3 ms·
Many things he discusses are well above my level of comprehension but turbulence is likely to be the main cause of the crash although other planes passed that s
by jrnkntl 17y ago
Many things he discusses are well above my level of comprehension but turbulence is likely to be the main cause of the crash although other planes passed that same region without problems.
It sounds likely to me that heavy turbulence just 'broke' inner electronic equipment/circuits/meters/connections?
- pmikal 17y agoThe only thing people really know right now is that the plane is missing. Although Tim's report suggests structural failure from turbulence, it really could be one of many possible causes. If you enjoy the speculation, which I do, check out the Airliners discussion: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4431071/ http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...
- bojanb 17y agoThis particular airplane (F-GZCP) was involved in a ground collision incident with another Airbus in 2006, where its wing hit the other Airbus' tail. The wing was repaired. An improper fix would certainly lead to an in-flight breakup after many operating cycles (see Japan Airlines flight 123 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAL_123 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAL_123; China Airlines flight 611 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611 for example), especially in conditions of heavy turbulence that this airplane obviously experienced. Either that or a bomb is my educated speculation.
- petercooper 17y agoHowever, considering the maintenance transmissions were spread over 4 minutes, I'd suspect the plane didn't entirely breakup within a shorter period of time.. although this doesn't rule out that a bomb or breakup was the straw that broke the camel's back - just that it probably wasn't the sole cause.