Comments on: Debris found not from Air France 447, officials say http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/world-news/2009/06/debris-found-not-from-air-france-447-officials-say/ Music, movies, tv, video games, tech, food, drink, young, hip, and sexy! Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:19:05 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jack Squat http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/world-news/2009/06/debris-found-not-from-air-france-447-officials-say/comment-page-1/#comment-10299 Jack Squat Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:04:13 +0000 http://blastmagazine.com/?p=16531#comment-10299 Facts: Storms were not extraordinary (per weather channel) The problem was centered around the electrical system. It appears that there was a total failure, leading to a very quick and violent end for the flight. Planes today are OVERDESIGNED for electrical safety (ask anyone who works in the industry) lightning could not bring down the electrical system. Similarly they are structurally OVERDESIGNED for the worst storms (in fact clunky P3's regularly fly through hurricane walls with no detrimental effects - the AIRBUS engineers add another order of magnitude in terms of structural integrity - so please, enuff of "the storm did it" BS) They are NOT designed to reject an EMP that exceeds those typically encountered in everyday life - i.e. the EMP from a fission reaction could damage the electrical system by overloading the Transorb Diodes in the grounding system. This is a plausible explanation. Let the investigators determine the where and why if this is the case. RUMOR ALERT: There is a rumor floating around that the Russian on board was an FSB agent, and was bringing some "stuff" back to Moscow, that certain people did not want found, indicating a timed device took the plane down. Rumor continues with speculation that an EMP device was used. I hope that is not true because that is an aviation Achilles heel that only aviation engineers (and state security agencies) know about . Let the conspiracy nuts have their day. I am waiting for the black box data, but would not be surprised if they do not find it, and this one gets relegated to "cold case" speculative status in a very short time. Facts: Storms were not extraordinary (per weather channel) The problem was centered around the electrical system. It appears that there was a total failure, leading to a very quick and violent end for the flight. Planes today are OVERDESIGNED for electrical safety (ask anyone who works in the industry) lightning could not bring down the electrical system. Similarly they are structurally OVERDESIGNED for the worst storms (in fact clunky P3’s regularly fly through hurricane walls with no detrimental effects – the AIRBUS engineers add another order of magnitude in terms of structural integrity – so please, enuff of “the storm did it” BS)

They are NOT designed to reject an EMP that exceeds those typically encountered in everyday life – i.e. the EMP from a fission reaction could damage the electrical system by overloading the Transorb Diodes in the grounding system. This is a plausible explanation. Let the investigators determine the where and why if this is the case.

RUMOR ALERT: There is a rumor floating around that the Russian on board was an FSB agent, and was bringing some “stuff” back to Moscow, that certain people did not want found, indicating a timed device took the plane down. Rumor continues with speculation that an EMP device was used. I hope that is not true because that is an aviation Achilles heel that only aviation engineers (and state security agencies) know about . Let the conspiracy nuts have their day. I am waiting for the black box data, but would not be surprised if they do not find it, and this one gets relegated to “cold case” speculative status in a very short time.

]]> By: Sachin Seth http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/world-news/2009/06/debris-found-not-from-air-france-447-officials-say/comment-page-1/#comment-10296 Sachin Seth Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:28:30 +0000 http://blastmagazine.com/?p=16531#comment-10296 Was actually just editing that to say “disappeared”, but not because it's incorrect. The flight did disappear off radar screens, as said by France's Minister of Transportation. Was actually just editing that to say “disappeared”, but not because it’s incorrect. The flight did disappear off radar screens, as said by France’s Minister of Transportation.

]]> By: Keith Blackburn http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/world-news/2009/06/debris-found-not-from-air-france-447-officials-say/comment-page-1/#comment-10294 Keith Blackburn Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:18:15 +0000 http://blastmagazine.com/?p=16531#comment-10294 The first sentence of the last paragraph is incorrect. The aircraft did not "disappear off radar" - it entered an area not covered by radar (i.e. the bulk of the Atlantic crossing) and this is normal. The ACARS automated messages were sent sometime later - I don't have the timeline to hand but it is freely available on the internet. Otherwise, a pretty interesting article. The first sentence of the last paragraph is incorrect. The aircraft did not “disappear off radar” – it entered an area not covered by radar (i.e. the bulk of the Atlantic crossing) and this is normal. The ACARS automated messages were sent sometime later – I don’t have the timeline to hand but it is freely available on the internet.

Otherwise, a pretty interesting article.

]]>