This story fits creepily well into some of the kooky but strangely resonant theories about 2012 I have read; in particular, the notion that in these last couple years there will be a series of developments involving high-profile "disappearances" that will accelerate panic and awe on the planet, and send world religions into deep philosophical crises. This stuff is "supposed to" begin this summer.
One time at a bed and breakfast the girl I was with lost a diamond earring...not a very big one. While searching through the carpet I found another diamond earring, a bigger one. So these things can happen. She kept the earring and we broke up shortly thereafter.
This is the exact kind of reporting that aviation geeks (of which I might be one) hate.
"Here's one thing that happened. Here's another thing that happened. And another that might have happened, we're not sure. COINCIDENCE??!!?!"
That's what this entire post seems to boil down to.
First, there's absolutely nothing related in any of these things that supposedly happened. Second, the first ended up being a non-event (people call in bomb threats all the time that end up being unfounded). The third was probably a pilot in need of corrective lenses (or a good night's sleep) seeing things. But regardless, it has nothing to do with an airplane trying to fly through a violent tropical thunderstorm and crashing.
Also, I mean, this is tragic and everything, but literally every time a plane crashes, some newspaper asks "how could an airliner literally drop out of the sky??" You guys are media critics, you should know this. It is the standard aviation-related story you run after any plane crash, because the media doesn't know any better and has no clue about aviation issues but they know they need to run something given the magnitude of the story, and the "why does a plane that's supposed to fly suddenly not fly?" article is all they can ever come up with to fill the blank spaces created by the lack of any real hard info on the cause of the crash (which takes months or years to come out).
Well, if American Airlines is to be believed, bomb threats in Latin America aren't unusual. I remember this tidbit causing quite an uproar in the region at the time (and rightfully so):
It strikes me as a touch journalistically irresponsible to tie together speculative events admittedly at random ("And in a kind of related story") and close with an ominous third-person "We're just glad we're not planning on flying anytime soon right about now."
Certainly doesn't do anything to quell the unfounded conspiracy theories designed to needlessly frighten people.
It seems to me that if this were anything other than an accident, the saboteurs would have claimed responsibility while the search for debris was going on. Also, terror is a lot more effective if there are a lot of witnesses. You don't plan to have a bomb go down in the ocean where most of the debris and evidence would be washed away. It makes almost no sense from the terrorism standpoint to blow up a plane over an ocean and then also not claim responsibility. So I would wager that terrorism is off the table.
@ChillbearLatrigue: That's a good point, one I hadn't thought of actually. If this were terrorism, someone would probably be crowing about it. I just hope the salvage teams can find the black boxes, and ABC is saying this morn that they will be hard-pressed to do so, and put it all to rest, otherwise conspiracy theories will be around forever.
this whole tragedy reminds me of TWA flight 800, which crashed off of long island in 1996. The plane just went down because of some explosion or something.
@AmandaMugen: It was near-empty fuel tanks that had been sitting on a runway in extreme heat for a couple of hours, which vaporized most of the jet fuel in them, basically turning them into massive fuel-air bombs. A small electrical short in the AC wiring lit the fuse and that was it.
@Almostbanned: I've heard about the fuse but in connection with a leak in the fuel lines. Otherwise, why would a 747 take off for a transatlantic flight with near-empty fuel tanks. Explain, please.
@Mediahohoho: Its called weight. Why carry the fuel when you don't need to ?
A 747 is designed to fly very long distances. I believe the longest non-stop in the world is the New York to Singapore run of approx 10k miles.
That's alot of fuel.
Now if a 747 is flying New York to London (approx 3400 miles) it need much less fuel to fly there.
Remember; fuel = weight = more fuel consumption.
Typically, Airliners fly from point A to B with a 1/3 fuel reserve in case of unforeseen delays; headwinds, etc. So if A 747 which can carry 50,000-60,000 gallons of fuel only needs 20,000 gallons (including reserve) to reach from New York to London the plane will fly with empty tanks. The center tanks are the only which are the empty ones so the plane can be properly balanced.
Up until TWA 800 civilian aircraft tanks were filled with plain ole' air when empty unlike Military Aircraft which replace empty tanks with Nitrogen so the tanks no go boom when hit by enemy fire. After TWA 800, Civilian airliners are required to retrofit all aircraft with a inert gas system if the aricraft's tanks are flying empty. This is to be installed on all aircraft by 2010 I believe.
It's possible that the plane's autopilot or automatic systems could have been involved. There were twoseparate incidents of A330 failures in Australia (one plunging several hundred feet in turbulence, one with a malfunctioning autopilot. I've heard the A330s criticized as being "too automatic" -- instigating procedures that the pilot would not. It's sadly possible that there was some combination of factors involved here.
I fly to Asia very frequently, and have actually flown through "walls of storms" -- and it's terrifying, but modern planes are supposed to be able to withstand them. I hope whatever caused the accident is discovered and rectified as quickly as possible. It still makes me nervous about my next long transpacific flight (especially during Typhoon season).
@bboston88 (star please?): whatever happened was definitely a one in a million event. The A330's are highly reliable; the last time a fatal accident occurred in one was in 1994.
@bboston88 (star please?): As soon as I saw the first Airbus 330 I said to myself that I would NEVER go on that thing. It's weird but I feel safer in smaller planes, something about having over 200 people in a metal structure that scares me. Especially if it's boarded by a majority of overweight Americans.
@Cheap Shot: I think you might be thinking of the big giant A380. This one is a smaller plane designed for low-demand long hauls (like Rio to Paris). It's not a monster plane like the 380.
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
Jesus, I'm stoned.
06/05/09
06/05/09
I think most serious Mayanologists don't place much stock in the 2012 thing.
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
Screw Lost - this is beginning to look like Sphere.
06/03/09
"Here's one thing that happened. Here's another thing that happened. And another that might have happened, we're not sure. COINCIDENCE??!!?!"
That's what this entire post seems to boil down to.
First, there's absolutely nothing related in any of these things that supposedly happened. Second, the first ended up being a non-event (people call in bomb threats all the time that end up being unfounded). The third was probably a pilot in need of corrective lenses (or a good night's sleep) seeing things. But regardless, it has nothing to do with an airplane trying to fly through a violent tropical thunderstorm and crashing.
Also, I mean, this is tragic and everything, but literally every time a plane crashes, some newspaper asks "how could an airliner literally drop out of the sky??" You guys are media critics, you should know this. It is the standard aviation-related story you run after any plane crash, because the media doesn't know any better and has no clue about aviation issues but they know they need to run something given the magnitude of the story, and the "why does a plane that's supposed to fly suddenly not fly?" article is all they can ever come up with to fill the blank spaces created by the lack of any real hard info on the cause of the crash (which takes months or years to come out).
06/03/09
[books.google.com]
06/03/09
Certainly doesn't do anything to quell the unfounded conspiracy theories designed to needlessly frighten people.
06/03/09
06/03/09
06/03/09
I'm sorry for the families of the occupants.
06/03/09
06/03/09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800
06/03/09
06/03/09
06/03/09
A 747 is designed to fly very long distances. I believe the longest non-stop in the world is the New York to Singapore run of approx 10k miles.
That's alot of fuel.
Now if a 747 is flying New York to London (approx 3400 miles) it need much less fuel to fly there.
Remember; fuel = weight = more fuel consumption.
Typically, Airliners fly from point A to B with a 1/3 fuel reserve in case of unforeseen delays; headwinds, etc. So if A 747 which can carry 50,000-60,000 gallons of fuel only needs 20,000 gallons (including reserve) to reach from New York to London the plane will fly with empty tanks. The center tanks are the only which are the empty ones so the plane can be properly balanced.
Up until TWA 800 civilian aircraft tanks were filled with plain ole' air when empty unlike Military Aircraft which replace empty tanks with Nitrogen so the tanks no go boom when hit by enemy fire. After TWA 800, Civilian airliners are required to retrofit all aircraft with a inert gas system if the aricraft's tanks are flying empty. This is to be installed on all aircraft by 2010 I believe.
This is your Gawker aircraft factoid of the day.
06/03/09
06/02/09
I had a date end that way once.
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/02/09
I fly to Asia very frequently, and have actually flown through "walls of storms" -- and it's terrifying, but modern planes are supposed to be able to withstand them. I hope whatever caused the accident is discovered and rectified as quickly as possible. It still makes me nervous about my next long transpacific flight (especially during Typhoon season).
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/02/09
Love,
Nerdlinger Jones
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/02/09