If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   "We wish we had an opportunity to hijack such a plane"   (reuters.com) divider line 52
    More: Strange, Taliban, Pakistan, Flight MH370, diplomatic notes, Civil Aviation Authority, Andaman Sea, Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, North Waziristan  
•       •       •

6907 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2014 at 10:20 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-18 08:48:45 AM
Well, you need to apply yourself, instead of sitting around the cave all day going "pew, pew, pew" with your thumbs.
 
2014-03-18 09:20:36 AM
Explaining why this was unlikely, he said surveillance was so tight on India's border facing its nuclear arch-rival Pakistan that the air force scrambled a pair of Sukhoi fighters last month after an unidentified object showed up on the radar.
It turned out to be a weather balloon drifting towards the Pakistan border.



uh huh.  weather balloon, sure.
 
2014-03-18 09:23:59 AM
...And they wonder why people want to drop bombs on them (the Taliban that is...).
 
2014-03-18 09:26:01 AM
The biggest reason I don't think it was terrorists is that terrorists would want to make a big deal out of it in order to...wait for it...cause terror. Pirates, on the other hand, would want to keep things quiet.

/as would aliens, obviously
 
2014-03-18 09:53:31 AM
img.fark.net

I want that plane.
 
2014-03-18 09:57:57 AM

SurfaceTension: The biggest reason I don't think it was terrorists is that terrorists would want to make a big deal out of it in order to...wait for it...cause terror. Pirates, on the other hand, would want to keep things quiet.

/as would aliens, obviously


Unless they're waiting for the heat to die down.  The problem with pirates, well a ransom demand for the safe return of the passengers should have surfaced by now.  Certainly if you were in this for money, you'd want to milk that cash cow as well.
 
2014-03-18 10:27:45 AM
Terrorists want to cause, I dunno, TERROR?  This is not accomplished by having a random plane "disappear".  Terrorists are also likely to want the publicity (even if they aren't responsible) -- and no one is taking credit.  It's also rather difficult (or messy) to shut 200 people up for so long.  And what the hell are terrorists going to do with a 777?  I suppose you could piece it out on the black market for some cash -- if no one was looking for it, but otherwise what's the point?
 
2014-03-18 10:30:02 AM

nekom: SurfaceTension: The biggest reason I don't think it was terrorists is that terrorists would want to make a big deal out of it in order to...wait for it...cause terror. Pirates, on the other hand, would want to keep things quiet.

/as would aliens, obviously

Unless they're waiting for the heat to die down.  The problem with pirates, well a ransom demand for the safe return of the passengers should have surfaced by now.  Certainly if you were in this for money, you'd want to milk that cash cow as well.


Maybe someone really wants to sell some newspapers...
 
2014-03-18 10:32:29 AM
Didn't Pakistan also claim that Bin Ladin was not in Pakistan?
 
2014-03-18 10:33:29 AM

GoodyearPimp: Terrorists want to cause, I dunno, TERROR?  This is not accomplished by having a random plane "disappear".  Terrorists are also likely to want the publicity (even if they aren't responsible) -- and no one is taking credit.  It's also rather difficult (or messy) to shut 200 people up for so long.  And what the hell are terrorists going to do with a 777?  I suppose you could piece it out on the black market for some cash -- if no one was looking for it, but otherwise what's the point?


A 777 isn't like a honda civic, where there is a market for an alternator with undisclosed engines. It isn't like Delta is going to be willing to buy a landing gear assembly or a jet engine out of the back of a box truck from a guy named Louie who is friends with one of the mechanics.
 
2014-03-18 10:35:04 AM
How much for the Stewardesses?
 
2014-03-18 10:39:58 AM

SurfaceTension: The biggest reason I don't think it was terrorists is that terrorists would want to make a big deal out of it in order to...wait for it...cause terror.


This. A terrorist organization (of any stripe) would have claimed responsibility by now.

I don't buy the piracy story though. Until we have good evidence to the contrary I'm sticking with suicide by plane crash.
 
2014-03-18 10:41:01 AM
Well - according to the local paper in the Maldives, their residents are saying they saw the plane.  http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062
 
2014-03-18 10:44:29 AM
Langoliers ate it and are hiding in the Crimea river.
 
2014-03-18 10:44:44 AM

LineNoise: GoodyearPimp: Terrorists want to cause, I dunno, TERROR?  This is not accomplished by having a random plane "disappear".  Terrorists are also likely to want the publicity (even if they aren't responsible) -- and no one is taking credit.  It's also rather difficult (or messy) to shut 200 people up for so long.  And what the hell are terrorists going to do with a 777?  I suppose you could piece it out on the black market for some cash -- if no one was looking for it, but otherwise what's the point?

A 777 isn't like a honda civic, where there is a market for an alternator with undisclosed engines. It isn't like Delta is going to be willing to buy a landing gear assembly or a jet engine out of the back of a box truck from a guy named Louie who is friends with one of the mechanics.


Wanna bet?

Stolen and counterfeit spares is still one of the major issues in the aviation industry

Now, it may be that parting out a Boeing 777 is more problematic than, say, a Dornier 328, but it is possible in many countries.

Having said that, I'm inclined to think that this article presents the most plausible reason for the disappearance:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
 
2014-03-18 10:46:15 AM

MikeyFuccon: Until we have good evidence to the contrary I'm sticking with suicide by plane crash.


I'm thinking electrical fire, crew incapacitated by smoke, plane flies on autopilot until fuel exhaustion.
 
2014-03-18 10:52:25 AM

dittybopper: LineNoise: GoodyearPimp: Terrorists want to cause, I dunno, TERROR?  This is not accomplished by having a random plane "disappear".  Terrorists are also likely to want the publicity (even if they aren't responsible) -- and no one is taking credit.  It's also rather difficult (or messy) to shut 200 people up for so long.  And what the hell are terrorists going to do with a 777?  I suppose you could piece it out on the black market for some cash -- if no one was looking for it, but otherwise what's the point?

A 777 isn't like a honda civic, where there is a market for an alternator with undisclosed engines. It isn't like Delta is going to be willing to buy a landing gear assembly or a jet engine out of the back of a box truck from a guy named Louie who is friends with one of the mechanics.

Wanna bet?

Stolen and counterfeit spares is still one of the major issues in the aviation industry

Now, it may be that parting out a Boeing 777 is more problematic than, say, a Dornier 328, but it is possible in many countries.

Having said that, I'm inclined to think that this article presents the most plausible reason for the disappearance:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/


Someone at Wired has been reading Fark, because I theorized this days ago.
 
2014-03-18 10:59:01 AM
I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.
 
2014-03-18 10:59:42 AM

Lofasz: Well - according to the local paper in the Maldives, their residents are saying they saw the plane.  http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062


That would be really interesting if true. My initial prediction was pilot suicide into the waters over the mid-Indian ridge - to avoid recovery of the data recorders. The mid-Indian ridge is just west of the Maldives.
 
2014-03-18 11:01:05 AM

shastacola: Didn't Pakistan also claim that Bin Ladin was not in Pakistan?


Bloody Pakis
 
2014-03-18 11:01:50 AM

ArkPanda: I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.


Or the pilots on board were incapacitated and the plane kept flying on autopilot until it ran out of gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash
 
2014-03-18 11:11:57 AM

dittybopper: ArkPanda: I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.

Or the pilots on board were incapacitated and the plane kept flying on autopilot until it ran out of gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash


That's a quite plausible explanation.

Scenario:  At cruising altitude, ONOZ electrical fire!  Pilot, being quite experienced on that route, immediately plugs in a waypoint to divert to go back to KUL.  Crew and passengers overcome by smoke inhalation, plane continues to cruise on autopilot until fuel starvation.  It would be rare for a fire to destroy radios, ACARS and transponder yet not bring the aircraft down, but certainly not out of the question.
 
2014-03-18 11:12:19 AM

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: How much for the Stewardesses?


Gonna cost ya
archives.thestar.com.my
 
2014-03-18 11:13:22 AM

lifeboat: That would be really interesting if true. My initial prediction was pilot suicide into the waters over the mid-Indian ridge - to avoid recovery of the data recorders. The mid-Indian ridge is just west of the Maldives.


Most people who commit suicide want a statement. This runs contrary to that.

ArkPanda: I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.


Agree. There are a couple cool buildings in KL that would make a fine punctuation mark at the end of that short flight.

I bet the plane is on Diego Garcia being refitted as Ken Lay's private jet.
 
2014-03-18 11:15:37 AM
shiat. There are already conspiracies about Diego Garcia. And here I thought I was, being all innovative.
 
2014-03-18 11:21:42 AM

nekom: dittybopper: ArkPanda: I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.

Or the pilots on board were incapacitated and the plane kept flying on autopilot until it ran out of gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash

That's a quite plausible explanation.

Scenario:  At cruising altitude, ONOZ electrical fire!  Pilot, being quite experienced on that route, immediately plugs in a waypoint to divert to go back to KUL.  Crew and passengers overcome by smoke inhalation, plane continues to cruise on autopilot until fuel starvation.  It would be rare for a fire to destroy radios, ACARS and transponder yet not bring the aircraft down, but certainly not out of the question.


There is another green-lit thread about a plausible scenario:  An electrical fire that causes the pilots to start pulling breakers (which explains the shut down), followed by a loss of consciousness due to either smoke or decompression, and the plane flying on until fuel starvation.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8183924/Actual-pilot-has-theory-about-M H3 70-that-is-simple-logical-non-hysterical-consistent-with-what-an-actua l-experienced-pilot-would-do-in-event-of-fire-So-naturally-media-are-a ll-over-completely-ignoring-him-in-favor-of-wild-speculation
 
2014-03-18 11:26:40 AM

nekom: dittybopper: ArkPanda: I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.

Or the pilots on board were incapacitated and the plane kept flying on autopilot until it ran out of gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash

That's a quite plausible explanation.

Scenario:  At cruising altitude, ONOZ electrical fire!  Pilot, being quite experienced on that route, immediately plugs in a waypoint to divert to go back to KUL.  Crew and passengers overcome by smoke inhalation, plane continues to cruise on autopilot until fuel starvation.  It would be rare for a fire to destroy radios, ACARS and transponder yet not bring the aircraft down, but certainly not out of the question.


I'm willing to buy this, but would autopilot take the plane wildly change altitudes while on autopilot?  (Speculative guess for this would be pilots incapacitated; civilian tries taking controls for some reason.)
 
2014-03-18 11:27:42 AM

SurfaceTension: nekom: dittybopper: ArkPanda: I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.

Or the pilots on board were incapacitated and the plane kept flying on autopilot until it ran out of gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash

That's a quite plausible explanation.

Scenario:  At cruising altitude, ONOZ electrical fire!  Pilot, being quite experienced on that route, immediately plugs in a waypoint to divert to go back to KUL.  Crew and passengers overcome by smoke inhalation, plane continues to cruise on autopilot until fuel starvation.  It would be rare for a fire to destroy radios, ACARS and transponder yet not bring the aircraft down, but certainly not out of the question.

I'm willing to buy this, but would autopilot take the plane wildly change altitudes while on autopilot?  (Speculative guess for this would be pilots incapacitated; civilian tries taking controls for some reason.)


/FTFM
//don't post while on autopilot
 
2014-03-18 11:30:42 AM
Scary scenario:

Flown to a terrorist stronghold, emptied of passengers, filed with explosives and other nastiness, then flown into an unsuspecting capital like the world's biggest cruise missile.
 
2014-03-18 11:36:21 AM
"Hey, has anyone looked in Red Square?"

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-18 11:44:17 AM

GoodyearPimp: Terrorists want to cause, I dunno, TERROR?  This is not accomplished by having a random plane "disappear".  Terrorists are also likely to want the publicity (even if they aren't responsible) -- and no one is taking credit.  It's also rather difficult (or messy) to shut 200 people up for so long.  And what the hell are terrorists going to do with a 777?  I suppose you could piece it out on the black market for some cash -- if no one was looking for it, but otherwise what's the point?


The US has been raining hellfire missiles on terrorists for years now.  Maybe the only ones left are those smart enough to give all the credit to some other terrorist group.

That said, my money is on electrical fire with the plane in the ocean somewhere.  Whatever happened to the people on the plane, it was over the day the plane went missing.
 
2014-03-18 11:49:10 AM

LineNoise: GoodyearPimp: Terrorists want to cause, I dunno, TERROR?  This is not accomplished by having a random plane "disappear".  Terrorists are also likely to want the publicity (even if they aren't responsible) -- and no one is taking credit.  It's also rather difficult (or messy) to shut 200 people up for so long.  And what the hell are terrorists going to do with a 777?  I suppose you could piece it out on the black market for some cash -- if no one was looking for it, but otherwise what's the point?

