Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
NatureBoff

Cruise Ship Incidents Identical To Airliners

50 posts in this topic

Isn't about time that the mystery cruise ship electrical system failures and separate engine system failures should be considered to have the same root cause as to the many airliner accidents with the same mystery dual system failures??

In the Wake of Ugly Incidents at Sea, the Cruise Industry Is in Hot Water (Mar21 2013)

Five of Carnival Corporation's cruise ships have suffered engine / propulsion problems in the last two months: the Carnival Triumph, Dream, Legend & Elation and the Carnival-owner P&O Ventura. Prior to that there major problems with Carnival Breeze, Ecstasy, Splendor and who can forget the Carnival-owned Costa Concordia -- 32 dead.

MAD%20Carnival%20Cruise.jpg

The principal problems have been engine fires when, somehow, nobody says how, all "hotel" power is lost as a result of a propulsion engine fire in a separate compartment far away. Also there have been long-running problems, mainly with thrust bearings, with 'Azipods," which are rotating propeller pods below the ship, like huge outboard motors (which aren't outboard).

The National Geographic "Air Crash Investigations" details the many horrendous airliner incidents.

planecrash-Upost.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they fall out of the sky?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Machines break down. Mystery solved.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All things mechanical have a "shelf life",breakdowns occur when a part is stressed to its destruction,it only needs one tiny part to fail ,ie:- a ball bearing which collapses,which causes the rest to be damaged,and then you have a breakdown.

I dont think there is any connection between ships and aircraft,as they have completely different stress conditions,and use completely different fuel.Ships wont run on avgas(aviation spirit),and aircraft dont run on diesel oil,so there cant be a comparison between engines.Body stress on both vehicles is a different ballgame.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Uninformed impulse naysayer comment after naysayer comment..

So it doesn't matter that hundreds of people are dying at a time from unexplained aircraft accidents? It doesn't matter that the Costa Concordia went down with the loss of 32 lives? It's not worth even considering that a now deceased airline pilot has been wrongly accused of mass murder, an act which doesn't make any sense?

The Truth about the SilkAir MI 185 Disaster

12th Nov 2007, 00:54

Just having a go at it myself:

Calamatous rudder failure is fortunately very rare, say 1 in 500 aircraft, over eachs' say 20,000 hour life. That's a 1 in 10 million chance per hour, or a 1 in 100 million chance in any few minutes.

A CVR failure is more likely, say once in a thousand hours per aircraft, or a 1 in 10,000 chance in any few minutes.

Assuming they are unrelated, the chances of a CVR failure being followed within minutes by a mechanical rudder malfunction, is the one odds multiplied by the other. I reckon that gives odds against mechanical failure of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 or one in a billion.

I may have made wrong assumptions, or got the zeros wrong, but the point is that the chances of the MI 185 tradgedy being due to a mechanical rudder failure, immediately preceded by CVR failure, is remote.

Just looking at those video clips and was amazed that the servo valve was "the single remnant of the SilkAir crash" and the "only part still in existance of the SilkAir 737", yet at the same time looked in perfect as-new condition and needed a scanning electron microscope to find the manufacturing flaws. Amazing that it survived the crash in such pristine condition.

Was also interested in the comments on the inspection sheet allowing for second inspection. This is either normal practice and acceptable, or it is not.

If it is normal practice, then it was OK here too.

And if it was not OK here, then it should not be an acceptable option anywhere else.

What we are seeing here is an example of the double standards that were applied throughout the MI 185 investigation.

Also interesting to see that the co-pilot was portrayed as a mature 40 ish pilot; and that both pilots were shown at the controls at the end.

All in all, it seemed more Disney that National Geographic to me.

I still believe, however, that the evidence is already there and just needs worked through objectively and logically.

Millerscourt, thank you too. I agree with you that there is no feasible alternative to the captain having pulled the CBs - as it was a billion to one that it was a double mechanical failure. This gives us another line in the sand.

So we know:

- the disaster was not due to mechanical failure;

- the captain switched off the cockpit recorders; and

- the aircraft descended with maximum power on.

However,

1) the captain was no more in debt than the average pilot - and pilots are not automatically grounded for normal debt;

2) demotions do happen - and again pilots are not automatically grounded as part of every demotion; and

3) every disaster has a 10th anniversary, including MI 185 - and the survivors again are not automatically grounded as part of having survived.

If these aspects, individually, or combined, or in the character of this particular captain, were not important enough before the accident, then why are they argued to be so crucial after it.

It was, however, useful to be reminded that MI 185 was not just suicide, but also mass murder - and my understanding is that unresolved murder cases are never closed.

Dear Nortwinds,

I feel deeply saddened by the loss of life of all the passengers and crew. But I do have a big problem in believing that any pilot would intentionally murder his passengers and crew. I do understand that this has perhaps happened i.e. Egypt Air incident but then again do we really know if the FO did what he did on purpose or did something / malfunction cause him to action incorrectly. Was it poor systems knowledge / training etc. I remember the accident involving the A300-600 with the Russian crew that allowed the kids to occupy a flight deck seat and this resulted in a fatal accident.

I do not know of an accident (Except 9/11) That a pilot purposely flew his aircraft into the ground with the intent of murder that did not have some reasonable doubt attached to it.

I do know however that in initial investigations regarding rudder hard over in the B737 series the investigators had a hard time believing that such a control movement was possible. It really was a miracle that one of the crews survived, and it was this event that finally lead to the discovery of the effect of temperature and hydraulic lock commanded by the sequence valve. All due to the machining tolerances of the valve produced by Parker Hannifin.

My point here is could there have been such a problem the occurred on this fateful flight. Did the crew actually have to think out of the box to try and save the situation. Did control reversal and hard over lead them to use the engines to raise the nose. I don't have the answers to any of these questions. All I know is that there was millions of dollars at stake and that in circumstances like this all sorts of coverups and deals do get made.

Edited by RingFenceTheCity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, but I don't quite get the point of this thread. Are u saying that these incidents are the result of sabotage, terrorism, bad maintenance, human error, solar flares, what? I'm assuming you're trying to link them all to the same cause although I thought that very few of these sea and air disasters were unsolved or mysterious. And the Concordia was the result of n acute case of the dumbass. It's a common affliction.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, but I don't quite get the point of this thread. Are u saying that these incidents are the result of sabotage, terrorism, bad maintenance, human error, solar flares, what? ...

I highly suspect this will fall into the "or what" catagory.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just blame aliens or the government. Covers just about everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are all sorts of hints in the data that Carnival needs a management shakeup. Otherwise accidents do happen.

That toilet looked like the one in my son's college dorm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna add to the conspiracy. I just tried going on Carnival's website. It's not working due to a technical problem. Ooooooooooooh!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm waiting for Ring's theory on car accidents since they kill 100 times more folks than airlines and cruise ships combined.

As for the cruise ships, it's fairly simple - management trying to ring every ounce of profit by running older ships and cutbacks in maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See Lilly's link above, Rafterman. It's obviously the lizard-birds. And now I have one more thing to fear in life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See Lilly's link above, Rafterman. It's obviously the lizard-birds. And now I have one more thing to fear in life

You may all laugh (lol) but the circumstantial evidence *does* fit. The glowing orb ufo's are linked to car engine failures and electrical system failures. Both types of occurrence are features of a handful of airliner mysteries as well as Bermuda Triangle ghost ship like incidents as well as the cruise liner incidents mentioned in the OP. Okay, nobody is going to believe this idea until someone actually catches or kills the hypothesised unknown biological entity. It's something that will happen in the future imv. Everyone who's posted here must at least admit to a resolution of the coloured glowing orb ufos in the not-too-distant future in some form or other surely? I find it difficult to believe that someone who is a regular open-minded researcher thinks that there isn't *anything* behind it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that there is more to this world than meets the eye and I do feel there are true mysteries in this world. But Ring, you seem to subscribe to almost every paranormal explanation or hypothesis out there. Yes I believe in the paranormal. But sometimes things are just "normal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that happens is normal: by definition there cannot be a paranormal any more than there can be a supernatural, there can only be things we don't know. If there are angels buzzing around my head, then that is both normal and natural. I may not be able to see them but if they are there they are there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that there is more to this world than meets the eye and I do feel there are true mysteries in this world. But Ring, you seem to subscribe to almost every paranormal explanation or hypothesis out there. Yes I believe in the paranormal. But sometimes things are just "normal".

