It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air France Plane down

page: 16
56
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 



Planes have back-up systems for electrical stuff, and further more, we don't know what altitude it was at, only the last known altitude. beyond that, they haven't a clue.



ACARS runs off the batteries

the very final system to fail - thats after primary , backup1 , backup 2 , APU and the RAT

so if a final report before being `cut off` by the automated and continuos data report was FL 350 @ 453 knots with electrical failure and pressure loss - given my own experience , it would take a lord from heaven miracle to bring those souls home.




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish Matador
 


Yes, I've seen the list. An international flight with 32 different nationalities? Again, I ask you, what is so strange? Especially flying from Rio to Paris. I don't think anything is odd about that at all.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
This morning when this story was breaking and this thread was (relatively) young, I felt like I needed to apologize for questioning the official line.

Sometimes, our cynicism and distrust can be misguided, you know?

14 hours later, I will still apologize... to the families and friends of those who were on board.

But to date, the official line just gets stranger and stranger.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I thought the final report was of an electrical circuit failure? I hadn't seen anything for loss of pressure, but I haven't been following the news because it's all a bunch of "well, we don't know jack but we'll try to sound smart anyway" reports.

Also, since you and weedwacker seem to be the resident aviation experts for this thread, loss of pressure, would that mean that the hull had been breached somehow? If so, what would have caused that?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 







Originally posted by sy.gunson

It's just realism. At 35,000ft in darkness you cannot just glide down and ditch.


No, realism is if they had evidence of catastrophic disaster, such as mid air collision, explosion, ect. Then it would be realistic to assume no one survived.

They still don't know what happened, where exactly it happened, or why. And just because it might be very difficult to glide and ditch at night does not mean impossible, either.


Skaadi the aircraft wen missing in darkness just before midnight over the Atlantic reporting electrical failure and thunderstorms.

In children's comics the hero somehow saves the plane and gets to marry the girl but in real life this kills people. That's realism.

Just flying the aircraft in these conditions at altitude without electrics is impossible. Landing a big jet successfully on the sea in calm sunny weather is near impossible.

If you don't believe me have a look at this link.

en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Comores 767 crash



Electrical failure in darkness at 35,000 feet means loss of autopilot and at very high altitudes loss of autopilot means the aircraft cannot be flown precisely within the narrow range of airspeed called Mach Box.


Planes have back-up systems for electrical stuff, and further more, we don't know what altitude it was at, only the last known altitude. beyond that, they haven't a clue.


It's not about back up systems. You just don't get it do you ?
The aircraft itself had an automated communications system ACARS reporting electrical failure. The aircraft's own computer was saying the aircraft had severe problems. The aircraft had also reported striking severe turbulence. Severe turbulence causes structural failures at the speeds jets fly.



At high altitude the maximum cruise speed of an A330 is 500 knots. The stall speed is something like 460 knots. The long range cruise speed is 470knots. If the autopilot falls off line in darkness and in turbulence, then it's quite likely the aircraft would lose speed and drop below stall speed.

Stalling an aircraft at 460 knots in darkness makes recovery impossible. The aircraft would begin to roll and tumble and within a couple of revolutions literally fall apart.


Again, we know nothing at this point. The plane simply "vanished" from radar, according to the news reports. If it fell apart, radar would still pick up the falling body as it descended.


It was not on Radar Skaadi.... again you have no idea what you're talking about. There was no radar coverage.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Seems like they found the wreck... Gonna find the link

Here: (portuguese)
oglobo.globo.com... 56137937.asp

"Senegal finds wreckage that might have been of the missing air france plane"

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Raziel89]

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Raziel89]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 





Also, since you and weedwacker seem to be the resident aviation experts for this thread, loss of pressure, would that mean that the hull had been breached somehow? If so, what would have caused that?


loss of pressurisation was reported and as I have been knocking my brains out trying to tell you penetrating turbulence at high speed causes structural failure.

Structural failure causes depressurisation



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
All airline pilots are meant to avoid very large storms ... so it doesn't make sense that he would fly through a giant storm without even sending some kind of transmission incase something went wrong.

Whatever happened, it took them down fast and by suprise, that's for sure.

Assuming the best case scenario (it made a controlled landing onto the water)(unlikely), the survivors will be having to fight against shock, hypothermia and possibly shark attack, all in pitch black.

Good luck and God help them.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


whilst i applaud your optimism sir , looking at the facts then it would be a true miracle , one from the lord , to save those souls.


the final report of the aircraft at 35000 feet @ 453 knots with electrical failure and was losing pressure.

does not fill me with the same hope.


For the record, I'm not a "sir". Just thought I'd let ya know.


I had not heard about the loss of pressure part, only the electrical failure. Still, one can hope though. I am wondering what sorts of things would cause a loss of pressure. Would a positive lightning strike do that?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


please listen to sy.gunson - he has been saying the right things


at 35000 feet an aircraft flies within a tight box - too slow and it stalls because the air is so thin, too fast and run into that brick wall called mach 1

and that number shrinks the higher you go.


at 40000 feet the stall speed and mach 1 are within 70 mph.


so any failure at cruise will result in something VERY BAD happening.

aircraft step climb in cruise , when fuel load get lighter , they slightly climb to maintain the right correct fuel burn speed and endurance ratio`s.


but if you get bounced around at 500 mph (470kts) then something WILL go wrong , and the margin for error at cruise IS slim.


flight global

watch that , and whilst i disagree on his conclusion -the assesment is right.

[edit on 1/6/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Internet rumor has it that Air Force jets confirm floating debris consistent with a plane crash off the coast of Brazil. This is not confirmed!



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Flight Number: AF 447

228 presumed dead.

447
228
___
44 7
22 8
____+
66 15--> 1+5=6

666



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
450 miles off Brazil Coast (saratoga)
second line



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Sundancer
 


Senegal, not Brazil, and it's not exactely a rumour, it is news (quoting myself):


Seems like they found the wreck... Gonna find the link Here: (portuguese)

"Senegal finds wreckage that might have been of the missing air france plane"


[edit on 1-6-2009 by Raziel89]


[edit on 1-6-2009 by Raziel89]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
According to FAB (Brazilian Air Force) there are 6 airplanes, 2 helicopters and 3 ships going to the crash site right now. The ships are expected to arrive there Wednesday morning.

There's also an information that some cargo ships that are in the area told the Brazilian Navy that they're going to the crash site to help the searchs.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Actually....ACARS is powered by main bus #1.

ACARS is not considered "vital"....so, when all main electrical power is lost....the "StandBy Bus", powered from the main battery, only supplies essential instruments, on the Captain's side. Some interior cockpit lights, the PA.

Here's a scenario.....let's imagine a total electrical failure. Nothing in the QRH procedures result in a restoration of even ONE generator.

The APU won't start, and the RAT won't deploy.....smart pilots will know....turn off items to conserve battery power. Airplane will fly....if the engines are running.....fuel pumps don't need electricity....not when they gravity-feed. Engines turning, meaning hydraulic pumps are providing pressure to the systems, so flight control is not a problem....yada, yada, yada....

Sure....it is a serious concern. BUT, that is WHY there is redundancy built in.....to the design of airplanes. Over, and over again....redundancy.

SO....this tragic event....I fear all the people onboard are lost.....and WHAT exactly caused this event???? I truly hope we soon learn the answer......



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


you know i allways thought that ACARS was essential
- damn i learn something new as well!


edit:

apu won`t start - have you EVER heard of a serviceable APU that hasn`t started , on CART start , on auto?


or a RAT , the fan strapped to the door that falls out if its not held in?

[edit on 1/6/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish Matador
 


Hey Irish Matador...

I thought I was the king of sarcasm. You just put me to shame ha ha



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Thank you, that is what I was looking for. broken down like that, it makes sense.

If this is the case, it's unusual. Don't the majority of aviation accidents occur at lower altitudes, usually during take off or landing?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join