Malaysia Airlines Flight Goes Missing En Route to China

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I've developed an unhealthy obsession with this missing plane, so I'll throw in my theory into the ring after following this story for 10 days,

I think the pilot was on some sort of suicide mission (or just went nuts finally this one flight) - one last hurrah. But, since he was an avid flyer and loved the simulator, instead of just nose diving into the ocean, he wanted to try some simulations he had practiced at home just to test the systems and push it to the limit one last time. He programed the turn west and decided to see if he could then fly north (or south) without radar detection until he ran out of fuel and crashed into land or sea.

The idea of the plane being hijacked just doesn't make sense. If the plane was to be used as a bomb - the hijackers could have easily flown into the tall buildings in Kuala Lampur, or Beijing during the flight. The effort to land in a stealthy way, refuel, and then take off again to be used as a bomb is just too large an endeavor. And as others have mentioned, why the 777?


Interesting...
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz

fire in plane

MAYDAY MAYDAY FIRE IN PLANE

program to nearest acceptable airport

pull the busses and lose systems (communication, transponders)

Plane now heading in new direction

overcome by smoke

plane flies on until it runs out of fuel


This sounds very plausible in most ways, except for the continued pinging of the engines for another 8 hours.


Not plausible. If they had time to reprogram the plane they would have sent out a distress call or contact ATC

By the time you detect a fire in the plane, the communications could be out. Pilots can do two things at once and it takes a few seconds to change the planes courses through the auto pilot.
Anonymous
I don't believe the pilots had anything to do with it, because if they did they would have left or mailed letters to family explaining their reasoning.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz

fire in plane

MAYDAY MAYDAY FIRE IN PLANE

program to nearest acceptable airport

pull the busses and lose systems (communication, transponders)

Plane now heading in new direction

overcome by smoke

plane flies on until it runs out of fuel


This sounds very plausible in most ways, except for the continued pinging of the engines for another 8 hours.


Not plausible. If they had time to reprogram the plane they would have sent out a distress call or contact ATC


Also, did he fly up to 45,000 asphyxiate the passengers and crew? If so, very morbid to then be flying around on your final flight with a plane full of deceased passengers behind you. And what about the co-pilot? First kill him, then depressurize the cabin (but not the cockpit), then ride around with all those bodies? Extremely morbid and homicidal.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz

fire in plane

MAYDAY MAYDAY FIRE IN PLANE

program to nearest acceptable airport

pull the busses and lose systems (communication, transponders)

Plane now heading in new direction

overcome by smoke


plane flies on until it runs out of fuel


This sounds very plausible in most ways, except for the continued pinging of the engines for another 8 hours.


Not plausible. If they had time to reprogram the plane they would have sent out a distress call or contact ATC

By the time you detect a fire in the plane, the communications could be out. Pilots can do two things at once and it takes a few seconds to change the planes courses through the auto pilot.


Also pilots are trained to do things in this order: aviate, navigate, communicate. Communicate is last. if they are trying to figure out the source of a fire, they might not have time to communicate. This makes the most sense to me of any explanation.

And the 45,000 foot thing coul be inaccurate -- many sources in the news have said so.
Anonymous
According tothis article, "In much of the rest of the world, meanwhile, passengers on various foreign airlines are already routinely using cellphones and other personal wireless devices to make and receive calls in flight."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/technology/29phones.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1395140481-PxRKUZz/p1VAZ6Cgl6+BPw

It looks like it would depend on whether an individual had their own wifi or if the plane provided wifi.

A blanket statement about cell phones not working on planes doesn't seem to be accurate.
Anonymous
"AeroMobile, whose clients include Qantas and Malaysia Airlines, says the first authorized in-flight cellphone call on a commercial aircraft was made, using its system, on an Emirates flight in March 2008."
Anonymous
According tothis article, "In much of the rest of the world, meanwhile, passengers on various foreign airlines are already routinely using cellphones and other personal wireless devices to make and receive calls in flight."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/technology/29pho...5140481-PxRKUZz/p1VAZ6Cgl6+BPw

It looks like it would depend on whether an individual had their own wifi or if the plane provided wifi.

A blanket statement about cell phones not working on planes doesn't seem to be accurate.

Cell phone do not work on planes. You are a troll.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
According tothis article, "In much of the rest of the world, meanwhile, passengers on various foreign airlines are already routinely using cellphones and other personal wireless devices to make and receive calls in flight."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/technology/29pho...5140481-PxRKUZz/p1VAZ6Cgl6+BPw

It looks like it would depend on whether an individual had their own wifi or if the plane provided wifi.

A blanket statement about cell phones not working on planes doesn't seem to be accurate.

Cell phone do not work on planes. You are a troll.


any you don't understand the term "troll"
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Ok this is interesting...

My friend is a longstanding pilot for United Airlines (and before that, a fighter pilot for the Navy). I was speaking to his wife today and she said when he heard the pilot had a flight simulator at home, he went, "uh-oh…yikes" and suspects the pilot. She said he doesn't know any pilots that have or *would want* a flight simulator at home. She's a surgeon, and she said it's like how weird would it be for her to do surgery all day and then go home and down to her basement and start doing surgeries. You just don't want to do your job for your hobby.

