51–60 of 118 posts
Honest question. Would it have been possible for the plane to make it to North Korea?
Not without refueling somewhere. They didn't have enough gas to make it too far past Beijing. [0] [0]- http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2014/03/world/malays...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-twist-in-the-hunt-fo...
Ignoring for the sake of argument the tragedy of hundreds of people getting murdered / kidnapped, this is the most captivating news event we've had in a while.
Russia invading Ukraine wasn't captivating?
Someone with technical skill to fly a Boeing 777 in such a capacity is the stuff the make movies out of. The slight possibility that the plane has actually landed makes it extremely captivating.
Honest question. Would it have been possible for the plane to make it to North Korea?
> Today, Reuters reports that the last words from the cockpit of missing MH370 – "all right, good night" – were uttered after someone on board had already begun disabling one of the plane's automatic tracking systems.
I've listened to a fair amount of air traffic control[1] and a phrase like that, especially when signing off of a frequency, is not at all unusual so I don't know why they're focusing on its informality.
[1] thanks to United offering it on one of their inflight entertainment channels
"Experts said flying a Boeing 777 in such a way would be dangerous, stressing the airframe and possibly causing those on board to be air sick and suffer from spatial disorientation."
This truly meets the definition of incredible. How could you be that good, but then end up crashing the plane? If you are that good, then you are not going to crash that plane.
I may be missing something, but this seems like a very misleading headline. The actual article states that the plane "dropped 5,000 feet (1,500m)" and later that the "twinjet descended 1,500m or even lower". This simply means that the plane descended by a relatively small amount compared to 35,000 - 40,000 foot cruising altitudes, not that it was skimming the ground at 5,000 feet.
people install satellite security systems on $200K cars. Couldn't airlines do the same on a $100M plane.
Yes, and they do. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addres... These systems were manually disabled.
it isn't a type of the system i was talking about as ability, in flight, to disable a system excludes the system from the "security" category. Just for the sake of example, placing a battery powered device like always-connected satellite phone into unreachable in flight part of the plane (end of wing for example) would be like something alone the lines of "a security satellite system"
I'd still bet on ocean crash. Flying low or not, heading across the Bay of Bengal towards land, and you're going to get pinged with military radar.
India claims to not have their military radar on all the time. "Too costly."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point is a $100 spot device could be added (powered by Li AA's) as a backup system. This would have independent power supply and obviate the "need for cicuit breakers" being accessed. Or something like a lo-jack or whatever. Its completely embarassing to Boeing. Almost as bad as the pilot has a 64mb i phone and the [edit: voice recorders] holds only 2hrs? WTF. An Iphone might not itself survive, but the media allocat…
Yes, but the FDR is designed to survive multi-g impacts - how well would that smart phone survive?