After Airport I, II, III etc. etc. everybody knows any crew member with a few simple directions from the ground can land a passenger jet on a CVN.
Seriously, the autopsies show the passengers were alive and probably unconscious so it isn’t beyond the possibility that a steward went into the cabin to ask what was happening and then tried to do something. The question that needs answering is where was the pilot and what was he doing.The actual cause of the crash was running out of fuel.
"Frankie" <franki…@earthlink.net> wrote in message
In article <6s7Oe.3982$Hi.3468@trnddc04>, "sfb" <s…@spam.net> wrote: > Seriously, the autopsies show the passengers were alive and probably > unconscious so it isn’t beyond the possibility that a steward went into > the cabin to ask what was happening and then tried to do something.
Yes, but it seems unlikely that he could (or would) have flown a holding pattern.
The story I heard was that the Flight Attendant tried to fly the plane after the 1st officer fell asleep. The flight attendant was the Cessna pilot, the 1st officer was (I assume) fully qualified in the 737 (when awake). The captain was AWOL.
> question that needs answering is where was the pilot and what was he > doing.The actual cause of the crash was running out of fuel.
> "Frankie" <franki…@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:e77Oe.9166$Wi6.544@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net…
>>I dunno…but this story’s hard to believe….
>>Frankie
It does strike me as strange that if the aircraft ran out of fuel, there was a postcrash fire big enough to need helicopter water drops to stop it. I can envision small blazes caused by a few gallons of unuseable fuel, but I gotta wonder…
> The story I heard was that the Flight Attendant tried to fly the plane > after the 1st officer fell asleep.
How would they know this?
Jose — Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there’s no God, and there’s no dice. And maybe there’s no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
> It does strike me as strange that if the aircraft ran out of fuel, there > was a postcrash fire big enough to need helicopter water drops to stop > it. I can envision small blazes caused by a few gallons of unuseable > fuel, but I gotta wonder…
Well, the plane went down only a few hours after takeoff. Perhaps there was plenty of fuel in other tanks if the guy flying it had known how to switch tanks?
George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.
> They know who was in the cockpit based on the remains and the > observations by the F-16s.
Yes, but is is presumption to say what they were doing, and when. It might well be a reasonable presumption, but I don’t see how it can be established, expecially at this juncture, as fact.
Jose — Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there’s no God, and there’s no dice. And maybe there’s no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
In article <KFaOe.9221$Wi6.3…@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Dave S <Dasta…@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > Yes, but it seems unlikely that he could (or would) have flown a holding > > pattern.
> > rg
> The FMS entered the hold after overflying the destination at altitude. > Sounds like it flew the lateral part of an approach, missed approach and > hold.
The information gap on this crash is wider than the Grand Canyon, and bodes ill for a full disclosure at any time. First the F16 pilots say they saw the pilot absent and the FO slumped over the controls – then they say they saw someone else attempting to fly the plane – now there are reports one of the black boxes has been "lost" by authorities, after being recovered.
I am not one given to conspiracy theories – I ridicule those who say 9/11 was staged and I feel there is no strong evidence to contradict the official story on TWA800 (please let’s not start a new thread on this) – but in this case it is starting to appear that the authorities are not coming forward with the information. I believe it’s possible that the plane suffered a decompression accident, then, with no one left to fly the plane, the authorities made the "unthinkable" choice while the plane was in an uninhabited zone, rather than face the inevitable in less controlled circumstances.
I’m not saying this is what I think happened - only that it is a possible theory, about as close as any of the others we have to fitting with the sparse evidence available. I am not optimistic that full and reliable details will ever be made available – the "lost" flight recorder being the last link in the chain of credibility.
To those who claim the plane ran out of fuel – I ask, what evidence supports this?
Greg Farris <no…@goaway.com> wrote: > – now there > are reports one of the black boxes has been "lost" by authorities, > after being recovered.
You’re about a week behind in the news. The cockpit voice recorder box was found fairly early in the investigation, but the guts were missing, having been torn out by the forces in the accident. They have since found the voice recorder itself at the crash site, but are worried that it might be too damaged to read. It has been forwarded to France to see what information they can extract.
> - but in this case it is starting to appear that the authorities > are not coming forward with the information.
The Greek authorities tend to do investigations without making early public statements like they do in some other countries. However, they have released a general sequence of events that was extracted from the flight data recorder, and the head of the investigating agency has given a number of interviews describing what they have found in the investigation so far. You just aren’t reading the right newspapers.
> I believe it’s possible > that the plane suffered a decompression accident, then, with no one > left to fly the plane, the authorities made the "unthinkable" choice > while the plane was in an uninhabited zone, rather than face the > inevitable in less controlled circumstances.
No, it looks like the pressurization system wasn’t working from the time the aircraft took off. No sudden decompression. The crew was busy trying to diagnose a number of problems, and likely set up the Flight Management System/Autopilot to control the flight. The systems then handled everything involved with flying the airplane. What happened to the crew and passengers next is open to speculation. Perhaps the crew was simply overwhelmed by all the problems, and didn’t recognize the risk from the cabin altitude problem.
> I’m not saying this is what I think happened - only that it is a > possible theory, about as close as any of the others we have to > fitting with the sparse evidence available. I am not optimistic that > full and reliable details will ever be made available – the "lost" > flight recorder being the last link in the chain of credibility.
> To those who claim the plane ran out of fuel – I ask, what evidence > supports this?
The flight data recorder. It says the engines flamed out. There might have been fuel available in some of the tanks, but if the engines ran the tanks dry that they were using, and nobody set up the feed for the other tanks with fuel, then it has the same effect as running out completely. That would explain why the engines stopped for lack of fuel and there was still a fire after the crash.
>> It does strike me as strange that if the aircraft ran out of fuel, >> there was a postcrash fire big enough to need helicopter water drops >> to stop it. I can envision small blazes caused by a few gallons of >> unuseable fuel, but I gotta wonder…
> Well, the plane went down only a few hours after takeoff. Perhaps there > was plenty of fuel in other tanks if the guy flying it had known how to > switch tanks?
He was reading this other thread about running a tank dry and really balled it up.
> The information gap on this crash is wider than the Grand Canyon, and > bodes > ill for a full disclosure at any time. First the F16 pilots say they > saw the > pilot absent and the FO slumped over the controls – then they say they > saw > someone else attempting to fly the plane – now there are reports one > of the > black boxes has been "lost" by authorities, after being recovered.
> I am not one given to conspiracy theories – I ridicule those who say > 9/11 > was staged and I feel there is no strong evidence to contradict the > official > story on TWA800 (please let’s not start a new thread on this) – but in > this > case it is starting to appear that the authorities are not coming > forward > with the information. I believe it’s possible that the plane suffered > a > decompression accident, then, with no one left to fly the plane, the > authorities made the "unthinkable" choice while the plane was in an > uninhabited zone, rather than face the inevitable in less controlled > circumstances.
> I’m not saying this is what I think happened - only that it is a > possible > theory, about as close as any of the others we have to fitting with > the > sparse evidence available. I am not optimistic that full and reliable > details will ever be made available – the "lost" flight recorder being > the > last link in the chain of credibility.
> To those who claim the plane ran out of fuel – I ask, what evidence > supports > this?
He may taken a full load of fuel earlier in the day on the mainland and not refueled in Larnaca, Cyprus.
"Newps" <nowh…@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:qo2dnbLw0IuORJTeRVn-sw@bresnan.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> George Patterson wrote:
>> Scott Skylane wrote:
>>> It does strike me as strange that if the aircraft ran out of fuel, >>> there was a postcrash fire big enough to need helicopter water drops >>> to stop it. I can envision small blazes caused by a few gallons of >>> unuseable fuel, but I gotta wonder…
>> Well, the plane went down only a few hours after takeoff. Perhaps >> there was plenty of fuel in other tanks if the guy flying it had >> known how to switch tanks?
> He was reading this other thread about running a tank dry and really > balled it up.
> doing.The actual cause of the crash was running out of fuel.
So after the "Arrival", what was burning? Al
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"sfb" <s…@spam.net> wrote in message news:6s7Oe.3982$Hi.3468@trnddc04… > After Airport I, II, III etc. etc. everybody knows any crew member with a > few simple directions from the ground can land a passenger jet on a CVN.
> Seriously, the autopsies show the passengers were alive and probably > unconscious so it isn’t beyond the possibility that a steward went into > the cabin to ask what was happening and then tried to do something. The > question that needs answering is where was the pilot and what was he > doing.The actual cause of the crash was running out of fuel.
> "Frankie" <franki…@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:e77Oe.9166$Wi6.544@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… >>I dunno…but this story’s hard to believe….
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:22:34 GMT, Dave S <Dasta…@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Ron Garret wrote:
>> Yes, but it seems unlikely that he could (or would) have flown a holding >> pattern.
>> rg
>The FMS entered the hold after overflying the destination at altitude. >Sounds like it flew the lateral part of an approach, missed approach and >hold.
Not that it really matters, but was it a real FMS driven racetrack holding pattern, or was it just circling over what would have been the last waypoint loaded up in the plan pre departure? Generally, how early does one get the STAR (if any), and approach assignment to put into the box? In this case, how early would they have put it in, assuming they had enough time/sense to put it in considering the lack of O2?
GF> The information gap on this crash is wider than the Grand GF> Canyon, and bodes ill for a full disclosure at any time. First GF> the F16 pilots say they saw the pilot absent and the FO GF> slumped over the controls – then they say they saw someone GF> else attempting to fly the plane
The *press* is saying this stuff. I doubt very much the pilots are changing their story. The press is probably to blame for the changing stories, along with bureacrats who might know something but don’t have permission to say it, so they drop hints to the press. No need for conspiracy theories.
> Just a minor point. The authorities have said that the engines stopped > because of fuel starvation. They didn’t say the plane ran out of fuel.
Regardless of the configuration of any cross-feed valves, it is not possible for any series 737 to have both engines stopped because of fuel starvation without the plane running out of fuel.
I dunno…but this story’s hard to believe….
Frankie
After Airport I, II, III etc. etc. everybody knows any crew member with
a few simple directions from the ground can land a passenger jet on a
CVN.
Seriously, the autopsies show the passengers were alive and probably
unconscious so it isn’t beyond the possibility that a steward went into
the cabin to ask what was happening and then tried to do something. The
question that needs answering is where was the pilot and what was he
doing.The actual cause of the crash was running out of fuel.
"Frankie" <franki…@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e77Oe.9166$Wi6.544@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>I dunno…but this story’s hard to believe….
> Frankie
"Marc CYBW" <marc_latt…@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:6L5Oe.209923$tt5.105203@edtnps90…
http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/08/20/Navigation/177...
The old "string of bad decisions". Incredible!!
In article <6s7Oe.3982$Hi.3468@trnddc04>, "sfb" <s…@spam.net> wrote:
> Seriously, the autopsies show the passengers were alive and probably
> unconscious so it isn’t beyond the possibility that a steward went into
> the cabin to ask what was happening and then tried to do something.
Yes, but it seems unlikely that he could (or would) have flown a holding
pattern.
rg
The story I heard was that the Flight Attendant tried to fly the plane
after the 1st officer fell asleep. The flight attendant was the Cessna
pilot, the 1st officer was (I assume) fully qualified in the 737 (when
awake). The captain was AWOL.
sfb wrote:
/snip/ The
> question that needs answering is where was the pilot and what was he
> doing.The actual cause of the crash was running out of fuel.
> "Frankie" <franki…@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:e77Oe.9166$Wi6.544@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net…
>>I dunno…but this story’s hard to believe….
>>Frankie
It does strike me as strange that if the aircraft ran out of fuel, there
was a postcrash fire big enough to need helicopter water drops to stop
it. I can envision small blazes caused by a few gallons of unuseable
fuel, but I gotta wonder…
Scott
> The story I heard was that the Flight Attendant tried to fly the plane
> after the 1st officer fell asleep.
How would they know this?
Jose
—
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there’s no God, and there’s no dice. And maybe there’s no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Article says "air stewerd".. is that their version of a flight attendant?
Sounds plausible… he would have access to the portable medical tank.
He would have half a clue on trying to run things (though probably not
enough of one).
Says the engines flamed out from lack of fuel… where’d the fire come
from then?
Dave
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Frankie wrote:
> I dunno…but this story’s hard to believe….
> Frankie
Ron Garret wrote:
> Yes, but it seems unlikely that he could (or would) have flown a holding
> pattern.
> rg
The FMS entered the hold after overflying the destination at altitude.
Sounds like it flew the lateral part of an approach, missed approach and
hold.
Dave
Ron Garret wrote:
> Yes, but it seems unlikely that he could (or would) have flown a holding
> pattern.
The article said the holding pattern was probably flown by the autopilot.
George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.
Scott Skylane wrote:
> It does strike me as strange that if the aircraft ran out of fuel, there
> was a postcrash fire big enough to need helicopter water drops to stop
> it. I can envision small blazes caused by a few gallons of unuseable
> fuel, but I gotta wonder…
Well, the plane went down only a few hours after takeoff. Perhaps there was
plenty of fuel in other tanks if the guy flying it had known how to switch tanks?
George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.
They know who was in the cockpit based on the remains and the
observations by the F-16s.
> They know who was in the cockpit based on the remains and the
> observations by the F-16s.
Yes, but is is presumption to say what they were doing, and when. It
might well be a reasonable presumption, but I don’t see how it can be
established, expecially at this juncture, as fact.
Jose
—
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there’s no God, and there’s no dice. And maybe there’s no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
In article <KFaOe.9221$Wi6.3…@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Dave S <Dasta…@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > Yes, but it seems unlikely that he could (or would) have flown a holding
> > pattern.
> > rg
> The FMS entered the hold after overflying the destination at altitude.
> Sounds like it flew the lateral part of an approach, missed approach and
> hold.
> Dave
Ah.
rg
The information gap on this crash is wider than the Grand Canyon, and bodes
ill for a full disclosure at any time. First the F16 pilots say they saw the
pilot absent and the FO slumped over the controls – then they say they saw
someone else attempting to fly the plane – now there are reports one of the
black boxes has been "lost" by authorities, after being recovered.
I am not one given to conspiracy theories – I ridicule those who say 9/11
was staged and I feel there is no strong evidence to contradict the official
story on TWA800 (please let’s not start a new thread on this) – but in this
case it is starting to appear that the authorities are not coming forward
with the information. I believe it’s possible that the plane suffered a
decompression accident, then, with no one left to fly the plane, the
authorities made the "unthinkable" choice while the plane was in an
uninhabited zone, rather than face the inevitable in less controlled
circumstances.
I’m not saying this is what I think happened - only that it is a possible
theory, about as close as any of the others we have to fitting with the
sparse evidence available. I am not optimistic that full and reliable
details will ever be made available – the "lost" flight recorder being the
last link in the chain of credibility.
To those who claim the plane ran out of fuel – I ask, what evidence supports
this?
G Faris
Greg Farris <no…@goaway.com> wrote:
> – now there
> are reports one of the black boxes has been "lost" by authorities,
> after being recovered.
You’re about a week behind in the news. The cockpit voice recorder box
was found fairly early in the investigation, but the guts were missing,
having been torn out by the forces in the accident. They have since
found the voice recorder itself at the crash site, but are worried that
it might be too damaged to read. It has been forwarded to France to see
what information they can extract.
> - but in this case it is starting to appear that the authorities
> are not coming forward with the information.
The Greek authorities tend to do investigations without making early
public statements like they do in some other countries. However, they
have released a general sequence of events that was extracted from the
flight data recorder, and the head of the investigating agency has given
a number of interviews describing what they have found in the
investigation so far. You just aren’t reading the right newspapers.
> I believe it’s possible
> that the plane suffered a decompression accident, then, with no one
> left to fly the plane, the authorities made the "unthinkable" choice
> while the plane was in an uninhabited zone, rather than face the
> inevitable in less controlled circumstances.
No, it looks like the pressurization system wasn’t working from the time
the aircraft took off. No sudden decompression. The crew was busy trying
to diagnose a number of problems, and likely set up the Flight
Management System/Autopilot to control the flight. The systems then
handled everything involved with flying the airplane. What happened to
the crew and passengers next is open to speculation. Perhaps the crew
was simply overwhelmed by all the problems, and didn’t recognize the
risk from the cabin altitude problem.
> I’m not saying this is what I think happened - only that it is a
> possible theory, about as close as any of the others we have to
> fitting with the sparse evidence available. I am not optimistic that
> full and reliable details will ever be made available – the "lost"
> flight recorder being the last link in the chain of credibility.
> To those who claim the plane ran out of fuel – I ask, what evidence
> supports this?
The flight data recorder. It says the engines flamed out. There might
have been fuel available in some of the tanks, but if the engines ran
the tanks dry that they were using, and nobody set up the feed for the
other tanks with fuel, then it has the same effect as running out
completely. That would explain why the engines stopped for lack of fuel
and there was still a fire after the crash.
George Patterson wrote:
> Scott Skylane wrote:
>> It does strike me as strange that if the aircraft ran out of fuel,
>> there was a postcrash fire big enough to need helicopter water drops
>> to stop it. I can envision small blazes caused by a few gallons of
>> unuseable fuel, but I gotta wonder…
> Well, the plane went down only a few hours after takeoff. Perhaps there
> was plenty of fuel in other tanks if the guy flying it had known how to
> switch tanks?
He was reading this other thread about running a tank dry and really
balled it up.
The Greek investigators say the plane ran out of fuel.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/22plane.htm
"Greg Farris" <no…@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:decfvt$s1i$1@biggoron.nerim.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> The information gap on this crash is wider than the Grand Canyon, and
> bodes
> ill for a full disclosure at any time. First the F16 pilots say they
> saw the
> pilot absent and the FO slumped over the controls – then they say they
> saw
> someone else attempting to fly the plane – now there are reports one
> of the
> black boxes has been "lost" by authorities, after being recovered.
