What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Missing Malaysian jet news (1 Viewer)

TheIronSheik said:
Doctor Detroit said:
TheIronSheik said:
I don't get why the families are getting so upset at the airline.

I mean, I understand that they are grieving and that they are going through a horrible time. That, I get. But why are they mad at the airline? Do they think they are hiding something? The whole world is looking for this airplane. I feel like everyone is doing everything they can possibly do.
Click to expand...
If this was an American plane owned by the U.S. government, you don't think the families of the missing would get upset at the airline/government?
Click to expand...
I don't. I'm not saying I'm right, by any means. But it just seems odd.
Click to expand...
I didn't get when they were threatening hunger strikes. Like they're going to say "oh, they might starve let's look harder"?

 
17seconds said:
TheIronSheik said:
Doctor Detroit said:
TheIronSheik said:
I don't get why the families are getting so upset at the airline.

I mean, I understand that they are grieving and that they are going through a horrible time. That, I get. But why are they mad at the airline? Do they think they are hiding something? The whole world is looking for this airplane. I feel like everyone is doing everything they can possibly do.
Click to expand...
If this was an American plane owned by the U.S. government, you don't think the families of the missing would get upset at the airline/government?
Click to expand...
I don't. I'm not saying I'm right, by any means. But it just seems odd.
Click to expand...
I didn't get when they were threatening hunger strikes. Like they're going to say "oh, they might starve let's look harder"?
Click to expand...
I think they feel, rightly or wrongly, that information is being withheld from them by the Malaysian government. I think they probably understand that the plane is being looked for, but they don't feel like the government is being transparent, and in so doing, they are making it more painful for everyone.

 
PatsWillWin said:
17seconds said:
TheIronSheik said:
Doctor Detroit said:
TheIronSheik said:
I don't get why the families are getting so upset at the airline.

I mean, I understand that they are grieving and that they are going through a horrible time. That, I get. But why are they mad at the airline? Do they think they are hiding something? The whole world is looking for this airplane. I feel like everyone is doing everything they can possibly do.
Click to expand...
If this was an American plane owned by the U.S. government, you don't think the families of the missing would get upset at the airline/government?
Click to expand...
I don't. I'm not saying I'm right, by any means. But it just seems odd.
Click to expand...
I didn't get when they were threatening hunger strikes. Like they're going to say "oh, they might starve let's look harder"?
Click to expand...
I think they feel, rightly or wrongly, that information is being withheld from them by the Malaysian government. I think they probably understand that the plane is being looked for, but they don't feel like the government is being transparent, and in so doing, they are making it more painful for everyone.
Click to expand...
They should just watch CNN

 
I heard a good explanation on TV this evening (at least to me). At first, the Malaysian government/airline was being overly cautious and only releasing information once it was corroborated, but the media was moving so much faster that it appeared like they were withholding that information for other reasons. Since then, they've been releasing every little bit of information they gather, true or not, in order not to appear like they are hiding anything.

Tough spot to be in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B said:
TheIronSheik said:
BroadwayG said:
Is there any actual news in these 62 pages or is it all speculation and namecalling?
Click to expand...
Some data was erased from the simulator.
Click to expand...
Was looking at CNN during lunch ... they are hammering the heck out of the "data was erased" angle.

Maybe the guy was just clearing out tons of saved flights to clear hard drive space? Why jump straight to a sinister conclusion?
Click to expand...
The FBI is looking at the hard drive to see what, if anything, they can recover.

It'll be interesting if what they recover is deleted simulated flights to Diego Garcia.

Gibbs and Abby could solve this one in an hour.

 
Sinn Fein said:
El Floppo said:
17seconds said:
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.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao:
Click to expand...
Awesome. :lmao:

 
Did the Navy pull out of Diego Garcia, or am I missing something here? I would think a fully manned Navy base would notice a 777 landing on their runway.

