Air France Plane down

page: 39
56
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
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)


1. The plane is a faraday cage and won't be affected by scratches.

Case in point, that one that flew through the volcanic ash and flamed out all 4 engines and re-covered all 4 engines after. Two things volcanic plumes are full of lightning and secondly that plane had vast areas of paint litteraly sanded off and was down to bare metal.

2. Solar activity is a non event, it was the middle of the night, there was a planet between the plane and the sun. (earth)

3. There another thread already for that lets not got there here.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ::.mika.::
 


You cannot have a hole in the faraday cage without having a hole in the aircraft. If there is a hole in the aircraft then having a hole in the faraday cage is the least of your worries since you've jsut blown open your pressure seal. Lightning cannot cause that kind of damage to this aluminium aircraft.

As for the plasma wind it is just another EM phenomena. From what I can see solar flares produce a peak in the 2GHz range, I'm pretty certain that it won't affect the aircraft. Assuming that this was the case, then the extra energy outside of the atmosphere would have been noted in an awful lot of satellite transmissions too and someone would have noticed. I'm sure that this is not the cause of the accident.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by who-me?
 


Yes I forgot about the planet in the way, but even if it had not been the case it is still a non-event.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by who-me?

1. The plane is a faraday cage and won't be affected by scratches.


in theory only, what if it was not anymore because of some bad maintenance/diagnosis ? (don't read half before commenting)



2. Solar activity is a non event, it was the middle of the night, there was a planet between the plane and the sun. (earth)

the thing is that the magnetosphere is somehow just like a faraday cage... however this one has many holes for sure and one is right on that area...



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudySkye
reply to post by ::.mika.::
 


You cannot have a hole in the faraday cage without having a hole in the aircraft.


are you sure about that?
i've read somewhere (sorry don't remember where) that an imperfection could be enough to weaken a faraday cage



As for the plasma wind it is just another EM phenomena. From what I can see solar flares produce a peak in the 2GHz range, I'm pretty certain that it won't affect the aircraft. Assuming that this was the case, then the extra energy outside of the atmosphere would have been noted in an awful lot of satellite transmissions too and someone would have noticed. I'm sure that this is not the cause of the accident.


okay so what theory we have left ?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ::.mika.::

Originally posted by CloudySkye
reply to post by ::.mika.::
 


You cannot have a hole in the faraday cage without having a hole in the aircraft.


are you sure about that?
i've read somewhere (sorry don't remember where) that an imperfection could be enough to weaken a faraday cage



I'm absolutely 100% certain that there could be no imperfection to the Faraday cage on this aircraft without previously compromising its structural integrity and ability to fly.
i.e. the plane must already be breaking apart before there can be any problems with its Faraday cage, imperfections will not do the trick, the structure of the aircraft must physically be torn apart.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Breaking news on BBC News. Apparently a Lufthansa 747 that was in the vicinity at around the same time as the Air France flight reported NO bad weather...

I can't find any link to the bbc website to verify the details.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by CloudySkye
 

so you 're saying if it can take off it means the faraday cage is perfect

ok

and what about turbulences ? (still refering to the taxi accident rumour) if it can take off it means it's fully fit to fly safely too ?



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



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
reply to post by CloudySkye
 

and what about turbulences ? (still refering to the taxi accident rumour) if it can take off it means it's fully fit to fly safely too ?
[edit on 4-6-2009 by ::.mika.::]


In theory if it had been in any form of taxi collision then they would have had to delay the flight and park up the plane and do a structure check, ESPECIALLY if a wing was involved.


According to procedure, it should have been at least visually inspected by the pilot and ground crew before take off even without any rumoured collision. If it was allowed to fly then the structure appeared to be OK. If it pressurised the cabin (as it did) then it just serves to compound that point.

The aircraft itself underwent a full maintenace service just one month ago so unless, rather than a bomb threat, someone deliberatly and very subtley performed some very clever sabotage on the plane, I can't see how it would have been allowed to fly if the structure was remotely in question.

From what I have read, the last set of messages (namely the aircraft engaging alternate law flight mode before the electrical faults) suggest that the aircraft believed that it was being flown outside of its safest structural flight envelope, regardless of whether some other flights reported nothing before it, clearly this plane encountered some extraordinary weather.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I've seen many possible explanations for this disaster, however there is one which I have not yet heard, but to me seems possible..

Considering that there were no comms from the pilots, is there any chance that they flew into large hail, which compromised the cockpit windows?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike N
Breaking news on BBC News. Apparently a Lufthansa 747 that was in the vicinity at around the same time as the Air France flight reported NO bad weather...

I can't find any link to the bbc website to verify the details.



www.weathergraphics.com...

scroll down the the infra red satellite images of the area during the time , with expert analysis by a former USAF meteorologist with many years experience


when he says they flew through a storm - i believe him.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
New Black box data retention laws needed

"Two Lufthansa jets, which were in the same area as the Air France plane half an hour before it vanished, could provide clues as to what happened, the UN weather agency says."

If we do not retain the data for a period of time for all flights then we should so we can confirm the conditions these 2 flights went through in the same area. Perhaps this could be electronically downloaded on each arrival.


[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]

Bump

[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorkthegreat]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthyone
 


No way, of course those cockpit windows are designed for impact like that, they didn't break on the A320 that had a flock of geese fly into the plane over NY so I don't think hail would do it.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Apparently it is now being blamed on pilot error for slowing down too much before entering the storm cloud and thusly stalling the plane, which then would then have given them command to recover from the stall and apparently they couldn't...


see here



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

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

And when we had SR-111 we had mince meat.



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.

Loading too little fuel will result in an "INSUFFICIENT FUEL" message on the CDU - so unless they manually entered in the fuel weight, were enourmously stupid, mixed up units, or had a fuel leak, they did not run out of fuel before the half way point. Coming close to running out of fuel or actually running out of fuel might happen occasionally, but here it was unlikely to be on the cause.


How strong and penetrating do you think solar radiation can go when there is no magnetic field pushing it away?

IIRC, failures in commericial aircraft are unheard of due to whatever you're saying. Unlikely.


Remember watching this programme here in the UK on Airbus crashes. They had this idea that Airbus planes were flawed due to the tail being made from plastic or carbon or something and this had caused crashes as it was flawed technology, scared the hell out of me at the time and every time I get on an Airbus I don't feel safe, give me Russian and American planes anytime, Airbus make me scared

Their is no flaw in the tail - and all aircraft likely have the same flaw as NONE are designed for what happened. Of course, American Airlines likes to blame Airbus, and Airbus likes to blame American Airlines. The problem was that the rudder becomes increasingly sensitive and furthermore the pilot induced oscillations - so they fixed it. Airbus, especially the A330 has an impecible safety record.

I would also suggest you to stop watching TV.


The programme was aired on TV for sure. Anyway give me a USA plane any day over a European one, the Yanks make things better, they over engineer things while Euro's make them out of tin foil. You know the joke about French cars being good apart from the joke electrics? Now where was this plane made?

I suppose that explains the Boeing 737 flaw that was only corrected after three crashes, 747 had engines falling off mid flight, 747 doors flying apart, DC-10 doors flying apart, DC-10 engines flying apart, DC-10 # hydraulics, MD-11 wires catching fire, MD-11 stability issues, MD-11 structural issues. It also explains why the Airbus A330 was chosen over the Boeing 767 for you own Air Force as a tanker (until Boo-hoo-ing protested - of course, the result will be the same, most airforces are getting the A330 instead).




Airbus has the leading market share of the civil aviation area you'd have to say that they are at least as good or better.

Boeing and Airbus are a duopoly and furthermore pretty damned close.


Well from a simpleton Brit I declare I'd rather jump on a Boeing which has a history of aero engineering excellence and also Made in USA,

Airbus is EADS. Are you claiming EADS don't have a history of aero engineering exellence? And the Concorde was what then?


than be forced onboard an Airbus, a company forged from a collective of independent producers to give the EU a prestigious industrial giant to compete with the super powers

Compete with the super powers? Like who? The U.S? The ONLY plane maker in the U.S that makes Airliners is Boeing, and Airbus is pretty much parity with them. Oh, and no, Boeing they got outright grants and tax cuts given to them as well as huge government grants.



lol the 787 is made in japan , sweden , italy , russia , france , china with the nose , tail and flaps `made in the usa`.....

What's worse is that the suppliers are pretty much the same as Airbus.



I feel safer on a Yakovlev or a Boeing than I do on a Eurobox. Point being Airbus is a politically based entity, it was dreamed up by Euro people, not business people.

Yakovlev? They still make planes?
The most laughable part about your arguements is not that you actually believe this c..., but that Boeing is a politically based company as much as Airbus - probably even more so as they're a defense contractor.


Airbus is a political statement from the old world of Europe in the same manner of many Soviet enterprises. Boeing is a Planet Earth business success pure and simple. Made in USA means real good stuff, lasts for a life time, Made in France means you just know trouble is round the corner, dodgy electrics for sure

Now we're going around in circles. You mean like the MD-11? Right?

Before you embarrass yourself further, I suggest you stop posting in this thread.


It's what the pilot did to the plane that wrecked the plane.

Might be, might not. If it was then I wonder what them Lufthansa aircraft were doing.



[edit on 4/6/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CloudySkye
 


and they were too embarrassed with their mistake so they chose to switch off all electrical system and to dive in silence...

unconvincing either



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Hah, I think they were mroe than embarassed they were fighting for their lives with a stalled aircraft plummeting down to the ocean in turbulent weather and having no choice but to try to correct it themselves. I doubt between the 3 of them they had the free hands or minds to press any buttons to call for mayday they were probably Sh**ting bricks.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 



Loading too little fuel will result in an "INSUFFICIENT FUEL" message on the CDU - so unless they manually entered in the fuel weight, were enourmously stupid, mixed up units, or had a fuel leak, they did not run out of fuel before the half way point. Coming close to running out of fuel or actually running out of fuel might happen occasionally, but here it was unlikely to be on the cause.


i never said they ran out of fuel.....

and the ryan air flight they loaded the absolute minimum for the flight - apparantly company policy



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by C0bzz
 



Loading too little fuel will result in an "INSUFFICIENT FUEL" message on the CDU - so unless they manually entered in the fuel weight, were enourmously stupid, mixed up units, or had a fuel leak, they did not run out of fuel before the half way point. Coming close to running out of fuel or actually running out of fuel might happen occasionally, but here it was unlikely to be on the cause.


i never said they ran out of fuel.....

and the ryan air flight they loaded the absolute minimum for the flight - apparantly company policy

It is company policy of all Airlines to load minimum fuel. It is not company policy to almost run out.



Also don't forget that pretty much all Boeings now for 20-30 years have had an analog equivalent of the French fly by wire. Boeings do not have cables and pulleys connecting control surfaces to the cockpit either.

First was the 777, IIRC it was cabled till then. Nothing like FBW. Analogue FBW is on the F-16 / Concorde, 777 is digital.


You honestly believe pilots still fly Boeings by hand ?

Yes, because they do most say they hand fly the plane where ever they can.


Wrong, as noted above. You're referring to the fact that, because of FBW, there are control paramters programmed in to rob pilots of the ability to exceed certain flight envelope restrictions. Boeing so far has eschwed that sort of interference. A pillot could barrel-roll a B757, if he so chose (and wanted to get fired).

WW, FBW does not nessarily incur limits. All FBW means is that the plane is flown by wires instead of mechanical links. If you run it through software, THEN you can impose limits, but that's not only Airbus but on all new fighter jets and the Boeing 777 / 787 (although they're soft limits).


Again who was flying the airplane when the Turkish airliner crashed at Schipol ?

Who cares? Who's flying the plane on 99% of approaches.


Actually a 737 is more fun to fly with authrottle because you can set it to either hold altitude or speed, but the 737 is a lot harder to fly manually without these little automated goodies.

Huh? You have SPD, FLCH, VNAV etc..?????????


Great, some little fan generator drops down to provide partial fly-by-wire control. But what if an emergency comes up where the Pilots don't have enough time to deploy it? Then What?

Batteries / manual reversion, RAT is automatic IIRC.


"picking their way ... "

What a load of rubbish.

Just as other planes flew through with no problems.


"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."

Boeing and McDonnell Douglas used to use Kapton and their hasn't been any huge problems with it in almost a decade.


* 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

Cages are not boxes? And no, a small scratch wouldn't do anythng.



[edit on 4/6/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 




Boeing and Airbus are a duopoly and furthermore pretty damned close.


Yes I'm well aware of the dupoly I'm also aware that "who is in the lead" changes year on year and on how you measure it, I believe that at this moment Airbus/EADS has posted the better of the bad financial results for this year.
I also believe that Airbus has a stronger overall orderbook than Boeing for civilian aircraft at this time.


Yakovlev? They still make planes?


Not to even remotely agree with him (I ended up calling him a moron in my late night alcohol fuelled state) but apparently Yakolev are still in business, though they mainly design and produce military training jets. The last civilian jet they designed was in 1980 from what I can tell.





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join