Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

sopretty

Jack1985 wrote: »

Yes but I'm far from going down the road of political conspiracy which you seemed to be alluding to yesterday r.e. worlds forces in the search. Simply I am pissed of by a PM turning it into a political football.

I was not going down the route of political conspiracy being involved in the loss of the plane. Rather that I found it quite novel and unbelievable that the political forces involved, were happy to collaborate in this search.

Calina

Mountainsandh wrote: »

http://news.msn.co.nz/worldnews/8828684/mh370-black-box-may-have-been-found

"Black boxes of MH370 may have been found," he (Geoffrey Thomas) wrote on Twitter.

"PM to make announcement at 11.45am (WST)."

edit : just noticed the times, not very good at that... Is the Tony Abbott conference the one past ? The one where he said they are "confident" ?


Dammit :mad:

Surely made a big fuss of nothing.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000109150&story_title=searchers-confident-of-position-of-mh370-s-black-boxes

Material quote:

We are confident that we know the position of the black box flight recorder to within some kilometers (miles)," Abbott said in a speech in the Chinese commercial capital Shanghai.

Step by step improvements.

gerire

What's the possible pressure implications on a pressurised cylinder at that depth.

Something like titanic was solid steel an aircraftis far from that

Is it ppossible it's been crushed

Maximus Alexander

gerire wrote: »

What's the possible pressure implications on a pressurised cylinder at that depth.

Something like titanic was solid steel an aircraftis far from that

Is it ppossible it's been crushed

It doesn't work like that. Things get crushed at depth when the pressure inside is far, far lower than outside and the structure is no longer able to withstand that difference in force - like a submarine filled with air buckling at depth.

When a ship or an aircraft sink they fill with water, so the pressure is equalized and they don't get crushed.

Mountainsandh

Except if some air remained inside the aircraft while it sank quickly to 700 ft, then the crush could happen, according to a poster on another website. That's assuming the aircraft had "landed" on the water in good enough condition to retain air inside for the sinking (not very likely so). Check my earlier posts for link to that page.

flanna01

sopretty wrote: »

Are you dudes aware of what bullying is? It's persistent ridicule, isolation and insulting of a poster.
If you wish to pick apart my post, pick it apart. Don't pretend to take some sort of 'moral high ground' by announcing to all and sundry that you have me on your ignore list.
I'm sure the thanks will be flying in to your post. Well done. Congratulations.
You cannot argue your point, so you attempt to ridicule me to make up for your lack of an argument.

Excellent response!!

BorneTobyWilde

What if there is no plane, that these pingers were simply dropped into the ocean.
What if these pingers are black and shaped like a rock.
What if the battery dies in few days and pingers are never located.
What if wreckage is never found, will the world believe it crashed.
YES


But my point is... that the families would never believe ,as they have zero evidence, and it's easy to understand their frustration.

Jack1985

This thread gets more ridiculous on the hour now, pingers dropped into the ocean what the hell are you suggesting?? What if, what if - None of us are investigators on this forum - and to be honest I believe most of us are hoping for the best, rather than constantly focusing on the ''what if'' negatives which will add nothing to do you personally nor to the families.

And by the way the only families really protesting making scenes are the Chinese, these citizens coming from a country which has conspiracy embedded in its foundations - Easy to see why they are speculative and a Chinese relative said that.

BorneTobyWild, maybe focus on the positive What if's for a change.

BlackEdelweiss

I'm just going to wait for the movie to come out and see what happened.

Mountainsandh

Jack1985 wrote: »

This thread gets more ridiculous on the hour now, pingers dropped into the ocean what the hell are you suggesting?? What if, what if - None of us are investigators on this forum -.

I don't think any theory, conspiracy or not, can be labelled ridiculous in this particular event.

What is the current acceptable theory ?

Technical problem/fire, no distress calls, ghost plane avoided Indonesia all on its own to make its way to IO and crash without trace ?

Pilot suicide, but for some reason said pilot manoeuvred plane back across Malaysia, then took a round about way towards IO, and rather than crash straight away, waited until fuel ran out, possibly attempting to land the plane on water resulting in less debris ?

Hijacking to nowhere without the glory of claiming it ?

All theories are nonsensical in this event. Conspiracy theories or not.

In my opinion it is arrogant to dismiss conspiracy theories in this particular case. I wouldn't say that of other cases/current affairs.

Giving least or almost no credit to the most far fetched ones is reasonable, dismissing potential political/economical/military motive and conspiracy is not.

We all have our idea of what is "far fetched", of what we think people, organizations, or governments are capable of, we don't have to abide by the same scale.

What sounds ridiculous to some is simply plausible to others. It's not a big deal, and since this thread is labelled "speculation and discussion", I think it is acceptable that some more far fetched theories may be mentioned, even if they hurt some people's eyes.

Flippyfloppy

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I don't think any theory, conspiracy or not, can be labelled ridiculous in this particular event.

What is the current acceptable theory ?

Technical problem/fire, no distress calls, ghost plane avoided Indonesia all on its own to make its way to IO and crash without trace ?

Pilot suicide, but for some reason said pilot manoeuvred plane back across Malaysia, then took a round about way towards IO, and rather than crash straight away, waited until fuel ran out, possibly attempting to land the plane on water resulting in less debris ?

Hijacking to nowhere without the glory of claiming it ?

All theories are nonsensical in this event. Conspiracy theories or not.

In my opinion it is arrogant to dismiss conspiracy theories in this particular case. I wouldn't say that of other cases/current affairs.

Giving least or almost no credit to the most far fetched ones is reasonable, dismissing potential political/economical/military motive and conspiracy is not.

We all have our idea of what is "far fetched", of what we think people, organizations, or governments are capable of, we don't have to abide by the same scale.

What sounds ridiculous to some is simply plausible to others. It's not a big deal, and since this thread is labelled "speculation and discussion", I think it is acceptable that some more far fetched theories may be mentioned, even if they hurt some people's eyes.

Isn't the whole point that there is a conspiracy theory forum especially for that kind of thing though

sopretty

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Isn't the whole point that there is a conspiracy theory forum especially for that kind of thing though

Is speculation allowed according to your good self?

Flippyfloppy

sopretty wrote: »

Is speculation allowed according to your good self?

Look who's talking !?

sopretty

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Look who's talking !?

Yes.............. and.............. your point is............?

Flippyfloppy

sopretty wrote: »

Yes.............. and.............. your point is............?

Your WANs been back seat modding on this thread since this began, freaking out about people wondering if sharks may have eaten the poor tourists, then all of your posts over the last .......24 ......hours......laugh....able.... You don't even know what your point is anymore!

Mountainsandh

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Isn't the whole point that there is a conspiracy theory forum especially for that kind of thing though

Well my point here is more that in this particular event, the whole notion of what is a conspiracy theory is a bit rearranged. Since every current theory, whether it involves political manipulation or not, makes little sense.

Hopefully the black boxes will be recovered, and will make sense of this muddle. In the meantime, the range of acceptable explanations is wider than it would be for other catastrophes, so imo it is acceptable that these should be discussed here.

Hope that's a bit clearer.

To me the definition of conspiracy theories as in, the CT forum, is that they are alternative, and far fetched theories on an event that has an apparent obvious, and official explanation.

In this case, there is no apparent, obvious, and official explanation.

Flippyfloppy

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Well my point here is more that in this particular event, the whole notion of what is a conspiracy theory is a bit rearranged. Since every current theory, whether it involves political manipulation or not, makes little sense.

Hopefully the black boxes will be recovered, and will make sense of this muddle. In the meantime, the range of acceptable explanations is wider than it would be for other catastrophes, so imo it is acceptable that these should be discussed here.

Hope that's a bit clearer.

To me the definition of conspiracy theories as in, the CT forum, is that they are alternative, and far fetched theories on an event that has an apparent obvious, and official explanation.

In this case, there is no apparent, obvious, and official explanation.

In that instance I suppose it's difficult to speculate upon what is actually a conspiracy and what's not until the official story comes out about what happened......however it does irk me when posters get hung up about 'hidden reasons' for finding the aircraft etc etc .

Mountainsandh

We get annoyed at different levels of speculation. I've seen some suggestions I quietly find ridiculous, and I've made some others thought were ridiculous. But I don't think there's a need to get all worked up about it and hunt some people out.

Not just yet anyway.

I know for myself, that if I can't accept results or answers that are plausible from the black boxes, I will probably migrate to CT forums to see what's said there, and refrain from posting here, and I would understand then if people got p**d off at these sort of theories persisting.

Everything about this case is "unprecedented". A political/terrorist machination involving manipulation of a commercial plane passengers on board would be just another unprecedented dramatic event.

Unprecedented doesn't necessarily mean impossible.

K.Flyer

pclancy wrote: »

Landing on the Ocean would have been practically impossible because it was night and hence impossible to judge their height and flare and because there are usually huge swells and winds in that part of the world. Its nothing remotely like the Hudson river.

Certainly in the areas originally thought to have been the crash area further south in the Indian Ocean such an attempt may have been a bit optimistic, but I have just been watching the recent TV reports and the area that is being considered as the location of the Black Box looks relatively calm, in fact almost as good as the Hudson River.

Merkin

K.Flyer wrote: »

Certainly in the areas originally thought to have been the crash area further south in the Indian Ocean such an attempt may have been a bit optimistic, but I have just been watching the recent TV reports and the area that is being considered as the location of the Black Box looks relatively calm, in fact almost as good as the Hudson River.

I don't think it would have been night time either when it got to it's final resting place as it was a red eye flight that flew on for seven hours or so so it would have been a bright and early morning at that stage.

Windy Miller

sopretty wrote: »

Eh....... no it's not. I got the implication from his post that some sort of layperson (the fella on top of the mountain, looking for the suitcase), has to figure out the triangulation for themselves.

The fact is, they have heard the signal, they have by now triangulated I am sure, so they pretty much know where this signal is. It's literally a case of accessing the position imo.

Not quite so simple I'm afraid.

In order to triangulate, you need to have multiple (3 or more) observations of a signal, with an indication of the direction from which they were received. To determine direction accurately would require a widely spaced array of sensors, e.g. multiple seismic streamers spaced 10m apart and km's in length. Unfortunatley in this case we have one towed pinger locator which can basically detect presence or otherwise of a signal.

Given this is the case, the best that can be done is to traverse the area several times in different directions, noting where the signal is acquired and lost. This should give a rough circle of points, with the source as its locus. This assumes that the strength of the emitted signal is relatively constant, and that temperature and salinity is relatively constant over the area in question. Generally a temperature, pressure, salinity probe would be deployed to test the water column and allow corrections to be made for refraction at the boundary layers.


Just my tuppenceworth from 10 years experience of hydrographic surveying.

Windy Miller

In fact, this infographic from the Washington post explains the complexities quite well. Note especially that random signals can appear miles from source due to refraction/reflection.

I would say the sonobuoys deployed from the Orion aircraft are next to no use in this case, being so close to the surface. At least the towed locator is at around 10,000 ft but that in itself makes it quite hard to determine its own location accurately.

sully2010

THE co-pilot of missing Malaysia Airlines plane made a desperate call from his mobile phone moments before the jet went off the radar.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-copilot-made-urgent-call-before-going-off-radar/story-fnizu68q-1226881588752

sopretty

sully2010 wrote: »

THE co-pilot of missing Malaysia Airlines plane made a desperate call from his mobile phone moments before the jet went off the radar.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-copilot-made-urgent-call-before-going-off-radar/story-fnizu68q-1226881588752

There's also some news coming out that the military had detected the plane

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-malaysia-airplane-investigation-idUSBREA3A0NS20140411

sopretty

sully2010 wrote: »

THE co-pilot of missing Malaysia Airlines plane made a desperate call from his mobile phone moments before the jet went off the radar.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-copilot-made-urgent-call-before-going-off-radar/story-fnizu68q-1226881588752

This quote from that article doesn't quite justify the headline imo:

"Checks on his phone showed that connection to the phone had been “detached” before the plane took off. “This is usually the result of the phone being switched off. At one point, however, when the airplane was airborne, between waypoint Igari and the spot near Penang (just before it went missing from radar), the line was ‘reattached’.
“A ‘reattachment’ does not necessarily mean that a call was made. It can also be the result of the phone being switched on again,” the sources said."

Basically, they know he switched on his phone at that point.

Growler!!!

QUOTE=sully2010;89902190]THE co-pilot of missing Malaysia Airlines plane made a desperate call from his mobile phone moments before the jet went off the radar.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-copilot-made-urgent-call-before-going-off-radar/story-fnizu68q-1226881588752[/QUOTE]

Sensationalist journo's, got to love them. Desperate call made.

However the report then states:

A ‘reattachment’ does not necessarily mean that a call was made. It can also be the result of the phone being switched on again,” the sources said.

Seems like the phone was left on in his flight bag and picked up a signal.

sully2010

Its still interesting that he attempted to turn his mobile phone on at a point after it crossed Malaysia.

sopretty

Growler!!! wrote: »

Seems like the phone was left on in his flight bag and picked up a signal.

Would it be the case that he did actually turn the phone on? It sounds to me like it was turned off and then on. Would it be usual for a pilot to turn on their phones mid-flight? Have a game of candy crush or something lol?

sully2010

Growler!!! wrote: »

QUOTE=sully2010;89902190]THE co-pilot of missing Malaysia Airlines plane made a desperate call from his mobile phone moments before the jet went off the radar.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-copilot-made-urgent-call-before-going-off-radar/story-fnizu68q-1226881588752

Sensationalist journo's, got to love them. Desperate call made.

However the report then states:

A ‘reattachment’ does not necessarily mean that a call was made. It can also be the result of the phone being switched on again,” the sources said.

Seems like the phone was left on in his flight bag and picked up a signal.[/QUOTE]



Thats a good point in fairness, but surely more than 1 mobile phone would have been left on by accident, and these signals would also have been picked up.

Growler!!!

sopretty wrote: »

Would it be the case that he did actually turn the phone on? It sounds to me like it was turned off and then on. Would it be usual for a pilot to turn on their phones mid-flight? Have a game of candy crush or something lol?

It's in our checklist to switch them off. But sometimes if I'm busy i only find out its still on as we approach our destination.
I've picked up 3g signal at 8000ft over the Midlands!

Murders the battery life if it's searching for a signal.