Languish.org

Breaking news on CNN.  :(

Awful.  :(

QuoteAir France flight with 228 people aboard dropped off radar today on route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, the airline said.

Quote(CNN) -- A French passenger aircraft carrying 228 people has disappeared from radar off the coast of Brazil, airline officials say.
A file photo shows an Air France jet on take off. Some 228 passengers are aboard the missing aircraft.

Air France told CNN the jet was traveling from Rio de Janeiro to Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris when it vanished.

The airline said flight AF447 was carrying 216 passengers in addition to a crew of 12.

French media said the aircraft was an Airbus A330-200.

State radio reported a crisis center was being set up at Charles de Galle where the plane had been due to land at 11.15 a.m. local time.

Airport officials in Rio declined to comment on the incident.

Quote from: Caliga on June 01, 2009, 05:28:05 AM
French media said the aircraft was an Airbus A330-200.

I keep telling you people those things go down.  Airbus = Airaccident.

This is a little fishy, though (pun not intended).

When planes have issues mid-flight there is usually at least some communication with ATC.  The apparent lack of any implies a mid-air explosion.  This might be TERRA.

Also, the latest CNN update said they're looking for the aircraft around Fernando de Noronha island, which is like hundreds of miles into the Atlantic.

QuoteMissing jet reported short-circuit after turbulence
Mon Jun 1, 2009 7:48am EDT

PARIS, June 1 (Reuters) - Air France said on Monday a plane that went missing on the way from Brazil to Paris had sent a message at 0214 GMT reporting an electrical short-circuit, after it had flown through a stormy area with strong turbulence.

Flight AF 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris went missing with 228 people on board. It left Rio de Janeiro on Sunday at 7 p.m. (2200 GMT) and had been expected to land at Paris Charles de Gaulle airport on Monday at 11:15 a.m. (0915 GMT). (Reporting by Estelle Shirbon; editing by Crispian Balmer)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2009, 05:29:58 AM

Quote from: Caliga on June 01, 2009, 05:28:05 AM
French media said the aircraft was an Airbus A330-200.

I keep telling you people those things go down.  Airbus = Airaccident.

Read.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/index.php?type=jet

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2009, 05:29:58 AM

Quote from: Caliga on June 01, 2009, 05:28:05 AM
French media said the aircraft was an Airbus A330-200.

I keep telling you people those things go down.  Airbus = Airaccident.

Airbus is rather terrible, isn't it.  There's just some things you can't trust a Euro to do.

Is it me or does that CNN international host probably has giant boobs?

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 01, 2009, 08:00:37 AM
Is it me or does that CNN international host probably has giant boobs?

Name plz.

Quote from: Caliga on June 01, 2009, 08:04:24 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 01, 2009, 08:00:37 AM
Is it me or does that CNN international host probably has giant boobs?

Name plz.

I don't know, she looks Indian/Pakistani. She's got a British accent.

Naamua Delaney?  If it's her, then no she doesn't.  :mad:

Look on the bright side. Atlantis is in the Atlantic, and these people will end up there and have exciting adventures, even when pronounced dead. I'm sure.

Aliens or terrorists?

Zeus via Lightning.

Quote from: Siege on June 01, 2009, 10:26:42 AM
Aliens or terrorists?

Someone forgot to push the button.

Somewhere in some alt-hist universe, 228 people have landed near a thriving Byzantine City about to be attacked.  Luckily some of the passengers have intimate knowledge of chemistry, weaponry, and military History.  One is an experience Classical Linguist, another just her doctorate in Post-Roman Eastern Studies.  At least one lesbian couple was on the plane.

Sadly, at least 10 are going to defect to the enemy and help them for at least the next three books.

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2009, 10:57:56 AM
Somewhere in some alt-hist universe, 228 people have landed near a thriving Byzantine City about to be attacked.  Luckily some of the passengers have intimate knowledge of chemistry, weaponry, and military History.  One is an experience Classical Linguist, another just her doctorate in Post-Roman Eastern Studies.  At least one lesbian couple was on the plane.

Sadly, at least 10 are going to defect to the enemy and help them for at least the next three books.

:bleeding:

Will J J Abrams direct?

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2009, 10:57:56 AM
Somewhere in some alt-hist universe, 228 people have landed near a thriving Byzantine City about to be attacked.  Luckily some of the passengers have intimate knowledge of chemistry, weaponry, and military History.  One is an experience Classical Linguist, another just her doctorate in Post-Roman Eastern Studies.  At least one lesbian couple was on the plane.

Sadly, at least 10 are going to defect to the enemy and help them for at least the next three books.

Your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and things with... molecular structures.

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2009, 10:57:56 AM
Somewhere in some alt-hist universe, 228 people have landed near a thriving Byzantine City about to be attacked.  Luckily some of the passengers have intimate knowledge of chemistry, weaponry, and military History.  One is an experience Classical Linguist, another just her doctorate in Post-Roman Eastern Studies.  At least one lesbian couple was on the plane.

Sadly, at least 10 are going to defect to the enemy and help them for at least the next three books.

:lol: You could make a killing "writing" for Baen Books.

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2009, 10:57:56 AM
Somewhere in some alt-hist universe, 228 people have landed near a thriving Byzantine City about to be attacked.  Luckily some of the passengers have intimate knowledge of chemistry, weaponry, and military History.  One is an experience Classical Linguist, another just her doctorate in Post-Roman Eastern Studies.  At least one lesbian couple was on the plane.

Sadly, at least 10 are going to defect to the enemy and help them for at least the next three books.

Why not to the future?

The plane reaches Paris, what's left of it, after WW3 ended with humankind almost extinted, and have to defend from rowing bands of punk bikers that want the fuel left in the airplane.

Quote from: wikiIt has been confirmed that Prince Pedro Luís of Orléans-Braganza, 4th in line of succession to the extinct throne of Brazil (who was expected to one day become the Head of the Brazilian Imperial House after his elder uncles and his own father) was on the flight.

I for one blame Brazilian Republicans.  :mad:

Quote from: Siege on June 01, 2009, 02:15:14 PM
Why not to the future?

The plane reaches Paris, what's left of it, after WW3 ended with humankind almost extinted, and have to defend from rowing bands of punk bikers that want the fuel left in the airplane.

How about the plane being suspended between past and future, a la The Langoliers?  :)

I like that this incident has suddenly put Fernando de Noronha on the map.  I have a peculiar fascination with remote islands.  Perhaps someday I'll move there and open a gas station that serves broaster chicken on the side.  :)

Quote from: Caliga on June 01, 2009, 02:29:24 PM

Quote from: Siege on June 01, 2009, 02:15:14 PM
Why not to the future?

The plane reaches Paris, what's left of it, after WW3 ended with humankind almost extinted, and have to defend from rowing bands of punk bikers that want the fuel left in the airplane.

How about the plane being suspended between past and future, a la The Langoliers?  :)

It was suspended between the past  and future before.  We call that the present.  Now the plane is gone and is in the past.

You people are by and large horrible.  :lol:

What is a 'broaster' ?

Broiler + Roaster?


Or ...

I dunno, it's some shit Colonel Sanders invented to do fried chicken at his gas station.  I think it involves a pressure cooker.

Broiler is what the GDR people called grilled chicken.

Quote from: Jaron on June 02, 2009, 12:45:36 PM
What is a 'broaster' ?

Quoteif you exercise reasonable caution, find an appealing fried chicken recipe, and fire up the pressure cooker with a small amount of oil, you can probably produce something not unlike the genuine, real-McCoy Broasted chicken.

http://www.ochef.com/374.htm

*Monkeybutt frantically buys Air France stock*

Quote from: Kleves on June 02, 2009, 01:43:08 PM
*Monkeybutt frantically buys Air France stock*

With what money?

Quote from: Siege link=topic=1066.msg47980#msg47980

With what money?

His secret gold reserves beneath Chateau d'Anger.

Quote from: Kleves on June 02, 2009, 01:43:08 PM
*Monkeybutt frantically buys Air France stock*

Hey, I made a profit on that GM stock. me=winnar

Quote from: Kleves on June 02, 2009, 01:43:08 PM
*Monkeybutt frantically buys Air France stock*

:lol:

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 02, 2009, 02:42:47 PM

Quote from: Kleves on June 02, 2009, 01:43:08 PM
*Monkeybutt frantically buys Air France stock*

Hey, I made a profit on that GM stock. me=winnar

An accounting profit or an economic profit?

Air Farce - Because We Aren't Satisfied with Just Losing Your Bags

Quote from: Maximus on June 02, 2009, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 02, 2009, 02:42:47 PM

Quote from: Kleves on June 02, 2009, 01:43:08 PM
*Monkeybutt frantically buys Air France stock*

Hey, I made a profit on that GM stock. me=winnar

An accounting profit or an economic profit?

Economic profit. No real opportunity costs since I would be sitting on my ass either way.

They found a debris field.  :(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31057560/

Quote from: Caliga on June 01, 2009, 02:29:24 PM

Quote from: Siege on June 01, 2009, 02:15:14 PM
Why not to the future?

The plane reaches Paris, what's left of it, after WW3 ended with humankind almost extinted, and have to defend from rowing bands of punk bikers that want the fuel left in the airplane.

How about the plane being suspended between past and future, a la The Langoliers?  :)

If you are going to make this into a movie, why not Jaws? Jaws could swim around and eat the corpses, only to die at the end after ingesting too much oil. It may not be a great movie, but it would be better than Jaws IV.

Did you see the trailer for Mega Shark vs. Giant Octupus? The shark eats a plane in that.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 11:03:33 PMIf you are going to make this into a movie, why not Jaws? Jaws could swim around and eat the corpses, only to die at the end after ingesting too much oil. It may not be a great movie, but it would be better than Jaws IV.