 
TxBuckeye said:
Did the Navy pull out of Diego Garcia, or am I missing something here? I would think a fully manned Navy base would notice a 777 landing on their runway.
Click to expand...
:tinfoilhat:

It either had a cloak of invisibility draped over it, or the US was flying the plane with one of its drone operators.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My dad has been a pilot/flight instructor with a big commercial airline for about 25 years and flew C-141s in the Air Force prior to that. He used to work as a training flight instructor in the simulators, and I would occasionally get to go "fly" the simulators with my dad. He would always be throwing all kinds of random obstacles at me, such as having an engine go out, putting my plane on a head-on collision course with another jet, or having me land on a treacherously short runway in the Andes mountains.

I was talking to him today about this Malaysian jet today, and I thought one of the things that he said was pretty interesting. I asked him whether a 777 really needed a mile-long runway to land (recalling my own experiences landing on extremely short runways in a large commercial jet simulator), and he said that a 777 could land on a much shorter runway than that. He said that the length of the runway is primarily needed to attain speed for takeoff, but that if you really wanted to land a 777 on a much shorter runway -- even an unpaved runway, you could certainly do it. It obviously wouldn't be an ideal landing situation, but he didn't think that the pilots would have been in any way foreclosed from landing on surfaces other than a mile-long paved runway.

If true, this would really open up the possibilities of where the jet could possibly be located if the plane were possibly hijacked or stolen by the pilots.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buckfast 1 said:
My dad has been a pilot/flight instructor with a big commercial airline for about 25 years and flew C-141s in the Air Force prior to that. He used to work as a training flight instructor in the simulators, and I would occasionally get to go "fly" the simulators with my dad. He would always be throwing all kinds of random obstacles at me, such as having an engine go out, putting my plane on a head-on collision course with another jet, or having me land on a treacherously short runway in the Andes mountains.

I was talking to him today about this Malaysian jet today, and I thought one of the things that he said was pretty interesting. I asked him whether a 777 really needed a mile-long runway to land (recalling my own experiences landing on extremely short runways in a large commercial jet simulator), and he said that a 777 could land on a much shorter runway than that. He said that the length of the runway is primarily needed to attain speed for takeoff, but that if you really wanted to land a 777 on a much shorter runway -- even an unpaved runway, you could certainly do it. It obviously wouldn't be an ideal landing situation, but he didn't think that the pilots would have been in any way foreclosed from landing on surfaces other than a mile-long paved runway.

If true, this would really open up the possibilities of where the jet could possibly be located if the plane were possibly hijacked or stolen by the pilots.
Click to expand...
It still would have to be long enough to take off or once it lands it's useless.

 
Buckfast 1 said:
My dad has been a pilot/flight instructor with a big commercial airline for about 25 years and flew C-141s in the Air Force prior to that. He used to work as a training flight instructor in the simulators, and I would occasionally get to go "fly" the simulators with my dad. He would always be throwing all kinds of random obstacles at me, such as having an engine go out, putting my plane on a head-on collision course with another jet, or having me land on a treacherously short runway in the Andes mountains.

I was talking to him today about this Malaysian jet today, and I thought one of the things that he said was pretty interesting. I asked him whether a 777 really needed a mile-long runway to land (recalling my own experiences landing on extremely short runways in a large commercial jet simulator), and he said that a 777 could land on a much shorter runway than that. He said that the length of the runway is primarily needed to attain speed for takeoff, but that if you really wanted to land a 777 on a much shorter runway -- even an unpaved runway, you could certainly do it. It obviously wouldn't be an ideal landing situation, but he didn't think that the pilots would have been in any way foreclosed from landing on surfaces other than a mile-long paved runway.

If true, this would really open up the possibilities of where the jet could possibly be located if the plane were possibly hijacked or stolen by the pilots.
Click to expand...
The guy that CNN has had in a simulator for the past week, did a landing on a short runway. He went off the end of the runway little, but afterwards he said the reverse thrust of the engines never engaged. So, he predicted that it could be done.

