Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a pretty massive area and the boxes might be trashed.
Those boxes are built to be untrashable.
They certainly are. Doesn't mean they can't be trashed. They have been before.
MH370: A different point of view
71–80 of 224 posts
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#72In every instance of cabin fire, even ones where the fires spread extremely quickly and are eventually fatal such as SwissAir and ValueJet, the crew contacted the ground. And this was the case even when co-pilots were literally out of their seats actually fighting the fires. Yet every single time the ground was alerted about an emergency. This is what veteran pilots do. Also, for a fire to destroy the multiple electr…
[deleted]
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#73Re: MH370: A different point of view
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
They certainly are. Doesn't mean they can't be trashed. They have been before.
I doubt a fire and an impact on to water would do it though.
I did say might be. Rescue ops have to be within 15 miles for detection and the overflight area is absolutely massive given the very approx location data provided by the SATCOMM pings.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#75In every instance of cabin fire, even ones where the fires spread extremely quickly and are eventually fatal such as SwissAir and ValueJet, the crew contacted the ground. And this was the case even when co-pilots were literally out of their seats actually fighting the fires. Yet every single time the ground was alerted about an emergency. This is what veteran pilots do. Also, for a fire to destroy the multiple electr…
[deleted]
Regarding that, I only know what I've read from commercial pilots and heard from a family member who's a commercial pilot in the last week, though I appreciate the accusatory tone. Besides, the circumstances make no sense...how would the fire be severe enough to destroy all major communications of the plane, then somehow extinguished, yet the plane not only didn't crash but flew aimlessly for another 6 hours? I suppose it's possible somehow but sure seems far-fetched.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#76The big thing that's been bothering me about the hijacking hypothesis is that there's no clear logical motive behind it. This indeed makes more sense than anything else I've read so far.
There aren't logical motives for school shootings, yet they still happen.
There are motives for school shootings. There are motives for terrorist attacks. There are no known motives (as of yet) for hi-jacking MH370.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Regarding that, I only know what I've read from commercial pilots and heard from a family member who's a commercial pilot in the last week, though I appreciate the accusatory tone. Besides, the circumstances make no sense...how would the fire be severe enough to destroy all major communications of the plane, then somehow extinguished, yet the plane not only didn't crash but flew aimlessly for another 6 hours? I suppo…
[deleted]
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#78If fire was the problem, why didn't the pilot just land by sea?
You clearly don't understand how unsurvivable water landings are.
This video demonstrates what actually happens when a widebody airliner attempts to land on the ocean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
767s are bigger than A320s and the ocean is a lot rougher than the Hudson.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's from primary radar. Those altitude readings are unreliable at that range.
Can you expound on that? Does it have to do with atmospheric curving of the radar beam?
> The use of primary radar requires a great deal of signal power, because objects further from the antenna will reflect or send back a weak signal. At longer distances from the antenna, radar becomes unreliable as a way to determine aircraft position with only reflected signals.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding that, I only know what I've read from commercial pilots and heard from a family member who's a commercial pilot in the last week, though I appreciate the accusatory tone. Besides, the circumstances make no sense...how would the fire be severe enough to destroy all major communications of the plane, then somehow extinguished, yet the plane not only didn't crash but flew aimlessly for another 6 hours? I suppo…
[deleted]
[deleted]