A European diplomat in Kuala Lumpur cautioned that the Malaysian capital was an Asian hub for illegal migrants, many of whom used false documents and complex routes including via Beijing or West Africa to reach a final destination in Europe.
"You shouldn't automatically think that the fact there were two people on the plane with false passports had anything to do with the disappearance of the plane," the diplomat said.
"The more you know about the role of Kuala Lumpur in this chain, the more doubtful you are of the chances of a linkage."
A Thai travel agent who arranged the tickets for the two passengers using the stolen passports said she had booked them on the flight via Beijing because they were the cheapest tickets, the Financial Times reported.
The travel agent in the resort of Pattaya said an Iranian business contact she knew only as "Mr Ali" had asked her to book tickets for the two men on March 1.
She had initially booked them on other airlines but those reservations expired and on March 6, Mr Ali had asked her to book them again. She told the newspaper she did not think Mr Ali, who paid her in cash and booked tickets with her regularly, was linked to terrorism.
Pretty far fetched I know but one other possibility is it could be a death-faking exercise. Parachutes might have been involved and they're letting the world think it's crashed.
There was that bloke that got "lost" in a canoe and turned up in south America and was then found to have massive debts or something. Could be like that but on a mass scale.
Pretty far fetched I know but one other possibility is it could be a death-faking exercise. Parachutes might have been involved and they're letting the world think it's crashed.That's even more far-fetched than the current favourite theory we came up with at work in the two hours our computers were down today.
There was that bloke that got "lost" in a canoe and turned up in south America and was then found to have massive debts or something. Could be like that but on a mass scale.
Pretty far fetched I know but one other possibility is it could be a death-faking exercise. Parachutes might have been involved and they're letting the world think it's crashed.That's even more far-fetched than the current favourite theory we came up with at work in the two hours our computers were down today.
There was that bloke that got "lost" in a canoe and turned up in south America and was then found to have massive debts or something. Could be like that but on a mass scale.(click to show/hide)
How long before we get the "abducted by aliens" theory? :)
Pretty far fetched I know but one other possibility is it could be a death-faking exercise. Parachutes might have been involved and they're letting the world think it's crashed.That's even more far-fetched than the current favourite theory we came up with at work in the two hours our computers were down today.
There was that bloke that got "lost" in a canoe and turned up in south America and was then found to have massive debts or something. Could be like that but on a mass scale.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Tim, I thought that the black boxes have transponders. Given the sensitivity of modern comms equipment why no signal?
Disagree. If you aren't intending to get out of a plane, it matters not where it goes.
It does seem significant to me that the two chaps with stolen passports seemed to be in this together.
Pilots don't work alone and planes don't just drop 6 miles so I don't buy the pilot suicide line.
But this is all speculation.
Pretty far fetched I know but one other possibility is it could be a death-faking exercise. Parachutes might have been involved and they're letting the world think it's crashed.
There was that bloke that got "lost" in a canoe and turned up in south America and was then found to have massive debts or something. Could be like that but on a mass scale.
Massive, system electrical failure.Extremely unlikely. While nothing is impossible, the design of modern aircraft systems includes remarkable levels of redundancy. The 777 is 'fly-by-wire', but that doesn't mean that without electrical systems it can't fly. It has a degree of mechanical back-up which affords a fairly basic level of control. Even if all generation capability was lost (engine driven generators, hydraulic-driven generators, ram-air generators* - highly unlikely, but possible) the aircraft batteries will give sufficient power for about 30 minutes of radio and flight control use.
No power --> no signals
No power --> no control
Plane glides down to the sea, cause the pilots are doing their best with what control they have. Doesn't hit very hard, so not a major breakup, no oil slick to speak of, comparatively little debris. However I'd expect some sort of EPRIB system to be activated - seems odd that nothing has been detected.
Yes, whatever it was was a catastrophic event, which could be natural or man-made.I can think of two airliners that have been shot down by missile. So it's happened before.
How long before we get the "abducted by aliens" theory? :)
...
Right now, it seems they've decided they may have been looking in the wrong place. I've no idea why they've come to that conclusion; I thought they had radar and comms up to not far short of where and when it is believed to have disappeared. However, I'm pretty sure it won't be long before they find it one way or another. Once they do, the business of finding out what happened will begin in earnest.
(Reuters) - Malaysia's military believes a jetliner missing for almost four days turned and flew hundreds of kilometres to the west after it last made contact with civilian air traffic control off the country's east coast, a senior officer told Reuters on Tuesday.
In one of the most baffling mysteries in recent aviation history, a massive search operation for the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER has so far found no trace of the aircraft or the 239 passengers and crew.
Malaysian authorities have previously said flight MH370 disappeared about an hour after it took off from Kuala Lumpur for the Chinese capital Beijing.
"It changed course after Kota Bharu and took a lower altitude. It made it into the Malacca Strait," the senior military officer, who has been briefed on investigations, told Reuters.
That would appear to rule out sudden catastrophic mechanical failure, as it would mean the plane flew around 500 km (350 miles) at least after its last contact with air traffic control, although its transponder and other tracking systems were off.
A non-military source familiar with the investigations said the report was one of several theories and was being checked.
There are a number of pilot-controlled transmitters - 2 or 3 VHF radios, 2 HF radios, 2 Satcom radios, a transponder with 2 transmitters. All of these can be turned off from the flight deck. However, the aircraft will have a number of other automated engineering datalinks with the ground which generally can't be turned off, and may have also had ADS (Automated Dependent Surveillance) which is a direct datalink to ATC available in many parts of the world. There may also have been cabin telephone/cellphone/Internet systems which aren't directly controlled from the flight deck, but may be turned off elsewhere in the aircraft. That's an awful lot of communications to neutralise!
Don't forget that as well as disabling the aircrafts comm systems you need something to knock out all the passenger mobile devices as well whatever their generation or frequency. Maybe doable with the right kit? Anyone qualified to comment?
How long before we get the "abducted by aliens" theory? :)
Flight 714 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_714)? The plane was taken over and made a steep dive to get below radar cover. It was then landed on an uninhabited island using an impromptu landing strip. It effectively disappeared due to the disabling and replacement of the pilots before they could put out any communication. OK, not exactly abducted by aliens but they were involved.
Carbon monoxide isn't known for turning off electronics.
The bit about passports is a little close to home...But they were both valid passports. Security would have swiped them and been told they were genuine, not reported missing or stolen, holder not a wanted list, etc. Completely different from using a passport reported stolen a couple of years ago. Having said that, I don't think the stolen passports are anything to do with it. There are a hundred and one reasons for using a stolen Western passport and being an Iranian desperate to settle in Europe seems a likely one.
Mr R got back a a week in Lanzarote on Sunday. He'd been out there with his sister and a friend, Kim. Mr R and Kim were flying back to Manchester - his sister was flying back to Bristol.
His sister's flight left earlier than his. It wasn't until he tried to check in about half an hour after she had that he realised she had his passport and he had hers. Somehow, despite the very obvious differences and the fact they don't look alike, she'd managed to check in with his passport and get through security.
He had to phone her to come and meet him at security to swap passports.
The aeroplane has apparently been tracked crossing the Malaysian peninsula from east to west following the point at which all transmissions - manual and automatic - ceased. It's conceivable that, for instance, the aircraft collided with another unrecorded aircraft, causing the death of the pilots and the loss of all electronic communications yet the aeroplane remained sufficiently structurally intact to glide uncontrolled to a crash site far from the point of collision. Conceivable, but very unlikely. EMP, as discussed earlier, is also conceivable but unlikely. Aircraft are protected against stuff like lightning strikes; a larger EMP event than that would likely have been detected remotely.
All that said, the field of the unlikely is looking more and more likely to contain the answer!
The bit about passports is a little close to home...But they were both valid passports. Security would have swiped them and been told they were genuine, not reported missing or stolen, holder not a wanted list, etc. Completely different from using a passport reported stolen a couple of years ago. Having said that, I don't think the stolen passports are anything to do with it. There are a hundred and one reasons for using a stolen Western passport and being an Iranian desperate to settle in Europe seems a likely one.
Mr R got back a a week in Lanzarote on Sunday. He'd been out there with his sister and a friend, Kim. Mr R and Kim were flying back to Manchester - his sister was flying back to Bristol.
His sister's flight left earlier than his. It wasn't until he tried to check in about half an hour after she had that he realised she had his passport and he had hers. Somehow, despite the very obvious differences and the fact they don't look alike, she'd managed to check in with his passport and get through security.
He had to phone her to come and meet him at security to swap passports.
The aeroplane has apparently been tracked crossing the Malaysian peninsula from east to west following the point at which all transmissions - manual and automatic - ceased. !
Marine traffic in the Malacca straits is more important than in the English channel, so presumably somebody would have spotted an airliner going down?
http://www.marinetraffic.com/fr/ais/home
Marine traffic in the Malacca straits is more important than in the English channel, so presumably somebody would have spotted an airliner going down?
http://www.marinetraffic.com/fr/ais/home
The straights are between 100 and 400 miles wide though so that still a huge area.
Marine traffic in the Malacca straits is more important than in the English channel, so presumably somebody would have spotted an airliner going down?
http://www.marinetraffic.com/fr/ais/home
The straights are between 100 and 400 miles wide though so that still a huge area.
Yes, but there are lots of fishermen, it is still hard to imagine aircraft bits scattered all over the place without a single mariner finding something within four days. I imagine may be they would not report it.
Another possibility, probably fairly far fetched, but still, is that everyone on board, including the pilots, was poisoned, by the same thing?There's been a case of the pilots on an airliner losing being asphyxiated. As TimC says, it doesn't turn off the electronics.
What if there was carbon monoxide or something?
<snip> Or possibly Moby. <snip>Having met you, I can see why that might be ;D
Marine traffic in the Malacca straits is more important than in the English channel, so presumably somebody would have spotted an airliner going down?
http://www.marinetraffic.com/fr/ais/home
The straights are between 100 and 400 miles wide though so that still a huge area.
Yes, but there are lots of fishermen, it is still hard to imagine aircraft bits scattered all over the place without a single mariner finding something within four days. I imagine may be they would not report it.
Finding things at sea is like looking for a needle in a haystack in Wales, when they won't tell you where in Wales the haystack is.
Its the hand off between cell towers that gets confused. It wasn't designed for something travelling that fast. Plus from height the signal is received almost simultaneously at several towers at once so the cell phone network doesn't know which cell to use for the call.Which makes it hard to distinguish between a phone overhead, & multiple identical (i.e. fraudulent) phones. Two or more identical phones trying to connect to the network at the same time triggers the fraud catchers.
It's getting to the point where we'll have to start putting posters up on lamp posts asking people to check their sheds and garages. Possibly the world is bigger than the internet had led us to believe. Damnit, those cryptozoologists might be right. I was once chased by a Jersey Devil. Or I might have been drunk and it could have been a raccoon.
Years ago, my identity was stolen by svelte guy who continued to travel under my name and with my passport. That chap was rightly and regularly apprehended and forced to wait with the irregularly documented foreigners in the white room of shame. I figure I'm going to get the same shit when I check in for the afterlife. Is this you? Are you sure? I'm very sure. Hurry up with the damnation and hellfire, I have marshmallows to toast.
I eventually had to get a new passport.
Anyway, it was a good test of who did and didn't check the picture:
Americans: usually yes, line-up for the Git-mo express over there, sir
French: they never get past my name, which isn't Harry
Germans: long suspicious looks as they tried to imagine what a man would look like if he wasn't mostly bratwurst
Brits: usually ended up with three people looking at passport, then me, then passport, then me.
Africa, Middle-East, Far-East: no, no, no, probably because us whiteys all look the same to them (actually, psychologically, that's probably true)
Israel: surprisingly not, probably too busy doing background checks on my grandparents and surveilling my cats
Canada: they thought I had cancer, then was Michael Stipe. Or possibly Moby. All very sensitively dealt with.
The great thing about the internet is that lots of people who ordinarily would struggle to build a paper plane are suddenly experts on the real thing. I know absolutely nothing about airplanes. I think magic keeps them in the air.
It's getting to the point where we'll have to start putting posters up on lamp posts asking people to check their sheds and garages. Possibly the world is bigger than the internet had led us to believe. Damnit, those cryptozoologists might be right. I was once chased by a Jersey Devil. Or I might have been drunk and it could have been a raccoon.
Years ago, my identity was stolen by svelte guy who continued to travel under my name and with my passport. That chap was rightly and regularly apprehended and forced to wait with the irregularly documented foreigners in the white room of shame. I figure I'm going to get the same shit when I check in for the afterlife. Is this you? Are you sure? I'm very sure. Hurry up with the damnation and hellfire, I have marshmallows to toast.
I eventually had to get a new passport.
Anyway, it was a good test of who did and didn't check the picture:
Americans: usually yes, line-up for the Git-mo express over there, sir
French: they never get past my name, which isn't Harry
Germans: long suspicious looks as they tried to imagine what a man would look like if he wasn't mostly bratwurst
Brits: usually ended up with three people looking at passport, then me, then passport, then me.
Africa, Middle-East, Far-East: no, no, no, probably because us whiteys all look the same to them (actually, psychologically, that's probably true)
Israel: surprisingly not, probably too busy doing background checks on my grandparents and surveilling my cats
Canada: they thought I had cancer, then was Michael Stipe. Or possibly Moby. All very sensitively dealt with.
The great thing about the internet is that lots of people who ordinarily would struggle to build a paper plane are suddenly experts on the real thing. I know absolutely nothing about airplanes. I think magic keeps them in the air.
the funniest one was when I was driving to France once, the French guards asked for my passport but didn't take it from me or look in it - just checked that I had one. Any one will do, as long as you've got something that looks a bit like one. ;D
Is it possible that the pilots wanted to claim asylum in Britain or some other western country, so simply decided to fly the plane there? Maybe they intended to make a secret landing in a field and escape.
That would explain why the electronics were turned off and why no traces have been found -they're all looking in the wrong place.
