Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2013
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:42 am

Hey 777Jet - what's your opinion on Sy Gunson's theory about how the new parts are proof that the aircraft did not deliberately ditched? His post is in the link below.

http://qr.ae/8NOFhz
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:19 pm

@ 777Jet: Do you have any other pictures from your Thai International flight? Especially interested in any walls or bulkheads that might happen to have a folding table (or something else that could explain the hinge on the Rodrigues part).
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2013
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:41 pm

Just in case it was missed on the previous thread - 777Jet, would you comment?

Quote:
Hey 777Jet - what's your opinion on Sy Gunson's theory about how the new parts are proof that the aircraft did not deliberately ditched? His post is in the link below.

http://qr.ae/8NOFhz
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:06 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 1):
@ 777Jet: Do you have any other pictures from your Thai International flight? Especially interested in any walls or bulkheads that might happen to have a folding table (or something else that could explain the hinge on the Rodrigues part).

Let me get back to you.

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 2):
Just in case it was missed on the previous thread - 777Jet, would you comment?

Quote:
Hey 777Jet - what's your opinion on Sy Gunson's theory about how the new parts are proof that the aircraft did not deliberately ditched? His post is in the link below.

http://qr.ae/8NOFhz

Thank you.

That is just his opinion; his very brief opinion. Some will agree with it and at the end of the day that could have been what happened. We still don't know. I still agree with those who believe the flaperon was pulled backwards off of the wing upon contact with the water during a ditching attempt hence the intact front edge and damaged trailing edge. Sy Gunson's description is very brief and doesn't explain the damage pattern to the trailing edge. Again, it could be possible, but it's hardly convincing.

But...

I do like the following part of his brief post:


""""The problem is that the 7th Arc seabed search area is based on a route inferred from satellite data based on an assumption that MH370 was deliberately flown west through the Straits of Malacca. Hypoxic pilots do not make such manouveres.

Therefore either the evidence supporting the alleged Straits detour is erroneous, or such evidence is deliberately false, or some combination of the two. The manner by which parts broke off MH370 in flight and in a dive put in doubt the claimed radar sightings. Malaysia has always refused to back up alleged radar sightings with original radar tapes."""""


A key element to the pilot did it scenario is the route the plane allegedly took to get to the Indian Ocean. The flight path almost directly above the Thai / Malaysian border, on FIR boundaries, above certain waypoints, up the middle of the Strait of Malacca and then around the tip of Sumatra before entering the Indian Ocean IMHO screams of an intentional act to avoid detection / attention. This alleged route combined with no mention to ATC during hand off of any problem just minutes before the turn back and plane going silent then out of all the systems that went offline just the SatCom came back online later, just as the plane allegedly passed the tip of Sumatra and entered the Indian Ocean, really screams intentional to me.

However, if the said route never happened, then things could be different; very different. IIRC there is some military radar data that captured an unidentified plane flying that route and it was later assumed to be MH370. That's pretty much it. So, how trustworthy and competent is the source of that data? The Malaysian military? Did 9M-MRO even fly that route? Is that whole route made up for a political reason? Could it have flown a more direct route into the Indian Ocean by passing over Indonesia? If so, would the Indonesians make such information known as it would involve their radar data? Who knows... This is why I am, and have always been, open to other possibilities.

If the Strait of Malacca detour route was actually flown then I still say MH370 was intentional, however, if that route was never flown and the plane actually took a more direct route into the Indian Ocean then that would make other scenarios more probable than they currently are IMHO.

So... how would a more direct route towards the Indian Ocean, passing above Indonesia, fit in with the Inmarsat Satellite data / ping arcs???

[Edited 2016-04-18 18:11:47]
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:27 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 1):
@ 777Jet: Do you have any other pictures from your Thai International flight? Especially interested in any walls or bulkheads that might happen to have a folding table (or something else that could explain the hinge on the Rodrigues part).

Since you asked:

From reg # HS-TKB Thai 777-300

Door 5L

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1507/24365368221_86c8a26e8d_c.jpgP1100208 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

Rear Y cabin

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1614/24365347651_c3655a1c73_c.jpgP1100199 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

Y cabin between doors 3 & 4

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1626/24152149760_fabd32433b_c.jpgP1100177 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

flaperon

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1669/24421556116_72ef9332e1_c.jpgP1100187 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1705/24080118819_83c23bfa62_c.jpgP1100248 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

Rear Y lavs - positioned in center, not on the sides

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1658/23821016703_9092fce68d_c.jpgP1100205 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1682/24365421981_83d4bc0d9a_c.jpgP1100239 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

From reg # HS-TKC Thai 777-300

Front J cabin

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1530/24152484780_88458cc27d_c.jpgP1100383 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1613/23821365743_6f05f8ee1d_c.jpgP1100433 by Triple Seven Jet, on Flickr

Remember, these pics are from a TG 777-300, not a MH 777-200ER  

Below is the only pic I took in a MH 777-200ER - 9M-MRG

Rear Y cabin

MH 777-200ER Economy Class Passenger Cabin - 9M-MRG
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:55 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 1):

Here are three pics from this site that I found showing various MH 777 J class cabin angles. Some show the pattern on the found item as well.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tengku Azahan


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zaahid Naseer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Finney Contrabandit Photos



[Edited 2016-04-18 21:07:05]

[Edited 2016-04-18 21:07:31]
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:59 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 3):
A key element to the pilot did it scenario is the route the plane allegedly took to get to the Indian Ocean. The flight path almost directly above the Thai / Malaysian border, on FIR boundaries, above certain waypoints, up the middle of the Strait of Malacca and then around the tip of Sumatra before entering the Indian Ocean IMHO screams of an intentional act to avoid detection / attention.

This argument continue to puzzles me as a very strange and deeply flawed kind of logic.

Now, which areas in the world are the most controlled and the most careful watched? Answer: Border areas!

Flying along the Thai Malay border will ensure one thing: That you are being as carefully watched as possible by both the Thai and the Malay military. In particular by the first as the southern part of Thailand has caused troubles as the population there identify with the people on the other side of the border. So in particular the Thais have a vested interest in watching whatever comes close to this their southern border as carefully as they can.

So choosing this route actually indicate exactly the opposite of wanting not to be seen. It indicates that being detected and seen was not an issue at all.
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:15 am

AFP: "Experts examine new debris for MH370 clues"

http://www.yahoo.com/news/experts-ex...-debris-mh370-clues-052627785.html
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:41 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 6):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 3):
A key element to the pilot did it scenario is the route the plane allegedly took to get to the Indian Ocean. The flight path almost directly above the Thai / Malaysian border, on FIR boundaries, above certain waypoints, up the middle of the Strait of Malacca and then around the tip of Sumatra before entering the Indian Ocean IMHO screams of an intentional act to avoid detection / attention.

This argument continue to puzzles me as a very strange and deeply flawed kind of logic.

Sorry to read that you feel that way.

Quoting abba (Reply 6):
Now, which areas in the world are the most controlled and the most careful watched? Answer: Border areas!

Land border areas between countries - Yes.

FIR borders in the sky - Perhaps not as much as land borders.

Quoting abba (Reply 6):
Flying along the Thai Malay border will ensure one thing: That you are being as carefully watched as possible by both the Thai and the Malay military.

Well that certainly helped in the case of MH370 - not!

MH370 was watched so closely that it... escaped!

