The Caravan belongs to the Malaysian police, and the Grand Caravan to the German Aerospace Center. Cessna has been making Caravans since 1984.
 Grand Caravan N307PW |
Posted on 02/23/2014 3:09:07 PM PST by butterdezillion
That day, he was flying a plane. He also flies a helicopter. I’ll have to go looking to find a link. I was hoping that the video I posted explained the scenario, but I didn’t watch it again.
You’re right of course, there was one image I didn’t save, it seemed to show the swimmer quite close to shore, the image of what might have been him was the size of grain of wheat. I tried to enlarge it, and it turned into fuzz. As I wrote earlier, if the survivors had been that easy to see that they could be photographed from an aircraft, why the need to drop flares?
Maybe it's a file photo of a different crash? Is the Fuddy crash the only one the airline has had, ditched in sea.
The door looks different also, by the way it appears to open. Not the best photo for details.
“Lang and Thomson say they contacted the Moloka’i tower and landed back at the airport to see if anyone was available to help, but say no one was around.
“We decided it best to get back in the plane and fly over the people in the water to try to give them some comfort that they were not alone and were going to be rescued. During this time we made many low passes over the crash site and people, and watched the Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft slowly sinking,” the statement goes on to say.
While the couple circled above, they say they watched passengers drift west in the current and waves as one person managed to swim to shore.
According to Lang and Thomson, about 15 minutes before the first rescue crew arrived the aircraft completely submerged and sank.”
So they were in a plane that day.
Neither does that lengthy article to which I posted the link and an except, tell us what it was he as flying that day. We have now apparently established he was flying an aircraft, not a chopper. The confusion arose as the result of him being described as a helicopter pilot every time he was mentioned.
“OK then why isn’t part of the door visible & sticking out of the water; the lower edge of the door should be up above the roof line, as seen in the puentes vid ..”
The door is visible. You are just not recognizing it as the door. You are looking at the supposedly missing aft window and mistaking it for the passenger door. The passenger door has an upper and a lower part. The lower part is dropped don to provide a passenger stairway. This lower door part is submerged in the seawater in the Lang photograph. The upper part of the door is raised in the Lang photograph. Because the angle of view in the Lang photograph is edge on to this door, many people are mistaking the door as a dark shadow. In actual fact, that dark shadow is the door seen along its edge. If you look carefully, you can see this upraised door is casting a shadow along the top of the aircraft. In the center of that shadow is a rectangle or parallelogram of light which resulted from the light passing through the window in that upraised door.
What some people are mistaking as the upper door in a nearly closed position is actually the aft window they mistakenly claim is missing.
Yes, it’s a different one. The plane is lower in the water, and there are still people all around it. And in fact this even seems to be BEFORE Jacob Key was pointing to Lang’s plane coming, so by the time Lang got this close to photograqh it would have been after this, according to the story line.
We can’t see the frames of the 2 windows between the wing and the door at all in Puentes’ image. Compare that with the Lang photo in which we CAN see the top frame of those windows, even from farther away and with spray coming up behind the wing. Funny also that we didn’t see that spray from the plane’s wings in Puentes’ video.
It’s hard to tell from Lang’s photo what is underwater and what is not, but if you use the parts of the plane as reference points you can compare the progress of the plane’s submersion between the 2 sets of images.
And that’s what doesn’t make sense, because those reference points seem (to me) to show that Lang’s photos came earlier in the submersion process than Puentes’, based on what we can see versus what is already underwater.
okay. Aircraft it was. Not a helicopter. He saw the plane ditch in the water, he took a photo, he flew back to the island for help, found no one there, had to get back into his aircraft, taxi down the runway, fly to the scene, and by the time he got there, the plane was partly submerged and the survivors had drifted.
The Cessna is 208B1002. The NURTANIO Aviocar also shows 208B1002 though another line shows 174. Both show a mode S code of 52217114.
“We can’t see the frames of the 2 windows between the wing and the door at all in Puentes’ image.”
You’ve got it all wrong. That frame from Puentes was taken from behind a wave that blocked part of the view. You are confusing the low angle point of view to draw entirely wrong conclusions. A one knot sea current can move Puentes and the others about 600 feet or two football fields in only ten minutes. The sea currents around there can be several knots in places. It makes perfect sense that Lang’s photos were taken long after Puentes took his pictures and was swept by the sea currents far away from the aircraft.
The big one is the visible Mike Alpha from the tail number in both photos. The dark line above the rear window is the open door seen almost edge on. The shadow showing the window of the open door is clearly seen in on the top of the aircraft. The shadow over the tail number is almost identical in both photos. There are several other matching points between the two photos.
I know it's been a long time but I don't think I forgot too much from my photo intel class.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
No, the camera is above any wave action, and as far as wave action in that particular photo, if anything there is a slight trough there where the windows would be.
When I can look at the video in context I could be more certain, but I don’t see a wave there at all, but a trough, in the Puentes image.
The Lang photo shows spray caused by the wing. I’ll double-check when I look at the video so I see all the context, but I don’t remember seeing much spray that way.
These seem like 2 different events, in sequence and in observable features.
Not if you know how the GoPro footage was edited...
And not if you know that the videographer claimed to turn the camera “back on” only AFTER the alarm went off when the video clearly shows the passengers videotaped when they’re acting like they haven’t got a care in the world.
The Caravan belongs to the Malaysian police, and the Grand Caravan to the German Aerospace Center. Cessna has been making Caravans since 1984.
Grand Caravan N307PW |
Holden wrote:
“...Puentes is quite a curious character to have TWO GoPro cameras at the ready, one conveniently on a staff. Who could’ve done planning any better than that? Then, how he got the one who was “killed” in the lens for perhaps crucial moments was interesting. “
Here’s a question I’ve had for awhile,
How did Puentes keep people in the field of view of the camera, when he, at times, had his back to them?
Iirc there is suppose to be a number on the tail. Check each in the accident for the number
The orientation of the rectangular windows in these two photos are different.
I don’t know why everyone keeps talking about someone “killing” Fuddy on this thread. Butterdezillion has not even mentioned that or brought it up or speculated about that. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread or any of the other threads she has started or posted on, in connection with this plane accident.
Regarding the pictures that butter posted, the Fuddy plane is a C208B Grand Caravan, like the one you posted, but the other looks like the smaller/shorter C208 Caravan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.