Anyways again, obviously this is just one pilot's opinion, but he does know a bunch of other pilots…so thought it was worth mentioning.


It is similar to people who have guns or poison in their homes -- when the wife turns up with a bullet hole or dies of poison, then it becomes "means" Now this pilot (or someone) hijacked this plane, and it has gone far off course. Help from the flight simulator?
Also, I still do not get "the plane could not land" Pilots have said the plane could land on a highway, anywhere. With the whole Eastern world to choose from, it seem like someone could find a highway, especially if they had help. Also the airplane itself is valuable. The parts alone are worth million on the black market, which is huge.
Anonymous
Two things on this thread I do not get: cell phones. Why not just call home? So dumb.
And: the plane can't land. Why not, nothing wrong with the plane... Other hijacked planes landed. This one just left out the negotiation part and sold it directly. As for the passengers. Not good.
Anonymous
...Join me in the cockpit as I present a decompression scenario that may be similar to the Southwest incident. I hope to give you a glimpse of what the pilots faced as they prepared the aircraft for an emergency descent.

Most often, the first indication that something is wrong is the cabin altitude warning horn blasting in the cockpit. Concurrently, the pilots experience abdominal pain and the feeling of having the wind knocked out of us, because trapped gas expands with the loss of cabin pressure. Our first move is to don our oxygen masks, check the regulator to 100 percent oxygen and establish communication with the copilot. Depending on the altitude of the aircraft and the fitness level of the pilots when the decompression occurs, the UTC, or useful time of consciousness, can be as little as 5 to 10 seconds.
Once the oxygen masks are in place, it is difficult to exhale as oxygen is forced into our lungs through automatic pressure breathing. So we reach for the response checklist and begin the steps to safely descend the aircraft to a lower altitude where the crew and passengers can breathe without supplemental oxygen.

The next step on the checklist is an immediate call to Air Traffic Control (ATC) explaining our situation and declaring an emergency, followed by changing the transponder code (squawk) to 7700: the universal signal to ATC that we are experiencing an emergency. Squawking the code allows expedited handling in descents and vectors for the incident aircraft as we continue to the nearest suitable airport.

Pilots must handle all three of the steps required to end this scenario almost simultaneously. We are aviating (flying the airplane), navigating (descending to our divert, or alternative landing point) and communicating (talking to ATC and to each other). A breakdown in any of these three tasks could be catastrophic. When navigating, we need to know the precise height of the flyover terrain—we don’t always have the luxury of being able to see the ground. What if the decompression happens while we’re flying over 15,000-foot mountain peaks at night? A descent directly to 10,000 feet would be disastrous.

Next up on the checklist: The pilot who’s not flying makes a call to the flight attendants to discern the condition of the cabin and inquire about any injuries. From the cockpit, we don’t know the cause of the decompression or the extent of damage to the aircraft. If we’re lucky enough to see the size and location of the hole in the fuselage, we’ll know more about the severity of our emergency. These details give pilots a good sense of the structural integrity of the airframe and if further damage may be a concern. We don’t want to subject the damaged aircraft to any additional stresses (air load) as we start a high-speed emergency descent.

Without a pressurized cabin, our target level of altitude would be 10,000 feet because that is the highest altitude where we avoid significant oxygen deprivation of the passengers and crew. Those little masks that drop down from above can create chemically generated oxygen for only 10 to 20 minutes, so we must descend quickly to a lower altitude. Ten thousand feet keeps the aircraft high enough to manage the fuel burn. At low altitudes, fuel burn can leave long overwater flights (such as Los Angeles to Sydney) critically short of fuel, even during a divert to a known alternate field.

Once the aircraft has descended to 10,000 feet, the passengers and crew can remove their masks and breathe the ambient air as we make our final descent into the divert airfield. If the structural integrity of the aircraft has been assessed as sound, we’ll make a normal approach and landing. The airport will most likely have dispatched emergency vehicles in anticipation of our arrival. A crew will be standing by to assist with medical emergencies or to extinguish any fires that may occur....
http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/articles/how-pilots-handle-aircraft-decompression

I included part of this article because some PPs were asking why is it hard to breathe? And what would happen to the passengers?

Anonymous
Muslim Country and Muslim pilots
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Two things on this thread I do not get: cell phones. Why not just call home? So dumb.
And: the plane can't land. Why not, nothing wrong with the plane... Other hijacked planes landed. This one just left out the negotiation part and sold it directly. As for the passengers. Not good.


More coffee drinking, less posting on DCUM.
Anonymous
There's another possible wrinkle, experts say. Some countries may be hesitant to reveal what they've seen on radar.
"They want to protect their own capabilities," Beatty said. "Their intelligence services are not going to want to publicize exactly what their capabilities are." cnn
^^ I have thought that many times.
Forum Index » Off-Topic
Go to: