Bodies Found From Air France Plane Crash

SkyNews ^

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I deal in facts when assessing aircraft mishaps.

Of course you do. That's why you're ruling out possible causes before any evidence has been found.

It's telling that you think terrorism is just as likely as alien abduction, though.

[xone]

but the closest one can get is about a mile. I don't think Carlos Hathcock could make that shot.

Not anymore obviously, but when he was in his prime, I wouldn't have bet against it.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Late to the fray, but:

Do you think the truth will ever be made public?

Nope! However, my firm belief is that it exploded in air and it is terrorism related.

[Nipfan]

Nobody made a public statement and took responsibility after 9/11 either. Not for years afterwards when the truth had already been revealed by investigation. Even then, most people in the Middle East still believe that blaming the islamists is just a smear.

[Right Wing Assault]

The Challenger vids are pretty convincing. Look tough to fake.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Do you think the truth will ever be made public?”

The same way the truth has been made public regarding TWA 800...

[Mr Ramsbotham]

I'm expecting the slow-speed conjecture will gain weight in the coming days. One or both engine and/or the composite tail or flight-control surfaces might have sheared off as a consequence of abrupt side winds on a plane traveling too slowly. As AA587 showed--even if you believe the official explanation, which became even more questionable after the Air Transat flight from Cuba lost its rudder--the Airbus tail assembly is laterally weak, and in AA587's case both engines came off as the plane spiraled, too. I'm suspecting something similar happened, a big tragic cascade of structural failures exacerbated by the Airbus' reliance on flight systems automation.

What, no conspiracy theory???!!!

[Right Wing Assault]

Parts 1 to 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25wl7rxAegE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MaqhFFtxk8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt4pU3dFhCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0yEc-iVSH0

There are two other parts, but I can’t find them. The analysis start in part 2.

[El Gato]

Take-offs bother me more. I'm never really sure that damned thing will actually get into the air. Once it's in the air, I stop worrying.

The only ones that bother me, landings or take-offs, is into/out of San Diego, in an MD-80 Even Dallas Love, where the usual approach takes you kinda near downtown Dallas, is nothing compared to San Diego. Landing pattern goes below level of buildings, and not that far from them and the runway is short, and angled such that you get closer to the terminal area as you land, there is only about 150 yards of overrun and the fence is pretty much "right there", maybe another 50 yards. At least on take off, it's only the short runway, heavy aircraft, and noise-abatement. If you prang at that (NW) end of the runway, at least they'll always be plenty of Marines to help with the aftermath, since Marine Corps Recruit Depot- San Diego borders that end of the runway.

[null and void]

Also, I wouldn't call the o-ring theory anything less than a stinging indictment of NASA, it's management and quality control measures as well as several sub-contractors, including Morton-Thiakol.

*ahem* The NASA and Morton-Thiokol engineers refused to sign off on the launch.

They were overridden by NASA and M-T management.

I can't help but think the final decision was driven by the desire to have the Shuttle in orbit for that evening's State of the Union address.

[null and void]

LOL! You are a bad man.

[null and void]

if only there hadn't been incontrovertible evidence that the explosion was in fact caused by one of their faulty O-rings.

The O-rings were just fine. The launch occurred well below their minimum rated temperature. That's why the engineers refused to buckle under the full weight of NASA management and didn't sign off on the launch.

(OTOH the joint design wasn't all that great, propellent pressure tended to force the joint slightly open, rather than crushing it closed)...

[Big_Monkey]

"They were overridden by NASA and M-T management."

Yes, I believe that's absolutely correct. I also remember something about Rockwell engineers also expressing some serious concern about the weather conditions with respect to ice and it's effect on the seals.

You are correct to point out and to clarify that it was both NASA and Morton-Thiokol management that insisted that the launch go forward. As to the pressure that felt because of the State of the Union, I'll leave to others to decide. But, I think it's fair to say that the Roger's Commission was equally tough on both NASA and MT's management.

[El Gato]

1st, it was at 16,000 feet, above the service ceiling for MANPADS,

I looked into that at the time. It depends on the MANPAD, some are "advertised" to make it that high, and the published values are more likely to be low rather than high.

As far as hitting an engine goes, yes they would be tracking on the engine. But that doesn't mean they won't miss and/or the proximity fuse set them off such that the blast pattern doesn't shred a fuel or control line in the fuselage, or just cause a rapid depressurization and structural failure. Airliners are not designed to take that sort of thing, like A-10s are.

A-10, flown by Captain Kim "Killer Chick" Campbell. This appears to have been from a SAM warhead, but could have been heavy AAA as well. If was a MANPAD SAM, it did not hit either engine, directly that is, the cowlings and exhaust nozzle took a beating though.

[Aglooka]

I take this as proof the plane did not dive into the water at high speed but more likely broke up in air. In the case of TWA 800 many victims were found floating in the ocean still strapped into their seats.

I’m hoping that one of the black boxes could be found inside a larger section of the aircraft on the sea floor.

Terrorism should not be ruled out at this point even though there is little indication of this being terrorism.

[Aglooka]

I hope their deaths were instantaneous and they didn’t have to suffer the torment of an uncontrollable descent.

We know the aircraft depressurized. Assuming it was at cruising altitude they most likely would have been conscious only a few seconds.

It is my understanding that TWA 800 was not high enough for this to occur and that after the nose detached the remainder of the aircraft then climbed for the next 30 seconds or so.

[PghBaldy]

I read about that too, not sure where though.

[Aglooka]

I was living in NYC at the time and from the early reports, I think TWA 800 was brought down not by a bomb but by a shoulder fired missile that was fired from the Long Island coast. Interestingly, I heard that an El Al flight was supposed to leave at that time, but had been delayed and TWA 800 was in its slot.

I remember waking up with the TV on and seeing video of TWA 800 burning in the ocean. "It had to be terrorists." was my thought. It happened while they were climbing out of New York which is where I'd expect terrorists to do something like this.

The problem with a shoulder fired missile is that it would have headed into one of the engines and not necessarily downed the aircraft. The flight was almost (though not completely) out of range for a shoulder fired missile to be successful. These missiles also only burn for a second, maybe two, and just coast through the rest of their flight.

Today I'm inclined more towards the official version of events but there's always that element of doubt.

[El Gato]

where they had found a tripod and “launching debris” in the dunes. So it wouldn’t have been a SAM (although that’s what most people thought) but some other kind of missile in that case.

It would have been a SAM, just not necessarily a MANPAD. Something like the British Javelin or it's follow on the Starstreak

Modern IR Guided SAMS, like the Stinger, or later Russian models, are not restricted to going after the hot exhaust of the engines, they are "all aspect". The Javelin has a ceiling of 5,500 meters or 18,000 feet. It is not even IR guided, but rather uses an RF link back to the launcher and uses Semiautomatic Command Line of Sight guidance.

[El Gato]

Regarding the current Air France disaster, I thought an explosion had been ‘ruled out’ based on the wide oil slick they found. As explained by a Brazilian official, the oil would have burned up. Even if that had been a slick from this aircraft, it would not necessarily follow that a slick proves no explosion. An explosion would probably not damage all the fuel tanks, or necessarily any of them. An explosion is over very quickly, and at that altitude there would not be much oxygen to support a fire outside the pressurized cabin. It's quite possible than a "small" explosive could open the cabin up, or damage the electrial system, (which is what the messages were apparently about) without igniting all, most or even any of the fuel. However it would tend to evaporate before it got to the surface, if it got out of the tanks at high altitude.