A 777 isn't like a honda civic, where there is a market for an alternator with undisclosed engines. It isn't like Delta is going to be willing to buy a landing gear assembly or a jet engine out of the back of a box truck from a guy named Louie who is friends with one of the mechanics.


yeah, it would take a real broke asshole to buy airplane parts on the cheap

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2014-03-18 12:03:45 PM

SurfaceTension: I'm willing to buy this, but would autopilot take the plane wildly change altitudes while on autopilot?  (Speculative guess for this would be pilots incapacitated; civilian tries taking controls for some reason.)


From another green-lit article:

As for the reports of altitude fluctuations, given that this was not transponder-generated data but primary radar at maybe 200 miles, the azimuth elevation readings can be affected by a lot of atmospherics and I would not have high confidence in this being totally reliable. But let's accept for a minute that the pilot may have ascended to 45,000 feet in a last-ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen. That is an acceptable scenario. At 45,000 feet, it would be tough to keep this aircraft stable, as the flight envelope is very narrow and loss of control in a stall is entirely possible. The aircraft is at the top of its operational ceiling. The reported rapid rates of descent could have been generated by a stall, followed by a recovery at 25,000 feet. The pilot may even have been diving to extinguish flames.

I think the guy who wrote that meant "elevation" instead of "azimuth", so I FTFH.

At extreme range, the data from primary radar isn't exactly stellar.  If you've got a vertical beam height of just 1 degree, that translates into an "ambiguity" in height of 18,000 feet at 200 statute miles.  So if you measure an altitude of 45,000 feet on a target that's 200 miles away, it's possible that the aircraft could be as low as 27,000 feet.  Or it could be as high as 63,000 feet, or anywhere between those two numbers.  You don't really have any way of knowing.

Without knowing the actual frequency and antenna size of the radar in question, I can't calculate an accurate beamwidth, but a 1 degree beamwidth at 2 GHz would require an antenna somewhere around 8 meters in height, or about 26 feet, which seems reasonable.

As a double check on that, the "radio horizon" in statute miles is 1.414*sqrrt(hgt in feet), so a radar at ground level would be able to see an aircraft flying at that level out to about 232 miles or so.
 
2014-03-18 12:05:26 PM

SurfaceTension: nekom: dittybopper: ArkPanda: I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.

Or the pilots on board were incapacitated and the plane kept flying on autopilot until it ran out of gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash

That's a quite plausible explanation.

Scenario:  At cruising altitude, ONOZ electrical fire!  Pilot, being quite experienced on that route, immediately plugs in a waypoint to divert to go back to KUL.  Crew and passengers overcome by smoke inhalation, plane continues to cruise on autopilot until fuel starvation.  It would be rare for a fire to destroy radios, ACARS and transponder yet not bring the aircraft down, but certainly not out of the question.

I'm willing to buy this, but would autopilot take the plane wildly change altitudes while on autopilot?  (Speculative guess for this would be pilots incapacitated; civilian tries taking controls for some reason.)


Whoever is making that speculation should probably look at the mor eliekly theory that the radar track is innaccurate.
 
2014-03-18 12:09:26 PM

dittybopper: From another green-lit article


Thsi is why I shoudl refresh before commenting.

This was way more informative than "radar track is innaccurate".
 
2014-03-18 12:27:08 PM

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: I'm willing to buy this, but would autopilot take the plane wildly change altitudes while on autopilot?  (Speculative guess for this would be pilots incapacitated; civilian tries taking controls for some reason.)

From another green-lit article:

As for the reports of altitude fluctuations, given that this was not transponder-generated data but primary radar at maybe 200 miles, the azimuth elevation readings can be affected by a lot of atmospherics and I would not have high confidence in this being totally reliable. But let's accept for a minute that the pilot may have ascended to 45,000 feet in a last-ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen. That is an acceptable scenario. At 45,000 feet, it would be tough to keep this aircraft stable, as the flight envelope is very narrow and loss of control in a stall is entirely possible. The aircraft is at the top of its operational ceiling. The reported rapid rates of descent could have been generated by a stall, followed by a recovery at 25,000 feet. The pilot may even have been diving to extinguish flames.

I think the guy who wrote that meant "elevation" instead of "azimuth", so I FTFH.

At extreme range, the data from primary radar isn't exactly stellar.  If you've got a vertical beam height of just 1 degree, that translates into an "ambiguity" in height of 18,000 feet at 200 statute miles.  So if you measure an altitude of 45,000 feet on a target that's 200 miles away, it's possible that the aircraft could be as low as 27,000 feet.  Or it could be as high as 63,000 feet, or anywhere between those two numbers.  You don't really have any way of knowing.

Without knowing the actual frequency and antenna size of the radar in question, I can't calculate an accurate beamwidth, but a 1 degree beamwidth at 2 GHz would require an antenna somewhere around 8 meters in height, or about 26 feet, which seems reasonable.

As a double check on that, the "radio horizon" in statute miles is 1.414* ...


Having no knowledge of such things at all, your post was very informative. Thank you.
 
2014-03-18 12:32:00 PM
Is anyone using Tomnod searching west of the Maldives? more specifically WSW. I wish I could draw a line from where the last communication ping was across Langkawi to see where the plane likely ditched.
 
2014-03-18 12:36:48 PM
The sad thing here is that the BEST case scenario is that a plane carrying 200+ people crashed into the ocean.
 
2014-03-18 12:52:22 PM

JohnnyApocalypse: Is anyone using Tomnod searching west of the Maldives? more specifically WSW. I wish I could draw a line from where the last communication ping was across Langkawi to see where the plane likely ditched.


By the way, there are claims it was spotted flying around the Maldives...
http://www.businessinsider.com/maldvies-islanders-claim-to-see-malay si a-370-2014-3

I googled how long a typical flight between Maldives and Langkawi would be, and it came out to around 4 hours. So just after midnight, the plane turns around. How long to get to Langkawi from that spot?  And then to cruise on past to the Maldives? From the linked story... 6:15 am. Last known ping from a different article was around 8:00 am. That's almost 2 hours further. Man. That really is a lot of ocean out there. Maybe look between the Maldives and the Seychelles islands. And if it dumped a week ago into that ocean, debris from the crash could have ridden currents hundreds of miles away, so you wouldn't be able to pinpoint the crash site that way. If the plane was slowly descending, it may have hit the ocean before running out of fuel. Could that have left a wide debris field or nearly none at all if it didn't stall as it descended?

If it flew that far in a relatively straight line, it may be that the fumes from a fire took everyone out, but wasn't enough to significantly damage the plane.
 
2014-03-18 12:55:20 PM
Shoot... I forgot about time zone differentials in figuring out where it could be.
 
2014-03-18 01:40:24 PM
I really shouldn't be laughing, but actual quote from the Taliban.
 
2014-03-18 01:49:40 PM
I bet the plane is in North Korea. Un had it hijacked.

One day the plane will be mysteriously back up in the air, it will be guided in by military air craft to landing somewhere, but somewhere at the most advantageous location, the pilot will detonate the nuke that is on board.
 
2014-03-18 02:16:04 PM
I had been thinking "fire in the electronics bay, pull the breakers, fight the fire" theory, because of no communications from the plane to air traffic control.  But then someone mentioned that if the breakers for the radios are pulled, the satcom wouldn't transmit either because they are on the same radios.  I'm not familiar enough with a 777 cockpit to understand it, but it seems reasonable that if you switch off radio circuits, you're not going to leave on the one for satcom that you're not using.

I'm thinking more and more that this was controlled flight to somewhere.  Whether that means deliberate crash by pilot (suicide or otherwise), terrorism, piracy, or something else, I have no idea.
 
2014-03-18 02:55:18 PM

Private_Citizen: Scary scenario:

Flown to a terrorist stronghold, emptied of passengers, filed with explosives and other nastiness, then flown into an unsuspecting capital like the world's biggest cruise missile.


Plane with no flight plan and not responding to calls approaches capital, is strike by 5 missiles and explodes.
 
2014-03-18 03:03:02 PM

Ned Stark: Private_Citizen: Scary scenario:

Flown to a terrorist stronghold, emptied of passengers, filed with explosives and other nastiness, then flown into an unsuspecting capital like the world's biggest cruise missile.

Plane with no flight plan and not responding to calls approaches capital, is strike by 5 missiles and explodes.


In the US probably. In most of the countries in that area? I seriously doubt it.
 
2014-03-18 03:06:57 PM

dittybopper: nekom: dittybopper: ArkPanda: I don't buy the suicide theory.  If you are going to kill yourself (and a lot of other people) why would you spend 7 hours flying all over the place first?  Somebody wanted to get that plane to another destination.

Or the pilots on board were incapacitated and the plane kept flying on autopilot until it ran out of gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash

That's a quite plausible explanation.

Scenario:  At cruising altitude, ONOZ electrical fire!  Pilot, being quite experienced on that route, immediately plugs in a waypoint to divert to go back to KUL.  Crew and passengers overcome by smoke inhalation, plane continues to cruise on autopilot until fuel starvation.  It would be rare for a fire to destroy radios, ACARS and transponder yet not bring the aircraft down, but certainly not out of the question.

There is another green-lit thread about a plausible scenario:  An electrical fire that causes the pilots to start pulling breakers (which explains the shut down), followed by a loss of consciousness due to either smoke or decompression, and the plane flying on until fuel starvation.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8183924/Actual-pilot-has-theory-about-M H3 70-that-is-simple-logical-non-hysterical-consistent-with-what-an-actua l-experienced-pilot-would-do-in-event-of-fire-So-naturally-media-are-a ll-over-completely-ignoring-him-in-favor-of-wild-speculation


Does that explain all the course changes though?  I can see loss of oxygen/smoke problem and autopilot takes over, but then it seems like it should have flown on its original course right past Beijing and ended up somewhere in Siberia.  I really doubt an autopilot is going to decide to take a side trip to the Indian Ocean.
 
2014-03-18 03:49:45 PM

ArkPanda: Does that explain all the course changes though?  I can see loss of oxygen/smoke problem and autopilot takes over, but then it seems like it should have flown on its original course right past Beijing and ended up somewhere in Siberia.  I really doubt an autopilot is going to decide to take a side trip to the Indian Ocean.


The scenario is:  Pilots notice problem with fire, pull the breakers, and start heading towards the nearest airport that is large enough to handle a fully-loaded Boeing 777-200ER.  They input a heading into the autopilot, then subsequently are overcome.  Plane keeps on flying.
 
2014-03-18 04:10:12 PM

dittybopper: ArkPanda: Does that explain all the course changes though?  I can see loss of oxygen/smoke problem and autopilot takes over, but then it seems like it should have flown on its original course right past Beijing and ended up somewhere in Siberia.  I really doubt an autopilot is going to decide to take a side trip to the Indian Ocean.

The scenario is:  Pilots notice problem with fire, pull the breakers, and start heading towards the nearest airport that is large enough to handle a fully-loaded Boeing 777-200ER.  They input a heading into the autopilot, then subsequently are overcome.  Plane keeps on flying.


When on fire, you should land ASAP.  That was a lesson learned from Swissair 111.

Kota Bharu (KBR) would have been closest but has a short runway.  Not much further and could easily handle it would have probably been Kuala Terengganu (TGG).  They handle 747 ops there.  Cure little airport with enormous runway.
 
2014-03-18 05:24:47 PM

Private_Citizen: Ned Stark: Private_Citizen: Scary scenario:

Flown to a terrorist stronghold, emptied of passengers, filed with explosives and other nastiness, then flown into an unsuspecting capital like the world's biggest cruise missile.

Plane with no flight plan and not responding to calls approaches capital, is strike by 5 missiles and explodes.

In the US probably. In most of the countries in that area? I seriously doubt it.


Oh, now we're worried about what happens to THEM? Poor devils.
 
2014-03-18 06:29:57 PM

Ned Stark: Private_Citizen: Scary scenario:

Flown to a terrorist stronghold, emptied of passengers, filed with explosives and other nastiness, then flown into an unsuspecting capital like the world's biggest cruise missile.

Plane with no flight plan and not responding to calls approaches capital, is strike by 5 missiles and explodes.


Oh, the pilot will respond... the same one who flew the plane under radar. "Yeah, It's me. Don't shoot."

"... but somewhere at the most advantageous location, the pilot will detonate the nuke that is on board."

(Sorry P_C, I hadn't caught your post.)
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report