flyboy0681 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 Yesterday I heard that the wreckage was found. Today the cockpit voice recorder was recovered. I consider myself well informed, but how did all of this occur so suddenly and without any coverage, Orlando aside. Quote
Hank Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 There was some coverage. I read about finding the wreckage yesterday afternoon, and the flight recorder this afternoon. Then again in the evening news. Then here. Doesn't that count as "coverage"? Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 17, 2016 Author Report Posted June 17, 2016 Flight data recorder just recovered. Quote
carqwik Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 Now we need to start a betting pool as to "probable cause." I am going with on-board fire which started in the forward lavatory with reasons for the fire unknown. Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 17, 2016 Author Report Posted June 17, 2016 Donald Trump said it was definitely terrorism. Believe me. Quote
MB65E Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 Wouldn't be the first Airbus to accidentally remove itself from the sky! -Matt Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Posted June 21, 2016 Nearly a week later and no one word in the news about what may have been on the voice recorder. In the US, the NTSB typically holds a press conference within days to discuss their initial findings. I guess they do thing differently over there. Quote
Danb Posted June 21, 2016 Report Posted June 21, 2016 Does one really think we will be told the truth. 1 Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Posted June 21, 2016 My thinking along those lines is that Airbus is going to be heading the investigation and they will know what went on and will make sure the transcripts are released and accurate. The investigation is not going to be done in a vacuum where Airbus is a party to a cover-up. That would be phenomenally bad for business. Quote
gsxrpilot Posted June 21, 2016 Report Posted June 21, 2016 Sure, we'll learn the truth. There's no reason to cover it up. I'm confident we'll know as soon as there is something definitive. But they're entitled to their own schedule for this. 1 Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Posted June 21, 2016 So what you are saying is that Airbus will go along with whatever the airline says and be complicit, opening themselves up to all kinds of liability? Do I have that right? Quote
gsxrpilot Posted June 21, 2016 Report Posted June 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said: So what you are saying is that Airbus will go along with whatever the airline says and be complicit, opening themselves up to all kinds of liability? Do I have that right? I don't know if this refers to my post, but if so, no, I agree with you. I think Airbus will be very involved (maybe even take the lead) in the investigation, along with Egypt Air and I'm sure our own NTSB will have a person in the room as well. We'll all learn what happened soon enough. Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Posted June 21, 2016 Just now, gsxrpilot said: I don't know if this refers to my post, but if so, no, I agree with you. I think Airbus will be very involved (maybe even take the lead) in the investigation, along with Egypt Air and I'm sure our own NTSB will have a person in the room as well. We'll all learn what happened soon enough. Sorry, I was responding to Dan's post. 1 Quote
Guest Posted June 23, 2016 Report Posted June 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Hyett6420 said: Oh god not that old "we didn't make it here so it can't be good" chestnut again. . It may well have been made in the USA. http://www.airbus.com/company/americas/us/alabama/ Clarence Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Posted June 23, 2016 1 hour ago, M20Doc said: It may well have been made in the USA. http://www.airbus.com/company/americas/us/alabama/ Clarence I've always felt this was their way getting their foot into the American military business. Roll Tide! 1 Quote
Hank Posted June 23, 2016 Report Posted June 23, 2016 F the French planes for our military. As the son of a career officer, I can't not say that. And Flush the Tide! War Eagle! Quote
Guest Posted June 23, 2016 Report Posted June 23, 2016 The current military inventory does include some off shore airframes. Clarence Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Posted June 23, 2016 Just now, M20Doc said: The current military inventory does include some off shore airframes. Clarence Their aim is the new KC project http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1972 While on the subject, anyone know why aerial tankers have a "KC" designation? Quote
bradp Posted June 23, 2016 Report Posted June 23, 2016 I'm just going to throw out Kerosene Carrier ? Quote
MB65E Posted June 23, 2016 Report Posted June 23, 2016 5 hours ago, Hyett6420 said: Oh god not that old "we didn't make it here so it can't be good" chestnut again. . I know...My refrance point is the number of static wicks on each wing of an Airbus. More on one wing than on the entire airplane of its US counterpart. All said, I enjoy riding in the new A330's. Super smooth!! -Matt Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Posted June 23, 2016 39 minutes ago, MB65E said: All said, I enjoy riding in the new A330's. Super smooth!! -Matt I just took a 787 round trip to Europe. Super quiet!! If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going. Quote
kpaul Posted June 23, 2016 Report Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said: Their aim is the new KC project http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1972 While on the subject, anyone know why aerial tankers have a "KC" designation? K is tanker, C is cargo. All of the tankers also have the ability to carry cargo pallets and or passengers in addition to the ability to off load fuel. T- was already taken for Training aircraft and can't use F for fuel because that is used to designate Fighter aircraft. Edited June 23, 2016 by kpaul 1 Quote
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 23, 2016 Report Posted June 23, 2016 15 hours ago, Hyett6420 said: Patience Gentlemen patience. You will learn soon enough. There will be no cover up, EASA will be involved as well. We just do things differently over here, for a start we tell the media to F off and wait till we want to talk to them not the other way around. . Manners? Really? I think not. Quote
flyboy0681 Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Posted June 23, 2016 6 hours ago, kpaul said: K is tanker, C is cargo. All of the tankers also have the ability to carry cargo pallets and or passengers in addition to the ability to off load fuel. T- was already taken for Training aircraft and can't use F for fuel because that is used to designate Fighter aircraft. Ah, so it comes from tanKer. Thanks for the enlightenment. 1 Quote
Hank Posted June 23, 2016 Report Posted June 23, 2016 I've had many good flights courtesy of Lockheed. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.