Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"

[TheJimi]

Schiehallion85 said:

It is astonishing that given the amount of time that has gone by, and the amount of resource searching for this plane, that nothing, not even a page out of the in flight magazine or a floating coffee cup let alone a piece of structural wreckage or internal plastic fitting has been found yet.

I haven't been keeping up with the situation, but if the above is true, that's astonishing.

[MartG]

There's a chance that some stuff has washed ashore but hasn't been identified, just mixed in with the rest of the rubbish that washes up

[jmorgan]

Schiehallion85 said:

It is astonishing that given the amount of time that has gone by, and the amount of resource searching for this plane, that nothing, not even a page out of the in flight magazine or a floating coffee cup let alone a piece of structural wreckage or internal plastic fitting has been found yet.

Not knowing what resources are being deployed and how and what the norm is for possible fates with regards debris, I prefer to keep an open mind and not be astonished.

[davepoth]

TheJimi said:

Schiehallion85 said:

It is astonishing that given the amount of time that has gone by, and the amount of resource searching for this plane, that nothing, not even a page out of the in flight magazine or a floating coffee cup let alone a piece of structural wreckage or internal plastic fitting has been found yet.

I haven't been keeping up with the situation, but if the above is true, that's astonishing.

It all depends on the mode of the crash really. A high altitude explosion would have thrown lots of rubbish around. However, a stall-speed water landing (rather than crash) and subsequent sinking would leave no wreckage on the surface at all, possibly not even oil if it sank quickly enough.

[AreOut]

it's nigh on impossible to sink it where they are looking for it, you would have to be very very lucky(courage aside) to land hydroplane succesifully in roaring forties let alone an airliner

[jmorgan]

AreOut said:

it's nigh on impossible to sink it where they are looking for it, you would have to be very very lucky(courage aside) to land hydroplane succesifully in roaring forties let alone an airliner

In what way? Float for ever or what am I missing?

[anonymous-user]

jmorgan said:

In what way? Float for ever or what am I missing?

I think he means you could not land it without some form of break-up. Thus there would be floating debris of some sort.

[davepoth]

garyhun said:

jmorgan said:

In what way? Float for ever or what am I missing?

I think he means you could not land it without some form of break-up. Thus there would be floating debris of some sort.

Ridiculously unlikely given the series of circumstances required (slack water, low sink rate, level aircraft, slow speed) and the location.

But not impossible. We have run out of likely possibilities, and so we've got to start considering the unlikely ones.

[jmorgan]

davepoth said:

garyhun said:

jmorgan said:

In what way? Float for ever or what am I missing?

I think he means you could not land it without some form of break-up. Thus there would be floating debris of some sort.

Ridiculously unlikely given the series of circumstances required (slack water, low sink rate, level aircraft, slow speed) and the location.

But not impossible. We have run out of likely possibilities, and so we've got to start considering the unlikely ones.

But what data is there to back whatever up? I know there have been crashes in the sea before but given that aircraft do not routinely fall out of the sky all over the world, the unlikely might be the bleeding obvious on reflection.

[Steffan]

davepoth said:

garyhun said:

jmorgan said:

In what way? Float for ever or what am I missing?

I think he means you could not land it without some form of break-up. Thus there would be floating debris of some sort.

Ridiculously unlikely given the series of circumstances required (slack water, low sink rate, level aircraft, slow speed) and the location.

But not impossible. We have run out of likely possibilities, and so we've got to start considering the unlikely ones.

Indeed. In very rare cases like this (fortunately) the unlikely must be carefully reviewed. I think this will remain a mystery until there is a substantive discovery of actual physical evidence assuming that does happen eventually. Given the probability of total destruction of most of the plane that could be some while yet. But eventually I do think the searching will find something. Whether that will reveal a more certain series of events I just cannot predict. Dreadfully sad business and likely to be some time yet before such discoveries become apparent. If in fact they ever do.

[ATV]

Schiehallion85 said:

It is astonishing that given the amount of time that has gone by, and the amount of resource searching for this plane, that nothing, not even a page out of the in flight magazine or a floating coffee cup let alone a piece of structural wreckage or internal plastic fitting has been found yet.

There was a suicide crash in 1985, SilkAir Flight 185, into a river, which obliterated the plane so completely that, quote: "Not a single complete body, body part, or limb was found, as the entire aircraft and passengers disintegrated upon impact. Only six positive identifications were later obtained from the few recovered human remains" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185)

The aircraft wreckage was recovered from the bottom of the river in an area of 200x260 feet but there WAS other debris spread out over several kilometers and the authorities knew exactly the point of impact with the river.

However in the case of MH370, no one knows where it went down so much harder to localise debris and as someone else pointed out, might now be mixed up with other general ocean debris.

I agree with your statement that this whole case is astonishing.

[cayman-black]

Yet here we are sending rockets in to space, but we cant even find things on earth! Unbelievable.

[davepoth]

jmorgan said:

But what data is there to back whatever up? I know there have been crashes in the sea before but given that aircraft do not routinely fall out of the sky all over the world, the unlikely might be the bleeding obvious on reflection.

None at all. That's the problem. All we know is that the plane was probably over the sea when it went down. It probably ran out of fuel solely on the basis that it had been in the air for long enough for that to happen. We also know that in a very narrow set of circumstances it's possible for an airliner to sink without leaving a debris field at all, and that in a wider set of circumstances it's possible for an airliner to leave a very small debris field, most of which would sink.

What we don't know is if there was anyone at the controls, or if that person was aiming to not kill everyone aboard. We just don't know enough.

[cossy400]

cayman-black said:

Yet here we are sending rockets in to space, but we cant even find things on earth! Unbelievable.

Shouldn't laugh I know but this is so, so true.

[FourWheelDrift]

Space though is sort of big, and when you fire a rocket into space you are firing it at something that's quite bit and you'd have to be very bad at aiming to miss it.

A small plane in a very big ocean is slightly harder to find. Rather like trying to find your lost car keys. You are sure you left them in the kitchen but you have looked everywhere in there, you move onto other rooms yet you keep going back to the kitchen without success, you then start looking outside. You ask for help they ask "where did you see them last", you say the kitchen so you go back to the kitchen. Your keys are in the dog.

Or to put it in a Titanic way, it was found nowhere near the position it was lost.

[AreOut]

davepoth said:

None at all. That's the problem. All we know is that the plane was probably over the sea when it went down. It probably ran out of fuel solely on the basis that it had been in the air for long enough for that to happen. We also know that in a very narrow set of circumstances it's possible for an airliner to sink without leaving a debris field at all, and that in a wider set of circumstances it's possible for an airliner to leave a very small debris field, most of which would sink.

What we don't know is if there was anyone at the controls, or if that person was aiming to not kill everyone aboard. We just don't know enough.

We have to believe Inmarsat on the first one, because if it's some conspiracy involving even them then we are in a much bigger trouble than having a missing plane. It most likely ran out of fuel or it was very close to it forcing them to land on water, likelihood >99%.

If the person was aiming to sink the plane unnoticed this certainly wasn't the location to choose, he could go to Pacific totally unnoticed without overflying any radar coverage and sink it in much calmer waters so I will completely exclude this possibility. If it's landed successfully on water (and afterwards sank) it was done for people to survive. And the reason why they didn't send distress signal - communications/electrics were damaged and of course no phone coverage.

[Vipers]

ATV said:

Schiehallion85 said:

It is astonishing that given the amount of time that has gone by, and the amount of resource searching for this plane, that nothing, not even a page out of the in flight magazine or a floating coffee cup let alone a piece of structural wreckage or internal plastic fitting has been found yet.

There was a suicide crash in 1985, SilkAir Flight 185, into a river, which obliterated the plane so completely that, quote: "Not a single complete body, body part, or limb was found, as the entire aircraft and passengers disintegrated upon impact. Only six positive identifications were later obtained from the few recovered human remains" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185)

The aircraft wreckage was recovered from the bottom of the river in an area of 200x260 feet but there WAS other debris spread out over several kilometers and the authorities knew exactly the point of impact with the river.

However in the case of MH370, no one knows where it went down so much harder to localise debris and as someone else pointed out, might now be mixed up with other general ocean debris.

I agree with your statement that this whole case is astonishing.

Given it could have ditched way off the usual shipping lanes, and taking into account merchant ships (unlike military ones), do not have lookouts, even if debris was floating around, it could easily be missed.

Plus as has been said so many times, it's a big ocean.

[zac510]

cossy400 said:

cayman-black said:

Yet here we are sending rockets in to space, but we cant even find things on earth! Unbelievable.

Shouldn't laugh I know but this is so, so true.

They plan for years to send a rocket to space. This plane hasn't even been lost for 12 months. It may be factually true but it's a fking stupid comparison.

[hidetheelephants]

BlackLabel said:

The former Malaysian PM does not seem to have much confidence in the airline.

article said:

Kuala Lumpur: Malaysians are too "stupid" to manage aviation.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/malaysians-too-stupid-to-run-airline-says-former-pm-mahathir-mohamad-630836

Nothing to do with corruption, nepotism and racism then? Much easier to just utter bks like this.

[motomk]

Some info on what they are up to.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/mh370-new-vi...

http://www.jacc.gov.au/families/operational_report...