All Malaysian Flight 370 could be still alive and kicking
- Thread starter Swisaw
- Start date
M
Merchant UK
Another thing you need to think about is why no mobile phones were used, if the plain was in trouble or being flown dangerously you would of thought at least one of the passengers would of at least made a phone call. Look at the calls made with the planes that hit the twin towers, there was loads made prior to the crash
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
A couple of corrections for Swisaw
1. The average parachute hold between 100 and 300 square feet of material plus strings and harnesses. To assemble them takes lots of laying out, folding etc which there is simply no room for on a plane. Which is still kind of missing my point by a fair margin. Why would they take it on board as hand luggage and risk questions. If a group of people get on a plane with parachutes as their only hand luggage it is going to raise questions. IF there was terrorists etc they would need to get weapons etc on the plane as well. My point is there are far easier methods for them to get the stuff on the plane than trying to walk through airport security with it. They could have baggage handlers or ground staff on the payroll etc. One of the ground staff may well be directly linked. But again that is if it was a terrorist attack.
2. I misread your previous post as saying there was an SOS received. My apologies on that one.
3. I have never ruled out an SOS was not possible, I think the confusion there was from the above point.
4. I have not supported one single theory, I have certainly not supported the commandeering theory at all. It is still possible to have a natural / mechanical disaster that lead to the navigation problems we have seen before. It wouldnt be the first time a pilot has been tricked by a failing system that he was going in the wrong direction. There was one case where the instruments were telling the pilot he was in level flight, however he was getting in to a steeper and steeper angle of attack which eventually lead to the plane stalling. If his instruments were reporting he was heading one way and in fact he was going in another he would falsely adjust his course.
My point about the two turns is that is not the result of the plane being accidentally being put on autopilot. That route would have never been put in the autopilot in the first place. However the autopilot relies on the same data the pilot receives so if that data is screwed through faults etc the autopilot would do the same as the pilot and make course changes.
If those course changes were by the hand of the pilot then yes he would have had plenty of time to send an SOS, however if they thought everything was working ok (not knowing they were working on false data) then they wouldnt send an SOS at that point.
5. While a catastrophic decompression like the one you described may knock out the antennas for that particular set of comms, I have to agree it does not explain the total outage of comms. An electrical black out would not cause this either because there is an array of battery operated radios and mobile phones on board.
6. I can not find a single report where Inmarset have made any claims about knowing if a plane was on autopilot or not. A lot of their projections are based on the plane being on autopilot and flying at a constant speed. But that is all, they are just projecting - they have no evidence either way at this point.
The biggest point to all this is that nobody knows a thing other than where the plane was picked up on radar a few times and when it pinged the satellite a few times. Everytime I look at a news report and boil out the theories and the conjecture, that is all you are left with. And other than those very bare facts no one knows a thing.
There are projections and theories but until they start dragging stuff out of the sea they have nothing more than that.
1. The average parachute hold between 100 and 300 square feet of material plus strings and harnesses. To assemble them takes lots of laying out, folding etc which there is simply no room for on a plane. Which is still kind of missing my point by a fair margin. Why would they take it on board as hand luggage and risk questions. If a group of people get on a plane with parachutes as their only hand luggage it is going to raise questions. IF there was terrorists etc they would need to get weapons etc on the plane as well. My point is there are far easier methods for them to get the stuff on the plane than trying to walk through airport security with it. They could have baggage handlers or ground staff on the payroll etc. One of the ground staff may well be directly linked. But again that is if it was a terrorist attack.
2. I misread your previous post as saying there was an SOS received. My apologies on that one.
3. I have never ruled out an SOS was not possible, I think the confusion there was from the above point.
4. I have not supported one single theory, I have certainly not supported the commandeering theory at all. It is still possible to have a natural / mechanical disaster that lead to the navigation problems we have seen before. It wouldnt be the first time a pilot has been tricked by a failing system that he was going in the wrong direction. There was one case where the instruments were telling the pilot he was in level flight, however he was getting in to a steeper and steeper angle of attack which eventually lead to the plane stalling. If his instruments were reporting he was heading one way and in fact he was going in another he would falsely adjust his course.
My point about the two turns is that is not the result of the plane being accidentally being put on autopilot. That route would have never been put in the autopilot in the first place. However the autopilot relies on the same data the pilot receives so if that data is screwed through faults etc the autopilot would do the same as the pilot and make course changes.
If those course changes were by the hand of the pilot then yes he would have had plenty of time to send an SOS, however if they thought everything was working ok (not knowing they were working on false data) then they wouldnt send an SOS at that point.
5. While a catastrophic decompression like the one you described may knock out the antennas for that particular set of comms, I have to agree it does not explain the total outage of comms. An electrical black out would not cause this either because there is an array of battery operated radios and mobile phones on board.
