Re: AF 447 - Answered ..maybe
Government Shill #2
>>
>> Before you go any further with your bullshit.
>> The A330-200 has an average of 295 seats on a two class seating
>> arrangement.
>
>This flight was fully booked with 228 crew and passengers.
>
>If you want to get on a AB330-200 with 295 + luggage, good luck to you.
>
>Are we looking at the same aircraft dude?
What aircraft are you looking at Dud?
I don't know where you get your numbers, but this Airbus page:
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a330-200/cabin_layout.html
gives two layouts. One 253 and the other 293 seats.
>> The only time when load matters is at take off.
>
>Really? I think NOT. I can thrust a brick into the air.
Which is meaningless.
>> Coming back to the accident, the total weight of the plane had already
>> been reduced considerable as a lot of fuel had been used.
>
>Unless you condsider the less weight in the wings compared to the weight in
>the fuselage.
So what?
>
>> Rest of consppiracy crap snipped.
>
>
>"Shortly after the aircraft's scheduled arrival time in Paris of 1110 local
>time (0910 GMT), it was announced that the flight was missing."
>
>
>This is seven hours after automated messaages were recieved indicating
>problems and loss of contact with the aircraft.
>
>SEVEN FUCKING HOURS
>
>These aircraft have GPS on constant. Search and rescue should have been
>activated at the minute. Not hours.
Never heard of SARTIME then Dud?
SARTIME is a time nominated by a pilot for the initiation of a SAR action
if a report has not been received from the pilot by the nominated
Airservices Australia unit.
http://www.auf.asn.au/comms/aussar.html
SARTIME is usually nominated for after an aircraft is due to land (for
obvious reasons).
>There's all this crap about radar space. Like the pilots were flying with a
>compass too. They can pinpoint the last contact with the aircraft within 10
>metres. Aircraft could have been scrambled to the vicinity to be there
>within 3 hours. Trans-Atlantic ships and fishing vessels could have
>arrived even sooner.
>
>But no. Not a word of this. Why?
>
>Again, the response has beeen pathetic and the atitude of the chief
>investigator is unwaranted.
>
>It will take many years for the evidence to unfold but I suspect this
>accident already has the hallmarks of a TWA 800 or a KAL 007.
>
>Maybe one of the bulkheads blew out in union with a lightning strike which
>could explain everything thus far.
>
>But I'm still sus.
Sus? Is that what you call it? I'd say you have half a clue about the
subject and the rest you are plucking out of your arse. What you think
should happen from the comfort of your armchair cockpit.
--
Shill #2
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov
Government Shill #2
>I looked up seating arrangements for the AB 330-200 and found that most
>commercial airlines identify with graphics 140 seats (yes you have to count
>them). Other specs. on the aircarft say that it can seat up to 253
>passengers. This is a whopping range.
Man! You write as if you know this stuff, but...
But not uncommon in the airline world. Different configurations of First,
Business and Economy classes give different seating arrangements.
I don't know where you get your numbers, but this Airbus page:
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a330-200/cabin_layout.html
gives two layouts. One 253 and the other 293 seats.
>And what about the relationship between luggage load and passengers?
>
>253 passengers with no luggage?
What? No luggage?
>Anyhow lets average this out. Airlines have been stuffing more people with
>their luggage onto aircraft. (the conclusion) I figure that an AB 330-200
>can fly 190 passengers relatively safley in most conditions.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
>However 228 passengers with an average of 15 kgs. pp. of luggage is not
>safe in adverse weather conditions.
No aircraft is safe in adverse weather conditions. That's what adverse
means.
>If you take the extra 38 passeaners plus luggage which means an extra 3.5
>tonnes of weight. 3.5 tonnes at 800 kmph, work out the bare load on that.
3.5 tonnes at 800kph? What? What does the speed have to do with anything?
>If they hit a wind shear it would have been enough to rip a wing or both
>off in an instant.
Meaningless drivel. How much wind shear? From which direction?
Any aircraft can be damaged by windshear.
>However, I'm not satisfied with the investigation chiefs comments saying
>that he is not optimistic about recovering the black boxes. Why would he
>say that? They are there within a locale and the responders are good for
>30 days.
"...has been recovered with part of the wreckage."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Black-box-recovered-from-Black-Hawk/2007/03/09/1173166982320.html
It sounds to me like they found a large chunk of wreckage with a black box
attached. Maybe in the AF case they aren't expecting large pieces of
wreckage. Or... maybe the person being interviewed is just being cautious.
He'd look like a complete idiot if he said he was sure it could be found
and it isn't. It might be more sensible to say that they aren't optimistic
and then have the nice outcome of finding it after all.
>So you just go and get them, right? A military sub can sonar/radar pick up
>unusual objects on the sea bed or cliff for that matter. We picked the
>black box from a Blackhawk helicopter off the southern sea of Fiji in the
>Pacific Ocean at 2.5 klm in good time. What's the problem so soon? When
>the same equipment can go to 6,000 metres.
>
>I smell a rat. A cover up.
>
>1. The industry and the French government don't want it to be known that
>overlaoding was the cause of this accident.
It wasn't overloaded. False premise.
>2. There indeed was a bomb on board, in the ongoing espionage operations
>between Boeing and Airbus. Noting that the A380 had a launch the day after
>the tradgedy.
Man! I want some of what you're smoking.
>3. None other than the truth actaully be known. Who was a person of import
>on that plane that has thus far not been revealed. (assassination) Or the
>son or daughter of such a target.
>
>Very sus.
Dud, you need to take this to alt.conspiracy. You'd be right at home with
all the kOOkerzoids there.
harry k
> On 04 Jun 2009 21:52:33 GMT, Sus-it-...@pigbond.com wrote:
>
> >I looked up seating arrangements for the AB 330-200 and found that most
> >commercial airlines identify with graphics 140 seats (yes you have to count
> >them). Other specs. on the aircarft say that it can seat up to 253
> >passengers. This is a whopping range.
>
> Man! You write as if you know this stuff, but...
>
> But not uncommon in the airline world. Different configurations of First,
> Business and Economy classes give different seating arrangements.
>
>
> gives two layouts. One 253 and the other 293 seats.
>
> >And what about the relationship between luggage load and passengers?
>
> >253 passengers with no luggage?
>
> What? No luggage?
>
> >Anyhow lets average this out. Airlines have been stuffing more people with
> >their luggage onto aircraft. (the conclusion) I figure that an AB 330-200
> >can fly 190 passengers relatively safley in most conditions.
>
> Where do you get this nonsense from?
>
> >However 228 passengers with an average of 15 kgs. pp. of luggage is not
> >safe in adverse weather conditions.
>
> No aircraft is safe in adverse weather conditions. That's what adverse
> means.
>
> >If you take the extra 38 passeaners plus luggage which means an extra 3.5
> >tonnes of weight. 3.5 tonnes at 800 kmph, work out the bare load on that.
>
> 3.5 tonnes at 800kph? What? What does the speed have to do with anything?
>
> >If they hit a wind shear it would have been enough to rip a wing or both
> >off in an instant.
>
> Meaningless drivel. How much wind shear? From which direction?
>
> Any aircraft can be damaged by windshear.
>
> >However, I'm not satisfied with the investigation chiefs comments saying
> >that he is not optimistic about recovering the black boxes. Why would he
> >say that? They are there within a locale and the responders are good for
> >30 days.
>
Amen to that!
Harry K