Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"
Discussion
200KG of Lithium ion batteries....
I fly a quadcopter which uses lithium polymer batteries, both are really dangerous if pierced or damaged, just do a youtube search for 'lipo fire' and you'll see what I mean.
Also and more importantly I was told a few months back that Lithium batteries weren't being transported via aircraft as often due to a few fires on board aircraft hense the reason they're so expensive in the UK these days. (manufactured abroad and shipped here)
Could it have been a really bad fire that took hold on board and they had to pull fuzes thinking it was a fire in the aircraft systems and isolate each system but unfortunately lost consciousness due to smoke inhalation and the aircraft was on autopilot and eventually crashed...location currently unknown.
Just my theory
I fly a quadcopter which uses lithium polymer batteries, both are really dangerous if pierced or damaged, just do a youtube search for 'lipo fire' and you'll see what I mean.
Also and more importantly I was told a few months back that Lithium batteries weren't being transported via aircraft as often due to a few fires on board aircraft hense the reason they're so expensive in the UK these days. (manufactured abroad and shipped here)
Could it have been a really bad fire that took hold on board and they had to pull fuzes thinking it was a fire in the aircraft systems and isolate each system but unfortunately lost consciousness due to smoke inhalation and the aircraft was on autopilot and eventually crashed...location currently unknown.
Just my theory
Hardly anything new as expected. So the hotspot mentioned isn't a new hotspot, but the original hotspot that Inmarsat came up with, based on the last partial ping or acars logon attempt, possibly caused by a power interruption as the engines flamed out. But they haven't searched there yet. They chose to search an area further north where they think they heard acoustic pings from the black box.
slartibartfast said:
Could it have been a really bad fire that took hold on board and they had to pull fuzes thinking it was a fire in the aircraft systems and isolate each system but unfortunately lost consciousness due to smoke inhalation and the aircraft was on autopilot and eventually crashed...location currently unknown.
Just my theory
no, the plane was deliberately flown along the thai border at a very low altitude, then rose up over malacca strait and went from waypoint to waypoint towards NW and afterwards went around Indonesia towards southeastJust my theory
there is a radar picture + inmarsat pings + several people on the ground witnessing big low-flying plane at night
also there is an assumption that whoever has flown the plane would go around Indonesia as to evade their radars (which he succeeded at as Indonesians claim their radars were operative at the time and nothing came on their radar screen)
now if there is a black-box evidence no there isn't, we'll have to wait for that until they find the plane...
also there is an assumption that whoever has flown the plane would go around Indonesia as to evade their radars (which he succeeded at as Indonesians claim their radars were operative at the time and nothing came on their radar screen)
now if there is a black-box evidence no there isn't, we'll have to wait for that until they find the plane...
AreOut said:
there is a radar picture + inmarsat pings + several people on the ground witnessing big low-flying plane at night
also there is an assumption that whoever has flown the plane would go around Indonesia as to evade their radars (which he succeeded at as Indonesians claim their radars were operative at the time and nothing came on their radar screen)
now if there is a black-box evidence no there isn't, we'll have to wait for that until they find the plane...
Where are the accounts of ''several people on the ground witnessing big low-flying plane at night'', please?also there is an assumption that whoever has flown the plane would go around Indonesia as to evade their radars (which he succeeded at as Indonesians claim their radars were operative at the time and nothing came on their radar screen)
now if there is a black-box evidence no there isn't, we'll have to wait for that until they find the plane...
There are quite a lot of reports if you look .
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/18/flight-mh370-residen...
This bloke speaks to a few of them I believe, there are a few out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKM7q56OQSw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3POGsZ6jFk
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/18/flight-mh370-residen...
This bloke speaks to a few of them I believe, there are a few out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKM7q56OQSw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3POGsZ6jFk
Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Wednesday 18th June 06:25
XJ Flyer said:
This is what it takes to make something that can escape Earth's gravity.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-cv_JJOxGI
This is what it would take to get a 777 into space.It's just that it would be going a lot further than the moon.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BiAVyMDWT4
That's practically Victorian tech by today's standards though. The smartphone in your pocket is many many times more powerful. Such brute force has been superceded by modern efficiency and consequent unexpected levels of performance. Given the right set of circumstances that it ended up in orbit, the pilot likely attempted a re-entry sequence but got the angle wrong and skipped off the upper atmosphere and is now adrift in space on the way to Mars. Either that or the plane did re-enter but completely burned up in the process. Either if these would explain what we're seeing here.www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-cv_JJOxGI
This is what it would take to get a 777 into space.It's just that it would be going a lot further than the moon.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BiAVyMDWT4
Westy Pre-Lit said:
There are quite a lot of reports if you look .
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/18/flight-mh370-residen...
This bloke speaks to a few of them I believe, there are a few out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKM7q56OQSw
Yes, I know about those.http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/18/flight-mh370-residen...
This bloke speaks to a few of them I believe, there are a few out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKM7q56OQSw
So no verified accounts, then? It can't have been where those 'witnesses' claim to have seen a plane and also where the inmarsat data places it, and I feel the inmarsat data is more compelling
dvs_dave said:
That's practically Victorian tech by today's standards though. The smartphone in your pocket is many many times more powerful. Such brute force has been superceded by modern efficiency and consequent unexpected levels of performance. Given the right set of circumstances that it ended up in orbit, the pilot likely attempted a re-entry sequence but got the angle wrong and skipped off the upper atmosphere and is now adrift in space on the way to Mars. Either that or the plane did re-enter but completely burned up in the process. Either if these would explain what we're seeing here.
Is this a serious post? (No offense intended)Anyway, rocket design hasn't really advanced that much since the Saturn V, unlike digital electronics.
Edited by scorp on Wednesday 18th June 06:53
Westy Pre-Lit said:
There are quite a lot of reports if you look .
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/18/flight-mh370-residen...
This bloke speaks to a few of them I believe, there are a few out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKM7q56OQSw
So you keep saying......http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/18/flight-mh370-residen...
This bloke speaks to a few of them I believe, there are a few out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKM7q56OQSw
dvs_dave said:
That's practically Victorian tech by today's standards though. The smartphone in your pocket is many many times more powerful. Such brute force has been superceded by modern efficiency and consequent unexpected levels of performance. Given the right set of circumstances that it ended up in orbit, the pilot likely attempted a re-entry sequence but got the angle wrong and skipped off the upper atmosphere and is now adrift in space on the way to Mars. Either that or the plane did re-enter but completely burned up in the process. Either if these would explain what we're seeing here.
Were you by any chance watching the Star Trek film on the other channel by mistake?TheSnitch said:
Yes, I know about those.
So no verified accounts, then? It can't have been where those 'witnesses' claim to have seen a plane and also where the inmarsat data places it, and I feel the inmarsat data is more compelling
Well if that's the case the authorities only have to go and verify them don't they, this isn't rocket science is it....have they even bothered ?So no verified accounts, then? It can't have been where those 'witnesses' claim to have seen a plane and also where the inmarsat data places it, and I feel the inmarsat data is more compelling
dvs_dave said:
That's practically Victorian tech by today's standards though. The smartphone in your pocket is many many times more powerful. Such brute force has been superceded by modern efficiency and consequent unexpected levels of performance. Given the right set of circumstances that it ended up in orbit, the pilot likely attempted a re-entry sequence but got the angle wrong and skipped off the upper atmosphere and is now adrift in space on the way to Mars. Either that or the plane did re-enter but completely burned up in the process. Either if these would explain what we're seeing here.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff