Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

kona

Jack1985 wrote: »

I was referring to the rupturing of fan blade discs, of course they would shatter thus the engine would implode on contact with surface in nearly every hard impact, with all due respect you have no knowledge in my employment background now do you?

Have you seen a fan blade? They are not brittle they won't shatter. The core won't implode either purely due to the fact there's a compressor section behind the casing along with a conbustor and turbine.
Gear up landing the engines support the aircraft when it slides, wouldn't want them made of cheese.

I know you got a swissport uniform from your posts so your obviously a handler or a dispatcher. Which isn't a problem, your well entitled to discussion, but dismissing facts and going overload on google is annoying.

Happyman42

dodzy wrote: »

Utter crap.

There are plenty of knowledgeable folk on this forum and in the absence of any solid information, all you have is speculation. And in this instance, I can think of no better people to get possible scenarios / likely outcomes from than skilled pilots / engineers that take time to post on this forum. Personally, I find all this intriguing. ACARS - didn't have a clue what it was up until a few days ago. But I know now. Fascinating stuff.

Absolutely right, I don't understand why people feel the need to 'lecture'. This is an aviation forum, not a pilots mess. If you don't feel the urge to contribute, leave. I, for one, am learning a lot just from seeing the educated responses to speculation(many thanks to those who offer their patient expertise btw) and just how complicated this all is.

Jack1985

kona wrote: »

Have you seen a fan blade? They are not brittle they won't shatter. The core won't implode either purely due to the fact there's a compressor section behind the casing along with a conbustor and turbine.
Gear up landing the engines support the aircraft when it slides, wouldn't want them made of cheese.

I know you got a swissport uniform from your posts so your obviously a handler or a dispatcher. Which isn't a problem, your well entitled to discussion, but dismissing facts and going overload on google is annoying.

I'm simply reflecting what a damage resulted to a a B772 below stall speed at SFO, massive - And please refrain from naming my employer do you think I would do such a thing on your behalf? No I don't think I would regardless of posts I have made - bit creepy you had to go snooping through my posts as well.

And this google crap, I've been in this sector years now, you'd be surprised at how much you learn - and how much you continue to learn, really is funny how you point out me being dismissive and reply with a backhanded comment.

SpaceTime

I think we also have to remember we live in a bit of a transformed age in terms of how a subject like this will be discussed.

Knowledge is democratised and people will speculate and comment online in a way that wasn't possible before.

In a forum like this you're getting perspectives from people who may be experts in other areas too.

Sometimes outsiders can be the very people who ask the question that insiders don't ask because something is just accepted as fact.

I think we all should be trying to build an informative thread and not sniping at each other. People need to be able to ask questions, discuss theories etc etc.

Being smug because you know more than they do isn't helpful. Adding information to the thread and responding constructively is!

kona

Jack1985 wrote: »

I'm simply reflecting what a damage resulted to a a B772 below stall speed at SFO, massive - And please refrain from naming my employer do you think I would do such a thing on your behalf? No I don't think I would regardless of posts I have made - bit creepy you had to go snooping through my posts as well.

And this google crap, I've been in this sector years now, you'd be surprised at how much you learn - and how much you continue to learn, really is funny how you point out me being dismissive and reply with a backhanded comment.

Hold on you named your employer on a public forum. your going around dismissing facts for no reason other than because you were incorrect . id say you do know a bit, im not saying you dont. I'm leaving it at this.

Growler!!!

Jack1985 wrote: »

bit creepy you had to go snooping through my posts as well.

This isn't directed personally at you jack, but people need to be careful what is put online. It's very easy to accumulate info based on posts here on boards and other aviation forums and come up with an identity. Most people use the same user names on a few sites.

Now, I know for a fact we have crossed paths in our working lives even though I don't know you personally. Your company provides a servis (pun intended:D) to the company I work for.

I've in the past put info up online which has been linked back to me by senior staff, and have been asked to refrain from doing so. That's why you'll find when I do post it is normally fact based and non specific to aircraft type or operation.

Hopefully this comes across as words of caution rather than something creepy or directed at anyone specifically. I'm an equal opportunities informer:D

Calina

SpaceTime wrote: »

Knowledge is democratised and people will speculate and comment online in a way that wasn't possible before.

Knowledge may be democratised but understanding and expertise somewhat less so.

