Comments:24 error messages sent by Flight 447

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Facts: Weather along route - normal nothing unusual.

Cause of crash - Total systems electrical failure over 1-2 minute span.

Interesting Co-incidence - Happened over deepest oceanic part of route.

Conclusion: Timed NNEMP device (Non-Nuclear Electro-Magnetic Pulse) in baggage department took plane down (Baggage cabin sits directly adjacent to critical power wiring/routing trays for all systems of the aircraft). EMP would cause sporadic failure of electrical systems, as damaged power supply parts began failing on all the sub-systems. (NNEMP Devices would only be powerfull enough to damage parts in power supplies - Leading to the eventual failure of the individual power supplies, and systems, in short notice)

Let all the conspiracy nuts and various Gov't secret service agencies fight over the who and why, but that's what it looks like to me (a 30 yr Electrical/Systems Engineer)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

You're kidding, right? There's no evidence to suggest that. It's pure speculation. Dave420 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


I still think there is a possibility that there was some foul play here, maybe a bomb. There have been too many 'conveniences/coincidences' in this incident. Just because no one or group claimed responsibility for the act, doesn't mean it wasn't some crazed individual. I find it quite interesting though, that the computer sent in one instance, 14 messages in a one minute period. Sounds like a lot. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this was alien abduction :)
It's happened before: (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Bomb? Don't be silly. Probably the closest the flight got to a bomb was a German tourist in first class nuking the toilet. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My initial concern was something to do with fly-by-wire, but I'm now leaning more towards a combination of spatial disorientation and pitot-static failure. The pitot tubes could be blocked by icing, which I understand is thought to have been present in that storm. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Separation of tail structure because of inferior engineering?Edit

Because the tail structure was found thirty miles from the main debris field, we can assume based on empirical evidence that the tail structure separated from the aircraft during inordinate turbulence.

Why did the whole tail structure separate?? Because of structural design deficiency. Indeed, Boeing aircraft uses machined aluminum for all hinges and tail/fuselage structural attachment fittings. However, Airbus uses less-expensive and obviously inferior rolled-composite material with aluminum rod ends that absolutely cannot tolerate the tail section stress loads that Flight 447 (and AA Flight 587 over NYC November 12, 2001) was subjected to over its Atlantic Ocean flight path. And thus the reason Boeing and Lockheed transport aircraft have never lost whole tail sections in turbulent flight.

Consequently, it appears the claim of non-heating pitot tubes as the cause of the in-flight catastrophic break-up is just a distraction from Airbus's inferior structure design.

Comments from feedback form - "this is really interesting i h..."Edit

this is really interesting i have to read more! — (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)