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: 38
56
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by zorkthegreat
 


freefall for a human is about 250mph, you'd probably break your legs and compress your ribcage and spine and suffer from enourmous internal bleeding if it didn't jsut kill you straight away.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudySkye
reply to post by zorkthegreat
 


freefall for a human is about 250mph, you'd probably break your legs and compress your ribcage and spine and suffer from enourmous internal bleeding if it didn't jsut kill you straight away.


Terminal velocity

According to this its much LESS.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by zorkthegreat
 


Apologies I got my figures wrong, at any rate 120mph is still a heck of a speed to hit anything, and we aren't so aerodynamic that the shock of breaking the surface tension of the water wouldn't jsut kill you any differently to running into a brick wall at 120mph


Edit: No I was right the first time actually.. reading that article fully I can see that the speeds quoted at the top are for Skydiving positions, I.e layed out flat so you create more drag. If you were to actually dive feet first or head first you could acheive 250, according to that self same website the maximum speed acheived by a person is 320 mph of freefall.

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by CloudySkye
 



I have no idea what teh set-up of FDRs are in Boeing craft bu I can tell you that there is most certainly a DC to AC converter (and back again) on Airbus craft and before you'd even need that youd have to have a failure in both your engine generators and your Apu generator and your RAT generator...


Again....if comaparing the RAT formthe Boeing B757/767 that know well...to what Airbus propses as a similar unit, onthe A330....well,I don't know th A330.

What I was referring to....is simple. On a Boeing....we have the Hot Battery Bus....the Battery Bus....the Transfer Bus....Main Bus Number one, Main Bus Number two.

I've prolly missed something, don't have the electrical schematic in front of me, at the moment!!! AND, we have memorized it....when we fly it....but time has passed, for me....even a few years, and memory fades.

OK...one step at a time....Hot Bat Bus....the Battery is ALWAYS connected to certain items, just as in a car....then, we have the Battery switch, which when turned on....(just as the switch in your ignition, before you start the car) powers up the Battery Bus....this is still DC 28-Volt power.....and also, through a dedicated Inverter, 115VAC power for the instruments that require AC. ON an airlpane, the basic battery power is required, by design, to last at least 30 minutes...and provides basic flight instruments and one comm radio to the Captain.

Again....without the APU or designated ground power sources (OF 115VAC) we can still start an engine...as long as there is an 'AIr Cart' to supply the pneumatics to turn the engine starter....some ignitors work from the Battery Bus, thru the Inverter...so, we don't want to drain the battery unnecessiarily.

Once an engine is spun up (Usually Number Two, but depends on where the grond crew hook up the pneumatics) the engine-driven generator will come online...and power all buses....throught he corssties, if enabled. Also, once one engine is started, the other engine can provide pneu pressure to start the other.

THIS ALL happens ONLY when the APU is inop...otherwise, the APU has both the electricity and the pneu to cover everything required to get the airplane going....and this is jsut how to start, on the ground!!!

I've described a 'Battery Start', as it's depicted in procedures...only accomplished whilst on the ground...and with an air cart...otherwise, there is no other way start a jet engine....on a Boeing commercial jetliner....ou need pressurized air....then, fuel, and ignition....even then, fromthe airplane Battery....you are only powering a small number of fuel pumps...lots could go wrong. Once engine starts, generator works....full power to all electrical buses.

Of course....having 115VAC plugged in from a Ground unit is a better solution....even better, when APU is inop...both GPU and AIR start....well, always need AIR regardless.....

See how much you need to know???

Can't learn this junk from MicroSoft Sim.....can ya???/



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Kapton Wiring

Not the most safe kind of wiring to be dependant on.

"French manufacturer Airbus confirms that it uses Kapton in the pressurized areas of its aircraft (such as the passenger cabin) and a Teflon-coated Kapton in the unpressurized areas."

"Kapton's advantages, as summarized by the GAO, are that it is "lightweight, resistant to abrasion and cuts, is able to withstand high temperatures, and is flame and environmentally resistant."

But government reviewers noted that it has two significant weaknesses.

"First, water alters the chemical composition of this insulation and diminishes its integrity. A second weakness occurs when two cracks in the insulation occur close together, enabling the current to arc between the cracks (arcing events) at high temperatures. Exposure to this heat causes the insulation to 'carbonize' and actually become a conductor rather than an insulator."

That latter situation is known as "arc tracking."

NASA describes the problem this way:

"Momentary short-circuit arcs between a defective polyimide insulated wire and another conductor may thermally char (pyrolize) the insulating material. The charred polyimide, being conductive, is capable of sustaining the short-circuit arc. The sustained arc may propagate along the wire through continuous pyrolization of the polyimide insulation (arc tracking). If the arcing wire is part of a multiple wire bundle, the polyimide insulation of other wires within the bundle may become thermally charred and start to arc track (flash over). Therefore, arc tracking may lead to complete failure of an entire wire bundle or harness.""

[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
I didn't learn any of this from MS sim, I know the schematics, layouts and procedures for Airbus but not for Boeing and I've assumed them to be generally the same, I've only been in Boeing 757 and 747-200F cockpits apart from the Airbus ones and never off the ground (I'll never be allowed to pilot a plane since I have a clinical epilepsy diagnosis looming over me).



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by zorkthegreat
 


You're forgetting that the aircraft had a full check in April after 4 years of service and any of the symptons you mention would have been checked on, furthermore as soon as any fault in a harness occurs you'd stop using it and use one of the other Bus routes*, aside from that I don't know how you'd expect to get water ingress into the cable routes, everyone knows that water and electricity aren't the best of friends...

In the Airbus, you might not even need to, the computer would do it itself and just tell you about the error.

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudySkye
reply to post by zorkthegreat
 


You're forgetting that the aircraft had a full check in April after 4 years of service and any of the symptons you mention would have been checked on, furthermore as soon as any fault in a harness occurs you'd stop using it and use one of the other Bus routes, aside from that I don't know how you'd expect to get water ingress into the cable routes, everyone knows that water and electricity aren't the best of friends...


And everybody knows Kapton wiring aircraft's best friend either. Do they check every strand of wiring? It is banned on non commercial craft such as NASA and the military, there's good reason for that. They check military craft more than commercial and yet they have had total failures due to it.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by zorkthegreat
 


Yes actually they do. (check every strand)

Also you claim that there is a good reason for Kapton being banned on military craft while it is not on civilian craft (which generally have the harsher requirements), what do you claim that this reason is?

I would bet you its got something to do with the fact that military craft have to be EMP proof rather than the possibility of water ingress and insulation failure in the cable routes.

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudySkye
reply to post by zorkthegreat
 


Yes actually they do. (check every strand)

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]


Kapton wiring crash cause

"MANGOLD: The plane maker’s tooth comb might usefully investigate, as has Panorama, several more recent

serious incidents involving Kapton wired planes.

May 28th 1996, Boston, Martinez 767 major electrical failures, emergency landing.

January 9th 1998, Heathrow, United Airlines, 767, inflight electrical fire, emergency landing.

December 8th 1998, Lusaka, British Airways, 747, fire on the ground.

And the biggest air disaster of all, the worlds sixth worst, the still officially unsolved SV163. This is the wreckage of

a Saudi Arabian Tri-Star in which 301 passengers and crew perished. In August 1980 it made an emergency return

to Riyadh Airport after a fire in the cargo section spread to the passenger cabin. When firemen hacked their way

in they found everyone dead. The inquiry blamed a fire in the hold but left open the reason it started. The truth

is that in 1980 Kapton’s potentially lethal fire properties were not widely known. Twenty years later, in a quite

bungalow by the Sussex coast, one man who was deeply involved in the disaster is enjoying his retirement. Eric

Newton was Britain’s top air crash detective in 1980 when he was invited by the Saudi’s to add his unique forensic

skills to the crash investigation. He reached preliminary conclusions. Last week we discussed his report and

I showed him the new evidence about Kapton. Now he has few doubts what caused the crash. "


This doesnt look like EMP




[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Yes there were some crashes, yes they modified the usage, the fact that some crashes in the 90's were attributed to that is meaningless ( I love the "recent in your quote by the way, 10 years in electronics is an eternity) search your kapton web sources for TKT cables, big deal, there have been loads of crashes relating to all sorts of things and the technology gets modified to cope. I'll still bet that the reason Kapton or TKT arent used by military craft and NASA is because of the EMP requirement, because your sources are A) very old B) secondary C) Hearsay there is no way that you can prove me wrong.

Also those were Boeing 757 767 and 747, some of the oldest planes still on the civ flight circuit and in 96 98 they could easily have been 10 years old already, in this crash incident we are talking about a 4 year old Airbus.

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by zorkthegreat
 



And the biggest air disaster of all, the worlds sixth worst, the still officially unsolved SV163. This is the wreckage of

a Saudi Arabian Tri-Star in which 301 passengers and crew perished. In August 1980 it made an emergency return

to Riyadh Airport after a fire in the cargo section spread to the passenger cabin. When firemen hacked their way


Again....this was a long time ago....on an L-1011....and I can tell you what happened.

These kneejerk reactions to very old accidents....without proper explanations, are just out of context.


IF you look farther back, at some of my posts, I explained how most passenger exits...ewven emergency exits, are plug-type doors. MEANING, if the fuselage is pressurized bewyond a certain PSID (That is Pounds Per Sguare Inch Differntial) the doors cannot be physically opened.

In this tragic example....the L-1011 took off, for another destinaton...and, per procedure, the landing altitude was set...so the auto pressurizitation schedule KEPT the cabin at the pre-programmed landing altitude....which was different enough, form the landing back at the airport whnere they all died....and, because the airplane didn't have the automation that modern airplanes have today....the exit doors could not be opened....the cabin remained peressurized.....

Modern airplanes NOW have systems that will de-pressurize the cabin...even when the flight crew screws up....because it senses the "Ground Mode'
....but not then!!!

This was another tragic example of very, very poor training....with tragic results.



[edit on 6/4/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
maybe the north koreans shot em down



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by whateverponcho
 


Or maybe not, since they don't yet have a missile capable of flying half way round the world over central america or africa and asia.. eitherway if they used a missle to shoot this plane down it would have been obvious to either the US or Chinese Govt..



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Source CNN



RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (CNN) -- The search for the wreckage of an Air France plane that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean with 228 on board intensified Thursday after clues appeared to rule out a mid-air fire or explosion.


The bomb theory seems to be developing less and less credibility.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by who-me?

The bomb theory seems to be developing less and less credibility.


It was only really popular amongst extremists in the first place... excuse the pun...



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

first brazilian navy ships have arrived at the scene - not bad timing really , must have been going some to get there



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
my own personal conclusion as the french media are now widely stating that we 'll never know what happened is that we are left with those two quite rational scenarii:

* the plane was not fit to fly : vulnerable to lightnings (a small scratch may well break open the faraday cage) and turbulences; one wing suddenly broke... and plouf

* it is an electro-magnetic phenomenon : solar flare making it through manetosphere and instantly irradiating the whole plane and anyone inside breaking all electric systems... and plouf

(the third one is ufo)



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
* the plane was not fit to fly : vulnerable to lightnings (a small scratch may well break open the faraday cage) and turbulences; one wing suddenly broke... and plouf


Do you know what a Faraday Cage actually is? Do you now realise that the Aircraft IS a Faraday cage, and that a "small scratch" on the aircraft would not change a thing, it is pretty well entirely made out of Aluminium so you cannot "scratch" the Farady cage, furthermore there is absolutely NO way that lightning could break off the wing. If anything broke because of the turbulence it almost certainly wasnt the wings...




* it is an electro-magnetic phenomenon : solar flare making it through manetosphere and instantly irradiating the whole plane and anyone inside breaking all electric systems... and plouf


These planes are designed to deal with HIRF upto 15Ghz and they can. Solar flare irradiating the plane won't do much.. also remember that it is a Faraday cage.



(the third one is ufo)


Lets not even go into that one..

[edit on 4/6/09 by CloudySkye]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudySkye

Do you know what a Faraday Cage actually is? Do you now realise that the Aircraft IS a Faraday cage, and that a "small scratch" on the aircraft would not change a thing, it is pretty well entirely made out of Aluminium so you cannot "scratch" the Farady cage, furthermore there is absolutely NO way that lightning could break off the wing. If anything broke because of the turbulence it almost certainly wasnt the wings...



more or less, it is basically preventing the electric power to get inside
i may exagerate about the size of the small scratch, however you do not need that much of a hole, of an imperfection in the cage to allow the electric current (or part of it) to come inside

are you sure about planes being totally safe when facing a plasma wind ?

edit: the wing because of that rumour about a taxi accident in brazil between this plane and another one right before departure

[edit on 4-6-2009 by ::.mika.::]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join