From what I can see in this thread, the indepth knowledgeholders are not speculating. They are occasionally correcting misunderstandings but that seems to be the limit of it.

Again, summary information: plane missing; clues as to what happened it, somewhat limited.

Everything else is just space filling on the part of the starving media. They cannot cope with filling space with no information.

Jack1985

Growler!!! wrote: »

This isn't directed personally at you jack, but people need to be careful what is put online. It's very easy to accumulate info based on posts here on boards and other aviation forums and come up with an identity. Most people use the same user names on a few sites.

Now, I know for a fact we have crossed paths in our working lives even though I don't know you personally. Your company provides a servis (pun intended:D) to the company I work for.

I've in the past put info up online which has been linked back to me by senior staff, and have been asked to refrain from doing so. That's why you'll find when I do post it is normally fact based and non specific to aircraft type or operation.

Hopefully this comes across as words of caution rather than something creepy or directed at anyone specifically. I'm an equal opportunities informer:D

Cheers

MuffinsDa

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't understand peoples need to speculate and spout bullsh!t in the absence of any real info. They haven't found anything yet. They are still looking. Nothing is going to change until they find something, thats it.

Can you explain why they shouldn't?
And how does it affect/harm you personally (or anyone?) ?!

Considering how bad the search is going, shouldn't any ideas (aside from supernatural intervention and aliens bull****) be welcomed now, just in case it leads to something?

After all, haven't a lot of air accident ended up being caused by the "unexpected", or a perfect storm of unlikely and unexpected events?

Jack1985

Have to say after the press conf today, the transport minster came across definitely at his best, even though we are absolutely none the wiser as to what has taken place, both WSJ reporters are no where to be seen, one of them signed off, "night all signing off for some wrest" - I get the impression he might not enjoy waking up to the sh*t storm they created. There source, I'd love to know who it was - first time I've come across the WSJ being sucked into (and quite deeply!!) the realm of speculation.

It's basically nearly night fall in Malaysia now, so it'll be a seventh day now tomorrow with probably no information, I will agree with one thing, unprecedented is an understatement to describe this.

SpaceTime

Jack1985 wrote: »

Have to say after the press conf today, the transport minster came across definitely at his best, even though we are absolutely none the wiser as to what has taken place, both WSJ reporters are no where to be seen, one of them signed off, "night all signing off for some wrest" - I get the impression he might not enjoy waking up to the sh*t storm they created. There source, I'd love to know who it was - first time I've come across the WSJ being sucked into (and quite deeply!!) the realm of speculation.

It's basically nearly night fall in Malaysia now, so it'll be a seventh day now tomorrow with probably no information, I will agree with one thing, unprecedented is an understatement to describe this.

& they spelled rest with a W? ... standards at the WSJ

Jack1985

SpaceTime wrote: »

& they spelled rest with a W? ... standards at the WSJ

Honestly, is that what your time now on this forum is down to?

SpaceTime

Jack1985 wrote: »

Honestly, is that what your time now on this forum is down to?

Honestly, I couldn't be bothered posting here anymore and won't be as the level of sniping is WAY too much to be even interested anymore!

It was a silly, slightly light hearted comment.

I give up!

BYE

vicwatson

From the Indo - "A Chinese satellite has detected three "suspicious floating objects" in the sea after a Malaysia Airlines flight went missing."

Jack1985

SpaceTime wrote: »

Honestly, I couldn't be bothered posting here anymore and won't be as the level of sniping is WAY too much to be even interested anymore!

It was a silly, slightly light hearted comment.

I give up!

BYE

Don't throw your toys out of the pram, it would be great if we could stick to topic!

donalh087

The WSJ report is still live on their site. I wonder do they still have confidence in it ? it seems unusual to allow it to remain after it was so roundly dismissed.

Grandpa Hassan

vicwatson wrote: »

From the Indo - "A Chinese satellite has detected three "suspicious floating objects" in the sea after a Malaysia Airlines flight went missing."

Thats old news. The US satellites couldnt see anything at the same site, and the ships despatched to the area found nothing. Another red herring by the sounds of things

Edit: Chinese now saying that the images were released by mistake. And they were accusing the Malaysians of being unprofessional.....

Jack1985

WSJ has reverted to the theory of a pilot switching off a transponder, wow! Have a feeling when Jon Ostrower wakes up to see his piece debunked he will be less then impressed, still amazed at how they were sucked into the speculation theory!

Grandpa Hassan

I like this quote from a professor of Media at the LSE

"This is an horrific but fascinating story and a massive challenge to the intelligence of contemporary journalism."

Rings very true given what we are seeing in the press

Ive just logged in and read all the updates. Mind is blown.

mickmackey1

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

the intelligence of contemporary journalism."

:D:D

Jack1985

Could it be plausible Rolls-Royce have withheld information from the Malaysians? Seeing lots of reports of "US intelligence" agencies backing up WSJ - And it still is unconfirmed if MAS was signed up to the Boeing maint status program, which is very similar to the RR status service, both were basically the same as ACARS.

homerjay2005

Jack1985 wrote: »

WSJ has reverted to the theory of a pilot switching off a transponder, wow! Have a feeling when Jon Ostrower wakes up to see his piece debunked he will be less then impressed, still amazed at how they were sucked into the speculation theory!

given whats happened so far, even the fact that this has been dismissed, it could well be proven to be correct in the long term.

i guess nobody will be clear until the CVR and BBR are found.

sopretty

I think it's relevant to note that they have not as yet ruled out hijacking.

Spanish Eyes

Ah here, I'll throw this out.

Find my iPhone app for passengers with iPhones?

Probably won't work if sadly they are submerged.

brandon_flowers

Jack1985 wrote: »

Could it be plausible Rolls-Royce have withheld information from the Malaysians? Seeing lots of reports of "US intelligence" agencies backing up WSJ - And it still is unconfirmed if MAS was signed up to the Boeing maint status program, which is very similar to the RR status service, both were basically the same as ACARS.

I doubt it tbh. Boeing and RR have a huge amount at stake here, even more than Malaysia Airlines. If Boeing and RR are doing anything untoward during an investigation do you think other airlines will continue to buy their gear? Their reputation would be severely damaged by withholding information.

GEO147

What I don't get and have not heard anyone mention is the fact that there is so much technology that can track peoples whereabouts via their hand held devices. Surely at least 20 people would have had iphones and apple would be able to tell where they were last via the find my iphone software.

I just think that there is no excuse whatsoever for npot knowing the exact last recorded location of the plane and its occupants.

Then if you had a number of last reported locations from phones, satcoms, radars or whatever, one would merely have to cross reference these to get a pretty accurate location where all these devices ceased to transmit?

Seems very reasonable to me!

Maximus Alexander

GEO147 wrote: »

What I don't get and have not heard anyone mention is the fact that there is so much technology that can track peoples whereabouts via their hand held devices. Surely at least 20 people would have had iphones and apple would be able to tell where they were last via the find my iphone software.

I just think that there is no excuse whatsoever for npot knowing the exact last recorded location of the plane and its occupants.

Then if you had a number of last reported locations from phones, satcoms, radars or whatever, one would merely have to cross reference these to get a pretty accurate location where all these devices ceased to transmit?

Seems very reasonable to me!

- Mobile devices are supposed to be either off / in aeroplane mode during flight. Passengers probably aren't in a hurry to switch them on in the middle of a disaster.

- They're probably not going to survive impact, and certainly won't survive being submerged in water.

- They are very unlikely to have a network connection.

dodzy

GEO147 wrote: »

"Surely at least 20 people would have had iphones and apple would be able to tell where they were last via the find my iphone software ?"

In the terminal at airport of departure ?

Jack1985

brandon_flowers wrote: »

I doubt it tbh. Boeing and RR have a huge amount at stake here, even more than Malaysia Airlines. If Boeing and RR are doing anything untoward during an investigation do you think other airlines will continue to buy their gear? Their reputation would be severely damaged by withholding information.

Oh I know I completely agree with you, as you say they are the two parties who more than anybody else will want this sorted and investigated, but what I was alluding too was could they view Malaysia as being ill-equipped so to speak to investigate this going on the recent searches which have turned up nothing and so far could they plausibly have not revealed the engine data to them, in order for them to further investigate it - but for then for someone in RR to only leak to the WSJ (if we are to believe that) - Tbh I've turned into the most speculative person preceding the days since this story broke, there is not one concrete piece of evidence its totally perplexing at this point and shortly becoming a farce.