Quoting abba (Reply 6):
So choosing this route actually indicate exactly the opposite of wanting not to be seen. It indicates that being detected and seen was not an issue at all.

I disagree and stand by my premise that IMHO the Strait of Malacca detour indicates that whoever was flying MH370 flew that route to intentionally avoid detection / attention.

Select quotes from the following article:



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...y/ac7f68cac07af6e67f1cfa9aedec1321

'Pilot ‘hijacked and crashed’ MH370: expert'
The Australian, January 12, 2016, Ean Higgins

"""""
A leading international aviation expert has added his voice to the growing opinion that Captain ­Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his aircraft and flew the 238 passengers and crew on Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 to a watery grave.....

"There is more evidence to support the intentional act by the captain but whether there was hypoxia is undetermined. The most likely theory, in my opinion, is the MH370 (disappearance) was an intentional act by the captain".....

""Malaysian military radar shows the aircraft turned back to Malaysia and flew along the border with Thailand, and over Captain Zaharie’s home island of Penang, before turning south.

Captain Cox, who has served on six major US National Transportation Safety Board investigations, said the pattern showed during the early phases of the flight the aircraft was being flown to avoid attention.

He said MH370 flew right along the boundary of flight information regions, the borders between countries’ airspace.

“MH370 flew precisely over three waypoints that are on the FIR boundary,” Captain Cox said.

“This is significant because it means that each country assumes the airplane is under the other country’s control.

“The fact that the transponder was switched off, the FMS was reprogrammed and the flight path was precisely along the FIR boundary all indicate to me an ­intentional act.”""
""""""
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:21 pm

Well, well. The inimitable Duncan Steele and his IG group have 2 years later decided to go down that frightening rabbit hole of common sense. Seems that they could no longer manufacture rubbish scenarios strung together with voodoo science and appear objective...of course objectivity has been absent from this bunch since the very beginning.

http://www.duncansteel.com/
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:16 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 8):
Malaysian military radar shows the aircraft turned back to Malaysia and flew along the border with Thailand,

So that says with absolute clarity that the plane was indeed watched as it flew along the border by the Malaysian primary radar. No doubt that it was also watched by the Thai radar....

It still puzzles me that you based on this evidence claim that this route was chosen so as not to be detected. Because what it proves is the very opposite. It was indeed detected and it was certainly followed. Authorities knew very well where it went. A pilot would know that and EVER NEVER choose such route if his intention was to disappear without a trace. There might be certain versions of "the pilot did it" type of theory that can explain why the pilot did choose a route where he would know for certain that he would indeed be followed closely as this kind of theory has the "advantage" of being able to explain (almost) everything imaginable. However, these versions of the theory cannot be combined with the versions that claim that not being detected was the goal for the pilot.

Sure. The "pilot did it" is the most likely scenario. That is an obvious fact. No other single reason has caused more fatal accidents (as far as I know). However, as we are dealing with complex systems there are so tremendously many other - each on its own extremely unlikely scenarios - that they added up outweighs the "pilot did it" by a huge margin. In particular if you exclude Africa it is extremely rare that a crash is caused by a deliberate act of a pilot. Usually a plane crashes due to some unexpected and extremely unlikely reason.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:54 am

Quoting abba (Reply 10):
So that says with absolute clarity that the plane was indeed watched as it flew along the border by the Malaysian primary radar.

And what did that achieve?

Quoting abba (Reply 10):
No doubt that it was also watched by the Thai radar....

It sure was.

You can find many articles on that using google.

But I ask again, what did that achieve?

Quoting abba (Reply 10):
It still puzzles me that you based on this evidence claim that this route was chosen so as not to be detected.

I'm not the only one.

From the article I linked in my previous post, again:


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...y/ac7f68cac07af6e67f1cfa9aedec1321

'Pilot ‘hijacked and crashed’ MH370: expert'
The Australian, January 12, 2016, Ean Higgins


""""Captain Cox, who has served on six major US National Transportation Safety Board investigations, said the pattern showed during the early phases of the flight the aircraft was being flown to avoid attention.

He said MH370 flew right along the boundary of flight information regions, the borders between countries’ airspace.

“MH370 flew precisely over three waypoints that are on the FIR boundary,” Captain Cox said.

“This is significant because it means that each country assumes the airplane is under the other country’s control."""""

Quoting abba (Reply 10):
Because what it proves is the very opposite. It was indeed detected and it was certainly followed.

Of course it was 'detected' by the radar. That's what radars do. Then humans need to make decisions and decide what to do next based on what the radar screen is displaying and in this case nothing further came of it. It certainly was not 'followed'. Both the Malaysians and Thais did nothing:

Thai reasons for not doing anything:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...-data/story-fnizu68q-1226858785980

""When asked why it took so long to release the information, Vice Marshal Montol said, “Because we did not pay any attention to it. The Royal Thai Air Force only looks after any threats against our country, so anything that did not look like a threat to us, we simply look at it without taking actions.”"

and

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-19/malaysia/5332052

""The Thai air force did not check its records because the aircraft was not in "Thai airspace and it was not a threat to Thailand", Air Marshal Monthon said, denying it had been "withholding information".""

Malaysian reasons for not doing anything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wht8irZHiII

Start watching from around 33:00

MH370 was tracked by the military in real time but inexplicably dismissed as not hostile by the officer on duty.

"It was not hostile, it was commercial, it was from our air space, we're not at war with anybody" - Hishammuddin


So Hishammuddin himself even said "it was commercial". They watched it in real time and even knew it was commercial but allowed the searchers to search in the SCS for a week despite knowing it flew in the other direction - the scumbags.

Anyway, the Malaysian culture is very similar to the laid back 'Mai Pen Rai' - never mind - Thai culture and a Malaysian pilot would be very well aware of that. What would he think the military would do when spotted on radar? Who knows. But 'doing nothing' could be a reasonable assumption given that both countries are not at war, are laid back, and, are more focused on the ground conflict on 'land' border areas including the human and drug trafficking and therefore most likely wouldn't be too concerned about one unidentified plane on the radar screen. Anyway, we all know that neither country was concerned because nobody did anything and the plane easily got away.

Quoting abba (Reply 10):
Authorities knew very well where it went.

Really?

Where did it go?

Perhaps you could inform the authorities because it is still missing! Over two years later...

They might have been watching it whilst it was in the radar coverage area but once that blip left their radar screens they had no clue where it went. No idea at all.

Again, despite allegedly watching it on the radar screen in real time, therefore meaning they knew it didn't crash then and there in the SCS, they still allowed searchers to search the SCS for a week... Shocking!

Quoting abba (Reply 10):
A pilot would know that and EVER NEVER choose such route if his intention was to disappear without a trace.

Absolute nonsense.

You tell me the best route in the dark to get from IGARI to the SIO then if wanting to avoid detection?

If they wanted to be seen, at that quite time of the night with not too much air traffic, they could have done some much more interesting flying. Funny how you claim they flew that route 'to be seen' yet the only thing that saw them was a radar screen! Some effort of trying to be seen... If things were desperate a low altitude hold type pattern or whatever over a particular land area -(minimal risk of mid air collision at that time)- might have been the best bet of attracting attention - not the said flown route.