He also said the amount of fuel (weight) would effect the braking distance. Maybe that's why the plane flew around so long. Burning off fuel?

 
lod01 said:
Buckfast 1 said:
My dad has been a pilot/flight instructor with a big commercial airline for about 25 years and flew C-141s in the Air Force prior to that. He used to work as a training flight instructor in the simulators, and I would occasionally get to go "fly" the simulators with my dad. He would always be throwing all kinds of random obstacles at me, such as having an engine go out, putting my plane on a head-on collision course with another jet, or having me land on a treacherously short runway in the Andes mountains.

I was talking to him today about this Malaysian jet today, and I thought one of the things that he said was pretty interesting. I asked him whether a 777 really needed a mile-long runway to land (recalling my own experiences landing on extremely short runways in a large commercial jet simulator), and he said that a 777 could land on a much shorter runway than that. He said that the length of the runway is primarily needed to attain speed for takeoff, but that if you really wanted to land a 777 on a much shorter runway -- even an unpaved runway, you could certainly do it. It obviously wouldn't be an ideal landing situation, but he didn't think that the pilots would have been in any way foreclosed from landing on surfaces other than a mile-long paved runway.

If true, this would really open up the possibilities of where the jet could possibly be located if the plane were possibly hijacked or stolen by the pilots.
Click to expand...
It still would have to be long enough to take off or once it lands it's useless.
Click to expand...
True, but that's assuming whoever landed it wanted the plane. Maybe they wanted the passengers (unlikely at this point but maybe that's why there is so much misinformation from Malaysia?) or something on the plane (Freescale laptop / something else?)

Who knows

 
lod01 said:
Buckfast 1 said:
My dad has been a pilot/flight instructor with a big commercial airline for about 25 years and flew C-141s in the Air Force prior to that. He used to work as a training flight instructor in the simulators, and I would occasionally get to go "fly" the simulators with my dad. He would always be throwing all kinds of random obstacles at me, such as having an engine go out, putting my plane on a head-on collision course with another jet, or having me land on a treacherously short runway in the Andes mountains.

I was talking to him today about this Malaysian jet today, and I thought one of the things that he said was pretty interesting. I asked him whether a 777 really needed a mile-long runway to land (recalling my own experiences landing on extremely short runways in a large commercial jet simulator), and he said that a 777 could land on a much shorter runway than that. He said that the length of the runway is primarily needed to attain speed for takeoff, but that if you really wanted to land a 777 on a much shorter runway -- even an unpaved runway, you could certainly do it. It obviously wouldn't be an ideal landing situation, but he didn't think that the pilots would have been in any way foreclosed from landing on surfaces other than a mile-long paved runway.

If true, this would really open up the possibilities of where the jet could possibly be located if the plane were possibly hijacked or stolen by the pilots.
Click to expand...
It still would have to be long enough to take off or once it lands it's useless.
Click to expand...
Well, that is assuming that the ultimate goal of the hijacker/pilot was to actually steal the plane itself. My dad was questioning what might have been in the cargo of the plane. He said that, during his career as a pilot, he has transported cargos that consisted of up to 15 million dollars of cash and millions of dollars worth of gold. He was speculating that the pilots could have possibly been aware of some type of precious cargo stored on board and that it could have been some sort of elaborate cargo heist.

I'm not saying that I buy my dad's theories. It all sounds a little too Ocean's 11/Hollywood to me.

I still think that the most likely explanation is still some sort of mechanical failure/fire that ultimately resulted in a crash in the Indian ocean.

But I'm at least convinced that he knows what he is talking about as far as the capabilities of the 777 are concerned.

 
KCitons said:
Buckfast 1 said:
My dad has been a pilot/flight instructor with a big commercial airline for about 25 years and flew C-141s in the Air Force prior to that. He used to work as a training flight instructor in the simulators, and I would occasionally get to go "fly" the simulators with my dad. He would always be throwing all kinds of random obstacles at me, such as having an engine go out, putting my plane on a head-on collision course with another jet, or having me land on a treacherously short runway in the Andes mountains.

