Malaysian Airliner missing?

JGoodish said:
Except you're wrong about the second time, too, and even a cursory study of the facts and basic logic will quickly expose the fallacy of your conclusion.


JKG
Click to expand...

How so? Our oil companies' exploitation investments were sitting there not paying off because the sanctions we had against Sadam, and he wouldn't capitulate so we could lift them and get oil flowing out of those wells again making money; so we killed him. We supported him in the Iraq
Iran war; hell, we put him in power. Our wars for the last century have been about securing oil flow, even the War on Terror, that's all over oil money and the perceived damage it has caused to their society. Even the Cold War was a remnant of a grudge match over Caspian oil fields and keeping Seven Sisters investment out. Of course that restriction ended with the Cold War and now our foundation companies have all gotten in.
 
Henning said:
How so? Our oil companies' exploitation investments were sitting there not paying off because the sanctions we had against Sadam, and he wouldn't capitulate so we could lift them and get oil flowing out of those wells again making money; so we killed him. We supported him in the Iraq
Iran war; hell, we put him in power. Our wars for the last century have been about securing oil flow, even the War on Terror, that's all over oil money and the perceived damage it has caused to their society. Even the Cold War was a remnant of a grudge match over Caspian oil fields and keeping Seven Sisters investment out. Of course that restriction ended with the Cold War and now our foundation companies have all gotten in.
Click to expand...
If it was all about oil, why was the Royal Navy doing the same role back in Nelson's day (when the only oil in demand was whale oil) as the US Navy is today?
 
AcroGimp said:
According to a former Mechanic buddy of mine, Malaysia is not known for excellent maintenance, specifically corrosion protection issues.

No aircraft that goes unmaintained/poorly maintained will last forever. Even the 747 has had large panels unzip due to Mx practice (taking several rows of seat with it into #3 - although the plane made it back).

My initial opinion, with the very limited data so far is either a structural failure (possibly a catastrophic unzip while in cruise configuration - although the 777 has an excellent safety record), or terrorism (bomb).

The challenge with either of those scenarios is the presence of a cohesive oil slick, it if came apart at FL350 I would not expect even 5 hrs of fuel for a trip-7 to create a noticeable slick - would seem to be more likely with an impact type accident but would then expect maybe some debris.

An AF447 type accident where they essentially flew it from FL410 to the ocean in a deep stall should not be possible in a Boeing product (different control laws).

It is really an interesting and tragic situation. Prayers to familes and friends.

'Gimp
Click to expand...

Actually the fuselage could have unzipped and the wings stayed intact until impact.
 
timwinters said:
Only one AFAIK. Military guys in waters they weren't supposed to be in and who couldn't tell the difference between an F14 and an A300. Brilliance all the way around.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you could do it on your I-phone or cockpit MFD now, but the impertinence associated with your stellar hindsight might still leave you sadly unenlightened.

I am a salty old Navy veteran and well remember the incident that downed Flight 655, tragically killing 290 pilgrims headed for Mecca.

Imagine you are A Reagan-era Captain of a Navy Cruiser with a robotic new "Star Trek" missile defense system. You, and all other Captains in this hostile zone who are equipped with this missile system are acting responsibly and keeping this system on "safety" so an international incident does not occur.

But an Exocet missile is fired from an Iranian F-14 and the cool new robot missile systems do not get switched on in time to save the lives of sailors killed on a sister ship, USNS Stark. Congress is not happy and they destroy the career of Captain Brindel of the Stark. Then Iran sets mines which severely damage the USNS Bridgeton and the USNS Samuel B. Roberts, killing even more Americans.

Navy Flag Command changes the rules of engagement. The robot missiles are set "with one in the breach and a finger on the trigger".

You are in a hostile zone and charged "First and foremost" with the safety of your crew. In a dark CIC, you are told the aircraft in question is a descending jet (it was climbing) and the ICC (on an intensely cluttered 12 in screen) says it is a military aircraft . High stress, life or death time. The trigger can't be "un-pulled", but you have also buried your dead.

Would you really have done a "better job" than Captain Rogers did?
 
AcroGimp said:
My initial opinion, with the very limited data so far is either a structural failure (possibly a catastrophic unzip while in cruise configuration - although the 777 has an excellent safety record), or terrorism (bomb).

