Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 61
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1673099
Image

I'm surprised through this entire thread, that nobody has raised the issue of the extensive damage visible in the one still image released by the AAIB.

That airframe has undergone one heck of a beating to end up with the fuselage crumpled like that. I doubt it was caused sub surface unless a random ship happened to bounce an anchor across it. I very much doubt it would have occured during final contact with the seabed as an intact airframe would have sunk nose first.

Is the back end sufficiently sealed to have not flooded and then collapsed under pressure as the airframe sank? I know very little about this type of airframe.

We know very little without any further images, other than, it's had a pretty hard time.
By patowalker
#1673140
Not to mention there might be some who would rather the plane, the pilot, and his mobile phone/ipad etc stayed down there well out of reach of investigators.


Investigators have his mobile number and will know the calls and texts made and received. Those on the other end would be foolish to destroy any evidence.
By midlifec
#1673150
Sooty, having some experience of aircraft recovery from the sea you need to remember that if landed relatively intact then sinking, the aircraft will not simply sink to the bottom but can effectively ‘fly’ to the bottom- almost certainly turning one way or the other- at impact with the bottom it may be travelling forward at a fair rate ( for a submerged object) and being full of water the component parts will carry significant energy, enough for instance to allow the tail section to collapse forward into a suddenly stopped forward fuselage, particularly if the cabin door is open reducing any hydraulic resistance . The limited detail available in the one picture released doesn’t look odd bearing this in mind. All very sad none the less.
#1673198
I take it that the shot of the submerged aircraft is of the Port side. Where the “N” of the registration should be - is that where the exit/entry door is (missing) ?
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1673200
Bill McCarthy wrote:I take it that the shot of the submerged aircraft is of the Port side. Where the “N” of the registration should be - is that where the exit/entry door is (missing) ?


Image
User avatar
By Flintstone
#1673593
Saw that this morning. I think that link's also in one of the other, other, other threads spun off from this one. (Hard to keep track, I know :D ).

The point made in the other thread is to be aware that the Beeb and other journalists might only be reporting what they've gleaned from 'experts' on forums and that by repeating their 'news' here as fact we're completing the circle.

The ownership issue was always going to come up and I don't see that as the main problem. We all now know the pilot's background so can see what the AAIB's report will have to say about that. Where I think there will be most fighting, in an attempt to avoid blame and liability (particularly in financial terms) will be the booking of the flight.
KeithM, Lockhaven liked this
By KeithM
#1673608
G-JWTP wrote:The lid is starting to come off this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47172509

G-JWTP



Hmmm....interesting article indeed and summed up by the opening paragraphs.

The questions just keep coming, don’t they?

Not too difficult to identify numerous reasons why each of the organisations involved, and the families of the deceased, will want to establish all of the facts surrounding this incident, particularly in view of the wide publicity that it has attracted.

I am sure that nobody would be surprised, either, by any eventual repercussions.
G-JWTP liked this
  • 1
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 61