Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Worst thread of 2014? I'm including that Eminence thing.
Well, now that you're here.Worst thread of 2014? I'm including that Eminence thing.
I'm hopeful.Worst thread of 2014? I'm including that Eminence thing.
First version was way worseWorst thread of 2014? I'm including that Eminence thing.
But it's also true that you should always get on a plane carrying a bomb. Because the chances of having one passenger on a plane with a bomb are 1 in 500,000. But the chances of there being 2 passengers with bombs are 1 in 250,000,000,000.It is probably rare to be on a plane with two passengers using stolen passports. At least you would hope that is rare.Where is the Debris?Nothing can be ruled out but I think an Egyptian air scenario is more likely. Suicide pilot into the drink.That's far less likely than a terrorist bomb simultaneously set off by two people from different countries who were both using stolen passports.I'm calling faulty altimeter as the cause. Lack of debris leads me to believe it flew straight into the ocean like a dart and vanished as the plane failed to recognize the curve of the earth
Far more instances of mechanical failure or pilot error in history than terrorism. I"m guessing thousands of passports are stolen annually.
WTF?But it's also true that you should always get on a plane carrying a bomb. Because the chances of having one passenger on a plane with a bomb are 1 in 500,000. But the chances of there being 2 passengers with bombs are 1 in 250,000,000,000.It is probably rare to be on a plane with two passengers using stolen passports. At least you would hope that is rare.Where is the Debris?Nothing can be ruled out but I think an Egyptian air scenario is more likely. Suicide pilot into the drink.That's far less likely than a terrorist bomb simultaneously set off by two people from different countries who were both using stolen passports.I'm calling faulty altimeter as the cause. Lack of debris leads me to believe it flew straight into the ocean like a dart and vanished as the plane failed to recognize the curve of the earth
Far more instances of mechanical failure or pilot error in history than terrorism. I"m guessing thousands of passports are stolen annually.
pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
I doubt bombs were involved. Probable hijacked the plane and crashed it.But it's also true that you should always get on a plane carrying a bomb. Because the chances of having one passenger on a plane with a bomb are 1 in 500,000. But the chances of there being 2 passengers with bombs are 1 in 250,000,000,000.It is probably rare to be on a plane with two passengers using stolen passports. At least you would hope that is rare.Where is the Debris?Nothing can be ruled out but I think an Egyptian air scenario is more likely. Suicide pilot into the drink.That's far less likely than a terrorist bomb simultaneously set off by two people from different countries who were both using stolen passports.I'm calling faulty altimeter as the cause. Lack of debris leads me to believe it flew straight into the ocean like a dart and vanished as the plane failed to recognize the curve of the earth
Far more instances of mechanical failure or pilot error in history than terrorism. I"m guessing thousands of passports are stolen annually.
possible and logical are not the same thing.MAC claimed the ONLY possibility was a bomb. That's a pretty strong stance to take. He kept at it even though there were many possible scenarios, one of which was his assertion of a bomb. Even if he turns out to be correct, his original stance was ridiculous.
I pretty sure nothing is going to top the tied eating thread. That was probably the worst thread Idea ever.Worst thread of 2014? I'm including that Eminence thing.
It was at cruising altitude, over three hours from departure. Ran into big thunderstorm, though.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
I'm fairly certain it was at cruising altitude.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
this is where I erred in my few beer deep stage last night, terrorist...probably...almost certainly IMHO. Few different possible methods though.I doubt bombs were involved. Probable hijacked the plane and crashed it.But it's also true that you should always get on a plane carrying a bomb. Because the chances of having one passenger on a plane with a bomb are 1 in 500,000. But the chances of there being 2 passengers with bombs are 1 in 250,000,000,000.It is probably rare to be on a plane with two passengers using stolen passports. At least you would hope that is rare.Where is the Debris?Nothing can be ruled out but I think an Egyptian air scenario is more likely. Suicide pilot into the drink.That's far less likely than a terrorist bomb simultaneously set off by two people from different countries who were both using stolen passports.I'm calling faulty altimeter as the cause. Lack of debris leads me to believe it flew straight into the ocean like a dart and vanished as the plane failed to recognize the curve of the earth
Far more instances of mechanical failure or pilot error in history than terrorism. I"m guessing thousands of passports are stolen annually.
must be confusing it with other airline disasters then, I read about them a lot, thought that one was an ascending issue too. Accidents once at cruising altitude are very rare.No storm here though.It was at cruising altitude, over three hours from departure. Ran into big thunderstorm, though.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
Actually, the accident never happens at cruising altitude. It's when it hits the ground (or water) that it's in trouble.must be confusing it with other airline disasters then, I read about them a lot, thought that one was an ascending issue too. Accidents once at cruising altitude are very rare.No storm here though.It was at cruising altitude, over three hours from departure. Ran into big thunderstorm, though.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
My second WTF at you today?Actually, the accident never happens at cruising altitude. It's when it hits the ground (or water) that it's in trouble.must be confusing it with other airline disasters then, I read about them a lot, thought that one was an ascending issue too. Accidents once at cruising altitude are very rare.No storm here though.It was at cruising altitude, over three hours from departure. Ran into big thunderstorm, though.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
he is just trying to get a rise from you. And me. It's sad. Best to let it go.My second WTF at you today?Actually, the accident never happens at cruising altitude. It's when it hits the ground (or water) that it's in trouble.must be confusing it with other airline disasters then, I read about them a lot, thought that one was an ascending issue too. Accidents once at cruising altitude are very rare.No storm here though.It was at cruising altitude, over three hours from departure. Ran into big thunderstorm, though.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
It may not be uncommon for one person to get on the flight with a stolen passport to smuggle drugs. Two smugglers is more rare. Also, it depends if the two people are traveling together.7 passengers on the plane bought tickets through codeshare from China Southern Airlines, including one Chinese, two Ukrainians, one Italian ("Luigi"), one Austrian("Christian"), one Dutch person and one Malaysian.I bet stolen passports are more common than we might expect, especially in Asia.
You ever travel to South East Asia? Lots of people, lots of flights, lots of bags and even more thefts. I'm kind of surprised that the number is only two. I'd bet those two people had multiple passports that they had stolen.It may not be uncommon for one person to get on the flight with a stolen passport to smuggle drugs. Two smugglers is more rare. Also, it depends if the two people are traveling together.I bet stolen passports are more common than we might expect, especially in Asia.
Most logical answer.Alien probe was visualed by plane, had no choice but to take out plane which is likely accelerating attack plans by Lord Moobu.
Storm had little affect on that plane, with one exception:It was at cruising altitude, over three hours from departure. Ran into big thunderstorm, though.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
We now understand that, indeed, AF447 passed into clouds associated with a large system of thunderstorms, its speed sensors became iced over, and the autopilot disengaged. In the ensuing confusion, the pilots lost control of the airplane because they reacted incorrectly to the loss of instrumentation and then seemed unable to comprehend the nature of the problems they had caused. Neither weather nor malfunction doomed AF447, nor a complex chain of error, but a simple but persistent mistake on the part of one of the pilots.
That, and the fact that the chief pilot was taking a leak.Storm had little affect on that plane, with one exception:It was at cruising altitude, over three hours from departure. Ran into big thunderstorm, though.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
We now understand that, indeed, AF447 passed into clouds associated with a large system of thunderstorms, its speed sensors became iced over, and the autopilot disengaged. In the ensuing confusion, the pilots lost control of the airplane because they reacted incorrectly to the loss of instrumentation and then seemed unable to comprehend the nature of the problems they had caused. Neither weather nor malfunction doomed AF447, nor a complex chain of error, but a simple but persistent mistake on the part of one of the pilots.
you do what?I follow some airline & airplane blogs and one of them said that this airplane was involved in a ground collision in 2012. While certainly speculative, it said that there have been some fatal accidents with airplanes that had undergone major structural repairs.
He was sleeping. One of the major reasons for that crashThat, and the fact that the chief pilot was taking a leak.Storm had little affect on that plane, with one exception:It was at cruising altitude, over three hours from departure. Ran into big thunderstorm, though.pretty sure that flight was still ascending though, big difference vs cruising altitude.Air France 447 didn't send any distress signals either.
We now understand that, indeed, AF447 passed into clouds associated with a large system of thunderstorms, its speed sensors became iced over, and the autopilot disengaged. In the ensuing confusion, the pilots lost control of the airplane because they reacted incorrectly to the loss of instrumentation and then seemed unable to comprehend the nature of the problems they had caused. Neither weather nor malfunction doomed AF447, nor a complex chain of error, but a simple but persistent mistake on the part of one of the pilots.
Didn't you know? He's the Worlds Most Interesting Man.wtfI follow some airline & airplane blogs
Thanks for the sig.wtfI follow some airline & airplane blogs
Was totally thinking the same thing. Good stuff there.Thanks for the sig.wtfI follow some airline & airplane blogs
The flight departed Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 00:41, 8 March Malaysia time (16:41, 7 March UTC) and was last seen on ATC radar at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E (approximately 180 km/100 mi NNE of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia). The aircraft ceased all communications and the transponder signal was lost right before it was passed off to the Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center.
The Aviation Herald reported that Subang Air Traffic Control lost radar and radio contact with the aircraft at 01:22 and officially advised Malaysia Airlines at 02:40 that the aircraft was missing. However, a Malaysia Airlines spokesperson said that the last conversation between the flight crew and air traffic control in Malaysia had been around 01:30, and stated that the plane had not disappeared from air traffic control systems in Subang until 02:40, which is long enough for the plane to have been flying across Vietnam.
Malaysia Airlines issued a media release stating that contact was lost at 02:40 when the aircraft was approximately 120 nautical miles (220 km) east of Kota Bharu at the South China Sea, which is the border of Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace. The plane relayed no distress signal, indications of bad weather or technical problems before vanishing from radar screens. The flight was scheduled to land at Beijing Capital International Airport at 06:30. When radar contact with the aircraft was lost, it was carrying enough fuel for an additional 7.5 hours of flying time. Relevant authorities in China and Thailand informed their Malaysian counterparts that the aircraft had not entered their airspace.
According to Admiral Ngo Van Phat of the Vietnam People's Navy, military radar lost the plane "some 153 nautical miles (300 km)" south of Thổ Chu in the Gulf of Thailand. The Vietnamese government initially reported that the aircraft had crashed at sea in the Gulf of Thailand, although the airline denied this claim, and the claim about the known location of the aircraft by the Vietnamese Navy was rejected by Malaysian Minister of Transport, Hishammuddin Hussein. The Vietnamese Navy later clarified that the admiral had actually been referring to the location where contact was last made, rather than indicating a crash site.
Are you having difficulty with the big words?El Floppo said:you do what?Christo said:I follow some airline & airplane blogs and one of them said that this airplane was involved in a ground collision in 2012. While certainly speculative, it said that there have been some fatal accidents with airplanes that had undergone major structural repairs.
People died and you people are making up Screen Names for Christo on Flight Blogs????787>747
FriendlySkiez
StewardessDreams
Caulkpit
JumpseatJimmy
Capn'Munch
MillionMiler
I'm not 100% certain about this, but I think they keep referencing two different things. One being radar contact and the other being radio contact. This was why I made reference to the Bay of Thailand earlier. That was the last point the plane was on the radar. But, reports keep saying contact was lost over the South China Sea.Rohn Jambo said:What has me confused is the conflicting reports on when and where the plane was last seen on radar. I wish CNN can get to the bottom of this for me.
The flight departed Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 00:41, 8 March Malaysia time (16:41, 7 March UTC) and was last seen on ATC radar at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E (approximately 180 km/100 mi NNE of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia). The aircraft ceased all communications and the transponder signal was lost right before it was passed off to the Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center.
The Aviation Herald reported that Subang Air Traffic Control lost radar and radio contact with the aircraft at 01:22 and officially advised Malaysia Airlines at 02:40 that the aircraft was missing. However, a Malaysia Airlines spokesperson said that the last conversation between the flight crew and air traffic control in Malaysia had been around 01:30, and stated that the plane had not disappeared from air traffic control systems in Subang until 02:40, which is long enough for the plane to have been flying across Vietnam.
