Malaysian Plane Missing After Take Off

[bersaguy]

U.S. passports are valid for 10 years.  Other countries are similar.

Thanks for the update. I have never needed one as the only time I traveled out of country was while in military. I just know a friend of mine told me he had to renew his pretty soon and I asked him if he was planning a trip and he said nope but one never knows these days and I said that's true............jmho

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Lumber_Jack" post="1121897" timestamp="1394296070"]I wonder why they would blow the plane up over the china sea? I understand maybe a bomb malfunction or stupid terrorist. But I fail to see how this end result would have been their master plan. Of course TWA 800 exploded with no bomb, supposedly :tinfoil:[/quote] This ... Dont forget that muslim extremists are also in deep fighting the Chinese in the western provinces. Just last month there was the slaughter at the rail station. Of course it could also be just plain human error as befell air france flight 447 a few years ago http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877

[Guest TankerHC]

Experts are saying they feel considering the circumstances, terrorism or the Pilots intentionally crashed the plane. Almost unheard of for a plane to just vanish at 35,000 feet +. Like I said, look at who was on board and who the Pilots were. That doesnt mean they did anything, but these FAA experts say that whatever happened, the entire plane had to disintegrate in midair, had to be instantly catastrophic, because even if they lost both engines, the Pilots would have said something and sent out a distress signal.

 

Ill take "Pilots intentionally crashed the plane" for 200.

[Oh Shoot]

.....Ill take "Pilots intentionally crashed the plane" for 200.

 

You'd think they would have at least crowed about it a bit on the radio on the way down, at least a God is Great or two.

 

- OS

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1122024" timestamp="1394324822"]You'd think they would have at least crowed about it a bit on the radio on the way down, at least a God is Great or two. - OS[/quote] Remember Egyptair flight 990? Revenge drove pilot to crash plane, killing 217 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/16/duncancampbell

[DaveTN]

Ill take "Pilots intentionally crashed the plane" for 200.

Unless these so called “experts” have some info on the pilots I’m not buying it.
53 years old, 33 years with the same airline, 18K hours….. Nope… he gets the benefit of the doubt until there is some evidence. I’d guess bomb or lightning strike before a suicidal pilot.

But we are all just guessing at this point. The only fact I am sure of is that the plane is down somewhere. And since no airport has reported it; it doesn’t look good for the passengers.

[Guest TankerHC]

You'd think they would have at least crowed about it a bit on the radio on the way down, at least a God is Great or two.

- OS

The other three didn't. Two yelled allahu akbar and the pilot and co pilot were fighting in the other one.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest TankerHC]

Unless these so called “experts” have some info on the pilots I’m not buying it.
53 years old, 33 years with the same airline, 18K hours….. Nope… he gets the benefit of the doubt until there is some evidence. I’d guess bomb or lightning strike before a suicidal pilot.

But we are all just guessing at this point. The only fact I am sure of is that the plane is down somewhere. And since no airport has reported it; it doesn’t look good for the passengers.

They already reported to the families that they located the oil slick. This time correctly.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[Tempest455]

Looks like N Korea fired a rocket close to one just days before.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/asia/north-korea-missiles/

 

 

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- A Chinese passenger jet with more than 200 people on board flew through the trajectory of a North Korean rocket that had been fired minutes earlier, the South Korean government said.

North Korea fired the rocket Tuesday at 4:17 p.m. without giving any navigational warning, Kim Min-Seok, a spokesman for the South Korean Defense Ministry, said Wednesday.

Seven minutes later, a China Southern Airlines plane carrying 220 passengers from Japan's Narita airport to Shenyang in China passed through the rocket's trajectory, he said.

"It was a very dangerous situation," Kim said during a news briefing. "North Korea's provocative actions violate the international navigation laws and pose a great threat to the safety of civilians."

 North Korea fires missiles Understanding North Korea

South Korea has informed Chinese authorities about what happened, the Defense Ministry said.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said Thursday that the plane flew through North Korean airspace "normally on that day without incident."

"When relevant countries conduct military training or exercises, they should abide by international custom to take measures that would ensure the safety of civil aircraft or ships passing through their airspace or territorial water," Qin said.

