Missing Malaysian jet news (2 Viewers)

[NCCommish]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Doubtful. You have to have a good rep for it to be tarnished.

I mean it could be the last straw. CNN and others have been dinged hard for doing things like calling elections an hour early. But stringing the country along for weeks 24/7 with speculation? If it's totally wrong, they're done IMO

IS CBS gone? They have admitted to numerous issues with false stories. As recently as that Benghazi bull#### they ran with. The next bright shiny thing that comes along will take most of the countries attention. Personally I watch the Newshour and the BBC for news when i watch TV for it but I get most of my news from web sources.

 

[El Floppo]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, land/refuel/use-as-a-weapon, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Why do you find that funny? 9/11 caused cable news to change so that every story is RED ALERT, BREAKING NEWS. News crawlers going constantly, etc. It didn't used to be like that until there was a massive story that lasted for weeks.

Being in error for weeks could definitely cause another shift.

I would argue that the internet made instant access to everything a RED ALERT, BREAKING NEWS story more than 9/11.

Hey- if your idea that is going to change anything at all with the news actually pans out, I'll be the first one back here congratulating you on your foresight. Until then

 

[Tom Servo]

What about Asians in an airplane?

Is that a Samuel Jackson sequel?

Will I need to add the 13 letter adjective into the script?

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, land/refuel/use-as-a-weapon, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Why do you find that funny? 9/11 caused cable news to change so that every story is RED ALERT, BREAKING NEWS. News crawlers going constantly, etc. It didn't used to be like that until there was a massive story that lasted for weeks.

Being in error for weeks could definitely cause another shift.

The public is eating up all the speculation, CNN is giving people what they are demanding, speculation and rumors.

 

[Fat Nick]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

 

[MattFancy]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, land/refuel/use-as-a-weapon, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Why do you find that funny? 9/11 caused cable news to change so that every story is RED ALERT, BREAKING NEWS. News crawlers going constantly, etc. It didn't used to be like that until there was a massive story that lasted for weeks.

Being in error for weeks could definitely cause another shift.

I would argue that the internet made instant access to everything a RED ALERT, BREAKING NEWS story more than 9/11.

Hey- if your idea that is going to change anything at all with the news actually pans out, I'll be the first one back here congratulating you on your foresight. Until then

I'd say it's a combination of things.

1) Cable News. They have 24hrs worth of content to fill every day. They have to talk about something. News is news unless you find ways to differentiate from the rest. So this pushes reporters to try and be first, rather than having all their info together. Or if there is no info to gather, speculate and drum up interest in order to garner ratings.

2) Twitter. Everyone can report something now on Twitter. From the dude that was live tweeting the Bin Laden raid to covering a sporting event. This causes more misinformation than anything. All it takes is a major news source to retweet something that may not be true and the whole world will believe it.

3) Smartphones. We want our information as quickly as possible wherever we may be. This again makes news sources try to be the first to break the story rather than making sure they are telling the right story.

4) Internet. "Because everything on the internet is true." - George Washington

 

[Tom Servo]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Doubtful. You have to have a good rep for it to be tarnished.

I mean it could be the last straw. CNN and others have been dinged hard for doing things like calling elections an hour early. But stringing the country along for weeks 24/7 with speculation? If it's totally wrong, they're done IMO

IS CBS gone? They have admitted to numerous issues with false stories. As recently as that Benghazi bull#### they ran with. The next bright shiny thing that comes along will take most of the countries attention. Personally I watch the Newshour and the BBC for news when i watch TV for it but I get most of my news from web sources.

Fact of the matter is, for international events, I'll check on international stories like this one on CNN or the BBC. And I watch FOX News.

 

[Tom Servo]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

And people won't watch pro wrestling because it's fake. Hypocrites...

 

[Kumerica]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, land/refuel/use-as-a-weapon, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Why do you find that funny? 9/11 caused cable news to change so that every story is RED ALERT, BREAKING NEWS. News crawlers going constantly, etc. It didn't used to be like that until there was a massive story that lasted for weeks.

Being in error for weeks could definitely cause another shift.

This isn't accurate in the slightest. Constant newscrawlers, breaking alerts, and rampant speculation ran amok on the news channels long before 9/11. 9/11 was just the biggest story.

 

[B-Deep]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Doubtful. You have to have a good rep for it to be tarnished.

