Printable View
Last report I just caught was that 3 different electronic signal emitters switched off at 3 different times...
Not seconds apart but 10's of minutes apart, so if that is true then things just got real curious, I do not know if it is true I just know, but that is the last that was reported..
The answer to this all is very simple. The pilots, plagued with guilt, clearly decided that they no longer participate in poisoning innocent people via "chem-trails." The powers at be simply made the "problem" "go away."
-Sarcasm
A friend recalled this incident
I went up in a small plane with a friend of mine and the engine cut out. I found out what the propeller at the front is there for. It's to keep the pilot cool. You should have seen him sweat when it stopped!
Luckily they put down on a quiet road.
"It's a small world" doesn't apply looking for small things in the ocean! Feel sorry for the families just not knowing what all happened. It seems to come out eventually, that Air France flight took a few years to figure out.
Apparently still safer than car travel. Though crash investigators never take years to figure out what happened to a car.
Several years ago we had a senior member here who would actually come with something like this for real. And then be offended if we didn't believe him. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by guthriemt
Anyone remember the tv series-"Lost"?
Man I don't know about the rest of the world, but the Channels over here are all about the 4-5 hours that the flight may have taken after the last known position, it seems like they are all feeding off each other propagating rumors as fast as they can :(
One thing that this entire incident makes you realize is just how big a world is really out there, I heard one example of the size of the current search area that just rocked me back in my seat for a second... "The search area has now been expanded so that it is equal to 6 times the size of the US" :dropjaw:
I heard "the size of the USA" - which is in itself... Huge! 6 times...!!!!!
I miss the "enormity" of the ocean!!
If you want tin hat conspiracy cloaked in a factual disguise, CNN is bagging them out like champs!!
Well if you consider that they knew the plane was at "X" when it was last radar identified and then it had 5.5 hours more fuel on board. Some quick math reveals that the plane could be anywhere inside a circle with a radius of say 2500 miles or about 19.5 million square miles of mostly water.
Unless the theory that the plane was "stolen" and flown to an airfield for a later "nefarious" purpose (reportedly a favorite theory of the US military at this point), the chances of ever finding this plane are approaching NIL.
PS. Happy Pi Day!
I hate the way the "news media" just has to talk to fill air time. They do nothing to help... And I've learned that they love to have "experts" on there that just hype everything up more so than it really is. The only one I've heard that seems to be an expert professional instead of a professional expert is the guy that was on the NTSB.
Just think to a time when the media has gone bezerko on something that you are very knowledgable about. How much did they get wrong? That has become my standard with which I listen to the news media.
Humans are notorious for making stuff up when we don't have answers. That's why science is a "discipline!" It goes against our very nature to throw up our hands and admit we haven't a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBPilot
Its too bad really!!
In the mean time, the human element removed, even a rational person can take pleasure in the theory's :)!
Very true, I wasn't meaning to subdue anyone on here discussing the theories, only expressing frustration at the rumors being spread by those that should be giving us reliable information eg the news media. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
But what would the media have to talk about if they stuck to the facts? The plane took off. There were 239 souls on board. The plane was last reported at X. It failed to arrive at its destination. Its fuel was exhausted by sometime Saturday.
That's all there is but there is market share to pursue and advertising to sell!
No no - I got that!! Your points are valid!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBPilot
OK, if the plane was stolen for later "nefarious" purposes were do you land a plane the size of this one in a search area that is mostly water? Anyone have any idea of the length of runway required to land and take off with the missing plane or how thick the concrete has to be to support that? I would think it would be pretty hard to hide that kind of clandestine effort from the prying eyes of numerous different government's intelligence agencies. Anything is possible but I really have my doubts about a lot of the speculation.
Bob
Very true, humans are the same as Nature, both abhor vacuum's, or, "... the denser surrounding material continuum would immediately fill the rarity of an incipient void." We instinctively feel the need to find the answer. It's at this point, we tend to need to remember Occam's Razor, in short, the simplest explanation tends to be correct, and until that occurs, our very nature, instinct, prevents us from tolerating a void.Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
Either way, my prayers are with all those lost souls and their families.
Oh man... I forgot about this one!!
The story has been foretold!!
Millennium (1989) - Trailer (english) - YouTube
You could probably get it down and stopped in 6000 ft. about the length of our local municipal airport runways. As to the load rating...not sure. But runways typically support a lot, taxiways not so much. Diego Garcia is in the radius...has anyone gone outside to look there?Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH
Taking off again with enough fuel to go anywhere from 6k would be an issue though. I agree though you could probably land and stop a light 777 in 6kQuote:
Originally Posted by Splashone
I would bet an empty one with partial fuel gets off in less than 6k. If the "for later use" theory is true, the passengers have been "disposed of."
I agree, thus the "enough fuel to go anywhere" comment.
Slight drift: what plane is that in your pic? Did you mount a camera on the horizontal stab to get that picture?
Its my 172. I had a go pro mounted on the bottom of the stab making a video. That is just a frame from the video...Final Rnwy 03 KAVQ
Very cool!
This one was more fun...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPyJPpoDoMY
Would a 777-200ER with the passengers on board, luggage and what not in cargo and near empty fuel tanks be considered a "light" 777-200ER? What runways would support operating the 777-200ER in the area it was capable of flying to on fuel remaining from last point of contact?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBPilot
Even if you could shoe horn it into a 6000 ft strip then what would you do with it for "nefarious" purposes if you needed an 8000 to 10,000 ft runway to go any distance to do some damage? I imagine that relative humidity and height above sea level enters into the length of runway needed on any given day too. Just too many variables to do anything but speculate on.
Bob
Awesome! It's been years since I've even been in one that I could spin! Looks like a few textbook entry/exits!
If it were empty with enough fuel to go 1000 miles it would be fairly easy to get out of a short strip. The problem of a 777 not attracting attention when you had to go somewhere to "fill 'er up" is probably much harder to solve (without a cooperative government) than the operational aspect of short fields, light weight and limited range.
I haven't flown a 777-200ER, nor have training on one. That said I don't think that having pax and stuff onboard would qualify as a "light" plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH
i don't know what you'd do with it for nefarious purposes given those circumstances. That's kinda what I was getting at saying you couldn't go anywhere with it. So if you think it was taken and flown somewhere and landed then you run the numbers on how much runway you'd need with what's on the plane as far as pax (slang for passengers) and baggage with enough fuel to go somewhere and then you can check the airports inside your search area fairly easily. Also keep in mind that you'd need the airport you use couldn't have an ATC tower as they'd report it.
Whole lot fewer words to say the same thing I did. I'm too slow lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Splashone
For some perspective:
Searching for an aircraft in the Indian Ocean is like searching for a sesame seed in Yosemite
... or trying to find a grain of salt in San Francisco or a red blood cell at Burning Man.
This will take weeks.
I think everyone who commented on the ac being stolen is on the same page, sounds a bit like a long shot at best or just pure horse droppings. I have been on a couple of air searches for missing light planes over a much smaller search area that found nothing of the missing planes. The search was over Boreal forest and what wasn't heavily wooded was water. Can't recall if the planes had ELTs but none went off. The searchers have an unimaginable task in front of them to try and locate the missing airliner. I wish them all the luck they can get.
Bob
two things....there was a movie made about the comet that showed the whole testing process.
and the other thing...THEY FOUND THE PLANE!!!!!!! parked in jimmy hoffa's garage.
Well its seemingly official: it's a highjacking!
Were I to have a loved one on the flight... I can't say if that males it worse or not! This "story" has really become rather incredible!
Yea, officially possibly a hijacking seems to be the flavour of the day.
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370's communications were switched off, PM says - World - CBC News
Bob
C'mon! Do it for the children . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by bill3152
You know, I can't recall a story in my lifetime were "the facts" have changed up so drastically over so long a period a time.
Wow!
Does anyone remember the TV movie on SyFy call "The Langoliers"? The plane flew past present time into a no-mans land where the past was cleaned up and found a way to get ahead of time and land at it's destination ahead of time beginning and let time catch up with them.
Anytime a 'hot' story appears, I usually try to avoid paying any attention for at least a week. Almost everything reported in the first week turns out to be wrong, as the news outlets are so desperate for anything that they will report any rumor or BS as 'breaking news' to have something to say. It's like the reporting on mass shootings where another loony goes nuts in a 'gun-free zone (defenseless victim zone)'. 'News' outlets are about keeping your attention, not about conveying facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
Flavor of the day...perfect BobH! Not enough facts to form any defined avenues of investigation, let alone conclusions. Nature abhors a vacuum...Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
Lol!! Though I agree that some news sources aren't about news, there are still some that seek out facts. What's incredible about this story (for me) is how the facts seemingly are taking so long to surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdwright
Much of the breaking news in this case, really has been breaking news! It's a wild story!
Oh and this may or may not be of interest to you: http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...l-threads.html.
David abhors a vacuum lol!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrank