an item of interest.

It wasn't directed at you, I just wanted to get it in there before the usual crowd arrived and started claiming there was a mass terrorist attack going on, or that some government was attacking flights, or that Lizard people and the NWO were in partnership with the CIA and their Grey Alien hybrid friends to manipulate the media and create the pretext for Martial Law and the use of FEMA concentration camps... you know, the usual Alex Jones BS that always seems to be connected somehow to everything that happens ever, anywhere, at any time

originally posted by: Leonidas
I was involved in a forced landing in Indochina many years ago. The search for us turned up a crash from three decades previous that had apparently been the subject of an intense search at the time of it's disappearance.

I think while it's unusual in modern times that we can't find a plane, it's certainly not unheard of, and not surprising considering there is so much uninhabited space out there. People seem to think that every bit of land is occupied, when the reality is that a plane could go down in a forest in numerous countries and not be found for decades unless we have the tech to trace it.

The oceans are vast, deep and difficult, so the fact that the other plane hasn't been found yet is really not that shocking to me, given the circumstances of the disappearance. We know it went down over water, but it's such a large search area the chances of finding it without potentially hundreds of exploratory searches is slim. It's worse than looking for a needle in a haystack, because at least then you could use a magnet and you have the haystack. This is like searching for needle in a corn field.

I think they'll likely find and recover this plane though, it's not particularly deep water, and it's a much smaller area, on the path they knew the flight was taking.

The only questions remaining will be what brought it down, and why there was no communication to advise of what was happening. Probability suggests a meteorological event damaged the plane and communications simultaneously. When we think about the complexity of computer programming and how one thing might rely on another, one unusual circumstance could knock out plenty of things when one circuit is fried.

For example, if one line of code in one program relies on the output of another program completely unrelated to it in order to produce a result, what does it do when that one thing is taken out of the equation and it cannot produce the result?

a reply to: Zaphod58

So the service ceiling being around 40k ft., what would you consider absolute ceiling where damage would likely start to occur?
I know other factors have to be taken into account, but wondered what it might take to break this plane up, if indeed that did happen.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Oh I know, and it wasn't meant to sound defensive.

Thunderstorm activity at time of AirAsia disappearance

Apologies if this has been seen already, it is from "Discovery Magazine".

Perhaps someone who knows this material could comment.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: shaylamihaly

Remember that AF447 took years to find. It is very early days for the Air Asia flight. Granted, given the truly immense search area MH370 may or may not be the Stendec of the 21st century.

I was involved in a forced landing in Indochina many years ago. The search for us turned up a crash from three decades previous that had apparently been the subject of an intense search at the time of it's disappearance.

Well actually AF447 wreckage was identified within 2 days of its crash. It subsequently took 2 years to recover the black box, but they had identified wreckage by this time already in the AF447 search.

a reply to: Leonidas

That was a great article. From what was said, they even mentioned "Cauliflower Heads" , which signal the most intense types of thunderheads.

a reply to: kayej1188

I stand corrected, thank you.

I heard a news report that the altitude change was not granted immediately due to another aircraft near by at an altitude that the flight needed to climb through. When the controllers tried to contact the flight to give clearance to change altitude, it did not respond. (meaning the problem had occurred)