> I am not one given to conspiracy theories – I ridicule those who say
> 9/11
> was staged and I feel there is no strong evidence to contradict the
> official
> story on TWA800 (please let’s not start a new thread on this) – but in
> this
> case it is starting to appear that the authorities are not coming
> forward
> with the information. I believe it’s possible that the plane suffered
> a
> decompression accident, then, with no one left to fly the plane, the
> authorities made the "unthinkable" choice while the plane was in an
> uninhabited zone, rather than face the inevitable in less controlled
> circumstances.
> I’m not saying this is what I think happened - only that it is a
> possible
> theory, about as close as any of the others we have to fitting with
> the
> sparse evidence available. I am not optimistic that full and reliable
> details will ever be made available – the "lost" flight recorder being
> the
> last link in the chain of credibility.
> To those who claim the plane ran out of fuel – I ask, what evidence
> supports
> this?
> G Faris
"sfb" <s…@spam.net> wrote:
> The Greek investigators say the plane ran out of fuel.
> http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/22plane.htm
Just a minor point. The authorities have said that the engines stopped
because of fuel starvation. They didn’t say the plane ran out of fuel.
He may taken a full load of fuel earlier in the day on the mainland and
not refueled in Larnaca, Cyprus.
"Newps" <nowh…@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:qo2dnbLw0IuORJTeRVn-sw@bresnan.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> George Patterson wrote:
>> Scott Skylane wrote:
>>> It does strike me as strange that if the aircraft ran out of fuel,
>>> there was a postcrash fire big enough to need helicopter water drops
>>> to stop it. I can envision small blazes caused by a few gallons of
>>> unuseable fuel, but I gotta wonder…
>> Well, the plane went down only a few hours after takeoff. Perhaps
>> there was plenty of fuel in other tanks if the guy flying it had
>> known how to switch tanks?
> He was reading this other thread about running a tank dry and really
> balled it up.
> doing.The actual cause of the crash was running out of fuel.
So after the "Arrival", what was burning? Al
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"sfb" <s…@spam.net> wrote in message news:6s7Oe.3982$Hi.3468@trnddc04…
> After Airport I, II, III etc. etc. everybody knows any crew member with a
> few simple directions from the ground can land a passenger jet on a CVN.
> Seriously, the autopsies show the passengers were alive and probably
> unconscious so it isn’t beyond the possibility that a steward went into
> the cabin to ask what was happening and then tried to do something. The
> question that needs answering is where was the pilot and what was he
> doing.The actual cause of the crash was running out of fuel.
> "Frankie" <franki…@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:e77Oe.9166$Wi6.544@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net…
>>I dunno…but this story’s hard to believe….
>> Frankie
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:22:34 GMT, Dave S <Dasta…@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Ron Garret wrote:
>> Yes, but it seems unlikely that he could (or would) have flown a holding
>> pattern.
>> rg
>The FMS entered the hold after overflying the destination at altitude.
>Sounds like it flew the lateral part of an approach, missed approach and
>hold.
Not that it really matters, but was it a real FMS driven racetrack
holding pattern, or was it just circling over what would have been the
last waypoint loaded up in the plan pre departure? Generally, how
early does one get the STAR (if any), and approach assignment to put
into the box? In this case, how early would they have put it in,
assuming they had enough time/sense to put it in considering the lack
of O2?
>>>>> "GF" == Greg Farris <no…@goaway.com> writes:
GF> The information gap on this crash is wider than the Grand
GF> Canyon, and bodes ill for a full disclosure at any time. First
GF> the F16 pilots say they saw the pilot absent and the FO
GF> slumped over the controls – then they say they saw someone
GF> else attempting to fly the plane
The *press* is saying this stuff. I doubt very much the pilots are
changing their story. The press is probably to blame for the changing
stories, along with bureacrats who might know something but don’t have
permission to say it, so they drop hints to the press. No need for
conspiracy theories.
"James Robinson" <wasc…@212.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96BA653BE2ED5wascanamailcircuitco@216.196.97.142…
> "sfb" <s…@spam.net> wrote:
>> The Greek investigators say the plane ran out of fuel.
>> http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/22plane.htm
> Just a minor point. The authorities have said that the engines stopped
> because of fuel starvation. They didn’t say the plane ran out of fuel.
Regardless of the configuration of any cross-feed valves, it is not possible
for any series 737 to have both engines stopped because of fuel starvation
without the plane running out of fuel.