Replies

Are you sure that your _first_ search didn't contain any key stroke errors? Did you just do one search? Did you save to disk the results so that you can go back and verify that you didn't make a key stroke error in your query?.

I'm sure. When I saw the story on AOPA and noticed the registration, or "N-number", I copied it to the clipboard. First I went to the Aircraft - Registry database and pasted the registration into the search. Thats where I got the information on ownership, serial number, etc. Then I pasted the number into the FAA database. There was nothing there.

In addition, some-one else here verified that the news reports from Monday indicated that there was no incident history on this aircraft. I'm not the only one who came up with nothing on Monday. Every reporter who's covered an air disaster knows about this database, and if there was anything there on Monday, you would have heard about it then...beleive me.

>There was nothing there.

Very interesting.

I guess you were -- literally! -- a witness to history in the "making."

I observed in a different thread that I believed "wake turbulence" would be the eventual "cause" settled on for this crash because it was such a "convenient" cause -- it's invisible, so nobody can specifically say they didn't see it. Everybody knows turbulent events are _chaotic_ and can be trivial like a puff of wind or monstrous like a tornado. And it establishes a precedent for future "inconvenient" "incidents."

As another freeper pointed out, _planting_ the earlier data may have been setting the scene for an eventual conclusion.

I wonder if freeper reporting will impact the actual story and PREVENT a cover-up?! Wouldn't _that_ be something...

Mark W.

some-one else here verified that the news reports from Monday indicated that there was no incident history on this aircraft. I'm not the only one who came up with nothing on Monday

Yet now we're hearing about turbulence that happened seven years ago. And "similar incidents" that reportedly happened in the past with other Airbuses, or just other planes.

And then always come along the guys in the NTSB "amen corner," all claiming to be pilots or to have some other technical expertise that allows them to denounce any criticism of the "mechanical failure" scenario, all seeming to be able to come up with this or that aerodynamic scenario guaranteed to have the plane come apart in the air. Too neat and pretty, if you ask me.

The server at nasdac.faa.gov is still down.

I can see entries from that server in the cache of a couple of search engines. It is the correct database to search for this kind of information.

The history of that plane is getting worse, too. Now, Fox and Friends is reporting that the plane had 4 prior unscheduled landings in addition to the turbulence incident near Puerto Rico. One of the incidents allegedly involved smoke in the cockpit.

Also, Avi8tor, you have FreepMail.