User Profile: Matrix22


Member Since: January 10, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [2] March 26, 2015 at 6:44am

    I’m gonna have to agree with 000 on this one. Even if they took a bird in the windshield, that wouldn’t create the scene like they are now describing. There is almost no chance at all that the plane wasn’t on autopilot, so even if they took a bird, there’s no reason for it to start descending, and certainly not a controlled descent. Secondly, why the situation with the pilot being locked out? Unless it was just an absolute 1/1000000 chance that the one pilot happened to step out and exactly the time the bird struck, and that happened to incapacitated the pilot, and for some reason the other pilot couldn’t get back in. There have been a couple incidences in the past were planes lost pressure for some reason, and everyone went hypoxic and passed out. The autopilot just kept them flying straight and level until the plane finally ran out of gas, then it crashed, but it definitely wasn’t a controlled descent crash.

  • [12] March 25, 2015 at 10:45pm

    I can’t agree with you on that one Monk. I’m a military C-130 pilot, and I can tell you that yes, bird strikes are dangerous and potentially fatal, but the chance that a bird could take down a high-flying aircraft like this is basically impossible. First off, very very few birds fly above a few thousand feet. In all my time flying, I’ve never seen one, but I do know they exist. Second, even if it did take out an engine, it would have to take out both engines for it to crash, and then it wouldn’t be a controlled descent, it would be a crash. Finally, the fact that there was no distress call is extremely telling. We are taught to “Aviate, Navigate, Communicate”, but you can’t tell me that in 10 minutes of flying no one bothered to make a distress call – it takes literally 10 seconds. After reading this article, the only 2 conclusions that make any sense are that the one pilot left and the other became incapacitated somehow, or it was intentional and the copilot drove the plane into the mountain on purpose.

  • [8] March 2, 2015 at 8:24am

    I love how this guy complains about racists companies by touting his “All African-American” company. Hypocrite much?

    Responses (1) +
  • [11] February 2, 2015 at 3:45pm

    I’m pretty sure that’s the point. I’m willing to bet that the guy filing the complaint would happily agree that it’s ridiculous, but until everyone under the law is treated equally, then he’s going to pursue it just to prove how stupid the law is.

  • [12] February 2, 2015 at 3:42pm

    Tmarends, I don’t care if the guy made it up out of thin air, it’s what he believes and there’s no reason the baker has any right to deny it! Now, if you would allow that same ability for everyone (you know, that whole, “we retain the right to refuse business…), then I would happily throw this lawsuit out the window where it belongs. But until there’s actual equality, then this baker should lose everything just like the Christian bakers have.

  • [9] January 29, 2015 at 5:59pm

    This should be the one and only job of our congress for the next 2 years. Keep submitting bill after bill of highly supported legislation from both sides of the isle that the President vetoes. Nothing will take down him and his cronies faster.

    Responses (1) +
  • [23] January 22, 2015 at 2:03pm

    Nothing like a little schadenfreude to get your morning going right!

  • [4] January 22, 2015 at 1:10am

    Oh crap! He said it’s a “Top Priority!” Sorry lady, that pretty much means he won’t do a thing about it.

  • [3] January 20, 2015 at 5:00am

    Why is it if someone prepares for worst case scenarios at home, they are a “prepper” and are mocked, but if a nutty liberal wants to destroy our economy by enforcing insane restrictions on business in order to prevent an environmental…wait for it…worst case scenario, they are suddenly brilliant. The best part is that liberals don’t actually believe anything they preach because they don’t live as if it will actually happen (i.e. Gore, the NYT is still in Manhattan, NASA is still in Ft. Lauderdale, etc.)

  • [9] January 14, 2015 at 1:45am

    I may not listen to her music much, but my daughters LOVE her. She seems like one of the good ones…but she desperately needs to ditch that crazy psycho Lena Dunam as a BFF…I mean, for realz.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] January 10, 2015 at 6:59am

    Does this include military bases?

    Responses (1) +
  • December 31, 2014 at 3:16pm

    Are you freakin’ serious! LOL! You decided to ignore everything I said except the fact that I didn’t check the weather! Yup, you’re right. I trusted what I heard originally…guilty as charged. But guess what genius…that still doesn’t change the fact that flying through a storm will NOT normally cause a plane to crash, nor does it change the fact that the pilot still chose to fly through it instead of diverting! Let me quote someone you might recognize:
    “Bad weather probably was a causal and or contributing factor in the crash. But there’s a good chance that mechanical and/or pilot error were contributing factors. There still is a remote possibility that the crash might be terrorism related.”
    So what exactly did I say that was different than what YOU said! Let me give you a hint. IF you are a pilot, and you’re in a room with other pilots and you’re wondering who the “tool” in the room is, it’s you. In this thread alone you’ve talked about “Coffin Corners” and “Super Sprites!” LOL! Well Maverick, you’ve successfully used some pilot jargon that has absolutely no chance of being a factor in this. They’re not flying a U2 at 70,000 feet! They’re an airliner with a 39,000 service ceiling! Sprites normally occur in clusters within the altitude range of 50-90 km! Yeah, going up to FL 370 is sure dangerous! You sound like a reject fighter pilot that can’t get over his glory years…or the guy who reads way too many flying mags and thinks he knows everything about flying.

  • [2] December 31, 2014 at 2:33pm


  • December 30, 2014 at 6:39pm

    I’ve responded to your condescending accusations, but just to make sure you and everyone else sees them, please take a look since they’re buried in the comments. Clearly you’re extremely interested in making yourself look overly intelligent on this particular subject, but please, do us all a favor and tone it down.

    Responses (2) +
  • December 30, 2014 at 3:46pm

    weather is very, very few, if you don’t count small aircraft. These large aircraft are designed to handle this type of weather and far more. Would you really trust a plane that couldn’t!?!

    Finally, why was there no distress call? Why did they ever loose contact? The only possible explanation is a complete electrical failure caused possibly by lightning, but that’s highly unlikely.

    Now, as far as my “piloting” abilities, I’ll go ahead and trust my 2000+ hours of military C-130 flying throughout the US, Europe, Iraq, and Afghanistan, not to mention my MEII. And somehow, in all of that, I have never been caught in a severe thunderstorm, even with our antiquated equipment.

    So yeah, weather may have been a causal factor, but just like the last 2 weeks of CRM (Crew Resource Management) training I just finished pointed out, it’s rarely the sole cause. Something else “fishy” happened – whether that was bad piloting, company pressure, or sabotage I don’t know…hence why I said I am anxious to hear what the “black box” had to say.

    So, next time you feel like you think you’re way smarter than everyone one the Internet, why don’t you just go back to your coloring book in your mom’s basement.

  • December 30, 2014 at 3:46pm

    As far as weather radar goes…well, as you all so correctly pointed out, he asked for a heading change, “to avoid sig weather.” Now, if you knew anything about flying, you would know that means exactly nothing. “Sig weather” to a pilot could be a huge cumulonimbus (thunderstorm cloud in case you are too stupid to know that), or a puffy little nothing cloud that you don’t want to hit because it might cause a few bumps. That request, according to TIME (not that that is a very reliable source) was initially denied. From what I understand, controllers weren’t painting sig weather in the area. However, any pilot knows that if there’s an emergency (i.e. serious weather ahead), you do what you gotta do to survive and keep everyone safe, which means changing heading and altitude. If he failed to do that, then again, he’s a bigger moron than you. The flight left in the early morning, so in all likelihood the vis was excellent outside of the clouds and any decent pilot could easily avoid thunderstorms either with radar or with their eyeballs.

    Furthermore, accidents from thunderstorms are typically caused by either turbulence during critical phases of flight (takeoff and landings) or icing. However, this was in mid-trip which means they were probably at around 35,000 feet, giving them plenty of time to survive turbulence or a storm.We don’t fly through storms because it’s uncomfortable, scary, and CAN be dangerous, but the number of large aircraft that have crashed due ONLY to

  • December 30, 2014 at 3:45pm

    I think my favorite thing in comments sections is when idiots think they know better than anyone else, and instead of debating politely, they instantly resort to name calling and insults. Even better is when they’re proven to be completely wrong about what they profess to be experts on, and are shown to be the self-absorbed morons that they are. In that light, allow me to prove what a complete imbecile you are…

    First…G’s. According to the FAA, (and foreign regulators are nearly identical in these respects), passenger aircraft are required to withstand 3.8 G’s of force minimum, even though the carrier itself will usually limit maneuvers to 2 or 2.5G’s in a clean configuration. However! Designers (like Airbus in this case) usually test to 150-200% capacity, and typically won’t push it to failure so the actual G-bearing capacity is much higher. So, in reality, the Airbus 320 would probably have a G-load capability of roughly 7-8 G’s. Now, I’ve experience 8 G’s, and it nearly knocked me out. I’ve also experienced 4 G’s many, many times, and that is more than even a thunderstorm will impact a carrier aircraft like this. The only way you would reach higher than 4 G’s is by pulling maneuvers in the middle of severe turbulence, which if they were doing, they are bigger morons than even you. Now, I’m not sure what you consider “High-G limits,” but since most acrobatic airplanes are +6,-3 G’s, I would think 7+ would be considered “high”…but that’s just me.

  • [3] December 30, 2014 at 3:52am

    I don’t know. I’m a pilot, and all of these crashes seem way too fishy. There’s no reason whatsoever that a modern aircraft should A: be led into a storm (from what I understand, there wasn’t significant weather in the area, and all these aircraft have weather radars on them), or B: if they do get into bad weather, they shouldn’t crash because of it! Modern aircraft are built to sustain massive amounts of G forces on them! It just doesn’t make sense. I’m interested to hear what the black box has to say.

    Responses (2) +
  • [55] December 21, 2014 at 11:59am

    I think they should just stop patrolling the areas that where the rioters are. Help them find out what it’s like to live without law enforcement.

  • [3] December 21, 2014 at 11:01am

    I love how #6 and #4 totally contradict themselves. What is abortion if not a complete and total unwillingness to be responsible for your actions?

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love