2hats
Dust.
One of the SFO Asiana 777 pilots reportedly took out several life insurance policies a month before that crash...
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 vanishes without trace
- Thread starter treefrog
- Start date
One of the SFO Asiana 777 pilots reportedly took out several life insurance policies a month before that crash...
xes
F.O.A.D
totally avoids the 20 semiconductor employees.
2hats
Dust.
Not comparable, I think. That wasn't a hijacking of any flavour. Quite probably all the actors there knew who were involved; no need to take out adverts in the papers (besides, like I said, it's a lot easier these days - just a few clicks away).
Also it seems somewhat unlikely to hijack the aircraft for subsequent use now that everyone and their dog is looking for you. More likely you'd want to play your hand as soon as possible. Can't see Uncle Sam losing interest until they are reasonably confident that it (and whoever flew it) no longer poses any threat.
But (assuming the primary radar and Inmarsat signal data are correct) I'm not sure that this is a hijacking either (in the sense of being carried out by an organised terrorist group). Someone had a very thorough understanding of how to fly this plane, extensive training and experience, handle it at the extremes of the performance envelope, evade radar, pick opportune moments to silence the plane comms (according to reports now clearly turned off and didn't fail in some unexpected event) and maximise confusion over responsibility on the ground (exploit delays in communication of events between neighbouring countries) possibly even compensating for having disabled other systems to minimise radio signature (eg TCAS). It would need an incredibly high level of familiarity with both that particular 777 variant and the local ATC neighbourhood, procedures, facilities, etc...
What are the chances of someone with a few months in flight school and how ever many hours on a sim lucking out and managing that?
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/ this website is sort of claiming it's being attacked for "twoofing" but I suspect it's just trying to get more traffic. (I've never seen this site before, and I've been around the conspiracy block a few times) one of the things which give this away is this little statement....(the capitals help, I'm sure)
if you can't be bothered to click, it's basically claiming that WW3 is coming, and this is a forewarning, and the 20 scientists from Freescale Semiconductor are having what ever info sucked from them, by the USA, so that they can fight China, who are now (according to this blog of nuttery) the new main players in world domination.
So, the plane has been hijacked by the USA, to extract info from military weapons scientists, before starting WW3. You heard it here first
I saw that one last night. Also came across another one from some guy whose dad was in the military and told him lots of secrets about technology but I didn't read it as I was too tired. I may have bookmarked it though
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Ok, 9 days after its loss: some speculation:
Mechanical failure: this aircraft was not fitted with the antenna linked to fuselage cracks and turning off communications suggests human intervention.
Terrorism: to crash into the Petronas Towers. Perhaps terrorists tried to force the pilots to fly to the towers but the pilots took them instead in a safe direction.
Hostage scenario: the plane was taken by terrorists, landed, and we await demands. This is the only scenario offering the possibility the occupants are still alive.
Pilot suicide: Why disable communications? Why not just crash? Perhaps the pilot wanted to ensure a life insurance payment?
Military accident: the plane was shot down by a SAM. Probably someone would have admitted fault, and why would communications have been turned off?
Of these I think the terrorism option seems quite strong, perhaps terrorists took control, (analysis of the passenger's backgrounds may identify suspects) wanted to crash into a high visibility target like the Petronas Towers in KL, but the pilots instead took the plane out over the sea.
Is this consistent with the aircraft increasing its altitude as it apparently did? Perhaps terrorists wanted to subdue the occupants?
Mechanical failure: this aircraft was not fitted with the antenna linked to fuselage cracks and turning off communications suggests human intervention.
Terrorism: to crash into the Petronas Towers. Perhaps terrorists tried to force the pilots to fly to the towers but the pilots took them instead in a safe direction.
Hostage scenario: the plane was taken by terrorists, landed, and we await demands. This is the only scenario offering the possibility the occupants are still alive.
Pilot suicide: Why disable communications? Why not just crash? Perhaps the pilot wanted to ensure a life insurance payment?
Military accident: the plane was shot down by a SAM. Probably someone would have admitted fault, and why would communications have been turned off?
Of these I think the terrorism option seems quite strong, perhaps terrorists took control, (analysis of the passenger's backgrounds may identify suspects) wanted to crash into a high visibility target like the Petronas Towers in KL, but the pilots instead took the plane out over the sea.
Is this consistent with the aircraft increasing its altitude as it apparently did? Perhaps terrorists wanted to subdue the occupants?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
As I understand it, the exclusion can be 1 - 3 years; after that, suicide will mean that premiums paid to date will be returned, but no death benefits will be paid.
5t3IIa
Registered User
Cloverfield 2!
9 days. I've been v frustrated with YOU LOT and YOUR LOONSPUDDERY but ffs. Where has it gone?
2hats
Dust.
Ah, ok, some speculation:
Can't see hijackers not noticing they are heading out over sea and not towards bright lights. This would lead to the aircraft in the water closer to Malaysia one would have thought (following some fight for control in the cockpit).
How about a variant: captain or first officer is disaffected and angry enough to hijack his own plane as a political protest - embarrass the Malaysian government - do a 911 and stick the 777 in the Petronas Towers. Seizes opportunity to lock the other pilot out of flight deck when he goes out for a pee (or applies cockpit fire axe to the back of his head), secures flight deck door. Silences ACARS, transponder at optimum time (handover from Malaysian to Vietnamese ATC). Banks and goes through steps outlined above to subdue everyone else. After repositioning the aircraft at the Straits of Malacca for run in to KUL, having maximised confusion by skirting the limits of Thai/Malaysian controlled airspace in radio silence (and now reportedly low flying, terrain masking, to evade radar**), has had time to think and comes to senses/bottles it but now has 200+ problems behind him and on his conscience. Easiest way out is to climb to cruise, select NZSP and take the oxygen mask off (***). Aircraft and contents end up in one of the most remote and deepest ocean locations in the world with minimal chance of the puzzle being solved. This would be consistent with the primary radar data, Inmarsat signal positioning, no trace of the jet on the northern arc, no ELT signal and the complete lack of debris field thus far.
Same could apply to a (very) proficient hijacker perhaps. Maybe.
e2a: ** consistent with earlier eyewitness reports of a low flying aircraft in the NE province bordering Thailand.
2nd e2a: *** after feigning an initial move to the NW (also puts sufficient distance to the east ensuring the route south avoids any Indonesian radar/chance of interception).
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No doubt it differs from place to place and company to company but as far as I know, full benefit is paid on suicide after one year here. The logic is obviously that if someones thinking of killing themselves they're unlikely to wait a year to do it.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
That province is the state of Kelantan. Are you talking about the fishermen and people on the land around Kota Bharu who saw the bright lights going in a different direction to the normal flights?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I suspect that the myth arises from the days when suicide was illegal, prior to the passing of the Suicide Act in 1961. Whether or not it's always true in practice, there is a general presumption that one should not profit from a crime, and while suicide was still a crime, paying out on a life policy as a result of suicide could have been construed as doing just that (and, let's face it, insurance companies are never shy about finding reasons not to pay out).
Quite a lot of life policies also have exclusions for deaths due to serious illness within a certain period of policy inception, too - in many ways, there's nothing special about suicide.
However, suicide is still illegal in Malaysia under s.309 of their penal code, and it may well be that - apart from the fines and prison sentences that parasuicides can attract - insurance companies take the "profiting from crime" line there. I guess you'd have to look at the fine print of a Malaysian life insurance policy to be sure.
2hats
Dust.
Possibly some of them may have seen it. Some of them may have seen another aircraft, eg one in/out of Sultan Ismail Petra Airport (WMKC). Doesn't really matter. If the primary radar data indicate it went that way at that altitude then I'd trust that over random untrained eye witness reports anyway. I'm sure the investigators will.
Should add to the previous speculation that if the cabin valves had been opened, left open, then even if the aircraft managed to ditch intact it would have sunk fast.
e2a: there might be cell phone registrations from towers in that area that they can pull from logs to corroborate which in turn might be used to constrain options for the northern arc but only if they can get so many diverse sources of data across multiple jurisdictions to willingly co-operate (good luck with that).
