Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • i wasnt lying about the door....just going off what i saw on the news.....
    http://news.sky.com/story/1222942/ma...ragments-found

    Comment


    • This is absolutely left field speculation.

      Let's imagine that the reason why no debris is found floating in the water near the zone where the contact was lost is because there is none.

      This would mean either that:
      a- The plane kept flying at least for a good while and is far from the point of last contact.
      b- The plane is submerged in one piece near the point of last contact, and hence everything is submerged.
      c- I can't think of a c.

      And a and b have a lot of drawbacks.
      a- Why no primary radar track? Why no mayday call? If they were hijacked, where would they go in the night? No airport received it, and an off-field landing at night is unthinkable. The closest I can think is a hijack, that went wrong and ended in a crash at a later time. Still missing the radar track.
      b- What chain of event can lead to an airliner ditching smooth enough to remain in one piece but prevent any distress calls and that at least some people abandon the plane? I can't think of one.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • Here's something that might be relevant in combination with the two stolen passports and the connecting flights out of PEK: Citizens of the European Union can get a 72-hrs visa-free transit in The People's Republic of China, which means Chinese authorities wouldn't check them beforehand, and the airline wouldn't ask for a visa when trying to board on an EU passport and a ticket with an onward connection out of PEK.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
          At the back of my mind there´s a question; maybe it did not end up in the water at all-? Just a silly thought I guess-
          ... in that case:
          - on the ground [likely]
          - in the skies [although I can't exclude the existence of extra-terrestrials I would not assume that 'they' did this]

          But if it should be on the ground: wouldn't it be unlikely they would have made it so far back without being able to send a distress signal? I mean: in the case of a technical error, not in the case of a hijacking. As in the case of a hijacking that steep descent is again very unlikely. (thanks for theearlier insights on this, folks)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
            Here's something that might be relevant in combination with the two stolen passports and the connecting flights out of PEK: Citizens of the European Union can get a 72-hrs visa-free transit in The People's Republic of China, which means Chinese authorities wouldn't check them beforehand, and the airline wouldn't ask for a visa when trying to board on an EU passport and a ticket with an onward connection out of PEK.
            Assuming that those 2 unidentified persons traveling on stolen/fake passports were the cause for the crashing of the plane and concerning your comment:
            - if they would have wanted to enter China without visa they would not have downed the plane
            - if they would have wanted to board a plane to Europe without visa they would not have downed the plane

            Comment


            • Since we are all happily or not so happily speculating, here are my attempts:

              a) A big explosion / bomb - TWA 800- or Lockerbie-style.

              b) Complete electrical failure, accounting for the lack of communications as well as secondary radar returns. Question here is: why no primary radar return? But then again - was such a system available and in operation for the area of the presumed crash?

              c) Pilot suicide. That might account for the "trying to return" speculation, as well as the loss of radar returns if the plane breaks up during the dive.

              In all these scenarios, the stolen passports are a coincidence, except for a) and they were suicide bombers.
              Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2014-03-09, 17:24.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by eTang View Post
                Assuming that those 2 unidentified persons traveling on stolen/fake passports were the cause for the crashing of the plane and concerning your comment:
                - if they would have wanted to enter China without visa they would not have downed the plane
                - if they would have wanted to board a plane to Europe without visa they would not have downed the plane
                Maybe they just wanted to down the plane and didn't want to be investigated beforehand. But then again - see my previous post - the stolen password puzzle might not have anything to do with the crash.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                  Maybe they just wanted to down the plane and didn't want to be investigated beforehand. But then again - see my previous post - the stolen password puzzle might not have anything to do with the crash.
                  True indeed. Those two (and weren't there two other uncertain passport holders on board) might 'just' be general victims as well, having nothing to do with the cause of the loss of the aircraft.

                  Comment


                  • According to a Dutch news-website: the two stolen passport (austrian and italian) were registered in a database of stolen travel documents. But that database had never been interrogated, also not when they boarded the plane.

                    http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/3721632/...-gevallen.html

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                      Since we are all happily or not so happily speculating, here are my attempts:

                      a) A big explosion / bomb - TWA 800- or Lockerbie-style.
                      But there will be lots of debris near the point of loss of contact. The wreckage would have been already found.

                      b) Complete electrical failure, accounting for the lack of communications as well as secondary radar returns. Question here is: why no primary radar return? But then again - was such a system available and in operation for the area of the presumed crash?
                      Well, it's reported as the source of the "turn back" information.

                      c) Pilot suicide. That might account for the "trying to return" speculation, as well as the loss of radar returns if the plane breaks up during the dive.
                      Again, and where is the wreckage? It should have been found already very close to the point of loss of contact.

                      To compare, AF447 was not within radar contact, so they only knew the last reported position. And still they found the first debris how much later?

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • Adding up, Gabriel: same strange route!

                        Why would they flight KUL-PEK-AMS-xxx (w/o stopover) instead of KUL-AMS-xxx? Both Malaysian Airlines and KLM have direct flights from KL to Amsterdam.

                        I mean: going through PEK is not just a minor detour! If those pax were just airtravel fanatics for the fun of flying as many routes possible ... but then: *both* on stolen passports - very unlikely!
                        My guess? They needed the reservations set to book the Malaysian Flight to China without needing to apply to China's embassy/consulate to get a visa into the country. The flights are within a day of the MA flight that went down. My guess would be that either 1) they wanted to get into China w/o a Visa and would simply not show up for the European flights or 2) they wanted to book and board the MA flight without a China visa.

                        It'll be interesting to see what pans out with the other two mysterious documentation holders that have apparently surfaced as well. Similar pattern? Sequentially numbered tickets also with final destinations in EU countries? Al Qaada has done this in the past. Is this related to the plane crash? Too soon to tell. Stolen passports aren't uncommon, tens of millions in a data base though interesting both were reported stolen in the same country within a window of time both in the not so recent past but in closer duration to each other. I understand Interpol is critical of airlines failing to check data bases on stolen passports. Regardless of what happens in this case, I think and hope the airlines do step up and taken notice of this resource.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                          a) A big explosion / bomb - TWA 800- or Lockerbie-style.
                          But there will be lots of debris near the point of loss of contact. The wreckage would have been already found.

                          b) Complete electrical failure, accounting for the lack of communications as well as secondary radar returns.
                          Well, it's reported as the source of the "turn back" information.

                          c) Pilot suicide. That might account for the "trying to return" speculation, as well as the loss of radar returns if the plane breaks up during the dive.
                          Again, and where is the wreckage? It should have been found already very close to the point of loss of contact.

                          To compare, AF447 was not within radar contact, so they only knew the last reported position. And still they found the first debris how much later?
                          Well - Gabriel - I know all my theories have holes, but they are the best I could come up with.
                          I don't think it was a hijacking, a technical problem or an alien abduction. I guess when it gets light again in the area, debris will be found. This is not the Bermuda triangle.
                          Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2014-03-09, 17:42.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MairzyDotes View Post
                            My guess? They needed the reservations set to book the Malaysian Flight to China without needing to apply to China's embassy/consulate to get a visa into the country. The flights are within a day of the MA flight that went down. My guess would be that either 1) they wanted to get into China w/o a Visa and would simply not show up for the European flights or 2) they wanted to book and board the MA flight without a China visa.
                            But in the last case: not needing to have Chinese visa would have been easy - by just flying KUL-AMS without PEK.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              This is absolutely left field speculation.

                              Let's imagine that the reason why no debris is found floating in the water near the zone where the contact was lost is because there is none.

                              This would mean either that:
                              a- The plane kept flying at least for a good while and is far from the point of last contact.
                              b- The plane is submerged in one piece near the point of last contact, and hence everything is submerged.
                              c- I can't think of a c.

                              And a and b have a lot of drawbacks.
                              a- Why no primary radar track? Why no mayday call? If they were hijacked, where would they go in the night? No airport received it, and an off-field landing at night is unthinkable. The closest I can think is a hijack, that went wrong and ended in a crash at a later time. Still missing the radar track.
                              b- What chain of event can lead to an airliner ditching smooth enough to remain in one piece but prevent any distress calls and that at least some people abandon the plane? I can't think of one.
                              Following line a) It would be interesting to see an actual map of coverage of primary radar in the area around the Gulf of Thailand. Are there gaps, providing one flies low enough-? There's Cambodia, a thin strip of Thailand covering the border of Burma, just to name a few areas. There was certainly enough fuel on board to go anywhere quite far from the last known point of identification. All of it left field speculation of course

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                                I guess when it gets light again in the area, debris will be found. This is not the Bermuda triangle.
                                btw: shouldn't satellites be able to 'see' the area as well?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X