Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

prunudo

If it has been hijacked then would some organization not be gloating about it and possible demanding some sort of ransom. Which then points to one of the pilots.

Also would it still be possible that there was a fire on board which was subsequently put out but severely disabled communication and instruments and possible depressurization leaving the pilots flying blind.
It's all ifs, buts and maybe's until the plane is found I suppose.

irishmover

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually my worst fear would be a design flaw or something that would start happening on other 777s.

Well just not for me. Defects etc can be found and sorted. Planes are more safe now than they've ever been (as has been pointed out by the knowledges people in this thread). So if it was a defect that caused it then my mind would have probably settled a little bit as opposed to a deliberate act.

Terrorism/foul play is a lot harder to prevent.

kippy

fits wrote: »

there are still vast parts of the world with no mobile coverage (never mind at 30000feet)and very low population density. Given what the people responsible have achieved so far I think its entirely plausible they were able to avoid these scenarios.

In relation to parts of the world not having mobile coverage......

This plane traveled a large distance if reports are to be believed over land for a portion of the time 6 hours flying in total from what we can see- out of 230 persons not one person was able to get a text or call away during that time..........doesnt add up to me at all.
As for switching a button in the cockpit - that wouldnt disable mobile coverage were the plan to fly into an area with it........
To me, that part is hardest to explain IF the plane was intentionally hijacked.
There were numerous calls and texts made from airplanes during 9/11 - not saying it is the same thing but during a 6 hour flight one would have to surmise that the opportunity to make a call or text would have presented itself.
The only conclusions in my book I can draw from the lack of same are:
1. All the passengers had their mobile devices confiscated (meaning there was more than one person involved)
2. All the passengers were incapacitated. (meaning someone got a gas or weapon onto the plane)

And again if someone did hijack the plane, one would have to question what their initial and ultimate motives are/were.

irishmover

irishmover wrote: »

Well just not for me. Defects etc can be found and sorted. Planes are more safe now than they've ever been (as has been pointed out by the knowledges people in this thread). So if it was a defect that caused it then my mind would have probably settled a little bit as opposed to a deliberate act.

Terrorism/foul play is a lot harder to prevent.

Either way it sucks, i`m biased as I`m doing 4 long haul flights on 777s soon. Terrorism can happen on any plane though.

Maybe the people put up a fight and they went down. Maybe it was even Somalia pirates. Would like to hope they are still alive and can be saved.
Even if someone confiscated phones you`d imagine at least one or two people kept theirs. Unless there were alot of hijackers they`d never be able to keep an eye on 200+ people.

fits

You don't get network signal at 30000 feet, that has been stated repeatedly!

kippy

fits wrote: »

You don't get network signal at 30000 feet, that has been stated repeatedly!

The plane wasn't at 30000 feet for the duration of it's journey.....
Most recent evidence has shown this.
Also, if texts are attempted out of mobile coverage they will be sent once the devices comes into coverage.
You can't possibly believe that at no point during the flight mobile coverage wasnt available.

Either way if the plane was hijacked, I doubt very much those that took it would take chances with that side of things......

irishmover

I've flown quite a lot the last 2.5 years. 7 long haul journies from Ireland to Australia and working FIFO internally. After about 2 months of flying internally I just never switched off my phone (I know, kill me!) at no point in air did I ever get mobile coverage. Not even emergency coverage. Nothing.

Infact the majority of time I wouldn't get coverage until well after the plane has landed.

So for me personally having not seen it first hand, I find the no mobile coverage on board to be plausible.

Also. From what I've seen the officials still believe the plane has gone into water. Thus never landing at any airport or landing strip. Even if they landed at a remote landing strip I'd doubt the likelihood of there being phone coverage. It doesn't take far to travel outside urban centre's in Australia to lose phone coverage let alone a country like Kazaksthan or Uzmenistan.

kippy

irishmover wrote: »

I've flown quite a lot the last 2.5 years. 7 long haul journies from Ireland to Australia and working FIFO internally. After about 2 months of flying internally I just never switched off my phone (I know, kill me!) at no point in air did I ever get mobile coverage. Not even emergency coverage. Nothing.

