A Malaysia Airlines flight that was headed to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, carrying over 200 passengers and crew, disappeared off radar, diverted south, and crashed into the Indian Ocean.
Malaysia said on Monday that a missing jetliner had crashed into the Indian Ocean, an announcement that was greeted with hysteria by Chinese relatives of those on board and a demand by China that Kuala Lumpur share all the evidence it had on the incident.
Citing groundbreaking satellite-data analysis by the British company Inmarsat, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, which vanished more than a fortnight ago while flying to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, had crashed thousands of miles away in the southern Indian Ocean.
His statement may go some way toward tamping down some of the more fevered speculation about the plane's fate, including one theory some grief-stricken relatives had seized on: that the plane had been hijacked and forced to land somewhere.
All 239 people on board were presumed dead, airline officials said on Monday.
Najib's announcement opens the way for what could be one of the most costly and challenging air crash investigations in history.
The launch of an official air crash investigation would give Malaysia power to coordinate and sift evidence, but it may still face critics, especially China, which had more than 150 citizens on board the missing plane and has criticised Malaysia over the progress of the search.
The Inmarsat data showed the Boeing 777's last position was in the Indian Ocean west of Perth, Australia, Najib said in a statement.
"This is a remote location, far from any possible landing sites," he said. "It is therefore, with deep sadness and regret, that I must inform you that, according to this new data, Flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean."
Britain's Inmarsat used a wave phenomenon discovered in the 19th century to analyze the seven pings its satellite picked up from Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 to determine its final destination.
The new findings led Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak to conclude on Monday that the Boeing 777, which disappeared more than two weeks ago, crashed thousands of miles away in the southern Indian Ocean, killing all 239 people on board.
The pings, automatically transmitted every hour from the aircraft after the rest of its communications systems had stopped, indicated it continued flying for hours after it disappeared from its flight path from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
From the time the signals took to reach the satellite and the angle of elevation, Inmarsat was able to provide two arcs, one north and one south that the aircraft could have taken.
Inmarsat's scientists then interrogated the faint pings using a technique based on the Doppler effect, which describes how a wave changes frequency relative to the movement of an observer, in this case the satellite, a spokesman said.
The Doppler effect is why the sound of a police car siren changes as it approaches and then overtakes an observer.
Britain's Air Accidents Investigation Branch was also involved in the analysis.
"We then took the data we had from the aircraft and plotted it against the two tracks, and it came out as following the southern track," Jonathan Sinnatt, head of corporate communications at Inmarsat, said.
The company then compared its theoretical flight path with data received from Boeing 777s it knew had flown the same route, he said, and it matched exactly.
The findings were passed to another satellite company to check, he said, before being released to investigators on Monday.
The paucity of data - only faint pings received by a single satellite every hour or so - meant techniques like triangulation using a number of satellites or GPS (Global Positioning System) could not be used to determine the aircraft's flight path.
On March 08 2014 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: If it went missing over N.E. Malaysia it is hard to believe someone didn't see a rain of debris etc.
On the other hand it also seems improbable that they were not able to activate any of the redundant distress call systems on the aircraft. Overall it just seems really mysterious at this point. Hoping for the best, but it doesn't sound like there is much hope anymore.
I don't know enough about how their systems work to make an educated guess, but possibly the communication equipment was turned off if it was hijacked?
If it just crash landed or something wouldn't there still be some kind of trace?
I guess all we can do is hope for the best. Also, is this a day-of report considering the timezone difference or is this referring to last week?
The aircraft in question was involved in a collision incident at Shanghai Pudong Int'l Airport (PVG) in August 2012, where one of its wings was severely damaged. (Confirmed)
Also, some of its last flight data transmissions reveal that the plane turned from a heading of 024 to 333 in less than a minute while dropping in altitude. (Not yet confirmed)
This surely doesn't look good. My prayers are with those on board and their families. Hope for a miracle.
A Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 239 people en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing is missing, the airline confirmed.
The Boeing 777-200 aircraft had 227 passengers, including two infants, and 12 crew members on board, the airline said in a statement. The passengers were of 13 different nationalities.
"Our team is currently calling the next-of-kin of passengers and crew," the airlines' group chief executive officer, Ahmad Jauhari Yahya, said in a statement. "Focus of the airline is to work with the emergency responders and authorities and mobilize its full support."
Flight MH370 departed from Kuala Lumpur at 12:41 a.m. Saturday local time, according to a statement from the airline. Air traffic control in Subang lost contact with it two hours later.
It was scheduled to land in Beijing at 6:30 a.m. the same day.
boeing-facts.jpg Malaysia Airlines said search and rescue teams had been activated.
An official at the Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam said the plane had failed to check in as scheduled while it was flying over the sea between Malaysia and Ho Chi Minh City.
"Its code didn't appear in our system," Bui Van Vo, the authority's flight control department manager, told Reuters by telephone.
On March 08 2014 12:35 dyDrawer wrote: The aircraft in question was involved in a collision incident at Shanghai Pudong Int'l Airport (PVG) in August 2012, where one of its wings was severely damaged. (Confirmed)
On March 08 2014 12:35 dyDrawer wrote: The aircraft in question was involved in a collision incident at Shanghai Pudong Int'l Airport (PVG) in August 2012, where one of its wings was severely damaged. (Confirmed)
Do you have a source?
yes
A taxiing Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 passenger plane (9M-MRO), flight MH389, contaced the tail of a China Eastern Airlines A340 plane, B-6050, waiting on the taxiway at Pudong International Airport.No one was injured.
The tip of the wing of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was broken off and hung on the tail of the China Eastern Airbus 340-600, according to pictures posted by passengers on the Internet.
A China Eastern Airlines and a Malaysia Airlines jet collided with one another on the tarmac while taxiing at Shanghai Pudong International Airport Thursday afternoon.
Reports say the China Eastern Flight 583, an Airbus A340-600 aircraft bound for Los Angeles (LAX), was waiting to take off at 4:28 PM local time when Malaysia Flight 389, a Boeing 777-200 aircraft bound for Kuala Lumpur, clipped China Eastern’s tail while taxiing.
The China Eastern A340 suffered a damaged tail and the Malaysia 777 suffered damage to its wing. There were no reported injuries.
Apparently this the list of passengers (nationality only): + Show Spoiler +
1. China – 152 plus 1 infant 2. Malaysia - 38 3. Indonesia - 12 4. Australia - 7 5. France - 3 6. United States of America – 3 pax plus 1 infant 7. New Zealand - 2 8. Ukraine - 2 9. Canada - 2 10. Russia - 1 11. Italy - 1 12. Taiwan - 1 13. Netherlands - 1 14. Austria - 1
Found it on a comment on the news, so not reliable at all.
On March 08 2014 13:34 fabiano wrote: Apparently this the list of passengers (nationality only): + Show Spoiler +
1. China – 152 plus 1 infant 2. Malaysia - 38 3. Indonesia - 12 4. Australia - 7 5. France - 3 6. United States of America – 3 pax plus 1 infant 7. New Zealand - 2 8. Ukraine - 2 9. Canada - 2 10. Russia - 1 11. Italy - 1 12. Taiwan - 1 13. Netherlands - 1 14. Austria - 1
Found it on a comment on the news, so not reliable at all.
that looks like the same from the official read-out of a statement made by Malaysian Airlines here:
If all communications equipment broke down they can't even request landings or airspace clearance even if they found a way to get to a runway or a highway :/
Is it really possible that all communication equipment would malfunction at once? I mean, they must have some kind of backup, right? this seems really out of the blue :/ Hope they end up being found safe and sound.
On March 08 2014 16:55 EchoZ wrote: My friend is on that flight.. And i'll be taking a plane tonight as well. Omg....
Hope your friend ends up being fine and that it's nothing to worry about.
This is the biggest casualty for a Boeing 777 since its launch nearly 20 years ago, and its first accident with passenger casualty was only 7 months ago.
On March 08 2014 17:23 digmouse wrote: This is the biggest casualty for a Boeing 777 since its launch nearly 20 years ago, and its first accident with passenger casualty was only 7 months ago.
There will be more accidents coming. Most of the world's air fleet is quite old (20 year old planes and such), things start to fall apart slowly.
Let me remind you of the Air France accident in 2009 (A330-203 crashed into the ocean killing 228). It took 2 whole years to locate the wreckage. You can find more about it here.
A Malaysian source is also relaying the report about Vietnamese officials having found an oil slick (but differs in the account of what the oil slick looks like):
Vietnam's Civil Aviation Department planes spotted two large oil slicks that authorities suspect are from a MAS jetliner that went missing Saturday.
A statement said the slicks, each between 10km and 15km long, and 500m apart, were spotted some 140m south of Tho Chu island off southern Vietnam.
We can't draw 100% conclusions but it seems to me that it's pretty certain that the plane did indeed crash. I think after a couple hours the chances go towards 0%.
"CNN and other outlets are reporting that several people on board the missing Malaysia flight were using stolen passports of citizens from Austria and Italy. We're waiting for more confirmation"
On March 08 2014 23:55 zev318 wrote: "CNN and other outlets are reporting that several people on board the missing Malaysia flight were using stolen passports of citizens from Austria and Italy. We're waiting for more confirmation"
terror... ists?
CNN is absolute trash and, if it were a paper source, would only be good for wiping your butt after using the restroom. Talk to me about the other outlets though.
On March 08 2014 23:55 zev318 wrote: "CNN and other outlets are reporting that several people on board the missing Malaysia flight were using stolen passports of citizens from Austria and Italy. We're waiting for more confirmation"
terror... ists?
CNN is absolute trash and, if it were a paper source, would only be good for wiping your butt after using the restroom. Talk to me about the other outlets though.
Italian foreign ministry says no Italian was on missing Malaysia flight, despite Italian listed among passengers - @Reuters
Austrian citizen reported to be on Malaysian flight is safe in Austria; passport stolen, Austrian foreign ministry says - @Reuters
reuters good or bad?
btw on a side note, i relaly like the new google maps
those are just headlines though. it doesn't say anything about someone else gaining entry onto that plane with those credentials, just that those people weren't actually on the plane.
there's a big difference. they could just have had their passport stolen in the city and not have been able to get on the plane as a result.
On March 09 2014 00:16 playnice wrote: 11 of my friend's colleagues were on board. One of them was a former classmate of mine. Heard he was getting married this year. This is really sad.
On March 08 2014 23:55 zev318 wrote: "CNN and other outlets are reporting that several people on board the missing Malaysia flight were using stolen passports of citizens from Austria and Italy. We're waiting for more confirmation"
terror... ists?
what kind of terrorist would hijack a plane and then make in crash in the a remote oceanarea so noone can possibly see whats happening.
So, I guess this is semi-confirmed? still, that 35,000 to 0 drop is very unsettling. Even if the plane was losing altitude, it can lose that much in what? several seconds it was?
On March 09 2014 00:16 playnice wrote: 11 of my friend's colleagues were on board. One of them was a former classmate of mine. Heard he was getting married this year. This is really sad.
Don't expect to get any answers anytime soon unless there were terrorists and someone takes responsibility. Regardless of cause it usually takes a long time if ever to get answers to a crash like this, especially if there weren't any communications between towers and the plan that can be connected to the crash.
On March 08 2014 23:55 zev318 wrote: "CNN and other outlets are reporting that several people on board the missing Malaysia flight were using stolen passports of citizens from Austria and Italy. We're waiting for more confirmation"
terror... ists?
what kind of terrorist would hijack a plane and then make in crash in the a remote oceanarea so noone can possibly see whats happening.
it has happened in Russia, where there were no claims just crashes until the actual blac boxes were covered. Terrorist or not, its incredibly sad.
this is why im scared shitless of flying. I know statistically your more likely to be killed in a car accident but that probably doesnt hold much weight to the 227 people who are now an oil slick on the ocean.
people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
On March 09 2014 03:35 EleanorRIgby wrote: people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
Boeing 777 isn't really that old and shity though, not to mention i believe it has one of the best safety records. Could have been maintenance error.
On March 09 2014 03:35 EleanorRIgby wrote: people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
Boeing 777 isn't really that old and shity though, not to mention i believe it has one of the best safety records. Could have been maintenance error.
yea thats true, usually this stuff pretty much always comes down to human error. like maintenance not tightening a bolt enough or something.
On March 09 2014 03:35 EleanorRIgby wrote: people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
On March 09 2014 03:35 EleanorRIgby wrote: people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
The fact that there were 2 people with stolen passports seems to be the big thing. One person and it might not be, but two is.
How a plane can go from cruising altitude to sea fast enough that there's no mayday is beyond me. Apart from a serious structural failure of the plane, eg. a bomb.
Wow so 2 people on the plane where not on it and had passports stolen. So Terrorism could likely be at the heart of this? I don't know, it's very interesting. You would of thought though that it would be hard to lose a plane signal? I mean surely you can't just "Switch off" the tracking beacon sort of thing? Mainly because why would there ever be a need to turn it off? If you can't and it goes missing then you know where it was last and surely there is a crash zone which isn't "that big" to search around?
Malaysia Airlines' updated list of the nationalities on board the missing airliner:
China/Taiwan 153 including 1 infant Malaysia 38 India 5 Indonesia 7 Australia 6 France 4 USA 3 including 1 infant New Zealand 2 Ukraine 2 Canada 2 Russian 1 Netherlands 1
Apparently the stolen passports story is confirmed
MILAN (AP) — Foreign ministry officials in Rome and Vienna confirmed Saturday that names of two nationals listed on the manifest of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight match passports reported stolen in Thailand.
On March 09 2014 03:35 EleanorRIgby wrote: people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
I suppose it's still not impossible that it's a pilot error, but it seems unlikely.
Human error is the cause of accidents in most cases really. Aircraft these days are really well made and 2002 is quite young for an aircraft.
That said, even experienced pilots are liable to make mistakes. 18000 is a record though, never heard of anyone with that amount. Record for me is 16000.Or, it could be co-pilot error. Maintenance error (from mechanics on ground). I would call for a mistake on their part before anything else. It's also quite common for airline pilots to also fly in tourism aircraft as well.
It could however, possibly indeed be the aircraft. Or, rather than the aircraft, the instruments it was using. The possible (probable?) cause of the Air France flight that also crashed between Paris and Rio was faulty pitot tube. It could be that as well. [startrant]Shitty computer stuff, ya know? Aircraft back in the day had dials and stuff. Everything today is digitalized. Glass cockpits. Fly by wire. I don't like it all that much. I like needles more, old aircraft instruments were mechanical and as such less liable (in my opinion) to faulty electronics on board. Fly-by-wire (where a computer listens to pilot input and then controls the instruments itself; it can make an aircraft really easy to fly / stable), similarly, means that the outside elements won't directly be felt by the pilot via controls. Easy aircraft to fly, why not? I'm not sure that it's good that the pilot loses information like that though. It's not like I know any better, since I've never flown fly-by-wire, but seriously, there's information in the yoke itself.[/endrant]
Yeah, went on a tangent there. We had Rio-Paris, now this, I can't help feeling that it's the fault of the shitty glass cockpits. Also let's not start an argument, these are just my feels, as an aircraft enthusiast
Edit: mid-air disintegration is really scary but i doubt it. i don't think it's supposed to be common with modern airliners. i know the de haviland comet had this problem though. I personally suspect a huge electronics failure or something. pilots lose their avionics/controls, don't react in time to stabilize the aircraft with back-up instruments/controls, they crash. the transponder, which is basically something that makes an aircraft more visible on radar (well, an airliner is already pretty damn visible), and more importantly, attaches information to a radar contact (squawk code, altitude, etc) would have failed with the rest of the electronics on board.
2 bucks says that's what happened to rio-paris as well.
On March 09 2014 03:35 EleanorRIgby wrote: people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
I suppose it's still not impossible that it's a pilot error, but it seems unlikely.
Human error is the cause of accidents in most cases really. Aircraft these days are really well made and 2002 is quite young for an aircraft.
That said, even experienced pilots are liable to make mistakes. 18000 is a record though, never heard of anyone with that amount. Record for me is 16000.Or, it could be co-pilot error. Maintenance error (from mechanics on ground). I would call for a mistake on their part before anything else. It's also quite common for airline pilots to also fly in tourism aircraft as well.
It could however, possibly indeed be the aircraft. Or, rather than the aircraft, the instruments it was using. The possible (probable?) cause of the Air France flight that also crashed between Paris and Rio was faulty pitot tube. It could be that as well. [startrant]Shitty computer stuff, ya know? Aircraft back in the day had dials and stuff. Everything today is digitalized. Glass cockpits. Fly by wire. I don't like it all that much. I like needles more, old aircraft instruments were mechanical and as such less liable (in my opinion) to faulty electronics on board. Fly-by-wire (where a computer listens to pilot input and then controls the instruments itself; it can make an aircraft really easy to fly / stable), similarly, means that the outside elements won't directly be felt by the pilot via controls. Easy aircraft to fly, why not? I'm not sure that it's good that the pilot loses information like that though. It's not like I know any better, since I've never flown fly-by-wire, but seriously, there's information in the yoke itself.[/endrant]
Yeah, went on a tangent there. We had Rio-Paris, now this, I can't help feeling that it's the fault of the shitty glass cockpits. Also let's not start an argument, these are just my feels, as an aircraft enthusiast
One thing that struck me is the discrepancy in age and experience between the Captain and the F/O. I mean, there could be potential CRM issues where the First Officer is somewhat intimidated by his captain. That's purely speculation tho.
Another very odd thing that struck me is how this happened so suddenly and without any warning. This indicates that the incident unfolded so quickly that the crew had no time to inform ATC. Keep in mind that this happened during cruise when things are supposed to be safest. This can pretty much narrow it down to a few things, and they're all really, really bad...
i think if it was structural issue, like it blew up in the air, they would have found signs of the wreckage by now since it would cover a very large area.
no matter the issue, at least this did not happen over land or something even worse than it already is.
On March 09 2014 05:43 zev318 wrote: i think if it was structural issue, like it blew up in the air, they would have found signs of the wreckage by now since it would cover a very large area.
no matter the issue, at least this did not happen over land or something even worse than it already is.
A plane generally don't "blow up" in the air. A bomb can cause a plane to crash, and potentially break up in the air by the forces surrounding the descent. A bomb could just as easily damage the planes ability to steer and make it crash still reasonably intact.
On March 09 2014 03:35 EleanorRIgby wrote: people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
I suppose it's still not impossible that it's a pilot error, but it seems unlikely.
Human error is the cause of accidents in most cases really. Aircraft these days are really well made and 2002 is quite young for an aircraft.
That said, even experienced pilots are liable to make mistakes. 18000 is a record though, never heard of anyone with that amount. Record for me is 16000.Or, it could be co-pilot error. Maintenance error (from mechanics on ground). I would call for a mistake on their part before anything else. It's also quite common for airline pilots to also fly in tourism aircraft as well.
It could however, possibly indeed be the aircraft. Or, rather than the aircraft, the instruments it was using. The possible (probable?) cause of the Air France flight that also crashed between Paris and Rio was faulty pitot tube. It could be that as well. [startrant]Shitty computer stuff, ya know? Aircraft back in the day had dials and stuff. Everything today is digitalized. Glass cockpits. Fly by wire. I don't like it all that much. I like needles more, old aircraft instruments were mechanical and as such less liable (in my opinion) to faulty electronics on board. Fly-by-wire (where a computer listens to pilot input and then controls the instruments itself; it can make an aircraft really easy to fly / stable), similarly, means that the outside elements won't directly be felt by the pilot via controls. Easy aircraft to fly, why not? I'm not sure that it's good that the pilot loses information like that though. It's not like I know any better, since I've never flown fly-by-wire, but seriously, there's information in the yoke itself.[/endrant]
Yeah, went on a tangent there. We had Rio-Paris, now this, I can't help feeling that it's the fault of the shitty glass cockpits. Also let's not start an argument, these are just my feels, as an aircraft enthusiast
One thing that struck me is the discrepancy in age and experience between the Captain and the F/O. I mean, there could be potential CRM issues where the First Officer is somewhat intimidated by his captain. That's purely speculation tho.
Another very odd thing that struck me is how this happened so suddenly and without any warning. This indicates that the incident unfolded so quickly that the crew had no time to inform ATC. Keep in mind that this happened during cruise when things are supposed to be safest. This can pretty much narrow it down to a few things, and they're all really, really bad...
When in dire situations, the pilot must first: 1. control aircraft 2. figure out where he's going / reassure passengers / go in right direction 3. contact ATC
If he failed to obtain step 1, then it makes sense that he didn't contact ATC, I guess.
I've heard that asian cabins can have that kind of scary relation between first officer and captain, where the captain is god and acts like it. Not sure if it applies here though. It wouldn't be because of age/experience differential though. It would be a cultural problem. The man who taught me to fly was over 57 years old and had 16000. I was 17 and from my first 2 hours of flying to where I am know, I still feel incredibly relaxed flying with an experienced guy, knowing that his experience is there as a shield almost. Knowing him, he flies the same way in an airliner as he does a small tourist aircraft, because he respects both aircraft equally.
On March 09 2014 04:53 Pandemona wrote: Wow so 2 people on the plane where not on it and had passports stolen. So Terrorism could likely be at the heart of this? I don't know, it's very interesting. You would of thought though that it would be hard to lose a plane signal? I mean surely you can't just "Switch off" the tracking beacon sort of thing? Mainly because why would there ever be a need to turn it off? If you can't and it goes missing then you know where it was last and surely there is a crash zone which isn't "that big" to search around?
Malaysia Airlines' updated list of the nationalities on board the missing airliner:
China/Taiwan 153 including 1 infant Malaysia 38 India 5 Indonesia 7 Australia 6 France 4 USA 3 including 1 infant New Zealand 2 Ukraine 2 Canada 2 Russian 1 Netherlands 1
Yes, it's terrorism. A terrorist would spend all his resource and crash it in the middle of nowhere instead of flying it into a major city doing more potential damage. Seriously?
On March 09 2014 03:35 EleanorRIgby wrote: people illegally travel all the time, does not mean terrorism is involved. my guess is it was an old shitty plane and all the safety and backup system were fucked up + pilot error.
I suppose it's still not impossible that it's a pilot error, but it seems unlikely.
Human error is the cause of accidents in most cases really. Aircraft these days are really well made and 2002 is quite young for an aircraft.
That said, even experienced pilots are liable to make mistakes. 18000 is a record though, never heard of anyone with that amount. Record for me is 16000.Or, it could be co-pilot error. Maintenance error (from mechanics on ground). I would call for a mistake on their part before anything else. It's also quite common for airline pilots to also fly in tourism aircraft as well.
It could however, possibly indeed be the aircraft. Or, rather than the aircraft, the instruments it was using. The possible (probable?) cause of the Air France flight that also crashed between Paris and Rio was faulty pitot tube. It could be that as well. [startrant]Shitty computer stuff, ya know? Aircraft back in the day had dials and stuff. Everything today is digitalized. Glass cockpits. Fly by wire. I don't like it all that much. I like needles more, old aircraft instruments were mechanical and as such less liable (in my opinion) to faulty electronics on board. Fly-by-wire (where a computer listens to pilot input and then controls the instruments itself; it can make an aircraft really easy to fly / stable), similarly, means that the outside elements won't directly be felt by the pilot via controls. Easy aircraft to fly, why not? I'm not sure that it's good that the pilot loses information like that though. It's not like I know any better, since I've never flown fly-by-wire, but seriously, there's information in the yoke itself.[/endrant]
Yeah, went on a tangent there. We had Rio-Paris, now this, I can't help feeling that it's the fault of the shitty glass cockpits. Also let's not start an argument, these are just my feels, as an aircraft enthusiast
One thing that struck me is the discrepancy in age and experience between the Captain and the F/O. I mean, there could be potential CRM issues where the First Officer is somewhat intimidated by his captain. That's purely speculation tho.
Another very odd thing that struck me is how this happened so suddenly and without any warning. This indicates that the incident unfolded so quickly that the crew had no time to inform ATC. Keep in mind that this happened during cruise when things are supposed to be safest. This can pretty much narrow it down to a few things, and they're all really, really bad...
When in dire situations, the pilot must first: 1. control aircraft 2. figure out where he's going / reassure passengers / go in right direction 3. contact ATC
If he failed to obtain step 1, then it makes sense that he didn't contact ATC, I guess.
I've heard that asian cabins can have that kind of scary relation between first officer and captain, where the captain is god and acts like it. Not sure if it applies here though. It wouldn't be because of age/experience differential though. It would be a cultural problem. The man who taught me to fly was over 57 years old and had 16000. I was 17 and from my first 2 hours of flying to where I am know, I still feel incredibly relaxed flying with an experienced guy, knowing that his experience is there as a shield almost. Knowing him, he flies the same way in an airliner as he does a small tourist aircraft, because he respects both aircraft equally.
Seeing as you seem to know what you're talking about, aren't there automatic systems that would send information to the ground if something goes wrong? Is it possible for all of them to fail at the same time (assuming there are multiple different ones)? Can't say I know much about planes. [Edit] Well, I guess they did all fail at the same time or we'd know more about what happened. Good thinking.
On March 09 2014 04:53 Pandemona wrote: Wow so 2 people on the plane where not on it and had passports stolen. So Terrorism could likely be at the heart of this? I don't know, it's very interesting. You would of thought though that it would be hard to lose a plane signal? I mean surely you can't just "Switch off" the tracking beacon sort of thing? Mainly because why would there ever be a need to turn it off? If you can't and it goes missing then you know where it was last and surely there is a crash zone which isn't "that big" to search around?
Malaysia Airlines' updated list of the nationalities on board the missing airliner:
China/Taiwan 153 including 1 infant Malaysia 38 India 5 Indonesia 7 Australia 6 France 4 USA 3 including 1 infant New Zealand 2 Ukraine 2 Canada 2 Russian 1 Netherlands 1
Yes, it's terrorism. A terrorist would spend all his resource and crash it in the middle of nowhere instead of flying it into a major city doing more potential damage. Seriously?
Seriously? You feel you're so sure it's not terrorism because the plane didn't crash into a major city? I don't know, but maybe, just maybe, something happened that made the terrorists unable to do more damage with the plane like they wanted to.
"Oh yeah, a plane crashed, but not in a city, so we can rule out terrorism."
On March 09 2014 04:53 Pandemona wrote: Wow so 2 people on the plane where not on it and had passports stolen. So Terrorism could likely be at the heart of this? I don't know, it's very interesting. You would of thought though that it would be hard to lose a plane signal? I mean surely you can't just "Switch off" the tracking beacon sort of thing? Mainly because why would there ever be a need to turn it off? If you can't and it goes missing then you know where it was last and surely there is a crash zone which isn't "that big" to search around?
Malaysia Airlines' updated list of the nationalities on board the missing airliner:
China/Taiwan 153 including 1 infant Malaysia 38 India 5 Indonesia 7 Australia 6 France 4 USA 3 including 1 infant New Zealand 2 Ukraine 2 Canada 2 Russian 1 Netherlands 1
Yes, it's terrorism. A terrorist would spend all his resource and crash it in the middle of nowhere instead of flying it into a major city doing more potential damage. Seriously?
Seriously? You feel you're so sure it's not terrorism because the plane didn't crash into a major city? I don't know, but maybe, just maybe, something happened that made the terrorists unable to do more damage with the plane like they wanted to.
"Oh yeah, a plane crashed, but not in a city, so we can rule out terrorism."
On March 09 2014 04:53 Pandemona wrote: Wow so 2 people on the plane where not on it and had passports stolen. So Terrorism could likely be at the heart of this? I don't know, it's very interesting. You would of thought though that it would be hard to lose a plane signal? I mean surely you can't just "Switch off" the tracking beacon sort of thing? Mainly because why would there ever be a need to turn it off? If you can't and it goes missing then you know where it was last and surely there is a crash zone which isn't "that big" to search around?
Malaysia Airlines' updated list of the nationalities on board the missing airliner:
China/Taiwan 153 including 1 infant Malaysia 38 India 5 Indonesia 7 Australia 6 France 4 USA 3 including 1 infant New Zealand 2 Ukraine 2 Canada 2 Russian 1 Netherlands 1
Yes, it's terrorism. A terrorist would spend all his resource and crash it in the middle of nowhere instead of flying it into a major city doing more potential damage. Seriously?
Terrorist evens on planes are generally about bringing down/destroying the plane and not about using it to destroy targets on the ground. At least if you look at it historically.
On March 09 2014 09:08 phamchienthang[V] wrote: Our government has sent our best unit on rescue. Such a bad week, earlier a boy has been crashed by bus's wheel and then this
i have a question, and i heard this from someone who lives in vietnam.
is it true that if you kill someone with a vehicle in vietnam, you only have to pay the family money and u dont go to jail? but if the person lives, you have to pay support forever basically?
On March 09 2014 09:08 phamchienthang[V] wrote: Our government has sent our best unit on rescue. Such a bad week, earlier a boy has been crashed by bus's wheel and then this
i have a question, and i heard this from someone who lives in vietnam.
is it true that if you kill someone with a vehicle in vietnam, you only have to pay the family money and u dont go to jail? but if the person lives, you have to pay support forever basically?
I don't know much about this but I do know that if you are rich and well connected, you only have to pay a fee and you're let go. It's quite corrupted over there.
On March 09 2014 09:08 phamchienthang[V] wrote: Our government has sent our best unit on rescue. Such a bad week, earlier a boy has been crashed by bus's wheel and then this
i have a question, and i heard this from someone who lives in vietnam.
is it true that if you kill someone with a vehicle in vietnam, you only have to pay the family money and u dont go to jail? but if the person lives, you have to pay support forever basically?
Kill = Jail (maybe execution) + money, but some drivers are too poor that paying support means doom for their family so.... We are trying to fix this but get stucked
It always bothered me that the Jet engines planes fly with today are basically the same ones that flew in the 1960's. In 60 years no one could have thought of a safer more efficient form of travel?
This sounds a lot like Air France Flight 447. No radio comm and wreckage was found 2 years later. Although there are no indications of bad weather in this case.
On March 09 2014 10:49 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: It always bothered me that the Jet engines planes fly with today are basically the same ones that flew in the 1960's. In 60 years no one could have thought of a safer more efficient form of travel?
A lot of the improvements have been in materials engineering and refinements. The design of the engine itself doesn't change that much because the principle has remained pretty much the same in all this time - compress some of the intake air, bypass the other bunch, burn fuel, produce thrust. Stuff like single crystal turbine blades, composites which are lighter and stronger, slightly altering the turbine blade shapes to improve efficiency, reduce noise, etc. form the bulk of the improvements.
malaysia-airlines-loses-contact-with-plane-carrying-23-people Taken straight from the hyperlink. I already doubt the validity of this article. Having it be a fox news article doesn't help there case at all.
I'm at work so news sites are blocked and can't read it (but TL isn't!!!)
Man the speculation of what happened on/to that plane will most likely turned as a horror fiction disguised as "Based Upon a Real Story" to milk the general public's gullible interests by Hollywood producers.
On March 09 2014 10:49 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: It always bothered me that the Jet engines planes fly with today are basically the same ones that flew in the 1960's. In 60 years no one could have thought of a safer more efficient form of travel?
Why fix something broken? Human error causes way more accidents than the aircraft do. Arguably, it's possible that it's something new about these airliners (A330 and 777) that caused the accident.
Someone also asked if the aircraft doesn't automatically send distress signals if a problem happens in the aircraft. The answer is no, as far as I know. It's the pilot who sends out the distress message once he has things somewhat under control. The only indication to distress would be the absence of communication; at which points ATC starts an emergency procedure which raises in levels as time goes on (calling other airspaces to ask if they have the airliner, etc, etc, to then calling the coast guard or something after a given amount of time).
In the chart above, you can put "weather" under human errors as well since "weather" causing a crash is basically a pilot who flew into / regardless of bad weather conditions. Not knowing weather conditions beforehand, or not being able to distinguish that they're going to be a problem, is pretty much "pilot error". "Mechanical failure" can also be due to the failure from the ground crew (though I'm not sure if they cleared that up in their source).
The Concorde crash (flight 4590) was due to a piece of metal being on the runway, it fell off the previous aircraft. Arguably, this is the fault of those responsible for maintenance; they failed to check things appropriately prior to taking off.
The only 'upside' to this tragedy is how the navies of the South China Sea have stopped sparring over the territorial claims for at least the smallest amount of time, for now.
I honestly hope that this isn't what some people are saying as an attack. Because, that isn't... you know good -.-
Because of this, I been watching the Air Emergency stuff from National Geographic again on YouTube. Soo many of the episodes have been centered around pilot and technology error combined together. If it's just an oil slick... maybe it's just how some crashes been shown...
Sigh can only hope they find the plane and the black box now.
So at this point, it's impossible for this plane to still be flying out there somewhere, right? (Barring anything ludicrous like aliens.) So either it has crashed somewhere that no one yet knows, or it has landed somewhere that no one yet knows. Hopefully the latter, but looking like the former....
The US embassy in China said: At 2:43am, the United States Air Force based in U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield had received an SOS signal from Malaysia Airlines MH370 plane. The pilot warned in the message that the plane would soon crash and they wanted to force landing. The air force has sent this important message to Malaysian authorities.
Take this with a grain of salt, was on local newspaper
the plane only had 7 hours of fuel so no, it can't be flying right now. It couldn't have landed somewhere without anyone knowing because the plane uses fly by wire which you need an electrical system for. If you have an electronic system, then your transponder is working (assuming the pilot didn't turn it off after takeoff).
On March 09 2014 21:41 HaruRH wrote: The US embassy in China said: At 2:43am, the United States Air Force based in U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield had received an SOS signal from Malaysia Airlines MH370 plane. The pilot warned in the message that the plane would soon crash and they wanted to force landing. The air force has sent this important message to Malaysian authorities.
Take this with a grain of salt, was on local newspaper
Without knowing the area, if the pilot used code 7700 (emergency distress), any air traffic control within its proximity should have picked it up
On March 09 2014 21:41 HaruRH wrote: The US embassy in China said: At 2:43am, the United States Air Force based in U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield had received an SOS signal from Malaysia Airlines MH370 plane. The pilot warned in the message that the plane would soon crash and they wanted to force landing. The air force has sent this important message to Malaysian authorities.
Take this with a grain of salt, was on local newspaper
If this is true then why didn't the report say this initially?
There was new reports that said the plane attempted to turn back, but if that's true for SOS then I do not believe the plane was "turning" back. I have watched soo many Air Emergency episodes today, like I spent the ENTIRE day watching and all I can surmise from my end is "something" happened, the pilots had no time to react and just ditched the plane basically.
I keep looking with news and stuff I don't see any of the SOS from what you posted just now. So confusing I'm wondering what's going on. Can sort of understand why the Chinese families are so frustrated.
The two people using stolen passports bought their flight tickets at the same time, and were due to fly to Europe from Beijing, according to reports.
Interpol says at least two of the passports were registered in its lost or stolen database, but the database was not checked by staff before the flight.
According to Chinese state media, a rescue team from Singapore has "found something in the water". Boats are heading to the area to have a closer look.
Vietnamese officials said a search plane spotted suspected fragments of a missing Malaysian airliner Sunday night, in the first potential breakthrough in the search since the flight disappeared early Saturday morning.
The suspected fragments were found floating about 50 miles south-southwest of Tho Chu Island and were believed to be a piece of an inner door and part of an airplane tail, Vietnamese officials said.
Earlier Sunday, Vietnam's search and rescue officials said that they were investigating a report about a suspected piece of yellow debris seen floating in the same area.
aw fuck well this was my second most feared scenario
On Sunday afternoon, a statement issued in the name of a previously unknown group claimed that the disappearance of the plane was a political act aimed at the Chinese and Malaysian governments and referred to last week's attack in a Chinese train station by alleged Uighur separatists. It stopped short of a claim of responsibility. Malaysian officials said that they were unaware of any claim of responsibility but would investigate all possibilities.
Doesnt make sense. Cabin doors are meant to be locked and cabin crew follows this extremely well. Also the terrorists would had to take out the pilots extremely fast before beeing able to signal for help. And why did the airplane turn off course, this must have happened so fast that i doubt anyone would just turn the airplane before crashing it. From the reports it looks like the airplane suddenly had to avoid something ....
I keep crossing my fingers hoping that there will be some survivors this is so tragic. Plane accidents are awful, and mysterious disappearances are equally horrid.
A PDF was sent to an internet media person, the sender name is roughly translated as the "Chinese's patriot leader" Basically related to the KunMing knifing incident a while ago.
The group is Shinjang Separatist (basically they want Shinjang to be separated from China but history has been really complicated, it is recognized as terrorist group due to several attacks in the past).
They are saying that the attack is a punishment for both Malaysia government (never stated what it is, they said Malaysia gov had been aggressive and violent to their people and should reflect upon themselves) The reason why this plane is chosen is because the plane contained a lot of Chinese and so they can also punish Chinese gov.
They said Chinese gov gunned down some of their people, including women and children.
They apologize for people from other countries, they would have wanted the plane to be 100% chinese.
They even mentioned how the compensation should be paid, 40% from Malaysia Gov and 60% from the Chinese Gov.
They are telling the Chinese Gov to improve the human rights, racial policy, and stop being aggressive to people of other race. (not sure if race is the right word, basically different group?) They want release of the "warriors" from the knifing attack.
They are also saying that Malaysia government should not think this is all over, there will be more coming.
and blah blah rise up against Chinese gov or more will die.
Now that I got that part done, there is some doubts on the legitimacy of the PDF. Biggest being that the sender called himself a Chinese and none of the separatist would call themselves that.
does anyone work airport security? if interpol says that the passports were already in their stolen database, and someone were to use them, wouldnt that set off an alarm somewhere? or does the agent (at the airport) have to manually request for a check?
On March 10 2014 02:10 zev318 wrote: does anyone work airport security? if interpol says that the passports were already in their stolen database, and someone were to use them, wouldnt that set off an alarm somewhere? or does the agent (at the airport) have to manually request for a check?
They just use facial checks into what i have read. Then they do more digging once it flags up on the system. The guy who works for UK Border Force said that no doubt when these two passengers landed in Amsterdam they would of been arrested but he adds the question as to why it is done this way and not before they get on the plane. Don't forget they would or probably gone all 24 on this shit and cut out the pictures to the passports and made it look like the people who used them. Thus on visual checks you have no idea because that is all the checks are, visual ones.
On March 10 2014 02:10 zev318 wrote: does anyone work airport security? if interpol says that the passports were already in their stolen database, and someone were to use them, wouldnt that set off an alarm somewhere? or does the agent (at the airport) have to manually request for a check?
They just use facial checks into what i have read. Then they do more digging once it flags up on the system. The guy who works for UK Border Force said that no doubt when these two passengers landed in Amsterdam they would of been arrested but he adds the question as to why it is done this way and not before they get on the plane. Don't forget they would or probably gone all 24 on this shit and cut out the pictures to the passports and made it look like the people who used them. Thus on visual checks you have no idea because that is all the checks are, visual ones.
well the pictures they would swap out, but would they be able to change the passport numbers/name? cause that's what i thought would flag it, is that the name or passport # matches what is on the stolen list and flags it. it would be ridiculously dumb if it is only facial checks as that's probably the easiest thing to change on a passport.
On March 10 2014 02:10 zev318 wrote: does anyone work airport security? if interpol says that the passports were already in their stolen database, and someone were to use them, wouldnt that set off an alarm somewhere? or does the agent (at the airport) have to manually request for a check?
They just use facial checks into what i have read. Then they do more digging once it flags up on the system. The guy who works for UK Border Force said that no doubt when these two passengers landed in Amsterdam they would of been arrested but he adds the question as to why it is done this way and not before they get on the plane. Don't forget they would or probably gone all 24 on this shit and cut out the pictures to the passports and made it look like the people who used them. Thus on visual checks you have no idea because that is all the checks are, visual ones.
well the pictures they would swap out, but would they be able to change the passport numbers/name? cause that's what i thought would flag it, is that the name or passport # matches what is on the stolen list and flags it. it would be ridiculously dumb if it is only facial checks as that's probably the easiest thing to change on a passport.
I think that is what is done im sure? You buy your tickets which they did in Thailand as they paid in Thai currency. So then their first check would of been checking their luggage in. So yeah im guessing the only physical check of passport numbers would be there and whether it is just checking passport number to ticket idk. But yeh im guessing you would check a computer system with passport number before you let them go...hmmm
Whenever I'm flying it seems like it's just a visual check, sometimes they ask for your name, they check the passport with a black light and that's it. No scanning or inputting the passports number into a database
^Probably depends on the area you fly in/to. When I flew last month and was leaving the Cancun airport I had my passport swiped/scanned at arrivals and at security.
On March 10 2014 03:39 Superiorwolf wrote: Whenever I'm flying it seems like it's just a visual check, sometimes they ask for your name, they check the passport with a black light and that's it. No scanning or inputting the passports number into a database
i dunno about us passports, but canadian ones have a barcode to scan. they wouldnt manually input passport number, that would make it so that you would only have to change the passport number.
On March 09 2014 23:51 Avean wrote: Doesnt make sense. Cabin doors are meant to be locked and cabin crew follows this extremely well. Also the terrorists would had to take out the pilots extremely fast before beeing able to signal for help. And why did the airplane turn off course, this must have happened so fast that i doubt anyone would just turn the airplane before crashing it. From the reports it looks like the airplane suddenly had to avoid something ....
You hardly turn a plane around to avoid something save something like a mountain, there's no time to do so. Also there can be many different reasons why a plane would turn around. The pilots could have turned around towards the nearest airport for whatever reason, they could have been forced to turn around by high-jackers, the plane can have been damaged by bomb or some other failure that made the plane uncontrollable making it turn around before crashing. Also if someone is trying to get into the cabin the highest priority is to prevent that from happening, not necessarily signaling the tower as the first thing you do since they can't help anyway until the plane is on the ground. It's the same if they had some mechanical failure, the first priority is to get the plane under control, then signal for help. Since they never did we can only assume that whatever played out was relentless and happened fast.
On March 09 2014 23:51 Avean wrote: Doesnt make sense. Cabin doors are meant to be locked and cabin crew follows this extremely well. Also the terrorists would had to take out the pilots extremely fast before beeing able to signal for help. And why did the airplane turn off course, this must have happened so fast that i doubt anyone would just turn the airplane before crashing it. From the reports it looks like the airplane suddenly had to avoid something ....
You hardly turn a plane around to avoid something save something like a mountain, there's no time to do so. Also there can be many different reasons why a plane would turn around. The pilots could have turned around towards the nearest airport for whatever reason, they could have been forced to turn around by high-jackers, the plane can have been damaged by bomb or some other failure that made the plane uncontrollable making it turn around before crashing. Also if someone is trying to get into the cabin the highest priority is to prevent that from happening, not necessarily signaling the tower as the first thing you do since they can't help anyway until the plane is on the ground. It's the same if they had some mechanical failure, the first priority is to get the plane under control, then signal for help. Since they never did we can only assume that whatever played out was relentless and happened fast.
He is right. A Boeing 777 plane doesn't "turn", the plane isn't built like a fighter jet, it isn't built to really be able to turn on a dime (and take the damage if it is to intense, the G-Force is too much for a passenger jet to take. Hell awhile ago a China Airline Plane did a spin in mid air and the plane was so damaged when the pilot recovered it looked like it was shot at or something.
If it is true that an SOS was real, along with oil slicks then something catastrophic happened with the plane and gave the pilots no time to react. Unlike the Air France 447, there was time but this time, it just seemed the plane disappeared. I hope they find it honestly. If it is a terrorist attack or not.
On March 09 2014 23:51 Avean wrote: Doesnt make sense. Cabin doors are meant to be locked and cabin crew follows this extremely well. Also the terrorists would had to take out the pilots extremely fast before beeing able to signal for help. And why did the airplane turn off course, this must have happened so fast that i doubt anyone would just turn the airplane before crashing it. From the reports it looks like the airplane suddenly had to avoid something ....
You hardly turn a plane around to avoid something save something like a mountain, there's no time to do so. Also there can be many different reasons why a plane would turn around. The pilots could have turned around towards the nearest airport for whatever reason, they could have been forced to turn around by high-jackers, the plane can have been damaged by bomb or some other failure that made the plane uncontrollable making it turn around before crashing. Also if someone is trying to get into the cabin the highest priority is to prevent that from happening, not necessarily signaling the tower as the first thing you do since they can't help anyway until the plane is on the ground. It's the same if they had some mechanical failure, the first priority is to get the plane under control, then signal for help. Since they never did we can only assume that whatever played out was relentless and happened fast.
Hell awhile ago a China Airline Plane did a spin in mid air and the plane was so damaged when the pilot recovered it looked like it was shot at or something.
Do you happen to remember where you saw this? I would be really interested to see the outcome
On March 09 2014 23:51 Avean wrote: Doesnt make sense. Cabin doors are meant to be locked and cabin crew follows this extremely well. Also the terrorists would had to take out the pilots extremely fast before beeing able to signal for help. And why did the airplane turn off course, this must have happened so fast that i doubt anyone would just turn the airplane before crashing it. From the reports it looks like the airplane suddenly had to avoid something ....
You hardly turn a plane around to avoid something save something like a mountain, there's no time to do so. Also there can be many different reasons why a plane would turn around. The pilots could have turned around towards the nearest airport for whatever reason, they could have been forced to turn around by high-jackers, the plane can have been damaged by bomb or some other failure that made the plane uncontrollable making it turn around before crashing. Also if someone is trying to get into the cabin the highest priority is to prevent that from happening, not necessarily signaling the tower as the first thing you do since they can't help anyway until the plane is on the ground. It's the same if they had some mechanical failure, the first priority is to get the plane under control, then signal for help. Since they never did we can only assume that whatever played out was relentless and happened fast.
Hell awhile ago a China Airline Plane did a spin in mid air and the plane was so damaged when the pilot recovered it looked like it was shot at or something.
Do you happen to remember where you saw this? I would be really interested to see the outcome
I can link you to the dude's YouTube page. He apparently has uploaded almost all of the Air Emergency episodes from National Geographic. It's among them some where lol.
On March 10 2014 03:39 Superiorwolf wrote: Whenever I'm flying it seems like it's just a visual check, sometimes they ask for your name, they check the passport with a black light and that's it. No scanning or inputting the passports number into a database
i dunno about us passports, but canadian ones have a barcode to scan. they wouldnt manually input passport number, that would make it so that you would only have to change the passport number.
It also depends if they are the new passports printed on that weird plastic background or the old style, paper passports. Its also possible that prejudice was a factor, I find that when I am in line with my Canadian passport between guys from 3rd world countries I get processed much quicker than when i am just in line with other Canadians. So stealing a Western passport and boarding while in a group of Indonesians or Chinese could have had the personal unwittingly give someone a quicker check.
The United States extensively reviewed imagery taken by American spy satellites for evidence of a mid-air explosion, but saw none at all, an authoritative U.S. government source said. The source described U.S. satellite coverage of the region as thorough.
The Civil Aviation Department of Taiwan's Undersecretary received a call from China Airline on the 4th March about a man claiming the next terrorist attack will be a bomb at Beijing Capital International Airport.
Right now not sure if it is related but it adds to the mystery.
Also China's expert (head of modern international relationship and Arms control department) say that it is entirely possible that fake passports have nothing to do with Terrorists attack since many terrorists have no criminal records and does not use a fake ID.
Fake ID is usually used by illegal immigrants or smugglers (which imo, makes a lot of sense) There also hasn't been any big terrorist attack in Malaysia and no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack (I guess the one I posted previously is discarded?)
Malaysia's Department of Civil Aviation said Sunday debris found near Vietnam's Tho Chu Island was not part of the airliner missing since Saturday morning.
Director-General Datuk Azhauruddin Abdul Rahman said authorities confirmed the objects found in the Gulf of Thailand did not match the missing aircraft.
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew, disappeared over the South China Sea about an hour after departing for Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Azhauruddin said the possibility of a hijacking remains under consideration but said the priority is locating the plane, the newspaper Malaysia Star reported.
On March 10 2014 13:18 ETisME wrote: The Civil Aviation Department of Taiwan's Undersecretary received a call from China Airline on the 4th March about a man claiming the next terrorist attack will be a bomb at Beijing Capital International Airport.
Right now not sure if it is related but it adds to the mystery.
Also China's expert (head of modern international relationship and Arms control department) say that it is entirely possible that fake passports have nothing to do with Terrorists attack since many terrorists have no criminal records and does not use a fake ID.
Fake ID is usually used by illegal immigrants or smugglers (which imo, makes a lot of sense) There also hasn't been any big terrorist attack in Malaysia and no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack (I guess the one I posted previously is discarded?)
I honestly think any terrorist groups making statements right now are simply being opportunistic.
The United States extensively reviewed imagery taken by American spy satellites for evidence of a mid-air explosion, but saw none at all, an authoritative U.S. government source said. The source described U.S. satellite coverage of the region as thorough.
The United States extensively reviewed imagery taken by American spy satellites for evidence of a mid-air explosion, but saw none at all, an authoritative U.S. government source said. The source described U.S. satellite coverage of the region as thorough.
these satellites cant tell us where the plane went down?
well the source revealed very little about the actual capability of those assets, just that they don't show a mid-air explosion. as they are state secrets, im doubtful the full data will be revealed.
On March 10 2014 14:44 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: You all assume the worst. Mabye everyone is fine and landed in the ocean like that plane that went into the Hudson River in NYC.
Given that they would have been at sea for some time, this isn't good either.
On March 10 2014 14:44 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: You all assume the worst. Mabye everyone is fine and landed in the ocean like that plane that went into the Hudson River in NYC.
It's more about being a realist. That was a compltely different situation and there were hundreds of people ready to help right next to the crash site in that case. This plane is missing. Even if they say, crashed into the mountains(are there even mountains over there?) and there were some survivors, they wouldn't survive for long without assistance.
There's a few possibilities, I guess. Crashing into the sea would probably be the most likely.
On March 10 2014 14:44 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: You all assume the worst. Mabye everyone is fine and landed in the ocean like that plane that went into the Hudson River in NYC.
It's more about being a realist. That was a compltely different situation and there were hundreds of people ready to help right next to the crash site in that case. This plane is missing. Even if they say, crashed into the mountains(are there even mountains over there?) and there were some survivors, they wouldn't survive for long without assistance.
There's a few possibilities, I guess. Crashing into the sea would probably be the most likely.
So true on the mountain crash. There could have been a lot more than 4 survivors from flight JAL 123 had rescue arrived sooner. (I was shocked that people survived the impact and fire, only to die later in the night.) Same probably holds true for AA 965.
well there is a relative of one of the passenger who saw him online on QQ (chinese online messenger) with his friends who were also on that plane. He tried calling and some went through but no one picked up and so they can't track it. but apparently the number is not in service due to it not being paid for months and it is possible that it appeared to go through when having oversea calling in. (just the sound effect)
On March 10 2014 15:38 itsjustatank wrote: That story was repudiated later
I think they just gave out reasons why he still is online on QQ (not shutting down the phone completely) and the call did ring but it could be due to numerous reasons like set to transfer the call to another number et
My friend told me in the morning that the atmosphere in his office is really gloomy. A manager lost 4 men in his department was seen holding his tears and he heard people sobbing in the corridors. This is one of the biggest tragedy in the history of our country. Never knew that it could actually happen to people around you until it just simply does. It's so surreal to have people you met and actually talked to before to disappear so abruptly.
