Malaysia airlines plane may have crashed 239 people on board #16

[21merc7]

Malaysian flight MH370 passenger Chandrika Sharma's husband writes – 'I feel comforted, energized and renewed by messages of solidarity'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ssages-of-solidarity/articleshow/32667587.cms


I just can't bring myself to clip any one portion of this, but highly recommend reading it, should be read in it's entirety.

 

[LambChop]

Unless they had a partner in a boat that was watching the low flying plane and signalled to the hijacker with his satellite phone to "JUMP". The hijacker could have also had smoke flares that we commonly see during football game skydiving jumps. Would make it easy to pluck him from water if he had life vest.

Is it possible for a passenger to open the door of a commercial jet while it is in flight?

We're talking about a pressurized airplane, where the internal cabin is at a higher pressure than the outside. The internal pressure is forcing the door outward against the seal. [To open the door] you have to pull the door inward. Because of the differential [difference in] air pressure, it's beyond the capability of a human to do that - they're not strong enough.......

So that means it would be something like a thousand pounds you'd have to pull in. more information at link.....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130528-airplane-door-open-midflight-pilot-eject/

Now imagine the plane is traveling over 400 miles per hour.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I just heard this from a TH on CNN and I typed it as quickly as I could to paraphrase the content, which IMO has merit

as the economies of emerging countries expand, they are able to enter areas of commerce in which they lack the necessary experience and expertise. they do not have anything near a proven history of managing and supporting all of the facets of modern aviation, especially in terms of implementing safeguards and conducting investigations when things go wrong. just because they have the money to purchase a plane doesn't mean that they are qualified to market jet travel. human lives are at stake and the current search has shown how incredibly expensive and complicated it is to mount investigation and search efforts

how "someone" would decide who can enter the game and who can't, I dunno, that's probably a whole can of political worms. but definitely food for thought

Pulling this over from the other thread ..

Doesn't that sound just so imperialist. It's as if to say that 'some countries' with their 'new money' just have no business in the marketplace. There have been some not very thinly veiled comments made in media that sound downright racist to me in regards to Malaysia. All airlines face disaster from time to time, this one has been a genuine mystery and has taken the cooperation of 25 countries to get any headway with. I feel so sorry for the Malaysians that the media in countries that deem themselves 'more fit' to run airlines feel the need to Monday-morning quarterback them from the comfort of their TV studios.

Of course Malaysia has made mistakes, but the truth of the matter was this was a very difficult mystery to solve, but when everyone pulled together in unison it seems it has been, to say that this disaster shows that Malaysia is somehow unfit to fly is just a terrible comment. Terrible things happen with aircraft from all countries. I just wonder if this had been a western country if people would be so suspicious or critical.

My heart really goes out to everyone involved.

 

[Hatfield]

Is it possible for a passenger to open the door of a commercial jet while it is in flight?

We're talking about a pressurized airplane, where the internal cabin is at a higher pressure than the outside. The internal pressure is forcing the door outward against the seal. [To open the door] you have to pull the door inward. Because of the differential [difference in] air pressure, it's beyond the capability of a human to do that - they're not strong enough.......

So that means it would be something like a thousand pounds you'd have to pull in. more information at link.....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130528-airplane-door-open-midflight-pilot-eject/

Now imagine the plane is traveling over 400 miles per hour.

Its been done before as with hijacker "D. B. Cooper" in 1971. The plane would have to fly low enough and release cabin pressure before opening any doors. And exiting the rear of the plane like Cooper did would be the only real way out so the person would not bounce off the fuselage and kill himself.

I dont necessarily think we had a jumper on this plane but you never know.

ETA...In the Cooper case, he was never found and a lot of people think he died in the jump. But some think he survived.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

One thing really good I heard from the Australian officials at their news conference last night.

He indicated they did in fact drop GPS marker bouyees out at the spotted debris site. So that means they will easily be able to go find that debris since the marker bouyees with GPS tracking will float along with the debris.

It may separate somewhat due to its different shape and weight. But I do think it will be close enough to help searches relocate the spotted debris.
He seemed very confident it will not be an issue and was one reason he is in no hurry to danger any of the searchers till weather gets better.

I have been wondering if there are video cams on these buoy markers with GPS...

It would be interesting to see if cameras could pic up any images of the debris?

:waitasec:

 

[Elley Mae]

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.

The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked-210869/

 

[Sleuth5]

Pulling this over from the other thread ..