Infact the majority of time I wouldn't get coverage until well after the plane has landed.

So for me personally having not seen it first hand, I find the no mobile coverage on board to be plausible.

Also. From what I've seen the officials still believe the plane has gone into water. Thus never landing at any airport or landing strip. Even if they landed at a remote landing strip I'd doubt the likelihood of there being phone coverage. It doesn't take far to travel outside urban centre's in Australia to lose phone coverage let alone a country like Kazaksthan or Uzmenistan.

How do you explain the 9/11 mobile phone calls and texts?

hoodwinked

kippy wrote: »

How do you explain the 9/11 mobile phone calls and texts?

were they lower to the ground? either way a major city in america is going to have better phone coverage then these remote places.

fits

Low altitude over a densely populated area.

irishmover

Deleted User wrote: »

Either way it sucks, i`m biased as I`m doing 4 long haul flights on 777s soon. Terrorism can happen on any plane though.

Maybe the people put up a fight and they went down. Maybe it was even Somalia pirates. Would like to hope they are still alive and can be saved.
Even if someone confiscated phones you`d imagine at least one or two people kept theirs. Unless there were alot of hijackers they`d never be able to keep an eye on 200+ people.

Oh definitely don't get me wrong, a defect etc isn't to be taken lightly, if anything it'll show me that flying does have it's dangers.

I've grown complacent over the last 2.5 years and have considered (like most Australians) that flying is like getting on a bus. Internal flights anyway.

kippy

fits wrote: »

Low altitude over a densely populated area.

SO mobile phone coverage is viable in a plane in the right circumstances?
Thats all I am suggesting.

That and the fact that if the plan was hijacked, I doubt very much whoever did it would take a chance with this side of things and would have somehow had to either incapicate the passengers OR get their devices off them suggesting that there was more than one person involved or some form of weapon or gas was used on the flight.

How likely is it that one of the pilots was able to incapicate the other pilot, depressurise the cabin, causing all to pass out while he himself maintained his oxygen mask?
Does the dramatic rise to 45K feet fit in with this potential scenario?
Then the question has to be asked - Why would he do this?

fits

I am not sure you get how much of the earth is unpopulated. I flew over Russia, Mongolia and china last month and there was nothing down below for large areas. Signal jammers could have been used at lower altitudes. But it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't needed.

Dubl07

If a cinema can block cellphone signals inside a certain radius, can't a similar device be employed on a plane?

kippy

fits wrote: »

I am not sure you get how much of the earth is unpopulated. I flew over Russia, Mongolia and china last month and there was nothing down below for large areas. Signal jammers could have been used at lower altitudes.

I get that.

Point is, would you risk it if you hijacked the plane?
Indeed would you risk the fact that not one of the 230 on the plane wouldnt in some way rise up against whatever was happening?
They had to be incapicatiated or under some level of duress and for this to happen more than one person is involved or a weapon of some description was used.

fits

These people didn't leave anything to risk. But that doesn't necessarily mean all passengers were incapacitated.

irishmover

I suppose we still can't rule out rogue pilot either. It's not like anything definitively points to terrorism over rogue pilot.

kippy

fits wrote: »

These people didn't leave anything to risk. But that doesn't necessarily mean all passengers were incapacitated.

How does one keep 230 people quiet for 6 odd hours?

fits

I suppose they could have travelled pretty far before people realised something was up too. Especially if it was the pilot. Switch off the in flight entertainment system and there's no way of passengers telling if you are off track.

Noo

kippy wrote: »

How do you explain the 9/11 mobile phone calls and texts?

But isnt that a myth in itself....the majority of the phonecalls were made from onboard phones, which were on practically every US flight back then. Only two calls were recorded from mobiles and they were from the third plane, the times they were made correspond to the plane flying at low altitude. There's no way in hell 2001 mobike networks allowed passengers to make calls from planes. As for texts I havent heard much about that but going from my personal experience sending texts had not become popular in the US by then, they were very much all for the phonecalls.

molly09

Just wondering has anyone heard any update about the 5 people who checked-in for this flight but never boarded the plane? I have not read any recently about these people. 5 people seems like a lot, to go so close but never boarding the plane.

Noo

molly09 wrote: »

Just wondering has anyone heard any update about the 5 people who checked-in for this flight but never boarded the plane? I have not read any recently about these people. 5 people seems like a lot, to go so close but never boarding the plane.

I am surprised that we havent heard more...even one of those fluffy arent we lucky stories. They have probably been investigated by authorities and kept out of the spot light for now. Their bags were taken back off so I cant imagine it had anything to do with them...just a load of very lucky people who didnt make the flight.

ceadaoin.

molly09 wrote: »

Just wondering has anyone heard any update about the 5 people who checked-in for this flight but never boarded the plane? I have not read any recently about these people. 5 people seems like a lot, to go so close but never boarding the plane.

They backtracked on that and said it didn't happen. Apparently there was some confusion with actual passengers and people on standby. Seems a bit fishy to me, especially considering they did say their bags were removed.

Noo

Well....there ya go!

MuffinsDa

Gentleman,

Just a quick philosophical point.

I personally am a very skeptical person and not into "conspiracy theories". I always think the simplest explanation is what we should believe it, unless proven otherwise.

However, in this case, there is NO EXPLANATION yet. It is getting more and more murky everyday, and people hypothesise and speculate in this information void. In the absence of a proper simple explanation, those speculation can not be dismissed simply as "conspiracy" theory, as long as they don't violate the laws of nature (or involved alien abductions!!).


I think we should all stop dismissing people's ideas as "conspiracy theory", especially in the derogatory and arrogant fashion that it's being bandied about here. They are just THEORIES at this stage, and being sensitive/confrontation about it neither helps your point nor advances anyone's understanding of what might have happened.

kippy

Noo wrote: »

But isnt that a myth in itself....the majority of the phonecalls were made from onboard phones, which were on practically every US flight back then. Only two calls were recorded from mobiles and they were from the third plane, the times they were made correspond to the plane flying at low altitude. There's no way in hell 2001 mobike networks allowed passengers to make calls from planes. As for texts I havent heard much about that but going from my personal experience sending texts had not become popular in the US by then, they were very much all for the phonecalls.

There were at least 4 calls made from planes on a mobile device in my recollection - so networks most certainly did allow calls from planes in certain situations. I may have been mistake on the texts as I cant find a record of them at the moment.
Point still stands - do you take the chance?

prunudo

molly09 wrote: »

Just wondering has anyone heard any update about the 5 people who checked-in for this flight but never boarded the plane? I have not read any recently about these people. 5 people seems like a lot, to go so close but never boarding the plane.

The authorities said afterwards that they were booked on the flight but hadn't checked in.

fits

fits wrote: »

You don't get network signal at 30000 feet, that has been stated repeatedly!

it was in the context of if they were alive and landed, and yes I know how much of the planet is uninhabited. I live in the outback and 5 mins outside of town there is no signal for hundreds of km without a big antenna which doesnt always work, further in some directions.

murphaph

elmolesto wrote: »

The AF447 FDR and CVR were recovered from 4000m nearly 2 years after the crash.

And many consider that more or less miraculous. It was because France has a large navy capable of such an extended search operation and also because France is home to Airbus. They needed to find the cause of that crash more than the Malaysians need to find the cause of theirs. The same resources won't be available long term in this search operation.

fits

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Gentlemen,

.

Why are you only addressing one gender?

I'll take a step back again as we are still in realm of speculation and I don't want to do that.