Malaysia Airlines 777 loses contact...not found

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: JHZR2



EXACTLY!

Thus why its interesting. Especially when you consider 9/11, or the possibility that this was a takeover... Really? So some marginally trained folks who can maybe handle a cessna at best somehow can do anything (short of crashing directly) with a jet airliner??

Doubtful.



I think that was one of the things that was so troubling about 9/11. The guys who took over the planes were definitely not skilled pilots, but they had enough training to point and shoot the aircraft to where they wanted. They also never communicated with ATC, and their intentions were not to land the plane safely, but they had enough skill to hit a target.

Astro's point is clear when you look at flight 93. The passengers took back the plane, but it ended up crashing in a field anyway.

The points others have made about video games are right on key as well. You can play flight simulator for thousands of hours, but that doesn't mean you know how to handle an aircraft in real life. The yoke and controls don't handle similar to the computer keys.


I don't think for a minute that is true....they HAD to be skill pilots to fly into the twin towers....that's an insult.

Either the media deployed their background skills as in one year flight school training in the US playing dumb(dumb Arabs stereotype) did they have training in other countries....why train in the US in a language that is foreign to them or a second language where communication misinterpertation could had occur?
 
They were unable to manage systems, communicate, or take off and land. They were able to steer the airplane in flight only. That's all they learned in a year of training. They executed their task effectively, but they had to take control of the airliner in flight because they didn't know how to get it into the air.

Calling them "pilots" is like calling a guy who beheads people with a sword a "surgeon" because he has mastered a single surgical skill.
 
Carrying a payload of lithium batteries as they were stating today could have been a problem but until the plane or its wreck is found it is all just talk.
 
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Carrying a payload of lithium batteries as they were stating today could have been a problem but until the plane or its wreck is found it is all just talk.


It landed on some remote island flown by a guy with a cheat sheet because they wanted to steal a cargo of diamonds and then fit bomb bay doors on it.
 
This whole plane thing is nuts. I hope its found and all this scare is just a big FUBAR by the media"guessing" on what happened. Govt cant be blamed because I dont think they had any idea this was even going on, but someone somewhere did. I guess its back to the Post 9/11 mentality of being afraid to fly. I will have to car pool with John Madden on his bus I guess. I can drive everywhere I go. Alaska in the summer and Quebec to watch hockey, flying isnt for me. I always get sandwiched between two fat people anyways, why pay to be put through that much grief lol. Now a BITOG thought...I wonder if planes use pennzoil/mobil synthetics and what oci they stick to, what weight, and if they use LM Mos2? I do hope we find those missing passengers and they are still okay.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Carrying a payload of lithium batteries as they were stating today could have been a problem but until the plane or its wreck is found it is all just talk.


It landed on some remote island flown by a guy with a cheat sheet because they wanted to steal a cargo of diamonds and then fit bomb bay doors on it.
Next Bond movie?
 
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Carrying a payload of lithium batteries as they were stating today could have been a problem but until the plane or its wreck is found it is all just talk.


Yeah I saw a couple articles about the batteries too. Thing is, fire is one of the worst things that could happen in the air. I'd take an engine failure anyday over cabin/cargo fire.

If there was a fire, then how did the aircraft not only continue flying in a stable and controlled manner for 7 hours, but continued to ping the satellites as well. This doesn't make sense to me. Because if you have a fire that wipes out comms (but not satcoms), and the pax and crew, then the plane is going down immediately, or very soon after, and not flying on for 7 more hours pinging satellites the whole time.

Personally I think this was either a suicide or hijack. I still do not believe there was anything wrong with the aircraft.
 
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Here's an oddball question for Astro: could a windshield have failed?


There are no birds at 30,000 ft.


I will give you one trillion dollars if you can point to where I said anything about a bird. Ready...go to it!
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Antiqueshell, I'll answer both questions here. I've hinted at my background throughout this thread, Trajan got close, but here it is writ plain: College on a combination of scholarship and financial aid, majored in Astrophysics. Joined the USN in 1986, flew the F-14 Tomcat (including combat missions) and a few significant others, like the F/A-18. F-14 Instructor pilot. I left the Navy in 1997 to join United Airlines. Instructed in the 747-400. FAA Check Airman. Type-rated in the B-757/767 and the A-320. Currently flying the A-320. Have flown over 30 different airplane types over my career. Still active in the USN Reserve, where I am approaching 28 years of service. At the time I joined BITOG, I was on Active Duty, serving on one of 5 year-long recalls since 9-11. In my "rant" a few pages back...I was talking about me...

There is no industry protocol for both pilots deceased or incapacitated. There is no "cheat sheet"...I personally find the idea mildly insulting...if you could pick up a sheet of paper and do my job...then why would you need my training or experience in the cockpit? When you look at Asiana 214, you see a trained, experienced pilot make a mistake: misunderstanding the autothrottle mode. He compounds his mistake with not monitoring airspeed, because the visual approach to RWY 28R in SFO is not simple and he doesn't have the electronic navigation (glideslope) to back him up. Our "cheat sheet passenger" doesn't even know how to program the frequency to get the glideslope, nor does he konw what that diamond on the right side of the primary flight display means...and how likely is he to make a similar mistake? (it's about 100%) or multiple mistakes? (again, about 100%, from my simulator experience) A "cheat sheet" or "gouge book" just isn't realistic...there is too much to explain when it comes to operating an airplane. There are so many building blocks to understanding just the environment in which it operates...

That environment, the operational aspects, the systems limitations, those are all things I've been trying to explain here, but it's the subject of many, many books, so at best, I've done an incomplete job and only given you a glimpse of some of the considerations...

I hope that answers your questions.

Cheers,
Astro


I'm not trying to insult airline pilots...but aren't modern autopilots sophisticated enough that a plane can actually land itself in an emergency? (For that matter...couldn't an F/B-111 do that 30 years ago?)
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
They were unable to manage systems, communicate, or take off and land. They were able to steer the airplane in flight only. That's all they learned in a year of training. They executed their task effectively, but they had to take control of the airliner in flight because they didn't know how to get it into the air.

Calling them "pilots" is like calling a guy who beheads people with a sword a "surgeon" because he has mastered a single surgical skill.


I'm NOT taking sides here...but were they UNABLE to do anything but steer, or just NOT INTERESTED in doing it? Taking over in the air makes sense, regardless: it's not all that hard to stop a hijacked plane from taking off. Considering their mission...why would they want to talk to anyone or use the aircraft systems?
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Here's an oddball question for Astro: could a windshield have failed?


There are no birds at 30,000 ft.


I will give you one trillion dollars if you can point to where I said anything about a bird. Ready...go to it!


Lol. Dragons maybe?
 
What I find interesting is how this and few other plane disappearances (ie Amelia Earhart) mesmerized the whole planet.

On the other hand, there are several dozens of missing planes in the last several decades.

My bet is this plane will never be found.

Bed things do happen in life and sometimes life is weirder than fiction.
 
That is absolutely correct, but I feel it is unfair to compare previous missing planes in this situation, like Amelia Earhart's, because the technology they had then was not what we have today.
 
Originally Posted By: cjcride
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Carrying a payload of lithium batteries as they were stating today could have been a problem but until the plane or its wreck is found it is all just talk.


It landed on some remote island flown by a guy with a cheat sheet because they wanted to steal a cargo of diamonds and then fit bomb bay doors on it.
Next Bond movie?


Be more entertaining than all these conspiracy theories.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I doubt if any passenger or flight crew member other than the pilots would be able to successfully land an airliner unless that passenger had actually flown airliners. Even if a passenger had experience with small planes it would be at least extremely difficult and no matter how experience in small planes the person had the cockpit in the airliner would be very different.

The main advantage such a person would have is the ability and knowledge to set an emergency squawk code and some experience with the communications equipment, along with at least a rudimentary knowledge of the instruments.

As Astro points out, the big issue is communications. You can't just dial 911, unfortunately. Airports have different frequencies for obvious reasons, the average person doesn't even know where to begin to look for those frequencies, and there aren't a lot of communications available in the middle of nowhere.

I've done some flight training, and I understand Astro's point completely. I can bring a Cessna down safely. In an airliner, I'd be lucky enough to be able to set a squawk code and a communications frequency.

And Astro, yes, the pilot had a nice flight sim setup, and I see nothing suspicious about such a thing, either.
 
Aren't all airliner radios set up so that anyone can push one button and be on the GUARD emergency frequency? Or was an author (who, I must add, is a retired airline pilot) making something up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top