Didn't something say it had started to head west?
Is it possible that the pilots wanted to claim asylum in Britain or some other western country, so simply decided to fly the plane there? Maybe they intended to make a secret landing in a field and escape.
That would explain why the electronics were turned off and why no traces have been found -they're all looking in the wrong place.
Didn't something say it had started to head west?
All that said, the field of the unlikely is looking more and more likely to contain the answer!
<snip> Or possibly Moby. <snip>Having met you, I can see why that might be ;D
Back o/t now, please.
And we're back to aliens...
A 777 isn't a Cessna Cub, you cant land it in a field you need about a mile of nice smooth tarmac or concrete to set one down on.
Plus they had nowhere near enough fuel to make it anywhere near a western country.
No.
If a Malaysian national wanted to claim asylum in UK (and why would they?), they could get on a plane to London. Malaysia is not Soviet-era Russia.
Has anyone considered reverse gravity? Perhaps we should be looking up.
All that said, the field of the unlikely is looking more and more likely to contain the answer!
Yes. For a start we are all assuming that the missing plane went downwards. How about it didn't and actually went upwards, attracted or repelled by some monstrous, previously un-encountered force? Some unexpected consequence of climate change, maybe?
We have at least one SME (Subject Matter Expert) here, can they answer this question:
On a modern airliner such as the 777, is it possible for the pilot to turn off all transponder systems?
There are a number of pilot-controlled transmitters - 2 or 3 VHF radios, 2 HF radios, 2 Satcom radios, a transponder with 2 transmitters. All of these can be turned off from the flight deck. However, the aircraft will have a number of other automated engineering datalinks with the ground which generally can't be turned off, and may have also had ADS (Automated Dependent Surveillance) which is a direct datalink to ATC available in many parts of the world. There may also have been cabin telephone/cellphone/Internet systems which aren't directly controlled from the flight deck, but may be turned off elsewhere in the aircraft. That's an awful lot of communications to neutralise!
Who would have fired this missile? From where? Who (other than governments) in the area has large ground-to-air missiles with the range and speed to take out a target at 35,000ft?I'm thinking fired from warship. As has happened before.
What political reasons would there be for such a strike?Incompetence. Not admitted to due to reluctance to admit to said incompetence.
At the moment, I'm wondering if they hit another, un-notified, aircraft. Which could have had the same effect, of course, but which doesn't need premeditated murderous intent.That does make more sense than a random missile - at 35 000 feet and not posted as missing, I guess it would have to be a military aircraft. Which begs the question; why hasn't someone owned up to it?
I was wondering TimC - have there been any industry wide repercussions of this yet? Maybe repercussions is the wrong word, but are there general things like keep an eye out for aliens/missiles/other planes or making sure there are transponder systems that can't be turned off by the pilot, or being more prudent around that area etc etc - I don't really know what these might be so I'm just speculating, and I guess some of the potential action points won't be actionable until what happened to MH370 is known. Anyway, I'm just curious to know what effect it has had on the wider industry at this stage?
I started thinking about this when someone asked me if I was nervous about flying to France on Sunday - I'm not, certainly not more so than before MH370, but clearly some people think I should be.
Who would have fired this missile? From where? Who (other than governments) in the area has large ground-to-air missiles with the range and speed to take out a target at 35,000ft?I'm thinking fired from warship. As has happened before.What political reasons would there be for such a strike?Incompetence. Not admitted to due to reluctance to admit to said incompetence.
say wah?
Ben, are you seriously suggesting that the pilot of a major airliner wouldn't know:
A) How much fuel he needed to fly from point a to point b
B) What sort of runway he needed.
KAL007 was shot down by an AAM.
KAL007 was shot down by an AAM.
Do people misunderstand what AAM means? Where else would you shoot one from? A balloon? A pigeon?
Tim, RE the collision theory. If an aircraft were flying an unnotified flight through the area would they not choose a flight level that isn't used by the commercial traffic? Say the 29,500 that the aircraft crossing the Malay peninsular is supposed to have been at? Or maybe it was transiting between two flight levels and got very unlucky?
Tim, RE the collision theory. If an aircraft were flying an unnotified flight through the area would they not choose a flight level that isn't used by the commercial traffic? Say the 29,500 that the aircraft crossing the Malay peninsular is supposed to have been at? Or maybe it was transiting between two flight levels and got very unlucky?
Tim, RE the collision theory. If an aircraft were flying an unnotified flight through the area would they not choose a flight level that isn't used by the commercial traffic? Say the 29,500 that the aircraft crossing the Malay peninsular is supposed to have been at? Or maybe it was transiting between two flight levels and got very unlucky?
There have been far more mid-air collisions involving airliners than shootdowns, and several have involved aircraft flying outside controlled airspace. I'm not sure of the status of the airspace that MH370 was flying in, but it's likely to be fairly open airspace in which anyone can fly. There are many aircraft that can fly at that kind of altitude, and (for example) major-league drugs smugglers do use executive jets to move their products quickly and secretly, and will take great care not to inform air traffic control where they are or where they're going. I don't know whether there is a lot of drugs traffic in that area, but I'm pretty sure that the possibility is being investigated.
You may recall the event in Brazil in 2006 in which an executive jet collided with a 737, which crashed killing all on board. The executive jet landed safely.
A 777 isn't a Cessna Cub, you cant land it in a field you need about a mile of nice smooth tarmac or concrete to set one down on.
Plus they had nowhere near enough fuel to make it anywhere near a western country.
Yes, but they might have THOUGHT you could.
I'll be keeping my eyes peeled in Lincolnshire anyway.
No.
If a Malaysian national wanted to claim asylum in UK (and why would they?), they could get on a plane to London. Malaysia is not Soviet-era Russia.
Err...yeah, but then they would have had to go through security and might be sent back.
This way they just blend in, get a job in a car wash, and if the authorities come they just pretend they've lost their passport.
A 777 isn't a Cessna Cub, you cant land it in a field you need about a mile of nice smooth tarmac or concrete to set one down on.
Plus they had nowhere near enough fuel to make it anywhere near a western country.
Yes, but they might have THOUGHT you could.
I'll be keeping my eyes peeled in Lincolnshire anyway.
No.
If a Malaysian national wanted to claim asylum in UK (and why would they?), they could get on a plane to London. Malaysia is not Soviet-era Russia.
Err...yeah, but then they would have had to go through security and might be sent back.
This way they just blend in, get a job in a car wash, and if the authorities come they just pretend they've lost their passport.
Eh?
Apart from the whole crashing into the sea out of fuel and dying part. Anyway, the plane wasn't out of fuel so it wasn't demented asylum seekers trying to cross the globe on one tank just so they could annoy UKIP.Oh I don't know they might have been intending to land half way in Kazakhstan somewhere. They might already have done!
Apparently the engines were still chatting with Rolls Royce in Derby 5 hours after the plane disappeared.
Malaysian Airlines said today reports that the missing MH370’s Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) sent transmissions for several hours after the 777-200 flight vanished from radar are false.
“Engine data transmission reports are inaccurate,” Malaysian Minister of Defense & (Acting) Minister of Transport Hishammuddin Hussein said at a press conference. “Both Boeing and Rolls-Royce have told us they did not get any ACARS transmissions after 1:07 a.m. last Saturday.”
Apparently the engines were still chatting with Rolls Royce in Derby 5 hours after the plane disappeared.
Source please, because there has been enough contradictory news in the mainstream media about the plane's presumed whereabouts, without bringing the telemetry into it!
<snip>
Apparently the engines were still chatting with Rolls Royce in Derby 5 hours after the plane disappeared.
Source please, because there has been enough contradictory news in the mainstream media about the plane's presumed whereabouts, without bringing the telemetry into it!
<snip>
It was on the BBC News. Quite possibly out of date.
Corrections & Amplifications
U.S. investigators suspect Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 flew for hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, based on an analysis of signals sent through the plane's satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of onboard systems, according to people familiar with the matter. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said investigators based their suspicions on signals from monitoring systems embedded in the plane's Rolls-Royce PLC engines and described that process."
Satellites picked up faint electronic pulses from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 after it went missing on Saturday, but the signals gave no information about where the stray jet was heading and little else about its fate, two sources close to the investigation said on Thursday.
But the "pings" indicated that the aircraft's maintenance troubleshooting systems were switched on and ready to communicate with satellites, showing the aircraft, with 239 people on board, was at least capable of communicating after the jet lost touch with Malaysian air traffic controllers.
The system transmits such pings about once an hour, according to the sources, who said five or six were heard. However, the pings alone are not proof that the plane was in the air or on the ground, the sources said.
An international search is under way over a vast area in the Gulf of Thailand, the Andaman Sea and on both sides of the Malay Peninsula. The United States, which has sent ships and planes, said the area may be expanding into the Indian Ocean.
"It's my understanding that based on some new information that's not necessarily conclusive - but new information - an additional search area may be opened in the Indian Ocean," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters in Washington.
<snip>
LITTLE FRESH LIGHT
The new information shed little light on the mystery of what happened to the plane, whether there was a technical failure, a hijacking or another kind of incident on board after it took off from Kuala Lumpur en route to Beijing.
While the troubleshooting systems were functioning, no data links were opened, the sources said, because the companies involved had not subscribed to that level of service from the satellite operator, the sources said.
Boeing Co, which made the missing 777 airliner, and Rolls-Royce, which supplied its Trent engines, declined to comment.
MH370 coverage goes like this 1) Europe/ US evenings - latest rumours/breaking lines 2) Asian pm - those rumours denied 3) repeat daily
A 777 isn't a Cessna Cub, you cant land it in a field you need about a mile of nice smooth tarmac or concrete to set one down on.
Plus they had nowhere near enough fuel to make it anywhere near a western country.
Yes, but they might have THOUGHT you could.
I'll be keeping my eyes peeled in Lincolnshire anyway.
No.
If a Malaysian national wanted to claim asylum in UK (and why would they?), they could get on a plane to London. Malaysia is not Soviet-era Russia.
Err...yeah, but then they would have had to go through security and might be sent back.
This way they just blend in, get a job in a car wash, and if the authorities come they just pretend they've lost their passport.
Eh?
As in, like getting into the back of a lorry but a bit more comfortable and quicker.
Not the B Ark then?
Wall Street Journal are sticking to the story of continued data transmission which locate the aircraft in the Andaman Sea. The US are moving a warship to the area, and have given the Indian authorities directions on where to search. The plot thickens.
Wall Street Journal are sticking to the story of continued data transmission which locate the aircraft in the Andaman Sea. The US are moving a warship to the area, and have given the Indian authorities directions on where to search. The plot thickens.
That's the other thing I don't quite get -why is America sticking its beak in? What's it got to do with them?
I would guess it's protection of national commercial interests.
Can't have expensive 'mercan planes falling out of the sky.
I would guess it's protection of national commercial interests.
Can't have expensive 'mercan planes falling out of the sky.
Speaking of commercial interests, IIRC there was a bit of a catfight between the French air accident investigators, Airbus and Air France after the AF447 crash.
I don't suppose anyone has even considered that the US Government is assisting with the search for MH370 for humanitarian reasons?
Or that there is an industry-wide interest in finding out what the hell happened as soon as possible so that lessons can be learned from the episode?
I'd imagine the US are helping because they have the resources in the area and are as concerned as anyone about a planeload of missing people.
If we're not offering to help it's probably that we don't have the means to genuinely add anything to the resources already being deployed.
One or two of the southernmost Andaman Islands are inhabited by indigenous people, quite distinct from those in mainland India or other parts of Asia, who not only still gain all their food by hunter-gathering but do not know any method of making fire. The island they live on is otherwise uninhabited and under official protection. The perfect place to start a new civilisation!
The airport has a single runway of 3,290 m (10,794 ft) in length, accommodating most narrow-body aircraft, that includes Airbus A320, Airbus A321, Boeing 737, which regularly serve Veer Savarkar airport. An ILS is available for low visibility operations, but pilots are responsible to check with local authorities to verify the system is operational prior to the flight. There is a road across the runway; traffic had to be stopped in order for aircraft to take off, similar to the Gibraltar Airport. Restricted Area Permits for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are available on entry. Except for the civilian terminal operated by the Airports Authority of India, all other air traffic operations over Port Blair are undertaken by the Indian Navy. The geography makes this a difficult airfield for aircraft, as a hillock at one end means that planes can land or take off only in one direction. Winds change here every six months, so pilots have to either take off or land with strong tail winds.
I would guess it's protection of national commercial interests.
Can't have expensive 'mercan planes falling out of the sky.
Speaking of commercial interests, IIRC there was a bit of a catfight between the French air accident investigators, Airbus and Air France after the AF447 crash.
I don't suppose anyone has even considered that the US Government is assisting with the search for MH370 for humanitarian reasons?
Or that there is an industry-wide interest in finding out what the hell happened as soon as possible so that lessons can be learned from the episode?
Both good points, Spesh.
But, looking at the passenger roster the only countries helping are the ones with passengers on the plane, mainly China.
The UK could send help, but hasn't, same with other European countries. Why? Well because they have no commercial or political interest in the tragedy, that's why.
Wall Street Journal are sticking to the story of continued data transmission which locate the aircraft in the Andaman Sea. The US are moving a warship to the area, and have given the Indian authorities directions on where to search. The plot thickens.
That's the other thing I don't quite get -why is America sticking its beak in? What's it got to do with them?
One (or maybe two) of the passengers were 'merkins, that's why.
Plus it's a US built plane, as Wunja says.
I would guess it's protection of national commercial interests.
Can't have expensive 'mercan planes falling out of the sky.
Speaking of commercial interests, IIRC there was a bit of a catfight between the French air accident investigators, Airbus and Air France after the AF447 crash.
I don't suppose anyone has even considered that the US Government is assisting with the search for MH370 for humanitarian reasons?
Or that there is an industry-wide interest in finding out what the hell happened as soon as possible so that lessons can be learned from the episode?
Both good points, Spesh.
But, looking at the passenger roster the only countries helping are the ones with passengers on the plane, mainly China.
The UK could send help, but hasn't, same with other European countries. Why? Well because they have no commercial or political interest in the tragedy, that's why.
But, looking at the passenger roster the only countries helping are the ones with passengers on the plane, mainly China.
The UK could send help, but hasn't, same with other European countries. Why? Well because they have no commercial or political interest in the tragedy, that's why.
I think the plane crash landed on some random island – the few survivors are starting to learn strange things about one another and their previous lives, while randomly encountering strange supernatural and inexplicable events.
It will go on for six series and be shit.
I think the plane crash landed on some random island – the few survivors are starting to learn strange things about one another and their previous lives, while randomly encountering strange supernatural and inexplicable events.
It will go on for six series and be shit.
On another forum that I frequent, after the umpteenth allusion to Lost, the mods were getting ready to terminate with extreme prejudice. ;D
How many Malaysians do you think are trying to get into the UK to get a job in a car wash?
<slow claps>
How many Malaysians do you think are trying to get into the UK to get a job in a car wash?
Exactly. If it was from Iran or Afghanistan then it would have looked a bit suspicious, whereas if they congregate in Malaysia and set off from there, nobody suspects anything.
I think the plane crash landed on some random island – the few survivors are starting to learn strange things about one another and their previous lives, while randomly encountering strange supernatural and inexplicable events.
It will go on for six series and be shit.
Now they are saying hijacked and flown somewhere. This is too crazy
In admiralty law, barratry is an act of gross misconduct committed by a master or crew of a vessel which damages the vessel or its cargo. These activities may include desertion, illegal scuttling, theft of the ship or cargo, and committing any actions which may not be in the shipowner's best interests by the master or crew.
Hows this for a theory. Terrorists attempt to take over plane. Pilot susses is another 9/11 attempt, turns off every possible aid for a part trained terrorist pilot and flies the thing as far away from any potential target until the fuel runs out. Too far fetched?
I'm just putting this out there, but has anyone considered the possibility that there were some motherf**king snakes on the motherf**king plane?
Because, as Canardly suggested, the hijacker is "part trained". That training may have included basic how to evade detection techniques and our hypothetical hijacker knew enough to ensure that emergency beacons were not enabled. So rather than the pilot switching off beacons it was the hijacker. Why? I don't know. Perhaps to prevent an intercept and shoot down by someone's military if the aeroplane was found to be heading somewhere sensitive.Hows this for a theory. Terrorists attempt to take over plane. Pilot susses is another 9/11 attempt, turns off every possible aid for a part trained terrorist pilot and flies the thing as far away from any potential target until the fuel runs out. Too far fetched?
Why would you turn the transponder off, rather than setting it to 'hijack'?
I can't begin to imagine how the relatives must be feeling....
Did the flight list include a Dr Schroedinger and his pet cat?
information back to Boeing and Rolls Royce, how come they don't add a gps receiver and transmit the location as well?
[1] Never did understand that cat-in-a-box thing? What if it's a man in the box? What's special about cats? Mine sleep a lot so are half dead.
Before the plane can go absolutely silent, ALL iPhones, iPads and Android Smartphones must be switched off.
Before the plane can go absolutely silent, ALL iPhones, iPads and Android Smartphones must be switched off.
Facts about Mobile Communications On-board Aircraft (MCA) technology
<snipped>
How do MCA systems work?
The signal is received by an antenna on board the aircraft and sent to the ground network via a satellite connection. The signal is limited in power to ensure it does not interference with other communications.
The system is based on three main parts: the mobile terminals, the Network Control Unit, and the aircraft base station.
·Mobile terminals on aircraft: passengers increasingly wish to use their 3G or 4G mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops etc.) on board aircraft to transfer data; the amount of data transferred on board already exceeds voice data.
·the Network Control Unit (NCU): is mounted on board the aircraft and is a kind of jammer which prevents mobile terminals connecting to, and interfering with ground-based systems, and ensure they connect only to an Aircraft Base Station (see below)
·Aircraft Base Station: the antenna to which mobile terminals connect; it takes the form of a cable running along the ceiling of the cabin.
Doesn't seem to say much for the early warning radar (military) systems we are all supposed to be protected by. Turn off the transponder, and the aircraft disappears?
Of course I recognise that the countries towards which the aircraft flew may not be so well equipped.
I'm just putting this out there, but has anyone considered the possibility that there were some motherf**king snakes on the motherf**king plane?
A friend of mine works at air traffic control. An emergency involving a cargo of uncontrolled reptiles came up recently in a training scenario, so it seems they're prepared for that.
Again, I mention the point that the world is large. The internet makes it look small, you can zoom in and zoom out, and it all looks manageable. But really it's rather large and quite often empty. Look down for a while if you have the opportunity to fly a long distance. Huge swathes of what's underneath are open ocean and sparsely inhabited land. It's a surprise we don't lose more things. If they pointed the jet out to ocean, then it could be anywhere. What is evident is that it didn't land so they probably ran it dry and bellyflopped into the ocean. Which, if they survived the splashdown, is looking like quite a grim scenario.
As to why, I guess that's the boggle.
It's not sure the plane didn't land. They've said it's possible the pings from the engine could have been received when it was on the ground. There's also a theory (or rumour maybe), which I haven't seen in the UK press, that the plane was carrying 10 tons of gold and someone on the ground who knew which plane the gold was on informed one of the crew. If that was the case, you really wouldn't want to crash it. OTOH you then have to find a way to dispose of rather a lot of gold. And 268 other people to, probably, kill. :(
I suppose if someone turns up at one of those gold-for-cash places with 10 tonnes of the yellow stuff we'll know."Fell off the back of a Boeing, mate."
Again, I mention the point that the world is large. The internet makes it look small, you can zoom in and zoom out, and it all looks manageable. But really it's rather large and quite often empty. Look down for a while if you have the opportunity to fly a long distance. Huge swathes of what's underneath are open ocean and sparsely inhabited land. It's a surprise we don't lose more things. If they pointed the jet out to ocean, then it could be anywhere. What is evident is that it didn't land so they probably ran it dry and bellyflopped into the ocean. Which, if they survived the splashdown, is looking like quite a grim scenario.
As to why, I guess that's the boggle.
Again, I mention the point that the world is large. The internet makes it look small, you can zoom in and zoom out, and it all looks manageable. But really it's rather large and quite often empty. Look down for a while if you have the opportunity to fly a long distance. Huge swathes of what's underneath are open ocean and sparsely inhabited land. It's a surprise we don't lose more things. If they pointed the jet out to ocean, then it could be anywhere. What is evident is that it didn't land so they probably ran it dry and bellyflopped into the ocean. Which, if they survived the splashdown, is looking like quite a grim scenario.
As to why, I guess that's the boggle.
As anyone who has flown into North America via a Northerly NAT track can probably attest. You start a movie near Newfoundland, Canada, and two hours later (at nigh-on 600mph) you're - still over Canada!! Yay!
Flying over Siberia from Japan I was mesmerised by the endless lakes, trees and general nothingness. I watched it for hours. Then fell asleep. Then woke up and it was still going! Some parts of the world are very emtpy (of humans) indeed...
Flying over Siberia from Japan I was mesmerised by the endless lakes, trees and general nothingness. I watched it for hours. Then fell asleep. Then woke up and it was still going! Some parts of the world are very emtpy (of humans) indeed...
My mother did that trip[1] on a train. I believe it took approximately forever.
[1] Cambridge station to Beijing. She used her senior citizen's railcard.
It's not sure the plane didn't land. They've said it's possible the pings from the engine could have been received when it was on the ground. There's also a theory (or rumour maybe), which I haven't seen in the UK press, that the plane was carrying 10 tons of gold and someone on the ground who knew which plane the gold was on informed one of the crew. If that was the case, you really wouldn't want to crash it. OTOH you then have to find a way to dispose of rather a lot of gold. And 268 other people to, probably, kill. :(
I dunno, if they'd come in over land, I'd have expected more radars to have pinged them, plus there's cell towers etc. And they'd need a suitable runway, you can't land a 777 in a field.
I will be doing it today flying home from China. 13 hours in the air. Of which 10 will be over Nothing At All, most of which will be Russian. It would be very, very easy to lose a plane in that. Sadly, the fact that the world is much more uninhabited than you might think also means that spare 10,000ft runways aren't as usefully placed as they might be if you want to hide a B777.
Taklamakan desert
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5XCrV061jak/SwKaTOzJzxI/AAAAAAAABJU/GQwu2iTg_eM/s1600/chinese+border+to+taklamakan+128.jpg)
Latest theory.
20 of the passengers were employees of Freescale Semiconductor, of Austin, Texas.
Freescale Semiconductor was a division of Motorola and supplied equipment for the Apollo missions in the 60s and 70s.
They are owned by Blackstone, who are owned by Jacob Rothschild.
Suggestion is they are a supplier to US Dept of Defence, providing ‘Battlefield electronics’, including ‘Stealth’ technology.
At Freescale Semiconductor, a patent was filed which would be extremely financially lucrative for the partners holding the patent.
The five partners sharing the patent were Freescale Semiconductors and four of the twenty Freescale Semiconductor Engineers on MH370.
Details of these passengers has been removed from the BBC’s webpage since last Friday.
If any of the Patend holders dies, the royalties are share amongst the remaining partners. The only remaining partner now is Freescale Semiconductor.
Unfortunately for the remaining passengers and the persons performing the hi-jacking, they would have had to die too.
The plane is on the Indian Ocean seabed.
Taklamakan desert
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5XCrV061jak/SwKaTOzJzxI/AAAAAAAABJU/GQwu2iTg_eM/s1600/chinese+border+to+taklamakan+128.jpg)
Hmm. That would make a nice runway.
Taklamakan desert
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5XCrV061jak/SwKaTOzJzxI/AAAAAAAABJU/GQwu2iTg_eM/s1600/chinese+border+to+taklamakan+128.jpg)
Hmm. That would make a nice runway.
Did it have the range? There must be parts of Australia too, apparently they have ultra sophisticated defence radar but it does have to be looking in the right direction at the right time. So they say. Personally, I now believe nothing at all. Did the plane even take off?
If they have a patent for stealth technology then it stands to reason that they had a device on board and used it. It probably landed back at Kuala Lumpur but was invisible and undetectable.Was it a recumbent plane?
If they have a patent for stealth technology then it stands to reason that they had a device on board and used it. It probably landed back at Kuala Lumpur but was invisible and undetectable.Was it a recumbent plane?
Apparently the pilot is gay, which is illegal in Malaysia. That could have something to do with it.
Apparently the pilot is gay, which is illegal in Malaysia. That could have something to do with it.
Really? Where did that come from?
They spent two hours at the gated property and left carrying small bags believed to contain evidence.
Capt Zaharie posted snaps of himself with the Boeing simulator on his Facebook page, along with another showing him brandishing a meat cleaver and holding a bowl of mince.
At Freescale Semiconductor, a patent was filed which would be extremely financially lucrative for the partners holding the patent.
The five partners sharing the patent were Freescale Semiconductors and four of the twenty Freescale Semiconductor Engineers on MH370.
If any of the Patend holders dies, the royalties are share amongst the remaining partners. The only remaining partner now is Freescale Semiconductor.
That last article is great.QuoteThey spent two hours at the gated property and left carrying small bags believed to contain evidence.QuoteCapt Zaharie posted snaps of himself with the Boeing simulator on his Facebook page, along with another showing him brandishing a meat cleaver and holding a bowl of mince.
I think I could be a journalist for the Mirror.
Apparently the pilot is gay, which is illegal in Malaysia. That could have something to do with it.
Really? Where did that come from?
sorry, not the pilot himself, but his mate who's in prison for being gay and he may have diverted the plane in protest, in support of him:
loads of sources:
http://www.naturalnews.com/044337_Flight_370_gay_rights_protest_oppressive_government.html#
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/missing-plane-captain-investigated-for-support-of-leader-jailed-for-homosexuality/news/2014/03/17/84448
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/missing-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370-3248001
Latest theory.
20 of the passengers were employees of Freescale Semiconductor, of Austin, Texas.
Indeed. In the face of silly conspiracy theories, your knowledge is very informative.I will not contribute again to this thread.
I hope you will, Tim, when the plane is discovered, as your perspective is one I have often benefitted from.
Thanks for your support, chaps. Trouble is, knowledge and sense drowns in the sea of misinformation and speculation. Maybe this needs a new thread - or will do when there is something concrete to discuss. In the absence of a physical wreck to provide publicly-available clues, however, this has become a detective operation which will probably not be held in the public domain and therefore will give us little or nothing to talk about in a way which illuminates rather than befogs.
I'm happy to explain terminology, or answer questions about equipment or procedures, but I don't want to engage in the kind of wild speculation which is now taking hold. That sort of thing needs damping down, and we have to be patient and let the experts get on with it and come back to us when they have something to say. That could be months or even years away.
Speculation quickly extends to the ridiculous in the absence of hard information, doesn't it? People who otherwise regard themselves as inteligent and discriminating start to believe any half-baked story they can find on the internet, without applying Occam's Razor to it. Some, and there are plenty of examples here, make up their own theory, broadcast it, and wait for it to do the rounds and come back to them exaggerated and 'verified' by the process of repetition.
This is currently a mystery, but the explanation will be logical and understandable even if more than a little unusual. In the meantime, the speculation might be fun for some but 239 people are probably dead and their families and friends have no idea what happened to them. I will not contribute again to this thread.
From someone who is as guilty as some others of being a bit flippant, Tim, you have hit the nail right on the head.
Sorry for earlier crassness.
I'm presuming from TimC's post above that radar (the type that doesn't need any input from the plane) is straight line stuff, so anything below the horizon can't be seen.
I confess I was taking the mickey and so would like to apologise to the people of Kurgistryauzanistan for the toothbrush thing. That law was annulled in 2011 and the prisons emptied. Their toothpaste mines are now second to none.
It is interesting to see how conspiracy theories boil up to fill the information vacuum. They don't even need to be vaguely tenable. I think it's easy to lose a plane given the scale of the world, it's the not knowing they'd lost a plane for several hours that's a bit worrying. Especially as I'm about to get on a plane.
this might have been the work of one person.
Relatives of the Chinese passengers on the missing Malaysia Airlines flight have threatened a hunger strike if the Malaysian authorities fail to provide more accurate information..
..Some Chinese relatives have said they believe the Malaysian authorities are holding information back and have demanded more clarity.
I'm presuming from TimC's post above that radar (the type that doesn't need any input from the plane) is straight line stuff, so anything below the horizon can't be seen.
People tend to overestimate how far away the horizon is, or to put it another way, how quickly the earth curves out of sight.
Two 50' poles only have to be 17 miles away from each other for them to be 'out of sight' due to the curvature.
Tim,
Out of interest, how wide a road needs to be for a 777 to have a reaonable chance to land on it?
Tim,
Out of interest, how wide a road needs to be for a 777 to have a reaonable chance to land on it?
Tim,
Out of interest, how wide a road needs to be for a 777 to have a reaonable chance to land on it?
30m to clear the engine nacelles according to Boeing
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec4.pdf
You would have to add a fair bit on to that to allow for the fact you aren't going to land exactly mid line and for wind gusts. Then you have to allow for the wingspan of 70m, so no lamposts or trees or high fences. That's a very very wide road.
this might have been the work of one person.
Oh come on! Surely you can't seriously believe it's possible to make off with an entire plane on your own.
Tim,
Out of interest, how wide a road needs to be for a 777 to have a reaonable chance to land on it?
Correct me if I am wrong Tim but aren't all modern airliners designed to be flown by one person with the copilot just there for redundancy / comfort breaks on long flights.
Yes, Ben, I do. I do it with one other person pretty much every time I go to work. Once I am airborne, I am in a locked flight deck that no-one else can enter unless I allow them. If I killed the other pilot, there is no-one and nothing that could stop me taking that aeroplane wherever I wanted short of being shot down. Which is why that is exactly the sanction that European and US authorities promise if any airliner in their airspace should give any sign that things are not as they should be.
Equally, if the crew's security procedures aren't as thorough as they should be, it is possible that a hijacker could enter the flight deck immediately behind a cabin crew member, lock the door behind him and kill the three crew in there before taking control of the aircraft.
None of this is likely but it is possible and less unlikely than many of the scenarios being proposed.
It all assumes you can simply kill a crew member or the co pilot, easily, with either your bare hands or whatever you can smuggle on without being checked for...?
And one quick question if I may.
What's the percentage difference in range of a 777 flying at 2000' as opposed to 30,000' ?
Yes, Ben, I do. I do it with one other person pretty much every time I go to work. Once I am airborne, I am in a locked flight deck that no-one else can enter unless I allow them. If I killed the other pilot, there is no-one and nothing that could stop me taking that aeroplane wherever I wanted short of being shot down. Which is why that is exactly the sanction that European and US authorities promise if any airliner in their airspace should give any sign that things are not as they should be.
Equally, if the crew's security procedures aren't as thorough as they should be, it is possible that a hijacker could enter the flight deck immediately behind a cabin crew member, lock the door behind him and kill the three crew in there before taking control of the aircraft.
None of this is likely but it is possible and less unlikely than many of the scenarios being proposed.
Was possible pre 9 11 or is still possible now?
It all assumes you can simply kill a crew member or the co pilot, easily, with either your bare hands or whatever you can smuggle on without being checked for...?
So conspiracy then.
It all assumes you can simply kill a crew member or the co pilot, easily, with either your bare hands or whatever you can smuggle on without being checked for...?
Ben, if you wish to plan something like that, you will find that a ceramic or plastic knife, available off eBay, will be sufficient to put a lethal weapon in your hands that will completely evade security devices. Fortunately we are all ok because no prospective terrorist would either know about that sort of thing or be so dashed unsporting as to use them.
Yes, Ben, it does. And no, I'm not talking about pre-9/11. Killing a person or people is remarkably easy if you have the intent, training and motivation. However, I'm not saying this is what did happen. You asked whether I could take an aeroplane on my own. My answer is yes, easily. No need to kill anyone.Hmm..maybe. But like you say, unlikely. And like Ham says very unsportsmanly. Therefore probably a conspiracy.
So conspiracy then.
Anyhow we'll never know what actually happened to it. Maybe no-one ever will, but the proles certainly won't. Sometime it will be declared found and an Official Version will be released to the media declaring what They would like us to believe but it won't be what actually happened.
And one quick question if I may.
What's the percentage difference in range of a 777 flying at 2000' as opposed to 30,000' ?
Significant I'd say, based purely on my memory that I managed to get better range out of a Dominie by climbing to 39,000' from 37,000'. As jet engine efficiency increases as temperature decreases and 20,000' is approx -30C (from memory, I may be wrong :)) so relatively warm compared to -52C at its normal cruise of approx 40,000'
So conspiracy then.
It all assumes you can simply kill a crew member or the co pilot, easily, with either your bare hands or whatever you can smuggle on without being checked for...?
Ben, if you wish to plan something like that, you will find that a ceramic or plastic knife, available off eBay, will be sufficient to put a lethal weapon in your hands that will completely evade security devices. Fortunately we are all ok because no prospective terrorist would either know about that sort of thing or be so dashed unsporting as to use them.
Anyhow we'll never know what actually happened to it. Maybe no-one ever will, but the proles certainly won't. Sometime it will be declared found and an Official Version will be released to the media declaring what They would like us to believe but it won't be what actually happened.
Apparently it climbed to 45k feet at some point. And that's off the BBC not the daily mail. Why would it climb to that altitudeAnd one quick question if I may.
What's the percentage difference in range of a 777 flying at 2000' as opposed to 30,000' ?
Significant I'd say, based purely on my memory that I managed to get better range out of a Dominie by climbing to 39,000' from 37,000'. As jet engine efficiency increases as temperature decreases and 20,000' is approx -30C (from memory, I may be wrong :)) so relatively warm compared to -52C at its normal cruise of approx 40,000'
Nil points, Paul! ISA is 15C at sea level, reducing by ~2C per 1000'. So FL200 is -15C; and the tropopause (approximately FL370) is about -58C. Above that the atmosphere (at least the part of it that aviation uses) is isothermal.
As for fuel consumption, the fuel flow at 2000ft will be around 6-7 tonnes per hour at the most economical speed - around 220kts. That's not much different from the fuel flow at 35,000ft but the speed over the ground will be around 500kts, so the specific fuel consumption (kg/nm) is much lower. The aircraft would have had around 55 tonnes of fuel at take off, and would have had about 45 remaining at the point it disappeared (I'm basing these numbers on the A330-300, which is a bit lighter and uses a bit less fuel). I believe it flew at around 30,000ft across Malaysia heading west for about an hour - so it now has around 39 tonnes. If it then descended to 2000ft and spent, an hour at that altitude (travelling 220nm in doing so, and leaving 33 tonnes), it could then climb to 10-15,000ft to stay clear of primary radars, and would have been able to fly about another 2000nm. That gives a pretty big circle of uncertainty.
Apparently it climbed to 45k feet at some point. And that's off the BBC not the daily mail. Why would it climb to that altitude
Another theory circulating is that the plane was taken up to 45,000ft to kill the passengers quickly, former RAF navigator Sean Maffett says. The supposed motive for this might have been primarily to stop the passengers using mobile phones, once the plane descended to a much lower altitude. At 45,000ft, the Boeing 777 is way above its normal operating height. And it is possible to depressurise the cabin, notes Maffett. Oxygen masks would automatically deploy. They would run out after 12-15 minutes. The passengers - as with carbon monoxide poisoning - would slip into unconsciousness and die, he argues. But whoever was in control of the plane would also perish in this scenario, unless they had access to some other form of oxygen supply.Little has been said about this apparent climb to 45,000ft, or how that information was obtained. If it's genuine and was established by an air-defence height-finding primary radar, the theory above is more or less feasible. They are wrong in at least one crucial aspect - the pilots have a separate underfloor liquid-oxygen supply totally unrelated to the passengers' chemically-generated oxygen, and that pilot oxygen can last for a significant amount of time longer than the passengers'. The pilots also have access to extra oxygen cylinders. But so do the cabin crew (though they don't have any LOX system). Let's say the aircraft was depressurised while one of the pilots was out of the flight deck; the remaining pilot could climb to 45,000ft (though there would be no need to do that) and within 15-20 minutes, everyone other than the person at the controls would be dead. The climb could have been a result of a struggle, I suppose.
Quote from: BenTApparently it climbed to 45k feet at some point. And that's off the BBC not the daily mail. Why would it climb to that altitude
This is what the BBC said:Quote from: BBCAnother theory circulating is that the plane was taken up to 45,000ft to kill the passengers quickly, former RAF navigator Sean Maffett says.
At that altitude (anything over 40,000 ft), ISTR that there isn't enough partial pressure to get the oxygen into your lungs anyway, so the masks are useless. it was a known fact that decompression of a Concorde would kill everyone on board unless somehow the aircraft could descend 20,000 ft *extremely* quickly, before brain damage occurred.
Very interesting.... I wonder what sort of "struggle" would cause the plane to climb. I can see how if one of them was slumped forward it could descend, but not how it could climb.Quote from: BenTApparently it climbed to 45k feet at some point. And that's off the BBC not the daily mail. Why would it climb to that altitude
This is what the BBC said:Quote from: BBCAnother theory circulating is that the plane was taken up to 45,000ft to kill the passengers quickly, former RAF navigator Sean Maffett says. The supposed motive for this might have been primarily to stop the passengers using mobile phones, once the plane descended to a much lower altitude. At 45,000ft, the Boeing 777 is way above its normal operating height. And it is possible to depressurise the cabin, notes Maffett. Oxygen masks would automatically deploy. They would run out after 12-15 minutes. The passengers - as with carbon monoxide poisoning - would slip into unconsciousness and die, he argues. But whoever was in control of the plane would also perish in this scenario, unless they had access to some other form of oxygen supply.Little has been said about this apparent climb to 45,000ft, or how that information was obtained. If it's genuine and was established by an air-defence height-finding primary radar, the theory above is more or less feasible. They are wrong in at least one crucial aspect - the pilots have a separate underfloor liquid-oxygen supply totally unrelated to the passengers' chemically-generated oxygen, and that pilot oxygen can last for a significant amount of time longer than the passengers'. The pilots also have access to extra oxygen cylinders. But so do the cabin crew (though they don't have any LOX system). Let's say the aircraft was depressurised while one of the pilots was out of the flight deck; the remaining pilot could climb to 45,000ft (though there would be no need to do that) and within 15-20 minutes, everyone other than the person at the controls would be dead. The climb could have been a result of a struggle, I suppose.
Luckily, I had a firend working at the British embassy
Very interesting.... I wonder what sort of "struggle" would cause the plane to climb. I can see how if one of them was slumped forward it could descend, but not how it could climb.
Ben, the thing is the BBC and the people they are turning to are as uninformed as everyone else about what has happened to this flight. Their '10 theories' story is all speculation, admittedly speculation with an eye for what is plausible but still speculation. Tim through his professional experience is trying very hard on this thread to counter the least plausible theories, and the 45,000ft is one of these. Yes it is possible and it may have the effects identified but until someone shows a radar trace proving the flight went that high there is no evidence to say this scenario has any more merit than any other.Very interesting.... I wonder what sort of "struggle" would cause the plane to climb. I can see how if one of them was slumped forward it could descend, but not how it could climb.Quote from: BenTApparently it climbed to 45k feet at some point. And that's off the BBC not the daily mail. Why would it climb to that altitude
This is what the BBC said:Quote from: BBCAnother theory circulating is that the plane was taken up to 45,000ft to kill the passengers quickly, former RAF navigator Sean Maffett says. The supposed motive for this might have been primarily to stop the passengers using mobile phones, once the plane descended to a much lower altitude. At 45,000ft, the Boeing 777 is way above its normal operating height. And it is possible to depressurise the cabin, notes Maffett. Oxygen masks would automatically deploy. They would run out after 12-15 minutes. The passengers - as with carbon monoxide poisoning - would slip into unconsciousness and die, he argues. But whoever was in control of the plane would also perish in this scenario, unless they had access to some other form of oxygen supply.Little has been said about this apparent climb to 45,000ft, or how that information was obtained. If it's genuine and was established by an air-defence height-finding primary radar, the theory above is more or less feasible. They are wrong in at least one crucial aspect - the pilots have a separate underfloor liquid-oxygen supply totally unrelated to the passengers' chemically-generated oxygen, and that pilot oxygen can last for a significant amount of time longer than the passengers'. The pilots also have access to extra oxygen cylinders. But so do the cabin crew (though they don't have any LOX system). Let's say the aircraft was depressurised while one of the pilots was out of the flight deck; the remaining pilot could climb to 45,000ft (though there would be no need to do that) and within 15-20 minutes, everyone other than the person at the controls would be dead. The climb could have been a result of a struggle, I suppose.
Ok, Ben. You don't think that someone in a pilot's seat, being attacked by someone else (perhaps trying to pull them off the controls),...or just trying to pull them off, full stop.
And one quick question if I may.
What's the percentage difference in range of a 777 flying at 2000' as opposed to 30,000' ?
Significant I'd say, based purely on my memory that I managed to get better range out of a Dominie by climbing to 39,000' from 37,000'. As jet engine efficiency increases as temperature decreases and 20,000' is approx -30C (from memory, I may be wrong :)) so relatively warm compared to -52C at its normal cruise of approx 40,000'
Nil points, Paul! ISA is 15C at sea level, reducing by ~2C per 1000'. So FL200 is -15C; and the tropopause (approximately FL370) is about -58C. Above that the atmosphere (at least the part of it that aviation uses) is isothermal.
As for fuel consumption, the fuel flow at 2000ft will be around 6-7 tonnes per hour at the most economical speed - around 220kts. That's not much different from the fuel flow at 35,000ft but the speed over the ground will be around 500kts, so the specific fuel consumption (kg/nm) is much lower. The aircraft would have had around 55 tonnes of fuel at take off, and would have had about 45 remaining at the point it disappeared (I'm basing these numbers on the A330-300, which is a bit lighter and uses a bit less fuel). I believe it flew at around 30,000ft across Malaysia heading west for about an hour - so it now has around 39 tonnes. If it then descended to 2000ft and spent, an hour at that altitude (travelling 220nm in doing so, and leaving 33 tonnes), it could then climb to 10-15,000ft to stay clear of primary radars, and would have been able to fly about another 2000nm. That gives a pretty big circle of uncertainty.
I think I've given you too much of my time.Ok, Ben. You don't think that someone in a pilot's seat, being attacked by someone else (perhaps trying to pull them off the controls),...or just trying to pull them off, full stop.
If MH370 had a code of, say 4376, then it would be pretty easy to get another aircraft, say a Gulfstream 5 private jet, to fly up behind it and swap codes. The Gulfstream sets its squawk code to the same as MH370's code of 4376 then the B777 takes on the Gulfstream's code, and they then split... It would certainly make it easier for the B777 to continue on undetected...
..I find it almost impossible that a Boeing 777 could be flying over land – whether that's Vietnam / Malaysia / India / or further north without anyone seeing it.
Aircraft expert Ian Black previously worked as a fighter weapons instructor for the Malaysian Air Force, and is the author of two Haynes Manuals for aircraft, the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom Manual and the RAF Tornado Manual. He flew the Tornado ADV in the first Gulf War and over Kosovo. He is now an A340 Airbus captain with Virgin Atlantic.
I think I've given you too much of my time.Ok, Ben. You don't think that someone in a pilot's seat, being attacked by someone else (perhaps trying to pull them off the controls),...or just trying to pull them off, full stop.
OK, have we done this theory yet:
Could MH370 have been ‘swapped’ mid-air? (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/could-mah730-have-been--swapped--mid-air--haynes-manual-plane-expert-offers-his-theories-135928312.html#uPXFzXR)QuoteIf MH370 had a code of, say 4376, then it would be pretty easy to get another aircraft, say a Gulfstream 5 private jet, to fly up behind it and swap codes. The Gulfstream sets its squawk code to the same as MH370's code of 4376 then the B777 takes on the Gulfstream's code, and they then split... It would certainly make it easier for the B777 to continue on undetected...Quote..I find it almost impossible that a Boeing 777 could be flying over land – whether that's Vietnam / Malaysia / India / or further north without anyone seeing it.
(Altho' seeing something and actually interpreting it as significant are separate actions that may not coincide.)QuoteAircraft expert Ian Black previously worked as a fighter weapons instructor for the Malaysian Air Force, and is the author of two Haynes Manuals for aircraft, the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom Manual and the RAF Tornado Manual. He flew the Tornado ADV in the first Gulf War and over Kosovo. He is now an A340 Airbus captain with Virgin Atlantic.
Tim, does this sound reasonable? http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
I think I've given you too much of my time.Ok, Ben. You don't think that someone in a pilot's seat, being attacked by someone else (perhaps trying to pull them off the controls),...or just trying to pull them off, full stop.
I am being flippant, but I do find your knowledge interesting nonetheless, nothing wrong with doing both. Interesting as a contrast to all the shite you read in the media. Other people probably find it so too.
But let's not get over serious, the world isn't looking to yacf as a reliable barometer of what probably happened. Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation. Anyhow stay safe up there. Remember it's only in the news cos it is so rare...
...being flippant about the serious answers I've given in an effort to help you understand what's going on is, frankly, bloody rude.Well, sorry, but - you gave a sensible answer to a silly question. Apologies.
Why was no effort made (as far as I've heard) to contact the plane when it deviated from its original course to Beijing? Or even once people on the ground realised the ACARS had been turned off? Would it be normal for ATC to ignore events like that?
Tim,
Out of interest, how wide a road needs to be for a 777 to have a reaonable chance to land on it?
Realistically, there's little chance of successfully putting a B777 down on a road - even the kind of road that in the cold war was reinforced for fighter operations. There might be a few very large motorway-standard roads which are straight for a mile and a half, with no over- or under-passes on which it could be possible, but that kind of road tends to be built to accommodate a large amount of traffic, and the motons might notice a B777 amongst them.
There are a number of disused WW2 (and later) airfields in SE Asia (including Burma) which could accommodate a lightweight B777, at least for a once-only landing, and I would imagine that there are several satellites looking for any evidence of such a landing.
Why was no effort made (as far as I've heard) to contact the plane when it deviated from its original course to Beijing? Or even once people on the ground realised the ACARS had been turned off? Would it be normal for ATC to ignore events like that?
The problem is that, as far as I can tell from what I've seen on-line, ACARS and the transponder went off-line roundabout at the point where Malaysian ATC would hand over to Vietnamese ATC. The Malaysians may well have assumed that it had been picked up by the Vietnamese, and the Vietnamese, not seeing a response to their secondary radar, may well have assumed that MH370 was slightly delayed. There was a story that Vietnamese ATC asked the crew of a Japan-bound plane to try and raise MH370 on the radio, but all the flight crew could get was static and some indecipherable mumbling.
I know Ian Black reasonably well. All I would say to that article is: he's been paid to write it, and he's trying to sell books. I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe any of the more complicated hypotheses. He does raise the possibility of one or other pilot taking the aeroplane and disabling all on board, as I did above.
Tim, does this sound reasonable? http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
Why was no effort made (as far as I've heard) to contact the plane when it deviated from its original course to Beijing? Or even once people on the ground realised the ACARS had been turned off? Would it be normal for ATC to ignore events like that?
The problem is that, as far as I can tell from what I've seen on-line, ACARS and the transponder went off-line roundabout at the point where Malaysian ATC would hand over to Vietnamese ATC. The Malaysians may well have assumed that it had been picked up by the Vietnamese, and the Vietnamese, not seeing a response to their secondary radar, may well have assumed that MH370 was slightly delayed. There was a story that Vietnamese ATC asked the crew of a Japan-bound plane to try and raise MH370 on the radio, but all the flight crew could get was static and some indecipherable mumbling.
Further: ACARS is not an ATC tool. It is a text-based system that allows the crew to communicate with various ground stations as required (getting weather, for instance, or passing on special instructions to destination). It also incorporates the automatic datalinks to airline, airframe manufacturer, and power plant manufacturer where those facilities are implemented. It's provided under contract with one of the major aviation communications operators like SITA.
I have seen reference elsewhere to CPDLC/ADS being available in that area, which is a facility for the aircraft and pilot to datalink to ATC, but I've seen no mention of it being available to this aircraft. Our own on-board references make no mention of ADS or CPDLC being available in this area, but we don't operate round there so we have no need to know. If it had been available, and was switched on and working, there may have been more position information available. However, it's possible that the Malaysian spokespeople are lumping ADS/CPDLC in with ACARS, as the same display unit provides much of the pilot interface with this equipment.
What about the sudden turning alteration of course though? Wouldn't that have looked odd to ATC? Or do deviations like that actually happen far more often than we might think?Why was no effort made (as far as I've heard) to contact the plane when it deviated from its original course to Beijing? Or even once people on the ground realised the ACARS had been turned off? Would it be normal for ATC to ignore events like that?
The problem is that, as far as I can tell from what I've seen on-line, ACARS and the transponder went off-line roundabout at the point where Malaysian ATC would hand over to Vietnamese ATC. The Malaysians may well have assumed that it had been picked up by the Vietnamese, and the Vietnamese, not seeing a response to their secondary radar, may well have assumed that MH370 was slightly delayed. There was a story that Vietnamese ATC asked the crew of a Japan-bound plane to try and raise MH370 on the radio, but all the flight crew could get was static and some indecipherable mumbling.
Further: ACARS is not an ATC tool. It is a text-based system that allows the crew to communicate with various ground stations as required (getting weather, for instance, or passing on special instructions to destination). It also incorporates the automatic datalinks to airline, airframe manufacturer, and power plant manufacturer where those facilities are implemented. It's provided under contract with one of the major aviation communications operators like SITA.
I have seen reference elsewhere to CPDLC/ADS being available in that area, which is a facility for the aircraft and pilot to datalink to ATC, but I've seen no mention of it being available to this aircraft. Our own on-board references make no mention of ADS or CPDLC being available in this area, but we don't operate round there so we have no need to know. If it had been available, and was switched on and working, there may have been more position information available. However, it's possible that the Malaysian spokespeople are lumping ADS/CPDLC in with ACARS, as the same display unit provides much of the pilot interface with this equipment.
Before the investigators know what happened to this flight, one of two things and probably both need to happen:
1. A large number of conflicting parties are going to have to share radar data that will disclose their defensive air warning system capabilities so that the investigators can start to plot the course of the flight.
Tim, does this sound reasonable? http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
The rebuttal here http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/18/mh370_disappearance_chris_goodfellow_s_theory_about_a_fire_and_langkawi.html is nowhere near as sensible as the original explanation, it appears to be based on "violent turns have to be inititated by humans". Or in my book, grossly malfunctioning electrical systems.
I was actually thinking of lower level than than; controllers for the electrical system.
TimC,
Thank you for your detailed knowledge and insight. It has really brought this to life for me and added reallifeTM to the whole matter.
PB
TimC,
Thank you for your detailed knowledge and insight. It has really brought this to life for me and added reallifeTM to the whole matter.
PB
You're very welcome! I hope it's all reasonably clear!
TimC,
Thank you for your detailed knowledge and insight. It has really brought this to life for me and added reallifeTM to the whole matter.
PB
You're very welcome! I hope it's all reasonably clear!
Eminently clear, thank you. Much much clearer than the speculative, uninformed, nonsense that seems to be pouring out of all media outlets.
..Many years before that, I designed some parts that went on EAP which was our country's technology demonstrator for Eurofighter. I remember talking to the test pilots who were going out to test a new piece of software - brave men!
'Intelligent speculation in an information vacuum' strikes me as hollow, pointless and potentially harmful.
I can understand why it happens but really wish it did not.
Presumably the important software would be tested by formal methods and not just the rather dodgy programming indulged in by your average IT bod.There's a world of difference between an IT bod and a software writer. And yes, even then testing was by formal methods.
how likely is it that aircraft components could get hot enough to set the thing alight without diagnostics detecting it and communicating the fact to the pilot and to ground support?Not very. Each piece of equipment is subject to reliability calculations which includes any stress factor (such as temperature) on every component of that equipment. The individual components are also derated according to their intended environment. This is why you get commercial, industrial, Mil Spec and space ratings for integrated circuits. Each component is also subject to "consequential damage assessment" i.e what happens to the piece of equipment if that one component fails. Yes, things do fail and stuff happens - nothing is perfect. Look at Boeing's problems with Lithium batteries on 787. After years of banning Lithium primary cells they thought they had it cracked.
Just over the partition from me is a bod who worked for BAE systems on flight control software.
..Many years before that, I designed some parts that went on EAP which was our country's technology demonstrator for Eurofighter. I remember talking to the test pilots who were going out to test a new piece of software - brave men!
Presumably the important software would be tested by formal methods and not just the rather dodgy programming indulged in by your average IT bod.
'Intelligent speculation in an information vacuum' strikes me as hollow, pointless and potentially harmful.
I can understand why it happens but really wish it did not.
Presumably the important software would be tested by formal methods and not just the rather dodgy programming indulged in by your average IT bod.There's a world of difference between an IT bod and a software writer. And yes, even then testing was by formal methods.Quotehow likely is it that aircraft components could get hot enough to set the thing alight without diagnostics detecting it and communicating the fact to the pilot and to ground support?Not very. Each piece of equipment is subject to reliability calculations which includes any stress factor (such as temperature) on every component of that equipment. The individual components are also derated according to their intended environment. This is why you get commercial, industrial, Mil Spec and space ratings for integrated circuits. Each component is also subject to "consequential damage assessment" i.e what happens to the piece of equipment if that one component fails. Yes, things do fail and stuff happens - nothing is perfect. Look at Boeing's problems with Lithium batteries on 787. After years of banning Lithium primary cells they thought they had it cracked.
'Intelligent speculation in an information vacuum' strikes me as hollow, pointless and potentially harmful.
I can understand why it happens but really wish it did not.
It can be very upsetting when people indulge in such speculation, but sometimes it's actually necessary in order to give an investigation a starting point. And, of course, plenty of people are paid to do it and in doing so create snowballing crassness which serves no purpose other than to spread fear and ignorance. Hopefully, in trying to bring some light to the discussion, I can counter the more irrational fears
The Swissair MD11 crash near Halifax, NS, was the result of an electrical fire.* Both of these events were caused by shorting in wiring, not failures in individual components.The problem in that case was that the In Flight Entertainment had been wrongly installed and connected to an essential power bus and so could not be isolated. Flight crew of course would have no idea of this and would shed whatever power they could expecting to isolate the source.
'Intelligent speculation in an information vacuum' strikes me as hollow, pointless and potentially harmful.
I can understand why it happens but really wish it did not.
It can be very upsetting when people indulge in such speculation, but sometimes it's actually necessary in order to give an investigation a starting point. And, of course, plenty of people are paid to do it and in doing so create snowballing crassness which serves no purpose other than to spread fear and ignorance. Hopefully, in trying to bring some light to the discussion, I can counter the more irrational fears
A hefty dose of popular culture revolves around disasters....just look at all the aircraft disaster movies from the '70s. Add in the internet, where everyone gets a say, and that news is now primarily a form of entertainment and this is what you get.
Its nothing new, however annoying and poignant it is for you , Tim. Its just a bit harder to avoid than it used to be.
The Swissair MD11 crash near Halifax, NS, was the result of an electrical fire.* Both of these events were caused by shorting in wiring, not failures in individual components.The problem in that case was that the In Flight Entertainment had been wrongly installed and connected to an essential power bus and so could not be isolated. Flight crew of course would have no idea of this and would shed whatever power they could expecting to isolate the source.
Wiring shorts are very rare and arguably should not happen because the circuit breaker on that power line is rated to protect the wire - any equipment connected to that line has to look after itself. e.g 16AWG wire will carry a 15A breaker. So a real short will pop the breaker. Wire insulation is also not random, it is approved by the industry and some are specifically forbidden by the aircraft manufacturers.
'Intelligent speculation in an information vacuum' strikes me as hollow, pointless and potentially harmful.
I can understand why it happens but really wish it did not.
It can be very upsetting when people indulge in such speculation, but sometimes it's actually necessary in order to give an investigation a starting point. And, of course, plenty of people are paid to do it and in doing so create snowballing crassness which serves no purpose other than to spread fear and ignorance. Hopefully, in trying to bring some light to the discussion, I can counter the more irrational fears
A hefty dose of popular culture revolves around disasters....just look at all the aircraft disaster movies from the '70s. Add in the internet, where everyone gets a say, and that news is now primarily a form of entertainment and this is what you get.
Its nothing new, however annoying and poignant it is for you , Tim. Its just a bit harder to avoid than it used to be.
Hey, I'm used to it - it happens every time there's a crash. Here, I can do something about it by providing information to educate the discussion.
Edit, and an aside, wasn't it Kapton wiring? We had the same stuff in that Herc...I do not know if it was Kapton in that case, but you are right that Kapton is a no-no.
in some fields e.g. X-rays there are safety critical decisions which aren't allowed to be controlled by software, so in an x ray machine for example there is a thing that says "if someone steps in the radiation area, switch the X-ray machine off" and that decision isn't allowed to be taken in code. probably the case on planes as wellI was actually thinking of lower level than than; controllers for the electrical system.
Ah, ok. Well, I can't speak for the Boeing except to say that generally it's less automated than an Airbus. There will be electrical management units, but a fair bit of executive control rests with the pilots if they choose to use it. However, bus redundancy and degrade profiles and the like will be fixed and pretty unalterable. There's not a lot of software involved really, and I've never heard of a problem caused at a basic systems level by software updates; again, anything that the aircraft relies on in flight will be tested within an inch of its life before it's allowed near a plane.
Not sure why the FBI are getting involved, but the Malaysian authorities should have been doing this ten days ago.
Edit: x-post with Hatler. Let's hope they get an Orion out there quickly to get a closer look. Though it'll be dark there now, so we may have to wait a while.Dark there now ? Surely not.
Edit: x-post with Hatler. Let's hope they get an Orion out there quickly to get a closer look. Though it'll be dark there now, so we may have to wait a while.Dark there now ? Surely not.
The BBC says the Australians may have found some debris using satellite reconnaissance. 2500 km southwest of Perth, which seems a very long way for the aircraft to have flown. I'm sceptical, I must admit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26659951
Edit: x-post with Hatler. Let's hope they get an Orion out there quickly to get a closer look. Though it'll be dark there now, so we may have to wait a while.
The BBC says the Australians may have found some debris using satellite reconnaissance. 2500 km southwest of Perth, which seems a very long way for the aircraft to have flown. I'm sceptical, I must admit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26659951
Edit: x-post with Hatler. Let's hope they get an Orion out there quickly to get a closer look. Though it'll be dark there now, so we may have to wait a while.
It is a bit further than the maximum range circle that was on the news before.
Isn't this consistent with a pilotless plane on autopilot flying till the tanks are empty?
Presumably any wreckage will have drifted with the ocean currents as well which may have moved it quite a way.
I thought it was an Australian satellite?
A 5kt current over 12 days will carry an object 1440nm (2840km). That's a huge distance.
A 5kt current over 12 days will carry an object 1440nm (2840km). That's a huge distance.
5 kt is a strong current, more like what you find in the Bristol channel than mid ocean.
A 5kt current over 12 days will carry an object 1440nm (2840km). That's a huge distance.
5 kt is a strong current, more like what you find in the Bristol channel than mid ocean.
Yes, see my edit above! That said, the search area was moved around 200km closer to Australia overnight, so they are estimating a significant drift.
There should be satellite imagery good enough to show a Boeing 777 of every runway within range that one could land on, by now, & the location of all such runways is likely to be known.A 5kt current over 12 days will carry an object 1440nm (2840km). That's a huge distance.
5 kt is a strong current, more like what you find in the Bristol channel than mid ocean.
Yes, see my edit above! That said, the search area was moved around 200km closer to Australia overnight, so they are estimating a significant drift.
AH, I guess that in the absence of a ransom demand or detection of the aircraft on any compatible airfield within its range, they must assume the aircraft lost. But that's significant information in itself, because it suggests that all those potential landing places have been scanned and dismissed.
Indeed, but we don't know exactly where the sighting was in relation to either area.
Without anything to go on there is nothing useful that they can say.
The linked page has gone!
The linked page has gone!
Rats...
Try this:
http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Search-MH370-WaPo-685x754.jpg
I am not sure if this has been brought forward before :
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0
So a 777 has suffered from a cockpit fire before.
Irrelevant I would think. A cockpit electrical fire wouldn't cause all transponders to switch off and the plane to change course. Also you would expect the crew to get off a mayday call if they did have a cockpit fire.
One aspect of the incident that seems odd to me is the reticence of the plane manufacturer, Boeing. The 777 has an excellent safety record which Boeing would wish to safeguard particularly with Airbus as a competitor.
A factor in this is the relationship between Boeing and its client. The manner in which the aircraft was operated must be under scrutiny and that relationship is surely relevant, if only at this stage to decide what caused the aircraft to go missing in such a random manner.
It's inconceivable that Boeing is not intensely interested and concerned at this mysterious disappearance that seems to have been handled either ineptly or with duplicity but is certainly not confidence-inspiring.
Inmarsat and the UK Air Accidents Investigations Branch have informed the Malaysian government that the flight definitely ended in the Southern Indian Ocean, in the area where various nations' aircraft are currently searching. They haven't as yet said exactly what data they have used to come to this conclusion, but it seems unlikely they would have announced this if there was any doubt.
In their sadly typical cack-handed style, Malaysia seems to have informed at least some of the relatives of the confirmed deaths of their loved ones by text.
Not the first, Andy. Remember the Helios accident? But I suspect no one was alive, or at least conscious, either side of the door sometime very soon after the last transmission.Andreas Prodromou got through the door of that Helios flight in two hours - just before the fuel ran out. Poor bugger. But he'd been living off an oxygen bottle. He may have been the only person left alive by then.
The Malaysian incompetence over the way they've managed information, particularly to the relatives, has gobsmacked me throughout this business. The insensitivity of the style of the announcement that the flight was definitely lost seems to have ignored hundreds of years of experience of how to inform people of the loss of loved ones without tangible evidence through shipwrecks, wars, etc. The language of many of their press conferences has been stilted, even evasive, rather than open - contrast that with the straightforward, believable, tough but carefully worded statements by the Australians about the search.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe they've been trying to hide anything material to the investigation, but their desire to manage the loss of face and to stage-manage the release of information (do you really need an MC to formally introduce each speaker at a press conference - every day?) has hugely got in the way of humanity and empathy. And the categorical statement that everyone is dead - while almost certainly accurate - goes against the convention of 'missing - presumed dead'.
Ben why do you think two professional pilots wouldn’t have known that they didn’t have enough fuel to reach Antarctica ? Its not like it was only a little bit out of range either.
Plus why the hell would anyone want to land in Antarctica unless they were taking people or supplies to a base there ?
Ben why do you think two professional pilots wouldn’t have known that they didn’t have enough fuel to reach Antarctica ? Its not like it was only a little bit out of range either.
Plus why the hell would anyone want to land in Antarctica unless they were taking people or supplies to a base there ?
In a nutshell, it's improbable that they wouldn't have known, but something improbable has obviously occurred.
As to why they would want to, again, I don't know.
But just curious as to , if that's the direction they were heading, what is wrong with the logic of reasoning what must have been the case if they weren't.
Its just a silly idea. You might as well say they decided that they wanted to fly right over Antarctica and land in the Falklands or they thought they could fly to the moon.There's lots of *potential* reasons why they might have wanted to land there. Any reason that's based on them being able to land somewhere undetected and not be discovered. And it would probably be possible to land there, if they'd been able to do the distance.
.a silly idea is better then no idea.
A professional airline captain of 18000 hours (about 25 years) experience didn't know he didn't have enough fuel to get to, and this is a doozy, Antarctica?
Right.
Ben, you're entertainment value at least!
And it would probably be possible to land there
a silly idea is better then no idea.
And anyway, why does the pilot even need to know how much fuel is in it? Is it the pilots job to actually fill the tanks of the thing? All he needs to know is that it's got enough.
I haven't got a clue about most of the insides of a computer despite having been using one professionally for over ten years.
I understand you are thinking
Ben, flying passenger aeroplanes is not analogous to riding a bike or driving a car. Things are not done off the cuff, or on the principle that 'the pilot doesn't need to know'.
I understand you are thinking aloud, but your train of thought is seriously derailed. If you wish to investigate and comment on serious possibilities of what might have happened to this flight, go away and do some studying of how airline operations work. If you just want to throw spanners in the works for teh lolz, there are probably better places to do it. You are Not Helping this thread, which is hopefully, and generally, about discussing the subject with a level of realism, and appropriate respect for the 239 people who have died.
my logical inference
Ben, I could waste my life knocking down each of your far-fetched hypotheses one by one. But as your knowledge of aviation, and your willingness to accept that it is a complex and very highly regulated business, is so limited, I would have to spend humungous amounts of time explaining commercial aviation to you from first principles. I don't have time for that. If you want to genuinely understand what happens to create and operate a commercial flight, and therefore what actions the pilots and others take to make it happen and conduct it in the air, there are a thousand websites out there with that information.Right, that's fine - but this is an exception to the rule. If you restrict yourself to only considering what could possibly happen according to the strict regulations of the "highly regulated" business, or only considering along the parameters of what normally happens to create and operate a commercial flight, then you will by definition never approach the explanation, because the regulations and the normal operation of a commercial flight are structured such that this can't happen. But it has happened. So some regulation has been broken. Why not that of the pilot controlling how much fuel goes in the aircraft? It's too dismissive of you to say 'that can't happen because it's a highly regulated business', because something that "can't" happen obviously has happened.
It seems to me that you are wilfully maintaining your ignorance while throwing ever more ridiculous suggestions out for 'consideration', then getting the hump when I and others tell you your ideas have no credibility. I don't want to put you on ignore because there are other areas of this website where you contribute valuable information. Perhaps I'll start asking you 'why maps?'.
Anyway, you've buggered up your own suggestion. You started out by suggesting that the pilot might have thought he could fly to Antarctica (why he would do that, nobody knows, certainly wouldn't be able to land there, but hey maybe the Raelians would help him). Then you've suggested that the pilot might not realise the plane was short of fuel. Seriously, you aren't stupid, please engage your brain.It's a suggestion, something that could have happened, not a plausible theory as to what probably did happen.
From my understanding of passenger aviation, the amount of fuel loaded on a plane takes into account; Passenger weight, luggage, weather conditions, filed flight plans (since altitude and speed affect consumption per mile) and distance to be flown, of course. Then there is a safety margin added. No more fuel is loaded than necessary, as it costs money to carry fuel that isn't needed.
Alterations to weather conditions en-route will affect fuel consumption, so the pilot is constantly checking fuel usage against calculations. It's absolutely critical.
Ben, please leave it out. It must be really irritating for TimC to have someone argue with him over this.
Anyway, you've buggered up your own suggestion. You started out by suggesting that the pilot might have thought he could fly to Antarctica (why he would do that, nobody knows, certainly wouldn't be able to land there, but hey maybe the Raelians would help him). Then you've suggested that the pilot might not realise the plane was short of fuel. Seriously, you aren't stupid, please engage your brain.
From my understanding of passenger aviation, the amount of fuel loaded on a plane takes into account; Passenger weight, luggage, weather conditions, filed flight plans (since altitude and speed affect consumption per mile) and distance to be flown, of course. Then there is a safety margin added. No more fuel is loaded than necessary, as it costs money to carry fuel that isn't needed.
Alterations to weather conditions en-route will affect fuel consumption, so the pilot is constantly checking fuel usage against calculations. It's absolutely critical.
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore :thumbsup:
Thank you, MrC. Exactly right. Has anyone else got that 'arguing with a two year old' feeling?
Such as, like I say, if that amount of fuel can't physically fit in a 777.Range is easy to find out note the different 777 models are listed on the left http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.page?
Thank you, MrC. Exactly right. Has anyone else got that 'arguing with a two year old' feeling?
;D
It's a verbose version of:
Why?
Why?
Why?
Except that a two-year old actually wants to know and learn.
Thank you, MrC. Exactly right. Has anyone else got that 'arguing with a two year old' feeling?
;D
It's a verbose version of:
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why does this thread start to remind me of http://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg
I reckon I now know just about enough to be able to fly a plane.
Ben, I'll be touching down in your street in an hour. Hop on and we'll put some of your hypotheses to the test.
I'm sure if I looked that up on the Urban Dictionary it would involve clingfilm.
In an interview with The Telegraph, he said that he had personally authorised the installation of “one of the most sophisticated radar” systems in the world, based near the South China Sea and covering Malaysia’s mainland and east and west coastlines, when he was the country’s finance minister in 1994.
It was “not only unacceptable but not possible, not feasible” that the plane had not been sighted by the Marconi radar system immediately after it changed course. The radar, he said, would have instantly detected the Boeing 777 as it travelled east to west across “at least four” Malaysian provinces.
Mr Anwar said it was “baffling” that the country’s air force had “remained silent”, and claimed that it “should take three minutes under SOP (standard operating procedure) for the air force planes to go. And there was no response.”
He added: “We don’t have the sophistication of the United States or Britain but still we have the capacity to protect our borders.”
It was “clearly baffling”, he said, to suggest that radar operators had been unable to observe the plane’s progress.
And anyway, why does the pilot even need to know how much fuel is in it? Is it the pilots job to actually fill the tanks of the thing? All he needs to know is that it's got enough.TimC isn't showing off his superior knowledge to put you down, he's suggesting you apply logic to information.
And I'm not sure why you think it couldn't have landed on antarctica, some ice is fairly smooth is it not? Some probably isn't, but I'm sure there are patches that are.(5) There is nowhere in Antarctica where a Boeing 777 could land other than the bases, & probably not even there. Their runways are not meant for that sort of aircraft. This is obvious to anyone who has grasped (1), & has seen pictures of resupply flights to Antarctic bases - & such pictures are common enough that I can visualise some of 'em without ever, as far I can remember, ever having looked for them. I also have a good mental library of pictures of Antarctica, & it doesn't include a single picture of any terrain where it'd be possible to land an airliner. Ice caps are not like billiard tables.
And anyway, why does the pilot even need to know how much fuel is in it? Is it the pilots job to actually fill the tanks of the thing? All he needs to know is that it's got enough.TimC isn't showing off his superior knowledge to put you down, he's suggesting you apply logic to information.
I have nothing to do with airlines or aircraft, except that sometimes I'm a passenger, but just by thinking about what airliners do, & things I've read in the press, I can work out why pilots need to know exactly how much fuel they have, & how far they can fly on that fuel.
(1) Airliners need long, straight, smooth strips of something hard to land on. They cannot put down on any random piece of land without wrecking the aircraft & probably killing all or most of the occupants. This is obvious to anyone who has read press reports of aircraft accidents, or cases where airliners have had to divert to emergency airfields.
(2) Suitable strips are relatively rare except in the most crowded parts of the world. Bad weather can make them temporarily unusable across large areas. Obvious to anyone who's looked at a map of the world, seen news reports, & thought a little bit, or has taken a long haul flight & looked out of a window.
(3) Aircraft do not always work perfectly, & when something goes wrong they must land. One of the possible causes of failure is a fuel problem. Obvious . . . .
(4) Because of the above, pilots must be aware at all times of how much fuel they have, & where they can get to on that fuel.QuoteAnd I'm not sure why you think it couldn't have landed on antarctica, some ice is fairly smooth is it not? Some probably isn't, but I'm sure there are patches that are.(5) There is nowhere in Antarctica where a Boeing 777 could land other than the bases, & probably not even there. Their runways are not meant for that sort of aircraft. This is obvious to anyone who has grasped (1), & has seen pictures of resupply flights to Antarctic bases - & such pictures are common enough that I can visualise some of 'em without ever, as far I can remember, ever having looked for them. I also have a good mental library of pictures of Antarctica, & it doesn't include a single picture of any terrain where it'd be possible to land an airliner. Ice caps are not like billiard tables.
Seriously, have you never, ever, seen a picture of sea ice, or a glacier, or of the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps? Do you walk around in a little bubble of unknowing, ignoring most of the sensory inputs available to you? Do you never, ever, read newspapers, or watch TV news, when aircraft accidents are reported? Have you never, ever, been to an airport, seen the length of the runways & thought about why they are made the way they are?
And as for the 'patches that are' - even if true, how the hell is an airline pilot going to find such a patch?
You say you're thinking about possibilities, but to me, it seems that you are NOT thinking. You don't apply any filters. Something comes into your brain & you spit it out without any thought, & then think only about how to justify it. If you were really thinking, you'd examine your own ideas.
Try to read and understand what's actually been written
The political implications are reinforced in an interview with Anwar Ibrahim:
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=256952:mh370-cover-up-msian-govt-is-deliberately-concealing-info-anwar-ibrahim&Itemid=2#axzz2xuNrO8Y6QuoteIn an interview with The Telegraph, he said that he had personally authorised the installation of “one of the most sophisticated radar” systems in the world, based near the South China Sea and covering Malaysia’s mainland and east and west coastlines, when he was the country’s finance minister in 1994.
It was “not only unacceptable but not possible, not feasible” that the plane had not been sighted by the Marconi radar system immediately after it changed course. The radar, he said, would have instantly detected the Boeing 777 as it travelled east to west across “at least four” Malaysian provinces.
Mr Anwar said it was “baffling” that the country’s air force had “remained silent”, and claimed that it “should take three minutes under SOP (standard operating procedure) for the air force planes to go. And there was no response.”
He added: “We don’t have the sophistication of the United States or Britain but still we have the capacity to protect our borders.”
It was “clearly baffling”, he said, to suggest that radar operators had been unable to observe the plane’s progress.
Well done for being yet another one to join the ranks of those to have missed the point entirely. I'm not really sure how many different ways I can find to say I don't think that's what actually happened any more than you do.The problem with what you say is that it makes no sense at all. We have to assume one of -
The question was not how feasible was it to have successfully and smoothly made that landing, but whether the intention to have attempted it being discredited is mutually exclusive to NONE of the following being the case: plane diverted to that trajectory of its own accord, landing in sea was the intention, or hijackers/pilots were completely lost.
Thus, if landing on antarctica wasn't the intention, then surely one of those things must have been the case. If not, why not.
It was a question about intention, really, not feasibility, or what actually happened. Reading too far into how likely that was to have been the intention is to miss the point and just leads down endless incessant rabbit warrens. The possibility suggested is that it was, however unlikely.
It's about, if it crash landed where 'objects' have been seen in the ocean, WHY was it heading in that direction. It certainly wasn't heading for australia, as it had gone way to the west of it. There wasn't any other land to be the destination.
But if all you want to do is grab the headline idea and rubbish it in order to look cool to the rest of the forum, then carry on, but it's largely boring to me and it's been done and dusted before.
Try to read and understand what's actually been written, and respond to that, rather than what you want it to mean, otherwise it's just pointless.
The political implications are reinforced in an interview with Anwar Ibrahim:
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=256952:mh370-cover-up-msian-govt-is-deliberately-concealing-info-anwar-ibrahim&Itemid=2#axzz2xuNrO8Y6QuoteIn an interview with The Telegraph, he said that he had personally authorised the installation of “one of the most sophisticated radar” systems in the world, based near the South China Sea and covering Malaysia’s mainland and east and west coastlines, when he was the country’s finance minister in 1994.
It was “not only unacceptable but not possible, not feasible” that the plane had not been sighted by the Marconi radar system immediately after it changed course. The radar, he said, would have instantly detected the Boeing 777 as it travelled east to west across “at least four” Malaysian provinces.
Mr Anwar said it was “baffling” that the country’s air force had “remained silent”, and claimed that it “should take three minutes under SOP (standard operating procedure) for the air force planes to go. And there was no response.”
He added: “We don’t have the sophistication of the United States or Britain but still we have the capacity to protect our borders.”
It was “clearly baffling”, he said, to suggest that radar operators had been unable to observe the plane’s progress.
On the principle of cock-up being far more likely than cover-up (or that any cover-up is just to hide a cock-up!), I strongly suspect that whatever their radar may have been able to see, it wasn't being monitored particularly assiduously, and whatever recordings should have been made of the radar picture were not, or were overwritten before they could be examined. Operator error coupled with slack procedures are far more likely than a conspiracy involving several tens of people with a nefarious aim they don't want to actually tell anyone about!
The political implications are reinforced in an interview with Anwar Ibrahim:
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=256952:mh370-cover-up-msian-govt-is-deliberately-concealing-info-anwar-ibrahim&Itemid=2#axzz2xuNrO8Y6QuoteIn an interview with The Telegraph, he said that he had personally authorised the installation of “one of the most sophisticated radar” systems in the world, based near the South China Sea and covering Malaysia’s mainland and east and west coastlines, when he was the country’s finance minister in 1994.
It was “not only unacceptable but not possible, not feasible” that the plane had not been sighted by the Marconi radar system immediately after it changed course. The radar, he said, would have instantly detected the Boeing 777 as it travelled east to west across “at least four” Malaysian provinces.
Mr Anwar said it was “baffling” that the country’s air force had “remained silent”, and claimed that it “should take three minutes under SOP (standard operating procedure) for the air force planes to go. And there was no response.”
He added: “We don’t have the sophistication of the United States or Britain but still we have the capacity to protect our borders.”
It was “clearly baffling”, he said, to suggest that radar operators had been unable to observe the plane’s progress.
On the principle of cock-up being far more likely than cover-up (or that any cover-up is just to hide a cock-up!), I strongly suspect that whatever their radar may have been able to see, it wasn't being monitored particularly assiduously, and whatever recordings should have been made of the radar picture were not, or were overwritten before they could be examined. Operator error coupled with slack procedures are far more likely than a conspiracy involving several tens of people with a nefarious aim they don't want to actually tell anyone about!
Your suspicions may be right. The problem is that the suggestion is being made and there are those who would go along with it.
Wars have been started on completely spurious pretexts simply because someone wanted it to be so.
The problem with what you say is that it makes no sense at all. We have to assume one of -
that you don't mean what you say;
that you assume complete irrationality on the part of the pilots;
that you assume someone profoundly ignorant was in command, & chose to ignore all protests that what he was doing was suicide;
something else along those lines.
The pilots knew how far they could fly. They knew what conditions they needed to land. They would not attempt to fly to Antarctica, as they knew that it was no different from crashing into the sea.
It is just about possible that someone was standing over them with a gun & demanding they fly there, & ignoring all their explanations of why it was not possible, as with the hijacked Ethiopian airliner in 1996, but that's unlikely. If the hypothetical hijackers knew enough to keep the pilots flying the right course (unlike the Ethiopian hijackers) there'd be a good chance they'd understand the fuel gauges.
And there is, of course, the question of why anyone would want to fly to Antarctica. Once there, even if safely landed, they'd all die soon unless rescued. There's no possibility of keeping the plane & occupants hostage, as has been done in the past with hijacked aircraft. So it doesn't make any sense. You're assuming irrationality.
.... I'm not sure what depth the UK nuclear boat can go down to, but it's likely to have very sensitive sensors which are probably about the best thing the search effort can get their hands on...Published figures for T class boats give an operational depth of 400m and maximum depth of 600m so if MH370 is 7K down then operating at 350-400m is not going to make a huge difference in detection range. Tireless does have _very_ sensitive search/listening equipment. Whether it's good enough to pick up a signal from a source 6.5 to 7K away I have no idea. My guess is that it might be. It's also possible that her high speed underwater (29kt max) is a factor as she'll be able to cover the ground more quickly than a surface vessel using a towed detector (assuming her listening gear can be used effectively at such speeds) nor will the search be disrupted by poor sea conditions.
I'm not assuming irrationality on the part of the pilots (or whoever was in control of the plane), I'm suggesting it.
I'm just not assuming rationality.
If anyone's assuming, you're assuming rationality. Well, you're assuming either rationality or the impossibility of a fairly far-fetched conspiracy.
It's into the realms of conspiracy theory, I know, but what if for instance there is an 'unofficial' base at antarctica, that only the conspirators know about.
I know it's some way along the spectrum of being similar to 'what if there is an illuminati and they are involved', and even though I accept it's unlikely (please try to remember that bit), it just doesn't make sense to me to box it off on the grounds that there absolutely "isn't" a base there because there isn't one that the media and general public, in fact anyone outside of a select group, are allowed to know about.
If there is an 'unknown' base, then that also gives you your reason for wanting to fly an airliner there - to staff it.
It's not an ideal way of doing it, and if it is the case then they'll probably be being bollocked right now for almost allowing it to get out.
But it just shows that you are thinking along the narrow lines of what you've been conditioned to believe by the media.
Ben, if "somebody" had an unknown base on Antartica then I would imagine that it would already be staffed on a permanent basis. That "somebody" would have needed to ship in a lot of heavy machinery to smooth out the ice in order to make a runway (and make sure that it's thick enough to take the weight) and would then need to stay there to maintain that runway - I would guess that at a minimum it would need to be cleared and prepared again within 24 hours of being used - if the weather is pretty much perfect.
And who's to say this runway isn't made out of tarmac?
I might point out that Antarctica has the lowest rainfall of pretty much anywhere in the world, it's technically a desert.
And who's to say this runway isn't made out of tarmac?
"Don't be silly Ben, they couldn't have built a tarmac runway on antarctica - somebody would have noticed!"
And how did they get the materials there on a ship? They couldn't possibly have done - somebody would have noticed!
And how could they have they been constantly ferrying people out and back there to staff it - surely somebody would have noticed?!
I want what Ben T's on.
Or maybe I don't.
A plane couldn't possibly go missing in today's world...Yes. The whole bloody world noticed and in fairly short order. The fact that we haven't so far found it after we _all_ noticed that it had "vanished" is (probably) due a mixture of Mk I cock-up, patchy surveillance and the fact that the Ocean is big; so big ....{insert Doug. Adams bit about size of universe here}.
Somebody's bound to notice.
Ben I'm surprised you haven't considered the option that someone secretly built a really really really really big aircraft carrier and that the pilot was persuaded to land on that. :demon:
Somebody did notice. Rather quickly.Ben, if "somebody" had an unknown base on Antartica then I would imagine that it would already be staffed on a permanent basis. That "somebody" would have needed to ship in a lot of heavy machinery to smooth out the ice in order to make a runway (and make sure that it's thick enough to take the weight) and would then need to stay there to maintain that runway - I would guess that at a minimum it would need to be cleared and prepared again within 24 hours of being used - if the weather is pretty much perfect.
I might point out that Antarctica has the lowest rainfall of pretty much anywhere in the world, it's technically a desert.
And who's to say this runway isn't made out of tarmac?
"Don't be silly Ben, they couldn't have built a tarmac runway on antarctica - somebody would have noticed!"
And how did they get the materials there on a ship? They couldn't possibly have done - somebody would have noticed!
And how could they have they been constantly ferrying people out and back there to staff it - surely somebody would have noticed?!
A plane couldn't possibly go missing in today's world...
Somebody's bound to notice.
Made of tarmac? ;D Look at a map. Look at satellite pictures. Do you really think you could hide a 3 kilometer long strip of tarmac in the relatively small areas of Antarctica that are on the right side of the continent & aren't under permanent ice?
Somebody did notice. Rather quickly.Not till it was too late. They didn't notice it had gone off course as soon as it did - only when it failed to land when it was supposed to.
Made of tarmac? ;D Look at a map. Look at satellite pictures.Look at a map? ;D "Look at a map!" he says! Me look at a map? what good is a minion, a member of the mere public, such as me looking at a map going to do? You really have just believed the official line hook line and sinker every step of the way and aren't really thinking objectively for yourself at all. If you want to go on believing the world is some kind of utopia that really is exactly as it is presented to be by official channels then carry on but you'll be deluding yourself.
BTW, I'd rather be conditioned to think the way I do by the media* than be a raving loony, as you are.
If I was a very powerful person and ran a base in antarctica, and I needed to get some staff there rather quickly because of some emergency, I'd think commandeering a commercial airliner would probably be the way to go.
If I was a very powerful person and ran a base in antarctica, and I needed to get some staff there rather quickly because of some emergency, I'd think commandeering a commercial airliner would probably be the way to go.
1/ You're not.
2/ You don't
3/ If either 1 or 2 was true, you'd have your own aircraft, would you not??
Probably a few - albeit smaller ones, yes, and generally that's probably why this sort of thing doesn't happen very regularly. But on that occasion it might not have been able to land where it needed to be to pick people up (in malaysia) or they might not have had time.
But the asset might have been the plane itself rather than the people on it - how do you think they acquire any plane in the first place, or replace it when it gets old, they can't just walk into a boeing showroom, pick one, and pay the nice man at the counter.
Made of tarmac? ;D Look at a map. Look at satellite pictures. Do you really think you could hide a 3 kilometer long strip of tarmac in the relatively small areas of Antarctica that are on the right side of the continent & aren't under permanent ice?
Perhaps if they painted the tarmac white. Or trained a big flock of penguins to stand on it when it wasn’t being used.
It is quite snowy in Antarctica! Snow is white. I guess when the tarmac was first laid it would have melted the snow but obviously they'd have got McAlpine's fusiliers to do it overnight. (Is it night time in Antarctica this time of year?)
Out in the Indian Ocean somewhere
There’s a former army post
Abandoned now just like the war
And there’s no doubt about it
It was the myth of fingerprints
That’s what that old army post was for
Have you considered that the plane may have landed on a floating pykrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete) runway, but it drifted to the north, outside the current search zone to a warmer area, where the wood pulp melted and the plane sank?Of course.
Probably a few - albeit smaller ones, yes, and generally that's probably why this sort of thing doesn't happen very regularly. But on that occasion it might not have been able to land where it needed to be to pick people up (in malaysia) or they might not have had time.
But the asset might have been the plane itself rather than the people on it - how do you think they acquire any plane in the first place, or replace it when it gets old, they can't just walk into a boeing showroom, pick one, and pay the nice man at the counter.
....Naah. If you're in a hurry you look at the ads in Flight for secondhand airliners. Or pick up the phone & ring a broker. :P
But the asset might have been the plane itself rather than the people on it - how do you think they acquire any plane in the first place, or replace it when it gets old, they can't just walk into a boeing showroom, pick one, and pay the nice man at the counter.
Is Ben researching a Dan Brownesque novel?
Is Ben researching a Dan Brownesque novel?
No. Ben doesn'd do research. Dan Brown does erudite, thought-through, believable and credible literature compared to Ben's stream of tripe.
And what's more, Ben believes this to be true (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=72990.0).
(Don't read that thread. No, really, don't. You'll waste hours. You'll be astonished by just how much shite one person can produce while failing to address any points made to him. Actually, maybe you won't - you've read this thread. And that one's shorter. Go ahead.)
And what's more, Ben believes this to be true (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=72990.0).
(Don't read that thread. No, really, don't. You'll waste hours. You'll be astonished by just how much shite one person can produce while failing to address any points made to him. Actually, maybe you won't - you've read this thread. And that one's shorter. Go ahead.)
To be fair to me, I've actually been very conservative and resisted blowing anyone's mind by skirting round the elephant in the room, the reason WHY they might have been so desparate to get to antarctica. Which as long as everyone is so consumed with ridiculing just the notion of it per se to even answer the question of logical deductive reasoning that I asked, there's not really even much point talking about the motive.
So they are picking up signals one day to the next, but they are hundreds of kilometers apart. This pretty much confirms to me that a shark has indeed eaten something they are confusing for a black box, and is swimming around with it inside. Ocean currents cannot explain distances as big as that. The key now is to find that shark
... it doesn't necessarily mean in itself that anything salubrious happened....Best not to use words you don't understand, Ben.
You don't believe it could possibly have been, I'm not sure either way -keeping an open mind.The problem here is that your mind is selectively open. It rejects valuable information, & thus is led down blind alleys.
n blind alleys.[re Australia] Well, it could be. I have considered that. It had gone a bit far south before it would have needed to turn east, but it could have done. I haven't "pushed" the antarctica theory, all I've done is suggest it and defend the physical possibility of it and repeat the initial question about the logic of it which has still gone totally ignored. The fact remains it is physically possible.
BTW, looking at the latest search areas, Australia looks like a much more logical destination than Antarctica. If your mind is so open, why have you kept pushing your Antarctica hypothesis, & ignored that? :P And I'm astonished that you reject alien abduction, demonic possession, & a time warp which flipped it into the future.
I have a better theory. Ernst Stavro Blofeld is behind the whole thing. He didn't fly it to Antarctica, but to his secret base on one of the uninhabited islands of the BIOT, & he hacked the satellite to provide INMARSAT with false data, to conceal the route. There was something he wanted in the cargo hold, & it was the easiest way to get it without anyone knowing it had been stolen. He may then have had the plane flown under remote control to the area where the faked data suggested it had gone.
It's at least as likely as your theory. Can you argue against it?
You're also assuming that the laws of physics you know are correct. Poor fool! Don't you know about the theoretical physicists conspiracy to hide the truth?
[re Australia] It had gone a bit far south before it would have needed to turn east, but it could have done.
Lads.
BenT is having you on. ;D
Antarctica is of course the location of the main portal to the inside of the Hollow Earth, used by Hitler to escape and link up with a long established German civilisation.
http://www.librarising.com/conspiracy/newgermany.html
So Ben T may be onto an attempt by the Chinese to infiltrate the underworld. Nazi Flying Saucers probably intercepted the plane and dragged it through the portal with powerful tractor beams. Ben T should channel the spirit of Doug McClure and lead an expedition to the Centre of the Earth.
I am impressed : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26984162
China has postponed delivery of two pandas to Malaysia out of respect for relatives of the missing.
The giant pandas had been due to be transferred next week to mark the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
Malaysia's environment minister G Palanivel said: "During this difficult time, it seems inappropriate to arrange for the sending off and the arrival of pandas in Malaysia".
... I read that the crucial 'black box' is unlikely to contain the data about the critical moment when the aircraft departed from its normal route since the 'tape' would have 'looped' since then, i.e. does not hold details of an entire potential flight endurance. All the hijacker had to do was to keep the plane going long enough and bingo, no evidence!
The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) is the one that operates on a two-hour overwriting loop, and depending on what had happened, may indeed be of limited use.
Do you think it was coincidence that the French military chose to stick you on a boat, out in the sea, away from everything?
;D
I must have seen a dozen different ones at the Oceanography Exhibition I went to last month with work. There's quite a few around. b]How many of them could go that deep I'm not sure[/b] as they tend to be used more for coastal/river mapping.I suspect that deep diving ones are relatively rare. And we're discussing numbers in service, not varieties.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/flight-mh370-search-bay-of-bengal
Truth or bollocks, you decide....this might help.
http://georesonance.com
I know what I think.
A look at the websites history may help
http://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/)
Starts off in Jan 2011 offering Holistic healing and becomes its current version in Apr 2014 - some time after the plane went missing ;D
Yeah, I was laughing at the bit I read about remote NMR. My arse.If you read more detailed reports, they claim to have done the analysis from satellite photographs.
A look at the websites history may help
http://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/)
Starts off in Jan 2011 offering Holistic healing and becomes its current version in Apr 2014 - some time after the plane went missing ;D
Well, the domain name was transferred, so the holistic healing company is probably unrelated to the "remote sensing" company.
~
A look at the websites history may help
http://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/)
Starts off in Jan 2011 offering Holistic healing and becomes its current version in Apr 2014 - some time after the plane went missing ;D
Well, the domain name was transferred, so the holistic healing company is probably unrelated to the "remote sensing" company.
Which doesn't mean the new georesonance are not also crazy. They have form: apparently they located the MV Mauritania in the Black Sea in 2005. ...
saw this in the news recently suspiciously just after the plane went missing:
http://www.livescience.com/38078-pine-island-glacier-iceberg.html
might be nothing to do with it but you've got to ask yourself the question.
I can't be bothered to trawl through the thread but I take it that we do all know that the US did have a top secret underground nuclear powered arctic base?
I can't be bothered to trawl through the thread but I take it that we do all know that the US did have a top secret underground nuclear powered arctic base?
No, there really was ;D I'm not shitting you
I can't be bothered to trawl through the thread but I take it that we do all know that the US did have a top secret underground nuclear powered arctic base?
The plane was last seen a long way from the Arctic.
I can't be bothered to trawl through the thread but I take it that we do all know that the US did have a top secret underground nuclear powered arctic base?
The plane was last seen a long way from the Arctic.
Current address is in Adelaide, but the person named on the old site offers massage, floating in an enclosed tank, etc. from an address in Illinois. And looks like this -A look at the websites history may help
http://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20110128130011/http://georesonance.com/)
Starts off in Jan 2011 offering Holistic healing and becomes its current version in Apr 2014 - some time after the plane went missing ;D
Well, the domain name was transferred, so the holistic healing company is probably unrelated to the "remote sensing" company.
~
The bullshits the same so it's very likely the same people but who knows
What makes you think there is only one Arctic??
Well well well..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10802361/MH370-Malaysia-report-indicates-plane-flew-route-to-avoid-detection.html
UK satellite operator Inmarsat is to offer a free, basic tracking service to all the world's passenger airliners...
..The offer follows the case of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared without trace on 8 March...
Our equipment is on 90% of the world's wide-body jets already*. This is an immediate fix for the industry at no cost to the industry," Inmarsat senior vice-president Chris McLaughlin told BBC News...
..Cost is one of the reasons often cited for the reluctance of airlines to routinely use satellite tracking...
..Many observers were incredulous that a Boeing 777 could simply vanish, that its identification systems could be deliberately disabled in the cockpit, and that once the aircraft flew beyond the range of radar it was essentially invisible...
..[Inmarsat]already does something similar in the maritime sector. All distress calls from ships are relayed over its network free of charge...
..The official leading the hunt for the missing airliner says a full search of the suspected crash area could take up to a year.
:thumbsup:
On a side note, I am amazed that you are allowed to discuss where her majesty's subs are patrolling.
..trying to suggest there weren't subs in the area anyway. Or maybe there weren't but they are trying to make us think they'd tell us that they were sending one to cover up the fact that there wasn't one and there is a gap in our world surveillance program. Which there may or may not be.
We are now looking for a whistle-blower on the not unsurprising assumption that someone out there knows more that they are letting on:
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/world-news/165000-missing-malaysia-jet-mh370-whistleblower-fund-set-up
..trying to suggest there weren't subs in the area anyway. Or maybe there weren't but they are trying to make us think they'd tell us that they were sending one to cover up the fact that there wasn't one and there is a gap in our world surveillance program. Which there may or may not be.
We are now looking for a whistle-blower on the not unsurprising assumption that someone out there knows more that they are letting on:
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/world-news/165000-missing-malaysia-jet-mh370-whistleblower-fund-set-up
As one of the crew of that submarine is a contributor to this thread, just four posts before yours, I think it's a bit crass to suggest that no British submarine was actually there and that it was some kind of PR spin!
A sailing lady has come out saying she saw it go do else where.https://saucysailoress.wordpress.comNot saying unequivocally. She saw something.
Surely it's on the news because a plane has vanished?
7 minutes ago:BBC have just tweeted Virgin flight #VS43 lands safely at Gatwick Airport after problems with landing gear
A Virgin Atlantic passenger plane [747] "is preparing to implement a non-standard landing" at Gatwick airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30625945)
Fingers and everything else crossed..
Ref the Gatwick Virgin Jumbo, was that TimC at the helm I wonder ?
That's a skilful bit of plane driving:
Ref the Gatwick Virgin Jumbo, was that TimC at the helm I wonder ?
Whither the A380? 22 wheels...
Whither the A380? 22 wheels...
Yes, but it's fat and ugly. End of. And the AN225 needs the wheels because it's more of a ground transportation device for extreme loads than it is an aeroplane. All pictures of it flying are Photoshopped. Trufax.
On a more serious note, those four missing wheel do quite a lot of work. The aeroplane had a distinct list to starboard after it got on the ground. Now, just where did we put the huge FO trolley jack?
Some time ago, talking in this blog about MH370, I remarked that we should get used to the idea that we might never find the missing aircraft.
My logic was based on the fact that it had disappeared into a very big ocean and we knew very little about which way it went after it was lost from radar.
I am now more optimistic about finding it, because a consensus is building about where the aircraft is likely to be. The Australian Transport Safety Board, leading the search, has refined the search area down to a workable size, and several independent sources working on the sparse available data are coming up with theories that at least harmonise with the ATSB calculations, but then refine them somewhat.
In Flightglobal’s case, a senior Boeing 777 captain who got in touch with us has good reason to believe he’s calculated the final route of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. He has certainly submitted a convincing geometric explanation for his conclusions.
I thought it had been identified as a domestic ladderThat was the second item that washed up a little later
The wing part has been positively identified as from MH370. The serial number on it has been linked to that particular Boeing 777.