Comments on: A dark and windy night Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: dennis Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:39:45 +0000 Wasn’t Flight 447 meant to be flying over the weather?
I thought thunderstorms were well below 40,000 ft. Lightning doesn’t strike upwards, or does it?

By: Michael Echols Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:40:29 +0000 While taking off in an American Airlines Airbus from a rough runway airport in Puerto Rico, it was obvious looking down the aisle from the back of the plane that the whole length of the plane was twisting and torquing. The overhead bins were actually ‘snaking’ backing and forth in response to the undulating runway. This is not something you want to see in an airplane. No wonder they are finding ‘stress cracks’ in the carbon fiber sections. I avoid flying on an Airbus when possible.

By: dr. hans 'ROW' roswell Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:45:39 +0000 i am a 100 000 miles a year passenger ww travel

for me NO AIRBUS for a while. period!

By: jeanmark Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:37:07 +0000 Very interesting assumption of what “COULD GO WRONG” under the circumstances, but an assumption nevertheless. Without the details from the flight and voice recorders, anybody’s guess of what actually happened, is as good as anybody’s else. Let’s wait and see the facts.

By: richie Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:03:42 +0000 Good article.
I’m a white-knuckler on anything bigger than a single-engine private prop plane. There’s something about the feeling of sitting in a tube with tiny windows versus sitting in a cabin of 30% window area that gets me on edge.

Regarding Airbus, I recall the 320 had enough problems about it I’d check the type of plane prior to ticket, and if an Airbus I’d make other arrangements. I don’t recall exactly HOW the plane type was made available, but I do clearly recall switching to a different aircraft. My ex thought it ridiculous until she saw this recent wave of A3xx disasters.

In the current dismal economic climate, the airframe czars sure have their hands full with the Boeing vs Airbus game. I just hope it doesn’t get to anything more than a “Ford vs Chevy” thing. There’s been an increase in “crash survivability” info on the net, too.

The best result out of this Airbus awareness will hopefully be heightened quality of parts and control systems, which will improve both construction and maintenance.

And maybe they’ll finally get around to installing those massive parachutes to bring an aircraft to a gentle landing in case of impending disaster. Sacrificing a few seats to make room for such a system could save an entire plane’s worth of human cargo.

By: georges Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:42:27 +0000 The real problem I see with this page is the reporter mentions Airbus and DC and does not analyse Boeing safety.

Why not mention the crash rates of the best and worse Boeing planes?

Bottom-line is it’s another report with a bias against Airbus and Europe.

By: malc cochran Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:12:27 +0000 Flight 447:
(I’m not an expert but putting together what I’ve heard over alifetime)..

A plane stalls if it’s going to slowly to get lift.
In a stall, there is no control and it’s difficult to get the plane into dive to regain speed.

The pilot would try to get a nose-down attitude.

If it stalls, it tends to “pancake” – land on its belly.

It follows, if the plane is at (say) 8000 m, where the atmosphere is thin, providing little lift (which comes from air speed and air density), with narrow wings (to minimise drag, no flaps down), and its speed falls, it will stall, I believe.

If it’s in turbulent air, to regain control is more difficult.

If the plane is slowed because it’s in turbulent air, but slows to much (?iced pitot tubes), it will stall.

If it’s found to have hit the sea belly down or somewhat nose-down (as reported), it sounds like a stall.

It sounds like a stall.

Is this an airbus weakness, or what would always happen? I don’t know.
But it sounds like a stall. END

By: bill smith Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:57:17 +0000 When will the industry start to really address human factors? Seems to me humans have more to do with crashes than planes or cars or trains.

By: Tom Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:33:02 +0000 Well looking at the charts, (the ones I found are in french so I am possibly wrong) the visual approach to RWY 20 circles out over the ocean and rolls out to establish yourself basically on the on the centerline. Wind at the time was only 10 degrees off head-on.

But if it were me, I would stay a little to the right of center, over the ocean, because there are tall scary mountains to the left. Assuming good visibility, it seems pretty simple: or am I dead?

By: Ron Moss Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:22:51 +0000 With very little experience but pilot with seaplane rating and helicopter time and solo I pronounce this interesting to the finale. You need more flying hours to really judge a matter like this