Sadly, I doubt this crash resulted in any intact corpses.  More likely what's left are little teeny fragments.  I guess sharks could eat those, but it wouldn't look very cool.  :(

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 02, 2009, 11:14:25 PM
Did you see the trailer for Mega Shark vs. Giant Octupus? The shark eats a plane in that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nzd0R_OeOc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nzd0R_OeOc)

Siegy whacks off to Shark Boy and Lava Girl.

I wonder why they "ruled out" a bomb so quickly.  Given what we know so far, it still seems like a strong possibility, especially given the fact that there are two debris fields 60 kilometers apart.

Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 06:37:48 AM
I wonder why they "ruled out" a bomb so quickly.  Given what we know so far, it still seems like a strong possibility, especially given the fact that there are two debris fields 60 kilometers apart.

Occam's razor: the unlikely is never true.

Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 05:15:41 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 02, 2009, 11:14:25 PM
Did you see the trailer for Mega Shark vs. Giant Octupus? The shark eats a plane in that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nzd0R_OeOc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nzd0R_OeOc)

:lol: Awesome

Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2009, 06:44:09 AMOccam's razor: the unlikely is never true.

^_^

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 06:48:38 AM:lol: Awesome

IIRC at one point in that movie the shark eats a helicopter.  :lol:

Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 06:54:30 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 06:48:38 AM:lol: Awesome

IIRC at one point in that movie the shark eats a helicopter.  :lol:

I could've sworn the guy escaping on the Sea-Doo was Berlusconi.



You know, actors making movies like that would be better off just making porn.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2009, 05:15:42 PM

Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 06:54:30 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 06:48:38 AM:lol: Awesome

IIRC at one point in that movie the shark eats a helicopter.  :lol:

I could've sworn the guy escaping on the Sea-Doo was Berlusconi.



You know, actors making movies like that would be better off just making porn.

Not everybody has a dick as big as yours.

Dude, what the fuck's wrong with you?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 06:53:56 PM
Dude, what the fuck's wrong with you?

Timmy's a homophobe?  :huh:

Quote from: citizen k on June 03, 2009, 07:03:22 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 06:53:56 PM
Dude, what the fuck's wrong with you?

Timmy's a homophobe?  :huh:

Siege is not actually gay though, just mentally imbalanced. You don't see me reacting that way to Marty do you?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 07:10:04 PM

Quote from: citizen k on June 03, 2009, 07:03:22 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2009, 06:53:56 PM
Dude, what the fuck's wrong with you?

Timmy's a homophobe?  :huh:

Siege is not actually gay though, just mentally imbalanced. You don't see me reacting that way to Marty do you?

So you're saying you are an anti-Semite.

I'm going to make a collect call to Timmay on my homophone.

Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2009, 07:40:35 PM
I'm going to make a collect call to Timmay on my homophone.

Those sound like a grate deal.

I find it dubious there was no Cockpit to ATC distress call.

To me this signals an immediate and catastrophic event.  The electronic signals to Paris (four minutes) is odd on this account.  One would expect a quick fall from the sky in this scenerio.

The other possibility is a catastrophic depressurization of the cabin, which may have killed or knocked out everyone.  The plane then flew slowly into the Atlantic (hence the four minute signal without a cockpit mayday.)

I don't know, ideas formed from different pieces of info I've read.

Quote from: PDH on June 03, 2009, 07:46:59 PM
Those sound like a grate deal.

Master Bait? :tinfoil:

Quote from: Habsburg on June 03, 2009, 07:48:41 PM
I find it dubious there was no Cockpit to ATC distress call.

To me this signals an immediate and catastrophic event.  The electronic signals to Paris (four minutes) is odd on this account.  One would expect a quick fall from the sky in this scenerio.

The other possibility is a catastrophic depressurization of the cabin, which may have killed or knocked out everyone.  The plane then flew slowly into the Atlantic (hence the four minute signal without a cockpit mayday.)

I don't know, ideas formed from different pieces of info I've read.

Bomb. :yes:

Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 08:30:13 PM


Bomb. :yes:

:tinfoil:

Playing FS doesn't make you a NTSB qualifed to make such silly claims ya fruit.

Quote from: katmai on June 03, 2009, 08:33:52 PM
Playing FS doesn't make you a NTSB qualifed to make such silly claims ya fruit.

In this case I'm relying on my Sherlock Holmes-like powers of deductive reasoning.  :bowler:

Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2009, 07:40:35 PM
I'm going to make a collect call to Timmay on my homophone.

:lol: Nice

Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2009, 07:40:35 PM
I'm going to make a collect call to Timmay on my homophone.

:lmfao:  Dude, I fucking spilled the dam beer on my keyboard.
You fucking owe me, bitch!  :lol:

Quote from: Habsburg on June 03, 2009, 07:48:41 PM
I find it dubious there was no Cockpit to ATC distress call.

To me this signals an immediate and catastrophic event.  The electronic signals to Paris (four minutes) is odd on this account.  One would expect a quick fall from the sky in this scenerio.

The other possibility is a catastrophic depressurization of the cabin, which may have killed or knocked out everyone.  The plane then flew slowly into the Atlantic (hence the four minute signal without a cockpit mayday.)

I don't know, ideas formed from different pieces of info I've read.

It was a terrorist attack by muslims.

They can hide it all they want, but we all know what really happened.

On the other hand, I do agree that with the current economic situation, is better to hide from the public that muslim terrorists can blow up planes like that.

Well Air France had a bomb threat three days earlier on their Buenos Aires-Paris flight.

Still could have gone down this way:  Plane hits severe turbulence, catastrophic event (complete depressure or plane breaks up or both) plane breaks up going down (quickly) storm spreads out oil slick and debris.  Transmitter floats for a few, still sending signals.

Very odd though, between Iberia-TAP-Air France-TAM-Aerolineas Argentina and others, dozens of flights go through that area daily.

Quote from: Habsburg on June 03, 2009, 11:14:27 PM
Very odd though, between Iberia-TAP-Air France-TAM-Aerolineas Argentina and others, dozens of flights go through that area daily.

Exactly. That's the whole point.

The Jews did it.

Also:

QuoteFERNANDO DE NORONHA, Brazil – An airplane seat, a fuel slick and pieces of white debris scattered over three miles of open ocean marked the site in the mid-Atlantic Tuesday where Air France Flight 447 plunged to its doom, Brazil's defense minister said.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.boston.com%2Fimages%2Fbostondirtdogs%2F%2FHeadline_Archives%2Fwhiteflag_08_31.jpg&hash=281b119cb5b0b596fffd06c5b17bb050735b4acb)

edit: FAIL corrected

If it was a bomb they can run tests on the debris.

Quote from: Habsburg on June 03, 2009, 11:31:03 PM
If it was a bomb they can run tests on the debris.

In the water, in the middle of the ocean?

What's the point of a terror attack that is not easily identifiable as one if you don't tell anybody later? If it was a bomb, why not let it explode over land?

Quote from: Zanza2 on June 04, 2009, 12:46:53 AM
What's the point of a terror attack that is not easily identifiable as one if you don't tell anybody later? If it was a bomb, why not let it explode over land?

Even if it wasn't downed by terrorism, I'm surprised no one claimed responsibility for the destruction. It would be hard to prove them wrong I'd think.

Should I call up the FBI and tell them it was Jaron's fault?  :)

Quote from: Zanza2 on June 04, 2009, 12:46:53 AMIf it was a bomb, why not let it explode over land?

They've tried to blow up planes over water before.  The shoe bomber and the plot discovered in the Phillipines to blow up a dozen airplanes flying from Asia to the US come to mind.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 05:51:46 AM

Quote from: Zanza2 on June 04, 2009, 12:46:53 AMIf it was a bomb, why not let it explode over land?

They've tried to blow up planes over water before.  The shoe bomber and the plot discovered in the Phillipines to blow up a dozen airplanes flying from Asia to the US come to mind.

Man, can you imagine how much that would have crippled the aviation industry if they managed to pull that off?

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 05:51:46 AM
They've tried to blow up planes over water before.  The shoe bomber and the plot discovered in the Phillipines to blow up a dozen airplanes flying from Asia to the US come to mind.

:yes:

The media seems desperate to make it impossible for this flight to have been downed by a bomb.  On CNN this morning there was a thing saying a mid-air explosion was unlikely due to there being a fuel slick on the ocean surface... as if commercial airliners only have a single fuel tank. :lol:

IIRC with the Lockerbie bombing, the bomb merely punched a hole in the fuselage, not near the fuel tanks, but it was enough to cause the fuselage to come apart and destroy the aircraft.  I think I remember that the accident dumped quite a bit of aviation fuel on the town of Lockerbie.

If it were a bomb, I'm sure some group would have claimed it already.  And some fruitcakes probably already have, whether it was a bomb or not.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 04, 2009, 06:56:02 AM
If it were a bomb, I'm sure some group would have claimed it already.  And some fruitcakes probably already have, whether they it was a bomb or not.

Of course people have claimed it, but I don't know why the governments of France or Brazil, Air France, etc. would release that information to the general public unless they'd confirmed it somehow.

Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 06:51:32 AM

:yes:

The media seems desperate to make it impossible for this flight to have been downed by a bomb.  On CNN this morning there was a thing saying a mid-air explosion was unlikely due to there being a fuel slick on the ocean surface... as if commercial airliners only have a single fuel tank. :lol:

IIRC with the Lockerbie bombing, the bomb merely punched a hole in the fuselage, not near the fuel tanks, but it was enough to cause the fuselage to come apart and destroy the aircraft.  I think I remember that the accident dumped quite a bit of aviation fuel on the town of Lockerbie.

But it was apparently heading through a fairly severe storm. It could be a coincidence that it was bombed while in a storm, but is that the simpliest explanation?

On the other hand, no one immediately claimed responsibility for 9/11. If you were in the business of airplane bombing, it would make sense to do so over the ocean where the plane likely couldn't be recovered and evidence obtained. After the first one, maybe people would blame mechanical issues, but after a couple more...

Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 07:03:50 AM

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 04, 2009, 06:56:02 AM
If it were a bomb, I'm sure some group would have claimed it already.  And some fruitcakes probably already have, whether they it was a bomb or not.

Of course people have claimed it, but I don't know why the governments of France or Brazil, Air France, etc. would release that information to the general public unless they'd confirmed it somehow.

Maybe it was the last Al-Qaida member, blowing himself up.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2009, 07:08:00 AM
But it was apparently heading through a fairly severe storm. It could be a coincidence that it was bombed while in a storm, but is that the simpliest explanation?

On the other hand, no one immediately claimed responsibility for 9/11. If you were in the business of airplane bombing, it would make sense to do so over the ocean where the plane likely couldn't be recovered and evidence obtained. After the first one, maybe people would blame mechanical issues, but after a couple more...

Well, keep in mind that I'm not saying "it was a bomb", I'm only questioning why Air France, various governments, etc. are all like "We have no idea what caused this to happen BUT IT DEFINITELY WASN'T TERRORISM!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111"

Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 07:21:29 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2009, 07:08:00 AM
But it was apparently heading through a fairly severe storm. It could be a coincidence that it was bombed while in a storm, but is that the simpliest explanation?

On the other hand, no one immediately claimed responsibility for 9/11. If you were in the business of airplane bombing, it would make sense to do so over the ocean where the plane likely couldn't be recovered and evidence obtained. After the first one, maybe people would blame mechanical issues, but after a couple more...

Well, keep in mind that I'm not saying "it was a bomb", I'm only questioning why Air France, various governments, etc. are all like "We have no idea what caused this to happen BUT IT DEFINITELY WASN'T TERRORISM!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111"

:tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: Time for some soft foods in a soft room, Cal?

 :rolleyes:

If you're a Terrorist group that blew up a plane would you a) contact the Government b) contact the media & plaster it all over the internet.

Not a terrorist act.

Terrorists set off bombs every single day that kill people without making a statement to anyone.

I think it's a mistake to presuppose rational thinking when trying to dissect what terrorists do and why they do it.

Some new developments, maybe it flew too slowly:

QuotePARIS (Reuters) – The Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on Monday was flying too slowly ahead of the disaster, Le Monde newspaper said on Thursday, citing sources close to the inquiry.

The paper said the manufacturer of the doomed plane, Airbus, was set to issue a recommendation advising companies using the A330 aircraft of optimal speeds during poor weather conditions.

Airbus declined to comment on the report and the French air accident investigation agency, which has to validate any such recommendations, known as an Aircraft Information Telex, was not immediately available for comment.

A Spanish newspaper said a transatlantic airline pilot reported seeing a bright flash of white light at the same time the Air France flight disappeared.

"Suddenly we saw in the distance a strong, intense flash of white light that took a downward, vertical trajectory and disappeared in six seconds," the pilot of an Air Comet flight from Lima to Madrid told his company, the El Mundo newspaper reported. "We did not hear any communication on any emergency or air to air frequency either before or after this event."

A spokesman for Madrid-based airline Air Comet was not immediately available to confirm the El Mundo article, which cited a report the pilot submitted to his company.

The Air France A330-200 was enroute from Rio de Janeiro to Paris when it splintered over the Atlantic four hours into its flight. All 228 people on board died.

The plane sent no mayday signals before crashing, only automatic messages showing electrical faults and a loss of pressure shortly after it entered a zone of stormy weather.

Portguese newspaper Estado de Sao Paulo, citing a source close to Air France, published what it said was the final sequence of messages, showing how the plane rapidly lost its key flight functions.

It said they began at 0210 GMT showing the automatic pilot had been removed. The same minute there were multiple electricity failures. At 0214 GMT a final message was sent showing the plane was plunging toward the sea.

There was no confirmation of this from Air France.

Search crews flying over the Atlantic have found debris from the jet spread over more than 55 miles of ocean, about 685 miles northeast of Brazil's coast.

Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim has said the existence of large fuel stains in the water likely ruled out an explosion, undercutting speculation about a bomb attack.

Experts have speculated that extreme turbulence or decompression during stormy weather might have caused the disaster -- the worst in Air France's 75-year history.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 07:28:48 AM
Terrorists set off bombs every single day that kill people without making a statement to anyone.

On the other hand, it's rare for them to bring down a jetliner without saying anything.  Then again, I'm sure many groups have taken credit, it's just that they're not considered credible by investigators.

Cal's theory of multiple independently placed bombs by AQ, PETA and WHO is way out there in crazy territory IMHO.

Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2009, 07:33:15 AM
On the other hand, it's rare for them to bring down a jetliner without saying anything.

Maybe they're ok with people thinking it was an accident.  And then another plane will disappear next month, and the next.

I don't buy this stall theory.  I think it's unlikely that, with three pilots aboard (and one presumes at least two on duty at the time), that they wouldn't have said something to ATC, even if it was "hey, we're going down".

Airbus = tail falls off. Everybody dies.

What was their cruising altitude? Takes a long while to fall 30,000 feet.

Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2009, 07:40:46 AM
What was their cruising altitude? Takes a long while to fall 30,000 feet.

Yes, which is part of the reason I made my comment re: stall.  I would guess they were at like 39,000 feet or so.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 07:28:48 AM
Terrorists set off bombs every single day that kill people without making a statement to anyone.

Examples?  And how do you know the attacks are made by terrorists if no one claims responsibility for them?

Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 07:30:13 AM
I think it's a mistake to presuppose rational thinking when trying to dissect what terrorists do and why they do it.

Disagree.  They are wacko but not always irrational.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 07:38:06 AM

Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2009, 07:33:15 AM
On the other hand, it's rare for them to bring down a jetliner without saying anything.

Maybe they're ok with people thinking it was an accident.  And then another plane will disappear next month, and the next.

Their goal isn't to kill people.  It's to cause terror.  Accidents don't cause terror.  Bombs do.

If their goal was just to kill people, they'd just go nuts in a shopping mall with an AK-47, and it would be a lot more cost-effective than putting a bomb on a plane.

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2009, 07:42:53 AM
Disagree.  They are wacko but not always irrational.

I actually don't think we're in disagreement.  I just meant one should not assume that their behavior is *always* rational as I took GF's post to mean.

Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 08:10:16 AM

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2009, 07:42:53 AM
Disagree.  They are wacko but not always irrational.

I actually don't think we're in disagreement.  I just meant one should not assume that their behavior is *always* rational as I took GF's post to mean.

You are correct.  I misread the post, but your meaning is clear and I just missed it.

Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2009, 07:47:38 AM

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 07:38:06 AM

Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2009, 07:33:15 AM
On the other hand, it's rare for them to bring down a jetliner without saying anything.

Maybe they're ok with people thinking it was an accident.  And then another plane will disappear next month, and the next.

Their goal isn't to kill people.  It's to cause terror.  Accidents don't cause terror.  Bombs do.

If their goal was just to kill people, they'd just go nuts in a shopping mall with an AK-47, and it would be a lot more cost-effective than putting a bomb on a plane.

That would totally terrorize America. Just look what a few guys with AK-47s did in Bombay.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2009, 09:25:48 AM
That would totally terrorize America. Just look what a few guys with AK-47s did in Bombay.

Violence in general (even random violence) doesn't "totally terrorize America."  A few guys in Bombay with AK-47s didn't terrorize America, either.

It is purposeful violence that is indifferent to the identity of the victim that terrorizes.  The DC sniper was a lot scarier to people than M-13, even though the two probably killed the same number of people in that time period.

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2009, 09:40:26 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2009, 09:25:48 AM
That would totally terrorize America. Just look what a few guys with AK-47s did in Bombay.

Violence in general (even random violence) doesn't "totally terrorize America."  A few guys in Bombay with AK-47s didn't terrorize America, either.

They terrorized India though, which was what I meant and you know it.

If 10 terrorists ran around a major American City and killed nearly 200 civilians then America would be terrorized.

What does a state of being "terrorized" involve?  :huh:

It means you flee in terror for up to 8 seconds. Any damage incurred may break the effect.

Quote from: Jaron on June 04, 2009, 12:04:21 PM
It means you flee in terror for up to 8 seconds. Any damage incurred may break the effect.

Four seconds if you make your saving throw.  :)

Someone told me there was a priest and a shaman on that flight. They were going to give people slow fall and water walking, but there was no reagent vendor on board!!! LOOOL!

 :lmfao:

They failed at having the proper minor glyphs equipped. :(

There WAS an inscriptionist on board, but his herb guy was flying on Air Jamaica :pinch:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2009, 11:04:59 AM
They terrorized India though, which was what I meant and you know it.

If 10 terrorists ran around a major American City and killed nearly 200 civilians then America would be terrorized.

:lmfao:

I think you have flipped your wig.  How would anyone know if there were ten terrorists, or that they were even terrorists, if they simply wanted to ikill people without revealing who they were or why they acted? 

In 2007, the US murder rate was about 50 murders a day and nobody blinked, let alone felt the slightest bit terrorized.  If that rate doubled for a 2-day period, people would still not blink, let alone be terrorized.

I think Tim is trying to say if terrorists did the exact same thing here as happened in Mumbai--if they took over a hotel and just slaughtered everyone inside.  While I agree that that would have a dramatic effect on the American people (assuming this is in fact what he means), the difficulty would be in a terror cell like that actually getting here.  In the Mumbai case the terrorists came from Pakistan and literally sailed across the Arabian Sea in a commandeered merchant ship IIRC (details are fuzzy in my mind, but it was something like that).  Obviously that would be much more difficult to do in the case of the US, due to simple geography.

Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 04:32:49 PM
I think Tim is trying to say if terrorists did the exact same thing here as happened in Mumbai--if they took over a hotel and just slaughtered everyone inside.  While I agree that that would have a dramatic effect on the American people (assuming this is in fact what he means),

What else could I possibly mean?  :huh:

That could never happen here. We have too many guns and your average American is like a GI Joe. Your average Indian is like Little Black Sambo.

Quote from: Jaron on June 04, 2009, 05:15:03 PM
That could never happen here. We have too many guns and your average American is like a GI Joe. Your average Indian is like Little Black Sambo.

Tell that to the kids at Columbine.

Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 04:32:49 PM
I think Tim is trying to say if terrorists did the exact same thing here as happened in Mumbai--if they took over a hotel and just slaughtered everyone inside.  While I agree that that would have a dramatic effect on the American people (assuming this is in fact what he means), the difficulty would be in a terror cell like that actually getting here.  In the Mumbai case the terrorists came from Pakistan and literally sailed across the Arabian Sea in a commandeered merchant ship IIRC (details are fuzzy in my mind, but it was something like that).  Obviously that would be much more difficult to do in the case of the US, due to simple geography.

The Mumbai attack was a terrorist attack.  It was not designed "just to kill people," which is the assertion Tim was disputing.

Let's say that Cho at Virginia Tech had decided to blow himself up in a crowded lecture hall rather than shooting 32 people, and had killed 200 people "just to kill people."

Would America be "terrorized?"  I think not.  It was not even 1/7 terrorized when he killed 1/7 that number.

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2009, 05:58:19 PM

Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2009, 04:32:49 PM
I think Tim is trying to say if terrorists did the exact same thing here as happened in Mumbai--if they took over a hotel and just slaughtered everyone inside.  While I agree that that would have a dramatic effect on the American people (assuming this is in fact what he means), the difficulty would be in a terror cell like that actually getting here.  In the Mumbai case the terrorists came from Pakistan and literally sailed across the Arabian Sea in a commandeered merchant ship IIRC (details are fuzzy in my mind, but it was something like that).  Obviously that would be much more difficult to do in the case of the US, due to simple geography.

The Mumbai attack was a terrorist attack.  It was not designed "just to kill people," which is the assertion Tim was disputing.

No, that's not what I was saying,  I wasn't disputing anything. I was making an offhanded comment that a terrorist attack in which terrorists with AK-47 went on a murder spree similar to the Mumbai attacks would terrorize America.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2009, 06:03:26 PM
No, that's not what I was saying,  I wasn't disputing anything. I was making an offhanded comment that a terrorist attack in which terrorists with AK-47 went on a murder spree similar to the Mumbai attacks would terrorize America.

So you are saying that Neil is right, and I am right, and you are right but about something else completely?

Okay, but why even have the conversations then?  Why dispute what I am saying, and make it look like you are disputing what eil is saying, if you agree with both of us?

Terrorism is completely different than "just killing people."  Terrorism doesn't even require that you kill anyone.

And thus, Neil's point that downing airliners without announcing that you have done it and why is counter-productive for terrorists is correct.  Terrorism is political.  The violence is a means, not an end.

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2009, 06:09:15 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2009, 06:03:26 PM
No, that's not what I was saying,  I wasn't disputing anything. I was making an offhanded comment that a terrorist attack in which terrorists with AK-47 went on a murder spree similar to the Mumbai attacks would terrorize America.

So you are saying that Neil is right, and I am right, and you are right but about something else completely?

Okay, but why even have the conversations then?  Why dispute what I am saying, and make it look like you are disputing what eil is saying, if you agree with both of us?

Terrorism is completely different than "just killing people."  Terrorism doesn't even require that you kill anyone.

And thus, Neil's point that downing airliners without announcing that you have done it and why is counter-productive for terrorists is correct.  Terrorism is political.  The violence is a means, not an end.

I wasn't disagreeing with anyone, I was just making a comment and you jumped all over me. I was just defending myself.

Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2009, 05:20:24 PM

Quote from: Jaron on June 04, 2009, 05:15:03 PM
That could never happen here. We have too many guns and your average American is like a GI Joe. Your average Indian is like Little Black Sambo.

Tell that to the kids at Columbine.

They aren't kids anymore. And I bet they are armed to the teeth nowadays.

Blah, Blah, Blah!

The Prince de Orleans e Braganca was onboard!  :weep:

Quote from: Habsburg on June 04, 2009, 07:03:37 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah!

The Prince de Orleans e Braganca was onboard!  :weep:

it's ok, he's got a brother.

Quote from: HVC on June 04, 2009, 07:42:22 PM

Quote from: Habsburg on June 04, 2009, 07:03:37 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah!

The Prince de Orleans e Braganca was onboard!  :weep:

it's ok, he's got a brother.

Yes HVC, but the world is less one Royal. :weep:

Quote from: Habsburg on June 04, 2009, 07:43:39 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 04, 2009, 07:42:22 PM

Quote from: Habsburg on June 04, 2009, 07:03:37 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah!

The Prince de Orleans e Braganca was onboard!  :weep:

it's ok, he's got a brother.

Yes HVC, but the world is less one Royal. :weep:

I thought they were the poor branch of the family? They had the claim to (il)legitimy, but were middle class. What's a royal without money?

Quote from: Habsburg on June 04, 2009, 07:43:39 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 04, 2009, 07:42:22 PM

Quote from: Habsburg on June 04, 2009, 07:03:37 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah!

The Prince de Orleans e Braganca was onboard!  :weep:

it's ok, he's got a brother.

Yes HVC, but the world is less one Royal. :weep:

A New World Royal.  No big loss.

 :huh:

Wow, no debris after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8083474.stm

"Debris recovered from the Atlantic by Brazilian search teams does not come from a lost Air France jet, a Brazilian air force official has said.

Brig Ramon Borges Cardoso contradicted earlier reports that debris had been found, saying "no material from the plane has been recovered"."

Cal's theory of alien abduction seems all the more likely now.

Quote from: Habsburg on June 04, 2009, 10:46:51 PM
:huh:

Wow, no debris after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8083474.stm

"Debris recovered from the Atlantic by Brazilian search teams does not come from a lost Air France jet, a Brazilian air force official has said.

Brig Ramon Borges Cardoso contradicted earlier reports that debris had been found, saying "no material from the plane has been recovered"."

Translation - The debris discovered indicates a bomb blew up the plane, so we're covering it up.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 05:27:37 AM

Quote from: Habsburg on June 04, 2009, 10:46:51 PM
:huh:

Wow, no debris after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8083474.stm

"Debris recovered from the Atlantic by Brazilian search teams does not come from a lost Air France jet, a Brazilian air force official has said.

Brig Ramon Borges Cardoso contradicted earlier reports that debris had been found, saying "no material from the plane has been recovered"."

Translation - The debris discovered indicates a bomb blew up the plane, so we're covering it up.

What do they hope to gain from this coverup?

Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 06:47:22 AM
What do they hope to gain from this coverup?

Dude, think about it.  It's the French, who are now overrun with Muslims.  If they accuse some Islamic group of terrorism, or even imply it might be the case, the Muslims will riot and wreck the country.

If it was a Bomb, they'd say, it be a great excuse for Sarko to send the Legion back to take Algeria.

Quote from: Caliga on June 05, 2009, 06:53:48 AM

Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 06:47:22 AM
What do they hope to gain from this coverup?

Dude, think about it.  It's the French, who are now overrun with Muslims.  If they accuse some Islamic group of terrorism, or even imply it might be the case, the Muslims will riot and wreck the country.

Maybe, but it's being investigated by the Brazillians.

Besides, how would you keep it from leaking to the media?

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 05, 2009, 06:59:29 AM
If it was a Bomb, they'd say, it be a great excuse for Sarko to send the Legion back to take Algeria.

Or for him to send the Algerians back there?

Saying that... I quite like him. Better than Chirac!

Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 07:00:56 AMBesides, how would you keep it from leaking to the media?

French discipline is amazing.  I wouldn't be at all worried.  :)

Meteor Impact.

Pierre Salinger blew it up with a stinger.

Quote from: PDH on June 05, 2009, 12:11:30 PM
Pierre Salinger blew it up with a stinger.

:lol:

When I was explaining my bomb theory to Princesca the other day I actually referenced TWA 800. :ph34r:

Maybe the Bermuda Triangle reached out and snagged them.  :tinfoil:

Quote from: Strix on June 05, 2009, 01:18:27 PM
Maybe the Bermuda Triangle reached out and snagged them.  :tinfoil:

Somoli Pirates in hotair balloons :contract:

David Carradine wrapped one cord around his nuts, and the other around the plane, and brought it down when he shot his load.

Incan torpedo boats with SAMs?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2009, 08:48:02 PM
David Carradine wrapped one cord around his nuts, and the other around the plane, and brought it down when he shot his load.

Too soon.  :(

Well this time they've got some stuff and victims.

Quote
June 1, 2009
Atlantic Ocean, 570 miles northeast of Natal, Brazil
Air France 447
Airbus A-330-203
F-GZCP

The Airbus went missing over the Atlantic Ocean on a flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Paris, France.
The last radio contact with the flight was at 01:33 UTC. The aircraft left CINDACTA III radar coverage at
01:48 UTC, flying normally at FL350. The aircraft reportedly went through a thunderstorm with strong
turbulence at 02:00 UTC. At 02:14 UTC an automated message was received indicating a failure of the
electrical system. The plane carried 12 crew members and 216 passengers. The wreckage was finally
discovered on April 3, 2011 using unmanned submarines. Flight447 passed into clouds associated with
a large system of thunderstorms, its speed sensors became iced over, and the autopilot disengaged.
In the ensuing confusion, the pilots lost control of the airplane because they reacted incorrectly to the
loss of instrumentation and then seemed unable to comprehend the nature of the problems they had
caused.

Marc Dubois - Captain
Pierre-Cédric Bonin - Copilot 
David Robert - Copilot
FA - Flight Attendant
Translated from French
[comments added by this website from Popular Mechanics article]


02:03:44 (Bonin)   The inter-tropical convergence... look, we're in it, between 'Salpu' and 'Tasil.' And then, look, we're right in it...
02:05:55 (Robert)   Yes, let's call them in the back, to let them know...
02:05:59 (FA)   Yes? Marilyn.
02:06:04 (Bonin)   Yes, Marilyn, it's Pierre up front... Listen, in 2 minutes, we're going to be getting into an area where things are going to be moving around a little bit more than now. You'll want to take care.
02:06:13 (FA)   Okay, we should sit down then?
02:06:15 (Bonin)   
Well, I think that's not a bad idea. Give your friends a heads-up.

02:06:18 (FA)   
Yeah, okay, I'll tell the others in the back. Thanks a lot.

02:06:19 (Bonin)   
I'll call you back as soon as we're out of it.


02:06:20 (FA)   
Okay.

02:06:50 (Bonin)   
Let's go for the anti-icing system. It's better than nothing.

    [Because they are flying through clouds, the pilots turn on the anti-icing system to try to keep ice off the flight surfaces; ice reduces the plane's aerodynamic efficiency, weighs it down, and in extreme cases, can cause it to crash.]
02:07:00 (Bonin)   
We seem to be at the end of the cloud layer, it might be okay.

02:08:03 (Robert)   
You can possibly pull it a little to the left.

02:08:05 (Bonin)   
You can possibly pull it a little to the left. We're agreed that we're in manual, yeah?

   [An alarm sounds for 2.2 seconds, indicating that the autopilot is disconnecting. The cause is the fact that the plane's pitot tubes, externally mounted sensors that determine air speed, have iced over, so the human pilots will now have to fly the plane by hand. Aside from the loss of airspeed indication, everything is working fine. Neither Bonin nor Roberts has ever received training in how to deal with an unreliable airspeed indicator at cruise altitude, or in flying the airplane by hand under such conditions.
02:10:06 (Bonin)   I have the controls.
02:10:07 (Robert)   
Okay.

   [Perhaps spooked by everything that has unfolded over the past few minutes—the turbulence, the strange electrical phenomena, his colleague's failure to route around the potentially dangerous storm—Bonin reacts irrationally. He pulls back on the side stick to put the airplane into a steep climb. Almost as soon as Bonin pulls up into a climb, the plane's computer reacts. A warning chime alerts the cockpit to the fact that they are leaving their programmed altitude. Then the stall warning sounds. This is a synthesized human voice that repeatedly calls out, "Stall!" in English, followed by a loud and intentionally annoying sound called a "cricket."]
02:10:07 (Robert)   
What's this?

02:10:15 (Bonin)   
There's no good... there's no good speed indication.

02:10:16 (Robert)   We've lost the, the, the speeds, then?
   [The plane is soon climbing at a blistering rate of 7000 feet per minute. While it is gaining altitude, it is losing speed, until it is crawling along at only 93 knots, a speed more typical of a small Cessna than an airliner. Robert notices Bonin's error and tries to correct him.]
02:10:27 (Robert)   
Pay attention to your speed. Pay attention to your speed.

02:10:28 (Bonin)   
Okay, okay, I'm descending.

02:10:30 (Robert   Stabilize.
02:10:31 (Bonin)   
Yeah.

02:10:31 (Robert)   Descend... It says we're going up... It says we're going up, so descend.
02:10:36 (Robert)   
Descend!

02:10:37 (Bonin)   
Here we go, we're descending.

02:10:38 (Robert)   Gently!
   [Bonin eases the back pressure on the stick, and the plane gains speed as its climb becomes more shallow. It accelerates to 223 knots. The stall warning falls silent. For a moment, the co-pilots are in control of the airplane.]
02:10:41(Bonin)


We're... yeah, we're in a climb.

02:10:49 (Robert)   
Damn it, where is he?

02:10:55 (Robert)


Damn it!




[Another of the pitot tubes begins to function once more. The cockpit's avionics are now all functioning normally. The flight crew has all the information that they need to fly safely, and all the systems are fully functional. The problems that occur from this point forward are entirely due to human error.]

02:11:03 (Bonin)   
I'm in TOGA, huh?


   [Bonin's statement here offers a crucial window onto his reasoning. TOGA is an acronym for Take Off, Go Around. When a plane is taking off or aborting a landing—"going around"—it must gain both speed and altitude as efficiently as possible. At this critical phase of flight, pilots are trained to increase engine speed to the TOGA level and raise the nose to a certain pitch angle.  Clearly, here Bonin is trying to achieve the same effect: He wants to increase speed and to climb away from danger. But he is not at sea level; he is in the far thinner air of 37,500 feet. The engines generate less thrust here, and the wings generate less lift. Raising the nose to a certain angle of pitch does not result in the same angle of climb, but far less. Indeed, it can—and will—result in a descent.]
02:11:06 (Robert)   
Damn it, is he coming or not?

   [The plane now reaches its maximum altitude. With engines at full power, the nose pitched upward at an angle of 18 degrees, it moves horizontally for an instant and then begins to sink back toward the ocean. ]
02:11:21 (Robert)


We still have the engines! What the hell is happening? I don't understand what's happening.


   [Robert has no idea that, despite their conversation about descending, Bonin has continued to pull back on the side stick. The men are utterly failing to engage in an important process known as crew resource management, or CRM. They are failing, essentially, to cooperate. It is not clear to either one of them who is responsible for what, and who is doing what. This is a natural result of having two co-pilots flying the plane. "When you have a captain and a first officer in the cockpit, it's clear who's in charge. The vertical speed toward the ocean accelerates. If Bonin were to let go of the controls, the nose would fall and the plane would regain forward speed. But because he is holding the stick all the way back, the nose remains high and the plane has barely enough forward speed for the controls to be effective. As turbulence continues to buffet the plane, it is nearly impossible to keep the wings level. ]
02:11:32 (Bonin)


Damn it, I don't have control of the plane, I don't have control of the plane at all!

02:11:37 (Robert)   
Left seat taking control!

   [At last, the more senior of the pilots (and the one who seems to have a somewhat better grasp of the situation) now takes control of the airplane. Unfortunately, he, too, seems unaware of the fact that the plane is now stalled, and pulls back on the stick as well. Although the plane's nose is pitched up, it is descending at a 40-degree angle. The stall warning continues to sound. At any rate, Bonin soon after takes back the controls.

A minute and a half after the crisis began, the captain returns to the cockpit. The stall warning continues to blare. ]
02:11:43 (Captain)


What the hell are you doing?

02:11:45 (Bonin)   
We've lost control of the plane!


02:11:47 (Robert)   We've totally lost control of the plane. We don't understand at all... We've tried everything.
   
[By now the plane has returned to its initial altitude but is falling fast. With its nose pitched 15 degrees up, and a forward speed of 100 knots, it is descending at a rate of 10,000 feet per minute, at an angle of 41.5 degrees. It will maintain this attitude with little variation all the way to the sea. Though the pitot tubes are now fully functional, the forward airspeed is so low—below 60 knots—that the angle-of-attack inputs are no longer accepted as valid, and the stall-warning horn temporarily stops. This may give the pilots the impression that their situation is improving, when in fact it signals just the reverse.

[The captain of the flight makes no attempt to physically take control of the airplane. Had Dubois done so, he almost certainly would have understood, as a pilot with many hours flying light airplanes, the insanity of pulling back on the controls while stalled. But instead, he takes a seat behind the other two pilots.]


02:12:14 (Robert)   What do you think? What do you think? What should we do?



[As the stall warning continues to blare, the three pilots discuss the situation with no hint of understanding the nature of their problem. No one mentions the word "stall." As the plane is buffeted by turbulence, the captain urges Bonin to level the wings—advice that does nothing to address their main problem. The men briefly discuss, incredibly, whether they are in fact climbing or descending, before agreeing that they are indeed descending. As the plane approaches 10,000 feet, Robert tries to take back the controls, and pushes forward on the stick, but the plane is in "dual input" mode, and so the system averages his inputs with those of Bonin, who continues to pull back. The nose remains high.

02:13:40 (Robert)   Climb... climb... climb... climb...
02:13:40 (Bonin)


But I've had the stick back the whole time!

   
[At last, Bonin tells the others the crucial fact whose import he has so grievously failed to understand himself.]

02:13:42 (Captain)   No, no, no... Don't climb... no, no.
02:13:43 (Robert)


Descend, then... Give me the controls... Give me the controls!






[Bonin yields the controls, and Robert finally puts the nose down. The plane begins to regain speed. But it is still descending at a precipitous angle. As they near 2000 feet, the aircraft's sensors detect the fast-approaching surface and trigger a new alarm. There is no time left to build up speed by pushing the plane's nose forward into a dive. At any rate, without warning his colleagues, Bonin once again takes back the controls and pulls his side stick all the way back.]

02:14:23 (Robert)   Damn it, we're going to crash... This can't be happening!
02:14:25 (Bonin)   But what's happening?
02:14:27 (Captain)   Ten degrees of pitch...

Exactly 1.4 seconds later, the cockpit voice recorder stops.

So...basically everyone died because the co-pilots fucked up really, really badly.

Quote from: Siege on June 03, 2009, 10:29:07 PM

Quote from: Habsburg on June 03, 2009, 07:48:41 PM
I find it dubious there was no Cockpit to ATC distress call.

To me this signals an immediate and catastrophic event.  The electronic signals to Paris (four minutes) is odd on this account.  One would expect a quick fall from the sky in this scenerio.

The other possibility is a catastrophic depressurization of the cabin, which may have killed or knocked out everyone.  The plane then flew slowly into the Atlantic (hence the four minute signal without a cockpit mayday.)

I don't know, ideas formed from different pieces of info I've read.

It was a terrorist attack by muslims.

They can hide it all they want, but we all know what really happened.

On the other hand, I do agree that with the current economic situation, is better to hide from the public that muslim terrorists can blow up planes like that.

Looks like you told another lie.

@ Berk... Jesus Christ, I know better than that co-pilot how to handle a commercial jet in that situation and I'm just a flightsim enthusiast.  Makes you almost wonder if he's another kamikaze pilot who just was more clever at covering up his intentions. :wacko:

Every current and aspiring commercial jet pilot should read that transcript at least once.  Better yet, the training flight simulators should include this scenario as mandatory training. 

Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2015, 05:26:18 PM

Quote from: Siege on June 03, 2009, 10:29:07 PM

Quote from: Habsburg on June 03, 2009, 07:48:41 PM
I find it dubious there was no Cockpit to ATC distress call.

To me this signals an immediate and catastrophic event.  The electronic signals to Paris (four minutes) is odd on this account.  One would expect a quick fall from the sky in this scenerio.

The other possibility is a catastrophic depressurization of the cabin, which may have killed or knocked out everyone.  The plane then flew slowly into the Atlantic (hence the four minute signal without a cockpit mayday.)

I don't know, ideas formed from different pieces of info I've read.

It was a terrorist attack by muslims.

They can hide it all they want, but we all know what really happened.

On the other hand, I do agree that with the current economic situation, is better to hide from the public that muslim terrorists can blow up planes like that.

Looks like you told another lie.

  :lol:

Is this a real transcript, or some kind of spoof?

No, I really said everything I wrote thin this thread.

Quote[The captain of the flight makes no attempt to physically take control of the airplane... But instead, he takes a seat behind the other two pilots.

You have to admire the captain's dedication to the career development of the younger pilots.

And yet the copilots career went only downward from there.

Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2015, 11:21:08 PM
And yet the copilots career went only downward from there.

The pilot let them sink or swim on their own merits.

This job sounds creepy as hell

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/28/germanwings-4u9525-whats-it-like-to-listen-to-black-box-recording

Quote
Germanwings flight 4U9525: what's it like to listen to a black box recording?

After every air disaster, finding the black box recorder becomes the first priority – but for the crash investigators who have to listen to the tapes of people's final moments, the experience can be incredibly harrowing.


Archie Bland

Saturday 28 March 2015 08.00 GMT  Last modified on Saturday 28 March 2015 08.03 GMT 

For Tony Cable, the hardest job was in 1980: Dan-Air Flight 1008, which crashed into a mountain in Tenerife, killing all 146 people on board. Thirty-five years on, the air crash investigator still remembers listening to the black box recorder, hearing the increasingly desperate crew trying to figure out what was going wrong, flying in heavy cloud, and all the while knowing that the mountain was close by. "Who knows how the mind works?" he asks, wondering why it stuck more than any other. "I suppose it's because that one is still impossible, really, to understand."

Black box recorders aren't quite how we imagine. We think they're black, but they're orange. We think they're indestructible, but they're not. We think they hold all the answers, but all too often, they don't. Even so, when we consider the tragedy of air disasters such as the one that befell Germanwings flight 4U9525, black box recorders are still almost always our best hope of finding an explanation that makes sense.

In this case, it is only a very limited sort of sense. The black box recorder is actually two separate components: a flight data recorder, which stores technical information – some 2,500 different measurements on a modern device – and a cockpit voice recorder, which keeps a tape of every word the pilots say. They are stored in the back of the aircraft, which has the best chance of surviving a crash, and are wrapped in titanium or stainless steel. They can survive an hour of 1,100-degree Celsius fire, or a weight of 227kg.

But they can still be damaged, and they can still go wrong. "It's a big mistake to assume you're going to get readouts from either recorder," says Cable, who spent 32 years working for the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB). "They may not work, or they may not have the parameters you need. And they are very good at telling you what happened, but often not very good at telling you why."

And yet sometimes they are all we have – and so they are worth accessing. "You're trying to put a data jigsaw puzzle together," says Anne Evans, a 23-year veteran of the AAIB who spent a decade analysing both varieties of recording. "Sometimes the damage means you can't reach it the normal way. Just recovering it from damaged units is a skill – undressing it from the box."

In this case, even that is impossible: the flight data recorder is reportedly yet to be found. Investigators have therefore had to rely on the voice recording alone, taken from two microphones in the crew's headsets and one general microphone positioned on the instrument panel. As it turns out, the cause of the accident appears to have been so appallingly simple that the 30-minute recording it holds is more than enough: the sounds tell the whole story.

According to French prosecutor Brice Robin, "you can hear the commanding pilot ask for access to the cockpit several times. He identifies himself, but the co-pilot does not provide any answer." The knocking becomes more insistent, and louder. Increasingly anxious messages from air traffic control go unanswered. Alarms from the cabin are audible through the reinforced door, as are increasingly frantic efforts to break it down, and then the screams of the passengers outside. One other sound persists: the breath of Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot, steady and controlled until the end.

Even second-hand, it is a chilling account. And to think of listening to it is nearly unbearable. The last communication from a dead man is bound to be ghoulish, and all the more so when the message is silence. Disasters are always described as tragedies, but that falls short of the proper definition of tragedy, which requires that the catastrophe is pre-ordained; to listen to such a tape returns the word to its proper meaning, the awful conclusion written into it from the start, no matter how mundane things might initially seem. So what is it like for the people who hear such tapes for themselves?




The club of those who are allowed to do so is tiny. In Farnborough, at the AAIB's base, there's a soundproofed room with a magnetic seal – to prevent electronic eavesdropping – where investigators gather to listen. There are only three such rooms in Europe, and not many more people who understand what it's like to hear a plane's last moments. "There's a very large number who call themselves investigators," says Graham Braithwaite, professor of safety and accident investigation at Cranfield University (who, he points out, has never listened to such a tape himself). "There's a smaller number who I would say actually are investigators. Fifty working for the AAIB, and maybe a couple of hundred in total in this country. They try to restrict who hears something like that – unless you need to, you don't. It is a very tightly controlled thing. And you can be an experienced investigator with many years behind you, and you can be affected more by one than another."

Anne Evans remembers the Kegworth air disaster in 1989, when a British Midland flight crashed into the M1, killing 47 people. "They shut down the wrong engine," she says. "They're going through a series of checks, doing what they think are the correct actions, but it's not working. And when you compare it to the data, you can see exactly why." There's the same tragic irony in the recording of Air France 447 – which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009, killing all 228 aboard – where the error is, likewise, obvious to the investigators, but invisible to the crew. On that occasion, the co-pilot pulled back on the controls when he should have pushed forwards – information that the captain lacked because he had been asleep. "Give me the controls!" he cried, when he finally realised. "Give me the controls!" But it was too late.

David Gleave, a former chief investigator for Aviation Security Investigations, remembers listening to the cockpit recording from a plane that collided with another midair. "The first time I listened to it all the way through," he says, "I think I went into shock. I blanked it all out. And then you go through and say: OK. I know it's going to happen. You force yourself." He pauses. "It's a strange thing, though, to relive the last two minutes of someone else's life. If you can't forget about it, maybe it's not the job for you."

Most investigators seem to take a similarly hard-headed view – by necessity, of course. "You have colleagues to talk to," says Evans. "You can't become overwhelmed by the human tragedy. I don't think it ever gets easier, but you have to divorce yourself from it and concentrate on the technical challenge."

Once investigators do so, they can find vital clues in the tapes – even in the unconscious sounds emitted by the pilots. "You can listen for things like breathing rates," says David Gleave. "You can judge stress levels, whether there's been a heart attack. Maybe you turn up the pilot's mic, or maybe you try to detect stress in the voice of an individual. You listen and try to work out if, when they're silent, is it because they're getting on with it? Or is it because there's tension between them, and maybe that's going to lead to a misunderstanding?"

Sometimes, though, the greatest insights can be held in what might seem to the rest of us like background noise. Evans remembers a case in China in which the flight data recorder suggested that the flaps on the wings had moved when they shouldn't have, and she had to work out whether it was a pilot error (a lever pushed at the wrong moment) or a technical error (the flaps adjusting on their own). She listened to the tape again and again, isolating a sound that seemed like it could have been the lever in question. Then, she went to another identical aircraft, with an identical recording system. She switched the recorder on, she pulled the lever, and then she listened back. The problem, as it turned out, was the pilot's fault.

