Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
ProfessorPlum wrote: »Well, so long as you don't mind being in the crash in the first place so.....
If you had correctly read my post in the first place, you would not have gotten confused as to what I was saying.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
But you are far more likely to be in a car crash so your chances of dying are still far higher than your chances of dying in a plane crash.
I never said it was rational nor statistically analysed thinking. You can't argue though, that if something goes wrong with a plane, you're in serious trouble, rather than if something goes wrong with your car, where you can just pull in.
Why do you guys feel the need to pick on my posts?
It's getting a 'little' irritating at this stage. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Oh dear! Here we go again, perhaps you should read through the entire thread before you post - difficult I know. Every one of your comments are either incorrect or have been proven false on numerous occaisions here and on the various pilot forums.
I am familiar with the thread. There are many opinions expressed but not much has been "proven" as you suggest. Are you suggesting that someone on board MH370 did not attempt to "go black"? That assertion is neither proven or disproven at this stage. I simply put the assertion forward as a strong possibility.
I'd say you just contradicted yourself there. Fact: There was a series of two-way "conversations" via satellite between a ground station and MH370.BTW it was a ground station via an INMARSAT satellite that routinely contacted the aircraft to ask "Hello" and "Are you there?" The aircraft didn't communicate with a monitoring satelite. And these were only tracked back through historical logs while trying to work out the track.
The engineers at Boeing know what protocols could be thus enabled but I don't think they are likely to pop up here and tell us. Given that this is likely to be military grade technology they are probably bound by some official secrets act just like the NSA has all your internet services so bound. Note that I say "probably".
Also this yarn about trawling back through the records does not eliminate the posibility that these "pings" could have been directed to a live operator as they occurred. They should have been. Who knows maybe in the future unusual events like this will be "trapped" and sent to someone who might do some thing about it before innocent people start dying.As for "remote control" - a huge job and I guess you missed the efforts of those trying to remote control a B727 crash into a desert.
I don't get the relevance of this B727 experiment. Flying a plane by remote control is easy, Just feed the usual parameters into the autopilot and sit back. Of course landing a plane is another matter.:) 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yep seat of the pants is a much better approach. You should write to the manufacturer and operator as I am sure they will appreciate your well considered advice.
Well, I'd have thought it might be intelligent enough to either:
A) not exceed its safe functional depth
or
retreat slightly before breaching its safe functional depth
It sounds to me like it says to itself 'Eh, right now folks, my work here is done, I'm not paid to go down any further, I'm retreating to the surface on Health and Safety grounds'.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement