General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow do we lose an airplane
This whole missing airplane thing freaks me out because I didn't think it was feasible to even lose an airplane. Yet this one just seems like it vanished in mid-air.
Anyone else freaked out over this?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
warrior1
(12,325 posts)I would say pretty easy. I so sorry for their families.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,174 posts)But I instinctively thought of the television show Lost in all of this.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)And I'm sure most people in the US did
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)
Catherine Vincent
(34,488 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)massive uprisings, missing plane, ......... WW-Z
CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)I thought of the original Twilight Zone episode where the plane went back in time to when dinosaurs roamed Earth. 
NealK
(1,865 posts)
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)The Twilight Zone episode where a plane goes backwards in time to the dinosaur age.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)It wasn't over a vast stretch of water. I don't understand this myself.
JHB
(37,158 posts)For a lot of people, that may seem enough to qualify as "vast" for search purposes.
B2G
(9,766 posts)They lost contact at the edge of the Gulf of Thailand. Here's another view:
JHB
(37,158 posts)It seems to me that "big enough to make the search even more difficult" is all that is needed.
It's also not clear if local conditions (clouds, haze) could be limiting visibility. I'm sure the people doing the search know the answer to that, and how the currents in the area might disperse floating debris, and what resources they have on hand to conduct the search, but they aren't part of this speculative discussion.
B2G
(9,766 posts)There are signals that are sent from transponders and an ELT - a floating GPS beacon. And a mid air explosion should have been picked up via satellite.
None of which seem to be transmitting. It is very odd.
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)THAT is what is so puzzling. Something disintegrated even the transponders and beacons?
B2G
(9,766 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Orrex
(63,203 posts)It's like I just don't know what to believe anymore.
mockmonkey
(2,815 posts)
B2G
(9,766 posts)
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)Using Wikimapia's distance measuring tool, it is 240 miles across the Gulf or Thailand on the track the plane was taking in your photo. 240 miles across the narrowest point.
That's about the same distance from Chicago to Detroit as the crow flies, or 40 miles less than the distance from NYC to DC.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)it's the big red plane. jeez, just GO GET IT. Grrr.
wth.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)perhaps submerged in thousands of feet of water?
it is conceivable to lose a plane in someplace smaller than an ocean.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)seriously. everyone keeps reasoning and you seem to be insinuating that this is some sort of impossible conspiracy.
instead of dealing with the rational ideas people are taking the time to respond to you with, you're treating those things blithely to continue to try and spread your irrational ideas.
i dont' get what is so hard to grasp.
unless you are being purposely obtuse for reasons beyond the purposes of this discussion thread.
B2G
(9,766 posts)What 'impossible conspiracy' am I insinuating?
That I'm surprised that they haven't discovered one trace of the aircraft yet? I am. So are a lot of experts.
My whole point is that the plane didn't go missing in the middle of a vast ocean. It didn't. That's just a fact. I
There is no need to be condescending or rude.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that it's automatically easy to find.
it's not.
there are three axes to search, latitude, longitude and depth.
and it's not one giant plane we're looking for, it may be minute pieces, or if it is a giant contained wreckage, in hundreds of miles of sea floor.
at some point, the obtuseness crosses a line.
B2G
(9,766 posts)I am saying it shouldn't be this hard.
There is a big difference. Why aren't the transponders, the ELTs or the black box transmitting?
And what line have I crossed, exactly?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)knowing it might be in thousands of feet of ocean/sea.
then it's not credible you can't figure out why they haven't located it yet.
B2G
(9,766 posts)to be sitting in thousands of feet of water. The Gulf of Thailand is 250 feet at it's deepest. Of course it *could* have gone that far off, but wouldn't it still have been on radar if it had? And if it had, that doesn't point to a sudden, catastrophic event.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)how close does one need to be to get the signal, and if one is close enough to detect the signal, how easy is it to find it once it's detected?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If its underwater the detection range is about 2 to 3 kilometers. So on the scale of an open water search, you'd have to be pretty damn close.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i wouldn't have wasted the effort.
seriously.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)why did i even play along?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023791179
B2G
(9,766 posts)No one knows at this point what happened.
With the exception of you, evidently.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and badmouthing Medicaid expansion.
and you use the term "race card", frequently.
do you like Cjeekdgg?
B2G
(9,766 posts)Who sees flaws with Obamacare and supports the 2nd ammendment.
Get a life.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)almost.
sincerely,
Cjeekdgg
NealK
(1,865 posts)
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Really? Really?
That post has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Jesus....it's freaking creepy, to say the VERY least....
CANDO
(2,068 posts)And it's really uncalled for and a form of stalking.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Why? And why did a jury let the post stand?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)The fact that you stalk people bothers me.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) blueamy66
(6,795 posts)get a freaking life
have a beer, get laid, do SOMETHING please
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)but I'M the one who is stalking.
does your projection apply to your subject line or to the whole post?
nt
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i am a big fan of irony.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)You are.
I think you are a big fan of boredom.
I've got a date....I'm out. Have fun. Bye.
And since you have nothing better to do....find out who I am dating and where I live and what size shoe I wear and what I am having for dinner and what my nephews' names are.
LOL.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)regarding your personal life, i don't care one whit about it, and besides, you've posted scads of it here anyway. as you may have noticed the only thing i care about when you do that, is if you use your personal stories to denigrate immigrants, mothers who receive child support and so forth. because to me, the only point where i care about what you say is when you say things that badmouth them.
how you live your life, i care not.
Who are you?
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)That's where you complain about a poster who "follows you around in thread after thread..." - you know, stalking...
How much more ironic can it get? You, complaining about a stalker...wow.
Just to see how your name is associated with stalking, CreekDog, check this out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=creekdog+stalker&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com
Look how many DUers are calling you a stalker!
if you actually do have a stalker here, which seriously I doubt, the phrase "reap what you sow" would seem to apply...
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)He used to have a posse that he ran with and they all did it, but many of them seem to have vanished. One left a goodbye note. Meta-deadenders is what they are, and it seems CreekDog, currently a host of GD, believe it or not, is one of the last remaining.
He also has a tactic of starting polls with the intent to go snooping on those who vote the "wrong" way. He's admitted as much.
Creepy is right.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)On Obamacare, using the term "race card", etc.
Oh and you lije Cjeekdgg. 
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Is a hundred mile radius ... which is a vast amount of ocean.......
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)31000 square miles
NealK
(1,865 posts)adigal
(7,581 posts)They are starting to say it out loud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/world/asia/hunt-for-missing-malaysian-jet.html?hp&target=comments&_r=0
It's a huge mystery, and more than a bit scary that a plane with over 200 people on board can crash, maybe in a body of water that is pretty shallow, and no trace is found? Weird.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Because no one knows where it went down, only where it lost contact.
At altitude, if there was a problem, and if they could not contact air traffic, the pilots would have to make a decision on what to do... Continue on the flightpath, turn for the nearest land, re route to another airport along the flight plan, etc... If they had been flying for just 60 seconds after that last contact they could have traveled over 9 miles from where the last contact was. This can make a huge difference in the search area (254sq miles), and every minute aloft could simply add more and more distance to the search area.
If a 777 loses power at altitude, the simple 1:15 glide ratio could be used to determine how far they could travel. Which works out to just over 100 miles. And then you can add to that the distance traveled after they lost contact.
So for a mental exercise lets say the plane has lost contact and flew for an additional 120 seconds before it lost engine power. The pilots made the decision to turn 15 degrees and head towards Ngọc Hiển (south Vietnam). The plane then crashed after stalling out at the end of its glide. Now if you limited your search area to the point of last contact you would be looking at an area of about 31,400 square miles just to cover any and all given glide directions from when the plane lost contact. That is about the size of South Carolina. However, since the plane took a new route 120 seconds after the last contact, your original search area would result in you finding nothing. You would need to add an additional 12,000 square miles to your search to the north and east of your search area. So in order to find the aircraft you would have to search an area larger than the state of Virgina.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)All of the blue areas for instance.
.
B2G
(9,766 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)come on now.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)plane was flying over. But, even with dense population, a plane at 35,000 feet that develops problems won't get noticed by people on the ground.
On a personal note, that a big jet can vanish is unsettling. I fly enough that I will have that thought in the back of my head when I board a plane.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)Reminder to self:
Have to stop watching Ancient Aliens.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)And airplanes are very small in comparison
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I won't get too freaked out until some passengers start world hopping on a sidewise time-line
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)it would likely have been found quickly because there is complete radar coverage.
The same cannot be said for all areas in se Asia.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I guess that isn't done or tracked on some international flights?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)have transponders, in fact I know they do not. All commercial passenger aircraft do, plus they have other commnications equipment. In fact, the electronics systems on that 777 were transmitting data via satellite back to the airlines headquarters, that's why it is a rare outcome to lose all communcations and electronc signals from an airliner.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1444784/china-urges-malaysia-step-search-missing-passenger-plane-families-grow
The company’s services business is built on the intelligent use of a phenomenal amount of data. Rolls-Royce typically measures around 20 performance parameters on a Trent engine such as vibration levels, oil pressure and temperature. The company has about nine gigabytes of data per day streaming into their data centres, which equates to half a billion data reports a year. The data is analysed as it flows in, with trends extrapolated and anomalies detected. It not only gives the company early warning on fault diagnosis, but equips it to help its airline customers to schedule maintenance more cost efficiently.
The Rolls-Royce Engine Health Monitoring Unit is an extremely complex software set that takes signals from dozens of sensors around the engine and transmits the data via satellite while the aircraft is in flight. The company’s service engineers are therefore alerted to potential issues early, in advance of them causing an operational problem to the airline. If repairs are necessary, the company can have a field team standing by on the ground by the time the plane lands. In this way Rolls-Royce is saving the customer down time, minimising disruption, keeping the engine in service, and keeping the passengers flying.
http://innovationnow.raeng.org.uk/innovations/default.aspx?item=15
I haven't seen how often the data is satellite linked back to Rolls.
Angleae
(4,482 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)It identifies the blip. So the plane can be squawking a code and not be heard if they aren't on a radar set.
I'm surprised that an EPIRB wasn't activated.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What happened? Who knows? Mechanical failure, terrorism, hit by a meteor?
Hopefully they will retrieve the black boxes and we'll learn the cause from those.
That debris field that was spotted could well be the wreckage.
Mosby
(16,299 posts)Even if both engines fell off the plane there would still be time to use the radio.
This morning the news reported that the debris field was not the plane.
Maybe it was a highjack by the two passengers with stolen passports, it would explain why there was no radio contact.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's more distressing to not know, I should think.
There are a bunch of ships out there looking, and even the Chinese have modified the path of their satellites to aid in the search.
Mosby
(16,299 posts)The families must be going through hell.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)which would make it difficult for the radio to send a signal.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)If both engines simply tore off the aircraft, the sudden power loss would force the RAT into the airstream, providing both limited hydraulics and electrical power to the cockpit. The 777's APU would also immediately start powering up and would restore full power and hydraulics to the aircraft in under 30 seconds. The aircraft is capable of communicating with the outside world using power provided by either of these systems.
Losing the engines alone wouldn't be enough to prevent the crew from sending a radio broadcast, because the aircraft is redundant enough to account for that. A catastrophic airframe failure on the other hand...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'd think it somewhat likely that the wires would be damaged in such an event, and since the airplane's conductive, a short would be likely. I don't know if there's something in the electrical system to electrically cut off the now-cut wires.
But as you mentioned, an airframe failure is far more likely than "both engines fell off".
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)There is a series of shows called Air Crash Investigations, or Mayday, or Air Investigations depending on the nation where it is shown. Many of these episodes are available on You Tube.
Many times there is no call because the pilot is very busy trying to fly the plane. Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic a few years ago. The pilots are discussing the problem, and trying to fly the plane, and never made a call. Similar accidents have happened many times. The pilots were just too busy to make a radio call.
When you are making a call, you're supposed to tell the controllers what kind of a problem you are having. With alarms going off and screaming at you, it may be difficult to diagnose the problem as it is. Discussing the details of your efforts with ATC may slow you down.
China Air flight 006 did not respond to several calls from ATC while they were struggling with the problem. Once they had the plane more or less stable, they made the call declaring an emergency.
The Gimli Glider had to wait until the emergency impeller generator deployed before they had radios working to report the problem of running out of gas in midair. They had reported being low on fuel, and then they were off the air.
So the absence of a mayday call shows only that the pilots didn't have time to inform anyone of what was going on, the plane may have suffered a catastrophic incident, like the airplane that exploded over Long Island Sound, or the United Jet that landed better than could be hoped at Sioux City with no control after an engine explosion took out all three of the hydraulic systems.
Taca Airlines flight 110 could not report to ATC what was going on until the APU was started, an event that took more than two minutes. BTW, that is one of the best emergency landings ever. That accident taught us that the engine design on the 737 was not as good as we had thought, and a redesign/modification was needed to make the engines safer.
Before the pilot can report what is going on, he/she has to do the first thing that they are paid to do. Fly the fucking plane. If they can't do that, then they're not going to waste precious time reporting that they're going in, they're going to be fighting to the last second to make that plane fly.
We have to find the Cockpit voice recorder, and the Flight Data Recorder. They provide a lot of information on what went wrong. The alarms that sound are caught on the voice recorder. The position of controls is found on the flight data recorder. With that information, you can be 80% sure what happened. Using that information, you know what parts of the plane are absolutely vital to be recovered.
BTW, the China Air 006 accident started when an engine failed in flight. The cause of the engine failure was determined to be a worn throttle linkage that was worn a few thousandths of an inch beyond specifications. In other words, a part that was worn a little too much caused an engine to fail. A mistake by the pilot led to a plane nearly crashing into the ocean.
A failure of a component could easily bring the plane down. Just look at the DC-10 problems with the cargo door. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10#Cargo_door_problem
Right now, we don't know what brought the plane down. We need to find the wreck, and the black boxes, in order to learn the truth.
Maintenance could be a problem too. Chalk airlines suffered maintenance problems that led to a catastrophic accident in Miami Harbor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight_101
I hope this gives you, and others, the briefest of overviews of the kinds of accidents that can happen, and how the pilots are often rather busy trying to fly the plane, and just don't have time to say the magic words Mayday.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I tried to find similar incidents and couldn't quite. I do believe TWA 800 went down without a Mayday call.
marlakay
(11,451 posts)I read on a pilot blog yesterday that when stuff happens communication is last, taking care of immediate problem is first.
My husband thinks something happened to cause a nose dive and pilots were too busy trying to bring it back up to talk to anyone besides each other. Kind of like air France.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The plane had been sitting for a couple weeks, and was chartered to support an airline that was overbooked. This jet was flown by two experienced pilots, and everything looked just fine for a nice simple flight. Only unbeknownst to the pilots the Pilot's Pitot tube was blocked. In the air, his air speed readings started coming up, and he thought the problem was fixed. Next, the plane started to warn of over-speed, and the stick shaker kicked in warning of a stall. The pilot ignored the stick shaker, and throttled back to deal with the over-speed. The plane slammed into the ocean belly flopping to it's doom.
The investigators never found the pitot tube, but the believe that a wasp built a nest in the tube, blocking it. When the plane went up, the difference in pressure caused the tube to give false readings on airspeed, causing the over-speed alarm. The stick shaker was the most important warning, the plane was stalling, and the pilot ignored it in favor of the over-speed alarm to the sorrow of so many families.
No mayday call was issued, the pilots were busy trying to get the damned plane to fly right. That they misdiagnosed the problem was the human error element of the crash. A plane load of people died because a wasp built a nest in a pitot tube and the pilot paid attention to the wrong warning and ignored the most important one.
There have been so many air accidents, and so many lessons learned. I was talking to my neighbor, who is a pilot, while I am an interested observer. The rules of flying, of airplane design, of piloting the aircraft are written in blood. We learned what not to do by studying the accidents, and learning from them.
I don't know what brought down the Malaysian airlines flight. I do know it is vital to the safety of every person in the sky that we find out and see what lessons can be learned. If it was terrorism, a possibility, but I won't call it probability just yet, then we need to look at why it happened. Most nations have gone to "biometric" passports, which means that identifying information on the individual is coded into the passport. Apparently, nobody thought that someone would steal a passport, and honestly, I'm not surprised someone did.
Allow me to explain. Normally, the close examination of the passport takes place at the destination, not the origin of your travels. They may ask you if you have it, and they may glance at it to make sure it is not expired, but even our TSA (Totally stupid assholes) and our CBP (Complete Blithering Pecker-heads) don't examine the passports all that closely if you are leaving, unless you're on one of the many watch lists which normally identify everyone but a terrorist.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)It could just as likely be minor failures of important instruments (not sure if minor is the right phrase) leading to special disorientation and controlled or un-controlled flight in to the ocean. That could very well be the reason for no mayday calls - the pilots were having some problems and too busy flying.
Minor survivable problems have led plenty of controlled flight in to the ocean at night where there are no visible cues to sight and orientation.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The cause of that was catastrophic human error. The pitot tube froze in bad weather. The autopilot could not fly the plane without speed imput from the sensors. The autopilot threw up it's virtual hands and told the pilots "I'm out, you have to fly."
The pilots did the wrong thing. They did not fly the plane, they focused on the problem of the air speed information that was missing, and the autopilot. The copilot pulled back on the stick, causing the plane to go up, and then it stalled. Air was no longer flowing across the wings to provide lift.
The computer recognized a stall in progress and told the pilots over and over again. Stall, Stall, Stall the computer repeated the entire time the plane was falling, for almost five minutes, both pilots heard the warning bells and the computer chiding them with that word. Stall. But the copilot held the stick back until the plane hit the ocean. They were dropping at 12,000 feet per minute as they hit the water. Simple problem, compounded by human error.
I'm torn. I like technology, and think it is great. But, we become dependant on the technology. The pilot becomes accustomed to things working right. I can imagine the pilot thinking he's flown thousands of hours in this kind of plane and nothing has ever gone wrong. he becomes complacent, relaxed, comfortable. Then when the computer kicks out and says fly the plane human, the pilot has to start thinking immediately. They have to shift from all is well to holy crap what is going on in less than a second. The first question going through their minds is almost certainly what is wrong with the computer. Not what is wrong with the plane, but what is wrong with the computer.
Quantas flight 32 is a great example of that. The engine blew up, and the pilot did the right thing taking manual control immediately. Then he flew straight and level while they determined the problem and how bad it was. The co-pilot spent the next 55 minutes going through all the warnings on the computer one by one and acknowledging the problem, or authorizing a computer work around, that didn't work.
They worked the problem for 55 minutes while flying a plane that had suffered a catastrophic engine explosion. They flew for 55 minutes with a hole in the wing leaking fuel while they acknowledged what they knew a minute after the explosion. The god damned engine blew up and we need to land the plane as soon as possible or we are all going to die.
They could not start anything else until they had acknowledged the computers long list of problems. Then they still had to do what they could have been doing 55 minutes ago. Easing the controls around while they found out how badly the plane was hurt and how much control they had.
On the ground, the crew found to thier dismay that the engine cut off was not working, due to the damage to the wing. So they could not shut down one of the engines. The chief engineer at Quantas suggested squirting water into the engine to make it fail. Engines are designed to work in that very situation. After an hour of firetrucks pumping water into the engine to no avail, they decided to try firefighting foam. That extinguished the engine, making it safe for the firefighters to approach the plane and deal with the fuel leak.
Taca Airlines flight 110 exposed the problem of plane engines not working like they are supposed to when throttled back, and the engines were redesigned for that problem. There was no way on earth that a firehose would make it to the combustion chamber and extinguish the flame even at idle. The engine is designed to spit the water out long before it gets to the flame.
Computer assisted controls sound like a good idea, but I have believed for a long time that true piloting skills are lost every hour the computer is controlling the aircraft. You can't help but get complacent, comfortable. Then when an emergency happens, you spend too long trying to figure out what the computer is doing before you start to think about the plane. Precious seconds are lost while you are asking the normal question. What the hell is going on?
LuckyLib
(6,819 posts)working frantically to figure it out/repair it/down the aircraft. Their top priority would not be getting on an emergency frequency and/or getting out a mayday message.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... most likely for the co-pilot/first officer as the pilot is dealing with the emergency.
That's why I figure both pilots died right there in the cockpit at altitude from some criminal event.
adigal
(7,581 posts)This is how they respond, in this order:
Aviate - keep the plane flying
Navigate - figure out where they are and where they need to head
Communicate - this is the lowest priority, may never get to this one
Logical
(22,457 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)but I am.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)I thought those satellites could see things only a few meters wide. They know the approximate time of plane's disappearance, and its approximate location. They also report that the satellites show no signs of any explosion in the area.
What else did the satellites see that we're not hearing about?
randome
(34,845 posts)We're on an austerity budget, don't ya know!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
jmowreader
(50,555 posts)This was a hell of an operation...the bird would use one canister of film per day and eject it over open ocean. The CIA would send up a plane with a trailing basket to catch it. The Soviets, who had wonderful satellite tracking capabilities, would send a spy ship to the same location to grab the canister if the CIA missed.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Figure that the classified version has a bit more goose to it.
Sooooo....there ya go!
http://hothardware.com/News/GeoEye1-EarthImaging-Satellite-Goes-Online/
Click on the image to get the high rez version...pretty impressive.
hack89
(39,171 posts)at that resolution, the field of view is so small that only a very tiny patch of ground is seen.
Satellites are not search platforms - they are given very precise coordinates to point their sensors at.
A more practical issue is that I am sure there are much higher priority things they want satellites looking at.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)on a person's ass. The reason why no information has come out so far is that spy agencies want to STFU and hope that civilian agencies figure out what happened.
Imagine the shit that will hit the fan if the US came out and explained how one of it's spy SAT video has the plane on it? China would shit bricks.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Being able to see a pimple is exactly why they are not designed to search large areas. It is basic physics and optics. Talk to a photographer and she will explain it to you.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)They think we're in some sort of action film. You expect them to understand field of view?
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Size of the airplane in that ocean can be compared to a grain of sand in a sandbox.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Again...it didn't go down in the middle of the ocean. It went down relatively close to land...in the Gulf of Thailand.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)And even if it made it to land, that part of the world is a dense jungle.
proudretiredvet
(312 posts)They easily had another 6 hours of fuel on board. That is another 2,400 miles of distance they could have covered.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)....even in the Gulf of Thailand.
Let's say that you had it narrowed down to a ten mile by ten mile area.
That's a hundred squares, a mile on a side, and, even if the plane wasn't on the bottom of the ocean, you would be looking for an object that is 242 feet long.
But all one is looking for here, in an ocean full of waves and whitecaps are small pieces of floating debris.
B2G
(9,766 posts)The should have a pretty good idea of where it went down, which makes it amazing they haven't located it yet.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And the "black boxes" are not utterly infallible devices.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)A ten minute window gives you about a 100 mile path of ocean to cover. And remember, the aircraft could be deep into the sea. I don't know what the speed at impact would have been, but from 35k feet it's safe to say if the plane were somewhat intact it's deep into the ocean.
treestar
(82,383 posts)like Amelia Earhardt's plane.
unblock
(52,199 posts)even if we have a very good idea where it went down, it's still not easy to find it.
you have to look in the exact right area, visibility on the ocean floor is not great.
you can miss a piece of wreckage by 20 feet and not have a clue that you're in the right area or are wrong by 50 miles.
proudretiredvet
(312 posts)The "boats" can hear about anything that goes on in the oceans at great distance. It seems to me if there was a big splash they would have detected it.
unblock
(52,199 posts)with active sonar, you can create a very, very loud "ping" and yes, listening devices can hear it and its echoes across vast distances.
passive sonar is listening for noises without a ping, relying on the sound of the "splash" in this case to propagate in the water -- this is much, much quieter than those "pings" that travel vast distances, and you need to be very close to detect it.
the fact that the noise is at the surface also makes it more of a challenge, as does the actual frequencies of the sounds involved (low frequencies travel better, a splash would produce mostly higher frequencies).
proudretiredvet
(312 posts)What I know is that or ability to Hear slight and out of place noises with passive detectors at great distances is far advanced. It is what the boats do in detecting other subs. I don't think this, I know this.
unblock
(52,199 posts)i was a techie at the time, but part of the "sales pitch" was how vastly more effective this was compared to passive listening, particularly in terms of distances covered.
proudretiredvet
(312 posts)When they lost the french plane in the sough pacific they pretty much knew where it was and found wreckage within a short time and that was in very bad weather. That plane was found on the ocean floor and the water there was much deeper than in this incident.
The water in the area that this plane went off of radar is about 600' deep. We can get down that far with many different platforms. So if it is there we will find the plane.
If it had crashed in one piece into the water it would have come apart leaving a more compact area of floating wreckage and oil slick.
If it had blown up or disintegrated in mid air the wreckage field would be large. In either case there would be a visible field of wreckage that should have been found.
That leaves room for speculation.
It hit the water in a more controlled manner and did not break up. This would mean that there was time for "mayday" alerts. There were none.
It had flight handling problems and veered sharply away form its course and continued to fly out of the area and then destructed in an area they are not searching. This too would have given the crew more than enough time to sound the alarm.
The pilot caused some deviation of course and then put the plane into a vertical dive leaving a very small field of wreckage in an area that they are not looking.
OR. It was taken and not lost. Maybe taken because someone needs a 777 for another venture. Who knows. I don't.
All of this is pure speculation. Nothing in this makes since right now.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)It's hard to find things that are lost in the ocean, especially if it broke apart at 35,000 feet, they would literally just be looking for seats, metal, bags, etc.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)The jet, bound for Paris from Rio de Janeiro with 228 aboard, disappeared Sunday night without any distress call.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/world/europe/03plane.html?_r=0
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)Air France Flight 447 - crashed June 1, 2009
Data recorders recovered May, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
Baclava
(12,047 posts)even out over the open Atlantic, let alone in coastal waters
more likely they are way off in their flight path projections
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)Because of the lack of any transmission, either one of the pilots committed suicide and killed the other before driving it straight down or a bomb went off in or near the cockpit and killed both pilots instantly.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Both pilots died right there at altitude from some criminal act.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Most likely the shallow depth attenuates the ultrasonic ping sounds used to locate the black boxes. I'd guess that you can hear them from farther away when the water is 100s of meters deep.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)..... please? Why would you guess that you can hear the pingers farther away in deeper water?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Since sea water is denser the deeper you go, the faster and further sound can travel. Seawater is also affected by temperature and salinity.
For more in depth explanation, read this. http://www.arc.id.au/UWAcoustics.html
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... most of it pertains to the speed of sound in water, not the attenuation. It speaks to attenuation at the end, but depth is not a factor in attenuation.
Plus, I learned in Physics (granted, many years ago) that water was basically incompressible, and thus it's density does not change with increasing pressure at depth. Otherwise, scuba diver's bodies (being mostly water) would crush as they descended even a couple of hundred feet.
But, what do I know? I was more of a radar guy, not sonar.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)There were probably over 200 cellphones on board, most with GPS enabled, and not all were off at the time of the crash. (This assumes knowledge of Google account IDs and passwords for the Android phones).
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Because there are not many cell towers in the ocean.
jsr
(7,712 posts)I remember towers are for a gross fix (like in assisted GPS) and the newer designs have full GPS chips...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A GPS receiver does not transmit anything to a satellite.
jsr
(7,712 posts)The problem is transmittal of the phone's coordinates to the cloud server (Google) - and you do need a tower nearby to sign in. (Yeah, I know receivers just receive and triangulate).
valerief
(53,235 posts)being surveilled so much, why can't they track planes instead of lottery tickets?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)to look at.
If you've ever used a SLR camera, you know that you can focus it in close on a flower, but if you move the view up and away to say....the door of your neighbors house 250 yards away, it is a complete blur.
The satellites are basically the same. I've spent a fair amount of time looking at Google Earth sat shots and the focal length diffrences are dramatic. They could be taking a picture of something and an airplane could fly right through the shot and not be seen, because the camera is trained on ground level, not at 30,000 feet above.
The planet is just too vast, the number of airplanes, as mentioned by others, is too numerous and the number of ground photo satellites too few to do anything close to what you suggest.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)The chances that it didn't go down are between slim and none, unfortunately. Very sad for all involved.
This article kind of helps to explain why it's hard to find.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26514556
mainer
(12,022 posts)if they can't tell us about a catastrophic disaster in the sky, involving a major aircraft.
And here we thought those satellites are always looking and can see you sunbathing nude in your backyard.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You can see a tremendous amount of detail on one very small patch of wall. But it's a terrible way to look over the entire wall. You have to know where to point the binoculars first.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they are not search devices - they are given very precise coordinates to point their sensors.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)There would be a rain of small-to-medium-sized pieces over a very wide area (many tens of square miles). Most fragments would sink, and the rest would be very difficult to spot. It's not a "plane" any more, it's now an underwater debris field. The difficulty in locating any wreckage seems very logical to me - there are probably few large chunks of the aircraft on the surface.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Every cushion on a modern aircraft floats. So does paper. So do bodies. So will a lot of luggage. So does most of the insulation. If the aircraft broke up at 35,000 feet, there would be a very large and VISIBLE field of smaller floating debris that would be quickly picked up by search planes.
The fact that there isn't would suggest to me that the debris field is much smaller. THAT points to the aircraft hitting the water intact. I'd imagine a scenario more akin to United 93, with hijacking followed by a dive into the ocean. Remember how little debris there was at the United 93 impact site? The debris field was relatively small because the aircraft struck the ground in one piece. Something similar would happen in a water strike.
Heck, an even better comparison would be that Valujet flight that went down in the Florida Everglades in the mid-90's. It hit the water in one piece and there was almost NOTHING on the surface to indicate that it was a crash site. The first people to arrive on the location at ground level had to get confirmation from the helicopters above that they were at the right spot, because it wasn't even apparent that they were floating a few feet above the wreckage.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)NickB79
(19,233 posts)We have polluted the living fuck out of the oceans, with all the plastic and trash we routinely let find their way to them.
Hell, they actually DID find several oil slicks and debris fields that, upon inspection, were not from the crash. I can't imagine that makes it easy, sorting out what's debris and what's trash from hundreds of feet up.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)While you might think every resulting object would sink, there are plenty of non metallic, plastic components that would still float, even if pulverized into smaller bits ....
Unless there is flotsam indicating the breakup of an air vessel, then we cannot assume a mid air breakup occurred ...
Not enough information to make that call
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)jmowreader
(50,555 posts)The National Reconnaissance Office's network of flash-detecting satellites should have been able to see it. They claim to not have.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Any bomb small enough to sneak aboard would likely "just" blow out enough of the plane to cause a cascade of structural failures that would then tear the plane apart at that speed.
ecstatic
(32,685 posts)What good is the shoes off, no liquids charade if passports aren't even being checked? Uggh! Very unsettling.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)None of it is designed to actually make you safer. We know that.
It's all designed to make you feel better, not to make you safer. Good luck, and remember what Lewis Black said about airport security. Take a piece of rawhide with you to bite down on when you see the stupidity. If you speak out, your trip has ended.
ellie
(6,929 posts)And I fly home tomorrow. I tried not to think of it and had faith in the pilots and staff because what else can you do? Even though it did cross my mind.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)It's not terrorism if no one claims the act as an act of terror.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)....went to the head and dived her into the ocean.. Not strictly terrorism, more likely a suicide but still intentional and possibly with terrorists motives. (ie, kill the un-believers in the back of the plane AND suicide.)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I wouldn't even necessarily conclude that person was a Christian.
It's a common interjection.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I've heard the argument that it was intentional because he was saying something as common as "OMG!"
Are you saying it was intentional because he was saying that; or are you saying that he was saying it because it was intentional. Because it is just as likely he was saying it whether it was intentional or not. As a fact, it doesn't get you anywhere.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)He takes over early overriding the copilots objections, waits till he goes to the head, turns off auto pilot, idles engines, noses over, fights copilots inputs till crash. How could that NOT be on purpose? And i consider taking 216 other people with you when you suicide akin to terrorism. Saying "Tawkalt ala Allah" over and over while doing that leaves open the possibility of intentional terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
DebJ
(7,699 posts)response in some targeted group of people.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)EX500rider
(10,839 posts).....right before disengaging the auto pilot, putting the throttles to idle and nosing it over. And then said it 7 more times and fought the co-pilot for control after he made it back to his seat.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)EX500rider
(10,839 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)that they could design black boxes that could put out a strong enough beacon to immediately be found?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thousands of "G's" applied to the box, and if they manage to crack the box, salt water isn't exactly healthy for electronics. Plus you've got to handle the possibility of a very long and intense fire (not likely in this situation, but in general).
It's an exceptionally difficult engineering problem.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The problem is that the beacon isn't strong enough to easily find the boxes. It seems like that should be a very solvable problem if we wanted to make it a priority for society.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They're extremely rugged, yes, but they will be destroyed by an extreme-enough crash. IIRC, the boxes did not survive the 9/11 flight that crashed in PA.
As for the transponder, it's not just a matter of "turning it up". Doing so has repercussions on the survivability of the box. You need a larger battery. You need a larger speaker. You need a more powerful amplifier. You need a larger antenna.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Yes, the boxes need to have a more robust beacon. Yes. that's an engineering job. What's your point?
My point is that if society actually cared about these crashes, we most certainly could make black boxes that would have been located within an hour.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Based on estimates pulled from your posterior.
adigal
(7,581 posts)No black box makes it hard to prove what took it down.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The conspiracy theory is that it was shot down.
Problem is a mid-air explosion would cause the plane to break up in the air, and spread a large debris field. And not destroy the black boxes, because the impact would be slower - broken airplane chunks have much more drag than intact airplane.
OTOH, someone pushes the nose down and flies it full-throttle into the ground, and you get the relatively small impact site, and destruction of everything. Including the black boxes.
adigal
(7,581 posts)One would think a mid-air explosion would break up the box, and an intact plane would protect it, but I do get what you are saying about the impact being more concentrated. Thanks.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)there are very few cases where all boxes are completely destroyed. Three were more losses back when we literally used recording tape, but for the past 15 years or so it has all been solid state. These boxes are located fore and aft, so it is very unlikely that boxes from both ends of the craft would be completely destroyed. The more common problem is that they simply aren't located, especially when talking about ocean crashes.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Notice there was not a single case where both boxes were destroyed. There were two cases where one of the two boxes was destroyed by fire, not by the impact of the crash or explosion and one case where the tape was broken and partially unreadable. All the other problems were cases where the boxes were simply never located.
Moreover, that chart doesn't show the recovery time. In some cases, it was months or years later. Engineering a better beacon technology would give everybody a lot of comfort, not having to wait so long to discover what went wrong.
whopis01
(3,510 posts)The voice recorder was buried in the ground about 8m below the impact crater, but they were still able to recover it.
They are very good at surviving a crash. What they are not so good at surviving is prolonged heat exposure. The voice recorder from the Pentagon crash was recovered, but the magnetic tape was melted into a solid block and was unusable. Likewise, the recorders from the WTC impacts were destroyed by the extreme, prolonged heat of the fire.
It is almost certain that the recorders would have survived an ocean impact.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) spin
(17,493 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Spy Sats, Google Sats, NASA etc etc etc.. with all the technology in the skies and on the aircrafts... there's no way that our government (and likely other govt's) isn't aware of the location of that plane. It didn't just "vanish" from their "radars"..
It is curious, why they're being silent and feigning ignorance, though.
brooklynite
(94,503 posts)If we had that kind of satellite coverage, we wouldn't need the NSA monitoring us because the satellites would just pick up the phone number you dialed on camera...
Seriously, we DON'T have that kind of coverage, and while satellites can be repositioned, there's still a hell of a lot of water to cover.
2banon
(7,321 posts)MAdem up thread posted this link:
http://hothardware.com/News/GeoEye1-EarthImaging-Satellite-Goes-Online/
We've had capability in place long before the launch of the GeoEye1.
All I'm saying is the technology not only exist, it's been in place for a number of years.
Which begs the question, why are we being silent on this event?
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)As I said in post #81, you have to know where it is you want the satellites(s) to look and when, not to mention the exact altitude.
The satellites mentioned in the link of yours are not focusing in on every square meter of land and water 24/7. They make passes. They orbit. They have to be told which way to point their cameras and how close in to focus. As I indicated, they could focus in on say... a fishing boat in the ocean and a jet could fly right through the shot at 30,000 feet and not show up in the photo.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Again, this isn't a Bond film.
2banon
(7,321 posts)NASA Joins Hunt for Missing Malaysian Passenger Jet
In addition, Beutel added, NASA will be sending relevant data to the U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Resources Observations and Science Hazard Data Distribution System, which facilitates the sharing of information whenever the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters is activated.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)And probably still are? You don't re-task sats for non-national security issues, esp involving a foreign airline overseas. They'll find it eventually. Might take some sonar and mini-subs though. Not sats. And lots of areas out side of the US have little or no radar coverage.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)This isn't a Bond film.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)spy sats are VERY good at what they do....being pointed at a point we want to looj at....they are VERY POOR to the point of useless at scanning wide areas
2banon
(7,321 posts)seems like we sure do know how to throw away billions and billions of dollars touted to do all this great stuff with national security in mind to boot..
but it seems like it's always this great big fail.
So why do we allow these cretins to fleece tax payers and polluting earth's space with this monstrous heap of useless garbage? hmmm.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)Spy Sats are designed to focus on small spots on the ground...that is what they do.BY DESIGN they don't do large areas.With ANY camera you have two choices...wide field or up close focus.A spy sat that did wide field views would be worthless as a spy sat.
Response to LynneSin (Original post)
brooklynite This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)North Korea. But the why, when, how etc. are elusive as to why Li'l Kim would want it and if he did why hasn't he played his hand yet? So most likely, that's not the scenario.
longship
(40,416 posts)
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)No trace on the ground of what it should have looked like. Over 800 seats gone, 8 engines gone, bodies gone. But luckily there was DNA to collect. LOL!
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)Just absolute bollocks.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Most civilian radars do not actively search the skies. They look for and track transponder signals, which every plane has. If there is no transponder signal, then to civilian systems, you might as well not exist.
It's only military radars that can actively search for and track a plane with no transponder (or one that's been turned off).
adigal
(7,581 posts)It could have flown virtually unseen anywhere?
I'm leaning toward believing this explanation. Someone wanted a plane.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Theoretically, it's hard to turn off transponders on any newer planes.
longship
(40,416 posts)And then turns it back on upon take off.
So you are wrong.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It highlights how vast the ocean is that they can have trouble finding it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)I think there is a history of missing airplanes back in the last century that were never found. It's just today, we have global news in minutes, so it doesn't take weeks for a story to get out. I actually know of one passenger DC 7 that disappeared over the Pacific off the coast of Peru in 1948 but because it was not an American airline with American passengers in it, it was local news only. No trace of the airplane was ever found. Maybe someday it will be found by divers now that our diving equipment is more sophisticated and can dive at deeper depths. They could find it accidentally though looking for something else. So the chances of it being found are pretty much zero in this day and age.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I even took a break and researched her history. The speculation is that the plane might have ended up so deep into the ocean it might never be found.
Sam
Response to LynneSin (Original post)
Chemisse This message was self-deleted by its author.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)So far there is only speculation about what happened to the missing flight, which was headed to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur. But Arnie Reiner, a retired captain with US Airways and the former chief accident investigator at Pan Am, noted, “If they somehow got turned around or went off course when the thing was going down, it could be 90 or 100 miles away from where the flight data disappeared.”
