Missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370

[BaileyCatts]

So hypothetical .... someone hijacks the plane, and maybe even landed it somewhere. With all the cell phones likely on the plane, wouldn't someone have been able to get a message off even in the few minutes a take over may have occurred? And another hypothetical, if hijackers were on the plane and demanded everyone give up their cell phones, out of some 200 people not one of them would try to hide it and get a message off to someone? Or do cell phones really not even work on planes because I really don't know. I don't have a cell phone and I don't fly anywhere, so it may sound stupid but honest question.

 

[IceAlisa]

Great question. I've been flipping back and forth all day between CNN and FoxNews and someone did say that there was no service at the altitude so the phones wouldn't have worked. There was no Wi Fi on the plane IIRC.

They seem to be pushing the theory that the plane went into the Indian ocean but are not saying what makes them believe this. They are saying that if the plane landed anywhere, it would have sent a signal of some sort. Because there is no signal, perhaps that is the reason they think it's in the water.

 

[lmarie086]

I'm seeing on Yahoo that Malaysian investigators are concluding that the plane was hijacked.

http://news.yahoo.com/malaysian-investigators-conclude-flight-hijacked-035744022.html

Also found basically the same report here http://ktla.com/2014/03/14/new-report-says-missing-malaysian-plane-may-have-been-hijacked-as-is-expanded/#axzz2w0GPe4x4

Those poor souls. (((passengers and their families)))

 

[alchemy void]

It sounds pretty legit. According to Shepherd Smith on Fox News (I'm flipping between coverage on CNN and Fox tonight - Megyn Kelly had a GREAT panel of experts during her show last hour, and CNN's graphics are phenomenal), several major media outlets (NYT, Fox, CNN among others) all got the same news/data dump from US government sources within the span of 30-45 minutes. There's no way that so many media outlets would have received the same information unless the various sources within the US government were extremely certain of their data analysis.

The WSJ has been breaking a lot of the developments in the past 48 hours and now they're saying that this is increasingly looking like some sort of sabotage or air piracy.

Yes, I'm re-watching Megyn Kelly right now. Fabulous and provocative panel and Megyn is quite good. First time I've watched Fox News in a decade.


Apparently the WSJ is now reporting it is possible an expert could disable the "pinging" from the AHM while the plane was flying. It is estimated there was less than an hour of fuel left after the last ping (somewhere over the Indian Ocean), although possibly more fuel depending on the altitude/autopilot being used.

This gets crazier and crazier each day. I can't believe someone would go through with such a blatant and elaborate plan for 5+ hours just to ditch the plane in the Indian Ocean. I still think it's possible some catastrophic mechanical event led to disorientation/inability to communicate/erratic flight path, but it's looking more and more unlikely. And if this is a hijack or sabotage, it might be at a level of sophistication that makes the 9/11 hijackings look amateur.

 

[Anita18]

I still believe the conclusion is the same - that plane is in the ocean, in pieces. We haven't heard anything for a week. If it had landed safely somewhere, surely there would be some sign.

If it was a hijacking, perhaps the organization responsible doesn't want the world to know that it failed? Although, having a plane fully loaded with passengers disappear is also fear-inducing....

 

[*Jen*]

The Malaysian PM is about to give a press report. They think it was hijacked and they think they know the crash site -1800km west of Perth, where no one has been looking.

Press conference was due to start 20 minutes ago so tune in folks - it'll be any time now.

 

[susan6]

So hypothetical .... someone hijacks the plane, and maybe even landed it somewhere. With all the cell phones likely on the plane, wouldn't someone have been able to get a message off even in the few minutes a take over may have occurred? And another hypothetical, if hijackers were on the plane and demanded everyone give up their cell phones, out of some 200 people not one of them would try to hide it and get a message off to someone? Or do cell phones really not even work on planes because I really don't know. I don't have a cell phone and I don't fly anywhere, so it may sound stupid but honest question.

