Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)

Page 6 of 9  
wrote:

to

sources

alive.

Can you imagine how badly the Malaysians would have handled this without any pressure from anyone to tell the *real* story? Pressure like that is not necessarily a bad thing. If I wanted to turn this thread political, I could undercut my own comment but I won't. I'll just say "Why hasn't Ted Cruz blamed Obamacare for the crash?" (-:

I'm not sure that silent, laid-back journalists get to the bottom of things very quickly. Remember, a lot of this speculation is coming from people like us and the reporters are merely parroting it. I doubt they have the ingenuity to come up with an idea like "the plane was cyberjacked remotely." They're typically not that imaginative.

field

them.

The law of unintended consequences is quite a powerful one. If I were still a reporter, I'd pull together a piece that examined such cases. Your example of CEO salary limitations resulting in stock compensation is just one of many such cases. When I was in college, when we left for summer vacation we put an open jar of ammonia inside the refrigerator to keep it from getting moldy. It didn't survive our well-intentioned action. (-:
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or maybe how much better if they hadn't had to spend so much time chasing rumors and conjecture fostered by people who probably knew nothing other than a reporter's phone number? At the very least the press had minimal impact on the pressure related to say the Chinese.

Merely parroting it. So instead of actually trying to find out what is happening they are just grabbing onto whatever flotsam and jetsam wonders by as if it was actually news?

I am not sure that this really rises to that level. I still think that is much more related to what is orders of magnitude more likely to happen. This is a random occurance.
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
any

not

could

I wouldn't say that simply because I don't read any Chinese newspapers or watch ChinaNews. So I don't know what's normal for them or not. They are, however, under considerable pressure from the screaming relatives though:
< http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-whats- more-important-than-200-lives-relatives-ask-chinese-president-xi-jinping-919 0899.html >
http://tinyurl.com/pxlnu4l
The Chinese are just as status conscious as anyone else and want to come off looking like they did all the right things. Now if they could only explain the satellite photos purporting to show wreckage and then retracting them. There are some very intriguing reasons why they (or someone) would fake debris photos, but they looked fake to me. My best guess is that they thought the searchers were incompetent, at least compared to what a Chinese or US effort would have entailed, and they were trying to force a detailed search of the area where they thought the plane had crashed.

nurse

things

the

remotely."

And this is news to you? (-: My J-prof said that news comes from person A trying to harm person B through a journalist. It turned out for things like Watergate, he was right. Mark Felt disliked Nixon for getting passed over to head the FBI, hence he became Deep Throat.

In regards to a locked cabin door preventing the passengers from overwhelming the hijackers instead of keeping the hijackers out?
In the long run, I don't see much good coming out of the passengers taking over the cockpit. It would probably cause the plane to crash sooner.

I think this is anything but random. Latest working theory: China wants to "pacify" their Muslim extremists and what better way than to whip up a fury about a suicidal Muslim pilot killing a plane load of innocent Chinese people. This is the kind of operation spooks love. Very few but highly trained people are involved, little chance of compromise, plausible deniability and if push comes to shove, the bosses can always assassinate the actors. How do you say "Jack Ruby" in Mandarin?
--
Bobby G.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At least Mark Felt had actual information and W&B took sometime to look for backup material to corroborate. This seems to be just putting stuff for the same of putting stuff out. There is no apparent vetting of most of this which leads to all these whackadoodle theories.

No. At least to my mind you can't invoke law of unintendened consequences without a line of similar occurrence (my fave discussion of tax policy for instance). In this case it appears to be a one off that is specific to this happenstance (of course assuming it actually happened this way of which there is little or no real evidence just bloviation on an international scale.

Don't have to be scared as long...

How do you say more unsubstantiated BS. Geez Louise we can't leave any fanciful theory unturned? This is just getting sadder.
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
what

person A

like

over

This happened a long, long time ago. Now news programs find two people to argue each side of an issue, unconcerned that one of them might be criminally insane. "Let the reader/viewer sort it out."
The only piece of journalism that *wasn't* like that was the NYT series on Benghazi. They sent a fairly large team of reporters and researchers there as well as using local sources. They talked to everyone that might have a connection to what happened there. They're one of the only news organizations left that have those kinds of resources.
What's left is now millions of connected "eyes" on the net feeding into Google which reporters use to research their topics which leads to the flotsam phenom you've noticed. As the data from RadarFlight (or is it FlightRadar?) 24 is a perfect example of the new news gathering and it's got its pluses and minuses, like anything else.

This is what humans do and have always done when faced with a situation that defies rational explanation.

taking

Some wag elsewhere said the reason there's no video in the cabin or the cockpit is that no one would ever fly again if they saw a *really* bad airplane crash in vivid HD. Apparently it's often (but not always) pandemonium. You must have experienced the contagion of the screaming crazies in one of your career tracks. Once someone goes into full blown panic, it typically lights up at least a few more.

to

wants to

fury

assassinate

Because it bothers you so much! (-: I don't understand why, this is just how things play out. Look at all the supposition that came about after the Challenger disaster, the OK city bombing, etc. When people have incomplete information on a newsworthy subject they resort to "what if" scenarios. Perhaps it's not classic textbook journalism (which I think no longer exists) but it does give people (and the authorities) lines of inquiry to follow. It doesn't upset me too much until you get to the "Israel was behind the 9/11 crashes" sort of BS.

It's why we have think tanks - sometimes it's "out of the box" that leads to the answer. Do you know how long it took the Navy to figure out the Thresher didn't sink because of bad welds but a very unusual problem where the ballast tank valves froze shut? A *very* long time. They fixed on a cause and tried very hard to bend all the fact to fit their preordained conclusion. That's at least as bad as examining fanciful theories and maybe even quite a bit worse.

Certainly for the families. CNN said it was a "tortuous" experience for them (in an early version of an article). Someone must have pointed out they meant "torturous" because it was fixed in subsequent articles.
I wonder what today's newest theory is - my wife is saying it's that the hijackers were ability to cyberjack the plane's controls through the wifi and entertainment network not having a strong enough firewall. (-:
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which sure as hell don't make it right. This is a long-standing windmill for me to tilt at. I just think that journalists should be held to some sort of standard that indicates that they don't put out a real anything that happens to float past and looks like a couple extra minutes are filled. Look at all the supposition that came about after the

Pretty much makes my point. I have no problem with people doing that, but journalists should not just pass along the latest rumor.

But isn't that an obvious (note I don't say "rational") extension of what you are saying is perfectly okay. Sorta indicates that every theory and supposition should get the same weighting unless it personally offends the journalist??

But that is acknowledged as out of the box and not some actual occurrance UNTIL the actual facts back it up. I get a chuckle out of the next line fixing a cause and then bending facts. Isn't that exactly what you are doing with the supposition that it the thing was hijacked and then either flown into the sea or landed somewhere?
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
A must read article by a pilot who posits a completely logical scenario that explains everything we know so far. There was a fire on the plane, the pilots climbed as high as possible to extinguish it and then turned towards the longest, "best chance" airport.
<<The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They're always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don't want to be thinking about what are you going to do-you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.>>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:54:26 -0400, "Robert Green"

If they have the flight path right, this dies not fit the facts.
Why would they head out into the Indian Ocean if they were looking for a place to land?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that

towards

experienced

drilled

Airports

about

I

8,000-foot

which

That, of course, is a big if. I wonder if they were even *watching* the radar. After a big disaster like this, lots of people in the "chain of events" go into pure "cover your ass" mode.

Because they overshot the landing strip they were heading for. That might be due to incapacity of the crew, the controls or both. It fits more of the facts than any of the other theories presented, doesn't turn a 18,000 hour pilot into a mass-murderer and is consistent with the plane flying off into the sunset. Why would a hijacker do that? It smacks of a plane without human control of any kind. It also explains the brief excursion to 45K feet and then the reduction of altitude to a (barely) breathable height.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

just

By all means, let's have the government license them and publish journalistic standards . . . no, wait, that's not such a good idea afterall.

incomplete

In most cases, they properly indicate that it's conjecture and not fact. I think a greater problem is how many news sites co-mingle opinion with reporting and deliberately "mark up" the former so it looks like the latter.

to

In an age where Bill O'Reilly considers Darryl Hannah an "expert" on solar energy and Katie Couric gives ex-Playmate Jenny McCarthy a forum for her anti-vaccination views, anything goes. You are indeed Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. The Golden Age of journalism has come and gone.

leads to

where

a

maybe

But I am not a news organization or even a journalist. I am allowed to posit possibilities. (-:
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gee, it was really nice of you to succinctly make my point about taking whatever floats by and mangling it until it fits what you want it to. Never was there any mention of government intrusion (especially from me of all people). There used to be internal standards that you had to meet that were imposed by your bosses, their bosses, or just plain old peer pressure to get it right instead of merely filling up time with whatever weirdness happens to pass by or calls looking for air time.

Sometimes, although I have noticed that CNN tends to get somewhat inconsistent on that, especially after the first iteration. I'd have to agree with the other part, and it is indicative of how the mighty have fallen.

And that is the direct result of the journalists themselves. And I have mentioned earlier and numerous times, that don't make it right...

How Jenney-esque of you (grin)\
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Finally a great summation on MH370
The problem is, all of them start out with its possible that (rather than the facts indicate), from which a thinking person could only conclude what might have happenedwith no better chance of knowing what actually did. Worse, once the boundaries are stretched to include possible and might as operative terms, you no longer have an investigation at all; rather, you have a piece of creative writing.
http://jethead.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/malaysian-370-and-the-land-of-oz/
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:

˛ (rather

only

of knowing

ger have an

I agree that's a good article. There has been so much misinformation and crazy speculation. But it's not just limited to the uninformed. There is a 777 pilot who's also an aviation magazine columnist who's been all over TV sticking to his theory that it could have been a fire that explains it.
A fire? Really? Sure, we all know that fires have brought down airliners before. But for a fire to have been the cause of this, you'd have to believe it was a very magical fire from the start. Everything was perfectly normal until just a few minutes before all ATC contact was lost. So, you'd have to believe that a fire somehow resulted in losing the transponders and voice communication at the same time, without any ability to issue even a short mayday. And curiously, that occurs at precisely the point where the plane is handed off from Malaysian ATC to Vietnam ATC, over water, near the limit of radar, ie the perfect spot to pull a planned disappearance.
Then he says they made that left turn to head to an airport on the other coast of Malaysia with a 13,000 ft runway? Other pilots have pointed out that there were other runways that they would have passed by, plenty long enough to land the 777, to fly 140 miles farther. Who would do that with a plane on fire? And then we have radar images of it at the Straits, performing a zig-zag to waypoints, ending with it perfectly aligned to the flight paths toward India. That sounds like a fire? And then said fire, which was so bad that it incapacitated the crew, killed key communication systems, etc, left the plane capable of flying on it's own for 6 more hours, including obviously changing course yet again from the course it was on when military radar contact was lost?
So, I think you have more than just random people making wild speculation. You have opinions from experts that don't conform to logic from the existing facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

remember

This Wired article is interesting:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/malaysian-airlines-flight-370-possibly-hijacked/
They call the time I remember when "This plane goes to Cuba!" was a monthly occurrence as "The Golden Age of Air Piracy."
They do raise an interesting question, though. If the alleged hijacker was sophisticated enough to know how to disable two different transponders, how come he didn't know there wasn't enough fuel on board to get to someplace he could land? They note that many hijackers are insane and don't usually think their crimes through very well, but the data points we have are just plain weird and counter-intuitive.
I also learned today that plenty of big things have gone missing, never to be seen again like a B-47 Stratojet carrying nuclear weapons in 1956.
--
Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

remember

Check out these graphs. Airplane bombing has indeed tapered off quite a bit.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/terrorism/totals.gif
--
Bobby G.

>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, the rescue ships knew where it sank within a few miles.
If they don't find the ship before the beeper stops, they won't find it in our lifetimes.
(Why not put longer-lived batteries in the beeper? I'm willing to contribue two. )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:33:35 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:

It's not very likely the pinging from the black boxes is going to locate the airplane. It almost always works the other way around. You find the wreckage, then you can find the black boxes. The ping only travels a couple of miles underwater. The water is a couple miles deep so a surface vessel or sub would have to be very close to it to detect it. You can pull a hydrophone deep in the sea, but again, given the huge area, there is no way they are going to cover any significant amount of it using that method in just a few weeks. How many vessels are at the site now that are even capable of listening for the ping?

A better system would probably be the streaming data type that was very helpful in figuring out what happened to AirFrance A330. Even if we just had the last GPS fix, it would probably be enough in this case to find the black boxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe not. The Air France flight was found at the bottom after 2 years using side scan sonar. However, they probably had a better fix on where it went down.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 05:31:39 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

Yeah, I wasn't saying anything different from any of this. Only that if they don't find the ship before he beeper stops, they won't find it in our lifetimes.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:10:44 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:

Just a few years ago they did exactly that. They recovered the Air France black boxes in a similarly deep ocean without benefit of the pings. It took 2 years, but they did it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.