Day 3....still can't find the plane. WHAT THE HELL. This is getting so strange, it is going to make such an interesting Air Crash Investigation episode when they get their hands on it, however, it will put me off flying again >.<
On March 10 2014 18:03 Pandemona wrote: Day 3....still can't find the plane. WHAT THE HELL. This is getting so strange, it is going to make such an interesting Air Crash Investigation episode when they get their hands on it, however, it will put me off flying again >.<
I don't see why this would put you off flying. You are way more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a plane crash.
Yeah i know the stats and i agree with them. It is just your not in control of an airplane where as your in control of your own car and i don't use public transport so if i die on a road traffic accident it is still me driving xD Rather than if im on a plane and it "disappears" not much you can do
On March 10 2014 18:08 Pandemona wrote: Yeah i know the stats and i agree with them. It is just your not in control of an airplane where as your in control of your own car and i don't use public transport so if i die on a road traffic accident it is still me driving xD Rather than if im on a plane and it "disappears" not much you can do
I can see why you would think that since you are from England :p traffic over there is slowwwwwww
If anything... it's always after an accident that it is the safer to fly. It is when things are calm that people are less vigilant. But hey I also have an irrational fear of air travel even though I travel twice a year, humans weren't made to fly packed in a flying brick I guess
Still weird they really have no idea where the plane is. I guess it's definitely a crash in sea for it to leave no trace.
If the US is peeking into satellite footage I would hope that it could at least provide some clue as to what happened.. I dont know much about camera technology but is it possible that satellite imagery could find the plane and track it? I feel like if this was possible it already would have been attemted
On March 10 2014 18:38 Aveng3r wrote: If the US is peeking into satellite footage I would hope that it could at least provide some clue as to what happened.. I dont know much about camera technology but is it possible that satellite imagery could find the plane and track it? I feel like if this was possible it already would have been attemted
It likely isn't perfect to track in hindsight, but they'll have it on several images.
One of the commercial companies might have caught it in-air as well.
Source close to investigation says flight MH370 "is likely to have disintegrated at around 35,000ft".
We heard this yes? Not sure how old that is but it is in the timeline from www.skynews.com
Wouldn't they have found stuff floating in the sea? They may not be able to find the entire plane but to find nothing after all this time is really strange.
On March 10 2014 18:03 Pandemona wrote: Day 3....still can't find the plane. WHAT THE HELL. This is getting so strange, it is going to make such an interesting Air Crash Investigation episode when they get their hands on it, however, it will put me off flying again >.<
I don't see why this would put you off flying. You are way more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a plane crash.
Pretty sure you're more likely to die in your own bathtub or when crossing the street than in a plane crash. I can't remember the exact numbers but funnily enough being in an airplane 30000 feet in the air is one of the safest places to be.
I think it's just that if a planet goes down it is usually the lives of several hundred people it takes with it, whereas per car accident it is much less generally. I do agree it is safer to fly than drive though.
Up to yesterday, I was joking around with my sister about it being an alien abduction of the plane given that it "disappeared". But later that day, I was actually already expecting news of pieces being found or even just floating baggage that got loose in a crash..anything really...
It is perplexing that up to now there is still nothing.
Even if it "disintegrated" at cruising altitude wouldn't debris still fall (although that would greatly scatter it over a larger area but still). Over water, I would expect pieces like a seat/luggage to be found already either by those approaching the area they are scouring.
If it did crash in the sea, the crash would have definitely broken pieces of the plane off and again, luggage right? Tearing sheets of aluminum and what not that could somehow float. If that were the case, it should theoretically be within the area they are scouring now.
It is just odd though.
If it was say a highjacking and they could theoretically scarmble the signals to disrupt comminications to any control tower, is there any nearby airfield or area they could theoretically land that is not an airport yet you could land a 777? I don't really know of such a place that would have that characteristic.
OVerall just strange. I visit this thread to check on what you guys found out about it because it is just perplexing that in three days, with our current technology, still nothing.
Air travel is very safe, it's just that when an incident does occur, it has a huge psychological effect because of the nature of it. They are generally more fatal than car crashes, and also hundreds of lives can be lost in a single incident.
The problem, as it was mentioned already is - the area of possible crash is very large. I don't know the exact figures, but I guess if they have parsed all the possible area and found nothing, we would know.
You have to keep in mind most of the large plane wreckage does not float. The floating parts will likely be very hard to spot from the air and the search area is so large it is not suprising they have not found anything yet.
On March 10 2014 18:08 Pandemona wrote: Yeah i know the stats and i agree with them. It is just your not in control of an airplane where as your in control of your own car and i don't use public transport so if i die on a road traffic accident it is still me driving xD Rather than if im on a plane and it "disappears" not much you can do
For me it is just the opposite. When I am driving I am anticipating that something could happen, like the stuff you see on Russian dash cam videos, a truck steering on your side or whatever. I feel like I have to be prepared to react in such a case, so I am always somewhat tense when driving, which is why I cant enjoy it whatsoever. In contrast when I use public transport, like a plane, I know that I cant do anything anyway, so I just relax.
On March 10 2014 18:08 Pandemona wrote: Yeah i know the stats and i agree with them. It is just your not in control of an airplane where as your in control of your own car and i don't use public transport so if i die on a road traffic accident it is still me driving xD Rather than if im on a plane and it "disappears" not much you can do
For me it is just the opposite. When I am driving I am anticipating that something could happen, like the stuff you see on Russian dash cam videos, a truck steering on your side or whatever. I feel like I have to be prepared to react in such a case, so I am always somewhat tense when driving, which is why I cant enjoy it whatsoever. In contrast when I use public transport, like a plane, I know that I cant do anything anyway, so I just relax.
Ahh fair enough. I guess everyone to their own. Im a petrol head anyway (lol even though i drive a diesel haha) so i love driving and being in control. Plus i know my limits and always feel in control. But like i am happy to agree with it is not just you yourself you have to be aware of when driving it is the other 100s of people who might be careless and cause the issue. At least with airplanes it is the computer 90% of the time that is doing anything and the humans are their to help it along. Just the issue is your 35,000 ft in the sky
Source close to investigation says flight MH370 "is likely to have disintegrated at around 35,000ft".
We heard this yes? Not sure how old that is but it is in the timeline from www.skynews.com
Current sources have found no debris related to the crash. The oil slicks and random things they found weren't from the plane. If it did disintegrate at high altitude, where are the pieces?
Does Sky even have reporters there or is that op-ed speculation presented as fact.
Source close to investigation says flight MH370 "is likely to have disintegrated at around 35,000ft".
We heard this yes? Not sure how old that is but it is in the timeline from www.skynews.com
Current sources have found no debris related to the crash. The oil slicks and random things they found weren't from the plane. If it did disintegrate at high altitude, where are the pieces?
Does Sky even have reporters there or is that op-ed speculation presented as fact.
My understanding is disintegration at high altitude would account for not finding debris. Plane falls apart into a ton of pieces none of which you are likely to find in the sea. If it crashes more or less intact into the ocean you would have expected them to find something.
If you want to bring the Bermuda Triangle sort of angle into this, the expansion of the search areas may indicate they think that the plane got lost.
An instrumentation error and a communications error, coupled with human error means that plane could be pretty much anywhere based on the fuel load-out of the plane.
In 1945, a flight of five TBM Avenger torpedo bombers got lost around Florida, became disoriented, and had to ditch.
The two men who used stolen passports to board a Malaysian jetliner that went missing on Saturday were not of Asian appearance, the chief Malaysian investigator said on Monday.
Source close to investigation says flight MH370 "is likely to have disintegrated at around 35,000ft".
We heard this yes? Not sure how old that is but it is in the timeline from www.skynews.com
Current sources have found no debris related to the crash. The oil slicks and random things they found weren't from the plane. If it did disintegrate at high altitude, where are the pieces?
Does Sky even have reporters there or is that op-ed speculation presented as fact.
Well something similar happed to AirFrance 447 except it very obviously flew into a storm. It took about 5 days before major wreckage was recovered. They found a oil slick and a little bit of wreckage sooner though.
I'm curious if there is any follow up to the oil slick they found. It is not uncommon for pilots to dump fuel in case of an emergency. You want to ditch as much of it as possible if you are going to crash.
If it was a highjacking you would think there would have been some type of call about it. Don't most planes have satellite phones and what not that the flight crew can use if needed? Also, what about cell phones? I guess they are in the middle of the sea so I guess there might not be any service at all but /shrug. Just thinking here.
It is absolutely crazy there hasn't been anything found out about the plane yet. If a plane completely lost all power, how far could it still get before it actually crashes? I'm sure one of you math gurus could figure it out by the altitude + how fast it was going etc etc. Like would their search area even be big enough? Would the pilots be able to turn the plan somehow?
Just crazy to think about considering how many different countries are searching for it.
Has it been confirmed that about 40 of the passengers were all employees of the same Texas company? I read on one site they were working on some electric car.... hhhmmmmmm
I am confused by the BBCNEws graphic posted that shows 2 very different search areas.
I get it if say they are expanding the search area but within the same zone.
Why is that there are searching for it in the other side of Malaysia in the Malacca strait? If the graphic is correct, it clearly shows the last known location before the plane disappeared off radar and contact was lost.
Why would they try and look for it on the other side?
In order for it to even get there from the last known location, it would have to cross over land, which would make it easier to detect and give access to a mode of communication right? Like cellphones if the radio was down?
Don't planes nowadays rely on GPS as well to know they are on the right path/area so as not to get lost and wander off to a different area where they ought not to be?
I just don't understand why there are 2 distinctly different areas you are looking at.
The search area over land is something I;m not sure off (if the graphic is correct). It assumes (maybe) the plane trying to turn back but not making it? Or forced to land before reaching the airport maybe.
On March 11 2014 01:23 SidianTheBard wrote: If it was a highjacking you would think there would have been some type of call about it. Don't most planes have satellite phones and what not that the flight crew can use if needed? Also, what about cell phones? I guess they are in the middle of the sea so I guess there might not be any service at all but /shrug. Just thinking here.
It is absolutely crazy there hasn't been anything found out about the plane yet. If a plane completely lost all power, how far could it still get before it actually crashes? I'm sure one of you math gurus could figure it out by the altitude + how fast it was going etc etc. Like would their search area even be big enough? Would the pilots be able to turn the plan somehow?
Just crazy to think about considering how many different countries are searching for it.
The search area must also account for the ocean's drift, which can expand the original search area at the time of the crash by hundreds of miles radially.
Source close to investigation says flight MH370 "is likely to have disintegrated at around 35,000ft".
We heard this yes? Not sure how old that is but it is in the timeline from www.skynews.com
Current sources have found no debris related to the crash. The oil slicks and random things they found weren't from the plane. If it did disintegrate at high altitude, where are the pieces?
Does Sky even have reporters there or is that op-ed speculation presented as fact.
Well something similar happed to AirFrance 447 except it very obviously flew into a storm. It took about 5 days before major wreckage was recovered. They found a oil slick and a little bit of wreckage sooner though.
I'm curious if there is any follow up to the oil slick they found. It is not uncommon for pilots to dump fuel in case of an emergency. You want to ditch as much of it as possible if you are going to crash.
The oil slick did not beling to the missing aircraft. At least that's what I read on The Malaysian Insider.
On March 11 2014 01:31 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: Has it been confirmed that about 40 of the passengers were all employees of the same Texas company? I read on one site they were working on some electric car.... hhhmmmmmm
I'm sure you can find that site again on post it here?
On March 11 2014 01:31 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: Has it been confirmed that about 40 of the passengers were all employees of the same Texas company? I read on one site they were working on some electric car.... hhhmmmmmm
I'm sure you can find that site again on post it here?
Freescale has 20 employees on board. 11 are from Malaysia, which are the colleagues of my friend. 1 of them a former class-mate of ours.
On March 11 2014 01:23 SidianTheBard wrote: If it was a highjacking you would think there would have been some type of call about it. Don't most planes have satellite phones and what not that the flight crew can use if needed? Also, what about cell phones? I guess they are in the middle of the sea so I guess there might not be any service at all but /shrug. Just thinking here.
It is absolutely crazy there hasn't been anything found out about the plane yet. If a plane completely lost all power, how far could it still get before it actually crashes? I'm sure one of you math gurus could figure it out by the altitude + how fast it was going etc etc. Like would their search area even be big enough? Would the pilots be able to turn the plan somehow?
Just crazy to think about considering how many different countries are searching for it.
ive read about 20 minutes if engines goes out, this is of course assuming normal altitude + speed
On March 11 2014 01:52 17Sphynx17 wrote: I am confused by the BBCNEws graphic posted that shows 2 very different search areas.
I get it if say they are expanding the search area but within the same zone.
Why is that there are searching for it in the other side of Malaysia in the Malacca strait? If the graphic is correct, it clearly shows the last known location before the plane disappeared off radar and contact was lost.
Why would they try and look for it on the other side?
In order for it to even get there from the last known location, it would have to cross over land, which would make it easier to detect and give access to a mode of communication right? Like cellphones if the radio was down?
Don't planes nowadays rely on GPS as well to know they are on the right path/area so as not to get lost and wander off to a different area where they ought not to be?
I just don't understand why there are 2 distinctly different areas you are looking at.
The search area over land is something I;m not sure off (if the graphic is correct). It assumes (maybe) the plane trying to turn back but not making it? Or forced to land before reaching the airport maybe.
they are assuming if it turned off course or got lost and went the opposite direction. i think if it crashed over land, it would have been seen by now by people or satellites
Source close to investigation says flight MH370 "is likely to have disintegrated at around 35,000ft".
We heard this yes? Not sure how old that is but it is in the timeline from www.skynews.com
Current sources have found no debris related to the crash. The oil slicks and random things they found weren't from the plane. If it did disintegrate at high altitude, where are the pieces?
Does Sky even have reporters there or is that op-ed speculation presented as fact.
Well something similar happed to AirFrance 447 except it very obviously flew into a storm. It took about 5 days before major wreckage was recovered. They found a oil slick and a little bit of wreckage sooner though.
I'm curious if there is any follow up to the oil slick they found. It is not uncommon for pilots to dump fuel in case of an emergency. You want to ditch as much of it as possible if you are going to crash.
i think theyve already said the oil slick was not from the plane
On March 11 2014 04:02 mdb wrote: It could have been shot down by missile. Wasnt a plane got hit by mistake several years ago? Missing plane sounds like military intervention to me.
that's unhelpful and baseless speculation
additionally:
The United States extensively reviewed imagery taken by American spy satellites for evidence of a mid-air explosion, but saw none at all, an authoritative U.S. government source said. The source described U.S. satellite coverage of the region as thorough.
The United States extensively reviewed imagery taken by American spy satellites for evidence of a mid-air explosion, but saw none at all, an authoritative U.S. government source said. The source described U.S. satellite coverage of the region as thorough.
these satellites cant tell us where the plane went down?
well the source revealed very little about the actual capability of those assets, just that they don't show a mid-air explosion. as they are state secrets, im doubtful the full data will be revealed.
The United States extensively reviewed imagery taken by American spy satellites for evidence of a mid-air explosion, but saw none at all, an authoritative U.S. government source said. The source described U.S. satellite coverage of the region as thorough.
these satellites cant tell us where the plane went down?
well the source revealed very little about the actual capability of those assets, just that they don't show a mid-air explosion. as they are state secrets, im doubtful the full data will be revealed.
Even IF we had the capability to monitor every single commercial airplane in a region like that to that level of detail, we wouldn't tell people if we did.
So has anything like this ever happened in the history of modern aviation? A plane just completely disappearing without any form of contact is paranormal level of weird.
On March 11 2014 05:40 yyfpulls wrote: So has anything like this ever happened in the history of modern aviation? A plane just completely disappearing without any form of contact is paranormal level of weird.
as mentioned before, Air France was lost over the Atlantic and it took years to find the plane and figure out what happened
On March 11 2014 05:40 yyfpulls wrote: So has anything like this ever happened in the history of modern aviation? A plane just completely disappearing without any form of contact is paranormal level of weird.
There was that Air France plane that disappeared over the Atlantic some years ago. They found the tail markings quite some time later IIRC.
On March 11 2014 05:40 yyfpulls wrote: So has anything like this ever happened in the history of modern aviation? A plane just completely disappearing without any form of contact is paranormal level of weird.
well heres a list from wikipedia of aerial disappearances. if you go to the bottom, some are fairly recent.
On March 11 2014 01:31 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: Has it been confirmed that about 40 of the passengers were all employees of the same Texas company? I read on one site they were working on some electric car.... hhhmmmmmm
I'm sure you can find that site again on post it here?
Freescale has 20 employees on board. 11 are from Malaysia, which are the colleagues of my friend. 1 of them a former class-mate of ours.
On March 11 2014 05:40 yyfpulls wrote: So has anything like this ever happened in the history of modern aviation? A plane just completely disappearing without any form of contact is paranormal level of weird.
The ocean is vast and its difficult to find sinking objects. Not very surprising once a plane explodes above or crash into the sea. Most recent example is the air France accident in 2009.
On March 11 2014 04:02 mdb wrote: It could have been shot down by missile. Wasnt a plane got hit by mistake several years ago? Missing plane sounds like military intervention to me.
that's unhelpful and baseless speculation
That's an unfair statement right there. Everything is speculation until we know what happened. Speculation in general is pretty unhelpful, and his post didn't have the tone of a troll. As far as baseless, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents.
I for one enjoyed reading his post more than I did the 10th post that speculated upon the stolen passport/terrorist angle in this thread.
EDIT: also, if you google "plane shot down by missile" the first three results are about flight MH370.
On March 11 2014 05:40 yyfpulls wrote: So has anything like this ever happened in the history of modern aviation? A plane just completely disappearing without any form of contact is paranormal level of weird.
as mentioned before, Air France was lost over the Atlantic and it took years to find the plane and figure out what happened
Nothing just goes disappeared unless you believe in aliens.
Now it's time for all of us to wake up. Terrorists can blow up a plane but they don't have the ability or wouldn't care to hide the debris.
Hence, it should be a deliberate plot supported by some big organizations. Now I wouldn't be surprised that it may be some war/assassination without smoke, among America (CIA etc) / Malasia or even China. You shouldn't underestimate those politicians' brutality.
In the meantime, there are many known chinese artists on that plane, relatives to some officials in China.
I think some unknown high technology weapons have been used so all evidence is also destroyed.
America/ Malaisia / China, 1 or 2 of them may know the truth, which will just never be told to the public. But they have to play along with this "mysterious" show.
If my speculation is right, this incident will never have a determined explanation to the public.
On March 11 2014 07:16 bonedriven wrote: Nothing just goes disappeared unless you believe in aliens.
Now it's time for all of us to wake up. Terrorists can blow up a plane but they don't have the ability or wouldn't care to hide the debris.
Hence, it should be a deliberate plot supported by some big organizations. Now I wouldn't be surprised that it may be some war/assassination without smoke, among America (CIA etc) / Malasia or even China. You shouldn't underestimate those politicians' brutality.
In the meantime, there are many known chinese artists on that plane, relatives to some officials in China.
I think some unknown high technology weapons have been used so all evidence is also destroyed.
America/ Malaisia / China, 1 or 2 of them may know the truth, which will just never be told to the public. But they have to play along with this "mysterious" show.
If my speculation is right, this incident will never have a determined explanation to the public.
And if it isn't, you'll make up a new bogus reason as to how our governments made us believe it was just an ordinary crash when it clearly was a high tech weapon shooting lasers from space to kill chinese artists. Right?
On March 11 2014 07:16 bonedriven wrote: Nothing just goes disappeared unless you believe in aliens.
Now it's time for all of us to wake up. Terrorists can blow up a plane but they don't have the ability or wouldn't care to hide the debris.
Hence, it should be a deliberate plot supported by some big organizations. Now I wouldn't be surprised that it may be some war/assassination without smoke, among America (CIA etc) / Malasia or even China. You shouldn't underestimate those politicians' brutality.
In the meantime, there are many known chinese artists on that plane, relatives to some officials in China.
I think some unknown high technology weapons have been used so all evidence is also destroyed.
America/ Malaisia / China, 1 or 2 of them may know the truth, which will just never be told to the public. But they have to play along with this "mysterious" show.
If my speculation is right, this incident will never have a determined explanation to the public.
This post reminds me that I was involved in a (non-fatal) on-the-ground plane incident the first time I ever got on a plane. I was 6 years old. We just sat there not moving for 40 minutes, then a bunch of firetrucks started showing up all around us. Turns out the tail caught on fire. No one was even slightly injured so I guess it wasn't a huge deal.
The second flight I ever got on I was 7 and flying by myself to visit my grandparents. I mentioned the above incident to one of the flight attendants and she laughed at me and told me there was no way that was true. However, I remember distinctly to this day two things about that first flight: 1) my dad was irate that they first put out the fire, then evacuated us from the plane, instead of the other way around, and 2) I was irate, because I had to jump off the wing, whereas my cousins at the front and back of the plane got to go down the slides.
According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
On March 11 2014 07:16 bonedriven wrote: Nothing just goes disappeared unless you believe in aliens.
Now it's time for all of us to wake up. Terrorists can blow up a plane but they don't have the ability or wouldn't care to hide the debris.
Whenever someone says this, I know what follows is going to be entertaining.
Planes do, in fact, disappear. The ocean is a really big place in which to hide a chunk of metal, especially if that chunk suffered something like explosive decompression at 35k ft. Eventually, we'll find the pieces.
On March 11 2014 05:40 yyfpulls wrote: So has anything like this ever happened in the history of modern aviation? A plane just completely disappearing without any form of contact is paranormal level of weird.
as mentioned before, Air France was lost over the Atlantic and it took years to find the plane and figure out what happened
On March 11 2014 07:16 bonedriven wrote: Nothing just goes disappeared unless you believe in aliens.
Now it's time for all of us to wake up. Terrorists can blow up a plane but they don't have the ability or wouldn't care to hide the debris.
Hence, it should be a deliberate plot supported by some big organizations. Now I wouldn't be surprised that it may be some war/assassination without smoke, among America (CIA etc) / Malasia or even China. You shouldn't underestimate those politicians' brutality.
In the meantime, there are many known chinese artists on that plane, relatives to some officials in China.
I think some unknown high technology weapons have been used so all evidence is also destroyed.
America/ Malaisia / China, 1 or 2 of them may know the truth, which will just never be told to the public. But they have to play along with this "mysterious" show.
If my speculation is right, this incident will never have a determined explanation to the public.
And if it isn't, you'll make up a new bogus reason as to how our governments made us believe it was just an ordinary crash when it clearly was a high tech weapon shooting lasers from space to kill chinese artists. Right?
I'm not interested in long E-penis. It is just my speculation as I didn't deny either. My point was that this incident should have involved some big power, be it from whichever special agency in any country. It's all possible. Simply because I don't believe a plane can disappear and no trace can be found after 3 days.
The incident Air France 2009 is the most close, but they at least had sent distress signal.
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
china.org just takes me to a website for sale so........
On March 11 2014 07:16 bonedriven wrote: Nothing just goes disappeared unless you believe in aliens.
Now it's time for all of us to wake up. Terrorists can blow up a plane but they don't have the ability or wouldn't care to hide the debris.
Hence, it should be a deliberate plot supported by some big organizations. Now I wouldn't be surprised that it may be some war/assassination without smoke, among America (CIA etc) / Malasia or even China. You shouldn't underestimate those politicians' brutality.
In the meantime, there are many known chinese artists on that plane, relatives to some officials in China.
I think some unknown high technology weapons have been used so all evidence is also destroyed.
America/ Malaisia / China, 1 or 2 of them may know the truth, which will just never be told to the public. But they have to play along with this "mysterious" show.
If my speculation is right, this incident will never have a determined explanation to the public.
And if it isn't, you'll make up a new bogus reason as to how our governments made us believe it was just an ordinary crash when it clearly was a high tech weapon shooting lasers from space to kill chinese artists. Right?
I'm not interested in long E-penis. It is just my speculation as I didn't deny either. My point was that this incident should have involved some big power, be it from whichever special agency in any country. It's all possible. Simply because I don't believe a plane can disappear and no trace can be found after 3 days.
The incident Air France 2009 is the most close, but they at least had sent distress signal.
where does it say 447 had sent a distress signal? i couldnt find anything that says it did before crash
On March 11 2014 07:16 bonedriven wrote: Nothing just goes disappeared unless you believe in aliens.
Now it's time for all of us to wake up. Terrorists can blow up a plane but they don't have the ability or wouldn't care to hide the debris.
Hence, it should be a deliberate plot supported by some big organizations. Now I wouldn't be surprised that it may be some war/assassination without smoke, among America (CIA etc) / Malasia or even China. You shouldn't underestimate those politicians' brutality.
In the meantime, there are many known chinese artists on that plane, relatives to some officials in China.
I think some unknown high technology weapons have been used so all evidence is also destroyed.
America/ Malaisia / China, 1 or 2 of them may know the truth, which will just never be told to the public. But they have to play along with this "mysterious" show.
If my speculation is right, this incident will never have a determined explanation to the public.
And if it isn't, you'll make up a new bogus reason as to how our governments made us believe it was just an ordinary crash when it clearly was a high tech weapon shooting lasers from space to kill chinese artists. Right?
I'm not interested in long E-penis. It is just my speculation as I didn't deny either. My point was that this incident should have involved some big power, be it from whichever special agency in any country. It's all possible. Simply because I don't believe a plane can disappear and no trace can be found after 3 days.
The incident Air France 2009 is the most close, but they at least had sent distress signal.
Aliens are equally (un)likely. This is just a baseless conspiracy theory when we have absolutely no knowledge of the incident at all. As much as I disagree with stuff like the theories about 9/11, the moon landing etc., these are at least based on some (mostly false) information. Why anyone would come up with governments plotting to kill chinese artists (and everyone else on board) when all we know is that a plane is missing, is beyond me.
Oh and the Air France 447 did not send a distress signal. Their computer system sent an automatic report via radio, including reports of partial system failure, which is done at pre-set intervals. These reports are not automatically sent when a system fails - therefore, if there is a sudden system failure resulting in a crash outside of said intervals, the plane will not send a report. Manual distress calls by the pilots are also unlikely in hectic situations.
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
china.org just takes me to a website for sale so........
It seems that the website URL was not complete on the news. Sorry for that.
Might be some terrorist attack. I'm sure (I hope) US (FBI, CIA, Navy Seals) already know where it is, and are just waiting to resolve the case then announce everything is all right. They redo their Ben Laden attack, go America!
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
already repudiated, this is wild speculation based on reporting on secondary sources.
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
already repudiated, this is wild speculation based on reporting on secondary sources.
Aliens are equally (un)likely. This is just a baseless conspiracy theory when we have absolutely no knowledge of the incident at all. As much as I disagree with stuff like the theories about 9/11, the moon landing etc., these are at least based on some (mostly false) information. Why anyone would come up with governments plotting to kill chinese artists (and everyone else on board) when all we know is that a plane is missing, is beyond me.
Ofc I didn't mean it's the artists they wanna kill...There are always somebody you don't know are vitally important who needs to be killed.
Oh and the Air France 447 did not send a distress signal. Their computer system sent an automatic report via radio, including reports of partial system failure, which is done at pre-set intervals. These reports are not automatically sent when a system fails - therefore, if there is a sudden system failure resulting in a crash outside of said intervals, the plane will not send a report. Manual distress calls by the pilots are also unlikely in hectic situations.
Thank you for clearing that up. Anyway, there's difference. So The MH370 just suddenly disappeared without no nothing signal sending out at all?
The only explanation is that it's blown up in air. Well some may believe other explanations like it landed some secret place but ...to me it's very unlikely.
And when it's blown up in air and you can't find any evidence, that's where it makes me believe that some capable power is behind it.
Edit: Above all, I mean the incident which seems to be mysterious to us may not be so to the government. Somebody is just covering up this whole thing for some (mostly hideous) reason. This is not rare in history.
On March 11 2014 08:26 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What is the big deal if the phones are ringing?
They appear to be ringing is the word used by competent news sources at this time. These are distraught families clinging on to unlikely shreds of hope; the only thing more unlikely is this ridiculous Ancient Aliens-tier discussion that's been going on for the last page or so.
According to a China.org.cn report, 19 families signed a statement saying that dialing their loved ones' phones leads to a ring, rather than going straight to voicemail, as one would expect of a phone in airplane mode or otherwise unable to be reached.
But it's not that simple. When you hit the call button on some phones, a ringing tone begins immediately.
"However, that does not mean the phone you are calling is ringing yet," wrote wireless analyst Jeff Kagan in an email to NBC News. "The network is searching for the phone. First based on where it last was, then it expands. Then if the network can't find the phone, the call terminates."
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
already repudiated, this is wild speculation based on reporting on secondary sources.
I don't see why it would matter anyway. It's not the phone you're trying to call that's doing the ringing, it's the network. From what I understand if you're calling to another country it's not strange to get a ring signal. Besides, if the ringing in this case somehow would indicate that the phones were actually on and could receive a call it would be quite simple to at least get a general location of the phone from the telephone company without having to make a call at all, which they obviously haven't been able to. So the phones are not connected to a network anywhere.
[Edit] itsjustatank is too fast for me apparently.
Aliens are equally (un)likely. This is just a baseless conspiracy theory when we have absolutely no knowledge of the incident at all. As much as I disagree with stuff like the theories about 9/11, the moon landing etc., these are at least based on some (mostly false) information. Why anyone would come up with governments plotting to kill chinese artists (and everyone else on board) when all we know is that a plane is missing, is beyond me.
Ofc I didn't mean it's the artists they wanna kill...There are always somebody you don't know are vitally important who needs to be killed.
Oh and the Air France 447 did not send a distress signal. Their computer system sent an automatic report via radio, including reports of partial system failure, which is done at pre-set intervals. These reports are not automatically sent when a system fails - therefore, if there is a sudden system failure resulting in a crash outside of said intervals, the plane will not send a report. Manual distress calls by the pilots are also unlikely in hectic situations.
Thank you for clearing that up. Anyway, there's difference. So The MH370 just suddenly disappeared without no nothing signal sending out at all?
The only explanation is that it's blown up in air. Well some may believe other explanations like it landed some secret place but ...to me it's very unlikely.
And when it's blown up in air and you can't find any evidence, that's where it makes me believe that some capable power is behind it.
Edit: Above all, I mean the incident which seems to be mysterious to us may not be so to the government. Somebody is just covering up this whole thing for some (mostly hideous) reason. This is not rare in history.
Based on the information we have so far, the plane landing on any ground can be ruled out almost completely. Mid air explosion is still a possibility afaik and so is a crash into the sea. The fact that the pilots and the plane's security system didn't send any kind of signal speaks for very hectic events. No sign of debris also makes high altitude explosions unlikely as the debris would be scattered over a huge radius and the search teams would have probably found something by now. Then again, the search radius for the Air France crash was way bigger from day 1. The search teams might also be way off with the area to look at. Apparently they don't even know the exact direction the plane was taking when the signal was lost.
So... yeah, this is a very unusual and tragic event, as are most major plane incidents. For a jetliner to just vanish, a ton of very unlikely events and a combination of human and computer errors in a combination that has never happened before are the most likely reason.
EDIT: this is all afaik. I have yet to find any information on the last data the plane transmitted and I can't say I've read every single news piece. EDIT2: One more thing about the automatic reports: These reports are not just plain english text that is easy to understand, but a huge amount of values and numbers that have to be interpreted. Data loss is also not unheard of with radio communication. It took Air France 4 days to disclose the information that they have indeed received an ACARS report that includes system failure messages.
Don't know it this ever got answered but the question was asked earlier, "how far could it glide?"
"The flight's last telemetry data, as reported by flightaware.com, shows the airplane at 35,000 feet. Even with a dual engine failure, a Boeing 777 is capable of gliding about 120 miles from that altitude."
Pretty poor journalism right there, there are past examples of cases where black box signal weren't detected until rescuer were able to home in at the wreckage. Ocean are also naturally very big so making it difficult to find.
• Fact #2: All black box recorders transmit locator signals for at least 30 days after falling into the ocean
sure..just like how it took 2 years to find the air france one.
it's also completely ignorant on the physics of water. There is a reason why Submarines are hard to spot in the ocean and have to come close to the surface for communication. see wiki
Unless there is new factual information being released, everything currently is just baseless speculation.
An airplane is a pretty tiny object compared to vastness of the ocean even if one limits it to a very defined search radius, and assuming nothing like an oil slick or any floatable debris appeared, it would be very hard to find even given a narrow search radius, let alone if they actually can't be 100% sure of the search area they're looking into.
Airplane crashes are disproportionately tragic because they are mostly accompanied by loss of life from multiple nations, involve children and are well media covered, however the fact is your risk of death while flying is statistically lower than driving or various other activities where you have "perceived" control over events.
"The B777-200 aircraft that operated MH370 underwent maintenance on 23 February 2014, 10 days before this particular flight on 8 March 2014," a statement said.
"The next check is due on 19 June 2014. The maintenance was conducted at the KLIA hangar and there were no issues on the health of the aircraft."
well, i doubt someone hijacked the plane ninja style without anyone being able to alert anyone, then making it dive until under radar and undetected by even military radar into his secret landing strip.
Thats just giving people false hope.
The passengers are all dead, its probably hard to find the signal under so much water.
If they haven't found any wreckage yet, something weird has happened, be it a irregular crash or super ninja hijacking. I'm still hoping for a fairy tale ending, but I'm also curious what kind of crash leaves no floating wreckage or oil slick. Or have I missed something?
On March 11 2014 18:40 Jaaaaasper wrote: If they haven't found any wreckage yet, something weird has happened, be it a irregular crash or super ninja hijacking. I'm still hoping for a fairy tale ending, but I'm also curious what kind of crash leaves no floating wreckage or oil slick. Or have I missed something?
I'm somewhat surprised at this as well. If it disintegrated at 35000ft, debris would be strewn over hundreds or thousands of km^2 by the end of a day or two. It would've had to be something catastrophic for two experienced pilots to not be able to recover. I'm pretty sure planes are bouyant that if it landed in the ocean relatively unscathed, you'd at least be able to get people out and floating on cushions, and maybe a liferaft before the plane sinks, and if it broke up on contact with the ocean, there's a ton of stuff in a plane that'll float. The ocean is huge though, the plane could've gone ~100km from where it disappeared with zero power, so that's 40,000km^2 to search. With power it could pretty much be anywhere.
So have we gotten to the following conclusions yet:
Secret weapons/agents were aboard the plane(a public plane even) Aliens They are on The Island from LOST A terrorist attack without anyone claiming credit on the attack Wormhole?
On March 11 2014 19:01 Kipsate wrote: So have we gotten to the following conclusions yet:
Secret weapons/agents were aboard the plane(a public plane even) Aliens They are on The Island from LOST A terrorist attack without anyone claiming credit on the attack Wormhole?
keep it going guys.
I'm not convinced there ever was a Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, this whole crash seems like it was staged by some secret shadow governmental group for reasons unknown. Is it possible the Bermuda triangle has repositioned it self near Malaysia?
On March 11 2014 19:01 Kipsate wrote: So have we gotten to the following conclusions yet:
Secret weapons/agents were aboard the plane(a public plane even) Aliens They are on The Island from LOST A terrorist attack without anyone claiming credit on the attack Wormhole?
keep it going guys.
I'm not convinced there ever was a Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, this whole crash seems like it was staged by some secret shadow governmental group for reasons unknown. Is it possible the Bermuda triangle has repositioned it self near Malaysia?
"The B777-200 aircraft that operated MH370 underwent maintenance on 23 February 2014, 10 days before this particular flight on 8 March 2014," a statement said.
"The next check is due on 19 June 2014. The maintenance was conducted at the KLIA hangar and there were no issues on the health of the aircraft."
On March 11 2014 19:01 Kipsate wrote: So have we gotten to the following conclusions yet:
Secret weapons/agents were aboard the plane(a public plane even) Aliens They are on The Island from LOST A terrorist attack without anyone claiming credit on the attack Wormhole?
Well according to the first link on OP, they've what looks to be a door. Not the first thing that comes to mind as something on a plane that floats, but it's a start. People could potentially still be alive, but it's growing real slim. You can see a bright orange liferaft from a very, very long distance away(probably 10+km in good weather). A person hanging onto a couple of seat cushions or in an inflatable vest not so much. They'll probably have a good grasp on where the rest of the plane is by the time I wake up though.
No conspiracies here, the plane hit the water. The real question is how hard/in how many pieces.
"The B777-200 aircraft that operated MH370 underwent maintenance on 23 February 2014, 10 days before this particular flight on 8 March 2014," a statement said.
"The next check is due on 19 June 2014. The maintenance was conducted at the KLIA hangar and there were no issues on the health of the aircraft."
Wow so surely wasn't a mechanical failure? hmm
Why "surely?"
Because it had been serviced 10 days before the incident took place. I say "surely" as if they were doing their jobs properly there was nothing mechanically wrong with that plane or it would of been spotted before hand. On board computers can spot most of the problems before take off during checks im sure. Add that with a service 10 days before surely there was nothing wrong with it.
"The B777-200 aircraft that operated MH370 underwent maintenance on 23 February 2014, 10 days before this particular flight on 8 March 2014," a statement said.
"The next check is due on 19 June 2014. The maintenance was conducted at the KLIA hangar and there were no issues on the health of the aircraft."
Wow so surely wasn't a mechanical failure? hmm
Why "surely?"
Because it had been serviced 10 days before the incident took place. I say "surely" as if they were doing their jobs properly there was nothing mechanically wrong with that plane or it would of been spotted before hand. On board computers can spot most of the problems before take off during checks im sure. Add that with a service 10 days before surely there was nothing wrong with it.
There's a very good chance it wasn't mechanical failure. Most systems, and even engines are redundant.
Structural failure on the other hand is much harder to detect without taking the plane out of service for an extended period of time. A crack could be only a few centimeters in length and not show up unless the wing flexed significantly up or down. Structural failure also could very easily cause catastrophic failure in flight.
Regardless of how hard the plane hits the sea, you will still get a lot of debris anyway. Unlike what happened with Air France 447, where they found the pieces but weren't able to locate the actual plane and black box until 2 years later. With this case, it's even more mysterious only because they only found oil slicks, and nothing else for 4 days. Air France 447 was in a dead zone for communication and they still found the plane pieces 2 days later.
They had contact with MH370 with radar contact, and yet they have NO clue where the plane is AND they haven't found anything for 4 days now, just oil slicks. That is beyond irregular. The only assumption anyone can make is the plane is not where people believe it to be. With how long it has been, the pieces of the plane that is left could be any where. Boeing's 777 had a flawless record for 19 years, until last year when a pilot messed up and crashed into the sea wall in San Fran.
I'm just as confused on how so many people searching for the plane cannot find a single thing.
Edit: I just also want to say I don't believe this to be foul play. If it was, something should have been said from the pilots, I find it very hard to believe if it was foul play, the pilots didn't say a single thing. After 9/11, aren't all airlines now have some sort of response from pilots if something did happen like that again?
The oil slicks arent believed to be from the plane. And Panda ruling out mechanical failure is absurd, there has been a number of accidents as a result of bad/lazy mechanics.
This is going to make for an interesting episode of Air Crash Investigation
What I do not understand is how can the plane disappear with that much radar coverage in that area. It just doesn't seem possible from my understanding.
On March 11 2014 21:52 MagickMan wrote: The oil slicks arent believed to be from the plane. And Panda ruling out mechanical failure is absurd, there has been a number of accidents as a result of bad/lazy mechanics.
This is going to make for an interesting episode of Air Crash Investigation
LOL Yeah i said that xD Air Crash Investigation and any Stephen Hawking documentary are the only things i watch on Nat Geo channel!
On March 11 2014 21:59 Mithhaike wrote: What I do not understand is how can the plane disappear with that much radar coverage in that area. It just doesn't seem possible from my understanding.
Well I think it has been said several times by now. Radar only goes so far if the Pilot doesn't say anything to the Tower. In this case, reports said pilots said nothing. Which only means that what ever happened with MH370, it happened very fast, so much so the pilots had no time to react or say anything to the Tower to say something is wrong.
And correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Radar only cover a certain altitude? If the plane is too low or too high it doesn't track.
North America generally has good radar coverage, entire USA, Southern part of Canada and Mexico/Carribean... South America has rather poor coverage in its "Northern" parts... Brazil has full coverage drom the NE corner through Southern borders, but poor over the "Amazon basin"... Southern South America has good coverage, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay are excellent... Africa is ... do we need to say what... inexistant except South Africa... Europe, full coverage except some areas of Balkans... European Russia and Ukraine has full coverage... Middle East, poor, except Saudi Arabia, and the "Gulf Area - UAE - Oman"... Asia, poor everywhere, except Japan, South Korea and Taiwan... Australia, good coverage from NE through South...
and
Outback Australia has no radar coverage at all. This covers a large portion of the country- outback South Australia/Northern Territory/Northern Queensland/half of Tasmania and most of WA.
finally
Most of Indonesia's area are covered by Radar Service, (at least western part of it), but controllers tend quite lazy in providing adequate service. They still want us to give position reports and estimates. They also not quite organized among themselves.
and ofc oceans doesn't have any radar coverage. Planes ofc have GPS and stuff, but that doesn't help in finding the plane after it went down.
Edit: The guardian has a piece on how the plane might get lost:
But over longer distances where radar coverage is limited – ie usually when planes are flying across oceans – they use another system, Automatic Dependent Surveillance. Here the aircraft transmits its own signal and gives its position via satellites. Maclean says: "Once you go outside primary radar coverage, which would normally be about 100 miles 160 km offshore maximum, you are relying on the plane to be transponding." [...] So when flight MH370 disappeared from plane tracking websites, it could mean the signals from the plane's transponder were stopped deliberately (by pilots or others), or there was a complete electrical failure, or the plane disintegrated. Where the Malaysian plane was flying, the signals are picked up by sites only once a minute and only at a plane's cruising height above29,000 feet9 km. So a dramatic loss of altitude could conceivably also see a plane drop off their radar but potentially continue to travel for some distance.
so if the pilots tried to change course but were below 9km height, they could be anywhere, because
At cruising altitude the plane would have been travelling at between 500-600mph 800-950 kph – allowing for some considerable distance to be travelled if the plane was still intact when it disappeared from the radar. Even with complete engine failure, some aviation experts have estimated the plane could glide for 20 minutes.Malaysian authorities said on Sunday that the plane could have turned just before vanishing.
I changed imperial to metric system. fuck imperial!
On March 11 2014 21:59 Mithhaike wrote: What I do not understand is how can the plane disappear with that much radar coverage in that area. It just doesn't seem possible from my understanding.
Well I think it has been said several times by now. Radar only goes so far if the Pilot doesn't say anything to the Tower. In this case, reports said pilots said nothing. Which only means that what ever happened with MH370, it happened very fast, so much so the pilots had no time to react or say anything to the Tower to say something is wrong.
And correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Radar only cover a certain altitude? If the plane is too low or too high it doesn't track.
The thing is if something happened very fast, it'd surely mean the crashed plane wouldn't be far off the intended route and they would've found it by now. It takes time to get lost. Communication failure seems highly unlikely as they have 3 separate mediums and 5 separate electrical systems so it leaves foul play by either the crew (suicide/crazy) or a passenger.
The military claiming they saw it on the other side of the peninsula and it flew over an hour after 'disappearing' makes it even more suspect. Transponder turned off deliberately and/or flying at low altitude to avoid detection seem like distinct possibilities.
On March 11 2014 21:59 Mithhaike wrote: What I do not understand is how can the plane disappear with that much radar coverage in that area. It just doesn't seem possible from my understanding.
Well I think it has been said several times by now. Radar only goes so far if the Pilot doesn't say anything to the Tower. In this case, reports said pilots said nothing. Which only means that what ever happened with MH370, it happened very fast, so much so the pilots had no time to react or say anything to the Tower to say something is wrong.
And correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Radar only cover a certain altitude? If the plane is too low or too high it doesn't track.
The thing is if something happened very fast, it'd surely mean the crashed plane wouldn't be far off the intended route and they would've found it by now. It takes time to get lost. Communication failure seems highly unlikely as they have 3 separate mediums and 5 separate electrical systems so it leaves foul play by either the crew (suicide/crazy) or a passenger.
That is a bit bleak. However, if the other pilot contacting them 1:30 on emergency frequency heard "mumbling" and malaysian military sources caught the plane on primary radar for more than an hour after its official loss of contact, most explanations start to get very convoluted, very fast.
On March 11 2014 21:59 Mithhaike wrote: What I do not understand is how can the plane disappear with that much radar coverage in that area. It just doesn't seem possible from my understanding.
Well I think it has been said several times by now. Radar only goes so far if the Pilot doesn't say anything to the Tower. In this case, reports said pilots said nothing. Which only means that what ever happened with MH370, it happened very fast, so much so the pilots had no time to react or say anything to the Tower to say something is wrong.
And correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Radar only cover a certain altitude? If the plane is too low or too high it doesn't track.
The thing is if something happened very fast, it'd surely mean the crashed plane wouldn't be far off the intended route and they would've found it by now. It takes time to get lost. Communication failure seems highly unlikely as they have 3 separate mediums and 5 separate electrical systems so it leaves foul play by either the crew (suicide/crazy) or a passenger.
The electrical system issue is possible of course. But you have to take into consideration that if something strange and highly irregular is happening, and the pilots have no time to really talk, then they won't. They have to try to troubleshoot the problem and ensure safety of the passengers. That's the #1 thing a captain is responsible for regardless of what is going on. The cockpit of the plane is always closed to outsiders, so whatever happens if it was a highjacking, the pilots should have said anything, something.
I still personally don't, but with how things are happening none of us really know exactly. Just hope the whole terrorist thing isn't the cause.
On March 11 2014 21:59 Mithhaike wrote: What I do not understand is how can the plane disappear with that much radar coverage in that area. It just doesn't seem possible from my understanding.
Well I think it has been said several times by now. Radar only goes so far if the Pilot doesn't say anything to the Tower. In this case, reports said pilots said nothing. Which only means that what ever happened with MH370, it happened very fast, so much so the pilots had no time to react or say anything to the Tower to say something is wrong.
And correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Radar only cover a certain altitude? If the plane is too low or too high it doesn't track.
The thing is if something happened very fast, it'd surely mean the crashed plane wouldn't be far off the intended route and they would've found it by now. It takes time to get lost. Communication failure seems highly unlikely as they have 3 separate mediums and 5 separate electrical systems so it leaves foul play by either the crew (suicide/crazy) or a passenger.
The military claiming they saw it on the other side of the peninsula and it flew over an hour after 'disappearing' makes it even more suspect. Transponder turned off deliberately and/or flying at low altitude to avoid detection seem like distinct possibilities.
Well, since we don't know what went wrong it's hard to say what they could or couldn't do. There's been accidents where all hydraulic systems failed when an engine blew up despite having three separate circuits. I know an other accident where a bombs have severely limited the planes ability to control and communicate. Another where an explosive decompression rendered the pilots unconscious when the safety oxygen system failed and the crew that were conscious didn't set the radio to the right frequency when trying to communicate. I give you that it's very unlikely that they wouldn't be able to communicate if they wanted to but the bottom line is that many air plane accidents involves very unlikely scenarios, otherwise they wouldn't crash. If it's not a high-jacking and the crew isn't responsible then the explanations starts to wear thin from what we know at this point.
Likely we won't know what actually happened until the plane is found and the data recorders can be extracted. Otherwise I have a feeling we'll be seeing speculations for years to come.
not to belittle the situation, but can someone fill me in why this is so mysterious. planes crash and the wreckage can take weeks, months and years to find. we have found examples of no distress signals given before crashes, and there are many examples of pilot error on autopilot taking the plane off course very far, especially if there's some kind of mechanical problem contributing to it too.
On March 12 2014 01:48 Hydrolisko wrote: not to belittle the situation, but can someone fill me in why this is so mysterious. planes crash and the wreckage can take weeks, months and years to find. we have found examples of no distress signals given before crashes, and there are many examples of pilot error on autopilot taking the plane off course very far, especially if there's some kind of mechanical problem contributing to it too.
this is only the second time i believe in the history of modern civilian flight that a large jet airliner has simply disappeared at cruising altitude with no communication from the pilots, no debris found (yet), etc. it is a very very rare and mysterious situation since there is almost always some kind of communication either from the pilots or the ship's systems sending data out that gives a clue as to what happened.
On March 12 2014 01:48 Hydrolisko wrote: not to belittle the situation, but can someone fill me in why this is so mysterious. planes crash and the wreckage can take weeks, months and years to find. we have found examples of no distress signals given before crashes, and there are many examples of pilot error on autopilot taking the plane off course very far, especially if there's some kind of mechanical problem contributing to it too.
this is only the second time i believe in the history of modern civilian flight that a large jet airliner has simply disappeared at cruising altitude with no communication from the pilots, no debris found (yet), etc. it is a very very rare and mysterious situation since there is almost always some kind of communication either from the pilots or the ship's systems sending data out that gives a clue as to what happened.
I think it's just what we do know, makes no sense in terms of a disappearance. Such the weather was supposedly fine, so that couldn't have caused anything, and the plane had a service/maintenance check last month I think.
OK, here's a completely 100% conspiracy theory. So stupid it's not to be believed, yet maybe..
Aircraft takes off normally. En route, it becomes apparent that there are terrorists on board and they manage to hijack the plane. Their goal is to do something 9/11 but to China.
China has fighters intercept the airliner and shoot it down. Since they're evil communists, they just keep the whole thing a 100% secret.
On March 12 2014 01:48 Hydrolisko wrote: not to belittle the situation, but can someone fill me in why this is so mysterious. planes crash and the wreckage can take weeks, months and years to find. we have found examples of no distress signals given before crashes, and there are many examples of pilot error on autopilot taking the plane off course very far, especially if there's some kind of mechanical problem contributing to it too.
this is only the second time i believe in the history of modern civilian flight that a large jet airliner has simply disappeared at cruising altitude with no communication from the pilots, no debris found (yet), etc. it is a very very rare and mysterious situation since there is almost always some kind of communication either from the pilots or the ship's systems sending data out that gives a clue as to what happened.
It is also mysterious because it is a Boeing 777 Airliner. The jet is 19 years old with a flawless record until last year, when a Asiana Airline hit a sea wall on landing in San Fran but that landing was more pilot error, misjudging, but 3 people died.
For the 777, this is the first real serious issue for the plane in 19 years that has so far no explanation. There has been several other instances when the plane disappeared/crashed while in cruising altitude, the foremost is the Air France 447 that crashed in the sea in 2009(?) due to a pilot and mechanical error (mostly pilot error). It took 2 years to fully figure out what happened with the plane and find all the pieces + black box.
It's curious also because it has now been 5 days and no news of the plane has been found. Air France 447 pieces was found in 2 days (though the rest of the plane + black box was found 2 years later. Not to mention the flight was in a communication dead zone.)
Edit: There are some updates on the news. Trying to debunk the dumb rumors lol.
What I have never understood, on a civil plane why can the position signal be turned off to begin with? I can't think of any situation, where that might be useful.
On March 12 2014 03:34 lord_nibbler wrote: What I have never understood, on a civil plane why can the position signal be turned off to begin with? I can't think of any situation, where that might be useful.
and then war breaks out and the military is in desperate need for transportation.
On March 12 2014 03:34 lord_nibbler wrote: What I have never understood, on a civil plane why can the position signal be turned off to begin with? I can't think of any situation, where that might be useful.
So that when you don't need it you can save energy by turning it off (when the aircraft is in the hangar)? So that when the plane isn't flying it doesn't transmit useless radio waves? So you can turn it off to fix it if it gets broken? etc It's just common sense to be able to turn something off when it's not needed?
On March 12 2014 04:09 Saryph wrote: But being able to turn it off by the maintenance staff while on the ground makes sense there, a lot more so than while it is flying.
This would mean that this thing could only be turned on BY maintenance staff. That's just plain inefficient. Once the aircraft gets turned off, does it really make sense to wait for the maintenance staff to have to turn off something that's eating battery power for nothing?
The co-pilots were so used to all the automatic safety measures performed by the board computer that they didn't actually know how to fly the airplane when those measures had to be shut down because of a faulty sensor. I guess one of the dangers of modern planes and their sophisticated systems is that the pilots aren't as well prepared for emergencies as in the past when they had to do all the hard work themselves.
So current info is plane did a 180 and flew back 100s of miles the other way. Why not fly back to the airport? Some gross negligence or something sinister.
On March 12 2014 05:03 JimSocks wrote: So current info is plane did a 180 and flew back 100s of miles the other way. Why not fly back to the airport? Some gross negligence or something sinister.
because it's quite hard to navigate in the middle of the night on the ocean. All you see is black water. This would ofc imply that there was a major electronic failure which shut down both navigation and communications. Also the plane just turned to 40° shortly before they lost contact with the plane. So the plan might have been to turn 180 so they surely hit land and then fly along the coastline or simply get closer to land before going down.
The co-pilots were so used to all the automatic safety measures performed by the board computer that they didn't actually know how to fly the airplane when those measures had to be shut down because of a faulty sensor. I guess one of the dangers of modern planes and their sophisticated systems is that the pilots aren't as well prepared for emergencies as in the past when they had to do all the hard work themselves.
Not quite that simple.
Put it this way. It's not that they didn't know how to fly when the safety measures are gone, rather they didn't assess the situation in time before it got out of hand.
Take out the airspeed indicator, what do you have left? Altimetre, vertical speed indicator and pitch. At this time, the aircraft was in a stall. This meant that the altitude was dropping quickly, the vertical speed indicator was showing the drop rate and the pitch showed that the aircraft was nose high. In such a situation, you also see that the airspeed is very low. However the pilots didn't have access to this information. Nonetheless, with the other instruments on hand, they could have deduced what was going on. However, things can happen very quickly in a situation such as this.
The remedy to this kind of stall is pushing forward on the yoke, dropping the nose and regaining sufficient speed to once again fly normally. Getting out of a simple stall isn't difficult.
It isn't that the flight controls, autopilot and modern avionics make the aircraft so easy to fly that you forget how to actually fly. It's simply that pilots found themselves in a critical situation and failed to properly react to this situation, because they misread the situation*. These type of accidents also happen in general aviation (more frequently unless I'm mistaken), where everything is done "by hand".
*indeed, arguably a lack of training
Not sure if they had outside visual references to work with either, but they probably didn't. If the airliner had been flying by day and the crew had seen that the nose was up and the altitude was dropping quickly, they would have immediately realized they were stalling. I'm guessing it was dark outside and they didn't figure out what the aircraft was doing (in this case stalling). They probably assumed that the aircraft was diving and as such pulled on the stick to bring the nose up. The aircraft was already nose up and stalling, so it just continued stalling until it crashed. In their "defense", there's no force feedback in the stick in an A330, since it's fly-by-wire, so they couldn't "feel" their elevator, which would probably have also given them the hint needed to figure out what was going on.
It's kind of a stupid accident when you think about.
I'm sure there have been many examples of not finding a single piece of wreckage until many days later. Adam Air Flight 574 just to name one... the ocean is very very vast, especially if there's a pilot error/mechanical failure taking the plane to some random place.
They are saying there's no foul play going on, it was a mechanical failure that resulted in both navigation and communications/radio shutdown. The plane turned around and got lost. If that is the case, why did it take 3 days before we found out what happened. What was the crew, passengers, and everyone doing in these 3 days? Was nobody able to contact the outside world? How long is it before planes run out of fuel?
On March 12 2014 06:48 W2 wrote: They are saying there's no foul play going on, it was a mechanical failure that resulted in both navigation and communications/radio shutdown. The plane turned around and got lost. If that is the case, why did it take 3 days before we found out what happened. What was the crew, passengers, and everyone doing in these 3 days? Was nobody able to contact the outside world? How long is it before planes run out of fuel?
On March 12 2014 06:48 W2 wrote: They are saying there's no foul play going on, it was a mechanical failure that resulted in both navigation and communications/radio shutdown. The plane turned around and got lost. If that is the case, why did it take 3 days before we found out what happened. What was the crew, passengers, and everyone doing in these 3 days? Was nobody able to contact the outside world? How long is it before planes run out of fuel?
what? source?
wait you don't read the exact same articles as that guy?
On March 12 2014 06:48 W2 wrote: They are saying there's no foul play going on, it was a mechanical failure that resulted in both navigation and communications/radio shutdown. The plane turned around and got lost. If that is the case, why did it take 3 days before we found out what happened. What was the crew, passengers, and everyone doing in these 3 days? Was nobody able to contact the outside world? How long is it before planes run out of fuel?
what? source?
wait you don't read the exact same articles as that guy?
i've never even heard the story he is telling before.
On March 12 2014 06:48 W2 wrote: They are saying there's no foul play going on, it was a mechanical failure that resulted in both navigation and communications/radio shutdown. The plane turned around and got lost. If that is the case, why did it take 3 days before we found out what happened. What was the crew, passengers, and everyone doing in these 3 days? Was nobody able to contact the outside world? How long is it before planes run out of fuel?
what? source?
wait you don't read the exact same articles as that guy?
i've never even heard the story he is telling before.
look at my post 4th from the top. It has some info.
The co-pilots were so used to all the automatic safety measures performed by the board computer that they didn't actually know how to fly the airplane when those measures had to be shut down because of a faulty sensor. I guess one of the dangers of modern planes and their sophisticated systems is that the pilots aren't as well prepared for emergencies as in the past when they had to do all the hard work themselves.
Not quite that simple.
Put it this way. It's not that they didn't know how to fly when the safety measures are gone, rather they didn't assess the situation in time before it got out of hand.
Take out the airspeed indicator, what do you have left? Altimetre, vertical speed indicator and pitch. At this time, the aircraft was in a stall. This meant that the altitude was dropping quickly, the vertical speed indicator was showing the drop rate and the pitch showed that the aircraft was nose high. In such a situation, you also see that the airspeed is very low. However the pilots didn't have access to this information. Nonetheless, with the other instruments on hand, they could have deduced what was going on. However, things can happen very quickly in a situation such as this.
The remedy to this kind of stall is pushing forward on the yoke, dropping the nose and regaining sufficient speed to once again fly normally. Getting out of a simple stall isn't difficult.
It isn't that the flight controls, autopilot and modern avionics make the aircraft so easy to fly that you forget how to actually fly. It's simply that pilots found themselves in a critical situation and failed to properly react to this situation, because they misread the situation*. These type of accidents also happen in general aviation (more frequently unless I'm mistaken), where everything is done "by hand".
*indeed, arguably a lack of training
Not sure if they had outside visual references to work with either, but they probably didn't. If the airliner had been flying by day and the crew had seen that the nose was up and the altitude was dropping quickly, they would have immediately realized they were stalling. I'm guessing it was dark outside and they didn't figure out what the aircraft was doing (in this case stalling). They probably assumed that the aircraft was diving and as such pulled on the stick to bring the nose up. The aircraft was already nose up and stalling, so it just continued stalling until it crashed. In their "defense", there's no force feedback in the stick in an A330, since it's fly-by-wire, so they couldn't "feel" their elevator, which would probably have also given them the hint needed to figure out what was going on.
It's kind of a stupid accident when you think about.
This is a good summary of what happend there. I actually watched a documentary on this last night, is quite sad but it was mainly the fault of the pilot Bonin, who right after they lost the indicators decided to push the nose up, and it remained up even after the other pilot took control, and when they finally discovered he had the nose up both of the other pilots were like no, no, no push it down.. but it was to late by then.
On March 12 2014 06:48 W2 wrote: They are saying there's no foul play going on, it was a mechanical failure that resulted in both navigation and communications/radio shutdown. The plane turned around and got lost. If that is the case, why did it take 3 days before we found out what happened. What was the crew, passengers, and everyone doing in these 3 days? Was nobody able to contact the outside world? How long is it before planes run out of fuel?
what? source?
wait you don't read the exact same articles as that guy?
i've never even heard the story he is telling before.
look at my post 4th from the top. It has some info.
The co-pilots were so used to all the automatic safety measures performed by the board computer that they didn't actually know how to fly the airplane when those measures had to be shut down because of a faulty sensor. I guess one of the dangers of modern planes and their sophisticated systems is that the pilots aren't as well prepared for emergencies as in the past when they had to do all the hard work themselves.
Not quite that simple.
Put it this way. It's not that they didn't know how to fly when the safety measures are gone, rather they didn't assess the situation in time before it got out of hand.
Take out the airspeed indicator, what do you have left? Altimetre, vertical speed indicator and pitch. At this time, the aircraft was in a stall. This meant that the altitude was dropping quickly, the vertical speed indicator was showing the drop rate and the pitch showed that the aircraft was nose high. In such a situation, you also see that the airspeed is very low. However the pilots didn't have access to this information. Nonetheless, with the other instruments on hand, they could have deduced what was going on. However, things can happen very quickly in a situation such as this.
The remedy to this kind of stall is pushing forward on the yoke, dropping the nose and regaining sufficient speed to once again fly normally. Getting out of a simple stall isn't difficult.
It isn't that the flight controls, autopilot and modern avionics make the aircraft so easy to fly that you forget how to actually fly. It's simply that pilots found themselves in a critical situation and failed to properly react to this situation, because they misread the situation*. These type of accidents also happen in general aviation (more frequently unless I'm mistaken), where everything is done "by hand".
*indeed, arguably a lack of training
Not sure if they had outside visual references to work with either, but they probably didn't. If the airliner had been flying by day and the crew had seen that the nose was up and the altitude was dropping quickly, they would have immediately realized they were stalling. I'm guessing it was dark outside and they didn't figure out what the aircraft was doing (in this case stalling). They probably assumed that the aircraft was diving and as such pulled on the stick to bring the nose up. The aircraft was already nose up and stalling, so it just continued stalling until it crashed. In their "defense", there's no force feedback in the stick in an A330, since it's fly-by-wire, so they couldn't "feel" their elevator, which would probably have also given them the hint needed to figure out what was going on.
It's kind of a stupid accident when you think about.
To add to the confusion, the stall alarm was activating when they pushed the stick forwards to drop the nose. So the remedy a stall was causing the stall alarm to activate. What was really happening was, the stall was so severe the alarm was cutting out due to invalid readings it was getting. Basically, the pilots had no access to angle of attack information, which is relatively simple to display, but for some reason, planes don't have it on their instruments.
The co-pilots were so used to all the automatic safety measures performed by the board computer that they didn't actually know how to fly the airplane when those measures had to be shut down because of a faulty sensor. I guess one of the dangers of modern planes and their sophisticated systems is that the pilots aren't as well prepared for emergencies as in the past when they had to do all the hard work themselves.
Not quite that simple.
Put it this way. It's not that they didn't know how to fly when the safety measures are gone, rather they didn't assess the situation in time before it got out of hand.
Take out the airspeed indicator, what do you have left? Altimetre, vertical speed indicator and pitch. At this time, the aircraft was in a stall. This meant that the altitude was dropping quickly, the vertical speed indicator was showing the drop rate and the pitch showed that the aircraft was nose high. In such a situation, you also see that the airspeed is very low. However the pilots didn't have access to this information. Nonetheless, with the other instruments on hand, they could have deduced what was going on. However, things can happen very quickly in a situation such as this.
The remedy to this kind of stall is pushing forward on the yoke, dropping the nose and regaining sufficient speed to once again fly normally. Getting out of a simple stall isn't difficult.
It isn't that the flight controls, autopilot and modern avionics make the aircraft so easy to fly that you forget how to actually fly. It's simply that pilots found themselves in a critical situation and failed to properly react to this situation, because they misread the situation*. These type of accidents also happen in general aviation (more frequently unless I'm mistaken), where everything is done "by hand".
*indeed, arguably a lack of training
Not sure if they had outside visual references to work with either, but they probably didn't. If the airliner had been flying by day and the crew had seen that the nose was up and the altitude was dropping quickly, they would have immediately realized they were stalling. I'm guessing it was dark outside and they didn't figure out what the aircraft was doing (in this case stalling). They probably assumed that the aircraft was diving and as such pulled on the stick to bring the nose up. The aircraft was already nose up and stalling, so it just continued stalling until it crashed. In their "defense", there's no force feedback in the stick in an A330, since it's fly-by-wire, so they couldn't "feel" their elevator, which would probably have also given them the hint needed to figure out what was going on.
It's kind of a stupid accident when you think about.
To add to the confusion, the stall alarm was activating when they pushed the stick forwards to drop the nose. So the remedy a stall was causing the stall alarm to activate. What was really happening was, the stall was so severe the alarm was cutting out due to invalid readings it was getting. Basically, the pilots had no access to angle of attack information, which is relatively simple to display, but for some reason, planes don't have it on their instruments.
pitch and angle of attack aren't the same thing
pitch is the angle between aircraft's nose and horizon. a simple gyroscope instrument is used to indicate pitch
angle of attack is the angle between the wing's chord and the direction of travel of the wing. this is usually between 10-15° most of the time. a stall is incurred when the the angle of attack goes above a certain value.
It's indeed possible to obtain information on angle of attack in flight, I know for a fact that F16s have them as I have flirted with F16 simulators before. I don't know what instrument is used to obtain angle of attack though, I'm guessing that it's a computer that calcuates angle of attack based of velocity and pitch, though I could be very wrong on this. As far as I know however, angle of attack isn't as easy to measure as speed, pitch, altitude, etc. The pilots should have guessed that they were stalling by looking at the pitch indications on the back-up instruments.
Stall warnings on small aircraft are made mechanically, there's a little piece of metal that gets pushed up when you're approaching a stall (because of high angle of attack). This little piece of metal then closes an electrical circuit which sounds a horn. I doubt that something so primitive is used on jetliners though and this is really a stall warning mechanism and not something that gives angle of attack.
Berita Harian’s report on search and rescue – Rodzali Daud
March 12, 2014
I refer to the Berita Harian news article dated March 11, 2014, on the search and rescue operations in the Strait of Malacca which (in Bahasa Malaysia) referred to me as making the following statements:
"The RMAF Chief confirmed that RMAF Butterworth airbase detected the location signal of the airliner as indicating that it turned back from its original heading to the direction of Kota Baru, Kelantan, and was believed to have passed through the airspace of the east coast and the northern areas of the peninsula.
"The last time the plane was detected by the air control tower was in the vicinity of Pulau Perak in the Strait of Malacca at 2.40 in the morning before the signal disappeared without any trace", he said.
I wish to state that I did not make any such statements as above. What occurred was that the Berita Harian journalist asked me if such an incident occurred as detailed in their story. However, I did not give any answer to the question.
Instead what I said to the journalist was, “Please refer to the statement which I have already made on 9 March 2014, during the press conference with the Chief of Defence Force at the Sama-Sama Hotel, Kuala Lumpur International Airport”.
And what I stated during that press conference was:
The RMAF has not ruled out the possibility of an air turn-back on a reciprocal heading before the aircraft vanished from the radar, and this resulted in the search and rescue operations being widened to the vicinity of the waters off Penang.
I request this misreporting be amended and corrected to prevent further misinterpretation of what is clearly an inaccurate and incorrect report.
The RMAF is examining and analysing all possibilities as regards to the airliner’s flight paths subsequent to its disappearance. However, for the time being, it would not be appropriate for the RMAF to issue any official conclusion as to the aircraft’s flight path until a high amount of certainty and verification is achieved.
All ongoing search operations are at the moment being conducted to cover all possible areas where the aircraft could have gone down in order to ensure no possibility is overlooked.
In addition, I would like to state to the media that all information and developments will be released through official statements and press conferences as soon as possible and when appropriate. Our current efforts are focused upon on finding the aircraft as soon as possible.
Thank You. – March 12, 2014.
* General Tan Sri Rodzali Daud is the Chief of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF).
* This is an official statement by the Chief of the Royal Malaysian Air Force on the Berita Harian news articled dated March 11, 2014, on the search and rescue operations in the Strait of Malacca.
Also, it is unlikely something crashed into the Strait of Malacca and no debris has been reported for 3 days. That's like if an airplane crashed into the English Channel or the Straits of Hormuz. Something like 1/4th of the world's shipping goes through there so it seems unlikely. At this point, given no found wreckage, it may have gone down in jungle after turning back or something.
Malaysia's air force chief denied a media report that the military last tracked a missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner over the Strait of Malacca, far from where it last made contact with civilian air traffic control when it disappeared four days ago.
"I wish to state that I did not make any such statements," air force chief Rodzali Daud said in a statement on Wednesday.
China's air force will add two planes to the search for a missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner, the country's civil aviation chief said on Wednesday, adding that search and rescue efforts would be broadened to include land areas.
The co-pilots were so used to all the automatic safety measures performed by the board computer that they didn't actually know how to fly the airplane when those measures had to be shut down because of a faulty sensor. I guess one of the dangers of modern planes and their sophisticated systems is that the pilots aren't as well prepared for emergencies as in the past when they had to do all the hard work themselves.
Not quite that simple.
Put it this way. It's not that they didn't know how to fly when the safety measures are gone, rather they didn't assess the situation in time before it got out of hand.
Take out the airspeed indicator, what do you have left? Altimetre, vertical speed indicator and pitch. At this time, the aircraft was in a stall. This meant that the altitude was dropping quickly, the vertical speed indicator was showing the drop rate and the pitch showed that the aircraft was nose high. In such a situation, you also see that the airspeed is very low. However the pilots didn't have access to this information. Nonetheless, with the other instruments on hand, they could have deduced what was going on. However, things can happen very quickly in a situation such as this.
The remedy to this kind of stall is pushing forward on the yoke, dropping the nose and regaining sufficient speed to once again fly normally. Getting out of a simple stall isn't difficult.
It isn't that the flight controls, autopilot and modern avionics make the aircraft so easy to fly that you forget how to actually fly. It's simply that pilots found themselves in a critical situation and failed to properly react to this situation, because they misread the situation*. These type of accidents also happen in general aviation (more frequently unless I'm mistaken), where everything is done "by hand".
*indeed, arguably a lack of training
Not sure if they had outside visual references to work with either, but they probably didn't. If the airliner had been flying by day and the crew had seen that the nose was up and the altitude was dropping quickly, they would have immediately realized they were stalling. I'm guessing it was dark outside and they didn't figure out what the aircraft was doing (in this case stalling). They probably assumed that the aircraft was diving and as such pulled on the stick to bring the nose up. The aircraft was already nose up and stalling, so it just continued stalling until it crashed. In their "defense", there's no force feedback in the stick in an A330, since it's fly-by-wire, so they couldn't "feel" their elevator, which would probably have also given them the hint needed to figure out what was going on.
It's kind of a stupid accident when you think about.
To add to the confusion, the stall alarm was activating when they pushed the stick forwards to drop the nose. So the remedy a stall was causing the stall alarm to activate. What was really happening was, the stall was so severe the alarm was cutting out due to invalid readings it was getting. Basically, the pilots had no access to angle of attack information, which is relatively simple to display, but for some reason, planes don't have it on their instruments.
pitch and angle of attack aren't the same thing
pitch is the angle between aircraft's nose and horizon. a simple gyroscope instrument is used to indicate pitch
angle of attack is the angle between the wing's chord and the direction of travel of the wing. this is usually between 10-15° most of the time. a stall is incurred when the the angle of attack goes above a certain value.
It's indeed possible to obtain information on angle of attack in flight, I know for a fact that F16s have them as I have flirted with F16 simulators before. I don't know what instrument is used to obtain angle of attack though, I'm guessing that it's a computer that calcuates angle of attack based of velocity and pitch, though I could be very wrong on this. As far as I know however, angle of attack isn't as easy to measure as speed, pitch, altitude, etc. The pilots should have guessed that they were stalling by looking at the pitch indications on the back-up instruments.
Stall warnings on small aircraft are made mechanically, there's a little piece of metal that gets pushed up when you're approaching a stall (because of high angle of attack). This little piece of metal then closes an electrical circuit which sounds a horn. I doubt that something so primitive is used on jetliners though and this is really a stall warning mechanism and not something that gives angle of attack.
He's correct about the warning.
What happened was that the A330 had a stall warning which sounded when the AoA was high, as you would expect. However, in the Air France flight, they ended up in a situation where the alarm disabled itself because it thought it was getting nonsense readings (I believe because the airspeed was out of range).
When the pilots pushed the nose down, the airspeed sensor began to get reasonable data again, and the AoA immediately reactivated the alarm. However, if they pushed the nose back up, the airspeed sensor would begin reporting nonsense once more, disabling the alarm.
The net result was a situation in which performing the correct action (lowering the nose) caused an alarm to come on, and doing the wrong thing caused it to turn off again. That would have been confusing as all hell.
On March 12 2014 12:03 itsjustatank wrote: Malaysia's air force chief denied a media report that the military last tracked a missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner over the Strait of Malacca, far from where it last made contact with civilian air traffic control when it disappeared four days ago.
"I wish to state that I did not make any such statements," air force chief Rodzali Daud said in a statement on Wednesday.
If the report that the plane was detected in the Strait of Malacca was false, why has there been a major search area in the Strait for some days? Or is that false too?
"The B777-200 aircraft that operated MH370 underwent maintenance on 23 February 2014, 10 days before this particular flight on 8 March 2014," a statement said.
"The next check is due on 19 June 2014. The maintenance was conducted at the KLIA hangar and there were no issues on the health of the aircraft."
Wow so surely wasn't a mechanical failure? hmm
Why "surely?"
Because it had been serviced 10 days before the incident took place. I say "surely" as if they were doing their jobs properly there was nothing mechanically wrong with that plane or it would of been spotted before hand. On board computers can spot most of the problems before take off during checks im sure. Add that with a service 10 days before surely there was nothing wrong with it.
So barring a problem under the surface that would only come out under the scrutiny of an investigation, you think we can confidently rule out the aircraft itself as a factor in its own disappearance as surely there was nothing wrong with it.
PORT DICKSON: A group of fishermen found a life raft bearing the word “Boarding” 10 nautical miles from Port Dickson town at 12pm yesterday.
One of the fishermen, Azman Mohamad, 40, said they found the badly damaged raft floating and immediately notified the Kuala Linggi Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) in Malacca for assistance to lift the raft as it was very heavy. "We managed to tie it to our boat as we feared it would sink due to the damages," he said.
When the MMEA boat arrived, the fishermen then handed over the raft into their custody. However, a Kuala Linggi MMEA spokesman said the raft sunk into the sea while they were trying to bring the raft onboard.
If that's indeed part of the plane then the crash location would seem to be well south of what they are searching for in the strait depending on current. This means that the plane did a complete 180 and flew back only to overshoot the airport and Kuala Lumpur instead of the earlier projection that it flew due west near Thai airspace.
That's just completely baffling. Did they have a problem where they couldn't initiate a landing sequence?
On March 12 2014 18:45 Antisocialmunky wrote: If that's indeed part of the plane then the crash location would seem to be well south of what they are searching for in the strait depending on current. This means that the plane did a complete 180 and flew back only to overshoot the airport and Kuala Lumpur instead of the earlier projection that it flew due west near Thai airspace.
That's just completely baffling. Did they have a problem where they couldn't initiate a landing sequence?
I just looked at the flight plan, and then the news that the fisherman found the liferaft, and googled where that place was. I don't even understand. It would've been invisible for civilian controllers(transponder off = invisible), but for military installations an unidentified craft entering airspace(assuming that it was out of range when it disappeared) should've at the very least resulted in some attempted communications. It didn't just overshoot Kuala Lumpur. It overshot the entire country of malaysia, and landed in the middle of freaking nowhere in the ocean. That just raises more questions than answers because a plane that big would've been noticed for sure if it was flying low to try to avoid radar, and if it was flying high up there's no way a target that big disappears off a military radar.
PORT DICKSON: A group of fishermen found a life raft bearing the word “Boarding” 10 nautical miles from Port Dickson town at 12pm yesterday.
One of the fishermen, Azman Mohamad, 40, said they found the badly damaged raft floating and immediately notified the Kuala Linggi Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) in Malacca for assistance to lift the raft as it was very heavy. "We managed to tie it to our boat as we feared it would sink due to the damages," he said.
When the MMEA boat arrived, the fishermen then handed over the raft into their custody. However, a Kuala Linggi MMEA spokesman said the raft sunk into the sea while they were trying to bring the raft onboard.
On March 10 2014 03:51 Grobyc wrote: ^Probably depends on the area you fly in/to. When I flew last month and was leaving the Cancun airport I had my passport swiped/scanned at arrivals and at security.
Yeah it really depends. I have a friend ou used to work at a French airport and they just do quick check. When journalists took a knife on board of a plane (or something like that) and show it with a hidden cam, my friend's boss told them they needed to do full check for passport.
Basicly full check takes around 2 to 4 minutes per persons.... So queues formed, (because basicly the time for checking at arrival because WAY MORE LONG) people were unhappy, extra security was added because people fought (i was there before you etc...).
So most passport checking are depending on how much procedures are respected.
It was kind of before new passport (the biothingy ... biometric ?) was mandatory for external travelling though.
On March 12 2014 20:53 arbiter_md wrote: Could that have been brought that far by the waves?
It may just be another red herring. Though now they are reporting that villagers interviewed on the east coast heard a loud bang around the time the flight disappeared.
The co-pilots were so used to all the automatic safety measures performed by the board computer that they didn't actually know how to fly the airplane when those measures had to be shut down because of a faulty sensor. I guess one of the dangers of modern planes and their sophisticated systems is that the pilots aren't as well prepared for emergencies as in the past when they had to do all the hard work themselves.
Not quite that simple.
Put it this way. It's not that they didn't know how to fly when the safety measures are gone, rather they didn't assess the situation in time before it got out of hand.
Take out the airspeed indicator, what do you have left? Altimetre, vertical speed indicator and pitch. At this time, the aircraft was in a stall. This meant that the altitude was dropping quickly, the vertical speed indicator was showing the drop rate and the pitch showed that the aircraft was nose high. In such a situation, you also see that the airspeed is very low. However the pilots didn't have access to this information. Nonetheless, with the other instruments on hand, they could have deduced what was going on. However, things can happen very quickly in a situation such as this.
The remedy to this kind of stall is pushing forward on the yoke, dropping the nose and regaining sufficient speed to once again fly normally. Getting out of a simple stall isn't difficult.
It isn't that the flight controls, autopilot and modern avionics make the aircraft so easy to fly that you forget how to actually fly. It's simply that pilots found themselves in a critical situation and failed to properly react to this situation, because they misread the situation*. These type of accidents also happen in general aviation (more frequently unless I'm mistaken), where everything is done "by hand".
*indeed, arguably a lack of training
Not sure if they had outside visual references to work with either, but they probably didn't. If the airliner had been flying by day and the crew had seen that the nose was up and the altitude was dropping quickly, they would have immediately realized they were stalling. I'm guessing it was dark outside and they didn't figure out what the aircraft was doing (in this case stalling). They probably assumed that the aircraft was diving and as such pulled on the stick to bring the nose up. The aircraft was already nose up and stalling, so it just continued stalling until it crashed. In their "defense", there's no force feedback in the stick in an A330, since it's fly-by-wire, so they couldn't "feel" their elevator, which would probably have also given them the hint needed to figure out what was going on.
It's kind of a stupid accident when you think about.
I actually agree with you.
My conclusion might be too simplified, but as you pointed out, they had more than enough time and working instruments to correctly assess the situation. They made very basic mistakes you wouldn't think an Air France pilot certified to fly such a plane is capable of making.
Yes it was a lack of training, but I would argue that their lack of training would have become apparent much earlier if it wasn't for the automatic systems.
On March 12 2014 20:53 arbiter_md wrote: Could that have been brought that far by the waves?
It may just be another red herring. Though now they are reporting that villagers interviewed on the east coast heard a loud bang around the time the flight disappeared.
In another development, Deputy Communications and Multimedia Jalaini Johari told the Dewan Rakyat today that some irresponsible internet users were hurting the feeling of the passengers’ relatives by spreading unverified information on the missing plane.
The co-pilots were so used to all the automatic safety measures performed by the board computer that they didn't actually know how to fly the airplane when those measures had to be shut down because of a faulty sensor. I guess one of the dangers of modern planes and their sophisticated systems is that the pilots aren't as well prepared for emergencies as in the past when they had to do all the hard work themselves.
Not quite that simple.
Put it this way. It's not that they didn't know how to fly when the safety measures are gone, rather they didn't assess the situation in time before it got out of hand.
Take out the airspeed indicator, what do you have left? Altimetre, vertical speed indicator and pitch. At this time, the aircraft was in a stall. This meant that the altitude was dropping quickly, the vertical speed indicator was showing the drop rate and the pitch showed that the aircraft was nose high. In such a situation, you also see that the airspeed is very low. However the pilots didn't have access to this information. Nonetheless, with the other instruments on hand, they could have deduced what was going on. However, things can happen very quickly in a situation such as this.
The remedy to this kind of stall is pushing forward on the yoke, dropping the nose and regaining sufficient speed to once again fly normally. Getting out of a simple stall isn't difficult.
It isn't that the flight controls, autopilot and modern avionics make the aircraft so easy to fly that you forget how to actually fly. It's simply that pilots found themselves in a critical situation and failed to properly react to this situation, because they misread the situation*. These type of accidents also happen in general aviation (more frequently unless I'm mistaken), where everything is done "by hand".
*indeed, arguably a lack of training
Not sure if they had outside visual references to work with either, but they probably didn't. If the airliner had been flying by day and the crew had seen that the nose was up and the altitude was dropping quickly, they would have immediately realized they were stalling. I'm guessing it was dark outside and they didn't figure out what the aircraft was doing (in this case stalling). They probably assumed that the aircraft was diving and as such pulled on the stick to bring the nose up. The aircraft was already nose up and stalling, so it just continued stalling until it crashed. In their "defense", there's no force feedback in the stick in an A330, since it's fly-by-wire, so they couldn't "feel" their elevator, which would probably have also given them the hint needed to figure out what was going on.
It's kind of a stupid accident when you think about.
I actually agree with you.
My conclusion might be too simplified, but as you pointed out, they had more than enough time and working instruments to correctly assess the situation. They made very basic mistakes you wouldn't think an Air France pilot certified to fly such a plane is capable of making.
Yes it was a lack of training, but I would argue that their lack of training would have become apparent much earlier if it wasn't for the automatic systems.
I researched that crash for awhile and it was mainly the pilot at fault. A failed pitot tube shouldn't have caused a crash of a modern airliner. It was the timing and the pilot freaking out that caused it. Out of the 3 pilots there, the pilot that was actually flying the plane was the very least experienced out of the 3. Captain was on a sleeping break, 1st Officer wasn't flying because Captain gave controls to the Relief Pilot. That in itself was an awful choice because he took over in the middle of a harsh storm.
But it was still the relief pilot's fault, after soo long with the nose up to correct a "speed" issue, he SHOULD have known to push the nose down like everyone who knows about planes to correct a stall. Instead he kept the nose up for that entire time even when the 1st Officer took control, HE STILL had it up. When the Captain finally came and realized what was happening, it was just too late, all the time they had to correct the mistake was gone.
So many people lost, because 1 pilot, freaked out, didn't think it through and crashed a plane. There has been other times when a pitot tube caused a airliner crash as well, Air France 447 wasn't the only one. Just, in 447's case, the relief pilot who took control was stupid as it gets and just got it wrong.
Of course I hope MH370 didn't have the same issue but... 5 days now? No news about where the plane is?
I still think if it went down in the water in the Thai Gulf or S China sea... pieces would have been pulled up in a fisherman's net by now. That has got to be one of the most over-fished waters in the world.
It would have to have been a nearly controlled landing... like Miracle on the Hudson.. and then have it sink in one piece. (for nothing to be found yet)
I just think nosediving into the jungle has the highest chance of explaining why nothing has been found yet.
Either that or it did a U-Turn and backtracked...and burned all its fuel and went down in the middle-of-nowhere Indian Ocean.
It had enough fuel on board to go ~3,000 miles. If it made the U-Turn you could be searching between Perth and Madagascar.
Seems China has released images from a satellite, showing 3 pieces that could be the main parts of the plane. It is found in the South China Sea near the expected flight path. According to CNN
On March 13 2014 05:03 RCMDVA wrote: I still think if it went down in the water in the Thai Gulf or S China sea... pieces would have been pulled up in a fisherman's net by now. That has got to be one of the most over-fished waters in the world.
It would have to have been a nearly controlled landing... like Miracle on the Hudson.. and then have it sink in one piece. (for nothing to be found yet)
I just think nosediving into the jungle has the highest chance of explaining why nothing has been found yet.
Either that or it did a U-Turn and backtracked...and burned all its fuel and went down in the middle-of-nowhere Indian Ocean.
It had enough fuel on board to go ~3,000 miles. If it made the U-Turn you could be searching between Perth and Madagascar.
if it went down in the jungle, i think that would be the easiest to spot with satellite wouldnt it?
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up.
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.
Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.
[. . .]
But the huge uncertainty about where the plane was headed, and why it apparently continued flying so long without working transponders, has raised theories among investigators that the aircraft may have been commandeered for a reason that appears unclear to U.S. authorities. Some of those theories have been laid out to national security officials and senior personnel from various U.S. agencies, according to one person familiar with the matter.
At one briefing, according to this person, officials were told investigators are actively pursuing the notion that the plane was diverted "with the intention of using it later for another purpose."
[. . .]
A total flight time of five hours after departing Kuala Lumpur means the Boeing 777 could have continued for an additional distance of about 2,200 nautical miles, reaching points as far as the Indian Ocean, the border of Pakistan or even the Arabian Sea, based on the jet's cruising speed.
[. . .]
Also on Wednesday, a Chinese government website posted images from Chinese satellites showing what it said were three large objects floating in an 8-square-mile area off the southern tip of Vietnam. The objects were discovered on Sunday , according to the website, which didn't say whether the objects had been recovered or examined.
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
good landing is the one in the hudson. that one was imo a bad landing, since the aircraft had a bank angle which caused it to disintegrate.
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
good landing is the one in the hudson. that one was imo a bad landing, since the aircraft had a bank angle which caused it to disintegrate.
The circumstances for the pilot were much worse though. He had a crazy hijacker on board.
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
good landing is the one in the hudson. that one was imo a bad landing, since the aircraft had a bank angle which caused it to disintegrate.
The circumstances for the pilot were much worse though. He had a crazy hijacker on board.
I know. I'm not saying the pilot was bad or anything, I'm saying that the landing wasn't "good", it was bad because the aircraft had a bank angle which caused one engine to hit the water before the other, resulting in the aircraft not withstanding the impact. He was trying to turns closer towards land.
A good ditch is possible; that video was not a good ditch, all I'm saying.
And the latest two speculations have been addressed. The chinese pictures were not authorized or endorsed. At the same time, it covers water that has been searched thoroughly even after another look at the site.
The Rolls Royce information of a 5 hour flight from the flight data has been addressed as 'inaccurate' after the investigators talked to Boeng and Rolls Royce. The last ACARS data were from 1:07 (11 minutes before last tower contact and 23 minutes before plane another plane called and heard "mumbling"). These data were showing a plane working perfectly. source
On March 13 2014 14:15 Antisocialmunky wrote: The search area suddenly goes from the size of Texas to a radius twice that of the moon or 5 times the size of Australia.
It is going to be nearly impossible to find...
But we can be almost certain it's somewhere in that area.
On March 13 2014 19:48 radiatoren wrote: And the latest two speculations have been addressed. The chinese pictures were not authorized or endorsed. At the same time, it covers water that has been searched thoroughly even after another look at the site.
The Rolls Royce information of a 5 hour flight from the flight data has been addressed as 'inaccurate' after the investigators talked to Boeng and Rolls Royce. The last ACARS data were from 1:07 (11 minutes before last tower contact and 23 minutes before plane another plane called and heard "mumbling"). These data were showing a plane working perfectly. source
I don't know, that report is from a transport minister, not from Rolls Royce, Boeing, or an American official, of which all three were a subject of the Wall Street Journal article.
Here's a visual of the potential range of that craft if the report is true:
PlanePlotter receives and decodes live digital position reports from aircraft and plots them on a chart.
Using PlanePlotter, you can see a radar-like display of all those aircraft around you that are transmitting the appropriate digital messages including ACARS, ADS-B and HFDL.
If the ACARS data is there (idk) then they should be able to do something similar. Maybe it depends on the airlines.
PlanePlotter - Features The animated screen grab from PlanePlotter (left) was kindly provided by John Locker.
Message display PlanePlotter shows a table display of messages received and decoded from live aircraft transmissions.
Data saving PlanePlotter archives all the digital data that it receives and decodes to a log file.
Chart display PlanePlotter plots aircraft positions, altitudes and times decoded from the message traffic that it receives. These include embedded position reports, AMDAR reports and ADS reports contained in ACARS messages, ADS-B position reports received by the Kinetic SBS1(tm) or AirNav System RadarBox(tm) Mode-S receivers, and position reports on HF using Charles Brain's PC-HFDL software. The plot can be superimposed on a suitable aeronatical chart that you have prepared, or PlanePlotter can download satellite imagery and plot the aircraft symbols on that. Where altitude information is available (eg Mode-S messages), you can select the data by altitude band to distinguish low level and high level traffic.
Google Earth server If you are receiving Mode-S ADS-B position reports, PlanePlotter can interface to Google Earth to display aircraft positions over the Google Earth base map. It can even give you a dynamic real-time view from the flight deck of an aircraft that you designate.
Direction finding PlanePlotter can determine and display the direction of any transmission using a simple passive antenna switch. This allows aircraft to be located even if they are not equipped with ACARS or Mode-S/ADS-B.
"PlanePlotter can can determine the registration letters algorithmically, from the 24-bit hex address, for most aircraft registered in France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Yugoslavia, Russia, South Africa, Australia, Canada and United States. "
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
good landing is the one in the hudson. that one was imo a bad landing, since the aircraft had a bank angle which caused it to disintegrate.
The circumstances for the pilot were much worse though. He had a crazy hijacker on board.
I know. I'm not saying the pilot was bad or anything, I'm saying that the landing wasn't "good", it was bad because the aircraft had a bank angle which caused one engine to hit the water before the other, resulting in the aircraft not withstanding the impact. He was trying to turns closer towards land.
A good ditch is possible; that video was not a good ditch, all I'm saying.
The wing thing wasn't actually the main problem, the water was shallow and the left engine snagged a coral reef.which would have happened either way. That and the copilot was fighting off 3 guys. This can be considered a good landing because its the only wide bodied jet (one with 2 aisles) to ditch in the water with survivors. Only 40 people died from the actual impact so this can be considered as the high bar of water landings of a jet that size.
EDIT: As someone pointed out on twitter about how the debris field would look like in satellite
But it would probably be smaller and harder to spot.
Edit: Okay apparently that link doesnt work anymore, but suddenly my newsfeed is filled with images and 'news stories' of the plane being found and the passengers being rescued.
They say a phone number that seems to be able to get through is located in America. And some chinese netizens would like to know the brand of the phone that can stand by for that long time so they will buy it.
Edit: Okay apparently that link doesnt work anymore, but suddenly my newsfeed is filled with images and 'news stories' of the plane being found and the passengers being rescued.
Edit: Okay apparently that link doesnt work anymore, but suddenly my newsfeed is filled with images and 'news stories' of the plane being found and the passengers being rescued.
U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.
Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.
[. . .]
But the huge uncertainty about where the plane was headed, and why it apparently continued flying so long without working transponders, has raised theories among investigators that the aircraft may have been commandeered for a reason that appears unclear to U.S. authorities. Some of those theories have been laid out to national security officials and senior personnel from various U.S. agencies, according to one person familiar with the matter.
At one briefing, according to this person, officials were told investigators are actively pursuing the notion that the plane was diverted "with the intention of using it later for another purpose."
[. . .]
A total flight time of five hours after departing Kuala Lumpur means the Boeing 777 could have continued for an additional distance of about 2,200 nautical miles, reaching points as far as the Indian Ocean, the border of Pakistan or even the Arabian Sea, based on the jet's cruising speed.
[. . .]
Also on Wednesday, a Chinese government website posted images from Chinese satellites showing what it said were three large objects floating in an 8-square-mile area off the southern tip of Vietnam. The objects were discovered on Sunday , according to the website, which didn't say whether the objects had been recovered or examined.
On March 13 2014 19:48 radiatoren wrote: And the latest two speculations have been addressed. The chinese pictures were not authorized or endorsed. At the same time, it covers water that has been searched thoroughly even after another look at the site.
The Rolls Royce information of a 5 hour flight from the flight data has been addressed as 'inaccurate' after the investigators talked to Boeng and Rolls Royce. The last ACARS data were from 1:07 (11 minutes before last tower contact and 23 minutes before plane another plane called and heard "mumbling"). These data were showing a plane working perfectly. source
I don't know, that report is from a transport minister, not from Rolls Royce, Boeing, or an American official, of which all three were a subject of the Wall Street Journal article.
Here's a visual of the potential range of that craft if the report is true:
Just to clarify, the first article you linked has been updated. It now says that the reference to Rolls Royce's ACARS was incorrect, but that some other system was functioning instead. They say it was actually a "satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of certain onboard systems to the ground."
Essentially they say that some system on the plane continued pinging satellites for about four hours after the plane's disappearance. It sent no actual data, just checked connection.
If that's true (which is a large "if"), I wonder if it's possible that the transponder could be doing that while floating in a pile of wreckage? Do all these things all require power from the engines to function?
If it crashed, it wouldn't have power so unlikely. The idea that this some sort of catastrophic depressurization occurred and disabled the crew seems to get more and more likely (still quite unlikely). Of course this theory doesn't explain how the crew of such a large aircraft were rendered unconscious (unless there was a failure in the O2 system) or how the transponder was disabled or why there was such a sudden turn with no distress call.
On March 13 2014 19:48 radiatoren wrote: And the latest two speculations have been addressed. The chinese pictures were not authorized or endorsed. At the same time, it covers water that has been searched thoroughly even after another look at the site.
The Rolls Royce information of a 5 hour flight from the flight data has been addressed as 'inaccurate' after the investigators talked to Boeng and Rolls Royce. The last ACARS data were from 1:07 (11 minutes before last tower contact and 23 minutes before plane another plane called and heard "mumbling"). These data were showing a plane working perfectly. source
I don't know, that report is from a transport minister, not from Rolls Royce, Boeing, or an American official, of which all three were a subject of the Wall Street Journal article.
Here's a visual of the potential range of that craft if the report is true:
So you're saying the plane could have got to it's destination. It was heading towards Beijing, yeah?
Unless you believe that China and the USA are currently fighting together in Tehran against the Iranians to rescue flight 370 which the Iranians stole after a US spy satellite blew it up.
Communication satellites received intermittent data "pings" from a missing Malaysia Airlines jet, giving the plane's location, speed and altitude for at least five hours after it disappeared from civilian radar screens, people briefed on the investigation said Thursday.... Source
A US government source says that communications systems were shut off separately.
Two U.S. officials tell ABC News the U.S. believes that the shutdown of two communication systems happened separately on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. One source said this indicates the plane did not come out of the sky because of a catastrophic failure.
The data reporting system, they believe, was shut down at 1:07 a.m. The transponder -- which transmits location and altitude -- shut down at 1:21 a.m. ...
And another US government source expressed a high likelihood that the airliner crashed into the Indian Ocean.
Malaysian authorities believe they have several "pings" from the airliner's service data system, known as ACARS, transmitted to satellites in the four to five hours after the last transponder signal, suggesting the plane flew to the Indian Ocean, a senior U.S. official told CNN. That information combined with known radar data and knowledge of fuel range leads officials to believe the plane may have made it to that ocean, which is in the opposite direction of the plane's original route.
"There is probably a significant likelihood" that the aircraft is now on the bottom of the Indian Ocean, the official said, citing information Malaysia has shared with the United States. ...
On March 14 2014 10:44 hifriend wrote: Can the communication systems be easily shut off in these airliners? I mean, for what purpose? Seems like you'd want to keep track of them in the case of hijackings etc.
I don't think any of the electronical systems in modern aircraft are automatically enabled when the APU is switched on, so there's probably a switch or four that control the power to the comms systems, not much more. I'm not an aircraft expert, though, so don't quote me on that.
Malaysia Airlines 3786.KU +2.13% ' missing jet transmitted its location repeatedly to satellites over the course of five hours after it disappeared from radar, people briefed on the matter said, as searchers zeroed in on new target areas hundreds of miles west of the plane's original course.
The satellites also received speed and altitude information about the plane from its intermittent "pings," the people said. The final ping was sent from over water, at what one of these people called a normal cruising altitude. They added that it was unclear why the pings stopped. One of the people, an industry official, said it was possible that the system sending them had been disabled by someone on board.
What Malaysian prime minister said at the conference is as good as a confirmation for hijacking what a mess... I don't have much hope for the survival of passengers though
On March 15 2014 15:37 Yiome wrote: What Malaysian prime minister said at the conference is as good as a confirmation for hijacking what a mess... I don't have much hope for the survival of passengers though
And then the lead investigator denied hijacking allegations...?
At this point, it's a clusterfuck of misinformation/incompetence on various levels. I really feel sorry for the families who just want closure at this point.
Well the pattern that has emerged with the Malaysians seems pretty simple. Official A says something which Official B denies. Official A ends up being right. The official press conference is probably going with the scenario that's extremely likely while the investigator is still investigating various possibilities with the hijacking one the primary focus. Both are telling the truth from their various PoVs. They really just need to get a better handle on information control.
What a mess, who knows, maybe the plane is still in one piece and everyone is hanging around in rafts.
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
So now my hypothesis is being confirmed. At least it looks like it follows the same path.
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
So now my hypothesis is being confirmed. At least it looks like it follows the same path.
The ringing phones thing was disproved though, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
So now my hypothesis is being confirmed. At least it looks like it follows the same path.
The ringing phones thing was disproved though, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Was wondering about that, if there's cells ringing in the plane, the plane would've been found by now.
On March 11 2014 07:41 vAtAZz wrote: According to the french newspaper site Le Figaro, it has been reported that some of the cell phones belonging to Chinese people who were in the plane are still ringing.
The plane may have been stolen, and all the people taken hostage.
Selon le Washington Post, plusieurs numéros de téléphone des passagers présents à bord du Boeing continueraient de sonner, assurent des proches qui ont tenté de les joindre. La logique voudrait qu'ils soient hors service, s'ils sont immergés, ou que l'avion s'est désintégré. Le site China.org indique ainsi que 19 familles ont signé un communiqué commun attestant que plusieurs numéros de téléphones sont toujours actifs. Ces proches ont tenté de contacter les autorités pour qu'elles traquent ces téléphones et qu'elles retrouvent la trace de l'avion. Mais elles n'ont pour l'instant pas reçu de réponse.
According to the Washington Post, several phone numbers of passengers on board the Boeing continue ringing ensure relatives who tried to join. Logic would dictate that they are off, they are immersed, or that the aircraft disintegrated. The website indicates China.org and 19 families have signed a joint communiqué stating that several phone numbers are still active. These relatives tried to contact the authorities to track down these phones and they found the trace of the plane. But they have so far received no reply.
So now my hypothesis is being confirmed. At least it looks like it follows the same path.
Cellphones dial the network, the network plays the ringing while it searches for the phone. If it can't find the phone, then it goes to voice mail or something.
On March 15 2014 15:27 Doraemon wrote: confirms the hijacking theory...i guess that's "good" news for relatives? :S
No one fucks around with hijacking anymore, post 9/11.
My feeling is hijackers were seeking something from China, China gives no fucks, China takes down plane, US agrees with China's decision. Now they're seeking combination of who/how/why.
Malaysian government has to "lead" the investigation due to international protocol, but it's not the real driver - it's trying to curate PR for China and the US off of limited information, and is probably being reprimanded as well.
If we assume that it is a hijacking, what would be the odds that no one of 200 passengers would be able to get a message out that the plane's been hijacked? They allegedly flew for hours and then potentially landed on the ground and in a week there's been no word from the passengers or the hijackers.
On March 16 2014 04:05 gruff wrote: If we assume that it is a hijacking, what would be the odds that no one of 200 passengers would be able to get a message out that the plane's been hijacked? They allegedly flew for hours and then potentially landed on the ground and in a week there's been no word from the passengers or the hijackers.
makes more sense than if the plane crashed noone gets a message out right?
There's no cell reception in the middle of the ocean from my understanding unless its a satellite phone or the plane is equipped with wifi so how would passengers get a message out?
On March 16 2014 06:33 skyR wrote: There's no cell reception in the middle of the ocean from my understanding unless its a satellite phone or the plane is equipped with wifi so how would passengers get a message out?
If I understand it correctly they would have flown over land after allegedly turning around and then if they took the north flight corridor like is suggested they'd also come over land and then they'd have to land somewhere. Just seems like there would have been plenty of opportunities for that. But of course I could be wrong, I'm not familiar with what kind of coverage they have in that part of the world, it just seems odd to me if they actually was hijacked and then landed somewhere given how many people were on the plane.
On March 16 2014 04:05 gruff wrote: If we assume that it is a hijacking, what would be the odds that no one of 200 passengers would be able to get a message out that the plane's been hijacked? They allegedly flew for hours and then potentially landed on the ground and in a week there's been no word from the passengers or the hijackers.
makes more sense than if the plane crashed noone gets a message out right?
Not exactly sure what you were asking here but I believe a crash in the middle of the ocean sounds more likely.
"The Malaysian Prime Minister stopped short of calling the mysterious disappearance of Flight 370 a hijacking, but said Saturday the jet veered off course due to apparent deliberate action taken by someone aboard."
"Evidence is consistent with someone acting deliberately from inside the plane," he said, officially confirming the plane's disappearance was not caused by an accident.
