[breaking] Malaysian Airlines loses contact with Beijing-bound flight, 239 on board

LOL I had no idea about this story .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/richard-quest-cnn-reporte_n_97466.html

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/cnn-reporter-richard-quest-caught-974866

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581038/Missing-jet-pilots-firm-community-family-ties.html

 

It is rare to be vindicated so quickly and in an unrelated discussion.

 

You are telling it is not under the ocean?

 

Probably not safely, the 777 needs a runway of a least 5,000 feet and most operators require 7,000 feet.

 

That is for a fully loaded plane without reverse thrust. Thus your use of the word "safely".


If we are to go down this conspiracy road, a light jet with a good pilot can land on a dime.


<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/nkuqsd_tRHw?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/nkuqsd_tRHw?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Also by a fully trained pilot. Sorry, but a terrorist or hijacker isn't going to be able to land a 777 safely on a short runway. Could they have forced the pilot to do so? Sure, but unlikely they'd comply - unless of course they were part of the hijacking.

 

Why don't countries use their satellite toys and take a look? Surely, if it landed, it would be in a remote area, so there should be no confusion. There are a hundred theories that could be verified (relatively) easily. Yet, just reporting reporting reporting talking talking talking. Exhausting.

 

Depends on what you mean by short. That plane would have been loaded down with fuel at takeoff, so little cargo. If they landed it on almost empty, and got the wheels down fast to brake it, those engine will shut it down quick.

I'm sure there is an online calculator somewhere.

 

Huh? Maybe I'm coming in late to the conversation and missed some details... but 239 people plus all their luggage along with cargo shipped all the time on international flights wouldn't exactly make for a light plane - even if they dumped reserve fuel.

I've landed on a Southwest flight that went full reverse thrust at Midway in Chicago, not fun.

 

I'm still blown away that in this day and age this plane could fly right back over Malaysia unnoticed and it isn't figured out that it did so until a week later.

 

The problem is those who are leading the investigation aren't releasing all of the information as it becomes available. If this would have happened in US air space, this would have been solved in the first 48 hours.

You're dealing with some pretty inept (and corrupt) governments in that region.

 

Did I read that the plane went as high as 45,000 feet? What is the maximum altitude a 777 can get up to?

 

That was a 772ER. It carries 320,000 pounds of fuel and would have been loaded for that route. 239 people are a 10th of that. Fuel is all that matters for weight and landing distance.

 

wtf? Thats the British dude? He always sounds like he's on something, tbh. I also hate his voice.

 

CNN is about to tell us why family members of the passengers are hoping this was a hijacking. I can't wait to hear why!

 

239 people plus their cargo, plus additional cargo (which every plane carries). All that makes a difference. As much as the fuel, no but still a huge sum of weight. Heck, I've been on large planes before that were near empty and they had us move around to evenly distribute weight.

Again, I'll stick with my theory that there is no way a non-professional commercial pilot could land a 777 (fully loaded or not) on a short runway.

Yes, and this actually may be easy to explain... as the pilots may have lost consciousness (depressurization?) so as the plane lost fuel, it gained altitude. 45,000 is right on the edge of the 777's capabilities.

Not so easy to explain: Shortly after it hit 45,000 feet the engines reported that they dropped 40,000 feet in a minute - which is nearly impossible, so the readings can't really be trusted. If the plane broke apart at 45,000 feet, it would take several minutes for the engines to fall 40,000 feet at terminal velocity... and the plane diving that quickly would likely burst into pieces.

 

I have been too busy to mess with really anything this week but my theory on the limited information I have seen is that the US must of had an agent on board and someone high jacked this plane to get information.

Why else would the US Navy be so concerned with finding this plane?

 

A good pilot would change the glide slope angle to get the lowest airspeed possible by the threashold. Any moron could see the fuel remaining and crank up the reverse thrust. Safe landing distance is for no reverse thrust and a 600,000 pound plane. A 772ER has way more thrust than a 772 and flying for several hours it would be extremely light.

What conspiracy strip are you claiming it couldn't land at BTW?

Offering assistance. Plus it was a Boeing, the NTSB will be involved.

 

maybe