Was the Air France Airbus 330 disappearance Ufo related?

This was the first thing that i thought when i read the news article on the BBC. First thing. I have personally flown in storms several times without the slight indication that anything at all happened to the plane. why would a plane totally short out from a storm when it is pro ported as hyper-advanced and safe. Such events are too simple and convenient; even if someone attacked it, from inside or outside. I want to know but i wont hold my breath for the info to come out. I dont look good blue from lack of oxygen.

Someone on Godlikeproductions said the rapture was suppose to happen today.........................

Maybe the rapture?

Maybe I'm jaded but when I heard an Air France jet went down my first thought wasn't about UFO's it was "I bet it's an Airbus Jet".

The french gov't will push there way into the investigation and claim it was pilot error. They'll hide the facts about what really happened and then they will quitely send out a software patch, just like they used to do for the A320.

We used to joke that the flight software for the 320 was written by Microsoft.

Maybe the pilots were in the army at one point. So when they saw the lightning storm their army training kicked in and they ran away and jumped out of the plane.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by The Mack]

It's a fair question but premature - how can we make any speculation without evidence? The only empirical evidence we have, I believe, is "radio contact broken" and loss of electrical systems.

Modern plane made with lightning protection means it's safer, it doesn't mean it's 100% safe from lightning, imo

by the way, I also thought UFO activity was a possibility when I heard of it =)

as a little extra "nail" in the UFO option, apparently France asked the U.S. to bring it's spy satelite network into the situation ~ based on something I heard on NPR, National Public Radio in U.S.

Originally posted by NeonStar
I seriously dount UFO's had anything to do with this, and for the record the AirBus A330 is not as squeeky clean as many think.

There have been a frequent number of instances of 'unexplained intrument' failure of late.

Airbus has a much poorer record than most people know. Everytime one crashes in Europe hey declare it pilot error before the smoke settles.

The only other observation might be some clandistine sabortage by Lockhead / Boeing as they are seriously losing their dominance in the large aircraft sales. Its a bit of a stretch, but consider that Boeing works with Nasa, provides components to the ISS along with other military applications, perhaps the corpporate $$$ have won out again. Nothing like a series of fatal accidents to your main rival to scare potential customers back your way.

Actually the 777 has better fuel efficiency and has been kicking the Airbus in the NA and Asian markets. Last summer Airbus lost a chinese and several other major contracts because of the fuel issue.

reply to post by foxhoundone


I spoke with a guy just tonight-- he's an aircraft mechanic and is familiar with the Airbus. According to him, they have NEVER had a catastrophic system failure as being described in the news. And the lightning story is weak-- he says commercial aircraft are hit all the time-- at worst they get a small pinhole in the aluminum skin, which he repairs with a rivet and they're good to go.

He couldn't guess what brought down that Airbus, but it had to be major-- they are designed with multiple fail-safes and redundant systems. Perhaps that reassuring redundancy coupled with their excellent service history lulled the pilots into a false sense of security which prompted them to press forward after reporting electrical problems early on in their flight.

Anyway, the black box transponder activates upon impact, so they will definately locate the wreckage, but I expect they'll find it somewhere off the African coast, not near Brazil, as previously reported.

I think it's interesting that France was named as the number 2 for disclosure in the cnn interview. Quite the coincidence I think

Lol. These darn coincidences are driving me nuts!

Originally posted by ufosbri
How is it possible that a plane can disappear nowadays with satellites radar.

I'm a bit late to this, but I didn't see anyone clearing this up, so I figure I'll go ahead and answer.

Satellites are very powerful tools that can be focused so much as to read a postage stamp sitting on the sidewalk.

However, doing this requires multiple passes of the satellite and a very specific target. In practice, larger search patterns will only reveal resolution down to a few decimeters - which means that objects smaller than a refrigerator are difficult to locate.

upon impact - aircraft shatter into millions of tiny pieces. Aluminum tends to fracture and rip as opposed to warp, like the heavier iron alloys. The composites behave in a similar fashion.

With a storm to scatter debris and elevated ocean currents to scatter it to the breadth of the ocean - locating wreckage is not as simple as one might think.

As for radar - storms create their own radar reflections and generate their own electromagnetic emissions. Tracking an aircraft in them is extremely problematic and usually requires a military system.

Civilian air control systems are, comparably, rather low-tech and simple. They are not designed to pinpoint the bearing and heading of an aircraft, much less track hundreds of individual contacts (only possible in extremely agile radars used by the military).

Civilian Air Traffic Control is based around transponders - GPS/INS based devices (personally - I take the INS over GPS - GPS is just too inaccurate by comparison) that communicate their position and heading to ATC. The radars used are general search radars used with the intent of providing some kind of warning against/for un-registered aircraft (though many were originally developed for defense purposes 'back in the day').

They simply are not meant to track a plane, and not intended to cover a large amount of airspace.

Im sure a submarine would have picked up any large explosions in the sea.

It was during a storm. That, alone, causes problems.

If a submarine was close - within a few nautical miles - cruising around five knotts (above the thermal barrier), and had an appropriate array streamed, they would certainly have heard something, and would have been able to distinguish it.

However, that scenario is highly improbable. Most of our submarines are on cat&mouse games with the Chinese and likely gathering intel on the North Korean's ports and submarine activity. The U.S. is really about the only country that sends her submarines wherever she wants to - most other countries keep them close to port, or at least near the same continent.

There were the hydrophones set up and used to help give our attack boats a bead on potential USSR hostiles back in the cold war - but just how operational those are is anyone's guess. Furthermore, they are located along the North American coastline.

A plane that size just does not disappear think about all the people that would have phones on them no one phoned home strange sounds like Bermuda triangle stuf.

Phones don't reach that far out to sea. The phones on an aircraft are linked to a satellite, which allows us to communicate while over the ocean. However - land-based towers (that your cell phones use) do not usually reach out any farther than ten miles beyond the coast - and that's a generous estimate.

Your phone is the limiting factor - it has to be able to send a signal to a tower, and you don't want to be holding up a fifty-watt radio transmitter to your brain. It'd be heavy, hot, the battery would be as big as a party-sized cooler, and you would be exposed to unhealthy amounts of non-ionizing radiation.

So, we opt for the low-power variety that can only communicate over a very short distance. To compensate - we construct a lot of towers to act as access points for those wireless devices.

If we had all the technology in the right places - there would be no question about what happened. However - we simply don't have that capability.

As a pilot of large aircraft, and having flown the Atlantic many times, my guess is that the flight short circuit may be similar to the problem of Flight 800 -- a short circuit. Seems plausible, since there was reported heavy turbulence. Sometimes you shake things up enough, something can break down.

On the other hand, other pilots were making it through ok. Please understand that these airways are like highways, and someone came before them and after them through the same place. Of course, turbulence can change at a moment's notice.

Sometimes you'll have lightning, turbulence, and associated hail. Most pilots would avoid these problems using radar. If they decided to penetrate these conditions, they were not using their heads. We always tried to stay 20 miles or more away from these conditions. I have had associates have their wings ripped off due to turbulence.

Originally posted by NephraTari
reply to post by mystiq

 

That was my first question as well. It does not look like they did but Bermuda is not the only triangle of phenomenon ... this could be another zone similar.

Well if we can't make it fit into one mythical area of the Atlantic, why don't we just squeeze it in to another that doesn't even exist.

C'mon people, let's show some sensitivity to those lost souls and their loved ones. They are already tormented and going through hell not knowing what has happened, as we sit back playing 'armchair intellectual', and offering up even more far-fetched hypothesis.

Do you think that is helping them at this moment?

reply to post by exile1981


I agree.

My first thought was "bet it was an Airbus."

When a crucial part of an Anime show's plot is the hostile market takeover of a Japanese Airline and the decision to purchase Airbus aircraft (which then start failing) - you know you've got a bad reputation.

Area 88 - a classic.

My next thought was an error in the flight control system - a set of conditions that confound the system into thinking it is in some kind of peril that it really isn't in. Which, interestingly, puts the aircraft in peril.

Though a ground-fault in the system could have untold bad implications for the electrical system.

reply to post by Aim64C


Aim64C and Jim Scott: my comments were not directed at you guys. In fact your analysis was highly informative and very much valued

ABC is reporting that that the Airbus 330 broke up in mid air and survivors have been found on an uncharted Island, however the Island disappeared before ships could arrive in the area

Originally posted by alaskop
ABC is reporting that that the Airbus 330 broke up in mid air and survivors have been found on an uncharted Island, however the Island disappeared before ships could arrive in the area

Umm..okay..but at least try to stay in the realm of reality

What does this mean exactly? How could a large ultra modern aircraft with numerous safety backups suddenly drop from the air like that? doesn't make sense.

Rediculous.

EVERY plane crash is a mystery, which is why we launch something known as an INVESTIGATION to find out EXACTLY when, why, what and when it happened.

[edit on 2/6/2009 by C0bzz]

Chances are it was probably just a minor accident, followed by other usually minor accidents that ended up in what we (don't) see. I don't think anyone should blaming UFOs at this point just because a little plane disappeared in the immensity of the ocean (though fires were seen), and, electrical failures, even catastrophic ones, do happen.

Also, my last words from another topic on the accident: I think they won't find anything of the plane, if what I posted is true and the Senegal gov was able to locate parts of it, that was hours ago, the plane can be all over the world or on some shore by now

I was making reference to a post where I pointed out that a news site (in portuguese) said the Senegal gov had found what could be parts of the wreck of the plane.

of course it was a ufo that brought the plane down.

ufos bring planes down all the time.
tons of reports of ufos in the area.
i heard someone channeled ET and they admitted responsiblity

ufos are evil, they like killing innocent people on airplanes.

So what if the plane hit heavy turbulance thats nothing to do with it. It was obviously a ufo.


p.s alot of people who visit this board need psychiatric help.

Originally posted by ufossydney
Does anyone this there could be a remote connection here?

Here's a short extract on the recent report

They are not yet saying the plane has crashed but that the ultra modern & extreemly safe Airbus 330 suddenly 'disappeared' from radar screens due to a electrical "short circuit"... very strange indeed: Air France said that the aircraft had sent a message reporting an electrical "short circuit" after strong turbulence.

The company said the plane had probably been struck by lightning. An Airbus source described the failure as "catastrophic" suggesting a sudden and unexplained systems failure.

What does this mean exactly? How could a large ultra modern aircraft with numerous safety backups suddenly drop from the air like that? doesn't make sense. The plane was designed to withstand a lightning strikes as well -infact Airbus A330 has sophisticated Lightening Strike protection - so even if a lightening strike hit an engine the plane has fail safe systems to compensate for this ..

So what else could have happened... well an electrical short circuits can be caused by an EMF pulse. Many near misses with Ufos have reported strong electromegnetic interference, similar to an EMF pulse which disables all electrical equipment. .. could this have happened in this circumstance?

source

[edit on 1-6-2009 by ufossydney]

the pilot body in germany said yesterday that its highly unlikely that turbulence or lightening could bring a modern plane down..