So you'd think, but reading how they botched repairs on aircraft that
subsequently crashed, they might not have looked for damage in unexpected
areas. It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that the guiding repair
principle is to return the asset to the air as quickly as possible. That's
why bad repairs almost always involve shortcuts.
I know I've seen a list of repair-induced crashes and near-misses somewhere
on the net. Just haven't found it yet. I do know that when working on
engines they try very hard NOT to break hydraulic connections and they
sometimes do that by improperly hoisting engines with lots of stuff still
I suspect when they start retrieving large sections of the airplane they
will be doing some very similar testing if it's clear mechanical/structural
failure was the cause and not an explosion, meteor, suicidal pilots,
hijackers, aliens or Steven King in need of a new mystery book subject.
There's nothing sadder that families trying to cling to hope their loved
ones are still alive. The phone ringing stories illustrate how much they
want to believe there's hope. A lot of times families in grief become
victims of swindlers posing as mystics that can contact the dead or worse,
lead them to believe they are still alive. I remember one particularly
odious con man team that was preying on MIA families during the post-Vietnam
era, trying to convince them their loved ones were imprisoned in Cambodia,
etc. At the time I thought "can you GET any lower as a human being?"
connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"
I read that late last night and thought "don't they know that the ringing
noise they hear when dialing has very little to do with a phone ringing on
the other end?" They've dialed into switchboard/network that will make the
ringing sound to the caller until the phone is deactivated - from the
network. The phone could have been burned in the fires of Mordor and still
seem to be ringing. But that's another thing. When US 93 was hijacked,
there was an incredible amount of cellphone calling from the cabin before it
crashed. The silence of MH370 literally screams "instantaneous mayhem."
I assume they'll locate the crash site within the next 5 days as US and
Chinese search assets are put into position. So far the Malaysian
seems reluctant to accept our help. That's not unusual, unfortunately.
After the Snowden revelations a lot fewer people seem to trust our good
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:39:43 -0400, "Robert Green"
The MAF is now saying they tracked the plane for over an hour after it
turned around. If they had a decompression I would expect them to
quickly dive to 6000-8000 feet so they had enough air to survive.
They are starting to suggest it may have been a hijacking by the
They have moved the search to the Straight of Malacca and I suppose
the Indian Ocean.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, email@example.com wrote:
Anything is possible, but one thing we don't know is what exactly
the MAF is basing all this new theory on. Do they have consistent
hits, enough that they are highly confident it's this plane? Or
do they just have some intermittent contact with something that
might be some other small plane, etc. And if they have any decent
supporting evidence, why did it take 2 - 3 days before they started
to come up with this? The radar data is available and you'd think
within hours of the crash it would have been analyzed. If they have
hits from the area at the time the plane disappeared, a somewhat
consistent hit trail back over Malaysia, etc, then you'd think we
would have heard about it in hours. Seems more likely they have
some hits of something, we don't know how many, where, when, etc.
Just like the floating debris, oil, that have so far turned out
to be wrong, could be nothing.
As I said in another reply, post 911 one simple change that could
have been made would be to make it impossible to turn off the
radar transponders, the ADS-B, etc once a plane is in the air.
I can't think of any reason you would need to turn it off. That
would have gone a long way to resolving this.
My vote is that it's still where the transponder died and that the searchers
missed it. It may have landed on the water like Sully's plane and then just
slipped under, largely intact. From the latest news, (Chinese sat photos)
it seems it's just sitting in the ocean in big pieces right along the known
flight path. That many countries involved in a large search effort has all
the makings of a Mongolian Cluster Fu&.
After all the changes in theories and discalimers about what is known,
I'm thinking someone hijacked the plane and has some super-hackers
messing with electronics and data systems. Not that I know anything
about flight electronics.
> > Seat cushions and bits of foam are not really very big targets
Oh, I hadn't notice that groaning pun before! (-:
We've got commercial ships joining in now - we've gone well into the
marginal costs - the question is who typically pays them? I haven't been
able to find as much information about that as I thought I might. The
AirFrance crash had duelling deep pockets, with AF and Airbus each paying to
look for evidence that the other was "on the hook" for the crash.
As much as it pains me to admit this on lose a little respect from
you on my prowess with verbiage, I hadn't noticed the pun before either.
Probably the same here. Although I also have to wonder about whether
the airlines and makers have sorta come to the conclusion that there is
NO liability for either until it is found. Sorta like trying to convict
for murder without a body OR evidence.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
Oh, they've convicted people of murder without a body before. People v.
Scott. It's messy, but it can be done. Boeing would certainly love the
outcome to be a hijacking rather than any on-board mechanical defect. Air
Malaysia, not so much because a hijacking means they were asleep at the
switch and allowed hijackers to board the plane. Probably by NOT checking
their luggage just as thoroughly as they failed to check for stolen
But it's all pure speculation until (if ever) the wreckage is found. The
time on the pingers is running out, too. All we've really learned so far is
what I mentioned weeks ago - the ocean is just chock full of garbage big
enough to be pieces of a downed jet. This really is a technological "fail"
as bad as any we've seen in recent years.
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:36:19 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
The crazy thing here is that if the ocean is chock full of garbage,
they can't even find that. For about a week now it's been a satellite
or plane spots some big object, but later when someone finally gets
there or the plane returns, they can't find it again. I haven't heard
about them finding a single thing in the search area that they thought
could have been from the plane, but isn't. It's just that they can't
find anything and poor weather isn't helping.
Which is why I also included evidence. Nothing here until we get the
black boxes and/or wreckage except conjecture and enough conflicting
testimony to confuse the situation. It probably is in neither Boeing's
nor MA's best interests to find anything.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:29:45 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
I would think it's in Boeing's interest to find out what happened.
IMO, it's unlikely an aircraft failure, so finding out what happened
is likely to vindicate them. But if it is an airplane defect then the
same thing could happen to other 777's. One plane they can survive.
But if you have a couple more go down, they could have the whole
company at risk.
Every now and then would find those explosive devices used to strap to the
track that when run over would make a super loud bang to alert the
engineer to stop the train. Ever find those?
Although handy to walk along the tracks, I quickly learned to walk along
the OUTSIDE of the tracks! as in yeccchhh!!!
If you look at the typical power unit (locomotive), theres the long hood
where the diesel-electric generator and resistor bank for dynamic braking
live, and the short hood in front of the cab. The short hood contains two
things; a major connection panel for the control circuitry and the crapper.
They may be better now, but the latter used to be a straight drop. It wasn't
a real pleasant place to have to work. In fact, being an electrician working
on old power units wasn't too pleasant in general. Changing traction motors
was a real ball.
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.