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
hm, doubt it was a flight from Kota Bharu. That's only a tiny domestic airline so can't see any flights operating out of there that time of night. Could be wrong though, but as you say, irrelevant anyway
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)?
http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68
http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68
TitanSound
Mr Beardy Drummer
This is the most credible thing I've seen. I know a bit about how planes operate but not enough to be able to pick any holes in that theory.
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
But why bother going to all that trouble? No demands, no claims of responsibility to show who's boss etc
maomao
普費斯
The purpose would presumably be theft. They might want a big plane to pack with explosives and aim at something.
2hats
Dust.
It's an interesting idea that several people raised a few days ago, but how do they evade Indian and in particular Pakistani primary military radar (which will be expecting targets coming from that direction)? I doubt trying to shadow a 777 with another 777 from such (as oppose to civilian), if the operators are alert, won't attract attention. There are also likely AWACS in the area too. Then you have to reconcile flying that route with crossing the northern arc at some point constrained by time and remaining fuel. AIUI turning off TCAS (to eliminate that as a source of detection) would mean not having it available to aid in the rendezvous.
One has to start assuming either all these military authorities are dozing or someone is "in on it" (which starts to stretch belief even further).
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
i can only imagine that the author has no concept of quite how sensitive military radar systems are..
a 777-200ER is 60m+ long and 60m+ wide. it comprises nearly 150 tonnes of deliciously reflective metal, and would be very unlikely to fly closer than a mile or so behind this Singapore airlines aircraft.
the new stealthy fighter, the F-35, has to carry all its weapons and fuel internally because the same military radar systems that failed to notice 6 double decker buses flying at 35,000ft would detect missiles slimmer than most peoples legs. really?
a 777-200ER is 60m+ long and 60m+ wide. it comprises nearly 150 tonnes of deliciously reflective metal, and would be very unlikely to fly closer than a mile or so behind this Singapore airlines aircraft.
the new stealthy fighter, the F-35, has to carry all its weapons and fuel internally because the same military radar systems that failed to notice 6 double decker buses flying at 35,000ft would detect missiles slimmer than most peoples legs. really?
Personally, I still believe it has been shot out of the skies because of a terrorist threat. No-one will admit to that until they have conclusive evidence.
However, if it was landed on a remote island how much would it be worth?
Broken down into smallest components. All passengers goodies and cash. Passports etc.
It has to be well over €20,000,000 no?
However, if it was landed on a remote island how much would it be worth?
Broken down into smallest components. All passengers goodies and cash. Passports etc.
It has to be well over €20,000,000 no?
ShakespearO
Well-Known Member
I think the Singapore Air theory depends on the Malaysian plane flying right up its tail.
maomao
普費斯
Planes don't have rear view mirrors do they? Wouldn't it cause problems with airflow to fly so close to another plane?
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
the skills to do would require a display team level pilot, and one who knew exactly what the aircraft in front was going to - exact speed, exact timings for course/speed/altitude changes and was in radio contact with the other aircraft etc.. is that not just a tad unlikely?
it also fails to address the point that modern military radars can distinguish large aircraft from small aircraft, can detect the external 'lumps' (fuel tanks, bombs - or engines...).
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Quite possible; although a lot of insurance companies are multinational. Thinking of AIG here.
It's been my experience that insurance companies are looking for more ways to refuse payout, not fewer.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I am sure one of our pilots will clarify, but the usual trick is to fly behind and below, a bit like they do for aerial refuelling.
FWIW, they have to leave a longer headway between particular aircraft at Heathrow airport because of the wind disturbance, so yes, I'd imagine two airliners flying in very close astern formation would have some serious difficulties.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Possibly behind and above, in order to avoid the vortices.
Jesus fucking wept. Seems I underestimated a little.
Apparently we're talking about €250,000,000.
I am now prepared to believe the sell it on ebay theory.
Similar threads
