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 ...
Has anyone seen Art Bell lately?
A fully fueled 777 would have gone MUCH farther than Somalia. Again...the range I gave just assumes a range of 6.5 hours from where they were last seen.
Najib doesn’t understand the technology. There’s no indication that ACARS was disabled because ACARS would had nothing to send until the aircraft landed. Unlike the Air France incident where they were subscribing to the service that transmitted error messages in real time, Rolls Royce had no need for real tine messaging, just stuff for the maintenance log.
:Someone bought the name and logo and ran it out of Miami for a while, but it bit the dust. Later someone used the name to run cargo from Mexico to Texas, but I think they ran afoul of the feds. Wikipedia indicates someone's trying to put together financing to run a PanAm out of Atlanta. http://www.paaglobal.com/ says that they hub in Portland, Dallas and Nashville, but I haven't seen any of their planes around here.
Thanks again. I may not know the answers, but unlike modern day reporters, I know enough to ask questions.
my armchair theory is china wanted the power ic chip makers on that plane. they just introd a whole new line of military power ic chips the beginning of march.
Thanks for the ping. That is a lot of airports to search for records of incoming aircraft and some of them probably don’t keep such records.
They took off for a 6 hour flight, but two hours later, were only 50 miles from their departure point. How much fuel should they have on board? The reports said 7 hours. So they used 2 leaving them five. Best cruise @ 500kts gives a range of 2875 statute miles.
3800 miles to Somalia
3100 miles to Chabahar Iran
3988 to Basra
The new Chinese zone is north of Taiwan.
Don't know what you base such an assertion upon; but, never-the-less, true airspeed at lower altitudes is less and fuel consumption is greater (as well as in the climb) - all of which diminishes the overall efficiency of the jet, thereby - in this case - lessening its range.
Yeh -- the Pakistani terrorists have a newly painted fleet of them but they can't find anywhere to fly them to.
IMHO at maximum fuel load it can fly 7,725 nautical miles, i.e., could have flown all the way to Tehran non-stop, but airlines don’t always fill to maximum fuel to allocate weight for some cargo. If MH370 was to fly over the waters from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, the plane can fly twice the route over land with enough fuel to safely reach a Iranian airport with 7,300 runway near Pakistani border.
From news reports that that is what it did. From the Daily Telegraph: "Signals recorded by the Malaysian military reportedly show the plane ascending to 45,000ft, well above the 777’s approved altitude. The same data suggested the plane then descended to 23,000ft as it approached the Malaysian island of Penang, but then climbed again and flew northwest over the Strait of Malacca."
Plus....it just makes sense. If you go through this much effort to get a 777ER...and you know enough to disable the ACARS (like maybe the pilot or co-pilot)....then you know you can't fly at lower levels without slowing down and burning more fuel. I'm not a pilot and I know that much.
I believe that either have no understanding of what sarcasm is, or you are several layers of sarcasm beyond my understanding.
I’d imagine there are only a few countries where such a plane could have landed unnoticed and unremarked. So it’s probably just a couple dozen airports to be considered, tops.
I thought about that, too. Wouldn’t he have a lot of people to answer to, tho? There must be a lot of people who check the amount of fuel loaded into an aircraft.
I reread your original post and now I indeed DO detect some sarcasm there. It was deeply hidden beneath layers of innuendo and misdirection.
Something on the flightdeck caused their plan to go awry. Besides in the middle of the night there is not enough people in there for large numbers of dead. IMHO they want to top 9/11 for a death toll. That would be easy on a typical work day there.
This is just my gut thoughts.
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.