All Comments

  • Posted by superfluities 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    After listening to 5-6 news reports today there should been the ability to send/receive text messages relayed thru a satallite service paid for by Mayla airlines, although the sat company denied that Maylay airlines paid for such a service??
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    According to an article I read there is a website in China you can go on and it tells you if the phone is active. Authorities were baffled as to why the phones were ringing when they called the numbers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 11 years, 1 month 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by superfluities 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    iphones only work a few miles from a cell tower not 100's of miles...how would they know if they were active?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DaveM49 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by DaveM49 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by saucerdesigner 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostsierra 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Plausible. Family members reported to authorities that their loved ones smart phones were still "active". I would not be shocked if you are right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Susannah 11 years, 1 month 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 11 years, 1 month 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by MarR 11 years, 1 month ago
    Sorry title didn't make it clear but this is about the Malaysia plane.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo