4 ms·

Totally serious. Nowhere I've read about those 4mins you claim. Here is what I've found: The Washington Post: "among the key questions are how long the plane

Totally serious. Nowhere I've read about those 4mins you claim. Here is what I've found: The Washington Post: "among the key questions are how long the plane kept flying after its last automatic satellite transmission and why no mayday call was received from the pilots." "the aircraft emitted a series of automatic messages via satellite indicating that its electrical system was not functioning and that it had suffered a loss of cabin pressure. Those were the final signals from the plane. " As soon as it explodes, the transmitters start sending info about electrical failure and cabin pressure, of course, and they do so for as many minutes as they fall from 30K feet. Why there was no mayday call? They were already dead. Remember Columbia.

unexpected 17y ago
It's in the CNN Article (the four minutes). Here is the relevant bit: "But about 4:15 a.m. Paris time, Flight 447's automatic system began a four-minute exchange of messages to the company's maintenance computers, indicating that "several pieces of aircraft equipment were at fault or had broken down," he said." You can read the full article here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/01/air.france.brazil/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/01/air.france.braz... My instincts tell me that if power was lost, they wouldn't be able to send a mayday call. Of course, if total power was lost, how was the plane able to communicate with the server? A bomb could have caused this explosion, but doesn't fall within the usual terrorist M.O. No group has stepped forward to claim the attack- half the "fun" of a terrorist organization is spreading fear through your message. Additionally, it would not make sense for a terrorist to blow up the plane 4 hours into the flight over the Atlantic Ocean. It would make more sense to blow it up as soon as it takes off or lands, to maximize damage on the ground as well. I am not a pilot, nor a security expert. This is all just my street-instincts talking.
- TweedHeads 17y ago
  "if total power was lost, how was the plane able to communicate with the server?" The same way black boxes keep beeping even twenty thousand leagues under the sea. The lightning was the first red herring, but it got quickly dismissed by experts. Now they say it's gonna take years to know the cause, so we can forget about it.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  > No group has stepped forward to claim the attack- half the "fun" of a terrorist organization is spreading fear through your message. I don't have any reason to think this was a terrorist attack, but I have the impression that (credibly) claiming responsibility for attacks is less common than it used to be. The Mumbai attacks last year, for example, were just miscellaneous mystery terror.
  - unexpected 17y ago
    I agree with you, but to use your Mumbai attack example, "everyone" (everyone I've read) basically believes that the Pakistan CIA-equivalent helped sponsor the attacks. An organization taking responsibility for the attack would lead back to this organization, which would involve a lot of political drama. As long as Pakistan doesn't openly claim responsibility, there's no real loss in political capital to them- Indians hate them anyway, and any time an attack happens, India seems to rattle its sabers for a few months before backing down and they remember that Pakistan is also nuclear capable. Then business returns as usual.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  From my little understanding, a total loss of power usually means from the engines. There is backup generators that can be used to restart the engines during flight, however anything could have happened to stop the engines restarting, but allowed the electronics to remain active. I personally highly doubt terrorism. It's a flight from Rio to Paris, it's not exactly high risk for terrorism, plus no group has claimed the downing (to my knowledge). This means it was a lone psycho, however the chance of getting explosives onto an airline is kind of low. Plus if it was an explosive detonation, the damage would have caused explosive decompression and damage to the air frame. I'm sure the information Air France received would have indicated an explosion, likely as there would have been a complete disconnect between cabin and electricity (engines or backup generator).

unexpected 17y ago

It's in the CNN Article (the four minutes). Here is the relevant bit: "But about 4:15 a.m. Paris time, Flight 447's automatic system began a four-minute exchange of messages to the company's maintenance computers, indicating that "several pieces of aircraft equipment were at fault or had broken down," he said." You can read the full article here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/01/air.france.brazil/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/01/air.france.braz... My instincts tell me that if power was lost, they wouldn't be able to send a mayday call. Of course, if total power was lost, how was the plane able to communicate with the server? A bomb could have caused this explosion, but doesn't fall within the usual terrorist M.O. No group has stepped forward to claim the attack- half the "fun" of a terrorist organization is spreading fear through your message. Additionally, it would not make sense for a terrorist to blow up the plane 4 hours into the flight over the Atlantic Ocean. It would make more sense to blow it up as soon as it takes off or lands, to maximize damage on the ground as well. I am not a pilot, nor a security expert. This is all just my street-instincts talking.

TweedHeads 17y ago
"if total power was lost, how was the plane able to communicate with the server?" The same way black boxes keep beeping even twenty thousand leagues under the sea. The lightning was the first red herring, but it got quickly dismissed by experts. Now they say it's gonna take years to know the cause, so we can forget about it.
randallsquared 17y ago
> No group has stepped forward to claim the attack- half the "fun" of a terrorist organization is spreading fear through your message. I don't have any reason to think this was a terrorist attack, but I have the impression that (credibly) claiming responsibility for attacks is less common than it used to be. The Mumbai attacks last year, for example, were just miscellaneous mystery terror.
- unexpected 17y ago
  I agree with you, but to use your Mumbai attack example, "everyone" (everyone I've read) basically believes that the Pakistan CIA-equivalent helped sponsor the attacks. An organization taking responsibility for the attack would lead back to this organization, which would involve a lot of political drama. As long as Pakistan doesn't openly claim responsibility, there's no real loss in political capital to them- Indians hate them anyway, and any time an attack happens, India seems to rattle its sabers for a few months before backing down and they remember that Pakistan is also nuclear capable. Then business returns as usual.
electromagnetic 17y ago
From my little understanding, a total loss of power usually means from the engines. There is backup generators that can be used to restart the engines during flight, however anything could have happened to stop the engines restarting, but allowed the electronics to remain active. I personally highly doubt terrorism. It's a flight from Rio to Paris, it's not exactly high risk for terrorism, plus no group has claimed the downing (to my knowledge). This means it was a lone psycho, however the chance of getting explosives onto an airline is kind of low. Plus if it was an explosive detonation, the damage would have caused explosive decompression and damage to the air frame. I'm sure the information Air France received would have indicated an explosion, likely as there would have been a complete disconnect between cabin and electricity (engines or backup generator).