Missing Malaysia Plane Was Hijacked

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Don't suppose it can be refuelled midair?

Leonidas


The fact of the matter is that people travelling on false passports WANT to get where they are going and are trying to keep a low profile.

The passengers flying with false documentation may turn out to be an issue, certainly. But it is more likely that the cause lies elsewhere.

Yep, it sure is curious that these guys traveling illegally using false identities and SEEKING ASYLUM have been cleared so quickly while the pilot is labeled a 'political fanatic' for wearing a t-shirt.

McGinty
Don't suppose it can be refuelled midair?

No, not in the variant Malaysian Airlines operates.

Edit to add: Boeing does not even offer a refuelable 777. There were plans to offer the B777 as a tanker but these were scrapped in favor of a revised B767.

McGinty
Any thoughts on Antarctica as a destination in the southern corridor, which the MSM seem to have discounted ?

Outside fuel range; would need to land and refuel. That 777 does not have mid-air refueling capability.

Could such a landing/refueling have happened? I don't know.

reply to post by Duracell21


I find it unlikely that they'd hesitate to shoot down a plane in a no-fly zone because there are passengers on board. Especially when there are many top national leaders in the area that the zone is covering. They wouldn't take any chances.
Remember, politicians are more highly regarded than civilians...in the politicians eyes, that is.

MotherMayEye

Leonidas


The fact of the matter is that people travelling on false passports WANT to get where they are going and are trying to keep a low profile.

The passengers flying with false documentation may turn out to be an issue, certainly. But it is more likely that the cause lies elsewhere.

Yep, it sure is curious that these guys traveling illegally using false identities and SEEKING ASYLUM have been cleared so quickly while the pilot is labeled a 'political fanatic' for wearing a t-shirt.

The point Interpol is making with 40,000,000 fake passports out there is every international flight has someone travelling on false papers. They may have something to do with it, but it is not a smoking gun because there are so many of them out there. Essentially, if every one of the 40 million fake or stolen passports is in the possession of a terrorist or hijacker or you couldnt leave the house.

jsl2837

McGinty
Any thoughts on Antarctica as a destination in the southern corridor, which the MSM seem to have discounted ?

Outside fuel range; would need to land and refuel. That 777 does not have mid-air refueling capability.

Could such a landing/refueling have happened? I don't know.

Would being at 45000 feet extend the range further (also giving it extra gliding range once the fuel was spent) ?


Note: pure layman's guessing here, so apologies for any unintentional idiocy

McGinty
Would being at 45000 feet extend the range further (also giving it extra gliding range once the fuel was spent) ?


Note: pure layman's guessing here, so apologies for any unintentional idiocy

Actually it would do the opposite. The aircraft is above its service ceiling and would expend additional fuel to reach and maintain this altitude, its range would be better at its typical service altitude.

McGinty

jsl2837

McGinty
Any thoughts on Antarctica as a destination in the southern corridor, which the MSM seem to have discounted ?

Outside fuel range; would need to land and refuel. That 777 does not have mid-air refueling capability.

Could such a landing/refueling have happened? I don't know.

Would being at 45000 feet extend the range further (also giving it extra gliding range once the fuel was spent) ?


Note: pure layman's guessing here, so apologies for any unintentional idiocy

All good questions. From what I have seen the 777 only requires 3500 feet of runway to land / takeoff (without safety margins). Im not familiar with any civilian aircraft / civilian version that is capable of mid air refueling. Im not to familiar with the weather patterns in that area but wouldn't a plane flying West be heading against the trade winds? That would affect fuel consumption yes? no?

Xcathdra
All good questions. From what I have seen the 777 only requires 3500 feet of runway to land / takeoff (without safety margins).

Land yes, take off no. The B777 needs about 9-10,000' of runway for take off.

You could theoretically land it on a runway shorter than 3,500' but it becomes a case of do you want to land or do you want the aircraft to be able to function again.

My original theory was that he flew it to Yemen, my thought was because of the low profile route he could have taken avoiding any country's airspace. Taking the "southern corridor" he could have flow low over the Indian Ocean right to Yemen in approximately 8 hrs. Now they are saying the satellite pings were detected for up to 7+ hrs keeping my theory alive and well.