I was talking to him today about this Malaysian jet today, and I thought one of the things that he said was pretty interesting. I asked him whether a 777 really needed a mile-long runway to land (recalling my own experiences landing on extremely short runways in a large commercial jet simulator), and he said that a 777 could land on a much shorter runway than that. He said that the length of the runway is primarily needed to attain speed for takeoff, but that if you really wanted to land a 777 on a much shorter runway -- even an unpaved runway, you could certainly do it. It obviously wouldn't be an ideal landing situation, but he didn't think that the pilots would have been in any way foreclosed from landing on surfaces other than a mile-long paved runway.

If true, this would really open up the possibilities of where the jet could possibly be located if the plane were possibly hijacked or stolen by the pilots.
Click to expand...
The guy that CNN has had in a simulator for the past week, did a landing on a short runway. He went off the end of the runway little, but afterwards he said the reverse thrust of the engines never engaged. So, he predicted that it could be done.

He also said the amount of fuel (weight) would effect the braking distance. Maybe that's why the plane flew around so long. Burning off fuel?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's exactly what my dad said. He said that, if the 777 was low on fuel, then it would be able to stop in a much shorter distance than if it were fully loaded with fuel. He actually used the phrase "stop on a dime" when talking about landing a 777 that was low on fuel coupled with the brakes and the reverse thrust of the engines.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TxBuckeye said:
Did the Navy pull out of Diego Garcia, or am I missing something here? I would think a fully manned Navy base would notice a 777 landing on their runway.
Click to expand...
Maybe they weren't turning to land at Diego Garcia, maybe they were going to land on top of Diego Garcia. Some of the bombing missions for Afghanistan came from Diego, maybe someone was trying to get payback.

So hear me out. Plane is hijacked by one or several of the passengers who would obviously have to have clean records to get on the flight. They take over the plane, maybe they kill the pilot and tell the co-pilot to set course for Diego to crash into the base. The co-pilot knows the whole 9/11 history and instead of plotting a course for Diego, he plots it for the middle of the ocean. He hopes to gain enough time to land this thing in Australia or on an island somewhere, but the terrorists either figure out his plan and kill him, or they simply run out of fuel before getting to Australia.

Or the hijackers plot the course, take over the plane, but they screw it up and fly towards the south Indian Ocean and run out of fuel. amiright???

Also I suspect that the radar data Malaysia got today was from us. We headed for the south Indian Ocean days ago, I think we knew that was the direction of the plane based on radar we have out there. We didn't tell Malaysia because they are stupid. Or we got something from China but China said we couldn't share with Malaysia unless we passed it off as our own data. Either way we give this info to the Phillipines who falls on the sword and sends Malaysia the data saying they just realized it was pertinent. amiright?

 
KCitons said:
The guy that CNN has had in a simulator for the past week, did a landing on a short runway. He went off the end of the runway little, but afterwards he said the reverse thrust of the engines never engaged. So, he predicted that it could be done.

He also said the amount of fuel (weight) would effect the braking distance. Maybe that's why the plane flew around so long. Burning off fuel?
Click to expand...
Weight is a huge factor in landing distance. The other is the runway surface. A dry runway is optimal. A wet runway can increase breaking distance greatly. Dirt would definitely increase it (wheels won't grip like on concrete). But yea, if you don't intend to take off again, and if you can put it down on brick one (runway behind you is useless), then you can land on a much shorter surface. Don't underestimate the difficulty in hitting brick one though. For that to happen, it would HAVE to be an experienced pilot. Not someone that used just a flight sim to learn just enough to get it there. So for the short runway theory, I would say you likely needed the Captain to be flying. Even the copilot was likely to new to be that proficient.