If one of the pilots was in on it, he might have rendered the passengers unconscious or worse before they even knew it was a hijacking. The plane's on the normal course to Beijing for the first hour, and its a red eye, so half the passengers are asleep by then. The pilot turns off the transponder, starts modifying his course, takes the plane to 45000 ft, puts on his O2 mask, depressurizes the cabin. The passengers wouldn't know what was going on before they lost consciousness; they wouldn't have any reason to grab their cell phone.

If not the pilot, then someone else who knows a LOT about passenger aircraft.

But...none of that makes sense. If they just wanted the plane...why hijack a passenger plane when you could just take a shipping plane with much less trouble. And if they just wanted to kill a bunch of people....why the circuitous flight path?

 

[alchemy void]

It looks Al Jazeera America will show the press conference live once it starts, all the other major networks are not live....

 

[Anita18]

If one of the pilots was in on it, he might have rendered the passengers unconscious or worse before they even knew it was a hijacking. The plane's on the normal course to Beijing for the first hour, and its a red eye, so half the passengers are asleep by then. The pilot turns off the transponder, starts modifying his course, takes the plane to 45000 ft, puts on his O2 mask, depressurizes the cabin. The passengers wouldn't know what was going on before they lost consciousness; they wouldn't have any reason to grab their cell phone.

If not the pilot, then someone else who knows a LOT about passenger aircraft.

But...none of that makes sense. If they just wanted the plane...why hijack a passenger plane when you could just take a shipping plane with much less trouble. And if they just wanted to kill a bunch of people....why the circuitous flight path?

Exactly. Some people really believe they wanted lithium batteries that were apparently in the cargo hold, but I'm SURE there are cargo planes chock full of the stuff that would be more bang for their buck, so to say. More room for batteries or bomb supplies or whatever, less luggage and people.

Terrorist hijacking makes absolutely no sense. Pilot suicide makes somewhat more sense, but again, wouldn't they just crash the plane into the ocean directly?

 

[*Jen*]

Just had the worst timed power outage! Thank you data plan and twitter, I could watch on my phone.

Summary: hijacking NOT confirmed but they are refocusing the investigation on passengers and crew.

Location not known, but narrowed down to two corridors between Kazakhstan and Thailand, and Indonesia and the southern end of the Indian Ocean.

They are stopping all operations in the china and discussing redeployment with countries now involved due to the new suspected location.

 

[*Jen*]

Anita - you'd think so.

If a group was behind it, I still maintain they would have claimed it. If a pilot or passenger went psycho, maybe they were trying to talk them down?

Also, if it was a passenger they may not have known how much fuel the plane was carrying. It could have run out of fuel before the plane could get to where the hijacker wanted it to go.

 

[alchemy void]

Biggest takeaway from the PM's press conference: the plane was airborne and tracked by satellite for 7.5 hours. This is much longer than what was previously reported and means the plane had more fuel than we previously thought?

 

[*Jen*]

Biggest takeaway from the PM's press conference: the plane was airborne and tracked by satellite for 7.5 hours. This is much longer than what was previously reported and means the plane had more fuel than we previously thought?

I haven't read the discussions about this, but it was a 5 or 6 hour flight, and flights always have fuel in reserve. I always assumed it would have abut 7.5 hours of fuel, which is precisely what a flight of that length should have as a contingency. This is normally in case they can't land because of weather or mechanical problems and have to fly around a bit before touching down.

They'd rarely carry more than 2 or so hours extra, because landing with a full tank is less than ideal. I have a friend who once had to circle Singapore Changi airport for 6 hours because her flight had been turned back due to weather, and they couldn't land until they'd burned off a certain amount of fuel. She spent 12 hours going from Singapore to...Singapore.

 

[BusyMom]

I haven't read the discussions about this, but it was a 5 or 6 hour flight, and flights always have fuel in reserve. I always assumed it would have abut 7.5 hours of fuel, which is precisely what a flight of that length should have as a contingency. This is normally in case they can't land because of weather or mechanical problems and have to fly around a bit before touching down.

They'd rarely carry more than 2 or so hours extra, because landing with a full tank is less than ideal. I have a friend who once had to circle Singapore Changi airport for 6 hours because her flight had been turned back due to weather, and they couldn't land until they'd burned off a certain amount of fuel. She spent 12 hours going from Singapore to...Singapore.

