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: 32
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by emergencyresponseteam

It seems you know what you are saying but did you ever thought that a lightning could destory their radar and weathersystem (since they reported electronic malfunction) and they flight blind into the cloud wall?

Firstly they didn't report electronic malfunction, the aircraft's own advance reporting system did. Secondly, while lightning strike are most common to the wing-tips and the aircraft nose (where the radar is) the aircraft's essential systems are protected from any induced currents that the lightning flowing through it might cause. Meaning it would take a direct strike to the radome directly under the noses of the pilots to potentially destroy the radars.

By the time the electrical fault was reported (along with all the other pressurusation and system faults) they had already reported turbulence so to continue with your assumption that it was a lightning strike that provoked the automated messages, you have to wonder what the hell the pilot, already in the middle of a huge storm system after reporting heavy turbulence, was thinking even if suddenly there is a lightning strike that fantastically destroys his radar, which he no longer needs to know that there is a storm because he is already sitting in the middle of it and to compound that fact he just had a lightning strike smack the plane about 2 metres from his nose.

I really dont think that the electrcial fault could have had any bearing on the pilots decision to fly the plane into that storm front.
The plane reported no errors until it was in the storm system, which he could easily have decided to avoid.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:29 PM
the problem with fuel is weight vs pax/freight load vs range vs fuel burn vs

228 pax load and crew (max is 253) with a book range of 12,000 km

now its around 9500 km from rio to paris , so throw in your minimum fuel , + divert + abort landing + hold , and fuel might becoime an issue

and remember - fuel = money , so all airlines are loading the minimum they can get away with , case point , a recent ryanair flight came into gatwick on a fuel emergency , they had 10 mins left in the tank. no bad weather , no divert - thats all they had left.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:33 PM
Why haven't they upgraded the black boxes so that they would broadcast all the data continuously including their GPS location?
If this had a build in warning system with people monitoring these warnings they even could prevent future accidents, like the recent crash in Holland where there was a malfunction in one of the instruments.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

Yes but airlines also practice fuel hedging, by filling up their tanks to the brim in countries where the duty is lower, I've no idea what aerospace kerosene costs in Brazil, but I'll bet you that it is expensive in CDG.

Also the example is of Ryanair,who would charge you for the number of hairs on your head if they could get away with it and they might equally have loaded the minimum fuel purely because it was more expensive than in LGW (which is hard to imagine I admit)

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:37 PM
on the news it says the Brazilian authorises dont think they will find the box black recordeds....makes me wonder why they would say such a thing so soon.....

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by Haunebu

Off the top of my head, the bandwidth requirements for all the information that is stored in the black-box, especially on a fly-by-wire aircraft, to be transmitted live would be extremely prohibitive, also the number of aircraft in the air at any one time would mean that the receiver would have to have an enourmous allocated bandwidth. Its simply not practical and to implement it would make the air travel very expensive since the carriers would be forced to retro-fit the systems to all their existing aircraft...

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by rikgrimsby

Because its realistic, they now have 28 days to recover the flight recorders before they cease to transmit, they are almost certainly somewhere at the bottom of the ocean, which is largely unexplored, in an area of 1200sq miles (from what I remember). so theyd have to dive to 4000m depth and search 42 sq miles per day to find it. assuming that they have even target the correct 1200 sq miles....

[edit on 3/6/09 by CloudySkye]

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by CloudySkye

Well....I hate to speculate this early -- and despite what our Kiwi 'friend' sy had to say....I just will not subscribe to his opinion of "laziness" or lack of attention on the part of the crew. We all have a wish to stay alive, and the weather would certainly have their attention. "Picking" your way between the larger cells is common. Choosing how closely to approach any on either side....judgement call.

I don't know what 'sy' flies (his avatar may be a clue...)

I'll tell you, experience was, on long-haul Int'l trips, it would sometimes, depending on Cabin Crew, be as long as three to four hours before the pilots would be served their meals. SO, they wouldn't have been asleep. AND, trying to find the smoothest ride possible is always a goal, for everyone's comfort.

There was a 'talking head' on CNN today who mentioned that storms seen forming in the Equatorial regions don't tend to form as much lightning, not to the extent that you see other places. This is, of course, just a generalization -- there are always exceptions. And, lightning can even occur miles away from the most violent portion of the cell....

And, modern airliners are very well protected when it comes to lightning strikes. Damage occurs usually light burn marks at entry, and sometimes more substantial, but minor damage at exit. Numerous static discharge wicks abound, intent is to dissipate as much as possible.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:46 PM
Who were the 215 pasangers? and any suspicus news feeds?"cover ups?" ReHaB

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I KNOW it wasn't lightning that downed the plane, it is clear that it didn't, the fact that it would take the mother of all strikes to remotely fluster the aircraft only supports that.
I am sure that it was brought down by extreme turbulence encountered in the storm front. The only remaining question is why did they apparently make no attempt to divert at all?

I don't mean to insult any pilots, since I'm well aware what it really means to be a pilot, even in aircraft that are generally left on autopilot, the hours spent in simulators and all the rest of it. However, the flight crew were almost certainly in a position to make a decision about whether to go straight through or whether to divert, and if they were even at all uncertain they could have asked ATC for more info on the front. I know that they aren't asleep in there, since the bulletproof doors went in, the cabin crew are required to phone into the cockpit every 30 minutes, also its also why you can have 3 pilots on long haul, so that they can have a sleeping rota.

That aside, if the plane was ever remotely concerned about its situation before it entered the storm fornt, it didnt say anything otherwise it would have been transmitted.

So the question remains, the plane was fine until it entered the storm and it almost certainly wasn't lightning. Why did it enter the storm front?

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:07 PM
on the history channel right now there is a show UFO Hunters and it's about a plane that was brought down by a bright light and they think an electromagnetic pulse.

The engineers recreate the situation with an engine and magnets etc and the engine stalls.

Interesting that they are playing this right now, don't you think?

And if you've seen the most recent crop circle - appeared 24 hours before the crash

- it looks like a jelly fish some say - but others are saying - nope - it's the magnetosphere

anyway I just thought it's worth a look -

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:11 PM
Something real fishy about this Air France crash at Atlantic ocean.

1. New airliners are shielded from lightning damage. News going easy with "lightning" reason.
2. Look at the crash site survey area - it was too clean!
3. Not a single human body (or part) found out of the 228 passengers.
4. Who were those on board?

WTF! Even when Titanic sank in cold harsh conditions, we still had survivors we still had dead bodies.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:27 PM
The fact that so there have been 2 debris fields spotted so far - 35 miles apart - suggests to me that the plane broke up at a high altitude, long before it hit the sea.

Just an un-imformed opinion please feel free to correct me.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:32 PM
As terrible as it sounds any bodys will be popping up in a day or two..First they sink,then decomp starts and fills with gas..Up they come..
not making light of the situation,just stating facts..

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by wisdomnotemotion

I can only partialy answer your 4th question.

Here's a link to the incomplete passengerlist: usa-un-rayo-video/

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by Redpillblues

As terrible as it sounds any bodys will be popping up in a day or two..First they sink,then decomp starts and fills with gas..Up they come..

Not if they're in small pieces (sorry

I said I didn't want to speculate, but something about this is eerily similar to SwissAir 111 of Nova Scotia --- Onboard electrical fire (from the Entertainment System) Fire was inaccessible, in the "Attic" above the ceiling panels, and spread rapidly, due to the insulation installed.

Insulation has been changed, though -- redesigned. However, the plastic that makes up the panels and fixtures burns is supposed to be flame resistant, but sufficiently high temps will ignite it.

Swiss Air impacted the water at near Mach speed. SO, THAT was nothing at all similar to the Titanic (can't believe anyone even mentioned that!!!:dn

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

no #..If i meant bits I woulda typed bits..not bodys..

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:12 PM
South Atlantic Anomoly

Could this be affecting the region also?

This is where the magnetic field is not only weakening it is reversing.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:17 PM
I like how America offered satelite recon and analysis, 1 day after. Just like they took 1 year to enter WW2, why on earth did they not do this straight at the start?

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by zorkthegreat

Who knows??? Maybe because the accident happened at night, local time?? How was the weather?? Was it possible for visual photos?

And the satellites, and assets.....full capabilities are classified, so...and they'd likely have to be re-tasked from other duties. One day was bloody well quick, based on your analogy.

Oh, year to enter WWII? Study some history.

new topics

top topics

<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in