[ejazbmw]

Originally Posted by Blake

you're safer in an airplane than driving to get milk

I might hate planes but i still fly i just don't enjoy it, I'm not even afraid of heights, it was just one time when i was on my way to London the plane probably shook for a good 15mins straight i thought for sure I was gonna die lol

[742]

Originally Posted by 808six

AIR FRANCE WAS ISSUED a bomb threat days just before this incident, the threat was for a flight leaving brazil to france...spooky

How many bomb threats get called into American high schools on any given day? Airlines have the same problem. That said, there are methods for picking the (rare) real ones out of the noise.

The presence of a vague threat means little to nothing. Makes for great "news" though.

[andyffer]

I dont know if this has been said before but..

Isnt this around the time BMS went missing?

Coincidence? I think not.

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by ejazbmw

I might hate planes but i still fly i just don't enjoy it, I'm not even afraid of heights, it was just one time when i was on my way to London the plane probably shook for a good 15mins straight i thought for sure I was gonna die lol

Once i was on Air Canada from YVR to BOS, on A320 or A319...can't remember.....but during 90% of the flight time we encounter quiet heavy turbulence, somehow the FA kept serving meals but drink on the cup just kept shaking out to the tray table....
lucky nothing else happened and i was totally passed out from the exhausting flight from HKG to YVR previously....quite nice movement to put me in to sleep...but not to other passengers....

[Heinzftw]

When I flew to France a few years ago, I remember having 20 minutes of the worst turbulence of my life. AND when the pilot tried to land he messed up and was bouncing the front wheel of the plane. We had to lift off again.

[Inspired]

severe turbulence is

[E90SLAM]

some of the debries found...
R.I.P.

[Blake]

looks like that tail section broke away pretty clean from the fuselage. question remains if it was attached when the bulk of the aft fuselage hit water.

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by Blake

looks like that tail section broke away pretty clean from the fuselage. question remains if it was attached when the bulk of the aft fuselage hit water.

its too clean that it looks like the bolting / attachment overstressed and just simply gave away the tail....reminded me the AA A300 that crashed in NY.....

but these are all premature assumptions and guessing....

[Blake]

airbus

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by Blake

airbus

Hello Boeing fan!

[DenverJayhawk]

It doesn't look like the water is that cold out there in the middle of the atlantic.

Interesting that this is the tail section. Wasn't the airbus crash over Jamaica Bay attributed to pilot error causing the vertical stablizer to break off? I hope a lost rudder isn't the cause of the crash.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by E90SLAM

Hello Boeing fan!

damn right! we can't seem to make cars, but we can make a hell of an airplane.

[TiAg335i]

Originally Posted by DenverJayhawk

It doesn't look like the water is that cold out there in the middle of the atlantic.

Interesting that this is the tail section. Wasn't the airbus crash over Jamaica Bay attributed to pilot error causing the vertical stablizer to break off? I hope a lost rudder isn't the cause of the crash.

the plane probably crashed within a few miles of the equator.

water temp on the equator = 70 degrees.

[Heinzftw]

Originally Posted by TiAg335i

the plane probably crashed within a few miles of the equator.

water temp on the equator = 70 degrees.

5 hours tops before hypothermia sets in. R.I.P

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Heinzftw

5 hours tops before hypothermia sets in. R.I.P

Not where the plane crashed. If the fuselage didn't break up prior to impact, the impact would have killed all passengers instantly. They would have sunk to the bottom of the ocean still inside the fuselage.

[darkphantom]

^ right, assuming that the wings/tails broke off prior to the impact.

Speculation says speed sensors(pitots) froze - in which case they may have been close to the speed of sound for the wings/pieces to rip off - in which case the plane was overstressed and tore apart

[Blake]

i wish they would hurry up and find those data recorders already.

[themonotron]

In clear weather (nonturbulent conditions), going near the speed of sound in a structurally sound commercial airplane may not cause it to break up, in fact, most modern airplanes are developed to withstand it. The airbus a380 can go up to mach .97 safely, and i'm sure certain parts on the plane have already exceeded the speed of sound (edge of the wing?).

As for the pitot tube, I believe that particular plane has between 3-4 tubes, and they are constantly heated to prevent ice-buildup. However, if the plane entered into a severe thunderstorm, the heating may not be adequate to prevent the quick icing of the pitot tube. Furthermore, the speed that is measured from the Pitot tube is called IAS (indicated airspeed) which can change based on current winds, a GPS can provide TAS (true airspeed). If the captain was paying attention to his LCD flight display screen, he could tell if he was going too fast for the observed weather, and he could tell if there were major discrepancies between the GPS speed and the observed speed.

I'm not an expert, i've just been flying since I was 12, and if anyone wants to clarify a few things go ahead.

Anyways, RIP, and i'd take Boeings over Airbuses anyday

[Bols]

Heard on news that one of the 2 men they found, was also still strapped in his seat when they found him lol ...

[Comet]

^ nothing funny about that man...

[742]

Originally Posted by themonotron

In clear weather (nonturbulent conditions), going near the speed of sound in a structurally sound commercial airplane may not cause it to break up, in fact, most modern airplanes are developed to withstand it. The airbus a380 can go up to mach .97 safely, and i'm sure certain parts on the plane have already exceeded the speed of sound (edge of the wing?).

As for the pitot tube, I believe that particular plane has between 3-4 tubes, and they are constantly heated to prevent ice-buildup. However, if the plane entered into a severe thunderstorm, the heating may not be adequate to prevent the quick icing of the pitot tube. Furthermore, the speed that is measured from the Pitot tube is called IAS (indicated airspeed) which can change based on current winds, a GPS can provide TAS (true airspeed). If the captain was paying attention to his LCD flight display screen, he could tell if he was going too fast for the observed weather, and he could tell if there were major discrepancies between the GPS speed and the observed speed.

I'm not an expert, i've just been flying since I was 12, and if anyone wants to clarify a few things go ahead.

Anyways, RIP, and i'd take Boeings over Airbuses anyday

GPS gives ground speed, not true airspeed. And in this case ground speed is of no value in flying the airplane.

Both of the PFDs had flags (as per the ACARS), so the crew may have been looking at useless screens.