On March 16 2014 06:33 skyR wrote: There's no cell reception in the middle of the ocean from my understanding unless its a satellite phone or the plane is equipped with wifi so how would passengers get a message out?
If I understand it correctly they would have flown over land after allegedly turning around and then if they took the north flight corridor like is suggested they'd also come over land and then they'd have to land somewhere. Just seems like there would have been plenty of opportunities for that. But of course I could be wrong, I'm not familiar with what kind of coverage they have in that part of the world, it just seems odd to me if they actually was hijacked and then landed somewhere given how many people were on the plane.
if it was indeed hijacked, the hijacker has good knowledge of the plane since they disabled the comms. they would most likely know the possibility of people using the phones. now, you probably will not get any reception when the plane is in the air and if it was hijacked, the plane would have been landed at a remote, deserted place, which probably would not have any cell phone reception.
The real question is still: what utility does stealing a 777 have?
I still haven't seen a good idea for an explanation of why having a 777 would be useful. You don't go to this type of trouble to kill 1 person. The plane itself is now worthless as a plane, due to being shot down wherever it goes. Ransom demands would have been made already if that is what it was about.
777 parts aren't worth the trouble, neither is the tech (which would be a lot easier to steal from Boeing directly). Seems like way too much planning to extract (an agent) or kill/take hostage someone specific (which there's been no suggestion someone really important was on board). Unless there was 100s of millions of Gold on the plan for some reason, there doesn't seem a great reason to hijack this plane. The jihadists would have either blown it up or used it already.
Is there an Aum Shinrikyo branch out of Malaysia? (Group that did the Sarin Gas attack in the Japanese subway) The reasons for this are going to be very strange, whenever its found out.
On March 16 2014 08:12 Taf the Ghost wrote: The real question is still: what utility does stealing a 777 have?
I still haven't seen a good idea for an explanation of why having a 777 would be useful. You don't go to this type of trouble to kill 1 person. The plane itself is now worthless as a plane, due to being shot down wherever it goes. Ransom demands would have been made already if that is what it was about.
777 parts aren't worth the trouble, neither is the tech (which would be a lot easier to steal from Boeing directly). Seems like way too much planning to extract (an agent) or kill/take hostage someone specific (which there's been no suggestion someone really important was on board). Unless there was 100s of millions of Gold on the plan for some reason, there doesn't seem a great reason to hijack this plane. The jihadists would have either blown it up or used it already.
Is there an Aum Shinrikyo branch out of Malaysia? (Group that did the Sarin Gas attack in the Japanese subway) The reasons for this are going to be very strange, whenever its found out.
you would take everything on/in the plane into account. sell the plane parts, and if you're really really sick, you would sell all possible human parts. demanding a ransom just increases the chances of you being caught. you would still make out pretty good, but i guess it depends on how many ways you gotta split.
oh and if the plane is still out there in terrorist hands, i mean, im not sure how possible it would be, but they could make adjustments and make it seem like a completely different plane to radars? and still use it for other purposes
On March 15 2014 15:27 Doraemon wrote: confirms the hijacking theory...i guess that's "good" news for relatives? :S
No one fucks around with hijacking anymore, post 9/11.
My feeling is hijackers were seeking something from China, China gives no fucks, China takes down plane, US agrees with China's decision. Now they're seeking combination of who/how/why.
Malaysian government has to "lead" the investigation due to international protocol, but it's not the real driver - it's trying to curate PR for China and the US off of limited information, and is probably being reprimanded as well.
I could see China downing an aircraft (remember, the USA almost downed Flight 93, so considering the damage a plane can do by crashing into buildings, there's not much of an ethics issue involved), but the only problem with your idea is Overflight Privileges. They've have needed to come in over Burma to not start a massive incident. Even then, I'm not sure Burma would have been happy about it. Which means it probably would have gotten out.
At the same time, if it did land some place, Burma makes a great destination. Though, still the big issue of "why"? Who benefits from having a captured 777 + possibly alive hostages?
On March 15 2014 15:27 Doraemon wrote: confirms the hijacking theory...i guess that's "good" news for relatives? :S
No one fucks around with hijacking anymore, post 9/11.
My feeling is hijackers were seeking something from China, China gives no fucks, China takes down plane, US agrees with China's decision. Now they're seeking combination of who/how/why.
Malaysian government has to "lead" the investigation due to international protocol, but it's not the real driver - it's trying to curate PR for China and the US off of limited information, and is probably being reprimanded as well.
I could see China downing an aircraft (remember, the USA almost downed Flight 93, so considering the damage a plane can do by crashing into buildings, there's not much of an ethics issue involved), but the only problem with your idea is Overflight Privileges. They've have needed to come in over Burma to not start a massive incident. Even then, I'm not sure Burma would have been happy about it. Which means it probably would have gotten out.
At the same time, if it did land some place, Burma makes a great destination. Though, still the big issue of "why"? Who benefits from having a captured 777 + possibly alive hostages?
On March 15 2014 15:27 Doraemon wrote: confirms the hijacking theory...i guess that's "good" news for relatives? :S
No one fucks around with hijacking anymore, post 9/11.
My feeling is hijackers were seeking something from China, China gives no fucks, China takes down plane, US agrees with China's decision. Now they're seeking combination of who/how/why.
Malaysian government has to "lead" the investigation due to international protocol, but it's not the real driver - it's trying to curate PR for China and the US off of limited information, and is probably being reprimanded as well.
I could see China downing an aircraft (remember, the USA almost downed Flight 93, so considering the damage a plane can do by crashing into buildings, there's not much of an ethics issue involved), but the only problem with your idea is Overflight Privileges. They've have needed to come in over Burma to not start a massive incident. Even then, I'm not sure Burma would have been happy about it. Which means it probably would have gotten out.
At the same time, if it did land some place, Burma makes a great destination. Though, still the big issue of "why"? Who benefits from having a captured 777 + possibly alive hostages?
I am pretty sure someone's military in the region would have noticed an unidentified target enter their airspace and then explode...
On March 15 2014 15:27 Doraemon wrote: confirms the hijacking theory...i guess that's "good" news for relatives? :S
No one fucks around with hijacking anymore, post 9/11.
My feeling is hijackers were seeking something from China, China gives no fucks, China takes down plane, US agrees with China's decision. Now they're seeking combination of who/how/why.
Malaysian government has to "lead" the investigation due to international protocol, but it's not the real driver - it's trying to curate PR for China and the US off of limited information, and is probably being reprimanded as well.
I could see China downing an aircraft (remember, the USA almost downed Flight 93, so considering the damage a plane can do by crashing into buildings, there's not much of an ethics issue involved), but the only problem with your idea is Overflight Privileges. They've have needed to come in over Burma to not start a massive incident. Even then, I'm not sure Burma would have been happy about it. Which means it probably would have gotten out.
At the same time, if it did land some place, Burma makes a great destination. Though, still the big issue of "why"? Who benefits from having a captured 777 + possibly alive hostages?
it could have been tibet. no need for burma really
The Chinese would have needed to fly over some country's airspace to get into the Indian Ocean without being noticed by everyone else. Burma makes the most sense (given air-base location, flight paths, generally decent relations with China), but that means they would have downed it over the Indian Ocean somewhere.
The massive issue is still "Why?". This is the type of operation that requires planning. Either some or all of the pilots were in on it, or one of the operatives involved has the ability to fly a 777. That takes time, money & coordination. Which dictates there's a very Big reason to do the hijacking. (Which means it's either persons on-board or some cargo)
I guess there's also the chance it was a terrorist hijacking, they did have a bomb, but they didn't intend to set it off. And, for whatever reason, somewhere into the hijacking, it did go off. Actually, a botched-up hijacking would make a tad more sense.
Suppose someone was doing that again, and someone else found out about it. All you would need is control of the plane, and perhaps a faked crash, to get away with the gold. Going over the Indian Ocean is a relatively safe bet that you will get away. Not sure what would happen, if you would land on some remote island and then send it back up to explode, or what you would do, but either way it doesn't make sense to me to hijack a plane and divert it toward the Indian Ocean.
Announcing the shift to a criminal investigation, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said investigators now "can say with a high degree of certainty" that one or more of the 239 people on board the Boeing jet deliberately turned off two aircraft signaling systems within 40 minutes after takeoff from Kuala Lumpur.
The plane made a sharp turn westward, away from its authorized route to Beijing, and from then on the flight path was "consistent with deliberate action by someone on the plane," Mr. Najib told a packed news conference.
Malaysia also announced that the high-priority, international search would move to two huge new areas spanning the Bay of Bengal and reaching deep into the southern Indian Ocean, dwarfing sections that previously were searched in the South China Sea and the Gulf of Thailand without finding anything related to the aircraft.
The massive water and sea search initially seems to be targeting at least several hundred thousand square miles of water — an area potentially much larger than Texas — in a region that includes some of the world's deepest and most impenetrable underwater topography.
The search areas may be refined, as investigators continue to analyze radar and satellite data to better understand the flight path of the plane after it vanished from civilian air-traffic control radars a week ago.
The plane flew some 6½ hours past that point, while continuing to transmit limited location information to communication satellites owned by Inmarsat PLC. Once the final transmission from the plane was received, according to people familiar with the matter, investigators suspect it had enough fuel in its tanks to fly hundreds of additional miles while avoiding any satellite tracking.
I still don't think it's terrorists, did no country get any demands? What about the aim? How come no terrorist group comes out to claim responsibility?
On March 16 2014 10:35 itsjustatank wrote: it doesnt have to be terrorism. could just be suicide by plane on the part of one or both of the co-pilots, or really anyone aboard
Why wait that long? The cases pre-9/11 that it happened, the suicidal pilot just nose dived the plane quickly. This was *hours*. So, something is up.
But, with the new search area, it either went way, way South (which wouldn't Indonesian military have seen it?) or it's somewhere over Chinese air-space. Things are getting stranger.
Hrmm... the new map opens up a lot of interesting possibilities. The satellite only has a Time Stamp & Distance from the satellite, so anywhere on that circle is where it could have been.
It is possible that it flew North out of the Andaman Sea over the Shan State of Burma, then along the Himalayas to the Northwest. It could pull this off without going into Chinese territory until past Bhutan. If they fly a "little low" through that region, you're not that far off the ground. (Makes life hell for most radar) I wouldn't expect Burma's Air Force to scramble that quickly, plus they don't actually control the Shan State, which limits bases & options.
Or it all the way around Indonesia headed towards Christmas Island/Australia. What's Western Australia radar coverage like?
On March 16 2014 10:35 itsjustatank wrote: it doesnt have to be terrorism. could just be suicide by plane on the part of one or both of the co-pilots, or really anyone aboard
i really don't buy into suicide, it's just way too orchestrated to be suicide. why do you even bother flying for ~5 more hours, you don't even need to divert course. even the communications shutdown doesn't make sense, if you wanted to suicide you'd need the cooperation or the incapacitation of your co-pilot anyway. i'm doubtful they'll ever find it.
On March 16 2014 10:35 itsjustatank wrote: it doesnt have to be terrorism. could just be suicide by plane on the part of one or both of the co-pilots, or really anyone aboard
i really don't buy into suicide, it's just way too orchestrated to be suicide. why do you even bother flying for ~5 more hours, you don't even need to divert course. even the communications shutdown doesn't make sense, if you wanted to suicide you'd need the cooperation or the incapacitation of your co-pilot anyway. i'm doubtful they'll ever find it.
You are right, suicide doesn't add up either. My bet is the pilot(s) are hijacking for some nefarious purpose.
" Five major technological communications military contractor companies have high-tech employees and executives on the MH370 passenger manifest, two American and three Asia Pacific – each strongly tied to military: China Telecom, Business Machines Corp., Austin-based Freescale, International Business Machines (IBM), ZTE Corp., and Huawei Technologies Co. Combined, they have 26 high-tech experts on the passenger manifest list, including two executives. One of these companies refused to identify its employees onboard, and investigators also withheld those identities."
I wish the news channels would stop pestering with random speculation ranging from aliens to terrorism without forgetting the totally reasonable organ traffic theory. If they're no new development in a story, no need to make stuff up...
It's events like this that remind us (again) that the news is now just a game where the best vulture wins. And not all articles about this are bad but come on.
On March 16 2014 13:05 Djzapz wrote: I wish the news channels would stop pestering with random speculation ranging from aliens to terrorism without forgetting the totally reasonable organ traffic theory. If they're no new development in a story, no need to make stuff up...
It's events like this that remind us (again) that the news is now just a game where the best vulture wins. And not all articles about this are bad but come on.
Even informed speculation runs into a lot of problems on stories like these. We now have a 777 in the air for 7+ hours without ground contact and apparently not pinging any (admitted) military radar in the region the entire time. Once you pass from "accident" to "intentionally taken", which has been obvious since 2 days after the disappearance, practically anything is on the table.
And, at this point, the reality is that a State actor is involved. Resources to compromise the flight, skills to avoid most radar, shut off most of the communication systems, lock down the passengers and have a landing location somewhere in the "off the map" locations of the world. The Op wouldn't take a lot of people, but it's a pretty specific set of skills & planning (and the fact that the passengers, post-9/11, aren't going to sit idly around). But there's still 0 reasons for "Why" presented. So, something or someone on the plane was wanted bad enough to do this. (A government group involved could have been from dozens of countries, so your guess is as good as mine.)
The line coming out of Malaysia seems to be to attempt to paint the main pilot as a political radical, but that'd only make sense if he'd crashed the plane into a government building. This doesn't come across as anti-Malaysian regime. Unless they knew how incompetent their handling of a disaster would be.
Someone or something was special enough about this Plane to do something not done (at least to public knowledge) in the age of Modern Aircraft. That's the real question at the moment.
I just hope they find out what happened and where it went so I can stop hearing/seeing it all over the news. I mean there are real news stories out there instead of endless speculation by people with little or no investigative experience or any basic knowledge about the aircraft or people they are speculating about.
On March 16 2014 13:05 Djzapz wrote: I wish the news channels would stop pestering with random speculation ranging from aliens to terrorism without forgetting the totally reasonable organ traffic theory. If they're no new development in a story, no need to make stuff up...
It's events like this that remind us (again) that the news is now just a game where the best vulture wins. And not all articles about this are bad but come on.
Even informed speculation runs into a lot of problems on stories like these. We now have a 777 in the air for 7+ hours without ground contact and apparently not pinging any (admitted) military radar in the region the entire time. Once you pass from "accident" to "intentionally taken", which has been obvious since 2 days after the disappearance, practically anything is on the table.
And, at this point, the reality is that a State actor is involved. Resources to compromise the flight, skills to avoid most radar, shut off most of the communication systems, lock down the passengers and have a landing location somewhere in the "off the map" locations of the world. The Op wouldn't take a lot of people, but it's a pretty specific set of skills & planning (and the fact that the passengers, post-9/11, aren't going to sit idly around). But there's still 0 reasons for "Why" presented. So, something or someone on the plane was wanted bad enough to do this. (A government group involved could have been from dozens of countries, so your guess is as good as mine.)
The line coming out of Malaysia seems to be to attempt to paint the main pilot as a political radical, but that'd only make sense if he'd crashed the plane into a government building. This doesn't come across as anti-Malaysian regime. Unless they knew how incompetent their handling of a disaster would be.
Someone or something was special enough about this Plane to do something not done (at least to public knowledge) in the age of Modern Aircraft. That's the real question at the moment.
I'm aware of the implications. But here's a headline on my local news website "Flight MH370: Pilots and passengers in the crosshair of the investigation"... Then the article is packed to the brim with various random ideas. We're in the middle of elections here and the most thorough articles we get loosely tells us about something we don't know about - over and over.
I happened to watch the second Ron Burgundy last night and it felt strangely familiar. And again I'm not saying that we shouldn't hear about it, we definitely DO need to hear about it. But at this point the fuckers know it's what gets them clicks so they'll write empty articles non-stop to cover this. So they should get something substantial instead of spouting nonsense because it entertains people.
Fair enough, though this is a pretty big deal. Its really the 24 news network's faults for exploiting and encouraging retarded speculation to boost ratings though.
It is kinda ridiculous that we rely on people like this to be our eyes and ears. At the same time however, you can look at plenty of other news if you just look on the main page of cnn's website or something. You don't need to settle to being spoon fed information afterall.
On March 16 2014 23:10 Antisocialmunky wrote: Fair enough, though this is a pretty big deal. Its really the 24 news network's faults for exploiting and encouraging retarded speculation to boost ratings though.
It is kinda ridiculous that we rely on people like this to be our eyes and ears. At the same time however, you can look at plenty of other news if you just look on the main page of cnn's website or something. You don't need to settle to being spoon fed information afterall.
I read news from a dozen of sources constantly as part of what it takes to do what I do for a living, so by no means do I settle to "being spoon fed information". I don't feel like I'm the one who's at risk here, I simply feel like society at large is harmed by this type of behavior by the mainstream media. Things that matter now are being silenced by sensationalist stories. Yes this is a big deal, but frankly nobody has anything new to add now. And yet it's what we talk about, not just in the news but my mother literally said it was scary because she heard of the plane being potentially used as a missile... because some guy thought it was a valid theory. Which it might be, but why do I need to hear about it on the radio while getting to work, and then hear about it again when I get back. And the next day in the paper, and back home I read about it on some news site.
This whole ordeal is just one glowing example of journalists acting like bloggers. The "some people say" era of "journalism" is quite sad.
On March 16 2014 13:05 Djzapz wrote: I wish the news channels would stop pestering with random speculation ranging from aliens to terrorism without forgetting the totally reasonable organ traffic theory. If they're no new development in a story, no need to make stuff up...
It's events like this that remind us (again) that the news is now just a game where the best vulture wins. And not all articles about this are bad but come on.
Even informed speculation runs into a lot of problems on stories like these. We now have a 777 in the air for 7+ hours without ground contact and apparently not pinging any (admitted) military radar in the region the entire time. Once you pass from "accident" to "intentionally taken", which has been obvious since 2 days after the disappearance, practically anything is on the table.
And, at this point, the reality is that a State actor is involved. Resources to compromise the flight, skills to avoid most radar, shut off most of the communication systems, lock down the passengers and have a landing location somewhere in the "off the map" locations of the world. The Op wouldn't take a lot of people, but it's a pretty specific set of skills & planning (and the fact that the passengers, post-9/11, aren't going to sit idly around). But there's still 0 reasons for "Why" presented. So, something or someone on the plane was wanted bad enough to do this. (A government group involved could have been from dozens of countries, so your guess is as good as mine.)
The line coming out of Malaysia seems to be to attempt to paint the main pilot as a political radical, but that'd only make sense if he'd crashed the plane into a government building. This doesn't come across as anti-Malaysian regime. Unless they knew how incompetent their handling of a disaster would be.
Someone or something was special enough about this Plane to do something not done (at least to public knowledge) in the age of Modern Aircraft. That's the real question at the moment.
I'm aware of the implications. But here's a headline on my local news website "Flight MH370: Pilots and passengers in the crosshair of the investigation"... Then the article is packed to the brim with various random ideas. We're in the middle of elections here and the most thorough articles we get loosely tells us about something we don't know about - over and over.
I happened to watch the second Ron Burgundy last night and it felt strangely familiar. And again I'm not saying that we shouldn't hear about it, we definitely DO need to hear about it. But at this point the fuckers know it's what gets them clicks so they'll write empty articles non-stop to cover this. So they should get something substantial instead of spouting nonsense because it entertains people.
I couldn't help but notice the ironically pointed social commentary about modern American news from Anchorman 2. I imagine 95%+ of the people who saw the movie weren't expecting that (or missed it altogether).
On March 16 2014 13:05 Djzapz wrote: I wish the news channels would stop pestering with random speculation ranging from aliens to terrorism without forgetting the totally reasonable organ traffic theory. If they're no new development in a story, no need to make stuff up...
It's events like this that remind us (again) that the news is now just a game where the best vulture wins. And not all articles about this are bad but come on.
Even informed speculation runs into a lot of problems on stories like these. We now have a 777 in the air for 7+ hours without ground contact and apparently not pinging any (admitted) military radar in the region the entire time. Once you pass from "accident" to "intentionally taken", which has been obvious since 2 days after the disappearance, practically anything is on the table.
And, at this point, the reality is that a State actor is involved. Resources to compromise the flight, skills to avoid most radar, shut off most of the communication systems, lock down the passengers and have a landing location somewhere in the "off the map" locations of the world. The Op wouldn't take a lot of people, but it's a pretty specific set of skills & planning (and the fact that the passengers, post-9/11, aren't going to sit idly around). But there's still 0 reasons for "Why" presented. So, something or someone on the plane was wanted bad enough to do this. (A government group involved could have been from dozens of countries, so your guess is as good as mine.)
The line coming out of Malaysia seems to be to attempt to paint the main pilot as a political radical, but that'd only make sense if he'd crashed the plane into a government building. This doesn't come across as anti-Malaysian regime. Unless they knew how incompetent their handling of a disaster would be.
Someone or something was special enough about this Plane to do something not done (at least to public knowledge) in the age of Modern Aircraft. That's the real question at the moment.
I'm aware of the implications. But here's a headline on my local news website "Flight MH370: Pilots and passengers in the crosshair of the investigation"... Then the article is packed to the brim with various random ideas. We're in the middle of elections here and the most thorough articles we get loosely tells us about something we don't know about - over and over.
I happened to watch the second Ron Burgundy last night and it felt strangely familiar. And again I'm not saying that we shouldn't hear about it, we definitely DO need to hear about it. But at this point the fuckers know it's what gets them clicks so they'll write empty articles non-stop to cover this. So they should get something substantial instead of spouting nonsense because it entertains people.
I couldn't help but notice the ironically pointed social commentary about modern American news from Anchorman 2. I imagine 95%+ of the people who saw the movie weren't expecting that (or missed it altogether).
Yeah. Just noticed I called it Ron Burgundy... meant Anchorman 2 of course. I can't imagine that so many people missed it though, it's not too subtle.
Its not suicide or terrorism, the comm parts where shut down systematically and then the plane evaded those nav points very skillfully. You dont do that when you just want to kill the people.
what i dont understand, though, is that the military didnt do anything against a big UFO in their airspace. Normally you would launch fighter jets and get those AA missiles on standby.
Unless its a very elaborated suicide and they planned to force the government to blow them up with missiles, but they didnt do anything and then theyjust ran out of fuel.
I threw together a little video regarding the topic I mentioned above. You might not want to watch it if you're afraid of some mild Anchorman 2 "spoilers".
Prime Minister Najib Razak acknowledged Saturday that military radar and satellite data raised the possibility that the plane could have ended up somewhere in Indonesia, the southern Indian Ocean or along a vast arc of territory from northern Laos across western China to Central Asia. Malaysian officials said they were scrambling to coordinate a 25-nation effort to find the plane.
On Sunday, Malaysia’s defense minister added a critical detail about investigators’ understanding of what had transpired in the cockpit in the 40 minutes of flight time before ground controllers lost contact with the jet. The determination that the last verbal message to the control tower — “All right, good night,” someone said — came after a crucial signaling system had stopped transmitting, perhaps after being shut off, was likely to refocus scrutiny on the plane’s veteran pilot, Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, and his young first officer, Fariq Abdul Hamid, 27.
If they got multiple pings, why can't they make a map of all the possible locations it was at over time? Based on the distance between the arcs, you could probably tell if the aircraft changed direction and derive some possible last bearings with an estimate of speed based on how fast it burned its fuel.
Since the aircraft obviously turned after the island Nav Point, you would see the radii get smaller and then larger. By comparing rate at which the radii expand at the speed (based on total time it used to exhaust its fuel supply, you'd have to assume the altitude since burn rates and speed changes with altitude) the aircraft if it headed in the direction of the satellite, you can tell which directions it could have been moving.
Maybe they are still floating the idea that the plane actually landed because the last 2 pings worked out to be similar radii. Otherwise they could probably rule it out and declare the people dead so people can have some closure for now.
Only one satellite received a ping. You need multiple receptors to perform triangulation. You will notice that the two vectors are best guesses based on the range of that lone satellite and the range of the airplane.
But the satellite received multiple pings (allegedly once every 30 minutes). If you take into consideration that there's a last known position of the the airplane and the fact that the airplane had finite fuel, you can make a pretty good guess as to where the thing is. This is how they derived the 2 arcs (range of aircraft from last known overlapping the the range circle from the satellite.
Given multiple pings, while we can't triangulate, we can figure out speed the aircraft was moving away from the satellite. If you couple this with an estimated airspeed, you can figure out the airplane's bearing.
On March 17 2014 09:56 LaNague wrote: Its not suicide or terrorism, the comm parts where shut down systematically and then the plane evaded those nav points very skillfully. You dont do that when you just want to kill the people.
what i dont understand, though, is that the military didnt do anything against a big UFO in their airspace. Normally you would launch fighter jets and get those AA missiles on standby.
Unless its a very elaborated suicide and they planned to force the government to blow them up with missiles, but they didnt do anything and then theyjust ran out of fuel.
Per other things I've read, the region, at night, is pretty much dead for Radar coverage. Unless your transponder is on, you're not pinging off a lot of them. Even most of the military radar is off (cost). So if the plane headed up through Burma, then across the Himalayas, it wasn't being "seen" for a long time. Add in some radar evasion planning, and, yes, it is possible to make a massive passenger airliner disappear.
If it circled counter-clockwise and went South towards Australia, then there wasn't any land-based radar to see it.
But, it didn't go South. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar Australia has that area covered in Over-the-Horizon radar. They'd have seen the airliner. So that puts the plane, likely, somewhere over China.
On March 17 2014 10:06 Djzapz wrote: I threw together a little video regarding the topic I mentioned above. You might not want to watch it if you're afraid of some mild Anchorman 2 "spoilers".
On March 17 2014 11:25 itsjustatank wrote: you are talking about velocity
velocity = displacement / time
you have only time with one satellite
all you know is that within this wide range of the satellite, the plane was there at some point.
No I mean speed when I say speed as in you know how fast the plane is going but you don't know the direction.
Here's an admittedly crappy paint explanation of what I'm talking about: (simplified of course because the satellite moves and the Earth's surface isn't 2d)
The satellite received multiple pings every half hour during the flight and Malaysian radar knew of a last known position. If you can get a good estimate of the speed, you can calculate the direction from this information. My complaint is they only released the final ping range instead of all of them so we can't really estimate the final direction of flight. What we got looked like a much bigger area than the information should suggest.
On March 17 2014 12:29 itsjustatank wrote: well, that's what the two plots in the OP of this thread appear to be at any rate, and all they are is best guesses
Actually this is what I was trying to point out. The one in the OP looks like the range of the aircraft intersected with the ranging from the last satellite ping only (minus the searched areas).
I'm wondering why the investigators didn't release data based on the whole set of pings which should be more specific(you would get 2 cones showing likely path of travel and over which countries). Maybe this lack of data combined with not eliminating the landing theory points to the investigators having information that would make the plane look like it was stationary.
Or more likely the Malaysian are just being confusing with their press Q/As. I do find it interesting though.
On March 17 2014 10:06 Djzapz wrote: I threw together a little video regarding the topic I mentioned above. You might not want to watch it if you're afraid of some mild Anchorman 2 "spoilers".
On March 17 2014 12:29 itsjustatank wrote: well, that's what the two plots in the OP of this thread appear to be at any rate, and all they are is best guesses
Actually this is what I was trying to point out. The one in the OP looks like the range of the aircraft intersected with the ranging from the last satellite ping only (minus the searched areas).
I'm wondering why the investigators didn't release data based on the whole set of pings which should be more specific(you would get 2 cones showing likely path of travel and over which countries). Maybe this lack of data combined with not eliminating the landing theory points to the investigators having information that would make the plane look like it was stationary.
Or more likely the Malaysian are just being confusing with their press Q/As. I do find it interesting though.
Even with only 1 Sat data, we should have a general "track" available. Granted, there's two fairly specific path possibilities, but the nature of those would tell a whole lot. Which is what really stands out as an issue.
If the Flight went North, it would have expanded away from the Satellite. If it went South (but all the way around Indonesia), then it should have moved closer to the Satellite before expanding out.
The two issues I see, from poking around, are this: If it went South, it would have shown up on Australia Military Radar by at least Sunda Strait (between Java & Sumatra). And that's by publicly published ranges. I would take a guess it extends further, probably closer to the Straits of Malacca, given regional realities for the Military there. So, the plane would have entered the Australian Military Radar zone for a good while, at something of a strange direction. And the Aussies hadn't checked up on that information for a week?
The other issue is I've come across several mentions of a Chinese SIGNIT listening post on one of the Burma-controlled island. I doubt they'd have had too advanced of radar out there (it's signal intercept location, after all; not a radar post), but they might have picked up the flight. Now, the Chinese aren't "officially" there, so they might not be willing to acknowledge any information they have out there. But there is a chance they have at least some idea of a partial amount of the track. Further, Indonesia never saw it on their radar at any point? So it steered all the around Indonesia, then goes South-East.
It leads me to believe there's another set of information that hasn't been released yet. Something is really missing. Or it's the only way to not implication the Chinese (even if they actually didn't have anything to do with it). There's a lot of posturing involved in all of this.
I read the entire thread but there's something i don't get.
Transponder was off and ACRA too no ? How did they ping the plane since then because i thought it was really LOST. Did they search into radars "logs" to follow the plane after this ?
Could the plane had circled around (like you would do when you are waiting in aeroport space ?) and then take a direction ? To throw off timestamps ?
I would really love if someone could sum up the info we have right now because it's kind of confusing for me (english vocabulary of this thing is bad for someone like me).
What i understood :
- Plane take off - Transponder disconnected - Radio message to air control saying good night after this. - Plane disapear - Military pings location of the aircraft then lose it - Drawings of where the plane could have gone since fuel reserve and speed.
- Apparently, high people where in the plane (high ranked in technology or something) - Companies don't want to reveal functions and employees names. - No "funny" cargo in the plane (gold or something) - One terrorist groups said it was them but it was dismissed - No ransom/terrorist claim after that.
I'm not sure about the throwing off timestamp bit, but the plane did fly above 45,000 feet to appear as a non-commercial plane and also flew low to avoid radar at times. So it was definitely someone with aviation knowledge taking control of the plane.
This comment on reddit was pretty useful for a quick summary (albeit it might be outdated).
00:41 The plane departs from Kuala Lumpur on the normal route towards Beijing. (Between 01:07 and 01:37) The primary ACARS system is shut down, meaning it stopped sending informations to the ground. It kept pinging the satellite. Shutting down ACARS is a longer sequence so it cannot have been done by accident by the pilot. 01:19 The co-pilot says "All right, good night" when the plane is handed off from malaysian airspace. 01:22 The last data from the transponder is received near the Igal waypoint in the South China Sea. 01:22 The Vietnamese air traffic controller is not getting contacted by the plane as scheduled. 01:30 The plane leaves civil primary radar. 01:30 A pilot from another plane claims to have contacted the plane on the emergency frequency, but he only heard mumbling before the connection was lost. (According to a malaysian airforce radar the following unspecified sequence occured) The plane is reaching FL450 which is above recommandations for the plane. It is taking a sharp turn to the west and descends to FL230, lower than normal cruising altitude where it passes Penang and flies westward towards the Igal waypoint near Phuket. It then turns northwest towards the Igrex waypoint in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. 02:15 The plane is no longer visible on military radar, contact is lost northwest of Andaman Islands with the plane flying towards the Indian Ocean and the Igrex waypoint. (Likely from the satelite data analysis) The plane flew in either a northern corridor towards the middle east or a southern corridor towards the vast nothingness of the southern Indian Ocean. 08:11 The last ping is recieved from the plane. The satelite only logs distance to the plane and not GPS-coordinates, but by calculation, a semi-circle around the satelite has been determined as the source of the final ping. Further data about flight-path should be possible to extract as more of the distances between the satellite and the pings are calculated. The fuel reserve is estimated to about 30 minutes at that time.
Edit: Seems slightly off according to the newest information. I updated the information to be more exact.
So, it seems like the plane was deliberately flying to avoid detection. Which means some expert was working there. In this case identifying who that expert(s) could have been among the people from the plane, would be a good start probably?
And if an expert was working there, we could expect that plane landed safely somewhere. Probably we should also identify all the possible locations of landing from the map? Assuming they didn't have a possibility to refuel, the plane should be there now.
All possibilities to land is pretty broad. They could land on the ocean, a road, in a clearing etc. I would wait for further ping-analysis and primary radar information to better determine the exact route and flight level of the plane. That would be the easiest way to narrow the search. Some people are speculating that the hijackers had falsified a cover-identity for the plane and were able to appear like a civil cargo plane to the ground control in the northern corridor, others say they flew under FL50 to avoid radar-detection in the northern corridor and others again claim the plane took the scenic route to a final destination in the southern Indian Oceans eternal waters (whether that included a water-landing and subsequent loading of a ship or a crash).
So far we are making a "spec" out of "u" and someone named "lation". The investigators have enough data to be able to specify what has happened a lot more accurately. Eventually we will get access to these informations, but as long as hijaacking is prominently on the table and the plane could have landed, it is a criminal investigation which makes information a lot more "need to know".
On March 17 2014 21:27 arbiter_md wrote: So, it seems like the plane was deliberately flying to avoid detection. Which means some expert was working there. In this case identifying who that expert(s) could have been among the people from the plane, would be a good start probably?
And if an expert was working there, we could expect that plane landed safely somewhere. Probably we should also identify all the possible locations of landing from the map? Assuming they didn't have a possibility to refuel, the plane should be there now.
"there" covers an area from southern china to afghanistan, maybe more (if they went north)
On March 17 2014 22:00 Hryul wrote: @ffw rude: what i understand it was some data gathering stuff linked to the engines that the manufacturer of them (rolls royce) had installed.
You mean the pingy thing that happened after 2:00 ?
On March 17 2014 21:56 radiatoren wrote: All possibilities to land is pretty broad. They could land on the ocean, a road, in a clearing etc. I would wait for further ping-analysis and primary radar information to better determine the exact route and flight level of the plane. That would be the easiest way to narrow the search. Some people are speculating that the hijackers had falsified a cover-identity for the plane and were able to appear like a civil cargo plane to the ground control in the northern corridor, others say they flew under FL50 to avoid radar-detection in the northern corridor and others again claim the plane took the scenic route to a final destination in the southern Indian Oceans eternal waters (whether that included a water-landing and subsequent loading of a ship or a crash).
So far we are making a "spec" out of "u" and someone named "lation". The investigators have enough data to be able to specify what has happened a lot more accurately. Eventually we will get access to these informations, but as long as hijaacking is prominently on the table and the plane could have landed, it is a criminal investigation which makes information a lot more "need to know".
Can you even re-code the the transponder to look like a cargo plane in flight? Being able to pull that off would make this quite the Mission Impossible heist type scenario.
At any rate, it seems like information that the plane was flying as low as 5000ft (seems like American source given the units) got reported. No idea if its true but there's probably a grain of truth to it given the track record of this whole investigation. It would imply they likely got some more radar data or did more analysis on the Malaysian military radar data.
Edit: Ah, it seems this has to do with the eye witness accounts as the plane was flying low over Malaysia to avoid radar.
If the passangers is still alive it would make sense for the authorities to hide any real evidence they have of the location. I think we'll have to wait until this whole situation is over before we look back at what we do or don't know at this point.
On March 17 2014 22:00 Hryul wrote: @ffw rude: what i understand it was some data gathering stuff linked to the engines that the manufacturer of them (rolls royce) had installed.
You mean the pingy thing that happened after 2:00 ?
@radiatoren Thanks. It's clearer.
yes.
Maintenance data download
The introduction of the interface in the early 1990s between the flight data acquisition and management system, the aircraft condition monitoring system and the ACARS management unit resulted in wider acceptance of datalinks on the part of airlines. The flight data acquisition and management system and the aircraft condition monitoring system systems which analyze engine aircraft and operational performance conditions now provide performance data to the airlines on the ground in real time using the ACARS network. This reduces the need for airline personnel to go to the aircraft to off-load the data from these systems. These systems are capable of identifying abnormal flight conditions and automatically sending real-time messages to an airline. Detailed engine reports can also be transmitted to the ground via ACARS. The airlines use these reports to automate engine trending activities. This capability enables airlines to monitor their engine performance more accurately and identify and plan their repair and maintenance activities more rapidly.
On March 17 2014 22:00 Hryul wrote: @ffw rude: what i understand it was some data gathering stuff linked to the engines that the manufacturer of them (rolls royce) had installed.
You mean the pingy thing that happened after 2:00 ?
The introduction of the interface in the early 1990s between the flight data acquisition and management system, the aircraft condition monitoring system and the ACARS management unit resulted in wider acceptance of datalinks on the part of airlines. The flight data acquisition and management system and the aircraft condition monitoring system systems which analyze engine aircraft and operational performance conditions now provide performance data to the airlines on the ground in real time using the ACARS network. This reduces the need for airline personnel to go to the aircraft to off-load the data from these systems. These systems are capable of identifying abnormal flight conditions and automatically sending real-time messages to an airline. Detailed engine reports can also be transmitted to the ground via ACARS. The airlines use these reports to automate engine trending activities. This capability enables airlines to monitor their engine performance more accurately and identify and plan their repair and maintenance activities more rapidly.
Can ACARS send transmission underwater ? Could the plane have crashed and ACARS continue to send things ? But if it's engine monitoring, a crash would have sent abnormal flight conditions records no ? If i recall correctly blackboxes can transmist 30days underwater so...
I kind of read every plane crash history on wikipedia.. i don't know why i'm addicted to this. It's a real bizarre thing. Dunno why i'm attracted to read those story and particularly the blackbox pilot discussions before crash. It's a weird morbid thing...
But i really hope the plane have landed and that people are safe
unlikely, since radio waves don't travel that far underwater. to communicate with submarines, the US and USSR build radios with antennas > 52 km (!!). with this they told the submarines to come to the surface to use their "real" communication devices. see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines
On March 17 2014 21:56 radiatoren wrote: All possibilities to land is pretty broad. They could land on the ocean, a road, in a clearing etc. I would wait for further ping-analysis and primary radar information to better determine the exact route and flight level of the plane. That would be the easiest way to narrow the search. Some people are speculating that the hijackers had falsified a cover-identity for the plane and were able to appear like a civil cargo plane to the ground control in the northern corridor, others say they flew under FL50 to avoid radar-detection in the northern corridor and others again claim the plane took the scenic route to a final destination in the southern Indian Oceans eternal waters (whether that included a water-landing and subsequent loading of a ship or a crash).
So far we are making a "spec" out of "u" and someone named "lation". The investigators have enough data to be able to specify what has happened a lot more accurately. Eventually we will get access to these informations, but as long as hijaacking is prominently on the table and the plane could have landed, it is a criminal investigation which makes information a lot more "need to know".
Can you even re-code the the transponder to look like a cargo plane in flight? Being able to pull that off would make this quite the Mission Impossible heist type scenario.
At any rate, it seems like information that the plane was flying as low as 5000ft (seems like American source given the units) got reported. No idea if its true but there's probably a grain of truth to it given the track record of this whole investigation. It would imply they likely got some more radar data or did more analysis on the Malaysian military radar data.
Edit: Ah, it seems this has to do with the eye witness accounts as the plane was flying low over Malaysia to avoid radar.
I know Air Force One did that when they went to Baghdad but that's also a special plane.
On March 18 2014 00:59 Hryul wrote: unlikely, since radio waves don't travel that far underwater. to communicate with submarines, the US and USSR build radios with antennas > 52 km (!!). with this they told the submarines to come to the surface to use their "real" communication devices. see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines
Oh ok. I really thought blackboxes could transmit underwater
On March 17 2014 21:56 radiatoren wrote: All possibilities to land is pretty broad. They could land on the ocean, a road, in a clearing etc. I would wait for further ping-analysis and primary radar information to better determine the exact route and flight level of the plane. That would be the easiest way to narrow the search. Some people are speculating that the hijackers had falsified a cover-identity for the plane and were able to appear like a civil cargo plane to the ground control in the northern corridor, others say they flew under FL50 to avoid radar-detection in the northern corridor and others again claim the plane took the scenic route to a final destination in the southern Indian Oceans eternal waters (whether that included a water-landing and subsequent loading of a ship or a crash).
So far we are making a "spec" out of "u" and someone named "lation". The investigators have enough data to be able to specify what has happened a lot more accurately. Eventually we will get access to these informations, but as long as hijaacking is prominently on the table and the plane could have landed, it is a criminal investigation which makes information a lot more "need to know".
Can you even re-code the the transponder to look like a cargo plane in flight? Being able to pull that off would make this quite the Mission Impossible heist type scenario.
At any rate, it seems like information that the plane was flying as low as 5000ft (seems like American source given the units) got reported. No idea if its true but there's probably a grain of truth to it given the track record of this whole investigation. It would imply they likely got some more radar data or did more analysis on the Malaysian military radar data.
Edit: Ah, it seems this has to do with the eye witness accounts as the plane was flying low over Malaysia to avoid radar.
I guess one should replace lmgtfy with lmwtfy: transponder:Care must be taken not to squawk any emergency code during a code change. For example, when changing from 1200 to 6501 (an assigned ATC squawk), one might turn the second wheel to a 5 (thus 1500), and then rotate the first wheel backwards in the sequence 1-0-7-6 to get to 6. This would momentarily have the transponder squawking a hijack code (7500), which might lead to more attention than one desires.
On March 18 2014 00:59 Hryul wrote: unlikely, since radio waves don't travel that far underwater. to communicate with submarines, the US and USSR build radios with antennas > 52 km (!!). with this they told the submarines to come to the surface to use their "real" communication devices. see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines
Oh ok. I really thought blackboxes could transmit underwater
I just read that the black box sends a sonar signal with a reach up to 3km. that is "easier" to spot, but given the area, it's still not easy.E: but the Black Box is not the Transponder.
On March 18 2014 07:12 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: Was there this much attention to the Air France plane? Were all these theories going around back then too?
They found wreckage and bodies within a week. It was the Black Boxes that took 2 years to find. ( I believe they found them under 10,000 feet of water, which was part of the problem.) But they had flight tracking data almost to where it dropped in the water, but it was a big issue of "Why?" until just a few years ago. That one was a pretty freak & strange problem.
Skimmed over the last few pages and didn't see it but if you are interested I can recommend the airliners.net thread. Mostly aviation enthusiasts and pilots on there giving their (sometimes crazy) opinions.
Also look for "rcair1"s sanity checks (there's a newer one in the above posted thread - not the one in part 31).
On March 18 2014 12:33 r.Evo wrote: I didn't see this over the last couple of pages so I'll throw it in here. Absolute worst case it's an example of explanations getting rather crazy.
On March 18 2014 12:33 r.Evo wrote: I didn't see this over the last couple of pages so I'll throw it in here. Absolute worst case it's an example of explanations getting rather crazy.
Why do these planes even have the option to turn off radar / ACARS / whatever else that tracks their location? Just seems something like that shouldn't really have a deactivation option.
On March 18 2014 13:58 SidianTheBard wrote: Why do these planes even have the option to turn off radar / ACARS / whatever else that tracks their location? Just seems something like that shouldn't really have a deactivation option.
On March 18 2014 13:58 SidianTheBard wrote: Why do these planes even have the option to turn off radar / ACARS / whatever else that tracks their location? Just seems something like that shouldn't really have a deactivation option.
Because they're electrical devices that are capable of causing a short.
On March 18 2014 13:58 SidianTheBard wrote: Why do these planes even have the option to turn off radar / ACARS / whatever else that tracks their location? Just seems something like that shouldn't really have a deactivation option.
Fires happen a lot more than hijacks. Still, you need to know what you're doing.
As for the "hiding behind another plane" theory, the only problem is that it seems too perfectly logical, given the information we have. The hijacker(s) had an extremely detailed plan for Radar avoidance, took over the plane at the perfect time to "disappear", had some very specific reason to be tracking North through the Andaman Sea and knew that nearly all Active Military Radar is shut off during the Night. Plus, it's hard as hell to pick out a Plane from Spy-Sat data, especially at night, (can't use Light data at night), so picking that data out from two "stacked" planes makes it even harder.
Now the question becomes if it stuck with the other flight all the way through India or just part of the way. Likeliest destination still seems to be one of the " 'Stans", as there's enough abandoned Soviet military sites that you could land the plane without much issue, without anyone being much the wiser.
On March 18 2014 12:33 r.Evo wrote: I didn't see this over the last couple of pages so I'll throw it in here. Absolute worst case it's an example of explanations getting rather crazy.
There must be some plan if the airplane has been hijacked. Also, the hijacker(s) must have done something with all the passengers. Seems like a lot of trouble for them, and yet no reason to do so:-/
On March 18 2014 12:33 r.Evo wrote: I didn't see this over the last couple of pages so I'll throw it in here. Absolute worst case it's an example of explanations getting rather crazy.
Wow... Admittedly I have no idea how radar and planes interact but that does sound scarily plausible. The next question would be why did they want those people/that plane. Chinese military secrets/researchers?
On March 18 2014 00:59 Hryul wrote: unlikely, since radio waves don't travel that far underwater. to communicate with submarines, the US and USSR build radios with antennas > 52 km (!!). with this they told the submarines to come to the surface to use their "real" communication devices. see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines
Oh ok. I really thought blackboxes could transmit underwater
I just read that the black box sends a sonar signal with a reach up to 3km. that is "easier" to spot, but given the area, it's still not easy.E: but the Black Box is not the Transponder.
Oh i thought one of two blackboxes contained the transponder. I just read it is not the case. It's an entirely different system.
On March 18 2014 13:58 SidianTheBard wrote: Why do these planes even have the option to turn off radar / ACARS / whatever else that tracks their location? Just seems something like that shouldn't really have a deactivation option.
Security measures. Thing could cause electric problem and i believe that it is because maintenance turns them off while working. So if the maintenance forgot to turn them back on, crew have the option of correcting this. It's not like maintenance never made mistake like duct tape not removed that caused a crash.
Damn i need to stop that double post thingy.... sorry.
On March 18 2014 12:33 r.Evo wrote: I didn't see this over the last couple of pages so I'll throw it in here. Absolute worst case it's an example of explanations getting rather crazy.
Wow... Admittedly I have no idea how radar and planes interact but that does sound scarily plausible. The next question would be why did they want those people/that plane. Chinese military secrets/researchers?
I'm going to try to send this to my cousin see if it is plausible for him (he's an air france pilot). Because i really wonder.
00:41 Local time the plane departs from Kuala Lumpur on its normal route towards Beijing. (Between 01:07 and 01:37) The primary ACARS system is shut down, meaning it stopped sending informations to the ground. It kept pinging the satellite. Shutting down ACARS is a longer sequence so it cannot have been done by accident by a pilot. 01:19 The co-pilot says "All right, good night" when the plane is handed off from malaysian airspace. 01:21 The last data from the transponder is received near the Igal waypoint in the South China Sea. 01:22 The Vietnamese air traffic controller is not getting contacted by the plane as scheduled. 01:30 The plane leaves civil primary radar. 01:30 A pilot from another plane claims to have contacted the plane on the emergency frequency, but he only heard mumbling before the connection was lost. (According to a malaysian airforce radar the following unspecified sequence occured) The plane is reaching FL450 which is above recommandations for the plane. It is taking a sharp turn to the west and descends to FL230, lower than normal cruising altitude where it passes Penang and flies westward towards the Igal waypoint near Phuket. It then turns northwest towards the Igrex waypoint in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. From the westward turn, the way the plane reacts is consistent with how FMS reacts, alas it is highly likely the planes new route was programmed, either by the dispatcher or a pilot. 02:15 The plane is no longer visible on military radar, contact is lost northwest of Andaman Islands with the plane flying towards the Indian Ocean and the Igrex waypoint. (Likely from the satelite data analysis) The plane flew in either a northern corridor towards the middle east or a southern corridor towards the vast nothingness of the southern Indian Ocean. 08:11 The last ping is recieved from the plane. The satelite only logs distance to the plane and not GPS-coordinates, but by calculation, a semi-circle around the satelite has been determined as the source of the final ping. Further data analysis on flight path and pings has narrowed the likely northern and southern end-points to 1.12 million square nautical miles each. The fuel reserve at the time of the last ping is estimated to about 30 minutes.
By far the most credible explanation, by a pilot. Important read. Not sure why this isn't hugely publicized.
If i understand correctly the TL:DR is there was a problem on the plane. the pilot pointed the plane towards the nearest airport, the pilots became incapacitated with the plane in auto pilot. the plane continued to fly for hours with no control.
this doesn't seem more credible than any of the other theories to me.
By far the most credible explanation, by a pilot. Important read. Not sure why this isn't hugely publicized.
If i understand correctly the TL:DR is there was a problem on the plane. the pilot pointed the plane towards the nearest airport, the pilots became incapacitated with the plane in auto pilot. the plane continued to fly for hours with no control.
this doesn't seem more credible than any of the other theories to me.
Please read the entire article word for word. He explains most (if not all) occurrences, including the sharp turn, then shutdown of comm systems, the altitude change 45k and 25k... etc. It isn't necessarily an ironclad explanation, but it is by far the most credible I've read. And I've been following this pretty closely.
Maybe stupid question as I might be missing something obvious (I don't have much experience with flying), but: I thought mobile phones are free to use on planes, apart from starting and landing situations? Assuming the plane continued flying in a false direction for several hours, wouldn't at least some of the passengers realize it and try to call relatives etc. (or even just make make regular phone calls)? As was the case on 9/11 iirc. Is there any technical reason that prevents any mobile phones from getting a connection as long as the plane itself has communication systems shut down?
On March 18 2014 12:33 r.Evo wrote: I didn't see this over the last couple of pages so I'll throw it in here. Absolute worst case it's an example of explanations getting rather crazy.
Wow... Admittedly I have no idea how radar and planes interact but that does sound scarily plausible. The next question would be why did they want those people/that plane. Chinese military secrets/researchers?
While we're in the realm of theories, while certainly not impossible it's also pretty damn unlikely.
Let's assume the pilot(s) are compromised, good enough and well informed enough to pull such a maneuver and have the proper equipment for it (e.g. an ADS-B receiver)... The main thing you need to know about Radar that makes this plausible at all is that it sucks at estimating distance. If you have a single radar station it's completely possible to hide in the shadow of the other plane without being seen under most circumstances.
However, from different angles you might appear as a slightly larger bleep (which is also likely not be noticed due to human error) but you can also appear as a different plane. It's physically impossible that you're undetectable from all angles so that theory assumes that whoever was sophisticated enough to compromise pilots and plan out a hijack was willing to gamble on radio operators being bad to make it work fully.
Obviously it shouldn't be dismissed but e.g. an electrical fire and a crash site that was simply not found yet are still more plausible.
Good theory. I agree that it is the most credible. The fire was somewhat isolated since the aircraft was able to fly for another 6 hours. Which makes me think, it was the smoke that disabled the people, and after that the fire probably stopped because of lack of oxygen.
On March 19 2014 00:31 Mafe wrote: Maybe stupid question as I might be missing something obvious (I don't have much experience with flying), but: I thought mobile phones are free to use on planes, apart from starting and landing situations? Assuming the plane continued flying in a false direction for several hours, wouldn't at least some of the passengers realize it and try to call relatives etc. (or even just make make regular phone calls)? As was the case on 9/11 iirc. Is there any technical reason that prevents any mobile phones from getting a connection as long as the plane itself has communication systems shut down?
Height. Anything above FL100 (10000ft) isn't exactly awesome for mobile phones.
What is possible to disable autopilot ? Only cabin warning ? fire/smoke or something doesn't deactivate it ? (since pilot needs to extinguish fire and can't pilot at the same time ?)
On March 19 2014 00:45 arbiter_md wrote: Good theory. I agree that it is the most credible. The fire was somewhat isolated since the aircraft was able to fly for another 6 hours. Which makes me think, it was the smoke that disabled the people, and after that the fire probably stopped because of lack of oxygen.
This also needs a lot to come together. There was the case of Helios Airways Flight 522 that had a similarly eerie story. You'd basically need a fire that, for whatever reason, either quickly disables all forms of communication (unlikely) or something that causes incapacitation of the crew due to hypoxia before being able to communicate it (also unlikely but this is a case where it happened).
An example of a flight where a fire was underestimated (but in this case communicated to ATC) would be Swissair Flight 111.
Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 is an example of the bursting tire -> fire theory. Those things don't just happen without anyone noticing.
tl;dr: The issue with all the fire-theories is that you need a fire so subtle that the crew doesn't notice it (which would be immediately communicated and is also highly unlikely) but also strong enough that it disables communication so suddenly that you can't communicate it before it ate up your ways of communicating. That's really, really hard to pull off. =P
On March 19 2014 00:09 ComaDose wrote: i read the whole article... he has good explanations for his theory.
That is one of the more mundane theories I have heard but it's also very believable. If that is true, it's a really sad story. Experienced pilot makes all the right decisions but eventually becomes incapacitated.
On March 19 2014 00:45 arbiter_md wrote: Good theory. I agree that it is the most credible. The fire was somewhat isolated since the aircraft was able to fly for another 6 hours. Which makes me think, it was the smoke that disabled the people, and after that the fire probably stopped because of lack of oxygen.
This also needs a lot to come together. There was the case of Helios Airways Flight 522 that had a similarly eerie story. You'd basically need a fire that, for whatever reason, either quickly disables all forms of communication (unlikely) or something that causes incapacitation of the crew due to hypoxia before being able to communicate it (also unlikely but this is a case where it happened).
An example of a flight where a fire was underestimated (but in this case communicated to ATC) would be Swissair Flight 111.
Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 is an example of the bursting tire -> fire theory. Those things don't just happen without anyone noticing.
tl;dr: The issue with all the fire-theories is that you need a fire so subtle that the crew doesn't notice it (which would be immediately communicated and is also highly unlikely) but also strong enough that it disables communication so suddenly that you can't communicate it before it ate up your ways of communicating. That's really, really hard to pull off. =P
The pilot would be the one disabling the comms, not the fire, as stated in that article.
The breaker box is actually there so you can pull the fuses in case of electrical fire.
So the theory goes something like: 1) Co Pilot Signs off 2) Within a few minutes a fire is detected 3) The pilots programs the aircraft to fly towards the nearest runway using a waypoint in the Strait of Malacca (weird) 4) One of the crew pulls the breaker box to try and control the fire which kills the comms 5) Crew is overcome before they can re-enable comms or communicate with anyone.
What this doesn't explain is the subsequent turn towards the 2nd waypoint beacon.
By far the most credible explanation, by a pilot. Important read. Not sure why this isn't hugely publicized.
If i understand correctly the TL:DR is there was a problem on the plane. the pilot pointed the plane towards the nearest airport, the pilots became incapacitated with the plane in auto pilot. the plane continued to fly for hours with no control.
this doesn't seem more credible than any of the other theories to me.
Please read the entire article word for word. He explains most (if not all) occurrences, including the sharp turn, then shutdown of comm systems, the altitude change 45k and 25k... etc. It isn't necessarily an ironclad explanation, but it is by far the most credible I've read. And I've been following this pretty closely.
New facts revealed last night have poked a major hole in this theory. Apparently the course correction that caused the plane to turn towards that closer airport was programmed into the flight computer, not by the pilots at the helm.
On March 19 2014 00:31 Mafe wrote: Maybe stupid question as I might be missing something obvious (I don't have much experience with flying), but: I thought mobile phones are free to use on planes, apart from starting and landing situations? Assuming the plane continued flying in a false direction for several hours, wouldn't at least some of the passengers realize it and try to call relatives etc. (or even just make make regular phone calls)? As was the case on 9/11 iirc. Is there any technical reason that prevents any mobile phones from getting a connection as long as the plane itself has communication systems shut down?
it is impossible to make phone calls above 8000-10000ft with a cellphone.
On March 19 2014 00:45 arbiter_md wrote: Good theory. I agree that it is the most credible. The fire was somewhat isolated since the aircraft was able to fly for another 6 hours. Which makes me think, it was the smoke that disabled the people, and after that the fire probably stopped because of lack of oxygen.
This also needs a lot to come together. There was the case of Helios Airways Flight 522 that had a similarly eerie story. You'd basically need a fire that, for whatever reason, either quickly disables all forms of communication (unlikely) or something that causes incapacitation of the crew due to hypoxia before being able to communicate it (also unlikely but this is a case where it happened).
An example of a flight where a fire was underestimated (but in this case communicated to ATC) would be Swissair Flight 111.
Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 is an example of the bursting tire -> fire theory. Those things don't just happen without anyone noticing.
tl;dr: The issue with all the fire-theories is that you need a fire so subtle that the crew doesn't notice it (which would be immediately communicated and is also highly unlikely) but also strong enough that it disables communication so suddenly that you can't communicate it before it ate up your ways of communicating. That's really, really hard to pull off. =P
The pilot would be the one disabling the comms, not the fire, as stated in that article.
That's not how it works. It's not "something is burning better disable all electronics". If your warning lights pop up or someone reports a smell of smoke or, even worse, sees smoke it's a matter of a few seconds to communicate it.
Yes procedures put saving your plane above communicating what's going on but that brings us back to very specific circumstances that need to occur to make a fire at FL300+ both so subtle that you didn't feel the need to communicate it at first but also so suddenly horrible that you now are unable of communicating it. That's also why I specifically mentioned the Helios flight above. In that case something happened that was very subtle at first (basically the pilots slowly lost access to oxygen), they were both occupied with trying to solve a different but related problem together with ground control (aka distracted from the real issue) and then all of a sudden fell unconscious.
By far the most credible explanation, by a pilot. Important read. Not sure why this isn't hugely publicized.
If i understand correctly the TL:DR is there was a problem on the plane. the pilot pointed the plane towards the nearest airport, the pilots became incapacitated with the plane in auto pilot. the plane continued to fly for hours with no control.
this doesn't seem more credible than any of the other theories to me.
Please read the entire article word for word. He explains most (if not all) occurrences, including the sharp turn, then shutdown of comm systems, the altitude change 45k and 25k... etc. It isn't necessarily an ironclad explanation, but it is by far the most credible I've read. And I've been following this pretty closely.
New facts revealed last night have poked a major hole in this theory. Apparently the course correction that caused the plane to turn towards that closer airport was programmed into the flight computer, not by the pilots at the helm.
It seems unlikely the pilots would have done anything other than manually steer the craft if such a sudden electrical emergency occurred.
Interesting, watching the video I think it's important to notice that last Acars transmission occurred at 1:07. And it was supposed to transmit 30 minutes after that. Which didn't happen. So, it was switched off during this interval. I guess it stopped working before the plane changed the direction, according to all the theories. Just didn't see this in timelines of events so far.
On March 19 2014 00:45 arbiter_md wrote: Good theory. I agree that it is the most credible. The fire was somewhat isolated since the aircraft was able to fly for another 6 hours. Which makes me think, it was the smoke that disabled the people, and after that the fire probably stopped because of lack of oxygen.
This also needs a lot to come together. There was the case of Helios Airways Flight 522 that had a similarly eerie story. You'd basically need a fire that, for whatever reason, either quickly disables all forms of communication (unlikely) or something that causes incapacitation of the crew due to hypoxia before being able to communicate it (also unlikely but this is a case where it happened).
An example of a flight where a fire was underestimated (but in this case communicated to ATC) would be Swissair Flight 111.
Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 is an example of the bursting tire -> fire theory. Those things don't just happen without anyone noticing.
tl;dr: The issue with all the fire-theories is that you need a fire so subtle that the crew doesn't notice it (which would be immediately communicated and is also highly unlikely) but also strong enough that it disables communication so suddenly that you can't communicate it before it ate up your ways of communicating. That's really, really hard to pull off. =P
The pilot would be the one disabling the comms, not the fire, as stated in that article.
That's not how it works. It's not "something is burning better disable all electronics". If your warning lights pop up or someone reports a smell of smoke or, even worse, sees smoke it's a matter of a few seconds to communicate it.
Yes procedures put saving your plane above communicating what's going on but that brings us back to very specific circumstances that need to occur to make a fire at FL300+ both so subtle that you didn't feel the need to communicate it at first but also so suddenly horrible that you now are unable of communicating it. That's also why I specifically mentioned the Helios flight above. In that case something happened that was very subtle at first (basically the pilots slowly lost access to oxygen), they were both occupied with trying to solve a different but related problem together with ground control (aka distracted from the real issue) and then all of a sudden fell unconscious.
There are actually a lot of differences between the Helios flight and this.
1) Alarms were going off. 2) Pilots were communicating with the tower (and disregarding their advice) until they passed out. 3) Auto pilot flew to the destination by itself and circled until crashing. 4) Even though Helios was stuck at cruising altitude, atleast one person was conscious. One of the crew was seen going into the cockpit and trying to regain control of the aircraft from the unconscious pilots. Unfortunately the plane ran out of fuel before he could have done anything. 5) MH370 descended to 23,000ft. This is lower than Everest which you can climb without supplemental O2.
On March 19 2014 00:45 arbiter_md wrote: Good theory. I agree that it is the most credible. The fire was somewhat isolated since the aircraft was able to fly for another 6 hours. Which makes me think, it was the smoke that disabled the people, and after that the fire probably stopped because of lack of oxygen.
This also needs a lot to come together. There was the case of Helios Airways Flight 522 that had a similarly eerie story. You'd basically need a fire that, for whatever reason, either quickly disables all forms of communication (unlikely) or something that causes incapacitation of the crew due to hypoxia before being able to communicate it (also unlikely but this is a case where it happened).
An example of a flight where a fire was underestimated (but in this case communicated to ATC) would be Swissair Flight 111.
Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 is an example of the bursting tire -> fire theory. Those things don't just happen without anyone noticing.
tl;dr: The issue with all the fire-theories is that you need a fire so subtle that the crew doesn't notice it (which would be immediately communicated and is also highly unlikely) but also strong enough that it disables communication so suddenly that you can't communicate it before it ate up your ways of communicating. That's really, really hard to pull off. =P
The pilot would be the one disabling the comms, not the fire, as stated in that article.
That's not how it works. It's not "something is burning better disable all electronics". If your warning lights pop up or someone reports a smell of smoke or, even worse, sees smoke it's a matter of a few seconds to communicate it.
Yes procedures put saving your plane above communicating what's going on but that brings us back to very specific circumstances that need to occur to make a fire at FL300+ both so subtle that you didn't feel the need to communicate it at first but also so suddenly horrible that you now are unable of communicating it. That's also why I specifically mentioned the Helios flight above. In that case something happened that was very subtle at first (basically the pilots slowly lost access to oxygen), they were both occupied with trying to solve a different but related problem together with ground control (aka distracted from the real issue) and then all of a sudden fell unconscious.
There are actually a lot of differences between the Helios flight and this.
1) Alarms were going off. 2) Pilots were communicating with the tower (and disregarding their advice) until they passed out. 3) Auto pilot flew to the destination by itself and circled until crashing. 4) Even though Helios was stuck at cruising altitude, atleast one person was conscious. One of the crew was seen going into the cockpit and trying to regain control of the aircraft from the unconscious pilots. Unfortunately the plane ran out of fuel before he could have done anything. 5) MH370 descended to 23,000ft. This is lower than Everest which you can climb without supplemental O2.
So there are a lot of issues in that comparison.
I'm aware of those differences. I mostly mentioned it to show a case of pilots "slowly falling unconscious" which some people mentioned could happen because of a fire on board. The tl;dr is among the lines of "a lot of stupid stuff needs to happen for a pilot to just fall unconscious because he has no oxygen".
By far the most credible explanation, by a pilot. Important read. Not sure why this isn't hugely publicized.
If i understand correctly the TL:DR is there was a problem on the plane. the pilot pointed the plane towards the nearest airport, the pilots became incapacitated with the plane in auto pilot. the plane continued to fly for hours with no control.
this doesn't seem more credible than any of the other theories to me.
Please read the entire article word for word. He explains most (if not all) occurrences, including the sharp turn, then shutdown of comm systems, the altitude change 45k and 25k... etc. It isn't necessarily an ironclad explanation, but it is by far the most credible I've read. And I've been following this pretty closely.
So does anyone know if the autopilot is on a different electrical system than the rest of the electronics? Wouldn't pulling busses, which result in the plane going black, also disable autopilot?
Well these planes are all fly by wire so that means that if the electrical controls go out, it's game over. That's why pilots are afraid of lightning, if your electronics go out you have no way of controlling the plane. So I don't know about auto pilot staying engaged after a catastrophic failure but perhaps it could be within the realm of possibilities. There was the Helios incident and more recently a case in the US where both pilots fell asleep and overshot their destination by 2 hours which could support a "ghost plane" theory where it flys itself until running out of fuel.
On March 19 2014 07:46 MooMooMugi wrote: Havent been following this incident too closely but is it safe to assume all passengers of the flight are dead?
At this point it is near impossible that they are alive. If they are, someone would have said something but nope. The plane is crashed "somewhere" and no one knows where.
I read the NY Times report, the theory by the pilot is very sound and is oddly the only one I have read that makes major sense. If he IS correct, I'm going to laugh only because no one thought of it in Malaysia. When it comes to Air Plane Disasters, I trust the NTSB over any other organization in the world.
Israel Prepares for Possible Attack by Hijacked Malaysian Plane As terrorism fears grow in Malaysian plane case, Israeli officials increase already-tight precautions
By Times of Israel staff and AP March 16, 2014, 9:41 pm EDT
Israel has tightened security in its airspace following the disappearance and possible hijacking of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 on March 8, Channel 2 reported Sunday.
According to the report, security officials and aviation authorities recently held a security assessment and decided upon a series of security measures intended to enhance safety in Israeli airspace.
Among the measures, airliners are now required to identify themselves much earlier when approaching Israel’s airspace. [anybody see this yet in a NOTAM? - Airbubba] Other actions were not disclosed at this time.
The increased security came as El Al’s former global security chief told The Times of Israel he believes that the disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines flight points directly to Iran.
They probably didn't know that it was the plane at all. The first few days everyone was still searching on the other side of the Ocean in the Gulf of Thailand/South China Sea instead of in the Andaman Sea/Indian Ocean. I don't think they were looking for things that crossed over to the other side. (Or not even looking at all )
If you can't verify your information, it might be more confusing to announce mere speculations that turns out to be wrong.
Although this doesn't help much for the search though. The search range is still far too vast and it could be years before they find it.
On March 19 2014 00:45 arbiter_md wrote: Good theory. I agree that it is the most credible. The fire was somewhat isolated since the aircraft was able to fly for another 6 hours. Which makes me think, it was the smoke that disabled the people, and after that the fire probably stopped because of lack of oxygen.
This also needs a lot to come together. There was the case of Helios Airways Flight 522 that had a similarly eerie story. You'd basically need a fire that, for whatever reason, either quickly disables all forms of communication (unlikely) or something that causes incapacitation of the crew due to hypoxia before being able to communicate it (also unlikely but this is a case where it happened).
An example of a flight where a fire was underestimated (but in this case communicated to ATC) would be Swissair Flight 111.
Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 is an example of the bursting tire -> fire theory. Those things don't just happen without anyone noticing.
tl;dr: The issue with all the fire-theories is that you need a fire so subtle that the crew doesn't notice it (which would be immediately communicated and is also highly unlikely) but also strong enough that it disables communication so suddenly that you can't communicate it before it ate up your ways of communicating. That's really, really hard to pull off. =P
The pilot would be the one disabling the comms, not the fire, as stated in that article.
That's not how it works. It's not "something is burning better disable all electronics". If your warning lights pop up or someone reports a smell of smoke or, even worse, sees smoke it's a matter of a few seconds to communicate it.
Yes procedures put saving your plane above communicating what's going on but that brings us back to very specific circumstances that need to occur to make a fire at FL300+ both so subtle that you didn't feel the need to communicate it at first but also so suddenly horrible that you now are unable of communicating it. That's also why I specifically mentioned the Helios flight above. In that case something happened that was very subtle at first (basically the pilots slowly lost access to oxygen), they were both occupied with trying to solve a different but related problem together with ground control (aka distracted from the real issue) and then all of a sudden fell unconscious.
There are actually a lot of differences between the Helios flight and this.
1) Alarms were going off. 2) Pilots were communicating with the tower (and disregarding their advice) until they passed out. 3) Auto pilot flew to the destination by itself and circled until crashing. 4) Even though Helios was stuck at cruising altitude, atleast one person was conscious. One of the crew was seen going into the cockpit and trying to regain control of the aircraft from the unconscious pilots. Unfortunately the plane ran out of fuel before he could have done anything. 5) MH370 descended to 23,000ft. This is lower than Everest which you can climb without supplemental O2.
So there are a lot of issues in that comparison.
just to be clear, you need acclimation time and training to be able to handle zero supplemental oxygen at that kind of altitude, and it will certainly affect you in some way even then. a sudden change of pressurization from standard cruising pressurization to something like 23k feet oxygen levels would absolutely impair your cognitive capabilities at the very least.
On March 19 2014 04:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: So where the hell is the plane?
Crashed into a mountain in Central Asia?
At the bottom of the Indian Ocean?
Sitting in a hangar on the Legion of Doom's secret island base?
Honestly, I don't understand why this is being seen as a ridiculous option.
If this thing was hijacked (and yes, that is a big "if"), any such hijackers had a purpose for it. You don't go dark, change course and evade radar just to kill the people on board. You can do that by nosediving straightaway.
Now, they also didn't 9/11 it into any target that we're aware of, so what else do you do with an invisible stolen plane? Surely one of the more reasonable options is to try to land it. It's not beyond possibility that it is or was sitting on an airstrip in one of the Stans.
In fact, at risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that's one of the top three:
1. It went deep into the Indian Ocean and ran out of fuel, due to pilot incapacitation/insanity/whatever 2. Hijackers took it, failed at whatever their goal was, and crashed it somewhere in Central Asia 3. Hijackers took it, and succeeded at landing it at some location, probably also in Central Asia.
On March 19 2014 18:08 mdb wrote: I`m telling you. Military is involved in this imo 100%. Only they have the possibility to make things dissapear in such way.
Various military's have a good chance of knowing more than their letting out in the interest of hiding capabilities. I find it unlikely that they were directly involved in the disappearance though. Forcing a passenger jet out of the sky isn't an easy thing. More than 100km from shore the only real options are to threaten it via ship-based anti-air, or else to send up a figher escort. To get it to not divert to the nearest airport you pretty much need a fighter escort the whole time. Not that many people could live with the knowledge that a couple hundred innocents died by their hands.
On March 19 2014 18:08 mdb wrote: I`m telling you. Military is involved in this imo 100%. Only they have the possibility to make things dissapear in such way.
Glad you`re not running the investigation. Being so certain on such scant evidence is silly.
On March 19 2014 04:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: So where the hell is the plane?
Crashed into a mountain in Central Asia?
At the bottom of the Indian Ocean?
Sitting in a hangar on the Legion of Doom's secret island base?
Honestly, I don't understand why this is being seen as a ridiculous option.
If this thing was hijacked (and yes, that is a big "if"), any such hijackers had a purpose for it. You don't go dark, change course and evade radar just to kill the people on board. You can do that by nosediving straightaway.
Now, they also didn't 9/11 it into any target that we're aware of, so what else do you do with an invisible stolen plane? Surely one of the more reasonable options is to try to land it. It's not beyond possibility that it is or was sitting on an airstrip in one of the Stans.
In fact, at risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that's one of the top three:
1. It went deep into the Indian Ocean and ran out of fuel, due to pilot incapacitation/insanity/whatever 2. Hijackers took it, failed at whatever their goal was, and crashed it somewhere in Central Asia 3. Hijackers took it, and succeeded at landing it at some location, probably also in Central Asia.
It's pretty important to note that it is extremely, and I mean extremely unlikely that a non-crew member is able to just highjack a plane without either of the pilots being able to communicate anything to ATC. Possible ways to communicate an actual emergency are as subtle as turning the left wheel on your transponder first instead of the right one (casually rolling over an emergency signal in the process) or tapping your radio one or two more times than necessary. Everyone involved with civilian airplanes is very well trained for these (and other) types of emergencies.
The main scenarios to be considered at this point should be either the pilots (or at the very least the captain) being compromised in some shape or form (not even sure if that's still technically called a "highjacking") or some combination of very unlikely technical emergencies that lead to a crash somewhere deep in the ocean or mountains.
On March 19 2014 20:07 vizuaLize wrote: Just wondering, how did this become so massive?
Wasn't the big headline "Putin" 2 weeks ago?
The mystery of "unknown". Almost no idea where the object is. A lot of information indicating the worst fear and the best hope at the same time. Not enough confirmed information to verify any theory and therefore not enough to discount any theory conclusively.
Combine the power of a lot of families seeking certainty for what happened with the most overanalyzed transport-form in the world, a pretty uncertain search area, the lack of a rational theory about what has happened and we are left with a mesmorizing plot that captivates people.
Sufficient non-specific information to spin an almost eternal amount of theories and not enough conclusive information to make a cohesive rational all-explaining theory is what keeps the media going.
On March 19 2014 18:08 mdb wrote: I`m telling you. Military is involved in this imo 100%. Only they have the possibility to make things dissapear in such way.
Various military's have a good chance of knowing more than their letting out in the interest of hiding capabilities. I find it unlikely that they were directly involved in the disappearance though. Forcing a passenger jet out of the sky isn't an easy thing. More than 100km from shore the only real options are to threaten it via ship-based anti-air, or else to send up a figher escort. To get it to not divert to the nearest airport you pretty much need a fighter escort the whole time. Not that many people could live with the knowledge that a couple hundred innocents died by their hands.
To be fair in the two cases that I know about where civilian airplanes were shot down by the military neither the Soviet Union in 1983 nor the Americans in 1988 were quick about admitting what exactly happened.
However, even in the case of Iran Air Flight 655 which was nothing short of incredibly embarrassing for the US you had an insane amount of factors coming together. In that case a US Navy ship basically confused a climbing Airbus with an attacking fighter plane and it was, after not answering to radio calls (on military frequencies), shot down. Even if someone would like to assume that something remotely similar happened in this case (a military ship confusing a target, being unable to communicate with it and resorting to missiles to get it down) there is still zero explanation for the ship changing course without communication in the first place.
As it stands the biggest single issue is that no one has a real clue on where to start looking for the plane in the first place. As a random example when the Russians shot down the Korean Air Lines flight in 1983 the people involved knew about a general 15-20ish mile radius in which the plane must have went down - it still took a month for everyone to actually gather most of the evidence of the crash: Shoes of the victims.
...now good luck trying to find pieces like that when you don't even know in which ocean you're really supposed to start looking.
On March 19 2014 20:07 vizuaLize wrote: Just wondering, how did this become so massive?
Wasn't the big headline "Putin" 2 weeks ago?
The mystery of "unknown". Almost no idea where the object is. A lot of information indicating the worst fear and the best hope at the same time. Not enough confirmed information to verify any theory and therefore not enough to discount any theory conclusively.
Combine the power of a lot of families seeking certainty for what happened with the most overanalyzed transport-form in the world, a pretty uncertain search area, the lack of a rational theory about what has happened and we are left with a mesmorizing plot that captivates people.
Sufficient non-specific information to spin an almost eternal amount of theories and not enough conclusive information to make a cohesive rational all-explaining theory is what keeps the media going.
Also the Putin Topic is highly controversial. This one isn't and there's no fighting. Just people that wants to know why it happened.
On March 19 2014 18:08 mdb wrote: I`m telling you. Military is involved in this imo 100%. Only they have the possibility to make things dissapear in such way.
Various military's have a good chance of knowing more than their letting out in the interest of hiding capabilities. I find it unlikely that they were directly involved in the disappearance though. Forcing a passenger jet out of the sky isn't an easy thing. More than 100km from shore the only real options are to threaten it via ship-based anti-air, or else to send up a figher escort. To get it to not divert to the nearest airport you pretty much need a fighter escort the whole time. Not that many people could live with the knowledge that a couple hundred innocents died by their hands.
To be fair in the two cases that I know about where civilian airplanes were shot down by the military neither the Soviet Union in 1983 nor the Americans in 1988 were quick about admitting what exactly happened.
However, even in the case of Iran Air Flight 655 which was nothing short of incredibly embarrassing for the US you had an insane amount of factors coming together. In that case a US Navy ship basically confused a climbing Airbus with an attacking fighter plane and it was, after not answering to radio calls (on military frequencies), shot down. Even if someone would like to assume that something remotely similar happened in this case (a military ship confusing a target, being unable to communicate with it and resorting to missiles to get it down) there is still zero explanation for the ship changing course without communication in the first place.
As it stands the biggest single issue is that no one has a real clue on where to start looking for the plane in the first place. As a random example when the Russians shot down the Korean Air Lines flight in 1983 the people involved knew about a general 15-20ish mile radius in which the plane must have went down - it still took a month for everyone to actually gather most of the evidence of the crash: Shoes of the victims.
...now good luck trying to find pieces like that when you don't even know in which ocean you're really supposed to start looking.
Also the Korean flights that been shot down was in a period of crisis and cold war. So shooting a plane was an actual possibility at the time (even though misinformations cause the plane to get shot, since the pilots didn't say that lights was on like on a commercial flight if i recall correctly). A shoot down is really unlikly for me. In thoses cases even after shooting, planes continued to emit and talk with control tower. Basicly some didn't even know they were shot (If i recall the korean air lines where like : "WTF happened ?" and told CT that they were having issues).
But i'm not an expert on the subject. Far from it.
What I'm most scared of is that we'll never know and never find it. Up until now I've always just thought it would be a matter of time until it was found, but I'm starting to consider that it might just have become something top secret and information of its whereabouts will never be released, even if it is found.
"According to a local newspaper, residents of a remote island in the Maldives, Kuda Huvadhoo, spotted a plane at 6:15 a.m. local time on March 8 that could have been the missing Malaysia Airlines 370. Eyewitnesses cited by the paper said they saw "a jumbo jet," white with red stripes across it, flying low and very loudly. The description of a big airplane in those colors is consistent with the Malaysian Boeing 777."
Well if this is true it significantly narrows the search area. It's also a major coincidence that 3 of the 4 landings on the captain's flight simulator were relatively close in the Maldives, India and Sri Lanka.
Its a plane in the air. It overlaps the ground scatter and not vice-versa and its not even in a clearing.
I'm thinking at this point with all the retarded speculation and no evidence of any wrong doing that there was an unlikely accident and the pilots tried to fix it causing the plane to do what it did.
So many planes are found lately, it become kinda funny if ignoring the drama of people from the flight. I really hope they will find something real in near future. Otherwise we will be back on this topic every time a new picture of a plane appears on internet.
Seems the Pilot's simulator data from a month before went missing: NYTimes article
The Malaysian authorities say some data was deleted from a flight simulator that one of the pilots of the missing Malaysia Airlines jet had built in his home, and they have turned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for help in recovering the data, in the hope that it will provide some clue to what happened to the plane.
Article does not say where the plane was spotted on satellite.
Well i found that image on Tomnod. It was in South Andaman Island, approx 10km east of Waandoor and 10km south of Port Blair.
Unfort I cannot seem to find any info on when it was acutally taken. I guess DigitalGlobe has this info. If we knew the timestamp of the image, you could correlate it with flight paths to see if it is just another plane..
On March 19 2014 23:20 Scarecrow wrote: "According to a local newspaper, residents of a remote island in the Maldives, Kuda Huvadhoo, spotted a plane at 6:15 a.m. local time on March 8 that could have been the missing Malaysia Airlines 370. Eyewitnesses cited by the paper said they saw "a jumbo jet," white with red stripes across it, flying low and very loudly. The description of a big airplane in those colors is consistent with the Malaysian Boeing 777."
Well if this is true it significantly narrows the search area. It's also a major coincidence that 3 of the 4 landings on the captain's flight simulator were relatively close in the Maldives, India and Sri Lanka.
It is impossible. 6:15 local time is 9:15 Kuala Lumpur time. that would give the plane a little more than an hour to fly app. 3000 km. from the center of the ping-area. That doesn't seem believable if the satellite data are correct.
Also, the Maldives authorities have investigated and discounted it as a likely possibility.
On March 19 2014 23:20 Scarecrow wrote: "According to a local newspaper, residents of a remote island in the Maldives, Kuda Huvadhoo, spotted a plane at 6:15 a.m. local time on March 8 that could have been the missing Malaysia Airlines 370. Eyewitnesses cited by the paper said they saw "a jumbo jet," white with red stripes across it, flying low and very loudly. The description of a big airplane in those colors is consistent with the Malaysian Boeing 777."
Well if this is true it significantly narrows the search area. It's also a major coincidence that 3 of the 4 landings on the captain's flight simulator were relatively close in the Maldives, India and Sri Lanka.
It is impossible. 6:15 local time is 9:15 Kuala Lumpur time. that would give the plane a little more than an hour to fly app. 3000 km. from the center of the ping-area. That doesn't seem believable if the satellite data are correct.
Also, the Maldives authorities have investigated and discounted it as a likely possibility.
"The reported sighting over the Maldives coincides with the time line well,"
I doubt major newspapers would run this story if it could be so easily debunked by calculating time and distance (you probably confused the times). I won't attempt to do the maths because I trust those in the know to do it better than myself.
The Maldives military said they detected nothing but that doesn't contradict the sighting. A plane flying that low wouldn't necessarily be picked up on radar.
The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.
The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.
Makes alot of sense.
^ That article isn't exactly credible.
1) It ignores the known later positions of the plane (the article was originally posted a week ago or so before new infos about those came out). 2) Even in the event of a fire you don't just pull all plugs and try to fight it. You communicate it to ground control first. A fire, in most cases, doesn't randomly come out of nowhere with zero warning and renders you incapable of communicating anything. I don't recall a single accident in aviation history involving fire where pilots were incapable of communicating it. 3) "Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire." - such a statement is quite frankly bullshit. Smoke? Fire? Oxygen masks on.
It's one of those things that aren't impossible, but still unlikely. The common ground for these theories is that it assumes that pilots fell unconscious without any notice at all. That's also something that just doesn't happen unless you start assuming they were poisoned/gassed. The only known case where pilots "randomly" fell unconscious was Helios Flight 522 in which basically the entire cabin was lit up with warning lights and they were talking to ground control about what's going on - they just completely misread what's actually happening.
Basically everything comes back to the complete silence from the plane. This doesn't happen with fires, highjackings or even parts falling off the plane midflight. It's very hard to build a scenario in which a plane just stops communicating without sabotage, natural disaster or the pilots/crew being involved.
You should read the article i posted above as to why turning back to Kular Lampar is not what a pilot would have done.
The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer
The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.
Makes alot of sense.
^ That article isn't exactly credible.
1) It ignores the known later positions of the plane (the article was originally posted a week ago or so before new infos about those came out). 2) Even in the event of a fire you don't just pull all plugs and try to fight it. You communicate it to ground control first. A fire, in most cases, doesn't randomly come out of nowhere with zero warning and renders you incapable of communicating anything. I don't recall a single accident in aviation history involving fire where pilots were incapable of communicating it. 3) "Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire." - such a statement is quite frankly bullshit. Smoke? Fire? Oxygen masks on.
1) It was posted 16th March. The later positions of the plane? Are you talking about the arc, which doesnt seem to be too accurate? From what I can see that arc crosses the flight path he was talking about in article. 2) We dont know all the details but, there is no reason why the fire or whatever caused a problem somehow damaged all communications. 3) No. If there is a fire on board the aircraft, masks are not deployed, as the production of oxygen may further fuel the fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_oxygen_system
I am no expert, but it seems alot more credible than you think.
On March 19 2014 23:20 Scarecrow wrote: "According to a local newspaper, residents of a remote island in the Maldives, Kuda Huvadhoo, spotted a plane at 6:15 a.m. local time on March 8 that could have been the missing Malaysia Airlines 370. Eyewitnesses cited by the paper said they saw "a jumbo jet," white with red stripes across it, flying low and very loudly. The description of a big airplane in those colors is consistent with the Malaysian Boeing 777."
Well if this is true it significantly narrows the search area. It's also a major coincidence that 3 of the 4 landings on the captain's flight simulator were relatively close in the Maldives, India and Sri Lanka.
It is impossible. 6:15 local time is 9:15 Kuala Lumpur time. that would give the plane a little more than an hour to fly app. 3000 km. from the center of the ping-area. That doesn't seem believable if the satellite data are correct.
Also, the Maldives authorities have investigated and discounted it as a likely possibility.
"The reported sighting over the Maldives coincides with the time line well,"
I doubt major newspapers would run this story if it could be so easily debunked by calculating time and distance (you probably confused the times). I won't attempt to do the maths because I trust those in the know to do it better than myself.
The Maldives military said they detected nothing but that doesn't contradict the sighting. A plane flying that low wouldn't necessarily be picked up on radar.
You really should not believe everything you read... Also, it really is not that hard to calculate the time zone conversion http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20140308T0615&p1=715&p2=122 Then you can look up the approximate position of the plane according to the last ping received by the satellite at 8:11 am Kuala Lumpur time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Estimated_route With a short look at google maps you will instantly see that in fact the plane would have needed to travel about 3000 km in one hour for the alleged sighting to be true. Ergo, it is not, unless some of the information provided by the authorities is extremely wrong.
The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.
Makes alot of sense.
^ That article isn't exactly credible.
1) It ignores the known later positions of the plane (the article was originally posted a week ago or so before new infos about those came out). 2) Even in the event of a fire you don't just pull all plugs and try to fight it. You communicate it to ground control first. A fire, in most cases, doesn't randomly come out of nowhere with zero warning and renders you incapable of communicating anything. I don't recall a single accident in aviation history involving fire where pilots were incapable of communicating it. 3) "Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire." - such a statement is quite frankly bullshit. Smoke? Fire? Oxygen masks on.
1) It was posted 16th March. The later positions of the plane? Are you talking about the arc, which doesnt seem to be too accurate? From what I can see that arc crosses the flight path he was talking about in article. 2) We dont know all the details but, there is no reason why the fire or whatever caused a problem somehow damaged all communications. 3) No. If there is a fire on board the aircraft, masks are not deployed, as the production of oxygen may further fuel the fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_oxygen_system
I am no expert, but it seems alot more credible than you think.
You linked an article about oxygen masks for passengers. In the event of smoke or even fire in the cockpit it's masks on. On top of that if a fire or any accident doesn't damage all communication one of the pilots will communicate it to ATC.
Here and here are examples of plane crashes as the result of fires. In both cases the pilots were communicating what's going on. I don't know of any single aviation incident where a fire (obviously not from an explosion) straight up disabled communications and/or the crew was incapable of communicating it - if you do, please share.
Assuming the facts we're presented with are true, that the plane was flying west, had ascended at one point to 45,000 feet and then back down to 23,000 feet, and that the plane was flying for 6+ hours after radar contact was lost...
The only way that the catastrophic failure thing makes any sense is if, this failure first took out communications on the plane, and then incapacitated/killed the pilots and all of the passengers, but then the plane kept flying on auto pilot after all this went down. The only other possibility is if the controls went out, but somehow auto pilot did not, essentially dooming everyone on board to go down with the ship...
The highjacking scenario keeps looking more and more likely, this is the scenario that the Malaysians have suggested from the very beginning.
There is a part of me that believes this plane is stashed somewhere with the intent to refuel it and load it up with explosives, but maybe that part of me is the 14 year old whose first day of high school was 9/11/2001 and I'm being paranoid.
The OP should update this thread with a sanity check like what Rcair1 has done in Airliners.net. It consists of professional (as in pilots and technicians who know the technical and operation bits as opposed to 'experts' on CNN that just read up on these things) analysis, opinions and up to date facts.
Sanity Check - 3/19/2014 15:00Z There is (will be) a link to this post in my profile under "homepage"
Format updates. Thanks to those to IM'd me about the length and format. The consensus was most data, delete/simplify old and but highlight changes. I've implemented this change in this report. New/Changes lines will have this background color. All changes are relative to the previous Sanity Check. Minor wording/grammar/spelling changes are NOT highlighted. When I simplified/consolidated a section - I noted it but did not mark the deletions.
3/19/2014 15:00Z update since last Sanity Check. • The facts have not changed much. The a/c has not been found. • I've tried to be as factually accurate as I can - but I'm not an expert in each system - so if there factual errors please advise. • Significant updates to ADS-C/Way-points/FMS Programing. • Update on Maldives. • Simplified/consolidates some sections that were redundant.
First a synopsis (dropped some old 'breaking news' items) • The ship took off normally and headed on course to Beijing • The last ACARS transmission was 01:07 local. • Reports surfaced yesterday that the ship either: • Turned before the last voice transmission - or- • Had new way-points entered before the last voice transmission. • See ADS-C/FMS/Way-points sections. • The last comms were "All right, good night" transmitted to Malaysia at hand-off to Vietnam control. Vietnam was not contacted. It has been reported it was the First Officer's voice. • NOTE: Saying "good night" or "so long" or "see you" is very common for hand-offs. • The transponder stopped transmitting at 1:21 - loss of secondary radar. • There are reports of a climb to 45K, uneven descent and some changes in altitude. Since this is based on primary radar - altitude data is somewhat uncertain. The last has been reported as 29,500ft but that seems in dispute. • The validity of the 45K reports is being questioned. • There are subsequent primary radar returns west over Malacca Strait and then north west. Since it is primarily radar - a reflection - it does NOT identify the a/c, however it has been correlated with SATCOM pings so confidence is high that the returns are from MH370 • SATCOM system pings continued for 7+ (last ping at 08:11 local) hrs after LOS (loss of signal) • SATCOM pings do not locate the aircraft but based on correlation to signal strength there are two loci that indication aircraft distance from the Satellite. • These are not paths and I have changed my language to reflect that. They represent a distance from the satellite. • Corridor one is north over Andaman Sea, Bay of Bengal as far as Kazakhstan/Turkmenistan and is consistent with primary radar. • Corridor two is south over the India Ocean west of Australia. We've had no reports of radar signals in that area. • The last SATCOM ping was at 8:11 am Malaysian time. At that time it would be dark on the north radius and light over the south radius. • SATCOM pings are hourly - so the 8:11 ping could be up to 1 hour before the aircraft stopped 'pinging'. • We have no ELT signal detected. • While authorities (Malaysian) have not confirmed this is a hijacking or purposeful event - it is believed that is highly likely by most, however, motivation is unknown. • Debris reported by Greek oil tanker has already been reported as not relevant. • Recent reports attributed to the FBI that the plane 'could have landed' and sent a satellite signal from the ground appear to be just confirming what we already knew - that the SATCOM pings could come from an a/c in flight, or powered up on the ground. • There have been no reports that a Rolls Royce EH report was sent upon landing. • Recent report from the Maldives (island Kuda Huvadhoo) of a low flying aircraft at 6:15am on the 8th. Reported as not valid..
Time-line (from CNN) • 1.07 am - Last ACARS transmission. • 1.19 am - Last verbal communication "All right, good night" from the plane; believed to be the co-pilot • 1.21 am - Transponder stopped transmitting (turned off or failed) • 1.30 am - Civilian (primary) radar lost contact • 1.37 am - Expected ACARS transmission; not received • 2.15 am - Last military primary radar contact • 8.11 am - Last (hourly) satellite handshake
ACARS • Some deletions in this section to simplify.. • ACARS is an automated aircraft communication system that transmits a/c information, including navigation, operations, maintenance, etc to ATC and maintenance facilities. • ACARS is NOT a flight system - it is not needed for safe flight. • ACARS is a subscription service and costs money. All indications are the MH370 was subscribed only to engine health monitoring and data from that is sent to Rolls Royce. • This last fact (only EHM) is somewhat questions because of 3/18 reports of new way-points being programmed. This would require ADS-C • ACARS communicates via VHF, HF or SATCOM. The communications channel depends on availability and is independent of the ACARS. • ACARS can be instructed not to use SATCOM, HF or VHF from the Cockpit. This would effectively stop ACARS from sending data. Access to the EE bay is not required. • The last ACARS transmission was at 1:07. The next was expected at 1:37 and was not received. This means ACARS communication was disabled between those times. This could be action by the flight-deck crew or system failure.
ACARS data from MH370 • The ACARS system sent 2 engine health reports to Rolls Royce, both prior to the LOS event. • The Rolls Royce page indicates that a 'snapshot' of engine data would be sent at: takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. We know 2 ACARS Engine Health reports were received, consistent with the 1st two. • The last engine health report was received at 1:07am. The next was expected at 1:37 am and was not received. This indicates that the transmission of ACARS data was disabled between 1:07 and 1:37, but not when during that period. • The Engine Health report received prior to LOS had 'interesting' altitude data/fluctuations including 40K drop in a minute. That data is suspect. • There seems to be some indication that ADS-C data with way-point information was included in the last ACARS report. • This also seems to have been dismissed by the Malaysian authorityies today (!!)
ADS-C Tutorial (short). • ADS-C stands for Aircraft Dependent Surveillance - Contract. • The "Dependent" is because it "depends" on the aircraft taking action - as opposed to "independent" like radar.. • Contract means there must be a "contract" or "agreement" set up by the controllers an/or crew to send information. • ADS-C is not required to be used. • ADS-C can be programed to report periodically, on demand, on event. It can be initiated by the crew in an emergency. • Various data groups can be sent. The one relevant to this discussion is the Predicted Route Group which includes ETA, altitude, lat/long at next way-point and next+1 way-point. • Prior to 3/18 we had no information that ADS-C was being used, however on 3/18 it was reported that we "know" that new way-points were entered in the FMS prior to LOS. • The only way we know of for this information to be available to authorities is if the ACAR's report at 1:07 included the "Predicted Route Group." • ADS-C is transmitted via ACARS which can use SATCOM, VHF or HF. • ADS-C does not transmit via transponder (thanks for that correction) • A good tutorial on ADS-C is available at http://prezi.com/pcuvxhcklsda/ads-c-overview/
Way-point Entry Data. • On 3/18 authorities reported that new way-points had been entered into the a/c FMS BEFORE the last communication at 1:19. • This information could only be provided by ADS-C in the 1:07 ACARS report. • It was also reported that the aircraft had already turned off course prior to 1:19. • That seems inconsistent with secondary radar data which did not show a course change. • Opinion: I believe "experts" are confusing new way-points being programed and executed. • This is consistent with statements by several "experts" who seem to be really "experts" • It was noted that pilots sometimes program way-points but never execute (fly to them). • After take-off way-points are changed in the cockpit. Experts say non-pilots can't do it, but, in fact, it is not hard and many 'simulator' people do it all the time. • Summary: • Reports are that new way-points (off course) were added to the FMS after takeoff (or perhaps just before). • This information would come from ADS-C in the last ACARS report at 1:07. • This requires flight deck access pointing at either the crew or a breech of cockpit security. • All of this data seems to be based on the same NYT report that is being repeated. • We have not heard if the "new" way-points match those reported earlier in the primary radar track.
Way-point Tracks • A series of way-points reported that match the primary radar tracks in/near Malacca Strait. • These way-points line up with the direction indicated by the primary radar returns and Inmarsat data to the north. • While many believe the aircraft was under control - we cannot conclude if these way-point were used, or just coincidentally along the path. • A 777 can be programed to follow a series of way-point automatically - this is normal operating procedure and a 777 pilot would need no extra practice/training to do it. (Relevant to pilot flight simulator ownership)
SATCOM • SATCOM is a communications channel - Satellite Communications. It is a radio system that uses satellites to communicate various information. • SATCOM is not ACARS - it is one of the channels ACARS can use. • The SATCOM system on MH370 was connecting to Inmarsat 3 satellites. In the area covered, the only satellite with coverage is IOR. Big version: Width: 720 Height: 516 File size: 199kb • Since only 1 satellite has coverage, no triangulation is possible. All that can be determined is distance from the satellite. This has been used to define 2 potential loci were the a/c could have been. • North Corridor Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 114kb . • South Corridor Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 71kb • We do not know if these corridors are defined by the last SATCOM ping, or multiple pings. • We cannot distinguish if the a/c was flying or parked on the ground (powered up) when these pings were sent. • We have not been told how the distance from IOR was estimated - it could be signal strength or time of flight (signal propagation time).Opinion: as an EE I think signal strength is unlikely - it would depend on things such as a/c orientation. Time of flight - which is how GPS works - seems more likely - however others have pointed out this requires precise timing. • NOTE: While these may appear as paths - they are not. They are simply a set of potential locations based upon ping data. The aircraft could have been in a constant standard turn circle somewhere along one of the loci (red lines) and the satellite could not tell. We only know it was somewhere along those lines.
SATCOM Pings • The SATCOM system sends (or responds to) periodic 'pings' to/from the satellites (hourly). These 'pings' are a network communication that says "I am here." • SATCOM pings are not communicating a/c status, they are part of the communications channel. They are akin to registration pings on a cell system. • The last pings were detected at 8:11am Malaysia time. This does not mean the aircraft went down or landed at this time, only that the last ping was 8:11. Source I've seen indicate the pings are hourly - but that is not confirmed. • SATCOM pings provide no aircraft heading, speed or altitude information, however, distance from the Satellite can be estimated, and ONLY distance. • Based on analysis of the SATCOM pings by Inmarsat, two possible corridors have been predicted based upon a radius from the satellite picking up the pings. • SATCOM pings would be sent as long as the system (aircraft) was power up and withing coverage area. So, on the ground, if powered up (thanks to mandala499). • People have asked if SATCOM pings could come from a crashed plane if the right parts survived. • Very unlikely. The system is not self contained, the equipment, power and antennas are separate. • Recent news about the fact that the plane could have landed really appears to be just a restatement of known data. • Specifically - the SATCOM pings could have been sent from an aircraft powered, but landed - or from an aircraft in flight. • Clarification: The key is the system is powered, whether by engines, apu or shore line (on the ground). • Again: These pings to not contain ANY data about the aircraft position, speed, altitude, etc. • The 'location' data inferred from the SATCOM pings is based analysis of those signals which gives an approximate distance from the satellite to the a/c. • Since the satellite is in geosynchronous orbit (~22,000 miles), the difference in distance between a flying aircraft and one on the ground is probably not measurable.
Fire Theory (Was Cargo and Lithium Batteries) OPINION: I've tended to discount this based on my belief as a FF that the a/c could not continue to fly for 7+ hours. However, recent discussions have caused me to re-evaluate that. Regarding the fire source: • One hypothesis that has been presented is that a fire broke out incapacitated the crew/passengers or caused hypoxia that did so. • (See http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/16/opinio...er-malaysia-flight-370/) • • The hypothesis is: • A fire broke out causing the crew to disable multiple systems (or disabled them itself) • The crew was successful in containing/extinguishing the fire - but then was disable due to smoke and/or hypoxia. • The a/c, not on autopilot, continued to fly till fuel starvation occurred. • Key to this theory is that the aircraft, not on autopilot and not controlled, could remain in stable flight. • For most a/c- this would not be possible. But for the 777 it may - provided the flight control systems did not revert to a degraded state. • Specifically - the 777 will self trim (pitch up/down) to maintain speed. As long as these pitch up/down excursions did not cause stall (too high) or CFIT (crash), the a/c could fly. • The 777 also has bank protections - so banks induced by trim/turbulence would be damped and unlike a non FBW plane that may spiral in - the 777 could conceivable continue flying. • This is by no means proven or accepted, but it seems credible considering the advanced flight controls of an aircraft like the 777 as compared to a non-FBW aircraft. • This does not explain any purposeful heading changes except perhaps the first one which could be a turn to return to safety by the crew. • Other turns that appear to be FMS driven would be just happenstance. • It would be very interesting to hear Boeing's take on this - or to experiment with a 777. • There are reports that the cargo in MH370 did not receive normal X-ray screening (though this has recently been weakly denied) • There are reports of a shipment of lithium batteries on the a/c and that perhaps they caused a fire. • The hold of a passenger a/c like the 777 is protected with Halon and detectors - so a fire in the hold would be detected and suppressed. • A fire in the hold is unlikely to impact flight systems or EE bay. Freight a/c are different (thanks Pihero) • Fire suppression systems in the 777 include: Engines, APU, Cargo Holds, Toilets and portable extinguishers in Cabin/Galleys, Flight Deck, Crew Rest. Unprotected - EEbay and Wheel wells.(thanks Pihero)
Hypoxia and Pressurization • There has been lots of speculation about loss of pressurization in the aircraft and what that would do to passengers and crew. • IMPORTANT NOTE: all of this applies to cabin pressure - not the pressure outside.Just climbing to 45K would not exposed the passengers to that altitude - the aircraft would have to be depressurized. • In the case of loss of cabin pressure - O2 mask would deploy automatically. • The pilots cannot disable this above 13,500 feet - they can release the masks. • Passengers masks would last 12-20 minutes. Portable crew (FA) bottles ~30minutes. Cockpit crew longer. • Time of useful consciousness (not to loss of consciousness) will range from 1-3 minutes at 30K to 9-15 seconds at 43K. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness) • above 40,000 ft cabin altitude - positive pressure oxygen is required - passenger masks do not do this and would not be effective. • Because of this the a/c must be certified able to descend and pilots demonstrate an emergency descent to ~10,000 ft in 2 minutes. • The actual regulation is that passengers cannot be exposed to a cabin altitude of more than 25K for more than 2 minutes, or more than 40K for any time. (A380 got an exception to this rule.)
