LOL...Obviously you can't answer the question.:D

Your question has been answered several times over and ridiculed for its idiocy. In 10 posts you're making quite a name for yourself, and not in a good way.

Some of us have had our heads tamped so full of state school bull that we can no longer select the most probable outcome from a list of probable outcomes.
Nobody has made an assumption, they have made a guess based on available evidence, to deny the highest probability is to admit the death of your common sense.

I still don't understand why this is relevant. If I recall correctly, Malaysian authorities didn't alert anyone of a problem until after the airplane failed to arrive at its destination. Even if the military tracked the aircraft west, do you really think they have airplanes sitting hot alert? In what magical world do you live in where 3rd world countries can scramble an intercept in minutes at 1am? Why aren't you asking if space lasers could tell if anyone was alive in the airplane?

Sorry but i don't get intimidated. The question was not idiotic and posed in a quite cogent manner. Flippant responses are not necessary. If the moderators don't want me here they can throw me off. Otherwise, I am not here to please you "blastoff" or anyone else of the High and Mighty members of this group. :rolleyes:

This isn't a multiple choice test where you choose the most correct answer. You've been given 3 bricks and are trying to build the Empire State Building. Right now, the only options eliminated from the list of probable outcomes are fiery explosion, landed at destination, and landed at origin. There are now thousands of other possibilities and not enough concrete facts to reasonably even GUESS as the most probable. If crash in ocean, land in Iran, and land on remote island are all logical possibilities, then you actually have no possibilities at all.

Your initial question was respectful, but quickly debunked. Your responses thereafter have been nothing but condescending towards people with your answers. You come for answers but keep pushing when you don't like the answers. Grow up little man.

For sure. Just to annoy.

Assuming that there is room for the philosophical notion of Occam's Razor along with appropriate critical thinking; what would be the simplest explanation for the disappearance (and behavior) of this aircraft and crew? Again, I am a psychologist and not a pilot but I have greatly enjoyed the discussion and have found more critical thinking in this discussion than just about anywhere else on the 'net.

Flash forward to today, 45 pages later, with in-fighting amongst APC members, media "experts", etc, today, we have NO factual information of what happened, to include NO factual info that terrorism/criminal activity was involved.

None.

I'm reading an article now saying that the CA's wife and kids left him (as in moved out) just prior (days) to the aircraft going missing?

Additionally the article said he was very politically active. Appeared to be liberal in a fairly conservative area and that his political hero was jailed just prior as well...

Pretty amazing isn't it? This is turning into the modern-day search for the Titanic.

I'd be more than happy to eat crow if ends up being mazster's "Airport 75" spinoff.

Very good point, the oft ignored Occam's Razor is very useful to narrow down what some might think are thousands of possible outcomes.

What is simple, what is likely and what is possible.
Ignoring the tinfoil hat crowd, the media and the PC squad, there are a very limited number of possibilities not based on bad movies or novels.

Most likely: crew or hijackers for personal or philosophical reasons took control for another goal, like a large building in Malaysia. On the way a breech of the pressure hull or shutdown of pressurization in an effort to quell the passengers went wrong leaving the aircraft to troll along until it was out of fuel.

Go back to your mother's basement, troll. Members here have participated in intercepts, been in charge of intercepts, performed accident investigations, flown the 777, been 777 sim instructors, etc, etc, etc. Welcome to the ready room. If you feel harassed and intimidated, stop posting idiotic questions. Take the hint. "Cogent"? We'll determine that.

Occam's Razor is a good place to start. Some of the press worms keep bringing up the "landed somewhere" idea. Really? 250-odd people onboard and every one with a cell phone. Ever 3rd World crap hole has a cell phone system. If it were hijacked and flown somewhere, they would have to had absolute control over the passengers to prevent a cell call from someone. On that basis alone, that can be ruled out.

Hypoxia is a possibility, but all the alarms and alerts would have had to be inhibited for that to have caused complete incapacitation.

Transponder and ACARS turned off (they seem to be certain about that) says it was deliberate by someone. Hijacking by terrorists? 250 passengers sitting by for that? Possible, but unlikely post 9/11. "Hijacking" or "suicide" by one of the crew after one goes to the back to hit the head? Still seems unlikely, but seems the most likely. Still, with the crew member stuck in the back with 250 passengers - how does the guy in the cockpit prevent the door from being breached over many hours?

How do you control or incapacitate the passengers? From the engine data transmission, it was flying for many hours past its last voice transmission. Amazing.

The question I have is regarding the Immersat information that was recently released. They said they determined the last signal was received at 8am (7 hours after takeoff) but the location was still in the East Indian Ocean upwards to Central Asia (very unlikely) or SE Indian Ocean towards Western Australia. At 7 hours, you'd think it would have gained a lot more distance from Malaysia.

I'm only on page 12. Try this: click on User CP, on the left under Your Control Panel find Settings and Options. Click on Edit Options. Then go down to Thread Display Options and go to Number of Posts to show per Page. Edit that to 40 per page and you won't have to scroll through so many pages. Might save some time, maybe not.

A lot of people on here obviously don't know about this feature because they often mention the number of pages and invariably its way more than necessary because they are on the forum default which is only 10 posts per page.

Anyway, maybe this is useful, maybe not, but I prefer the maximum of 40 posts per page. Now back to our wildly entertaining rampant speculation of what happened to flight 370.

inmarsat ?

Yeah, that's my fault. I really should have verified the spelling instead of using my memory of what I read. I really need to stop writing from my cell phone.

Would 7 hours if endurance correspond to the wing tanks running dry at 9,000 gallons each?

And as the latest intel is out there some of those educated guess are very close to the mark. Essentially all of your quotes are repeated verbatim from a news story. Should we quit quoting the news here?

The most conclusive post yet ! :rolleyes:

But you are beating a dead horse.
It is ok if you don't want to believe the people who have done such intercepts.
By all means - continue to educate us ;)
And exactly what maneuver, in your expert opinion of military aircraft intercepts, would FORCE a pilot in command of a 777 into some sort of reaction (other than an aerial game of chicken of course) and would be both practical and safe for the intercepting pilot?

I'm concerned about the FDR and CVR. They might never be found and recovered. Finding the plane, assuming it crashed at sea, is one thing. Finding out why it crashed is another, unless its debris 'tells' a clear story about how events unfolded.

Isn't it time the NTSB became more proactive and reigned in Malay authorities? Can they take the reigns, legally speaking?

I do not wish to speculate. But I am leaning towards what happened not being a malicious act, but rather an array of events no other aircraft had encountered before in previous accidents.

He seems to think that by having an intercept off your wingtip the pilot would be frightened and make a small control movement from being surprised. Or that the pilot would take evasive action. When in reality it would still probably be on autopilot if it were following a flight plan.

Also, if it were a situation like Payne Stewarts flight, the windows in that case were nearly opaque and that was daytime. Can't imagine they'd be any easier to see at night.

clay bird,

Annex 13 specifies the protocols on accident investigation, until we have an accident we don't have an accident investigation, do we? We have a missing/overdue aircraft right now. If the wreckage is found, the state of occurrence (where the wreckage is located) will be in the investigatory body. If in international waters, it will be the state of registry (Malaysia). The only legal position for the US, thru the NTSB, is to be invited to the investigation as an accredited member. Right now, the US's role is as one of the few nations with the resources, skills and knowledge to assist the Malasians, as such, we have no legal means to "takeover".

GF

Wait....I thought you said not to feed the troll :D
In any case - it is important (and somewhat fun) to expose the pretenders who come onto the forum looking to push some idea in which they have no expertise, and then when they get answers that don't fit into their plans, continue to disregard logical explanations.

savall....and how long, and for what level of accuracy was Stewart's plane tracked before military intercept was accomplished?
Evasive action :D Exactly what would that be for a 777 - not counting any maneuvering that one has seen in a action/adventure movie starring Harrison Ford for example?

I was discussing this exact topic earlier today at an FBO. Consensus was that rapid decompression gives the instanteous "fog" / cloud in the plane due to moisture condensation, which could then freeze and deposit on the windows when cold. A very slow leak would equilibrate the moisture with the outside environment dry air and possibly give less condensation, but then the people inside would still be breathing and producing humidified air that could then condense on the window (just as in a car or when taxiing small craft.)

So yes, it may be pretty difficult to see in.

No - don't stop quoting the news since it is about the only source of info we users have at the moment, but realize that the news can't be reporting any more fact that the speculation present on this forum. How many times do we on this forum ridicule the news for their inaccurate reporting, and now we are expected to believe that they are reporting FACTS?

You said that no "conclusions" had been drawn on the forum and asked for just one post. I provide a few that I believe met the subject.

An unfair question...I am obviously not in a position to answer that. I will end my input on this by saying that in researching this, I am not the only one asking the question and that, rather than some of the rude answers offered on this list, the N.Y. Times states that "The existence of the radar data suggests that the Malaysian authorities may have missed a chance to send military jets to intercept, identify and track the plane as it passed over the country. General Rodzali said interceptors were not scrambled because the unidentified plane appeared to be a civilian aircraft and was not seen as hostile." In my opinion, obviously either a mistake or for some other reason intentionally ignored. Additionally, "The current protocols for aircraft off the norm is intercept, identify, contact, direct to an airport, or, failing the aforementioned, shoot down. The Malaysians are trying to tell us that they ignored the 777-200 changing course, going incommunicado, shutting down both transponders, without considering a 9-11 scenario? The MAF has Su27s and MiG29s, both very capable fighters in the interceptor role, whose pilots completed an exercise with the U.S. Navy not too long ago regarding terrorism threats."

Finally the recent Ethiopian flight that was hijacked to Geneva was indeed intercepted (at night) and shadowed to Geneva.

Some of the "know it all" people here chose to offer silly answers and tried to intimidate me for asking and following up on my question. I have seen rudeness before by some of the same...totally uncalled for IMHO.

USMC I was simply agreeing that the troll has been fed too much. I just wanted to clarify that in that situation where aircraft were sent up to check, with a known flight path, and good daylight visibility it ultimately served little more than to know the location of the crash.

I reread the article on that yesterday and I believe it said they were flying for 4 hours and within about 20 minutes of losing contact were intercepted, but even then it was only because there was a squadron on a training flight nearby.

I'm not entirely sure the US would send birds up without a 7500 or a distress call immediately let alone Malaysia which has been stated in several posts to not have active squads sitting around waiting to be scrambled.

And just what idea was I trying to "push"? I asked a question with a couple of follow-ups. You as a "moderator" should see that. :rolleyes:

Roll it and land in a field after hitting a church spire :D

Exactly. Yet when given reasonable answers to your questions from operators/experts - you launch into some 'you guys don't know what you're talking about' rant. Listen Mazster....the answers to your questions were given.

Yes - possibly. Those of us familiar with press releases can also read between the lines fairly easily and those of us who have flown with/and against other militaries in that part of the world have a feeling about anything coming out of the press. Maybe they did miss a chance.
And this proves what in relation to your questions. Can you find a former (or current) military pilot on the forum who says that an intercept couldn't be made if a fighter was able to be launched? The problem isn't an intercept - even at night. I've made lights out intercepts - I can get there with some work. The problem is what YOU think you can do about it once you are there.

There is little rudeness in the answers to your questions. You asked - they were answered. You continue to push - basically telling people that have done the job that they don't know what they are talking about and now you seemed to have picked up a reputation as a thread troll. If you really wanted to participate in the discussion and have your questions responded too in a serious manner, you took a wrong turn with your responses.

My standing as a moderator has nothing to do with you questions - asked and answered.
People seem to like to throw that out as if it means something. Sorry Mazster, the bosses here have told us to moderate the TOS and that we are allowed to have our own opinions on subjects and share them with the forum; which I have done in this case. If you feel that someone has violated the TOS, use the report function. If you would like to discuss this further...please contact me via PM.

Can you tell me where the credentials, resumes, and life experiences of all members are posted?


I want to be sure to not offend an "expert."



By the way ... I've had fighters close enough to my cockpit to read a magazine.


But I need to check my resume to see if that constitutes valid input to your conversation.






.

If I remember correctly the Canadian version of the F-101 did have a movable searchlight mounted flush in the fuselage operated by the back-seater just for this kind of night intercept.

Your are welcome to ask the participants all you like TonyC.
You are ones of the professed experts I'm sure - so tell us your thoughts on his questions. We wait with baited breath for you to share your experience.

Better yet - why don't you tell us what was inaccurate with the responses if you would like to take up that line of questioning.

Btw - when those fighters were so close to you to read a magazine - did their presence make you take evasive action?

The Canadian Hornets have the same equipment.
The only ones I think. I've not seen it on any other countries airplanes - but I haven't seen every other countries airplanes either ;)

You have criticized a poster for not giving the proper deference to answers from experts, I'm just wondering how he was supposed to know who the experts on that specific topic are.

Don't want to step on any egos ... err, I mean, toes.






.

The searchlight is on the left side of the CF-101B just below the canopy rail at the shoulder level of the back seater. Looks to be about 8 inches in diameter. Seems to be of use since they carried it forward to their F/A 18s.

To answer TonyC's question, anyone posting can put their "resume" in their profile.

GF