Comments on: Air France Jet Not Destroyed In Air
Report Says Flight 447 Fell Vertically Into Atlantic Ocean Off Brazilian Coast
Add a Comment See all 51 Comments
- Wrong!
- Reply to this comment
- why aren't the issues with Airbus planes getting greater visibility? there have been 4 substantial incidents since late May... the crash of Air France flight 447 in the Atlantic and the crash of Yemenia Air flight this week -- both flights encountered bad weather and ended up crashing in the ocean and resulting in catastrophic death of innocent passengers.
plus were two other serious incidents involving Airbus planes. one on May 21 with TAM Airlines flight 8091 (Miami to Sao Paulo, Brazil) which experienced an abrupt loss of primary speed and altitude information while cruising which caused an abrupt disconnect of the autopilot and autothrust systems resulting in the plane suddenly pitching. the flight crew scrambled to use backup instruments to control the plane, and it was 5+ minutes before the on-board systems restored essential airspeed and altitude data. there was also a similar incident on June 23 involving a Northwest Airlines flight from Hong Kong to Tokyo. both planes landed safely, BUT it could easily have ended much differently.
how many other serious instances are occurring with Airbus planes that the NTSB is squelching? how many more innocent lives are going to be snuffed out before somebody steps to the plate and orders a thorough examination of the on-board systems on these planes? - Reply to this comment
-
- i'm an ardent fan of Boeing so i'll take them any day over Airbus. i also believe Airbus rushed their product to the market and safety issues were overlooked in areas which are starting to come to light. Boeing needs to work on getting their story straight from the get go instead of announcing one thing today then back peddling hours later. in the long haul, i believe Boeing will have the superior product.
- Maybe that's also why Boeing needs to "reinforce" their 787 before its maiden flight.
- Reply to this comment
- Ummmm... Wouldn't a bomb cause the plane to break up in mid air?
- Reply to this comment
- That is consistent with the previous accidents involving that particular type plane where the composite tail structure broke off.
You fly on that plastic grim reaper, I won't. - Reply to this comment
- Funny how the story keeps changing. If the plane went into the water the debris field would not have extended for approx 20 miles as reported in the first few days. The bomb theory everyone seems to be ignoring seems more valid now after the change in verbage. I guess the media feels we're getting gullible enough and have the power to change the story as they go.
- Reply to this comment
-
- The bomb theory is the one and only one that just does not work. Unless you have a bomb that for several minutes before it goes off causes faulty readings in a multitude of instruments, and only goes off in an EXTREME storm - you have to assume that somehow, just by coincidence, all the faulty instrument readings, this storm that is on the record and avoided by other planes, is all just a coincidence. It doesn't fit - doesn't fit the data - and doesn't fit to assume this is all a coincidence.
- I have always believed the engines injectes sufficient amounts of precipitation in the form of liquid and ice to damage them simultaneously and cause catastrophic loss of power that was not recoverable. The turbulence could have been rough and the precipitation could have clogged or fouled the pitot tubes enough to corrupt a velocity reading, but ultimately, without power and a valid velocity reading, it was easy for the pilot to stall or enter a conflict with the flight computer that may have opposed the pilot's effort to control the plane.
- Reply to this comment
- Pardon me, but when a B-52 drops bombs they leave the aircraft with the same velocity. Air resistance slows them down, but they still move in the direction of their release. So for the Air France aircraft to go "vertical", there must have been one hell of a headwind strong enough to cancel out the aircraft's forward momentum. And since I suspect it was traveling at approx. 450 mph I have my doubts there's ever been a recorded windspeed on the earth of that magnitude. Unless, there's something to global warming we haven't been told
- Reply to this comment
- YES!!!
Now, go one step further, johninpennsyl. Why won't they admit it? - Reply to this comment
- It sounds like someone blew away the tail and the nose heavy thing took a steep nosedive.
- Reply to this comment
- Bomb.
But they'll never admit it. - Reply to this comment
-
- Yeah, just by pure coincidence it happened to go off just after the plane entered an EXTREME storm and had it's instruments starting to fail. Yep, that's it, just a coincidence.
- by SusanStoHelit July 2, 2009 9:54 AM PDT: "Yeah, just by pure coincidence it happened to go off just after the plane entered an EXTREME storm"
Quite obviously Thor smacked the aircraft with his hammer - and since hammer is Norse for "bomb"....everybody is right!
(Except me.)
- [Yeah, just by pure coincidence it happened to go off just after the plane entered an EXTREME storm and had it's instruments starting to fail. Yep, that's it, just a coincidence. ]
allegedly this area is known for violent storms ... so the plane being in a storm wouldn't be unusual.
it's possible that a carefully placed bomb could compromise the flight controls ... explaining the instrument anomolies ... which indirectly caused the crash.
and the french president has been saying some generally anti-muslim things of late.
