On Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:21:53 AM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
IDK that it's even the pilots decision on the route. As I understand
it, the routes are set months in advance by the airlines taking into
account a variety of factors. They then send those requested routes
to the ATCs that govern the airspaces. A pilot can request a change,
but I would think they need to have a reason. If Malaysian Airlines
was OK with the route over Ukraine, I think a pilot would run into
trouble if he said, I'm not flying over Ukraine, I want to go 500 miles
out of the way to avoid the area.
MAS has been effectively bankrupt for many years and for good reasons
(it is absolutely ****, I flew it once and vowed never to set foot on
it ever again).
When an airline is in that situation anything can happen.
The pilots and other staff it can attract and maintain are severely
limited leading to a brain drain. The maintenance budget is going to
get cut to the bone. They are going to consider carrying cargo that
other airlines would not touch with a barge pole. Crew are going to
consider routes and other means to save the company money etc.
It is tragic but you have to ask yourself why did these people choose
to fly with this airline? Some of them already had experience of
relations and friends disappearing on MH370 with all of the lies and
subterfuge surrounding that.
At some point people really have to take responsibility for their own
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:14:17 -0400, HomeGuy
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:39:55 AM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
While you're trying to finger Malaysian Airlines, from what I have
seen, what they did was no different than most other airlines operating
in that part of the world. It was European air traffic control that
declared the space above 32000 safe, and AFAIK other airlines flew
similar routes over that airspace. In fact, I haven't seen a single
airline that has said they flew around it, instead of going over it.
If you have some examples, I'd be happy to see them.
Do you check the air route that flights you're going to go on take,
to vet that they are safe? No evidence I see that MA did anything
differently than other airlines flying similar routes. Should they
have? Yes, but so should all the other airlines and more importantly
European air traffic control, which had the space open.
Normally no I don't check the route, unless there are volcanic
eruptions or something like that since some airlines are willing to
take more risks than others. In general I think it would be pretty
impractical to even try since the pilot could change the route anyway.
I check the background of the airline. If during that process I
discovered that following a major incident the airline:-
-waited hours before declaring the aircraft missing
-said they had no primary radar data of the aircraft only to
turn around and say they did when leaks started coming out of other
-squandered international resources and precious time
scouring the South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand when they already knew
it wasn't there
-initially rubbished reports that satellite data suggested
the aircraft had flown for hours only to backtrack when leaks started
coming out of Inmarsat
-claimed the last communication was the co-pilot saying all
right good night only to later admit they had lied without a word of
-claimed the cargo was mangosteens and nothing that could be
hazardous only to later admit it was carrying Lithium Ion Batteries
when another leak emerged. And still today have not released full
details of the cargo
-said they didn't know where it was but knew it was not in
Then you know I am not going to be in a rush to get on one of their
aircraft and anyone that does is an idiot.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:55:11 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:44:04 AM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
I don't disagree with the fact that MA probably isn't the best or safest
airline to fly. But so far, I've seen absolutely
nothing that suggests they handled their routing of flights any differently
than most other airlines. Do you have any evidence that any other
airline specifically avoided that portion of European airspace where
the shoot down occured, that was open to all traffic?
If you want to argue that had a passenger chosen not to fly on MA
because of what happened with MA370, the airline losing money, etc,
then that would have kept them off the flight purely by chance. AFAIK,
they could just as easily have booked another airline that flew over
Ukraine too. If you look at a map, it's the logical direct route
to that area of the world. And if you want to say that passengers need
to be more vigilent, then they do need to check the flight route, because
that's what brought the plane down, not the airline or it's decisions,
that again, AFAIK, were not any different than any other airline.
If MA was doing things differently than other airlines, you would
think that story would be all over the news by now. Instead we have
stories like this, which sure seem to indicate that most other airlines
were doing similar routing:
"When MH17 was shot down, it was right next to two other passenger planes
operated by Air India and Singapore Airlines.
Now that it's clear flying at cruising altitude over eastern Ukraine isn't
safe after all, everyone's avoiding the area. According to media reports, A
litalia, Lufthansa, Air France, British Airways, Aeroflot, Turkish Airlines
, and Transaero have all announced they will divert flights away from easte
rn Ukraine for the foreseeable future. The Ukrainian civil aviation authori
ty has closed all airspace in the area to flights, and the FAA says US carr
iers have voluntarily agreed not to fly in the airspace near the Ukraine-Ru
ssia border until further notice."
Finally, almost everything on that list that you blame MA for, was actually
the Malayasian govt and would have happened to any other airline departing
from Malaysia. The Malaysian govt had the military radar track, the
civian radar track. They are the ones that set the search area. They also
had the communications between ATC and the aircraft. About the only thing
on that list that might be the blamed on the airline is the cargo manifest.
And I'm about 80% sure that was under the control of the Malaysian govt
too. Following a crash the govt of the country having jurisdiction has
control of the investigation and all other parties are limited in what they
can say and release.
While I agree with Trader that the Ukrainian shoot down was just very bad
luck for Malaysian Airlines, your recap of what happened re: flight MH370
should remind anyone with a brain not to fly MA. If there was any chance
those people were still alive, MA squandered it - and maybe several chances.
That's not what you want if something bad happens in flight.
The misleading and downright false information they released in the days
following the crash lead me to believe they're hiding something. The errors
and retractions seem to have gone far beyond the confusion the follows such
tragedies. At several points they appear to have been forced to retract a
previous "story" when data (i.e. Thai radar tracks) appeared and
contradicted MA's previous statements.
I lean towards believing the pilot wanted his opposition leader friend
released and was trying to negotiate with the Malaysian government.
There are also some interesting questions you raised about who's going to
pay out the claims for the airplane and the passengers. If the government's
going to pay, they really shouldn't be leading the investigation. That's a
serious conflict of interest.
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:56:03 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
You're just as confused as Nam. Malaysian Airlines didn't control the
search and rescue effort. It was the Malaysian Govt. And the govt had
the radar tracks, the ATC communication, etc. It could have
been a Lufthansa flight and the initial response would have been the same.
So then you should be able to show us where the Thai radar tracks
forced this change in statements. AFAIK, it was Thailand that finally
fessed up 10 days into it, that they did in fact have radar tracks.
Prior to that, Thailand had publically denied having any such data.
And by the time Thailand changed their story, the search had already
moved to the Straits a week earlier, based on Malaysian military radar
tracks. The Thai data just confirmed the new search area. That is the
version as I know it. And if you want to paint wild conspiracy theories,
then Thailand must have been in on it too.
And this negotiating took place how exactly? The ATC frequencies
are open and can be monitored by other aircraft, ATC of various
countries would have recordings, even amatures on the ground listen
in. And how did they stay in contact with Malaysians while the plane
was traveling thousands of miles, on to Australia? good grief.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
and more stuff snipped. (this thread is getting a it too long to avoid
Always nice when someone tells you that you are confused when you
clearly are not. Did you even watch the Hishammuddin press
conferences? You remember? Hishammuddin. He is the Defence Minister.
He was also the Transport Minister, the Minister of Home Affairs and
Minister of Education (there has to be an oxymoron on a global scale
there somewhere). He also just happens to be the cousin of the Prime
Minister, the son of another prime minister and the nephew of another
prime minister of the UMNO. The UMNO - you know, the 'party' that has
been in power for the last 60 years.
Well if you did watch those press conferences you might have seen a
little guy standing next to him nodding his head and tugging his
forelock under his Al Haji hat every time Hishammuddin opened his
mouth. In case you are wondering who he was he is the head of MAS.
MAS - you know the airline that is owned by....who was it again? Oh
knickers I have forgotten. I am sure it was somebody's brother or
nephew or something. Or was their wife? Or maybe their brother in law.
Oh dear it all gets so confusing. So maybe you are correct in a
Publicly denied sort of. As I remember it the Thais just did not say
anything publicly. But I am informed they told MAS on day 1 and were
banging their heads against the Malaysian Junta's brick wall for days
afterwards before threatening them with exposure.
There is a rumour that the airliner flew near Indonesian air space for
an extended period of time following the incident. The theory was that
the pilot was trying to negotiate with the government. I agree you
think someone else would have heard it and leaked it by now but would
they have a recording to back it up? I am not so sure. All those
involved did less than the basic minimum you would expect in terms of
procedure so it is not that far fetched to speculate that at that time
of night most of them were watching a Hindi movie and eating noodles
while pretending to do their job. The major thing that makes me think
it is not true is why then fly off into nowhere? Why not just head
straight for KLCC.
I didn't understand that. Sounded like you were running out of steam.
On Saturday, July 26, 2014 7:34:45 AM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
You are confused, because none of that has anything to do with the
fact that the Malaysian govt was in charge of the search and rescue,
not the airline. Hishammuddin was the govt official, appointed by the
govt to lead the whole thing. Good grief.
