This nytimes article mentions that a satellite picked up four or five signals from the airliner, about one per hour, after it left the range of military radar. The only information which can be deduced from those signals is the angle of the plane to the satellite. From the last transmission 7.5 hours after take off they were able to draw an arc on the map which corresponds to the deduced angle(see article). If we draw an arc for each of the last five transmission, and if we assume an average speed of the plane wouldn't their pattern suggest a certain direction of flight?
MH370: A different point of view
191–200 of 224 posts
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#192The 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.
Group/ state with low morals wanting a plane seems reasonable to me. Obviously if you were attempting to make a point with hijacking a plane there would be someone out there loudly claiming responsibility.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That video demonstrates what happens when you try to land in the ocean while you are fighting with hijackers which causes a sudden dip to one side, when you happen to be over a coral reef for the engine on that side to hit. Even with that, the crash was quite survivable. A large number of the fatalities were due to drowning, because people inflated life rafts while still inside, which blocked them in so they drowned…
I assume you could probably hit the water at an even lower speed than that without stalling the plane before you got there?
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#194The autopilot until fuel exhaustion theory doesn't explain how it ended up on this line: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73602000/jpg/_73602229...
I we 100% sure that the plane turned to west? This line aligns with; where the plane lost, and where the oil platform worker noticed a fire on the sky. May be the plane was on the sky, or on the water why pinging?
Huh?
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are motives for school shootings. There are motives for terrorist attacks. There are no known motives (as of yet) for hi-jacking MH370.
What? This has a lot more plausible and structured motives than either school shootings or terrorist attacks. Whoever hijacked it has a Boeing 777 now. Not sure why that doesn't seem like a worthwhile task?
Yep. Esp. Considering they cost north of quarter Billion dollars a pop. I am surprised more aren't stolen!
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#196I agree with the OP that "ghost plane" is an option here but I doubt it, here's why.
All the "evidence" of the planes route after transponder failure is speculative and inconsistent with regard to other facts presented by the same people.
So while we are ignoring the obvious, what happened to the report that the engine data transmitted said the plane dropped 40,000 feet in less than a minute?
That evidence was dismissed by the experts as not possible. Its quite possible actually if it was steered straight into the ocean at well below the max speed of the aircraft.
So we have all these ridiculous IMO flight path rumours, and the statement that ACARS was turned off and yet also transmitted pings for 7.5 hours. (Note that first it was 20 minutes, then 4 hours, then 6 hours, then 7.5 hours).
I believe the turn itself may have happened but it may not have since we have no hard data to support it.
Whats much more likely than this plane being in the Indian ocean is that those looking for it in the south china sea simply missed it.
An as an excuse for missing it, they are now patching together wild fantasies based on speculative data piled on top of speculative data that frankly from a technical standpoint makes zero sense.
Im not buying any of this. But Ghost plane is a possibility due to a fire, perhaps an electrical one or a bomb going off that disabled the plane and killed the passengers.
Let's not get carried away anymore on this. We dont know but this speculation is 100% bullshit.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Who said anyone attempted to land? If the plane was ditched straight down at full speed, it would in shallow water crater and be underground.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#198This is probably the most intelligent explanation I have heard. Everyone wants to make this into some Hollywood action movie with terrorists, kidnappings and sneaking through airspace.
This author isn't helping the cause either. He is going as far as calling the pilots "heroes". He is grandstanding just like other journalists.
One would think that cabin smoke was one of the first scenarios experts considered.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
That video demonstrates what happens when you try to land in the ocean while you are fighting with hijackers which causes a sudden dip to one side, when you happen to be over a coral reef for the engine on that side to hit. Even with that, the crash was quite survivable. A large number of the fatalities were due to drowning, because people inflated life rafts while still inside, which blocked them in so they drowned…
I assume you could probably hit the water at an even lower speed than that without stalling the plane before you got there?
The plane ran out of fuel.
The hijackers, who were apparently young, stupid and intoxicated - forced the pilot to try to fly to Australia, even though the pilot said they didn't even have enough fuel to make it 25% of the way.
The plane ran out of fuel off the coast of Africa, and the engines died.
The pilot used a Ram Air Turbine (basically using airspeed to drive a turbine) to provide emergency power so he could land.
However, I assume the hydraulics didn't work at this stage, hence he couldn't use the flaps to slow it down.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#200In 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…
>In every instance of cabin fire ... the crew contacted the ground. How many documented cabin fires have there been?
> From 1990 to 2010 there have been 18 major accidents involving in-flight fire (Flight Safety Foundation) These accidents resulted in 423 fatalities.
> In the late 1990s the rate of diversion in the United States on average was more than one aeroplane each day diverted due to smoke (Shaw, 1999). Fortunately, it is rare for a smoke event to become an uncontrolled in-flight fire. Later data collected by IATA estimates that more than 1,000 in-flight smoke events occur annually, resulting in more than 350 unscheduled or precautionary landings (International Air Trasport Association, 2005). In-flight smoke events are estimated at a rate of one in 5,000 flights while in-flight smoke diversions are estimated to occur on one in 15,000 flights(Halfpenny, 2002)