What really happened to Chuck Noland's plane

After watching _Cast Away_ again, I'm still not clear on what supposedly
caused the crash of his FedEx plane. Not being a pilot, though, perhaps
I've missed clues in the film. Has anyone here been able to figure out
what went wrong? Or was it just a "Hollywood crash" suitable for the
plot but with no plausible basis in fact?

Some of the things I'm wondering:

1. The aircraft seems to be stuck in rough weather, but what kind of
rough weather would cause a sudden decompression?

2. Assuming the aircraft was at cruising altitude, how much rough
weather can there be? I know that cloudtops can go a lot higher, but
how hard can they be to avoid? The weather radar aboard shows
something, but I don't know how to interpret weather radar.

3. When the cabin decompresses, everyone puts on oxygen masks, but only
seconds later they don't seem to need them anymore. I calculate that
getting from 35,000 feet to 10-15,000 feet would require flying straight
down at almost the speed of sound in order to make the descent in the
time shown in the movie. I can see why there might be some structural
damage upon returning to level flight!

4. I see red lights in the cockpit that look like a sign of engine
trouble, but I don't know enough about that cockpit to say for sure.
Comments?

5. The pilots are talking a bit and communicating by radio, but one
can't make out what they are saying (although they are going through
checklists, which might be significant). Has anyone figured out what
they are doing?

6. What sort of turbofan continues to run after being partially
submerged in sal****er?

7. What sort of jet engine develops spooky flames inside the compressor
section and behind the bypass fan after being dunked in sal****er?

8. What happened to all the fuel on the jet? Why isn't it floating and
burning? It seems to be only slightly less buoyant than mercury in the
film, and apparently goes down with the ship.

9. How can a jet engine that is apparently the size of a small suburban
home explode without spraying shrapnel into the hapless crash survivor
floating in a raft only a few feet away?

FWIW, the IMDB already points out that the attitude indicator in the
aircraft actually shows a gentle climb at the moment that it is
supposedly diving towards the ocean.

I had a dream last night that I crashed aboard an Airbus 230 jet. (Never
heard of the 230? Neither had I, before having this dream, but it sure
was roomy.) The aircraft descended several times to within only two
metres of the ground (I remember looking out the giant picture windows
at the front of the cabin and seeing this), before it somehow
instantaneously gained altitude and then plunged directly into a field
that looked a lot like those little wooden houses in old versions of
Monopoly. Anyway, I woke up then, and found myself thinking about
technical anomalies in the above-named film.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I had a dream last night that I crashed aboard an Airbus 230 jet. (Never
heard of the 230? Neither had I, before having this dream, but it sure
was roomy.) The aircraft descended several times to within only two
metres of the ground (I remember looking out the giant picture windows
at the front of the cabin and seeing this)

I don't think you were in an Airbus. I think you were in the passenger
version of the Northrop Flying Wing. See if I'm not right:

www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...



I don't think you were in an Airbus. I think you were in the passenger
version of the Northrop Flying Wing. See if I'm not right:

www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm



Where is the cockpit in the flying wing?

Chuck writes:

Where is the cockpit in the flying wing?

Cockpit?? Hmm ... so _that's_ why it flew so poorly! Those careless
engineers--always forgetting _something_!

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Chuck opined

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .



I don't think you were in an Airbus. I think you were in the passenger
version of the Northrop Flying Wing. See if I'm not right:

www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm



Where is the cockpit in the flying wing?


The wing, of course .


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

It's crystal clear what happened. Hollywood script writer needed to get
good looking nice guy onto desert island. Do you expect anything else to be
remotely plausible?

There are exceptions. I've been in the marine business for 30 years,
designed ships and done flooding and strength calculations on them. I've
also participated in accident investigations. I watched the whole of
"Titanic" without seeing a single fact out of place. The director was
stunningly compulsive. He didn't do "Castaway" though.

--
Roger Long

Roger Long writes:

I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.

I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
peace if he screwed up on any of the details.

Of course, _Cast Away_ was made up, but I don't see any reason why a
made-up movie can't still be technically accurate, unless the whole plot
revolves around something implausible or impossible (but that isn't the
case here).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Roger Long writes:

I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.

I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
peace if he screwed up on any of the details.

Well, he'll have to live with these "goofs" -
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/goofs

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Roger Long writes:

I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.

I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
peace if he screwed up on any of the details.

Well, he'll have to live with these "goofs" -
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/goofs

James Campbell's insistence on accuracy was taken as a challenge by the
compulsive mistake-watchers. As a result, it takes the number one spot on
http://www.moviemistakes.com/top.php. Although there are many continuity
mistakes listed, there are plenty of trivial anachronisms and the like.

-- David Brooks

Roger,

There was at least one glaring mistake in Titantic. The character Jack claimed
to be from Lake Wissota. That's a man made lake in Wisconsin that was created
more than 5 years AFTER the ship sank.

I also heard mention that in the movie there is a worship scene where they sing
a song including verses which weren't added until in the 30's.

There are exceptions. I've been in the marine business for 30 years,
designed ships and done flooding and strength calculations on them. I've
also participated in accident investigations. I watched the whole of
"Titanic" without seeing a single fact out of place. The director was
stunningly compulsive. He didn't do "Castaway" though.

--
Roger Long