The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

Flight # 447

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby jaydeehess » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:34 pm

Tairaa wrote:Yes it does Jaydees, and I appreciate you calling me an idiot! :)

Now if you'll consider simple vectoring, you'll note that the higher you go the less likely it is that you will be hit by lightning. :)

So much like I said, modern aircraft have systems designed to make lightning a non-issue.
The skin of the aircraft isn't connected to you by anything that conducts electricity, so you won't all get fried, and the electronic systems are supposed to be shielded these currents also.



The problems with a text only mode of communications.

I did state that the "idiocy' started a few posts into the entire thread whereas you post that I quoted is on page 9.

I also did not take you to task on the "less likely" only pointed out that it is indeed quite possible that the aircraft took a hit.

This is an area I'm not entirely educated in, but it is my understanding that typically lightning travels either up or down -I believe it's down- with greater frequency then the other. Either way, odds won't be 50/50


Ok so I looked it up quickly.
According to the "Encyclopedia of Physics" 2nd Edition pg 638
(1st paragraph)
{I own a copy}
"Most thunderstorm produced lightning occurs within the cloud(intracloud discharges). Cloud to ground lightning has been ......... studied more extensively than other forms of lightning......"
It goes on to say that lightning travels both up and down in the case of cloud to ground and that it is usually a negative charge leader that emanates from the cloud butr in 10% of discharges its a positive charged leader.

There however is no preference between travelling in an upward or dowward direction that I have read yet. Its a couple pages long and its Friday so I'm off to enjoy the weekend. Let me know if you find out differently

So I would actually call into question your assumption that more lightning occurs lower in the cloud.


that said, I do not believe that lightning alone is likely to bring this aircraft down much less cause the loss of cabin pressure which, IIRC, the telemetric warning indicated. However severe wind shear/turbulence could, and has , torn similar aircraft apart. This could be compounded if there were a disruption to the FBW systems just before the wind shear.

The "lightning did it' is more likely an extrapolation by journalists who know little about the subject they are covering. They hear a phrase about a lightning strike and since in their experience lightning is very bad they assume that it did the deed.

However if , on absolutly no evidence whatsoever, some wish to see a conspiracy in this tragedy who am I to stop them. :roll:

If I may sum up the 'evidence' for nefarious doings so far ,
1) bald suspicion by some who mistrust anything their own heros don't tell them
2) the contention that in 300 square miles of ocean surface, not enough debris has been found.

Is that about it?
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!
jaydeehess
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:02 pm

Postby Questioner101 » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:09 pm

The found bits and pieces, weren't from the plane that's missing...(wonder if another plane hit it??)
"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request."
User avatar
Questioner101
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby jwebb » Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:26 pm

Questioner101 wrote:The found bits and pieces, weren't from the plane that's missing...(wonder if another plane hit it??)


wouldnt that be some sh*t.
There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.
User avatar
jwebb
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:19 am
Location: Atlanta

Postby Tairaa » Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:21 pm

Ah, I see Jaydees.

Yes that is quite the problem with text based communications eh? Sorry 'bout that.


Well then yes my phrase would have been incorrect, but for all extensive purposes the strike is more like passing through. What I should have said is that "Lightning is unlikely to damage a newly constructed aircraft."


And as for the probability of being struck by lightning decreasing with altitude, like I said, imagine vectoring.

Imagine how much larger the figurative "equator" would be 170 000ft above the ground. By simple space occupied/space not occupied it's definitely going to be less likely to be hit the higher you go. Know what I mean? Unless there are outside variables influencing lightning to be attracted to your craft that is in play at higher altitudes, but not in lower altitudes. Or at least that operates in varying degrees.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Dark-Samus » Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:14 am

Can lighting bring an aeroplane down? I didn’t think it could.


According to the official statements, flying through 3 storms well it could be possible...
but I think more the wind has a bigger part in it...
Truth doesn´t control you, you control it...
User avatar
Dark-Samus
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Tairaa » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:19 am

Storms, yes.

Lightning, highly unlikely.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Cole_Trickle » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:18 am

mael wrote:
Lashmar wrote:Get back to writing them stories. :x :lol: :lol:

I want to be the king with a large harem in the next one. :D :lol: :lol:


`King Lashmar and his sex whores` 8-)

I’ve got the name for you so come on boy, move it. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Harems? You get used to it.

I just added a new one tonight. Got a nurse this time. I suppose I should be shot. :D


Would that be male or female? Not shot, canned or flogged by some standards but certainly not shot :lol: :lol: Too each his/her own I always say. Maybe this Pilot was asleep at the wheel, maybe something other, who knows?

Cole
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Cole_Trickle » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:57 am

Speed sensors coupled with weather looks to be the culprit. However being a weather buff with some basic training, especially Severe weather, mostly T, Storms- weather in fact is probably the lesser of the two in this instance. That's just an opinion but one the Weather channel has been pushing for days now. They claim that local data doesn't suggest nearly as violent a Storm as some are saying but those readings/data can be misleading.

The French are now claiming that the speed sensors used on the Airbus are faulty and need to be replaced.

Air France acknowledged on Saturday that speed monitors on some of its Airbus planes have proven faulty, icing up at high altitude, and that recommendations to change them were first made in September 2007


I'd be interested in knowing how an experienced Pilot wouldn't notice any anomalies in the instrumentation readings if the sensors were malfunctioning. Do they not control the speed of the aircraft which any increase or decrease of should be noticed by the Pilots? They have stall warnings galore on those planes so given that couldn't that have been corrected by the Pilots. Wasn't it said that the auto pilot was disengaged? Hum~~If I have to give a very very uneducated guess given what's been reported I'd stick with my initial thoughts.

Something happened that generated a complete electrical failure. I can't imagine an updraft so severe that it completely ripped apart the plane before the Pilots could give a mayday signal via the radio, but it's looking more and more like that kind of thing. That can only mean that the plane suffered a rapid decompression from some sort of breech in the plane, and at the altitude it's all over!

Sad way to go!

This quote is interesting:

Airbus has said the French agency investigating the crash found the doomed flight received inconsistent airspeed readings by different instruments as it struggled with turbulence in a massive thunderstorm.


I'll have to check with my Bro-in-laws friend, but I'm sure he'd say that the AUTO PILOT would be OFF under this circumstance. How the sensors factor into that may be the key to all of this. I'm sure 150 mph winds/turbulence can bring down any plane given the right circumstance. A complete electrical failure~~hum! Decompression first, then failure, that's why the comps kept producing warnings for a full 14 plus minutes, maybe they have backup batteries. Complicated indeed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525297,00.html

How I hate linking FAUX! :twisted: :oops: :lol:

Cole
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Lashmar » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:57 am

mael wrote:
Lashmar wrote:Get back to writing them stories. :x :lol: :lol:

I want to be the king with a large harem in the next one. :D :lol: :lol:


`King Lashmar and his sex whores` 8-)

I’ve got the name for you so come on boy, move it. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Harems? You get used to it.

I just added a new one tonight. Got a nurse this time. I suppose I should be shot. :D


Ah good boy. I need to learn from you my friend. :D


I don’t know why but I got the image of the little green bloke from star wars again - Yoda :geek: – I can’t see you dressing up like the little green dude through. :lol: :lol: :lol:


You have taught me well master. :ugeek:

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby jaydeehess » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:47 pm

Tairaa wrote:

And as for the probability of being struck by lightning decreasing with altitude, like I said, imagine vectoring.


I do not understand your use of 'vectoring' in this case.



Imagine how much larger the figurative "equator" would be 170 000ft above the ground. By simple space occupied/space not occupied it's definitely going to be less likely to be hit the higher you go. Know what I mean? Unless there are outside variables influencing lightning to be attracted to your craft that is in play at higher altitudes, but not in lower altitudes. Or at least that operates in varying degrees.


I refered to the fact that the aircraft was quite liekly in the center (vertically) of the storm cloud and thus the probability of being hit would be fairly good as most lightning is intracloud in nature.

If one skirts the edges or even below the cloud bottom the probability would be reduced(less lightning is cloud to ground)
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!
jaydeehess
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion Topics

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests