savall

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.

galaxy flyer

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

USMCFLYR

Wait....I thought you said not to feed the troll
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 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?

cardiomd

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.

USMCFLYR

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.

Mazster

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.

savall

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.

Mazster

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.

savall

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

USMCFLYR

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.