The South Atlantic Anomaly And The Disappearance Of Flt 447, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 08:05 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by Epsillion70


Huh?

Well, there are similarities, as an airplane far out to sea, out of RADAR contact, etc.

There are instances of real life missing airplanes. The ocean is a mighty big place. I mentioned Swiss Air 111 in another thread, people can research that and compare. Except, the difference is Swiss Air was in RADAR and VHF voice communication. Their incident was smoke, unknown origin, that rapidly turned into a devastating unsurvivable fire.

BTW, the cause was found, no conspiracy...sorry.


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 08:15 PM by really
reply to post by mikesingh


Mikesingh,
You're a genius! I've heard about exactly what you're talking about. It never occurred to me, though. I've also heard that the earth's magnetic field is actually weakening somewhere of the coast of Brazil or Argentina and is becoming somewhat reminiscent of the magnetic field of Mars. So, that it's kind of splotchy - strong magnetic field for 2 sq miles here - next to - very weak magnetic field for 1 sq mile there.
Good call, Mike!


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 08:21 PM by DukeOfDorch
Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mikesingh


I am thinking that a flare could possibly cause the magnetic anomaly to descend to 30,000 feet.


It's funny you say that.

Reason is that I was on the Red Eye from Santiago to Miami last night. This is a flight I have made in the past. What struck me as "unusual" was the captains announcement prior to takeoff that we would be cruising at an altitude of 30,000 feet. This is far below the normal FL350-FL370 usually flown. Once we got up near Ecuador, we ascended up to 37,000.

Another observation was that the moon illuminated *everything* for miles upon miles. Can anybody figure out the moon phase / position for the 447 flight? If it was anything like what I saw last night, a wall cloud should have been easily avoidable evcen without radar.

The flight path is a pretty straight shot, but there were times when we made very sharp banks, as though the captain was weaving in and out of the storms. Watching the lightning over Cuba was a sight to behold.

I just wanted to throw out these observations from last night. There were some pretty hairy/choppy moments -- but I must say the crew (and the moon) made it a enjoyable flight overall.

Do you think there is any chance we were at 30,000 feet because of something related to this "anomaly"?

[edit on 6-6-2009 by DukeOfDorch]


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 08:53 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by DukeOfDorch


What struck me as "unusual" was the captains announcement prior to takeoff that we would be cruising at an altitude of 30,000 feet.


Did he say why? If not, it's because there was no reason to. Altitudes assigned depend on a variety of factors. Obviously, the weight of the airplane firstly. But, another possibility was simply other flights had their clearances first, at the higher altitudes, so there were traffic conflicts. A great deal of South America is non-RADAR, so altitudes are assigned based on a lot of factors, since separation is a priority. (I assumed you meant Santiago, Chile??) Was it AA912, a B763 departing SCL at 2015?

Depending on the magnetic track of your course, if it is from 181 clockwise to 360 degrees, then it is usually an even altitude. SCL/MIA is very nearly North, maybe only slightly West (like, 355, or such) at first, because of the Andes (I'd have to look at the charts).

I just saw a big ole' Moon tonight...I'm up in NorthEast USA. Guess you saw the same thing, nice clear night, last night?


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 09:32 PM by DukeOfDorch
reply to post by weedwhacker


yes, AAL 912 @ 8:15. I don't recall if he gave any reason "why", but I do know that were "#1" for takeoff and landed in Miami at about 4:30 AM. Perhaps it was nothing at all, but like I said, we did climb to 37,000 feet eventually... I estimate that the plane itself was 50% full (passengers), if that... We were over a cloud layer most of the flight, but the moon really lit things up. I didn't sleep a wink and now I'm paying for it.

Cheers.


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 10:10 PM by BugBomb
The more I think about the events as we know them, the LESS they make sense.


Providing the aircraft was intact through descent, the engines should have continued operating, allowing the pilots to have SOME powered flight as they hit the water -- provided, of course, they were still conscious.

For non-aviators: Even when a jet aircraft loses electrical power, jet engines do not require electricity to keep the combustion "firing" in the engine -- they keep producing thrust. Additionally, although fuel boost pumps need electrical power, motive flow and gravity will normally keep the fuel flowing (without electrical power) to the engines as long as the aircraft doesn't experience less than 1G flight (which IS possible if the plane was buffeted in violent thunderstorm updrafts after the loss of electrical power).

We know the autopilot was off in the end. With the autopilot off, throttles at idle, and no pilot intervention (dead or unconscious), the aircraft would have continue nosing over until it was 60-90 degrees nose low ("Mach Tuck") at very high speed -- accelerating toward the ocean surface.

Ergo, the aircraft would have hit the water at a VERY high speed -- like hitting concrete. Everything should have been obliterated -- EVERYTHING. A graphic analogy might be that the crushed remains of the aircraft -- and nearly everything inside -- sank like an egg attached to a brick thrown very, VERY hard into a swimming pool.

Now, there should still have been a sizable fuel slick from the unused fuel (close to 150,000 lbs of jet fuel) and A LOT of floating seat cushions that would have risen to the surface after the fuselage split open like Humpy Dumpy on impact, on it's way down to the bottom. The fuel would be bubbling up from the ocean floor -- like oil still seeps from the ships sunk in Pearl Harbor -- for Search and Rescue to find.

Sorry for the graphic detail here: Bodies will normally bloat and float to the surface after a few days from the buildup of trapped gases, mainly in the intestines, of the dead.

I just can't see how a human body (or back pack, briefcase or anything else softer than metal) would stay intact enough after hitting the water at such a high speed -- to later float to the surface to be found by search crews.