Cabin depressurizing by Pilots (this is not as solid as I would like in terms of facts). NOTE: Above 40K passenger masks are ineffective - positive pressure O2 is required. • Question: Can the pilots 'depressurize' the plane? Yes. • The FAA regulations state the a/c "must be designed so that occupants will not be exposed to cabin pressure altitudes in excess of 15,000 feet (4,600 m) after any probable failure condition in the pressurization system" • So for normal 'failures' - no, the cabin will remain below 15K. • However, per member mandala499 the pilots could: 1) Open outflow valves, 2) turn off bleed air. The cabin would then depressurize to current altitude. • I have no data on how quickly this would happen - but I think it would take minutes at least. • Let's investigate the sequence required and how that is related to the reported "climb to 45K": • 1) Pilots (or whomever is in control) switches to manual pressurization, turns off bleed, opens outflow valves. • 2) Cabin altitude climbs above 13,500 and passenger masks deploy - there is no way to prevent that. At that point passengers and cabin crew know. • 3) Presuming the pilots do not descent - passengers O2 will last 12-20 minutes. After that, depending on the cabin altitude they will loose effective consciousness (not loose consciousness, but effective consciousness). • 4) Cabin crew O2 will run out. • 5) During this time, the flight crew O2 will operate (and last longer) • 6) At some point - depending on cabin altitude - those not on O2 will die (no other way to say it). • • The question becomes - how long would this sequence take? • Below 40K cabin altitude - and once the cabin is depressurized- minimum 12-30 minutes for all passengers and cabin crew to become disabled. • Above 40K cabin altitude - I do not know - w/o positive pressure oxygen people will loose effective consciousness in seconds. • With O2, but not positive pressure - will this be extended? • If you descend below 40K with non positive pressure O2 masks still operating - people may recover depending on duration of hypoxia? • Summary: • It appears flight crew (or knowledgeable hijackers) could depressurize the cabin and disable all. • O2 masks would deploy so passengers and cabin crew would know. • This would not be an instantaneous procedure - the biggest factor is how long would it take to depressurize the a/c.
CRV/FDR Data • The CVR (cockpit voice recorder) and FDR (flight data recorder) do not transmit data in flight. • They do emit sonic pings if immersed. These will last a minimum of 30 days. We can expect sonar is being used to listen for them. • The pinger operates at 37.5KHz 106.5dp re 1μPa. (thanks k83713) • Maximum depth of beacon detection in Normal Conditions: 1-2km • Maximum depth of beacon detection in Good Conditions: 4-5km • Localising a pinger from the surface in shallow water is relatively easy, as described above. In deep water, the detection equipment should be installed on a self-propelled underwater vehicle, presupposing that the position is already known to within the maximum 2-3km detection range. • More Info:http://www.hydro-international.com/i...Deepwater_Black_Box_Retrieval.html • The CVR reportedly is a 120 minute CVR so it would contain only the last 120 minutes of flight (presuming it did not fail or was turned off prior to that). • I don't have data form the recording time of the FDR, but it is typically much longer.
ELT • The ELT, or emergency locater transmitter is mounted in the rear of the aircraft - difficult to access in flight. • The ELT is battery powered - independent built in power source. It is this source that is suspect in causing the 787 fire at Heathrow. • The ELT will be trigged by G forces in a crash. It will not operate under water. • The ELT can be triggered from the cockpit - it is a hardwired switch not dependent on computer systems. • The ELT transmits on the guard frequency (VHF) and on 406MHz to satellites. If it had been triggered (above water), satellites would have heard it and been able to locate the a/c. • Clarification: there are additional manual ELT's in the cabin that can be activated by crew members, but do not include g-force sensing.
Primary versus Secondary Radar (brief tutorial) • Primary radar is based on the original military usage. It sends out a strong (KW to MW) signal and looks for a reflection from something. • Primary radar provides distance and location. Comparing returns speed can be determined. Strength of return can indicate size. • Stealth a/c and ships are designed to absorb or miss-direct the reflection so primary radar cannot see them. • Primary radar does not depend on the transponder, so turning off a transponder will not make an a/c disappear from primary. • Primary radar is less prevalent than secondary - and more typically military tho ATC's do use it. • Secondary Radar is really not Radar in the defined sense. It is directional communication. • In secondary radar a directional signal is sent out (much less powerful than primary). Any a/c with a transponder that receives it will respond (the transponder responds) with information about the aircraft. • Combined with the direction of the outgoing beam, the time of flight information and returned information, the a/c location and identity (and other info depending on the mode) is returned. • Secondary radar is the primary method used by ATC. • If the transponder fails or is turned off - secondary radar will not see the a/c. • In the case of MH370 • The transponder was turned off - so the a/c disappeared from secondary (ATC) radar. • A target was tracked west, then northwest using primary radar. That target was correlated with SATCOM pings help determine it was MH370.
Airworthiness Directive • The airworthiness directive about corrosion near the SATCOM antenna does not apply to this ship. • The ship DOES have SATCOM - but uses a different antenna
Aircraft Type and Fuel State • The aircraft was a Boeing 777-200ER. MTOW 656,000 lbs, 301 3 class passengers (standard Boeing Config - does not reflect MH specific config.) • The aircraft could land in 6000 ft, or much less at high risk. As little as 3000ft has been stated, but it could not take off from there. • The aircraft would need a hard surface to land - this is heavier that has been done on steel matts. • It is reported the aircraft 45 to 60 minutes extra fuel. This would amount to about 7-7.5 hrs of fuel. This is a normal amount for this route. • The aircraft should have been able to fly about 30 minutes after the last SATCOM ping at 8:11. • The figure at this link show max range for the 777-200ER. NOTE: MH370 was not fueled for this range. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com.../777_range_singapore.pdf
Search Areas (including those that have be halted) • Along the planed route. I believe searching in this area is ending or decreasing based on new data indicating the a/c is not there • West over the Malacca strait • North west of Malacca strait • Along the two loci predicted by the SATCOM pings which continue north to Kazakhstan/Turkmenistan and south to the India Ocean. • These are huge search areas - I do not have a good handle on what assets are deployed where • It appears the north loci is considered more likely because of primary radar signals that roughly correlate. • I would expect review of primary radar west of Australia is in process if not done. • Today it seems the south route is being focused on - but there is confusion. • The search area are shrinking due to improved intelligence. • The USS Kidd has been pulled off, but other US resources are operating.
Mobile phones • We continue to have lots of discussion on "mobile phones" - can the connect in flight, etc. • We don't have any reports or evidence of that any passenger or crew mobile phone has registered with any network. • Until we have that data or reports - I believe the mobile phone discussions are not getting us anywhere. • UPDATE: This subject continues to be discussed. But, we have had no reports of cell phones registering with towers - we are in a loop here.
Theories and Conspiracy Theories • Currently, it seems most believe there is some positive action here - hijacker or crew based. • Opinion: Mostly, I believe this is because a mechanical failure that selectively terminates communication, incapacitates the crew/passengers, but then allows the a/c to fly on uncontrolled for 7 hours seems unlikely. • There are lots of theories out there - some clearly "conspiracy based" some just factual. Often it is hard to distinguish. • Here are a few. • A fire broke out that incapacitated passengers and crew - but allowed to aircraft to fly on it's own till starvation. • Corollary to this - the fire would have to disable comms, or cause the crew to disable comms in an attempt to fight it. • Corollary to this - the fire drove the pilots out of the cockpit. • Corollary to this - the fire disabled comms, nav and systems, and the crew - still alive - got lost trying to return. • The a/c was hijacked and flown to a remote strip to be used in a future terrorist act. • Corollary to this - The breadth of the countries searching alone makes this problematic, but it is not impossible. • The aircraft "shadowed" either a KLM or SIA aircraft to hide from radar then turned off the track and landed. • Questions raised - lot of discussion about if this was possible. • A mechanical failure depressurized the a/c and disabled the crew/passengers either rapidly or without their knowledge. • Corollary to this - What disabled comms? • One of the pilots hijacked the plane to commit suicide. (See Pilot Conspiracy below). • The plane was hijacked, either with or without crew involvement. • Despite the belief this is incident required human actions - we have no evidence of that. Rather - no other theory seems credible. • Freescale engineers have been hijacked for sensitive US data. Opinion: As an engineer who has worked with Freescale - I find that unsupportable. Companies send groups of employees around all the time. While many companies have policies about the # of executives on a flight - that typically is not enforced on regular employees. • There was something in the Cargo worth stealing - which is why it was not screened. This would require involvement of lots of people on the ground. Why not steal it on the ground. • The plane was full of undeclared gold.Gold is very heavy - what would you declare the cargo as? • The US hijacked the 777 using on board FBW technology to fly it like a drone to Diego Garcia (this one wins the insanity case). • Related: There has been a claim by counter terrorist expert that this could be a "cyber hijack" - a malicious attack of a FBW a/c. I don't know where to go with this - only reporting it because I'm trying to stay ahead of the next craze. Opinion: (speaking as an EE) this is the stuff dreams are made of (bad dreams).
Pilot Related Conspiracy Theories (some of this is my opinion). • The crew and passengers are a focus of investigation. Particularly the crew, because of the difficulty of managing an external cockpit intrusion. • The pilot has received a lot of attention because: 1) He supports opposition politics, 2) He has a mongo flight simulator, 3) There are rumors of family problems (debunked). • To address the data on a few of these: • 1) The pilot supports opposition politics and may have been at a trial of the opposition leader (confirmed 'ordinary' member of opposition party). Opinion: What is the motive for suicide in this case? • 2) The pilot has a very fancy flight simulator. People claim he used it to for this. Opinion: A 777 pilot does not need to train for the flying done - he knows how to do that stuff already. What he needs it planning for violent action/takeover. A flight simulator is no help. • Note - there has been some discussion that the pilot used this for training of accomplices. • 3) There are rumors of family problems reported from China. This has been reported as untrue.
IN summary what we know is. • The a/c disappeared from secondary radar and stopped communicating. We do not know why or what happened to it. • It seems we have data that says that way-points (undefined as yet) were added to the FMS prior to the 1:07 ACARS report. • There is evidence from SATCOM and Radar that the a/c traveled west - then most likely north west. • Hourly SATCOM signals show the a/c was operating till at least 8:11am Malaysia time, over 7 hrs total flight time • We have not found it despite multiple governmental agencies from multiple countries searching hard.
Additional thoughts. • A hijacking or positive intervention by human agency seems likely. • The erratic altitude and course may indicate a struggle on board. • While we would like to believe the a/c landed safely somewhere, that seems unlikely to have happened unobserved.
On March 20 2014 04:14 r.Evo wrote: It's one of those things that aren't impossible, but still unlikely. The common ground for these theories is that it assumes that pilots fell unconscious without any notice at all. That's also something that just doesn't happen unless you start assuming they were poisoned/gassed. The only known case where pilots "randomly" fell unconscious was Helios Flight 522 in which basically the entire cabin was lit up with warning lights and they were talking to ground control about what's going on - they just completely misread what's actually happening.
Basically everything comes back to the complete silence from the plane. This doesn't happen with fires, highjackings or even parts falling off the plane midflight. It's very hard to build a scenario in which a plane just stops communicating without sabotage, natural disaster or the pilots/crew being involved.
Hmn. It sounded like new radar material has surfaced. Whether it is only the Thai data is hard to say, but cryptically the malaysian minister asked the specific country with the data to reveal them publically. India, Indonesia and Australia comes to mind as the most likely candidates.
Edit I think we can scratch Indonesia from that list. They sound like they are genuinely cooperating. Also, it seems China has been caught on the wrong foot and are scrambling to analyse their data on own territories. Could be quite ironic if it was China getting called out!
The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.
Makes alot of sense.
^ That article isn't exactly credible.
1) It ignores the known later positions of the plane (the article was originally posted a week ago or so before new infos about those came out). 2) Even in the event of a fire you don't just pull all plugs and try to fight it. You communicate it to ground control first. A fire, in most cases, doesn't randomly come out of nowhere with zero warning and renders you incapable of communicating anything. I don't recall a single accident in aviation history involving fire where pilots were incapable of communicating it. 3) "Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire." - such a statement is quite frankly bullshit. Smoke? Fire? Oxygen masks on.
1) It was posted 16th March. The later positions of the plane? Are you talking about the arc, which doesnt seem to be too accurate? From what I can see that arc crosses the flight path he was talking about in article. 2) We dont know all the details but, there is no reason why the fire or whatever caused a problem somehow damaged all communications. 3) No. If there is a fire on board the aircraft, masks are not deployed, as the production of oxygen may further fuel the fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_oxygen_system
I am no expert, but it seems alot more credible than you think.
You linked an article about oxygen masks for passengers. In the event of smoke or even fire in the cockpit it's masks on. On top of that if a fire or any accident doesn't damage all communication one of the pilots will communicate it to ATC.
Here and here are examples of plane crashes as the result of fires. In both cases the pilots were communicating what's going on. I don't know of any single aviation incident where a fire (obviously not from an explosion) straight up disabled communications and/or the crew was incapable of communicating it - if you do, please share.
Malaysian newspaper is reporting that authorities have found five runways in the Indian Ocean on a flight simulator kept by the pilot of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370-- including one in the Maldives, where reports have surfaced of locals seeing a "low-flying jumbo jet" last week.
Seems authorities haven't confirmed the information obviously but I wouldn't doubt this info is true and the people in charge are just waiting for a good time to publicly release it.
I am just curious, is there a device portable enough that can eek out a sort of "white noise signal" to block off wireless forms of communication?
I know there are for radio signals (radio jammer) SMS and maybe WIFI, but for transponders and specifically aircraft communication?
I really am curious as to why the disappearance of the communication from the plane immediately suspects someone turning it off. Wouldn't it be possible (or does a device exist) that can basically flood the spectrum of signals used by the plane to prevent it from beaming out communication?
User currently offlineERJ135 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 679 posts, RR: 1 Reply 238, posted Thu Mar 20 2014 01:22:15 your local time (7 minutes 26 secs ago) and read 1353 times:
I am unable to give sources or any other information, however I am looking at a hard copy of the satellite imagery which clearly shows the two pieces of debris. The larger one at 24 metres is definitely a part of an aircraft wing, if it is the 777 we are looking for it would be from the engine pylon to the tip. The other part is harder to tell what it is. The credible information is that it was found at the extreme fuel range of the aircraft off the West coast of Australia near Perth. The theory of a Helios type tragedy is now most likely but is still speculation.
Update: Australian officials are now searching a patch of ocean southwest of Perth based on calculations by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. The calculations, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, relied on satellite pings provided to Australia by U.S. officials. If true, it suggests that investigators did in fact find the other handshakes useful.
Apparently there is an embedded reporter on the leading aircraft that reported the plane was detecting significant radar returns in the area.
No one has had an actual look at the area yet. However, keep in mind that they've diverted 4 planes and 5 ships (which won't arrive for days) already. I hope this is it for the sake of the families so they can have some closure...
Edit 1:
Alleged Coordinates of the Debris Frield seems to be 43°58'34.0"S 90°57'37.0"E
Edit 2:
Low-Res Images are on ABC now. Seems these are legit. Left is enhanced, Right is unenhanced.
Edit 4: A lot of speculation that Australia used their over the horizon early warning radar to confirm debris was there before sending search assets is happening.
The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.
Makes alot of sense.
^ That article isn't exactly credible.
1) It ignores the known later positions of the plane (the article was originally posted a week ago or so before new infos about those came out). 2) Even in the event of a fire you don't just pull all plugs and try to fight it. You communicate it to ground control first. A fire, in most cases, doesn't randomly come out of nowhere with zero warning and renders you incapable of communicating anything. I don't recall a single accident in aviation history involving fire where pilots were incapable of communicating it. 3) "Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire." - such a statement is quite frankly bullshit. Smoke? Fire? Oxygen masks on.
1) It was posted 16th March. The later positions of the plane? Are you talking about the arc, which doesnt seem to be too accurate? From what I can see that arc crosses the flight path he was talking about in article. 2) We dont know all the details but, there is no reason why the fire or whatever caused a problem somehow damaged all communications. 3) No. If there is a fire on board the aircraft, masks are not deployed, as the production of oxygen may further fuel the fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_oxygen_system
I am no expert, but it seems alot more credible than you think.
You linked an article about oxygen masks for passengers. In the event of smoke or even fire in the cockpit it's masks on. On top of that if a fire or any accident doesn't damage all communication one of the pilots will communicate it to ATC.
Here and here are examples of plane crashes as the result of fires. In both cases the pilots were communicating what's going on. I don't know of any single aviation incident where a fire (obviously not from an explosion) straight up disabled communications and/or the crew was incapable of communicating it - if you do, please share.
lol. First time I had the BBC arguing my case. Cheers. <3
@Australian Findings: First of all, those extrapolated pings are pretty damn huge. That info really took its time to come out. Either way if it's really found down there in the southern arc that would be an... awkward position to find the plane in.
You suddenly need a scenario where the pilots made a deliberate course change because of some event in the plane that also disabled communication and made handling the plane impossible for some reason at a later point. What makes this weird to me personally is that for such a scenario to occur you kind of need something like a storm and/or lightning hits to really screw a plane up like this.
I vaguely remember there having been cases in which electronics and controls died out completely in the front area of the plane where the only way for the pilots to still steer was using the autopilot - but suddenly we're talking about a plane that is in the process of breaking up and wouldn't keep going for another 6-7h.
The planes course and timeline, assuming it's really going to be found down there, would imply that both pilots were rendered incapable of controlling the (otherwise completely stable) plane in the middle of a maneuver and autopilot kept the flight level until fuel ran out.
...that's a pretty hard to explain scenario, especially combined with the radio silence, unless the pilots punched each other to death while arguing over where the flight goes exactly and neither won.
They still have some time to find the plane and hopefully the black box that will finally shed the light on what the hell happened. If the plane crashed in the sea, then they have 3 weeks or so give or take before the ping on the Black Box dies.
Do we know if Australia ships/planes/chopper are already onroute for the debris that they seemed to have found ? It would mean that the plane and people are lost so in a sense... I hope they won't find anything.
What i'm more concerned is in the article that flight data is not recorded for more than a few hours. So they might not get data from all of the duration of flight.
There are about 5 planes en route. One was already there when the press release was made. It's a pretty big area though, especially if stuff has sunk or dispersed since then.
Regarding:
On March 20 2014 17:14 r.Evo wrote: @Australian Findings: You suddenly need a scenario where the pilots made a deliberate course change because of some event in the plane that also disabled communication and made handling the plane impossible for some reason at a later point. What makes this weird to me personally is that for such a scenario to occur you kind of need something like a storm and/or lightning hits to really screw a plane up like this.
This is true, but it's really true of any scenario that doesn't involve active hijacking. None of the points on the satellite ping are on the plane's last known trajectory. Maaaybe some on the very edge of the northern arc. It pretty much has to have turned since the radar detection, either north or south.
On March 20 2014 18:18 FFW_Rude wrote: The "sane thing article" was really interesting.
Do we know if Australia ships/planes/chopper are already onroute for the debris that they seemed to have found ? It would mean that the plane and people are lost so in a sense... I hope they won't find anything.
What i'm more concerned is in the article that flight data is not recorded for more than a few hours. So they might not get data from all of the duration of flight.
The awesome aussies have send several planes to track the debris. They should be approximately at the site atm. A ship should also be in the vicinity. The plane is expected to identify the pieces and give the coordinates to the ship. The ship should be equipped to carry the piece to land.
Anyway we have to make a distinction here. There are two parts to the black box:
"Flight Data Recorder" is the part where raw data from a lot of different sensors in the plane gets stored. It can usually hold more than 17 hours of data, so it should be perfectly fine and useful. "Cockpit Voice Recorder" is the part where the sounds in the cockpit is recorded. That is usually only available for what is happening less than two hours before the crash.
The FDR is going to be instrumental for finding out what happened. The CVR would, given the situation, be expected to only hold more or less ambient noices even though that in itself can be useful.
Satellite image data are from sunday. Has Australia wasted enough time on confirmation for the debris to have sunk? First plane has returned with no luck finding anything...
So, what I dont get is: If there was an hourly ping at 8.11 which gives us those arcs as possible locations, where are the reports of the 7.11, 6.11, 5.11, etc pings? Shouldnt those pings, while maybe not give a 100% accurate location, at the very least make it easier to do educated guesses? There should have been another 5 pings between its last location on military radar and that 8.11 ping. So follow the possible locations each ping gives and you should be able to guess?
As of now, that 8.11 ping seems to be taken out of context.
On March 20 2014 20:23 Belisarius wrote: Why does the cockpit recorder only have 2 hours?
Surely we're past the point where it's a problem to store like an extra 5 Mb of data....
You need a device that can record and not die to anything and "breath" underwater. I don't think it's that easy.
Building a device with 25h record duration is not difficult at all.
Main reason the current duration is 30min to 2h today is that flight regulations require 30min. Those 30min were initially decided because it was the length of a tape loop in the first designs 50 years ago. Regulation wasn't changed since because the last 30min are deemed sufficient to understand the crash itself. Providers do not offer more in standard VCR systems because it would be marginally more expensive without a commercial argument to back it up.
The last modification proposed for those recording systems was a shift to camera + voice recording over the duration of the flight. This was rejected by the pilots.
Last point, the 777 was designed in 1993. Inertia between subcontractor (honeywell)/constructor (boeing)/airline would probably create a delay of 5 years before all planes were equiped (in case of a regulation change).
That was my thought as well. How do we know it's the right plane? There has to be a lot of crap floating in the ocean. Also if it's floating, wouldn't the current have carried it east by now?
On March 20 2014 22:24 Kreb wrote: So, what I dont get is: If there was an hourly ping at 8.11 which gives us those arcs as possible locations, where are the reports of the 7.11, 6.11, 5.11, etc pings? Shouldnt those pings, while maybe not give a 100% accurate location, at the very least make it easier to do educated guesses? There should have been another 5 pings between its last location on military radar and that 8.11 ping. So follow the possible locations each ping gives and you should be able to guess?
As of now, that 8.11 ping seems to be taken out of context.
This is a good question, I also thought about it. Also, since they know the 8:11 was the last ping, it means they must have the other pings as well. Otherwise they wouldn't be sure they didn't receive the 9:11 ping. Hopefully it's not that case that satellite just overrides the last ping when new is received?
On March 20 2014 22:39 TheFish7 wrote: That was my thought as well. How do we know it's the right plane? There has to be a lot of crap floating in the ocean. Also if it's floating, wouldn't the current have carried it east by now?
They mentioned already several times - they are not sure what it is. They believe it's a good chance It is a part of the plane. But it might be just some trash floating, we don't know. They warned that it is a careful hope only.
On March 20 2014 22:24 Kreb wrote: So, what I dont get is: If there was an hourly ping at 8.11 which gives us those arcs as possible locations, where are the reports of the 7.11, 6.11, 5.11, etc pings? Shouldnt those pings, while maybe not give a 100% accurate location, at the very least make it easier to do educated guesses? There should have been another 5 pings between its last location on military radar and that 8.11 ping. So follow the possible locations each ping gives and you should be able to guess?
As of now, that 8.11 ping seems to be taken out of context.
This is a good question, I also thought about it. Also, since they know the 8:11 was the last ping, it means they must have the other pings as well. Otherwise they wouldn't be sure they didn't receive the 9:11 ping. Hopefully it's not that case that satellite just overrides the last ping when new is received?
Now you could just look at the last page of this thread, and you would see the results of all those pings, all made into a nice map...
On March 20 2014 22:24 Kreb wrote: So, what I dont get is: If there was an hourly ping at 8.11 which gives us those arcs as possible locations, where are the reports of the 7.11, 6.11, 5.11, etc pings? Shouldnt those pings, while maybe not give a 100% accurate location, at the very least make it easier to do educated guesses? There should have been another 5 pings between its last location on military radar and that 8.11 ping. So follow the possible locations each ping gives and you should be able to guess?
As of now, that 8.11 ping seems to be taken out of context.
This is a good question, I also thought about it. Also, since they know the 8:11 was the last ping, it means they must have the other pings as well. Otherwise they wouldn't be sure they didn't receive the 9:11 ping. Hopefully it's not that case that satellite just overrides the last ping when new is received?
Now you could just look at the last page of this thread, and you would see the results of all those pings, all made into a nice map...
Thanks, now the strange thing is the lines for other hours are much shorter than the lines for 8:11.
On March 20 2014 22:24 Kreb wrote: So, what I dont get is: If there was an hourly ping at 8.11 which gives us those arcs as possible locations, where are the reports of the 7.11, 6.11, 5.11, etc pings? Shouldnt those pings, while maybe not give a 100% accurate location, at the very least make it easier to do educated guesses? There should have been another 5 pings between its last location on military radar and that 8.11 ping. So follow the possible locations each ping gives and you should be able to guess?
As of now, that 8.11 ping seems to be taken out of context.
This is a good question, I also thought about it. Also, since they know the 8:11 was the last ping, it means they must have the other pings as well. Otherwise they wouldn't be sure they didn't receive the 9:11 ping. Hopefully it's not that case that satellite just overrides the last ping when new is received?
The value (distance to satellite) difference between contact points will be constant (either increasing or decreasing) assuming airplane travel at a constant speed. With that info, we know if it's getting closer or further away at angle estimate based on an assumed speed. However, because there is only one point of reference, there is no way of telling which direction it's coming from or traveling at. That's how we end up with those mirroring arcs.
What I have heard is that the area is part of/close to a shipping lane. It happens fairly often that containers drop from a ship. The Indian Ocean is extremely hostile so it wouldn't be too surprising if a lot of containers are floating around there. However, the longest intermodal containers are about 17 meters long, while the standard should be about 12x2.5x2.5 meters. If it is that kind of junk or actually part of the plane... Well, I guess we will find out.
All we can really do is hope the objects are still there and not something filled with Nikes.
These pieces seem pretty waterlogged so they might have sunk already. Modern aircraft use a honeycomb composite that can trap air. The piece itself does not float without the air and the air will leak out eventually :\ They are probably looking for just anything man made at this point. The Norwegian ship will be invaluable for this since it can keep station.
On March 20 2014 20:23 Belisarius wrote: Why does the cockpit recorder only have 2 hours?
Surely we're past the point where it's a problem to store like an extra 5 Mb of data....
You need a device that can record and not die to anything and "breath" underwater. I don't think it's that easy.
Building a device with 25h record duration is not difficult at all.
Main reason the current duration is 30min to 2h today is that flight regulations require 30min. Those 30min were initially decided because it was the length of a tape loop in the first designs 50 years ago. Regulation wasn't changed since because the last 30min are deemed sufficient to understand the crash itself. Providers do not offer more in standard VCR systems because it would be marginally more expensive without a commercial argument to back it up.
The last modification proposed for those recording systems was a shift to camera + voice recording over the duration of the flight. This was rejected by the pilots.
Last point, the 777 was designed in 1993. Inertia between subcontractor (honeywell)/constructor (boeing)/airline would probably create a delay of 5 years before all planes were equiped (in case of a regulation change).
Oh ok. I really thought there was more to it. Thanks for the clarification.
Malaysia has been criticised by British satellite company Inmarsat for the way it has handled the search operation.
The firm said that it had information 10 days ago that the plane had flown for at least another seven hours.
Speaking to the BBC, the company also said it knew on March 11 that the plane was likely to be in the southern Indian Ocean or central Asia, not the Malacca Strait or South China Sea.
Inmarsat has spoken out because of its fears that the search had been handled badly.
A plane that supposedly flew until it had no more fuel left making a water landing that leaves most of its fuselage intact and floating? No. Just no.
This is an example of a fairly recent (1996) water ditching without fuel. It's also an example of a highjacking gone wrong.
Even when it comes to completely successful ditchings (there was both a Russian Tupolev that got ditched in a river and also an Airbus that got ditched in the Hudson River) the planes would just... sink afterwards without outside help.
Water landings and especially emergency landings are much more violent than if you'd try to do the same thing on land. Even actually finding said 24m piece still floating would be extremely lucky. (Do we know from when the satellite pictures that the Aussies are chasing atm are coming?)
A plane that supposedly flew until it had no more fuel left making a water landing that leaves most of its fuselage intact and floating? No. Just no.
This is an example of a fairly recent (1996) water ditching without fuel. It's also an example of a highjacking gone wrong.
Even when it comes to completely successful ditchings (there was both a Russian Tupolev that got ditched in a river and also an Airbus that got ditched in the Hudson River) the planes would just... sink afterwards without outside help.
Water landings and especially emergency landings are much more violent than if you'd try to do the same thing on land. Even actually finding said 24m piece still floating would be extremely lucky. (Do we know from when the satellite pictures that the Aussies are chasing atm are coming?)
That image is not the same area that Aussies are looking at. Its an older image that I believe turned out to be nothing.
something is really fishy here and im just starting to think that 911 is an inside job edit ** just a min ago it was all russia.. is this a smoke screen?
Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
Hmm it looks like at this point we'll never know what happened. Blame the malaysian government for not being forthcoming with information right away and cooperating with other nations from the get go. Sucks for the people who lost loved ones and friends due to malaysian government incompetence.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I find it amusing that something like this comes from a guy from the second largest country in the world including Nunavut and Yukon. There so much Ice Eddard Stark could get jelly.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
I'd be curious how deep the ocean is in the area the junk was spotted. Anyone know how to check? There were coordinates on the last page.
If it's sunk and the ocean is 5km deep there, it could be months before we find anything. And then we'll probably find a shipping container full of shoes.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
One problem with where they're searching in the Indian Ocean: given currents in that area, the debris could be from practically anything. Currents roll around Antarctica pretty much forever.
I had a friend that lives on the West Coast visit the pier that showed up from the Tohoku tsunami (something like 10 or 20 tons) around 8 months afterwards. Big, massive pier floated thousands of miles across the ocean. There are strange things like that floating in the ocean.
As for that location, it's possible the plane barely missed the Australian JORN radar network. The first locations they were claiming would have required entering its published range within 2-3 hours of disappearing from Radar. Now, not so much. (At the edges, I'm pretty sure the accuracy goes way down) And, if it was just at the edges, the Australians probably wanted to wait for other information to come out, rather than giving too many details about their Tech.
Still, if the plane did go down there, we have a situation where the plane somehow follows flight lines for 2 hours, then turns due South over the Bay of Bengal and flies until it runs out of fuel. Which actually doesn't much change the purposeful hijacking likelihood. Now we need to figure out if they had HALO jump gear on the plane.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist?
Terrorists aren't well known for being brilliant long-term thinkers. Considering most of the problematic ones are suicidal jihadists, their long-term planning is in question.
Plus, we don't know if the event went properly. There have been a lot of failed terror plots. If this one half-Failed, that could explain all of the strange problems.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway
Pretty sure that's not the average terrorist's mission statement.
On March 21 2014 08:35 Taf the Ghost wrote: Plus, we don't know if the event went properly. There have been a lot of failed terror plots. If this one half-Failed, that could explain all of the strange problems.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
Just to play the devil's advocate here, the Malaysian government isn't doing so well at the moment.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist?
Terrorists aren't well known for being brilliant long-term thinkers. Considering most of the problematic ones are suicidal jihadists, their long-term planning is in question.
Plus, we don't know if the event went properly. There have been a lot of failed terror plots. If this one half-Failed, that could explain all of the strange problems.
yeah, could be. but that would mean they either knew the plane very well, or they failed that miserable that they killed everyone on the plane but the autopilot continued flying.
I'm on the side of a technical problem that caused "problems". the pilots tried to program the autopilot to fly to safety, but died in the process. So there was a ghost-plane in the sky for hours, until they ran out of fuel.
@Cambium: I don't follow their politics that closely. Their search just showcases they're no 1st world country with tons of resources and properly structured bureaucracy. Or am i missing something? (I mean, yes I hear that the co pilot is closely related to the wife of the oppositions leader. but other than that?)
Yeah, if it's a terrorist attack, the most likely explanation would be that they failed somehow.
It just makes no sense to me, from their point of view, why they wouldn't do something publicly, crashing the plane somewhere or keep the passengers as hostages and so on. Perhaps a hijacking and then an accident they didn't plan for?
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
"spreading terror" can be done in a lot of different ways. Israel has already spent millions preparing for a ridiculously unlikely terrorist plot and the US spent billions more chasing terrorism (like it's a person not a tactic) than Osama ever could of done in any semblance of conventional war. While the thousands lost from 9/11 and the following wars are significant, the most severe blows were struck economically and socially.
Individual terrorists do things for ignorant reasons devoid of comprehension of the realistic consequences of their actions. However, the masterminds who use terrorism as a tactic know that by attacking sensationally the damage done by the attack itself is only a tiny fraction of the intended impact as is the generic "terror" it spreads.
All that being said I think people should stop insisting that the pilot/s were probably terrorists if it turns out that there was a catastrophic failure and the pilots last actions were a heroic effort to divert the plane to a safer path or whatever it will show just how disgusting it is that so many would have defamed a potentially innocent person to such an insane degree, all in the interest of speculation
Australian authorities hunting for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 have released satellite images of two objects seen floating in the southern Indian Ocean.
Search teams on board a number of vessels and planes are now scouring the area - more than 2,000km (1,200 miles) south-west of Perth - to try to identify the debris.
However, Australia's Maritime Safety Authority (Amsa), which is co-ordinating the search, cautioned that the items were located in a busy shipping area and may not be from the missing jet.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
All that being said I think people should stop insisting that the pilot/s were probably terrorists if it turns out that there was a catastrophic failure and the pilots last actions were a heroic effort to divert the plane to a safer path or whatever it will show just how disgusting it is that so many would have defamed a potentially innocent person to such an insane degree, all in the interest of speculation
unless the plane was carrying 237 nukes instead of people, there is no reason for a "safer path" all the way to south indian ocean (if indeed that's where it is) where it makes it harder to find the wreckage.
seperate question, it says that the area is a busy shipping area, what route would go that far south?
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
All that being said I think people should stop insisting that the pilot/s were probably terrorists if it turns out that there was a catastrophic failure and the pilots last actions were a heroic effort to divert the plane to a safer path or whatever it will show just how disgusting it is that so many would have defamed a potentially innocent person to such an insane degree, all in the interest of speculation
unless the plane was carrying 237 nukes instead of people, there is no reason for a "safer path" all the way to south indian ocean (if indeed that's where it is) where it makes it harder to find the wreckage.
seperate question, it says that the area is a busy shipping area, what route would go that far south?
Safer for people on the ground if we assume it was a ghost plane and was destined to crash. And the idea was that they turned it towards the closest airport and then for whatever reason kept flying, not consciously diverting it out the the ocean to protect people.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
"spreading terror" can be done in a lot of different ways. Israel has already spent millions preparing for a ridiculously unlikely terrorist plot and the US spent billions more chasing terrorism (like it's a person not a tactic) than Osama ever could of done in any semblance of conventional war. While the thousands lost from 9/11 and the following wars are significant, the most severe blows were struck economically and socially.
Individual terrorists do things for ignorant reasons devoid of comprehension of the realistic consequences of their actions. However, the masterminds who use terrorism as a tactic know that by attacking sensationally the damage done by the attack itself is only a tiny fraction of the intended impact as is the generic "terror" it spreads.
All that being said I think people should stop insisting that the pilot/s were probably terrorists if it turns out that there was a catastrophic failure and the pilots last actions were a heroic effort to divert the plane to a safer path or whatever it will show just how disgusting it is that so many would have defamed a potentially innocent person to such an insane degree, all in the interest of speculation
yeah but in all those reactions, there is a real and reasonable threat behind it. Now we just have a missing air plane. Of course it could be an evil mastermind, but to instill fear via missing planes you need more than one in a reasonable time frame. that would need extraordinary organization coming from an ngo. so unless planes start vanishing regularly, I doubt it's terrorists.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
All that being said I think people should stop insisting that the pilot/s were probably terrorists if it turns out that there was a catastrophic failure and the pilots last actions were a heroic effort to divert the plane to a safer path or whatever it will show just how disgusting it is that so many would have defamed a potentially innocent person to such an insane degree, all in the interest of speculation
unless the plane was carrying 237 nukes instead of people, there is no reason for a "safer path" all the way to south indian ocean (if indeed that's where it is) where it makes it harder to find the wreckage.
seperate question, it says that the area is a busy shipping area, what route would go that far south?
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
It's new-meta terrorism. Instead of causing trouble in public, they cause terror secretly and confuse everyone
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
It's new-meta terrorism. Instead of causing trouble in public, they cause terror secretly and confuse everyone
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
All that being said I think people should stop insisting that the pilot/s were probably terrorists if it turns out that there was a catastrophic failure and the pilots last actions were a heroic effort to divert the plane to a safer path or whatever it will show just how disgusting it is that so many would have defamed a potentially innocent person to such an insane degree, all in the interest of speculation
unless the plane was carrying 237 nukes instead of people, there is no reason for a "safer path" all the way to south indian ocean (if indeed that's where it is) where it makes it harder to find the wreckage.
seperate question, it says that the area is a busy shipping area, what route would go that far south?
Now I'm thinking they're simply mentioning the polygon border of shipping lines near Australia. The search area doesn't have to be directly on a line for the debris to be pulled out from the shipping lines by the currents into that area of the ocean.
I don't think that if there was foul play involved that it is required to fit the mold of what we consider to be "terrorism." There could be plenty of reasons to steal a plane full of people other than crashing it into a building or otherwise creating some sort of immediate catastrophe.
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
It's new-meta terrorism. Instead of causing trouble in public, they cause terror secretly and confuse everyone
damn it. postmodernists everywhere.
Think you guys misunderstood my point. My point was that it is incredibly unlikely it was terrorism. An auxiliary point I was making was that despite it probably not being terrorism, previous terrorist acts have succeeded in making people overreact causing shock waves of social and economic damage. Although kudos for the American media capitalizing on tragedy to speculate endlessly and not let the potential profit from this tragedy get away.
As for the legitimacy of the threat terrorism like planes flying into stuff is a joke on the "potential threat scale" in the big picture.
Particularly for Americans. You are more likely to die from about half a dozen other things before dinner than you are from a terrorist. Yet we spend billions "protecting ourselves" from them. If "protecting Americans" even had a little to do with it the time and money would be spent elsewhere.
I feel like people have almost gotten to the point of rooting for the idea that it was terrorism because they just like that story more than the boring old ending of just mechanical/electrical failure.
Wild guess is the captain has something to do with this. He built flight simulator at home and has history of breaking airlines protocol by opening the cockpit for girl passengers. Security and tracking devices has been manually shut down on board probably by an expert on planes like him.
We just pray that all passengers is safe. And the plane just landed on a hidden location just in Thailand or Malaysia.
This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. When millions of Americans watch this and hear it echoed all over certain media outlets it just dumps lighter fluid on their ignorance.
"Well, I mean, it -- it's becomes clearer and clearer that this is a deliberate act."
"Problem is, we still don't know what that plan is. We don't know what purpose they had in mind. Obviously, it was a nefarious purpose, and it was obviously done by experts, people who knew this plane intimately. Communications -- all the communications just didn't just get cut off by accident. That had to be done on purpose. The turn was pre-programmed. The co-pilot gave that "Good night" signal after the turn already happened.
I mean, these are all facts that point to some kind of a deliberate plan to do this"
"So the facts that we're working with, it would be hard to understand, you know, just exactly how it got to Pakistan, what it's doing there, why it wasn't tracked there. Or the Israelis, their concern that maybe it's either in Iran or under control or some of the groups that Iran controls."
On March 21 2014 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote: This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. When millions of Americans watch this and hear it echoed all over certain media outlets it just dumps lighter fluid on their ignorance.
"Well, I mean, it -- it's becomes clearer and clearer that this is a deliberate act."
"Problem is, we still don't know what that plan is. We don't know what purpose they had in mind. Obviously, it was a nefarious purpose, and it was obviously done by experts, people who knew this plane intimately. Communications -- all the communications just didn't just get cut off by accident. That had to be done on purpose. The turn was pre-programmed. The co-pilot gave that "Good night" signal after the turn already happened.
I mean, these are all facts that point to some kind of a deliberate plan to do this"
I don't what you're trying to say. Yes it's fox news but this time they are actually correct. I lean towards something like a hijacking happening and then some kind of struggle and the eventual crash into the ocean imo.
Am I being ignorant because I believe something happened onboard that wasn't an accident based on the evidence we have?
On March 21 2014 11:40 kahuynon712 wrote: Wild guess is the captain has something to do with this. He built flight simulator at home and has history of breaking airlines protocol by opening the cockpit for girl passengers. Security and tracking devices has been manually shut down on board probably by an expert on planes like him.
We just pray that all passengers is safe. And the plane just landed on a hidden location just in Thailand or Malaysia.
Just a wild wild guess.
Pilots do that sort of thing all the time. Many of them enjoy flying which is why they have flight simulators. The airports he had programmed in are very scenic airports. Its also been shown that for a person in the cockpit, shutting down these devices and setting a waypoint are not actually particularly hard to do. These planes can fly themselves, everything except takeoff and landing. In the US it would be hard to break into a cockpit but other airlines are less strict about keeping them locked up.
On March 21 2014 10:04 zev318 wrote: seperate question, it says that the area is a busy shipping area, what route would go that far south?
That far south prob. nothing, but a bit north is Eu <-> Australia is there a way to resize pics? that wiki thing is huge.
On March 21 2014 10:31 Xinzoe wrote:
On March 21 2014 08:31 Hryul wrote:
On March 21 2014 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 21 2014 07:29 jrwh wrote:
On March 21 2014 06:34 maartendq wrote:
On March 21 2014 05:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: Man, this is like some Bermuda triangle shit at this point. If this was an act of terrorism, or kidnapping, it's strange that nobody has come forward with demands. I guess this will be turned into a movie whether or not the plane is discovered. So much intrigue...
I only hope there are survivors.
I'm reminded of the true-to-life movie Alive where a plane crashes and the plane itself is never found until the survivors appear all of a sudden. What if it did go down over a mountain range or some rural area / swamp, and the survivors are struggling to make contact with civilization right now while people argue over the politics of the pilot and search the ocean along the possible trajectories of the plane before they lost contact?
Crazy shit... it's the 21st century and we can't find 239 people on a machine rigged with millions of dollars worth of tracking technology.
I think I read an interview with some marine officers who basically said that people have gotten way so used to the idea of GPS being able to find anything within minutes that they fail to realise that the Indian Ocean is an incredibly vast surface of water. If the aircraft really did have its tracking technology disabled it coud be years before we find it, especially if it sank all the way to the bottom of the sea.
It's against human nature to accept that sometimes shit just happens, so we just keep looking, in the meantime blaming people and circumstances without even the slightest modicum of proof.
My personal, and unprofessional opinion is that the plane landed intact somewhere and the passengers are still quite possibly alive. It doesn't make any sense to me to go through all the trouble of making the plane "disappear" in plain sight only to fly it into the ocean. A pilot with a suicide wish wouldn't need to do all that. I'm expecting the Australian findings to be another false alarm.
Well at this point this event is inciting several countries to spend millions and millions of dollars which is actually the intention of terrorist attacks anyway; so if it was terrorism it's already been more effective than most attacks. If not it shows us yet again our paranoia around terrorism is far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
terrorists want to spread terror. There isn't much terror spread atm. it is literally different from all terrorist attacks i know of.
What would be the point to let a plane vanish anyway from the pov of a terrorist? the search may be expensive, but it's not ruining any country.
It's new-meta terrorism. Instead of causing trouble in public, they cause terror secretly and confuse everyone
damn it. postmodernists everywhere.
Think you guys misunderstood my point. My point was that it is incredibly unlikely it was terrorism. An auxiliary point I was making was that despite it probably not being terrorism, previous terrorist acts have succeeded in making people overreact causing shock waves of social and economic damage. Although kudos for the American media capitalizing on tragedy to speculate endlessly and not let the potential profit from this tragedy get away.
As for the legitimacy of the threat terrorism like planes flying into stuff is a joke on the "potential threat scale" in the big picture.
Particularly for Americans. You are more likely to die from about half a dozen other things before dinner than you are from a terrorist. Yet we spend billions "protecting ourselves" from them. If "protecting Americans" even had a little to do with it the time and money would be spent elsewhere.
I feel like people have almost gotten to the point of rooting for the idea that it was terrorism because they just like that story more than the boring old ending of just mechanical/electrical failure.
"I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano; A stage where every man must play a part, And mine a sad one."
First, the impression left by the segment is not that anything went wrong on this terrorism master plot. So my point is that ignorant people hearing that nonsense have their ignorance emboldened and hurts sensible people
Yes by definition you are ignorant, as much of what has been passed as 'fact' or 'knowledge' in this instance has been debunked or altered at some point.
To 'believe' anything happened besides a plane is missing is based completely on conjecture and worth as about as much ink as it takes to write.
Speculate all you like I mean its a board. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that your speculations are ignorant and potentially hurtful.
You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
Saw a meme that had a B2 Stealth bomber saying it was the stealthiest plane ever made. Then below it was a Malaysian airlines plane and the caption "Bitch Please"
I thought that area where Australia was searching was outside the possible fuel range of the aircraft?
On March 21 2014 13:21 Aveng3r wrote: You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
Those weren't jabs, they were fair criticism as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm biased because of the fact that I'm completely disgusted by the amount of low quality press this issue gets, though. Shots in the dark being fired by people and journalists alike. Granted, the US media are not the only ones to capitalize on that MH370 flight, but they certainly are the worst.
And the Americans are not the only ones who are disproportionately afraid of terrorism because of the absurd amount of fear-based propaganda that is pumped out by the western medias, but it's the US that violently twitches and destroys countries because of it...
As for the ignorance thing, he clearly means gullibility, naivety or perhaps stupidity. The amount of filth that's being written by journalists, AKA people who have some form of credibility (in theory), is fucking everything up for everybody and gullible people choose to believe something instead of admitting that they don't know, as reasonable people should do. I think that this is one of the most apparent widespread affronts to journalistic integrity I've seen (in my relatively short time paying attention). We've always known that the line between blogging and journalism has been fuzzy in recent years or decades, but this is just incredibly bad.
Yeah, besides providing up to date narration on the SAR ops, all they do is fill time with increasingly random and asinine drama fodder. Its really sad (but cool at the same time) that the only good sources of info I've found on the matter are basically subject matter expects on what's basically the TeamLiquid of airplane nerds.
The major news outlets should be doing what the journalists are supposed to do which is investigate claims and clarify them instead of hope and FUD baiting viewers.
That being said WSJ has been doing a great job of breaking news as well as ABC News AU for their really good coverage of the Australian SAR.
On March 21 2014 13:21 Aveng3r wrote: You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
. Granted, the US media are not the only ones to capitalize on that MH370 flight, but they certainly are the worst.
wait what? I watch Canadian news, there was a lot of it. And even the better British papers pushed the missing plane on top of other stories that globally matter more.
On March 21 2014 13:21 Aveng3r wrote: You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
. Granted, the US media are not the only ones to capitalize on that MH370 flight, but they certainly are the worst.
wait what? I watch Canadian news, there was a lot of it. And even the better British papers pushed the missing plane on top of other stories that globally matter more.
Newspapers and News shows love a good mystery and this one is as weird as it gets.
On March 21 2014 13:21 Aveng3r wrote: You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
. Granted, the US media are not the only ones to capitalize on that MH370 flight, but they certainly are the worst.
wait what? I watch Canadian news, there was a lot of it. And even the better British papers pushed the missing plane on top of other stories that globally matter more.
Newspapers and News shows love a good mystery and this one is as weird as it gets.
Oh totally. I just dont get the random anti-Americanism in this one...
So we have no news ? I heard yesterday on French Radio that 3planes were almost on site and that a norveigian boat was already circling the area. (I was surprised that they didn't say bullshit. Just facts. Kind of weird for medias).
TL is this only "credible" source of informations i have on this... This is sad i wanted to ask my cousin about his thoughts but he's flying so... i don't think crash theory are a good idea to discuss when he'll be flying the whole month
So the headlines in the swedish newspaper today was : "new theory on plane, ghost pilots flying the plane and holding the passengers hostage". That is direct translation. I didnt bother reading the article.
On March 21 2014 21:07 sertas wrote: So the headlines in the swedish newspaper today was : "new theory on plane, ghost pilots flying the plane and holding the passengers hostage". That is direct translation. I didnt bother reading the article.
It's probably one of those bullshit articles that tries to be all ironic and clever by using a fuckload of metaphors and shit like how the Palestinian uprising is like feminism in the middle east or some bullshit and America is like a woman
Australia vice prime minster said the segments are likely to have sank already. Apparently a UK satellite company told Malaysia that there is a high possibility the plane crashed around the indian ocean, just one day after the incident, but was ignored.
On March 21 2014 17:04 urboss wrote: How likely is it that this piece of debris is from the actual plane?
I don't think we have a good chance here. To have a piece 24m long, still floating several days after the crash.. It's just the only thing that we have so far.
On March 21 2014 21:18 ETisME wrote: Australia vice prime minster said the segments are likely to have sank already. Apparently a UK satellite company told Malaysia that there is a high possibility the plane crashed around the indian ocean, just one day after the incident, but was ignored.
On March 21 2014 21:18 ETisME wrote: Australia vice prime minster said the segments are likely to have sank already. Apparently a UK satellite company told Malaysia that there is a high possibility the plane crashed around the indian ocean, just one day after the incident, but was ignored.
Do you have source ?
There are so many people still telling stuff, it's inevitable someone was guessing right. Unless the satellite company had knowledge, then it would be relevant. So a source would be really nice, yes.
On March 21 2014 21:18 ETisME wrote: Australia vice prime minster said the segments are likely to have sank already. Apparently a UK satellite company told Malaysia that there is a high possibility the plane crashed around the indian ocean, just one day after the incident, but was ignored.
Mr Truss also says the objects spotted on the satellite images may have also sunk.
"Something that was floating on the sea that long ago may no longer be floating," he told reporters in Perth.
"It may have slipped to the bottom."
I wouldn't read too much into it. They have no actual information other than "we haven't seen it yet", and the debris sinking is a likely explanation but not a fact.
Our national news has actually had excellent, non-sensationalist coverage of this whole thing. ABC.net.au is worth keeping a bookmark on as long as Australia has a major role in the search.
No trace of possible MH370 debris after second day of searching
A multinational air-and-sea search has found no trace of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 after a second day of targeted searching in the southern Indian Ocean. Authorities have identified two objects which may be from the plane on satellite images almost 2,500 kilometres off the coast of Western Australia, but despite clear weather and visibility of more than 10 kilometres, searches have not found the debris.
Three Australian Orions, a long-range Bombardier Global Express corporate jet and a US Navy P8 were involved in the search, each of them spending about two hours scouring the zone before having to turn back to refuel. Malaysia's transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein says China has deployed five ships and three helicopters to assist with the search in coming days.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), which is coordinating search efforts, says sweeps of the area will recommence in the morning.
On March 21 2014 21:18 ETisME wrote: Australia vice prime minster said the segments are likely to have sank already. Apparently a UK satellite company told Malaysia that there is a high possibility the plane crashed around the indian ocean, just one day after the incident, but was ignored.
On March 21 2014 13:21 Aveng3r wrote: You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
. Granted, the US media are not the only ones to capitalize on that MH370 flight, but they certainly are the worst.
wait what? I watch Canadian news, there was a lot of it. And even the better British papers pushed the missing plane on top of other stories that globally matter more.
Newspapers and News shows love a good mystery and this one is as weird as it gets.
Oh totally. I just dont get the random anti-Americanism in this one...
It's not "anti-americanism", we're not all after you... From my perspective, CNN has been worse than BBC and everybody else. I don't watch Fox News so I don't know if they've exploited this. CBC in Canada has been horrible too but not CNN-level bad.
Regardless of that, I don't know how criticizing US news is "anti-americanism". You're not your news.
How useful would submarines actually be? I have no knowledge of their capabilities. I would have thought they would not be much use, as they cannot "see" anything. They rely on sonar? But then, would that part of the ocean be detailed in its geometry? If you were to use sonar, could it be possible to compare existing geometry with the sonar search and look for anomalies, ie plane wreckage? How big an area could it scan etc?
What I guess I am getting at is, what technology is there that allows us to see the bottom of the ocean, and search wide areas, if the plane had sank? I am guessing there isnt any? And we may never find this plane for a very long time?
I'm still not convinced the debris they saw was from MH370, unless the Aussie govt knows something the rest of us don't, which is very possible of course.
Also I think Chewits is right, that ocean is so deep if its at the bottom it may never come back up
On March 21 2014 22:44 Chewits wrote: How useful would submarines actually be? I have no knowledge of their capabilities. I would have thought they would not be much use, as they cannot "see" anything. They rely on sonar? But then, would that part of the ocean be detailed in its geometry? If you were to use sonar, could it be possible to compare existing geometry with the sonar search and look for anomalies, ie plane wreckage? How big an area could it scan etc?
What I guess I am getting at is, what technology is there that allows us to see the bottom of the ocean, and search wide areas, if the plane had sank? I am guessing there isnt any? And we may never find this plane for a very long time?
Well from what i gather, subs are always used to search for blackboxes using sonar or something like it. You will NEED an underwater vehicule if blackboxes sunk more than 3km (i think it's 3) underwater.
For the debris i'm not sure. I'm not expert. Just a "crash enthousiast" (i know it's creepy)
On March 21 2014 22:44 Chewits wrote: How useful would submarines actually be? I have no knowledge of their capabilities. I would have thought they would not be much use, as they cannot "see" anything. They rely on sonar? But then, would that part of the ocean be detailed in its geometry? If you were to use sonar, could it be possible to compare existing geometry with the sonar search and look for anomalies, ie plane wreckage? How big an area could it scan etc?
What I guess I am getting at is, what technology is there that allows us to see the bottom of the ocean, and search wide areas, if the plane had sank? I am guessing there isnt any? And we may never find this plane for a very long time?
Given if it is true the plane crashed into the sea, the black box on the plane gives out sonar signals for roughly a month. If the plane is in a very deep part in the ocean, then the signal is weak and only a military sonar can really detect it reliably. Military Sonars and some little mini subs have been used in the past to find wreckage of planes and detect the pings from black boxes that ships can't get to.
They are basically hoping that they can find the black box ping and then the plane itself. As it has been 2 weeks now, the ping on the black box has roughly 3 more weeks give or take before it'll be nearly impossible to locate unless they find the plane. Like what happened with Air France 447.
The main problem isn't recovery, the main problem is figuring out where it likely is. AFAIK, there is no Emergency Locator Transponder signal. The thing is designed to break off in water impacts and start screaming its location. In addition, the black box only has a 3 km radius in ideal conditions anyway.
They can recover what they need to from the aircraft given enough time and money. The United States did try to raise a whole Russian sub (they got half) during the cold war after all.
The problem really is knowing where the plane actually is.No one knows, they still don't know.
The news I keep seeing points that they believe the wreckage they found sunk into the ocean. If it is true then, where the plane actually crashed, most of the pieces already sank into the ocean. I guess that's where the sub comes in.
If the sub is equipped well, it can sonar ping the ocean floor to find the pieces of the plane if it is really and truly where they believe it is at. Other wise, it's back to square one.
On March 21 2014 23:06 Antisocialmunky wrote: The main problem isn't recovery, the main problem is figuring out where it likely is. AFAIK, there is no Emergency Locator Transponder signal. The thing is designed to break off in water impacts and start screaming its location. In addition, the black box only has a 3 km radius in ideal conditions anyway.
They can recover what they need to from the aircraft given enough time and money. The United States did try to raise a whole Russian sub (they got half) during the cold war after all.
Yup that is right. I think black box is 3km radius under a certain deepness and 5 if it's above that certain deepness. Can't remember the numbers though
On March 21 2014 23:06 Antisocialmunky wrote: The main problem isn't recovery, the main problem is figuring out where it likely is. AFAIK, there is no Emergency Locator Transponder signal. The thing is designed to break off in water impacts and start screaming its location. In addition, the black box only has a 3 km radius in ideal conditions anyway.
They can recover what they need to from the aircraft given enough time and money. The United States did try to raise a whole Russian sub (they got half) during the cold war after all.
Yup that is right. I think black box is 3km radius under a certain deepness and 5 if it's above that certain deepness. Can't remember the numbers though
It's 5 km at "ideal conditions" and 3km at normal conditions.
I have no idea what conditions really means. Maybe water turbulence or surrounding geometry or something.
If it did sink, it's probably close-ish to the sat location, since it won't have been moved by currents while sitting on the ocean bed. I haven't heard anything about subs en route, but it doesn't sound like a terrible idea.
Basically, they need a rough idea of where it went down, then they'll run a set of listening patterns over the area. Look at the data and attempt to get closer.
In the Air France situation, it was around 4 km below the surface and on really craggy ocean, so the ping was reflecting everywhere. They actually had to collect all of the data, run high level analysis on it, and then go back and attempt to find the wreckage again. (Why it took almost 2 years) And they knew roughly where it impacted the Ocean.
With Malaysia 370, we don't even know it crashed there yet. Even getting a Sub or two in the region (thousands of square KM) by next week, it's really likely to be lost completely. Then it switches to Bob Ballard's domain for searching.
On March 21 2014 05:47 WOPR wrote: something is really fishy here and im just starting to think that 911 is an inside job edit ** just a min ago it was all russia.. is this a smoke screen?
In point of fact, if it was an 'inside job', it would indeed be ongoing, as part of a larger plan involving the implementation of a massive 'security state' apparatus. + Show Spoiler +
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
On March 21 2014 13:21 Aveng3r wrote: You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
. Granted, the US media are not the only ones to capitalize on that MH370 flight, but they certainly are the worst.
wait what? I watch Canadian news, there was a lot of it. And even the better British papers pushed the missing plane on top of other stories that globally matter more.
Newspapers and News shows love a good mystery and this one is as weird as it gets.
Oh totally. I just dont get the random anti-Americanism in this one...
It's not "anti-americanism", we're not all after you... From my perspective, CNN has been worse than BBC and everybody else. I don't watch Fox News so I don't know if they've exploited this. CBC in Canada has been horrible too but not CNN-level bad.
Regardless of that, I don't know how criticizing US news is "anti-americanism". You're not your news.
I am Canadian...and as far as I can see the only thing CBC/CTV hasnt done yet is suggest the black hole thing...otherwise its the same sensationalism.
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
Also i think autopilot disable when your altitude isn't at a certain level.
Seems a chinese satellite has spotted an unientified floating object. The pics are from march 18, so it is still old news. However, the shape looks very different from a common container.
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
no fuel = no power = no auto pilot.
I find it hard to believe that the power/batteries would die shortly after a loss of fuel and hence engine power. Sure the engines keep the batteries charged and the power flowing, but massive airliners like this probably have a designated amount of time that the battery needs to last, for instruments and other purposes, in the event of engine shutdown (for whatever reason).
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
no fuel = no power = no auto pilot.
I find it hard to believe that the power/batteries would die shortly after a loss of fuel and hence engine power. Sure the engines keep the batteries charged and the power flowing, but massive airliners like this probably have a designated amount of time that the battery needs to last, for instruments and other purposes, in the event of engine shutdown (for whatever reason).
Nope. They have a deployable fan, that provides minimum power, which in turn provides minimum control (i.e. not all control surfaces are active. Flaps are unuseable. Etc). All non-essential instrumentation goes dark, the computer shuts off (including auto pilot) and you have to fly manually.
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
no fuel = no power = no auto pilot.
I find it hard to believe that the power/batteries would die shortly after a loss of fuel and hence engine power. Sure the engines keep the batteries charged and the power flowing, but massive airliners like this probably have a designated amount of time that the battery needs to last, for instruments and other purposes, in the event of engine shutdown (for whatever reason).
Nope. They have a deployable fan, that provides minimum power, which in turn provides minimum control (i.e. not all control surfaces are active. Flaps are unuseable. Etc). All non-essential instrumentation goes dark, the computer shuts off (including auto pilot) and you have to fly manually.
IIRC, that's one of the things that helped save the Gimli Glider.
I have been watching this and I still can't believe how this whole thing is real and it is the most ridiculous tragedy i have ever heard of.
1.the pilot is the key (apparently he is someone related to Anwar). 2.i cannot believe that NONE of the passengers (this kind of plane is huge if you ever get on one) able to make contact with outside (15days and counting).
(I am sorry) but lets say there is a chance of the passengers survive, they would be in the captive of some terrorists/secret organization either somewhere near middle east or some unknown island near oceanic. Simply because 15days and counting, you need food and drinks etc for survival.
While my wild guess is that it is related to some complicated politics plot (look up Anwar), the pilot was hajacking the plane in order make ransom of something (related to politics) and obviously he wasn't planning to arrive beijing or any regional airport - somewhere near india/middle east or some military base near that region. However, the plan didn't work out, it was either due to some unexpected disastrous weather or the plane doesn't have technical requirement to achieve that or it was shot down by some unknown military force.
The most logical explanation would be the plane was above some region that gives absolutely no signal for the phones and hence nobody could contact outside at all. And judging by there is still no survivor is found (like someone was able to make it to some shore etc), the plane crashed somewhere far away from land, or we can still hope for some body/corpse showed up after month/s to get to know where is the plane.
On March 23 2014 12:21 BurningSera wrote: I have been watching this and I still can't believe how this whole thing is most ridiculous tragedy i have ever heard of.
1.the pilot is the key (apparently he is someone related to Anwar). 2.i cannot believe that NONE of the passengers (this kind of plane is huge if you ever get on one) able to make contact with outside (15days and counting).
(I am sorry) but lets say there is a chance of the passengers survive, they would be in the captive of some terrorists/secret organization either somewhere near middle east or some unknown island near oceanic. Simply because 15days and counting, you need food and drinks etc for survival.
While my wild guess is that it is related to some complicated politics plot (look up Anwar), the pilot was hajacking the plane in order make ransom of something (related to politics) and obviously he wasn't planning to arrive beijing or any regional airport - somewhere near india/middle east or some military base near that region. However, the plan didn't work out, it was either due to some unexpected disastrous weather or the plane doesn't have technical requirement to achieve that or it was shot down by some unknown military force.
The most logical explanation would be the plane was above some region that gives absolutely no signal for the phones and hence nobody could contact outside at all. And judging by there is still no survivor is found (like someone was able to make it to some shore etc), the plane crashed somewhere far away from land, or we can still hope for some body/corpse showed up after month/s to get to know where is the plane.
My deep condolences to the families. Obviously i still hope there are survivors.
I think it was on this day's show of Coast to Coast that a caller (somehow in the know) described it as a hijacking/ransom, and that the plane is in Pakistan. I don't know who the caller was...
On March 23 2014 12:21 BurningSera wrote: I have been watching this and I still can't believe how this whole thing is most ridiculous tragedy i have ever heard of.
1.the pilot is the key (apparently he is someone related to Anwar). 2.i cannot believe that NONE of the passengers (this kind of plane is huge if you ever get on one) able to make contact with outside (15days and counting).
(I am sorry) but lets say there is a chance of the passengers survive, they would be in the captive of some terrorists/secret organization either somewhere near middle east or some unknown island near oceanic. Simply because 15days and counting, you need food and drinks etc for survival.
While my wild guess is that it is related to some complicated politics plot (look up Anwar), the pilot was hajacking the plane in order make ransom of something (related to politics) and obviously he wasn't planning to arrive beijing or any regional airport - somewhere near india/middle east or some military base near that region. However, the plan didn't work out, it was either due to some unexpected disastrous weather or the plane doesn't have technical requirement to achieve that or it was shot down by some unknown military force.
The most logical explanation would be the plane was above some region that gives absolutely no signal for the phones and hence nobody could contact outside at all. And judging by there is still no survivor is found (like someone was able to make it to some shore etc), the plane crashed somewhere far away from land, or we can still hope for some body/corpse showed up after month/s to get to know where is the plane.
My deep condolences to the families. Obviously i still hope there are survivors.
Several things are making me discount the "lander"-theories: 1. Kidnapping would take ransom demands and keeping passengers alive is such a pain! Cargo could be stolen far easier in several other places. Stealing a 777 for scrap is... For terrorism, stealing the plane without using it whithin a week is begging to get caught! 2. Hijacking a plane is difficult after 9/11 and passifying the passengers in sufficient degree is not going to be easy either without proper weapons The only person capable of staging something to this amount would be one or both of the pilots and even then, mass murder seems like the only reliable option... 3. Most importantly: It makes less than no sense to push a planes reach 'till it is flying on empty (8:11 ping is far after expected landing in Beijing 6:30, making it absolutely bonkers! Even docking at 7:11 seems unnecessarily risky in that regard!). If you were going to land, doing it at least a couple hours before the fuel runs out seems far too obvious for a hijacker even remotely prepared.
What happened can best be explained by some kind of hybrid between a deliberate diversion folowed by an accident/emergency/terror. I refuse to believe concious passengers would just let a plane divert towards the middle east or sit idle by when flying for hours towards/through the most desolate place on the face of the earth. Even pilot suicide would take some act of terror to work!
I am truely sorry for the families and friends, but I don't see any rational way to justify believing that they are still alive.
Why do people think its terrorism/hijacking? Makes no sense. If it was a hijacking, you woulda heard from people holding passengers by now. If it was terrorisom, some terrorist group would have claimed it. But no one has. I am sorry for all the conspiracy nuts out there, but its most logically at the bottom of the sea, and something catasrophic happened. Its sad, but we may never know what happened. I hope we do, but considering they are searching a small area of where it could be and this small area is almost twice the size of my country, its not gonna be easy..
On March 23 2014 18:21 Chewits wrote: Why do people think its terrorism/hijacking? Makes no sense. If it was a hijacking, you woulda heard from people holding passengers by now. If it was terrorisom, some terrorist group would have claimed it. But no one has. I am sorry for all the conspiracy nuts out there, but its most logically at the bottom of the sea, and something catasrophic happened. Its sad, but we may never know what happened. I hope we do, but considering they are searching a small area of where it could be and this small area is almost twice the size of my country, its not gonna be easy..
Planes don't pre-plan course changes that would put it thousands of miles away on a whim. Someone changed the course and was changing it for at least 3+ hours. This requires the "agency" of 1 or multiple people.
Which means, at minimum, someone *caused* this. The issue is, as it has been for 2 weeks now: "Why?".
There is a lot of options for "Why?", which means you can't just discount different a hijacking angle, as it assumes getting money for all of the passengers was the reason. If they were after something else on the plane (it was flying from one of the World's major black market cities...), we could have something more akin to a DB Cooper hijacking than a political one. There are any number of possibilities, the problem is there isn't much to knock off the major ones.
if the plane was hijacked though could it be possible that if they knew how to cut the communications, they could also cut the oxygen to the cab which could easily take care of all the passengers? that way they could save the plane for later use.
On March 23 2014 18:21 Chewits wrote: Why do people think its terrorism/hijacking? Makes no sense. If it was a hijacking, you woulda heard from people holding passengers by now. If it was terrorisom, some terrorist group would have claimed it. But no one has. I am sorry for all the conspiracy nuts out there, but its most logically at the bottom of the sea, and something catasrophic happened. Its sad, but we may never know what happened. I hope we do, but considering they are searching a small area of where it could be and this small area is almost twice the size of my country, its not gonna be easy..
??
People are thinking hijacking because it's one of the more plausible theories given the evidence. And just because it might have been a hijacking doesn't mean the hijackers actually accomplished their goals, it's entirely possible for both a hijacking and a crash to take place.
On March 23 2014 18:21 Chewits wrote: Why do people think its terrorism/hijacking? Makes no sense. If it was a hijacking, you woulda heard from people holding passengers by now. If it was terrorisom, some terrorist group would have claimed it. But no one has. I am sorry for all the conspiracy nuts out there, but its most logically at the bottom of the sea, and something catasrophic happened. Its sad, but we may never know what happened. I hope we do, but considering they are searching a small area of where it could be and this small area is almost twice the size of my country, its not gonna be easy..
People think it was terrorism/hijacking first because of paranoia, then because that's all right wing outlets are framing it as. They have painted the pilot as a radical Muslim who was distraught over a pro democracy figure being imprisoned. So naturally as a Muslim his first inclination was to terrorism, ya know ignore his religion which forbids suicide and become a one man terrorist org...
Given the transponder issues are questionable essentially every other aspect you expect to see in a terrorist attack has been absent.
It's because no one knows exactly what happened. Things were turned off that never had happened before. All of the plane crashes before never had any sort of stuff like this. Having your transponder turned off along with most everything else apparently to track the plane.
When people don't know exactly what happened, they do the next best thing and start jumping to random conclusions. It's human nature.
A Chinese aircrew has spotted "suspicious objects" in the southern Indian Ocean in the search for vanished Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, the official Xinhua news agency is reporting.
Searchers discovered "two relatively big floating objects with many white smaller ones scattered within a radius of several kilometres", Xinhua said, citing a reporter on board a Chinese Ilyushin-76 plane.The larger objects were "white and square", it added.
"The crew has reported the coordinates to the Australian command centre as well as Chinese icebreaker Xuelong, which is en route to the sea area," Xinhua said.
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) says it has been advised about the reported objects sighted by a Chinese aircraft. In a statement, it said the reported objects are within today's search area and attempts will be made to locate them.
The Xuelong has now changed course towards the latest sighting, Xinhua said in a subsequent report. Earlier Xinhua reports said a Chinese military plane set off this morning from Perth to seek "suspicious debris" captured by satellite imagery in the remote waters. According to Xinhua, two Chinese planes that had been searching the area were returning to Perth, and the crew had asked Australia to send more aircraft to the area.
Also, here's a graphic of the areas searched so far. These are absolutely vast stretches of ocean. + Show Spoiler +
A Chinese aircrew has spotted "suspicious objects" in the southern Indian Ocean in the search for vanished Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, the official Xinhua news agency is reporting.
Searchers discovered "two relatively big floating objects with many white smaller ones scattered within a radius of several kilometres", Xinhua said, citing a reporter on board a Chinese Ilyushin-76 plane.The larger objects were "white and square", it added.
"The crew has reported the coordinates to the Australian command centre as well as Chinese icebreaker Xuelong, which is en route to the sea area," Xinhua said.
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) says it has been advised about the reported objects sighted by a Chinese aircraft. In a statement, it said the reported objects are within today's search area and attempts will be made to locate them.
The Xuelong has now changed course towards the latest sighting, Xinhua said in a subsequent report. Earlier Xinhua reports said a Chinese military plane set off this morning from Perth to seek "suspicious debris" captured by satellite imagery in the remote waters. According to Xinhua, two Chinese planes that had been searching the area were returning to Perth, and the crew had asked Australia to send more aircraft to the area.
Also, here's a graphic of the areas searched so far. These are absolutely vast stretches of ocean. + Show Spoiler +
Just heard that on radio. Hope we'll have news today. If the plane saw them, they sure have a location.
It seems like a US crew investigating the same patch couldn't see it due to weather. I hoped they dropped a buoy or took pictures.
The Chinese IL-76's do have an interesting advantage over most of the western aircraft. They have a glass cockpit floor so you can easily look straight down and forward.
Update 1: "Orange and grey/green objects detected by Australian plane"
Update 2: Tweet was deleted as I was posting it. "Just received a call from Australian PM @tonyabbott -2 objects were located&will be retrieved in the next few hours. pic.twitter.com/7x0f4MFlUx — Mohd Najib Tun Razak (@NajibRazak) March 24, 2014"
I have a bad feeling that even though they will eventually find the plane somewhere in the ocean, they will also discover that along with all communication systems, the black box was powered off as well, so nothing was recorded and it will remaing a mistery forever
On March 24 2014 22:08 Flight wrote: I have a bad feeling that even though they will eventually find the plane somewhere in the ocean, they will also discover that along with all communication systems, the black box was powered off as well, so nothing was recorded and it will remaing a mistery forever
The orange things are separate and different to what the Chinese plane saw. They're also bringing some instrumentation onsite that can pick up pings from the box at a depth of 6km, which is about right for the ocean at that point.
I can't link atm because I'm way too lazy to do formatting on my phone, but my link at the bottom of the last page was recently updated with a lot of new information.
EDIT: The guardian link antisocialmonkey posted is very good too. I'd recommend reading that.
Night time here now, so we probably won't have any new developments for another 8h or so.
BREAKING NEWS: "With deep sadness that I must inform you with this new data, #MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean." - Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak
On March 24 2014 23:09 Solid`Blazed wrote: BREAKING NEWS: "With deep sadness that I must inform you with this new data, #MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean." - Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak
And to add to that: "This evening I was briefed by representatives from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB)." #MH370 "Using a type of analysis never before used in an investigation of this sort,they have been able to shed more light on MH370’s flight path." "Based on their new analysis, Inmarsat & the AAIB concluded that the last position of #MH370 was in the middle of the Indian Ocean." @NajibRazak (twitter) There will be a press conference tomorrow with more information.
They are pretty excited in the Australia too after planes with certainty have spotted floating debris. Now it is a question of getting the boats there and get the debris back to land for further analysis.
On March 24 2014 22:08 Flight wrote: I have a bad feeling that even though they will eventually find the plane somewhere in the ocean, they will also discover that along with all communication systems, the black box was powered off as well, so nothing was recorded and it will remaing a mistery forever
On March 24 2014 23:26 TheFish7 wrote: So how exactly does one triangulate a position from only one angle?
You can determine the geometry of a triangle with a combination of 3 known sides and/or angles (with the except of 3 angles, which doesn't tell you how large the triangle is, and 2 sides with an angle only connected to one known side (AAA and SSA) ). You can find the other angles and sides using mathematical laws once those conditions are met.
In 3 dimensions, you need a second "triangle" to determine the exact position. When we had that search arc from the satellite pings, we were only able to extrapolate a single triangle, between the plane and the satellite (using estimates of the elevation and fuel usage).
On March 24 2014 23:26 TheFish7 wrote: So how exactly does one triangulate a position from only one angle?
You can determine the geometry of a triangle with a combination of 3 known sides and/or angles (with the except of 3 angles, which doesn't tell you how large the triangle is, and 2 sides with an angle only connected to one known side (AAA and SSA) ). You can find the other angles and sides using mathematical laws once those conditions are met.
In 3 dimensions, you need a second "triangle" to determine the exact position. When we had that search arc from the satellite pings, we were only able to extrapolate a single triangle, between the plane and the satellite (using estimates of the elevation and fuel usage).
Indeed, but that doesn't answer the question. Unless one of the possible positions had them flying through a mountain or something.
They used a bunch of concentric range circles to get distance from satellite over time. Then they found the distances between the arcs to make a assumed airspeed (this makes a cone due to errors in calculation. That's why they traced the plane to 2 areas.
It looks like its over. They just declared everyone dead and are flying the relatives to Australia.
On March 25 2014 00:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: They didn't use a triangle, they used a bunch of concentric range circles to get distance from satellite over time. Then they found the distances between the arcs to make a assumed airspeed (this makes a cone due to errors in calculation. That's why they traced the plane to 2 areas.
It looks like its over. They just declared everyone dead and are flying the relatives to Australia.
So they declared everyone dead, yet they have no physical evidence that the plane even went down. Hmm...
That's because the evidence is getting boated back to Australia hopefully. Not to mention that they eliminated the northern arc so its literally the only possibility left. According to the PM, the UK's AAIB and Inmarsat concluded it went down in the Southern Indian Ocean as well.
The Malaysian government has been less vocal lately about any findings from the police inquiry into the people on board the missing plane, including the captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, and the junior pilot in the cockpit, Fariq Abdul Hamid. Investigators and officials have said that the plane’s extraordinary trajectory, veering far off course just after its last radio contact with the ground, and the fact that its transponders stopped working at about the same time appeared to involve actions by someone experienced in aviation. Hishammuddin Hussein, the Malaysian defense minister and acting transport minister, said on Monday that the police had interviewed more than a hundred people, including relatives of each pilot. He said a committee was considering whether to make public the transcript of the pilots’ communications with air controllers before the plane disappeared.
On March 24 2014 23:26 TheFish7 wrote: So how exactly does one triangulate a position from only one angle?
Because while they only had a Range position from the Satellite, it produces only 2 actual flight paths directions. Which is why the original post about locations was always just a "part" of the information. I think about 10 pages back, I even mentioned they could pretty easily figure out which path it went up, given the realities of the Flight Paths available. The Northern arc had to pass over a few locations that *should* have had active radar running, depending where the previous 5 Pings had shown. (Basically, the Sat data must have said it either flew straight through China or down to the Indian Ocean, which would have only required a few calls to China to sort out.)
But they never released that information. Which raises its own set of questions.
As for that area of the South Indian Ocean, it's some of the consistently worst seas in the World. Waves pretty much run all the way around the bottom of the world. There's no real land breaks. They are really unlikely to find any wreckage via surface ships.
Covering the area in listening Subs might catch the Black Boxes, but they're going to still be working off way too much pure-luck.
On March 25 2014 00:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: They didn't use a triangle, they used a bunch of concentric range circles to get distance from satellite over time. Then they found the distances between the arcs to make a assumed airspeed (this makes a cone due to errors in calculation. That's why they traced the plane to 2 areas.
It looks like its over. They just declared everyone dead and are flying the relatives to Australia.
So they declared everyone dead, yet they have no physical evidence that the plane even went down. Hmm...
Declaration is so the families can get life insurance benefits right now, and I think there is some kind of airline trust fund too that pays out on declaration of death.
On March 25 2014 00:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: They didn't use a triangle, they used a bunch of concentric range circles to get distance from satellite over time. Then they found the distances between the arcs to make a assumed airspeed (this makes a cone due to errors in calculation. That's why they traced the plane to 2 areas.
It looks like its over. They just declared everyone dead and are flying the relatives to Australia.
Satellite triangulation is just getting the time it takes for signal to reach and come back to a satellite, knowing how fast that signal moves you calculate a distance. You end up with a sphere in space around that satellite for possible positions. You add another satellite and you have 2 spheres where they overlap on the surfaces you end up with a circle that goes out into space, you add a third satellite you get 2 points of intersection between all three one in space one on the ground. With one satellite you have a surface on a sphere on on which it can exist. With just one satellite but several data points over a period of time you get a bunch of spheres from that you can get a referenceless direction and speed; as you know you know the direction and speed of the satellite and you know the plane will exist where the spheres don't overlap although it's a broad area you can just assume that the plane will follow at roughly the same elevation so you'd get a line on the earth.
The Malaysian government has been less vocal lately about any findings from the police inquiry into the people on board the missing plane, including the captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, and the junior pilot in the cockpit, Fariq Abdul Hamid. Investigators and officials have said that the plane’s extraordinary trajectory, veering far off course just after its last radio contact with the ground, and the fact that its transponders stopped working at about the same time appeared to involve actions by someone experienced in aviation. Hishammuddin Hussein, the Malaysian defense minister and acting transport minister, said on Monday that the police had interviewed more than a hundred people, including relatives of each pilot. He said a committee was considering whether to make public the transcript of the pilots’ communications with air controllers before the plane disappeared.
The good sir is late since the complete transcript was leaked to journalists days ago. According to the preliminary analysis, the only real anomaly was an extra confirmation of flight level after it reached cruising altitude (source).
However, the main pilot seems to have recieved a mysterious 2 minute phone call from a woman using a "burner" phone just before departure. It is not a real burner, though, as phones without plans require registration in Malaysia, but the woman seems to have used a false identity to acquire it (source). At the same time data from his flight simulator is getting investigated. That angle seems open for new information. Either way, don't jump to conclusions about him yet. A lot of people have vouched for his professionalism and nothing of the already investigated angles about him has so far caused concern.
Seriously this guy should go on air and him and Hannity should apologizing for being so stupid. Along with the other idiotic speculators from 'news' outlets.
Seriously this guy should go on air and him and Hannity should apologizing for being so stupid. Along with the other idiotic speculators from 'news' outlets.
What's "idiotic" about speculating something perfectly logical from the *officially* released information? Considering the likelihood that the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean by traveling in a direction *it had not traveled the entire time* since it ended contact, in an area with no reason for the autopilot to head towards, with no possible landing location, what's "idiotic" about assuming it was mostly following along flight lines, towards one of the areas in the world you could land & hide a 777?
Though the 'Stans further North were a more likely area. Plenty of abandoned Soviet runaways to get on the ground, hide the plane and offload whoever took the plane.
If they do find it in the Indian Ocean (i.e. the latest information holds up), the possibilities actually get far, far, FAR more outlandish.
No, this is historic. I am still amazed that it this day and age of NSA spying, worldwide communication, intense media coverage and global satellite coverage, that it is still possible for a big expensive plane with 200+ international people on board to disappear for more than 2 weeks and just now isolating the area of probable location. It will be talked about for every plane disappearance from now on.
Seriously this guy should go on air and him and Hannity should apologizing for being so stupid. Along with the other idiotic speculators from 'news' outlets.
What's "idiotic" about speculating something perfectly logical from the *officially* released information? Considering the likelihood that the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean by traveling in a direction *it had not traveled the entire time* since it ended contact, in an area with no reason for the autopilot to head towards, with no possible landing location, what's "idiotic" about assuming it was mostly following along flight lines, towards one of the areas in the world you could land & hide a 777?
Though the 'Stans further North were a more likely area. Plenty of abandoned Soviet runaways to get on the ground, hide the plane and offload whoever took the plane.
If they do find it in the Indian Ocean (i.e. the latest information holds up), the possibilities actually get far, far, FAR more outlandish.
On March 25 2014 05:15 polgas wrote: No, this is historic. I am still amazed that it this day and age of NSA spying, worldwide communication, intense media coverage and global satellite coverage, that it is still possible for a big expensive plane with 200+ international people on board to disappear for more than 2 weeks and just now isolating the area of probable location. It will be talked about for every plane disappearance from now on.
Not really id be impressive if it disappeared while flying over a developed nation with good radar nets, planes are tracked on the ground for the most part by technology developed in WWII with little improvements.
Apprently French radio said that relatives have been told of the crash and death by phone text and were furious. I have no source, it was on RTL tonight (podcast of 7pm i think).
I don't know if someone already brought this up, but how did the plane that was suppose to be heading toward china. Ended up in by coast of Perth, AUS?
On March 25 2014 05:15 polgas wrote: No, this is historic. I am still amazed that it this day and age of NSA spying, worldwide communication, intense media coverage and global satellite coverage, that it is still possible for a big expensive plane with 200+ international people on board to disappear for more than 2 weeks and just now isolating the area of probable location. It will be talked about for every plane disappearance from now on.
They crashed in the middle of the ocean where no one is looking. The world is still a pretty big space and most of it is utterly uninteresting oceans. Not that hard to get lost there, esp with the lack of cooperation that is being reported.
Exactly, Inmarsat was able to keep tabs for the time that the plane is airborne. Even with this info, other satellites were only finally able to spot something after 2 weeks have passed. Still, with these number of people on board, not one leak of intent is known.
Malaysia said on Monday that a missing jetliner had crashed into the Indian Ocean, an announcement that was greeted with hysteria by Chinese relatives of those on board and a demand by China that Kuala Lumpur share all the evidence it had on the incident.
Citing groundbreaking satellite-data analysis by the British company Inmarsat, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, which vanished more than a fortnight ago while flying to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, had crashed thousands of miles away in the southern Indian Ocean.
His statement may go some way toward tamping down some of the more fevered speculation about the plane's fate, including one theory some grief-stricken relatives had seized on: that the plane had been hijacked and forced to land somewhere.
All 239 people on board were presumed dead, airline officials said on Monday.
Najib's announcement opens the way for what could be one of the most costly and challenging air crash investigations in history.
The launch of an official air crash investigation would give Malaysia power to coordinate and sift evidence, but it may still face critics, especially China, which had more than 150 citizens on board the missing plane and has criticised Malaysia over the progress of the search.
The Inmarsat data showed the Boeing 777's last position was in the Indian Ocean west of Perth, Australia, Najib said in a statement.
"This is a remote location, far from any possible landing sites," he said. "It is therefore, with deep sadness and regret, that I must inform you that, according to this new data, Flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean."
Britain's Inmarsat used a wave phenomenon discovered in the 19th century to analyze the seven pings its satellite picked up from Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 to determine its final destination.
The new findings led Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak to conclude on Monday that the Boeing 777, which disappeared more than two weeks ago, crashed thousands of miles away in the southern Indian Ocean, killing all 239 people on board.
The pings, automatically transmitted every hour from the aircraft after the rest of its communications systems had stopped, indicated it continued flying for hours after it disappeared from its flight path from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
From the time the signals took to reach the satellite and the angle of elevation, Inmarsat was able to provide two arcs, one north and one south that the aircraft could have taken.
Inmarsat's scientists then interrogated the faint pings using a technique based on the Doppler effect, which describes how a wave changes frequency relative to the movement of an observer, in this case the satellite, a spokesman said.
The Doppler effect is why the sound of a police car siren changes as it approaches and then overtakes an observer.
Britain's Air Accidents Investigation Branch was also involved in the analysis.
"We then took the data we had from the aircraft and plotted it against the two tracks, and it came out as following the southern track," Jonathan Sinnatt, head of corporate communications at Inmarsat, said.
The company then compared its theoretical flight path with data received from Boeing 777s it knew had flown the same route, he said, and it matched exactly.
The findings were passed to another satellite company to check, he said, before being released to investigators on Monday.
The paucity of data - only faint pings received by a single satellite every hour or so - meant techniques like triangulation using a number of satellites or GPS (Global Positioning System) could not be used to determine the aircraft's flight path.
It is hard to say that it would have been a better scenario if the plane were hijacked, that way those onboard might have had at least some chance of coming out alive, though to be fair that might not have even happened.
It is good that the families of those on the flight know of the fate of the passengers and loved ones, but again sad that they had to wait so long to realize this fate.
On March 25 2014 10:15 vult wrote: This is truly tragic.
It is hard to say that it would have been a better scenario if the plane were hijacked, that way those onboard might have had at least some chance of coming out alive, though to be fair that might not have even happened.
It is good that the families of those on the flight know of the fate of the passengers and loved ones, but again sad that they had to wait so long to realize this fate.
My condolences go out to the families.
To be fair the chance of survivors was already slim to non mere days after the plane was lost. Hostage takers would have already come with ransoms which leaves only a crash. Sea means there all dead and land means a small percentage might be alive but then the plane would likely have been spotted at some point.
On March 25 2014 10:22 SiDX wrote: Really hope they locate the black box soon rather than in a couple of years..
Well it is more luck now then anything. First the plane... the actual location and crash site, then the search. It took some luck and 2 years to find the black box for Air France 447. This case is even more complicated then that one. So... you know, just a matter of luck now.
On March 25 2014 10:06 Antisocialmunky wrote: Detecting a Doppler Effect on an object moving at ~400 mph from a satellite is pretty impressive.
This. As someone with a Physics background I'd be extremely impressed if they actually did this. Alternatively it's just some jargon that the article tossed around as bullshit, who knows.
Doppler effect on an object moving a few hundred km/h from an instrument moving tens of thousands of km/h looking, essentially, vertically downward, perpendicular to the motion??
On March 25 2014 10:06 Antisocialmunky wrote: Detecting a Doppler Effect on an object moving at ~400 mph from a satellite is pretty impressive.
This. As someone with a Physics background I'd be extremely impressed if they actually did this. Alternatively it's just some jargon that the article tossed around as bullshit, who knows.
Doppler effect on an object moving a few hundred km/h from an instrument moving tens of thousands of km/h looking, essentially, vertically downward, perpendicular to the motion??
A bit of both, I suspect. Just having publicly announced the 6 other Pings would have nailed down the Indian Ocean path within an hour. The basic flight path isn't that hard to get out, when you do have a few fixed reference points around the Pings. I imagine the analysis used limited the "cone of possibility" a lot tighter. Though that's not going to help the search area all that much.
On March 25 2014 10:06 Antisocialmunky wrote: Detecting a Doppler Effect on an object moving at ~400 mph from a satellite is pretty impressive.
This. As someone with a Physics background I'd be extremely impressed if they actually did this. Alternatively it's just some jargon that the article tossed around as bullshit, who knows.
Doppler effect on an object moving a few hundred km/h from an instrument moving tens of thousands of km/h looking, essentially, vertically downward, perpendicular to the motion??
A bit of both, I suspect. Just having publicly announced the 6 other Pings would have nailed down the Indian Ocean path within an hour. The basic flight path isn't that hard to get out, when you do have a few fixed reference points around the Pings. I imagine the analysis used limited the "cone of possibility" a lot tighter. Though that's not going to help the search area all that much.
They have just released a technical briefing. It seems to indeed be possible to use burst frequency offset to estimate the planes position. The data:
On the face of it, this seems like a definitive result. Pretty impressive work to come up with these calculations under this much pressure. Talk about making the most of very limited information!
Furthermore they talk about a partial ping being sent 8 minutes after the 8:11 ping. They are not sure what that is about yet.
I don't get why the hijacking gone wrong has been dismissed. Sure the plane crashed in the middle of the ocean. But why was it htere ? I mean there's nothing here. No place to land, no base, no petrol platform. No target.
I remember a video from a crash plane in the sea (impressive video) and it was an hijacking gone wrong were the hijacker wanted to go some place, pilots told they didn't have the fuel to get there but hijacker insist. I even think the video was posted here in this very thread.
So i don't get why the pilots would have flown that deep into the ocean. It's like they were going to south pole or something. There's no sense in that.
Well there's still nothing concrete yet, and we may never know what happened. What we do know is malaysia messed up big time. They didn't alert the relatives immediately when the plane went missing, then they kept the relatives in a hotel room and kept them in the dark, and then they didn't cooperate with other countries who were helping with the search and rescue. then the final insult is texting the families "hai suplol ur loved onez r daed at bottom ocean lulz"
The plane would have always been at the bottom of the ocean. You can't just hijack a plane and have it disappear. Some of the speculation was kinda stupid imo.
On March 26 2014 01:19 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why the hijacking gone wrong has been dismissed. Sure the plane crashed in the middle of the ocean. But why was it htere ? I mean there's nothing here. No place to land, no base, no petrol platform. No target.
I remember a video from a crash plane in the sea (impressive video) and it was an hijacking gone wrong were the hijacker wanted to go some place, pilots told they didn't have the fuel to get there but hijacker insist. I even think the video was posted here in this very thread.
So i don't get why the pilots would have flown that deep into the ocean. It's like they were going to south pole or something. There's no sense in that.
That was Ethiopian flight 961, it was an episode on Air Crash Investigations.
On March 26 2014 01:19 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why the hijacking gone wrong has been dismissed. Sure the plane crashed in the middle of the ocean. But why was it htere ? I mean there's nothing here. No place to land, no base, no petrol platform. No target.
I remember a video from a crash plane in the sea (impressive video) and it was an hijacking gone wrong were the hijacker wanted to go some place, pilots told they didn't have the fuel to get there but hijacker insist. I even think the video was posted here in this very thread.
So i don't get why the pilots would have flown that deep into the ocean. It's like they were going to south pole or something. There's no sense in that.
Some people think you shouldn't spread baseless rumors that someones dead family members may have been a terrorist.
Some people think you should have some solid evidence before you start maligning someones character, integrity, and faith on a global scale, just so they can say that they suggested the 'right' scenario first or "knew it all along".
On March 26 2014 01:19 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why the hijacking gone wrong has been dismissed. Sure the plane crashed in the middle of the ocean. But why was it htere ? I mean there's nothing here. No place to land, no base, no petrol platform. No target.
I remember a video from a crash plane in the sea (impressive video) and it was an hijacking gone wrong were the hijacker wanted to go some place, pilots told they didn't have the fuel to get there but hijacker insist. I even think the video was posted here in this very thread.
So i don't get why the pilots would have flown that deep into the ocean. It's like they were going to south pole or something. There's no sense in that.
Some people think you shouldn't spread baseless rumors that someones dead family members may have been a terrorist.
Some people think you should have some solid evidence before you start maligning someones character, integrity, and faith on a global scale, just so they can say that they suggested the 'right' scenario first or "knew it all along".
There aren't any solid facts about most things regarding MH370. And saying the pilots who, all we know, could have done all they can to save the plane and calling them terrorist are the worst thing you can ever say to the decease without any facts. As with most more reasonable theories floating around right now, the best possible answer to the plane's behavior is something catastrophic happened on the plane, forcing the pilots to turn towards the nearest airport.
As one article said, when a plane is in danger, the pilots priority will first be to save the plane and passengers, before announcing what is going on. If something very, VERY bad happened, that never happened before, the pilot would have almost no time to do the 2nd half, which is to tell people what's happening. This has happened before among other Air Emergencies. Some ended ok, some didn't.
But the captain of the plane had 17,000 flying hours. I would honestly doubt if he was in control to just blank out. (I mean to misjudge the situation.) All we can hope is for them to find the plane, the black box and finally figure out what happened on the plane that caused this whole situation.
Honestly, even though some of the Air Emergency episodes are a bit overly dramatic, majority of them give you very good information about how some things are on planes. It kinda helps with your train of thought.
Edit: I would admit that Malaysia hasn't done a great job regarding how it has handled things so far. Like literally. I'd understand China being upset over this. Hell I'm Taiwanese and I'm irritated having to find info on my own instead of hearing it from the government. I don't believe the NTSB would be this irresponsible.
On March 26 2014 01:19 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why the hijacking gone wrong has been dismissed. Sure the plane crashed in the middle of the ocean. But why was it htere ? I mean there's nothing here. No place to land, no base, no petrol platform. No target.
I remember a video from a crash plane in the sea (impressive video) and it was an hijacking gone wrong were the hijacker wanted to go some place, pilots told they didn't have the fuel to get there but hijacker insist. I even think the video was posted here in this very thread.
So i don't get why the pilots would have flown that deep into the ocean. It's like they were going to south pole or something. There's no sense in that.
Some people think you shouldn't spread baseless rumors that someones dead family members may have been a terrorist.
Some people think you should have some solid evidence before you start maligning someones character, integrity, and faith on a global scale, just so they can say that they suggested the 'right' scenario first or "knew it all along".
Well i wasn't talking about one poeple in particular i was just surprised that the theory seems dismissed. Maybe it's just dismissed to the public and that investigation will look into it.
I don't care about being right nor i would say something like i knew all along. But i can't wrap my head around your comment. I don't understand if you're sarcastic, harsh or just stating what you think/feel. Written english do that to not native speakers
On March 26 2014 01:19 FFW_Rude wrote: I don'tflûtes ngwhy the hijacking gone wrong has been dismissed. Sure the plane crashed in the middle of the ocean. But why was it htere ? I mean there's nothing here. No place to land, no base, no petrol platform. No target.
I remember a video from a crash plane in the sea (impressive video) and it was an hijacking gone wrong were the hijacker wanted to go some place, pilots told they didn't have the fuel to get there but hijacker insist. I even think the video was posted here in this very thread.
So i don't get why the pilots would have flown that deep into the ocean. It's like they were going to south pole or something. There's no sense in that.
There's too many misteries in this case to affirm or dismiss anything.
Why a complete silence ? (During 9/11 attacks, the passengers used their phone to call their familly) Why the opposite direction? (Hijacking ? Terrorist attack with pilots changing direction during the night to avoid a crash on Beijing? A technical issue avoiding the pilot to communicate and/or killing the passengers while auto pilot send the plane in the middle of nowhere?)
I saw a ton of aircraft crashes investigations on TV and anything is possible.
One of them for exemple crashed in the ocean after hours of flying because a little piece of the plane didn't worked properly when too cold and the pilots couldn't change the plane direction. Just a 10 cm long piece of metal. It took years and few other accident to understand what was going wrong.
Another crashed because pilots used to turn off a noisy and useless alarm. The day this larm would have been usefull, it was off and the plane crashed, the pilots being unable to react to something they were not aware of.
Cell phones wont work unless you're by a cellphone tower. Middle of no where isn't likly to be able to reach a cell phone tower to relay the call to a satellite.
On March 27 2014 00:37 semantics wrote: Cell phones wont work unless you're by a cellphone tower. Middle of no where isn't likly to be able to reach a cell phone tower to relay the call to a satellite.
Yeah. 9/11 planes where flying low and were inland. Also a lot of calls were made with the inplane phone (don't know english name)
The plane cut low across Malaysia itself, seemingly working to dodge radar in the process. So it was close enough it might have passed by several cellphone towers. And you never know if someone has an Iridium Satellite Phone on board (they're not that expensive if you travel the world, and aren't a bad investment if you're galavanting around the further corners of the World, but they'd work from inside the plane). So complete silence is both suspicious, but it closes off no open possibilities.
Though I am getting annoyed of 1 news story already: News Flash, the Southern Indian Ocean has a LOT of junk floating around it. Please stop randomly reporting finding objects from planes that no one has been able to get to collect up yet. We get it, they're looking!
On March 27 2014 07:01 Taf the Ghost wrote: The plane cut low across Malaysia itself, seemingly working to dodge radar in the process. So it was close enough it might have passed by several cellphone towers. And you never know if someone has an Iridium Satellite Phone on board (they're not that expensive if you travel the world, and aren't a bad investment if you're galavanting around the further corners of the World, but they'd work from inside the plane). So complete silence is both suspicious, but it closes off no open possibilities.
However, how many window seat passengers would know the surroundings of a completely different area from the air to know they started going the wrong direction? I really don't think it's all that unlikely that no one tried to make a call.
On March 26 2014 01:19 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why the hijacking gone wrong has been dismissed. Sure the plane crashed in the middle of the ocean. But why was it htere ? I mean there's nothing here. No place to land, no base, no petrol platform. No target.
I remember a video from a crash plane in the sea (impressive video) and it was an hijacking gone wrong were the hijacker wanted to go some place, pilots told they didn't have the fuel to get there but hijacker insist. I even think the video was posted here in this very thread.
So i don't get why the pilots would have flown that deep into the ocean. It's like they were going to south pole or something. There's no sense in that.
Some people think you shouldn't spread baseless rumors that someones dead family members may have been a terrorist.
Some people think you should have some solid evidence before you start maligning someones character, integrity, and faith on a global scale, just so they can say that they suggested the 'right' scenario first or "knew it all along".
There aren't any solid facts about most things regarding MH370. And saying the pilots who, all we know, could have done all they can to save the plane and calling them terrorist are the worst thing you can ever say to the decease without any facts. As with most more reasonable theories floating around right now, the best possible answer to the plane's behavior is something catastrophic happened on the plane, forcing the pilots to turn towards the nearest airport.
I would say the theory that the captain may have done something deliberately as a result of being upset about recent events in his life is reasonable as well-
Of course it could be an accident but the timing of the turning off of the transponder just seems incredibly suspicious to me. I agree that terrorism seems far-fetched however.
From now on i think i'll wait the analysis. I browsed the internet last night on the subject and i've seen so many different theory (a lot with NO evidence whatsoever etc...).
Malaysia Airlines was facing bankrupcy before the plane-crash and the economic burden will hang on Khazanah National and therefore indirectly the malaysian government either way.
There are some pretty, well, unprecedented circumstances in this case. Now that a lawsuit has been filed, the situation will be even more clamped up and information about what happened during the flight even more confirmed before they are released. If one of the pilots actually caused the death of the passengers by suicide or mass murder, how liable would Malaysia Airlines be? And what would the default position be in a case where insufficient information can be gathered about what happened to determine liability (US law)?
Speculation about what has happened is only as good as the evidence that supports it. In this case, even if the black boxes are found, it is still very likely that we will never know exactly what happened. With the lawsuit, things have turned from an investigation into a blame-game. The likelyhood of finding the exact truth has therefore diminished further.
According to an Australian Aviation expert: - This is the wreckage, garbage patches are not that dense and it is where the plane expected to crash. - Plane could not have done what it did without human agency. - One theory is about a possible stowaway hijacker hiding in one of the service bays of the aircraft who physically disconnected the ACARS and Transponder.
I'm not sure if hiding in the service areas, disconnecting the right electronics and then hijacking the aircraft is even possible but it seems interesting if it is.
According to an Australian Aviation expert: - This is the wreckage, garbage patches are not that dense and it is where the plane expected to crash. - Plane could not have done what it did without human agency. - One theory is about a possible stowaway hijacker hiding in one of the service bays of the aircraft who physically disconnected the ACARS and Transponder.
I'm not sure if hiding in the service areas, disconnecting the right electronics and then hijacking the aircraft is even possible but it seems interesting if it is.
As far as I know the FMS is a computer and it can therefore be hacked. ACARS and transponders are sending signals and they can be disconnected or jammed. When that is said, I think the possibility of that happening is much more of a theoretic argument for protecting the systems better against sabotage/hacking from people with interests in computer-security, than a feasible explaination of what happened.
On April 01 2014 08:29 Doraemon wrote: why would you alter the script 3 weeks after you listened to the audio...what the hell...
From the bbc article above,
The BBC's transport correspondent Richard Westcott says the new version of the last words is more formal and more in keeping with the way a pilot might usually speak to air traffic control than the wording previously reported.
It is not clear why it has changed or why it has taken the authorities this long to determine this, he says.
While it is actually the protocol, the layman might mistake it for an indication of foul play by the pilot. Malaysia probably did not want it misconstrued so they gave an altered version. Anyhow, it is not very relevant to anything else.
It's relevant to the fact that Malaysia has made an unbelievable cock-up of the entire operation.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt up until this little gem, but it's now clear that we can't trust them to report things which a literal five-year-old would have been able to verify. As a result, a lot of other information becomes suspect as well.
In addition, plenty of fuss was made about the nonstandard signoff at the time with no comment from them, so it absolutely cannot be a case of well-meaning-but-generous reporting. Such reporting would have no place in an investigation on this scale in any case.
At this point, whether we're talking malicious intent or just gross incompetence is not yet clear, but it's pretty sketchy either way.
So all the pieces are salvaged and they are not from the airplane. They are now sending a submarine to that location NW of Perth. A few more days and the black box signal will be gone. I'm starting to wonder if they are searching in the completely wrong place. Who would fly a plane to the middle of nowhere in the first place? What would be the incentive for a kidnapper to fly a plane to certain death? What would be the incentive for a pilot in an emergency to change course to certain death? What would be the incentive of terrorists to change course to certain death where no one can find the plane?
On April 05 2014 00:20 urboss wrote: So all the pieces are salvaged and they are not from the airplane. They are now sending a submarine to that location NW of Perth. A few more days and the black box signal will be gone. I'm starting to wonder if they are searching in the completely wrong place. Who would fly a plane to the middle of nowhere in the first place? What would be the incentive for a kidnapper to fly a plane to certain death? What would be the incentive for a pilot in an emergency to change course to certain death? What would be the incentive of terrorists to change course to certain death where no one can find the plane?
Well assuming nothing supernatural is possible, anything involving changing the planes course requires someone who is skilled and knowledgeable as well as well practiced in flying. Essentially a real professional pilot, or some crazy James Bond guy who can fly a plane after sneakily hijacking it. But what doesn't make sense is, as you said, why the heck would they crash it, so I think it had to be either: 1. Pilot flew it there without the passengers realizing 2. James Bond hijacked it and then messed up 3. Super jamming technology that blocks out all communications and then hijacked it and then messed up 4. Supernatural cause?? bermuda triangle, worm hole, aliens?
On April 05 2014 00:20 urboss wrote: So all the pieces are salvaged and they are not from the airplane. They are now sending a submarine to that location NW of Perth. A few more days and the black box signal will be gone. I'm starting to wonder if they are searching in the completely wrong place. Who would fly a plane to the middle of nowhere in the first place? What would be the incentive for a kidnapper to fly a plane to certain death? What would be the incentive for a pilot in an emergency to change course to certain death? What would be the incentive of terrorists to change course to certain death where no one can find the plane?
Do you have a source of the pieces not part from the plane ?
Do you have a source of the pieces not part from the plane ?
It was on the Austrian news: www.orf.at. Also, if the found debris would have been identified to be part of the plane, it would have been somewhere on the news.
It is reported that a Chinese search vessel detected a signal of 37.5KHz frequency pulsing every second in Southern Indian Ocean, which is indeed the behavior of a Black Box's Underwater Locating Beacon. http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2014-04-05/185029872980.shtml (Chinese with news video from CCTV)
On April 05 2014 20:47 digmouse wrote: It is reported that a Chinese search vessel detected a signal of 37.5KHz frequency pulsing every second in Southern Indian Ocean, which is indeed the behavior of a Black Box's Underwater Locating Beacon. http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2014-04-05/185029872980.shtml (Chinese with news video from CCTV)
They detected it for 15 minutes Friday but were surprised (they we in the middle of no where outside of designated search areas). They detected it for 90s today and couldn't get a recording either around here.
Where the under water topography looks like:
The signal might be being blocked by under water formations.
Heard something about the plane being found in the Indian Ocean... Reading the last few pages of this thread makes me think it didn't really happen though
It looks like the Ocean Shield (the AU ship with the US towed pinger locator) picked up a signal 90 minutes ago north of where the Chinese were at. This was at the live press conference so reports in writing haven't been thrown up on CNN yet.
Apparently the Chinese have picked up the signal yet again (this is referring to the Saturday morning).
I think at this point its kinda doubtful that they are getting trolled by a whale or anything. I guess we should be cautiously optimistic now.
The guys on this forum know a lot, one guy even took part in a similar search a few decades ago. You can read his opinion of the current search here (its interesting regardless):
Edit 2: Apparently the CNN twitter is referring to the the 90 second pick up by the Chinese yesterday.
Edit:3:
The AU signal pickup by the Ocean Shield was 300 nm north so it may be a false positive unless water conditions are permitting it to travel extremely far.
Conference has ended. Here are the major takeaways since I was editing my previous post and you may not have seen all the changes.
1. Three separate acoustic events they are looking at right now: a. one by Haixun 01 on Friday night Perth time that was of a "short" duration; b. a second event of about 90 seconds at 15.47 Saturday Perth time also by Haixun 01 about 2km distant from first detection; and, c. a third event about 90 minutes before the start of the press conference (Sunday, about 10am Perth time) by the Ocean Shield, about 300 nm away from the Haixun's location.
2. The Haixun's events were described as being "consistent" with ULBs. There was no information about the Ocean Shield's detection yet.
3. Based on revisions from Inmarsat, the plane is more likely to be in the southern portion of the current search zone. This is where the Haixun 01 heard the pings on Friday and Saturday.
4. HMS Echo is en route to Haixun 01's location and will be there within 14 hours.
5. Ocean Shield will remain on station until at least early afternoon Sunday Perth time to investigate the acoustic event they heard on Sunday morning Perth time. If they do decide it's nothing, it will take about 2-3 hours to retrieve the towed pinger locator, about 24 hours to reach the Haixun's location, and about 2-3 hours to redeploy the locator.
6. The Australians first heard about the Friday event from media, and were informed shortly thereafter officially by China. The second event was first communicated to the Australians and then media reports broke.
On April 06 2014 13:04 Antisocialmunky wrote: It looks like the Ocean Shield (the AU ship with the US towed pinger locator) picked up a signal 90 minutes ago north of where the Chinese were at. This was at the live press conference so reports in writing haven't been thrown up on CNN yet.
The guys on this forum know a lot, one guy even took part in a similar search a few decades ago. You can read his opinion of the current search here (its interesting regardless):
Edit 2: Apparently the CNN twitter is referring to the the 90 second pick up by the Chinese yesterday.
Edit:3:
The AU signal pickup by the Ocean Shield was 300 nm north so it may be a false positive unless water conditions are permitting it to travel extremely far.
Conference has ended. Here are the major takeaways since I was editing my previous post and you may not have seen all the changes.
1. Three separate acoustic events they are looking at right now: a. one by Haixun 01 on Friday night Perth time that was of a "short" duration; b. a second event of about 90 seconds at 15.47 Saturday Perth time also by Haixun 01 about 2km distant from first detection; and, c. a third event about 90 minutes before the start of the press conference (Sunday, about 10am Perth time) by the Ocean Shield, about 300 nm away from the Haixun's location.
2. The Haixun's events were described as being "consistent" with ULBs. There was no information about the Ocean Shield's detection yet.
3. Based on revisions from Inmarsat, the plane is more likely to be in the southern portion of the current search zone. This is where the Haixun 01 heard the pings on Friday and Saturday.
4. HMS Echo is en route to Haixun 01's location and will be there within 14 hours.
5. Ocean Shield will remain on station until at least early afternoon Sunday Perth time to investigate the acoustic event they heard on Sunday morning Perth time. If they do decide it's nothing, it will take about 2-3 hours to retrieve the towed pinger locator, about 24 hours to reach the Haixun's location, and about 2-3 hours to redeploy the locator.
6. The Australians first heard about the Friday event from media, and were informed shortly thereafter officially by China. The second event was first communicated to the Australians and then media reports broke.
You're trolled by a whale gag made me chuckle thanks
It appears the Ocean Shield has picked up pings twice just like the Chinese but 600 km away. The first for 2 hours 20 minutes, the second for 30 seconds. What's encouraging is they detected 2 different sounding pings which is what you would expect from both the Flight Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder. They have a recording so analysis is being done.
There's been reports from 4 vessels but everything other than the Chinese and Australian/US ones have been discounted.
The Chinese reports seems more suspect than the Australian/US ones because the Chinese didn't get recordings and there's a question on whether or not their methodology is reasonable. They detected a signal using a hydrophone on a stick held underwater from a inflatable boat after all. This doesn't rule the Chinese reports out, only make it less likely they are correct. On the other hand, water conditions are unpredictable and hard to ascertain. Those have huge effects on sound travel under water so maybe the Chinese got supremely lucky.
Since the Australian/US one has been recorded using a proper deep sea probe and they've reported that 2 different pings were detected a reasonable distance apart, that's probably the best candidate.
... unless a Megalodon is swimming around with it lodged in its teeth.
On April 07 2014 16:52 Antisocialmunky wrote: It appears the Ocean Shield has picked up pings twice just like the Chinese but 600 km away. The first for 2 hours 20 minutes, the second for 30 seconds. What's encouraging is they detected 2 different sounding pings which is what you would expect from both the Flight Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder. They have a recording so analysis is being done.
I think the second coming yielded a sound for 13 minutes and its significance is that it was where two signals, were detected within 2000 meters of eachother. The depth in the area is given as about 4500 meters, which is even deeper than the Air France 447. source
Could the black boxes be 600km away from each other? This is a huge distance, I don't think they could end up being that far away from each other. Probably there's a false positive in one location.
On April 07 2014 19:48 arbiter_md wrote: Could the black boxes be 600km away from each other? This is a huge distance, I don't think they could end up being that far away from each other. Probably there's a false positive in one location.
Or a whale ate one of them and is trolling everyone by swimming around.
On April 07 2014 16:52 Antisocialmunky wrote: It appears the Ocean Shield has picked up pings twice just like the Chinese but 600 km away. The first for 2 hours 20 minutes, the second for 30 seconds. What's encouraging is they detected 2 different sounding pings which is what you would expect from both the Flight Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder. They have a recording so analysis is being done.
I think the second coming yielded a sound for 13 minutes and its significance is that it was where two signals, were detected within 2000 meters of eachother. The depth in the area is given as about 4500 meters, which is even deeper than the Air France 447. source
Anyway, your reporting has been excellent!
Thanks for the corrections. I'm really surprised by how long the 24 hour news networks take to report on the press conferences. I couldn't find any printed sources on that info.
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
If it hit at very high velocity straight down into the water it could also cause such disintegration that the small pieces would be very difficult to find from a plane and such.
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
There is no such thing as landing on water for a plane of that size.
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
There is no such thing as landing on water for a plane of that size.
its funny how ppl think you can ''land'' a huge jet on water like that. Its likely landing at a speed of 150 mph (240 km/h). Pretty sure at ''landing'' speed water behaves like concrete too.
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
There is no such thing as landing on water for a plane of that size.
its funny how ppl think you can ''land'' a huge jet on water like that. Its likely landing at a speed of 150 mph (240 km/h). Pretty sure at ''landing'' speed water behaves like concrete too.
Didnt someone land a big plane in Hudson river in usa?
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
There is no such thing as landing on water for a plane of that size.
its funny how ppl think you can ''land'' a huge jet on water like that. Its likely landing at a speed of 150 mph (240 km/h). Pretty sure at ''landing'' speed water behaves like concrete too.
Didnt someone land a big plane in Hudson river in usa?
yes. so it's clearly not impossible since it has been done.
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
There is no such thing as landing on water for a plane of that size.
its funny how ppl think you can ''land'' a huge jet on water like that. Its likely landing at a speed of 150 mph (240 km/h). Pretty sure at ''landing'' speed water behaves like concrete too.
Didnt someone land a big plane in Hudson river in usa?
yes. so it's clearly not impossible since it has been done.
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
Pressure would crush it as it sink i guess.
Pressure wouldn't crush anything as long as water got inside.
Apparently the 777 is a nightmare to ditch in water because the engines are ridiculously big and would cause drag issues not conducive to life (the plane would cart wheel).
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
Considering it took them forever to realise they were looking in the wrong place I'm not surprised they've had trouble finding debris.
On April 08 2014 00:23 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: What are the odds the plane is somewhat intact under water?
define "intact". but it's highly unlikely, if we assume a crash and not a controlled landing. At crash-speed, water behaves a lot like concrete.
Yeah, Like it landed on the water, then sunk. A bigger crash would equal more debris which im finding hard to believe that they hardly found any debris.,
Pressure would crush it as it sink i guess.
Pressure wouldn't crush anything as long as water got inside.
"No underwater vehicles or ships other then Australia's Ocean Shield have been deployed in the search zone to avoid interference with signal detection."
"The Bluefin 21, a remote control probe, will not be launched until the pings are located again and the location of the black boxes fixed."
An Australian search vessel has picked up two more signals from what could be the black box from missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
The man in charge of the search, retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, said the Ocean Shield picked up the traces on Tuesday afternoon and late on Tuesday night Perth time. Air Chief Marshal Houston says he is confident the search is in the right area. "So I think we're looking in the right area, but I'm not prepared to confirm anything until such time as somebody lays eyes on the wreckage," he said.
[...]
Both signals picked up yesterday lasted just over five minutes.Air Chief Marshal Houston says the signals have helped crews further define the search area, and he believes they are now closing in on the plane.
The signals are becoming weaker and Air Chief Marshal Houston says that is most likely because the batteries are beginning to run out. He says he believes the search is "not far away" from deploying an autonomous underwater vehicle to conduct an underwater search.
As a layperson with absolutely no knowledge of how to conduct these operations, I can't help but feel they're being very reluctant to deploy the search vehicle. I understand that it significantly limits their search area, but if the black box is about to run out you may as well try it. Surely you're not likely to discover too much more from the surface than the general vicinity, which we already have?
Yesterday I'm pretty sure they said they'd deploy it if they picked up the signal again. Now, apparently not.
An Australian search vessel has picked up two more signals from what could be the black box from missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
The man in charge of the search, retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, said the Ocean Shield picked up the traces on Tuesday afternoon and late on Tuesday night Perth time. Air Chief Marshal Houston says he is confident the search is in the right area. "So I think we're looking in the right area, but I'm not prepared to confirm anything until such time as somebody lays eyes on the wreckage," he said.
[...]
Both signals picked up yesterday lasted just over five minutes.Air Chief Marshal Houston says the signals have helped crews further define the search area, and he believes they are now closing in on the plane.
The signals are becoming weaker and Air Chief Marshal Houston says that is most likely because the batteries are beginning to run out. He says he believes the search is "not far away" from deploying an autonomous underwater vehicle to conduct an underwater search.
As a layperson with absolutely no knowledge of how to conduct these operations, I can't help but feel they're being very reluctant to deploy the search vehicle. I understand that it significantly limits their search area, but if the black box is about to run out you may as well try it. Surely you're not likely to discover too much more from the surface than the general vicinity, which we already have?
Yesterday I'm pretty sure they said they'd deploy it if they picked up the signal again. Now, apparently not.
From what i understoof (i'm like you and have no knowledge) they didn't want to deplay a search vehicule because it could make interference with signals of the black boxes. I can't find where i read that
On April 08 2014 19:30 Ethenielle wrote: "...Until the pings are located again"
What? I thought the black box was out of power, since 1 month has passed since the crash.
The signal declines quickly after 30 days. The battery and signal will just get quieter for a around two weeks until they finally die. Think flashlight getting dimmer and dimmer as the batteries run out and not your phone going dead.
On April 09 2014 14:13 Belisarius wrote: Signals picked up again late last night.
An Australian search vessel has picked up two more signals from what could be the black box from missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
The man in charge of the search, retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, said the Ocean Shield picked up the traces on Tuesday afternoon and late on Tuesday night Perth time. Air Chief Marshal Houston says he is confident the search is in the right area. "So I think we're looking in the right area, but I'm not prepared to confirm anything until such time as somebody lays eyes on the wreckage," he said.
[...]
Both signals picked up yesterday lasted just over five minutes.Air Chief Marshal Houston says the signals have helped crews further define the search area, and he believes they are now closing in on the plane.
The signals are becoming weaker and Air Chief Marshal Houston says that is most likely because the batteries are beginning to run out. He says he believes the search is "not far away" from deploying an autonomous underwater vehicle to conduct an underwater search.
As a layperson with absolutely no knowledge of how to conduct these operations, I can't help but feel they're being very reluctant to deploy the search vehicle. I understand that it significantly limits their search area, but if the black box is about to run out you may as well try it. Surely you're not likely to discover too much more from the surface than the general vicinity, which we already have?
Yesterday I'm pretty sure they said they'd deploy it if they picked up the signal again. Now, apparently not.
Yeah, they moved pretty much every other ship out of the area to ensure no possible artificial sources. Also the search area is still 1/3rd the size of the UK. The more time you spend narrowing it down, the less time you spend searching for the airplane so it works out faster in the long run. Not much anyone can do but stay patient.
On April 09 2014 15:19 digmouse wrote: Even if they successfully ditch it won't stay afloat for a month.
In theory it stays afloat for barely long enough for everyone to get on the life rafts. It can be ditched though, unlike what some people seem to be saying in this thread. People will say it can't ditch because it never has been ditched before. It's never been ditched before because it's genuinely a very safe aircraft.
It seems the specific frequency picked up by the towed pinger on monday was 33.333 kHz and it was "very stable". It is distinctive from any normal sounds in water, with a too consistent occurance and therefore very likely of man-made mechanical origin designed for that specific purpose (or in other words, it is very unlikely to be anything other than the transmitters from the black boxes).
The newest pings are described as suggesting that the signal will fail "very shortly", as in the pulses are weak.
Russian intelligence sources claim the passengers on MH370 are alive after the flight landed in Afghanistan:
"A source in the country’s FSB secret service said the plane has been hijacked and flown close to the Pakistan border.
The Boeing 777 has been missing since March 8 and it is thought the black box which holds the flight’s secrets may have run out of battery.
There are 239 people on board the Malaysia Airlines plane, which was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
The source told a Russia newspaper: All the passengers are alive, they have been divided into seven groups and are living in mud huts with almost no food,” reported the Sun.
The report added that 20 passengers who were Asian “specialists” have been smuggled into a bunker in Pakistan."
On April 09 2014 15:19 digmouse wrote: Even if they successfully ditch it won't stay afloat for a month.
In theory it stays afloat for barely long enough for everyone to get on the life rafts. It can be ditched though, unlike what some people seem to be saying in this thread. People will say it can't ditch because it never has been ditched before. It's never been ditched before because it's genuinely a very safe aircraft.
The life rafts on 777's do have gps devices that automatically send data to satellites if deployed. That data was never sent therefore its unlikely that the liferafts were ever used.
Daily Star looks about as credible as an email telling me I've won a lottery I never entered. Just look at the other articles that cesspool of journalism is running. Why even post trash like that here with so many quotes like it's actual news?
Well, the original article was posted in the Russian news. Probably not too much to worry about, but until they've found the actual wreck anything is possible.
On the day that MH370 went missing, how many other flights in the world succeeded in landing safely? I would imagine the answer to be "all of them", but I was wondering if someone could give me a ballpark statistic to put the MH370 incident into perspective - how many flights are there in the world on a daily basis?
On April 11 2014 00:53 Warlock40 wrote: Slightly off topic, but just a random question:
On the day that MH370 went missing, how many other flights in the world succeeded in landing safely? I would imagine the answer to be "all of them", but I was wondering if someone could give me a ballpark statistic to put the MH370 incident into perspective - how many flights are there in the world on a daily basis?
The chances of you being in a plane crash is SOOO remote in our current age that you'll most likely to die driving to the actual airport then dieing in a plane crash.
So, honestly if you are afraid of planes after this, don't be. It takes a lot of bad coincidences to bring a plane down.
Edit: Also, you'll probably get struck by lightning before you are in a plane crash. Or killed by a shark. Or winning the lottery.
On April 11 2014 00:53 Warlock40 wrote: Slightly off topic, but just a random question:
On the day that MH370 went missing, how many other flights in the world succeeded in landing safely? I would imagine the answer to be "all of them", but I was wondering if someone could give me a ballpark statistic to put the MH370 incident into perspective - how many flights are there in the world on a daily basis?
"At any given moment, there are 5000 planes above the skies within the United States and 87,000 planes flying worldwide." this includes miltary/commercial/cargo planes. so yea seraphic is right, if u are able to survive to 18 years old without dying to lightning or a car accident then its close to impossible that you will die in a plane crash under normal circumstances.
The sonar buoy signal from yesterday was a false lead. So nothing new since Thursday.
Update on search for Malaysian flight MH370 Listen to this page
Media Release 11 April 2014—pm
The Chief Coordinator of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston (Ret'd), said an initial assessment of the possible signal detected by a RAAF AP-3C Orion aircraft yesterday afternoon has been determined as not related to an aircraft underwater locator beacon.
“The Australian Joint Acoustic Analysis Centre has analysed the acoustic data and confirmed that the signal reported in the vicinity of the Australian Defence Vessel Ocean Shield is unlikely to be related to the aircraft black boxes,” Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston (Ret'd), said.
“Further analysis continues to be undertaken by Australian Joint Acoustic Analysis Centre.
“Today Ocean Shield is continuing more focussed sweeps with the Towed Pinger Locator to try and locate further signals that may be related to the aircraft's black boxes. It is vital to glean as much information as possible while the batteries on the underwater locator beacons may still be active.
“The AP-3C Orions continue their acoustic search, working in conjunction with Ocean Shield, with three more missions planned for today.
“A decision as to when to deploy the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle will be made on advice from experts on board the Ocean Shield and could be some days away.
“On the information I have available to me, there has been no major breakthrough in the search for MH370. I will provide a further update if, and when, further information becomes available.”
00:41 Local time the plane departs from Kuala Lumpur on its normal route towards Beijing. (Between 01:07 and 01:37) The primary ACARS system is shut down, meaning it stopped sending informations to the ground. It kept pinging the satellite. Shutting down ACARS is a longer sequence so it cannot have been done by accident by a pilot. 01:19 The captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah says "good night, Malaysian three seven zero" when the plane is handed off from malaysian airspace. (A voice stress analysis shows no sign of stress in the recordings and there are no third party voices in the cockpit during the communications.) 01:21 The last data from the transponder is received near the Igal waypoint in the South China Sea. 01:22 The Vietnamese air traffic controller is not getting contacted by the plane as scheduled. 01:30 The plane leaves civil primary radar. 01:30 A pilot from another plane claims to have contacted the plane on the emergency frequency, but he only heard mumbling before the connection was lost. (According to a malaysian airforce primary radar the following sequence occured) The plane is reaching FL450 which is above recommandations for the plane. It is taking a sharp turn to the west and descends to FL230, lower than normal cruising altitude where it passes Penang and flies westward towards the Igal waypoint near Phuket, the plane disappears from military radar for a time, possibly as a result of reaching FL50 or below. It then turns northwest towards the Igrex waypoint in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. From the first westward turn, the way the plane reacts is consistent with how FMS reacts, alas it is likely the planes new route was programmed by a pilot (dispatcher has been excluded as a suspect). 02:15 The plane is no longer visible on military radar, contact is lost northwest of the indian territory Andaman Islands with the plane flying through the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean and towards the Igrex waypoint. (the last source of information is hourly handshakes from a satellite belonging to Inmarsat) A calculation of the delay of the handshake caused by the planes distance from the satellite is made. Based on analysis of the burst frequency offset of the plane, the directional informations are inferred (These calculations are theoretically sound but less empirically supported): 03:11 The burst frequency offset of the planes handshake at this time is significantly different from other planes flying north or south. Potentially a turn could cause the discrepancy. 4.11-7.11 The burst frequency offsets from the handshakes are consistent with a plane flying in a southward direction. The inferrence of direction is based on how well the planes burst frequency offset correlates with other planes flying in a northern or southern direction at different airspeeds in the same area. 08:11 The last complete handshake is recieved from the plane. 08:19 An unexpected partial handshake is initiated from the plane. Reason for it is unknown, though it is speculated to be as a result of the plane losing power.
Further analysis of the planes airspeed from radar, the last handshakes, distance from the satellite and the burst frequency offset changes indicate the planes last known position to be in a vast and remote area of the Indian Ocean west of Australia. The pings from the black box emitters have been picked up in the absolute northern end of the flights calculated crash-area, most likely corresponding with a high airspeed flight and potentially small directional changes.
What the hell ? Are they saying that they saw the plane ? I'm confused
The Malaysian Air Force has said a plane that could have been MH370 was last plotted on military radar at 2:15 a.m., 320 km (200 miles) northwest of the west coast state of Penang.
It is understood that the plane descended to between 4,000 and 5,000 feet flying back over the Malay Peninsula is the stretch of land to the west of Malaysia containing the southern tip of Myanmar and southern Thailand.
MH370 was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8 before it vanished without a trace.
Abbot telling the Chinese that the black box is found. Seems like a tad overconfident at this point, but diplomatic blunders are hardly surprising with Tony.
The Malaysian Air Force has said a plane that could have been MH370 was last plotted on military radar at 2:15 a.m., 320 km (200 miles) northwest of the west coast state of Penang.
It is understood that the plane descended to between 4,000 and 5,000 feet flying back over the Malay Peninsula is the stretch of land to the west of Malaysia containing the southern tip of Myanmar and southern Thailand.
MH370 was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8 before it vanished without a trace.
It is from CNN. CNN first reported it as 120 nm off the westcoast of Malaysia, but changed the 120 nm to refer to the period the plane was off the radar. I don't know. It seems like CNN is consistently chasing headlines and first reports on this story to the point of spreading rumours and misunderstanding facts. I jumped the gun myself in the fact-post and corrected it to be less specific.
On April 11 2014 22:35 FFW_Rude wrote: What the hell ? Are they saying that they saw the plane ? I'm confused
The Malaysian Air Force has said a plane that could have been MH370 was last plotted on military radar at 2:15 a.m., 320 km (200 miles) northwest of the west coast state of Penang.
It is understood that the plane descended to between 4,000 and 5,000 feet flying back over the Malay Peninsula is the stretch of land to the west of Malaysia containing the southern tip of Myanmar and southern Thailand.
MH370 was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8 before it vanished without a trace.
It is from CNN. CNN first reported it as 120 nm off the westcoast of Malaysia, but changed the 120 nm to refer to the period the plane was off the radar. I don't know. It seems like CNN is consistently chasing headlines and first reports on this story to the point of spreading rumours and misunderstanding facts. I jumped the gun myself in the fact-post and corrected it to be less specific.
they're chasing viewership, i think they said since MH370 disappeared , their viewership went up like some ridiculous amount since they are/were covering it 24/7
On April 12 2014 16:15 urboss wrote: If they find it, is it going to be easy to salvage the wreck? Can a crane on a ship lift 1000s of tons?
The weight of the plane would at the absolute maximum be 351,500 kg, or 351 tons. More likely it would be around 160,500 kg if it was fully intact with some fuel and so on left in it. They will never salvage the entire wreckage if it is too deep, no point to it.
The strongest cranes on land can lift around 20,000 metric tons (Chinese Taisun), or 56 times the needed weight. There are ships that transport more than that, 175 343 tons on the CMA CGM Marco Polo for example. The problem would be in structural integrity and method of reaching a set depth.
So yes it is possible, no I didn't manage to find a good source about if there is any current ship that can do it.
wow, 20,000 tons should do it. Edit: I see, that is on land. Mind that there is also the pressure of the water in 5000m depth the crane has to work against.
I have faith they can find it. If they were able to find Airfrance 447, with time and a bit of luck, they can find this plane as well. If they keep to it of course. All I know is Malaysia has done a very, VERY bad job handling this up to this point.
That's what the dutch website Nu.nl just posted. a brief translation:
Sources around the police told the Malaysian paper ''New Straits Times'' that Co-Pilot MH370 tried to call after it disappeared from radar.
He thinks Far Abdul Hamid's phone made contact with a transmission tower when the plane flew low, close to the Malaysian island Penang. But before the signal could be sent to the next transmission tower to have an actual phone call, the connection was lost.
Most likely because the plane flew away quickly and another tower couldn't be reached.
On April 12 2014 22:09 JerseyDevil wrote: Typically they actually inflate giant airbags and float wreckages, not lift them with a crane.
Really? Maybe they do this in shallow waters. I have my doubts that you can inflate an airbag of sufficient size at 5000m depth. For the titanic they came up with all sorts of ideas, none of which seemed to work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic Admittedly the Titanic is 'slightly' heavier than a Boeing.
On April 12 2014 16:45 urboss wrote: wow, 20,000 tons should do it. Edit: I see, that is on land. Mind that there is also the pressure of the water in 5000m depth the crane has to work against.
It's not too on-topic, but I can't stand seeing wrong physcis uncorrected The pressure of water does not extert any force against lifting objects from it. On the contrary, the differential pressure (the higher the deeper you go) always provides upward force (the famous Archimedes law), almost (within the incompressibility of the water) regardless of the depth. The "only" problem the extreme pressure poses is in operating the machinery needed to fix any object to a rope to it, but it has no negative effect on the lifting proper. Anyway, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the plane to lie intact on the ocean floor, clear landing on water (free ocean water with high waves in particular) with a large jet is extremely rare, so the plane is likely broken into many scattered pieces.
Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
On April 13 2014 01:42 urboss wrote: Thanks, I think I understand now. The water pressure doesn't only act from above, but acts uniformly around the object.
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
I find your explanation very misleading.
We don't get crushed by the air above us, because our internal cavities (lungs, etc.) match the pressure of the air surrounding us. The rest of us is more or less incompressible because we are mostly made from water and bone. The air does exert a force on us, but we are well matched to it for a lack of a better word.
The water column above an object exerts a force on the object. Actually the force is applied from all directions if the object is hollow. But again if the object is solid (incompressible) and also filled with water at the same pressure, it won't collapse because the pressure inside and outside is matched. An object filled with air at a different pressure than the water on the other hand will have considerable force exerted on it. That's why divers need to go up and down slowly in order for the pressure to equalize. Once there is a pressure differential, they risk that their lungs collapse (again simplified, there are also other problems).
All of this has little to do with Newton's second law. Archimides law is concerned with the buoyant force that an object experiences when submerged in a liquid and there is a density difference between the object and the liquid. So that's more concerned with how fast the object will rise, but not really about how much force is exerted on the object due to the pressure differential.
tldr: There is a force. Just blow up a balloon and submerge it in your filled bathtup if you don't believe me.
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
On April 13 2014 01:15 Hryul wrote:
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
I find your explanation very misleading.
We don't get crushed by the air above us, because our internal cavities (lungs, etc.) match the pressure of the air surrounding us. The rest of us is more or less incompressible because we are mostly made from water and bone. The air does exert a force on us, but we are well matched to it for a lack of a better word.
The water column above an object exerts a force on the object. Actually the force is applied from all directions if the object is hollow. But again if the object is solid (incompressible) and also filled with water at the same pressure, it won't collapse because the pressure inside and outside is matched. An object filled with air at a different pressure than the water on the other hand will have considerable force exerted on it. That's why divers need to go up and down slowly in order for the pressure to equalize. Once there is a pressure differential, they risk that their lungs collapse (again simplified, there are also other problems).
All of this has little to do with Newton's second law. Archimides law is concerned with the buoyant force that an object experiences when submerged in a liquid and there is a density difference between the object and the liquid. So that's more concerned with how fast the object will rise, but not really about how much force is exerted on the object due to the pressure differential.
tldr: There is a force. Just blow up a balloon and submerge it in your filled bathtup if you don't believe me.
He's referring to the force required to move the object up or down, which the depth in the water doesn't affect. The force on an object due to a pressure differential is a separate topic.
In that case what he says would be wrong. There are two forces which are important in this case. The first is the gravitational force pulling the object downward to the bottom of the ocean and its buoyancy which will move the object upwards towards the surface.
The best way to understand buoyancy is by using pressure. The submerged object will experience a force from all sides. This force depends on the pressure, which becomes larger the deeper you move down towards the bottom of the ocean. Therefore the force at the bottom of the object differs from the force on top of the object which results in a net force that moves the object towards the surface.
That is the reason why the apparent weight of an object is smaller when submerged in water, which is what we experience every time we go swimming. For this explanation Newtown's third principle is completely irrelevant.
And also not to nitpick, but if the liquid involved is seawater, the object will change its buoyancy with depth because seawater isn't a perfect incompressible liquid. It actually has a higher density at lower depth because the seawater above it will exert force on it (It also changes with temperature and salinity, which further complicates things).
So the reason why in an ideal incompressible liquid (not seawater!) the force needed to move the object doesn't change with depth is because the density of the liquid doesn't change. The pressure changes with depth, but since we are not interested in the total pressure but the pressure differential between top and bottom of the object, the buoancy doesn't change with depth (unless the density changes with depth). And in any case the force pulling the object down is gravity which doesn't change that much with depth, because the plane is tiny compared to the earth.
tl;dr: Still wrong and don't use Newton's third principle here.
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
On April 13 2014 01:15 Hryul wrote:
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
I find your explanation very misleading.
We don't get crushed by the air above us, because our internal cavities (lungs, etc.) match the pressure of the air surrounding us. The rest of us is more or less incompressible because we are mostly made from water and bone. The air does exert a force on us, but we are well matched to it for a lack of a better word.
The water column above an object exerts a force on the object. Actually the force is applied from all directions if the object is hollow. But again if the object is solid (incompressible) and also filled with water at the same pressure, it won't collapse because the pressure inside and outside is matched. An object filled with air at a different pressure than the water on the other hand will have considerable force exerted on it. That's why divers need to go up and down slowly in order for the pressure to equalize. Once there is a pressure differential, they risk that their lungs collapse (again simplified, there are also other problems).
All of this has little to do with Newton's second law. Archimides law is concerned with the buoyant force that an object experiences when submerged in a liquid and there is a density difference between the object and the liquid. So that's more concerned with how fast the object will rise, but not really about how much force is exerted on the object due to the pressure differential.
tldr: There is a force. Just blow up a balloon and submerge it in your filled bathtup if you don't believe me.
He's referring to the force required to move the object up or down, which the depth in the water doesn't affect. The force on an object due to a pressure differential is a separate topic.
In that case what he says would be wrong. There are two forces which are important in this case. The first is the gravitational force pulling the object downward to the bottom of the ocean and its buoyancy which will move the object upwards towards the surface.
The best way to understand buoyancy is by using pressure. The submerged object will experience a force from all sides. This force depends on the pressure, which becomes larger the deeper you move down towards the bottom of the ocean. Therefore the force at the bottom of the object differs from the force on top of the object which results in a net force that moves the object towards the surface.
That is the reason why the apparent weight of an object is smaller when submerged in water, which is what we experience every time we go swimming. For this explanation Newtown's third principle is completely irrelevant.
And also not to nitpick, but if the liquid involved is seawater, the object will change its buoyancy with depth because seawater isn't a perfect incompressible liquid. It actually has a higher density at lower depth because the seawater above it will exert force on it (It also changes with temperature and salinity, which further complicates things).
So the reason why in an ideal incompressible liquid (not seawater!) the force needed to move the object doesn't change with depth is because the density of the liquid doesn't change. The pressure changes with depth, but since we are not interested in the total pressure but the pressure differential between top and bottom of the object, the buoancy doesn't change with depth (unless the density changes with depth). And in any case the force pulling the object down is gravity which doesn't change that much with depth, because the plane is tiny compared to the earth.
tl;dr: Still wrong and don't use Newton's third principle here.
I use Newton's third principle whenever the fuck I want, because it is never wrong!
And on a more serious note: I might not have been as clear as I could have been, but I just wanted to demonstrate, that water pressure doesn't pose a problem for lifting an object once lifted from the ground of the sea. What I (wanted to) describe was the reason for buoyancy and I can't see where I was wrong there.
And to understand that you don't have to nitpick about compressibility of seawater, since you can neglect it locally.
Seawater's density varies by water temperature, salinity, and depth. But once you get so deep it doesn't really change that much. Pressure would only matter with how it would interact with the flotation device as i would imagine the broken plane or parts would be open ans rhw pressure would either equalize quixkly or destroy the plane further.
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
On April 13 2014 01:15 Hryul wrote:
On April 13 2014 00:45 urboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I only have a vague memory of my physics classes. I understand Archimedes law, but I don't understand why the water column above an object doesn't exert any force on it. Does this have something to do with some special features of water?
nope. the same thing applies to air balloons or even just you, who doesn't get crushed by the tons of oxygen above you in the atmosphere.
it's an application of Newton's law "action = reaction" (Kraft = Gegenkraft). let's assume the plane is "in the water", so not grounded yet. so intuitively, there is the water pushing down the plane. (academic note: so then the plane pushes against the water to the top, but that's not important). Then there is the plane pushing on the water underneath it. but since action = reaction, the water pushes back with the exact same amount of force!
Now for an object to move there must be a "net force" in a direction. so we add both forces from the water to the plane and what we see (math is on wiki), is that the forces from the water pushing from the top and the bottom cancel out except for a part containing the height difference between top and bottom part.
tldr: it does exert force, but due to newton's law "action = reaction" most of it cancels out.
I find your explanation very misleading.
We don't get crushed by the air above us, because our internal cavities (lungs, etc.) match the pressure of the air surrounding us. The rest of us is more or less incompressible because we are mostly made from water and bone. The air does exert a force on us, but we are well matched to it for a lack of a better word.
The water column above an object exerts a force on the object. Actually the force is applied from all directions if the object is hollow. But again if the object is solid (incompressible) and also filled with water at the same pressure, it won't collapse because the pressure inside and outside is matched. An object filled with air at a different pressure than the water on the other hand will have considerable force exerted on it. That's why divers need to go up and down slowly in order for the pressure to equalize. Once there is a pressure differential, they risk that their lungs collapse (again simplified, there are also other problems).
All of this has little to do with Newton's second law. Archimides law is concerned with the buoyant force that an object experiences when submerged in a liquid and there is a density difference between the object and the liquid. So that's more concerned with how fast the object will rise, but not really about how much force is exerted on the object due to the pressure differential.
tldr: There is a force. Just blow up a balloon and submerge it in your filled bathtup if you don't believe me.
He's referring to the force required to move the object up or down, which the depth in the water doesn't affect. The force on an object due to a pressure differential is a separate topic.
In that case what he says would be wrong. There are two forces which are important in this case. The first is the gravitational force pulling the object downward to the bottom of the ocean and its buoyancy which will move the object upwards towards the surface.
The best way to understand buoyancy is by using pressure. The submerged object will experience a force from all sides. This force depends on the pressure, which becomes larger the deeper you move down towards the bottom of the ocean. Therefore the force at the bottom of the object differs from the force on top of the object which results in a net force that moves the object towards the surface.
That is the reason why the apparent weight of an object is smaller when submerged in water, which is what we experience every time we go swimming. For this explanation Newtown's third principle is completely irrelevant.
And also not to nitpick, but if the liquid involved is seawater, the object will change its buoyancy with depth because seawater isn't a perfect incompressible liquid. It actually has a higher density at lower depth because the seawater above it will exert force on it (It also changes with temperature and salinity, which further complicates things).
So the reason why in an ideal incompressible liquid (not seawater!) the force needed to move the object doesn't change with depth is because the density of the liquid doesn't change. The pressure changes with depth, but since we are not interested in the total pressure but the pressure differential between top and bottom of the object, the buoancy doesn't change with depth (unless the density changes with depth). And in any case the force pulling the object down is gravity which doesn't change that much with depth, because the plane is tiny compared to the earth.
tl;dr: Still wrong and don't use Newton's third principle here.
I use Newton's third principle whenever the fuck I want, because it is never wrong!
And on a more serious note: I might not have been as clear as I could have been, but I just wanted to demonstrate, that water pressure doesn't pose a problem for lifting an object once lifted from the ground of the sea. What I (wanted to) describe was the reason for buoyancy and I can't see where I was wrong there.
And to understand that you don't have to nitpick about compressibility of seawater, since you can neglect it locally.
It is actually very simple. You said that there is water pushing from the top and this causes a counterforce. And that the plane pushes against the water underneath it causing another counterforce. And that those cancel each other out.
Actually it's the same water above the plane that pushes from the top as well as from the bottom at the same time. There is just more water above the plane seen from the bottom, then seen from the top. And this is what causes a force pushing the plane up. Now the force with which the plane is pushing downward is actually caused by the gravity field of the earth which is something else.
You can use Newton's third now and tell me that the plane is also pulling the earth towards it at the same time
Actually it's the same water above the plane that pushes from the top as well as from the bottom at the same time.
Dude, your explanations aren't simple, but quite confusing
But I guess you were right: It's not the gravitational force of the (mass of the) plane but the difference in pressure of the water which causes buoyancy.
This pressure difference is also caused by the gravity field of the earth. So it's not completely unrelated
Buoyancy is basically the weight of the water displaced so, and weight of water displaced is found by the volume of the object. An object displaces water equal to its volume, volume of water * density of water= mass displaced, mass displaced * force of gravity = Newtons of force
Since gravity is acting on both the water and the object when the mass of the object and the mass of water displaced are the same the buoyancy force is equal to the objects weight and it reaches equilibrium.
The probe Bluefin-21 has finished searching 90% of the area without finding anything.
Poll: I believe that...
The plane crashed in a different part of the ocean. (6)
46%
The search area NW of Perth is correct. (5)
38%
The plane has landed on solid ground. (2)
15%
13 total votes
Your vote: I believe that...
(Vote): The search area NW of Perth is correct. (Vote): The plane crashed in a different part of the ocean. (Vote): The plane has landed on solid ground.
On April 25 2014 16:57 urboss wrote: The probe Bluefin-21 has finished searching 90% of the area without finding anything.
Poll: I believe that...
The plane crashed in a different part of the ocean. (6)
46%
The search area NW of Perth is correct. (5)
38%
The plane has landed on solid ground. (2)
15%
13 total votes
Your vote: I believe that...
(Vote): The search area NW of Perth is correct. (Vote): The plane crashed in a different part of the ocean. (Vote): The plane has landed on solid ground.
This is my story and I'm sticking to it...
HANNITY: General, I've known you a long time. I know you too well to know that you're not just making this up, this isn't something you've concocted. You've spoken to a number of people, am I correct?
MCINERNEY: Yes, but that's all I want to say, Sean, please.
HANNITY: Fair enough. And you believe this plane is intact and that this plane landed?
On April 25 2014 16:57 urboss wrote: The probe Bluefin-21 has finished searching 90% of the area without finding anything.
Poll: I believe that...
The plane crashed in a different part of the ocean. (6)
46%
The search area NW of Perth is correct. (5)
38%
The plane has landed on solid ground. (2)
15%
13 total votes
Your vote: I believe that...
(Vote): The search area NW of Perth is correct. (Vote): The plane crashed in a different part of the ocean. (Vote): The plane has landed on solid ground.
This is my story and I'm sticking to it...
HANNITY: General, I've known you a long time. I know you too well to know that you're not just making this up, this isn't something you've concocted. You've spoken to a number of people, am I correct?
MCINERNEY: Yes, but that's all I want to say, Sean, please.
HANNITY: Fair enough. And you believe this plane is intact and that this plane landed?
On April 25 2014 16:57 urboss wrote: The probe Bluefin-21 has finished searching 90% of the area without finding anything.
Poll: I believe that...
The plane crashed in a different part of the ocean. (6)
46%
The search area NW of Perth is correct. (5)
38%
The plane has landed on solid ground. (2)
15%
13 total votes
Your vote: I believe that...
(Vote): The search area NW of Perth is correct. (Vote): The plane crashed in a different part of the ocean. (Vote): The plane has landed on solid ground.
This is my story and I'm sticking to it...
HANNITY: General, I've known you a long time. I know you too well to know that you're not just making this up, this isn't something you've concocted. You've spoken to a number of people, am I correct?
MCINERNEY: Yes, but that's all I want to say, Sean, please.
HANNITY: Fair enough. And you believe this plane is intact and that this plane landed?
Is that really surprising? Its already pretty hard to find a plane when you know approximately where it crashed, so when we really don't know where it went, its gonna be near impossible. To be honest, im pretty sure we will never find it, or it will take many many years, if anyone has any interests searching for it for so long.
A new and so far final analysis of data on the location of the wreckage has been published. It suggests several things with some level of certainty:
1) The sonar signal is not consistent with the protocol for what is used on the plane!
2) The plane flew south based on Bust Frequency offset analysis.
3) The planes last large change of direction (the large turn shortly after leaving the primary radar image) is consistent with the plane being on some level of stable flight from that point (autopilot) and the last satellite communication is consistent with what is thought to be the time it ran out of fuel.
4) The search so far has been conducted in a northern (The ping site) and southern (the first satellite images from the southern corridor) direction from the most likely final resting place.
5) With the help of scenario analysis of different combination of speed, FL etc. a probable line of descent between app (S36,E95) and (S25,E104) is determined as the best fit.
The possible search area has more or less been mapped and the search is ready to start some time next month. The search area of most interest will be moved a little further south as new information about two unsuccessful calls from satellite phones have been examined. The examination has revealed that the plane might have changed course to the southern direction earlier in the span between approximately 2:15 and 3:11 than what was previously assumed. The cost of the search is expected to be up to about 60 million us$ which Australia and Malaysia will share. Guardian China.org
The search will start in early september and can run as long as a year.
On August 29 2014 22:41 radiatoren wrote: The possible search area has more or less been mapped and the search is ready to start some time next month. The search area of most interest will be moved a little further south as new information about two unsuccessful calls from satellite phones have been examined. The examination has revealed that the plane might have changed course to the southern direction earlier in the span between approximately 2:15 and 3:11 than what was previously assumed. The cost of the search is expected to be up to about 60 million us$ which Australia and Malaysia will share. Guardian China.org
The search will start in early september and can run as long as a year.
Wow $60 million? I can understand absorbing a cost like that right after the disappearance if there were any hope these people are still alive, but it seems like a waste of money now.
Respect the dead man. If your daughter or son was down there, wouldn't you hope that there was at least some chance for the body to be recovered so that it may be buried?
On August 30 2014 00:05 Psyonic_Reaver wrote: Respect the dead man. If your daughter or son was down there, wouldn't you hope that there was at least some chance for the body to be recovered so that it may be buried?
What about respect for the living? Or the living and starving? It's not that simple. The governments have sadly no choice but to appease the people.
On August 29 2014 22:41 radiatoren wrote: The possible search area has more or less been mapped and the search is ready to start some time next month. The search area of most interest will be moved a little further south as new information about two unsuccessful calls from satellite phones have been examined. The examination has revealed that the plane might have changed course to the southern direction earlier in the span between approximately 2:15 and 3:11 than what was previously assumed. The cost of the search is expected to be up to about 60 million us$ which Australia and Malaysia will share. Guardian China.org
The search will start in early september and can run as long as a year.
Wow $60 million? I can understand absorbing a cost like that right after the disappearance if there were any hope these people are still alive, but it seems like a waste of money now.
A drop in a bucket. It could also be important to understand why it happened for many obvious reason.
On August 29 2014 22:41 radiatoren wrote: The possible search area has more or less been mapped and the search is ready to start some time next month. The search area of most interest will be moved a little further south as new information about two unsuccessful calls from satellite phones have been examined. The examination has revealed that the plane might have changed course to the southern direction earlier in the span between approximately 2:15 and 3:11 than what was previously assumed. The cost of the search is expected to be up to about 60 million us$ which Australia and Malaysia will share. Guardian China.org
The search will start in early september and can run as long as a year.
Wow $60 million? I can understand absorbing a cost like that right after the disappearance if there were any hope these people are still alive, but it seems like a waste of money now.
A drop in a bucket. It could also be important to understand why it happened for many obvious reason.
There are so many planes and crashes now that the chances of learning something new from one particular case are extremely low. Like you said, a drop in a bucket.
On August 29 2014 22:41 radiatoren wrote: The possible search area has more or less been mapped and the search is ready to start some time next month. The search area of most interest will be moved a little further south as new information about two unsuccessful calls from satellite phones have been examined. The examination has revealed that the plane might have changed course to the southern direction earlier in the span between approximately 2:15 and 3:11 than what was previously assumed. The cost of the search is expected to be up to about 60 million us$ which Australia and Malaysia will share. Guardian China.org
The search will start in early september and can run as long as a year.
Wow $60 million? I can understand absorbing a cost like that right after the disappearance if there were any hope these people are still alive, but it seems like a waste of money now.
A drop in a bucket. It could also be important to understand why it happened for many obvious reason.
There are so many planes and crashes now that the chances of learning something new from one particular case are extremely low. Like you said, a drop in a bucket.
This accident (assuming it was one) has many unique aspects to it. If it is solved there is surely something to be learned.
Also it is not that many. This would be 1 of 4 plane crashes this year so far, only counting accidents. And it is the only Airbus or Boing accident this year, the others were smaller aircraft.
Should be interesting to see if there's anything else they trip on. I know at some point, a ripped suitcase with Chinese letters, a kettle and I think a ladder was mentioned?
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread! I was curious if the plane was found after this long time, but it's not. However, some information at that time wasn't clear which now makes sense. For instance, check this video:
At the time I didn't know how carefully radars were avoided and then electricity was enabled again. This sounds well planned. Back in 2014-2015 a possible explanation was that the plane was in auto pilot mode while people on board were dead, hence it ran until fuel was exhausted. But if you see the video, you'll see that it was controlled and it's not random. Also, they explain that cabin was depressurised by climbing to 40 000 ft to kill passengers which also makes sense. Also, I don't think it was the co-pilot unless he was so talented, yet he was hiding that talent well. The fact he was going to get married soon also doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the captain had some marriage issues (possibly divorced soon), he had a similar simulation in Microsoft Flight Simulator, he was sleeping with flight attendants, etc. Dodging radars that carefully sounds like a well trained pilot in my opinion. Of course, nothing is 100% proven.
At the time I didn't know how carefully radars were avoided and then electricity was enabled again. This sounds well planned. Back in 2014-2015 a possible explanation was that the plane was in auto pilot mode while people on board were dead, hence it ran until fuel was exhausted. But if you see the video, you'll see that it was controlled and it's not random. Also, they explain that cabin was depressurised by climbing to 40 000 ft to kill passengers which also makes sense. Also, I don't think it was the co-pilot unless he was so talented, yet he was hiding that talent well. The fact he was going to get married soon also doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the captain had some marriage issues (possibly divorced soon), he had a similar simulation in Microsoft Flight Simulator, he was sleeping with flight attendants, etc. Dodging radars that carefully sounds like a well trained pilot in my opinion. Of course, nothing is 100% proven.
The captain and the co-pilot (First Officer) go through the same training. Nowadays what sets them apart is generally time at the company. So, don't rule out the FO because of "talent".
In that part of the world there are large swaths of radarless areas. It doesn't take but a couple trips to figure them out.
At the time I didn't know how carefully radars were avoided and then electricity was enabled again. This sounds well planned. Back in 2014-2015 a possible explanation was that the plane was in auto pilot mode while people on board were dead, hence it ran until fuel was exhausted. But if you see the video, you'll see that it was controlled and it's not random. Also, they explain that cabin was depressurised by climbing to 40 000 ft to kill passengers which also makes sense. Also, I don't think it was the co-pilot unless he was so talented, yet he was hiding that talent well. The fact he was going to get married soon also doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the captain had some marriage issues (possibly divorced soon), he had a similar simulation in Microsoft Flight Simulator, he was sleeping with flight attendants, etc. Dodging radars that carefully sounds like a well trained pilot in my opinion. Of course, nothing is 100% proven.
The captain and the co-pilot (First Officer) go through the same training. Nowadays what sets them apart is generally time at the company. So, don't rule out the FO because of "talent".
In that part of the world there are large swaths of radarless areas. It doesn't take but a couple trips to figure them out.
Maybe you're right but the general vibe I get from reading articles about this flight as well as personal lives of both pilots is still that the captain was more capable of avoiding radars well. He was allegedly said to have studied all details about Boeing 777, including replicating that model in his flight simulator. That sounds to me like he focuses on details in general. On the other hand, the young co-pilot was more of a party type guy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/malaysian-flight-mh370-copilot-teenagers-fariq-abdul-hamid
Of course, all of these assumptions and beliefs are because of articles. Hopefully they find the plane and hopefully black boxes are in tact so they can investigate properly.
Edit:
So another video I've watched: Another interesting thing is the plane turned left as if pilot wanted to have one last look of Penang which is the home town of captain Zaharie. Coincidence? Probably not. I know this sounds like conspiracy but when I consider all facts that are presented, the likelihood in my opinion is that it was the captain nor the first officer. They report first officer's phone was switched on but probably he wanted to call for help?