Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

billie1b

Jimjay wrote: »

it says in that report that 5 passengers checked in then did not board the flight. How usual is that? i can understand that airlines have people not turning up at all but checking in processing your luggage and then not boarding. They are very lucky people.

I'm a flight dispatcher, it happens a lot more than you think. People lose track in the airport all the time when going for flights. A lot of people still to this day believe if your flight is at 3pm that they dont have to be at the gate until 3pm. My record off-load one day was 19 pax and 18 bags, an hour after departure time they started turning up in dribs n drabs.

L1011

Jack1985 wrote: »

All I can go on is my own experience but last Tuesday, one of our flights had 8 missing passengers who were checked in although online and none of them had baggage and they are great days!

8 checked in online or 8 scanned through security?

8 checked in online but not turning up at all would be low for some flights!

Jack1985

The best one I can think of is, a passenger who missed her flight believed the scheduled time on her itinerary was the check-in time - And then spent forty minutes lecturing the check-in staff that it was gross misconduct by the airline to not state that the time was the actual scheduled departure time, it was then pointed out to her the scheduled time was the same as when she had purchased the flight, well she nearly through a wobbler haha. :P

8 checked in online or 8 scanned through security?

8 checked in online but not turning up at all would be low for some flights!

Nope just online hadn't even show up at all, in low season when flights are not that full thats sort of high.

homerjay2005

the Andaman sea is 100's of miles off its route, why on earth are they searching in there?

SpaceTime

billie1b wrote: »

I'm a flight dispatcher, it happens a lot more than you think. People lose track in the airport all the time when going for flights. A lot of people still to this day believe if your flight is at 3pm that they dont have to be at the gate until 3pm. My record off-load one day was 19 pax and 18 bags, an hour after departure time they started turning up in dribs n drabs.

The same people who say they're meeting you at 8:00pm and leave their house at 7:59.

SpaceTime

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the Andaman sea is 100's of miles off its route, why on earth are they searching in there?

Because the plane must have been hundreds of miles off route or we'd have found it by now?

The data from radar must way off. Maybe it was flying for 30-45 min untracked without radios?

fits

fits wrote: »

saw it on pprune post 1319 but can't find another source. On phone so can't link. Seems kosher.

actually I can't verify this at all. Few posts on twitter but nothing trustworty.

billie1b

SpaceTime wrote: »

The same people who say they're meeting you at 8:00pm and leave their house at 7:59.

Yeah pretty much, that 19 people I offloaded were on the one flight. If the people have kids, I give them a few minutes extra but if its all adults I have no sympathy.

vicwatson

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i dont think it was hijacked, i think it exploded in mid air and this will be down to a maintenance issue.

it just doesnt bare the hallmark of a hijack.

Maybe it was and a bomb exoloded prematurely which gave no one a chance to do/say anything

I dont get why they aren't getting anything from the beacons that set off on contact with water

SpaceTime

fits wrote: »

actually I can't verify this at all. Few posts on twitter but nothing trustworty.

Hard to really follow the hashtags for anything technical.

SpaceTime

vicwatson wrote: »

Maybe it was and a bomb exoloded prematurely which gave no one a chance to do/say anything

I dont get why they aren't getting anything from the beacons that set off on contact with water

If they're underwater quite deep the signal isn't easy to detect apparently as the water attenuates it.

If one bobs to the surface it will be picked up.

fits

Here's a link

http://www.tienphong.vn/xa-hoi/truc-tiep-xac-minh-thong-tin-nhieu-manh-vo-gan-vung-tau-684926.tpo

Tigerandahalf

SpaceTime wrote: »

If they're underwater quite deep the signal isn't easy to detect apparently as the water attenuates it.

If one bobs to the surface it will be picked up.

It seems very strange that no debris at all has been found. If they are suspecting mid air break up you would think a lot of seats and baggage would be floating somewhere or would even have washed ashore at this stage.

SpaceTime

It is strange alright.

It would depend on how far from shore it is and in currents and weather though.

brandon_flowers

fits wrote: »

Here's a link

http://www.tienphong.vn/xa-hoi/truc-tiep-xac-minh-thong-tin-nhieu-manh-vo-gan-vung-tau-684926.tpo

Thanks, found another link also.

http://vnexpress.net/tin-tuc/thoi-su/hong-kong-phat-hien-mot-so-manh-vo-gan-vung-tau-2961411.html

homerjay2005

SpaceTime wrote: »

Because the plane must have been hundreds of miles off route or we'd have found it by now?

The data from radar must way off. Maybe it was flying for 30-45 min untracked without radios?

it gives the impression that they really do not know where it went missing.

SpaceTime

homerjay2005 wrote: »

it gives the impression that they really do not know where it went missing.

They obviously don't or they'd have located it.

To put in context. Its a bit like losing it 'in Europe'

Jack1985

It seems very strange that no debris at all has been found. If they are suspecting mid air break up you would think a lot of seats and baggage would be floating somewhere or would even have washed ashore at this stage.

A mid-air explosion especially over water usually means the debris is very hard to find because a contained aircraft at plus 470kts which explodes would do so in every direction, and if it happened at 35,000ft that would also add to the distribution of the debris, the debris could be theoretically anywhere especially if it drifts further out to sea.

homerjay2005

SpaceTime wrote: »

They obviously don't or they'd have located it.

well no, the location of the air france plane was known and it took 4 days to find it.

if it broke up in mid air as it appears likely, then the debris would be huge. i just cannot understand how they are searching two completely different areas, one of which is separated by land and 100's of miles off course.

the plane either turned around or it didnt, has that not been cleared up yet?

irishmover

Jack1985 wrote: »

A mid-air explosion especially over water usually means the debris is very hard to find because a contained aircraft at plus 470kts which explodes would do so in every direction, and if it happened at 35,000ft that would also add to the distribution of the debris, the debris could be theoretically anywhere especially if it drifts further out to sea.

I'm not so sure, I guess it depends on things.

The China airlines 611 flight I was hampering on about earlier was found the same day. It's debris field was quite large yes, but it was relatively close to where it's contact was lost. If you do a quick google search you'll be able to find it.

Jack1985

irishmover wrote: »

I'm not so sure, I guess it depends on things.

The China airlines 611 flight I was hampering on about earlier was found the same day. It's debris field was quite large yes, but it was relatively close to where it's contact was lost. If you do a quick google search you'll be able to find it.

Yep seen it a few years back, botched up tail-strike repair?

irishmover

Jack1985 wrote: »

Yep seen it a few years back, botched up tail-strike repair?

From 22 years prior to the crash. Almost to the day. Awful really. Putting everyone's lives on board in the hands of a slack maintenance crew.

Makes you wonder.

homerjay2005

irishmover wrote: »

From 22 years prior to the crash. Almost to the day. Awful really. Putting everyone's lives on board in the hands of a slack maintenance crew.

Makes you wonder.

its highly possible that this latest incident is due to the same thing, especially given the fact that the previous damage i believe, was on the wing and thus, close to fuel tanks.

Jack1985

homerjay2005 wrote: »

its highly possible that this latest incident is due to the same thing, especially given the fact that the previous damage i believe, was on the wing and thus, close to fuel tanks.

To be fair, China Airlines back then had a history of bad maintenance, they changed their act then fairly quickly after that accident. Malaysia Airlines have no history of faulty maintenance or bad maintenance and the aircraft 9M-MRO was out of service for a few months after that incident, it was sent back to Boeing the manufacturer for repair.

irishmover

homerjay2005 wrote: »

its highly possible that this latest incident is due to the same thing, especially given the fact that the previous damage i believe, was on the wing and thus, close to fuel tanks.

Which previous damage? On the Malaysian flight or the China Airlines flight from 2002?

homerjay2005

irishmover wrote: »

Which previous damage? On the Malaysian flight or the China Airlines flight from 2002?

this one..

irishmover

I didn't realize there had been prior damage to the Malaysian aircraft. Makes it all the more plausible now eh?

homerjay2005

news conferance set up for a few minutes time.

SpaceTime

homerjay2005 wrote: »

news conferance set up for a few minutes time.

Sounds ominous!

brandon_flowers

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26512773

Can be watched live here.