Malaysian Airliner missing?

Question for you Navy vets or any vets:

Do they keep an AWACS airborne all the time when they are in proximity to foreign waters? What is AWACS role, and how far can they paint the arena?

Would it be improper to say that when one of those puppies is airborne, there is no such thing as an unidentified target?

My time in the Hawkeye (E-2B and -C) was quite a few years ago, but we were airborne any time the carrier was doing flight ops. I don't recall ever launching just the E-2 ...

The radar coverage was advertised as around 300nm and we operated a couple hundred miles from the ship, so we extended the carrier's visibility by a good 500 nm or more.

Edit - just saw FearlessTower's post above ... I'm pretty sure the radar range was unclassified then ... if not, oh crap - here comes NSA, NCIS, and all the other goons ... my disclaimer - APS-128 radar is no longer current, and I have now idea about the E-2C Block 0 and -D models capabilities.
 
Last edited:
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...
I give up easily. Tried to before. I don't come here often because of the Milquetoast mentality. PC enough, honey?
 
The Iranian and passports are more likely to be in pursuit of the heroin trade than terrorism, but this one is certainly interesting to watch. My bet is still on a pressure failure of the fuselage.
 
Well, my curiosity being piqued by the speculation, anyone else think it could be sitting on the ground in Iran? They would have had enough fuel to get there.

Just another wild thought.
 
The Iranian and passports are more likely to be in pursuit of the heroin trade than terrorism, but this one is certainly interesting to watch. My bet is still on a pressure failure of the fuselage.

I am in the opposite camp....

That plane is sitting on a long runway in North Korea with a giant tarp over it...:confused:......:rolleyes2:
 
The Iranian and passports are more likely to be in pursuit of the heroin trade than terrorism, but this one is certainly interesting to watch. My bet is still on a pressure failure of the fuselage.


Are you thinking heilous 522 type incident? This seems like the only plausible explanation outside of terrorism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I give up easily. Tried to before. I don't come here often because of the Milquetoast mentality. PC enough, honey?

The deal is,most of the regulars here are very knowledgable, extremely intelligent and quite opinionated. (I'm not in the first two). You're out of your league sweetheart.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
The Iranian and passports are more likely to be in pursuit of the heroin trade than terrorism, but this one is certainly interesting to watch. My bet is still on a pressure failure of the fuselage.

This 777 had some wing damage from a taxi collision a few years ago.

Events like that have a nasty habit of popping up again years later in the form of a catastrophic failure. I can't remember the specifics but there was a 747 that had the ass end of the pressure vessel blow out as a result of a tail strike a few years prior (that had been repaired). Knocked off some important control surfaces and the plane crashed in a bad way.


Ouch

The report indicated that on 7 February 1980, the aircraft used on the flight had a tailstrike accident while landing in Hong Kong.[21] Part of the plane's tail scraped along the runway for several hundred feet. The aircraft was de-pressurized, ferried back to Taiwan on the same day, and a temporary repair done the day after. A more permanent repair was conducted by a team from China Airlines from 23 May through 26 May 1980. However, the permanent repair of the tail strike was not carried out in accordance with the Boeing Structural Repair Manual (SRM). The area of damaged skin in Section 46 was not removed (trimmed) and the repair doubler plate that was supposed to cover in excess of 30% of the damaged area did not extend beyond the entire damaged area enough to restore the overall structural strength.
Consequently, after repeated cycles of depressurization and pressurization during flight, the weakened hull gradually started to crack and finally broke open in mid-flight on 25 May 2002, exactly 22 years to the day after the faulty repair was made upon the damaged tail. An explosive decompression of the aircraft occurred once the crack opened up, causing the complete disintegration of the aircraft in mid-air.[4]

This was not the first time that a plane had crashed because of a faulty repair following a tailstrike. On 12 August 1985, 17 years before the Flight 611 crash and five years after the accident aircraft's repair, Japan Airlines Flight 123 had crashed when the vertical stabilizer was torn off and the hydraulic systems severed by explosive decompression, killing 520 of the 524 people on board the aircraft. That crash had been attributed to a faulty repair to the rear pressure bulkhead, which had been damaged in 1978 in a tailstrike incident.[22] In both crashes, the faulty repair had been an incorrectly installed doubler plate that was not installed according to Boeing standards.
 
Last edited:
A friend of the Iranians said they bought the passports to emigrate to Europe, they had tickets for connecting flights to Europe.


Criminal, yes, terrorism, not nessesaraly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Question......it's reported that radar showed the airplane doing a 180 just before it disappeared. Would it not have shown also an altitude change as it must have still stayed in radar range.
 
I am in the opposite camp....

That plane is sitting on a long runway in North Korea with a giant tarp over it...:confused:......:rolleyes2:

It's a long assed way from where they went off radar to North Korea, they would have made primary radars of China to get there, in fact, they would have to pass their destination. I'd imagine they would have also been seen on US military radar in S. Korea.
 
It's a long assed way from where they went off radar to North Korea, they would have made primary radars of China to get there, in fact, they would have to pass their destination. I'd imagine they would have also been seen on US military radar in S. Korea.

Huh.....

I better bring up world maps on my computer...:confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
Lol, whip out the Atlass.:D;) North Korea is plenty North, read up on Chosin.

Beijing is south of North Korea ??

BRB.. gonna pull up a map...

Oops..............:redface::redface::redface::redface:,

ps.I was NEVER good at the far east thingie...
 
Last edited:
What makes me worried here is the plane seems to have just vanished. That's just not possible completely unless it is being covered up by a larger group/ cpuntry. If it crashed into the water we would see debris by now I would expect.
Many people are working to find the debris so of they can't find it their may not be any. Does anyone know if the search crew have flown the entire route yet at a low enough altitude to see the water? Have they flown the max range of the fuel on board? Seems though that if the plane lost radar contact and no debris has been found that this is pretty bizarre.

That being said, the plane also was flying in the middle of the night. Plenty of airports to land at in the middle of the night during which anything could have happened.

It is all pretty scary to be honest.
 
Last edited:
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.

Western oil companies had and have investments in many parts of the world which are no longer friendly to western governments. Most recently, the high-profile seizures of western assets in Venezuela comes to mind, and I haven't heard of anyone planning to divert trillions of dollars into military action to save private oil companies millions. From a corporate standpoint, it hardly makes much sense that lobbying for foreign military action would somehow be easier or preferable than lobbying to open up more domestic fields for exploration and production, and from a political standpoint, certainly not worth the risk for any politician.

Furthermore, such an argument is entirely one-sided, as it ignores the fact that the Middle Eastern governments reap a tremendous benefit from the sale of oil to the west. They may not like us, but they'll take our money.

Add to that the fact that corporate balance sheets don't reflect the supposed financial windfall from these actions, and the result is that there is little evidence to support such a claim.


JKG
 
FWIW I found this on avherald.com.


http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4710c69b&opt=0

Hong Kong's Air Traffic Control Center reported on Mar 10th 2014 around 17:30L (09:30Z) that an airliner enroute on airway L642 reported via HF radio that they saw a large field of debris at position N9.72 E107.42 about 80nm southeast of Ho Chi Minh City, about 50nm off the south-eastern coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea and about 281nm northeast of the last known radar position. Ships have been dispatched to the reported debris field.

Vietnam's Headquarters for the Search and Rescue operation of MH-370 confirmed receiving the report by Hong Kong's Air Traffic Control Center stating that a Hong Kong based airliner reported a large field of debris while enroute on airway L642. A Thai cargo ship in the area was asked for assistance and has set course to the area but did not find anything unusual so far. A second vessel asked for assistance did find some debris. Following this finding Vietnam's Maritime Search and Rescue Services (MRCC) dispatched a ship to the debris field.

Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department confirmed a Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Kuala Lumpur spotted large amount of debris while enroute off the coast of South East Vietnam.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
What makes me worried here is the plane seems to have just vanished. That's just not possible...

Um, yes it is, it's a big ocean out there. It took them 2 years to find the Air France plane.
 
Well, they knew the airplane went down atleast.

In this case the airplane just disappeared. Literally without a trace, Bermuda Triangle style.

It really doesn't sit right with me at all.

It took a year to find Steve Fossett - and that happened only by chance.
 
If it went down anywhere that they have searched they would have found something.
Yes, possible.
So either:

1. so far they have been looking at wrong places
2. plane landed on water relatively gently that no detectable debris was released and sank
3. plane came down over land
 
Yes, possible.
So either:

1. so far they have been looking at wrong places
2. plane landed on water relatively gently that no detectable debris was released
3. plane came down over land

number one sounds most likely. It would be really creepy if the plane turned up somewhere without any people. Sailors back in the day used to tell stories of ships like that, some of them were even fairly reliable sources.
 
Debris has really nothing to do with water depth.
If you don't have any floating debris the difficult task becomes almost impossible.

Speaking of floating debris - I would think an exploding aircraft would shower down a lot more items less dense than water than would be the case if an aircraft hit the water and pretty much stayed intact. But experts and pundits seem to be saying lack of debris suggests disintegration in midair. Unless they mean atomization?
 
Speaking of floating debris - I would think an exploding aircraft would shower down a lot more items less dense than water
This deduction sounds right and has also been raised by a knowledgeable 777 pilot who cared to comment on this debacle.
 
Speaking of floating debris - I would think an exploding aircraft would shower down a lot more items less dense than water than would be the case if an aircraft hit the water and pretty much stayed intact. But experts and pundits seem to be saying lack of debris suggests disintegration in midair. Unless they mean atomization?

there would be something. Nothing just disappears in a manner that defies reason or explanation. They found pretty big floating chunks of TWA 800.....
 
This is from another forum... the guy im quoting is an a320 pilot out of singapore.

Where it was lost there is NO radar contact, The radar gap if you will, is about 100 nautical miles wide, VHF contact in also not available for 10 minuntes or so. Communication during this period is via HF (problamatical) or increasingly often via "ADSB", bascially satellite communciation.
 
Umm...they found debris almost immediately.

Five days doesn't sound like "almost immediately to me" It took 2 years to find what was under the water.

Big airplanes have been disappearing since they were invented. Most people have no idea how much vastly uninhabited and inhospitable territory they cruise over in a modern airliner while watching their movie and munching on pretzels. It's actually quite easy to disappear out on the ocean.
 
There's only 2 scenarios that can play out here, Alien Abduction or Lost. I would include time portal but don't want everybody to think I'm crazy or something. :)
 
there would be something. Nothing just disappears in a manner that defies reason or explanation. They found pretty big floating chunks of TWA 800.....

Even if the airplane didn't explode, unless it was a smooth Sully style ditching, there would be a fair amount of debris floating if they in went down in the water.

When I did the recovery for an S-3 that flew into the water down in the Caribbean, I was amazed at how much debris there was on the surface.
 
So just playing this out a bit and realizing this is all speculation( something I naturally detest) if the plane goes missing over a no radar zone, and has 100nm area in which to operate, virtually unnoticeable and makes a, what appears to be a controlled 180 degree turn before losing contact, does anyone else think all of this is rather to coincidental? So are there many airports in this 100nm radar gap in which the plane may have landed, unloaded all the passengers and then taken back off to a destination unknown? Purely guessing here so excuse any ignorance that may be exposed in this post.
 
Back
Top