Air France Plane down

page: 8
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Aircraft are designed for lighting strikes. As noted it is really unlikely that lighting would have taken the jet down.

Also the A330 is a pretty rugged airframe and its accident record is pretty good. The only other time it has had a total airframe loss was when it was in flight test.

My condolances to the familes of all onboard Flight 447




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Where are you getting loss of pressurization from?

If this is true, I would place my money on severe turbulence strong enough to damage the airframe...and then explosive decompression....as opposed to a lightning strike. That makes much more sense to me.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Allot of good info people, thx


But I am thinking this could be a human error as well. Sleepy, suicidal or drunk pilot...

So to a few questions if anyone comes over this info:

1. Brazil-France is long way, do anyone if this was the first trip for the crew?
(I have read earlier that crew members are working long time on international flights)

2. If a military ship was in the area, would they have seen the plane on their radar?

3. Many of you say lightning is impossible, but what about multiple lighting? Say the plane has a problem with the electronic, and then receive 500 lightning stroke on the way down... Is this a possible scenario?

may the victims RIP



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Have been trying to stay up-dated on this.
How is it that no one can seem to locate this huge airplane; nor determine exactly where it went down??
With all of our modern tracking systems, I am finding this a little bizarre.

News anyone???

Peace...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Anyone that doubts that lightning can harm an aircraft should read up on "positive lightning."


As a result of their greater power, positive lightning strikes are considerably more dangerous. At the present time, aircraft are not designed to withstand such strikes, since their existence was unknown at the time standards were set, and the dangers unappreciated until the destruction of a glider in 1999.

en.wikipedia.org...


www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov...


www.srh.noaa.gov...



And under the clouds the investigators documented extraordinary strikes of “positive” lightning. These bolts were six times as powerful as ordinary “negative” lightning, and they lasted ten times as long. Where ordinary lightning could punch a tiny hole in a wing, positive lightning could burn through struts and wires and rip pieces apart. These bolts carry forces many times greater than what airplanes are designed to withstand. In one crash, rivets had been melted. In another, a pipe had been crushed and twisted. Crash specialists suspected these planes had been brought down by strikes of positive lightning.

www.thunderbolts.info...

[edit on 6/1/09 by larphillips]

[edit on 6/1/09 by larphillips]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gyrochiral
Have been trying to stay up-dated on this.
How is it that no one can seem to locate this huge airplane; nor determine exactly where it went down??
With all of our modern tracking systems, I am finding this a little bizarre.

News anyone???

Peace...


Aircraft, even the "big" passenger planes, are very, very small objects in a very, very large world... especially over the ocean where there are no humans to report explosions, debris, or any other eye-witness accounts or the ability to provide immediate evidence. If the plane did come down in a lightning strike, or had some other catastrophe that caused total electronic failure, most devices used as a plane locator or beacon would be lost. I'm not surprised in the least that the plane hasn't been found. I wouldn't be surpised if it were never found.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


stop me if i'm wrong, but the plane was way too high to be exposed to a positive lightning

wasn't it ?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Gyrochiral
 


The aicraft most likely landed in the ocean and the area they are searching is quite vast...they will find debris eventually, going to take some time. As for the lightning strike causing failure...very unlikely. There are not many aircraft in service that have not been struck by lightning. I use to work at an aircraft repair station and every plane I worked on had lightning strikes that needed to be repared. Now, if there was a bad ground or something like that...there would be a problem.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 

Got it and thank you.
I was not aware that it had indeed been determined that it was that far off-shore.
Am at work and must not have thoroughly read a few of the previous posts.
It does indeed appear that it is being kept up to the nanosecond here.
Good job guys and thanks again.

Peace...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


sure, not to find bits and pieces in ocean is understandable but how come they say they don't know when and where, this is weird



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

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


stop me if i'm wrong, but the plane was way too high to be exposed to a positive lightning

wasn't it ?


Check out the very last link in my post. It shows a shot of giant, blue jets of positive lightning that rocket from the clouds out into space, and not towards the ground.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gyrochiral
reply to post by larphillips
 

Got it and thank you.
I was not aware that it had indeed been determined that it was that far off-shore.
Am at work and must not have thoroughly read a few of the previous posts.
It does indeed appear that it is being kept up to the nanosecond here.
Good job guys and thanks again.

Peace...



I think part of the problem is that they haven't determined quite where the plane was... just that it was over the ocean.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by putiplot
 


Human error could be somewhat of a factor (usually during some sort of air disaster there are multiple scenarios and events that take place to cause them...sometimes not) but more likely these days its not.

