It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by wrangell76

The Brazilian Prince was in the plane.

He was descendant of Don Pedro II wich was the last brazilian monarch

and actually was an amazing ruler, much better than the petty leaders and politicians of today if you read about him.

Brazil was the only monarchy outside of Europe until the 19 century.

Other top executives from the oil companies ( Brazilian and Norwegian )

StatoilHydro ( norwegian oip company )

Petrobras ( Brazilian oil company )

were in the plane and Thyssenkrup and Michelan top executives and directors.

We also lost a great musician in the plane Silvio Barbato, composer, conductor , was a musical genius was going to conduct the Kiev Orchestra.

and everyone else who died are a great loss independent of titles

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:01 PM
I still think the plane was hijacked and then it was shot down over the sea in order to avert an even bigger disaster reminiscent of 9/11.

We're definitiely not being told the truth anyway. COVER UP.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:05 PM
Now things are starting to come together, and the picture is getting clearer, if only a little bit. If the short circuit happened to be for one of the doors and the thing ended up opening, that would explain sudden depressurization and the lack of distress calls. Or the possibility that the pilots were either foolish and decided to try flying amongst the thunderheads, or perhaps didn't see them in time.

For the record, those who keep going on about the Bermuda Triangle, that is on the other side of the equator from where this happened, and several thousand miles away. It had nothing to do with this, and it seems this plane hasn't completely vanished. They are beginning to spot wreckage on the water.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:17 PM
Can you american guys tell us wich plane is that that was sent
by the USA to help?

see it in this article.

aparently it came from a USA base in Costa Rica.

I didn´t know USAF had still propellers planes in action besides the
C 130 hercules.

thanks in advance!

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by mrgiller
reply to post by wrangell76

The Brazilian Prince was in the plane.

He was descendant of Don Pedro II wich was the last brazilian monarch

Yes, the Prince Pedro Luis de Orleans e Bragança belong to the former Brazilian Royal Family.
But just to inform: Brazil is not a monarchy, its a Federative Republic and the "Royal Family" has no influence on the brazilian govt.
They just carry on the title with no power at all.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf of the doors and the thing ended up opening

Skadi.....doors on airplanes are, mostly "Plug-type", meaning that they CANNOT be opened, in flight, when the airplane is pressurized.

Anything more than about .125 PSID, (and, at, FL350, with an interior "Cabin Altitude" of, say....5,600 to 6,300...the PSID is somewhere in the 8.5 range.

(If you have flown on B737-NG airplanes, you will see the over-wing exit hatches open outwardly. SO, in this case, they are NOT 'plug-type'....but, they are locked by big pins, immediately after lift-off, and unlocked, by the same relays immediately after landing. If they DO NOT lock, or unlock, as designed, there is a warning displayed to pilots). assured, the entry doors of big jets cannot be opened in flight. If you all will also notice, when doors are opened, on the ground, they usually swing out and forward. Again, this is by design. SO, even if un-pressurized, the doors cannot be forced opened, against the airflow.

Hope this clears up THAT question......

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I was referring to someone mentioning the luggage hold doors of an earlier air crash incident opening up in flight.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by mrgiller
reply to post by wrangell76

and everyone else who died are a great loss independent of titles

Wow, that is a statement of true compassion. Star for you, sir.

What are the odds of so many important people being on the same plane though?

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by mrgiller

Please mrgiller

I felt I had to quickly check this one. According to timesofindia, this Brazilian prince Pedro Luis de Orleans e Braganca is 4th in line to the "non-exisiting" Brazilian throne.

And who are those top executives ? What are their exact position in these companies that makes them... targets ?
In transoceanic commercial flights, well in almost any commercial flight you will find executives. It is no surprise.
Please share if you have details and serious claims pointing to a malevolent act otherwise it is wild speculations.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:42 PM
Example of an airliner breaking up due to extreme turbulence...

