Posted on 03/11/2014 3:51:38 PM PDT by tcrlaf
The Civil Aviation Department of Hong Kong has received a pilot’s report that a large amount of debris was spotted in Vietnamese waters.
The pilot, flying a Hong Kong to Kuala Lumpur plane, says the debris is located about 60 kilometres southeast of Vietnamese city Vung Tau, some 500 kilometers from where the Malaysian jetliner lost contact with air traffic controllers. The department has submitted the message to the relevant authorities.
I was only given two unlawful orders in my 10 years. One was a safety violation by someone trying to get me killed. The second was a treaty violation. Never went through with either.
Best movie ever
On that we completely agree ;)
But most of the time, what you see IS what is really there. Especially if 200+ people all see the same thing, and all having arious levels of expertise in visual identification skills.
Oh and btw, look at the time stamp of your post - see, God agrees with me.
Absolutely eyewitnesses are not all that dependable.
200 of them all saying the same thing would get my attention.
Trained military people with experience who say its a missile make me a believer.
Couple it with a simple fact. If they admitted it was a missile, that’s hundreds of billions in economic damage. It is a disruption of status quo foreign policy. It’s a demand for military action that some may not wish to take.
If they say it’s a spark, all that goes away. In it’s place is only ‘conspiracy theories’ which are easily explained away as swamp gas, the location of Venus and flocks of geese.
And a whole bunch of people going along because they don’t want to be blackballed as nuts...I wonder which is easiest to go with.
Yes, but the same applies to USAir 427, as well.
Despite hundreds of attempts, they could not repeat the conditions that caused the uncontrolled rudder roll, even using the last unmodified 737 of that type in the world, belonging to Purdue University.
When my tractor's fuel injector mists diesel fuel into the cylinder, it explodes every time the piston compresses it - it doesn't even need a spark.
Oh yes your years of experience in the industry tell you that. And my fourty years and Mary's experience makes us pretty ignorant. Oh i am sorry, an IQ of less than 5.
Having investigated accidents/incidents and safety internally (company only) . . . . only a person with an IQ of less than 5 would eliminate or discount ANY possibiltiy until the facts become known.
Hope you do not judge and base your conclusions politically the same way you have come to the conclusion regarding this missing airplane. Yeah i know, sure do not want to let facts get in your way of making good and proper decisions
So where was the compression on flt 800?
False.
TWA 800 was flying at 13,700 ft. Well within the effective range of a MANPADS.
Man-portable air-defense systemsShoulder-fired SAMs generally have a target detection range of about 6 miles (10 km) and an engagement range of about 4 miles (6 km), so aircraft flying at 20,000 feet (6,100 m) (3.8 miles) or higher are relatively safe
I've cut open a bunch of UST’s that had contained jet fuel, fuel oil, diesel, gasoline etc. Gasoline is definitely the most volatile and you almost always have a combustible atmosphere in tanks that have any gas at all remaining in them. Obviously you check the atmosphere with a CGI (combustible gas indicator) before opening up both ends of the tank. Usually that's done by pumping an inert gas into the tank or flushing the tank with compressed air while cutting and of course monitoring all the while.
The heavier fuel tanks very rarely have a combustible atmosphere. They may possibly if they're hot enough inside for the fuel to flash off creating a combustible atmosphere but in my experience that was rare. I'd usually go ahead and flush the tanks just to be sure, but I always liked cutting open fuel oil, jet fuel tanks etc as opposed to gasoline.
I never believed the nonsense about a spark inside the center tank on that 747. Even if somehow an ignition source was generated inside the tank the chances of a combustible atmosphere existing are close to nonexistent.
Meanwhile ... http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-loud-noise-reported-believed-linked-to-missing-plane-1.507926
They do seem to be very consistently idiotic, that’s for sure. I wonder what it is like to be a full blown idiot and happy about it. Of course I suppose if I really were one I wouldn’t know it would I?
PV=nRT
It was a hot day in JFK, the plane was delayed several hours on takeoff. The packs (air conditioning system on Boeing Airplanes) are directly below the center wing tank. The area became very hot.
That's why Boeing put an fuel tank inert system in the 787. There have been 4 center tank explosions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system
Yup.
Begin rant mode...
I look at it from practical redneck experience that mirrors your more technical. Sometimes simple works well enough to get the right answer ;)
In the not so distant past before OSHA regs, people used gasoline to degrease parts. The result was flaming people in too many cases. Because of exactly the combustable atmosphere created around the 55 gal drums used as degreaser tanks. So they switched to Diesel/Kero. Result? Parts washers in semi close proximity to open flame glowing hot wood stoves that NEVER exploded.
Now the inside of a fuel tank is a lot like a garage with a diesel (petrolium) based parts washer, Enclosed. But with lots of open flame (torches/grinders/wood stoves/OIL stoves). Those sparks do not ignite the washer or cause an explosion. I have seen SHOWERS of sparks DIRECTLY hit such. No fire. No boom.
Pour a cup of Diesel/Kero or jet fuel on a white hot coal bedded campfire. Boom? Nope. No boom. Burn, but no boom.
The conditions have to be perfect. Such as atmosphere to be compressed 22-1’ish in a Diesel, in the compressor stages of a turbine etc. before Diesel/Kero/Jet will ‘so easily’ ignite.
See diesel truck in winter for an example of how hard it can be to ignite.
One cannot look at the millions of aircraft flights and conclude that by miracle, this aircraft just suddenly defied decades of experience, reality and science.
Local gals in their soaked ao dais after a brief afternoon rain shower ....
“It was a hot day in JFK, the plane was delayed several hours on takeoff. The packs (air conditioning system on Boeing Airplanes) are directly below the center wing tank. The area became very hot. “
I live in AZ. I understand hot.
How many times did this exact plane and/or hundreds like it sit on runways in Saudi/Iraq/Middle East/Las Vegas/Phoenix under almost, if not identical circumstances? Numbers would indicate that in your 4 cases, something else happened.
It does not explode, it ignites. There is a difference.
I totally agree. Tonight I looked at the map of the region to try to figure out where they might have taken the plane if my theory holds up. Although the military now denies that they tracked the plane way off course something is amiss. He also said there were things he could tell and things he couldn’t tell. Ok, for fun I placed the plane at the spot where they first claimed they tracked it to when way off course. From where it disappeared to that spot is a line in the direction of a country seething with terrorists, probably the worst one of all, Yemen. If this plays out terrorists will have a weapon they can use to strike anywhere on Earth and maybe the best 777 expert pilot alive to fly it. I hope I’m right for the passengers sake and that they are released, but hope I’m wrong for people everywhere to have to live in fear.
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.