Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

gumbo1

Tenger wrote: »

It may not be a perfect solution but it is the solution that has been imposed.

Far be it from me to argue or question mods decisions. May I just offer this, if I hadn't been here from pretty much the start of the thread an seen/read all posts I don't think I would read all 500 pages and check links provided.
Not questioning anyone just wondered was all!

mickmackey1

Oryx wrote: »

In any case you cannot use the lack of debris to extrapolate that the plane did not go down in the sea.

The presence of debris would be somewhat helpful though :rolleyes:

Mountainsandh

It would be interesting to know actual statistics or probabilities that debris are indeed "stuck in the gyre" for this amount of time and in the future.

It is as speculative to say that it is stuck in the middle of the Indian Ocean as to say that it escaped the gyre spin to shore.

There is monitoring of the French IO island territories for example, and presumably, since debris washed ashore has indeed been scrutinized before in this investigation, there is enough awareness and monitoring of the Western Australian coast that in the event some shored up would be likely to be spotted.

As it is both at sea and onshore nothing has turned up since, again despite great awareness of the case. It is not a case of building a conspiracy theory, this is simply factual observation.

I don't believe there is a high probability that debris would not have washed ashore or been spotted by now, but we don't have that statistical information so that's my opinion.

tldr :

Plane crashes, no debris shows up at sea and on shore in the following 4 months. Highly probable, or not ?

Plane crashes, no debris is found by humans at sea or on shore in the following 4 months. Highly probable, or not ?

murphaph

A plane falling from cruising altitude will disintegrate on impact with the ocean. The wreckage will be tiny bits of mostly unrecognisable origin. It's possible some of this stuff has washed up somewhere but it just doesn't look any different from the billions of other bits of crap in the world's oceans.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

A plane falling from cruising altitude will disintegrate on impact with the ocean. The wreckage will be tiny bits of mostly unrecognisable origin. It's possible some of this stuff has washed up somewhere but it just doesn't look any different from the billions of other bits of crap in the world's oceans.

I think some debris would be recognisable, they found debris from the Space Shuttle Columbia, over four states and parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and that was after the Shuttle disintegrated.

Calina

To be fair, they knew where exactly to start looking for the shuttle though.

Mountainsandh

murphaph wrote: »

A plane falling from cruising altitude will disintegrate on impact with the ocean. The wreckage will be tiny bits of mostly unrecognisable origin. It's possible some of this stuff has washed up somewhere but it just doesn't look any different from the billions of other bits of crap in the world's oceans.

Of course, so a probable scenario would be that, as it has happened a while ago near Augusta, someone would spot a potential bit of debris, and have it assessed by authorities.

Again there is great awareness of this, as previously demonstrated.

murphaph

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Of course, so a probable scenario would be that, as it has happened a while ago near Augusta, someone would spot a potential bit of debris, and have it assessed by authorities.

Again there is great awareness of this, as previously demonstrated.

Awareness is not much use when the plane crashes thousands of miles from the nearest human. Australia's west coast is not brimming with people either. I think you severely underestimate the size of the Indian Ocean.

If you were on Australia's west coast and spotted some bit of plastic a few inches by a few inches (possibly surrounded by lots of other bits of crap), would you know that that particular bit of plastic maybe possibly came from an aircraft and that it should be sent for analysis?

You're also hoping here that the bit that makes it ashore not only is big enough to be recognisable as something but that it comes from a part of the 777 that your average joe would be able to recognise! What if some bit of plastic trim from the avionics bay washes ashore? Would you recognise that as coming from an aircraft?? Unlikely...so you'd just walk on by like everyone else. Surely sou can see the likelihood of finding recognisable wreckage on a beach somewhere from an aircraft that stalls at cruising altitude and plummets into the ocean, thousands of miles from land at terminal velocity is actually pretty remote?

mickmackey1

It's highly unlikely that debris would be 'surrounded by lots of other bits of crap' if the Indian Ocean is as big as you say it is...

murphaph

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It's highly unlikely that debris would be 'surrounded by lots of other bits of crap' if the Indian Ocean is as big as you say it is...

Do you know how much junk is in the oceans? Have you never been on a beach?

eatmyshorts

murphaph wrote: »

Do you know how much junk is in the oceans? Have you never been on a beach?

I wouldn't waste my time trying, Murph. Show the slightest bit of logical thinking and commonsense and you'll be railroaded out of the thread.
:-o

Mountainsandh

murphaph wrote: »

Awareness is not much use when the plane crashes thousands of miles from the nearest human. Australia's west coast is not brimming with people either. I think you severely underestimate the size of the Indian Ocean.

If you were on Australia's west coast and spotted some bit of plastic a few inches by a few inches (possibly surrounded by lots of other bits of crap), would you know that that particular bit of plastic maybe possibly came from an aircraft and that it should be sent for analysis?

You're also hoping here that the bit that makes it ashore not only is big enough to be recognisable as something but that it comes from a part of the 777 that your average joe would be able to recognise! What if some bit of plastic trim from the avionics bay washes ashore? Would you recognise that as coming from an aircraft?? Unlikely...so you'd just walk on by like everyone else. Surely sou can see the likelihood of finding recognisable wreckage on a beach somewhere from an aircraft that stalls at cruising altitude and plummets into the ocean, thousands of miles from land at terminal velocity is actually pretty remote?

A lot of hyperbolic language, for a lukewarm argument really.

Yes awareness : I often go walking on beaches here in the South East. If I knew a plane crashed say, near Iceland, or Canada, anywhere for that matter, but I was aware that there was a chance debris might wash up over here, and it was crucial to report in the event I came across anything, then I would scrutinize and possibly pick up every bit of plastic.
So would any of the numerous beach combers who listen to the radio or watch the news on TV.

All that talk of "they don't seem to realize how big it is, how much junk is in it" is extremely patronizing.

People are not idiots.

Practically any person walking on a beach on the Western shore of Australia today is likely to have heard of MH370. It's as simple as that. Unless there are some remote tribes on that shore I've never heard about, completely cut off from civilization ?

Any scientist currently working in IO French islands, or Antarctica, is likely to know about MH370.

People in La Réunion and Mauritius are pretty likely to have heard about MH370 too, don't you agree ?

Some in Mahanoro might not have heard about MH370... but very likely some in the village/town will. Same with the Eastern coast of Africa.

There is also the fact that by now debris would not only have an obvious human value (as in, helping find out something about the flight), but also a commercial value (selling your find story to the media).

That is sure to help with identification of debris.

So no, I still don't think it is very likely that debris could wash ashore and not be identified.

It's pretty smug to think only a select few have a sense of scale.

kstand

When Air France 447 crashed into the ocean the fuselage was still pretty much in tact was it not? And the debris that was found certainly hadn't disintegrated into tiny fragments. So I don't know how MH370 would break into tiny parts upon impact - also, would it not have slowly stalled after the fuel was gone and then fell into the water with low velocity?

Calina

Mountainsandh wrote: »

A lot of hyperbolic language, for a lukewarm argument really.

Yes awareness : I often go walking on beaches here in the South East. If I knew a plane crashed say, near Iceland, or Canada, anywhere for that matter, but I was aware that there was a chance debris might wash up over here, and it was crucial to report in the event I came across anything, then I would scrutinize and possibly pick up every bit of plastic.
So would any of the numerous beach combers who listen to the radio or watch the news on TV.

All that talk of "they don't seem to realize how big it is, how much junk is in it" is extremely patronizing.

People are not idiots.

Practically any person walking on a beach on the Western shore of Australia today is likely to have heard of MH370. It's as simple as that. Unless there are some remote tribes on that shore I've never heard about, completely cut off from civilization ?

Any scientist currently working in IO French islands, or Antarctica, is likely to know about MH370.

People in La Réunion and Mauritius are pretty likely to have heard about MH370 too, don't you agree ?

Some in Mahanoro might not have heard about MH370... but very likely some in the village/town will. Same with the Eastern coast of Africa.

There is also the fact that by now debris would not only have an obvious human value (as in, helping find out something about the flight), but also a commercial value (selling your find story to the media).

That is sure to help with identification of debris.

So no, I still don't think it is very likely that debris could wash ashore and not be identified.

It's pretty smug to think only a select few have a sense of scale.

First up, personally speaking, if I found wreckage, I wouldn't be looking to commercially exploit the find. YMMV but I'd consider it a sick thing to do.

Secondly, there's a fascinating piece of research on the subject of modelling flotsam done on the basis of a lost shipment of rubberducks. Here's the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Floatees Look at the map and note where the shipment was lost in the Pacific and the time stamps of where some of those ducks were found. These were plastic ducks, designed to float. It took ten months for them to start turning up in Alaska which is where they were first found. They were still turning up 15 years later in all sorts of interesting places. The extent to which stuff floats around the oceans is still difficult to model away from the coasts.

This aircraft went missing in April. It's facile to say some stuff must have washed up. There is no evidence to suggest it should have and plenty of experience to suggest it could take a lot longer. If the aeroplane ditched through fuel starvation, it's hard to know how much floatable wreckage there would be

Secondly, if we look at Western Australia alone, there are swathes of the northern coast of that region which have almost no one living on them. I'm not suggesting people wouldn't recognise a piece of aircraft wreckage, I'm suggesting that if it has turned up, there isn't anyone to find it.

I'm sorry if you think it's patronising to be constantly told that people that people don't understand the scale of the problem. IMV, a lot of people do not understand the scale of the problem.

Mountainsandh

For the record I wouldn't exploit a find if it happened to me either, then again I don't live in a hut in Mozambique, and wouldn't blame someone who does if they did try to get something from a newspaper.

murphaph

kstand wrote: »

When Air France 447 crashed into the ocean the fuselage was still pretty much in tact was it not? And the debris that was found certainly hadn't disintegrated into tiny fragments. So I don't know how MH370 would break into tiny parts upon impact - also, would it not have slowly stalled after the fuel was gone and then fell into the water with low velocity?

AF447 essentially landed on the water due to pilot error. They almost got out of the mess they were in but ran out of altitude. It did not run out of fuel or stall at cruising altitude.

MH370 MAY also have "landed" on water. Nobody knows yet. I'm just putting forward a (reasonable enough) hypothesis for the case that the aircraft stalled at cruising altitude and fell to the ocean below. In that case, there would be little recognisable debris remaining. Hitting water like that is like hitting concrete.

The counter-argument seems to be "if it crashed then recognisable debris would have survived and would have washed up somewhere inhabited by now and would have been recognised by someone as belonging to MH370 and would have been tested by the authorities and because none of that appears to have happened that the plane couldn't have crashed at sea"...which I feel is a preposterous position.

mickmackey1

Calina wrote: »

This aircraft went missing in April.

:rolleyes:.

If you walked into the bookies and said a 777 will disappear today and no trace will have been found by October 20, you would be given odds of 1,000 to 1. I rest my case.

billie1b

mickmackey1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:.

If you walked into the bookies and said a 777 will disappear today and no trace will have been found by October 20, you would be given odds of 1,000 to 1. I rest my case.

Very much doubt it, otherwise everyone would be making money from it

murphaph

mickmackey1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:.

If you walked into the bookies and said a 777 will disappear today and no trace will have been found by October 20, you would be given odds of 1,000 to 1. I rest my case.

Illogical.

Calina

mickmackey1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:.

If you walked into the bookies and said a 777 will disappear today and no trace will have been found by October 20, you would be given odds of 1,000 to 1. I rest my case.

The thing about highly unlikely events is that they do still happen now and again. The bookies do have to pay out now and again.

wotswattage

Oryx wrote: »

It may not have washed ashore.
It washed ashore in a remote location.
It is small/random detritus and is not recognised for what it is.

In any case you cannot use the lack of debris to extrapolate that the plane did not go down in the sea. A lack of proof is not proof.

For me the lack of any debris being found points towards the aircraft going into the water and not breaking up signifigantly. *Note I'm saying points towards not declaring any facts.

As the search area is very far from shore, would we expect debris from a plane crash mid atlantic to be washing up on european shores after a similar timespan?? I'm not so sure I would, but the more time that passes without any shred of debris the more plausible the 'sinking intact' theory becomes.

Sinking intact to me would require a powered landing for such a big aircraft to avoid breakup. This is at odds with the evidence from the final immarsat 'half handshake' which indicated a reboot of the engine communication software after an engine shutting down (most likely from fuel exhaustion).

Basically the lack of debris makes me think intact landing + sinking
BUT its very very far from any land AND the immarsat data points towards fuel exhaustion...
Time will tell all.

murphaph

It is extremely unlikely IMO that a 777 could land at sea in that part of the world without breaking up I think. I don't think the ocean down there does "dead calm" as you'd need to have any chance of a Sullenberger type ditching on water. The Ethiopian ditching is much more likely scenario if indeed any ditching attempt was made (and I still believe at the moment that it flew at cruising altitude until it ran out of fuel)

stevedublin

More evidence seems to point to human involvement in disappearance of MH370, power cut likely caused by human intervention:
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=s~_rY!T_Y!n&w_id=10082&news_id=2012158

old_aussie

I wonder if they ever located the five people who checked in, but never boarded the flight.

"Earlier officials said that up to five passengers checked in to fly on the flight — but didn’t board the plane.

Their luggage was taken off after officials realised but it is not clear how they fit in to the mystery of the vanished jet"

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysia-airlines-plane-missing-search-fails-to-turn-up-any-confirmed-wreckage-or-clues-two-days-after-it-vanished/story-fnizu68q-1226849877056?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=travel

squonk

I'm sure they have. It's like any other air incident. Those people always come out of the woodworki. There's always "Well I was booked on that flight but got delayed and missed it" interviews.

eatmyshorts

Any chance of getting back on topic?

Joeseph Balls

I missed a train once....

Tenger

'pulls himself together'

OK folks later today I will delete the last page as its pretty much all off topic. No harm/insult meant to any posters recently. Just a thread tidy effort

Dublin Red Devil

And an actual Malaysia plane has just crashed in Russia with 295 on board

Synode

Talk of it being shot down