Missing plane probably crashed in the Atlantic

[Lurchi]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I know three "bus drivers"... all three hate the airplane and cant wait to be awarded another bid for different equipment.

I would love to see the face of the guy who has to deal with their request for "the reintroduction of cabled controls" into passenger planes. At least Chesley Sullenberger and his Crew didn't seem to have a problem with the responsiveness of their (Airbus) plane when they brought it safely down onto the Hudson river.

There aren't any facts right now - but it is pretty safe to say, that it takes a little bit more than a lightning to bring down such a plane.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Lurchi

I would love to see the face of the guy who has to deal with their request for "the reintroduction of cabled controls" into passenger planes.

Not necessarily calling for the reintroduction of cables into airliners... I'm just saying, there has to be more system redundancy... if it were me piloting the plane - i want more than a wire leading to an electric motor in order to deflect a flight control.

I didnt have any problems hand flying prop-airliners around at 300MPH... and they were cable operated/ non hydraulic boost flight controls.

big difference though between that and a 747 or similar aircraft - but if all electrical goes out i want other options as a pilot than to just ride the thing down.

Originally Posted by Lurchi

it is pretty safe to say, that it takes a little bit more than lightning to bring down such a plane.

Boy do i ever know that first hand once we lost every MFD and Display in the cockpit for a good 20 seconds in hard night IMC - it was an interesting experience

I'll point you to December 8th 1962, Pan Am Boeing 707 - a lightning strike ignited a holding fuel tank and caused the aircraft to explode mid air.

I'll also point out that severe enough turbulence can bring down an aircraft of any size.

[d@rk51d3]

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

No the SMS capability is satellite linked so no need to be near a shore transceiver.

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by TarJak

No the SMS capability is satellite linked so no need to be near a shore transceiver.

So, your text messages from your mobile are relayed by the plane to satellite? Because your mobile won't do it directly.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

So, your text messages from your mobile are relayed by the plane to satellite? Because your mobile won't do it directly.

That's right. The air to ground comms systems used on airliners are used to forward your SMS.

One system in use here in Australia on Qantas domestic flights is AeroMobile: http://www.aeromobile.net/aeromobile.asp

[Skybird]

No verified information yet, so just some guesses.

1. lightning strike usually is not dagerous for an airplace, since it is pretty much a Faraday-cage and the energy harmlessly dances on the skin and disappears if there is no contact to the ground, you get some scratches in the painting eventually, and that'S it. However, what happens if the plane is struck by two lightnings simultaneously, or a lightening so strong that it travels on and contacts the plane to the ground? Probability says this is a very small chance only. However, it is not impossible.

2. An airliner at FL300 and higher, can soar for around 150-220 km, if all engines fail. That leaves one of the pilots the time to contact ground control.

3. All vital electric systems have 3 and 4 backups. Additional to the engine generators (each engine it's own egnerator), there is the RAM air turbine, and battery. All vital ciorcuits can take over duties from damaged curcuits, the system is designed to be redundant.

I take it as a given that there must have been more happening than just a lightening strike. Whatever happened, it must have happened incredibly fast, leaving the pilots no time to react or to communicate.

So, as often in air desasters, the likely cause of the catastrophe is not a single event, but an unfortunate unfortunate combination of several singluar events, of which each single one probably would have caused no dramatic consequences if happening all alone.

While in theory it is possible, I do not assume that there was a total and complete loss of electricity caused by a normal lightning strike. If it was a lightning strike, than it probably was no "normal" one, but some phenomenon that is extremely rare.

"Software error" I have very high on my list. Or mid-air-destruction by exploding fuel or engine, or explosive cabin depressurization, which still leaves the question of what caused it. My focus is not so much on lightning, but turbulences. Maybe the plane simply lost an airwing that broke away, or the tail, for example. On the other hand the plane was young, and had undergone a routine major maintenance pitstop just weeks ago.

While currently there is being seen a link between the heavy weather zone they were passing, and the accident, this does not rule out that the weather had nothing to do with it - it could have been a bomb, too, so it is too early to rule out terrorism or organised crime.

Doing research at location is difficult, and maybe we will never learn what happened. If the wreck lies too deep in the water, the blackbox maybe will never be found.

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by TarJak

That's right. The air to ground comms systems used on airliners are used to forward your SMS.

One system in use here in Australia on Qantas domestic flights is AeroMobile: http://www.aeromobile.net/aeromobile.asp

Thanks for the info and the link.

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

Do you have a source for this?

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Do you have a source for this?

Just the local news (tv and radio). About as unreliable as any. Although I have also read the same on another forum.

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

Haven't heard of those, what was in those messages?

Sad business, overall. And I'm sure there are risks with most if not all airplanes.

edit. Oh, missed d@rk51d3s answer.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

...Boy do i ever know that first hand once we lost every MFD and Display in the cockpit for a good 20 seconds in hard night IMC - it was an interesting experience

I'll point you to December 8th 1962, Pan Am Boeing 707 - a lightning strike ignited a holding fuel tank and caused the aircraft to explode mid air.

I'll also point out that severe enough turbulence can bring down an aircraft of any size.

I hear ya man. Flying down to LA one time in the middle of the soup at about FL200 and a lightning strike knocked out all electronics. Reset the fuel flow meter to 0 for example, but of course had back up analog gauges for qty.

I've been hit while flying before, but it never really mattered. This time however, it did.

I think a bigger danger that usually comes with lightening is hail. That stuff will rip a plane to shreds in seconds.

-S

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I hear ya man. Flying down to LA one time in the middle of the soup at about FL20 and a lightning strike knocked out all electronics. Reset the fuel flow meter to 0 for example, but of course had back up analog gauges for qty.

I've been hit while flying before, but it never really mattered. This time however, it did.

-S

you know a funny thing... a couple of the worst icing conditions i ever ran into was down around Fresno and Phoenix etc... people dont expect it much down in the southwest, but its there.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

you know a funny thing... a couple of the worst icing conditions i ever ran into was down around Fresno and Phoenix etc... people dont expect it much down in the southwest, but its there.

Try Southern WA at 6K. Worst I ever ran into at 2 AM in the morning. I was watching the airspeed drop down to about 170 kts but though nothing of it, then a while later looked at it and it was approaching 120 kts. George was flying - the nickname for the autopilot and he is happy to correct for it! Grabbed a flashlight, pointed it on the wing and crud! We were a flying brick! Probably seconds from a death spiral. Hit the boots and it all came off but I tell you, that happened quick. Had to get out of the alt. fast. Requested FL40 and it was a bit better down there.

One thing I tell you, if you want to wake up fast from a nap, hit the prop de-ice in the middle of some good icing conditions. Ice slamming against the fuselage does a number on your napping state! Especially in the dark!

-S

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

One thing I tell you, if you want to wake up fast from a nap, hit the prop de-ice in the middle of some good icing conditions. Ice slamming against the fuselage does a number on your napping state! Especially in the dark!

-S

haha yes indeed the first time.

what plane?

our lav was up front behind the FO seat, when the toilet flush motor would run it would run slightly out of sync with the prop sound so it sounds like the right engine just sh*t the bed... thats a nice wake up call.