Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 vanishes without trace

This is terrible :(
As treefrog says no radio distress signal from the pilots and no automatic location beacon.
Very worrying.
 
It hasn't 'vanished' it's crashed into the sea.
Terrible news all the same.

Well it has vanished because there is no sign of it.

Yup. Not trying to be deliberately emotive or suggest anything weird but until there's a confirmed visual or radio signal that's exactly what's happened.

God, I can't imagine how the families must feel. The not knowing and the conflicting reports... :(
 
I can see what you're saying Treefrog, but it makes it sound like a magic trick. Vanishes without trace, well it does to me anyway.
I grew my irrational fear of planes when very young and have never flown. They crash all the time it's just the size of them that change.
The one in Mozambique recently rarely hit the headlines here....30 something people died in that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mab
I can see what you're saying Treefrog, but it makes it sound like a magic trick. Vanishes without trace, well it does to me anyway.
I grew my irrational fear of planes when very young and have never flown. They crash all the time it's just the size of them that change.
The one in Mozambique recently rarely hit the headlines here....30 something people died in that one.
Cars crash all the time
Bikes crash all the time

Both those things are more true than of planes.
 
I can see what you're saying Treefrog, but it makes it sound like a magic trick. Vanishes without trace, well it does to me anyway.
I grew my irrational fear of planes when very young and have never flown. They crash all the time it's just the size of them that change.
The one in Mozambique recently rarely hit the headlines here....30 something people died in that one.
you haven't read the link in the op have you
 
This is just awful worst nightmare realised. Pretty sure every time an incident occurs there's an investigation carried out and some form of recommendation needs to put implemented to make sure it doesn't happen again. Therefore it has got safer as an industry over the years.

It is true that less planes crash than cars and bikes etc but there are a hell of a lot less journeys made on a daily basis than cars. Bound to be a study out there to show how this all even outs.

Would need to get their act together I'm due to fly one of these planes in a couple of weeks not exactly a good reminder of the perils of aviation.
 
Only the second 777 ever to be lost I think. the only other one (afaik) was the BA Heathrow crash where everyone walked away (miraculously)

Edit, one went down in San Francisco last year
 
Last edited:
This is just awful worst nightmare realised. Pretty sure every time an incident occurs there's an investigation carried out and some form of recommendation needs to put implemented to make sure it doesn't happen again. Therefore it has got safer as an industry over the years.

It is true that less planes crash than cars and bikes etc but there are a hell of a lot less journeys made on a daily basis than cars. Bound to be a study out there to show how this all even outs.

Would need to get their act together I'm due to fly one of these planes in a couple of weeks not exactly a good reminder of the perils of aviation.

From wiki (edited to correct formatting mess)

Deaths per billion journeys
Bus: 4.3
Rail: 20
Van: 20
Car: 40
Foot: 40
Water: 90
Air: 117
Bicycle: 170
Motorcycle: 1640
Space Shuttle: 104,000,000

Deaths per billion hours
Bus: 11.1
Rail: 30
Air: 30.8
Water: 50
Van: 60
Car: 130
Foot: 220
Bicycle: 550
Motorcycle: 4840
Space Shuttle: 438,000

Deaths per billion kilometres
Air: 0.05
Bus: 0.4
Rail: 0.6
Van: 1.2
Water: 2.6
Car: 3.1
Space Shuttle: 16.2
Bicycle: 44.6
Foot: 54.2
Motorcycle: 108.9

"The first two statistics are computed for typical travels for respective forms of transport, so they cannot be used directly to compare risks related to different forms of transport in a particular travel "from A to B". For example: according to statistics, a typical flight from Los Angeles to New York will carry a larger risk factor than a typical car travel from home to office. But a car travel from Los Angeles to New York would not be typical. It would be as large as several dozens of typical car travels, and associated risk will be larger as well. Because the journey would take a much longer time, the overall risk associated by making this journey by car will be higher than making the same journey by air, even if each individual hour of car travel can be less risky than an hour of flight.
<snip>
Fatalities have been in constant decline since the mid-1990s, while the number of passenger flight-hours has kept increasing since the 1950s."

three sets of stats here. from wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
Appears to have gone AWOL as it reached cruising altitude (35kft) which might suggest pressure hull failure. Two possibilities (but not the only) being structural breakdown or explosive device built around a barometric switch. Ocean isn't too deep there so recovery of the CVR/FDR could follow soon.
 
Awful situation.

To just vanish like that, bomb or pilot suicide, or worse in many ways if it just disintegrated.

Must be so terrible for the families waiting for news, knowing that it is unlikely to be good :(
 
From wiki (edited to correct formatting mess)

Deaths per billion journeys
Bus: 4.3
Rail: 20
Van: 20
Car: 40
Foot: 40
Water: 90
Air: 117
Bicycle: 170
Motorcycle: 1640
Space Shuttle: 104,000,000

Well done for finding these spanglechick!

I think this (deaths per journeys) is the most relevant stat. After all it is when you undertake a journey that you undertake risk. So you get in the car for a journey, there is risk, you get on a plane for a journey you take a risk, etc .. based on that Air is quite risky .. more than double as risky as driving!

"The first two statistics are computed for typical travels for respective forms of transport, so they cannot be used directly to compare risks related to different forms of transport in a particular travel "from A to B". For example: according to statistics, a typical flight from Los Angeles to New York will carry a larger risk factor than a typical car travel from home to office. But a car travel from Los Angeles to New York would not be typical. It would be as large as several dozens of typical car travels, and associated risk will be larger as well. Because the journey would take a much longer time, the overall risk associated by making this journey by car will be higher than making the same journey by air, even if each individual hour of car travel can be less risky than an hour of flight.
<snip>
Fatalities have been in constant decline since the mid-1990s, while the number of passenger flight-hours has kept increasing since the 1950s."

three sets of stats here. from wikipedia.
 
This is the plane that's gone missing.

f817641a-a3aa-4432-867c-c186c463f767-620x372.jpeg


Malaysia Airlines gave the registration number of the aircraft as 9M-MRO, indicating the plane is 11 years and eight months old. It was powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines, an airline official confirmed by telephone from Kuala Lumpur.
 
Well done for finding these spanglechick!

I think this (deaths per journeys) is the most relevant stat. After all it is when you undertake a journey that you undertake risk. So you get in the car for a journey, there is risk, you get on a plane for a journey you take a risk, etc .. based on that Air is quite risky .. more than double as risky as driving!
but not as risky as cycling.
 
Back
Top Bottom