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 10:44 PM by BugBomb
IMO, if the aircraft broke apart in flight, there should be A LOT of floating seat cushions and other debris as the items were whisked away from the fuselage in the violent airflow entering the cabin as it was ripped apart.

If it hit the water intact, there should be little debris, but a sizable aviation fuel slick from the wing fuel tanks, either upon impact with the water or now as it should rise from the ocean floor.

To get a hint of the impact the FA-447experienced in either case, take a look at this video of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 that was hijacked in 1996 (BELOW). The jetliner ran out of fuel just shy of the airport and is one of a handful of controlled "water landings" of a large passenger airliner. The plane crash-landed in the Indian Ocean near Comoros, killing 125 of the 175 passengers and crew on board.

As you watch the video, keep in mind that Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 was:
- under the control of a pilot
- relatively slow, close to landing speed, empty of fuel, with engines off
- somewhat level to the water
- in clear weather during the day

Conversely, with FA-447:
- the autopilot was off, probably with no pilot intervention at all in the end
- accelerating toward the ocean surface, with the engines in idle (maybe higher if they were attempting to recover from a stall just prior)
- in a nose-low attitude, tucking over and losing uncontrollability due to mach airflow separation on the ailerons and elevator
- in turbulent weather at night

www.youtube.com...

Again, some parts of this accident just aren't making sense.


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 10:55 PM by BugBomb
When something like THIS happens to an aircraft in flight, stuff goes flying everywhere.



Now imagine the aircraft breaking apart in flight, most likely tumbling and falling apart on the way down -- cabin contents will be flying everywhere and IMO leave a VERY visible trail of floating debris on the ocean surface.


reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 11:33 PM by BlasteR
reply to post by BugBomb


The difficult thing to know is whether or not the loss of cabin pressure caused the pilots to be incapacitated. There are masks that the pilots are trained to use in this kind of instance but you never know. The bright orange fireball is what I want to know more about.

An explosion of some kind would be almost more indicative of a missile strike than anything else. Especially considering the kind of design work and intricate backup systems that went into the plane's construction.

We know that Russian vessels were conducting naval exercises off the coast of venezuela just a few months ago.. All I'm saying, There's just no way to rule out some kind of a missile strike at this point regardless of how unlikely people think that might be. It could have been anything.

But the thing people need to remember is that a bright fireball would be indicative of this aircraft exploding long before contact with the water. That means that the debris would have covered an extremely wide area of ocean. A couple days go by.. Plane is still missing.. That debris could very easily become lost to ocean after 2 or 3 days regardless of what debris would float and what wouldn't.

Most of it would inevitably sink. Bodies still strapped into their seats would inevitably sink with the rest of the more intact areas of the aircraft, like sections of the fuselage. Just lost to the abyss.

What wasn't destroyed by the explosion,that floats, would just be widely dispersed by the sea. So much so that the likelihood anyone would find them would be unlikely.

They DID find an oil slick too though that supposedly contained oil and kerosene (jet fuel). But no sign of debris trail or anything else which would likely have been created after a loss in cabin pressure. IMO, what we're seeing are possibly sites of the ocean where certain parts of the aircraft fell off prior to the plane reaching the crash site (possibly due to the witnessed explosion). The oil slicks could easily have been created by the leftovers of the fuel tanks and/or the engines. Alot to take into account. Alot of pieces to the puzzle. The slicks could have also been caused by the pilot dumping the fuel after some kind of massive fire.

-ChriS

[edit on 6-6-2009 by BlasteR]



reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 12:23 AM by weedwhacker
reply to post by BugBomb


Again, some parts of this accident just aren't making sense.


That's true for almost all accidents.

Lots of speculation, good points raised.

Like all accidents there will likely be a combination of factors -- links in a tragic 'chain' of events that, by themselves, seem innocuous. But, as too often seen, if one link isn't recognized and broken in time, tragic results.

I'm sure that when/if all results are found, the reasons will be part of what of us have already mentioned, and other parts we haven't thought of yet.


[edit on 6/7/0909 by weedwhacker]


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 12:39 AM by BlasteR
I guess they just found some bodies and debris today.

Two Bodies, Confirmed Debris Found Near Air France Crash Site

The bodies of two male passengers were recovered Saturday morning about 70 kilometers south of where Air France Flight 447 emitted its last signals — roughly 400 miles northeast of the Fernando de Noronha islands off Brazil's northern coast.


I guess they also found some debris.. One piece was a suitcase containing an Air France flight 447 ticket. Could you imagine putting that in a briefcase.. Then, the next person to set eyes on it is someone who just fished it out of the Atlantic? Wow..

With relation to what Hunka Hunka just said, we know that certain locations around the globe can intermittnetly affect instrumentation readings. The Bermuda Triangle is a great example. That could have played a factor. Of coarse there just isn't any way to know right now.

The beacon on the flight data recorder only lasts about a month I think. If they can't get close enough to it to detect it before then it will be lost to the ocean. And even if they do find it, it's probably deeper than any debris ever recovered from the ocean before. How they would even retreive such an object a couple dozen thousand feet underwater is an entirely separate challenge.

-ChriS

[edit on 7-6-2009 by BlasteR]


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 03:48 AM by BlasteR
reply to post by HunkaHunka


Awesome!

I think that the story you linked mainly gives huge props to Mike Singh and how he thinks. When it comes to this kind of thing, ATS is just so far ahead of the rest of the world. This is one big reason I keep coming back here. Very cool.

-ChriS
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^