Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

keithledgerwood.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 397 posts

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#61

Post by stef25 »

downandout wrote: post #13

There is a realistic possibility that those piloting the plane used this and/or other stealth techniques and landed intact. There are lots of groups around the world that would love to have a working $250M aircraft. Maybe there is a massive airplane chop shop that this went to, or someone wants to load it up with explosives and fly it to some country they disagree with. Unfortunately, whether it landed or not, the od…

Why would you need a 777 when you can probably pick up old Russian cargo planes much easier and for a fraction of the cost and without needing super skilled pilots?

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#62

Post by imodgames »

gambiting wrote: post #49
yaeger wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this whole thing could have been prevented if only the tracking systems could not have been turned off manually. Why is that even possible? An oversight? If you think about just how many liberties we passengers had to give up after 9/11 worldwide, why was this still there? We can't take any liquids on board anymore but if the pilot wants, he can make the plane disappear at will? Yeah, the liquid thing was rea…

>>but if the pilot wants, he can make the plane disappear at will? The pilot is the captain of the airship and can take any decision deemed necessary for the safety of the aircraft and its passengers and that decision is final(this is actually defined in the airspace law, would need to look for a quote). That means that the pilot has to have the ability to turn off any and all electrical parts of the aircraft if that…

I don't know about international aviation law, but in the U.S. the text is: 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

This does not mean pilots can break rules as long as they make sure to do so safely, but if a situation is unsafe they may break all rules necessary to make it safe again. Furthermore, pilots are required to inform ATC of any deviations they made from the regs or ATC instructions (of course this is one of the rules they're allowed to break if making such a radio call would be unsafe). Again, this is only for the U.S., but other countries do tend to look us for how to do aviation safety.

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#63

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

downandout wrote: post #13

There is a realistic possibility that those piloting the plane used this and/or other stealth techniques and landed intact. There are lots of groups around the world that would love to have a working $250M aircraft. Maybe there is a massive airplane chop shop that this went to, or someone wants to load it up with explosives and fly it to some country they disagree with. Unfortunately, whether it landed or not, the od…

Who is to say that any ransom demand would have been made publicly? It may well be that one has been made but that we just don't know about it.

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#64

Post by zmb_ »

pavlov wrote: post #43
downandout wrote: post #13

There is a realistic possibility that those piloting the plane used this and/or other stealth techniques and landed intact. There are lots of groups around the world that would love to have a working $250M aircraft. Maybe there is a massive airplane chop shop that this went to, or someone wants to load it up with explosives and fly it to some country they disagree with. Unfortunately, whether it landed or not, the od…

Can you expand on what groups might be able to orchestrate such a complicated hijacking? A rogue state like North Korea would have the capability, but they don't really have the motive since they can acquire passenger airplanes by other means. (North Korea's national airline has 27 planes -- if they wanted to make a nuclear kamikaze plane, they'd just use one of those.)

Maybe they didn't want the plane, but someone on the plane. For example, those 20 Freescale Semiconductor employees. North Korea has a history of abducting foreigners, including a South Korean movie director kidnapped by Kim Jong-il to produce films for him.

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#65

Post by jdimov »

fnsa wrote: post #52

A theory is that the cargo area of the plane contained valuable goods: gold, silver, diamonds, etc and that's what the hijackers were after. From this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-15/missing-malaysian-f... the 777 can have up to 25 tons worth of cargo payload. 25 tons of gold is worth ~ $1B, that's quite a bit more than the value of the plane itself.

No one in their right mind would attempt to transport 25 tons of gold on a commercial passenger flight.

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#66

Post by jdimov »

akumen wrote: post #4

Good theory. Yours is as good as anyone's at this point in time. Incredible, how we think that our tech is so advanced yet a commercial jet can go completely missing. MH370 makes for an incredible setup to 'Lost'.

Yes, it would indeed be totally incredible if the plane was actually lost...

However, it is already evident that there is much more going on - that the forces involved are far from benign, that the events are far from random and that whatever is at stake is of a Very High Value to someone.

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#67

Post by libria »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #38
nashequilibrium wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make any sense to kill 240 people, including babies and kids. Especially if this is a terrorist act, they could not religiously justify that, especially since these are mainly Chinese people rather than American.

1. Not all terrorists are religious 2. Not all terrorists are after Americans 3. Religious terrorists can find a way to justify anything using their book of choice.

Agree w/ 3. Regarding 1 & 2, I may be somewhat provincial, but is there a non-religious group who has it in for the Chinese?

edit: ... especially one that is capable of this operation and not interested in publicizing their involvement in doing so.

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#68

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

ckozlowski wrote: post #22
downandout wrote: post #13

There is a realistic possibility that those piloting the plane used this and/or other stealth techniques and landed intact. There are lots of groups around the world that would love to have a working $250M aircraft. Maybe there is a massive airplane chop shop that this went to, or someone wants to load it up with explosives and fly it to some country they disagree with. Unfortunately, whether it landed or not, the od…

The fact that the plane was taken up to 45,000, far above it's recommended limit, bothers me in this regard. What would the effects be on the passengers? Would this have been orchestrated in order to somehow incapacitate them? I have no idea if the cockpit is pressurized separately from the rest of the plane, or if there's any way to tamper with the deployment of the plane's oxygen masks. It's all speculation on my p…

The cockpit isn't airtight - it would be at the same pressure as the rest of the cabin.

The recommended limit around 43,100 ft. 45,000 ft isn't that far above it so it's possible that there may be no impact on passengers at that level (if you're saying 43,100ft is safe, you're going to have a margin for error, it's not going to depressurize at 43,101 ft).

Certainly if it was part of your plan to incapacitate the passengers it seems overly complex, risky and uncertain.

That said, given what happened on Flight 77, if you were hijacking a plane, a plan to deal with the passengers would make a lot of sense. I'm just not sure this plan to do so does.

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#69

Post by [deleted] »

ekianjo wrote: post #46
jballanc wrote: post #45

The folks over at airliners.net have pointed out that the 777's collision avoidance system only works if both planes' transponders are turned on. That doesn't mean this scenario is impossible, but it does raise the level of sophistication required. Sadly, I feel like whatever happened, the amount of sophistication involved increasingly points toward the involvement of one or more state actors. If that's the case, I'm…

> Sadly, I feel like whatever happened, the amount of sophistication involved increasingly points toward the involvement of one or more state actors. If that's the case, I'm starting to doubt that we'll ever find out what happened to this plane... Indeed. And not just the "what", but the "why" as well.

[deleted]

Re: Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

#70

Post by 72deluxe »

"Snuck" is a strange American word, the same as "dove" instead of "dived", eg. "he dove into the pool" instead of "he dived into the pool". I would read "snuck" as "sneaked". Another weird word is "gotten". And another strange and irritating phrase that is sneaking its way into English over here is "for free", but "free" is not a price so instead of "buy 3 eggs for £2.00", you get weird phrases "sign up now and get this egg for free", whereas it should be "sign up now and get this egg free" or "sign up now and get this egg for nothing".

Always interesting the difference between the languages over time.

With reference to the flight, I truly hope they find it somewhere safe.

Post reply on HN