The crew would only being doing that one leg before a mandatory 72 hour layover period for international flying and even during that period they have plenty of "rest" periods. Its regional flying (a la last month's Colgan Air disaster) that it what you have to worry about when it comes to exhaustion.

It is sooo very highly unlikely it was just lightning that caused this. It has happened in the past though; for example Pan Am Flight 214:



Pan Am Flight 214, a Boeing 707-121 registered as N709PA, was a domestic scheduled passenger flight from Baltimore to Philadelphia, which crashed on December 8, 1963 near Elkton, Maryland, after being hit by a lightning strike while in a holding pattern, killing all 81 persons on board


en.wikipedia.org...


But to the best of my knowledge such a fuel leak is highly improbably with today's aircraft....



On December 17, 1963, nine days after the crash of Flight 214, Leon H. Tanguay, director of the CAB Bureau of Safety, sent a letter to the FAA recommending several safety modifications as part of future aircraft design. One modification related specifically to volatile fuel vapors that can form inside of partly empty fuel tanks, which may be ignited by various potential ignition sources and cause an explosion. Mr. Tanguay's letter suggested reducing the volatility of the fuel/air gas mixture by introducing an inert gas, or by using air circulation.[1] Thirty three years later,[6] a similar recommendation was issued by the NTSB (the CAB's successor) after the TWA Flight 800 Boeing 747 crash on July 17, 1996, with 230 fatalities, which was also determined to have been caused by the explosion of a volatile mixture inside a fuel tank.[7]


Again,

en.wikipedia.org...


Any pilots out there with any insight to volatile mixtures in fuel tanks?

Anyone know the insides of an Airbus? Could severe turbulance cause structural damage so severe there was a fuel leak somehow?
Ignited by lightning....?

[edit on 1-6-2009 by awake_awoke]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

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


sure, not to find bits and pieces in ocean is understandable but how come they say they don't know when and where, this is weird


True, that part is very weird... although perhaps it points out that over-the-ocean tracking and monitoring are much, much worse than any of us ever thought it was... or that the military just really isn't willing to share that technology/hardware with the civilian sector.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by riotact1
reply to post by Gyrochiral
 


The aicraft most likely landed in the ocean and the area they are searching is quite vast...they will find debris eventually, going to take some time. As for the lightning strike causing failure...very unlikely. There are not many aircraft in service that have not been struck by lightning. I use to work at an aircraft repair station and every plane I worked on had lightning strikes that needed to be repared. Now, if there was a bad ground or something like that...there would be a problem.



You might have missed my post on positive lightning, just a couple up from yours. While very rare, it packs more than enough punch to take down a passenger aircraft.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 

Catching up now.
Yes...the above the storm, upward lightening does ring true.
Finding all of this very, very fragmented and puzzling.
We still do not know about this plane then???
Why is this???

Hmmmmmm....

Peace...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Wow...this is like a real life 'Lost'...

Very interesting...since just last night I was checking out the www.oceanic-air.com website, which was part of a viral marketing campaign for the television show.

Crazy.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
A little more on the nationalities on board,


The Irish government confirms three Irish citizens were on board the crashes airliner in the Atlantic.



Reuters: Crashed airliner was also carrying American and Chinese citizens.


And the US have been asked to assist.


Authorities have requested the help of the U.S. military to search for the missing Airbus which went down in the Atlantic.


[edit on 1-6-2009 by asala]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I had a premonition yesterday about a plane crash. I've had them for a long time, the earliest I can remember was having one back in the 80's just before the planes collided and crashed in the crowd at the airshow. Had one before the Towers were hit on 9-11 and even told my freind about having a premonition about "planes crashing into skyscrapers (plural, not singular)"on netmeeting instant messenger 6 hours before the first plane hit. Yesterday afternoon I started having that feeling again and told my girlfriend that I was worried, I was having that feeling again like being able to feel the collective helplessness and absolute horror followed by the feeling of the sudden impact. I told my girlfriend that I thought there was going to be a plane crash. She woke me up this morning all freaked out and told me about this plane missing. I know this article is about the crash and not pre-cog stuff, but since the 2 are somewhat connected I figured I'd post here. Is there anyone out there who can help me make sense of this plane crash thing I seem to be tuned into?
My deepest heartfelt sympathies go out to the families and loved ones of the passengers and crew on that plane.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


no it's not dificult, look sailing boats,
sailing races around the world (like vendee globe challenge as for example): we could follow in real time their very precise position all over the web...

[edit on 1-6-2009 by ::.mika.::]





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join