have they found it yet?
Air France plane lost in the Atlantic
- Thread starter holteman
- Start date
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
It's quite possible they'll never know for sure what brought the plane down, since it is almost certain it was a combination of several elements rather than just the one event. That's not that uncommon either- a number of recent accidents have been less that clearcut with a minority of experts doubting the official findings.
Remember the BA 777 that crash-landed on approach to Heathrow last year? Last I checked they were still arguing what exactly caused the fuel starvation, and some experts were warning of similar crashes being just a matter of time while others dismissing such claims.
Oh well. Still one of the safest way to travel- though that'll be of little consolation to the families.
Remember the BA 777 that crash-landed on approach to Heathrow last year? Last I checked they were still arguing what exactly caused the fuel starvation, and some experts were warning of similar crashes being just a matter of time while others dismissing such claims.
Oh well. Still one of the safest way to travel- though that'll be of little consolation to the families.
I did. Boring fuck whoever he is. trying to take his 15 minutes on the back of 200+ dead. In short, he said planes need more fire detectors
He also cited the Swiss Air that crashed off the coast of Halifax Novawhatsit as a previous example of planes crashing due to fire on board. Lighting = short circuit = heat = fire in wiring loom = crew choking (and passengers I assume) = crash.
It says that all we know for sure is that the aircraft flew through turbulence and 15 mins later there was a short circuit. Then he speculates. Bomb, hijack and catastrophic structural failure are very unlikely. Lightning rarely causes serious damage. The short circuit may have caused a fire but the crew might not have known about it because aircraft aren't obliged to have fire detectors in the wiring, even though that was one of the recommendations following this accident caused by a fire in some wiring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111
He is David Learmount, the recognised expert who is always asked to comment on air crashes by the British media. I reckon he's doing everyone a service by providing his full-length analysis to compensate for the fact that the TV news will only show edited snippets.
I did. Boring fuck whoever he is. trying to take his 15 minutes on the back of 200+ dead. In short, he said planes need more fire detectors
He also cited the Swiss Air that crashed off the coast of Halifax Novawhatsit as a previous example of planes crashing due to fire on board. Lighting = short circuit = heat = fire in wiring loom = crew choking (and passengers I assume) = crash.
He's David Learmount, of Flight magazine, and his quota of 15 minuteses of fame is pretty nicely up there already, given that he's the one the media always turn to after a prang, so I don't think we need to worry about him only doing it for the glory.
Actually, he's talking sense - he's saying "let's not go mad extrapolating from what we know" and offering a few of the more Occam-friendly scenarios that might explain the loss.
ETA: beaten to it. Grr
It's his own video on YouTube. Just him talking his bit.
"Plane crash you say? That'll be my cue to video myself and broadcast myself to the world on YouTube." Obviously just doing his bit for the good of the news community.
The "I told you so" attitude is just icing on the cake. He's a twat IMO
It's his own video on YouTube. Just him talking his bit.
"Plane crash you say? That'll be my cue to video myself and broadcast myself to the world on YouTube." Obviously just doing his bit for the good of the news community.
The "I told you so" attitude is just icing on the cake. He's a twat IMO
I think vBulletin should be installing irony detectors.
I think vBulletin should be installing irony detectors.
Well, I'd never heard of him before.
I want an irony detector. Where do you buy them?
It's his own video on YouTube. Just him talking his bit.
"Plane crash you say? That'll be my cue to video myself and broadcast myself to the world on YouTube." Obviously just doing his bit for the good of the news community.
The "I told you so" attitude is just icing on the cake. He's a twat IMO
He's being very responsible and informative. You're the twat here. It would be handy if you could stop derailing this thread pls.
Fuck you. He is not doing any responsible thing other than raising his own profile on the back of 200+ dead
Plane crashes in storm. Much as we need to know really. We didn't need some self-important, self-appointed 'expert' to broadcast himself to the world.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
He's a twat IMO
I am sure he would think the same of you, in view of your achievements tbf.
I've already achieved far more in less time
So, maybe it is his job and his life. But, he's a boring fuck making news for himself out of a plane crash, that he himself admits we will probably never know...
He's a right cunt. Seeking fame and money on the backs of 200+ dead.
In short, he said; I do not have the answer, here's a bit of speculation and me on the YouTube telly.
Get back to your flu scare mongering. Flu expert. You should make a video and get some YouTube telly fame with all the people you're trying to scare.
Hardly brilliant expertism is it? Lightning = fire. Never
Personally, I'll stick with the empty fuel tank explosion theory. Much prefer a sneer stick than a "we're all gonna die and I told you so" stick.
Tosser
I've already achieved far more in less time
So, maybe it is his job and his life. But, he's a boring fuck making news for himself out of a plane crash, that he himself admits we will probably never know...
He's a right cunt. Seeking fame and money on the backs of 200+ dead.
In short, he said; I do not have the answer, here's a bit of speculation and me on the YouTube telly.
I found it quite informative and it gave the whole story a bit more depth. But each to their own.
If this man had been extrapolating about the plane being downed by UFO's or ranting about the threat from Islamic terrorists you might have a point but all I saw (and I appreciate you did not) was a man who is an acknowledged expert on aviation matters putting forward a theory that is both credable and backed up with reasons why.
Of course its all speculation but given where this plane crashed its possible that this is all we will ever be able to do. And his speculation strikes me as being worth listening to.
I concur.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Some context would have helped. People talking to camera about plane crashes on the internet tend to have other conclusions in mind, so I stopped watching
Look what you've done to me, internet!I don't know. Let's ask Stanley. He knows much more about aviation safety than David Learmount, internationally acclaimed aviation expert and former air force pilot.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Actually I am probably more interested in the reactions against doom-mongering than I am in flu. Im fascinated by how difficult it is to get the balance right, and how often humans want to go one way or another, either wanting to wallow in doom or wanting to stick head in sand.
I was a bit sad when people thought I was doing more harm than good, but generally I could appreciate why people might not want to know or thought that things were being worded in an overly scaremongering way. The best I could do was try to talk about stuff in detail so anybody interested could reach their own conclusions, but it does seem hard to construct a readable sentence without sounding sure about certain things some of the time.
Having gloomy views about the future certainly has its downside, from party pooping to scaremongering to defeatism, and crying wolf too often and eroding own credibility. However, blind optimism seems even more likely to lead humanity to its doom.
Whatever, Im sure you are happy being you and Im quite happy being me, and as a geek Id rather be reading about the history of Britain's motorways than exchanging insults with you so I'll leave it at that eh.
what was the equipment? airbus or boeing?
Airliners have been brought down by turbulence in the past and some in the media are speculating that this was a likely cause today. There have been a few cases of aircraft plunging 15 or 20,000 feet because of turbulence, which is catastrophic if that's all the height you've got. But this aircraft was at cruising height, probably 35,000 feet, over the sea. If turbulence was the only problem the pilots should have had time to regain control. Unless the speed and attitude of the plunge put such a strain on the aircraft that it broke up. But this is almost unthinkable for a modern airliner.
Similar threads
