Originally Posted By TomSawyer Still, why not just take a cargo plane and not have the passengers to worry about? Cargo planes have much looser security and can be just as big.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Because the guy who stole the plane was a passenger pilot? I still cant believe these planes don't have a tamper proof location device, especially since 9/11.
Originally Posted By teddibubbles so many people and no phone calls . looks to me like im siding with post # 20 on this now
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I still cant believe these planes don't have a tamper proof location device, especially since 9/11.<< Same here. Perhaps this will become standard equipment.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>He says in a 777, no matter what happened with transponders or anything else, a 777 has a device that will begin to ping once the plane impacts with the sea or ground. No such ping has been detected. He says the plane is on the ground.<< I wonder why this tidbit has been withheld from the public. If they knew this then why all the searching for a crashed jet?
Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/">http://www.wired.com/autopia/2...al-fire/</a> Here's a theory that's well worth reading, even if it's a bit less outlandish. It's by a pilot with 20 years experience who puts a pilot's perspective on the situation. Take the three or four minutes to read it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Interesting article. Against my better judgement, I started reading the comments section. Amazing how many instant "experts" there are on aviation after hearing some news reports (which are contradictory) and reading some internet articles (ditto.) The guy who wrote the article actually does know aviation. So does SPP's friend. And they're coming to different conclusions. So I'm not about to say I have any clue about what might have happened. But just read those comments... everyone's an expert on aviation now. Just like they're experts on politics and science and God and sex and whether Deep Purple reeks or rules (hey, it was a huge topic at my Junior High, so I thought I'd throw it in.) You know what they say about a little knowledge. </rant>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Against my better judgement, I started reading the comments section.<< You were feeling too good about humanity and needed a reality check? >>So I'm not about to say I have any clue about what might have happened.<< Bingo. I'm an Occam's Razor guy, and so far, this sounds like the most plausible theory. But it could still be wrong.
Originally Posted By hopemax The funny thing, is that even though I posted a similar scenario earlier in this thread, I have doubts now. Especially, now that the timeline has expanded from a possible 3 hours in the air to 6 or 7 hours. I figured that either the US or China would know where the plane crashed due to those countries superior surveillance. But they can't just come out and say, "the debris field is at these coordinates." So I figured, a few days would pass, while things were "nudged" along until someone could come out and say, "It's here." So either, surveillance isn't as good as we might suppose. In which case, how about working on that instead of all the wire tapping. Or, it's not in the water. So once allowing for the possibility that it didn't just crash, I do kind of think that it may be plausible that the plane was taken; but not some rogue terrorist operation, but an action sanctioned by another state (Iran). Not for the plane itself but for the cargo/passengers from the semiconductor facility. Essentially, a kidnapping. Are there easier ways to kidnap 20 people, plus whatever cargo they were traveling with? I don't know. The plane and any other unwanted "parts" would have been disposed of, immediately and there would be nothing left to find at this point. But then there are reports that those employees really weren't the "brains" a country like Iran would want. So who knows. But THAT would be something that the US or another country can't come out and say, without unleashing all kinds of hell. So then we just get silence and questions.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Here's a theory that's well worth reading, even if it's a bit less outlandish. It's by a pilot with 20 years experience who puts a pilot's perspective on the situation. Take the three or four minutes to read it.>> Definitely interesting. But why on earth would the pilots not communicate that there was a problem? From what I have heard from the "experts" on CNN, there really is no emergency scenario that would prevent the pilots from alerting the authorities. Their silence appears to have been deliberate for some reason.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I suppose it's possible that by the time they realized there was an electrical fire, it had knocked out their communications. I don't know how plausible that is - just thinking out loud.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3">http://www.businessinsider.com...e-2014-3</a> The author of this article that also quoted the pilot seems to think the smoke could've filled the cabin very quickly. He explained that, unlike in movies where pilots immediately radio for help, there's a set protocol where they first act in whatever way is necessary to save the plane, then communicate. He called it, "aviate, navigate, communicate."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It seems odd that if the plane were hijacked, none of the passengers would have attempted a distress call on their cell phones. But then again, there's so much of this story that is odd or unknown at least, I'm just going to wait and see.
Originally Posted By hopemax Well, generally you have to be alive in order to use a cellphone. I think the theory is that the pilot would have decompressurized the cabin, rendering the passengers incapacitated. Malaysian authorities keep using the term piracy, not hijacking, so standard hijacking strategy of using the passengers as leverage, may not apply here. Otherwise. There was no wifi on the flight. The technology that allowed the 9/11 passengers to make calls was GTE AirFones and is no longer used. The new technology to maintain a signal called "pico cells" wasn't installed on this plane. Business class passengers had air-to-ground phones, but they can be turned off by the pilot. Regular cell phones would not have a signal at 30,000 ft.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I wonder why this tidbit has been withheld from the public. If they knew this then why all the searching for a crashed jet?" Well, I think your question indicates you haven't thought this completely through- He said the plane would start pinging on impact, which means a crash into the water or on land. But there's been no ping, so he's convinced there's been no crash. However, it's possible not everything went according to plan in terms of stealing the jet, so they may have tried to make a Captain Sully type landing if you will, but the plane didn't stay afloat. At that point they would just be trying to save themselves. Also, my friend didn't indicate how widely known the "crash ping" is among other aviation people. It's possible it isn't common knowledge. We didn't dwell on the plane too much as my wife and I met up with this person and another guy for our annual Spring training trip to Mesa, AZ. We moved on to other topics, such as how were we expected to catch a buzz when the service was so slow and why don't the Cubs just play their young guys instead of the retread stop gap players who keep losing all the time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Also, my friend didn't indicate how widely known the "crash ping" is among other aviation people.> If there was an electrical fire that knocked out certain things, is it possible the "crash ping" would be among the things knocked out? (i.e. no electrical power, no ping?) Or is a "crash ping" something impervious to an electrical outage?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, I think your question indicates you haven't thought this completely through-" This sounds rude- I didn't mean to be.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If there was an electrical fire that knocked out certain things, is it possible the "crash ping" would be among the things knocked out? (i.e. no electrical power, no ping?) Or is a "crash ping" something impervious to an electrical outage?" We didn't talk about that so I'd be guessing. Given what little I do know, I'd think it might have its own finite battery power.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/19/fox-news-host-bill-hemmer-explains-missing-plane-it-took-2000-years-to-find-noahs-ark/#.Uynkd73vw6R.facebook">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...facebook</a> Here, a Fox News host helpfully elucidates that we may never find the plane, because it "took 2,000 years to find Noah's Ark." I mean, it's a fair point, really.