In such cases, the value of the tape, and the work that's done to understand it, becomes obvious. But sometimes, as on a flight such as 4U9525, there's a crucial gap that no amount of expertise can fill. Perhaps it's the pilot who never says a word. Or perhaps it's the one who sends one last message from beyond the grave, but cannot quite be understood. In 1982, Air Florida Flight 90 crashed in Washington DC, killing 74 of the 79 people aboard, and the question of what went wrong revolved partly around whether or not an anti-icing system was on or off. "They listened to it many, many times," says Braithwaite. "It's an exhausting process. And when they get to that item on the checklist, he doesn't say 'on', or 'off'. He says 'onf'." He pauses, and gives a helpless sigh. "Sometimes," he concludes, "it doesn't matter how many times you listen to it."

I've re-read that transcript like 20 times. I just cannot get over that something this...incompetent? is possible with a modern, presumably mature and professional airline. These guys are not chumps, right? And there are three of them.

In a little over ten minutes three men flew an airplane into the ocean while at any time any one of them should have been perfectly capable of correcting the problem. Indeed, had there only been one pilot, it is almost certain the disaster would never have occurred.

But even so, what happened was not something difficult to anticipate, or hard to understand. Twelve minutes is not a long time, but on the other hand in terms of emergencies, it is kind of an eternity.

It is simply baffling, and kind of scary. I don't even know how you train for something like this, although I am sure every pilot in the world has read this transcript and gone through steps to make sure it cannot possibly be repeated  - but I would bet that if you described this scenario to 100 pilots and trainers before it happened, they would categorically state that something like this simply could not happen....right?

They just released fresh new transcripts from the Polish presidential plane crash from 2010. Same thing there - incompetence plus people coming into the cockpit telling the pilots they "have to land" and that the "president is getting impatient". We should let robots pilot our planes.

How do they test these guys at pilot school? It's mostly simulations right? :unsure:

Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2015, 12:11:18 AM
I've re-read that transcript like 20 times. I just cannot get over that something this...incompetent? is possible with a modern, presumably mature and professional airline. These guys are not chumps, right? And there are three of them.

In a little over ten minutes three men flew an airplane into the ocean while at any time any one of them should have been perfectly capable of correcting the problem. Indeed, had there only been one pilot, it is almost certain the disaster would never have occurred.

But even so, what happened was not something difficult to anticipate, or hard to understand. Twelve minutes is not a long time, but on the other hand in terms of emergencies, it is kind of an eternity.

It is simply baffling, and kind of scary. I don't even know how you train for something like this, although I am sure every pilot in the world has read this transcript and gone through steps to make sure it cannot possibly be repeated  - but I would bet that if you described this scenario to 100 pilots and trainers before it happened, they would categorically state that something like this simply could not happen....right?

Yes.  i cannot understand why the captain was so passive.  The aircraft is in an emergency, and he doesn't take the controls?  What kind of a captain is so passive with the lives of hundreds, including himself, on the line?  I can only think that he didn't understand that they were actually in trouble.  How he could ignore the fact that Bonin had completely lost control of the situation - was, in fact, hauling back on the stick in order to stall the plane - is a mystery.  I simply cannot imagine a pilot with his experience allowing a rookie to kill him, without making any attempt to save his own life.

Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2015, 06:27:04 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2015, 12:11:18 AM
I've re-read that transcript like 20 times. I just cannot get over that something this...incompetent? is possible with a modern, presumably mature and professional airline. These guys are not chumps, right? And there are three of them.

In a little over ten minutes three men flew an airplane into the ocean while at any time any one of them should have been perfectly capable of correcting the problem. Indeed, had there only been one pilot, it is almost certain the disaster would never have occurred.

But even so, what happened was not something difficult to anticipate, or hard to understand. Twelve minutes is not a long time, but on the other hand in terms of emergencies, it is kind of an eternity.

It is simply baffling, and kind of scary. I don't even know how you train for something like this, although I am sure every pilot in the world has read this transcript and gone through steps to make sure it cannot possibly be repeated  - but I would bet that if you described this scenario to 100 pilots and trainers before it happened, they would categorically state that something like this simply could not happen....right?

Yes.  i cannot understand why the captain was so passive.  The aircraft is in an emergency, and he doesn't take the controls?  What kind of a captain is so passive with the lives of hundreds, including himself, on the line?  I can only think that he didn't understand that they were actually in trouble.  How he could ignore the fact that Bonin had completely lost control of the situation - was, in fact, hauling back on the stick in order to stall the plane - is a mystery.  I simply cannot imagine a pilot with his experience allowing a rookie to kill him, without making any attempt to save his own life.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredcarpetshelley.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fdenzel-flight.jpg&hash=3b05a1b1f4d925912eeb24ee3b76c1ec9cda1eb0)

??

Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2015, 06:27:04 AM

Yes.  i cannot understand why the captain was so passive.  The aircraft is in an emergency, and he doesn't take the controls?  What kind of a captain is so passive with the lives of hundreds, including himself, on the line?  I can only think that he didn't understand that they were actually in trouble.  How he could ignore the fact that Bonin had completely lost control of the situation - was, in fact, hauling back on the stick in order to stall the plane - is a mystery.  I simply cannot imagine a pilot with his experience allowing a rookie to kill him, without making any attempt to save his own life.

It is the aviation equivalent of the butt fumble, coincidentally performed by a team named the "Jets". Perhaps the butt fumble was their homage to flight 447?

Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2015, 06:05:36 PM
@ Berk... Jesus Christ, I know better than that co-pilot how to handle a commercial jet in that situation and I'm just a flightsim enthusiast.  Makes you almost wonder if he's another kamikaze pilot who just was more clever at covering up his intentions. :wacko:

Yeah, they were in a stall.  Even I know that in a stall, you have to gain airspeed to recover, and you DON'T pull back on the stick to gain airspeed. 

Now, granted, the airspeed indicator wasn't working, but still, they had the stall warning going off.  And you can't really even put it down to panic in a crisis, because they didn't seem to have realized until the last moments that they were in a crisis, as shown by how the captain didn't take the control right away when he got back to the cockpit.

The airspeed indicator wasn't working initially, but for the last several minutes of the crisis, the instrumentation was actually working perfectly fine. Granted, the actions of the pilots had put the aircraft into a state where it was difficult to properly interpret that instrumentation, but knowing how your instruments respond to various flight configurations is part of training as well.

Hell, even the "malfunction" of the airspeed indicators initially wasn't really a malfunction per se, but rather a known possible result of icing conditions.

Nothing happened on that plane that was anything that the pilots should not have been prepared for, there was no unexpected malfunction or unusual weather (there was extreme weather, but even that is not really unanticipated) or anything!

The last words in that last minute are just very sad, as the more senior co-pilot and captain realize what Bonin had been doing, and you can imagine it just sinking in with them that he had killed them...

Quote
02:13:40 (Robert)   Climb... climb... climb... climb...
02:13:40 (Bonin) But I've had the stick back the whole time!    [At last, Bonin tells the others the crucial fact whose import he has so grievously failed to understand himself.]
02:13:42 (Captain)   No, no, no... Don't climb... no, no.
02:13:43 (Robert) Descend, then... Give me the controls... Give me the controls! [Bonin yields the controls, and Robert finally puts the nose down.]
02:14:23 (Robert)   Damn it, we're going to crash... This can't be happening!
02:14:25 (Bonin)   But what's happening?
02:14:27 (Captain)   Ten degrees of pitch...

Bonin sounds like someone who has no idea how an airplane works. I hate to hate on the guy, but seriously...how can you not know this?

Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2015, 10:38:49 AM
Bonin sounds like someone who has no idea how an airplane works. I hate to hate on the guy, but seriously...how can you not know this?

Exactly.. but how can the captain, seeing that Bonin is yanking back on the stick when in a stall, allow him to kill the captain himself and all the passengers?  It would have taken superhuman self-control for the captain to resist the temptation to save everyone's lives by kicking Bonin out of the left seat.

It seems to me that the captain, despite his experience, was someone grossly unfit for a leadership position... at least on that particular night, anyway.

Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2015, 11:24:11 AM
It seems to me that the captain, despite his experience, was someone grossly unfit for a leadership position... at least on that particular night, anyway.

Well, everyone can have an off night, but if it happens at the wrong time, it can be a real career killer.

Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2015, 11:10:58 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2015, 10:38:49 AM
Bonin sounds like someone who has no idea how an airplane works. I hate to hate on the guy, but seriously...how can you not know this?

Exactly.. but how can the captain, seeing that Bonin is yanking back on the stick when in a stall, allow him to kill the captain himself and all the passengers?  It would have taken superhuman self-control for the captain to resist the temptation to save everyone's lives by kicking Bonin out of the left seat.

The Airbus uses side sticks, so it is almost certain that is actually wasn't obvious to either of the other pilots that Bonin was pulling back on the stick the entire time.


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airbus.com%2Ftypo3temp%2Fpics%2Fabe30e4ca2.jpg&hash=b8bf0457562ed38fdabee6aba4e38097740ef2f7)

Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2015, 10:38:49 AM

Quote
02:14:23 (Robert)   Damn it, we're going to crash... This can't be happening!
02:14:25 (Bonin)   But what's happening?
02:14:27 (Captain)   Ten degrees of pitch...

You have to admire the Captain's cool and collected attitude.  In his place I probably wouldn't be collected enough to describe how exactly the co-pilot were killing us all two seconds before my death.

Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2015, 11:50:18 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2015, 10:38:49 AM

Quote
02:14:23 (Robert)   Damn it, we're going to crash... This can't be happening!
02:14:25 (Bonin)   But what's happening?
02:14:27 (Captain)   Ten degrees of pitch...

You have to admire the Captain's cool and collected attitude.  In his place I probably wouldn't be collected enough to describe how exactly the co-pilot were killing us all two seconds before my death.

You (and many of the rest of us) might have been tempted to make sure the co-pilot died before the crash.

I don't know why, but I have become kind of fascinated by this disaster.