6. I can not find a single report where Inmarset have made any claims about knowing if a plane was on autopilot or not. A lot of their projections are based on the plane being on autopilot and flying at a constant speed. But that is all, they are just projecting - they have no evidence either way at this point.
The biggest point to all this is that nobody knows a thing other than where the plane was picked up on radar a few times and when it pinged the satellite a few times. Everytime I look at a news report and boil out the theories and the conjecture, that is all you are left with. And other than those very bare facts no one knows a thing.
There are projections and theories but until they start dragging stuff out of the sea they have nothing more than that.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #45
Sure, sure this is one of the options of many. This hijacking is not a terrorist act, the way we understand it, it must be a state-sponsored hijacking with a lot of financial backing. Not only they could have bought one or two staff, but they may have bought every one at important posts.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #46
Another thing you need to think about is why no mobile phones were used, if the plain was in trouble or being flown dangerously you would of thought at least one of the passengers would of at least made a phone call. Look at the calls made with the planes that hit the twin towers, there was loads made prior to the crash
You be sure if the plane was in technical difficulty every one at least texted some one. But some how the hijackers must have disrupted mobile phone signals.
Upvote
0
M
MASSEY
I find it hard to comprehend it being state sponsored. It is unlikely any sane government agency would hijack a plane for a specific reason at the detriment of over 200 peoples lives. That's a pretty large scale death toll. If the country were to be found out, which in this day and age would be likely, it would almost certainly result in war. Especially when attacking the citizens of unstable, morally bankrupt countries like China.
Upvote
0
S
StaffingAgency
It would be extremely risky and difficult to try and leave via any side exit while the airliner while it is in flight. (If you even managed to get the door open in the first place.)
Reasons are mainly based on on the close proximity of wings, and other parts to all exits on either side of a triple 7. The doors near each engine, whether in front or behind would both be all affected by the airflow being drawn into and thrown out of the engine itself.
Plus of course you have to consider how exit doors on an airliner are designed to work. They have to be pulled inwards before being swung outwards. This is near enough impossible unless the aircraft is depressurised.
But even if the pressure factor is removed, aerodynamic forces would result in the door not being able to be opened that far while the aircraft is in flight.
Then you have to account for the fact that during flight all exits are set to automatic mode. Have you ever flown and heard the phrase. "Crew cabin, doors to manual, and cross check"?
That is a lot of factors that would make it extremely hard if not impossible to exit an airliner in flight from any side exit. Any aircraft which has any underbelly exit as per the 1971 incident I mentioned, now have extra security to make it harder to open the rear stairs while in flight.
These reasons among others are why most jump aircraft have their wings above the exit door. Nor do they use plugtype doors as used in airliners. Other types of jump aircraft may use rear exits for the same sort of reasons.
Reasons are mainly based on on the close proximity of wings, and other parts to all exits on either side of a triple 7. The doors near each engine, whether in front or behind would both be all affected by the airflow being drawn into and thrown out of the engine itself.
Plus of course you have to consider how exit doors on an airliner are designed to work. They have to be pulled inwards before being swung outwards. This is near enough impossible unless the aircraft is depressurised.
But even if the pressure factor is removed, aerodynamic forces would result in the door not being able to be opened that far while the aircraft is in flight.
Then you have to account for the fact that during flight all exits are set to automatic mode. Have you ever flown and heard the phrase. "Crew cabin, doors to manual, and cross check"?
That is a lot of factors that would make it extremely hard if not impossible to exit an airliner in flight from any side exit. Any aircraft which has any underbelly exit as per the 1971 incident I mentioned, now have extra security to make it harder to open the rear stairs while in flight.
These reasons among others are why most jump aircraft have their wings above the exit door. Nor do they use plugtype doors as used in airliners. Other types of jump aircraft may use rear exits for the same sort of reasons.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #51
To parachute out from a passenger flight, lower and slow down the flight, put all engines or the ones on exit side off, open exit door and jump out. You should leave the plane safe and sound. Because when you jump out, you are moving at two directions; the first one is a move parallel to the flight and at the speed of the flight and the second one is a downward move under gravity. By the time your parallel move with the flight slows down, you have reached the safe zone. You can make your parallel move faster than the speed of the plane by running from the back of the plane towards the exit.
Can some one please find a youtube skydivers jumping out from their plane? In theory their jump must be similar to a jump on a building. Only later after falling for a while, they fall behind their plane.
If this was a state-sponsored hijack to kidnap Iranian scientists big states would have been behind it. If they have rescued passengers they will do a deal. If no passengers rescued it will remain a secret for ever.
Can some one please find a youtube skydivers jumping out from their plane? In theory their jump must be similar to a jump on a building. Only later after falling for a while, they fall behind their plane.
If this was a state-sponsored hijack to kidnap Iranian scientists big states would have been behind it. If they have rescued passengers they will do a deal. If no passengers rescued it will remain a secret for ever.
Upvote
0
S
StaffingAgency
You never fall at the same speed as the aircraft when skydiving. Nor do you fall parallel to the aircraft either.
If the aircraft is moving you would still face the problems the doors given outside forces.
So now you're saying someone set the doors to manual, had superhuman strength to open the door, then went down the aisle for a run up, and finally escaped using their parachute assembled from kit form?
Personally I think he cut a hole in the side, then used his watch to shoot out a grappling hook. This hook wrapped itself around the left wing allowing him to swing out.
He then hung under the wing, until his accomplice came along in a 2 seater bi plane. Then with pre - trained positioning he let go and slotted into the empty bi plane seat.
If the aircraft is moving you would still face the problems the doors given outside forces.
So now you're saying someone set the doors to manual, had superhuman strength to open the door, then went down the aisle for a run up, and finally escaped using their parachute assembled from kit form?
Personally I think he cut a hole in the side, then used his watch to shoot out a grappling hook. This hook wrapped itself around the left wing allowing him to swing out.
He then hung under the wing, until his accomplice came along in a 2 seater bi plane. Then with pre - trained positioning he let go and slotted into the empty bi plane seat.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
Masey the problem with the rear door is that the air from the wing is probably being directed at the tail to make the tail work better. The wind going past that door will probably enough to blow you up and in to the tail area. On most planes of this size there is a rear facing door under the tail section which is used for emergency and accessing technical equipment. It is on some but not all planes. On some planes it is an optional extra. I suspect since 911 access to these doors have been restricted in the same way as getting in to the cockpit. IF there were parachutes my guess is that it would be from here or one of the cargo doors. Cargo decks are not always pressurised. They are all very big IFs though.
I personally believe IF it was a terrorist attack (again that word IF) it is looking like more and more like a state job for the following reasons.
1. If it was terrorists it does look like someone was flying it, so why didnt they go for a spectacular mission and fly it in to a building. Pointing it at the South Pole and letting it fly deep in to the Indian Ocean does not seem like the actions of a terrorist group trying to get attention for their cause.
2. If it was terrorists they seem very skilled. The plane was taken over in seconds and all communications stopped there and then. A rag-tag group or suicidal terrorists are not that organised.
3. I suspect countries like Iran and Israel have the know how and maybe the willingness to do this, even if it means being caught. We also have the Chinese to think about. Add to the mix North Korea who think nothing of going in to neighbouring countries and kidnapping people they dont like.
That again is IF there was terrorists involved, which I'm not convinced of. Its a possibility but no more a possibility than catastrophic failures and pilot suicide.
Swisaw I wouldnt read too much in to the CIA and MI6 getting involved. Pretty standard stuff at this point as they have investigative capabilities most that most nations don't have
I personally believe IF it was a terrorist attack (again that word IF) it is looking like more and more like a state job for the following reasons.
1. If it was terrorists it does look like someone was flying it, so why didnt they go for a spectacular mission and fly it in to a building. Pointing it at the South Pole and letting it fly deep in to the Indian Ocean does not seem like the actions of a terrorist group trying to get attention for their cause.
2. If it was terrorists they seem very skilled. The plane was taken over in seconds and all communications stopped there and then. A rag-tag group or suicidal terrorists are not that organised.
3. I suspect countries like Iran and Israel have the know how and maybe the willingness to do this, even if it means being caught. We also have the Chinese to think about. Add to the mix North Korea who think nothing of going in to neighbouring countries and kidnapping people they dont like.
That again is IF there was terrorists involved, which I'm not convinced of. Its a possibility but no more a possibility than catastrophic failures and pilot suicide.
Swisaw I wouldnt read too much in to the CIA and MI6 getting involved. Pretty standard stuff at this point as they have investigative capabilities most that most nations don't have
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #57
There is no problems for people with inventive mind.
Personally I think he cut a hole in the side, then used his watch to shoot out a grappling hook. This hook wrapped itself around the left wing allowing him to swing out.
He then hung under the wing, until his accomplice came along in a 2 seater bi plane. Then with pre - trained positioning he let go and slotted into the empty bi plane seat.
I must congratulate you for your brilliant deduction.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
MikeJ, my thoughts exactly and why I personally don't think it is terrorism. No attempt to make a major event by flying the craft in to something and no claim of responsibility anywhere. That last bit is also odd because in situations like this you normally get dozens of terrorist organisations claiming they did it just to get their message on the news.
StaffingAgency, it seems to be because of combination of things. First of all no distress messages or signals were sent which would normally be the first red flag. Everything was ok in the Malaysian air space and nothing happened until after the left Malaysian airspace, as a result they were no longer monitoring the craft. It seems to have happened in international airspace so it was not under the control of any countries air traffic control at the time.
However, saying all of that it did seem to come back in to Malaysian air space where it should have been picked up and challenged. At this point though it would have shown up as unidentified aircraft. If it was on a path used by civilian planes the military wouldnt have given it a second glance at that point as it just would have looked like a civilian plane in an air corridor with faulty signals.
There is also a good chance that the Malaysian air force was not in a position to get any planes up in the air. A lot of small countries dont actual operate an around the clock air force. Dont forget during 9/11 the Americans could only get unarmed fighters in the air because they were simply not ready - their pilots were expected to fly their jets in to any rouge passenger planes to bring them down. I believe to this day even NATO countries like Norway dont have 24 hour day response capabilities.
It will be one thing covered in great depth over the next few weeks / months
StaffingAgency, it seems to be because of combination of things. First of all no distress messages or signals were sent which would normally be the first red flag. Everything was ok in the Malaysian air space and nothing happened until after the left Malaysian airspace, as a result they were no longer monitoring the craft. It seems to have happened in international airspace so it was not under the control of any countries air traffic control at the time.
However, saying all of that it did seem to come back in to Malaysian air space where it should have been picked up and challenged. At this point though it would have shown up as unidentified aircraft. If it was on a path used by civilian planes the military wouldnt have given it a second glance at that point as it just would have looked like a civilian plane in an air corridor with faulty signals.
There is also a good chance that the Malaysian air force was not in a position to get any planes up in the air. A lot of small countries dont actual operate an around the clock air force. Dont forget during 9/11 the Americans could only get unarmed fighters in the air because they were simply not ready - their pilots were expected to fly their jets in to any rouge passenger planes to bring them down. I believe to this day even NATO countries like Norway dont have 24 hour day response capabilities.
It will be one thing covered in great depth over the next few weeks / months
Upvote
0
I
imutual
At this stage, each different theory seems to have a problem. Without those data recorders, I suspect we'll never know what happened. But re: the terrorist theory, the pilot / co-pilot have come under a lot of suspicion. But it's possible that they were actually heroes and prevented a 9-11 type attack on the Petronas Towers. Let's given 'em the benefit of the doubt until we know more...
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
Totally true imutual. They could have decided to somehow fly the plane in to the ocean rather than let hijackers force them in to another 9/11 type scenario. If they convinced the hijackers they were flying them to their destination but actually flying them somewhere where they couldnt get back from due to the lack of fuel.
Everything down to speed, direction and uses of autopilot are all down to theories at the moment and nothing more. Without data recorders etc it is 100% guess work.
Everything down to speed, direction and uses of autopilot are all down to theories at the moment and nothing more. Without data recorders etc it is 100% guess work.
Upvote
0
Maybe they landed somewhere using one of these?
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/t...-airport-when-you-can-make-it-smaller.296736/
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/t...-airport-when-you-can-make-it-smaller.296736/
Upvote
0
This is the best thing I've read in a long long time.
How many pieces do you have to split a parachute up into before you can safely smuggle it on to a plane?
How long does it take to reassemble?
How much space would you need on a cramped plane to put it back together properly?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #71
I think I am right about parachuting out of a plane. In the link bellow you see both sky divers fall on straight line between them and the plane. They don't move towards the back of the plane immediately. In this case they should have been pushed to the back of the plane immediately after they came out because of the propeller wind from the front directed towards them. But it didn't happen. See it to believe it.
Upvote
0
S
StaffingAgency
That video doesn't prove your point at all.
The door is adapted to remove the dangers etc of opening a standard side door in flight, the tail is completely different from a triple 7, and it's a prop.
That is why they don't experience the risks that would face a person jumping from an airliner.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #75
Yes, off course the door is adapted. But that doesn't have any bearing on the jump. The door is a side door. When they jumped they fell on a straight line perpendicular to the door. They didn't move immediately to the back of the plane. This means their parallel move was a the speed of the plane.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Are you comparing jumping out of that to hoying yourself out of a 777?
I'm no expert but I imagine there's a massive difference in speed/air pressure between the two. Not to mention that it would be nearly impossible to open the door on a moving 777 anyway.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
The Most Dangerous Moment in Business Is When Everything Is Going WellThey Saw It Coming. They Did Nothing. The Lessons Every Business Owner...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI and Your Business: Useful Tool, Not a Magic WandThere is no shortage of noise around artificial intelligence right now...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Companies House WebFiling security incident: what happened, what to check, and what to do nextCompanies House has confirmed that its WebFiling service suffered a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Spring Budget 2026: A Quiet Update for UK BusinessesChancellor Rachel Reeves delivered the UK’s Spring Statement on 3 March...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Practical Ways to Make Your Small Business More Resilient (Especially When the Unexpected Happens)Running a business means juggling plenty of things you can plan for and...- UKBF Editor
- Updated: