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.
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?
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?
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..... ??
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.