Yes, they want every shred of that plane they can find. The NTSB will rebuild that plane and can backtrack to the smallest detail what happened. (See TWA800)
767 crash in upper Trinity Bay
76,865 Views |
356 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by mts6175
aggiepublius said:
F***** that. Basically playing roulette on who is going to grab the head of an alligator snapping turtle.
P.U.T.U said:
I think it was the show Ultimate Disasters or something like that would show the wreck and then show how and what caused it. Learned that the FAA will take their time to determine this and will want every piece of evidence
Air Disasters on Smithsonian channel... loved that show when i got that channel
Done that braiding for mussels. This is a whole lots different.
Thanks to the men and women in blue.
Thanks to the men and women in blue.
You should still be able to see the dent in the fuel tank off the runway.aggolfer said:
I drive that stretch of highway almost everyday. See planes flying right over and think about how crazy that scene must have been.
When the Korean airliner went missing there was much made of the pinging signal that the flight data recorder made. For thiose that know, is this something all flight data recorder's have? I know buried in the coastal marshes much different than laying on a hard ocean bottom, plus the signal is localized since they already know the general area... but I was just wondering if there was any sort of built-in assistance for locating them.
May be a stupid question, but why doesn't every black box have a GPS inside?
Anyone know the water depth at the crash site?
Probably mud bottom.
Worked on a construction barge years ago driving piles in mud flats. Hell, most of the time the pile would sink 20ft down or more under just the weight of the pile driver.
How much of the wreckage is buried deep in mud. Damn.
Probably mud bottom.
Worked on a construction barge years ago driving piles in mud flats. Hell, most of the time the pile would sink 20ft down or more under just the weight of the pile driver.
How much of the wreckage is buried deep in mud. Damn.
GPS receivers tell you where you are - so if they do or don't it would only serve to tell the black box where it, itself, is. Passing that position information to someone/something else requires some sort of transmission or telemetry. There are other complicating factors for GPS positioning that factor in here - not the least of which is it requires a clear view of the sky/satellites to know position, but I think the long answer to your question is that somehow searchers have to find the boxes and a GPS receiver in the box alone is only part of that solution. Somehow it would need to transmit its 'last known' position to whoever is looking for it.
Water depth is anywhere between 0-7 feet, and most likely 2-5.
It's a marsh for the most part.
It's a marsh for the most part.
Black boxes don't have any locator on them but planes have ELT but the NTSB said in their presser the Sunday after they didn't really expect it to work due to the mud and they would search with divers, by hand and would dredge as a last resort
Guessing it would be hard to make something survive what the black box has to and transmit instead of just recording and saving data.
Guessing it would be hard to make something survive what the black box has to and transmit instead of just recording and saving data.
I'm not sure how divers can work in that muck with zero visibility. My guess is they will have to construct some sort of cofferdam and pump the water out.
Hell maybe some type of seismic mapping or radar technology will be used. In any event, sounds like a massive job.
Hell maybe some type of seismic mapping or radar technology will be used. In any event, sounds like a massive job.
If the "black box " survived it should be emitting a sonar ping. Which works great in water, I have no idea how it works in muck
There is still an atomic bomb. In the waters off Tybee Island GA that hasn't been found in over 50 years
There is still an atomic bomb. In the waters off Tybee Island GA that hasn't been found in over 50 years
WP69 said:You should still be able to see the dent in the fuel tank off the runway.aggolfer said:
I drive that stretch of highway almost everyday. See planes flying right over and think about how crazy that scene must have been.
I was living there then as well and drove by there to work. Eerie as hell seeing that huge tail section sitting for what seems like weeks by the storage tanks.
Anybody see any reports anywhere of actual eyewitnesses to the crash?
Seems like there should have been some dudes out wadefishing nearby.
Seem like some **** that would happen. Some dude out fishing, enjoying his day off listening to the Joe Rogan podcast with earbuds in. Next thing you know a gd 767 drops out of the sky.
Seems like there should have been some dudes out wadefishing nearby.
Seem like some **** that would happen. Some dude out fishing, enjoying his day off listening to the Joe Rogan podcast with earbuds in. Next thing you know a gd 767 drops out of the sky.
Say What???CanyonAg77 said:
If the "black box " survived it should be emitting a sonar ping. Which works great in water, I have no idea how it works in muck
There is still an atomic bomb. In the waters off Tybee Island GA that hasn't been found in over 50 years
1990AG said:Say What???CanyonAg77 said:
If the "black box " survived it should be emitting a sonar ping. Which works great in water, I have no idea how it works in muck
There is still an atomic bomb. In the waters off Tybee Island GA that hasn't been found in over 50 years
What!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision
1990AG said:Say What???CanyonAg77 said:
If the "black box " survived it should be emitting a sonar ping. Which works great in water, I have no idea how it works in muck
There is still an atomic bomb. In the waters off Tybee Island GA that hasn't been found in over 50 years
found now
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/georgia-amateur-divers-find-long-lost-nuclear-warhead/
That's a fake news site, it's still missing.
thats crazy
I was talking to a guy last night about this, and he pointed out how there was no noticeable fuel in the water. The news pictures and videos show no fuel in the water, and Sheriff Hawthorne even said in one of the early press conferences that the environmental impact due to fuel spillage was minimal.