[Edited 2016-04-19 17:55:32]

[Edited 2016-04-19 18:01:27]
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
Classa64
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:40 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:28 am

My Curiosity... Was there a time in the flight that is was in daylight or dawn? or was it always in darkness during the flight? The only reason I ask is; don't we have hundreds of different types of satellites taking pics of the earth all over all the time , the oceans the land the cloud cover etc? in infrared as well.
Is it remotely possible that its contrails would have been picked up in that general area if a satellite was taking pics of that area for something else during its flight time. Far fetched I know but...

C.
"Freedom is the miles i'm rolling on"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4099
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:14 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 8):
Well that certainly helped in the case of MH370 - not!

MH370 was watched so closely that it... escaped!

To be fair, 777Jet, that’s rather an argument of opportunity, which happens to fit your reasoning perfectly. The problem of course is, how would any perpetrator know such beforehand? Cause that is an important part of your position, if I understand correctly?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:29 pm

Quoting Classa64 (Reply 12):
My Curiosity... Was there a time in the flight that is was in daylight or dawn? or was it always in darkness during the flight?

It would have been in darkness for most of the way, assuming a more or less straight-line path at cruising speeds, but slightly past sunrise at resultant flight paths. It is something I hadn't thought of, but as the latest duncansteel.com article by Yap Fook Fah (not written, nor even probably endorsed by DS himself) says that the main criterion for choosing a final destination would be a location where the sun would be rising at the point of fuel exhaustion. (Of course, this notion is not original to Mr. Yap's article: other people, notably "ROB" at jeffwise.net has proposed the same idea for a while now.)

E.g., sunrise for -39, 86 is 00:18 UTC. Time of 7th arc is 00:19.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php
 
buzzard302
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:06 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:49 pm

Interestingly, after years of reading all the theories and technical possibilities regarding the disappearance of this aircraft, no one has a scientific explanation, nor have they located the plane. There have been intelligent people from all over the world investigating what may have happened, and where the final location may be.

If this were done intentionally, it would lend that the pilot was highly intelligent and a very detailed planner. After all, even the greatest minds cannot figure this out yet. Or, the person committing this act was very lucky and escaped a lot of detection. Or, it was an accident occurrence.

Given the short period of notice the pilot had for the flight, I find it hard to believe he planned this in the great detail I have read about online. I find the forensic evidence fascinating and I hope the debris found so far can provide more scientific evidence. Unfortunately, pieces of debris are not going to point to the exact final location of this plane.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Sun Apr 24, 2016 6:26 pm

Well, the debris can tell us how the crash occurred, and that will have implications for the search area. What it doesn't look like is a super-high energy Silk Air-style impact. All objects, with the exception of the engine cowling piece, are known to have come from the right side of the airplane. (That could be due to chance, but it's a small chance.) The pieces are relatively large, greater than 1 foot across. (Although, that could be the result of selection bias.) And there not that many of them, which indicates that the starting pool of floating debris objects was not very large. (However, the "survival" rate of floating aircraft debris objects is not well understood.)

This suggests to me a "medium energy" event, perhaps a botched ditching sort of like ET961. Probably the right wing caught a wave, causing the aircraft to roll to the right. The left wing would still be providing lift, exacerbating this effect. It would have got so bad that the right horizontal stabilizer also hit water. A violent "cartwheel" motion would have broken loose the bulkhead piece. It probably had a foldout table deployed in front of it. The force of the impact wrapped the thin sheet metal around the hinge of the table. It was so violent, either the fuselage separated, or else one of the doors imploded, allowing the object to float free before the main wreckage sank.

Such a scenario is buttressed by the fact that the underwater search strategy based on no controlled inputs has come up empty handed: if they were right, they would have found the aircraft by now.

The final BFO Doppler does seem to indicate a relatively steep glide path, so the aircraft probably did not travel a full 125 nm past the 7th arc, so in reality is should be pretty close to the current search area.

Actually, the last chart I saw of the Fugro ships, one was doing new bathy surveys just to the south of the main area of where they've been searching, to be followed by the other with the towfish. That tells me they're on the right track: if they just keep pushing the search area to the south, they will run into the aircraft wreckage, probably sooner rather than later. It's not a huge new search area. I think they're going to find it....

IMHO YMMV
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:41 pm

trying to analyze small bits that have been subjected to ocean pounding (storms and surf) and attempt to conclude anything other than wave damage is likely to result in far flung fantasies and disappointment. only finding the major components will possibly point to the manner the plane contacted the surface.

basing anything on the pieces being from the right side is flawed due to insufficient volume to support any meaningful statistic other than they were in the right place to be found.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:00 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
trying to analyze small bits that have been subjected to ocean pounding (storms and surf) and attempt to conclude anything other than wave damage is likely to result in far flung fantasies and disappointment

  

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
only finding the major components will possibly point to the manner the plane contacted the surface.

And even then we don't know what happened.

For MH370 we need a lot of patience. More than for AF447, maybe as much as for finding the Titanic...
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:10 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 11):
If they wanted to be seen, at that quite time of the night with not too much air traffic, they could have done some much more interesting flying. Funny how you claim they flew that route 'to be seen' yet the only thing that saw them was a radar screen!

I have never said that they made an effort to be seen.

Now you claim that following a route along the Thai Malay border shows that their intention was not to be detected. Well this doesn't add up. If there was a deliberate intention of not being detected they couldn't have chosen a more stupid route. As you have demonstrated so perfectly well yourself, this part of their flight is very well documented and known as they were seen and followed on radar all the way. So rather than saying that this part of their route demonstrates that they didn't wanted detection it rather shows that detection was not a concern what so ever.

The fact that the plane turned west and followed the Thai Malay border is yet another weak point in your otherwise less than credible theory about deliberately disappearing. And it doesn't help trying to dress it up as if it is supporting your theory when it actually contradicts it and makes it even less likely.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:27 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
trying to analyze small bits that have been subjected to ocean pounding (storms and surf) and attempt to conclude anything other than wave damage is likely to result in far flung fantasies and disappointment.

Interesting then how the waves selectively damaged just the trailing edge of the flaperon...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:53 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 19):
Now you claim that following a route along the Thai Malay border shows that their intention was not to be detected.

Add to that flying on FIR boundaries then yes, that is what I propose; that route was flown to avoid attention.

Again, I'm not the only one who proposes that; experts like John Cox and others has expressed similar views.

I know you don't agree with my premise and that is 100% fine - no problem - awesome - you can state that you disagree with me and bring it up as many times as you like, over and over again like you have been doing, but your opposite premise to mine is just as nonsense sounding to me as my premise obviously is to you.

Quoting abba (Reply 19):
If there was a deliberate intention of not being detected they couldn't have chosen a more stupid route.

"Stupid route" LOL

Quoting abba (Reply 19):
As you have demonstrated so perfectly well yourself, this part of their flight is very well documented and known as they were seen and followed on radar all the way. So rather than saying that this part of their route demonstrates that they didn't wanted detection it rather shows that detection was not a concern what so ever.

I think you missed the point. They were detected by radar and nothing came of it. Why?

When I talk about avoiding detection / attention I mean avoiding people on the ground pressing alarm bells and looking into the blip and sending up jets or whatever to check it out. It would be impossible to avoid being 'detected' by radar in that area, but... it is the human looking at that radar screen(s) that will make the decision what to do next.

The point of flying on FIR boundaries to avoid human attention assumes that each FIR region assumes the other is looking after that aircraft. Of course they would have been picked up by the radars and shown on the screen as a blip! But if you fly through the middle of one FIR region it is obvious that plane is their responsibility and they will be looking into it. However, if you fly right on the boundary of two FIR regions, each region could very well assume the plane is being looked after by the other region because they are not hearing from it so the other region must be looking after it so leave it alone - duh!

Get it now?

Quoting abba (Reply 19):
The fact that the plane turned west and followed the Thai Malay border is yet another weak point in your otherwise less than credible theory about deliberately disappearing. And it doesn't help trying to dress it up as if it is supporting your theory when it actually contradicts it and makes it even less likely.

My less than credible theory? LOL. At least I have a scenario. What do you have? Nothing but flawed logic and a lack of understanding.

If you can't see how flying along FIR boundaries can minimize the risk of attracting unwanted human attention then having a discussion with you is a waste of time.

Nothing in my premise that we are discussing contradicts or makes my scenario less likely - it strengthens it.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
9MMPQ
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:15 pm

Seen or not being seen crossing the Malaysian peninsula is really a moot point. Any pilot in that region would known that on military radar your track would be at least recorded. If the premises were to leave no radar track at all you would be left with the middle of the South China Sea before ending up again in Malaysian, Vietnamese, Philippine or Chinese radar tracked airspace.

Now assume civilian & military radar controllers are on their A game and talking to each other. How does one create the maximum amount of confusion & workload on the ground ? In my mind flying close to the border achieves just that. Military controllers will have to confirm with civilian controllers they are looking at something on primary radar that is no longer on the civilian secondary radar and that it is an unknown contact to the military, and that is having to be cross checked with controllers on both sides of the border. That buys you a little time.

In the end it was not even a real gamble. Malaysian & Vietnamese civilian controllers lost hours before declaring that they had definitely lost contact with MH370. In the mean time military radar tracked it but controllers either did not take notice or were not alarmed enough to pursue further action.

With that part behind you joining other traffic up the Malacca Strait & passing the tip of Sumatra before entering the Indian Ocean will see you avoid an incursion into Indonesian airspace & a response should they be more awake then their Malaysian & Thai counterparts. Isn't that a nice coincidence ? Which leads me to my signature:

I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.

[Edited 2016-04-25 12:16:50]
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:19 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 21):
Add to that flying on FIR boundaries then yes, that is what I propose; that route was flown to avoid attention.
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 21):
I think you missed the point. They were detected by radar and nothing came of it. Why?

When I talk about avoiding detection / attention I mean avoiding people on the ground pressing alarm bells and looking into the blip and sending up jets or whatever to check it out. It would be impossible to avoid being 'detected' by radar in that area, but... it is the human looking at that radar screen(s) that will make the decision what to do next.

Sorry - your argumentation is hilarious. First of all whoever you believe did it on purpose would have had absolotely no knowledge about what would have been done by the Thai or Malay military when they were detected (which even an plain idiot might have been able to anticipate) in the border area where they apparently flew over both Thai and Malay territory. No one has ever done that in a 777 - so it is really anyone guess what would happen. It happens that neither the Thais nor the Malays did anything - but no one could have known that beforehand.

Sure they didn't get fighter jets up and looking but even if they could guess that this would be the case (which would have been a very very high gamble indeed!) it doesn't really matter if your argument is that the captain did it in order to diaper without a trace. If that was the intended purpose he could not have chosen a more stupid route.

Actually even without the satellite data we know perfectly well that the plane went over the peninsula and in the end turned towards the south. This is not disappearing without a trace... It is disappearing WITH a trace.

Your entire argument falls apart due to its internal logical inconsistency. However the very theory "the pilot did it" has the nature that it can explain almost everything - even disappearing with a trace. It is only a matter of you upgrading your favorite theory a bit...

Now the most logical and the most simple way of explaining the flight over the peninsula along the route the plane actually flew - and where it for certain would have been seen by radar - is to see it as an attempt to get to the closest possible airport in order to land. Why that didn't happen, knowledgeable people have discussed.

If disappearing without a trace was the intention then I'd guess the pilot in command would have gone down to a few hundred meters (to get under radar cover) and have turned east towards the Pacific. Even if he had to get around the Philippines somehow there would have been plenty of empty ocean in that direction to disappear in....
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:55 am

Quoting abba (Reply 23):
Sorry - your argumentation is hilarious.

Not as hilarious as yours.

Quoting abba (Reply 23):
First of all whoever you believe did it on purpose would have had absolotely no knowledge about what would have been done by the Thai or Malay military when they were detected (which even an plain idiot might have been able to anticipate) in the border area where they apparently flew over both Thai and Malay territory.
Quoting abba (Reply 23):
It happens that neither the Thais nor the Malays did anything - but no one could have known that beforehand.

A local in the region (Malaysian pilot) would know very well about the laid back, relaxed, never-mind, 'mai-pen-rai' culture instilled in the Thais and Malaysians. There might be conflict along ground border areas, but neither nation is at war and the outcome of seeing an unidentified blip on the radar screen would come down to the actions (or lack of action) of a few Thais and Malaysians who might have even been watching TV or playing cards at the time.

BTW, the route from IGARI to the tip of Sumatra took just how long? Do you actually think much could have been done in that brief time frame? It's not as if the plane was flying in Thai or Malaysian airspace for hours.

No mater which route the plane took some kind of 'gamble' would have been taken. IMHO the route MH370 took was the safer option to get away with as minimum attention as possible.

Quoting abba (Reply 23):
it doesn't really matter if your argument is that the captain did it in order to diaper without a trace. If that was the intended purpose he could not have chosen a more stupid route.

Actually even without the satellite data we know perfectly well that the plane went over the peninsula and in the end turned towards the south. This is not disappearing without a trace... It is disappearing WITH a trace.

I never said the goal was to disappear without a trace. The goal was to disappear in the end; over two year later it still hasn't been found!

I said I believe that specific route was flown as it was the best route to avoid attention or at least keep it to a minimum.

I said I believe the plane was ditched in order to keep the plane intact as possible in order to minimize the debris field.

No matter which route the plane flew a trace would have been left behind - but we know it at least got away using the route it flew. If it went towards the Pacific, like you suggest, or in another direction, it might not have escaped especially given the Chinese and US military activity in the SCS and around the Philippines.

Quoting abba (Reply 23):
If disappearing without a trace was the intention then I'd guess the pilot in command would have gone down to a few hundred meters (to get under radar cover) and have turned east towards the Pacific. Even if he had to get around the Philippines somehow there would have been plenty of empty ocean in that direction to disappear in....

Talk about a stupid route...  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:53 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 23):
If disappearing without a trace was the intention then I'd guess the pilot in command would have gone down to a few hundred meters (to get under radar cover) and have turned east towards the Pacific. Even if he had to get around the Philippines somehow there would have been plenty of empty ocean in that direction to disappear in....

Not really. There are a lot of little islands on the other side of PI, like Guam. Also, the flight would be in daylight for much of the time, risking detection by spy satellites.
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:20 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 24):
A local in the region (Malaysian pilot) would know very well about the laid back, relaxed, never-mind, 'mai-pen-rai' culture instilled in the Thais and Malaysians. There might be conflict along ground border areas, but neither nation is at war and the outcome of seeing an unidentified blip on the radar screen would come down to the actions (or lack of action) of a few Thais and Malaysians who might have even been watching TV or playing cards at the time.

BTW, the route from IGARI to the tip of Sumatra took just how long? Do you actually think much could have been done in that brief time frame? It's not as if the plane was flying in Thai or Malaysian airspace for hours.

