| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:32 am Post subject: Air France Jet carrying 228 dissapears |
 |
|
'Lightning Strike' Fears For Missing Jet
1 hour 17 mins ago
SKY News
A packed Air France jet that disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean could have been struck by lightning.
Flight AF 447 had 228 people on board and was flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris when all contact was lost.
The aircraft sent a message at 2.14am GMT reporting an electrical short-circuit, "crossed through a thunderous zone with strong turbulence".
The plane would have run out of fuel by now, French minister Jean-Louis Borloo said.
"By now it would be beyond its kerosene reserves so unfortunately we must now envisage the most tragic scenario".
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090601/twl-lightning-strike-fears-for-missing-j-3fd0ae9.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I know that, statistically, it's safer to fly than to drive, but these kind of stories always give me the creeps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Modern jets, I read, are impervious to lightning. Must have been like a one in a milion zap.
Then, why the heck are those guys flying through a storm when cruising. Flying around storms is the usual attitude airliners take at cruise.
Must have been on a strict deadline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Rapture has begun! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beeyee
Joined: 29 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I know that, statistically, it's safer to fly than to drive, but these kind of stories always give me the creeps. |
The statistics used to calculate that are scewed though. It is based on hours travelled vs fatal accidents. Using the same method, if four rockets flew to Mars and back, but one crashed, flying a rocket would be the safest form of transport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I"m not a science nut, so I'm wondering, wouldn't the plane's cruising altitude be higher than thunderclouds? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Problem is, when a plane has trouble, you have absolutely no control. In a car accident, you usually do have some control of the situation. Like if you should run the red or not. Or checking the intersection before blowing by that green. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beeyee wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I know that, statistically, it's safer to fly than to drive, but these kind of stories always give me the creeps. |
The statistics used to calculate that are scewed though. It is based on hours travelled vs fatal accidents. Using the same method, if four rockets flew to Mars and back, but one crashed, flying a rocket would be the safest form of transport. |
Well, let's use different criteria then.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whats to worry about? I'm sure all the really handsome or interesting people necessary to generate drama all survived and now find themselves on a lush tropical island.
I'm just saying what you were all thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xCustomx
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| I"m not a science nut, so I'm wondering, wouldn't the plane's cruising altitude be higher than thunderclouds? |
The storms in that region can reach 50,000 ft. so they may have been impossible to avoid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^Been flying over the peninsula here skimming the clouds at 42000 feet in a 737-400. That was pretty much the aircraft's ceiling. It was yuck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soviet_man
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ^Been flying over the peninsula here skimming the clouds at 42000 feet in a 737-400. That was pretty much the aircraft's ceiling. It was yuck. |
Interesting. As 737-400's maximum crusing altitude is supposed to be 37,000 feet. So are you saying "Korean logic" kicked in and they took it up to a further 5,000 feet* ? 
*I wouldn't be surprised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's quite true. We could all see the screen in front with the figures on it. More than that you could feel it. After the same flight I listened to some KLM pilots as I was walking behind them discuss how it was the oddest high atltitude stuff they've been thru. Like it was some sort of odd phenomena. Thick soup to FL420.
IT was hella bumpy in the cloud and you could feel the acsent markedly as they took the plane up more, then wait, then another lurch up. And ended up skimmed thru the wifts of the tops at 420 for about 15 mins.
As for the safety point of the ceiling FL370 sounds about right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
