Malaysia Airlines 777 loses contact...not found

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I don't think it's ever gonna be found.

I think it's sitting on a tarmac somewhere or inside an aircraft hanger.


That's why I don't understand why they're looking for wreckage in the ocean...shortly after the flight went missing they suspected foul play by someone onboard the plane...I too believe they should be looking for the plane on land....


Where? There are no "remote* airstrips that can handle a 777. And an airstrip that can is visible by satellite.
 
I really believe they are getting close to finding that plane in the area where those satellites photos are showing the various pieces of ? This is going to take time searching on the Dark Side of the Moon (Indian Ocean).
 
Originally Posted By: Garak

More to the point, is there video surveillance of the passenger compartment? That's where people engage in behaviour all the way from being drunk and unruly to trying to set off shoe bombs.


They just might. There isn't any law that prohibits it. Buses have them. (I know SEPTA does. Among other things, they've caught non riders entering the bus after an accident and trying to claim injury.)
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I don't think it's ever gonna be found.

I think it's sitting on a tarmac somewhere or inside an aircraft hanger.


That's why I don't understand why they're looking for wreckage in the ocean...shortly after the flight went missing they suspected foul play by someone onboard the plane...I too believe they should be looking for the plane on land....


Where? There are no "remote* airstrips that can handle a 777. And an airstrip that can is visible by satellite.


No one has answered my question...why would someone on the plane turn off the tracking equipment if they were just going to crash into the ocean? Doesn't make any sense...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I don't think it's ever gonna be found.

I think it's sitting on a tarmac somewhere or inside an aircraft hanger.


That's why I don't understand why they're looking for wreckage in the ocean...shortly after the flight went missing they suspected foul play by someone onboard the plane...I too believe they should be looking for the plane on land....


Where? There are no "remote* airstrips that can handle a 777. And an airstrip that can is visible by satellite.


No one has answered my question...why would someone on the plane turn off the tracking equipment if they were just going to crash into the ocean? Doesn't make any sense...
he could have thought Thai air force would have been on him for making a move like that.
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I don't think it's ever gonna be found.

I think it's sitting on a tarmac somewhere or inside an aircraft hanger.


That's why I don't understand why they're looking for wreckage in the ocean...shortly after the flight went missing they suspected foul play by someone onboard the plane...I too believe they should be looking for the plane on land....


Where? There are no "remote* airstrips that can handle a 777. And an airstrip that can is visible by satellite.


No one has answered my question...why would someone on the plane turn off the tracking equipment if they were just going to crash into the ocean? Doesn't make any sense...

Because of being mentally unbalanced. Much being said about the pilot, and his mental state in the hours before the flight. It's not impossible to imagine a person going off the deep end (no pun intended) and doing something completely nutty. It happens...just not very often (thankfully) with airline pilots. He may have had in his mind a reason to simply disappear...and take everyone with him...as a way of 'getting back' at being jilted (or whatever the circumstance was between himself, the girlfriend, and his wife).
On the flip side, this notion of the aircraft landing in some remote airfield is without logic. Firstly, and aircraft weighing as much as a 777 does MUST land on a runway able to support it's bulk. These runways are ONLY available at rather major airports built to handle the weight. Otherwise the 777 would simply self-destruct as the landing gear sinks into the pavement. There is ZERO evidence that ANY mysterious aircraft landed at a major airport. Secondly...why would any terrorist group or other organization NEED to steal an airliner loaded with people when they can obtain one very simply on the market? It's not difficult to purchase an older airliner.....nor do terrorist lack funds to do so. Even IF some group wanted to hijack a plane for purposes of a weapons platform (highly unlikely), why not just take a Fedex or other cargo aircraft that has less security and would not draw as much scrutiny?
No, it all points to the conclusion it has crashed in the sea where various separate resources have pointed out. Only a matter of time until it is 100% confirmed with evidence in the debris. Hopefully that will lead to a location of the cockpit recorder and finally get some answers to all this.
My opinion? The pilot was the culprit. Why? He was a distraught nutjub.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Because of being mentally unbalanced. Much being said about the pilot, and his mental state in the hours before the flight. It's not impossible to imagine a person going off the deep end (no pun intended) and doing something completely nutty. It happens...just not very often (thankfully) with airline pilots. He may have had in his mind a reason to simply disappear...and take everyone with him...as a way of 'getting back' at being jilted (or whatever the circumstance was between himself, the girlfriend, and his wife).
On the flip side, this notion of the aircraft landing in some remote airfield is without logic. Firstly, and aircraft weighing as much as a 777 does MUST land on a runway able to support it's bulk. These runways are ONLY available at rather major airports built to handle the weight. Otherwise the 777 would simply self-destruct as the landing gear sinks into the pavement. There is ZERO evidence that ANY mysterious aircraft landed at a major airport. Secondly...why would any terrorist group or other organization NEED to steal an airliner loaded with people when they can obtain one very simply on the market? It's not difficult to purchase an older airliner.....nor do terrorist lack funds to do so. Even IF some group wanted to hijack a plane for purposes of a weapons platform (highly unlikely), why not just take a Fedex or other cargo aircraft that has less security and would not draw as much scrutiny?
No, it all points to the conclusion it has crashed in the sea where various separate resources have pointed out. Only a matter of time until it is 100% confirmed with evidence in the debris. Hopefully that will lead to a location of the cockpit recorder and finally get some answers to all this.
My opinion? The pilot was the culprit. Why? He was a distraught nutjub.


That is certainly plausible...
 
I remember seeing C-130's loaded and landing on dirt-aggregate runways in the "Vietnam War in Color" series but probably doesn't even compare to a 777. The C-130's landing gear etc was most like designed for that type of landing in remote areas.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
They just might. There isn't any law that prohibits it. Buses have them.

I'm pretty sure our intercity buses here do, too. I'm not sure about the city ones. As for the airlines, that shows you how much flying I've done as of late. The last time I flew between Canada and the U.S., I had to step on the antiseptic pad because it was the mad cow disease scare.
wink.gif


Grampi: As for turning things off, one never knows. Our experts here will have a much better idea than I would, but I could think of a couple reasons myself. One reason, yes, is that someone is up to something untoward. Remember, though, that can include everything from suicide, to hijacking, to a conflict in the cockpit, to theft, and so forth. Those are all different scenarios. Or, one of the crew could have suspected an electrical fault or glitch or that the equipment wasn't functioning. Or, the information we've been given is totally out of whack.

I have to agree that the remote field landing (i.e. a theft or hijacking) is unlikely. There are a few "remote" airfields that can handle such an aircraft, but they're not that remote. Regina has handled 747s in the past. But, this isn't a town of two people and we are near a military base, which is one of the reasons the runways are overbuilt here, since it's an alternate landing strip if the military needs it.

Hiding a big plane is certainly possible. The most likely place it's hiding, though, unfortunately, is under the waves. There's lots of room to hide stuff there.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak

The most likely place it's hiding, though, unfortunately, is under the waves. There's lots of room to hide stuff there.


Oh yes. But that doesn't register with conspiracy theorists.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Hiding a big plane is certainly possible. The most likely place it's hiding, though, unfortunately, is under the waves. There's lots of room to hide stuff there.


Yep along with all the other wrecks in Davy Jones locker.
The problem i have with it landing somewhere is to pull something like that off everyone involved as well as anyone seeing the plane come down for landing or at any other time would have to dummy up.

That would also include their friends and family and anyone else they told. It just doesn't sound plausible.
 
Originally Posted By: cjcride
An Aircraft Carrier in the search area would greatly increase aircraft time in the search zone. No long transit times to the zone.


Sure it would. Does Canada have one they could spare that isn't tied up to some other tasking? Oh, and you are just going to eat the bill for the work too.
shocked.gif


I'm not trying to diminish the task at hand. Just pointing out the reality of the situation that comes back to the old saying "there is no such thing as a free lunch".
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Yep along with all the other wrecks in Davy Jones locker. The problem i have with it landing somewhere is to pull something like that off everyone involved as well as anyone seeing the plane come down for landing or at any other time would have to dummy up.

Exactly. And with all the coverage of this out there, what are the odds that someone is going to see a very large plane landing where very large planes don't normally land and leave it without reporting it?

MNGopher: I actually suggested an aircraft carrier earlier on down in the thread. No, Canada doesn't have a spare one. A nuclear aircraft carrier could probably house our entire military, including all the fighters.
wink.gif
When I suggested it, I wasn't thinking about cost. Of course, it's not free. I'm not even considering political implications, or whether the U.S. has one they could "spare" for the time being, or other military considerations. But, from a layman's perspective, it's hard to think of a better platform for searching the area. After all, with every report of possible debris from a satellite image, by the time the information trickles down, orders are drawn, and the aircraft actually depart, there's a significant period of time passed.
 
Every search plane seems to be propeller plane. Is it because they can fly slower and lower? Do carriers have search and rescue planes on board? I really don't know but I was surprised to notice spinning blades on P3.
 
The P3 is a turbo prop.The first sub detection was done by blimps. Then the P3 was developed to replace them. You want a slow flyer for a good visual. Early subs cruised on the surface or just under it. The blimps and the Orion flew out of the old Weymouth Naval Air Station to look for subs in Massachusetts Bay. The P3 is a land based plane.Prolly gets refueled whilst in the air to search the debris site.This is in the Roaring Forties. There are no land masses and the wind is driven by the Earth's rotation.And the bottom is 13,000 feet down. What we had yesterday for weather would have been an average day.
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
I still wonder, did this plane land on the continent of Antarctica?

The interesting thing is why the pilot, if he did in fact have a death wish, would chose that particular flight path and it does seem that if they were flying on the most economical mode could have reached that area. Long stretches of fairly level ice pack too. A safe landing maybe not but it might still have crash landed partially in tact.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I still wonder, did this plane land on the continent of Antarctica?

Wouldn't that indicate a death wish, too? It's not like one would choose to land in Antarctica, vanish among the crowds, and start all over again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Brons2
Airline card credit card annual fees, wow $495?
2
Replies
30
Views
857
Cujet
T
How do Airliners navigate without GPS?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
billt460
GON
The 20 Most Delayed Planes in America.
Replies
15
Views
694
Just a civilian pilot
GON
Article from Forbes discussion on USD collapse
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
BMWTurboDzl
Owen Lucas
Amsterdam to Rome layover of 85 minutes, will I make it to the gate? (Delta)
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
Owen Lucas
Back
Top