Missing Malaysian Airlines MH-370 - Thread 6

[member]

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

Thread 4

Thread 5

Don't you think its a shitty thing do say after the prime minister said a few days ago that their was no chance of suvivours?

i'm doing a bit of reading about the malaysian prime minister - he's actually been quite vocally critical of the balance of world power it seems and of the campaigns against iraq amongst other things. not a popular person to the big guns i shouldn't think.

To me it seems a ridiculous statement after what the PM said during the week. His statement implied there was no hope & now this. If the transport ministers statement had been last week & the PM's this week that'd have been logical, but this?!

I'm no big fan of Malaysian governance, but I feel sorry for them in this situation. They're having to channel information - and quite possibly misinformation - from a raft of international sources, many of which have their own agendas to pursue and rivalries amongst them. Having quickly revealed all their own data, they're saddled with the huge cost of upgrading their defence systems once this is over. I'd guess their insurance is refusing to pay out with no concrete claim, meaning they face the possibility of having to fund vast law suits.

'Shooting the messenger' is highly understandable, but I think that's what's going on here.

This gets weirder and weirder (I was on the last thread but have a shiny new name)

I don't think it was the most sensible thing to say but it was a very human thing to say. I don't think there are any survivors but I am hoping against hope there might be too.

From Wall Street Journal, 20th March:

March 8th
Within hours of Flight 370's disappearance on March 8, Inmarsat started searching for clues. What little data it had on the short flight before it disappeared was provided to SITA, a Swiss aviation IT company, on the same day, Inmarsat said.

March 9th
Late that weekend, Inmarsat's team delved into its databases to retrieve periodic "pings," akin to digital handshakes between the plane, a satellite and a ground station.

March 10th
Inmarsat Senior Vice President Chris McLaughlin said that on Monday, March 10, it began extrapolating the location of the jetliner using the aircraft's changing angle and distance to the satellite.

March 11th
Mr. McLaughlin said the data was shared the following day (11th) with SITA, which in turn shared it with Malaysian officials.

March 12th
The information was relayed to Malaysian officials by Wednesday, March 12. (March 13th Malaysian time.)
Concerned the data weren't being acted upon quickly enough to help overhaul the search, Inmarsat turned on Wednesday 12th to U.K. security authorities to more quickly disseminate the data.
Malaysia Airlines, in turn, instructed SITA to use the U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch as the primary conduit for Inmarsat's data.

March 13th
... ... ...

March 14th
Inmarsat issued the following statement: "Routine, automated signals were registered on the Inmarsat network from Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 during its flight from Kuala Lumpur. This information was provided to our partner SITA, which in turn has shared it with Malaysia Airlines. For further information, please contact Malaysia Airlines."

March 15th
Malaysia's government, concerned about corroborating the data and dealing with internal disagreements about how much information to release, didn't publicly acknowledge Inmarsat's information until March 15.

Comments

It wasn't clear how U.S. officials obtained the initial Inmarsat data, which they analyzed and helped translate into maps. Regardless, people briefed on the probe agree it took longer than expected for the information to spread from engineers and technical experts to policy makers and then back down to officials directing specific elements of the searches.

The disclosures about how the information made its way into the investigation underline how international efforts to find the plane have been repeatedly marred by distrust among the countries involved, confusion in many of Malaysia's public statements, and criticism from many countries that has led some to suspend or change their search efforts in frustration.

..................................................

I don't see this as Malaysia impeding useful implementation of the data.
It seems something happened from when Inmarsat asked UK security to help out on the 12th, which seemingly resulted in American agencies doing further analysis on it with the Brits. Those results were not ready to be made public until the 15th. It's a mess, sure, but resulting from so many agencies being involved rather than Malaysian skullduggery.

I don't think it was the most sensible thing to say but it was a very human thing to say

YY, Doctrine.

I don't think there are any survivors but I am hoping against hope there might be too.

Well, do you believe it crashed into the middle of the Indian Ocean or not? If you do, there is no hope, none at all, of survivors. If you think it's possible something else happened to it, then there is hope.

I think the difficulty comes as it has been set in stone that it crashed into a completely hostile ocean. This comment makes it seem as if other options are possibly. And since he is in a position of knowing information, it looks like he is in some reasonable doubt.

I think that saying that you hope against hope that someone is alive is a very human thing to say too. There are a lot of posters on this thread who are making wise and informed contributions but there is also hysteria and ignorance of facts. Yesterday someone accused the US governement of hindering the SAR effort with no actual proof whatsoever and today we are all apparently 'being led on a wild goose chase'. I wasn't aware that any of the contributors to this thread were physically involved in the SAR effort, but there you go. The search area is the size of Poland, it would be a miracle and as suspicious as hell if this had all been wrapped up in a matter of days.

I have been reluctant to mention it before, but someone close to me designed a component that was fitted on the aircraft. They obviously would prefer foul play as the thought that a failure of this part, or indeed any other, is awful to comtemplate. They are refraining from wild speculation and they know an awful lot more about the aircraft, airframe, call what you will, than I suspect many of the people posting here. I personally think the Aussies are doing a great job in horrendous conditions. No one has ever said that what the satellites spotted came from the plane, just that it was possible.

Oh, another post implying nobody should discuss issues unless they have inside knowledge, miley? If I had rock-solid expert insight, I doubt I'd be speculating on here as I'd be speculating expertly with one of the investigation teams. I haven't - I'm discussing the matter on, you know, a discussion board.

Yes I believe that it crashed into the Indian Ocean. Yes I believe there are no survivors.

I can construct a fantasy scenario where someone clinging to the wreckage got picked up by a pirate ship and so hasn't come to light yet - but I don't believe it. That, to me, is what hoping against hope would mean.

"And since he is in a position of knowing information, it looks like he is in some reasonable doubt"

I disagree that "hoping against hope" and "some reasonable doubt" mean the same - cf my example above.

I am not implying that at all Garlic, and I am not singling you out as you were not one of the people that I meant. Perhaps what I should have said was that some people need to calm the fuck down? Would that have been preferable? I was just pointing out that someone I know, who has every reason not to want it to be a failure isn't conjuring up wild conspiracy theories, despite having a good reason to.

You may not like what wannaBe said about some people using this tragedy as entertainment but a quick glance down some of these posts makes it clear she was bang-on.

Ah, well, Miley, it's one of the things that makes Mumsnet so special ... no opinion unspoken

I disagree that "hoping against hope" and "some reasonable doubt" mean the same

YY Doctrine it was a human thing to say. I didn't express myself so well.

Indeed it is! Apart from this person and one other who is doing pilot training at CTC, I have no connection with aviaton at all so I have no specialist knowledge whatsoever. I have worked with people at Inmarsat on unrelated projects and they were nice, honorable people so I get a bit arsey when their intentions are questioned. Lets hope this ship finds something, although it looks like tomorrow may be more likely according to some reports.

I disagree that "hoping against hope" and "some reasonable doubt" mean the same - cf my example above.

I think in your position of course they are not the same thing. You are not the person in charge of the SAR operation. I think in his position, with his knowledge, they are the same thing.

I think it is ok for him to feel that but to announce it a few days after the families have been told no survivors is insensitive and unnecessary.

Did he announce it as such or simply express human emotion - empathy with the relatives. That's how I see it.

'but someone close to me designed a component that was fitted on the aircraft. They obviously would prefer foul play as the thought that a failure of this part, or indeed any other, is awful to comtemplate'

foul play has got nothing to do with failure of a part.
Of course people are speculating, and whether you worked at Inmarsat and know pilots or not, you have no more knowledge of what happened than anyone else.

Claig, she was saying that foul play would at least mean her friend's creation wasn't the cause of so many deaths.

I know foul play has nothing to do with the failure of a part, that is not what I said at all. I also said I have no more knowledge than anyone else. I am however entitled to my opinion, just like you. There is speculating and then there is posting hysterical nonsense with zero to back it up. Realistically, why should we be told anything at the moment? Its not about us.

'Realistically, why should we be told anything at the moment? Its not about us.'

Because the whole word is watching and the Malaysian officials give public press conferences. Everyone is watching and everyone wants answers.

' There is speculating and then there is posting hysterical nonsense with zero to back it up.'

But relatives have been saying that information has been given without enough to back it up and many of them feel they are not being told the truth. Everyone is questioning what is being said.

'Claig, she was saying that foul play would at least mean her friend's creation wasn't the cause of so many deaths.'

Yes, but whether her friend is refraining from speculation about foul play or not, has nothing to do with whether relatives and other people are speculating about it.

I get the impression that mileysorearse believes there has been no foul play and that other people should stop questioning whether there has been. There are relatives speculating about it too. Should they not speculate?