Comments:Turbulence likely cause of Mexico jet crash that killed ministers

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About an engine falling off[edit]

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

There is an interesting point of view made in an article concerning the apparent report of an engine falling off and what that could mean. The article is rather long, so is it okay if I put a link here? I hope that doesn't break any rules.

Also, it seems the writer knows something about flying. The article also includes a link to a mexican government PDF with specific details. Very specific information.

and so[edit]

I read the secret services have put great effort in this case.. in crashes like this it is still not obvious how experts allways show up from the same nations. The article is ok (i guess) but its far from complete,

mostly i wonder where the initial theory of an attempt of emergency landing on the highway went, altho i understand the intention of mexico not to be a source of speculation, concluding in a wiki the wake of another jet is the cause becomes less probable when such story is actually neglected. My personal technical surprise is rather big, i had never expected wake turbulence to be sufficient to cause that, i myself assume the pilot of the anti-drugs dep boss would be as thoroughly checked as anyone wanting to shake hands with him.

That is they would know wether they could fly sufficiently. Where the turbulence fits the kind of unexpected event that was suggested in early reports (that somehow also established it were no technical problems or bombs probably), it doesnt relate to an emergency landing attempt. Not a pilot a lear yet would never fly as low that attempting an immediate emergency landing after turbulence becomes a real option, otoh if the mechanical force of the turbulence caused the crash, impact, one would surely think it had to be sufficiently strong to be noticed in the streets,

a thing i never heard of, wake turbulence of jets noticable in big city streets. So the pilots should have been nerds, wich i (becus it's very high officials and a lear jet), think is hardly credible. Perhaps my first intuition they were showing off (either the view of mexico city or the status of their passengers), is the key, anyhow i would like to see confirmed at what altitude the plane was supposed to be when this happened (and that the pilots of anti-drugs bobo's are not checked.(rotfl))

I see there is the blackbox "to explain it all" (but then where's the altitude..) but although i don't want to underestimate the uses of these things, it goes for them as well, they are preserved to a select company , of most often usian officials, if there is one way to mingle with an (air)event uncontrolled it's the blackbox procedure, this is not the only case it's forwarded as a very strong poof for a not so very logical conclusion. The "experts" that produce the official result, often are supposed to be only in place after weeks, for example, other nations appear not to have the technical option to independendly check the results, or what i think could, just read-out the thing. I don't want to be nasty, but for sure all these experts then are affiliated with a secret service, the usian then, taking their findings for transparant proof is a bit ... naive. It is the "secret" service, not (eg.) a senatory commision. conclusion: the article that seeks to calm conspiracy theorys actually raises doubts. not so surprising. i think the better way to prevent conspiracy theorys is to just let them be, at least that way you don't appear to have sommething to hide. Conspiracy theory's aren't so bad, they promote transparance, a more solid and transparant registration of their own actions by the authorities, free press and independend research of journalists. Trying to stop them where they could arrive is mostly suspect. 06:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 06:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To respond to your points: The country of manufacture for the airframe, the engines, or the avionics has the right to be party to the investigation. If different, the country that manufactured the flight recorders may - I'm not sure - have the same, and may be called to assist. Turbulence is not noticable in city streets because it is so concentrated, parhaps only a couple of times the width of the aircraft that caused it at most. This concentration helps to make it so dangerous. The theory of the emergency landing was something I was unaware of, but a credible explanation would be that as the plane landed on a road and not buildings, it was a working theory that some problem forced the plane down. Pilots are trained to use roads when there is no other alternative, although it is a rare move. The planes were at the same altituded as each other, and both comparativley low, because they were headed for the same airport, and the turbulence is narrow enough they were still probably unlucky to hit it. By 'comparativley low', by the way, I'm talking about a few thousand feet; standard for coming in to land. They only go to below a thousand feet just before reaching the runway. I hope that satisfies your concerns. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

basic pilot training[edit]

Every student is taught about wake turbulence. If you are piloting a plane that is smaller than the one ahead of you, EXTREME CAUTION is advised. Staying further behind is not the only caution. STAYING WELL ABOVE the path of the larger plane and landing FURTHER down the runway than the larger craft is mandatory.

Business jets are constantly in proximity with the largest commercial aircraft (Class B and C airspace), whereas light singles more commonly are using smaller facilities (Class D and E). Crashes of this type are uncommon relating to excellent and recurring pilot refresher training and mandated aircraft spacing. 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]