Originally Posted by
USMCFLYR
So you use a few examples where structural failure DID NOT cause the loss of the aircraft and then want "conclusive proof" that it would happen?
So if you were to find some examples where structural failure DID cause the loss of the aircraft would you accept that as conclusive?
You seem to like research.
I'll start you off with China Airlines 611 and JAL 123.
EasternATC nails it with respect to your ideas of psychology 101.
Always and never seldom work out. Try and remember that when you write your story.
Thank you for highlighting my point.
It is a possibility that the airframe would break up but not an absolute.
We all know with JAL 123 that the real problem there was loss of most of the tail fin and all hydraulics to flying controls.
With CAL 611 that was not just a mere decompression, but a failure to correctly stitch back the belly after a tailstrike concealed under a lap plate. That aircraft did not merely decompress, it unzipped. That is not a relevant example either because that was not an incident where the aircraft continued to fly.
What we are debating here is whether an aircraft that survives the initial decompression event would stay together structurally for another 7+ hours?
It is not 100% certain it would, but it is not 100% certain it would not.
It was you who demanded it was 100% likely to break up and I cited four examples where aircraft which survived horrific structural impairment continued to fly.
At 17:19 Zulu MH370 turned over IGARI from the previous 25 degree track to 40 degrees suggesting it was taking a shortcut to BIBAN bypassing BITOD. Last airspeed given by the transponder was 471 knots at 35,000. The reconstruction of INMARSAT data concluded it continued into the southern Indian Ocean in steady flight "above 30,000ft" and at an average 450kt. That might be a clue that all else being equal it suffered a 20kt decrease in speed.