No mater which route the plane took some kind of 'gamble' would have been taken. IMHO the route MH370 took was the safer option to get away with as minimum attention as possible.

Ah - the Western withe male is speaking, I see.

No one would know what would happen if you flew a 777 along the boarder where you for sure would have been detected on primary radar. Taking this route where you run the risk of either the Thais or the Malays reacting would have been the least safe bet they could possibly make.

And they wouldn't know how long it would take before there would have been an alarm because the flight was missing. In hindsight we know that there was no reaction. In hindsight we know that the Vietnamese didn't turn on an alarm when they didn't hear from NH370 as they should have expected. But that is all in hindsight as it is very rare that 777s disappear, fortunately.

This route looks anything but intentionally avoiding to be seen. Rather it looks as if they couldn't care less and wanted to get to the closest airport possible - why they didn't manage to land that is one of the mysteries that hopefully will be solved if and when MH370 is found.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:51 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 25):
There are a lot of little islands on the other side of PI, like Guam. Also, the flight would be in daylight for much of the time, risking detection by spy satellites.

  

Quoting abba (Reply 26):
Ah - the Western withe male is speaking, I see.

What is this "withe" you refer to?

I assume that you just misspelled the very basic five letter word 'white'?

If so, I will just ignore your backwards and racist rant.

I will, however, address the more civilized part of your reply.

[Edited 2016-04-26 18:05:17]
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:01 am

Quoting abba (Reply 26):
And they wouldn't know how long it would take before there would have been an alarm because the flight was missing.

Do you know where 9M-MRO actually was at the time the military was informed that a civilian aircraft was missing? Think about it...

There would have been no alarm bells going off if the military radar operator did not even know that a civilian aircraft was missing at the time the unidentified blip appeared on the radar screen because they hadn't been informed yet.

Quoting abba (Reply 26):
it is very rare that 777s disappear, fortunately.

It is also very rare for spilled beverages in the cockpit to allow aircraft to do what 9M-MRO did on that night only to end up disappearing in the end.

[Edited 2016-04-26 18:04:43]
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
FlyDeltaJetsATL
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:39 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:00 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 24):
I said I believe that specific route was flown as it was the best route to avoid attention or at least keep it to a minimum.

  

Agreed.

If trying to 'avoid attention' as best as possible any other route flown would have been a much more:

Quoting abba (Reply 23):
stupid route.
Quoting abba (Reply 23):
If that was the intended purpose he could not have chosen a more stupid route.
Quoting abba (Reply 23):
If disappearing without a trace was the intention then I'd guess the pilot in command would have gone down to a few hundred meters (to get under radar cover) and have turned east towards the Pacific. Even if he had to get around the Philippines somehow there would have been plenty of empty ocean in that direction to disappear in....

Sorry, but what you suggest is a much more 'stupid route' (to use your term).

Have a look at the following FIR region map, take note of the FIR regions and where the land areas are, and then tell us all a better route than the route flown in order to avoid attention as best as possible:

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/vi...p=724dfc8916604483a0ab06b4f3cbe57f

If one was to follow your suggestion, it would probably involve flying between the Philippines and Taiwan. If not, what 'exact' route do you suggest? Flying East, between the Philippines and Taiwan, has several key issues:

1) The Chinese and US military activity in that area would likely mean that the plane is picked up and actually investigated much more thoroughly than what the Malaysians did - possibly even shadowed by fighter jets.

2) If you look at the actual planned flight path of MH370, diverting from the actual flight path and getting past the Philippines / Taiwan is a much greater distance and requires a much longer diversion than the diversion from IGARI to the Strait of Malacca. Hence, a route towards the Pacific would have been taking a much greater risk and for longer regardless of where along the planned flight path the diversion commenced from.

3) A route towards the Pacific would mean that the plane would have been flying in daylight for several hours compared to the route almost totally in darkness towards the Southern Indian Ocean.

So, Abba, where (which point) on your better 'intentional route to the Pacific ocean' do you suggest MH370 would have commenced its diversion from the original flight path?

Through what FIR regions or along what FIR boundaries do you suggest the plane would have flown?

Do you think the plane would have made it into the Pacific without eventually being followed given the extra time in risky airspace (high military activity area) the plane would have been in?

Do you think the Chinese, US and other militaries in that Pacific region would have been as relaxed as the Malaysians and Thais were?

Do you think the plane would have made it to its final resting place in the Pacific without having satellite images taken of it given the amount of the time the plane would have been flying for in daylight assuming the plane was intentionally flown until fuel exhaustion?

When you consider all of the above, you should be able to realize just how silly your suggestion that turning East towards the Pacific would have been a better route to minimize attention is.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 25):
Quoting abba (Reply 23):
If disappearing without a trace was the intention then I'd guess the pilot in command would have gone down to a few hundred meters (to get under radar cover) and have turned east towards the Pacific. Even if he had to get around the Philippines somehow there would have been plenty of empty ocean in that direction to disappear in....

Not really. There are a lot of little islands on the other side of PI, like Guam. Also, the flight would be in daylight for much of the time, risking detection by spy satellites.

Exactly.

Quoting abba (Reply 26):
Ah - the Western withe male is speaking, I see.

It is a shame that you need to make such childish comments; comments which undermine the more serious parts of your discussion.

Regards.

Jesse
FLY DELTA JETS
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:15 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 27):
I assume that you just misspelled the very basic five letter word 'white'?

Sorry for not being a native and not having English as my first language. This is the old lords of the imperial world speaking: "The natives cannot do the job. Better have westerns do it fore them. In particular if the job is well paid and comes with lucrative packages." I hate when people explaining otherwise problematic behavior with reference to culture.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 28):
Do you know where 9M-MRO actually was at the time the military was informed that a civilian aircraft was missing? Think about it...

Wisdom of hindsight. They wouldn't know BEFOREHAND how long time it would take from them disappearing from secondary radar and Vietnam not getting in contact to them before an alarm would be raised and both Thais, Malays, Indonesians and the rest of the nations in the area would begin to look for unidentified dots on their primary radar screens - or remember that they saw one not so long ago that could fit the bill. This would very much depend, I believe, on who was at the controls that evening in Vietnam.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 28):
It is also very rare for spilled beverages in the cockpit to allow aircraft to do what 9M-MRO did on that night only to end up disappearing in the end.

Exactly - or what ever else extremely unlikely might have happened such as an oxygen canister exploding or what have you. The problem is that all these many each on their own extremely unlikely scenarios add up as a 777 is a complex system to outweigh "the pilot did it theory" as it is so extremely weakly founded as it is in this case .
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:14 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 29):
3) A route towards the Pacific would mean that the plane would have been flying in daylight for several hours compared to the route almost totally in darkness towards the Southern Indian Ocean.

But under strong primary radar coverage.

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 29):
It is a shame that you need to make such childish comments; comments which undermine the more serious parts of your discussion.

Undermine? Look at what 777Jet writes!

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 24):
A local in the region (Malaysian pilot) would know very well about the laid back, relaxed, never-mind, 'mai-pen-rai' culture instilled in the Thais and Malaysians. There might be conflict along ground border areas, but neither nation is at war and the outcome of seeing an unidentified blip on the radar screen would come down to the actions (or lack of action) of a few Thais and Malaysians who might have even been watching TV or playing cards at the time.