Oh my.. now I start to worry. I'm leaving for 2-weeks vacation, to Malaysia and Singapore with Malaysian Airline. I didn't think about the Changi airport before you mentioned it. I, too, have a friend who had the 2-hours experience of circular around the Changi because the heavy traffic.

 

[*Jen*]

Oh my.. now I start to worry. I'm leaving for 2-weeks vacation, to Malaysia and Singapore with Malaysian Airline. I didn't think about the Changi airport before you mentioned it. I, too, have a friend who had the 2-hours experience of circular around the Changi because the heavy traffic.

I've been through Changi more times than I can count. Possibly about 20. I have never, ever spent any noticeable amount of time circling that airport! Things happen, of course, but my friend's case was pretty rare. She was on an A380 at a time when only 3 airports in Europe had runways large enough to allow them to land. All 3 airports closed at the same time due to snow. The choices were turn back to Singapore and circle until it was safe to land, or go on to Europe in the hopes that by the time they arrived one of the airports would be open again...and that was just too risky.

Best of luck with your air travel! Changi is one of the better airports I've been through, so I'm sure you'll be fine

 

[BusyMom]

I've been through Changi more times than I can count. Possibly about 20. I have never, ever spent any noticeable amount of time circling that airport! Things happen, of course, but my friend's case was pretty rare. She was on an A380 at a time when only 3 airports in Europe had runways large enough to allow them to land. All 3 airports closed at the same time due to snow. The choices were turn back to Singapore and circle until it was safe to land, or go on to Europe in the hopes that by the time they arrived one of the airports would be open again...and that was just too risky.

Best of luck with your air travel! Changi is one of the better airports I've been through, so I'm sure you'll be fine

Thanks. My family worried about my choice of airline more at the moment. But I travel with Malaysian airline couple times a year with no problem. The food is great and the crews are super nice. Since it will be regional flight, airbus is too small for the terrorists liking anyway. LoL.

 

[liv]

I, like most everyone else it seems, have become fascinated by this story. I wake up and turn the tv on every morning to see what's going on, and today I was surprised by the inclusion of the words Pakistan and Kazakhstan into the mix. This is just a crazy situation, with all sorts of theories floating around. If it turns out to simply be mechanical failure and a crash into the ocean, I will almost be disappointed. The circus surrounding it has enveloped this originally tragic story into something beyond weird now. I wonder what next? It's like some evil mad genius from a 007 movie has carried out his plan to steal a plane and send it to his private island where he's holding them all hostage.. I mean, that would not surprise me now.

 

[IceAlisa]

Crazier and crazier. CNN just said that the transponder and the other comm device were turned off BEFORE the pilots' final routine sign off with Malaysian ground, when they were being handed over to the Vietnamese tower. The pilots said something like "Alright, good night" and by then both devices had been turned off! The door to the electrical bay is either very near or in the cockpit. The pilots look like good candidates for this tragedy. And yes, they are saying the plane flew for 7 hours, not 4.

Finally, the Malaysian police searched the pilots' homes.

 

[IceAlisa]

Now someone on Fox News is quoting a former FBI director saying that a 777 is a good choice for the delivery of WMD and could be somewhere on the ground outfitted "for a different purpose." So say you launch it to deliver WMD or as a missile as in 9/11. Wouldn't the air force of the targeted country shoot it out of the sky? Wouldn't most air forces around the world be on the alert for something like this?

Kazakhstan? Turkmenistan? What?

 

[skatesindreams]

That seems like an irresponsible comment for a former FBI director to make, IMO.
I hope that for the safety and security of all of us; and for the peace of mind of the families, that what actually occurred can be discovered.

 

[IceAlisa]

The comment could have been made in private--this was a quote, remember--and may not have been intended as a public comment. Anyway, I am not going to worry about the propriety of comments here. All kinds of theories are being bandied about--Greg Gutfeld called this mental Doritos, you can't just stop at one.