Malaysia Airlines issued a media release stating that contact was lost at 02:40 when the aircraft was approximately 120 nautical miles (220 km) east of Kota Bharu at the South China Sea, which is the border of Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace. The plane relayed no distress signal, indications of bad weather or technical problems before vanishing from radar screens. The flight was scheduled to land at Beijing Capital International Airport at 06:30. When radar contact with the aircraft was lost, it was carrying enough fuel for an additional 7.5 hours of flying time. Relevant authorities in China and Thailand informed their Malaysian counterparts that the aircraft had not entered their airspace.
According to Admiral Ngo Van Phat of the Vietnam People's Navy, military radar lost the plane "some 153 nautical miles (300 km)" south of Thổ Chu in the Gulf of Thailand. The Vietnamese government initially reported that the aircraft had crashed at sea in the Gulf of Thailand, although the airline denied this claim, and the claim about the known location of the aircraft by the Vietnamese Navy was rejected by Malaysian Minister of Transport, Hishammuddin Hussein. The Vietnamese Navy later clarified that the admiral had actually been referring to the location where contact was last made, rather than indicating a crash site.
Guessing you missed the "Ukrainian War" thread. Plenty of good seats still available.Mr. Pickles said:Worst thread of 2014? I'm including that Eminence thing.
Yes, media reports are all messed up because their sources are inconsistent. Jambo News may have to chase this one down...I'm not 100% certain about this, but I think they keep referencing two different things. One being radar contact and the other being radio contact. This was why I made reference to the Bay of Thailand earlier. That was the last point the plane was on the radar. But, reports keep saying contact was lost over the South China Sea.Rohn Jambo said:What has me confused is the conflicting reports on when and where the plane was last seen on radar. I wish CNN can get to the bottom of this for me.
The flight departed Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 00:41, 8 March Malaysia time (16:41, 7 March UTC) and was last seen on ATC radar at 6°55′15″N 103°34′43″E (approximately 180 km/100 mi NNE of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia). The aircraft ceased all communications and the transponder signal was lost right before it was passed off to the Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center.
The Aviation Herald reported that Subang Air Traffic Control lost radar and radio contact with the aircraft at 01:22 and officially advised Malaysia Airlines at 02:40 that the aircraft was missing. However, a Malaysia Airlines spokesperson said that the last conversation between the flight crew and air traffic control in Malaysia had been around 01:30, and stated that the plane had not disappeared from air traffic control systems in Subang until 02:40, which is long enough for the plane to have been flying across Vietnam.
Malaysia Airlines issued a media release stating that contact was lost at 02:40 when the aircraft was approximately 120 nautical miles (220 km) east of Kota Bharu at the South China Sea, which is the border of Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace. The plane relayed no distress signal, indications of bad weather or technical problems before vanishing from radar screens. The flight was scheduled to land at Beijing Capital International Airport at 06:30. When radar contact with the aircraft was lost, it was carrying enough fuel for an additional 7.5 hours of flying time. Relevant authorities in China and Thailand informed their Malaysian counterparts that the aircraft had not entered their airspace.
According to Admiral Ngo Van Phat of the Vietnam People's Navy, military radar lost the plane "some 153 nautical miles (300 km)" south of Thổ Chu in the Gulf of Thailand. The Vietnamese government initially reported that the aircraft had crashed at sea in the Gulf of Thailand, although the airline denied this claim, and the claim about the known location of the aircraft by the Vietnamese Navy was rejected by Malaysian Minister of Transport, Hishammuddin Hussein. The Vietnamese Navy later clarified that the admiral had actually been referring to the location where contact was last made, rather than indicating a crash site.
Cut him some slack. It was a cleverly disguised WDIS post.Jules Winnfield said:I agree with you about the in-fighting but you seriously come here for world news? If you see the posts here you can tell that no one has any facts or a clue about anything at any given timeBrady Marino said:I'm here for news on the plane, not some silly tickle fight among internet posters. I don't give a #### about your quarrel, so shut the #### up about it.
Come to the FBG for news about something taking place in Asia? Why?
Well, if they find it, they'll be able to offer the survivors some sustenance.