Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-26-2014, 08:55 PM
 
Location: NW AR
2,438 posts, read 2,811,518 times
Reputation: 2285

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
The debri field is optional. There is actually no reason one is required. If the plane hits at 400 knots there will be a debri field. If the plane hits at 180 knots maybe not. If the plane hit relative flat it might welll float intact for a while. And if everyone or many on board were alive they would get the hell out of there onto wings and lifeboats and such. But if everyone is dead or mostly unconscious? It sinks slowly into the sea without giving up much if anything.

So no the debri field is not required by the physics involved .
It almost sounds like it was hit by a drone. A drone goes 450 knots. That would also explain why the pilot turned around to avoid it. (another theory)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2014, 09:06 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,211 posts, read 107,931,771 times
Reputation: 116159
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
The debri field is optional. There is actually no reason one is required. If the plane hits at 400 knots there will be a debri field. If the plane hits at 180 knots maybe not. If the plane hit relative flat it might welll float intact for a while. And if everyone or many on board were alive they would get the hell out of there onto wings and lifeboats and such. But if everyone is dead or mostly unconscious? It sinks slowly into the sea without giving up much if anything.

So no the debri field is not required by the physics involved .
It's almost impossible to land flat on water, ESPECIALLY on a choppy ocean with swells, without a lot of training. Sullenberger had a lot of training in water landings. That's very rare, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 09:08 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,211 posts, read 107,931,771 times
Reputation: 116159
Quote:
Originally Posted by glass_of_merlot View Post
They, the families are still holding on to hope. Think if it was your family on that plane and you were told they are dead, crashed in the ocean, but nobody could provide you with a single piece of evidence, just assumptions. I understand them and how they feel. Find the damn plane and closure can begin.
This requires no explanation. I just thought it was pathetic that all Malaysia had to offer the families was an update about a 'ping'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
3,135 posts, read 11,894,623 times
Reputation: 2494
AF 447 hit the water flat, going pretty damn fast:



Debris items found were pancaked, so they knew it hit the water flat, most likely due to a high altitude stall, even before they recovered the black boxes.

Last edited by PokerMunkee; 03-26-2014 at 09:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Haiku
7,132 posts, read 4,769,652 times
Reputation: 10327
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreenflute334 View Post
It almost sounds like it was hit by a drone. A drone goes 450 knots. That would also explain why the pilot turned around to avoid it. (another theory)
I thought I had heard every possible theory out there but this is a new one on me. So you are thinking an errant US drone collided with 370?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 10:58 PM
 
Location: NW AR
2,438 posts, read 2,811,518 times
Reputation: 2285
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
I thought I had heard every possible theory out there but this is a new one on me. So you are thinking an errant US drone collided with 370?
It's possible. China released smog drones to spy on polluting industries.

China deploys drones to spy on polluting industries | Environment | theguardian.com

China tests anti-smog drone aircraft | Reuters

I have no idea if the theory fits a US drone, or a China drone, or whoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:06 PM
 
12,981 posts, read 14,535,447 times
Reputation: 19739
But it continued to fly for several hours after it turned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:07 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,211 posts, read 107,931,771 times
Reputation: 116159
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
I thought I had heard every possible theory out there but this is a new one on me. So you are thinking an errant US drone collided with 370?
There wouldn't be one in the China Sea vicinity. There could only be one off the Arabian Peninsula or maybe around the northern Indian Ocean, though even that would be a huge stretch. That's nowhere near where any US drone activity would be. There's no reason for a China drone to be off the coast of Vietnam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:26 PM
 
542 posts, read 692,204 times
Reputation: 756
This is awful, but this crossed my mind while I was thinking of this mystery today. You know how we have the saying "wrong turn at Albuquerque?" Well, now the saying might change to: "Wrong turn at the Andaman Sea." [/bad attempt at morbid levity]

Serious: are they planning on getting an aircraft carrier into the search area? So they can have helicopters out searching and not be limited by the amount of time it takes to get back to Perth? (I heard that the planes take 4 hours each way, and then can only search for a couple hours because of fuel. To do that day in and day out is pretty amazing of those search crews).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,461,151 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
That is just ridiculous that the entire flight is not recorded. That needs to change.
I agree. Some of these regulations were made when memory wasn't cheap and to store some 15 hour flight would have required banks of computers. A lot of the regulating agencies try not to hamstring carriers too badly because certain regulations would be absolutely cost prohibitive. In this day and age, though, a 32 GB thumb drive could store days worth of CVR information, including video and other data. I completely agree with you though. It is a bit inexcusable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top