Malaysia Airlines Flight Goes Missing En Route to China

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579758/U-...lnerable-mid-air-break-up.html

FAA warned six months ago that Boeing jets similar to missing flight MH370 were vulnerable to mid-air break up
FAA had ordered airlines to fix possibly fatal flaw in Boeing 777s by this April
It said they must 'detect and correct cracking and corrosion in the fuselage’
Failure to fix the flaw could put the aircraft at risk of ‘a rapid decompression’
Malaysia defence minister today said the plane had been 'fully serviced' and all maintenance checks 'were in order'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579758/U-...ir-break-up.html#ixzz2wDr3BElR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Wasn't this mentioned on Day 1 / page 2?

Really? If your job is to stop duplicate posts you are doing a shitty job.


Hey - did you hear that a Malaysian Airliner disappeared?!? Let me post a link for you!!!

No need to post old news and be snarky. It's not my fault you can't keep up.

LOL You must get paid a lot to monitor this thread and keep it on track, get a life loser. Oh that's right you already have one its this thread.

Oooooohhhhh, buuuuuurnnnnn.

You sure schooled her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the plane landed anywhere they could get a cell signal, wouldn't someone know? It seems unlikely that nearly 300 people would hand their cell phones over to hijackers. I don't think hijackers could go through 300 pockets, purses and bags to find them all and make sure they're off.

1: if on land they are probably somewhere remote... I'm no authority on cell phone reception throughout Asia, but there have to be areas with limited reception.

2: we are at 11 days out, my cell phone would be dead from roaming and waiting for a signal.

[Anonymous]

It is now been confirmed that the final words were from the copilot. Run with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is now been confirmed that the final words were from the copilot. Run with that.

What did he say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is now been confirmed that the final words were from the copilot. Run with that.

What did he say?

It was the "alright, goodnight" signoff. Completely uneventful and not unusual in the slightest, UNLESS the transponder and other equipment were turned off prior to that bit of radio communication. From what I understand today, the information is changing, and the timeline of what was turned off, and when, has been somewhat retracted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the erratic flying leading to the conclusion that the plane crashed into the sea? Here is a link (sorry long) that explains the term coffin corner, which means that the minimum and maximum speed are the same and the plane drops down sharply, due to physics of flying. Sometimes that can be halted, sometimes not. In any case, that fly up, plunge down is pretty hard on the breathing of people. RIP the folks on Flight 340.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/62671/

Is this the pilot's forum?

I don't know which one PP was talking about, but PPrune (or something like that) was linked maybe 15 pages back, and that has a nice (albeit loooong) thread on it about the Malaysia plane.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-264.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the erratic flying leading to the conclusion that the plane crashed into the sea? Here is a link (sorry long) that explains the term coffin corner, which means that the minimum and maximum speed are the same and the plane drops down sharply, due to physics of flying. Sometimes that can be halted, sometimes not. In any case, that fly up, plunge down is pretty hard on the breathing of people. RIP the folks on Flight 340.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/62671/

Is this the pilot's forum?

I don't know which one PP was talking about, but PPrune (or something like that) was linked maybe 15 pages back, and that has a nice (albeit loooong) thread on it about the Malaysia plane.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-264.html

Thanks. I wasn't going to go searching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does occalm's razor say about all this?

Occam's. if you're going to try to sound erudite, at least get the correct reference. That wasn't a typo or a keystroke error -- you don't know what you're talking about.

And the answer is: Occam's Razor stipulates that it crashed in the ocean.

How is this the simplest explanation when evidence shows no debris and indicated hours of pinging after disappearance? Plus we know a person intentionally turned off communications systems.

Given those things I think the simplest explanation is someone stole the plane - which does NOT necessarily suggest that it is in the ocean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does occalm's razor say about all this?

Occam's. if you're going to try to sound erudite, at least get the correct reference. That wasn't a typo or a keystroke error -- you don't know what you're talking about.

And the answer is: Occam's Razor stipulates that it crashed in the ocean.

How is this the simplest explanation when evidence shows no debris and indicated hours of pinging after disappearance? Plus we know a person intentionally turned off communications systems.

Given those things I think the simplest explanation is someone stole the plane - which does NOT necessarily suggest that it is in the ocean.

That would be the Occams razor assumption -- someone, probably the pilot (leaving out assuming someone else could fly the plane) continued to fly the plane. Also, if assuming the pilot, could also land the plane. Fewest assumptions.

[Anonymous]

This is why I strongly believe they should allow passengers to use cellphones on air and have cellphone service. In 2014, it is unconceivable that we are still cut of from civilization once we enter a plane. If we were allowed this, at least in case of a hijack or emergency, some people will call their loved ones or 911 AND we will know what is going on. Halas, we are left wondering what could be and what did happen, and everything at this point is PURE SPECULATION. We do not have proof of anything or any empirical evidence that justifies a hijacking, mechanical failure, suicide or otherwise. We are left with our questions…..

[Anonymous]

agree with 11:34 although think either pilot or co-pilot.

The assumptions are equal--pilot overtakes co-pilot, or co-pilot overtakes pilot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No PP. Go crawl back in your hole if you do not want to listen to speculation about what is probably the BIGGEST AVIATION MYSTERY EVER. If you haven't noticed, EVERYONE (including the media, who broadcasts to the WHOLE WORLD) is speculating about who the passengers, pilots and crew were/are. It's because a plane disappeared OUT OF THE AIR and normal people find that unusual and want to help solve this mystery.

Bigger than Amelia Earhart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why I strongly believe they should allow passengers to use cellphones on air and have cellphone service. In 2014, it is unconceivable that we are still cut of from civilization once we enter a plane. If we were allowed this, at least in case of a hijack or emergency, some people will call their loved ones or 911 AND we will know what is going on. Halas, we are left wondering what could be and what did happen, and everything at this point is PURE SPECULATION. We do not have proof of anything or any empirical evidence that justifies a hijacking, mechanical failure, suicide or otherwise. We are left with our questions…..

Do you think they didn't call loved ones during a hijacking because it wasn't allowed???

[Anonymous]

Peter King's theory doesn't make sense. Why go through all of the flying maneuvers he/they went through in order to simply land in the ocean to commit suicide? No, given what's being reported about eyewitnesses who observed the plane's flying maneuvers as it went low and off-course, the intent seems to have been to preserve the airplane.

God willing, the passengers are still alive and reasonably well, wherever they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I strongly believe they should allow passengers to use cellphones on air and have cellphone service. In 2014, it is unconceivable that we are still cut of from civilization once we enter a plane. If we were allowed this, at least in case of a hijack or emergency, some people will call their loved ones or 911 AND we will know what is going on. Halas, we are left wondering what could be and what did happen, and everything at this point is PURE SPECULATION. We do not have proof of anything or any empirical evidence that justifies a hijacking, mechanical failure, suicide or otherwise. We are left with our questions…..

Do you think they didn't call loved ones during a hijacking because it wasn't allowed???

Uhm no, but if phones were allowed, you'd at least have a chance that someone MIGHT call or text someone to alert them. Without Phone service, passengers are left at the mercy of whatever is going on there and might die with their secrets.