Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

Here is what US pilots are expected to do for lost Comms. FAA Lost Comms Procedures

Im curious about the last audio message, "Ok Good Night" wasnt there flight across the ocean towards the chinese coast similar to the flight across the Atlantic from the UK to USA? wouldnt they have been handed over or given another follow on frequency to call? why diddnt they repeat the frequency as normaly required with RT comms.

Surely the whole radio message should have sounded something like - "Malaysian 370 maintain three five zero on track 25 degrees, and contact xxx on frequency xxx xx Good Night/Morning"

Why diddnt 370 respond with - "Ok maintain three five zero on 25 degrees, and contact xxx, Good Night"

Isnt that normal RT?

reply to post by auroraaus


Star.
I share your opinion about the improbability of suicide in Flight 370. For the last 3 hours, the guests on CNN have agreed with you, too. I had expected them to sweep it under the rug, but they are obviously unsettled and have many questions. Too little is known to call this a suicide. As one expert said, "Where is the crime scene?" What's the motive for this rush to judgment?

Like you, I respect differing opinions/theories. Based on the same evidence that is available to us, I just happen to have a different view.

In most cases, the sea will "tell." Let's hope it tells the truth and nothing but.

reply to post by UKGuy1805


Proper coms would dictate using the phraseology you presented. However, in areas that one flies in a lot coms are often very relaxed and informal. Not proper technique but, nevertheless, commonly occur. I gather that there was not a lot of cockpit professionalism in play on this flight. I cannot site examples of this, just my feeling.

reply to post by rockflier


Thank you for the reply mate, appreciated.

reply to post by Daughter2

An Air India flight had to make a precautionary landing at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on Monday morning after a transponder defect was detected. The Delhi-Chicago flight, a Boeing 777, returned within three hours of take off.

Air traffic control (ATC) uses an aircraft’s transponder to identify it and jets with defective transponders are not allowed to enter the European airspace, prompting the Air India flight to return.

The incident, airport sources said, was reported at 2.15 am when the flight AI 127 was scheduled for take off to Chicago. Sources said that there were 313 passengers and 16 crew members on board.

“The flight took off at 2.15 am but when it entered Afghanistan airspace, it developed a snag in its transponder whereby the signal transmitted by the ATC to the aircraft was not visible in the aircraft.

Link

This CNN article is selling the new AFIRS data streaming system by FLYHT in Canada. This accident looks like it's going to be used for the governments mandating this new technology.

Real-time streaming of flight information In the age of Netflix streaming and trans-Atlantic Wi-Fi on flights, why can't aircraft-in-flight data come in real time? Canadian company Flyht Aerospace Solutions says it can. The company makes the Automated Flight Information System, or AFIRS, which automatically monitors data such as location, altitude, and performance. The data can be live-streamed when something goes wrong. The technology would have answered many questions about Flight 370, according to Flyht director Richard Hayden. "We would know where the aircraft has gone, where it is, and we would have information on what had happened in the meantime," he said. On a normal flight, the system would send updates every five to 10 minutes. And it could be programmed to recognize when something is wrong, such as a deviation in flight path, to automatically begin streaming second-by-second data. The main objection has been cost, but Hayden said AFIRS is designed to save carriers money. "A typical installation would be under $100,000 including the box and the installation parts and the labor," said Hayden. "Normally our customers recover that expense in a matter of months to, at most, a couple of years by virtue of the savings it creates." Those savings come from troubleshooting mechanical problems while the plane is in the air, he said, as well as collecting data that can help cut fuels costs. Former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation Mary Schiavo doesn't believe carriers will get on board. "(Airlines are) very cost sensitive," she said. "They simply will not add additional safety measures unless mandated by the federal government."

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by rockflier


I too would like to thank you for your responses

Much appreciated

UKGuy1805
reply to post by rockflier

 

Thank you for the reply mate, appreciated.

My pleasure, mate. Not bad for an old wanker, eh? LOLOL

UKGuy1805
wouldnt they have been handed over or given another follow on frequency to call?

01:19:24 ATC: MH370, please contact Hu Chi Minh City 120.9, good night

Mikeultra
Former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation Mary Schiavo doesn't believe carriers will get on board. "(Airlines are) very cost sensitive," she said. "They simply will not add additional safety measures unless mandated by the federal government."

www.cnn.com...

You're right--we are looking at a new poster child. When an aviation disaster gets tptb's attention, it usually goes like this: Everything will change. Yet nothing will change.

Yes these kind of events and even some that are very diss-similar conveiently usher in a change for us - for the better? like over here the phone hacking scandal? another knock at our freedom of speach, when was the last time you heard a tv or radio reporter say on air " I aint reeding that rubbish - let me tell you how it realy is"?

Or a weather presenter who actualy has the brass types to say - "No it aint cold or to warm or more windy than before - just normal" you complain when its too hot in summer, to cold in winter" "whats it supposed to be people?"

I know that it's a U.S. Patent and it doesn't prove anything, but it is circumstantial evidence and I think it should be considered. The assignee on the patent is The Boeing Company. This invention was a result of 911. patft.uspto.gov.../71429 71&RS=PN/7142971

This patent is assigned to China Aviation Industry Corporation.
appft.uspto.gov... .&OS=DN/20040249523&RS=DN/20040249523

This will turn out to be some sort of event that occurred on board that the pilots tried to alleviate, but failed...

Decompression knocked out everyone one board and the plane went down upon fuel running out.

Analysts are sure that the pilot deliberately turned the plane. Not because he was trying to hijack it but because he was trying to save it.

reply to post by auroraaus


I don't know how they work over there. Here there is a standby list for "Buddy Passes" that have to wait till the plane is boarded by paying passengers, you can get bumped. Here this would not have a problem because the plane wasn't full, so all 4-5 could have made it. Also some flights are overbooked, because some do miss their flights, for whatever reason, then standbys get their seat.

One other thing I went back and could not find the last cockpit communications, I believe at the end was a mumble, which could mean the pilots went unconscious, nothing adds up so they still don't know or we are being mislead. At this point anything could have happened. I also think everyone is trying to fit a story together not to be sued.

PhotonEffect
This will turn out to be some sort of event that occurred on board that the pilots tried to alleviate, but failed...

Decompression knocked out everyone one board and the plane went down upon fuel running out.

Analysts are sure that the pilot deliberately turned the plane. Not because he was trying to hijack it but because he was trying to save it.

I've been following this thread since day one. I'm honestly curious which analysts said they're sure the pilot (which?) was the one who turned the plane, and based on what evidence. Also, your conclusion about the pilot trying to save the plane rather than hijacking it...is this your theory or something confirmed by the "analyst"?

I ask this because truly I'm personally not aware of any substantiated evidence for your statement and would love to see if it's evidence based or speculation.

pejanene
I ask this because truly I'm personally not aware of any substantiated evidence for your statement and would love to see if it's evidence based or speculation.

It's all speculation. There is very little evidence of anything.

But it's a jump to say the pilots did this deliberately. That turn to the west could have just as easily been an attempt to return the craft to an airport after an emergency was detected.

PhotonEffect

pejanene
I ask this because truly I'm personally not aware of any substantiated evidence for your statement and would love to see if it's evidence based or speculation.

It's all speculation. There is very little evidence of anything.

But it's a jump to say the pilots did this deliberately. That turn to the west could have just as easily been an attempt to return the craft to an airport after an emergency was detected.

Thanks - and agree that based on the scant evidence the real story of what happened could fall in so many directions. I thought that there was new evidence that was just released, hence my question.

BBC just reported that Malaysia representatives / Malaysia air told the families in Beijing that for many of the questions that they're asking, the files have already been SEALED. What???