It is not yet known whether the Malaysian plane deviated from its planned flight path, or how long the pilots could still fly the aircraft after the last reported contact. Assuming that the plane remained in powered flight or a controlled glide, the potential search area would have to be wide and long, covering thousands of square miles. After more than two days of fruitless search, Malaysian officials expanded the search area on Monday.
(clip)
But extended searches are sometimes needed. When Air France Flight 447 vanished over the Atlantic in June 2009, it took five days to find any wreckage, and almost two years to find the black boxes. Similarly, the cockpit data recorder from a South African Airways Boeing 747 that went down in November 1987 was not located until January 1989. It revealed that the plane crashed because of a fire onboard, not because of an act of terrorism, so no further search was conducted for the flight data recorder, the other black box.
Another rule of thumb for pilots may shed light on why no distress signal was heard from the Malaysia Airlines flight. Pilots have a mantra for setting priorities in an emergency: Aviate, navigate, communicate. The first priority is to fly the airplane. Telling air traffic controllers on the ground what is going on comes third, since doing so is unlikely to instantly yield any help with the crisis in the cockpit, whatever it is....(more)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)It's location was known, though it drifted downriver as it sank.
It still hasn't been found, let alone recovered.
If the US military, civilian searchers, civilian salvage operations and amateur aircraft enthusiasts working for 58 years can't find an intact military aircraft in a known stretch of river somewhere near Pittsburgh, can you imagine how much more difficult finding aircraft bits in the South China Sea would be?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)oh nevermind. everywhere is larger than Delaware. 
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts) 
HipChick
(25,485 posts)UFO's the size of several football fields have been reported..
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)supposed to give off a detectable signal in case of a catastrophic failure?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If it's under water you need to be within about 1.8 miles from it for your sonar to hear it.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)There's a possibility such equipment has not been mobilized yet. There's also a possibility that the closest jurisdictions don't own such equipment. Which would mean they are waiting for someone like the United States to show up.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)its disappearance is such a mystery when a major location device is not even being utilized.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Without radar or an effective radar system, a plane can vanish. Radar systems in the countries that the plane was traveling through aren't as advanced as the systems used in the US and Europe.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)If the plane fell in the ocean, it's not very deep water (around 200 feet plus). By comparison, the Air France plane that fell into the Atlantic was in 13,000 feet and they found it right away.
I think that maybe the plane was not on course and that's why they are not finding any debris.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Much of that aircraft is still missing. However, just like this Malaysia flight, fuel slicks were found in the ocean just a few days after the accident.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The Air France plane was found in a relative short time. This flight went down last Tuesday.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)1) We build planes in a way that allows the pilot to turn off the transponder. That makes no sense. That thing should be on as long as the plane is in the air, not just for these cases, but for everyday safety concerns. It is stupid to allow a design where a pilot (or hijacker) can turn it off.
2) We have an air-to-ground communication network for passing all sorts of information that helps the airline run the day-to-day business. We should be mandating that the essential aircraft status information (in a distilled form that won't overload that network) be automatically transmitted in real time as long as the aircraft is in the air. Some airlines use this capability, but there is no indication that was an available source in this case.
If we had these two things, we would have known what was happened BEFORE the plane crashed (assuming that it crashed.)
mainer
(12,022 posts)It's like a cop being able to turn off his dash cam. It's not supposed to happen.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)The transponder should be off at any point while the plane has power.
The A2G network does exist, however that is only over land. There are a lot of dead spots over open water. They have looked at this, and it does indeed exist in various forms on several newer aircraft, but the coverage does not exist. Satellite is an option, however the annual bandwidth per aircraft would be astronomically expensive. To the point that even small packets of data with the vitals of each aircraft could warrant it's own satellite network. There are about 94,000 flights per day in the world.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)And that should not be prohibitively expensive over satellite. Something like every 60 seconds send out a packet with GPS coordinates, altitude, airspeed, and a summary of each major system. That would not be a lot of data and it would give investigators an instant view of what happened -- at least what kind of scenario is involved. Here we are just guessing 4 days later, and evidently the authorities are not much better informed than we are because they didn't expand the search to the Strait of Malacca until less than 24 hours ago. If there was a water landing with survivors, they would have been in the water for 3 days by that point.
Is this really the best we can do in 2014?
NealK
(1,865 posts)I doubt that I'll freak out over this but will find it a bit more intriguing as time passes.
KewlKat
(5,624 posts)not one call has come from this plane? Also, I thought the new mobile phones had GPS in them? so can't they be tracked? I'm just thinking out loud. The not knowing is so hard on the families.
longship
(40,416 posts)Do you suppose that might have something to do with it?
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Malaysia, lost it. I'm not sure if Malaysia is a secular state or an Islamic state. It seems to be an unknown entity with regard to rules at times. With the right amount of corruption or influence, the plane could have been purloined for nefarious reasons. Religious ruling leaves a lot of leeway for activities that pertain to religious beliefs.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)Why were the transponders shut off? Why did it completely change course after? Why has this information been released several days after? Who were these men with stolen passports (yes, we have identities, but I still think their background needs greater research)? Who is the travel agent dealing with them in cash? I also heard something about some other passengers that cancelled at the last minute but their luggage may have been onboard...I haven't heard much more about that. The Malaysian government's/airline's response has not been particularly transparent either, likely out of fear of embarrassment due to the their lax and incompetent (and possible corrupt) security. I wouldn't be surprised if someone accepted some bribes. Corruption is rampant.
But we first need to know where the hell the pieces of this plane are....I hope we get answers soon.
Response to LynneSin (Original post)
karanm8090 Spam deleted by MIR Team
