Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

ProfessorPlum · 12-03-2014 5:32pm

It's last known position was its transponder position in the Gulf of Thailand, on it's flight planned route. Anything else is a possible sighting, as at best all it was was a blip on a radar screen.

sopretty · 12-03-2014 5:33pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Think about these words. By definition you always know an object's last known position.

I suggest you think about these words lol. If you have two conflicting 'last known positions', then it is quite safe to say, that you do not know the last known position!!!!

Thrill · 12-03-2014 5:36pm

sopretty wrote: »

Basically, they have one position reported by some technology and an entirely different position reported by different technology. It is fair to say, they do not know its last known position!!!!

The last known position of the plane was where it disappeared from radar four days ago.

EDIT: What professorplum said above.

.

Maximus Alexander · 12-03-2014 5:36pm

sopretty wrote: »

I suggest you think about these words lol. If you have two conflicting 'last known positions', then it is quite safe to say, that you do not know the last known position!!!!

A last known position is the last position that you know an object was in. If you're not sure that the position is correct, then it isn't the last known position. I can't believe I'm explaining this.

owenc · 12-03-2014 5:38pm

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

How are they ours?

Ae you really kidding me?

Dear lord!!!

sopretty · 12-03-2014 5:39pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

A last known position is the last position that you know an object was in. If you're not sure that the position is correct, then it isn't the last known position. I can't believe I'm explaining this.

Ok, I get you. I thought or interpreted reports as having apparently two conflicting last known positions! I see they have never claimed that the aircraft sighting on the west side of the land mass was a confirmed sighting.

Don't patronise me with 'I can't believe I'm explaining this'.

xabi · 12-03-2014 5:41pm

owenc wrote: »

Ae you really kidding me?

Dear lord!!!

He said SKY or CNN, neither of which are Irish.

knotknowbody · 12-03-2014 5:43pm

sopretty wrote: »

I suggest you think about these words lol. If you have two conflicting 'last known positions', then it is quite safe to say, that you do not know the last known position!!!!

There is only one last known position for the plane, that is where it was when information was last received from it's transponder, all the other positions that have been reported are possible last positions that need to be confirmed.

2 stroke · 12-03-2014 5:45pm

xabi wrote: »

He said SKY or CNN, neither of which are Irish.

I didn't say Irish news organisations, I said our news organisations.

sopretty · 12-03-2014 5:46pm

I suppose I could better express what I was trying to say by saying 'The authorities have still not confirmed where the last KNOWN position of the aircraft was.'.

I can't believe I'm explaining this...........

owenc · 12-03-2014 5:48pm

xabi wrote: »

He said SKY or CNN, neither of which are Irish.

Its a bit sad to be getting offended. And Sky covers Ireland.

xabi · 12-03-2014 5:49pm

owenc wrote: »

Its a bit sad to be getting offended. And Sky covers Ireland.

im not offended.

xabi · 12-03-2014 5:49pm

2 stroke wrote: »

I didn't say Irish news organisations, I said our news organisations.

who is our?

2 stroke · 12-03-2014 5:51pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The professionals, ie the pilots have largely left the forum....it seems.

Where are they squawking FGS!

My guess is that they have to work sometime. They spent quite a bit of time on here recently, I guess they were off duty. Wouldn't be surprised though if they got fed up of our invasion of their forum.

Colser · 12-03-2014 5:51pm

Do you think that if this was a planned incident(by pilot,hijacker,missile or anything else) that the timing was the optimum time...if it was going from one countrys air space into another that this might buy time or cause confusion on ground? If that makes sense.....

Kalyke · 12-03-2014 5:53pm

FFS this thread!! I wish it would snow or something! Its such a pity that some informed posters are so peed off they are not bothering to contribute any more. Shame.

Maximus Alexander · 12-03-2014 5:54pm

sopretty wrote: »

Don't patronise me with 'I can't believe I'm explaining this'.

I apologize for sounding patronizing, but that would appear to be my automatic reaction when someone appears to be shouting at me with authoritative declarations (multiple exclamation marks?) whilst misunderstanding what I am saying to them. I'll work on it.

I think I'll go back to just reading the thread.

sopretty · 12-03-2014 5:58pm

Kalyke wrote: »

FFS this thread!! I wish it would snow or something! Its such a pity that some informed posters are so peed off they are not bothering to contribute any more. Shame.

There is nothing further to contribute really. Apart from semantics! :pac:

Seriously though, not even the most experienced pilot is going to able to enlighten us much further. Sure, they could comment on the possibility of technical situations, but what else can they contribute?

'Hi, My name is Al, and I am a qualified pilot with 18 years of flight experience. I believe the pixie heads did it.'

christy c · 12-03-2014 6:00pm

Could we consider locking this until there is new information or another press conference? People fighting over last known position is a bit ridiculous

ProfessorPlum · 12-03-2014 6:01pm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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?

Just reposting this ^^^.

It appears the aircraft was not fitted with the type of antenna that was the subject of the FAA AD:

https://twitter.com/AeroMobile/status/443419690350960640

AeroMobile
‏@AeroMobile
Hi @prasys, Malaysia Airlines 9M-MRO was never fitted with the AeroMobile service.

I wonder why hasn't Malaysian been straight out to clarify?

sopretty · 12-03-2014 6:05pm

christy c wrote: »

Could we consider locking this until there is new information or another press conference? People fighting over last known position is a bit ridiculous

I'm sorry, but I think the last known position is the most critical piece of information involved! You have a 'last known position', and an entirely different position rumoured to have been picked up by military, and you feel the last PRESUMED position, be it confirmed to us or not, is not relevant? If that's the case, why are you not questioning them searching on the far side of a land mass? Assuming you are taking the REPORTED last known position as being on the east side?

brandon_flowers · 12-03-2014 6:21pm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think that's a little unfair. It was a bit more complicated than that.

Yes maybe it read a bit harsh looking at that again but I was replying generally more to the conspiracies rather than the actual cause(s) of the accident.

Lirange · 12-03-2014 6:37pm

bangkok wrote: »

worm hole :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Puts on the Farscape theme song. :pac:

Peppa Pig · 12-03-2014 6:40pm

NTSB now formally involved in the search.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/140312.html

National Transportation Safety Board investigators who traveled to Kuala Lumpur over the weekend are assisting Malaysian authorities who are leading the search efforts for the Boeing 777 that went missing five days ago.

Investigators with expertise in air traffic control and radar are providing technical assistance to the Malaysian authorities who are working on locating the missing jetliner.

The NTSB plans no further releases of information on the investigation.

Lirange · 12-03-2014 6:44pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Where there so many crazy conspirancy theories when AF447 disappeared?

Well in that instance the wreckage was spotted from the air within two days (and later confirmed by SAR vessels) and that was in a more remote location.

andy_g · 12-03-2014 6:45pm

Guys please stay on topic at hand please.

Remember as stated earlier anything off topic=ban.

theKillerBite · 12-03-2014 7:02pm

Did the pilots commit a murder-suicide?? Similar to the SilkAir Flight 185 were NTSB concluded that the pilot turned off the transponder and deliberately crashed the plane killing all onboard.

Did pilot commit SUICIDE? CIA boss says it is one theory agency is looking at as Malaysian police say they are carrying out psychological profiles of everyone on plane

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578020/Why-cellphones-missing-Malaysian-Airlines-passengers-ringing-Family-members-claim-loved-ones-smartphones-active.html#ixzz2vly3JNA8

Dontfadeaway · 12-03-2014 7:02pm

Lirange wrote: »

Well in that instance the wreckage was spotted from the air within two days (and later confirmed by SAR vessels) and that was in a more remote location.

I think the first wreckage they found was later confirmed not to be part of AF447. I think it was 5 days before they found wreckage and bodies.

SteelyDanJalapeno · 12-03-2014 7:23pm

Is there a new "last known position" or something?

Lirange · 12-03-2014 7:29pm

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

I think the first wreckage they found was later confirmed not to be part of AF447. I think it was 5 days before they found wreckage and bodies.

Similarities and differences between AF447 and this.

http://www.rappler.com/business/industries/171-aviation-tourism/52689-malaysia-airlines-mh370-air-france-af447

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Comments