So back to the question, what was the debris from?

  • Thread starter moose
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Flight
In summary: I can at least see them or have pictures of them.In summary, conflicting reports are being made about why Air France jet crashed with 228 aboard. It is unclear if the debris found earlier is from the missing plane, but the air force has said that it is not. Two Spanish pilots say they saw "intense flash" in the area where the jet crashed, and Brazilian minister says that oil slick is ruling out a midair fire or explosion as the cause of the crash.
  • #36
BobG said:
Running shoes will float. And they'll protect people's feet from decomposing.

Technically running shoes are not part of the plane.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Topher925 said:
What parts of an airplane float besides the seat cushions?

I don't even know how long the seat cushions would float for. Luggage would likely float for a while, but this long after the crash, I don't know how much is likely to be found. I would expect a lot of stuff that might float for a short time might be waterlogged by now, and it's doubtful that if the plane went down in any way that could have allowed for survivors that they'd still be alive this many days later. I guess that would be the one reason to want to find the right debris field early on, just in case there were any survivors hanging onto floating seat cushions...the waters might be warm enough for them to survive a few days if the sharks didn't find them first. Since they really have no clue what happened to the plane, there is the chance it landed in a way that there were some survivors initially.
 
  • #38
Good luck finding a few suitcases in the ocean. Even if a tenth of the plane is floating, the chance of finding that debris is probably very very low.

Can it be conspiracy time now?
 
  • #39
moose said:
Can it be conspiracy time now?

How much do you want to bet that the alien abduction theories are already brewing?

IT'S JUST LIKE IN THE X-FILES!
 
  • #40
Ivan Seeking said:
How much do you want to bet that the alien abduction theories are already brewing?

They were assimilated!
 
  • #41
Ivan Seeking said:
How much do you want to bet that the alien abduction theories are already brewing?

IT'S JUST LIKE IN THE X-FILES!

I can only hope that someday the history channel will be on with some show about abductions and that they will talk about this.

"In 2009 Air France flight 447 suddenly disappeared with no warning. Not a shred of it has ever been found. Planes just don't disappear, there HAD to have been extraterrestrial involvement. A few pilots recalled seeing a bright flash of light around the time of the flights disappearance. I have no doubt in my mind that the plane was abducted by aliens"
 
  • #42
moose said:
I can only hope that someday the history channel will be on with some show about abductions and that they will talk about this.

"In 2009 Air France flight 447 suddenly disappeared with no warning. Not a shred of it has ever been found. Planes just don't disappear, there HAD to have been extraterrestrial involvement. A few pilots recalled seeing a bright flash of light around the time of the flights disappearance. I have no doubt in my mind that the plane was abducted by aliens"

I don't know if you have ever watched the UFO Hunters, but that one guy with the dark glasses and a hat... I think his name is Bill, is actually just that bad! I swear, he is the definitive example of a UFO NUT! Yes indeed, if they don't find the plane, I would put money down that we could easily predict a half dozen conspiracy theories... not to say that we should. :biggrin: But it is all so painfully predictable.
 
  • #43
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't know if you have ever watched the UFO Hunters, but that one guy with the dark glasses and a hat... I think his name is Bill, is actually just that bad! I swear, he is the definitive example of a UFO NUT! Yes indeed, if they don't find the plane, I would put money down that we could easily predict a half dozen conspiracy theories... not to say that we should. :biggrin: But it is all so painfully predictable.

He was precisely my motivation for what I wrote. He would always say things like "So we have proven without a doubt that it was built with extraterrestrial help 1000 years ago".

Once more is known about flight 447, this thread will get back on topic.
 
  • #44
Evo said:
I have to say if there was no doubt they died, a body would be meaningless. It would only be an issue if the person had just "disappeared" and there was no evidence that they were dead.

You've unwittingly identified the key issue. There is always a doubt. It gnaws at the soul. It consumes ones time in endless, depressing speculation. This is the thing for which the word 'closure' has come to represent the end of.

Now I understand this word.
 
  • #45
Phrak said:
You've unwittingly identified the key issue. There is always a doubt. It gnaws at the soul. It consumes ones time in endless, depressing speculation. This is the thing for which the word 'closure' has come to represent the end of.

Now I understand this word.

But if you had a family member on that flight, would you have doubt that your loved one was dead?

I wouldn't.

Edit: looks like a funny thing to say when you read my signature :smile: but I stand by it.
 
  • #46
Phrak said:
You've unwittingly identified the key issue. There is always a doubt. It gnaws at the soul. It consumes ones time in endless, depressing speculation. This is the thing for which the word 'closure' has come to represent the end of.

Now I understand this word.

Not really, not for me at least.
 
  • #47
lisab said:
But if you had a family member on that flight, would you have doubt that your loved one was dead?

I wouldn't.

Edit: looks like a funny thing to say when you read my signature :smile: but I stand by it.

If the plane was never found at all, then I would probably have doubts despite knowing otherwise. If the plane debris was found, then all doubt would be gone.
 
  • #48
moose said:
If the plane was never found at all, then I would probably have doubts despite knowing otherwise. If the plane debris was found, then all doubt would be gone.

Why would you have doubts: are there magical islands in the middle of the Atlantic ocean? Also, how many people survive a crash from 35k + feet?
 
  • #49
Cyrus said:
Why would you have doubts: are there magical islands in the middle of the Atlantic ocean? Also, how many people survive a crash from 35k + feet?

Never said the doubts would be rational.
 
  • #50
Cyrus said:
Why would you have doubts: are there magical islands in the middle of the Atlantic ocean? Also, how many people survive a crash from 35k + feet?

If there was no debris found, how can you be sure they were not kidnapped by aliens and they are not alive in some other dimension?
 
  • #51
Cyrus said:
Why would you have doubts: are there magical islands in the middle of the Atlantic ocean? Also, how many people survive a crash from 35k + feet?

The doubt is that without finding any evidence of debris from the plane, and with no radar coverage or communication from the flight after some sort of electrical fault, nobody knows that it just suddenly fell from the sky...that's an assumption that it crashed from 35k feet. There can remain doubt that it managed to glide into the water intact and there are survivors floating around in a life raft that hasn't been found yet (not an easy thing to find when you don't even know where to start looking). Though, we also know that even in that sort of "best case" scenario, without fresh water, time has run out. That won't stop the relatives of the victims from holding out hope longer.
 
  • #52
Ok, wait. From what I understand an oil slick was found with the debris, but was determined to possibly be too large to be from the Airbus. Where the heck did it come from then? I can maybe understand a ship chucking stuff overboard, but you wouldn't dump oil in the middle of the ocean

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/06/search_for_flight_447_continue.html

Cardoso said a large oil slick spotted by search plane pilots was not from the Airbus, but that another slick of kerosene found may have been from the downed passenger jet.

"The oil was not from the plane because there wasn't oil of that quantity (on the plane) to cause that slick," he said.
 
  • #55
Cyrus said:
Why would you have doubts: are there magical islands in the middle of the Atlantic ocean? Also, how many people survive a crash from 35k + feet?

You just need to know how to fall from an airplane. Actually, there are occasional survivors - Plane Fall Survivor Backs Serb Reformers.



Office_Shredder said:
Ok, wait. From what I understand an oil slick was found with the debris, but was determined to possibly be too large to be from the Airbus. Where the heck did it come from then? I can maybe understand a ship chucking stuff overboard, but you wouldn't dump oil in the middle of the ocean

People illegally dump waste in the ocean all the time. In fact, that's one of the causes of the http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gVV_gQDsp1m8v7nPcumVc5McYV-Q pirate problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
BobG said:
Actually, there are occasional survivors - Plane Fall Survivor Backs Serb Reformers.
Typically, when people are looking for "closure", it is due to an absence of evidence of anything to indicate a crash (or whatever). When someone just plain disappears, you have no idea what happened to them, so it isn't that unreasonable to hold out some hope. This is why it is so hard for the families of abduction victims. Even though the odds say that after a certain amount of time, they are probably dead, it isn't unreasonable to continue looking for them.

But a plane crash (where the plane plummets from 35,000 feet) isn't like that. A plane crash provides clear evidence that a person almost certainly died, even if the body isn't recoverable.
 
  • #58
Apparently bodies have now been found from the crashed plane: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8087303.stm

Bodies and debris have been found from the Air France plane which went missing over the Atlantic last Monday, the Brazilian air force has said...
 
  • #59
BobG said:
You just need to know how to fall from an airplane. Actually, there are occasional survivors - Plane Fall Survivor Backs Serb Reformers.

