Malaysia Airlines Flight Goes Missing En Route to China

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone seems to believe that this may all come to some resolution. That is probably not the case.

Northwest Airlines Flight 2501 was never recovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Orient_Airlines_Flight_2501

Ok, but they did know where it landed. If they had today's technology, I am sure they would have been able to find the wreckage.

[Anonymous]

I think by definition if you don't have the background, training, personnel, or finances to handle a task, you are "incompetent" to handle that task. That doesn't have to mean "you are bad and stupid". I just means this particular task is not within your competencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to zing off in another direction, but from a skilled pilot:
...And at least one news report described altitude excursions between 45,000 feet and 23,000, which one pilot suggested might have been done willfully to render passengers unconscious. But this strikes me as behavior that would also be consistent with the airplane flying completely unattended with the autopilot off. Though these oscillations are larger than I might expect, it would be a natural behavior for the airplane to fly relatively large but gentle pitch oscillations.

This would be true especially if the airplane's auto-throttles were also for some reason disabled. There have been statements made that such changes could only be made by a skilled aviator, but what "skilled aviator" cannot hold altitude within 20,000 feet?....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/16/opinion/palmer-malaysia-flight-370/index.html?hpt=bosread

Gives me the feeling "ghost plane"

Me too - why the erratic flying if there is a skilled pilot?

Fight in the cockpit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think by definition if you don't have the background, training, personnel, or finances to handle a task, you are "incompetent" to handle that task. That doesn't have to mean "you are bad and stupid". I just means this particular task is not within your competencies.

Fair enough. But I think with the term "incompetence" comes allegations of malice or ill intent, which is unsubstantiated in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think by definition if you don't have the background, training, personnel, or finances to handle a task, you are "incompetent" to handle that task. That doesn't have to mean "you are bad and stupid". I just means this particular task is not within your competencies.

Fair enough. But I think with the term "incompetence" comes allegations of malice or ill intent, which is unsubstantiated in this case.

You obviously don't know what incompetence means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone seems to believe that this may all come to some resolution. That is probably not the case.

Northwest Airlines Flight 2501 was never recovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Orient_Airlines_Flight_2501

But, the resolution with NWA 2501 was that it crashed. Air France 447 had made distress signals, close to 40 from the pilot and the plane's reporting systems. So, even though it took days to find any wreckage, people knew it had malfunctioned. Silk Air 185, may have been suicide, but they knew immediately it had crashed. We may not know the full extent of what happened with these flights, but we know the outcome. And, usually knew that outcome fairly quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone seems to believe that this may all come to some resolution. That is probably not the case.

Northwest Airlines Flight 2501 was never recovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Orient_Airlines_Flight_2501

But, the resolution with NWA 2501 was that it crashed. Air France 447 had made distress signals, close to 40 from the pilot and the plane's reporting systems. So, even though it took days to find any wreckage, people knew it had malfunctioned. Silk Air 185, may have been suicide, but they knew immediately it had crashed. We may not know the full extent of what happened with these flights, but we know the outcome. And, usually knew that outcome fairly quickly.

+1.

Also, that was 64 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think by definition if you don't have the background, training, personnel, or finances to handle a task, you are "incompetent" to handle that task. That doesn't have to mean "you are bad and stupid". I just means this particular task is not within your competencies.

Fair enough. But I think with the term "incompetence" comes allegations of malice or ill intent, which is unsubstantiated in this case.

You obviously don't know what incompetence means.

I think we both know that sometimes words mean different things in terms of dictionary definition, and conception or colloquial usage, as things become co-opted to mean different things in literal definition, vs. intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone seems to believe that this may all come to some resolution. That is probably not the case.

Northwest Airlines Flight 2501 was never recovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Orient_Airlines_Flight_2501

Ok, but they did know where it landed. If they had today's technology, I am sure they would have been able to find the wreckage.

You do realize that there are annual searches for the aircraft and it still has never been found??

[Anonymous]

This article talks about the expert knowledge and planning that went into turning off the communciations the way they did. That expertise makes an ocean crash even more unlikely in my mind.

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/03/17/planning-could-hold-key-to-disappearance-of-flight-mh370/20851555/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl8%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D454677

[Anonymous]

The hijack to land theory makes no sense to me. In addition to the issue of passing through all that air defense, the question remains: why?

if you want a plane to use as a missile, you woudn't need one as big as a 777, and you wouldn't want to have to hide and refuel one that big anyway. It makes no logical sense. A cargo plane would be a LOT easier to hijack.

But if you are a suicidal pilot (a rare but not unheard of occurance) with a family, you want to make sure the airline pays out a death benefit for you. So you take the plane where you think it won't be found and ditch it there. I think this is what happened.

And I do think people have made a reasonable case for disabled pilots due to slow depressurization, followed by autopilot maneuvers until the plane runs out of fuel. i know the flight pattern seems deliberate, but this is a really sophisticated plane.

[Anonymous]

The plane used terrain masking technique used by fighter jets to avoid radar detection according to Malaysian newspapers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2582595/Boeing-777-hijackers-plunged-5-000ft-used-low-altitude-terrain-masking-manoeuvre-practised-fighter-jets-avoid-radar-detection.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hijack to land theory makes no sense to me. In addition to the issue of passing through all that air defense, the question remains: why?

if you want a plane to use as a missile, you woudn't need one as big as a 777, and you wouldn't want to have to hide and refuel one that big anyway. It makes no logical sense. A cargo plane would be a LOT easier to hijack.

But if you are a suicidal pilot (a rare but not unheard of occurance) with a family, you want to make sure the airline pays out a death benefit for you. So you take the plane where you think it won't be found and ditch it there. I think this is what happened.

And I do think people have made a reasonable case for disabled pilots due to slow depressurization, followed by autopilot maneuvers until the plane runs out of fuel. i know the flight pattern seems deliberate, but this is a really sophisticated plane.

Which is easier to disguise as a normal every day flight and fly into a populated city? A cargo plane or a commercial air liner?

If you are a suicidal pilot, willing to kill 239 people in a plane, why dump it in the ocean? Why not take out a town or building? Why fly for hours after taking over the plane? Why not make a suicide speech or leave a note at home? Why turn off the transponders?

Why would someone have the sophistication to turn off TWO methods of communication on the plane, which pilots say is not easy and requires special knowledge, and then be stupid enough to cause depressurization of the plane and death? If they were suicidal and didn't care about death, why go through all the hiding steps above?

Suicide makes NO sense. Depressurixation makes sense if there was a struggle in the cockpit that cause the rise to 45000 feet. Still begs the question of why no passengers cell phoned, unless they were already dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The hijack to land theory makes no sense to me. In addition to the issue of passing through all that air defense, the question remains: why?

if you want a plane to use as a missile, you woudn't need one as big as a 777, and you wouldn't want to have to hide and refuel one that big anyway. It makes no logical sense. A cargo plane would be a LOT easier to hijack.

But if you are a suicidal pilot (a rare but not unheard of occurance) with a family, you want to make sure the airline pays out a death benefit for you. So you take the plane where you think it won't be found and ditch it there. I think this is what happened.

And I do think people have made a reasonable case for disabled pilots due to slow depressurization, followed by autopilot maneuvers until the plane runs out of fuel. i know the flight pattern seems deliberate, but this is a really sophisticated plane.


Which is easier to disguise as a normal every day flight and fly into a populated city? A cargo plane or a commercial air liner?

If you are a suicidal pilot, willing to kill 239 people in a plane, why dump it in the ocean? Why not take out a town or building? Why fly for hours after taking over the plane? Why not make a suicide speech or leave a note at home? Why turn off the transponders?

Why would someone have the sophistication to turn off TWO methods of communication on the plane, which pilots say is not easy and requires special knowledge, and then be stupid enough to cause depressurization of the plane and death? If they were suicidal and didn't care about death, why go through all the hiding steps above?

Suicide makes NO sense. Depressurixation makes sense if there was a struggle in the cockpit that cause the rise to 45000 feet. Still begs the question of why no passengers cell phoned, unless they were already dead.

You lost me? Cell phones? Why would you think of cell phones?

[Anonymous]

Much has been made of the fact that no passengers made calls or texted during the final minutes or hours of their flight. Have you seen that mentioned in the news and in this thread?