I don't know what anyone else thinks, but it's not looking good to me.
"There was no immediate word on survivors."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ...ash/index.html
Printable View
I don't know what anyone else thinks, but it's not looking good to me.
"There was no immediate word on survivors."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ...ash/index.html
oh, sorry for double post, just watching it live so it's not on there yet.
it's been confirmed that 200 are dead.
Was this literally like a few hours ago?
yeah, when I first heard about it they didn't even know if people had survived or not.
It seemed like, not too big at first because they said
"No loss of life is apparent yet"
which made it seem like, well, no one died, the images on the news weren't that clear either, and it looked like the side of the building it crashed into was actually the fuselage, and it looked intact, so it didn't look that bad at first.
But when it came online, it said "it is not known if there are survivors", and then it confirmed about 30 mins later that at least 200 were dead and the plane was mangled
pretty brutal.
poor buggers...
I know, hmph.
This is weird, I had a feeling a jet crash would happen soon, I was actually thinking about it last night.
Aww, i just heard bout it...
Makes me sad :(
oh dear :(
RIP.
final destination...Quote:
Originally Posted by Soph!
o.o don't say that!
i just chocked on my sweet when i saw thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Soph!
The Runway had recently been resurfaced and the proper ridges had not been made and there was not enough traction and it was slight wet so the rain could drain away.
I've saw it on the local news. Basically the airplane skidded due to wet runway, and hit a building or something.
&& no reverse thrust contributed to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomsboy
the bad thing is is that the airbus manual said it was able to operate for 10 days before being inspected, and it crashed within 4 days.
The same plane had the problem the day before too, it only managed to land right at the end of the runway, if they had looked into it more then this could of been prevented.
If you've not already read this, then it's worth reading.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ...tml#cnnSTCText
The scarebus manual is proberbly right.. The plane could have landed on a decent runway without reverse thrust.
It's just the runway conditions where pooooooor and really needed reverse thrust to help the aircraft slow down.
The pilot shouldn't have even landed anyway, the ATIS would have gave the information for the thunderstorm etc, clearly stating "Runway WET WET WET.." so why the hell he landed with no reversers, knowing it was a very short runway.. I'll never bloody know.
Me neither really... he tried to abort didn't he?
I read this thing earlier which said he had the nose of the plane up because it passed over the avenue.
I heard theres been a few crashes (maybe not crashes but like nearly) there recently, but most of them all survived.
in Brazil?
i've not heard of any o.o.
jeez, didnt know about this until now its awful that it could have been prevented. such a waste of life..