Posted on 08/16/2005 8:09:21 AM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
The crash of a Cypriot airliner that killed 121 people near Athens likely occurred after it ran out of fuel while heading towards Athens International Airport, a senior government source said Tuesday.
"We surmise that the (Helios Airways) plane was heading towards Athens International Airport and that it ran out of fuel," the government official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
All 121 people aboard the aircraft died in the accident, which is believed to have occurred after a disastrous air supply failure almost two hours before it smashed into a mountain near the Greek capital.
Earlier on Tuesday officials said that the body of a stewardess was found near the remains of the cockpit, suggesting that she may have tried to grasp the plane's controls in a desperate bid to avert tragedy.
Autopsies on the first 25 of the bodies of the 121 passengers and crew show they were all alive -- although not necessarily conscious -- when it ploughed into a hillside near Athens, coroner Philippos Koutsaftis told AFP.
Information from Cyprus, where the plane originated, suggests that in addition to the two pilots, one other crew member had flying experience from small aircraft, the official said, without identifying the individual.
The Cypriot co-pilot's body was also recovered in the same area, though not that of the German pilot.
Also on Tuesday, the government denied press reports that it had at one point considered having the rogue plane shot down to prevent it from crashing into a populated area.
The Eleftherotypia newspaper had earlier quoted a senior government official saying: "Five more minutes and we would have eliminated it."
The Greek Prime Minister's office said that government spokesman Theodore Roussopoulos had already stressed the government's response was according to international conventions.
Roussopoulos on Sunday said that the plane had been considered an out-of-control "confirmed renegade" that could be shot down if it threatened to crash into a populated area.
But he said the government had "no such thought" of shooting down the aircraft, while a defence ministry source told AFP that "the question never arose".
The autopilot on a Boeing (and this one made in 1998, fairly new) would fly the programmed route, turns and all. It also could fly a descent if it had reached cruise altitude and had the descent programmed. At the end of the route, with no further inputs; the autopilot might kick off heading mode and it could
then circle depending on how out of trim it is by then.
Don't know. Brief clips I saw on TV news of the crash site showed heavily burning wreckage. Also, the crash debris appeared to be scattered over a wide area, suggesting aircraft breakup in flight.
When a plane runs out of fuel, it goes pretty much straight down, and the wreckage is found in a relatively compact area. That's the way it was in the Payne Stewart accident. That's the way it was with the hijacked plane that crash in Pennsylvania on 9/11/01 (although that one was deliberately forced straight down vs. running out of fuel).
I suspect governments and the airlines don't want to admit to Islamofreak hijackings and crashes anymore because of the impact to the aviation industry. Remember the three Russian airliners that were hijacked almost simultaneously a few years ago? The Russians tried every which way to claim they were accidents.
One of the most important rules following an airline crash is to wait a week before seriously speculating about the cause unless of course it is something blatantly obvious like wind shear. What we hear the media right now is probably 50% correct at best.
People really should stop assuming that every plane crash is either caused by terrorism or a USN missile and is always covered up by a massive government conspiracy. Almost every plane crash is caused by human error that is either compounded by mechanical failure or the human error caused the mechanical failure.
I heard an expert say the same thing.
Plane crashers are NEVER caused by ONE thing. It's always a combination of two or three events happening within a short period of time.
I would say in 95% of the accidents this is true. One a rare occasion there will be one main factor, usually weather related.
A 737-300 carries something like 30,000 pounds of fuel when fully gassed up. That "several hundred pounds" would be like the half-gallon of gas probably left in your car's tank when the needle passes "E" and the engine quits. I don't think they can suck every drop of fuel out of all three tanks, but I am just guessing.
There's other flammable stuff onboard--oil, hydraulic fluid, some of the plane's fixtures--but I guess they would take a kerosene fire to light off.
}:-)4
Thanks for the explanation.
Like I said, I have no flying experience and my recollections were probably based on the older systems that I have seen that pretty much flew the plane on the current heading and altitude.
"People really should stop assuming that every plane crash is either caused by terrorism or a USN missile and is always covered up by a massive government conspiracy."
That really wasn't my assumption, but the explanations put forth so far haven't really made much sense.
I guess we'll just have to wait for the 'offical' report.
Several hundred pounds of fuel would be approximately 2100 gallons (based on the assumption of 300 pounds)
If you calculate that water is 7 pounds per gallon and kerosene is heavier, then that is only an estimate.
2100 gallons is sure a lot of fuel to consider a planes tanks empty.
The Cascade Effect.
No, it goes the other way. 300 pounds of fuel would equal about 50 gallons, assuming 6 pounds per gallon (is kerosene heavier than water or lighter?). I just pulled that number out figuring that maybe 1% of the fuel in a tank wouldn't get used--maybe not pulled out due to insufficient pressure. That's just like saying that your car might have .15 or .2 gallons of gas left in it when the engine quits.
Well, in any case, it's sheer conjecture. Something onboard that plane obviously could burn even if all the jet fuel was gone. It could've been something as simple as the engine components still being hot enough to start brush fires when they hit the ground--the area of the crash did look brushy and dry. And fire really is secondary here anyhow, as the impact was obviously enough to completely destroy everything except the tail, which oddly enough, looked perfectly intact except for a couple of wrinkles.
Not being able to find the CVR, assuming they can't, is going to leave a big hole in the investigation. Even if the crew response to the original problem isn't on there, it could detail what the people in the cockpit were doing during the last 30 minutes of flight, and possibly who they were. If the CVR was just blown out of its box in the crash and destroyed, that's one thing. But if that plane was flying with the CVR actually removed, somebody's ass is grass. You know they'll be made an example of.
}:-)4
I think kerosene is less dense than water. Water is about 8.3 pounds per gallon. 2100 gallons at 7 pounds per gallon would be 14,700 pounds (2100 * 7 = 14,700).
I sure agree with you on TWA-800....like Clinton said, we are perpared to take a few million hits, if the Chinese nuked LA....
OK....but how come, Boeing Aircraft, hasn't issued a statement, on the incident....the silence is deafening...usually Boeing is quick off the mark to defend their products, whenever there is the slightest hint that their A/C, was mechanically unsound.
Boeing however, always releases a statement following the crash of any Boeing or McDonnell Douglas built aircraft.
because they are singing it as it comes to them. = lying
And there is still NO MENTION of the AlQuaeda islamic jihadist threats in Turkey about hijaking planes and crashing them into the cities very recently
A friend of mine just told me that the plane that left Panama (China territory thanks to jimmy carter) and crashed as it approached Venezuela was filled with french citizens?
Wasn't there also threats against France by the islamic jihadists because France was beginning to crack down on terrorist inside their own borders?
If these are terror attacks we need to know so we can ALL react against the jihad!
Some muslims not directly involved could get hurt, but as the old saying goes "If you are not with us, you are against us" - it is a very valid point in war. And by their silence they condemn themselves - there is no 5th amendment during times of war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.