Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

I must admit the missing Malaysian Airliner has me intrigued...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 83 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Mar 2014 18:19:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Mar 2014 18:33:02 GMT
Spin says:
Technological geniuses who turned to hi-jacking?Alien abduction, perhaps? Or did it, as I believe, simply sink upon landing in the ocean?

Posted on 15 Mar 2014 18:34:01 GMT
Spin says:
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Posted on 15 Mar 2014 20:02:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Mar 2014 20:11:49 GMT
Spin says:
The reason the aircraft cannot be found is because it is thousands of metres under the sea...All this "X Factor" an "24" style governmental addresses and media speculation us worthy of a sci-fi film...=) To hell with any concern for the passengers; where did the aircraft go?

Posted on 15 Mar 2014 20:18:42 GMT
gille liath says:
But if, as they now think, it deviated widely from its original course, just crashing into the sea is not a sufficient explanation.

(Just though I'd save this being entirely a one-man thread ;) )

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2014 20:33:10 GMT
Spin says:
Gile; I'm just thinking out loud. I can see what the public think about the case on TV and the net. Everyone loves a mystery, especially if it takes everyone's mind off the real issues...=) The mystery of a missing plane is more newsworthy than the conflict in Ukraine...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2014 20:33:32 GMT
Anita says:
At first they thought the airplane turned back. That has been denied.

Thing is that an airplane is *not* visible to radars below a certain altitude (over 8 km, I think), and it could be yet flying for about 20 minutes, hence could get really far from the place where last heard (20 minutes at the speed of 800-900 km/h is really a lot). And - to find an airplane in the sea (and likewise in the montains) is a lot more difficult than many people may think.

Not sure why, but I get the feel that you are not particularly interested in the topic

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2014 20:34:33 GMT
gille liath says:
Gawd, anything to take our minds off that...

I think you're right, it's the mystery that makes this such big news. Still, as you say yourself, it is kind of intriguing.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2014 20:37:04 GMT
gille liath says:
Not especially. :)

Still, my understanding is, a) (as already said) it had gone a long way off course, b) it had had its communications deliberately disrupted, and gone on flying for several hours in that condition. So it does appear there's more to it than simply a crash.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2014 20:55:59 GMT
Anita says:
How do you know the communications were disrupted deliberately? To know that you should find the aircraft first...

How do you know it went on flying for hours?

I surely don't know all what there is to know about that, but airplanes do not fly around for hours undetected, even at low altitudes

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2014 21:02:26 GMT
gille liath says:
How do I know? Because it said so on the news. 'Satellite evidence' was mentioned. What makes you think you know better than them, without having any of the evidence at all?

Posted on 15 Mar 2014 21:04:49 GMT
Spin says:
The scary thing is not that a jumbo jet disappeared without trace, but that our so-called "technology" is not as accurate or reliable and detailed as its producers like to make out...Our satellite and GPS systems, while locating a tree in Mongolia, cannot locate a jumbo jet...

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2014 21:06:22 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Mar 2014 21:15:33 GMT
Anita says:
That's why I asked you how do you know. Because I didn't know how do you know. Now I do. Thank you

ETA: My source of information is same as yours, actually: news. Possibly, as reliable

Posted on 15 Mar 2014 22:51:44 GMT
Ghostgrey51 says:
Like millions of folk I have no credible explanation.
Experts seem as puzzled as ordinary folk.
Conspiracy and UFO Theorists won't be short of ideas though.

Posted on 16 Mar 2014 00:56:06 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 3 Jan 2015 12:00:16 GMT]

Posted on 16 Mar 2014 13:22:41 GMT
The Malaysian incident is peculiar. There is a film with Tom Hanks where he is a super-efficient delivery service operator whose own aircraft crashes in the Pacific and he is the sole survivor and gets to a desert island. It is a scary thought that although commercial enterprise gets a parcel anywhere in the world in record time, crash in the middle of the ocean and its possible you will never be found. Of course this was just a film, but it does seem to tie in with reality. We think technology can do anything but in reality we are little further forward than Robinson Crusoe.

Posted on 16 Mar 2014 13:35:36 GMT
Spin says:
The incident brings back memories of the tales concerning the "Bermuda Triangle" =)

Posted on 16 Mar 2014 23:02:35 GMT
Defenceman says:
It's certainly an intriguing one.

My best guess is that one of the passengers attempted a hijack, maybe by smuggling a gun on board and the flight crew were less than dilligent about cabin security. Hijacker gets into cockpit, threatens pilot plus co-pilot with the gun. Tells them to turn off the two systems including the transponder and instructs them not to enter the hijack code into their comms system. He then tells them to turn the plane, maybe back to Kuala Lumpur with the idea of carrying out a 9/11 style attack on the city (quite why I have no idea). Pilot or co-pilot obeys the instruction, but at some point one of them attempts to disarm the hijacker, who discharges the weapon. Bullet shatters the window, de-pressurises the plane, incapacitates the flight deck crew and the plane flies onwards in much the same way as the one in North America some years ago, which killed a well-known golfer. Plane simply flies out across the Indian Ocean, not necessarily on one of the standard flight corridors and ultimately runs out of fuel and crashes into the sea at the limit of its fuel capacity on board. It may even be that the passengers were able to use their oxygen masks and were blissfully unaware that the flight was no longer under anybody's control - at least for a while until maybe other cabin crew members started to get concerned. Not a very nice thought, but a possible one.

As far as I can see this explains everything we know so far about the flight, including why no land based radar picked it up in flight etc. One possible alternative is that the flight did go across land instead of the ocean, and none of the countries whose air space it crossed are admitting seeing it on their radar. This seems unlikely to me as satellites would pick the wreck up somewhere on land and the country concerned would then have some very difficult questions to answer.

Anybody got any better ideas?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2014 23:48:59 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 3 Jan 2015 12:00:17 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 04:36:04 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2014 04:36:33 GMT
David...

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 09:23:10 GMT
Defenceman says:
one over infinity,

'I have an idea... the pilot knocked out the co-pilot, and then crashed the plane because he was suicidal '

A possibility, but it doesn't explain why the transponders were turned off - why bother if it's suicide?
Doesn't explain the turn off course - why not drive it straight down from where you are?
Doesn't explain the radar pings several hours later suggesting the plane is still in the air - why would the pilot fly on across the Indian Ocean?

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 13:28:44 GMT
Spin says:
What baffles me is why, if the plane was hi-jacked or the pilot took it into his head to steal the plane, no other nation in the area picked up the flight on their radar. No matter where it went surely the plane would be picked up by a military or civilian air traffic control somewhere. And there is an amazing silence coming from these nations. The makers of the plane and its components are also noticeably silent. I think it crashed and sank, leaving no trace. and while everyone was busy looking for the plane itself they failed to spot any survivors who made it down the emergency chute...The mystery of its U-turn may be that the pilot, realising a fault in the systems, decided to return to base, as it was nearer than his destination.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 13:39:29 GMT
Dan Fante says:
If the plane turned back because of a fault then why didn't the crew communicate this to the people on the ground?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 13:43:18 GMT
Spin says:
Dan: because the comms systen failed. EG; If you were 50 miles away from your departure point and your comes failed, would you turn back or continue flying to your destination 200 miles away? You would turn back, obviously

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 13:46:54 GMT
Dan Fante says:
How would a failure in the communication systems cause it to crash then?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 14:00:17 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2014 14:02:11 GMT
Spin says:
Dan: I did not say a comms failure would cause a crash. I was explaining a possible scenario as to why it there was no communication and it turned back. Another fault could have caused a comms failure; a cause that affected the engines or controls. If there was serious engine problem, the last thing the pilot would worry about is the comms; he would turn back regardless...Some folk are saying that the U-turn is a mystery; I am simply pointing out that it is not. In the case of any system failure, or any emergency situation, the most logical action to take is to turn towards the nearest airport, even it if it means turning back. The U-turn does NOT necessarily mean the plane was hi-jacked.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Albums 6 28 minutes ago
CAMBER SANDS - Because it is near London and used by Londoners it will be provided with lifeguards and immediate rescue helicopter patrols. Expect Sky news ans the BBC to be camped there around the clock reporting on every 5 year old knee deep in water. 9 30 minutes ago
Fatto Trollo's enormous mother had one eye... 40 34 minutes ago
New TV licence rules...are they gunning for businesses? 19 35 minutes ago
Fatto Trollo's old mother crumbled... 22 1 hour ago
Labour refuse to comment on allegations that Jeremy Corbyn is a homosexual paedophile. 87 1 hour ago
Is Forgiven writing from a segregated prison? 9 1 hour ago
Leftout's mother was a HO 68 2 hours ago
Favorite film quotes. (you can tell a lot about a person by the quotes that impress him). 46 3 hours ago
Is painting your son's face black, to allow him to "look like" his sporting hero, "Racist'? 23 3 hours ago
Bin bag beachwear exonerated as baps go back undercover. 81 4 hours ago
Farage is in the US supporting Trump. Jiognson is now a very quiet and obedient slave to May. And Gove has disappeared... ... 31 6 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  83
Initial post:  15 Mar 2014
Latest post:  1 Apr 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions