Bernard Flint Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Very Happy i have not read these stupid, pathetic conspiracy theorists spouting bile. Very bad weather stopped the search for the passengers/flight, for a period of time, that answers the question on why didnt the authorities act quicker/ Edited January 1, 2015 by Bernard Flint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcharacters Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Planes can glide quite a distance with a skilled pilot. Air Transat A330 'Azores Glider' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Just read this http://www.smh.com.au/world/airasia-flights-behaviour-on-the-edge-of-logic-20150101-12gk9a.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:twi-13omn1677-edtrl-other:nnn-17/02/2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o&sa=D&usg=ALhdy28zsr6qiq Mainly of interest is this speculation. Leaked figures show the plane climbed at a virtually unprecedented rate of 6000 to 9000 feet per minute, and "you can't do that at altitude in an Airbus 320 with pilot action". The most that could normally be expected would be 1000 to 1500 feet on a sustained basis, with up to 3000 feet in a burst, he said. The plane then fell at an even more incredible rate: 11,000 feet per minute with bursts of up to 24,000 feet per minute. Updrafts of 81 metres per second are mentioned here http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/319/ that's about 15,000 feet per minute up. There is mention of downdrafts more powerful in various weather websites. A sudden downdraft of that magnitutde would take about 2 minutes to go from 30,000 feet to the ground/sea. From personal experience of much lesser downdrafts, one of the uncanny things is that the centre of the column of descending air is actually quite smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcharacters Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 http://news.yahoo.com/indonesia-says-one-body-airasia-plane-wearing-life-065203535.html JAKARTA (Reuters) - A body recovered from the crashed AirAsia plane on Wednesday was wearing a life jacket, an official with Indonesia's search and rescue agency said. I never said anyone was alive in a life jacket, but this would suggest a lot of people were alive in the descent which rules out explosion or explosive decompression right? But if the plane is largely intact on the bottom how did so many bodies get out of the plane? at least 10% of people ignore the fasten seatbelt signs And you have a link to this startling fact? The stewardess or steward usually walks around to ensure compliance in my experience. You as we do not know they didn't undo them after impact and for me if they did then time was of the essence. How long can you survive in the ocean, in rough seas with no fresh water and under the blazing sun? 3 days? oh a link yeah ok try this link and your experience is sadly lacking due to your total lack of observation, how many times have those FLIGHT ATTENDANTS had to tell the same passenger to put their seat in an upright position prior to take off, how many people get up when the fasten seatbelt sign is on and go to the toilet, seriously you think in an emergency the flight attendants are going to be wondering around the cabin checking to see if that idiot that had his tray table down and seat reclined at take off has his seat belt on as for what I know, I know that 10% of people on aeroplanes do not put their seatbelts on in flight when the fasten seatbelt signs come on. and how long can a person survive in these waters, assuming no significant trauma, and ability to keep head out of water they can survive for at least a week, at the end of that time they will be very weak and extremely thirsty, on a life raft of some kind closer to 2 weeks I'm sorry Mr. outboard. There's little in your post I find believable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smedly Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Planes can glide quite a distance with a skilled pilot. Air Transat A330 'Azores Glider' planes cannot glide if they have lost lift due to a stall, they will fall down and if the pilot is fast enough under power and is able to quickly control a spin might have a chance of gaining full control, I still believe this was an autopilot error which caused the initial loss of control and stall and the pilot was unable to regain full control during a steep decent with engine power and could not pull up in time to avoid ditching in the sea, everything in the plane during this time would have been weightless as the plane descended, it could have been a very close call, we won't know details like that until the recorders have been recovered and the wreckage is examined to determine the force of the impact, it would not surprise me if it is discovered that this was a very close call and if they maybe had another 1000 feet to play with we might be reading about how a heroic pilot saved the day. Many people have been critical on here as to why so many are highly emotional about this tragic accident, there is a very simple explanation, we all take it for granted that flying these days is relatively safe and stuff like this should not happen with a modern aircraft and we are extremely eager to find out why this happened when our belief is that it shouldn't, some of us are probably frequent fliers and are quite possibly taking flights in the near future or have flown in the recent past and usually feel very safe doing so, we want answers quickly so we can understand, those of us that are going to be stepping onto a plane in the coming months will be quite rightly not as confident as we were 2 weeks ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWorldwide Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The media love terms like 'heartbreaking', but I'm afraid that is an apt description for this girl: Meanwhile many family members remain at the Surabaya airport crisis centre where some, like 15-year-old Chiara Natasha, are now alone. Her entire family was travelling on board QZ8501 to visit her in Singapore to celebrate the New Year. http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/airasia-flight-qz8501-probably-fell-apart-when-hitting-water-experts-say/story-fnizu68q-1227172146899 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigPig Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Very Happy i have not read these stupid, pathetic conspiracy theorists spouting bile. Very bad weather stopped the search for the passengers/flight, for a period of time, that answers the question on why didnt the authorities act quicker/ Ignorance is bliss I guess. It took 50 minutes for them to acknowledge the plane had gone off the screen, Singapore had a C130 on the tarmac waiting to go 2 hours after that (if my memory serves me) but never received permission until the following day So the weather wasn't the only thing hindering and delaying the search. It is far from a conspiracy theory, no one knows if anyone did survive the impact but IF they did would they have survived the ocean for 3 days? The question is could anything have been done sooner and if so why wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcutman Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Very Happy i have not read these stupid, pathetic conspiracy theorists spouting bile. Very bad weather stopped the search for the passengers/flight, for a period of time, that answers the question on why didnt the authorities act quicker/ Ignorance is bliss I guess. It took 50 minutes for them to acknowledge the plane had gone off the screen, Singapore had a C130 on the tarmac waiting to go 2 hours after that (if my memory serves me) but never received permission until the following day So the weather wasn't the only thing hindering and delaying the search. It is far from a conspiracy theory, no one knows if anyone did survive the impact but IF they did would they have survived the ocean for 3 days? The question is could anything have been done sooner and if so why wasn't it? Not 100% sure but I am pretty sure the Sings fly the C-130H, witch has modifications for maximum fuel capacity and extended range. 8++ hours (flying at low altitude and is an all weather aircraft. Same plane the hurricane hunters fly. Had this type of aircraft got out there in a more timely manner who knows what might have been found. I guess its possible the Sings pilots cant fly up to the aircraft's capabilities (witch I doubt) but they had the right, most capable, equipment. Of course all the expert pilots here on TVF say its near impossible to fly (SAR) in bad weather, even though many countries coast guard units do it daily. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigPig Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Very Happy i have not read these stupid, pathetic conspiracy theorists spouting bile. Very bad weather stopped the search for the passengers/flight, for a period of time, that answers the question on why didnt the authorities act quicker/ Ignorance is bliss I guess. It took 50 minutes for them to acknowledge the plane had gone off the screen, Singapore had a C130 on the tarmac waiting to go 2 hours after that (if my memory serves me) but never received permission until the following day So the weather wasn't the only thing hindering and delaying the search. It is far from a conspiracy theory, no one knows if anyone did survive the impact but IF they did would they have survived the ocean for 3 days? The question is could anything have been done sooner and if so why wasn't it? Not 100% sure but I am pretty sure the Sings fly the C-130H, witch has modifications for maximum fuel capacity and extended range. 8++ hours (flying at low altitude and is an all weather aircraft. Same plane the hurricane hunters fly. Had this type of aircraft got out there in a more timely manner who knows what might have been found. I guess its possible the Sings pilots cant fly up to the aircraft's capabilities (witch I doubt) but they had the right, most capable, equipment. Of course all the expert pilots here on TVF say its near impossible to fly (SAR) in bad weather, even though many countries coast guard units do it daily. EXACTLY!! As I stated previously to have tried and failed is acceptable, to not try is not (IMO). The boats they sent out only had 2 hours search time (the day the plane went down) from what I can make out, so their SAR boats can't sail in rough seas and are scared of the dark ??? We don't know what happened yet but I can't imagine what it would be like to be stuck in those conditions for 3 days. Maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age but I can't stop this vision of the Indonesians covering it all up to save face.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Let's stop bickering. I don't know what % do not fasten their seat belts. Unless someone has supporting data, I think we can drop this discussion. It really is off-topic in this thread. Some airline staff are more conscientious than others. Some passengers are more cooperative than others. In that weather and with turbulence, I would think the percentage of people buckling their seat belts would be very high. Now cruising on king flights and in smooth weather, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Just read this http://www.smh.com.au/world/airasia-flights-behaviour-on-the-edge-of-logic-20150101-12gk9a.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:twi-13omn1677-edtrl-other:nnn-17/02/2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o&sa=D&usg=ALhdy28zsr6qiq Mainly of interest is this speculation. Leaked figures show the plane climbed at a virtually unprecedented rate of 6000 to 9000 feet per minute, and "you can't do that at altitude in an Airbus 320 with pilot action". The most that could normally be expected would be 1000 to 1500 feet on a sustained basis, with up to 3000 feet in a burst, he said. The plane then fell at an even more incredible rate: 11,000 feet per minute with bursts of up to 24,000 feet per minute. Fuuuuu . . . The 7 bodies found though were described to be mostly intact. They would not intact inside a plane hitting that hard. If they got sucked out, would they be in tact from a free fall into water? Morbid, but curious. I had to go to a crash site recently of a smaller regional size turbo prop plane. The manufacturer is a client of my firms. It crashed from a very low altitude in approach at a relatively low speed. There were body parts everywhere. Edited January 1, 2015 by F430murci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 FWIW if the plane stalled (wing stall) at that altitude and went into a spin, it would not require power to recover. If it happened to me I'd pull the power clear off. Then I would push the nose down into a "dive" to regain speed while pushing opposite rudder to stop the spin. When the plane stopped spinning and regained speed from being nose down, I'd begin to pull the nose up and apply power to maintain speed in the needed climb. There was lots of altitude for that to happen IF it wasn't turbulence that made it impossible. If there are intact bodies and the plane isn't shattered to pieces, I don't think it hit the water in a flat spin. I don't know what happened. Just making a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 How much of the data will Airbus get? They have said they would like to analyse the data to find out whether they need to issue an Airworthiness Directive. Surely they will know if the data has been tampered with. They have everything at stake in a situation like this so they need to jump up ASAP if it was mechanical and say "It was us, everybody needs to do xyz". If it isn't mechanical it is in their best interest to say "Sorry guys, poor choice by an experienced captain under pressure". Who is planning on tampering with any data? Even the dodgy Russians that may have shot down the Malaysian airliner handed over the flight recorders after milking their few media minutes. There's absolutely no data on those devices that can so significantly 'tampered' with to change the realities of just another unfortunate air accident with fatalities. Is it sharks in this area? If the plane came down and the pilot tried a controlled landing on the water , many of the passengers would still be alive , if they had life jackets on , they could stay afloat for days....but die of hypothermia and dehydration within a few hours. What on earth is a 'controlled landing on the water'? Do your mean a controlled crash? It is only in Hollywood that people survive an aircraft crashing at sea without injuries in any significant numbers and even fewer that get washed up safely on a nearby island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smedly Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 FWIW if the plane stalled (wing stall) at that altitude and went into a spin, it would not require power to recover. If it happened to me I'd pull the power clear off. Then I would push the nose down into a "dive" to regain speed while pushing opposite rudder to stop the spin. When the plane stopped spinning and regained speed from being nose down, I'd begin to pull the nose up and apply power to maintain speed in the needed climb. There was lots of altitude for that to happen IF it wasn't turbulence that made it impossible. If there are intact bodies and the plane isn't shattered to pieces, I don't think it hit the water in a flat spin. I don't know what happened. Just making a point. and when was the last time you flew an airbus or any plane with more than 4 seats, I have never done but I do understand the principles and what you have written above may not apply to commercial airliners, not wanting an argument as neither of us actually know, only people trained in the sector have an idea and even then I suspect there are many factors that will determine how they approach it, we don't even know if the captain was in the cockpit at the time, he might have gone to the toilet Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbler Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 There is another theory now that the discovery of an exit door and some fully clothed bodies and the lack of an emergency beacon signal indicates there was no impact, and perhaps the pilots attempted a water landing, and some may have escaped before a wave submerged the plane. http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/airasia-plane-landed-on-sea-before-being-swamped-by-huge-wave/story-e6frg6so-1227172177981?from=public_rss&utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=29711941 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) FWIW if the plane stalled (wing stall) at that altitude and went into a spin, it would not require power to recover. If it happened to me I'd pull the power clear off. Then I would push the nose down into a "dive" to regain speed while pushing opposite rudder to stop the spin. When the plane stopped spinning and regained speed from being nose down, I'd begin to pull the nose up and apply power to maintain speed in the needed climb. There was lots of altitude for that to happen IF it wasn't turbulence that made it impossible. If there are intact bodies and the plane isn't shattered to pieces, I don't think it hit the water in a flat spin. I don't know what happened. Just making a point. All good, except the task of recovering the aircraft (if a stall is what happened)would definitely become many times more difficult to recover from in the darkness of the weather and time of flight conditions, no visual reference whatsoever and most likely complete disorientation coupled with the forces of all that was happening (asuming the possible updraft/downdraft scenario).The claimed climb and fall figures are mind boggling and if true the aircraft MUST HAVE suffered damage to various control surfaces and even structurally. If these rates of climb and fall are orrery, there's no chance of recovers in this a/c, I fear. The possibility that the aircraft is upside down at rest could mean they were well away from recovery of the condition of flight that was suffered & possibly the pilots were unconscious prior to impact with the water....post mortem results will eventually confirm. OR Maybe the a/c entered the water at a slight angle, bounced and rolled into the water and ended upside down. One thing I saw which has left me baffled is I believe I saw an underwater shot of the cockpit, I can't remember where & it appeared in tact & not flattened or smashed which wouldn't be the case if it hit the water at hundreds of knots velocity. Data from the Orange boxes will hopefully reveal all. Such large destructive weather systems have always been a threat to aircraft, to drive into one is certainly at best a gamble, why was he there? is one of the most pertinent questions imo. Edited January 2, 2015 by neverdie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigPig Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 There is another theory now that the discovery of an exit door and some fully clothed bodies and the lack of an emergency beacon signal indicates there was no impact, and perhaps the pilots attempted a water landing, and some may have escaped before a wave submerged the plane. http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/airasia-plane-landed-on-sea-before-being-swamped-by-huge-wave/story-e6frg6so-1227172177981?from=public_rss&utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=29711941 VERY interesting and telling report, it definitely supports my questioning the time taken to respond. We won't know everything until the recorders are located I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) It makes sense that the beacons didn't activate because the landing was below the threshold of impact to switch them on. It also makes sense that since the bodies aren't ripped apart, and the only wreckage we have heard about so far are the emergency exit and raft. That they were indeed alive and trying to evacuate. Edited January 2, 2015 by canuckamuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigPig Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 It makes sense that the beacons didn't activate because the land was below the threshold of impact to switch them on. It also makes sense that since the bodies aren't ripped apart, and the only wreckage we have heard about so far are the emergency exit and raft. That they were indeed alive and trying to evacuate. Yeah it looks more and more likely. How scary, to think someone survived and was in that sea thinking that someone would come any minute........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 It makes sense that the beacons didn't activate because the land was below the threshold of impact to switch them on. It also makes sense that since the bodies aren't ripped apart, and the only wreckage we have heard about so far are the emergency exit and raft. That they were indeed alive and trying to evacuate. Yeah it looks more and more likely. How scary, to think someone survived and was in that sea thinking that someone would come any minute........ Apparently, some radar data was leaked that showed ventricle airspeed/drop rate of 11,000 ft per minute. https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGlobalflight/status/550743644765159424/photo/1 Seems like the more likely scenario is the plane was shedding occupants on the way down. I have heard that Dudi Sudibyo who was the so called expert in the article is not to be taken seriously. So far, the information coming out of that area, including Sudibyo is specious at best and seems to be recanted it corrected daily. Seas were 9 foot at that time. Ditching or landing in 9 foot seas , . . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigPig Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 It makes sense that the beacons didn't activate because the land was below the threshold of impact to switch them on. It also makes sense that since the bodies aren't ripped apart, and the only wreckage we have heard about so far are the emergency exit and raft. That they were indeed alive and trying to evacuate. Yeah it looks more and more likely. How scary, to think someone survived and was in that sea thinking that someone would come any minute........ Apparently, some radar data was leaked that showed ventricle airspeed/drop rate of 11,000 ft per minute. https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGlobalflight/status/550743644765159424/photo/1 Seems like the more likely scenario is the plane was shedding occupants on the way down. I have heard that Dudi Sudibyo who was the so called expert in the article is not to be taken seriously. So far, the information coming out of that area, including Sudibyo is specious at best and seems to be recanted it corrected daily. Seas were 9 foot at that time. Ditching or landing in 9 foot seas , . . Fair enough. BUT that still does not excuse the delay and, as even for me, it is speculation or maybe what if. Someone MAY have made it out..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbler Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 It makes sense that the beacons didn't activate because the land was below the threshold of impact to switch them on. It also makes sense that since the bodies aren't ripped apart, and the only wreckage we have heard about so far are the emergency exit and raft. That they were indeed alive and trying to evacuate. Yeah it looks more and more likely. How scary, to think someone survived and was in that sea thinking that someone would come any minute........ Apparently, some radar data was leaked that showed ventricle airspeed/drop rate of 11,000 ft per minute.https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGlobalflight/status/550743644765159424/photo/1 Seems like the more likely scenario is the plane was shedding occupants on the way down. I have heard that Dudi Sudibyo who was the so called expert in the article is not to be taken seriously. So far, the information coming out of that area, including Sudibyo is specious at best and seems to be recanted it corrected daily. Seas were 9 foot at that time. Ditching or landing in 9 foot seas , . . Fair enough. BUT that still does not excuse the delay and, as even for me, it is speculation or maybe what if. Someone MAY have made it out..... Apparently one of those found was a flight attendant, fully clothed, and it makes sense as, had the plane attempted a controlled water ditching she or he would have been the person to open and remove the door and throw the escape chute out and one of the first out the door. Imagine the terror of escaping the plane and see it sink, only to be overwhelmed by 9 foot waves and no one had a clue where they were as the rescue effort did not begin for five hours after the plane went missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigPig Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Yeah it looks more and more likely.How scary, to think someone survived and was in that sea thinking that someone would come any minute........ Apparently, some radar data was leaked that showed ventricle airspeed/drop rate of 11,000 ft per minute.https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGlobalflight/status/550743644765159424/photo/1 Seems like the more likely scenario is the plane was shedding occupants on the way down. I have heard that Dudi Sudibyo who was the so called expert in the article is not to be taken seriously. So far, the information coming out of that area, including Sudibyo is specious at best and seems to be recanted it corrected daily. Seas were 9 foot at that time. Ditching or landing in 9 foot seas , . . Fair enough. BUT that still does not excuse the delay and, as even for me, it is speculation or maybe what if. Someone MAY have made it out..... Apparently one of those found was a flight attendant, fully clothed, and it makes sense as, had the plane attempted a controlled water ditching she or he would have been the person to open and remove the door and throw the escape chute out and one of the first out the door. Imagine the terror of escaping the plane and see it sink, only to be overwhelmed by 9 foot waves and no one had a clue where they were as the rescue effort did not begin for five hours after the plane went missing. I thought exactly the same thing. And it was reported that 1 person had a life jacket on, the exit door was off and the escape ramp deployed (unlikely to be from the impact). As I said before Singapore had a C 130 ready to and never got permission till the following day!!! It basically took 3 days to find an aircraft 10 Km from where the last point of contact was. This stuff ALWAYS happens in bad weather, whether it is a boating accident or air. They searched for 2 hours the first day and went home because it was rough and going dark....... Doesn't say much about their equipment or priorities does it! If it was rough in the boat what would it have been like without one? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 there were no bodies recovered wearing life vests... On Dec 31st 2014 the chairman of Indonesia's Search and Rescue Service stated in an evening press conference, that earlier reports about the fuselage having been located have been incorrect, the search is still ongoing, so far - referring to a report by CNN hitting global headlines - there are no sonar images of the fuselage as well. Correcting other media reports the chairman stressed that none of the bodies recovered so far was wearing a life vest. All valid information concerning QZ-8501 only and only comes from one source, namely the Search and Rescue Service which is currently in charge of the entire operation, the chairman stated with reference to the current information chaos. Source = Aviation Herald http://avherald.com/h?article=47f6abc7&opt=0 An awful lot of misinformation on this forum, that starts with the title... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draftvader Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Yeah it looks more and more likely. How scary, to think someone survived and was in that sea thinking that someone would come any minute........ Apparently, some radar data was leaked that showed ventricle airspeed/drop rate of 11,000 ft per minute.https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGlobalflight/status/550743644765159424/photo/1 Seems like the more likely scenario is the plane was shedding occupants on the way down. I have heard that Dudi Sudibyo who was the so called expert in the article is not to be taken seriously. So far, the information coming out of that area, including Sudibyo is specious at best and seems to be recanted it corrected daily. Seas were 9 foot at that time. Ditching or landing in 9 foot seas , . . Fair enough. BUT that still does not excuse the delay and, as even for me, it is speculation or maybe what if. Someone MAY have made it out..... Apparently one of those found was a flight attendant, fully clothed, and it makes sense as, had the plane attempted a controlled water ditching she or he would have been the person to open and remove the door and throw the escape chute out and one of the first out the door. Imagine the terror of escaping the plane and see it sink, only to be overwhelmed by 9 foot waves and no one had a clue where they were as the rescue effort did not begin for five hours after the plane went missing. Well, in theory, that would be back to front as a flight attendant should be the last one off the plane. Nonetheless if the plane was going down quickly then I can imagine the "if I desert now I live but lose my job, hey that cashier job in the supermarket combined with living sounds great" reality check would have been hard to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigPig Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Fair enough. BUT that still does not excuse the delay and, as even for me, it is speculation or maybe what if. Someone MAY have made it out..... Apparently one of those found was a flight attendant, fully clothed, and it makes sense as, had the plane attempted a controlled water ditching she or he would have been the person to open and remove the door and throw the escape chute out and one of the first out the door. Imagine the terror of escaping the plane and see it sink, only to be overwhelmed by 9 foot waves and no one had a clue where they were as the rescue effort did not begin for five hours after the plane went missing. Well, in theory, that would be back to front as a flight attendant should be the last one off the plane. Nonetheless if the plane was going down quickly then I can imagine the "if I desert now I live but lose my job, hey that cashier job in the supermarket combined with living sounds great" reality check would have been hard to ignore. Unless she was the one that opened the door and deployed the safety ramp and was thrown in when the plane pitched..... I know it's all speculation, except for the time it took them to locate the plane...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gulfsailor Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Fair enough. BUT that still does not excuse the delay and, as even for me, it is speculation or maybe what if. Someone MAY have made it out..... Apparently one of those found was a flight attendant, fully clothed, and it makes sense as, had the plane attempted a controlled water ditching she or he would have been the person to open and remove the door and throw the escape chute out and one of the first out the door. Imagine the terror of escaping the plane and see it sink, only to be overwhelmed by 9 foot waves and no one had a clue where they were as the rescue effort did not begin for five hours after the plane went missing. Well, in theory, that would be back to front as a flight attendant should be the last one off the plane. Nonetheless if the plane was going down quickly then I can imagine the "if I desert now I live but lose my job, hey that cashier job in the supermarket combined with living sounds great" reality check would have been hard to ignore. Unless she was the one that opened the door and deployed the safety ramp and was thrown in when the plane pitched..... I know it's all speculation, except for the time it took them to locate the plane...... They haven't found the plane yet. Just some debris, a door and slide and a few bodies. I think the tale separated at altitude or the fuselage opened near the back exit which threw some bodies, the door and debris out, but the rest of the plane 'flew' on uncontrollably and has crashed somewhere else. A semi controlled decent and water landing seems highly unlikely looking at the extreme rates of ascent and descent and low forward speed just prior to plane getting lost on radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Yet the beacons failed to activate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigPig Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Yet the beacons failed to activate? That's right, and I thought they had pinpointed the plane on the bottom but it was being moved around by the sea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Fair enough.BUT that still does not excuse the delay and, as even for me, it is speculation or maybe what if. Someone MAY have made it out.....Apparently one of those found was a flight attendant, fully clothed, and it makes sense as, had the plane attempted a controlled water ditching she or he would have been the person to open and remove the door and throw the escape chute out and one of the first out the door. Imagine the terror of escaping the plane and see it sink, only to be overwhelmed by 9 foot waves and no one had a clue where they were as the rescue effort did not begin for five hours after the plane went missing. Well, in theory, that would be back to front as a flight attendant should be the last one off the plane. Nonetheless if the plane was going down quickly then I can imagine the "if I desert now I live but lose my job, hey that cashier job in the supermarket combined with living sounds great" reality check would have been hard to ignore. Unless she was the one that opened the door and deployed the safety ramp and was thrown in when the plane pitched.....I know it's all speculation, except for the time it took them to locate the plane...... They haven't found the plane yet. Just some debris, a door and slide and a few bodies. I think the tale separated at altitude or the fuselage opened near the back exit which threw some bodies, the door and debris out, but the rest of the plane 'flew' on uncontrollably and has crashed somewhere else. A semi controlled decent and water landing seems highly unlikely looking at the extreme rates of ascent and descent and low forward speed just prior to plane getting lost on radar. So actually, they haven't completely ruled out possible terrorism either?I was the one who asked about how come so many bodies outside the plane? I noticed the fact that they claim to have found a door and a escape chute.All showing that the door opened. All very contradictory . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now