Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Air France plane lost in the Atlantic

a large short circuit could damage electronics, radio, warning systems etc etc..

A short circuit could damage SOME electronics, radio, warning systems etc. etc.
but as I said, there are many redundant systems on that aircraft.

I have a feeling in my water that AF know more than they have admitted so far.

john x
 
lost-logo.jpg


still missing :hmm:
#
don't black box send out single ?
 
A short circuit could damage SOME electronics, radio, warning systems etc. etc.
but as I said, there are many redundant systems on that aircraft.

I have a feeling in my water that AF know more than they have admitted so far.

john x
As you've said it is simply unthinkable that a modern aircraft like the A330 could be brought down by a simple short circuit.

Either there has been an extraordinary chain of events and faults, or something a lot more drastic than short circuit was to blame.
 
Either there has been an extraordinary chain of events and faults, or something a lot more drastic than short circuit was to blame.

Also even the worst turbulence would not cause a short circuit. I suspect what happened was short-circuit, smoke, fire, random loss of systems combined with severe turbulence in the dark led to a loss of situational awareness due to too much to deal with.

Anyway, it's all pure speculation until the final report comes out in 18 months time.

john x
 
A short circuit could damage SOME electronics, radio, warning systems etc. etc.
but as I said, there are many redundant systems on that aircraft.

I have a feeling in my water that AF know more than they have admitted so far.

john x
Possibly, but I don't think it's really up to them now to interpret what they might know - that's a matter for a detailed independent investigation and inquiry.
 
I think it's pointless speculating on possible causes at the moment.

Given the impossibility that the aircraft is still flying, the bad weather, and a probable fast descent from over 30,000 feet into the Atlantic, what seems certain is that 228 people have lost their lives.

RIP.
 
Possibly, but I don't think it's really up to them now to interpret what they might know - that's a matter for a detailed independent investigation and inquiry.

True, but if AF have further information it should be made public, and not kept under wraps for commercial reasons.

It now looks like the same aircraft was grounded with major electrical problems two months ago.

john x
 
Or, fuel leak. Or, summat else.

'usually a bomb'? How many transatalantic air crashes have been caused by bombs? How many have been caused by mechanical failure?

Some fucking expert. They can't even count!


If you're talking large passenger aircraft, transatlatic air crashes aren't all that frequent - around 4 in the last 50 years, or 5 if you stretch a point and include the Lockerbie crash (which was routed over the Atlantic)

It's very difficult to prove a bomb was involved when the debris is in the ocean. It was proved for Lockerbie. Of the others, it's highly likely that a bomb brought down the Air India 747 in 1985 and TWA Flight 800 in 1996.
 
As you've said it is simply unthinkable that a modern aircraft like the A330 could be brought down by a simple short circuit.


The trouble with the unthinkable is that from time to time it happens...

...often because it couldn't thought be thought about.




Who said it was a "simple" short-circuit, rather than a major bang fire panic?

Simultaneous failures of supposedly redundant systems are not unknown - known to some pilots as "oh fuuccck, we have dark".
 
But, repeating the above in English... on current information, that plane wasn't this plane.

Not definite yet. French media are saying aircraft was F-GZCB and F-GZCP.

The correct info must be out there somewhere. AF know what plane it was.

john x
 
But, repeating the above in English... on current information, that plane wasn't this plane.

From discussion on an aviation board, it's not the same plane. Tail reg. was misquoted by one letter in an earlier report. So previous electrical fault might refer to a different plane.

Like so much breaking news to do with aviation/crashes, that information itself might well turn out to be bollocks too, though.

The only thing anyone knows for sure right now is the plane's not where it's supposed to be, and that's very very bad :(

e2a ^ what john x said
 
Ah, then perhaps my source is out of date in which case I apologise.

It was never thought to be caused by a bomb. At the time the investigation was diverted by a lot of speculation that it had been brought down accidently by a stray US Navy missile because a few people had seen lights streaking through the sky and the US military's reluctance to confirm or deny the reports.

john x
 
It said on sky news (yeah I know) it got hit by lightning.

I thought planes were designed to be hit by lightning because they are a basically a Faraday cage...

And I bet ALL planes flying have been grounded and had major mechanical/ electrical work at some stage.