He said that China attaches a great deal of importance to the safety of its civil aircraft and would "seek verification from relevant parties and express necessary concern from our side."

Officials from China Southern Airlines didn't respond to calls seeking comment Thursday.

The rocket in question was one of seven fired Tuesday by North Korea into the sea off its east coast, according to South Korean authorities.

Given the speeds the plane and rocket were traveling at, the seven-minute gap means there was still "quite a big distance" between them, said Greg Waldron, Asia managing editor at Flightglobal, an aviation and aerospace website.

"Although the chances of hitting the aircraft were extremely low, akin to hitting a bullet with a bullet, there is absolutely no need to endanger civilians, however remote the danger may be," he said.

North Korea missile capabilities

North Korea defends launches

North Korea on Wednesday defended the series of short-range missile and rocket launches it has carried out in recent weeks.

"It is justifiable self-defense behavior for us to conduct these military exercises in order to preserve peace in the region and to protect the safety of our people and our country," the North's Korean People's Army said in a statement carried by state media.

The military's statement didn't make any mention of South Korea's comments about the Chinese plane, but it said its recent launches hadn't affected "international navigational order."

The North's launches have taken place as U.S. and South Korean troops conduct annual military exercises in the region. The large-scale drills anger North Korea, which says it views them as a rehearsal for an invasion.

The North has fired missiles or rockets into the sea on several occasions between February 21 and Tuesday, according to the South Korean government. Seoul says some of the ballistic missiles are Scud class with a long enough range to cover the entire Korean Peninsula.

North Korea on Wednesday acknowledged that it had conducted "rocket launch training" over that period.

North Korea shows off South Korean man it's holding on spy charges

Who's provoking whom?

South Korea has said the launches -- short-range and aimed in a northeasterly direction out to sea -- are intentional provocations.

The U.S. State Department said Monday that launches of the Scuds violate U.N. Security Council resolutions.

"We urge North Korea to refrain from provocative actions that aggravate tensions, and instead focus on fulfilling its international obligations and commitments," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Those comments appeared to have irritated North Korea's military.

"The U.S. and its supporters are calling our actions provocation, but they should not talk about provocation when they don't know what provocation is," the North's military statement said. "Provocation is when somebody has intent to hurt somebody else, but what we are doing is to protect ourselves, our country, our land, our people."

The U.S.-South Korean military exercises, on the other hand, are provocative, North Korea said: "It's a reckless American way of provocation and they're doing all this on somebody else's land."

It threatened the possibility of the launch of a more powerful rocket.

Pyongyang had previously called for the cancellation of the joint exercises, a request dismissed by Washington and Seoul.

North Korea launches missiles into sea

Calmer than last year

The North's verbal attack Wednesday didn't reach the ominous levels of its saber rattling this time last year, which included threats of preemptive nuclear strikes against the United States and South Korea.

"Unannounced missile tests are not a good thing, but their political and military significance depends on context," Stephan Haggard, a visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in a blog post Tuesday.

North Korea conducted or threatened test launches during a similar period last year, soon after it had drawn international condemnation for launching a long-range rocket and carrying out its third nuclear test.

"This year, the political setting is less confrontational," wrote Haggard, who is also a professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego.

Despite the current military drills, ties between North and South Korea have improved slightly in recent months. Over several days last month, the two countries held reunions of families separated for decades by the Korean War -- the first such meetings since 2010.

South Korea on Wednesday said it was proposing new talks between the two sides next week to discuss the possibility of further reunions. But North Korea rejected the proposal, the South Korean Unification Ministry said Thursday.

Compared with last year, North Korea is being "remarkably quiet," said Andrei Lankov, a professor of history at Kookmin University in Seoul.

"They had to do something because it would be politically impossible to do nothing during the joint exercises, especially after they made so much noise about it," Lankov said. "But they act with remarkable restraint."

Report: North Korea fires two missiles off eastern coast

[TerryW]

  Does anybody know where the aircraft was last seen on radar?  Conventional radar drops off after the shoreline, I forget how many miles but it's not very far.  If my memory serves me correctly, long over water flying is done on tracks and aircraft are "tracked" via sat com position reports from the pilots.  It's been years since I've done it but I remember you are all by your lonesome as far as air traffic control radar is concerned. 

  If the terrorists want to make the plane look like David Copperfield made it disappear, over water leaves everyone guessing about it and it's contents whereabouts.

  Sad for those families. My family unexpectedly lost a cousin for several months before his body was found and it tore my aunt and uncle to pieces wondering. 

[TMF]

[quote name="TerryW" post="1122631" timestamp="1394459050"] Does anybody know where the aircraft was last seen on radar? Conventional radar drops off after the shoreline, I forget how many miles but it's not very far. If my memory serves me correctly, long over water flying is done on tracks and aircraft are "tracked" via sat com position reports from the pilots. It's been years since I've done it but I remember you are all by your lonesome as far as air traffic control radar is concerned. If the terrorists want to make the plane look like David Copperfield made it disappear, over water leaves everyone guessing about it and it's contents whereabouts. Sad for those families. My family unexpectedly lost a cousin for several months before his body was found and it tore my aunt and uncle to pieces wondering. [/quote] I'm no commercial airliner pilot, but a global tracking device which reports to satellite it's position can be owned and paid for monthly subscription for less than the average person pays for a smartphone and data. I'm assuming that the airline would know the last known coordinates for the aircraft. Hell, most public transit platforms are tracked with global devices that update every 10 seconds. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lumber_Jack]

I'm no commercial airliner pilot, but a global tracking device which reports to satellite it's position can be owned and paid for monthly subscription for less than the average person pays for a smartphone and data. I'm assuming that the airline would know the last known coordinates for the aircraft. Hell, most public transit platforms are tracked with global devices that update every 10 seconds. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

The terms the reports are using like "the plane may have u-turned"  or "we are searching the planned flight path"  lead me to believe that they didn't have exact coordinates of the plane.  Especially not to the level that US air traffic controllers do. 

 

Either that or its just the authorities being vague on purpose

[Dustbuster]

Special teams are working on this phenomenal event:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[TMF]

[quote name="Lumber_Jack" post="1122694" timestamp="1394467845"]The terms the reports are using like "the plane may have u-turned" or "we are searching the planned flight path" lead me to believe that they didn't have exact coordinates of the plane. Especially not to the level that US air traffic controllers do. Either that or its just the authorities being vague on purpose[/quote] I guess that's possible, but we are taking about an aircraft worth more than the GDP of Malaysia (exaggeration, but making a point) and it would cost less than $500/year to know the exact location of that aircraft updated every 4 seconds. There are fleet trucks that deliver bread that have this technology. I refuse to believe that this aircraft does not. It wouldn't matter if the aircraft changed course, did loopty loops or barrel rolls. Hips don't lie and neither do coordinates. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lumber_Jack]

I guess that's possible, but we are taking about an aircraft worth more than the GDP of Malaysia (exaggeration, but making a point) and it would cost less than $500/year to know the exact location of that aircraft updated every 4 seconds. There are fleet trucks that deliver bread that have this technology. I refuse to believe that this aircraft does not. It wouldn't matter if the aircraft changed course, did loopty loops or barrel rolls. Hips don't lie and neither do coordinates. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I agree its doable for sure.  But how many times have incidents happened and the world asks "why didn't you have....."  "I have it on my phone and you cant get it on a......."  fill in the blanks accordingly. 

[TerryW]

I'm no commercial airliner pilot, but a global tracking device which reports to satellite it's position can be owned and paid for monthly subscription for less than the average person pays for a smartphone and data. I'm assuming that the airline would know the last known coordinates for the aircraft. Hell, most public transit platforms are tracked with global devices that update every 10 seconds. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

  I am a 26 year commercial pilot with many many many thousands of hours in the left seat. I haven't flown international in years but I'm 99% sure even off our coasts there is zero GPS type "tracking" that all tracking/ positioning is plotted by pilot induced position reports over the Sat Com.  Now, most other countries outside of the US and Europe, they don't have jack for modern ground technology when it comes to radios, radar or radar coverage. 

 

I just ask a buddy of mine that flies captain on a 767 for Continental and he hasn't got back to me but I'd bet my paycheck US carriers don't use this technology and I guarantee third world countries don't have tracking.  

[tnguy]

You'd think they would have at least crowed about it a bit on the radio on the way down, at least a God is Great or two.

 

- OS

 

Were they definitely within radio range?

[Lumber_Jack]

most stories I'm reading that say RADAR indicates the plane turned, but the pilots made no communication.  Why no one is certain this happened, I cant explain

 

 

Edit: seems TerrW has a lead above as to why they don't know for sure

Edited March 10, 2014 by Lumber_Jack

[TMF]

[quote name="Lumber_Jack" post="1122701" timestamp="1394468583"]I agree its doable for sure. But how many times have incidents happened and the world asks "why didn't you have....." "I have it on my phone and you cant get it on a......." fill in the blanks accordingly. [/quote] Yeah, I know. It just seems hard to believe when there are third world countries that have that capability installed into a crappy Cessna bush plane. Perhaps why I only fly domestic carriers when I fly internationally regardless of cost. I realize their operated by people who have zero standards for safety. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TerryW]

Me after one too many cups of coffee....

 

 

[TMF]

[quote name="TerryW" post="1122703" timestamp="1394468702"] I am a 26 year commercial pilot with many many many thousands of hours in the left seat. I haven't flown international in years but I'm 99% sure even off our coasts there is zero GPS type "tracking" that all tracking/ positioning is plotted by pilot induced position reports over the Sat Com. Now, most other countries outside of the US and Europe, they don't have jack for modern ground technology when it comes to radios, radar or radar coverage. I just ask a buddy of mine that flies captain on a 767 for Continental and he hasn't got back to me but I'd bet my paycheck US carriers don't use this technology and I guarantee third world countries don't have tracking. [/quote] They do. I personally know of it. And yes, there are existing infrastructures to provide global coverage. Iridium architecture is one, but there are more. This isn't a measure for pilots to self-track, it is a measure to be tracked from the ground with regular updates. I mean, seriously, there are fleet vehicles with cargo the fraction of the cost of economy cabin tickets that use this technology. Global tracking means just that. It has nothing to do with where the coastlines are, it only has to do with where the satellites are and the infrastructure being used. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tnguy]

I guess that's possible, but we are taking about an aircraft worth more than the GDP of Malaysia (exaggeration, but making a point) and it would cost less than $500/year to know the exact location of that aircraft updated every 4 seconds. There are fleet trucks that deliver bread that have this technology. I refuse to believe that this aircraft does not. It wouldn't matter if the aircraft changed course, did loopty loops or barrel rolls. Hips don't lie and neither do coordinates. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I remember getting in discussions like this when a plane went missing in the Atlantic and the simple truth is that, whatever you'd like to believe, most planes don't have this kind of tracking.

[peejman]

Newer planes like the 777 also have a systems where the airplane sends satellite transmission of general data about the airplane (condition of the engines, etc.)  I'm told that this system wasn't working and they don't know whether it was intentionally disabled or not yet. 

 

If satellite tracking and such were the norm, it wouldn't have taken 5 days to find the initial wreckage and another 2 years to find the black boxes from Air France 447.  That one went down 20 minutes after it left radar coverage. 

Edited March 10, 2014 by peejman

[TerryW]

Lumber Jack, I am just surmising.  I really don't much detail about the story, as I am not much of a news guy. 

 

I just talked to a buddy and some aircraft are tracked via GPS sat. 

 

I am only current to fly domestically(Thank God) I am always in sight of dirt.  :-)

[Guest TankerHC]

Well last night they were saying there were four people on the plane that were not supposed to be there, all with stolen passports (AP, Yahoo news). 

 

The experts who I mentioned above, one was an AA pilot for 23 years, a pilot instructor and is President of some International Aircraft Safety thing. The other one is a retired Airline Pilot, and also President of an Airline Pilots group of some sort and there is a third guy who has similar credentials (I have no idea other than they were Airline Pilots on what all these organizations are, Airline Pilots must have a lot of Associations and Safety groups), but the third guy seems to be right on line with what TMF is saying plus he adds that the loss of the aircraft on radar and loss of communications would indicate to him that whatever happened it was instant and catastrophic, which "to me", and I am no Pilot or anything, but can read between the lines would sound like the option of the pilots crashing the plane on this one would have happened too fast.