If the hypothetical hijackers only wanted a person(s) or item(s)...they could ditch the plane in the ocean and transfer the person(s)/item(s) to an ocean vessel; and then sink the plane by flooding it.

Pretty risky, that you'll not damage the cargo or person/s you're trying to get, in a water crash landing....

An even more efficient method would be: Escape with the person(s)/item(s) via parachute; leaving the plane to crash. Silly idea? Sounds like overkill. Would be more cost effective to just kidnap the target individual(s). Unless: There was an incredibly valuable ITEM on that plane, and no other methods were possible.

Not if you're trying to take a 20 person team alive, but valid point for items.

I think the official story (hijackers wanted to steal the plane intact) is also plausible.

And where would they fence a jetliner? Plausible? Sure, likely? not really.

Cydonia2012
My original theory was that he flew it to Yemen, my thought was because of the low profile route he could have taken avoiding any country's airspace. Taking the "southern corridor" he could have flow low over the Indian Ocean right to Yemen in approximately 8 hrs. Now they are saying the satellite pings were detected for up to 7+ hrs keeping my theory alive and well.

The last ping puts the southern route in the middle of the southern Indian Ocean and nowhere near in range of the Middle East.

Gazrok
And where would they fence a jetliner? Plausible? Sure, likely? not really.

Craigslist.

AugustusMasonicus

Cydonia2012
My original theory was that he flew it to Yemen, my thought was because of the low profile route he could have taken avoiding any country's airspace. Taking the "southern corridor" he could have flow low over the Indian Ocean right to Yemen in approximately 8 hrs. Now they are saying the satellite pings were detected for up to 7+ hrs keeping my theory alive and well.

The last ping puts the southern route in the middle of the southern Indian Ocean and nowhere near in range of the Middle East.

so now they even know exactly where the pings were? I thought they could monitor the engines performance but couldn't determine the location of the plane. If they know where the pings were coming from then why wouldn't they just concentrate on that route instead of checking both "corridors" . Also, why would all this info be about the pings not be used from day 1? They're putting the blame on the Malaysian government for not being organized in their efforts but those pings were tracked by Rolls Royce not the government. Someone knows more then they are telling the world, smells like rotten eggs !

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra and AugustusMasonicus, thanks for the very informed info. Guess i wanted to be able to eliminate Antarctica, since it would explain the absence of sightings etc and there could easily be a temp runway setup there.

AugustusMasonicus

Gazrok
And where would they fence a jetliner? Plausible? Sure, likely? not really.

Craigslist.

Creigslist Yemen ??

Leonidas

MotherMayEye

Leonidas


The fact of the matter is that people travelling on false passports WANT to get where they are going and are trying to keep a low profile.

The passengers flying with false documentation may turn out to be an issue, certainly. But it is more likely that the cause lies elsewhere.

Yep, it sure is curious that these guys traveling illegally using false identities and SEEKING ASYLUM have been cleared so quickly while the pilot is labeled a 'political fanatic' for wearing a t-shirt.

The point Interpol is making with 40,000,000 fake passports out there is every international flight has someone travelling on false papers. They may have something to do with it, but it is not a smoking gun because there are so many of them out there. Essentially, if every one of the 40 million fake or stolen passports is in the possession of a terrorist or hijacker or you couldnt leave the house.

My point was how easily they were cleared. I read one article where one of their moms said she knew her son was traveling with a stolen passport but she said he was a good boy.

So his mom cleared him. Neat. I feel better.

Meanwhile, the pilot's best friend says he is a great guy, but that can't undo the fact that the pilot wore a pro-democracy t-shirt.

Plus, I saw the pilot pass through a metal detector on video. Unfortunately, we were only shown color printouts of the stolen passport guys and one of them was covered from the waist down. ...But then, you couldn't get away with covering the lower half of his body if you released digital photos or video.

Hi-jacking is a good excuse for many things. Lots of motive to do many things...

I will reserve it as a mechanical problem until actual proof surfaces.


Many people use fake passports, EVERYDAY, since this was an serious event, it was investigated more critically, thus found out.

luciddream
Many people use fake passports, EVERYDAY, since this was an serious event, it was investigated more critically, thus found out.

"Thus found out," yes. But, cleared after what appears to be a very brief, fluffy, feel-good investigation.