Bobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2098 times:
On my way home last night, I was listening to local all-news radio station.(CBS Radio) I only heard the last few lines of a report regarding the CI #611 crash last week. They said investigators are now trying to determine why the 747-200 performed a series of violent maneuvers about 8 to 10 minutes prior to the breaking up of the plane.
If anyone still has the ATC transcript, did the CI pilots report this to the ATC? Was it turbulence or something?
Bobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
Here's an update, according to CCTV English news(Telstar 5 in North America), the CI 747-200 made at least ten sudden acceleration/deceleration TWO & HALF minutes prior to disappearing from the Chinese air traffic radar. The plane's direction also chaged left/right, up/down several times at the same time.
The same broadcast can be seen via Newsworld Int'l, a Canadian channel that re-broadcast news from foreign stations. (channel 364 on DirecTV)
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1878 times:
If true, that pretty much eliminates the collision,fuel tank, missle, or bomb theories. It could be one of those one in many billion confluence of multiple events (clear air turblulence, unlikely structural failure) that may never be explained.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
If it turns out to be technical problem, it had to have been huge. A 747 is designed to withstand 9Gs of stress. It would require a tremendous amount of force to break the plane into four parts. Same for turbulence. I wonder if the joints of the fuselage undergo maintenance during a D-check.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9601 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
If thats true (and why should it be untrue?) the center fuel tank explosion theory is dead. A possible scenario could be that a clear wheather turbulence caused a already weak structure to break.
Or could it have been something like the Lauda Air desaster 11 years ago (reverse thrust misfunction)?
What about the reports of meteorites going down at that time? I read something like that here.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
I think the only doubt is the completeness of radar data. They are still compiling information to ensure the radar returns were not erroneous. I don't doubt the veracity of the radio report.
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6340 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1667 times:
Someone sent me all the radar data last week. Unfortunately I deleted it off my computer, but it did include several sudden speed drops on 100+ kts associated, if I remember correctly, with heading changes of 90 degrees to the left in a turn that took 11 secs, (Quite a steep turn when at altitude) and then a few minutes later, after recovering heading to track heading, another change of 90 degrees or so, also for 11secs to the right.
If this was associated with steep climbs and descents as well, I wonder if something happened to the rudder/evelator assemblies. Perhaps the rear pressure bulkhead blew out taking some of the control surfaces with it?
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1625 times:
but it did include several sudden speed drops on 100+ kts associated, if I remember correctly, with heading changes of 90 degrees to the left in a turn that took 11 secs
That's not aircraft-caused. There were external factors ie turbulance.
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6340 posts, RR: 56 Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
I don't think that the CI were in a known area of turbulence, unless there were thunderstorms that day which they decided to fly through. Does anyone have weather data for that route at the time the a/c went down?
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4073 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
I think China is doing a VERY bad job of covering up an OBVIOUS dogfight.
I remember one time I saw the Concorde doing all sorts of evasive manuevers avoiding fighter jets and missiles, adn eventually crashed in the snow.
SegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
Re: JAL incident.. i'm thinking the same thing....
It sounds like the plane is "fishtailing" in the air, which means the tail assembly was absent or rudder fell off.. but if you loose a rudder, you can *technically* still fly... it wouldn't cause you to blow up. Now if it was hit by another object, then that *should* show up on radar...
Could it be possible there was an extreme depressurization, which would knock everyone out in about 5 seconds at that altitude..... ??
T prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 995 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
A high altitude upset can easily cause the aircraft to perform violent manoeuvres to the point of structural failure. In fact in 1985 China Airlines had it happen to one of their 747SP's although it didn't come apart. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35672&key=1
One more thing: 'A 747 is designed to withstand 9Gs of stress'
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6340 posts, RR: 56 Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1386 times:
I doubt the mainland has anything to do with the crash.
Losing a tail would not cause the aircraft to break up, but that's what the AA A300 started to do last year after it lost it's tail didn't it? It it was at 30,000ft, it might have fallen to bits as well.
Smolt From Japan, joined Nov 1999, 269 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1344 times:
The data above get me feel;
1. the location data east and north from no. 6 does not seem to reflect the ACTUAL locations. Plotting them the aircraft is flying the zig zag way even the fighter could not do.(only a flying saucer could)
2. if I can ignore the location data, the aircraft seem to enter to a horizontal spin from the left to the right.
3. data of the speed and the altitude look like to have mutual relationship of a certain significance; when the altitude lost, the speed gained. when the altitude gained, the speed lost.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
T-prop and Admiral Ackbar,
The 747 is designed to survive 9gs of stress intact- not meant to be operated regularly under 9gs. I have heard/read that in several places: Discovery channel, Boeing Everett tour, and other places. I don't catalog the stuff but I don't make it up either.
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4073 posts, RR: 56 Reply 23, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
"Is there any benefits that the People's Republic of China can get by doing so to the Republic of China ? I am not clever enough to figure it out. "
Actually, there are many reason why they would shoot down their own plane.
Feeling that they need to eliminate one speicfic passenger on board or somethign that we may never understand.
But why could it only have been China? Who said it's not a terrorist attack form some other country?
SegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1128 times:
well flight attendant and cockpit jumpseats are suppose to withstand like 10 G's or so....
-n
25 Madog: ". A 747 is designed to withstand 9Gs of stress. It would require a tremendous amount of force to break the plane into four parts." Hmmm... i don't th
26 Na: If it wasn´t an explosion (and the lack of fire traces and the strange movements already minutes before the final disastrous event points in the dire
27 VirginFlyer: Na - an explosive decompression could have ejected part of the aircraft backwards. The force of the air escaping out the back of the aircraft would be
28 Aerosol: At that point of the investigation everything is possible, even the collision with a drone (I don't think so, but it is possible).
29 Oxygen: About the explosion, could the explosion happen after the mid-air disintergration happen? maybe after the aircraft came apart, the fuel get exposed an
30 Joni: Perhaps there was a struggle in the cockpit that caused both the violent maneuvres and also the hull break-up?
31 APP: Anyone know whether the CVR and/or FDR has been recovered yet? APP.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2001, 182 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9601 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2559 posts, 
From Japan, joined Nov 1999, 269 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2002, 159 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