The govt was subsequently in charge of the investigation, because it's an
airline operating out of Malaysia and that's how it works, per internationa
treaty. The same thing would have happened if
it was a private airline operating out of Malaysia, ie not govt owned.
Or if JAL or Lufthansa had crashed in Malaysia. Why is that so hard to gra
And again, I'd like to see one example of what you think happens, ie
the airline publically disagreeing with the govt officials leading the
search/rescue or the investigation itself in the days immediately following
a crash. Show us just one. IDK of any, ever, regardless of whether the ai
was privately owned or govt owned.
And IDK what you expected the airline to disagree with in the first
couple of weeks. Again, for the first few days, Malaysia govt officials
focused on what info they had and all that pointed to a sudden, catastrophi
event over the South China Sea at the last coordinates. Malaysia military
said they had no tracks. What exactly was MA or any airline supposed to do
at that point? Several days later, Malaysian military said they actually
did have what could be radar tracks of the plane. Then the confusion start
over if it was real or not, was it the plane, etc. All that was squarely o
the Malaysian military and the Malaysian investigators. And I don't see it
being much different if Lufthansa was the airline.
From the WSJ, six days into the search:
"While the aircraft was never picked up by Thailand's civilian radar, Royal
Thai Air Force spokesman Monthon Satchukorn said that military radar had b
riefly detected the plane as it traveled along its planned flight path."
(that detection was as it departed KL, not the portion of interest, ie
after it went missing over the South China Sea.)
9 days into the search:
"BANGKOK, 17 Mar 2014 -- The Royal Thai Air Force has denied that its radar
detected the missing Malaysia Airline Flight MH 370 before it went missing
, as claimed by Malaysia.
Air Force spokesperson Air Marshal Monton Sachikorn, made the announcement,
reiterating that the 777-200ER Boeing jet showed up only once in the Air F
orce radar system when it left the airport in Kuala Lumpur on March 8th. Th
e information has since been passed to the Malaysian officials, said the sp
12 days into the search:
"Facing criticism worldwide for a delayed release of radar information whic
h might have showed a missing airplane, Air Force officials defended their
Radar data possibly related to the missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370 wa
sn't withheld; instead the data was never checked until a request was made
on March 11, three days after the plane's disappearance, said Air Marshal M
onthon Satchakon, Air Force spokesman. The radar information was eventually
given to Malaysian officials seven days later."
So, for your version to be true, Thailand deliberately lied to the world fo
10 days and continues to lie. And obviously contrary to your recollection,
Thailand was doing it publically.
There is a rumor that Elvis is alive too. And just like Elvis;s death
certificate and autopsy, we have the Inmarsat data in this case that
I agree you
They wouldn't need a recording any more than those that claim Elvis
is alive or that they talked to aliens need a picture.
That I agree with. If it was someone holding hostages for ransom then
it seems more likely they would have done something far more dramatic.
The other huge hole in all that is that it obviously could not work.
The chance of achieving the objective, getting away with it, is close
00 60 3-7843 3000
0800 587 1023
Shit for Brains Airlines
I wish I could say good luck on your trips on the above airlines but I
am by nature a very honest person and saying good luck would not be
correctly reflecting my feelings.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:17:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:00:38 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
Of course rating international airlines was never the topic of
discussion. Neither was anti-Semitism, but somehow you managed to
drag that in too. The issue was whether the passengers on MH17
deserved some of the blame for their own deaths, as you claimed.
I swore blind to myself I would not be goaded into saying anything
further to you but I find myself finding it impossible to avoid.
Your use of the term 'anti Semite in a previous post really irked me.
I have 2 questions
1. I am truly disgusted with the behaviour of Israel since it's
creation. Does it make me an anti Semite?
2. What is the equivalent term for an anti Palestinian? Or anti
anything else come to that. Why is it we only have a term for anti
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:49:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Thank you for so effectively summarising the problem.
A nation of mindless retards presided over by a mindless retard
supporting THE most blood thirsty cabal of filth the earth has ever
You know I was in Vietnam a couple of weeks ago. They do not hate you.
They feel sorry for you.
I do not.
I have seen the destruction and the (still) unexploded bombs you
dropped on Laos because you were not allowed to land back at Korat
with bombs on board after an 'unsuccessful mission.
You truly make me sick.
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.