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: 26
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:40 PM
"Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim says a 3-mile (5-kilometer) path of wreckage found in the Atlantic Ocean confirms that an Air France jet crashed in the sea. Jobin said Tuesday that discovery of the debris by Brazilian military pilots "confirms that the plane went down in that area" hundreds of miles (kilometers) from the archipelago of Fernando de Noronha." - AP

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Obviously, we're talking about onboard radar versus back in the forties no onboard weather radar. That's not my point.

My point is, let's say the flight crew sees these cells on their radar, but makes an error in judgement thinking they can make it through the CB cluster.

I'm saying if this is what happened, they thought they could make it, well then that could be pilot error because as the stories I've posted have shown, extreme turbulence can cause structural damage which can cause multiple failures including electrical failures.

Here's what no one likes to mention... sometimes there could be an attitude that state-of-the-art heavies are indestructible in severe weather. I've seen all kinds of mention on the web of these airliners tested to withstand forces 50% greater than Mother Nature can dish out. Well, there could be an arrogance factor there. I know, I know, engineers put mock ups in wind tunnels and flap the wings and they don't break, etc, etc.

Fact One... pilots and flight crews have been known to make errors of judgement concerning weather that resulted in unnecessary crashes and fatalities

Fact Two... pilots and flight crews have been known to be overconfident no matter how many flight hours of experience (in fact, in some cases, the more experienced pilots are the most overconfident --- resulting in tragedy)

I'm not accusing the Air France crew in question of any bad judgement because we just don't know yet. But it seems to me that they could have adjusted navigation earlier in this flight in order to AVOID what is plain to see on the weather satellite screen shots... a line of a massive, very nasty cluster of CB (most pilots would never fly into).

Fact Three... as evidenced by my earlier posts, it is possible for an airliner to break up in mid air from extreme turbulence.

We know that whatever happened, happened fast and the crew were not able to send a distress signal. If the aircraft were gyrating out of control from extreme turbulence and in the process of breaking apart, that would explain everything.

Possible scenario...

1. Because two Lufthansa flights went through the storm system area earlier without incidence (did the Air France crew know this?), the crew of 447 decided to keep on course and fly through the stormy area.

2. 447 flies into a cluster of CB cells much more powerful than the crew anticipated.

3. about 10 minutes of severe turbulence shakes and rattles the aircraft, then it hits extreme turbulence causing loss of control of the aircraft, structural damage, electrical outage, multiple technical failures, breakup, plunge into the ocean.

I know aviation experts will say that these airliners are strong enough to withstand storm ferocity, but I have also read enough pilot comments on the web about how important it is to AVOID these storms. From what I have seen of the case of 447, they flew right into a monster and didn't come out in one piece.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:56 PM

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.

There were many people from Big oil companies there and others....

Pedro Luis de Orleans e Bragança, Brazilian Prince heir of the brazilian crown
Adriana Francisco Van Sluijs, Corporate communications Petrobras
Antonio Gueiros, CEO of I.T from Michelan
Christin Pieraerts, Michelan Staff
Erich Heine, Thyseen Krupp Steel AG ( south America Atlantic Director )
Giovanni Batista Lenzi, Italian Deputy from Trento
Gustavo Peretti, StatoilHydro a Norwegian oil company
Hilton Jadir Silveira de Souza, Brasilian engineer from Petrobras oil company
Kristian Berg Andersen, StatoilHydro a Norwegian oil company
Luiz Roberto Anastácio, President of Michelan for South america
Marcela Marques Pellizzon, geologist StatoilHydro a Norwegian oil company
Michael Harris, American , geologist

Now. I know this might sound like prejudice but we had two arabs on the plane. forgiv eme my suspicion but Just something sounded like 9/11 here:

Ahmed Faouzi - Moroccan veterinary
Fouad Haddour - Moroccan veterinary

I don´t know if it was an terrorist act, but this accident is so mysterious
that France is sending just now a staff of its Secret Service to work with
Brazilian Federal Police and ANAC to investigate a possible bomb in the plane or something else.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:09 PM

Originally posted by aero56

Originally posted by sy.gunson
It took four hours for Air France to disclose it's disappearance and that came an hour after it failed to land.

It went down without broadcasting a mayday so whatever happened was very sudden. Either catastrophic break up or else pilots were so busy fighting to keep control they had no time for a mayday call.

I would speculate either a catastrophic decompression, terrorist bomb, or else a failure of electrical systems in darkness. It was an early morning flight wasn't it?

Anyone know which type of Airbus aircraft ?

Yet again, another Airbus...........they have a poor safety history....

[edit on 1-6-2009 by aero56]

They have a poor safety record? Really? I'd like you to demonstrate Airbus's poor safety record in comparison to Boeing's impecable service record, or any other large passenfer jet airframer you should care to chose. Otherwise cease your B.S

On another note the "positive lightning" that has been mentioned isn't likely to be a factor since the "standards" quoted by wikipedia are constantly evolving and light aircraft aren't submitted to the same certification rules as large passenger jets.

The aircraft in question was apparently recently overhauled in April as per it's Maintanence Schedule, they've reportedly found fuel on the ocean so it didn't explode in the air and at least made it to the ocean ( albeit in an uncontrolled fashion) .

I don't think it was a bomb, it certainly wasn't the result of a lightning strike although one almost certainly occured. The crew reported extreme turbulence earlier. The satcom reported pressurization faults. IMHO the airframe was put through EXTREME turbulence which put it out of it's flight envelope and overstressed the structure. It could also have overpressured the engines, causing engine stall, resulting in a loss of power. RAT would come out to give hydraulic power to control surfaces ( not particularly fun to fly a jetliner in severe turbulence manually I'm sure) , APU doesn't start reliably until below 8000ft and with battery power essential you wouldn't want to blow your chances, so it went down with no engine power under manual control, officers in attendance were too busy fighting the plane and getting ready to start the engines and/or praying to send a mayday, they couldnt get the APU online to restart the engines and so...

I apologise if this distresses anybody, but its the way I see that it happened.

I pray for the souls of those lost at sea and my sincerest condolences go to the friends and families of those involved at this most difficult of times. I hope its is some consolation that their loved ones almost certainly died painlessly and without prolonged suffering.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM
USA sent to Brazil one of its lockheed P-3 Orion surveillance planes
to help.

USA confirmed three americans missing in the Air France Plane

The Miami South Command sent 21 crew on board of the plane.

The P3_ orion was in central america to help fight coc aine smugling.

data on the plane:

I was amazed to see how can a 1958 plane still be in use by USA navy.

Probably its a real good plane that one.

Its like a DC-3 it can´t get better or more reliable than that those beasts.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by CloudySkye

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. Extreme turbulence, structural damage causing electrical failure, stall, loss of control, breakup causing depressurisation and rapid descent, crew fighting to regain control.

Also, I humbly agree with sincere condolences to all involved. Prayers.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by switching yard

i said turbulence on page 3

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:27 PM
You have to love it how the press are such Bull***t mongers, they start their articles with big catchy titles, go oon to make outrageous claims substantiated by lawyers rather than technical experts or even anyone actually knowledgable, and then basically draw no conclusions because otherwise they'd be sued for it.

for an example see this

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:33 PM
apparently the debris has been confirmed, if only by the Brazilian govt

see here

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:35 PM
Interestingly the problem with the Qantas A330 has been tied down to an unauthorised installed northrop gruman made computer part not functioning correctly - the part was not authorised to be fitted to the aircraft but someone at Qantas did it anyway.

so that law suit wont go anywhere fast.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

Yes I've heard about that, the only direction for them to take that Lawsuit is to whichever MRO decided to fit it. Certainly it has nothing to do with Airbus though. The BS the Lawyer was giving about the nearby naval station transmitting is such a crock as well. Clearly the aircrafts key sensors and electronic equipment are shielded from such things. For crying out loud it has a radar dish on the front about 2 metres infront of the pilots, just next to the avionics bay. Eejit should keep his unfounded accusations to himself.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:54 PM
So why would there be oil drums and kerosene slicks? Doesn't seem right to me to find that amongst the wreckage.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by mrgiller
reply to post by wrangell76

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

As I stated in my previous post, my heart goes out to all the victims families...
I wasn't just saying that for the Prince. I posted that part about him because my conspiracy mind was at work.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by missvicky

I didn't see anything about Oil drums, but the kerosene slicks make sense since it is less dense than water and hence floats even if whatever remnants of the aircraft are now deep in the ocean. Just like the nasty crude oil slicks that so damage the wildlife. All it means is that the aircraft didn't explode in a fireball and the fact that there is any coherent debris field suggests that it didn't completely break apart in flight either, just damaged enough for it not to fly anymore.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:33 PM
Well orange lights were reportadly seen.

RIP those who were on board AF447

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:25 PM
Among the wreckage was an airplane seat, metal debris, an orange float, a drum and an oil spill, the posting said.

(Above from CNN online this afternoon. Earlier they directly said "oil drum". )

Do passenger jets carry oil drums? Is kerosene jet fuel?

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:27 PM
Here's the article re French tourists that died on bus 4 weeks ago.

I don't know about the passenger list, it doesn't seem to be very impressive. Not as noticeable as when all the BofA and Wells Fargo VPs were on the plane that emergency landed in NY water a few months back, during the DOW crash.

Of course it could be that in energy rich Brazil, the researchers are more important than the high profile talking heads.

I think the 2 Moroccan veterinarians sound pretty harmless, as well.

I'm willing to admit it was an odd downed plane, but I don't think the reason has been discovered here yet.

Brazilian news says it looks like the pilot was trying to turn back and land on a nature reserve protected island. Fernando di Noronha or something like that.

And that the accident happened just after it was out of Brazil tracking range.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by missvicky

Yes, I heard oil drum early this morning too. And it clanged with me as well. Kind of heavy to have on a plane isn't it? Is it common?

Of course if you need the plane to explode and burn, oil drums are useful.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by trusername]

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by trusername

yep.......and was also wondering how nirmal it would be to haul oil drums on a jet passenger plane?? And how do they know what kerosene looks like on the water as opposed to jet fuel? Why would there be kerosene?
Sorry to appear obssesive about this but it stood out to me and made me do this:

And I hate doing
because all those dancing ??? tickle my head

[edit on 2-6-2009 by missvicky]

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:47 PM
From BBC News...

"According to meteorologist Pierre Lasnais, the zone "is prone to storms and lightning, but also to mini-cyclonic phenomena, which create extremely strong up currents, as well as hail stones that can be bigger than tennis-balls".

"It's possible for a plane to be exposed to lightning, and at the same to be caught in an up current which can reach speeds of 200 km/h," he says.

"You can imagine the effect that has on a plane - complete depressurisation of course, almost uncontrollable," he said."


If they can pinpoint where the plane was at zulu 2:00 -- 2:14 and gather some very detailed weather data on that cluster of storms, as in whether there was a brief, freak cyclone... they may begin to see the forces of nature that could have done this.

It's a very interesting case and over the next few days, as all the known data are analyzed, we may have more answers.

It really has to be very sudden and catastrophic. A so-called "mini-cyclone" would be treacherous as hell, as would a large F5-ish waterspout (tornado at sea) although none has been confirmed so far.

new topics

top topics

<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in