Air France jet vanishes from radar

[GGTharos]

... when presented in a textbook ;)

 

A Faraday cage is a completley closed system.;)

[Vault]

... when presented in a textbook ;)

 

Like I said before you can take a horse to the water... ;)

[bumfire]

Like I said before you can take a horse to the water... ;)

 

 

then you can drown the F****r

[sniffer]

New info - debris is not from AF447

 

 

More: Debris 'not from Air France jet'

[X-man]

1 is normal. The airplane didn't crash the pilot was able to land.

2 I don't have Adobe installed so I cant read it.

3 Is the only airliner to of crashed from ESD. See my previous post above.

True, but non of those planes were at FL350. A decompression at those alt would have been much, much worse.

 

It seems you're just arguing from a theoretical point of view while in fact there are quite a few incidents where lightning did cause damage to the aircraft. Now most of those incidents have been at lower altitudes, so a serious decompression hasn't really been a problem, but it proves that airliners are not, and to quote you, "bombproof" when it come to lightning. 99.9999% the aircraft that are hit by lightning makes it home in one way or another, but it doesn't mean a serious accident cant happen due to lightnings.

 

I suggest you stop looking in textbooks and read about real life ;) It's usually less predictable

Edited June 5, 2009 by X-man

[Vault]

True, but non of those planes were at FL350. A decompression at those alt would have been much, much worse.

 

It seems you're just arguing from a theoretical point of view while in fact there are quite a few incidents where lightning did cause damage to the aircraft. Now most of those incidents have been at lower altitudes, so a serious decompression hasn't really been a problem, but it proves that airliners are not, and to quote you, "bombproof" when it come to lightning. 99.9999% the aircraft that are hit by lightning makes it home in one way or another, but it doesn't mean a serious accident cant happen due to lightnings.

 

I suggest you stop looking in textbooks and read about real life ;) It's usually less predictable

 

No plane has crashed from an ESD strike since 1963, these statistics speak for themselves, planes are not dropping out of the skies from any type of ESD,where's all these crashed planes from positive lightning considering there airline killers? there are none, Its your judgement that's flawed. Not mine, where are the airlines that are decompressing at FL350 from positive lightning?,show me an airline that's crashed from positive lightning! good luck hunting because there are none...

 

Real life says positive lightning has never brought an airliner down... it's you coming to your own conclusions without one peice of evidence.

 

Here's my evidence http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=700213&postcount=93 and there all official NASA, FAA and cencus links, now if I'm so wrong prove me wrong.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Vault

[JaNk0]

This accident is becoming more and more interesting by the minute...

[-fox-]

This accident is becoming more and more interesting by the minute...

Yes, I can already see conspiracy buffs coming up with theories envolving space weapons and stuff like that - Golden Eye-style, you know.

[X-man]

No plane has crashed from an ESD strike since 1963, these statistics speak for themselves, planes are not dropping out of the skies from any type of ESD,where's all these crashed planes from positive lightning considering there airline killers? there are none, Its your judgement that's flawed. Not mine, where are the airlines that are decompressing at FL350 from positive lightning?,show me an airline that's crashed from positive lightning! good luck hunting because there are none...

 

Real life says positive lightning has never brought an airliner down... it's you coming to your own conclusions without one peice of evidence.

 

Here's my evidence http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=700213&postcount=93 and there all official NASA, FAA and cencus links, now if I'm so wrong prove me wrong.

When determining if something is possible or not, you cant base that on whether it has happened or not. Fact is, Lightning can cause structural damage and fire to an aircraft. There's nothing more to it. If a passenger jet is flying at FL350 and get's a hole in it's fuselage, then it's a very serious problem, and could potentially bring the plane down.

 

I dont think anyone here is saying that "Lightning will bring aircraft down all the time", but rather we're saying that it is possible in a worst case scenario, while you're arguing that it is completely ridiculous to say that. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is irrelevant.

[topol-m]

Several days they can`t find the missing plane... It probably crashed on the "Lost" island.

[Vault]

When determining if something is possible or not, you cant base that on whether it has happened or not. Fact is, Lightning can cause structural damage and fire to an aircraft. There's nothing more to it. If a passenger jet is flying at FL350 and get's a hole in it's fuselage, then it's a very serious problem, and could potentially bring the plane down.

 

I dont think anyone here is saying that "Lightning will bring aircraft down all the time", but rather we're saying that it is possible in a worst case scenario, while you're arguing that it is completely ridiculous to say that. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is irrelevant.

 

There's not a scrap of evidence to support what your claiming, it pure speculation on your behalf. The lack of any airliners that have crashed from positive lightning as well as the official NASA fact files backs the evidence I put before you earlier.

 

Say what you want but the fact remains positive lightning has not forced one airliner out of the skies.

[X-man]

There's not a scrap of evidence to support what your claiming, it pure speculation on your behalf. The lack of any airliners that have crashed from positive lightning as well as the official NASA fact files backs the evidence I put before you earlier.

 

Say what you want but the fact remains positive lightning has not forced one airliner out of the skies.

Well, if you'd care to read the links I gave earlier, you'd see my evidence. But I guess NTSB isnt a valid source?

Edited June 5, 2009 by X-man

[gigz-on]

Yeah... It remids me LOST too...

[Pilotasso]

When determining if something is possible or not, you cant base that on whether it has happened or not. Fact is, Lightning can cause structural damage and fire to an aircraft. There's nothing more to it. If a passenger jet is flying at FL350 and get's a hole in it's fuselage, then it's a very serious problem, and could potentially bring the plane down.

 

I dont think anyone here is saying that "Lightning will bring aircraft down all the time", but rather we're saying that it is possible in a worst case scenario, while you're arguing that it is completely ridiculous to say that. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is irrelevant.

 

There's not a scrap of evidence to support what your claiming, it pure speculation on your behalf. The lack of any airliners that have crashed from positive lightning as well as the official NASA fact files backs the evidence I put before you earlier.

 

Say what you want but the fact remains positive lightning has not forced one airliner out of the skies.

 

Positive electrical arc will only cause heat damage for prolonged periods of times, never during a lightning. This hapens because positive ions are much heavier and migrate much slower than electrons, so while they potentialy cause much more damage they also wont arrive at a target unless they have time to do so.

 

The main difference between a positive and negative lightning is going to be the direction of the electrons migration.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Vault]

Well, if you'd care to read the links I gave earlier, you'd see my evidence. But I guess NTSB isnt a valid source?

 

I've already read about the NTSB NYC99IA231 incident.

 

Examination of the airplane revealed that the interior framework of the fuselage was covered with insulation referred to as thermal blankets. The blankets were separated by the ribs of the fuselage. The insulation consisted of fiberglass, overlaid by a layer of metallized Mylar coating on each side. Examination of the insulation in the vicinity of the right side alternate static port heater revealed that the metallized Mylar covering over the fiberglass had burned away in a 5-foot by 5-foot area, with the edges of the Mylar charred. The damage consisted of sooting, and heat distress to the underside floor structure and a fiberglass potable water bottle. A nearby fiberglass cargo bin wall panel was also burned. In addition, in the cabin, soot damage was visible on the right cabin sidewall in the vicinity of passenger row 11.

 

The heating element for the primary and alternate static source heaters was controlled from a rotary cockpit switch, which could be activated on the ground or in the air. All heaters were activated together. The rotary function of the switch was used to measure current draw for each heater. A thermal sensor on each heater regulated the temperature of the heating elements within pre-determined limits. In addition, there was a thermal fuse for each heater, and a circuit breaker located in the cockpit, that had not tripped.

 

According to DAL personnel, the right side, alternate static port heater was still operational when the airplane was ferried to Atlanta for further maintenance.

 

According to the Safety Board Airworthiness Group Chairman's report, examination of the heater revealed the resistance of the insulation was 0.05 megaohms, instead of the specified 40 megaohms. Examination of the "A" wire revealed the thermofit wire tubing, which encased the solid-core copper wire was melted and eroded where the wire was bent around the thermostat housing, prior to reaching the thermal fuse. In addition, the insulation had also rubbed against the thermostat housing, and was melted in some areas. The internal wire was also eroded in the same area. Sooting was found on the thermostat case, and the potting compound adjacent to the case. Metal transfer had taken place between the solid-core wire, and the adjacent heater case.

 

DAL conducted a fleet wide examination of their MD-88/MD-90 fleet to ascertain the condition of their static port heaters. Eight heaters were found with evidence of thermal damage on their wires and or connectors.

 

As a result of this occurrence, and their fleet wide inspection, DAL removed all Mylar covered insulation blankets from around the primary and alternate static port heaters on their MD-88/MD-90 fleet.

 

The party representative from DAL reported that they did not track the serial numbers or time on the heating units. The date stamp on the right side alternate static port heater was prior to the airplane's delivery date to DAL. The part was not life limited. The airplane had accumulated 28,033 hours and 22,934 cycles since new, at the time of occurrence.

 

According to the party representative of Electrofilm, the position of the wire that had deteriorated insulation on the incident heater was as manufactured. He further reported that the manufacturing process had been changed, and the wire rerouted to reduce the bends induced by manufacturing.

 

This incident had no relation to any lightning strike, direct or indirect.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19854&ntsbno=NYC99IA231&akey=1

[Distiler]

A bomb?

[sniffer]

There is a chance about bomb but for now - they don't have any part from A330. Updated analysis on Aviation Herald shows picture like below so they probably need to move with searching.

 

Edited June 5, 2009 by sniffer
Attached picture gone :/

[X-man]

I've already read about the NTSB NYC99IA231 incident.

 

 

 

This incident had no relation to any lightning strike, direct or indirect.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19854&ntsbno=NYC99IA231&akey=1

Wrong incident. Check American 1683...

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2001/A01_83_87.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12829&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22275&key=1

http://avherald.com/h?article=416787dc&opt=0

Edited June 5, 2009 by X-man

[Vault]

Wrong incident. Check American 1683...

 

This is the NTSB link you posted http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2001/A01_83_87.pdf at the bottom of the page it states the incident number is correct.

 

Those links you posted are the type of behaviour for airliners struck by lightning, the planes landed safely and no one was harmed. Keep looking on the NTSB website you'll find thoudsands of incident reports of airliners being hit by lightning but you wont find any where it has caused the airline to crash.

[X-man]

This is the NTSB link you posted http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2001/A01_83_87.pdf at the bottom of the page it states the incident number is correct.

The document includes several incidents. Check AA1683.

 

Those links you posted are the type of behaviour for airliners struck by lightning, the planes landed safely and no one was harmed. Keep looking on the NTSB website you'll find thoudsands of incident reports of airliners being hit by lightning but you wont find any where it has caused the airline to crash.

I realize that none of them were crashes, but the fact remains, lightning can cause external damage to an aircraft.

 

Lightning strikes usually dont occur at high altitudes cause there's a better chance to avoid storms. At lower altitudes, decompression is not a problem, cause the pressure difference is not as high.

 

But as Ive just showed you, lightning can cause cause external (holes) damage to an aircraft. This kind of damage could be catastrophic at higher altitudes.

 

So if I understand you correctly, are you saying that an Airliner CANNOT, in any scenario, be downed due to lightning?

[JaNk0]

Yes, I can already see conspiracy buffs coming up with theories envolving space weapons and stuff like that - Golden Eye-style, you know.

 

I won't push it that far. But it sure is strange...

[mikoyan]

There's not a scrap of evidence to support what your claiming, it pure speculation on your behalf. The lack of any airliners that have crashed from positive lightning as well as the official NASA fact files backs the evidence I put before you earlier.

 

Say what you want but the fact remains positive lightning has not forced one airliner out of the skies.

 

What about this crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANSA_Flight_508

the airplane on this case was hit by lightning and the wing fuel-tank got damaged, after that the wing started to burn and finally it broke off disintegrating the whole airplane; but this is no the most shocking thing... actually there was a survivor!

[mikoyan]

here is a link of the same accident (on spanish) :

http://kurioso.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/la-tragedia-del-vuelo-508-sobreviviendo-al-amazonas/

[Vault]

The document includes several incidents. Check AA1683.

I realize that none of them were crashes, but the fact remains, lightning can cause external damage to an aircraft.

The fire was caused by the heat from ESD striking the crown skin which caused the Mylar backed fibreglass insualtion lining to ignite, which was easily extinguished by a fire extiguisher if Mylar hadn't been banned by the FAA after a bad accident in Novi Sad, Serbia, which was not related to ESD, we'd of seen many ESD related indirect accidents and I wouldn't be here advocating the saftey of Airliners and ESD, but Mylar backed insualtion was banned by the FAA and presents no futre risk to any airliner.

 

I never said that an ESD strike wouldn't cause damage, that is part of the design.

 

What about this crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANSA_Flight_508

the airplane on this case was hit by lightning and the wing fuel-tank got damaged, after that the wing started to burn and finally it broke off disintegrating the whole airplane; but this is no the most shocking thing... actually there was a survivor!

As I'd already stated I'm not advocating for any commercial aircraft that doesn't use static wicks as an ESD precaution.

[Mustang]

The conspiracies continue http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.2512885.0.0.php