It doesn't take much of a fuel leak in a fishing boat to cause a noticeable fuel sheen. Is it possible that the plane lost fuel prior to the crash?
It doesn't take much of a fuel leak in a fishing boat to cause a noticeable fuel sheen. Is it possible that the plane lost fuel prior to the crash?
I like the fake news on this one better....oragator said:
That's a fake news site, it's still missing.
note to self...never drop the anchor around Tybee....
Plausible.
Yet how much crazy ****has to happen for it just to run out of fuel. But the simplicity of it. It might just be the case.who knows. Maybe Amazon was testing some new AI **** on it. Who the **** knows really.
Of all the ****weve seen lately.
****
Yet how much crazy ****has to happen for it just to run out of fuel. But the simplicity of it. It might just be the case.who knows. Maybe Amazon was testing some new AI **** on it. Who the **** knows really.
Of all the ****weve seen lately.
****
Yes. The us military managed to drop and fail all the failsafes on several nuclear bombs, on us soil. There is in fact a nuke offshore nc not found. One off spain too. One hydrogen bomb failed all failsafes, dropped on the tarmac in south dakota, and only failed a full thermouclear explosion due to the luck of wind direction on the fire that consumed the plane.1990AG said:Say What???CanyonAg77 said:
If the "black box " survived it should be emitting a sonar ping. Which works great in water, I have no idea how it works in muck
There is still an atomic bomb. In the waters off Tybee Island GA that hasn't been found in over 50 years
There are at least 5 known nuke diasters that avoided detonation despite all failsafes failing. Just luck.
Perhaps we need a new Director of "Failsafes"?
cbr said:1990AG said:CanyonAg77 said:
One hydrogen bomb failed all failsafes, dropped on the tarmac in south dakota, and only failed a full thermouclear explosion due to the luck of wind direction on the fire that consumed the plane.
Wait what? W T F.
**** like that terrified me as a kid.
Yep, lol. They went through that excercise a few times. One of the best was led by an ag. Dont remember his name though.1990AG said:
Perhaps we need a new Director of "Failsafes"?
Some scary **** though. Physically dropping or exploding (you can blow up most nukes a lot of ways without a nuclear detonation) nukes happened quite a bit.
Hell a titan with an armed nuke exploded in its silo in arkansas, blew a bazillion ton silo cover (like 8 foot thick 100+ foot diameter cast iron! I mean... really really ****ing heavy) off its tracks and launched a flaming thermo nuke bomb about half a mile! They later hauled it off in a deuce and a half with cnn filming the whole way (helped make cnn a thing).
They bounced a bunch of them down the tarmac, or crashed planes loaded with them several times.
Its a miracle were all still here.
NOT going to help me sleep better....
1990AG said:
NOT going to help me sleep better....
Like claytie said, if thermonuclear destruction is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it.
I, like many Aggies, was working on his campaign when he said that!
Dead hand
Atomic adventures
Command and control
All pretty interesting reads on the subject.
We and the soviets also each had software failures indicate full MAD lauches, that individual soldiers (not even really authorized to make the call) just decided to not launch retaliatory strikes. Like colonel level types on watch.
And of course, outside the cuban missile crisis, the soviets actually thought able archer in 83 was us preparing to preemptively strike and invade europe, rather than an excercise. They actually thought that we might launch a pershing strike on moscow and theyd only have 4-6 minutes to react (we couldnt actually reach moscow with them). Many think this was actually more dangerous than the cuban crisis.
Atomic adventures
Command and control
All pretty interesting reads on the subject.
We and the soviets also each had software failures indicate full MAD lauches, that individual soldiers (not even really authorized to make the call) just decided to not launch retaliatory strikes. Like colonel level types on watch.
And of course, outside the cuban missile crisis, the soviets actually thought able archer in 83 was us preparing to preemptively strike and invade europe, rather than an excercise. They actually thought that we might launch a pershing strike on moscow and theyd only have 4-6 minutes to react (we couldnt actually reach moscow with them). Many think this was actually more dangerous than the cuban crisis.
Obviously, none of the nukes had all of their failsafes fail. Because there has not been an accidental nuclear detonation
The old weapons, several accidents did set off the conventional explosives, but not in a way that would go nuclear. Fire would not have done it either. Newer weapons use insensitive high explosives.
The Arkansas missile explosion was due to a dropped wrench hitting a liquid fuel tank and boom. The warhead is often referred to as "The Arkansas Traveler".
The old weapons, several accidents did set off the conventional explosives, but not in a way that would go nuclear. Fire would not have done it either. Newer weapons use insensitive high explosives.
The Arkansas missile explosion was due to a dropped wrench hitting a liquid fuel tank and boom. The warhead is often referred to as "The Arkansas Traveler".
Featured Stories
See All
9:11
10h ago
16k
42:45
18h ago
4.0k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop
35:53
21h ago
3.6k