Originally posted by: rh71
The TWA tragedy over LI took quite a while to investigate and piece together... so long that I went back years later to find out the results. How many of you know the true cause of that one without searching?
This will probably be worse.
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: rh71
The TWA tragedy over LI took quite a while to investigate and piece together... so long that I went back years later to find out the results. How many of you know the true cause of that one without searching?
This will probably be worse.
Wasn't the TWA explosion caused by a spark near fumes from the fuel in one of the main tanks? I believe it led to a complete overhaul of the wiring around the fuel tanks, as well as a new system for minimizing the fumes that would build up in the tanks.
Originally posted by: hiromizu
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: rh71
The TWA tragedy over LI took quite a while to investigate and piece together... so long that I went back years later to find out the results. How many of you know the true cause of that one without searching?
This will probably be worse.
Wasn't the TWA explosion caused by a spark near fumes from the fuel in one of the main tanks? I believe it led to a complete overhaul of the wiring around the fuel tanks, as well as a new system for minimizing the fumes that would build up in the tanks.
I dunno. I heard it was a missle but the news debunct that idea. A friend of mine was right there when it happened - type of guy that wouldn't lie about things like that. Weird.
Originally posted by: guyver01
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
I think this is a fair question, and perhaps something the media needs to ask. These people aren't idiots so I'm sure there is a reason why they can't find it, but I'd like to know what it is.
GPS... telemetry.... transponders.... all that stuff needs power.
if there's a fire or explosion in an avionics compartment, or an engine... the stuff won't get power... so youre not gonna have an exact spot.... just a point of origin or last known coordinates.... and you begin your search from there.
if a plane is travelling at 35,000 feet, and loses power... it can glide to a crash in the ocean 50,100,500 miles, etc, from its last known position... you dont just lose power and drop like a rock.
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: guyver01
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
I think this is a fair question, and perhaps something the media needs to ask. These people aren't idiots so I'm sure there is a reason why they can't find it, but I'd like to know what it is.
GPS... telemetry.... transponders.... all that stuff needs power.
if there's a fire or explosion in an avionics compartment, or an engine... the stuff won't get power... so youre not gonna have an exact spot.... just a point of origin or last known coordinates.... and you begin your search from there.
if a plane is travelling at 35,000 feet, and loses power... it can glide to a crash in the ocean 50,100,500 miles, etc, from its last known position... you dont just lose power and drop like a rock.
Except their is a ram air generator on most planes that can be deployed in the event that all electricl power is lost in the plane. IT is a Turbine that drops from the fuselage and the moving air spins a propeller which in turns turns a generator providing for some power. It is mechanically activated.
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
It makes no sense if they knew the weather was that bad that they would choose to fly into it anyways. Where was taking precaution? Why was the flight not rerouted? There are going to be some tough questions that need to be answered by the airline.
Another thought, since I don't understand, but it looks like lots of the plane is in tiny pieces. So, was that from impact with the ocean at high speed, or perhaps, was the plane blown up in flight?
It also looks like the beacons on the black boxes are going to be out of range for recovery because of the depth of the water there, about 21,000 feet.
Originally posted by: hiromizu
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
It makes no sense if they knew the weather was that bad that they would choose to fly into it anyways. Where was taking precaution? Why was the flight not rerouted? There are going to be some tough questions that need to be answered by the airline.
Another thought, since I don't understand, but it looks like lots of the plane is in tiny pieces. So, was that from impact with the ocean at high speed, or perhaps, was the plane blown up in flight?
It also looks like the beacons on the black boxes are going to be out of range for recovery because of the depth of the water there, about 21,000 feet.
It could have been smushed into little pieces when it got hit in cruising altitude. It's quite possible that a mountain or a very dense cloud was in the path, which can literally destroy an airplane of that size.
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
It makes no sense if they knew the weather was that bad that they would choose to fly into it anyways. Where was taking precaution? Why was the flight not rerouted? There are going to be some tough questions that need to be answered by the airline.
Another thought, since I don't understand, but it looks like lots of the plane is in tiny pieces. So, was that from impact with the ocean at high speed, or perhaps, was the plane blown up in flight?
It also looks like the beacons on the black boxes are going to be out of range for recovery because of the depth of the water there, about 21,000 feet.
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
It makes no sense if they knew the weather was that bad that they would choose to fly into it anyways. Where was taking precaution? Why was the flight not rerouted? There are going to be some tough questions that need to be answered by the airline.
Another thought, since I don't understand, but it looks like lots of the plane is in tiny pieces. So, was that from impact with the ocean at high speed, or perhaps, was the plane blown up in flight?
It also looks like the beacons on the black boxes are going to be out of range for recovery because of the depth of the water there, about 21,000 feet.
Um, planes fly through turbulence all the time. If it's a huge storm you're having to fly miles and miles outside the flight path just to get back into it. If it's normal, why not fly through it?
Originally posted by: hiromizu
maybe it was wind sheer, which can sheer a plane apart
Originally posted by: Phokus
I'd like to know why the plane didn't try to go around the storm, wtf. Their computers should pick that stuff up, right?
Originally posted by: Savij
It's called a transponder. It does everything you want it to do and more. Like your ass vibrator, it's great until you have an electrical problem.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: hiromizu
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
It makes no sense if they knew the weather was that bad that they would choose to fly into it anyways. Where was taking precaution? Why was the flight not rerouted? There are going to be some tough questions that need to be answered by the airline.
Another thought, since I don't understand, but it looks like lots of the plane is in tiny pieces. So, was that from impact with the ocean at high speed, or perhaps, was the plane blown up in flight?
It also looks like the beacons on the black boxes are going to be out of range for recovery because of the depth of the water there, about 21,000 feet.
It could have been smushed into little pieces when it got hit in cruising altitude. It's quite possible that a mountain or a very dense cloud was in the path, which can literally destroy an airplane of that size.
Lots of 35,000 foot mountains out in the atlantic?
seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? what qualifies you to make such a statement? i have a hard time taking you seriously to begin with let alone if you can't even spell *shear* correctly.Originally posted by: hiromizu
maybe it was wind sheer, which can sheer a plane apart
Originally posted by: coolVariable
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Okay, let's give them a "last known location" 10 minutes before the actual crash. Or was it 5 minutes? Or 1 minute? 10 minutes of uncertainty, at 600mph, is a huge area. Let's narrow it down & assume that its course didn't change by more than 45 degrees. Under that assumption, 600mph, up to 10 minutes, that leaves an area of 7853 square miles.
For the sake of reference, that's 90% the size of the entire state of New Jersey.
7853 <<<<<<<<<<<< 41,100,000
these guys dont even know which side of the atlantic to look...
it would seem to me that this type 0f hint would be at least SOMEWHAT useful.
its one thing to look for a needle in a haystack, but if you can eliminate 99.99980487% of the haystack to look in, that is a pretty good headstart.
That's what I was saying earlier.
But all the rocket scientists here obviously know better.
Originally posted by: hiromizu
Is it possible that the plane got lost in a pretty thick cloud and hasn't come out of it?