Umm...

# Survey landing locations.No parachute, eh? Bummer. Okay, now look down and take a good look at the ground. This may be frightening -- DON'T PANIC. If there are any bodies of water below, you want to steer clear of them. Water is the worst thing to hit. Look especially for hills -- the best way to land is by rolling down a hill. Large inflated crash mats are great, too, but chances are you won't find any handy.

This might be tough over an ocean

People illegally dump waste in the ocean all the time. In fact, that's one of the causes of the Somali pirate problem.

Enough oil to fill a trans-Atlantic flight's fuel tank? Where does this come from, and why is it waste?
 
  • #60
Moonbear said:
It depends on the family. For some, they just can't process that the person is really dead and let go of the hope that they might instead be crash landed on a deserted island and living out their own version of Gilligan's Island or Lost if they don't find a body...or at least confirm that the plane really wrecked.

Though, I hope they're carefully examining that NONE of that wreckage is from 447. A mid-air collision with an unregistered flight in an area without radar coverage is certainly more plausible as a reason for a crash than a lightning strike, or it's also possible that dumb luck landed the plane on a boat or ship when it hit the water, and debris are from something struck by the plane in addition to the plane. Otherwise, it seems there are not one, but two incidents to investigate...a bad enough storm to down a jet could have also capsized a boat in the same area (the flash someone else reported could have been a signal flare).
Not two incidents. The report I saw said was that it was flotsam that had been floating around for years. Just more junk that we've dumped into the sea.
 
  • #61
Moonbear said:
The doubt is that without finding any evidence of debris from the plane, and with no radar coverage or communication from the flight after some sort of electrical fault, nobody knows that it just suddenly fell from the sky...that's an assumption that it crashed from 35k feet. There can remain doubt that it managed to glide into the water intact and there are survivors floating around in a life raft that hasn't been found yet (not an easy thing to find when you don't even know where to start looking). Though, we also know that even in that sort of "best case" scenario, without fresh water, time has run out. That won't stop the relatives of the victims from holding out hope longer.
I'll grant that there is some chance the plane could have survived, but there are a lot of "even if's" to those scenarios: The searchers do know where to start looking and even better, life rafts have emergency locator beacons in them! So even if the plane survived the impact and the rescuers were looking in the wrong place and the locator beacons didn't work, but they still got food into the raft and the raft didn't capsize due to the weather...that's just too many "even ifs" to be reasonable.

I don't think grieving people are that completely irrational that they would hold out much hope against such odds.
 
  • #63
russ_watters said:
I'm glad they found it - it really would have been awful if they never had.

I agree. From what the link above now says (the BBC write evolving pages for news stories, so this has just appeared) there seems to be no doubt this time around:

[The Brasilian air force spokesman] later added that two male bodies had been found, as well as objects linked to passengers known to be on the flight, including a suitcase with a plane ticket.
 
  • #64
russ_watters said:
At the very least, drinking small amounts of seawater won't kill a healthy person, but it will harm them. For someone who is dying of thirst it will only serve to hasten their death. He found a raft with food and water in it. Lucky him.

They also had food and water.

Bombard aside, seems like you are suggesting in both cases they had enough food and water to survive several months on the raft. They had not. By all means they should be dead in a days or weeks at most.

Besides, what I am aiming at is that people can survive much longer than one may expect, so saying already that their time has run out is premature. Not that I am suggesting anybody is still alive.

Edit: especially now, in the light of the latest news. And I agree with your list of ifs. I was addressing only one small Moonbear's statement.
 
  • #65
Borek said:
...seems like you are suggesting in both cases they had enough food and water to survive several months on the raft. They had not. By all means they should be dead in a days or weeks at most.
I'm not, but without some to get them started, they are unlikely to have lasted long enough to have figured out how to catch fish without fishing gear and collect their own water (assuming the weather provides you with rain in time to collect it). That second guy had 10 gallons, about enough for 20 days.
Besides, what I am aiming at is that people can survive much longer than one may expect, so saying already that their time has run out is premature.
To me, that logic sounds a lot like the logic lottery players use. It just isn't reasonable.
 
  • #67
russ_watters said:
To me, that logic sounds a lot like the logic lottery players use. It just isn't reasonable.

What? I don't see how that looks like 'lottery player' logic (and am not sure what that's supposed to be) and can't see how the argument 'other people have survived in these exact same conditions for months on end, let's not assume they died inside a week' is unreasonable.
 
  • #68
cristo said:
I agree. From what the link above now says (the BBC write evolving pages for news stories, so this has just appeared) there seems to be no doubt this time around:
It's now reported here -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090606/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane

. . . .
The two male bodies were recovered Saturday morning about 70 kilometers (45 miles) south of where Air France Flight 447 emitted its last signals — roughly 400 miles (640 kilometers) northeast of the Fernando de Noronha islands off Brazil's northern coast.

Brazilian air force spokesman Col. Jorge Amaral said an Air France ticket was found inside a leather briefcase.

"It was confirmed with Air France that the ticket number corresponds to a passenger on the flight," he said.

Admiral Edison Lawrence said the bodies were being transported to the Fernando de Noronha islands for identification. A backpack with a vaccination card also was recovered.

The finds could potentially establish a more precise search area for the crucial black box flight recorders that could tell investigators why the jet crashed, although Brazilian authorities refused to comment on implications for the search.

Investigators have been searching a zone of several hundred square miles (square kilometers) for debris. A blue plane seat with a serial number on it has been recovered — but officials were still trying to confirm with Air France that it was a seat belonging to Flight 477.

. . . .

The article cites problems with pitot tubes. Apparently the manufacturer was recommending changing out the pitot tubes on A330s and A340s - to a model that was 'less' susceptible to those weather conditions. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
HallsofIvy said:
Not two incidents. The report I saw said was that it was flotsam that had been floating around for years. Just more junk that we've dumped into the sea.
Even the large oil slick? What carries more fuel/oil than a jet flying a transAtlantic trip short of an oil tanker? A fishing vessel with barrels of fuel on board maybe? If it was just debris, garbage tossed overboard or whatever would have seemed totally reasonable to me, but I thought it was the oil slick that got their attention most, leading them to think it was a wreckage.

russ_watters said:
I'll grant that there is some chance the plane could have survived, but there are a lot of "even if's" to those scenarios: The searchers do know where to start looking and even better, life rafts have emergency locator beacons in them! So even if the plane survived the impact and the rescuers were looking in the wrong place and the locator beacons didn't work, but they still got food into the raft and the raft didn't capsize due to the weather...that's just too many "even ifs" to be reasonable.

I don't think grieving people are that completely irrational that they would hold out much hope against such odds.

I wasn't expecting them to get food and water into the raft, which is why I suggest time has run out even if there were initially survivors. What would they have as food? Maybe if they were REALLY lucky, they'd have the airplane peanuts from the galley, but planes only carry enough food for one meal, two tops, and I'd expect even if some were salvaged, most would have gotten away during a crash.

It's more of what I think families might try hanging onto as hope when they simply don't know what has happened at all. I'm actually glad to read they now think they have found another potential crash site with wreckage and some bodies. We rationally know that there are no survivors to be found, but without any evidence of wreckage, people will hold out hope for a very long time. At least they know the plane definitely crashed over water.

I guess had no wreckage been found, there would also be the scenario that upon losing electrical systems and radio signal, the pilot could have tried turning it around to return to the nearest land...with faulty airspeed and possibly other readings in the cockpit, who knows where they could have wound up if they were off radar and flying blind. If they made it back to land, one would presume they'd have been picked up on radar again. But they could have been in a completely different direction by the time they crashed than where people are currently searching based on the last received signals.
 
  • #70
russ_watters said:
I'm calling BS on that one.

At the very least, drinking small amounts of seawater won't kill a healthy person, but it will harm them. For someone who is dying of thirst it will only serve to hasten their death.

A person would be better off drinking their own urine than drinking seawater.

Seawater is about 4% salt. Salt concentration of urine varies a lot, but would be about 2% max. If the person was well hydrated before being stranded, the first couple cycles of urine would probably be well below that, but, since the person is just reingesting waste, the concentration would quickly build up.

The person might gain an extra day or so if he's stranded for a short time - at least he's maximumizing the concentration of the little liquid he does have to expel.

If more than a very few days, he's not prolonging anything - he's not getting rid of toxic wastes from his body. The only advantage over seawater is that at least the person wouldn't be adding salts from external sources.
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
9K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top