Thread: Contact lost with Malaysia Plane.

Originally Posted by Satonic

Shipping container?

Only thing that big from a plane that would float is a deployed raft/emergency slide.

Sure took em long enough to drag that plane there...wonder where it's from?

I don't know but, if they don't find the complete wreckage, I ain't buying it.

Quite literally these satellite images have been available for an hour now and they still have showed them on this news channel, fucking pathetic

The media are disgracing themselves in Beijing again. Deplorable, inhumane behaviour.

Originally Posted by somtamslap

The media are disgracing themselves in Beijing again. Deplorable, inhumane behaviour.

What are they doing ? cameras in faces of relatives ?

Someone live from the US aircraft Poseidon says they are definitely getting significant hits on the radar and they think there is definitely something there of significant size.

Satellite Images Show Possible Objects in Indian Ocean - ABC News

Wait for the video play button to show up in the middle of the satellite picture.

Originally Posted by bangkokbonecollector

What they doing ? cameras in faces of relatives ?

And then some. Fucking animals.

Originally Posted by spliff

I don't know but, if they don't find the complete wreckage, I ain't buying it.

Why, are you going to glue it all back together?

Originally Posted by bangkokbonecollector

Honestly Malaysians all seem to be a bunch of greenhorns.

Who was the Malaysian being interviewed and by whom?

Originally Posted by somtamslap

The media are disgracing themselves in Beijing again. Deplorable, inhumane behaviour.

. . . and they're the ones having a go at officials . . .

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Gilbert

Originally Posted by Bobcock

I like the theory above,the tin hat brigade will hate it, but I reckon it's aon the right track.

The tin hat brigade has been saying all along that the plane simply smashed into the sea, most likely technical failures, and that all the ensuing hullabaloo is being artificially created to detract attention from other news stories, as well as to create some "terror".

It seems we are, again, right.

No, the tin foil hat brigade have been saying the plane was kidnapped for its cargo, the ten chip engineers, and sundry other loads of baloney.

But I am one of the tin hat brigade apparently, and low and behold....

Originally Posted by Gilbert

The most obvious one, which I've been saying for a while, is that it crashed, and all this is a big cover up to detract attention away from Ukraine, Boeing share price etc.

Plane turned, headed for closest, safest longest runway at Langkawi after fire takes out comms and transponder etc, then takes out the brave pilots battling to land the plane which then flies into the middle of the ocean and drops. Its then just been used to keep the mawkish tittle tattle followers amused and not concentrating where they really should be.

Hmmm. I think the loopynuts off their heads will believe anything brigade in this circumstance are those desperately watching CNN hoping that the "thoughts" and "beliefs" that it is a terrorist attack will be proven. Absolutely illogical to even think that considering who the plane was carrying, where it came from, going to, and who they were trying to blame it on (well, unless you are from mossad in which case, clearly, the Iranians did it).

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by bangkokbonecollector

Honestly Malaysians all seem to be a bunch of greenhorns.

Who was the Malaysian being interviewed and by whom?

Originally Posted by somtamslap

The media are disgracing themselves in Beijing again. Deplorable, inhumane behaviour.

. . . and they're the ones having a go at officials . . .

The Malaysian guy was interviewing some girl from ABC news. It was just about the most pathetic interview I have seen with ridiculously obvious answers to the questions and the, 'would I be correct', catchphrase was just irritating. It just dicked me off sorry

Originally Posted by spliff

I don't know but, if they don't find the complete wreckage, I ain't buying it.

Well they won't until they know where to look, will they?

That's what the tracking buoys are for.

Drop a string of them north of the site and see which ones end up there.

Then repeat the process.

Then do the maths.

Then bring in James Cameron.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Only thing that big from a plane that would float is a deployed raft/emergency slide.

For heaven's sake man, when did you qualify as an aeronautical engineer?



Plus the wing tanks might not have had a lot in them.



And a piece of TWA800 which if you remember blew up in mid air.

The objects are deep underwater apparently.

Originally Posted by bangkokbonecollector

Someone live from the US aircraft Poseidon says they are definitely getting significant hits on the radar and they think there is definitely something there of significant size.

Why would you quote that but not the next sentence...???

"but Commander William Marks, spokesman for the US Navy's 7th Fleet, later said the radar return was typical, and not connected to the missing plane."

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by bangkokbonecollector

Someone live from the US aircraft Poseidon says they are definitely getting significant hits on the radar and they think there is definitely something there of significant size.

Why would you quote that but not the next sentence...???

"but Commander William Marks, spokesman for the US Navy's 7th Fleet, later said the radar return was typical, and not connected to the missing plane."

Because I never heard nor read that quote and besides I was using my own words. When and where did they say that ?

I was quoting from this source:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/20/wo...html?hpt=hp_t1

Chill Winston

Originally Posted by Necron99

I don't like it for a couple of reasons.

Planes have multiple redundant systems. For a fire to take out the radios, transponders and satellite coms and then still leave the aircraft capable of long duration flight is unlikely. Additionally, that the ACARS was disabled but still kept pinging the Sat means the underlying system wasn't damaged. Just turned off.

Second, if there was smoke and a fire, the co pilot would go to investigate and if needed start pulling breakers.
The pilot is still flying the plane, he would have plenty of time to make a quick radio call and report smoke and a possible fire before everything went to shit..

Mechanical failure

The plane could have suffered some kind of electrical fire that caused a crisis and an emergency response. This was the hypothesis of a much-discussed article on Wired.com by a pilot who argued that the pilot of MH370 must have turned the plane around in hopes of reaching an airport for an emergency landing, only to crash somewhere at sea.

Another scenario is catastrophic decompression. The crew could have lost consciousness and the plane could have kept flying - what people have been calling the ‘‘Payne Stewart scenario,’’ after the golfer who died in 1999 when a Learjet underwent decompression and kept flying for more than 1000 miles before crashing in South Dakota.

If the MH370 diversion was preprogrammed, however, that pretty much rules out an accident. The pilot never radioed any distress, and the radios rely on batteries and would still operate after an electrical fire, said Hans Weber, a San Diego-based aviation consultant.

Moreover, a fire would presumably be progressive and would allow time to transmit a distress signal. Cassidy said that the lack of radio transmission makes the fire scenario difficult to believe. But the lack of communication doesn’t prove anything, he said.

‘‘Every single professional pilot is trained that, when you have an emergency, the first focus is on actually flying the plane, next is on navigating it and the third priority is actually communicating,’’ Cassidy said. ‘‘The absence of a distress call does not imply that there was no distress in the plane.’’


Assessing the theories about Flight 370's disappearance

Originally Posted by Ronin

Originally Posted by Necron99

I don't like it for a couple of reasons.

Planes have multiple redundant systems. For a fire to take out the radios, transponders and satellite coms and then still leave the aircraft capable of long duration flight is unlikely. Additionally, that the ACARS was disabled but still kept pinging the Sat means the underlying system wasn't damaged. Just turned off.

Second, if there was smoke and a fire, the co pilot would go to investigate and if needed start pulling breakers.
The pilot is still flying the plane, he would have plenty of time to make a quick radio call and report smoke and a possible fire before everything went to shit..

Mechanical failure

The plane could have suffered some kind of electrical fire that caused a crisis and an emergency response. This was the hypothesis of a much-discussed article on Wired.com by a pilot who argued that the pilot of MH370 must have turned the plane around in hopes of reaching an airport for an emergency landing, only to crash somewhere at sea.

Another scenario is catastrophic decompression. The crew could have lost consciousness and the plane could have kept flying - what people have been calling the ‘‘Payne Stewart scenario,’’ after the golfer who died in 1999 when a Learjet underwent decompression and kept flying for more than 1000 miles before crashing in South Dakota.

If the MH370 diversion was preprogrammed, however, that pretty much rules out an accident. The pilot never radioed any distress, and the radios rely on batteries and would still operate after an electrical fire, said Hans Weber, a San Diego-based aviation consultant.

Moreover, a fire would presumably be progressive and would allow time to transmit a distress signal. Cassidy said that the lack of radio transmission makes the fire scenario difficult to believe. But the lack of communication doesn’t prove anything, he said.

‘‘Every single professional pilot is trained that, when you have an emergency, the first focus is on actually flying the plane, next is on navigating it and the third priority is actually communicating,’’ Cassidy said. ‘‘The absence of a distress call does not imply that there was no distress in the plane.’’


Assessing the theories about Flight 370's disappearance

The decompression theory also does not explain the staged switching off of ACARS and the transponder, and the entering of a new route into the navigation computer.

These were deliberate acts.

Originally Posted by Ronin

Originally Posted by Necron99

I don't like it for a couple of reasons.

Planes have multiple redundant systems. For a fire to take out the radios, transponders and satellite coms and then still leave the aircraft capable of long duration flight is unlikely. Additionally, that the ACARS was disabled but still kept pinging the Sat means the underlying system wasn't damaged. Just turned off.

Second, if there was smoke and a fire, the co pilot would go to investigate and if needed start pulling breakers.
The pilot is still flying the plane, he would have plenty of time to make a quick radio call and report smoke and a possible fire before everything went to shit..

Mechanical failure

The plane could have suffered some kind of electrical fire that caused a crisis and an emergency response. This was the hypothesis of a much-discussed article on Wired.com by a pilot who argued that the pilot of MH370 must have turned the plane around in hopes of reaching an airport for an emergency landing, only to crash somewhere at sea.

Another scenario is catastrophic decompression. The crew could have lost consciousness and the plane could have kept flying - what people have been calling the ‘‘Payne Stewart scenario,’’ after the golfer who died in 1999 when a Learjet underwent decompression and kept flying for more than 1000 miles before crashing in South Dakota.

If the MH370 diversion was preprogrammed, however, that pretty much rules out an accident. The pilot never radioed any distress, and the radios rely on batteries and would still operate after an electrical fire, said Hans Weber, a San Diego-based aviation consultant.

Moreover, a fire would presumably be progressive and would allow time to transmit a distress signal. Cassidy said that the lack of radio transmission makes the fire scenario difficult to believe. But the lack of communication doesn’t prove anything, he said.

‘‘Every single professional pilot is trained that, when you have an emergency, the first focus is on actually flying the plane, next is on navigating it and the third priority is actually communicating,’’ Cassidy said. ‘‘The absence of a distress call does not imply that there was no distress in the plane.’’


Assessing the theories about Flight 370's disappearance

Yes,yes, flying, navigating and then communication.
that the plane flew for another 7 hours (in your scenario without a pilot) does not suggest the plane was difficult to fly and occupying the pilots whole attention. If he has time to make course corrections he has time to push a button and speak to air traffic control.

The only thing that explains the course corrections, the disabling of selected systems and the apparent air worthiness of the jet is a deliberate act.

Catastrophic damage, slow decompression, fast decompression, fire, all preclude what we know happened.

Australia sees possible plane debris


Amsa's John Young said the objects spotted were a "reasonable size"

MH370 mystery

• Live updates Live
• What we know
• Military at fault?
• Search logistics

Australia is investigating two objects seen on satellite images that could potentially be linked to the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, officials say.

Planes and ships from Australia, New Zealand and the US were heading to the area 2,500km (1,550 miles) south-west of Perth to search for the objects.

The largest appeared to be 24m in size, maritime authorities said, but warned they could be unrelated to the plane.

Australia has been searching in the southern Indian Ocean for the aircraft.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on 8 March when it lost contact with air traffic controllers. A total of 239 people were on board.

Twenty-six nations have been involved in a major search for the missing plane, which Malaysia says was intentionally diverted.

Investigators have been scrutinising the backgrounds of both the crew and the passengers, but have so far identified no evidence of terror or other potentially relevant links.

A number of sightings of possible debris have been investigated in the course of the search but so far none have proved to be linked










Southern corridor

Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced the discovery of the objects in parliament.

"The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (Amsa) has received information based on satellite information of objects possibly related to the search," Mr Abbott said.

"Following specialist analysis of this satellite imagery, two possible objects related to the search have been identified."

An Australian Orion aircraft is currently in the search area and three more planes, including US and New Zealand aircraft, are on their way. A merchant ship is due there later in the day and an Australian naval vessel, HMAS Success, is also on its way.

Amsa said the debris had been located in waters some 2,500km south-west of the Australian city of Perth.


ABC reporter David Wright is on board the US navy aircraft which will be first to reach the objects


The objects identified were of a "reasonable size", Amsa's general manager John Young said. The largest object appeared to be about 24m in size, he said.

"The objects are relatively indistinct. The indication to me is of objects that are of a reasonable size and probably awash with water and bobbing up and down over the surface," he said.


At the scene

Celia Hatton BBC News, Beijing

The relatives of Chinese passengers on board MH370 watched the announcements from Australia on monitors set up at the Beijing hotel where they have been waiting for the past 13 days.

When the press briefings were over, the families left the room. Most refused to speak to journalists, though one man told the BBC: "I don't believe any of this. I think my son is still alive."

Another relative, the son of a famed calligrapher on the plane, explained to us the families' reluctance to accept the possibility the plane had crashed.

"If the Australian findings really turn out to be the remains of the plane, that would mean there is no hope left for us."


"This is a lead, it is probably the best lead we have right now. But we need to get there, find them, see them, assess them, to know whether it's really meaningful or not."

He warned that poor visibility in the area could hamper the search.

Australia informed Malaysian authorities of the development on Thursday morning.

"We have been following every single lead and this time I just hope that this time it is a positive development," Malaysia's Acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said.


Satellite signal

Earlier this week, Australia was asked by Malaysia to take responsibility for the "southern corridor" search.

Investigators had identified two corridors of territory - one to the north and one to the south - spanning the possible positions of the plane about seven hours after take-off.

This was based on its last faint signal to a satellite - an hourly "handshake'' broadcast even when the main communication systems are switched off.

The plane lost contact with controllers over the South China Sea as it crossed from Malaysian to Vietnamese air space.

Malaysian officials say it then turned west and its last position - according to Malaysian military radar - was over the Malacca Straits, in the opposite direction to its planned flight path.

Attention has focused on the crew and on Wednesday multiple unidentified US officials said that the FBI was helping Malaysia analyse data from a flight simulator taken from the captain's home.

Hishammuddin Hussein, at a press conference on Wednesday, stressed the captain should be considered innocent until proved otherwise and said that members of his family were co-operating with the investigation.





BBC News - Australia sees possible plane debris

The difference between a press conference held by Australian officials and one by Malaysian officials is astounding. Totally professional, accurate and conclusive on every question asked.

Sorry, I know the moment has somewhat passed, but I can't help but disagree with this Chris Goodfellow guy.

Originally Posted by Koojo

This I agree with.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

I like the theory above,the tin hat brigade will hate it, but I reckon it's aon the right track.

Originally Posted by Necron99

I don't like it for a couple of reasons.

Good man...

Jim, it's not a crack at you, you were just the messenger so all the bits saying 'jamescollister' below are actually aimed at the writer of the article.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

When I heard this I immediately brought up Google Earth and I searched for airports in proximity to the track towards southwest.... We old pilots were always drilled to always know the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us and airports ahead of us. Always in our head. Always.

This is a Malaysian pilot who has been flying these skies for many years. Without using Google Earth he would know that his nearest runway was Kota Bharu, also approached over water & a bit of marshland (with a marshland run off). It is a military base so there would be people on the ground to help.



Failing that then Narathiwat also has a runway, again approached over water (4136 on the map below). Not I'd agree everyone's favourite destination but in an emergency...

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance.

As those who have flown in there will know KLIA is also approached either over water or pretty flat ground, but that's not the points I want to make here.

1. Runway length - A full 777 needs about 6,000 feet to land in at sea level, average pressure and in the dry. If the captain could still dump fuel then he could reduce the required landing length by 500 feet or so.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...s/7772sec3.pdf

Kota Bharu airport has a runway that is 6,499 feet long, so plenty of space to land if needed (bear in mind this is an emergency, if you run off the end then it's not a problem so long as you can get the passengers off quickly).

Narathiwat's runway is 8,202 feet long. OK, not everyone's choice of holiday destination but still a reasonable alternative, again a water approach.

If you are going to bypass Kota Bharu and Narathiwat then the rational choice would be to go for Penang - the big grey bit on the map below (runway length 10,997 ft).



It's about the same distance, manned 24 hours a day (Langkawi is a closed at night) and you have access to far more extensive emergency and medical services there.

Langkawi would be dark and everyone there would be asleep plus the island's ability to deal with a aircrash would be limited.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Take a look on Google Earth at this airport. This pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make that immediate turn back to the closest safe airport... If something went wrong where would he go? Thanks to Google earth I spotted Langkawi in about 30 seconds, zoomed in and saw how long the runway was and I just instinctively knew this pilot knew this airport. He had probably flown there many times.

It seems that Chris Goodfellow hasn't a clue about what airports are in the vicinity. I'm sure the pilot knew most Malaysian airports pretty well.

I don't doubt that the writer of the article is a pilot, but he would know that if you were flying that route he would have a list of the alternate airports to divert to if needed. Five minutes spent on spent on Google Earth may not give him the same answers as a proper flight plan and the pilot's extensive local knowledge.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

I guess we will eventually find out when you help me spread this theory on the net and some reporters finally take a look on Google earth and put 2 and 2 together.

Ah, that's the rub. Another tin-hatter wanting to see his theory go viral.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Fire in an aircraft demands one thing - you get the machine on the ground as soon as possible.

So why Langkawi? It means flying a considerably longer distance than the other two airports.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Get on Google Earth and type in Pulau Langkawi and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. 2+2=4 That for me is the simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction.

... or because someone had programmed the autopilot to fly waypoints.

Sorry, I know it's an old post but it riled me a little to see this guy still getting airtime

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The decompression theory also does not explain the staged switching off of ACARS and the transponder, and the entering of a new route into the navigation computer.

These were deliberate acts.

A fire could have taken them out to be fair. First change of direction, to try to get to Langkawi, and the second to get the approach to that airport correct which would see the flight path then going to Australia direction.

Those acts are only guessed at being deliberate acts in an effort to stir up some type of terror.