So because of their culture people in Thailand and Malaysia cannot be expected to do their job. As other children they - because of their culture - would rather be playing cards and watching TV than doing their job....
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:31 am

Quoting abba (Reply 26):
Ah - the Western withe male is speaking, I see.
Quoting abba (Reply 30):
Sorry for not being a native and not having English as my first language.

If you are going to imply that I am a racist Western white male because I brought cultural considerations into the discussion then at least spell 'white' correctly.

Your profile has "teach" listed as your occupation... I assume that means you are a teacher?

Quoting abba (Reply 30):
I hate when people explaining otherwise problematic behavior with reference to culture.

Do you also hate when the 'human factors' team of air crash investigators finds that cultural factors just might have contributed to an avoidable accident?

You should join reality one day and accept the well know fact that certain behavioral traits, problematic or not, are linked to, or can be explained by, culture.

However, if it makes you feel more comfortable or safer, you can continue to live in your bubble of denial...

Quoting abba (Reply 30):
Wisdom of hindsight. They wouldn't know BEFOREHAND how long time it would take from them disappearing from secondary radar and Vietnam not getting in contact to them before an alarm would be raised and both Thais, Malays, Indonesians and the rest of the nations in the area would begin to look for unidentified dots on their primary radar screens - or remember that they saw one not so long ago that could fit the bill.

Exactly.

They would not know "BEFOREHAND" how long they would have to get a head start on whoever might be going to investigate or follow them. Therefore, it makes sense for somebody wanting to get away with minimal attention to pick the shortest, least risky route; and that just happens to be the route they took.

The vague route you propose, the route you fail to clarify, would give various authorities or military types much more time to investigate the unidentified aircraft and possibly even intercept or spoil any plan to get away given a route East towards the Pacific would mean that the plane would be flying through more thoroughly watched airspace and for longer.

Quoting abba (Reply 30):
The problem is that all these many each on their own extremely unlikely scenarios add up as a 777 is a complex system to outweigh "the pilot did it theory" as it is so extremely weakly founded as it is in this case .

That is only correct if you give the 'pilot did it' scenario less than a 50% chance (in your own personal opinion) of being the most likely scenario, which, nonetheless, is how plenty of people would feel and that is fine.

However, if you think the 'pilot did it' is the most likely scenario and you give it odds of over 50% then your premise is incorrect because all of the other scenarios combined would obviously add up to less than 50%.

I give the 'pilot did it' scenario odds of around 90% so therefore all of the other scenarios combined only add up to around 10% or so. In other words, the 'pilot did it' scenario alone (90%) far outweighs all of the other possible scenarios combined (10%) IMHO.

Quoting abba (Reply 31):
Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 29):
It is a shame that you need to make such childish comments; comments which undermine the more serious parts of your discussion.

Undermine? Look at what 777Jet writes!

Interesting how yet again, you have avoided answering questions (the questions below) about your "stupid route" East and tried to make me look like a bad guy for introducing the cultural element of human factors that professional air crash investigators themselves often find as a contributing factor!

Why don't you answer the following questions?

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 29):
So, Abba, where (which point) on your better 'intentional route to the Pacific ocean' do you suggest MH370 would have commenced its diversion from the original flight path?

Through what FIR regions or along what FIR boundaries do you suggest the plane would have flown?

Do you think the plane would have made it into the Pacific without eventually being followed given the extra time in risky airspace (high military activity area) the plane would have been in?

Do you think the Chinese, US and other militaries in that Pacific region would have been as relaxed as the Malaysians and Thais were?

Do you think the plane would have made it to its final resting place in the Pacific without having satellite images taken of it given the amount of the time the plane would have been flying for in daylight assuming the plane was intentionally flown until fuel exhaustion?

Abba, are you going to answer the above questions?

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 29):
When you consider all of the above, you should be able to realize just how silly your suggestion that turning East towards the Pacific would have been a better route to minimize attention is.

  

Agreed 100%

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 29):
Have a look at the following FIR region map, take note of the FIR regions and where the land areas are, and then tell us all a better route than the route flown in order to avoid attention as best as possible:

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/vi...be57f

Thank you for providing that link.

It is a shame that Abba doesn't use it to answer the questions asked about his so called 'better' route.

Quoting abba (Reply 31):
So because of their culture people in Thailand and Malaysia cannot be expected to do their job.

No, that is what you just said to avoid answering questions and twist the conversation.

People's culture, which underpins their habits and traits, does influence the way they do things, including their job. If you want to look into why certain people did things in a certain way, or perhaps did not do things, then it would be stupid to exclude culture as a influence when combined with other consideration like situation / environment.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
FlyDeltaJetsATL
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:39 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:06 am

Quoting abba (Reply 30):
I hate when people explaining otherwise problematic behavior with reference to culture.

In other words, you hate reality?

Similar to 777jet's question, how do you feel when investigators investigate cultural factors and find that culture might have been a contributing factor to an accident?

Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509 and other crashes in which junior FOs fail to speak up, inform or challenge a more senior Captain come to mind.

Several air accidents might have been avoided if culture wasn't undermining relations and communication between pilots.

Like it or not, culture influences everybody to some extent.

Quoting abba (Reply 30):
Wisdom of hindsight. They wouldn't know BEFOREHAND how long time it would take from them disappearing from secondary radar and Vietnam not getting in contact to them before an alarm would be raised and both Thais, Malays, Indonesians and the rest of the nations in the area would begin to look for unidentified dots on their primary radar screens

That is why the turn back and route across the Malay peninsula and up the Strait of Malacca route makes the most sense. It is shorter in both time and distance than the ridiculous route East that you propose and therefor means less time flying through areas of risk / attention.

Also, the flown route is a shorter detour to get to open ocean and therefore allows more time and distance in terms of fuel remaining to get to where ever next. A lot more time and fuel would have been used just to pass the Philippines or Taiwan under your proposed route, just to get to the open ocean, leaving less fuel remaining to vanish.

Quoting abba (Reply 31):
Undermine? Look at what 777Jet writes!

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 24):
A local in the region (Malaysian pilot) would know very well about the laid back, relaxed, never-mind, 'mai-pen-rai' culture instilled in the Thais and Malaysians. There might be conflict along ground border areas, but neither nation is at war and the outcome of seeing an unidentified blip on the radar screen would come down to the actions (or lack of action) of a few Thais and Malaysians who might have even been watching TV or playing cards at the time.

And what is wrong with that?

The Malaysians and Thais do have a more relaxed culture - and that is usually a good thing. They are very calm people and less aggressive than some of the more hot headed and trigger happy types (including many from my culture).

Only the radar operators and military officials know whether or not the laid back nature of their culture affected or influenced the job certain people were expected to do on that night but it is a possibility. They certainly did not give much attention to that unidentified blip that turned out to be a Malaysian civilian 777 with 239 souls on board that went quiet not much earlier.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 32):
Quoting abba (Reply 30):
I hate when people explaining otherwise problematic behavior with reference to culture.

Do you also hate when the 'human factors' team of air crash investigators finds that cultural factors just might have contributed to an avoidable accident?

You should join reality one day and accept the well know fact that certain behavioral traits, problematic or not, are linked to, or can be explained by, culture.

  

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 32):
Quoting abba (Reply 30):
The problem is that all these many each on their own extremely unlikely scenarios add up as a 777 is a complex system to outweigh "the pilot did it theory" as it is so extremely weakly founded as it is in this case .

