Could a Meteor Have Brought Down Air France 447? 884
niktemadur writes "In light of an Air Comet pilot's report to Air France, Airbus, and the Spanish civil aviation authority that, during a Monday flight from Lima to Lisbon, 'Suddenly, we saw in the distance a strong and intense flash of white light, which followed a descending and vertical trajectory and which broke up in six seconds,' the Cosmic Variance blog team on the Discover Magazine website muses on the question 'What is the probability that, for all flights in history, one or more could have been downed by a meteor?' Taking into account total flight hours and the rate of meteoric activity with the requisite mass to impact on Earth (approximately 3,000 a day), some quick math suggests there may be one in twenty odds of a plane being brought down in the period from 1989 to 2009. Intriguingly, in the aftermath of TWA flight 800's crash in 1996, the New York Times published a letter by Columbia professors Charles Hailey (physics) and David Helfand (astronomy), in which they stated the odds of a meteor-airplane collision for aviation history up to that point: one in ten."
Re:Could a Meteor Have Brought Down Air France 447 (Score:4, Informative)
No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That Depends... (Score:1, Informative)
Sephiroth?
Are you one of those nutty-Goy, Madonna-following, Kabbala kids? Or is it Bowie?
"You drive like a demon from Kether to Malkuth"...
Wikipedia article on Final Fantasy 7 [wikipedia.org]
And I quote...Spoiler alert:
The full scope of Sephiroth's plan is eventually revealed: if the world is significantly damaged, the Lifestream within will gather in an attempt to heal the wound. Sephiroth intends to use a powerful spell called "Meteor" to fatally injure the planet, inciting a reaction in the Lifestream to safeguard the planet. Sephiroth would then merge with all of the planet's energy, allowing him to be reborn as a god and rule over the planet.
Re:calculations wrong I think (Score:4, Informative)
But there is some evidence (Score:5, Informative)
Equipment on the Air France airplane transmitted a signal about an equipment failure. So, we know when the plane could have been struck.
If the Spanish pilots can nail the meteor sighting to something like a radio transmission (all of which are recorded) or a course change, we know approximately when the meteor happened.
Meteors generate a radio signal. Such signals are often recorded. http://www.k5kj.net/meteor.htm [k5kj.net] That would give us an exact time for the meteor.
If the meteor happened exactly when the plane sent the message about equipment failure, I would say we have a pretty good case.
Re:EMP Testing (Score:1, Informative)
Probably a lot less likely. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:EMP Testing (Score:5, Informative)
Not choosing the ultra-cheap airline that's known for skipping maintainance every now and then, for example.
Most maintenance schedules for aircraft are set by the FAA, not at the airline's whim. The majority of aircraft crashes are due to environmental factors (such as turbulence or other bad weather), or pilot error.
Re:EMP Testing (Score:5, Informative)
2009
- Fedex Flight 80, McDD MD-11
2008
- British Airways Flight 38, Boeing 777
- Kalitta Air, Boeing 747F
- Sudan Airways Flight Flight 109, Airbus A310
- Fedex Flight 80, McDD MD-11
Re:Cars (Score:5, Informative)
10 cars struck in the last 50 years.
over a longer timespan -
http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html [repetti.net]
Occam's razor = weather in this case (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Because... (Score:1, Informative)
And they do http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-meteor/strikes.html [wsu.edu].
Re:Cars (Score:4, Informative)
Considering the atmosphere height of 120 km, I don't think 10% of height can make such a huge difference.
35,000 feet may only be 10% of the height, but it's a bit more than 75% of the density of the atmosphere. Since air is compressible, there's a lot more of it squeezed into the bottom layers than the top layers. Air pressure at 35,000 feet is about 7.04 in/Hg, vs 29.92 in/Hg at sea level. That is a huge difference.
Re:EMP Testing (Score:1, Informative)
Actually if 80% of the drivers are slightly above the average, and the remaining 20% are drastically below average, then it's possible that they could be correct :-P Now if 80% of the drivers said they were "above median" in skill, you know something's wrong :)
Re:EMP Testing (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Why would they need to test it this way? IT's more expensive and pointless. The could use an empty plane to do it. For actual EMP effects this large, passengers would not matter.
Also, there was a report of a sudden loss of pressure. an EMP large enough to take ut a plane means no such information would have been radioed.
The Odd of it being an EMP is pretty much 0(ZERO)
Just becasue you think of something doesn't mean it's real or even likely.
Re:Because... (Score:5, Informative)
Quote [utk.edu]: "The average velocity of meteoroids entering our atmosphere is 10-70 km/second. The smaller ones that survive the trip to the Earth's surface are quickly slowed by atmospheric friction to speeds of a few hundred kilometers per hour, and so hit the Earth with no more speed than if they had been dropped from a tall building."
Well.
CC.
Re:EMP Testing (Score:5, Informative)
And you actually trust that every plane gets every bit of scheduled maintenance done properly and on schedule?
Actually, yes I do. As a pilot, I know very well how strict and picky the FAA is with this stuff. They're not exactly a "wink, wink, nudge yeah we did the maintenance" kinda group. You get caught fudging records, and it's your ass. To put it simply, doing the maintenance correctly and on schedule is financially cheaper and safer than trying to creatively interpret the regs or forge records.
Last transmitted messages of AF447 & speculati (Score:5, Informative)
Here you can see the last automatically transmitted ACARS messages of AF447:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7547/acarsaf447d.png [imageshack.us]
Personally, I think this incident was caused by a combination of factors.
ALL speculations tread on thin air before the CVR and FDR are recovered, but based on current data I would QUESS:
-it is a dark, stormy night with no horizon or any landmarks visible
-160km/h updraft brings moist air to a much higher flight level than usual
-this causes sudden icing of the pitot tubes
-this causes the flight computer to think that the plane is in danger of stalling, and it lowers the nose automatically
-the crew switches auto-pilot and flight envelope protection partially off, or a (positive) lightning strike disables them
-the crew has no good idea about the true speed and orientation of the plane
-inside the cumulonimbus' horrible gusts the crew over-stresses the composite flight controls while fighting turbulence
-the place exceeds it's maximum speed and/or structural load (G-) limits
-two-three minutes later the agony of the 228 souls on board finally ends as the slowly disintegrating plane hits the sea near the speed of sound, instantly ripping them to stamp-sized bits
Here's more detailed speculation about possible causes and a crude analysis, taken from Usenet:
1. Terrorism or other malicious use of explosives
A bomb explodes in the cargo hold, crippling the aircraft's control systems or starting a structural break-up that eventually leads to loss of control.
Supportive evidence: According to Wikipedia, a bomb threat had been made on an earlier flight. Lack of communications from the flight crew indicates either a sudden event or something which lead to significant problems that the crew had to focus on. This would be consistent with the effects of a bomb. The automatic messages about computer system failures sent by the aircraft could be interpreted either as indications that the aircraft's movements have exceeded the limits that the systems can handle, or as indications about direct damage to the systems. A flash of light has been seen by other aircraft in the area.
Evidence against: While terrorist organizations exist both in France and Brazil, there has been no recent activity. No organization has claimed responsibility for the act. There is no specific evidence about a bomb. Nothing is known about any individuals or organizations who would have non-terrorism related reasons for malicious acts. It seems too big of a coincidence that a bomb would go off at the same time as the aircraft flies through very rough weather. Finally, what we know about the sequence of ACARS messages indicates that loss of cabin pressure was the last message in the sequence. This appears to rule out an explosion, unless it was contained in the hull and only damaged internal structures and components. This seems unlikely. The flash of light was apparently seen from too far to be caused by AF 447 related problems.
Open questions: Where are the cargo holds that are used to carry the passengers' luggage? Are they physically close to the computer and navigation systems that ACARS messages reported as failing? And obviously, physical evidence would be useful.
Verdict: Can most likely be ruled out
2. Explosion or other rapid, harmful reaction from the cargo
The sequence of events is as in the terrorism theory.
Supportive evidence: The sequence of events fits this theory, as it does the terrorism theory. The cargo might have shifted at the time of turbulence, initiating the reaction.
Evidence against: See the evidence regarding the malicious use of explosives. In addition, there is no information that the cargo could have contained something harmful.
Open questions: More information is needed about what was in the cargo, and who cargo was taken from.
Verdict: Can most likely be ruled out
3. Fire
Fire starts in cargo hold, in sys
Re:Dude... you have so not imagined it.. (Score:3, Informative)
A fast horse on good terrain could make 100 miles per day.
Uh, that is day one.
You better have a fresh horse or horses waiting or you will be walking on day three or so. A fit human can reasonably cover around 20 miles per day for days on end if they are supplied well. The same human having to pack food and water or forage en route might be able to keep up half that pace. A horse roughly doubles what a human can do. They are big and then need LOTS of forage and water.
In the military I studied quite a bit about effective combat loads and the logistics of moving men around, and having personally walked 30+ miles with 60+ pounds of gear I can tell you that it is not a sustainable pace. There are accounts of great marches under duress or for tactical advantage, but they are "great" because if they did not work out they get called somebody's folly in the history books.
Re:Dude... you have so not imagined it.. (Score:2, Informative)
A total of about 190 Pony Express stations were placed at intervals of about 10 miles (16 km) along the approximately 2,000 miles (3,200 km) route.
They ran the route in 10 days, so around 200 miles a day, but it was 20 horses per day.