Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

If that is from MH370, doesn't it indicate the plane was off course?

Korean Air 007 off course and shot down by the Russian comes to mind. Doubt something similar happened though.

itzconnor8
reply to post by generik

 

I believe landing spots somewhere, if family members are saying phones are still ringing, they must be grounded.

I can guesstimate there's a remote secret service spot somewhere and that plane was chosen. I sense no terrorist action.

People somewhere else pointed out, that the phones are just ringing once and that could just be from the roaming option on their phones (dont know the exact English term, you know when you are in another network, because you are not in your home country)

I haven'd had a chance to read through this entire thread. But, has anyone else noticed the numerology surrounding this? Always hearing on the news about it being a Boeing 777 jet. Always hearing about the 239 people on board, and so on..... Or, am I just being paranoid, and reading too much into this?

I'd like to ask the specialist(s) here, in particular Zaphod.

The AF 447 crash and how it happened is really frightening and also to some extent puzzling.

Even when A PORTION of what brought down AF 447 is without a question pilot error I would like to know whether those aspects DUE TO TECHNICAL/DESIGN FLAWS OF THE AIRBUS have in the meantime be changed/resolved...mainly as a result of the AF 447 crash.

(Mainly: The fact that the two joysticks are not "synced" so the both pilots do not even know what the other does, and the ABSURD events happening that the aircraft voiced the stall warning when the pilot(s) did the right thing, trying to descend....while the stall warning turned off when they kept trying to ascend while already being in a deep stall at 38.000ft. I would really like to know whether those significant design flaws have been corrected or whether airbus, here the 777 in particular STILL could cause such confusing messages/actions in a stall situation)

ty!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I was without Internet over the weekend, and plowed through the thread as best as I could. However, can anyone with more expertise in the area comment on any or all of the following as I was able only to get information from AJAM through the television:

- What impacts do the dark spots in the area have on the missing 777?

- What happened to the early reports of a Korean jet going off radar @ same time as the MAS aircraft?

- I see the oil slicks are supposedly deemed unrelated, but have there been any other reports about columns of smoke being seen in the ocean by those in Vietnam?

Thanks for any information you guys can provide.

da pickles
reply to post by generik

 

If I remember correctly an epirb transmits at 220mhz and is designed to be picked by any aircraft or sea vessel not just search and rescue assets. As they emit a basic distress signal they have a massive radius distance. Mobile phone networks tend to work on a horizontal access only

The new Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) transmits on 243mhz. Older ones transmitted on 121.5 but satellites no longer monitor that frequency.

Leonidas

A 777 needs about 11,000 feet.

There are no landing strips remotely long enough on islands in the region

that we know of. it seems your requirements may be somewhat overstated. i found that it requires 5,600 feet for landing, not the 11,000 feet you stated, (which looking below i have to guess you were referring to take off distance).

Takeoff Distance
(777-200) 8,300 ft (2,530 m)
(777-200ER) 11,600 ft (3,535 m)
(777-200LR) 11,600 ft (3,535 m)
(777F) 11,600 ft (3,535 m)
(777-300) 11,200 ft (3,415 m)
(777-300ER) 10,500 ft (3,200 m)

Landing Distance
(777-200) 5,600 ft (1,705 m)
(777-300) 6,100 ft (1,860 m)

www.aerospaceweb.org...

and who says they want to use the runway to take off again? in that case they could reduce the landing length even farther by using crash nets. if they want they could take the aircraft apart, put it on a ship and take it wherever they wanted. that is if they even cared about relocating or using the aircraft later.

generik

da pickles
reply to post by Leonidas

 

Changing the tune slightly from downed aircraft to hijacked . Are there many remote airfields within range that could accommodate a landing by a 777. Not had a chance to look yet but there must be plenty of islands in range or inland ?

if you think back to ww2, there are likely more abandoned airfields than you can imagine given that both the US and Japanese relied heavily on aircraft. in fact that is why Guadalcanal was so important for the US to capture, it was because of the airfield the Japanese were building there. considering the aircraft had about 7 hours or so of fuel, that is a lot of possibilities for landing spots on pacific islands. while i suspect (too lazy to check the numbers right now), that a triple 7 requires more length than say a ww2 bomber, it would not be all that difficult to extend an existing runway or even build a new one with no reports getting out. just look at the Mexican who was just rescued after about 2 years lost at sea, where he landed had ONE telephone in the area. and most people there are related/ like minded, so if an area that is similar was used if the people agree with what is going on, no info would get out, and if small population, would be rather easy to take over with force of arms, again without news of it getting out.

i would think a landing field "inland" would not be likely since someone would be sure to spot such a big, loud, low flying aircraft and report it, before it made it to a landing site.

WW2 landing strips would be radically too short.

one of two with stolen/fake passports id'd.

But like Leo said, common in that area, and also keep in mind the vast amount lost/stolen a year.

www.bbc.com...

reply to post by generik


We used to live on a base that had its own runway in WWII. After the war the only airplane that could use it was a T-33 (which was based on one of the first American jets in WWII) that flamed out after a fuel leak. It was too short for any jet to use.

Oops

Probably a stupid question from me but just wanted to ask. IF we run with a missile hitting the plane would we not of found a large debris field, surely a missile hit would scatter a lot of debris everywhere. Could the plane just nose dived into the ocean and gone straight to the bottom? Depending on how the plane MAYBE sitting on the bottom of the sea floor MAY depend on how much debris can make it to the surface

Didn't it take them a while to find that air France plane that flew from Brazil and crashed in the Southern Atlantic

skelly1178
I haven'd had a chance to read through this entire thread. But, has anyone else noticed the numerology surrounding this? Always hearing on the news about it being a Boeing 777 jet. Always hearing about the 239 people on board, and so on..... Or, am I just being paranoid, and reading too much into this?

Yeah, your just being paranoid.

It's a Boeing 777, with 239 people on board. That's probably why you keep on hearing "it's a Boeing 777, with 239 people on board".

Leonidas
When AirFrance447 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009 they didn't find any trace of it for a week.

It took another TWO YEARS to find the FDR/CVR Black-Boxes.

So people can be patient to find out what really happened or just throw out wild and baseless conjecture about bombs, missiles, hijackings and other nefarious plots as "What must have happened".

At present there are not enough facts to develop any kind of conclusion whatsoever.

Patience people.

edit on 10-3-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)

LEO you don't like my theory?

Hey seems the passports weren't as insignificant as you believed. But it was good reason to use to get our LEOs involved

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


They aren't really design flaws though. If you look at EgyptAir 990 you can see a split elevator condition where one stick is pushed forward and one pulled back. That was in a 767, with mechanical controls.

The only real design issue with 447 was the frozen pitot tube, but even that appeared go be a type of icing never seen before.

reply to post by watchesfromwall



I was a little confused with the first question!
Are you referring to a crash site and dark spots relating to plane size?
I could be well off there!

I have searched extensively and cannot find anything about a Korean flight going off radar in recent days, it may well be stuck under the countless searches that pop up with the MA missing flight, but I did quite try hard to keep the keywords specific to Korean flights & radar problems!

The Oil slicks were determined to have been from Boats in the area!
So far I haven't come across a story from Vietnam or otherwise regarding smoke in the ocean!

A true mystery at the moment WFW!!!

Peace!

NoRulesAllowed(Mainly: The fact that the two joysticks are not "synced" so the both pilots do not even know what the other does, and the ABSURD events happening that the aircraft voiced the stall warning when the pilot(s) did the right thing, trying to descend....while the stall warning turned off when they kept trying to ascend while already being in a deep stall at 38.000ft. I would really like to know whether those significant design flaws have been corrected or whether airbus, here the 777 in particular STILL could cause such confusing messages/actions in a stall situation)

ty!

The Boeing 777 have interconnected Control yokes, not sidestics as the Airbus FBW airplanes, move one and the other one moves the same way.

it requires 5,600 feet for landing

Good Luck With that.

Zaphod58
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

They aren't really design flaws though. If you look at EgyptAir 990 you can see a split elevator condition where one stick is pushed forward and one pulled back. That was in a 767, with mechanical controls.

At least in a Boeing you'll know right away if the other pilot is fighting you at the controls.

I'm revising my theory a bit in light of new information. If the reports of a terrorist strike planned for Beijing are indeed true, then this could reinforce the landing in Nanming, however for a different reason. The reports of a Chinese escort reinforce the theory as well. The plane was forced down in a more remote airport so the Chinese could either extricate the terrorists before they pulled off what ever was planned. There may be a standoff yet underway in the airport and why there's no definitive statements from all involved. I think the Chinese would rather handle it this way that broadcast or admit they're being targeted by terrorist organizations. They want control of the information and the outcome, which unfortunately still might be the destruction of the plane if they cannot arrive at an outcome suitable to them. The cell phones still ringing support the idea the plane didn't end up in the drink. The other nations involved pretty much are powerless so they're giving the Chinese the time to work this out their way. Just a theory

not sure if this has been mentioned, but the supposed oil slick appears tp be actually coral spawning.