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.
Not sure what you are talking about with this statement? We track Russian subs all the time. They technology to do so has existed for years and allot of it isn't even secret.....What do you think a P3 and now the P8 do? Those bad boys find submarines track and kill them if they have to. They are not designed as a surface search platform they are sub hunters! If Aviation assets are finding the missing plane they are using pretty standard location technology to do to. IF they do get a ping it's because they have sonobouys in the water and are flying search pattern. Pretty sure crashed aircraft will not leave enough of a signature to use the MAD gear. (not even sure a whole 777 will hit on MAD) The latest greatest surface search radar is the ISAR and that might help find debris on the surface if it large enough....
There is a difference between sending out a P3 and P8 and having real time tracking of nuclear submarine locations.
I think you missed the point which was "if" the capability exists to track submarines without sending an aircraft which must try to cover thousands if not tens of thousands of square miles along with the time to accomplish the task, no country would be willing to admit to that capability.
I was not talking about what everyone else knows, I was referring to a scenario involving a hypothetical. I don't believe that our entire capability to track something under water is on display, do you?
Sorry to disagree but you nor I know what the latest and greatest of anything is when it comes to intelligence gathering or the ultimate military capabilities. The information on the latest and greatest isn't being discussed on Internet forums, not even here.
I copied this wrong and couldn't fix it but this sounds like what could have happened to mh370.
I hope this link works better than my copy and paste, lol
If you don't want to read the whole thing, scroll down to where they talk about the test flight! It is very familiar to what some believe may have happened.
Crash investigations aren't that simple. They're not one-line reports that say "The pilot did it." Usually, they're hundreds of pages long done in a very precise, scientific manner. The investigations are empirically reviewed by everyone - the owner/operators, the FAA, NASA, and many other international parties of interest... And then they're published online for the entire world to see.
As I said many, many pages ago, crashes are rarely the result of a big pilot "whoopsie" - that's why there's two of them in the cockpit. You're not going to hear on the CVR "I have no idea where the hell we are... China should be coming up any minute... Did you bring the map??"
Usually, there is an abnormal event - a windshear, a mechanical problem, turbulence, etc... That causes the pilot to react. Sometimes those reactions can exasperate the problem (see AA Flight 587) and then create a cascade of further problems (see Air France Flight 447).
In any case, when that happens, there is a certain amount of blame attributed to the pilot. But, ordinarily, even the pilot's actions can be broken down into more explainable chunks. What did the airline teach as the proper response to such an event? Was there sufficient redundancy for this system or that system? Was there a clean toxicology screen on the pilots and co-pilots? Did they have enough sleep? What did they eat before the flight? All of that gets examined.
When the final report comes out, you generally see a very accurate, very precise explanation of the most likely causes. There is often very little in the form of playing the blame game although, tucked away somewhere on the NTSB website, they may have a listing of "pilot error" crashes or "mechanical fault" crashes or something like that. That may be just to categorize things but crashes, as I've said numerous times, are never the result of a big whopping error all assigned to one lone idiot. They are the culmination of numerous things, often the simplest and dumbest things, that no one ever imagines could happen. Hindsight is almost always 20/20 with these sorts of things.
An intentional crash, such as pilot suicide or a hijacking, will of course be a little different but even that would be thoroughly investigated. And, when there's no answer, they'll simply say they don't have an answer.
Not to derail this long and good thread....but it is hard to have confidence in most things we hear when flight 800 was clearly a missile hit but no one will even discuss that in the NTSB FAA or FBI...save the original investigators who have argued for the matter to be reopened. So much about this flight is hidden from us as well. To bad really. Truth is easier to take actually than all the f'n bs.....
Originally Posted by in_newengland
That part about landing it and painting it, then using it for another purpose was one of the prevailing theories by pilot friends of my husband who work in that part of the world. It would almost seem that a lot of them are expecting something like this, just waiting for it to happen. They seem to think that there are a lot of people behind the scenes with a lot of connections, like a network, that could make this happen. These would be people who work for airlines, work at airports and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
You have to make that theory fit with the data. So, how does it? Particularly the final handshake received by Inmarsat at about 8 hours into the flight, that put the plane's location over the southern Indian Ocean.
If you read the rest of the post, I'm talking about something that MIGHT happen someday in the future. No need to fit it to any data.
To further clarify, I agree with the theory that it was a malfunction on the plane.
You realize that if the signal hasn't already stopped, the batteries will be dead soon, right? After that it will be back to looking for a needle in a haystack.
That part about landing it and painting it, then using it for another purpose was one of the prevailing theories by pilot friends of my husband who work in that part of the world. It would almost seem that a lot of them are expecting something like this, just waiting for it to happen. They seem to think that there are a lot of people behind the scenes with a lot of connections, like a network, that could make this happen. These would be people who work for airlines, work at airports and so on.
"
I lean more towards something like this. I just do not think that plane is in the ocean. Of course, I have been reminded (haha) that I'm highly uneducated on the topic of planes crashing into the ocean. Years (many years) ago I worked for a major airline; our conversations during layovers were frequently spiced with the "what ifs" of a plane takeover. I have no scientific knowledge to back my belief that the plane is somewhere OTHER than in water. But I also believe there are minds out there that are way ahead of our scientific "experts". I think it is entirely possible that your husband's pals are correct. Hopefully this weekend will prove otherwise, & they will find evidence in the sea. But I doubt it.
No matter how bad we try to say a catastrophic event happened to the plane, there is way too much redundancy on these aircraft where the piolt would not attempt to make contact with ATC and atleast say may day. Every thing about this points to the pilot or someone with bad intention that took control of the plane, but how many crooks know how to fly a 777 and escape radar at the same time.
Good point. But the crook/s wouldn't have to know how to fly a 777. He/they would only have to manage to get the pilot under his/their control, with some kind of threat. And I suppose it's still possible that if there were a fire, the communications system/s could have been shorted out.
OH! And speaking of the communications system, did anyone see the article that came out about 10 days ago, about how Vietnam radio'd another plane in the area to contact MH370 AFTER they didn't respond to Vietnam, and this other plane was able to contact the pilot? After the pilot responded, the other plane asked a further question, but there was no response. So he reported back to Viet air traffic control (or whoever made the request) that he made contact initially, then lost it.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 04-11-2014 at 03:14 PM..
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.