Malaysia Airlines loses contact with passenger jet

[Mr442]

I'm telling you, I have a fear that the next time the world sees that aircraft it will be laden with explosives and heading toward a target. . .

Bingo!!! We have a winner.  That is exactly my thought. I also believe it was taken for future use.  If it had been hijacked or crashed by terrorists wanting to be noticed, we would have found wreckage, or some group would have claimed responsibility. 

[Purplelady1040]

I agree and Khazistan (sp) is also only about 1200 miles from Ukraine and I fear that possibly it could have been hijacked to that area in the war they have against Russia or that it will be headed here to use as a plane full of explosives set to hit a target.

[Locutus]

I'm starting to think that plane is on the ground somewhere perfectly intact as well.  If that's the case, I feel sorry for the passengers as they've most likely been eliminated by other methods. 

[Henry Hawk]

Don't discount the west coast of the US as a potential "high value" target. La or Sandy especially. BOTH have nuclear reactors right along the shoreline, and a dirty bomb aboard a triple 7, when combined with a nuclear reactor as a target in LA, will provide a huge death toll initially, and send fallout across the nation via the jet stream. . .

Though I do not discount the west coast as a highly potential target, I think, at least I would like to think, that our military is far superior enough to secure ourselves against such a possible threat.  IF WE CAN THINK OF THIS, then I would like to think that our military is a few steps ahead of us.
All the more reason as we do NOT need to cut our Military budget.  Our POTUS should make it clear to the world, that we are in the midst of improving our military with the most high tech weaponry and strongest well-trained soldiers this country has ever had. 

I fully believe that "Peace through Strength" is the absolute best policy to assure our National Security.

[Locutus]

Here's one pilot's take on a "Startlingly Simple Theory" on what caused the crash:



There has been a lot of speculation about Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Terrorism, hijacking, meteors. I cannot believe the analysis on CNN; it's almost disturbing. I tend to look for a simpler explanation, and I find it with the 13,000-foot runway at Pulau Langkawi.

We know the story of MH370: A loaded Boeing 777 departs at midnight from Kuala Lampur, headed to Beijing. A hot night. A heavy aircraft. About an hour out, across the gulf toward Vietnam, the plane goes dark, meaning the transponder and secondary radar tracking go off. Two days later we hear reports that Malaysian military radar (which is a primary radar, meaning the plane is tracked by reflection rather than by transponder interrogation response) has tracked the plane on a southwesterly course back across the Malay Peninsula into the Strait of Malacca.  The loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire.

When I heard this I immediately brought up Google Earth and searched for airports in proximity to the track toward the southwest.

The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They're always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don't want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.

Take a look at this airport on Google Earth. The pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make an immediate turn to the closest, safest airport.

For me, the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire. And there most likely was an electrical fire. In the case of a fire, the first response is to pull the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one. If they pulled the busses, the plane would go silent. It probably was a serious event and the flight crew was occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, navigate, and lastly, communicate is the mantra in such situations.

There are two types of fires. An electrical fire might not be as fast and furious, and there may or may not be incapacitating smoke. However there is the possibility, given the timeline, that there was an overheat on one of the front landing gear tires, it blew on takeoff and started slowly burning. Yes, this happens with underinflated tires. Remember: Heavy plane, hot night, sea level, long-run takeoff. There was a well known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. Once going, a tire fire would produce horrific, incapacitating smoke. Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter, but this will last only a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one in my flight bag, and I still carry one in my briefcase when I fly.)

What I think happened is the flight crew was overcome by smoke and the plane continued on the heading, probably on George (autopilot), until it ran out of fuel or the fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. You will find it along that route–looking elsewhere is pointless.



There's more to that article.  You can read it here:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

[Exterminator]

We can all relax; Courtney Love is on this!   

[Locutus]

We can all relax; Courtney Love is on this!   

I read that. 

[Bo D]

Everybody knows that Bubba done found it. Down in the swamp right next to where he was abducted by them aliens.

[Anne]

I heard it was on Gilligan's Island with the Professor and Maryann.   Seriouslu, though, whatever happened the passengers are dead and I feel sorry for their families.

[Palehorse]

I heard it was on Gilligan's Island with the Professor and Maryann.   Seriouslu, though, whatever happened the passengers are dead and I feel sorry for their families.

Unless:

Don't discount the west coast of the US as a potential "high value" target. La or Sandy especially. BOTH have nuclear reactors right along the shoreline, and a dirty bomb aboard a triple 7, when combined with a nuclear reactor as a target in LA, will provide a huge death toll initially, and send fallout across the nation via the jet stream. . .

And: They keep the passengers alive to line them up at the windows, thereby evoking the pity squads world-wide who will scream murder at whatever country ends up shooting the aircraft down. . .

These individuals, if this is what they have planned, are ruthless and will show no quarter. It is important to keep that at the forefront of everyones mind when/if their evil plans revealed.

The longer this goes without any debris, bodies, or other trace of the aircraft being discovered, the more I suspect that they are indeed planning something like the speculation alleges within this topic and within the media.

Air France spewed debris and bodies within the first 5 days after the incident; and it was way down deep. . .

Here's one pilot's take on a "Startlingly Simple Theory" on what caused the crash:



There has been a lot of speculation about Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Terrorism, hijacking, meteors. I cannot believe the analysis on CNN; it's almost disturbing. I tend to look for a simpler explanation, and I find it with the 13,000-foot runway at Pulau Langkawi.

We know the story of MH370: A loaded Boeing 777 departs at midnight from Kuala Lampur, headed to Beijing. A hot night. A heavy aircraft. About an hour out, across the gulf toward Vietnam, the plane goes dark, meaning the transponder and secondary radar tracking go off. Two days later we hear reports that Malaysian military radar (which is a primary radar, meaning the plane is tracked by reflection rather than by transponder interrogation response) has tracked the plane on a southwesterly course back across the Malay Peninsula into the Strait of Malacca.  The loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire.

When I heard this I immediately brought up Google Earth and searched for airports in proximity to the track toward the southwest.

The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They're always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don't want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.

Take a look at this airport on Google Earth. The pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make an immediate turn to the closest, safest airport.

For me, the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire. And there most likely was an electrical fire. In the case of a fire, the first response is to pull the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one. If they pulled the busses, the plane would go silent. It probably was a serious event and the flight crew was occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, navigate, and lastly, communicate is the mantra in such situations.

There are two types of fires. An electrical fire might not be as fast and furious, and there may or may not be incapacitating smoke. However there is the possibility, given the timeline, that there was an overheat on one of the front landing gear tires, it blew on takeoff and started slowly burning. Yes, this happens with underinflated tires. Remember: Heavy plane, hot night, sea level, long-run takeoff. There was a well known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. Once going, a tire fire would produce horrific, incapacitating smoke. Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter, but this will last only a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one in my flight bag, and I still carry one in my briefcase when I fly.)

What I think happened is the flight crew was overcome by smoke and the plane continued on the heading, probably on George (autopilot), until it ran out of fuel or the fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. You will find it along that route–looking elsewhere is pointless.



There's more to that article.  You can read it here:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

I wouldn't want to toss aside the opinion of a seasoned pilot, nor am I attempting to here. But in my mind, if they had indeed crashed upon land somewhere along the path suggested, then why aren't the EPIRPS burring up the satellites? Why couldn't they have used the 200+ cell phones aboard the craft to track them down? How does a triple 7 go down in flames and not a single living soul sees it?

That area is replete with oil rigs, tankers, and other sea bound craft that would have had people awake and on watch all night long. If that aircraft had burst into flames over sea, somebody would have seen something. It's all but a certainty. (Same can be said for an airliner flying below 1000 feet too though).

I would hope that someone is comparing the gps signals of all watercraft within the search area at the time of the aircraft's disappearance, and overlaying it with the projected flight paths this thing could have taken. Ships at sea keep meticulous logs and someone had to see something that struck them as odd, or not right. (One hopes that with all the publicity this event has generated, they would have come forward by now though).

I would speculate that if this is indeed a terrorist plot and the aircraft was taken to a remote location and landed, then those doing the planning were meticulous in their endeavors and checked the navigational charts of the shipping lanes in an attempt to purposely avoid being sighted by them. I'm not really sure whether or not that is even a possibility.

I did search through over 5000 "tiles" at the web site Locutus posted earlier, and I have to tell you that I was amazed at the number of oil rigs, tankers, and ships that came up within the areas I searched. Most of them were within the 3:59am Sunday time range, so I am sure some of them were ships actively searching for the aircraft. But not the oil rigs and tankers, and there were a ton of them.

[Palehorse]

Bingo!!! We have a winner.  That is exactly my thought. I also believe it was taken for future use.  If it had been hijacked or crashed by terrorists wanting to be noticed, we would have found wreckage, or some group would have claimed responsibility.

I know right?

I even searched navigational charts of the waters surrounding the area, and was amazed at the number of islands that just crop up out in the middle of the ocean in places. It's all but certain that somewhere one of them is large enough to have a runway scrabbled out upon it's surface. A long shot I know, but just the fact it is so easy to dismiss at the onset to me, makes it a plausible scenario to terrorists.

Remember, the US did that very thing on islands all across the pacific rim during world war II, so it isn't impossible. And these asshats have oil rich extremists to bankroll their plots. . .

It could just as easily be in a hanger in some god forsaken corner of the world too. . .

[Locutus]

Well that pilot tends to base that opinion on the deliberate turn as being in response to some on board emergency (namely an electrical or some other sort of fire), with the passengers and crew subsequently becoming incapacitated because of the smoke.  The plane would eventually crash on land or in the water were that the case. 

But that still begs the question, where is it?

[Palehorse]

Well that pilot tends to base that opinion on the deliberate turn as being in response to some on board emergency (namely an electrical or some other sort of fire), with the passengers and crew subsequently becoming incapacitated because of the smoke.  The plane would eventually crash on land or in the water were that the case. 

But that still begs the question, where is it?

So the whole thing is questionable surrounding that, because had it been on fire, smoke would have been pouring from the aircraft at some point, and visible flames would be likely. If the auto-pilot was engaged it would have maintained course and heading, though one would assume that when it ran out of fuel it dropped like a rock; on land or sea, and left a fireball if on land, or a debris field at sea. Moreover, those ACARS signals stop once the engines crap out, so that fact alone says the aircraft was airborne for a significant period of time after the transponder ceased squawking.

Consider what happened with that golfer several years ago with that cabin breech. They were all incapacitated and it did just as the article speculates; it maintained course and heading and crashed when it ran out of fuel. . . That scenario just doesn't hold water in my opinion, if for no other reasons than the loss of transponder, the fact it dropped below radar altitude, and still maintained a state of controlled flight for hours.

And there are a huge amount of resources looking for those things, with human eyes as well as technological methods, and nada.

[Locutus]

So the whole thing is questionable surrounding that, because had it been on fire, smoke would have been pouring from the aircraft at some point, and visible flames would be likely. If the auto-pilot was engaged it would have maintained course and heading, though one would assume that when it ran out of fuel it dropped like a rock; on land or sea, and left a fireball if on land, or a debris field at sea. Moreover, those ACARS signals stop once the engines crap out, so that fact alone says the aircraft was airborne for a significant period of time after the transponder ceased squawking.

Consider what happened with that golfer several years ago with that cabin breech. They were all incapacitated and it did just as the article speculates; it maintained course and heading and crashed when it ran out of fuel. . . That scenario just doesn't hold water in my opinion, if for no other reasons than the loss of transponder, the fact it dropped below radar altitude, and still maintained a state of controlled flight for hours.

And there are a huge amount of resources looking for those things, with human eyes as well as technological methods, and nada.

Yeah he mentioned cabin depressurization as well.  And the folks on Payne Stewart's jet weren't incapacitated; they were dead. 

If I recall correctly, that plane flew on for miles with the cabin and cockpit windows iced over, and when it ran out of gas, it did a nosedive.  One would assume the same would have been the case with some sort of depressurization of the 777.  Only they would have had a hell of a lot more fuel, allowing them to fly much farther before and eventual crash occurred if that was what happened. 

[Palehorse]

Yeah he mentioned cabin depressurization as well.  And the folks on Payne Stewart's jet weren't incapacitated; they were dead. 

If I recall correctly, that plane flew on for miles with the cabin and cockpit windows iced over, and when it ran out of gas, it did a nosedive.  One would assume the same would have been the case with some sort of depressurization of the 777.  Only they would have had a hell of a lot more fuel, allowing them to fly much farther before and eventual crash occurred if that was what happened.

Yeah, but the key component to that theory is auto-pilot being engaged. I don't believe auto-pilot would take you below 1000 feet in altitude and remain engaged. The terrain sensors would have been yelping and the system would have disengaged on its own, right?