Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 vanishes without trace

[laptop]

I don't think this is an official EU publication though.

I'm fairly sure it isn't. And it's trying to sell me Lynx

The Icke forums are all over the place - too many other people peddling mad theories for them to keep up with. Apparently that semiconductor firm is owned by a Rothschild. Apparently someone who says they were head of security at El Al says Iran did it. Apparently... the Icke forums are more coherent than I thought, on second thoughts. Oy.

 

[a_chap]

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)?

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68

My question is - why would a plane flying from Malaysia to China be loaded with enough fuel to fly as far as Barcelona?

 

[skyscraper101]

My question is - why would a plane flying from Malaysia to China be loaded with enough fuel to fly as far as Barcelona?

Standard procedure isn't it, planes carrying twice as much fuel as they need in case of having to divert, or getting held in holding patterns etc.

 

[weltweit]

My question is - why would a plane flying from Malaysia to China be loaded with enough fuel to fly as far as Barcelona?

I am sure there are rules a plane has to be able to change plans, if there is some problem and they can't land at the planned airport. I don't know how much they have to have but certainly a safety factor would be likely demanded by the FAA CAA or local equivalent.

 

[a_chap]

I'm not convinced chaps.

There's safety margins and there's safety margins. But carrrying enough fuel to fly to a different continent? That stretches my Health & Saftey credulity a bit too far.

 

[weltweit]

I'm not convinced chaps.

There's safety margins and there's safety margins. But carrrying enough fuel to fly to a different continent? That stretches my Health & Saftey credulity a bit too far.

Well I can't claim to have any idea, hopefully someone with a clue will be along shortly.

 

[joustmaster]

Standard procedure isn't it, planes carrying twice as much fuel as they need in case of having to divert, or getting held in holding patterns etc.

I am sure there are rules a plane has to be able to change plans, if there is some problem and they can't land at the planned airport. I don't know how much they have to have but certainly a safety factor would be likely demanded by the FAA CAA or local equivalent.

Do you have anything to support these facts?

 

[Vintage Paw]

Well, let's run with your non-convincedness for a moment...

Why would they add extra fuel? Because the airline themselves planned to divert the plane and make it disappear? Because the Malaysian government ordered it so, for the same reason?

 

[weltweit]

Do you have anything to support these facts?

I didn't state any "facts" But in engineering typically there are usually safety factors designed to cope with unforeseen but perhaps predictable circumstances.

 

[laptop]

My question is - why would a plane flying from Malaysia to China be loaded with enough fuel to fly as far as Barcelona?

Can happen that if the airline gets subsidised fuel at home, they take enough out to get home too.

 

[skyscraper101]

Wild theory here but, supposing it was commandeered by a terrorist network. Couldn't they have theoretically landed it safely out in some remote airstrip out in Al-Qa'ida country and be right now prepping it for some 9/11 style damage?

I mean if they were able to fly it for so long with no transponder and very little evidence of its whereabouts, then they've already proved that it's possible to fly a commercial airliner undetected. Presumably they could now be onto phase two, and be right now having it resprayed and prepped as best as possible for a sneak attack on some major landmark.

The timing of this was interesting. Very early hours, local time in Malaysia, flying west and keeping things in the small hours (i.e. darkness) throughout lends itself to a covert operation theory here.

</tinfoilhat>
</jazzz>

 

[a_chap]

Even if they get a subsidy, why would they carry *that* much extra fuel? Makes no sense from a commercial perspective.

 

[2hats]

My question is - why would a plane flying from Malaysia to China be loaded with enough fuel to fly as far as Barcelona?

It wouldn't. In fact the article doesn't claim that. For that route (WMKK-ZBAA) a couple of extra hours of fuel maximum. The scenario they outline is one of tagging along till around the Iranian border then bank right for one of the 'stans. Still don't buy it. Visual flying wide body commerical jets in tight formation in the dark. You're going to have to maintain sufficient separation due to the wake turbulence but this is simply going to expose you to military primary surveillance as previously discussed.

 

[laptop]

Even if they get a subsidy, why would they carry *that* much extra fuel? Makes no sense from a commercial perspective.

Show your workings...

 

[classicdish]

My question is - why would a plane flying from Malaysia to China be loaded with enough fuel to fly as far as Barcelona?

Where does that link say flight 370 could have got to Spain? It's the Singapore airlines flight that was going there.

 

[2hats]

Show your workings...

The investigators clearly have the fuel loading figures from dispatch and the arcs have been drawn reflecting this.

 

[a_chap]

Show your workings...

No, you show yours.

Giving a plane enough extra fuel to circle or delay a landing or divert to a (reasonable) alternative landing I can understand. Giving a plane enough extra fuel to fly from Bejing to Barcelona beggars belief.

