Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

relaxed

amdublin wrote: »

It's not "pretty obvious" at all.

Of course it's crashed. No other explanation other than beam me up aliens.

old_aussie

Malaysia's ambassador to China, Iskandar Sarudin, reportedly told relatives of some of the 153 Chinese passengers on board the plane that "now is not the time" to reveal what information the military may have on its route.

Singapore's Straits Times newspaper also said he revealed that the last radio transmission from the cockpit before it switched from Malaysian to Vietnamese airspace was "Alright, good night".

- 'Total incompetence' -

Analysts said there were burning questions over what information -- if any -- Malaysia has gleaned from both military and civilian radar, and the Boeing 777's transponders, and over discounted reports it was later detected near Indonesia.

"It's bad enough for a wide-body jet to go missing with 239 people on board, but then for the responsible country's government and aviation agencies to handle the associated information with total incompetence is unforgivable," said David Learmount from industry magazine Flightglobal.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkx2tLA1tsWsYzP6_z__LdxBPhfQ?docId=0feb215f-d298-4824-a590-1830a5dc7bc9

knucklehead6

amdublin wrote: »

It's not "pretty obvious" at all.

So what do YOU think happened??

Either the plane has crashed or has landed somewhere.

if it's landed somewhere then it's not a hijacking, as there would have been SOME demands at this stage.
So that leaves the plane being stolen and stripped for spare parts. And also the execution of the passengers and crew.

Don't come back with any of that alien abduction guff, these are the only options there are. And in my opinion that plane has crashed.

A Primal Nut

http://twitpic.com/dy1qmm

Alleged sighting of something on fire in the area.

buckfasterer

amdublin wrote: »

It's not "pretty obvious" at all.

If it didn't crash then it has landed somewhere. Also if there was any form or terrorist involvement, you can be as sure as anything there would have been statements made either claiming to have done it or to make demands for release.

Highflyer13

brandon_flowers wrote: »

Hopefully the media interest will die down soon and let the SAR and investigation teams do their job without having to bow to the requests of blood thirsty hacks who frankly know nothing about aviation. Even some of the "experts" they have called up in the media are only pushing sensationalist theories and being the cynical bastard I am they are getting well paid to give that slant of opinion.

Its only now that the media are starting to really quiz the Malaysian authorities and rightly so because they are far from transparent. Anybody who knows aviation and the different variables involved realises that there major issues with the information being released so far.

Lirange

A Primal Nut wrote: »

http://twitpic.com/dy1qmm

Alleged sighting of something on fire in the area.

Now that is interesting.

amdublin

relaxed wrote: »

Of course it's crashed. No other explanation other than beam me up aliens.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

So what do YOU think happened??

Either the plane has crashed or has landed somewhere.

if it's landed somewhere then it's not a hijacking, as there would have been SOME demands at this stage.
So that leaves the plane being stolen and stripped for spare parts. And also the execution of the passengers and crew.

Don't come back with any of that alien abduction guff, these are the only options there are. And in my opinion that plane has crashed.

Sorry I was referring to the whole post I.e. Its pretty obvious they don't know where it is etc. Pretty obvious it crashed and the why may never be found out.

I think it's crashed. I think they will find it but it is a huge area and in the scheme of things it's a small item so it's going to take a few more days. I think once they find it, they will find the bb - but of course that could take months/years. But when they do find the bb they'll find the cause.

A Primal Nut

A Primal Nut wrote: »

http://twitpic.com/dy1qmm

Alleged sighting of something on fire in the area.

Just realised the e-mail it's addressed to beings with"Phuq u" so yeah, ignore this.

A Primal Nut

knucklehead6 wrote: »

So what do YOU think happened??

Either the plane has crashed or has landed somewhere.

if it's landed somewhere then it's not a hijacking, as there would have been SOME demands at this stage.
So that leaves the plane being stolen and stripped for spare parts. And also the execution of the passengers and crew.

Don't come back with any of that alien abduction guff, these are the only options there are. And in my opinion that plane has crashed.

Technially it's possible it made an emergency landing in a remote place. Obviously very unlikely but can't be ruled out of the investigation completely.

irishmover

So just heard another theory being discussed (haven't been following this closely so not sure if it was mentioned already).

Supposedly there was a crack found in a 777 fuselage not too long ago and it made a world wide safety issue which had all 777 checked??? Report was filed November 2013 by US Aviation authority.

Basically it was possible for this crack to cause decompression prior to break up and knock everyone on conscious. It could also cause all positional systems to not function with only primary radar being capable of providing location. Also apparently capable of disabling all communication systems aswell..

Is this possible or more media ****e..

http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-us-issued-warnings-over-boeing-777s-20140312-hvhqz.html

BuilderPlumber

Jack1985 wrote: »

Anyone see the tip off from a former US spy to the Telegraph about responsibility of Pan Am 103 being more then likely to do with Iranians then Libyans, makes you wonder.

Lockerbie was more than likely an early al Qaeda attack but the US wanted to keep that hush hush as the good old Mujahedin were fighting the commie Soviets in Afghanistan. It was about this time too that the US was losing interest in supporting the Mujahedin as relations improved with the Russians. The US however did not want to admit its full involvement in the 1980s Afghan conflict so Libya was handy to blame in order to save face. Now, someone comes along and says it was Iran. Both have nothing to do with it. The source citing Iran seems to be some disenfranchised ex regime member who was turfed out. A common occurrence in Iran's unstable 30+ year recent political history. I only wonder if poor old Saddam was still around that he instead of Iran would be responsible!!!

Anyway, back to the current event. Yes, I can see the similarities between this and Lockerbie. There is certainly a coverup here of some sort. A plane just cannot disappear from the sky without trace given today's technologies! A hijacking/flown to another destination scenario can be ruled out as you usually will hear from such people immediately with demands for money, freeing of a prisoner or safe passage into another country. I'm sure the most likely one would be North Korea and they'd pamper the passengers of the plane before arranging their flight back out of North Korea so as to give a little PR for the great Kims! It would all be over by now and Kim would take advantage of being key to the peaceful and safe end of the situation and all!
You can also rule out a terrorist attack as the wreckage would be found. The same with a crash.

Hmm. The phones ringing out makes it strange. If the plane was a private one, we could say they went off somewhere as part of a cult. But they'd still be tracable. If the US/China or other powers shot them down by mistake (and they wanted to cover it up), the phones wouldn't be ringing out (I don't think anyway unless modern phones operate like email and a server rings out!). Assuming a phone number could ring out even if the physical phone was destroyed, this would make a lot of sense. Another possibility is that again someone jumped the gun and thought a terrorist act was imminent and other planes guided the plane to land somewhere. Maybe because of delicate negotiations with Iran's new moderate government, they want to cover things up. The US assuming the two Iranians were 'terrorists' would give an upper hand to the hardliner bogmen such as General Jafari who trash the will of the Iranian people and do not recognise Iran's current president in their bid to return Iran to a total dictatorship.

knucklehead6

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Conspiracy Theories is THAT way.

Which reminds me, I must have a look in there to see what they make of it.

ProfessorPlum

MrCreosote wrote: »

How likely is this scenario?

The plane is following its planned flight path when something happens causing depressurisation and loss of communications. The pilots have enough time before they black out from hypoxia to set a new course which brings the plane back west over the Malay peninsula at a lower altitude, just like the military radar supposedly show.

Unfortunately the depressurisation has been fatal and the flight continues on this heading over Sumatra into the Indian Ocean until it crashes

I saw the guy on Sky News last night propose something like this, and i have to say, I think it's very unlikely.
He postulated that while at cruising altitude (as we know the flight was, in normal cruise), they got a sudden depressurisation, turned the 'heading for home' (he said the reciprocal heading - assuming he meant KL), and then lost consciousness. The aircraft then carried on on autopilot until it ran out of fuel. He suggested it would be a similar situation to the Helios flight that crashed in 2005.
First problem, unless whatever caused the depressurisation also by some unhappy coincidence, took out the transponder, ATC would still have been able to track the plane.
Next problem. The situation is in no way similar to the Helios flight. The Helios flight never pressurised in the first place, and that is the main reason the crew didn't get on oxygen. It was a slow and insidious onset of hypoxia, which is very difficult to deal with. If there had been a rapid decompression, every pilot's first instinctive reaction is to reach for their oxygen mask.
Next he assumes the pilots compound their first mistake with another - their next action is to change their heading. Again, any pilot knows that their next action should be to descend. At the same time the non flying pilot would expected to be on the radio, declaring a Mayday, and informing ATC of their intentions. Again, none of that happened. The first reaction is not to 'head for home'!
Next, after Helios, a lot of airlines amended their procedures. Cabin crew are expected to contact the cockpit (by physically going in if necessary) unless the aircraft starts a descent or they get a message from the cockpit. I don't know what the situation at Malaysian is, but I've no reason to assume it's different to what most other airlines are doing.
The whole theory assumes a coincidence of technical failings (depressurisation and loss of transponder), along with the crew messing up practically every action they have practiced for a depressurisation, and the cabin crew doing nothing either, even though they would have known they need to descend.
It's not impossible, but I'd say unlikely.

geneva geneva4444

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I saw the guy on Sky News last night propose something like this, and i have to say, I think it's very unlikely.
He postulated that while at cruising altitude (as we know the flight was, in normal cruise), they got a sudden depressurisation, turned the 'heading for home' (he said the reciprocal heading - assuming he meant KL), and then lost consciousness. The aircraft then carried on on autopilot until it ran out of fuel. He suggested it would be a similar situation to the Helios flight that crashed in 2005.
First problem, unless whatever caused the depressurisation also by some unhappy coincidence, took out the transponder, ATC would still have been able to track the plane.
Next problem. The situation is in no way similar to the Helios flight. The Helios flight never pressurised in the first place, and that is the main reason the crew didn't get on oxygen. It was a slow and insidious onset of hypoxia, which is very difficult to deal with. If there had been a rapid decompression, every pilot's first instinctive reaction is to reach for their oxygen mask.
Next he assumes the pilots compound their first mistake with another - their next action is to change their heading. Again, any pilot knows that their next action should be to descend. At the same time the non flying pilot would expected to be on the radio, declaring a Mayday, and informing ATC of their intentions. Again, none of that happened. The first reaction is not to 'head for home'!
Next, after Helios, a lot of airlines amended their procedures. Cabin crew are expected to contact the cockpit (by physically going in if necessary) unless the aircraft starts a descent or they get a message from the cockpit. I don't know what the situation at Malaysian is, but I've no reason to assume it's different to what most other airlines are doing.
The whole theory assumes a coincidence of technical failings (depressurisation and loss of transponder), along with the crew messing up practically every action they have practiced for a depressurisation, and the cabin crew doing nothing either, even though they would have known they need to descend.
It's not impossible, but I'd say unlikely.

Couldn't agree more. While it is possible, the sequence of events are not logical.... they just don't add up. For a Captain of 30 years experience, I'm surprised that he has come to this conclusion as to what happened MH370. Turning around is nowhere near the highest priority after an explosive de-compression.

relaxed

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Technially it's possible it made an emergency landing in a remote place. Obviously very unlikely but can't be ruled out of the investigation completely.

Even if they did manage to land somewhere it would most like have been a crash landing anyway, as it would be on either a dirt road or flatish piece of scrubland but it would still have crashed.

Its either 99% crash or crash landing, 1% controlled landing or aliens.

intellectual dosser

There must be 3hrs max of daylight left. It looks like we're going to have to go another day without any sign of the aircraft. I think at the start all of us without any connection to the incident are always intrigued to know what happened but at this point my heart really goes out to the families of the passengers, it must be pure internal torture not having closure of any kind.

Happyman42

buckfasterer wrote: »

If it didn't crash then it has landed somewhere. Also if there was any form or terrorist involvement, you can be as sure as anything there would have been statements made either claiming to have done it or to make demands for release.

How populated are the possible land areas where it might have come down. I understand that inland might be wilderness but are there coastal communities?

homerjay2005

A Primal Nut wrote: »

http://twitpic.com/dy1qmm

Alleged sighting of something on fire in the area.

that would be along the original flight path, but a considerable distance after the last communications.

Panda_Turtle

Happyman42 wrote: »

How populated are the possible land areas where it might have come down. I understand that inland might be wilderness but are there coastal communities?

Plane had enough fuel to get to Australia? Plenty of uninhabited area there but why they would head there I dunno. 0.1% Likelyhood.

homerjay2005

the live press conference now is pretty heated...they look clueless. its beyond a joke at this stage.

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

Plane had enough fuel to get to Australia? Plenty of uninhabited area there but why they would head there I dunno. 0.1% Likelyhood.

having the fuel is one thing, the ability to use it is another. the amount of time this plane spent in the air, after is last known position, is very short. the most logical explanation here apart from deliberate sabotage is that a fire broke out on board, disabled all communication means and the plane eventually broke up and fell to the sea.

homerjay2005

irishmover wrote: »

So just heard another theory being discussed (haven't been following this closely so not sure if it was mentioned already).

Supposedly there was a crack found in a 777 fuselage not too long ago and it made a world wide safety issue which had all 777 checked??? Report was filed November 2013 by US Aviation authority.

Basically it was possible for this crack to cause decompression prior to break up and knock everyone on conscious. It could also cause all positional systems to not function with only primary radar being capable of providing location. Also apparently capable of disabling all communication systems aswell..

Is this possible or more media ****e..

http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-us-issued-warnings-over-boeing-777s-20140312-hvhqz.html

this point was just brought up in the press conferenace, its confirmed the story is correct.

of course the usual answers were given, plane compliant and air worthy etc etc. THIS is going to get big now as a mid air break up is likely cause.

vicwatson

I think the Malaysian military should be saying more than they are, more than meets the eye with some of their comments.

Has it been confirmed/denied if there was military training exercises in the region around the time of the dissappearance?

basill

The northern coast of Australia is considered some of the most "at risk" in the world given the proximity of certain countries which shall we say have different ideologies to most of us. It would be blanketed by radar and satellite coverage from both land and sea. I find it difficult to believe that the aircraft made it to Oz and they either missed it or haven't fessed up.

homerjay2005

vicwatson wrote: »

I think the Malaysian military should be saying more than they are, more than meets the eye with some of their comments.

i genuinly think they have no idea whats gone on. theres some amount of conspiracy theories going about and they are all bulls*t...this, in my opinion is just another sad tragic Airplane accident.

it looks like many people want it to be alot more.

sebastianlieken

Okay, this is kinda a conspiracy theory but my question is if the following is feasable;

Would the Pilot be capable of stealing the Plane? (for financial gain, family kidnapped, threatened, etc.)

He is/was one of the most experienced pilots with the airline, familiar with all of the aircrafts systems. He would have known where the fuse for the transponder is. He had a simulator which he could get lots of practice with - say, landing on random, short runways, flying certain routes, knowing where air currents are, etc.

All he would have to do is disable his co-pilot and he has free range on what to do and where to go. He could have been flying to North Korea or Central Russia and the passengers wouldnt have had a clue.

He could just make an announcment that he's getting interference in cockpit from mobile phones, reminding them to be switched off. Then make a second more serious announcment about them, even get stewardesses to monitor phone use in the cabin.

He lands the plane on a runway run by whatever terrorist organisation, people disembark and think "hmm, this doesn't look like china, and why are there lots of people with guns here"

etc...

But, ANYWHO, would it not be possible for the Pilot to have stolen the plane if he wanted to?

an airports radar only has a range of about 60 miles, that's all that an airport is interested in; their immediate airspace. The pilot is the navigator when in radar dead areas....

He was off course by a few hundred miles... just sayin'

K.Flyer

homerjay2005 wrote: »

THIS is going to get big now as a mid air break up is likely cause.

But surely a mid-air break up would leave a debris trail, at this stage possibly miles long, after the plane slammed into to sea.

Peppa Pig

That's the first time I've watched the press conference. I can see why people appear to be losing faith in the Malaysians. It looked amateurish, at best.
Maybe there is a valid reason for not releasing information they may have but it's hard to see why.
As long as there is so little information forthcoming they are open to accusations of hiding something, as the Sky News reporter said. Things may get better now they seem to have brought the NTSB fully inside the investigation.

ProfessorPlum

irishmover wrote: »

So just heard another theory being discussed (haven't been following this closely so not sure if it was mentioned already).

Supposedly there was a crack found in a 777 fuselage not too long ago and it made a world wide safety issue which had all 777 checked??? Report was filed November 2013 by US Aviation authority.

Basically it was possible for this crack to cause decompression prior to break up and knock everyone on conscious. It could also cause all positional systems to not function with only primary radar being capable of providing location. Also apparently capable of disabling all communication systems aswell..

Is this possible or more media ****e..

http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-us-issued-warnings-over-boeing-777s-20140312-hvhqz.html

homerjay2005 wrote: »

this point was just brought up in the press conferenace, its confirmed the story is correct.

of course the usual answers were given, plane compliant and air worthy etc etc. THIS is going to get big now as a mid air break up is likely cause.

Just looking at some images of the aircraft involved - 9M-MRO. It doesn't appear to have the same SATCOM antenna as was the case in the FAA AD, so not sure that it applies. (Granted, fairly grainy images, I could be wrong).

Also why would the loss of the SATCOM array on top of the fuselage towards the aft 'take out' the transponder - the antenna for which is on the forward belly of the aircraft, or for that matter any VHF / HF coms.

Does anyone know is it VHF or HF coms in that part of the Gulf of Thailand between peninsular Malaysia and Vietnam?

sebastianlieken

knucklehead6 wrote: »

if it's landed somewhere then it's not a hijacking, as there would have been SOME demands at this stage.
So that leaves the plane being stolen and stripped for spare parts. And also the execution of the passengers and crew.

if it was Hijacked by a terrorist organisation, they wouldn't want to own up because they may stillw ant to use the airplane to deliver a bomb or crash into something.

Eg. North Korea has been developing their long range missiles but they're pure rubbish, they can't touch US soil. BUT, if they were to load a big old dirty bomb on an innocent looking 777 and fly a route bound for US soil (or wherever) and detonate over washington or manhattan...

North Korea could deal with the passengers, hiding the plane, refueling, re-using, etc.

I'm just saying it's a possibility.

my thoughts are that depressurisation occured, pilots passed out, autopilot continued on some random course, smack into ocean.

That or some military (vietnamise, malaysian, etc.) saw an aircraft in their airspace (it was hundreds of miles off course) and they shot it down are are now being very shy about owning up because of the reprucssions.