That is only correct if you give the 'pilot did it' scenario less than a 50% chance (in your own personal opinion) of being the most likely scenario, which, nonetheless, is how plenty of people would feel and that is fine.

However, if you think the 'pilot did it' is the most likely scenario and you give it odds of over 50% then your premise is incorrect because all of the other scenarios combined would obviously add up to less than 50%.

I give the 'pilot did it' scenario odds of around 90% so therefore all of the other scenarios combined only add up to around 10% or so. In other words, the 'pilot did it' scenario alone (90%) far outweighs all of the other possible scenarios combined (10%) IMHO.

  

Correct.

The other possible scenarios combined only outweigh the Captain did it scenario if you assign less than a 50% chance to the Captain did it scenario - we know Abba obviously does.

That is each person's individual opinion.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 32):
People's culture, which underpins their habits and traits, does influence the way they do things, including their job. If you want to look into why certain people did things in a certain way, or perhaps did not do things, then it would be stupid to exclude culture as a influence when combined with other consideration like situation / environment.

  

Refer to my earlier comment about the role of culture and cultural influences on pilots and how this has been a contributing factor in accidents.

Regards.

Jesse


edited for spelling

[Edited 2016-04-27 20:10:25]
FLY DELTA JETS
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:06 am

Would it be crazy to suppose that a crew flying at night, in a post-September-11th world where certain protocols are in place, having experienced an unspecified system failure resulting in all radios becoming inoperable, and needing time to assess their situation, might justifiably fear the prospect of being intercepted? Avoiding interception is not necessarily indicative of nefarious intent.

Flying across the peninsula to Penang is not inconsistent with trying to land at the nearest suitable airfield (Kota Bharu, then Penang).

Flying up the Malacca Strait is not inconsistent with trying to buy time to troubleshoot systems without being molested by military aircraft in the middle of the night defending their airspace from an unidentified and unresponsive intruder.

Just sayin', there's more than one angle to everything we know about MH370.
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:19 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 32):
Do you also hate when the 'human factors' team of air crash investigators finds that cultural factors just might have contributed to an avoidable accident?


Oh stop it. What you write here is completely ridiculous. Sure cultural factors such as norms about how a subordinate is supposed to relate to his/her boss is one cultural factor that might play a role in an event. To claim that cultural factors explain people playing cards and watching TV (which you have no knowledge of that they did - so this in on right expresses a deep sense of cultural prejudice on your behalf) rather than doing their job is an entirely different matter....

Would you accept - on the same basis - an explanation saying that the HM370 is not found by due to the infamous Australian laziness - the people who are supposed to be looking at the sonar are properly playing cards and watching TV - if not drinking bear and making BBQ - rather than doing their job???

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 32):
That is only correct if you give the 'pilot did it' scenario less than a 50% chance (in your own personal opinion) of being the most likely scenario, which, nonetheless, is how plenty of people would feel and that is fine.

However, if you think the 'pilot did it' is the most likely scenario and you give it odds of over 50% then your premise is incorrect because all of the other scenarios combined would obviously add up to less than 50%.

I give the 'pilot did it' scenario odds of around 90% so therefore all of the other scenarios combined only add up to around 10% or so. In other words, the 'pilot did it' scenario alone (90%) far outweighs all of the other possible

This is not how it works. If you want to compare the likelihood of different scenarios you have to evaluate the likelihood of each one of them on its own, then add up and then compare. Your operation is just a way to express prejudic and irrational feeling.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 34):
Flying up the Malacca Strait is not inconsistent with trying to buy time to troubleshoot systems without being molested by military aircraft in the middle of the night defending their airspace from an unidentified and unresponsive intruder.

It isn't. However, being detected and having a fighter plane to follow you might actually not be a disadvantage in this scenario. I would think that a fighter plan would only attack if the passenger plane began behaving suspiciously traveling towards potentially sensitive targets (the capital or other important cities). Seeing that it was traveling towards an airport like the ones you mention - and initiating a landing procedure - would allow the fighter plane to ensure that the airport was prepared and had its runways cleared.

Honestly, I would be very surprised if the pilots in your scenario had any concern about being detected or not. Shortest way possible to the nearest airport. And if they didn't want to be detected they shouldn't travel along the border.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:35 pm

There is a difference between being detected and being noticed. In order to avoid detection altogether, that would require flying a few hundred feet above the ground. This is problematic in mountainous regions. Also, if one happened to be detected while obviously trying to avoid detection is a sure fire way to make sure you get noticed. The behavior IMHO is one of "hiding in plain site". Stick to major air corridors, fly at normal speeds and altitudes, knowing that you will likely get picked up by primary radar, but banking on the fact that you won't get noticed until it is too late to do anything about it.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:16 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 35):

You have a lot of nerve to attempt to twist the meaning of things others have written as well as ask questions to people whose questions you keep ignoring. Are you going to keep avoiding the several questions asked about your better route East towards the Pacific if trying to best avoid atention???

Go on, answer the questions asked in previous posts about your 'stupid route' East towards the Pacific...

Quoting abba (Reply 35):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 32):
Do you also hate when the 'human factors' team of air crash investigators finds that cultural factors just might have contributed to an avoidable accident?

Oh stop it. What you write here is completely ridiculous.

No, you are being ridiculous again in your attempt to get out of something you said.

You said:

Quoting abba (Reply 30):
I hate when people explaining otherwise problematic behavior with reference to culture.

To which I replied:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 32):
Do you also hate when the 'human factors' team of air crash investigators finds that cultural factors just might have contributed to an avoidable accident?

You should join reality one day and accept the well know fact that certain behavioral traits, problematic or not, are linked to, or can be explained by, culture.

If you can't accept that, then don't make stupid comments such as "I hate when people explaining otherwise problematic behavior with reference to culture".

We don't know what the radar operators were really doing that night. Like it or not, like I previously said, they "might" have been watching TV or paying cards or doing a variety of other things - who knows.

You are just trying to make me sound like a racist when in fact you and you comments about "Western white male" indicate that you are the racist.

Quoting abba (Reply 35):
Would you accept - on the same basis - an explanation saying that the HM370 is not found by due to the infamous Australian laziness - the people who are supposed to be looking at the sonar are properly playing cards and watching TV - if not drinking bear and making BBQ - rather than doing their job???

It's MH370, not HM370 - but yeah - go ahead - blame your non-native English on that mistake too...

But to answer your question, If it is not found it very well could have been because some Aussie sonar operator was drunk, high on weed, watching movies, getting shagged, eating, or whatever at the time and missed some debris. Absolutely , that is possible... And no, I am not going to call you a racist or say "that must be a non-white, non-Western male" speaking like you would say...

Quoting abba (Reply 35):
If you want to compare the likelihood of different scenarios you have to evaluate the likelihood of each one of them on its own, then add up and then compare.

That's exactly what I did. They are so unlikely IMHO that those dozens of other scenarios worth just a fraction of a percent on their own added together add up to around 10% or so. Therefore, combined, they are still dwarfed by the pilot did it scenario which again gets around 90% on its own.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:19 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 32):
I give the 'pilot did it' scenario odds of around 90% so therefore all of the other scenarios combined only add up to around 10% or so. In other words, the 'pilot did it' scenario alone (90%) far outweighs all of the other possible scenarios combined (10%) IMHO.

Just what piece of wreckage when found is going to validate your fantasy?.. None..

so here we're supposedly talking about the wreckage pieces found not the cultural bias of the flight crew or the A.net posters.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:22 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
Just what piece of wreckage when found is going to validate your fantasy?.. None..

FDR showing various human inputs were made at various times.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:24 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
so here we're supposedly talking about the wreckage pieces found

Well, then, what is your estimate of the g-forces that the interior object found in Rodrigues was subjected to? If the object really was next to a crew jump seat, the longitudinal forces would have to exceed like 16 g's, would they not?
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:46 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 37):
But to answer your question, If it is not found it very well could have been because some Aussie sonar operator was drunk, high on weed, watching movies, getting shagged, eating, or whatever at the time and missed some debris. Absolutely , that is possible

Oh, please...probable would be the more apt description. Just saying. Pathetic, these 'western whites'.

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
Just what piece of wreckage when found is going to validate your fantasy?.. None..

There is no fantasy here. To suggest that the 'captain did it' scenario (yes, including glide and ditch) is 'fantasy' does you no favors. The entire industry basically believes this to be the case, what with even the ATSB making an allowance for it. Yet you choose to frame this as 'fantasy'. I would shudder at what possible scenarios in your mind are less 'fantasy' than above discussed.

[Edited 2016-04-28 15:53:50]
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:54 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 40):
the longitudinal forces would have to exceed like 16 g's, would they not?

Just so you know, dropping this panel off a table onto the floor will easily exceed 16 G.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:56 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 41):
I would shudder at what possible scenarios in your mind are less 'fantasy' than above discussed.

I doubt we ever will hear them. This one is a mirror image of those many others who who just criticize others yet are afraid to state what they believe most likely happened in fear that they will receive the same criticism that they are only good at dishing out.

Another one of these types even had the nerve to imply that I am a racist "Western withe male" because I brought culture into the discussion. This one twists the meaning of what others says, avoids simple questions about his super route over and over, won't even say what he thinks most likely happened, and also has the nerve to ask questions to the people whose questions he avoids! Now I am waiting to be called a racist again for agreeing that "infamous Australian laziness", therefore acknowledging a possible cultural trait in my own race, might result in the debris being missed because an Aussie sonar operator was shagging a hot blonde hooker whilst eating a sausage sandwich and downing a VB instead of looking at the sonar screen  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:21 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 41):
The entire industry basically believes this to be the case,

"entire industry"???? a percentage of aviation enthusiasts maybe.. but please don't speak for the whole industry.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 43):
The entire industry basically believes this to be the case,

The "fantasy" that I refer to is this continued blaming the cockpit crew with no evidence.. just barroom theories.

Since you press for my position... The plane went down in the ocean for some reason we do not know.. I'm happy to leave it at that until we know more.. Although I've been involved with aircraft manufacture for 40 years, I know that I do not know the answer nor do I need to create an answer to feel complete... Life has many unanswered questions and dreaming up various scenarios for this disappearance to me would be a waste of time.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 43):
Now I am waiting to be called a racist again for agreeing that "infamous Australian laziness", therefore acknowledging a possible cultural trait in my own race, might result in the debris being missed because an Aussie sonar operator was shagging a hot blonde hooker whilst eating a sausage sandwich and downing a VB instead of looking at the sonar screen

I would call you desperate, insecure, and lacking grace
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:10 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 44):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 43):
The entire industry basically believes this to be the case,

The "fantasy" that I refer to is this continued blaming the cockpit crew with no evidence.. just barroom theories.

That wasn't my quote.

Quoting kanban (Reply 44):
Since you press for my position... The plane went down in the ocean for some reason we do not know.. I'm happy to leave it at that until we know more..

About what I expected.

Quoting kanban (Reply 44):
I would call you desperate, insecure, and lacking grace

Thank you so much for your feedback. It means a lot 

Now for my opinion on you: I would call you spineless, gullible and lacking in common sense.

Have a great weekend!
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:39 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 44):
The plane went down in the ocean for some reason we do not know

Amen
Down with that sort of thing!
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:33 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 37):
If you can't accept that, then don't make stupid comments such as "I hate when people explaining otherwise problematic behavior with reference to culture".

Because what you do is NOT - as you claim - explaining behavior by reference culture.

What you are doing - here again - is to gloss over the huge weaknesses of your pet theory by airing your cultural prejudices. It is not a reference to cultural factors to say that Thai and Malaysian military personnel - without even the slightest shade of evidence - were watching TV and playing cards rather than doing their job at their radar screens and that any local person would know that this is what they would be doing. Such views strongly indicate that you have no clue as to what culture is and how to interpret it.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 37):
But to answer your question, If it is not found it very well could have been because some Aussie sonar operator was drunk, high on weed, watching movies, getting shagged, eating, or whatever at the time and missed some debris. Absolutely , that is possible... And no, I am not going to call you a racist or say "that must be a non-white, non-Western male" speaking like you would say...


Well I am not claiming that Aussies are not doing their job well as a result of their culture. I know a lot of hard working and trustworthy Australians - and a few who are neither. And I wouldn't in any of the cases claim cultural factors as an explanation!

Don't try to get out the trap. Because what you say above is not the logic of the argument that you without shame put forth. No it it not only so that it is possible that some Aussie sonar operator might have been drinking beer and having BBQ rather than doing his job. Rather - to follow your line of augment - because of cultural factors inherit in Aussie culture it is so likely that an Aussie sonar operators would be drinking beer and having BBQ rather than doing his/her job that a person with a criminal intent in the planning phase could safely count on this being the case. Remember: you are talking about culture. Not only what it is possible that a certain individual might have been doing at any particular time.

So why don't you include in your pet theory that it was the planed intent of the captain to let his plane crass in Australian waters because he would know for almost certain that because of their Australian culture, Aussie military personnel would no doubt not be doing their job but rather have BBQ and be drinking beer?
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:09 pm

Um, the actual sonar operators are bloody yanks...
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:47 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
It is not a reference to cultural factors to say that Thai and Malaysian military personnel - without even the slightest shade of evidence - were watching TV and playing cards rather than doing their job 

I said "might have". I never said "were". Please learn how to read and comprehend.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
any local person would know that this is what they would be doing.

People do tend to know the nature and traits of those in their same cultural group as well as how to take advantage of such traits.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
Well I am not claiming that Aussies are not doing their job well as a result of their culture

I know that. I never said you were. I just implied that I wouldn't dismiss it if you did. It wouldn't bother me, especially as much as my reference to culture bothered you. I wouldn't call you a racist like how you imply I am if you brought in culture including my own. I wouldn't mind one bit. I think it's time for you to grow up and not be so sensitive.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
And I wouldn't in any of the cases claim cultural factors as an explanation! 

That's your choice. I obviously consider many factors, including culture. I'm not the only one.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
Don't try to get out the trap. 

Oh the irony.

We are still waiting for you to answer the questions about your route East.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
to follow your line of augment - because of cultural factors inherit in Aussie culture it is so likely that an Aussie sonar operators would be drinking beer and having BBQ rather than doing his/her job 

Not likely, just a possibility. "Possible"

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
So why don't you include in your pet theory that it was the planed intent of the captain to let his plane crass in Australian waters because he would know for almost certain that because of their Australian culture, Aussie military personnel would no doubt not be doing their job but rather have BBQ and be drinking beer?

Why don't you write a novel, but not in English, please.

That is your warped interpretation at work, again.

Have a good weekend, sir!
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos