Air France Plane down

page: 42
<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Emiiiiiil
Could this possible be the first case of a plane being struck by a meteor?
i found a article on a woman in Gran Canaria who claims to have
photographed the plane in flames?
Im not capable to read spanish myself, I found the link to it on a danish newspaper site.
im hoping somone here can make sense of it.
the time of the taking of the photo and the crash should about the same,
but the location is way off the crash site?
so i wonder could there have been a meteor shower at that time?
the weather on the route should have been very bad with a front across equator, shown by sat images from the day.
But question is? what is that picture if not a plane or a meteor?
if you are told that it is a plane it looks like a plane.
but it could aswell be a meteor. or something third?

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Emiiiiiil]

The plane was ages away from Gran Canaria and furthermore went down sorounded by storms.

[edit on 5/6/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:30 AM

AF447 Data Suggests Faulty Speed Data

Data from Air France flight 447's automatic ACARS message indicates the pilots may not have had access to the correct speed information during the final minutes of the flight.

The list of fault messages sent to Air France's operations headquarters in Paris includes a sequence of notes that hints at the three Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) computers to show diverging information. ADIRU compiles data delivered by the pitot tubes and process it to the aircraft's other computers.

The list, obtained by AviationWeek among others, gives an insight into the sequence of computer and system failures on the Airbus A330-200. During the last four minutes the situation worsened. At 2:10 a.m. zulu, the autopilot was either switched off by the pilots or automatically. The function is switched off automatically if speed drops by some margin below a previously defined minimum.

Separately, a Spanish newspaper quotes the crew of an Iberia Airbus A340 that flew seven minutes behind AF447 on the same track. According to the crew, air traffic control failed to contact the Air France jet after 1:33 a.m. zulu in spite of trying several times. The Iberia pilots - who deviated 30 miles east from the track to circumnavigate thick clowds - then tried to get in touch with their French colleagues, too, but did not succeed either. The pilot of a Lufthansa Boeing 747-400 that had passed the region 30 minutes earlier said that he had to fly several detours to avoid heavy weather, but otherwise described the flight as routine.

Av iationweek.

Explains much.

30 miles off track for thick clowds?
According to you guys that would be in the middle of the storm - it wasn't. And for our resident Airbus basher, the A330 was using ADIRU's made by Honeywell.

[edit on 5/6/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by crustas

Its just my opinion but i would assume that this plane that saw the bright light was many miles away. If it were a terrorist bomb it would of had to been massive to create a really bright light in cloudy conditions. A bright light in a sky is usually something falling thru the atmosphere

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by Emiiiiiil

Thanks for your reply emiiiiiiiii

Work and sleep you know what I mean.

Your right anything is possible and it just helps to prove how anything is possible. Still no proven debris yet! if I,m wrong.......A military sub can sense and detect activity 5000 miles away. Subs are apparently in the location trying to help!!!!

Smells a bit to me.

At this point any other debris they may find I would question and thats unfortunatley the way many of us think now.........distrust.


posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Anyway, in the debate about Boeing vs. Airbus, from a passenger standpoint, I'll take Boeing over Airbus any day in terms of comfort, seating arrangements, ect. I find Airbus jets to be uncomfortable, cramped, and not much fun to fly in. That's just my own experience, my own person view.

I appreciate your view but what you contribute as a fault to Airbus has nothing to do with them as it is the airlines prerogative to furnish the interior of the aircraft so seating arrangement problems and comfort levels should be taken up with them, Airframers such as Boeing and Airbus do design sample aircraft interiors but only just to show what their new frames are capable of, airlines almost exclusivelt design their own cabin interior layouts.

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
I know planes are shielded for lightning strikes and such. But I'm pretty sure they're not shielded for high level solar radiation.
[edit on 5-6-2009 by DEEZNUTZ]

I'm pretty sure they'd be fine, also Solar flares have been discussed and discounted since the plane was on "the dark side" of the planet when all this is said to have occured, excluding that in my opinion (previously stated here, Solar Flare radiation, peaking between 1 and 2 GHz would not affect the aircraft at all since they are designed to take radiated frequencies up to 13Ghz.

Originally posted by maxweljames

Originally posted by reugen

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by relu84

here is the wiki link:

Positive Lightning

It differs from normal lightning by many magnitudes. It's lightning on serious steroids.

Yes, magnitude 5-10 since it has to cover the distance from the CB cloud to the ground, and here is my question, what is ground here, is it the sea ?

Could be sea, could be another cloud, could be the plane itself. Anything that may be polarized opposite of the origin of the lightning.

5-10 difference in magnitude, really.
Do you know what the magnitude of 'normal' lightning is? how it differs from triggered lightning, do you know what magnitude of stroke the plane is designed for? 'Normal' lightning is assumed to give peak currents in excess of 200kA approximately 5% of the time. With that in mind your positive lightning isn't the monstrosity you thought it to be, its only 50% greater than most 'normal' strikes. Thats 1.5 in magnitude not 5. Before you consider anything to be an order of 10 higher than 'normal' lightning you have to consider it to be normally (i.e 95% of strikes) in the 1MA range. That WOULD be dangerous, but that isn't positive lightning.

For your reference the plane cannot be ground since it is not grounded and there is no way for it to dissipate the charge give to it other than to send it back out into the atmosphere as another lightning bolt. This normally occurs as part of one lighning strok where it attaches to one part of the plane and comes out of another part on its way to true ground. The plane is therefrore considered to be part of the lightning channel. The ground in this case could be a Cloud (in the case from a strike coming from the ground or another Cloud), and indeed the Sea.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:54 AM
Apologies, double post due to web-connection crash

[edit on 6/6/09 by CloudySkye]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:57 AM

The Air France jet which went missing over the Atlantic sent 24 error messages minutes before it crashed, French investigators say


The report states that there is no sign that the aircraft hit an exceptional storm and for some reason the autopilot was switched off, why would this be when the aircraft was this far into the flight unless the pilot suspected something?

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:04 AM
the realtime data is on weather graphics - and would dispuite that ^^

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:02 PM

There's lines of news coming in that Bodies are being found and also Wreckage

I will get you more ASAP

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:05 PM
A ship has found 2 bodies and Wreckage according to Brazilian Air force.

They where found in the ocean where the suspected plane was thought to have crashed.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by asala]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:14 PM
A link for the above:

Bodies found

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by solidshot

...and for some reason the autopilot was switched off,...

A/P can disconnect for several reasons: Intentionally by the pilot (Usually, the Pilot Flying). An electrical interruption occuring on the various buses that are supplying power to the selected A/P (There are 3...ony one is used at a time, except for AutoLand). If a 'fault' is detected by the computer software....sometimes it will only partially disconnect certain channels affected, and a visual and audible cue will be displayed. In fact, there is always a visible and audible cue. (On some Boeings, with an intentional disconnect, a quick 'double-click' on the disconnnect button will prevent the nuisance audible sound).

Also, if a pilot simply overpowers the A/P steering commands, it will disconnect....depending on how it's programmed...varies by airplane.

IF in very strong turbulence, often pilots will disconnect...or, put the A/P into a 'steering' mode....where the higher Mode Control functions, such as Altitude and Heading are removed, and the A/P acts as a 'pitch and roll' tries to maintain desired angles of pitch and roll.

In level flight modes, Airspeed is a function of the AutoThrottles. They will attempt to maintain an indicated airspeed or Mach speed, as appropriate.

Sometimes, when turb gets bad enough....a pilot's hand on the controls, without the automation, is better. A/Ps react the way they're programmed -- Humans react with more complex judgement and skill. Usually.

This seems a tragic in most accidents, it will be examined, and conclusions drawn. An accident involves a series of 'links' in a chain of events. Sometimes how those 'links' line up aren't obvious. That's the tragic part. Because, when a 'link' is noted, action might be taken to avert a catastrophe.

I predict, in this instance...we will undoubtedly see finger-pointing all around...

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:48 PM
I would like to know that pilots are so top professionel, that nothing would
cause them all to leave the cabin during flight?
my guess is no.
But the Airbus is such a automated plane, from what i understand, that you cant really fly it outside the envelope?
Could some crews gain so much reliability in to the automatisation that
they would sleep/eat/play online poker. maybe in another room?
maybe someone cut the cheese, and they all ran out(sorry).
Im just asking?
But knowing that they flew into a storm, that's unlikely to have happened im sure.
It seems that the lightning strike theory is prevaling in here and for good reasons it seems on first sight to be the most logical, but how many planes have EVER been claimed by lightning? i never heard of one.
its still plausible but unlikely, as much as the meteor theory that i suggested
or the solarburst theory.
im still puzzeled by the picture of the falling fireball? photographed off the coast of spain? i guess NORAD or simular would know!! btw. do they track
domestic and space objects only? or do they have a worldwide grit?
Well it could in theory be anything above.
But Ive just read a comment by a danish aviator made in a news debate.
and he claims that the Airbus have had previous problems while flying automated.
In October 2008 a Qantas A330 from Singapore to Perth , By itself the plane suddenly made a dive of 200 meters. All passengers who were not fastened literally flew around the plane with broken limbs and blood everywhere to follow.

ADIRU system, a computer that just has to make sure that flying is safe and coordinated, Did suddenly show program errors. This was the conclusion investigators of Qantas, Airbus and the Australian air traffic authorities subsequently reached.

Now for the bad: Almost half: 397 of about 900 aircraft of A330/340-familien, this ADIRU system installed.If the Air France plane had this system is not yet published. (quote end)

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:50 PM

RECIFE, Brazil – Searchers found two bodies and the first confirmed debris — a briefcase containing an Air France Flight 447 ticket — in the Atlantic Ocean near where the jetliner is believed to have crashed, a Brazil military official said Saturday.

"It was confirmed with Air France that the ticket number corresponds to a passenger on the flight,"

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:10 PM
I heard that on the plane was several Very important people

Princ of Brazil he worked in financial institution
Three members of board of directors Tyssen Krupp Company Germany
Three directors of French Company Michelin
Head of the Major Cabinet city Rio de Jenerio

Maybe it was not a accident, target could be one off these people and others are "colateral damage"(US Army expresion),They dealed with Money. Who knows, in these case Water will hide evidence and we can only speculate wath happend.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by Emiiiiiil

...would like to know that pilots are so top professionel, that nothing would
cause them all to leave the cabin during flight?

Absolutely not.

my guess is no.

Your guess is absolutely correct.

But the Airbus is such a automated plane, from what i understand, that you cant really fly it outside the envelope?

From what I understand, that is so. But, that presupposes the pilots attempt to fly outside the envelope. Very strong turbulence is an outside force.

Could some crews gain so much reliability in to the automatisation that
they would sleep/eat/play online poker. maybe in another room?

See above.

Im just asking?

Yes you are, and that's good.

But knowing that they flew into a storm, that's unlikely to have happened im sure.

Well, now....we get to the meat of the matter. The weather was on their course. Quite a few other airplanes, some just minutes ahead, behind or nearby, also flew through the area. Of course it is advisable to deviate as needed....usually a line of thunderstorm cells aren't bunched up together so tightly that you can't find a way between them. The question, then is one of judgement...using the tools at hand (your WX Radar) your experience, and whether or not you have chatted with the other airplanes ahead of you, to ask them what they see/saw, how the ride was, etc.

They, obviously, encountered conditions more extreme than they expected -- tragically. The recorders will yield a lot of clues, hopefully.

EDIT to add: I looked up the flight time for the GIG/CDG trip. It is scheduled at 11:15. Because it is a two-person crew, normally -- this requires a third, because of the trip being more than 8 hours (This is standard per FAA for US pilots. No reason to suspect it isn't the same under ICAO rules as well). Way this works is, all three pilots are in the cockpit for take-off and landing. In between, the time enroute is divided into three rest periods. Captain, usually due to senority, gets first choice of which period. As of now, we have no way of knowing their rotation.

SO, the most senior (and, likely...but not always most experienced) pilot may or may not have been in the cockpit. (BTW, the middle break is usually the most restful...meal service is over, airplane is quieter, lights turned low). Now...all three are fully qualified, as a matter of course.

AND, Air France may have specific rest procedures that I'm not aware of. But, I doubt they is left for the three to work out between themselves, usually.

Again...tuck this away as speculation on my part. Time will tell how correct I am, or am not.

[edit on 6/6/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:34 AM

Looking at the incident described in post 316, we can imagine what would have happened to AF447, upon entering such a "warm pool", if the autopilot had remained engaged - and the incident allowed to develop. Quite simply, wing and nose drop plus yaw (aka autorotation) at a high power setting as the autopilot and autothrust tried to maintain the flight level - despite, due to the warm pool, suddenly being overweight for the environmentals.

It's called coffin corner. Aerodynamic stall and Mach buffet boundaries come together to define the upper edge of the aircraft's flight envelope. Autorotation (aka spinning) at a high power setting is going to have some further complicating ramifications:

heck of a post , using the available weather breakdown from weather graphics , and ACARS messages - and a good possible occurance.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by Harlequin

Thanks for that Harlequin. Excellent post. It is sobering to realise how little people most people, such as me, know about the hazards that can still confront a modern passenger aircraft.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:32 PM
But im still left wondering if the ADIRU system, "if the flight had any such device?" could have failed aswell as them hitting the storm?
Pushing the plane to behave outside its designed envelope and break up?
i guess the integrity of the airframe is less, If its fully loaded with fuel. and that a flight at the end of its trip, Would be more nimble and more flexible?
The 23 or more transmissions made by the plane, reporting errors to the system seems to indicate a breakeup in midair?.
I would like to know if any Sms messages was sent by passengers?
or if that was sensation journalism at its worse?

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:15 AM
What about this?

-Plane got hijacked (or something similar),
-authorities decided to shoot down the aircraft.

-sudden loss of cabinpressure (compare KAL007 incident in 1983),
-eyewitnesses at sealevel reported beams of light (military attack?).

Beams of light: Explosion caused by military projectile, launched by ship, or jet fighter. Those missiles do not directly hit the plane, but explode in distance approaching the aircraft, causing heavy damage lethal to the aircrafts structural integrity and/or even able to destroy computerized avionics.

Official explanation of the crash: Turbolences, or lighning strike caused by tropical thunderstorm. There was for sure some wake turbolence and lighning flash, but caused by an exploding missile and not by a nasty tropical thunderstorm.

-Incident probably related to elections held in the EU,
-Suspect Nicolas Sarkozy himself gave order to shoot the aircraft down.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by qwertz]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by qwertz]

new topics
<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in