I mean it could be the last straw. CNN and others have been dinged hard for doing things like calling elections an hour early. But stringing the country along for weeks 24/7 with speculation? If it's totally wrong, they're done IMO

since they have been putting out a lot of theories they are bound to be wrong on most of them

i don;t think CNN has said "this is what happened"

 

[B-Deep]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

so?

what do you want, a state run media who is not out for profit? some charity funded media?

what you are saying is like saying money drives medical treatment or money drives technology or money drives politics...it's a simply stating the obvious

how would anyone imagine a media that is not driven by ratings when ratings = money and everything is driven by the pursuit of money? This has not changed, what has changed is what the public wants to consume and how quickly they want to consume it.

look at the threads that get notice here, or what threads turn into here.

 

[RUSF18]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, land/refuel/use-as-a-weapon, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Why do you find that funny? 9/11 caused cable news to change so that every story is RED ALERT, BREAKING NEWS. News crawlers going constantly, etc. It didn't used to be like that until there was a massive story that lasted for weeks.

Being in error for weeks could definitely cause another shift.

Were you watching any coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing? These news outlets were reporting among other things, PICTURES of the suspected bombers which turned out not to be true, that arrests were made before they were, that the police had found a bunch of undetonated bombs along the marathon route, that cell service was strategically shut off to avoid other detonations, etc.

That was less than a year ago and nothing changed.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So no Aliens?

That was Sheiks theory, pay attention!

I thought his was Al-Quaeda Air?

Yes. That is correct. My theory was that they were going to fund their other terrorist activity by being an airline. "Ter-air: We Love To Fly, And It Blows...up."

 

[NCCommish]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

so?

what do you want, a state run media who is not out for profit? some charity funded media?

what you are saying is like saying money drives medical treatment or money drives technology or money drives politics...it's a simply stating the obvious

how would anyone imagine a media that is not driven by ratings when ratings = money and everything is driven by the pursuit of money? This has not changed, what has changed is what the public wants to consume and how quickly they want to consume it.

look at the threads that get notice here, or what threads turn into here.

There was a time believe it or not when the news dept wasn't about profit. It was the thing that gave your network gravitas. Now sure ratings still counted but it was more important to be taken seriously. Then the bean counters moved in. So it isn't just news run by corporations for profit or state run news. That's a false choice.

 

[culdeus]

lol at thinking any outcome will result in changes of any media outlet reporting.

 

[Fat Nick]

So no Aliens?

That was Sheiks theory, pay attention!

I thought his was Al-Quaeda Air?

Yes. That is correct. My theory was that they were going to fund their other terrorist activity by being an airline. "Ter-air: We Love To Fly, And It Blows...up."

Pay attention fantasycurse42!

 

[Fat Nick]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

so?

what do you want, a state run media who is not out for profit? some charity funded media?

what you are saying is like saying money drives medical treatment or money drives technology or money drives politics...it's a simply stating the obvious

how would anyone imagine a media that is not driven by ratings when ratings = money and everything is driven by the pursuit of money? This has not changed, what has changed is what the public wants to consume and how quickly they want to consume it.

look at the threads that get notice here, or what threads turn into here.

To be blunt, I'd like whatever it takes to get back to unbiased, responsible news. For now, I'll settle for the BBC, but I'd like an American version of the same thing. Admittedly BBC is going to have it's drawbacks too, but at least for non-governmental stories, I can hope for some unbiased reporting.

Not arguing with any of your points, and you're right...money makes the world go 'round. I'm a firm believer in capitalism...but at some point, you have to stop calling it news and start calling it sensationalistic journalism.

Your point about threads here is exactly my point. I like the humor, and there are threads clearly set up for just that...humor...but there's so many "Look at me being funny" comments in serious threads (I'm guilty of them too), that it's difficult to actually distinguish them sometimes. It's like sitcoms and news had a ******* love child.

 

[KCitons]

Overlaid the narrowed search area in the South, onto the flight line I created yesterday.

I was pretty close. Maybe I could work for Malaysian Airlines. On second thought, they may lose me on the flight over.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Whether Goodfellow is exactly right or not isn't why I agree with his analysis. It's his way of thinking - analyzing the situation from the point of view of pilots who wanted to save the plane.

The pilot suicide, pilot malicious intent, land/refuel/use-as-a-weapon, hijacking angles taken by most of the news media have become pretty wild in terms of speculation. They had better be on the right track. If this ends up being a failure event with pilots trying to save the plane, there is going to be an enormous backlash against the media the likes of which we've never seen. It could bring down CNN. It could actually change the way news is reported.

Why do you find that funny? 9/11 caused cable news to change so that every story is RED ALERT, BREAKING NEWS. News crawlers going constantly, etc. It didn't used to be like that until there was a massive story that lasted for weeks.

Being in error for weeks could definitely cause another shift.

Were you watching any coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing? These news outlets were reporting among other things, PICTURES of the suspected bombers which turned out not to be true, that arrests were made before they were, that the police had found a bunch of undetonated bombs along the marathon route, that cell service was strategically shut off to avoid other detonations, etc.

That was less than a year ago and nothing changed.

it all started at Nakatomi... I blame the Asian Dawn

 

[B-Deep]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

so?

what do you want, a state run media who is not out for profit? some charity funded media?

what you are saying is like saying money drives medical treatment or money drives technology or money drives politics...it's a simply stating the obvious

how would anyone imagine a media that is not driven by ratings when ratings = money and everything is driven by the pursuit of money? This has not changed, what has changed is what the public wants to consume and how quickly they want to consume it.

look at the threads that get notice here, or what threads turn into here.

There was a time believe it or not when the news dept wasn't about profit. It was the thing that gave your network gravitas. Now sure ratings still counted but it was more important to be taken seriously. Then the bean counters moved in. So it isn't just news run by corporations for profit or state run news. That's a false choice.

so design for me a business model you'd use to create a news station? because if slower precise news sold someone would be doing it.

the times you spoke of were times when news traveled slowly and what mattered to people was trusting the person delivering it. Those are not the times.

How would you want a news outlet to cover this? Say the plane is missing and then just keep saying "there are no facts yet, only speculation, so we have nothing more to say"?

again look at this forum, look at the shark pool. people don't want news he way they used to, they want information now and want to make up their own minds about it, speculate about it, gossip about it, and whenever the truth comes out (if it does) fine. most people would rather have 10 pieces of speculation now, assuming one of them will probably be true, then wait till tomorrrow for the facts

and in this case there are still precious few facts to give.

 

[Doug B]

GOODFELLOW REBUTTAL.

... Rolls Royce needs to clarify this asap.

I don't get this? I understand the need to find this plane. Beyond that, what right do we really have to any and all information. I have full confidence that U.S officials and Boeing are clear on the information received from the engines.

Rolls-Royce is Boeing's and the U.S.'s source for the satellite-ping data. Goodfellow seems to think Rolls-Royce is holding out data from everyone (not sure why he thinks that, though)..

 

[Doug B]

Overlaid the narrowed search area in the South, onto the flight line I created yesterday.

Never did ask you: what's your line based on? Not challenging, just curious. Was it the flight time estimates, and then using Kuala Lumpur as a starting point?

 

[Tom Servo]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

so?

what do you want, a state run media who is not out for profit? some charity funded media?

what you are saying is like saying money drives medical treatment or money drives technology or money drives politics...it's a simply stating the obvious

how would anyone imagine a media that is not driven by ratings when ratings = money and everything is driven by the pursuit of money? This has not changed, what has changed is what the public wants to consume and how quickly they want to consume it.

look at the threads that get notice here, or what threads turn into here.

There was a time believe it or not when the news dept wasn't about profit. It was the thing that gave your network gravitas. Now sure ratings still counted but it was more important to be taken seriously. Then the bean counters moved in. So it isn't just news run by corporations for profit or state run news. That's a false choice.

so design for me a business model you'd use to create a news station? because if slower precise news sold someone would be doing it.

the times you spoke of were times when news traveled slowly and what mattered to people was trusting the person delivering it. Those are not the times.

How would you want a news outlet to cover this? Say the plane is missing and then just keep saying "there are no facts yet, only speculation, so we have nothing more to say"?

again look at this forum, look at the shark pool. people don't want news he way they used to, they want information now and want to make up their own minds about it, speculate about it, gossip about it, and whenever the truth comes out (if it does) fine. most people would rather have 10 pieces of speculation now, assuming one of them will probably be true, then wait till tomorrrow for the facts

and in this case there are still precious few facts to give.

There's some truth to this, and it may not be a bad thing. Present what you know and let the viewer decide about it. People talk about the news, and speculate just like any talking head does. At the very least, it can help people stay up with what's going on in the world.

 

[tjnc09]

I still think Freescale Semiconductor is involved in this but not for reasons people think. They are based in TX and have ties to SMU, I think all of this somehow ties into CJK5H

Payne Stewart was also on his way to see about building a golf course for the SMU team

 

[KCitons]

Overlaid the narrowed search area in the South, onto the flight line I created yesterday.

