Jump to content


* * * * - 6 votes

Air France plane 'dropped off radar'


  • Please log in to reply
666 replies to this topic

#661 Guest_βцziεł-411_*

Guest_βцziεł-411_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 July 2009 - 09:29 PM

View PostIndependence76, on Jul 21 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

View Postdolbinau, on Jul 21 2009, 09:04 PM, said:

View PostIndependence76, on Jul 22 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

View Postmindst0rm, on Jul 21 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

I wonder how they reached the conlusion that just because they didn't drown, that that means they died before they hit the water. When a massive airliner slams into the ground traveling from 200 to 300 mile per hour the force of the impact alone would kill you. I remember reading that investigators of JAL123 said that G forces would have peaked 23 G's which is fatal.

But remember, JAL123 had its wing hit part of a mountain, which dramatically slowed it down, and then slamming into land, killing 520 of the 524 on board.

On AF447, you're hitting water with nothing stopping you.

What do you mean "with nothing stopping you", the Gs hitting water, while probably not as significant as hitting ground, could still be massive.

There was nothing for the aircraft to hit to reduce speed significantly. It wasn't over mountainous terrain or land.

I'm sure an A330 slamming into an ocean wouldn't reduce it's speed significantly.

#662 THBatMan8

THBatMan8

    Cruising at FL110

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,562 posts

Posted 31 July 2009 - 01:13 AM

I think what Indy is referring to is the lack of objects that could 'assist' in slowing down an aircraft. But even that doesn't necessarily help as if a wing gets clipped off the fuselage, the flight crew loses roll control of the aircraft asymmetrically.

#663 Independence76

Independence76

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,559 posts
  • Location:KDFW

Posted 31 July 2009 - 02:38 AM

View Postdolbinau, on Jul 30 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

In terms of reducing speed, reducing speed in a short amount of time is what causes deaths (hence the invention of airbags, crumple zones on cars etc..), so I don't really follow what you mean about 'there was nothing for the aircraft to hit to reduce speed significantly' - the water did this.

I was referring to JAL123, which had it's wing clip the side of a mountain before the plane finally crashed. It would have reduced airspeed in a sense before the entire fuselage went flying into the mountain. 4 of the 524 people on board survived.

#664 THBatMan8

THBatMan8

    Cruising at FL110

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,562 posts

Posted 31 July 2009 - 03:10 AM

View PostIndependence76, on Jul 31 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

View Postdolbinau, on Jul 30 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

In terms of reducing speed, reducing speed in a short amount of time is what causes deaths (hence the invention of airbags, crumple zones on cars etc..), so I don't really follow what you mean about 'there was nothing for the aircraft to hit to reduce speed significantly' - the water did this.

I was referring to JAL123, which had it's wing clip the side of a mountain before the plane finally crashed. It would have reduced airspeed in a sense before the entire fuselage went flying into the mountain. 4 of the 524 people on board survived.

It's not going to reduce airspeed by that much if at all. It might absorb some of the impact but the fuselage is going to regain momentum as it breaks free of the obstacle if there are no other opposing forces slowing it down.

Edited by Da Bat Man, 31 July 2009 - 03:14 AM.


#665 Independence76

Independence76

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,559 posts
  • Location:KDFW

Posted 01 August 2009 - 03:42 AM

View PostDa Bat Man, on Jul 31 2009, 03:10 AM, said:

It's not going to reduce airspeed by that much if at all. It might absorb some of the impact but the fuselage is going to regain momentum as it breaks free of the obstacle if there are no other opposing forces slowing it down.

Maybe not significantly, but if that mountain wasn't there, there probably could have not been any survivors. It would have kept the same exact airspeed before crashing into the side of the other mountain.

#666 THBatMan8

THBatMan8

    Cruising at FL110

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,562 posts

Posted 02 August 2009 - 01:17 AM

View PostIndependence76, on Aug 1 2009, 04:42 AM, said:

View PostDa Bat Man, on Jul 31 2009, 03:10 AM, said:

It's not going to reduce airspeed by that much if at all. It might absorb some of the impact but the fuselage is going to regain momentum as it breaks free of the obstacle if there are no other opposing forces slowing it down.

Maybe not significantly, but if that mountain wasn't there, there probably could have not been any survivors. It would have kept the same exact airspeed before crashing into the side of the other mountain.

I don't know much about that crash, but G-Forces upon initial impact is what delivers the crucial blow. Speed doesn't matter much (remembering the Continental Dash-8 crash in New York when the plane was on final). People have survived a plane crash in the ocean before. Also, how the plane crashed and where the survivors were seated plays another role.


I don't see the point in trying to compare this incident with others. Every airline catastrophe has it's own unique characteristics and no two incidents are exactly the same. It's not just one failure or fault that brings the aircraft down but usually a multitude of faults that goes beyond the capability of the flight crew to handle.

#667 avalon

avalon

    Commercial Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,465 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 02 August 2009 - 01:28 AM

Part of the reason that they know this plane hit the surface of the ocean in tact (or mostly so) is that the bodies themselves are far more mutilated and fragmented.  This is typical of impacts where the plane is still in tact.

Crashes where the plane breaks up in flight (like the TWA flt 800 disaster) yield bodies that are more in tact, with mostly broken bones and such.

I feel doubly sorry for these people because I have read that these people probably experienced a very terrifying final moments - it didn't happen in a way that ended suddenly.