Finally, it IS a possibility that has not been ruled out. And the one that has been mentioned by several commentators on several news sources by now, not just by this interviewee.

I agree with the aviation lawyer on Fox News right now saying that the sequence of events is key, that the transponder and ACARS were switched off first and the final routine good bye was said second by the pilots. Sabotage by the pilots would be the simplest explanation over one where someone with such expertise commandeered the plane and was holding them at gun point. Still, the perpetrators' intention remains unclear, whoever they were.

 

[skategal]

I'm not convinced yet that it wasn't a failed terrorist attempt. Interpol had information 4 days before the plane went missing that there could be a terrorist attack on Beijing airport.

I'm wondering if the pilots knew there was a terrorist attempt underway to use the 777 as a WMD to crash into the Beijing airport on landing and deliberately turned the airplane over the Indian Ocean to avoid crashing into land and harming more people. If the terrorists knew little of aviation, you wouldn't know that the pilot chartered a different course until hours later when you saw you were over the ocean.

Saving face is a prevalent concept in Asian culture. I'm not convinced a Chinese terrorist group would claim responsibility for a failed terrorist attempt.

Anyway, this is just another theory of the dozens out there.

I hope they find out soon what happened. I feel so bad for the families of the people on board.

 

[IceAlisa]

I have heard it mentioned but not the details. What do you know about the purported attack on the Beijing airport? Which terrorist groups were mentioned?

Someone on CNN is now saying that landing the plane in one of those remote locations (explained as the possible source of the last ping, which covered an enormous area of the globe) is fantastic and unheard of.

 

[skategal]

I have heard it mentioned but not the details. What do you know about the purported attack on the Beijing airport? Which terrorist groups were mentioned?

No specific terror groups mentioned but here is a link to the story.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...authorities-to-warning-of-beijing-attack.html

 

[IceAlisa]

Thanks. CNN has a very good explanation of the large search area and why it's outlined this way. A sensible comment is that had it landed anywhere in the Northern area of the search area which includes most of Asia, it would have registered on radar.

 

[IceAlisa]

CNN breaking news: US official says that the hard left the plane took on its original path was pre-programmed and that the investigation is focusing increasingly on the pilots. They are also intensifying search in the Southern Indian ocean.

The point at which the left turn was made was in between air traffic control jurisdictions of Malaysia and Vietnam was perfect for disappearing. Again, most likely the plane ended up in the Indian ocean. The theory now is that passengers were being kept calm and in their seats supposedly by the announcement from the captain that they are being diverted.

The reason that the US officials don't think the plane headed North is that the area there is heavily surveyed and someone would have seen the plane there.

 

[*Jen*]

Finally, it IS a possibility that has not been ruled out. And the one that has been mentioned by several commentators on several news sources by now, not just by this interviewee.

That's because, in a directly reportable quote that we actually saw the Malaysian PM say, no possibility has been ruled out!

They searched the pilots homes, yes, but they're going to search the homes of passengers too (uh...if they know who the passengers really were/are ).

Fox news for me is pretty up there with the Daily Mail. Until that quote is substantiated and widely reported, I'm going to put it up there with them saying Bush won the election in 2000. This time around though, Fox saying it doesn't make it so

And hey, maybe it is true. Maybe that type of plane would make the perfect weapon. That doesn't mean this is what's happened to it, and in fact it would be strange if it was. A lot of terror groups are very well funded and well connected - they wouldn't need to steal a plane full of passengers, thus putting every security force in the world on alert, in order to get their hands on a plane.

 

[IceAlisa]

Oh gawd, can we stop with the politicizing of this? I heard the same thing on CNN, do you all of a sudden believe it now?

Of course these are all theories and some of them seem very unlikely. CNN is now saying that this is unlike any other incident so it's reasonable to keep options open. Nothing makes sense so far.

 

[judiz]

Is the area the plane was traveling so remote that no other passenger planes were in the air at the time? Strange that no other planes reported seeing the missing plane in flight.

 

[IceAlisa]

Or radars. You'd think people would be on the lookout in that part of the world.