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: 30
56
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Two debris fields 60 km (37 miles) apart???

o_O

www.cnn.com...




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Krpano
 


Seems that i found the answer for my own question.

It seems indeed that the Airbus has a system that transmits some data info to the company while in flight.

Well, it appears to me that as usual we are not beign told "everything".

Folha de SP (source)
Translated version by google


@ TheStev
Sorry, i was writing this post and didnt see your reply.
Plz, check the link i posted.

[edit on 3/6/09 by Krpano]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev

Originally posted by Krpano
About the blackbox.

Isnt possible to stream the data directly to the ground instead of holding it bakc in a stupid box that most of the time get realy damaged that they cant get its full content ? This when they find it.


When you consider how many planes are in the air at any given time, and also how many of them are not over the ground (ie ocean), I just don't think this is practical.

But I'm sure there are others more qualified who can clarify this.


Yes it is unpractical to be transmitting data from the black box all the time. But if after impact or catastrophic failure, the box should then send a hard copy all collected data to a base elsewhere.
This would eliminate the task of trying to find the box.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Haunebu
 



Originally posted by Haunebu
Why isn't the Media speculating about a possible terrorist attack?


Now they are!

www.thesun.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   



Seems that i found the answer for my own question.

It seems indeed that the Airbus has a system that transmits some data info to the company while in flight.

Well, it appears to me that as usual we are not beign told "everything".


Krpano do you ever bother to read the 29 other pages before your post ?
Why do you think we've been talking about ACARS for the last 29 pages ?
This is not a conspiracy.

It is your failure to follow or keep up with the subject.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Haunebu
 

The Sun newspaper of course.... has to be one of the most sensationalist papers ever published.

Pretty heartless part way do their page a big red button an then

Click on the slideshow below to see some of the victims of flight AF447
in fact thats just wrong.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Kliskey
 





Yes it is unpractical to be transmitting data from the black box all the time. But if after impact or catastrophic failure, the box should then send a hard copy all collected data to a base elsewhere.
This would eliminate the task of trying to find the box.


Klisky, what do you think ACARS is please ?
Do you ever bother to read the posts before yours ?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I really doubt about a terrorist attack.
If it was the case, they would have crashed the plane over some city to create the maximum amount of havoc and not a silent crash like this.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by who-me?
reply to post by Haunebu
 



Pretty heartless part way do their page a big red button an then

Click on the slideshow below to see some of the victims of flight AF447
in fact thats just wrong.


Yes, it is wrong, Bild www.bild.de... published pictures of the German victims yesterday on their front page.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
...It is your failure to follow or keep up with the subject.


Are you arrogant like this all the time ?
Or just on the internet where you cant talk face to face ?

[edit on 3/6/09 by Krpano]

[edit on 3/6/09 by Krpano]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haunebu

Yes, it is wrong, Bild www.bild.de... published pictures of the German victims yesterday on their front page.


Their picture is terrible!




Why would a paper put a picture like that on the front of the page?

Mikey



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Krpano
 

Agreed, there's little doubt in my mind that it was weather related/human error and/or a combination of both.

The mention of debris 37km apart is irrelevant from that altitude and the speed they are traveling.

If hypothetically the tail section snapped off, it would fall pretty much straight down however the rest of the airframe with engines running still would climb until it stalled, then fall down out of the stall and accelerate again until it climbed and stalled again. This cycle would repeat itself several times loosing altitude with each cycle until it eventually crashes. The ground covered could be quite significant.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Mikey84
 


Wow that pic is just beyond belief.

It looks like and advert for some kind of comedy or spoof movie. There is absolutely nothing funny about this incident.
That paper gets insensitivity award for 2009 hands down. Bunch of .....r's.



[edit on 3/6/2009 by who-me?]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
As much as I dislike the Sun they often get it right.

Fox News are also reporting that a bomb threat was made to Air France.

I doubt we are being told everything, peace in this world is fragile at the moment any talk of bombs and terrorists would would stir things up even more.

From Fox News article

A French accident investigator said Wednesday it's unclear whether the chief pilot of Flight 447 was at the controls when the plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.

Could this mean that others had taken over the cockpit.

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by dizzylizzy
 

No it means that there were two other persons qualified for the watch and the CO could have been having a break, either or both of the other officers could have been in command. If the weather was bad I expect all three were in the cockpit and wide awake well aware of what was going on and doing their upmost to deal with the situations which were unfolding before them.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by who-me?
 



I hope you are right



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krpano
I really doubt about a terrorist attack.
If it was the case, they would have crashed the plane over some city to create the maximum amount of havoc and not a silent crash like this.


I don't know.... I imagine that while the terrorism idea is generally to blow things up in the middle of a city, attempting to destroy a plane in such a fashion as this so that it would not be found or only partially found, thus never giving any real closure to the families of the victims, would be a rather attractive proposition to the hypothetical attackers in this case. In this particular incident, no one saw what happened, true, but I don't think that the terrorist would especially care about that. Wasn't the Pan Am Lockerbie incident delayed or something, so otherwise it would have been over ocean?

The flight was scheduled to depart at 18:00 GMT, and pushed back from the gate at 18:04 GMT, but because of a rush-hour delay, it took off from runway 27R at 18:25 GMT,

That time would have put it over ocean for sure had it been on time, so I don't think the terrorist in this hypothetical scenario would really care where it went down. The Shoe bomber in 2001 would have put it down over the Atlantic, as would the 'liquid bombs' scare of 2006.

That said, I think it was morel likely to be natural. A coincidence of bomb at the same time as a severe thunderstorm, is just too unlikely IMO.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by who-me?
 





I'd like to point out that no pilot in their right mind would knowingly slam into towering CB.


Correct but this pilot did exactly that. Since you have not bothered to read the evidence posted earlier, here's the evidence again:



An image from satellite infra red cameras at 0200GMT on 1 June 2009. Pilot had just made a report via ACARS of encountering CB cloud at 35,000ft.

This pilot had weather radar showing him a wall of cloud ahead, but did he turn away ?
No he did not.




Remember things are happening very very quickly. If I recall correctly they were traveling upwards of 450knots. That equates to 759 feet per second. Or 7.8 Nautical miles (14.5km) in one minute. Some storm system cells aren't even that big, many are much larger.


"aren't even that big" ????
Look again at the size of the cloud system in this picture below:



Second photo of position in cloud at 2015GMT one minute after last ACARS report of depressurisation.




1. As above no sane pilot would do so.


Correct however as you can see from the above evidence this pilot did an insane act and flew into a wall of thunderclouds.



2. It was dark they would likely be visually avoiding signs of lightning.


Rubbish they were avoiding nothing. they were dumb and lazy leaving the autopilot on and not deviating one inch from track.

Pilots in dark at 35,000ft do not fly visually. They use weather radar to visualise weather systems ahead. These guys diodn't bother to look at their radar.



3. There is real evidence of electronic failure, is it possible weather radar was in-opperable.


Not until ACARS reported it at 0211GMT. The aircraft penetrated this CB cell at 0200GMT before the electrics began to fail.

The cloud was visible for at least 15 minutes before they flew into this cloud. At 0200GMT the Captain used ACARS to report encountering CB at 35,000 feet. You'd think ding dong a little light would go on inside his brain ?



4. At the flight levels of this incident liquid water - not even super cooled can exist. Radar reflects off water droplets. Therefore they may not of been able to detect the significance of the weather at that particular moment. Weather radar is reliant on returns from lower altitude water detected due too the radar beam width.


Rubbish again. CBs are columns of superheated air warmer than the ambient air temperature and they do not stop rising until they cool to freezing level. That's why they stay clouds way up to 50,000 feet in the tropics.

Hail and ice are visible to weather radar particularly at 10cm wavelengths, but attenuated compared with rain. Ice and hail is not invisible on weather radar.

The Airbus A330 uses a Honeywell RDR-4000 3-D weather radar.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by who-me?

The mention of debris 37km apart is irrelevant from that altitude and the speed they are traveling.



Yeah, I take note of the 500+ mph they estimate it was traveling and 37 miles goes by pretty quick.

It's a terrible incident and my heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones who will most likely never be recovered.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Krpano
 


No I call arrogance people who don't do any research and keep saying silly things.

There were only 29 pages before your comment answering your questions.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join