Just unlucky I reckon. :(
 
It said on sky news (yeah I know) it got hit by lightning.

I thought planes were designed to be hit by lightning because they are a basically a Faraday cage...

And I bet ALL planes flying have been grounded and had major mechanical/ electrical work at some stage.

Just unlucky I reckon. :(
BBC are now saying this, too. Which for the reasons you suggest I find surprising.
 
It said on sky news (yeah I know) it got hit by lightning.

I thought planes were designed to be hit by lightning because they are a basically a Faraday cage...

Thats what i thought too, but there is something called upper atmospheric lightning (megalighting) goes upwards from clouds....... Its much larger and more powerful.

This has been suggested for a number of 'unexplained' air disasters in the past.

From Wikipedia:
Upper-atmospheric lightning
Representation of upper-atmospheric lightning and electrical-discharge phenomena
Main article: Upper-atmospheric lightning

Reports by scientists of strange lightning phenomena about storms date back to at least 1886. However, it is only in recent years that fuller investigations have been made. This has sometimes been called megalightning.[49][50]

[edit] Sprites
Main article: Sprite (lightning)

Sprites are large scale electrical discharges which occur high above a thunderstorm cloud, or cumulonimbus, giving rise to a quite varied range of visual shapes. They are triggered by the discharges of positive lightning between the thundercloud and the ground.[37] The phenomena were named after the mischievous sprite (air spirit) Puck in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream. They normally are colored reddish-orange or greenish-blue, with hanging tendrils below, and arcing branches above, their location, and can be preceded by a reddish halo.[49] They often occur in clusters, lying 50 miles (80 km) to 90 miles (145 km) above the Earth's surface. Sprites were first photographed on July 6, 1989 by scientists from the University of Minnesota and have since been witnessed tens of thousands of times.[51] Sprites have erroneously been held responsible for otherwise unexplained accidents involving high altitude vehicular operations above thunderstorms.[52]

[edit] Blue jets

Blue jets differ from sprites in that they project from the top of the cumulonimbus above a thunderstorm, typically in a narrow cone, to the lowest levels of the ionosphere 25 miles (40 km) to 30 miles (48 km) above the earth.[citation needed] They are also brighter than sprites and, as implied by their name, are blue in colour. They were first recorded on October 21, 1989, on a video taken from the space shuttle as it passed over Australia, and subsequently extensively documented in 1994 during aircraft research flights by the University of Alaska.[53][50]

On September 14, 2001, scientists at the Arecibo Observatory photographed a huge jet double the height of those previously observed, reaching around 50 miles (80 km) into the atmosphere. The jet was located above a thunderstorm over the ocean, and lasted under a second. Lightning was initially observed traveling up at around 50,000 m/s in a similar way to a typical blue jet, but then divided in two and sped at 250,000 m/s to the ionosphere, where they spread out in a bright burst of light.[54] On July 22, 2002, five gigantic jets between 60 and 70 km (35 to 45 miles) in length were observed over the South China Sea from Taiwan, reported in Nature.[53] The jets lasted under a second, with shapes likened by the researchers to giant trees and carrots.[citation needed]

[edit] Elves

Elves often appear as dim, flattened, expanding glows around 250 miles (402 km) in diameter that last for, typically, just one millisecond.[55] They occur in the ionosphere 60 miles (97 km) above the ground over thunderstorms. Their color was a puzzle for some time, but is now believed to be a red hue. Elves were first recorded on another shuttle mission, this time recorded off French Guiana on October 7, 1990. Elves is a frivolous acronym for Emissions of Light and Very Low Frequency Perturbations from Electromagnetic Pulse Sources.[56] This refers to the process by which the light is generated; the excitation of nitrogen molecules due to electron collisions (the electrons possibly having been energized by the electromagnetic pulse caused by a discharge from the Ionosphere).[50]
 
It was never thought to be caused by a bomb. At the time the investigation was diverted by a lot of speculation that it had been brought down accidently by a stray US Navy missile because a few people had seen lights streaking through the sky and the US military's reluctance to confirm or deny the reports.

john x


The source I mentioned was a CNN report dated August 1996 sourced from Associated Press, titled "Bomb still leading theory in TWA crash". As I said, it's out of date.
 
Back
Top Bottom