Air France 447
06-05-2009, 07:34 AM
#221
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by deltabound
Um. Really? The actual experts (not the crazy "loose change" type) seem pretty confident they know what caused that one. They recovered enough forensic evidence to prove their theory.
NTSB - TWA 800 Public Hearing
NTSB Abstract AAR-00/03
This particular tragedy could go the way of TWA 800 (lots of crazy theories) if they aren't able to recover anything, that's for sure.
NTSB - TWA 800 Public Hearing
NTSB Abstract AAR-00/03
This particular tragedy could go the way of TWA 800 (lots of crazy theories) if they aren't able to recover anything, that's for sure.
USMCFLYR
06-05-2009, 07:48 AM
#222
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by deltabound
Um. Really? The actual experts (not the crazy "loose change" type) seem pretty confident they know what caused that one. They recovered enough forensic evidence to prove their theory.
NTSB - TWA 800 Public Hearing
NTSB Abstract AAR-00/03
This particular tragedy could go the way of TWA 800 (lots of crazy theories) if they aren't able to recover anything, that's for sure.
NTSB - TWA 800 Public Hearing
NTSB Abstract AAR-00/03
This particular tragedy could go the way of TWA 800 (lots of crazy theories) if they aren't able to recover anything, that's for sure.
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
I believe the NTSB called the electrical short in the center fuel cell that "most probable cause" didn't they; but they could never say with absolute certainty.
USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR
That's correct. If deltabound would have actually read the abstract final report he provided a link to then he would have seen that it was the "most probable cause". The ACTUAL cause was never finalized. There was not enough evidence to seal the deal on the fuel tank theory, & worse there was too much conflicting evidence that made that theory seem a little far fetched.
06-05-2009, 07:54 AM
#223
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
I stand corrected. I'm afraid I didn't read the actual NTSB report, but was going from memory based on some TV special about the Flight 800 crash. (Nova, maybe?).
Good lord, I actually listened to a media report about an aviation accident! Consider myself <booted to the head>.
Still, I think an NTSB finding on "probable cause" has a great deal more weight than say than the average joe's pet theory, which tends toward the exotic and wildly improbable. Cause established beyond all doubt? No. But fairly certain, probably.
Good lord, I actually listened to a media report about an aviation accident! Consider myself <booted to the head>.
Still, I think an NTSB finding on "probable cause" has a great deal more weight than say than the average joe's pet theory, which tends toward the exotic and wildly improbable. Cause established beyond all doubt? No. But fairly certain, probably.
06-05-2009, 08:51 AM
#224
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by deltabound
I stand corrected. I'm afraid I didn't read the actual NTSB report, but was going from memory based on some TV special about the Flight 800 crash. (Nova, maybe?).
Good lord, I actually listened to a media report about an aviation accident! Consider myself <booted to the head>.
Still, I think an NTSB finding on "probable cause" has a great deal more weight than say than the average joe's pet theory, which tends toward the exotic and wildly improbable. Cause established beyond all doubt? No. But fairly certain, probably.
Good lord, I actually listened to a media report about an aviation accident! Consider myself <booted to the head>.
Still, I think an NTSB finding on "probable cause" has a great deal more weight than say than the average joe's pet theory, which tends toward the exotic and wildly improbable. Cause established beyond all doubt? No. But fairly certain, probably.
USMCFLYR
06-05-2009, 09:08 AM
#225
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by deltabound
I stand corrected. I'm afraid I didn't read the actual NTSB report, but was going from memory based on some TV special about the Flight 800 crash. (Nova, maybe?).
Good lord, I actually listened to a media report about an aviation accident! Consider myself <booted to the head>.
Still, I think an NTSB finding on "probable cause" has a great deal more weight than say than the average joe's pet theory, which tends toward the exotic and wildly improbable. Cause established beyond all doubt? No. But fairly certain, probably.
Good lord, I actually listened to a media report about an aviation accident! Consider myself <booted to the head>.
Still, I think an NTSB finding on "probable cause" has a great deal more weight than say than the average joe's pet theory, which tends toward the exotic and wildly improbable. Cause established beyond all doubt? No. But fairly certain, probably.
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
I agree. Personally I believe the electrical short theory. I believe the NTSB does an outstanding job of investigating mishaps and putting the pieces of amazing puzzles together. "Most probable" carries a lot of weight with me - but semantics does require that the difference be pointed out between ACTUAL and MOST PROBABLE.
USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR
06-05-2009, 09:24 AM
#227
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Ramen-eating duck driver
Posts: 255
"This is a plane that is conceived by engineers for engineers and not always for pilots," Jean-Pierre Albran, a veteran pilot of Boeing 747s, told Le Parisien newspaper.
"For example, on a 747 the throttle is pushed by hand. You feel it move in turbulence. On recent Airbuses, this throttle is fixed. You look at the dials. You don't feel anything."
Why would turbulence move the throttles? Does he mean the sidestick controller vs. yoke?
"For example, on a 747 the throttle is pushed by hand. You feel it move in turbulence. On recent Airbuses, this throttle is fixed. You look at the dials. You don't feel anything."
Why would turbulence move the throttles? Does he mean the sidestick controller vs. yoke?
06-05-2009, 09:43 AM
#228
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by DamonMeyer
"This is a plane that is conceived by engineers for engineers and not always for pilots," Jean-Pierre Albran, a veteran pilot of Boeing 747s, told Le Parisien newspaper.
"For example, on a 747 the throttle is pushed by hand. You feel it move in turbulence. On recent Airbuses, this throttle is fixed. You look at the dials. You don't feel anything."
Why would turbulence move the throttles? Does he mean the sidestick controller vs. yoke?
"For example, on a 747 the throttle is pushed by hand. You feel it move in turbulence. On recent Airbuses, this throttle is fixed. You look at the dials. You don't feel anything."
Why would turbulence move the throttles? Does he mean the sidestick controller vs. yoke?
06-05-2009, 12:23 PM
#229
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by johnso29
Sorry, didn't mean to come off as a jerk. I too think the NTSB does a great job. It's just that I'm still very intrigued by the fact that the FBI got so involved in the investigation. So much to the point that they basically shut the door on anyone who even insinuated that it may be anything other then a center fuel tank explosion. I'll will forever question the real cause of TWA 800s tragic crash.
06-05-2009, 01:07 PM
#230
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by johnso29
This is getting too wierd. 
I smell a slew of conspiracy theories coming on. I have a feeling this could end up like TWA 800, where we never do get the real reason behind the crash. 
I smell a slew of conspiracy theories coming on. I have a feeling this could end up like TWA 800, where we never do get the real reason behind the crash. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
