Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 - Thread 5

975 replies

KenAdams · 21/03/2014 01:20

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

Thread 4

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
slartybartfast · 22/03/2014 12:03

did i read on one of these threads that there have been more planes going missing in the last 10 years?

slartybartfast · 22/03/2014 12:03

or did i misread it

member · 22/03/2014 12:33

Saga dh said exactly the same to me when he saw me looking at an aviation map with waypoints that Kale Crochet (where is she?) posted!

YNK · 22/03/2014 13:28

Given the anecdotal reports that the south Indian Ocean is awash with debris, i am surprised there have been so few 'sightings' of objects to investigate!

AchyFox · 22/03/2014 13:56

If the Chinese image is the same debris as the Australian image then the good thing is that they can get a fair estimate of the drift rate from the difference in location.

Would hope they'll be able to locate it in the next 24-48 hours.

BoiledPiss · 22/03/2014 14:26

YNK I thought the same thing, also have there been any reports of the original debris sighting or have they not actually found it yet, beyond the satellite image?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 22/03/2014 14:54

"YNK I thought the same thing, also have there been any reports of the original debris sighting or have they not actually found it yet, beyond the satellite image?"

No, they haven't.

FurdyCone · 22/03/2014 16:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bishbashboosh · 22/03/2014 16:37

I'm surprised too that this is the only large object they've spotted in such. Vast ocean! U less they know more...

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 22/03/2014 16:42

Bish, there may be other objects that they can discount for other reasons - wrong kind of reflectivity, clearly something else etc.

AchyFox · 22/03/2014 16:43

I think there's a good chance the Chinese and Australian images are of the same debris, but it seems a bit too large to have come from a 777.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 22/03/2014 16:46

Aren't the dimensions different? Doesn't mean they aren't from the same item but I don't think it's two pictures of the same part.

Umlauf · 22/03/2014 16:49

Apologies if this is a daft question, but have the locations of the other satellite pings been made public? Between the last radar contact and the satellite ping on the arc? Or was there only one ping (the satellite one which led to the corridors)?

Because if there were other pings, surely it would be possible to have a better idea of the planes direction, in particular whether it went north or south, based on the patter of the arcs created by previous pings...

Sorry for garbled post, my head hurts!

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 22/03/2014 17:02

They haven't been released. Yes, they would probably help with finding the probable course.

GoldieMumbles · 22/03/2014 17:11

" but it seems a bit too large to have come from a 777."

Not really - it's not too far different form the size of the fin (remember all those picture of the first bit of AF447 they found...) and it's similar in size to the section of wing from the tip to just about where the engines are.

GarlicMarchHare · 22/03/2014 17:19

I wonder if she did, Furdy. The objections to her story are a bit daft - if I can see a cruising jet, on a clear day and with my lenses in, then of course a passenger in that jet could see one on the ground/sea. I'm a bit dubious about being able to make out the tailfin, but it becomes much more likely if the other plane was flying below her level.

I suppose one would need to know how reliable she is as a witness, and what exactly she saw. My ex had 'hypervision' and could see a ridiculous amount of distant detail, but that must be fairly uncommon. A very tired person might possibly mistake the shadow of their own plane for another one; I dunno.

AchyFox · 22/03/2014 17:21

Guy who was on the AF447 search has just been on R4 PM with his analysis of the 2 sat images:

Says object travelled 68nm in 38 hours @ 1.7knots.

He clearly thinks it's the same object and that the search team will be extrapolating and searching the downcurrent position soon.

AchyFox · 22/03/2014 17:29

Goldie

The tailfin is what I thought, and tried to match 1st... but can't get it to.

Tailfin extremities taper to 2m at tips, (and you'd need the whole tailfin to get 20m) a great deal less than 13m or so.

Similar problem with tapering with the wing too.

Don't know whether specular reflections could account for the image being larger than the object though.

trixymalixy · 22/03/2014 18:50

"The pilots carried out a complex & carefully planned, homicidal suicide" looks like a bigger assumption than hijacking by a government to me.

Are you actually serious?!?! It's not really complex to switch off the transponder etc and fly off. It's massively massively complex to assume first of all the reasons why the hell a government would hijack a plane with hundreds of passengers and secondly how the hell they would do it? I don't think you get Occam's razor.

GoldieMumbles · 22/03/2014 19:05

"Tailfin extremities taper to 2m at tips, (and you'd need the whole tailfin to get 20m)"

True. What is it at ths base, though? It still won't be 13m. A large section of the wing might be that big.

GarlicMarchHare · 22/03/2014 19:06

I'm not using this thread as a gamble, trixy. I don't need to be right. I've got an open mind and am interested in exploring all the possibilities.

GarlicMarchHare · 22/03/2014 19:08

... Anyway, if I am right, we won't find out for 30 years. And we won't be on this thread Grin

GoldieMumbles · 22/03/2014 19:19

" "The pilots carried out a complex & carefully planned, homicidal suicide" looks like a bigger assumption than hijacking by a government to me. "

On the rather bold assumption that the technology exists to simply take over a 300-something seat passenger jet at will, I'm still rather lacking the motive? That they'd kill this many people from a friendly nation just to test the technology? Don't you think that they'd have done that with unmanned airliner a few times first (technology to remote control passenger jets does exist but you need to install a lot of equipment in the jet you want to fly by remore first). It all seems way too farfetched and way too conspiratorial without any real motive other than 'just because you can'. Were there any USAF E-3 Sentries operating in the area that night?

Whereas the homicidal suicide of a suicidal pilot on a passenger jet has happened at least 3 times to my knowledge.

Of the two choices, the one that has already occurred multiple times and doesn't rely on, frankly, motiveless, ficticious hacking technology would be the one I'd go for, so Occam's Razor would dictate that the suicide theory is the simplest, cheapest, least technically complex and most likely to succeed option.

totallyuseless · 22/03/2014 19:42

I dont think its suicide. I think the pilot will turn out the hero.

Re the pings......is there a possibility Inmarsat have got it wrong? The whole investigation is centered around their interpretation of pings in a massive area.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 22/03/2014 20:03

"is there a possibility Inmarsat have got it wrong?"

I'm sure it will have been checked and triple checked before an expensive search was undertaken!

Swipe left for the next trending thread