 

[mauvais]

The primary paint of SIA68 will have been correlated with secondary returns and ADS-B. At the very least the NTSB/FAA/AAIB will have double checked this (otherwise everyone might as well give up and go home).

I'd have hoped so, but I don't have great faith in anything they've said. Radar works better live; not reassembling the picture later from systems probably not designed to log data to an evidentiary standard. It just seems to me that error is far more likely than closely matching another AC or indeed just any waypoint-based flight path.

02.15 - see above
08.11 - it won't if the plane is destroyed - anyway, I suspect the investigators have the previous (intervening) 6 'pings' and this constrains the route further and rules out (to them) that it could have been in the region of the last communication from the aircraft (at 01.21) - this is why the search in the South China Sea has been ramped down.

I also tentatively imagine so; curious as to why it's not been released.

 

[mauvais]

Giving a plane enough extra fuel to fly from Bejing to Barcelona beggars belief.

It didn't. It had enough fuel to fly from KL to a little past Bejing.

 

[classicdish]

Giving a plane enough extra fuel to fly from Bejing to Barcelona beggars belief.

What plane are you talking about? Where are you getting this 'extra fuel' thing from?

 

[a_chap]

It didn't. It had enough fuel to fly from KL to a little past Bejing.

OK. Thanks mauvais.

 

[not-bono-ever]

maybe they just glided to a landing strip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

 

[Vintage Paw]

It didn't. It had enough fuel to fly from KL to a little past Bejing.

Off topic: I hate it when maps invert their tonal values like that.

Sea should be darker than land.



I kept thinking: well that'll be why it's gone missing... that's not earth!

 

[2hats]

I'd have hoped so, but I don't have great faith in anything they've said.

The Malaysian authorities? Perhaps so. But the NTSB, FAA, UK AAIB (at least) have reportedly been analysing all the data sets independently and have come to the same conclusions as to the last movements of flight 370. The BEA are joining them. If you don't trust them then you should probably stop flying.

I also tentatively imagine so; curious as to why it's not been released.

The investigators have some reason for not playing that hand at this time, perhaps?

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

what the fuck posesses people to make bogus claims like this ?

There was a woman on Twitter claiming her mother was on board, getting loads of sympathy 'til it turned out her mother wasn't on board

 

[2hats]

Wild theory here but, supposing it was commandeered by a terrorist network. Couldn't they have theoretically landed it safely out in some remote airstrip out in Al-Qa'ida country and be right now prepping it for some 9/11 style damage?

Has somewhat lost the element of surprise dontchathink?

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Standard procedure isn't it, planes carrying twice as much fuel as they need in case of having to divert, or getting held in holding patterns etc.

MAS were famously known for landing at Heathrow on little more than fumes

 

[2hats]

I am sure there are rules a plane has to be able to change plans, if there is some problem and they can't land at the planned airport. I don't know how much they have to have but certainly a safety factor would be likely demanded by the FAA CAA or local equivalent.

There are. The ICAO have rules governing this. The actual amounts depend on such things as the route/flightplan, cargo load, weather, airline rating, operational constraints, local variations in aviation regulations. An aircraft must carry a total amount of fuel for each of taxi, trip, contingency (ie change in flight plan en route - around about 5% of trip), diversion to alternate (sufficient to execute missed approach at destination and then route to and land at an alternate, or even two) and a final reserve (can be equivalent for up to 45 minutes). Up to 2 hours wouldn't be untypical for the flight under consideration (it was scheduled for about 6 hours and investigators seem to be looking at getting on for 8 hours for the flight duration as inferred from the Inmarsat 'ping')..

 

[skyscraper101]

Has somewhat lost the element of surprise dontchathink?

They were able to fly the plane undetected for possibly hours by switching off the transponder. Presumably they could fly it again the same way. It would just be another aircraft out of hundreds in the sky, by the time anyone clocked on it could be too late.

I'm speculating massively of course but is this not at least possible? Pulling something like this off would be a massive win for a terror organization. It would be the hijack of hijacks. Disappearing a whole aircraft for weeks, months, before a surprise launch when nobody was expecting.

 

[2hats]

They were able to fly the plane undetected for possibly hours by switching off the transponder. Presumably they could fly it again the same way. It would just be another aircraft out of hundreds in the sky, by the time anyone clocked on it could be too late.

It would be the large target that's not responding to civilian, then military ATC and eventually, QRA interception. Depends on the effectiveness of the air defence of the intended target airspace, it seems. Doubtless there are some jurisdictions where they would be able to just stroll in, whereas there are others who will most definitely terminate the flight with extreme prejudice some way out from the destination.

Disappearing a whole aircraft for weeks, months, before a surprise launch when nobody was expecting.

The longer they keep it on the ground the more resources they are going to need to ensure it is up to executing the plan they have in mind and the greater the chance of premature discovery.