Posted on 03/15/2014 10:14:48 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
These are the 634 runways where the missing Malaysia Airlines plane could have landed after a potential hijacking.
Today Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said investigators believe flight MH370's disappearance is the result of 'deliberate action' by someone on the plane.
During a dramatic press conference, he said satellite evidence showed the aircraft's transponder was turned off and it change direction shortly before it vanished.
(Excerpt) Read more at mirror.co.uk ...
Of course of that set, a large number would/could be assumed to call up and say “Hey we got a spare 777 that just landed” regardless of whether whoever was in charge of the craft let anyone on board say anything to anyone.
And any nation in charge of a runway that didn’t do that when it landed would “have some splainin to do”.
For some reason I thought it was a 777-200ER?
But the ad is hilarious! Next thing you know you’ll be seeing it pop up on Ebay, too!
Wondering why nothing is said about what was in the cargo and how much fuel was loaded into flight 370 before takeoff. Might have been more fuel than usual. Has anyone heard of these reports — if any.
Don't airliners have EPIRBs? I really don't know. But airliners, among others, are precisely what are supposed to pick up my beacon in case of disaster. So if this rig splashed, their EPIRB would go off, right?
*E mergency P ersonal I nternational R adio B eacon (or something real close). Little red thing, strobe on top'o'mine, too. Batteries supposed to last 72 hours.
The 777 doesn’t need 7000 ft to land 3500 would be workable with light load.
Cant decide if that’s really funny or just rude. LOL.
Someone knows and has known exactly where this plane is.
Great Graphic for the 777-200 but MH370 was a 777-200ER(extended Range)
B777-200ER
7,725 nautical miles
(14,305 km)
Typical city pairs:
London - Los Angeles
Tokyo - Sydney
Chicago - Seoul
How about subsequent take off ? What was the take off weight from Malaysia ?
Airliners take off with sufficient fuel to reach the destination plus a reserve for diversions. Somebody wrote that there is extra reserve at night. But they aren’t fueled to max if the destination isn’t at max aircraft range. So the radius probably doesn’t include Somalia.
The towers are in Kuala Lumpur. Why wouldn’t they have plowed into them after they took over the plane and made their U-turn back across Malaysia?
He was craftily pointing out the intellect of your average terrorist. Heh.
Alas, poor PanAm, dead all these years.
They have the ELTs built into the cockpit of the aircraft that can be activated manually or by sudden deceleration.
There is another ELT built into each life raft that is activated when the raft is deployed.
PanAm is still around?
So enlighten us, BTC. Give us your “simple” explanation.
I don’t see a “simple” explanation here. All theories require either extremely rare simultaneous occurrences (meteors, massive electrical failure except the engines and flight controls, loss of cabin pressure and hypoxia, etc), theft and ransom, or terrorism. Given that the transponders were pulled just as they were on 9/11, it strongly suggests terrorism.
Thanks. That’s more useful. Still not clear if they are allowing for the full maximum range - cruising on one engine, for example, and reducing the load by cutting almost all drains - generators, air compressors for passenger air, catching a jet stream (are there jet streams at that latitude?), etc.
You can land a plane almost anywhere semi-flat if you are not concerned about getting it back in the air.
Assuming the fuel guy didn't top it off for an extra couple of yen.
/tinfoil
How many of the 634 are owned by George Soros?
You’ll get max range with running both engines, not just one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.