Never did ask you: what's your line based on? Not challenging, just curious. Was it the flight time estimates, and then using Kuala Lumpur as a starting point?

Kind of a "pin the tail on the donkey" method. I started with Goodfellow's theory that the plane turned around. The path taken would have been between KL and Langkawi. Since the plane never entered Thai airspace, I was guessing it was heading southwest in order make the right handed hook (which kept them over Malaysia)

 

[tjnc09]

Another question about Goodfellows analysis- doesn't it seem unlikely that the fire would render the transponder etc useless but be small enough to not damage the plane so that It could keep flying? Are the electrical aspects of the parts he claim were damaged by the fire that far away from the parts that would keep the plane on autopilot and not crash immediately?

 

[NCCommish]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

so?

what do you want, a state run media who is not out for profit? some charity funded media?

what you are saying is like saying money drives medical treatment or money drives technology or money drives politics...it's a simply stating the obvious

how would anyone imagine a media that is not driven by ratings when ratings = money and everything is driven by the pursuit of money? This has not changed, what has changed is what the public wants to consume and how quickly they want to consume it.

look at the threads that get notice here, or what threads turn into here.

There was a time believe it or not when the news dept wasn't about profit. It was the thing that gave your network gravitas. Now sure ratings still counted but it was more important to be taken seriously. Then the bean counters moved in. So it isn't just news run by corporations for profit or state run news. That's a false choice.

so design for me a business model you'd use to create a news station? because if slower precise news sold someone would be doing it.

the times you spoke of were times when news traveled slowly and what mattered to people was trusting the person delivering it. Those are not the times.

How would you want a news outlet to cover this? Say the plane is missing and then just keep saying "there are no facts yet, only speculation, so we have nothing more to say"?

again look at this forum, look at the shark pool. people don't want news he way they used to, they want information now and want to make up their own minds about it, speculate about it, gossip about it, and whenever the truth comes out (if it does) fine. most people would rather have 10 pieces of speculation now, assuming one of them will probably be true, then wait till tomorrrow for the facts

and in this case there are still precious few facts to give.

There's some truth to this, and it may not be a bad thing. Present what you know and let the viewer decide about it. People talk about the news, and speculate just like any talking head does. At the very least, it can help people stay up with what's going on in the world.

It's a horrible thing. They are here to do the heavy lifting and explain stuff. Because the majority of Americans have neither the time or inclination to sufficiently educate themselves to draw an educated opinion on most matters. The press is supposed to point out who is right and who is wrong and why. That's their only real job. And they don't come close to doing it in today's infotainment world.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1]

How sad would it be if the co-pilot said "all right good night" in delirium knowing he was going to die from the smoke (if that's true)

And I know someone said the route was programmed before the ACARS was turned off. Isn't it possible the fire/smoke was realized by the pilot and he chose to reroute the plane first as time was limited and then the fire took out the communications? If the plane is on fire, he needs to land it first because telling the tower is going to help no one.

So, he has time and faculties to try and land the plane, but not enough to say "may day" instead of "all right, good night"?

 

[Fat Nick]

so design for me a business model you'd use to create a news station? because if slower precise news sold someone would be doing it.

the times you spoke of were times when news traveled slowly and what mattered to people was trusting the person delivering it. Those are not the times.

How would you want a news outlet to cover this? Say the plane is missing and then just keep saying "there are no facts yet, only speculation, so we have nothing more to say"?

again look at this forum, look at the shark pool. people don't want news he way they used to, they want information now and want to make up their own minds about it, speculate about it, gossip about it, and whenever the truth comes out (if it does) fine. most people would rather have 10 pieces of speculation now, assuming one of them will probably be true, then wait till tomorrrow for the facts

and in this case there are still precious few facts to give.

There's some truth to this, and it may not be a bad thing. Present what you know and let the viewer decide about it. People talk about the news, and speculate just like any talking head does. At the very least, it can help people stay up with what's going on in the world.

I guess this is sort of my thing...I have no issue with newscasters providing opinions and speculation...but base it in fact, and note when speculation is being given vs. when hard facts are being given. I agree there are few precious facts here, but it can't be factual that the plane flew low to avoid radar AND flew high. Some source either had access to altitude recordings or they didn't. If they didn't, then they should address all comments related to altitude as speculation. Headlines like this:

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 'flew lower than 5,000 ft to avoid radar detection'

and comments like this:

Malaysian military radar showed the plane climbing to 45,000 feet soon after disappearing from civilian radar screens and then dropping to 23,000 feet before climbing again, the official said.

can't co-exist. One of them is the result of misinformation, or assumptions. Neither is presented as anything but fact. Nobody fact checks. It's a rush to be first, even if it's the first to report something incorrect.

As for the model for non-profit news, as I stated, BBC News is a good start...

 

[KCitons]

GOODFELLOW REBUTTAL.

... Rolls Royce needs to clarify this asap.

I don't get this? I understand the need to find this plane. Beyond that, what right do we really have to any and all information. I have full confidence that U.S officials and Boeing are clear on the information received from the engines.

Rolls-Royce is Boeing's and the U.S.'s source for the satellite-ping data. Goodfellow seems to think Rolls-Royce is holding out data from everyone (not sure why he thinks that, though)..

This would be a concern if it was someone from NTSB that was saying RR is withholding info. According to the Wired article: Chris Goodfellow has 20 years experience as a Canadian Class-1 instrumented-rated pilot for multi-engine planes.

He's a pilot. I understand having a theory, but it doesn't mean he knows any more about the facts than a bunch of guys on a random message board.

 

[tjnc09]

http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-smoke-in-cockpit-2014-3

Pilots disagree with Goodfellow- smoke is one of the most common emergencies they prepare for

 

[daddo39]

Found This...but it's way too long to read to see if there's anything new. Can somebody read and highlight any good points? The only thing I got out of it was that the Taliban deny knowing where the plane is. They're always honest and forthright, so...

this was interesting to me

Could the aircraft have landed safely?

A Boeing 777-200 can be landed anywhere there is 2,000 to 3,000 straight metres of relatively flat tarmac.

Flight MH370 had enough fuel to travel about 3,000 miles from its last known position over the Gulf of Thailand.

There are approximately 634 suitable runways within that radius.

In extremis, the plane could also be landed on any empty wide road or on one of the hundreds of old air-strips still to be found in remote regions of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

There is, therefore, no shortage of potential landing sites.

‘Given the absence of crash wreckage or any maritime oil slick, I prefer the “safe landing” explanation to the others out there,’ says aviation expert Julian Bray.

Such a scenario would only have come about, Bray says, if the flight evaded radar defences (most likely by flying at a few hundred metres).

After landing, the perpetrators would then have had to keep the 73m long plane and its passengers hidden once it was on the ground.

There's some good analysis in there. Initially I felt like hiding it wouldn't be that hard...but then I thought about the fact that it's not like you can get it far away from the runway. I think we'd detect even a heavily camouflaged 777 on a tarmac or otherwise near a runway. If you could somehow get it away from there, different story...but I don't think that happens.

true... except for a giant tarp that is the same color as said tarmac!

For some reason this made me think of the scene in the Cheech and Chong movie where Cheech pretended to be swimming in the ripped tarp as the helicopters flew overhead

 

[El Floppo]

The media has been irresponsible for many years now. The only thing that changes how the news is reported is ratings. The most extreme, captivating headline catches the most ratings. It's not about what's right...it's about what gets you to watch. The "News" as we know it now is only a short distance from a "reality TV show." While the footage and main story might not be scripted, I think it's safe to say that nearly every other "expert witness," and assumption is.

Ratings drive media, and by turning into the exaggerated crap, we are basically saying, "More please!"

so?

what do you want, a state run media who is not out for profit? some charity funded media?

what you are saying is like saying money drives medical treatment or money drives technology or money drives politics...it's a simply stating the obvious

how would anyone imagine a media that is not driven by ratings when ratings = money and everything is driven by the pursuit of money? This has not changed, what has changed is what the public wants to consume and how quickly they want to consume it.

look at the threads that get notice here, or what threads turn into here.

To be blunt, I'd like whatever it takes to get back to unbiased, responsible news. For now, I'll settle for the BBC, but I'd like an American version of the same thing. Admittedly BBC is going to have it's drawbacks too, but at least for non-governmental stories, I can hope for some unbiased reporting.

Not arguing with any of your points, and you're right...money makes the world go 'round. I'm a firm believer in capitalism...but at some point, you have to stop calling it news and start calling it sensationalistic journalism.

Your point about threads here is exactly my point. I like the humor, and there are threads clearly set up for just that...humor...but there's so many "Look at me being funny" comments in serious threads (I'm guilty of them too), that it's difficult to actually distinguish them sometimes. It's like sitcoms and news had a ******* love child.

try the US version of Al Jazeera. seriously.

 

[Fat Nick]

try the US version of Al Jazeera. seriously.

They have that on DirecTV? Or is it an on-line thing? I'll give it a shot...can't be any worse.

 

[tjnc09]

How sad would it be if the co-pilot said "all right good night" in delirium knowing he was going to die from the smoke (if that's true)

And I know someone said the route was programmed before the ACARS was turned off. Isn't it possible the fire/smoke was realized by the pilot and he chose to reroute the plane first as time was limited and then the fire took out the communications? If the plane is on fire, he needs to land it first because telling the tower is going to help no one.

So, he has time and faculties to try and land the plane, but not enough to say "may day" instead of "all right, good night"?

Swiss Air 111 took 16 minutes between when the pilot reported smoke until it crashed. They are saying 12 minutes from the time communications were lost to the time they heard this. What exactly would you say if you didn't want to die but were in a plane full of smoke and fire? It sounds sad to me if you picture him sitting there about to die.

I don't recall the Air France 447 pilots calling May Day. Last thing the pilot said was "damn it, were going to crash ... This can't be happening" not May Day May Day.

 

[jon_mx]

Whoever said this nut job did it for Allah is the winner. We just need to figure out was it was.

 

[Doug B]

(Goodfellow)'s a pilot. I understand having a theory, but it doesn't mean he knows any more about the facts than a bunch of guys on a random message board.

Point granted ... I'm not sure why he thinks RR is withholding data, either.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Whoever said this nut job did it for Allah is the winner. We just need to figure out was it was.

What?

 

[RUSF18]

I keep seeing Goodfellow and it makes me think of Goodspeed and The Rock.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The Malaysia Airlines flight that vanished nearly two weeks ago was already 12 minutes into its diverted course when the plane's co-pilot calmly told air traffic controllers that things were "all right," former FAA spokesman Scott Brenner said Tuesday on "The Kelly File."

At 1:19 p.m. on March 8, 12 minutes after the plane had changed course to the west, co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid gave a routine "All right, good night" in his final radio call.

Malaysian authorities saying this is

For once I believe them.

 

[KCitons]

I keep seeing Goodfellow and it makes me think of Goodspeed and The Rock.

I think of this.

It was a mob hit

 

[jon_mx]

Whoever said this nut job did it for Allah is the winner. We just need to figure out was it was.

What?

Afterall this time not one person can come up with a rationale theory which makes any sense or matches with what is known. We are left with an irrationale act and what is more irrationale than a nut driven by crazy religious beliefs?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Whoever said this nut job did it for Allah is the winner. We just need to figure out was it was.

What?

Afterall this time not one person can come up with a rationale theory which makes any sense or matches with what is known. We are left with an irrationale act and what is more irrationale than a nut driven by crazy religious beliefs?

What?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Whoever said this nut job did it for Allah is the winner. We just need to figure out was it was.

Was it was?

 

[dgreen]

Whoever said this nut job did it for Allah is the winner. We just need to figure out was it was.

What?

Afterall this time not one person can come up with a rationale theory which makes any sense or matches with what is known. We are left with an irrationale act and what is more irrationale than a nut driven by crazy religious beliefs?

What?

You're being very irrationale.

 

[KCitons]

Whoever said this nut job did it for Allah is the winner. We just need to figure out was it was.

What?

Afterall this time not one person can come up with a rationale theory which makes any sense or matches with what is known. We are left with an irrationale act and what is more irrationale than a nut driven by crazy religious beliefs?

Pilot suicide still fits. And it doesn't need to be driven by religious beliefs, could have been political.

 

[Doug B]

The Malaysia Airlines flight that vanished nearly two weeks ago was already 12 minutes into its diverted course when the plane's co-pilot calmly told air traffic controllers that things were "all right," former FAA spokesman Scott Brenner said Tuesday on "The Kelly File."

At 1:19 p.m. on March 8, 12 minutes after the plane had changed course to the west, co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid gave a routine "All right, good night" in his final radio call.

Malaysian authorities saying this is

For once I believe them.

Been suspecting since I heard this "12 minutes before" stuff that it wouldn't hold up. Waiting to see if I'm right.

 

[None_More_Black]

I'm sure someone answered this, but how do they know the the sharp turn was programmed and at what time?

 

[KCitons]

I'm sure someone answered this, but how do they know the the sharp turn was programmed and at what time?

They way I understand it, is the ALCARS sends this information on 30 minute intervals. That last interval came 12 minutes before the "all clear, good night" communication.

 

[Fat Nick]

Whoever said this nut job did it for Allah is the winner. We just need to figure out was it was.

Was it was?

[pootietang] Wadatah! [\pootietang]