Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by Susannah 10 years, 8 months ago
    Ok. I'm wearing my tinfoil hat right now. What if the pilot and co-pilot were in on it. At a pre-arranged time they turn off the responder, change course, go beneath the radar and land the plane on an island runway. Now the bad guys have a plane for their nefarious purposes. It fits the facts, doesn't it? Not sure about the people on the flight ... hostages to be redeemed at a later date or collateral damage?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 8 months ago
      My wife has a girl friend who knew the pilot. Nothing there. Good man. My two brothers in-laws knew two sisters on the plane and their mother. The husband was not on the flight. There are no islands in the area that could land that plane. A few islands have short air strips and resorts. Have made landings on them, rather exciting. I suspect the plane is in Iran, Somalia, Pakistan, Mindanao. Pick your choice. It had lots of fuel and is long range. Have flown a lot on Malaysian Air. Best route to the Orient.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago
      I'm sticking right now with the WSJ story about Roys Royce and Boeing getting data 4 hours longer than when the plane went off radar. It's plausible about turning the responders off. and frankly the longer this goes on without any wreckage being found, what are the plausible options?
      But what about the oil rig worker? I think that came out and nothing else has been said about it...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by saucerdesigner 10 years, 8 months ago
      A jet engine operates most efficiently at high altitudes. If the aircraft descends to "beneath the radar" as you suggest, then it's range is reduced drastically in proportion to the reduction in altitude. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just point out a factor to consider.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 10 years, 8 months ago
    I'm betting on the terrorism angle, although the fact that the plane may have turned around is leaning towards maybe an issue with it. The real concern is how do you have a large airliner just "disappear" with all the various squeaks and sqonks they send out for data tracking. Even Air France knew something was amiss right after they lost their flight.Even the engines somehow send out stuff to Rolls Royce. Now if they had called in a giant UFO and then disappeared it would be case solved....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 10 years, 8 months ago
    One also need to think that in an age where the NSA can nose into anything they want, there is no single transponder system that is buried so deep in the planes guts, as to not be disabled under any circumstances? Such a device would have been a big asset in this type of case. I have to wonder at our airlines and FAA type allowing the ability of one of their planes just to "wander away" to the point they are now drawing a circle covering 1/4 of the globe and saying "they could be in here somewhere". The technology has been around for a while to be able to keep track of anything, anywhere. A mega million dollar plane would surely be something they would want to keep track of. Even in Malaysia....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by superfluities 10 years, 8 months ago
    I wonder who's military radar knows exactly where that plane hit the ocean ? but since there is no chance of survival
    no need to reveal radar capabilities to it's many rivals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 8 months ago
    Apparently the satellite photo has been ruled out. Is it possible that the flight crew (and perhaps others) were planning an "escape" or to steal the aircraft for some purpose? I have no idea whether satellite photos of any airfield capable of servicing a 777 have been examined, but....might it actually have been landed somewhere? Or at least made the attempt?

    The fact that the transponder was turned off leaves me wondering. There is a code (I believe 7500) to be entered into an aircraft's transponder if a hijacking is in progress. 7700 if I remember right is a distress signal. To my knowledge there was no distress signal of any kind.

    One way or another the people on the flight deck must have arranged this. If the plane stayed in the air for four hours after it disappeared, it was either hijacked or stolen. I cannot imagine that a hijacking could have taken place without some sort of signal being sent.

    Does anyone remember the old TV series "Banacek"? It dealt with a detective who solved seemingly impossible crimes, one of which was the disappearance of an airliner. An intriguing story, though it did not take place over the Pacific Ocean.

    I cannot imagine any possibility with a happy ending for the passengers on board. But the "what ifs" intrigue me. Somehow I suspect that there will be more to this story than we can imagine with the information presently at hand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago
      It's my understanding that there were multiple transponders, so even if one failed/was turned off, others would have been transmitting, thus, if none were sending, it must have been intentional.
      Now we find that the engines have their own data transponders that continued to send info on the engines for 4 hours after the last known position. That's about 2500 miles distance that could have been covered.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 8 months ago
        Interesting indeed. I don't know how many transponders a modern airliner carries. I do find it intriguing that no distress signal--indeed no signal at all--was sent via transponder or other means. If monitors on the engines continued to transmit for four hours....the aircraft must have remained airborne during that time.

        If I recall correctly, the 777 requires a fairly long runway. That narrows landing possibilities down considerably. The average general aviation airstrip most would not suffice.

        There was an early report of an oil slick. Has there been any follow-up on that? Or any sort of debris found? If a large aircraft hit the ocean, something would break loose that would float.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago
          No debris that can be confirmed as part of the aircraft.

          I'm beginning to think that this was an intentional act - most likely one or more of the cockpit crew. They took the aircraft to some undisclosed location where it has been hidden. It will be used at some future date to be a weapon of mass destruction. Either with massive explosives, a nuclear weapon, or even chem/bio weapons. The bio is scary as many nations wouldn't necessarily protect themselves from such a thing and even if they forced it to land, would then unleash devastation on their people.
          The only good thing is since it is so far away from the US, there's little chance that it could fly all the way here without somehow being observed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 8 months ago
            There are indeed some very frightening possibilities. A 777 can have a range of up to 9300 nautical miles, presumably dependent on payload and fuel tank configuration (to my knowledge, they are all fitted with the same engines). They'd never manage that at a "below the radar" altitude. If that distance could be calculated, any airfield with a runway of approximately 10,000 feet within that range could be a possible landing site. Regulations call for an 11,000 foot runway for takeoff and landing with a fully-loaded 777, but with no passengers....? Who knows? I read that some using a simulator have been able to take off and land with a 777, but have been unable to find any real world equivalents.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 8 months ago
    The Malaysian coast is rugged and lacks roads. There are lots of islands on both coasts. Most have resorts. There is incredible sea traffic in the Malacca Strait. Bumper-to-bumper tankers. Huge numbers of fishing boats, pleasure craft. This applies to both coasts. Huge sea traffic in the South China Sea. This area has the most sea traffic in the world. Hard to miss a plane. A million eyes watching. Wreckage would be easily spotted. A crash, easy to see it go down. There are lots of pirates in the region, too. I believe it was captured and flown somewhere for ransom or other use. Pirates in Malaysian waters have captured large tankers, freighters, even sacked towns. Somalia is a good prospect, plane had the fuel and the range. Some pirates have political connections. They are incredibly bold and daring. No target too big. The largest naval battle since WWII was fought in Malaysian waters.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo