Forum menu
In this day and age for an aircraft to be hijacked, diverted to another airport, land and not be spotted / reported?
I'd have seriously thought not.
If it was a bomb, why has no one claimed responsibility?
Your first scenario is basically impossible. My thought why...
There are a limited number of airfields that can take a 777.
Aircraft load a very precise amount of fuel, the right amount but no more so it couldn't fly for many more hours than originally flight planned to an unplanned destination.
Aircraft are monitored by primary radar - a traditional sweeping dish that dates back to the 2nd WW and secondary radar where the aircraft broadcasts data such as height, speed etc. You can turn he secondary off but can't hide from primary radar.
... but if you have a secret base, disguised as a volcano, ...
Another theory. It was hijacked, then shot down over sea to avoid ground casualties etc?
[quote=peter1979 said]Another theory. It was hijacked, then shot down over sea to avoid ground casualties etc?
You are jivehoneywassisname and I claim my £5.
Don't you mean Kasae?
So it had to be a bomb? Or a meteorite?
I'd assumed that the location of every airliner in the sky was known, all the time. I don't understand how they don't even know where it was when whatever has happened, happened.
Tragic though.
I'm with scaredypants on this one ...
There must have been an even bigger plane that jammed the radar and then opened up a hatch, swallowed the Malaysian plane and took it to an underground sea base or volcano.
Obvious really.
I thought the black box widget thingy emitted a finding signal wotsit.
Or, maybe a Li ens wanted a retro transport device for their abduction collection.
There are big holes in radar coverage, usually over the oceans which is why aircraft fly in strictly controlled airways . Most ATC radar are secondary types so if the aircraft turns off its transponder then it can't be seen.
It would have been carrying enough fuel to reach its destination plus a reserve to enable it to reach a nominated diversionary airport in case of weather etc.
[i]There are big holes in radar coverage, usually over the oceans which is why aircraft fly in strictly controlled airways . Most ATC radar are secondary types so if the aircraft turns off its transponder then it can't be seen.
[/i]
Ah, fair enough (although I'm still a bit surprised "in this day and age etc etc").
Why should a commercial aircraft even have the ability to turn off it's transponder though?
Awful stuff though, hope the families get closure soon.
Or the chinese shot it down, to justify sending out military 'search' ships to occupy the area
😀
Yeah, hilarious 😐
[img] 
[/img]
I'd assumed that the location of every airliner in the sky was known, all the time. I don't understand how they don't even know where it was when whatever has happened, happened
Because they know the rough area it went down but that's a pretty big area and as of yet know crash site or wreckage has been found hence the 'mystery' bit.
Read up on it sheeple!
The pilots had their eyeballs scanned by Royal Mail.
Odd that we can make jokes at the fact that 239 people have potentially lost their lives.
Sad reflection really. Perhaps sticking to respectful OT and factual debate is in order.
Sounds similar to the plane that went down off the east coast of South America a couple of years ago. Can't remember the outcome of that one but if I remember rightly it was some time before they discovered any wreckage and eventually the black box but I believe that foul play was ruled out in the end.
I suspect it was blown up or shot down when it went off course.
If that occurred at 40'000 feet the wreckage will be very widely spread so very hard to spot.
Fingers crossed they find it.
Can't remember the outcome of that one
Pilot error, as it nearly always is!
Well said Kryton.
psling - [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447[/url]
Kryton - I find it rather healthy that people can deal with a situation like this with a bit of humour and then continue on with their lives without having a day of official mourning every time someone that they had absolutely no connection with dies.
Was AF 447 entirely pilot error? I seem to remember blocked pitot probes and incorrect airspeed readings being at least a contributing factor?
Was AF 447 entirely pilot error?
Yes.
[i] without having a day of official mourning every time someone that they had absolutely no connection with dies. [/i]
That's right, the fact that I didn't know them means that it doesn't matter that they're dead. 😐
You're probably right though, whilst what happened is still unknown and there are hundreds of grieving families waiting to hear what they know will be awful news, we should all have a big laugh about it.
Comedy, obviously, has a great place in helping people get over these things, but there's also a principle of 'too soon'. Which it currently is.
I'm not convinced it did blow-up/disintegrate at 40,000 feet, as there would be stacks of wreckage floating on the surface.
I feels more like it hit the water in one piece, and sank, which is why they can't find anything...?
Obviously none of you have ever seen the documentary Lost.
This will be locked
I feels more like it hit the water in one piece, and sank, which is why they can't find anything...?
In airport 77 they found something
I'm not convinced it did blow-up/disintegrate at 40,000 feet, as there would be stacks of wreckage floating on the surface.
Pan Am 103 debris was spread over some 800 square miles. If it was a bombing, or if it did disintegrate in mid air, it will be very hard to find.
Very sad state of affairs.
It would not have crashed into the sea in one piece, there could be no scenario (unless the pilots did it on purpose) where they wouldn't declare a mayday or emergency beacon before they crashed from 35,000 feet. I don't think it can be reasonably explained apart from a bomb.
The fact that there was no communication from the pilots indicate a sudden, mid air catastrophe, either mechanical or terrorist.
The 'news' management from the airline suggests to me more is known than they are publically stating.
Air France 447 has already been mentioned.
The pilots got in a pickle and flew a perfectly functioning airliner into the sea. No Mayday, no nothing.
Perfectly functioning apart from the pitot tubes. The pilots hadn't been trained on how to deal with that. The dead pilots made ideal scapegoats but the problem lay with the plane makers and the airline IMO.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877
Jesus, that's pretty harrowing!
Pop-up ad fail on torso's link. No, I really don't want to book an Air France flight, thanks.
To me it shows a lack of understanding of the basic principles of flight. In both recent 777 accidents pilot error is largely to blame, just look at the AAIB reports to see how in both cases electronic instruments were relied on all too heavily. If it wasn't for the skills of the experienced BA captain there would almost certainly be a tragic end to the heathrow 777 incident.
Oh, and there's some wholly inappropriate posts on here for a situation where there could be a huge loss of life
Was AF 447 entirely pilot error? I seem to remember blocked pitot probes and incorrect airspeed readings being at least a contributing factor?
yes, astoundingly basic pilot error. Okay they were initially confused by the air speed errors but pulling up when your stall warning is going off and the two pilots not communicating at all, the co-pilots were basically unfit to fly that aircraft properly. Unforgivable that they took so many people with them (particularly the guy in the right seat).
Perfectly functioning apart from the pitot tubes. The pilots hadn't been trained on how to deal with that. The dead pilots made ideal scapegoats but the problem lay with the plane makers and the airline IMO
The instruments were showing that they were losing altitude rapidly, and one of the pilots sat there with his stick back the whole time and didn't tell anyone else he was making that input. Yep, pitot tube was an issue, but they still flew an otherwise airworthy plane into the sea scratching their heads at why the instruments were telling them they were dropping.
Air France 447 was completly out of comms range though if I recall correctly, Malaysian MH370 was in comms range, so why silence?
Perfectly functioning apart from the pitot tubes. The pilots hadn't been trained on how to deal with that. The dead pilots made ideal scapegoats but the problem lay with the plane makers and the airline IMO.
Except the pitot tubes worked fine for the majority of the incident, giving the pilots plenty of time to fly a perfectly functioning plane in a sensible manner. For sure there were various issues which made pilot error a bigger issue than it should have been (most notably the lack of mechanical linkage between the sticks, meaning that nobody was aware until far too late that the co-pilot had the stick hard back), but fundamentally the co-pilot's actions were incomprehensible given the ready availability of information on what was actually happening. Oh and the pilots were trained in how to deal with that, but one of them did completely the wrong thing.
the co-pilots were basically unfit to fly that aircraft properly.
That does seem correct. Was that their fault though? It seems to me that their training and or ongoing familiarisation with the way that the aircraft works (eg the alternate law allow a plane to stall) was lacking. It's easy to blame the pilots and I still read it and struggle to understand how they missed such a simple thing as constantly pulling back but that says to me that it's not as simple as it sounds.