"The One-Eleven violently accelerated upward and in a left roll. At this time the right tailplane and the fin failed. The aircraft then pitched nose down and within one or two seconds the right wing failed as well. The plane tumbled down in flames until stabilizing into a flat spin before impacting the ground. The probable cause was in-flight structural failure caused by extreme turbulence during operation of the aircraft in an area of avoidable hazardous weather."


Based on all known info at this time, I would say that the flight crew may have made a tactical error flying into a cluster of very powerful CB supercells... it successfully flew approx 60 - 70 miles through severe turbulence, then violent updrafts and downdrafts in an extremely turbulent supercell core ripped the structure of the aircraft apart.

Bottom line... extreme turbulence.

The real mystery... why did the flight crew fly into the CB cluster, something most pilots would never do? Why risk it?

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:43 PM
^ If i remember correctly in one of those Air Crash (called Maybay in some countries) documentaries there was one 747 which effectively had one of the luggage doors ripped off caused by a malfunction, but still managed to land.

Even tho some ppl died because it ripped apart some of the fuselage just above the luggage door, thus ejecting some seats out of the airplane during its cruise flight.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:44 PM
Earlier Tuesday, searchers found an airplane seat, an orange life vest, small white fragments, an oil drum and signs of oil and kerosene about 700 kilometers (435 miles) northeast of the Fernando de Noronha archipelago, said Brazilian Air Force spokesman Jorge Amaral.

(above from CNN online Breaking News)

An oil drum??? Kerosene??? I don't know if this has been posted here before, haven't had a chance to get caught up on the thread.......weedwhacker or any other pilot have any ideas why they would find this?

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

The doors on a big jet can be opened while in flight. It's actually happened to a plane which was featured on Aircrash Investiagtion. An electrical short tripped the switch which then released the locks on the luggage compartment door. The plane then depressurised literally tearing the plane apart in seconds.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:21 PM
Another example of extreme turbulence...

Air Canada Flight 190

Extreme Turbulence Injures Air Canada Passengers

"The pilot of Flight 190, heading from Victoria to Toronto, came over the intercom to say there had been a computer failure and that they were flying the plane manually, Richard Kool, a passenger from Victoria, said in an e-mail to CBC News.

Fellow passenger Jayne Harvey, a nurse from Keswick, Ont., said pilots told the flight "the computer had been knocked out.

"Some of the armrests on the aisle seat sides were bent 60 degrees from people holding on," she said. "That's how extreme it was."

Airline officials said two crew members and eight passengers were taken to hospital after the Airbus A319 landed safely in Calgary at 8:30 a.m. MT, though hospital officials put the number higher, saying they treated a total of 11 people.

"It happened really fast. One side of the plane went up sort of sideways and then came back down," one passenger told CBC News.

She said she saw her friend, who was among those taken to the hospital, "fly up" and hit the ceiling.

"All of a sudden there were three big drops," said passenger Andrew Evans. "I was in the very, very front seat of the plane and was watching dishes fly through the air.


Airline pilot's definitions of turbulence...

"Moderate Chop --- Rapid bumps or jolts without appreciable changes in aircraft altitude or attitude.

Moderate Turbulence --- Changes in altitude and/or attitude occur but the aircraft remains in positive control at all times. It usually causes variations in indicated airspeed.Occupants feel definite strain against seatbelts. Unsecured objects are dislodged. Food service and walking are difficult.

Severe --- Large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. Usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Occupants are forced violently against seatbelts. Unsecured objects are tossed about. Food service and walking are impossible.

Extreme --- Aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. May cause structural damage."


posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

OK....widebody cargo doors. Open outward, but again, have many interlocks and safety switches to prevent what you described.

I can think of two cases, perhaps you were referring to one of them??

A Turkish Airlines DC-10, and a United Airlines B747....two examples of cargo doors opening, BECAUSE they were improperly closed!!!

(Door warning lights, both cases, not activated...or else, airpp;anes would not have taken off)

United landed safely....Turkish did not. Reasons were different.

Better warning systems, now, on more modern airplanes. Some older airplanes retro-fitted.

The B737 series, as well as DC-9/MD-80s have plug-type cargo doors. Just look, next time at the airport...they open inward.

Again, haven't heard of what you mentioned...a "Short Circuit"?? Extremely unlikely, if you know how cargo doors actually are opened. Handles, manually manipulated from outside, THEN the electrical controls can be accessed to operate the opening/closing sequence.

Properly secured doors will not open, because of a magical 'short circuit'. Find that example, if you wish....because IF it is as you say, I would be very interested.


posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:45 PM
O.K., this is the last post of testimony of extreme turbulence and I rest my case...

"I read an article in Flying magazine a few years ago about a pair of military craft heading west from the east coast for Wright Patterson AFB back in the forties. A P-47, and a B-24 liberator. They both flew into a thunderstorm over central Ohio, you want turbulence!

Back then the military didn't think a T-storm was all that dangerous. T-storm penetration was common back then. The B-24 made it--- barely. As the B-24 taxied to the tarmac it was hemmoraging fuel from its belly like a seive. Upon inspection by the ground crew it was found to have suffered severe sructural damage to the wing spars and surrounding airframe rupturing fuel tanks and lines in the process. I doubt the B-24 flew again. The P-47 was another story altogether. It never made it. They found the fuselage and the dead pilot in a field 20 miles or so east of the airbase the next day,---- two weeks later they found the wings in another field more than a hundred miles north of where they found the fuselage.

Can turbulence kill? I read an NTSB report from the late 70s that tells of a DC-9 flying through a hailshaft in a T-storm at 14000' over the Carolinas. The cockpit windshields were gone of course, killed one pilot in the process--- talk about being stoned to death, both engines were drowned out--- and huffed by the hail damage. The plane crash landed in a field shortly afterword. There were a number of fatalities.

Can turbulence kill? Yes. Just recently a JAL 747 was heading towards the States and hit a big airpocket, it was severe enough to literally bounce one passenger off the ceiling so hard it flat broke his neck and killed him. Needless to say the 747 turned back."

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by ::.mika.::

More from your great link:

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.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by switching yard

If you read the site, you referenced, look for a post by "Don Wood". He actually explains turbulence quite well.

You cited an incident from just after WWII, using the P47 and B24 story.

Modern airborne WX RADAR is far better ten anything back then (they actually didn't have onboard RADAR!!!)

RADAR detects water. T-Storms generally are violent (yes) and the most extreme areas are very heavy with water....we avoid, by very large margins, weather cells. WX RADAR is subject to attenuation, in older units...the tech is much better, now. We have four, yellow and red to denote various rates of rainfall....and the magenta color, which is a Doppler method to look for horizontal water movements, thus denoting possible windshear areas, within the storms. Of course, RADAR dioes require something of mass, to reflect and show on the display. Dry hail, for instance, may not show. (Most hail is slightly wet...and most hail comes from Cumulo-Nimbus overhangs....what are known as 'anvils'...but, difficult to see, of course, at night).

Proper use of RADAR will prevent dangerous penetration of storms.

Other, very rare occurences of turbulence is called "CAT", for Clear Air Turbulence...and is generally associated with jetstreams. Usually, near the Equator, we do not often encounter high-altitude winds of great velocity. Atmospheric patterns in the Northern, and Southern latitudes are usually showing the 'jetstream', which is displayed often on WX maps....basic meteorology information. Not difficult to understand.

BTW....hate the term "air pocket" is a layperson's is 'tarmac'...but, OK...rant over, for now.....

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:05 PM
on the itv news tonight they interviewed a pilot who has flown one of these planes and he said they can with stand lighting(and his had lighting hit his plane)...he said it could be anything from a military jet to a drug smuggling plane to a shooting star...... i think he was stunned to what has happened.i think its very strange what is going on with it all.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:11 PM


You know we don't want to think about that but we must. Let's see what the investigation reveals or covers. LOL.

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in