 
TxBuckeye said:
KCitons said:
The guy that CNN has had in a simulator for the past week, did a landing on a short runway. He went off the end of the runway little, but afterwards he said the reverse thrust of the engines never engaged. So, he predicted that it could be done.

He also said the amount of fuel (weight) would effect the braking distance. Maybe that's why the plane flew around so long. Burning off fuel?
Click to expand...
Weight is a huge factor in landing distance. The other is the runway surface. A dry runway is optimal. A wet runway can increase breaking distance greatly. Dirt would definitely increase it (wheels won't grip like on concrete). But yea, if you don't intend to take off again, and if you can put it down on brick one (runway behind you is useless), then you can land on a much shorter surface. Don't underestimate the difficulty in hitting brick one though. For that to happen, it would HAVE to be an experienced pilot. Not someone that used just a flight sim to learn just enough to get it there. So for the short runway theory, I would say you likely needed the Captain to be flying. Even the copilot was likely to new to be that proficient.
Click to expand...
How much of a ratio is there to takeoff and landing. If the plane could land on a 5000 ft runway, does it need 25% more (7500 ft) for takeoff. What about stripping weight for takeoff?

 
St. Louis Bob said:
I was walking down the street today and some guy went "psst, buddy, want a good deal on a 777?". It might be related to this.
Click to expand...
Careful. 99% of the time, those guys are selling fakes. They look like a 777 on the outside, but when you open it up, it's full of Malaysian radio and transponder parts.

 
Doctor Detroit said:
TxBuckeye said:
Did the Navy pull out of Diego Garcia, or am I missing something here? I would think a fully manned Navy base would notice a 777 landing on their runway.
Click to expand...
Maybe they weren't turning to land at Diego Garcia, maybe they were going to land on top of Diego Garcia. Some of the bombing missions for Afghanistan came from Diego, maybe someone was trying to get payback.

So hear me out. Plane is hijacked by one or several of the passengers who would obviously have to have clean records to get on the flight. They take over the plane, maybe they kill the pilot and tell the co-pilot to set course for Diego to crash into the base. The co-pilot knows the whole 9/11 history and instead of plotting a course for Diego, he plots it for the middle of the ocean. He hopes to gain enough time to land this thing in Australia or on an island somewhere, but the terrorists either figure out his plan and kill him, or they simply run out of fuel before getting to Australia.

Or the hijackers plot the course, take over the plane, but they screw it up and fly towards the south Indian Ocean and run out of fuel. amiright???

Also I suspect that the radar data Malaysia got today was from us. We headed for the south Indian Ocean days ago, I think we knew that was the direction of the plane based on radar we have out there. We didn't tell Malaysia because they are stupid. Or we got something from China but China said we couldn't share with Malaysia unless we passed it off as our own data. Either way we give this info to the Phillipines who falls on the sword and sends Malaysia the data saying they just realized it was pertinent. amiright?
Click to expand...
This seems along the most reasonable stories, IMO. The biggest parts of the mystery are what/who/why caused the plane to fly where it did, and where the hell it is now.

If it were just a hijack, you have a lot of problems about answering where the plane is now, how is it possible nobody saw it, there are only a limited number of places it could've landed, etc.

If it was just a crash, that doesn't explain the communications being turned off, going off course, flying for six hours, etc.

A story that basically is about a hijack ending up with a screw-up (i.e. a crash in the middle of the ocean) does a pretty good job explaining both why the plane did what it did and why we can't find it now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
TxBuckeye said:
KCitons said:
The guy that CNN has had in a simulator for the past week, did a landing on a short runway. He went off the end of the runway little, but afterwards he said the reverse thrust of the engines never engaged. So, he predicted that it could be done.

He also said the amount of fuel (weight) would effect the braking distance. Maybe that's why the plane flew around so long. Burning off fuel?
Click to expand...
Weight is a huge factor in landing distance. The other is the runway surface. A dry runway is optimal. A wet runway can increase breaking distance greatly. Dirt would definitely increase it (wheels won't grip like on concrete). But yea, if you don't intend to take off again, and if you can put it down on brick one (runway behind you is useless), then you can land on a much shorter surface. Don't underestimate the difficulty in hitting brick one though. For that to happen, it would HAVE to be an experienced pilot. Not someone that used just a flight sim to learn just enough to get it there. So for the short runway theory, I would say you likely needed the Captain to be flying. Even the copilot was likely to new to be that proficient.
Click to expand...
How much of a ratio is there to takeoff and landing. If the plane could land on a 5000 ft runway, does it need 25% more (7500 ft) for takeoff. What about stripping weight for takeoff?
Click to expand...
If they got rid of all the passangers, cargo, and fuel they would need 0% more for takeoff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mr roboto said:
Fennis said:
mr roboto said:
I don't know if the map of all 600+ runways has been posted. Here it is...

http://project.wnyc.org/runways/

...all long enough and within range. Obviously there are many to rule out, but it is fascinating to see how many places there would be to land a plane.
Click to expand...
How many of the 600 runways could a giant airplane land without permission or being noticed.
Click to expand...
42
Click to expand...
That would narrow it way down, but I think you are 42 too high.

 
KCitons said:
How much of a ratio is there to takeoff and landing. If the plane could land on a 5000 ft runway, does it need 25% more (7500 ft) for takeoff. What about stripping weight for takeoff?
Click to expand...
No ratio that I know of. Not to say some pilots don't have a number in their head. But realize, most runway computations take in to account how much runway you need to accelerate, have a major catastrophe (like engine failure) and still either a) have room to stop or b) have enough room to continue to accelerate on one engine and take off. A terrorist obviously isn't going to worry about a safety factor like that. So they can probably take off on a much shorter runway than any published data is going to indicate.
 
Doctor Detroit said:
TxBuckeye said:
Did the Navy pull out of Diego Garcia, or am I missing something here? I would think a fully manned Navy base would notice a 777 landing on their runway.
Click to expand...
Maybe they weren't turning to land at Diego Garcia, maybe they were going to land on top of Diego Garcia. Some of the bombing missions for Afghanistan came from Diego, maybe someone was trying to get payback.

So hear me out. Plane is hijacked by one or several of the passengers who would obviously have to have clean records to get on the flight. They take over the plane, maybe they kill the pilot and tell the co-pilot to set course for Diego to crash into the base. The co-pilot knows the whole 9/11 history and instead of plotting a course for Diego, he plots it for the middle of the ocean. He hopes to gain enough time to land this thing in Australia or on an island somewhere, but the terrorists either figure out his plan and kill him, or they simply run out of fuel before getting to Australia.

Or the hijackers plot the course, take over the plane, but they screw it up and fly towards the south Indian Ocean and run out of fuel. amiright???

Also I suspect that the radar data Malaysia got today was from us. We headed for the south Indian Ocean days ago, I think we knew that was the direction of the plane based on radar we have out there. We didn't tell Malaysia because they are stupid. Or we got something from China but China said we couldn't share with Malaysia unless we passed it off as our own data. Either way we give this info to the Phillipines who falls on the sword and sends Malaysia the data saying they just realized it was pertinent. amiright?
Click to expand...
New MH370 satellite data calculations narrow hunt to remote stretch of ocean off Australia: Search area cut to the size of Arizona

Daily Mail is more of a tabloid that will run any speculation but it seems like Australia is more the focal point now

 
tjnc09 said:
Doctor Detroit said:
TxBuckeye said:
Did the Navy pull out of Diego Garcia, or am I missing something here? I would think a fully manned Navy base would notice a 777 landing on their runway.
Click to expand...
Maybe they weren't turning to land at Diego Garcia, maybe they were going to land on top of Diego Garcia. Some of the bombing missions for Afghanistan came from Diego, maybe someone was trying to get payback.

So hear me out. Plane is hijacked by one or several of the passengers who would obviously have to have clean records to get on the flight. They take over the plane, maybe they kill the pilot and tell the co-pilot to set course for Diego to crash into the base. The co-pilot knows the whole 9/11 history and instead of plotting a course for Diego, he plots it for the middle of the ocean. He hopes to gain enough time to land this thing in Australia or on an island somewhere, but the terrorists either figure out his plan and kill him, or they simply run out of fuel before getting to Australia.

Or the hijackers plot the course, take over the plane, but they screw it up and fly towards the south Indian Ocean and run out of fuel. amiright???

Also I suspect that the radar data Malaysia got today was from us. We headed for the south Indian Ocean days ago, I think we knew that was the direction of the plane based on radar we have out there. We didn't tell Malaysia because they are stupid. Or we got something from China but China said we couldn't share with Malaysia unless we passed it off as our own data. Either way we give this info to the Phillipines who falls on the sword and sends Malaysia the data saying they just realized it was pertinent. amiright?
Click to expand...
New MH370 satellite data calculations narrow hunt to remote stretch of ocean off Australia: Search area cut to the size of Arizona

Daily Mail is more of a tabloid that will run any speculation but it seems like Australia is more the focal point now
Click to expand...
Yes, my post assumes that the plane is where the U.S. is searching.

 
avoiding injuries said:
I heard a good explanation on TV this evening (at least to me). At first, the Malaysian government/airline was being overly cautious and only releasing information once it was corroborated, but the media was moving so much faster that it appeared like they were withholding that information for other reasons. Since then, they've been releasing every little bit of information they gather, true or not, in order not to appear like they are hiding anything.

Tough spot to be in.
Click to expand...
The Malaysians may be slow in handing out information but they are Speedy Gonzales with other things...

First insurance payments made for missing plane: German insurance company Allianz said it has made initial payments in connection with the missing Malaysian Airlines plane, according to The Associated Press. Allianz's global head of communication Hugo Kidston confirmed Wednesday that the Munich-based insurer and "other co-reinsurers of Malaysia Airlines aviation hull and liability policy have made initial payments."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What are they going to discover when they actually find the plane or pieces of it? I understand the need to solve a mystery and try to find answers for the relatives of all on the pane but nothing good is going to happen.

This is why I simply will not fly anywhere.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
What are they going to discover when they actually find the plane or pieces of it? I understand the need to solve a mystery and try to find answers for the relatives of all on the pane but nothing good is going to happen.

This is why I simply will not fly anywhere.
Click to expand...
updating my notebook; if MOP's plane goes down, don't bother looking for it.

 
fatness said:
Da Guru said:
Just read that the Muslim pilot deleted all the files from his flight simulator the day before the flight.
Click to expand...
You heard wrong.

Malaysian investigators - with the help of the FBI - are trying to restore files deleted last month from the home flight simulator of the pilot aboard the missing Malaysia Airlines plane to see if they shed any light on the disappearance, officials said Wednesday.Hishammuddin Hussein told a news conference that the pilot, Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah, is considered innocent until proven guilty of any wrongdoing, and that members of his family are cooperating in the investigation. Files containing records of simulations carried out on the program were deleted Feb. 3,
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-pilot-zaharie-ahmad-shah-deleted-files-from-simulator-police/
Click to expand...
Sounds a lot like the proverbial fishing expedition. I don't blame them for pursuing this, but I'd lay very long odds that this was anything more than an innocent deletion.

 
17seconds said:
NCCommish said:
17seconds said:
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.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. You have to have a good rep for it to be tarnished.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
So you're saying people won't buy the next edition of the National Enquirer?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dr Oadi
Looks like there is a trend going on in Philly.
Replies
7
Views
805
Dr Oadi
Dr Oadi
popsecret
Disgusting Behavior
Replies
14
Views
998
Al O'Pecia
Al O'Pecia
Raider Nation
Amazing new study: Men like women in high heels!
Replies
38
Views
1K
Hang 10
Hang 10

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top