missing plane

This an internet forum, there's a great deal of public interest in the topic - magnified by what appear to be a mystery right now - and this sort of discussion is inevitable. I doubt if anyone is being deliberately insensitive.
 
Byker
I am not sure what 'facts' you suggest I have wrong. At no point did I suggest that this aircraft has been shot down. All I have done is tell people what the result of loosing the transponder is, the aircraft does not 'disappear' because of it, and unidentified returns on primary radar are usually intercepted. In the main because of the IR655 and Koren 007, no country in it's right mind nowadays would shoot before identifying positively. Had the Vietnamese launched fighters, and seen it was an MH flight, they would have no reason to shoot it down, there are a huge number of flights trogging along the airway it was meant to be on, so there would be no reason to do so.

Perhaps you'd guide me to this incorrect fact? Oh, you can't, simply because there isn't one is there?
 
MartynK said:
This an internet forum, there's a great deal of public interest in the topic - magnified by what appear to be a mystery right now - and this sort of discussion is inevitable. I doubt if anyone is being deliberately insensitive.
Click to expand...



:agree:
 
Just been reading that Rolls Royce, in Derby, track live the operational performance of all their aircraft engines. They do not track location, but should know when transmission stopped. Be interesting to know whether transmissions from the transponder stopped at the same time as those from the engines.
 
Bernie174 said:
Byker
I am not sure what 'facts' you suggest I have wrong. At no point did I suggest that this aircraft has been shot down. All I have done is tell people what the result of loosing the transponder is, the aircraft does not 'disappear' because of it, and unidentified returns on primary radar are usually intercepted. In the main because of the IR655 and Koren 007, no country in it's right mind nowadays would shoot before identifying positively. Had the Vietnamese launched fighters, and seen it was an MH flight, they would have no reason to shoot it down, there are a huge number of flights trogging along the airway it was meant to be on, so there would be no reason to do so.

Perhaps you'd guide me to this incorrect fact? Oh, you can't, simply because there isn't one is there?
Click to expand...

I think it was when you said "Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!", and resorted to complete rudeness towards Gary. Byker gave incidences where planes HAVE' been fired at, and asked you to check your facts.

Oh, and wind your neck in a little (y)
 
Nick

"We", means the UK. I will check if you and Byker insist, but I am reasonably sure I'll find that the UK had nothing what so ever to do with shooting down anything except for a number of Argentine, one North Korean and One of our own aircraft since the end of WW2 (OK last one was an accident, and in Germany).
Garry is an adult, and can try stand up for himself, and in any case deserved fully the comment, as he'd clearly jumped to conclusions in preference to reading what was in front of him, so no, I'll not wind anything in.
 
Bernie174 said:
Nick

"We", means the UK. I will check if you and Byker insist, but I am reasonably sure I'll find that the UK had nothing what so ever to do with shooting down anything except for a number of Argentine, one North Korean and One of our own aircraft since the end of WW2 (OK last one was an accident, and in Germany).
Garry is an adult, and can try stand up for himself, and in any case deserved fully the comment, as he'd clearly jumped to conclusions in preference to reading what was in front of him, so no, I'll not wind anything in.
Click to expand...

Ive no doubt Gary can stick up for himself, and I wasnt attempting to do so. Was it right of you to use the phrase "Go back to the lighting forum...etc" when replying to his post? No, I dont think it was. Did he fully deserve that typical keyboard warrior rudeness? No, but I suppose that rude, dismissive attitude is indicitive of a certain number of people that frequent this forum. Well done (y)
 
Ricardodaforce said:
the usual TP know it alls are using it as a mechanism to score brownie points..
Click to expand...

The irony of that statement would be laughable if it were not so sad... people who live in glass houses...
 
I heard on the radio earlier that police have identified one of the people with a stolen passport and ruled out a link to terrorism - apparently he was a 19 year old Iranian dissident who wanted to get to Europe to claim asylum
 
I hope that this thread can now remain on course and concentrate on discussion of the incident and stay detached from those who seem to want to indulge in squabbling amongst themseleves.
 
Bernie174 said:
Hugh

Transponders don't just stop. .
Click to expand...


Hmm!

[quote="Published on 22 Jan 2014 by Reuters"]
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) 787 Dreamliner operated by Air India Ltd AIN.UL this week returned to London due to a communications problem, but has since been operational, the Indian state-run carrier said on Wednesday.

The aircraft's transponder failed during the flight on Sunday from London to New Delhi, Air India spokesman G.P. Rao said, adding there was no immediate safety concern. The plane was back in operation on Monday after engineers fixed the transponder, he said.
[/QUOTE]
 
Acetone.
The difference being that the AI crew were still talking. According to Boeing there are 2 transponders on the 787, it doesn't make it clear if both fell over, but given the recent history of the 787 and electrical problems, it's no real surprise it went back.

Perhaps I should make it clearer then. Transponders don't just stop, at the same time as radio communication, the primary radar return, the engine health monitoring system talking to Derby, and the aircraft's health reporting system.
Which is what happened to the MH.

Doug, as with all management speak words, it means doing it on the cheap.
 
Bernie174 said:
Perhaps I should make it clearer then. Transponders don't just stop, at the same time as radio communication, the primary radar return, the engine health monitoring system talking to Derby, and the aircraft's health reporting system.
.
Click to expand...

They do if something goes boom (whether its a bomb or a more prosaic failure) - I see on the news that a "flaming object" was seen in the sky in east of Vietnam round about the time this jet went missing - although if it is that you have to wonder what it was doing so far off course
 
big soft moose said:
They do if something goes boom (whether its a bomb or a more prosaic failure) - I see on the news that a "flaming object" was seen in the sky in east of Vietnam round about the time this jet went missing - although if it is that you have to wonder what it was doing so far off course
Click to expand...

Seen by a named worker on an oil platform, however news says the oil company claim they have no record of an oil worker with the quoted name on said rig.
 
Apparently the area has been checked multiple times with nothing there.
RR engine data suggests the engines were running for 4 hours after last radar contact, putting Pakistan within reach.

How an airliner can fly for 4 hours undetected by any radar system is slight worrying though.
 
Could the engine data possibly be set in the wrong time zone, or would it be GMT worldwide then adjusted?

Thes an interesting article in the local press (I'm currently in Asia) about north Korea test firing a missile into the path of a Chinese jet last week.
 
Bernie174 said:
Nick

"We", means the UK. I will check if you and Byker insist, but I am reasonably sure I'll find that the UK had nothing what so ever to do with shooting down anything except for a number of Argentine, one North Korean and One of our own aircraft since the end of WW2 (OK last one was an accident, and in Germany).
Garry is an adult, and can try stand up for himself, and in any case deserved fully the comment, as he'd clearly jumped to conclusions in preference to reading what was in front of him, so no, I'll not wind anything in.
Click to expand...

Bernie, I'll stand corrected but you didn't make it all that clear. We are talking about a volatile part of the world and civilian airliners have been shot down by mistake.

P.s. the uk may have accidentally shot down an air Linus flight in 1968. Sorry cant post link on this iPad but look for air lingus flight 712.
 
Last edited:
TCR4x4 said:
Apparently the area has been checked multiple times with nothing there.
RR engine data suggests the engines were running for 4 hours after last radar contact, putting Pakistan within reach.

How an airliner can fly for 4 hours undetected by any radar system is slight worrying though.
Click to expand...

Radar cover does not cover massively far from land, Tom. No idea what form of tracking or comms that plane used for oceanic flights (possibly an automated systemm).
If that aircraft has not gone down near to where contact was lost it has the potential to be about 2000 miles from there. Quite likely it is in the sea somewhere since it would have been picked up on primary radar had it ventured over land.
Big mystery, that's for sure
 
Last edited:
TCR4x4 said:
Apparently the area has been checked multiple times with nothing there.
RR engine data suggests the engines were running for 4 hours after last radar contact, putting Pakistan within reach.

How an airliner can fly for 4 hours undetected by any radar system is slight worrying though.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but there seem to be lots of conflicting stories around. This suggests the data is sent in bursts at times during the flight. And only the first 2 were received http://www.newscientist.com/article...ngine-data-before-vanishing.html#.UyF2ItxeJs4

Very big mystery
 
boyfalldown said:
Interesting, but there seem to be lots of conflicting stories around. This suggests the data is sent in bursts at times during the flight. And only the first 2 were received http://www.newscientist.com/article...ngine-data-before-vanishing.html#.UyF2ItxeJs4

Very big mystery
Click to expand...

The whole things is both tragic and fascinating. I'm sure that in the world of conspiracy theorists they are having a field day. This not knowing must be awful for the families of those on board.
 
Listened to the latest press conference from KL about 30 minutes ago. Malaysians said "The plane has vanished".

They also dismissed reports that it kept flying for 4 hours after loss of contact.
 
