Damn...just read this news after watching the movie airplane.
The more and more I read about this story and many others like it from the past, the more bizarre they sound. Planes just disappearing for unknown reasons.
Naturally I feel sorry for those on board and their families but curiosity is overwhelming me, I want to know what happened to the plane and why.
They should also report how much fuel was loaded into the plane since the plane could still be in the air and trying to land but can't since the pilots don't know which instruments to trust.
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44201027]They should also report how much fuel was loaded into the plane since the plane could still be in the air and trying to land but can't since the pilots don't know which instruments to trust.[/QUOTE]
This is the silliest thing I have ever read
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44201027]They should also report how much fuel was loaded into the plane since the plane could still be in the air and trying to land but can't since the pilots don't know which instruments to trust.[/QUOTE]
Trust me, it couldn't.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;44200842]I thought with Helios the problem was that the decompression warning sounded too close to wrong takeoff configuration, but that still doesn't explain falling off the scope completely.[/QUOTE]
What happened if I read and watched correctly from Air Crash Investigations, is that the audio warning wasn't clear enough and there wasn't enough warnings given to the pilots to correct the configuration
It was a fuck up in the takeoff configuration however, and it was just plain and simple pilot error, the plane was pretty much flying itself with autopilot and suffered fuel starvation. One of the flight attendants however was awake and used the gas cylinders and masks to get as much air as possible, reaching the cockpit to guide the plane down while attempting to communicate to the Greece Airforce
Obviously his attempts were futile but he tried his best
don't they only load enough fuel to make the trip plus some reserves for emergencies, like going to the next airport over or at least circling for an hour or two
[QUOTE=dai;44201255]don't they only load enough fuel to make the trip plus some reserves for emergencies, like going to the next airport over or at least circling for an hour or two[/QUOTE]
that is normal procedure, having a full tank of fuel to just go to the next airport only a few hours is away is stupid because it's a waste of money and would make the jet too heavy to land
[QUOTE=runtime;44201079]This is the silliest thing I have ever read[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I incorrectly assumed they could stay more than one day in the air nowadays since the concorde could stay for 25 hours when it was released in 1976 or before.
[QUOTE=dai;44201255]don't they only load enough fuel to make the trip plus some reserves for emergencies, like going to the next airport over or at least circling for an hour or two[/QUOTE]
The idea was that to avoid having to refuel sooner, they could have put the maximum amount into it.
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44201304]Sorry, I incorrectly assumed they could stay more than one day in the air nowadays since the concorde could stay for 25 hours when it was released in 1976 or before.[/QUOTE]
No problem, but Concorde definitely didn't have that endurance - it was horribly inefficient at low speeds because of its wing design and at high speeds its reheat burners drank so much fuel that it could only cruise at mach 2 for limited periods of time. It was a gas guzzler that was for sure and it's fuel tanks were pushed to their limits - but it's total time in the air would be less than 12 hours going on 9 hours - nowhere near 25 I'm afraid. It could cross that Atlantic in less than half the time a standard sub-supersonic aircraft could and because of that speed its range was quite far.
[editline]11th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44201304]
The idea was that to avoid having to refuel sooner, they could have put the maximum amount into it.[/QUOTE]
Eerr no - the idea behind putting reserves in is for safety. If the aircraft cannot land at its destination safely due to weather or another aircraft incident for example then it can safely divert. Pilots designate an alternate landing airport as part of their preflight and this includes calculating that contingency fuel. If the aircraft needs to ender a holding pattern or has to take a detour to avoid airspace, the reserves are there for that.
Aircraft tanks are rarely filled to their maximum - doing so would often break their maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) with passengers and cargo loaded onboard.
[editline]11th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=dai;44201255]don't they only load enough fuel to make the trip plus some reserves for emergencies, like going to the next airport over or at least circling for an hour or two[/QUOTE]
Absolutely correct
[QUOTE=Deiru;44200612]Wait, so it disappeared off Radar, lost all radio contact...Then managed to fly back over Malaysian land, entirely undetected until they got into the Malaccan Strait, where it was last seen?
...That doesn't even sound possible.[/QUOTE]
No radio or transponder makes it possible
[QUOTE=adam1172;44200147]Talking about that. I've been getting chain messages on my phone saying how a Russian spy hijacked the plane, an American fighter jet tried to shoot it down but they somehow talked out of it and magically a goddamn G9 summit took part to stop WW3.
Holy shit its a long read and amusing as fuck. I'd post it here if it was in English but sadly it isn't.[/QUOTE]
Dude is it in Malay?
If so give me some of that crazy shit
[QUOTE=Matrix374;44201611]Dude is it in Malay?
If so give me some of that crazy shit[/QUOTE]
The only crazy theory I've heard is that this is a false flag op done by Murica and dem Jews. Something about the CNN reporter Richard Quest appearing on the flight cabin and filming the crew 2 weeks before the incident. Somehow this is some crazy plot to overthrow the current leadership and implement Murican puppets in the government.
TL;DR Muricans blow up the plane, pins it on terrorists, Murica takes control of SEA security
Conspiracy nutjobs are getting nuttier
[QUOTE=Tibbolax;44201683]The only crazy theory I've heard is that this is a false flag op done by Murica and dem Jews. Something about the CNN reporter Richard Quest appearing on the flight cabin and filming the crew 2 weeks before the incident. Somehow this is some crazy plot to overthrow the current leadership and implement Murican puppets in the government.
TL;DR Muricans blow up the plane, pins it on terrorists, Murica takes control of SEA security
Conspiracy nutjobs are getting nuttier[/QUOTE]
its them damn reds i tellsya
[QUOTE=runtime;44201375]No problem, but Concorde definitely didn't have that endurance - it was horribly inefficient at low speeds because of its wing design and at high speeds its reheat burners drank so much fuel that it could only cruise at mach 2 for limited periods of time. It was a gas guzzler that was for sure and it's fuel tanks were pushed to their limits - but it's total time in the air would be less than 12 hours going on 9 hours - nowhere near 25 I'm afraid. It could cross that Atlantic in less than half the time a standard sub-supersonic aircraft could and because of that speed its range was quite far.[/QUOTE]
I can't remember where I heard or read the 25 hours from but it was certainly a long a time ago and probably in one of those old guinness record books. The only thing I can find about it on the internet was an around the world record in 33 hours but it's on a non standard concorde and I don't know if I can trust the source. [url]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Coors+Light+Concorde+breaks+around-the-world+record%3B+sweepstakes...-a017182369[/url]
Edit: Ah I just saw my mistake, they refuelled it 6 times. 1xBad Reading for me from the past.
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44201725]I can't remember where I heard or read the 25 hours from but it was certainly a long a time ago and probably in one of those old guinness record books. The only thing I can find about it on the internet was an around the world record in 33 hours but it's on a non standard concorde and I don't know if I can trust the source. [URL]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Coors+Light+Concorde+breaks+around-the-world+record%3B+sweepstakes...-a017182369[/URL][/QUOTE]
Interesting - I never knew that AF painted a Coors Light Concorde. I knew they did a Pepsi one, but anyway...
[quote]After taking off from JFK slightly before noon Tuesday, Aug. 15, the jet made six refueling stops in its bolt around the globe, including Toulouse, France; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Bangkok, Thailand; Guam; Honolulu; and Acapulco, Mexico.[/quote]
[editline]11th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44201725]
Edit: Ah I just saw my mistake, they refuelled it 6 times. 1xBad Reading for me from the past.[/QUOTE]
Aha, no problem - 25 hours for any airplane is quite a feat, I never thought Concorde had that sort of endurance and I've had the pleasure of working very close to it on occasion!
[QUOTE=V12US;44200227]Carbone Monoxide poisoning, maybe?
The crew and passengers get knocked out, the plane slowly loses speed and altitude and eventually crashes into the sea at a speed low enough that it doesn't leave behind much debris.[/QUOTE]
dont planes come equipped with oxygen masks in the cockpit? i figure some sort of carbon monoxide detecting device would be in a plane too
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44201304]The idea was that to avoid having to refuel sooner, they could have put the maximum amount into it.[/QUOTE]
induced drag directly depends on lift generation, and lift has to balance out the weight of the aircraft
if you're trying to save money on fuel (which is what all airlines want) [I]the last thing you want to do[/I] is make it heavier, so you only put in as much fuel as is needed to get to where you're going + a bit extra for emergencies
[QUOTE=polarbear.;44202193]dont planes come equipped with oxygen masks in the cockpit? i figure some sort of carbon monoxide detecting device would be in a plane too[/QUOTE]
CO poisoning victims don't know they're being poisoned. They just get dizzy and pass out. I don't know if there's some detection equipment aboard airplanes, or if it's even possible at all.
[QUOTE=download;44200182]If the plane hit the ocean and everybody died then bits of the plane which are buoyant (of which there is lots) would have been found.[/QUOTE]
I think you are underestimating the vastness of the ocean.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;44202512]I think you are underestimating the vastness of the ocean.[/QUOTE]
Finding debris floating is a longshot, but I think its really strange when they don't find any oil or airplane fuel, of which there should be quite a lot.
[QUOTE=booster;44202691]Finding debris floating is a longshot, but I think its really strange when they don't find any oil or airplane fuel, of which there should be quite a lot.[/QUOTE]
Didn't they find 2 oil slicks?
[QUOTE=Leestons;44202704]Didn't they find 2 oil slicks?[/QUOTE]
Those were tested and found not to be Jet fuel.
[QUOTE=V12US;44202360]CO poisoning victims don't know they're being poisoned. They just get dizzy and pass out. I don't know if there's some detection equipment aboard airplanes, or if it's even possible at all.[/QUOTE]
There are probably CO detectors in the cabin though.
A passenger plane can't just disappear.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;44202870]A passenger plane can't just disappear.[/QUOTE]
Well it just did. What now?
This map makes it look like an obvious hijack, actually.
[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140311134055-malaysia-plane-map-0311-c1-main.jpg[/img]
just off of CNN
Wonder if it really changed course the same time the transponder stopped
What if it was hijacked, but by someone on board using their computer. I don't know if it's possible or not, but if it is, disabling the transponder, taking control of the autopilot isn't that farfetched. Pretty sure those systems are networked together now days. It's the only thing I can think of if not an explosion and instant breakup. There would be too much time to squawk while the door was being kicked in, or at the very least the pilot could hold the trigger on his yoke to transmit what's being said without anyone in the cockpit knowing, even if just for a few seconds, for it to be a traditional hijacking. THEN maybe they breached the cockpit.
Still doesn't explain the disappearance off radar, though
[QUOTE=TheTalon;44202987]What if it was hijacked, but by someone on board using their computer. I don't know if it's possible or not, but if it is, disabling the transponder, taking control of the autopilot isn't that farfetched. Pretty sure those systems are networked together now days. It's the only thing I can think of if not an explosion and instant breakup. There would be too much time to squawk while the door was being kicked in, or at the very least the pilot could hold the trigger on his yoke to transmit what's being said without anyone in the cockpit knowing, for it to be a traditional hijacking
Still doesn't explain the disappearance off radar, though[/QUOTE]
If the plane was hijacked by one of the pilots, it could explain everything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