The challenge with either of those scenarios is the presence of a cohesive oil slick, it if came apart at FL350 I would not expect even 5 hrs of fuel for a trip-7 to create a noticeable slick - would seem to be more likely with an impact type accident but would then expect maybe some debris.
Click to expand...

Imagine yet another scenario- Terrorists on board take over as they did on 911 and plunge the aircraft straight down into the ocean. The plane holds together for a long while and so not as scattered as would be a bomb blast at altitude. In addition, if the take over was really efficient, the flight crew might not have had time to make a mayday call, or squawk 7500.
 
Watching Fox News right now and their saying radar showed a 180 deg turn b4 it disappeared.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If the plane went down between Malaysia and Vietnam the water depth is fairly shallow along the route given. Depending on the exact route, most of it is less than 100' deep. This should make locating the wreckage and recovery efforts much easier.
 
Painter1 said:
I'm sure you could do it on your I-phone or cockpit MFD now, but the impertinence associated with your stellar hindsight might still leave you sadly unenlightened.

I am a salty old Navy veteran and well remember the incident that downed Flight 655, tragically killing 290 pilgrims headed for Mecca.

Imagine you are A Reagan-era Captain of a Navy Cruiser with a robotic new "Star Trek" missile defense system. You, and all other Captains in this hostile zone who are equipped with this missile system are acting responsibly and keeping this system on "safety" so an international incident does not occur.

But an Exocet missile is fired from an Iranian F-14 and the cool new robot missile systems do not get switched on in time to save the lives of sailors killed on a sister ship, USNS Stark. Congress is not happy and they destroy the career of Captain Brindel of the Stark. Then Iran sets mines which severely damage the USNS Bridgeton and the USNS Samuel B. Roberts, killing even more Americans.

Navy Flag Command changes the rules of engagement. The robot missiles are set "with one in the breach and a finger on the trigger".

You are in a hostile zone and charged "First and foremost" with the safety of your crew. In a dark CIC, you are told the aircraft in question is a descending jet (it was climbing) and the ICC (on an intensely cluttered 12 in screen) says it is a military aircraft . High stress, life or death time. The trigger can't be "un-pulled", but you have also buried your dead.

Would you really have done a "better job" than Captain Rogers did?
Click to expand...

You need to check your "facts" regarding the Stark and the capabilities of Iranian F-14s. So much for the claim of "old salt".
 
Clark1961 said:
You need to check your "facts" regarding the Stark and the capabilities of Iranian F-14s. So much for the claim of "old salt".
Click to expand...

+1. The navy had a problem on their hands with that captain. If i recall correctly, there was another captain in the area who publicly spoke of the fact he was out of control!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Painter1 said:
I am a salty old Navy veteran and well remember the incident that downed Flight 655, tragically killing 290 pilgrims headed for Mecca.

Imagine you are A Reagan-era Captain of a Navy Cruiser with a robotic new "Star Trek" missile defense system. You, and all other Captains in this hostile zone who are equipped with this missile system are acting responsibly and keeping this system on "safety" so an international incident does not occur.

But an Exocet missile is fired from an Iranian F-14 and the cool new robot missile systems do not get switched on in time to save the lives of sailors killed on a sister ship, USNS Stark. Congress is not happy and they destroy the career of Captain Brindel of the Stark. Then Iran sets mines which severely damage the USNS Bridgeton and the USNS Samuel B. Roberts, killing even more Americans.

Navy Flag Command changes the rules of engagement. The robot missiles are set "with one in the breach and a finger on the trigger".

You are in a hostile zone and charged "First and foremost" with the safety of your crew. In a dark CIC, you are told the aircraft in question is a descending jet (it was climbing) and the ICC (on an intensely cluttered 12 in screen) says it is a military aircraft . High stress, life or death time.
Click to expand...
If you really are a 'salty old Navy veteran', then why on earth are you referring to those ships as USNS???

For a more accurate description of the incident, refer to my post #40 of this thread.
Painter1 said:
The trigger can't be "un-pulled"
Click to expand...
This statement is 100% untrue and shows your lack of understanding of the Aegis (and standard missile) weapon system.

If you wonder what my credentials are - I am an active duty Surface Warfare Officer who has been through the Aegis Division Officer course, the Department Head Combat Systems course in Dahlgren and the Surface Warfare TAO course in Newport.
 
dottat said:
+1. The navy had a problem on their hands with that captain. If i recall correctly, there was another captain in the area who publicly spoke of the fact he was out of control!
Click to expand...
'Out of control' might be a little extreme, but it is probably fair to say he was leaning a bit too far forward in the saddle. It has been said by some of his contemporaries that he was looking for a fight so to speak and that is what got him into the engagement with the Iranian gunboats.
 
Henning said:
Yes, KAL007 flew into airspace they had no permission to enter, and after 9/11 it's hard to argue the potential of an airliner being used as a weapon.
...
Click to expand...

Of course KAL007 was flying straight and level at a normal altitude for a cruising airliner. In no way was it behaving like a physical threat to anything.

The Soviets shot it down as it was about to exit their airspace.

Not at all like 9/11.

I think the consensus on both sides now is that someone in Moscow thought it was a Rivet Joint.
 
JimNtexas said:
Of course KAL007 was flying straight and level at a normal altitude for a cruising airliner. In no way was it behaving like a physical threat to anything.

The Soviets shot it down as it was about to exit their airspace.

Not at all like 9/11.

I think the consensus on both sides now is that someone in Moscow thought it was a Rivet Joint.
Click to expand...

Again, justifiable shoot. If KAL had not been there, they would not have been killed. The were in airspace denied them.
 
Not like we've ever loaded airliners up with spy gear before. That would be dishonest.
 
Just an idea, maybe take the ****ing match to another thread???

Latest on Malaysia is possible debris spotted and radar data may suggest a 180 prior to loss of signal.

'Gimp
 
AcroGimp said:
Just an idea, maybe take the ****ing match to another thread???

Latest on Malaysia is possible debris spotted and radar data may suggest a 180 prior to loss of signal.

'Gimp
Click to expand...

I saw that as well. The 180 turn could have been part of the disintegration.

Time will tell.
 
AcroGimp said:
Just an idea, maybe take the ****ing match to another thread???...
Click to expand...


I agree, STFU.


And where in the world is this d@mn plane?!?


I'm sure I'm stating the obvious, but if that plane actually landed anywhere, we would have heard from them by now (whether it was mechanical failure related or terrorist related).

I would think if the plane broke up in flight, someone would have found at least a single piece of debris by now.

Maybe it was a Sully Sullenberger type landing in the water, but the plane sunk so fast there was no trace of it above the water?

I dunno, but there are at least 239 famillies that would really like some answers.
 
eman1200 said:
I agree, STFU.


And where in the world is this d@mn plane?!?


I'm sure I'm stating the obvious, but if that plane actually landed anywhere, we would have heard from them by now (whether it was mechanical failure related or terrorist related).

I would think if the plane broke up in flight, someone would have found at least a single piece of debris by now.

Maybe it was a Sully Sullenberger type landing in the water, but the plane sunk so fast there was no trace of it above the water?

I dunno, but there are at least 239 famillies that would really like some answers.
Click to expand...

The wreckage and slick have been found, major maritime OP underway.
 
eman1200 said:
really? I'm only going based on cnn.com but I haven't seen any reports of wreckage found...???
Click to expand...

According to CNN, there have been reports of possible wreckage and an oil slick, but nothing confirmed yet. A couple of the possible wreckage reports have been discounted.
 
slinger said:
Zowie! I am IMPORTANT!!!
Glad my posts were deleted; shows what these clods think of the
1st Amend.
Click to expand...

I'll reply once, and only once. Read the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law... POA is not a government operation and if the moderators decide to delete a post, they will do so. Crying about freedom of speech will get you nowhere.

Now back to the original purpose of this thread...
 
Catastrophic failure is a possibility heck anything is potentially possible. That being said one must admit that 2 tickets purchased numerically sequential using passports that had been lost in separate countries in unrelated circumstances used to board a flight that has gone missing seems a little fishy. I mean this is like something out of a movie. It gives me the willies and makes me sad at the same time.
 
Last edited:
txflyer said:
They had combined captain and first officer flight time of over 20,000 hours, so pilot error would seem unlikely.

RIP
Click to expand...
Why would you think that numbers in a little book correlate with making mistakes? This morning my wife's nephew and I flew my B200 up to his weekend home to check on a reported broken water pipe. Taking the runway I forgot to turn on the strobes. Midway there he responded to a handoff for another aeroplane. Then I bounced the landing in an embarassing way. My nephew and I probably have >50,000 hours flight time between us. Yet we make "rookie mistakes" which are in fact just "mistakes" as all pilots make.
 
w_privett said:
Why would you think that numbers in a little book correlate with making mistakes?
Click to expand...

Because the evidence shows they do. Those particular "numbers in a little book" designate flight experience, which empirically does correlate with a much lower frequency of catastrophic error per unit of flight time. Your examples of minor errors are not even anecdotal counter-evidence, let alone statistically rigorous counter-evidence.
 
acrophile said:
Because the evidence shows they do. Those particular "numbers in a little book" designate flight experience, which empirically does correlate with a much lower frequency of catastrophic error per unit of flight time.
Click to expand...

I will admit there is likely some correlation.

But since you're using words like "evidence" and "empirically", can you link to a study that clearly shows a correlation between total flight hours and catastrophic error? I'd like to have it earmarked.

Anecdotally, there are just SO many exceptions that come to mind...

Airline crew befuddled by a malfunctioning airspeed and spinning in.
Airline crew fixating on a gear light and descending into the Everglades
Scott Crossfield
Sparky Imeson
Steve Fossett
Asiana crew coming up short at SFO
...and on and on...

I think of the phrase, "To err is human". And high time pilots are still human. I think the key to airline safety is not the overall time of the crew, nor lack of mistakes, but procedures and SOP's and systems designed to eliminate or catch mistakes.
 
Last edited:
w_privett said:
Taking the runway I forgot to turn on the strobes.
Click to expand...

Lord knows we all "forget" stuff like that. Up to and including lowering the landing gear.

I'm sure you know already that the "mistake" was not "forgetting" to turn on the strobes. It was either not having or not using or not using properly a checklist for that item. There's just too much to remember when flying not to need prompting to get all the important stuff done.

Not finding fault, mind you. Like I said, it happens.

Midway there he responded to a handoff for another aeroplane.
Click to expand...

Anyone who monitors 121.5 will know how often airline crews screw up on the radio.

Then I bounced the landing in an embarassing way.
Click to expand...

As I was told, there are three secrets to perfect landings every time.

Unfortunately, no one knows what they are! :redface:
 
This morning's ABC TV news said the oil slick was NOT from the plane, and that reports of debris being found were false. Curiouser and curiouser.
 
acrophile said:
Sure, here's one example:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/10/874.full
Click to expand...



From what I can tell, that study says that pilots with 0-5,000 hours are more likely to be involved in a crash than those with 5,000-10,000 hours.

It is my understanding that there is a statistical danger zone from about 150-500 hours of flight time and above that, total experience does not seem to play a big factor in accidents. The study you referenced does not indicate otherwise...

Actually the crash risk increases above 10,000 hours.

In comparison with pilots with less than 5,000 total flight hours at baseline, 5,000–9,999 total flight hours at baseline had a 57 percent lower risk of crash involvement (relative risk = 0.43, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.21, 0.87). However, an additional increase in total flight time was not associated with any further reduction in crash risk (figure 1).
Click to expand...

F1.medium.gif
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
From what I can tell, that study says that pilots with 0-5,000 hours are more likely to be involved in a crash than those with 5,000-10,000 hours.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Actually the crash risk increases above 10,000 hours.
Click to expand...

Look at the error bars. There is no statistically significant increase (that is, no risk increase that can be reliably inferred from the data).

It is my understanding that there is a statistical danger zone from about 150-500 hours of flight time and above that, total experience does not seem to play a big factor in accidents.
Click to expand...

Source, please? Are you sure you're not confusing increased risk per year with increased risk per flight hour? That confusion seems to be the origin of the aviation community's "danger zone" belief, as far as I've been able to tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top