No, I don't believe in anything other than flesh and blood unknown creatures, earthbound fluid dark matter and the ability to feel when someone is looking at you from behind. That's THREE things that aren't accepted by mainstream science. I don't believe in ghosts, spirits, heaven or life-after-death etc. So please, give me some respect and try and remember that it's only these simple three things which makes me different from everyone else on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem arbitrary in your choice of what you believe in and what you don't. I tend to prefer to go with the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that happens is normal: by definition there cannot be a paranormal any more than there can be a supernatural, there can only be things we don't know. If there are angels buzzing around my head, then that is both normal and natural. I may not be able to see them but if they are there they are there.

Yes, agreed. I'm saying that glowing orb ufo's are natural. Flesh and blood natural. It's just that they have probably evolved in ancient Antarctica and so are unique relative to the 'normal birds' we are used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem arbitrary in your choice of what you believe in and what you don't. I tend to prefer to go with the evidence.

No! I've got a science degree and have pursued the work of professors who have produced papers which go against the mainstream dogma. This ufo hypothesis is the culmination of 30 years private research. I've studied at Masters Degree level and used to be a Scientific Officer involved with futuristic missile research. There probably isn't anyone on this site who is more scientifically qualified than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, I'm going to give you some respect and defer to your knowledge on this subject. What is the evidence that convinced you of the presence of aliens on this planet? And I don't mean YouTube videos or fuzzy photos. I mean the evidence that the orbs you see are extra terrestrial in nature. I mean the evidence that aliens are here. The evidence (if you know it) of what their intentions are.

I don't really believe in alien visitors but there are several stories an eyewitness reports that just have me wondering WTH??. So I would love to see some of your research and what convinced you so strongly. And the Antarctica connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, I'm going to give you some respect and defer to your knowledge on this subject. What is the evidence that convinced you of the presence of aliens on this planet? And I don't mean YouTube videos or fuzzy photos. I mean the evidence that the orbs you see are extra terrestrial in nature. I mean the evidence that aliens are here. The evidence (if you know it) of what their intentions are.

I don't really believe in alien visitors but there are several stories an eyewitness reports that just have me wondering WTH??. So I would love to see some of your research and what convinced you so strongly. And the Antarctica connection.

You really are quite annoying. I'm saying that the glowing orbs AREN'T extra-terrestrial!!!! I'm saying they have evolved here on earth!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really are quite annoying. I'm saying that the glowing orbs AREN'T extra-terrestrial!!!! I'm saying they have evolved here on earth!!

'Scuse the hell outta me. I was genuinely trying to learn from you and engage you and you call me annoying. Nice way to spread the knowledge. And u accuse ME of not showing respect.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No! I've got a science degree and have pursued the work of professors who have produced papers which go against the mainstream dogma. This ufo hypothesis is the culmination of 30 years private research. I've studied at Masters Degree level and used to be a Scientific Officer involved with futuristic missile research. There probably isn't anyone on this site who is more scientifically qualified than I am.

Were the missiles powered by glow bird poo?

Qualifications doesn't mean rational. Much of your "research" reeks of confirmation bias, just look at that joke of a dogman database; utter garbage that many entries have nothing to do with dogman.

Edited by Rlyeh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't about time that the mystery cruise ship electrical system failures and separate engine system failures should be considered to have the same root cause as to the many airliner accidents with the same mystery dual system failures??

In the Wake of Ugly Incidents at Sea, the Cruise Industry Is in Hot Water (Mar21 2013)

The National Geographic "Air Crash Investigations" details the many horrendous airliner incidents.

planecrash-Upost.jpg

Why did you post a picture from Lost?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.