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.

 

Airbus Air France AF447: The victims have no burns nor water in lungs

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
How do they not drown when they are in the open sea????????


Because they were already dead when they hit the water.




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Here's an article looking into the possibillity of a hacked jet


Hack-Jet: Losing a commercial airliner in a networked world



Btw, I guess a meteorite striking the plane can't be entirely ruled out? However unlikely as it may sound, it is possible...

Black box, where are you?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
any thoughts?

Writing in a way someone without any knowledge of flight jargon can understand would help, I did not understood most of your post.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



any thoughts?


A few. Thanks for the plug


Tim Vasquez' site had the Flight Plan, showing M.82 as filed.


...the aircraft whilst transiting the MCS at FL 350 @ m 0.83...


But, difference is so minor (a few knots CAS) as to be insignificant.

When I've encountered turbulence, Mach Speed can fluctuate all over the place. I don't know MMO for the A330...will guess it's probably M.86 (just looked it up...yes, M.86)

Still, a 35-degree temp change, suddenly, at altitude would really only be critical, I think, IF the airplane was already at MAX Altitude for its weight. After four hours, the fuel burn-off would have been on the order of at least 25,000 pounds, maybe more to account for the climb.

Looking at the distance for the trip, it is near the maximum range, according to Airbus. However, since it appeared not to have a full load, not sure of its actual GTOW from Rio.







...throwing the ADIRU out of `sync`


Well, should be two ADIRU, each supplying data to its respective pilots' side instruments. We should consider the possiblity of the inadequate pitot heat also...



being buffeted from the updraft in the MCS , the aircraft is now below stall speed , and enters stall warning


Again, the trubulence can be a handful, but the stick shaker is usually programmed to activate well before actual aerodynamic airframe stall buffeting occurs. Of course, in turbulence, can't tell the difference from Mach buffet, or stall buffet. It depends on context, and experience.


here is the crux , the aircraft has eronous data from the warm air , and is being thrown around from stall/mach 1 , and being bounced around inside the MCS - a combination of factors leading to the aircraft simply flying apart from the stress.


Sums it up, could be a working hypothesis until more data comes in.

Thing is, airplanes are really, really strong. Although, I did just start thinking about how they are assembled, and the fuselage section joints...hmmmmmmm.......

A tremendously unforeseen tortional force, on the fuselage, between the wings and the center of lift, and the horizontal stab, and its downward forces.....



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


FL 350 is 35000 feet , mach 0.83 is 547 mph

MCS = Mesoscale Convective System

www.weathergraphics.com...

thats tim vasquesz site

[edit on 13/6/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


AF are shying away from pitot heating - they mentioned 3 weeks prior to the flight they had allready started changing the probes - my gut is telling me they want this quiet as the probes WERE the thales type and the new ones


holy **** - mach 0.86 is 586 mph , m 0.83 is 547 - thats a margin of 20 mph before you get `issues` - which if you suddenly drop, your over MMO (maximum mach operating number)

[edit on 13/6/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




Yes, I'm guilty as well.

'Mach', or 'Mach Number' refers to a speed reference used at higher altitudes for flight, generally above about 20,000 feet. It has to do with compressibility factors of the air, something known as 'ram-rise', the effects of high speeds on the sensed temperature of the air....using Mach is just more accurate than simple airspeed indications.

"Mach 0.83" is simply 83% of Mach (speed of sound). Mach actually varies by temperature, too.

To simplify -- jets (as all airplanes) have a maximum and minimum safe flying speed, for any given set of circumstances.

Turbulence, of course, places stresses on the airplane. Avoiding the most extreme areas of turbulence is a goal, naturally.

What Harlequin was talking about, basically, is that the AF447 may have been a victim of being "wrong place, wrong time" in weather environments that were just extremely unusual, and unforecast.

These unusual conditions could have led to conflicting cockpit instrument indications, of all sorts. But, any pilot at that level of skill wouldn't (I think) be too aggressive on the controls as to contribute to structural failure...it just may have been a fluke of the weather situation....



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


the aircraft went into `alternate law` - which disengages the safeties for the system.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
uk.news.yahoo.com...

6 more bodies found and time is running out to find the black boxes



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
People have been saying that the aircraft lost pressure just before break up. This reminds me of the Aloha Airlines flight that also broke up in mid air - though the plane managed to get to an airport with only one loss of life.

Could Af447 be something simuler?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I think I remember reading on one of the threads that this was one of the first planes to incorporate cell phone texting in flight. Requiring an atenna that ran nose to tail.

Could it be that this type of configuration is not the best situation for an intense electrical storm? How was this setup wired into the planes controll system? of course just cause I read it dont make it true.

Also like someone else said if the plane broke up in mid flight at high altitude. the dead would have died while in mid air from lack of oxygen or impact of the turbulence (hopefully close to instantly) and therfore not breath water into their lungs.

I hope would like to think that the black boxes design has improved so much over the years that unless totaly destroyed yhe must be able to be found ( except with serial numbers like 911).

Of course simple me thought that no plane anywhere in the world would be "off" radar unless flying below it.

paranoya over.........



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
This is interesting to say the least. 16 bodies were apparently recovered but their condition/ exactly how maimed they is unknown, at least to me.

Did these bodies have lifejackets on? This could explain the absence of water in the lungs.

Perhaps the rest didn't and drowned when they hit the water, they will probably eventually pop up out of the ocean a few days or weeks later, unless their bodies are consumed by the denizens of the sea.


No, none of the bodies were found with life-jackets on.
They were all found naked.
They were too badly injured when found to be recognisable to the people waiting to ID them.

This was posted on PPRuNe 7 hours ago:

News from brazilian TV newsprogram
(post #1338)


Just 30 minutes ago, in the daily night-news-program on the brazilian TV channel "Band", the leader of the IML in Recife said (Institute for autopsies):
"The 16 bodies we've pre-autopsied, so far, can't be recognized and or identified by parents/related persons. No one of the recovered bodies had clothes on. No one of the bodies had water in their lungs nor signs of smoke. No one of the bodies presented any kind of fire/heat exposure. Allmost all bodies show middle to heavy internal contusions."


You won't get water in your lungs if you have stopped breathing before you hit the water.

The temperature where the plane broke up would have been ~-60*C, or ~-80*F, so the bodies, falling fast through damp air, would have snap frozen long before they hit the water.
At least they died fast.

The clothes were most likely removed by the action of the waves on the bodies.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 



Allmost all bodies show middle to heavy internal contusions



otherwise known as `rapid deceleration trauma` - or hitting something solid whilst in freefall.

and water is solid when hit at 200 mph from 35000 feet up



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by komp_uk

Originally posted by Silk
Why is Airbus issuing an advisory?

The plane lost altitude - rapidly and broke up - no fire no chance of drowning

pray if you go in a plane one day its this quick and one hopes painless

There is no real conspiracy unless its the failure of engineers and ground staff to check vital equipment was checked

Enough with this speculation till the CAA provides some real time line to the flights demise - we owe that at least to the families and victims of this tragedy .


Wise words of course and completely agree. BUT


If no water and no burns we should - as all good conspiracists should - look at how the forum members can now look at the other possibilities.

Did you see the UFO + mexican pilot story recently



Oh why why do we always go to UFO's...

How about the fact that a Solar Flare SLAMMED the magnetosphere at the same time, dropping it closer to the earth than normal in an area where it is already the closest to the earth, and right next to the South Atlantic Anomaly...

It was definitely cosmic... but not fueled by intelligence in any way...

/kmqd83



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Obviously the plane depressurized, people lost consciousness before putting on oxygen masks and died. Those who did get the masks on died on impact. Dead = no breathing = no water in lungs.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Hunka, I like your posts...but the SAA (with apologies to MikeSingh) just won't fly, this time (no pun!)

Solar flares tend to last a good long time. The hemisphere of the Earth was pointed away from the Sun. AND the other airplanes in the region were unscathed.

But, biggest reason? The SAA is effective hundreds of KM above the surface, well above the altitudes of airplanes.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Hunka, I like your posts...but the SAA (with apologies to MikeSingh) just won't fly, this time (no pun!)

Solar flares tend to last a good long time. The hemisphere of the Earth was pointed away from the Sun. AND the other airplanes in the region were unscathed.





That's a good point... I haven't seen a map or anything depicting similar aircraft in the area...




But, biggest reason? The SAA is effective hundreds of KM above the surface, well above the altitudes of airplanes.


According to the article posted, the magnetosphere was pushed even lower during this effect...

btw... this article I linked to has a different take on it than Mike Singh's . It has the video of the magnetosphere at the time, and it correlates visually and with the time frame of the incident.

I think your point about the other planes in the area though might be enough to put this one to bed in my mind... I'd like to see the data though ya know?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BSG75
 



This reminds me of the Aloha Airlines flight that also broke up in mid air -


BSG...Aloha was quite different. Airplanes incorporate what's known as an 'overpressure relief' valve. (There is a maximum designed cabin pressure differential, or PSID, for each airplane design. This is one limiting factor in maximum cruising altitude, besides aircraft performance abilities).

Because of the age of the Aloha airplane, and the environment it 'lived' in (salty air) and slack maintenance, the valve became corroded, and stuck.

Normally, not a prob....but the pressurization system was being operated in what's called 'Manual' mode, since the first two 'Auto' modes were inop. (Remember 'slack' maintenance??).

The First Officer simply allowed the cabin to over-pressurize....and, again, old airplane, coupled with corrosion, a fuselage section failed at the weak points -- the fuselage is assembled in sections, each about eight to ten windows long, I believe, on the B737.

Tragically, one F/A died. She was the most senior at the airline, and very well liked. She was never found.....



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Hate to be morbid, but was looking for other instances of clothing being removed from bodies in high-speed break-ups, and at a TWA 800 page there was discussion about fractured vertebrae on the victims.

Makes sense, the forces are extreme. AND, at least that would be quick....



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
If no burns or water in the lungs, the plane definitely was ripped apart in mid air, and the passengers were well dead before they hit the water. No burns means no explosions. So terrorism can most likely be ruled out.


The only question remaining is why the pilot flew into a dangerous thunderstorm. the black box would answer that.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join