Doesn't that sound just so imperialist. It's as if to say that 'some countries' with their 'new money' just have no business in the marketplace. There have been some not very thinly veiled comments made in media that sound downright racist to me in regards to Malaysia. All airlines face disaster from time to time, this one has been a genuine mystery and has taken the cooperation of 25 countries to get any headway with. I feel so sorry for the Malaysians that the media in countries that deem themselves 'more fit' to run airlines feel the need to Monday-morning quarterback them from the comfort of their TV studios.

Of course Malaysia has made mistakes, but the truth of the matter was this was a very difficult mystery to solve, but when everyone pulled together in unison it seems it has been, to say that this disaster shows that Malaysia is somehow unfit to fly is just a terrible comment. Terrible things happen with aircraft from all countries. I just wonder if this had been a western country if people would be so suspicious or critical.

My heart really goes out to everyone involved.

Bravo, MrsG. I might add that Malaysia has a very ancient history as the single most important trading passage in the world for a very long time via the Straits of Malacca, through which huge volumes of spices, porcelain and silks flowed to the West since antiquity. They are no newcomers to commerce. Their port facilities remain among the most important in the world.

 

[SilkySifaka]

bbm

Yes, so true. The search area would have been SO MUCH SMALLER.

If we think about that....that they really had NO IDEA where the plane went, b/c it did NOT go down where it dropped off radar, but instead went who-knows-where - well it really is kind of amazing what Inmarsat was able to do, IMO. That they even have an are pin-pointed down. Imagine if Inmarsat was not able to get those satellite pings - that plane would IMO have never been found. It would have been an even bigger mystery, possibly never to be solved.

Which is I think exactly what the hijackers wanted.

IMO.

Not sure i agree about the hijackers as I don't see a motive in this case, no one is terrorized or afraid of a certain group right now, they see a plane missing

That said I agree totally about Inmarsat. They have turned out to be heroes in this, without them we would be s o l. It is beyond comprehension why the ntsb or other countries air safety investigations would have removed them from the investigation for their comments. Talk about not wanting answers. Or wanting to give zero credit and zero public comments. I think its outrageous. I will never trust an ntsb investigation again

 

[Elley Mae]

Not sure i agree about the hijackers as I don't see a motive in this case, no one is terrorized or afraid of a certain group right now, they see a plane missing

That said I agree totally about Inmarsat. They have turned out to be heroes in this, without them we would be s o l. It is beyond comprehension why the ntsb or other countries air safety investigations would have removed them from the investigation for their comments. Talk about not wanting answers. Or wanting to give zero credit and zero public comments. I think its outrageous. I will never trust an ntsb investigation again

Is the ntsb investigating this?

 

[Elley Mae]

I have not seen any link/article stating that Inmarsat has been removed from anything. Did I miss that?

 

[lawstudent]

Blabbing to the press compromises investigations. At the end of an investigation, I agree almost everything needs to be made public to preserve public confidence and the truth. But inviting media/public scrutiny of conclusions makes people avoid certain avenues of investigation. The chances of public outcry suppressing avenues of investigation are probably a lot greater than a member of the public pointing out something that investigators haven't already considered, whether they've disclosed it or not. In the most publicized case of alleged pilot suicide, the U.S. knew the pilot's home country was very upset about that conclusion, and said "deliberate pilot action." Now, the word suicide may be unnecssary in a technical report, but then the other country released a report saying cause undetermined, and the NTSB freaked out and started saying suicide. That's what happens when you bow to the concerns of others during investigations and minimize your findings.

Plus, this guy at Inmarsat does not have all the info. He can say what crucial data Inmarsat has, but he could be accidentally revealing sensitive info without knowing it or be interpreting it incorrectly.

This isn't anything odd - it's regular policy not to comment on the details of ongoing investigations. No good can come of it. If something doesn't add up, say it when the results are released.

 

[joerose]

I cannot find it now, but someone posted an excellent link explaining how the Australian Government had used their equipment and done an extremely thorough search to come to the conclusion that the plane landed almost for certain in the location they are searching. After reading that article, I believe that they will find it there. I had not read anything or heard anything like that until I read the post on here. I am going to start reading their news and updates. They are on top of this game. None of the back and forth business I am getting on the news I have been watching. Hats off to the Aussies!

 

[lawstudent]

I have not seen any link/article stating that Inmarsat has been removed from anything. Did I miss that?

Some article said that he would have been removed in other countries for talking to the press. It's a hypothetical, and sounds like opinion, but I also don't think he should be talking to the press to that extent yet.

 

[Waddles]

Blabbing to the press compromises investigations. At the end of an investigation, I agree almost everything needs to be made public to preserve public confidence and the truth. But inviting media/public scrutiny of conclusions makes people avoid certain avenues of investigation. The chances of public outcry suppressing avenues of investigation are probably a lot greater than a member of the public pointing out something that investigators haven't already considered, whether they've disclosed it or not. In the most publicized case of alleged pilot suicide, the U.S. knew the pilot's home country was very upset about that conclusion, and said "deliberate pilot action." Now, the word suicide may be unnecssary in a technical report, but then the other country released a report saying cause undetermined, and the NTSB freaked out and started saying suicide. That's what happens when you bow to the concerns of others during investigations and minimize your findings.

Plus, this guy at Inmarsat does not have all the info. He can say what crucial data Inmarsat has, but he could be accidentally revealing sensitive info without knowing it or be interpreting it incorrectly.

This isn't anything odd - it's regular policy not to comment on the details of ongoing investigations. No good can come of it. If something doesn't add up, say it when the results are released.

OT per your post but just a note, I think "deliberate pilot action" sounds like a more appropriate term than "suicide" when you kill 238 people

 

[Hatfield]

I cannot find it now, but someone posted an excellent link explaining how the Australian Government had used their equipment and done an extremely thorough search to come to the conclusion that the plane landed almost for certain in the location they are searching. After reading that article, I believe that they will find it there. I had not read anything or heard anything like that until I read the post on here. I am going to start reading their news and updates. They are on top of this game. None of the back and forth business I am getting on the news I have been watching. Hats off to the Aussies!

I agree and my hats off to them too. They have had the best news conferences and do a wonderful job explaining things. Their officials have been spot on with what they say.

I have always wanted to visit there. Maybe someday.

 

[joerose]

I cannot find it now, but someone posted an excellent link explaining how the Australian Government had used their equipment and done an extremely thorough search to come to the conclusion that the plane landed almost for certain in the location they are searching. After reading that article, I believe that they will find it there. I had not read anything or heard anything like that until I read the post on here. I am going to start reading their news and updates. They are on top of this game. None of the back and forth business I am getting on the news I have been watching. Hats off to the Aussies!

It was either this post or one similar. I had no idea all of this had been done.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/flight-mh370-inmarsat-aaib-analysis

 

[Elley Mae]

"There is evidence of a partial handshake between the aircraft and ground station at 0019 UTC (GMT)," he told a news conference on Tuesday. "At this time, this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work."

If confirmed, this signal would have been sent more than seven hours after contact with air traffic control was lost, and eight minutes after the last confirmed handshake.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26728045

I wonder what ground station picked this up, Australia?

 

[SilkySifaka]

I have not seen any link/article stating that Inmarsat has been removed from anything. Did I miss that?

I am lousy at finding links but it was a quote on the thread that said the ntsb and investigators of some other countries would have removed inmarsat immediately for their public comments. I am grateful for their explanation of what they did and for their conclusions allowing a narrowing of the immense search field. yet ntsb et al would have removed them!!!!!!!!!!!!! if they led the investigation

 

[popsicle]

The thing is, the investigating agency is the one who should be giving the pressers and updating the public...period. If everyone involved starts giving out info then you get not only incorrect information released, but potentially an investigation put into jeopardy. imo When NTSB is running the investigation, you will notice that they update with a PC weekly. imo

 

[SilkySifaka]

Blabbing to the press compromises investigations. At the end of an investigation, I agree almost everything needs to be made public to preserve public confidence and the truth. But inviting media/public scrutiny of conclusions makes people avoid certain avenues of investigation. The chances of public outcry suppressing avenues of investigation are probably a lot greater than a member of the public pointing out something that investigators haven't already considered, whether they've disclosed it or not. In the most publicized case of alleged pilot suicide, the U.S. knew the pilot's home country was very upset about that conclusion, and said "deliberate pilot action." Now, the word suicide may be unnecssary in a technical report, but then the other country released a report saying cause undetermined, and the NTSB freaked out and started saying suicide. That's what happens when you bow to the concerns of others during investigations and minimize your findings.

Plus, this guy at Inmarsat does not have all the info. He can say what crucial data Inmarsat has, but he could be accidentally revealing sensitive info without knowing it or be interpreting it incorrectly.

This isn't anything odd - it's regular policy not to comment on the details of ongoing investigations. No good can come of it. If something doesn't add up, say it when the results are released.

he only spoke about what his company did and I disagree strongly that it should all be hush hush. The malaysians tried that and see what happened.