Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
24. The descent was on autopilot.
Tue Mar 31, 2015, 08:49 AM
Mar 2015

Please try to find some sense, read some reports and not try to make them fit your preconceived notions.

Autopilot is not controlled? It's the fucking definition.

Flight 93 impacted at over 900 kph, the Germanwings flight at 700 kph http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32072218 , obviously indicating that the Germainwings throttles could not possibly be "wide open." The Germanwings flight was controlled, Flight 93 was falling like a rock, inverted.

What do YOU think the nose down angle on a plane that was on autopilot and a descent at 200 kph less than Flight 93? It sure as hell isn't 40 degrees. It fact, the attitude of the plane in the Germanwings flight was likely nose UP. It was not diving.

David Learmount, writing for flightglobal.com, reports that within a few minutes of leveling off at cruising altitude, the plane "entered a steady descent profile without altering its ground speed to any significant extent from the 420-450kt (780-830km/h) adopted in the cruise. It was not a dramatic descent, but was very steady all the way to impact."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/germanwings-flight-9525-the-unusual-nature-of-the-crash/

Whatever you are huffing is starting to affect the thought process.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That was my very first thought as well Dixiegrrrrl Mira Mar 2015 #1
just listening SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #2
The debris fields would not be remotely comparable. Thor_MN Mar 2015 #3
I gently suggest you start digging a little Mira Mar 2015 #4
I gently suggest you are attempting to compare apples, hubcaps and shampoo. Thor_MN Mar 2015 #5
I gently suggest you search a little more zappaman Mar 2015 #6
LOL! Politicalboi Mar 2015 #13
"Digging?" William Seger Mar 2015 #7
Here is what I know for certain: Mira Mar 2015 #8
That's a pretty lame excuse for posting bullshit William Seger Mar 2015 #9
Very well said Politicalboi Mar 2015 #14
I found the Snopes article pretty comprehesive jonno99 Mar 2015 #11
I don't believe that Politicalboi Mar 2015 #15
"jump the shark" William Seger Mar 2015 #18
You don't by chance jonno99 Mar 2015 #20
It is said that oftentimes we don't know what we don't know - so I ask - jonno99 Mar 2015 #19
Dropping 27,000 feet in 8 minutes is a "gradual descent"? Ghost in the Machine Mar 2015 #21
Compared to impacting the ground at a 40 degree down angle? Thor_MN Mar 2015 #22
"Controlled descent rate of 3,000 feet per minute" LOL! Ghost in the Machine Mar 2015 #23
The descent was on autopilot. Thor_MN Mar 2015 #24
It didn't crash into a reclaimed strip mine jberryhill Mar 2015 #10
Here's a picture of the crash site in 1994 Politicalboi Mar 2015 #16
While I find your use of quotation marks around "planes" intriguing... jberryhill Mar 2015 #17
Shhhhhhhh!!!!! Politicalboi Mar 2015 #12
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Germanwings crash has a d...»Reply #24