Last edited:
Genuine question: Is it possible for a plane such as this to make an emergency landing on water and not break up to the extent where debris is created?
 
TCR4x4 said:
Apparently the area has been checked multiple times with nothing there.
RR engine data suggests the engines were running for 4 hours after last radar contact, putting Pakistan within reach.

How an airliner can fly for 4 hours undetected by any radar system is slight worrying though.
Click to expand...

I saw this article yesterday about the information sent by aircraft and those not on radar areas, which is an interesting 2 page read. http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...ppearance_is_unlike_anything_in_aviation.html
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Genuine question: Is it possible for a plane such as this to make an emergency landing on water and not break up to the extent where debris is created?
Click to expand...

When that plane came down on the Hudson River in 2009, it was said at the time that in theory, a plane can land on water without breaking up, but that was the first time it had actually been achieved by an airliner if memory serves about the incident, though I am sure there are people in this thread that can fill in more information about it such events.
 
Yv said:
When that plane came down on the Hudson River in 2009, it was said at the time that in theory, a plane can land on water without breaking up, but that was the first time it had actually been achieved by an airliner if memory serves about the incident, though I am sure there are people in this thread that can fill in more information about it such events.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. It was just a passing thought really. If it landed without creating debris, could it have sunk before anyone had time to open the emergency doors and deploy the evacuation slides etc...who knows. Certainly is a mystery.
 
Yv said:
When that plane came down on the Hudson River in 2009, it was said at the time that in theory, a plane can land on water without breaking up, but that was the first time it had actually been achieved by an airliner if memory serves about the incident, though I am sure there are people in this thread that can fill in more information about it such events.
Click to expand...

It's practiced in the simulator by every pilot as far as I'm aware, but in reality it's so difficult to do, as the engines can dig in, you have to land it tail first and hope that doesn't break off etc. There was that incident when the plane ditched a few years back just off a beach! I think that cartwheeled.
 
Last edited:
Nikon_Nick said:
Ok, thanks. It was just a passing thought really. If it landed without creating debris, could it have sunk before anyone had time to open the emergency doors and deploy the evacuation slides etc...who knows. Certainly is a mystery.
Click to expand...

James Bond Thunderball - Landed a Vulcan in the sea!
 
Byker28i said:
It's practiced in the simulator by every pilot as far as I'm aware, but in reality it's so difficult to do, as the engines can dig in, you have to land it tail first and hope that doesn't break off etc. There was that incident when the plane ditched a few years back just off a beach! I think that cartwheeled.
Click to expand...
Yep, thats pretty much how I remember the info that was offered at the time, plus I think even that one lost an engine didn't it, I seem to recall some news item showing them working on how they were going to recover it from the river bed. Yes, I know, I could google all this quite easily :LOL:
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Genuine question: Is it possible for a plane such as this to make an emergency landing on water and not break up to the extent where debris is created?
Click to expand...

In theory if you had a decent ammount of controllability then yes probably - and if you did the air inside and the wing plan would probably keep it afloat long enough to get people off - however if your plane was fully functional you wouldn't be landing on water anyway - whether you could get a damaged plane with serious faults down safely would probably be another matter - the hudson river pilot did, but he was relatively low and slow at the time - getting a badly damaged tripple 7 down from altitude and pulling off a safe landing would be miraculous, you'd be much more likely to break up or depart controlled flight and spin in, or to cartwheel when you hit the water which would leave debris.

The question of why they havent found debris is more likely answered by the sea being a very big place, and the debris not staying afloat that long - what has happened to the black box is another question
 
big soft moose said:
In theory if you had a decent ammount of controllability then yes probably - and if you did the air inside and the wing plan would probably keep it afloat long enough to get people off - however if your plane was fully functional you wouldn't be landing on water anyway - whether you could get a damaged plane with serious faults down safely would probably be another matter - the hudson river pilot did, but he was relatively low and slow at the time - getting a badly damaged tripple 7 down from altitude and pulling off a safe landing would be miraculous, you'd be much more likely to break up or depart controlled flight and spin in, or to cartwheel when you hit the water which would leave debris.

The question of why they havent found debris is more likely answered by the sea being a very big place, and the debris not staying afloat that long - what has happened to the black box is another question
Click to expand...

The flight data recorder is designed to send out a homing signal once per second from depths up to 20,000 ft for 30 days. It is audible on sonar, but only from a few miles therefore searchers would need to get quite near before hearing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top