[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44168317]7 Australians as well
[editline]8th March 2014[/editline]
Wait what the fuck, why are our media saying 7, am I not hearing this correctly[/QUOTE]
Got that list from the airline's website.
[url]http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/dark-site.html[/url]
[QUOTE=BCell;44166344]This is a dumb generalisation. Any plane can crash regardless of brand or quality. The chance of you in a plane crash is rarer than winning the lottery or getting bitten by a snake.[/QUOTE]
I got bit by a snake like 4 times, I should be dead+rich by now
[QUOTE=BCell;44168293]I think all Planes should be waterproof and can float after this incident.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter if it breaks up or a hole gets made, which usually would happen with a crash.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44165366]Let's hope everyone survived then and the plane split up during the crash landing on a flat surface
But if search and rescue crews don't spot it soon, lives will perish, it's a race against time now[/QUOTE]
If the plane broke up during an emergency landing chances are that all souls on board were lost, Or something happen and they hit something.
Plus if it crashed into the ocean worst case is that it took a hard nose dive and couldn't pull out in time...
I don't know if an uncontrolled crash out in the ocean is really that much safer, it takes far to long for first responders to get to you. Some nightmare tier crashes/breakups over land have had survivors just because they were rescued quickly and given treatment and proper care.
[QUOTE=Saxon;44168662]I don't know if an uncontrolled crash out in the ocean is really that much safer, it takes far to long for first responders to get to you. Some nightmare tier crashes/breakups over land have had survivors just because they were rescued quickly and given treatment and proper care.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, uncontrolled landings are almost always fatal. Aircraft are very very fragile and departing from normal flight upon landing is (arguably) the most critical stage of flight, right after entering normal flight on takeoff. These two events are the moment when the aircraft turns from a regular land vehicle to an airplane and during this time, the aircraft is most vulnerable. Landing heavy, wing drop, stalls etc are only some of the more common standard entry/departure to normal flight incidents reported and some of the only ones that can be practiced.
As for any landing in open water, whether it be controlled or not, a very minute percentage of water landings by non-water certified aircraft (ie commercial airliners) avoid heavy losses. The Hudson River landing ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549[/URL]) was by all regards considered a miracle in the aviation community. There was a lot of fanfare for the aircrew and Airbus after that event but in truth, there was such a small chance of that airplane landing anywhere safely - by the balance of probability it should have been lost with all souls on board. I recall one interview that I can't find right now where the PIC said he didn't expect to save the aircraft, but rather his priority was to avoid casualties on the ground below. The testimony to the aircrew on that flight will never really be fully appreciated, but the grim reality is (and it isn't a nice one) that any commercial aircraft that attempts a water landing is going to result in causalities - it is just a modern day, goddamn miracle that this one didn't. Although in truth the skill demonstrated by the PIC and his FO landed that aircraft, being able to perform at that level in that situation is to me as a member of the community in itself a miracle. After all, as complex and as fully equipped with automated systems modern aircraft are, the airplane in an emergency is only a small part of the jigsaw - the aircrew who must command that airplane are the real machines at work. This is really why aircrew still exist in the cockpit. To respond to and address non-standard incidents when they arise. A pilots intuition and experience will, in my mind, never be matched by a computer - and events like the Hudson River demonstrate this well.
From what I gather from the various news outlets, I think the Malaysian 777 has been lost over a body of water. Again I feel for the families involved and hope that another crew has outperformed all expectations of themselves, but everyone should fully prepare the worst because events like this almost always result in a very dark, bleak outcome.
[url]http://www.corriere.it/esteri/14_marzo_08/scomparso-aereo-diretto-pechino-bordo-239-persone-anche-italiano-4340534c-a683-11e3-bbe4-676bb1ea55e1.shtml[/url]
At least one person was on board with a stolen passport if I am reading this correctly.
[QUOTE=007JamesBond007;44168391]I got bit by a snake like 4 times, I should be dead+rich by now[/QUOTE]
Well do you live in an area a lot of snakes or work with them? I'd assume that statistic includes people who live in Siberia or other places you wouldn't expect to see a snake.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;44168764][url]http://www.corriere.it/esteri/14_marzo_08/scomparso-aereo-diretto-pechino-bordo-239-persone-anche-italiano-4340534c-a683-11e3-bbe4-676bb1ea55e1.shtml[/url]
At least one person was on board with a stolen passport if I am reading this correctly.[/QUOTE]
Make that two, One Austrian now.
[url]http://orf.at/stories/2221258/2221257/[/url]
Starting to sound a bit like some sort of planned attack, Whats the chances of two stolen passports on the one flight?
[QUOTE=benwaddi;44168764][url]http://www.corriere.it/esteri/14_marzo_08/scomparso-aereo-diretto-pechino-bordo-239-persone-anche-italiano-4340534c-a683-11e3-bbe4-676bb1ea55e1.shtml[/url]
At least one person was on board with a stolen passport if I am reading this correctly.[/QUOTE]
If this is true then things have quite possibly just taken a turn from "Goddamnit" to "Oh, shit."
Jesus christ, I wish we knew what happened already.
I'm antsy as fuck
Thinking about this is giving me too much stress
Hopefully it ends well and not terrible
[QUOTE=BCell;44166344]This is a dumb generalisation. Any plane can crash regardless of brand or quality. The chance of you in a plane crash is rarer than winning the lottery or getting bitten by a snake.[/QUOTE]
You still have to factor in that some airlines just have shitty records, China Airlines and Aeroflot come to mind
Apparently they found "two large oil slicks" in the sea near vietnam.
Oh no :c
The plane is gone. No one survived. This sucks.
[QUOTE=Sombrero;44169373]Thinking about this is giving me too much stress
Hopefully it ends well and not terrible[/QUOTE]
Don't start thinking about the hundreds of people that die to car accidents everyday, then.
apparently my friends sister was meant to be on that plane but got an earlier one for some reason
spooky stuff
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;44169680]Don't start thinking about the hundreds of people that die to car accidents everyday, then.[/QUOTE]
Plane accidents are by comparison very rare, plus you can't cram 200+ people into a car.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;44169703]apparently my friends sister was meant to be on that plane but got an earlier one for some reason
spooky stuff[/QUOTE]
Thats some Final Destination shit...
The plane that crashed did 5 million flights and the pictures of the other planes show that they have been used so much that the dirt has stuck to the paint so it seems the planes spend more time in the air than being inspected on the ground.
[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73450000/jpg/_73450745_019023451-1.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Zambies!;44169391]You still have to factor in that some airlines just have shitty records, China Airlines and Aeroflot come to mind[/QUOTE]
There is a scary amount of unreported incidents in Europe. It's not officially documented but it is true that many budget airlines take risks and put passenger safety at risk more than the flagship airlines do.
That is a sweeping statement I'm sure, but the trends do back it up. Lufthansa, British Airways and Air France have a spotless safety record when compared to RyanAir and Air Europa. Again, not all incidents are recorded - mayday and pan calls are logged and are (I think?) publicly available from the carriers home country aviation authority - but incidents which were not "emergencies" are usually kept very quiet. The one that springs to mind is a RyanAir departing from a taxiway at a UK airport several years ago in heavy fog..
there were 2 imposters on the plane
An Italian man, whose name was listed as having boarded the MAS flight MH370 that was reported missing on Saturday, was not on board the plane.
According to reports, someone else had used the passport of Luigi Maraldi to board the plane. He is alive and well in Thailand on a holiday.
[url]http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/missing-mas-plane-two-imposters-boarded-plane-using-stolen-passports-201[/url]
[QUOTE=runtime;44169839]There is a scary amount of unreported incidents in Europe. It's not officially documented but it is true that many budget airlines take risks and put passenger safety at risk more than the flagship airlines do.
That is a sweeping statement I'm sure, but the trends do back it up. Lufthansa, British Airways and Air France have a spotless safety record when compared to RyanAir and Air Europa. Again, not all incidents are recorded - mayday and pan calls are logged and are (I think?) publicly available from the carriers home country aviation authority - but incidents which were not "emergencies" are usually kept very quiet. The one that springs to mind is a RyanAir departing from a taxiway at a UK airport several years ago in heavy fog..[/QUOTE]
American Airlines I've heard similar sketchy stuff, also.
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44169821]The plane that crashed did 5 million flights and the pictures of the other planes show that they have been used so much that the dirt has stuck to the paint so it seems the planes spend more time in the air than being inspected on the ground.
[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73450000/jpg/_73450745_019023451-1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Aircraft flight counts do not always necessitate an old or poorly maintained aircraft. The airframe which has a serial number and a registration could have received a major overhaul the day before the flight in the OP - making many of its parts brand new. The fact the airframe itself has done 5 million+ flights simply doesn't mean anything, because its landing gear, control surfaces, internal wiring, engines - every single element of that airplane - could have been replaced with new parts very recently. All aircraft receive overhauls which are carried out by manufacturer certified engineers. A 777 is a highly advanced aircraft and an overhaul could take as much as a week by as many as 30 or 40 engineers working around the clock. I wouldn't say because its airframe has a high cycle count it's unreliable or a death trap. As for physical appearence, many aircraft fly in areas where there are high levels of dust and/or sand in the air. East Asian regions spring to mind. The paint on the airframe does naturally erode away over time - this again isn't an indication of a poorly maintained aircraft. It might just be that the airline in question doesn't want to repaint its livery every 6 months and they would rather do it at overhaul.
The reason overhauls are done is to minimize on the cost of buying a new airframe from the manufacturer. It's cheaper to buy the parts and replace them periodically without fail - and in many cases more reliable to do so - than it is to scrap an airplane when its x years old or has performed x number of flights.
And all aircraft spend more time airborne than they do on the ground. If an aircraft is on the ground it's costing the company money. Overhauls are carried out at preset dates and it is a legal requirement for those overhauls to be overseen and certified by a manufacturer certified engineer without fail. Major jobs like having the paint redone are done during overhauls because otherwise it would take the aircraft out of comission - costing the company money. That's simply the airline business.
[QUOTE=runtime;44169888]Aircraft flight counts do not always necessitate an old or poorly maintained aircraft. The airframe which has a serial number and a registration could have received a major overhaul the day before the flight in the OP - making many of its parts brand new. The fact the airframe itself has done 5 million+ flights simply doesn't mean anything, because its landing gear, control surfaces, internal wiring, engines - every single element of that airplane - could have been replaced with new parts very recently. All aircraft receive overhauls which are carried out by manufacturer certified engineers. A 777 is a highly advanced aircraft and an overhaul could take as much as a week by as many as 30 or 40 engineers working around the clock. I wouldn't say because its airframe has a high cycle count it's unreliable or a death trap. As for physical appearence, many aircraft fly in areas where there are high levels of dust and/or sand in the air. East Asian regions spring to mind. The paint on the airframe does naturally erode away over time - this again isn't an indication of a poorly maintained aircraft. It might just be that the airline in question doesn't want to repaint its livery every 6 months and they would rather do it at overhaul.
The reason overhauls are done is to minimize on the cost of buying a new airframe from the manufacturer. It's cheaper to buy the parts and replace them periodically without fail - and in many cases more reliable to do so - than it is to scrap an airplane when its x years old or has performed x number of flights.
And all aircraft spend more time airborne than they do on the ground. If an aircraft is on the ground it's costing the company money. Overhauls are carried out at preset dates and it is a legal requirement for those overhauls to be overseen and certified by a manufacturer certified engineer without fail. Major jobs like having the paint redone are done during overhauls because otherwise it would take the aircraft out of comission - costing the company money. That's simply the airline business.[/QUOTE]
Although flight counts shouldn't be indicators of the condition of the aircraft, if a tiny fracture exists in one of the older components or even the new ones then the fatigue on each flight it goes through could make the problem worse. The increased pollution could be making these problems appear faster than the maintenance cycles can catch them due to these new conditions. Maybe even fake parts reached that plane and nobody found out.
The real cause of the problem is always unexpected and sometimes it is never known.
[QUOTE=runtime;44169839]There is a scary amount of unreported incidents in Europe. It's not officially documented but it is true that many budget airlines take risks and put passenger safety at risk more than the flagship airlines do.
That is a sweeping statement I'm sure, but the trends do back it up. Lufthansa, British Airways and Air France have a spotless safety record when compared to RyanAir and Air Europa. Again, not all incidents are recorded - mayday and pan calls are logged and are (I think?) publicly available from the carriers home country aviation authority - but incidents which were not "emergencies" are usually kept very quiet. The one that springs to mind is a RyanAir departing from a taxiway at a UK airport several years ago in heavy fog..[/QUOTE]
British airlines have had close calls and minor incidents just like other reputable national airlines such as Qantas, what really matters is the frequency of plane crashes and huge fuck ups
[QUOTE=adam1172;44168298]And three americans including an infant.
In fact, let me post a nationalities list.
*loads of people, but no germans*[/QUOTE]
No germans? It is so obvious that this was plotted by them as revenge for what happend during WW2.
This the last time it was seen on flightradar 24, check the altitude
[IMG]https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t31/1899605_638915666157678_1741710137_o.png[/IMG]
The altitude shown as 0 is due to transponder not sending the signal back. It couldn't have went from 35.000 feet to 0 in an instant.
[QUOTE=OnDemand;44170364]Although flight counts shouldn't be indicators of the condition of the aircraft, if a tiny fracture exists in one of the older components or even the new ones then the fatigue on each flight it goes through could make the problem worse. [/QUOTE]
Well yeah, tiny fractures are always going to be a problem on [i]all[/i] jets, engineers have known about aluminum's fatigue limit forever which is why there are regulations to carry out inspections after a certain number of cycles.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