There is a good write up, a bit more technical, here - this goes into more detail about the training gaps and actualy reasons why the pilots made so many errors:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090601-0

QuoteThe aeroplane went into a sustained stall, signalled by the stall warning and strong buffet. Despite these persistent symptoms, the crew never understood that they were stalling and consequently never applied a recovery manoeuvre. The combination of the ergonomics of the warning design, the conditions in which airline pilots are trained and exposed to stalls during their professional training and the process of recurrent training does not generate the expected behaviour in any acceptable reliable way.
In its current form, recognizing the stall warning, even associated with buffet, supposes that the crew accords a minimum level of 'legitimacy' to it. This then supposes sufficient previous experience of stalls, a minimum of cognitive availability and understanding of the situation, knowledge of the aeroplane (and its protection modes) and its flight physics. An examination of the current training for airline pilots does not, in general, provide convincing indications of the building and maintenance of the associated skills.

My ten year old daughter learned about stalling her remote control airplane the first day she flew it.


Yes, the plane survived, I know you were worried about it. LOL

I think what they are saying is that there was a context problem - the issue was not that the pilots did not know what to do when the aircraft stalled, it is that they didn't recognize that it was stalling to begin with, and never did until it was too late.

The basic training problem being that all the context of training around stalls is about them happening during takeoff, landing, maneuvering of some kind. The idea of a stall happening in what they saw as cruising flight just never really occurred to them, even though it seems kind of obvious.

So this "first cause" one would expect was psychologically dismissed as an explanation for what was happening, because it didn't fit into their training and experience - stalls don't happen in cruising flight, so there must be something else going on, and they are trying to figure out what when the real problem is blindingly obvious...but has been dismissed.

It is like spending an hour trying to figure out why your TV won't work, and it turns out it was unplugged all along. It isn't that you don't know it needs to be plugged in, it is that you mentally think you already checked that, and you know it isn't the problem, so you don't even return to it. It takes someone else to "start over" the diagnostic process to go back to basic checks. Which is why the captain really was deficient as well. Had he simply said to the junior pilot "Get up, let me take over" the problem would have fixed itself almost immediately. Hell, the captain probably would not even had had to sit down! The moment Bonin took his hand off the control, the co-pilot would have likely been able to correct.

Combined with the multiple inputs from the two pilots who it never really clicked that the other was doing things that were counter-acting themselves, and the framework for the crisis is just mentally all fucked up, so they never responded properly to what was, in fact, a very simple problem - maybe the most simple of problems that every most junior of pilots learns about on their first day of training.

When Mart is in a stall he taps his foot.

Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2015, 12:33:33 AM
They just released fresh new transcripts from the Polish presidential plane crash from 2010. Same thing there - incompetence plus people coming into the cockpit telling the pilots they "have to land" and that the "president is getting impatient". We should let robots pilot our planes.

Come over to the Singularity side, brother.
The future is bright.

I used to practice stalls when I took pilot's lessons. It was mostly basic stuff in light airplanes and we did it from higher altitude to give room to recover. When a plane stalls need to put the nose down to regain airspeed, and/or give it throttle. Need to get the airflow back over/under the wings for lift. Pulling back on the stick/wheel to try and gain altitude makes it worse/disastrous, until airspeed/airflow is recovered. There's more to it of course, and stalling at low altitude such as landings and take offs don't give much room to regain altitude and airspeed, obviously. But what I did in a light plane and an airliner stalls are whole different things, though same basic concepts.

I guess what I don't understand about this cockpit clusterfuck was that, yes, the pilot would have had to look to see if the sitck is pulled back, but there is the BIG FUCKING ARTIFICIAL HORIZON hidden DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF EACH PILOT, and it would have been clearly showing that the plane was nose-up.  Now, a pilot with enough experience to be a captain... hell, one with enough experience to enter the cockpit as a visitor on the ground - knows that the reason a plane is nose-up is the someone is pulling back on the stick.  There are not a huge number of potential suspects here.

Bonin wasn't confused about a stall in cruising flight.  He was confused about what kept the plane in the air, and apparently thought that, so long as the nose wasn't pointed at the ground, the plane couldn't hit the ground.  And the captain let him believe that.

Yeah I'm sure Languish would have done a better job in that cockpit. :rolleyes:

"Define stick. Are we flying a small boat? Muslims are evil."

Difficult to do worse.

Well, if we were all stuffed into that cockpit, we probably wouldn't even see the controls.  ;)

"Hey grumbler - that stick by your left foot - please move it, we are stalling ..."

Yeah, you are right grumbler - at the end of the day, no matter what the instruments are telling you, or what you think might be happening...why in gods name is your answer to just pull back on the stick and continue to pull back on the stick for 6 minutes? I can't think of ANY possible circumstance where that is the right answer. And if nothing else, if what you are doing isn't working, one would think that maybe STOP doing that might be worth a try.

I suspect that it is such a ridiculous thing to do that both the senior CP and the captain didn't even consider that he would be doing something that stupid until he actually said so...seconds before the plane hit the water.

After it is all said and done, it is hard to conclude much beyond Bonin just basically panicking and killing everyone, and the other two pilots simply not grocking that he could be doing so...

Quoteknows that the reason a plane is nose-up is the someone is pulling back on the stick.  There are not a huge number of potential suspects here.

Couple things about this part:

1. At some point the airspeed was so low that the AOA indicators where considered by the computer to be no longer valid, and shut down. But the manuals would still work, I would think, right?
2. There are some suspects - could be some kind of mechanical problem, for example, forcing the control surfaces into that configuration.

What, btw, is the difference between the angle of attack of the aircraft, and the pitch attitude? I would guess they are the same thing, but the article on the aviation site said at one point that the planes AOA was over 40 degrees, but the pitch attitude weas 16 degress?

Shoulda ordered Boneless instead of Bonin. :(

Berk, re: your question, I don't know exactly how to explain it but in a stall the aircraft is pitched to a different attitude than it is actually moving, meaning typically the aircraft is 'aiming' higher but actually moving lower.  It's not necessarily abnormal for there to be a differential between attitude and AOA... you've probably noticed on commercial flights that the plane usually descends while level since they throttle the engines back to lose altitude.  But there would always be a significant differential in a stall situation.

edit:  Also, Berk IIRC there isn't actually an AOA indicator on the instrument panel of the Airbus (though since then they might have changed that).

Hmmm, I don't think that is it - the example I was thinking of was them noting that the angle of attack was 40 degrees, but the pitch attitude was 16 degrees.

Meanwhile, the aircraft itself was falling out of the sky. Maybe the pitch attitude is the angle that it is falling down? IE the nose is pointed 40 degrees in the air, and the plane is falling on a path that is 16 degrees below horizontal? Might be I am confused because I assumed that them both being positive numbers implied they were both aiming "up" relative to the horitzonal, but perhaps that isn't true, and pitch attitude is measure relative to the the horizontal in a downward manner?

Time to google!

I figured AoA was the angle between pitch and velocity.

IIRC AOA is the angle that the plane is actually moving at.  Pitch attitude is the angle that the plane is 'aiming' to move at.  The latter can easily be measured by elevator position and inputs.  The former, not so because it depends on multiple factors all working in conjunction with one another.

I thought angle of attack was the wing angle, or at least it is in formula racing cars with upside down wings.  :hmm: Then again, that doesn't really help understand how it works on planes, cars are always more or less level on the ground.

I thought the angel of attack was fallen.

Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2015, 03:36:17 PM
Meanwhile, the aircraft itself was falling out of the sky. Maybe the pitch attitude is the angle that it is falling down? IE the nose is pointed 40 degrees in the air, and the plane is falling on a path that is 16 degrees below horizontal? Might be I am confused because I assumed that them both being positive numbers implied they were both aiming "up" relative to the horitzonal, but perhaps that isn't true, and pitch attitude is measure relative to the the horizontal in a downward manner?

Perhaps your source just said 40 degrees/16 degrees assuming it's implied which direction relative to the horizon the plane is moving by the situation?

This all makes me want to flightsim some more.  Haven't done it in a while. :)

Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2015, 03:50:03 PM
This all makes me want to flightsim some more.  Haven't done it in a while. :)

:nerd:

Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2015, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2015, 03:50:03 PM
This all makes me want to flightsim some more.  Haven't done it in a while. :)

:nerd:

And how are your miniatures coming along, The Brain?

Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2015, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2015, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2015, 03:50:03 PM
This all makes me want to flightsim some more.  Haven't done it in a while. :)

:nerd:

And how are your miniatures coming along, The Brain?

:pinch:

Gaming forum sanctity!  :mad:

Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2015, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2015, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2015, 03:50:03 PM
This all makes me want to flightsim some more.  Haven't done it in a while. :)

:nerd:

And how are your miniatures coming along, The Brain?

Work on the Nagato is progressing at a snail's pace. So there.

Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2015, 03:45:41 PM
I thought angle of attack was the wing angle, or at least it is in formula racing cars with upside down wings.  :hmm: Then again, that doesn't really help understand how it works on planes, cars are always more or less level on the ground.

The angle of attack is the difference between the angle of the wing and the airflow over that wing, while the pitch angle is the angle between the nose of the plane and the aritifial horizon.

So the AOA could vary greatly depending on how the aircraft is travelling through the air - some planes in fact could have a AOA of a few degrees even in level flight, because the wing is pitched itself.

So pitch attitude is probably more what we are thinking about when we imagine what angle the plane is actually flying at - which makes sense, since if it was at 40 degrees pitch from horizontal, that would be an *extreme* nose up, that stuff would be falling around the cabin and such.

Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2015, 02:39:18 PM
Are we flying a small boat?

Subsequent evidence indicates no.

Berk, ok, that makes sense.