Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reports of the plane flying low were from villagers in Malaysia and fishermen off the west coast of Malaysia, as well as from the Maldives. The plane flew right over the fishermen.
It would take some reading, some checking on a map, and putting other evidence together but there might be some sense to what the eyewitnesses saw, especially in light of what we know now. The last report discounts the sighting because it was more than 24 hours after the flight was lost--but now we've been told that it could have been flying for much longer than what they originally thought.
Sort of what many of us have been saying from the start. Eyewitnesses said they saw fire, smoke. It would explain the turning back.
#1 also corresponds with my husband's pilot friends in that part of the world who thought it might have been an electrical fire in the cockpit. That theory is being taken seriously enough that at least one airline over there is making changes.
But what about the transponder and the ACARs being turned off at separate times? Or has that story been changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
It would take some reading, some checking on a map, and putting other evidence together but there might be some sense to what the eyewitnesses saw, especially in light of what we know now. The last report discounts the sighting because it was more than 24 hours after the flight was lost--but now we've been told that it could have been flying for much longer than what they originally thought.
What do we know now? That it could have been flying longer? I pretty much don't believe anything 'new' they are saying anymore. They'll just come out in a day or so and refute it or deny it.
I still comeback to that first radar track published which was the one that showed the turn to the southwest and a track between Penang to the south and Langkawi to the north. This is what led me to theorize in the beginning they were heading to Langkawi.
No actual heading was listed on the radar track graphic that was published but it looked like 245. The high level charts show Igari > Butterworth at about 242 I believe.
If the aircraft did not execute the purported series of turns Vampi >Igrex>P268 out west but this was a track of another plane - I just don't have high confidence in Malaysian data about anything and they may be trying to fit the human intervention scenario into the equation for their own ends - then we have to assume last known track was actually SW.
So if we extend that line across Indonesia and out over the Indian Ocean and apply wind correction factors (and I won't say Coriolis again for fear of Phil) but that takes the plane towards the Maldives and actually over the area +mike blades has been so adamant about in these postings.
The only real known facts:
Plane went silent 1:21
Mike McKay's sighting ("time fits")
Malaysian military radar first report showing turn back to mainland direction SW
200 kg of li-ion on board
Unconfirmed:
Sighting in Maldives
Something looking like a fire suppression bottle washed up
As I said in my first post you will find the plane along this track either where it ceased flying because of damage to systems or at the point of fuel exhaustion.
We simply do not know where except to say the aircraft is probably within this large triangle SW to Maldives and south to say a couple of thousand miles west of Perth. That's my guess. The Immarsat data may be challenged on the position of the arcs because of timing variables but I think it probably is safe to say it confirms SW and not NW.
So for me too it boils down to two scenarios. A crew overwhelmed and overcome and a ghost plane, or an intentional act to destroy the aircraft by a pilot or someone else for some reason. There is no current proof for the latter whatsoever. None. The fact no distress call was made and all communications were normal makes it hard for me to believe there was a takeover by hijackers. All that had to be done is key the mike and yell something by either pilot. If it was a more sinister action by either pilot to commit suicide, I'm sorry I cannot wrap my head around that .
I further cannot wrap my head around the "stolen to Diego Garcia and put in a Farraday cage hangar"...when you start believing these scenarios it goes too far for me. No Phil I am certainly not paranoid. Only paranoid people go for these very long stretches of the imagination as far as I'm concerned.
So I'm still left with the good guys struggling with an overwhelming situation until proven otherwise. I refuse to go down the dark path of Phil or Feith or anyone else blaming the pilots with no concrete evidence.
This was a bungled search from the beginning as the SW should have been explored on day 1 IMHO.
That so many experts cannot come up with one concrete bit of evidence to feed us after three weeks is hard to believe but lots of planes have simply disappeared. This may go down as one of these.
I know I am not alone in wanting a clear cut answer and I may never get one, but what I come away after this extraordinary experience on Google+ is a deep appreciation for all the great people I've exchanged with both in these public posts and privately by email - a lot of newfound friends whom I hope perhaps to meet in person one day.
What does this planes safety record look like? Were the battery issues on this plane or the 787?
Excellent safety record. I would have to check to be sure but I think the only problem was one time--something with the right wing.
Is anyone certain that the transponder had to be deliberately turned off as the Malaysians say? Is there any other way it could have stopped working? Is there any redeeming reason to turn it off deliberately?
It would take some reading, some checking on a map, and putting other evidence together but there might be some sense to what the eyewitnesses saw, especially in light of what we know now. The last report discounts the sighting because it was more than 24 hours after the flight was lost--but now we've been told that it could have been flying for much longer than what they originally thought.
Excellent safety record. I would have to check to be sure but I think the only problem was one time--something with the right wing.
Is anyone certain that the transponder had to be deliberately turned off as the Malaysians say? Is there any other way it could have stopped working? Is there any redeeming reason to turn it off deliberately?
The transponder can be turned off with the turn of a knob. There are many reasons to turn it off, but not many reasons in which it would be turned off in-flight.
The 777 had an issue with a Rolls Royce fuel-oil heat exchanger a few years back that resulted in a crash landing after flying in extremely cold temperatures for a long duration of time. It wasn't a Boeing issue, but a design flaw in the engine. There were injuries, but no fatalities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
