from the I-don't-believe-in-coincidences dept.
McGruber writes:
An Air Malaysia 777 bound to Beijing has apparently crashed into the South China Sea:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/world/asia/malaysia- airlines-plane-missing/index.html
That CNN article reports that there was one Italian passenger onboard... however the Italian who was supposedly onboard says his passport was stolen 6 months ago.
A Daily Telegraph article is currently claiming (08 Mar 18:27 UTC) that two stolen passports have apparently been used to board the missing aircraft; the first belonging to the Italian mentioned in the CNN report, and the second to an Austrian. The Austrian passport was reported stolen 2 years ago in Thailand. The Austrian Foreign Ministry reported that their citizen is safe and not on board the aircraft.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jerry Smith on Saturday March 08 2014, @06:49PM
If we assume that this was a regular/average flight, how many people travel around with stolen passports? Two people on this flight out of 200 and-a-bit means 1% of your co-travellers probably are wanted by government. Doesn't feel quite safe :/
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by umafuckitt on Saturday March 08 2014, @06:58PM
But if you assume that then there won't be enough stolen passports to go around. You also might expect that the loopholes for travelling with passports declared to be stolen would have been closed a long time ago. A more likely assumption is that the disappearance of the plane and the presence on board of passengers flying under a different identity are not a coincidence.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Taco Cowboy on Sunday March 09 2014, @06:47AM
You will be surprised to find how many stolen passports and/or forged passports are currently out there.
Plus, as one who lives in Asia, I can tell you that most airports just do not have even the minimum security procedure set up to deter any possible terrorist plot.
There are times I walked into a boarding terminal with my gears (electronics, luggage, etc) and they do not even bother to check if my electronics are truly what they seems to be (lappy). They just let it go like that.
Sometimes I was thinking that what if I were a suicide bomber, I could easily hid a layer of plastique explosive inside the casing of a lappy and then explode that device when the plane takes flight.
Furthermore, in countries where Islam is being practiced (such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei) they actually allowed women to pass through the checkpoint with their face covered. Oh yes, I am not kidding !!
(Score: 1) by beckett on Sunday March 09 2014, @07:37AM
this is not unique to Asian airports. Security theatre and the illusion of safety at airports is a worldwide phenomeon. If a group is determined enough someone will be able to get explosives and weapons on an aircraft regardless of the detection measures employed.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ksarka on Sunday March 09 2014, @06:49PM
So asian airports are actually convenient for passengers? Hopefully they also let you bring your own cookie and some water, because the "security theatre" goes way too far with american and most of european airports.
(Score: 0) by geb on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:04PM
This incident only gives us a look at passengers leaving Kuala Lumpur. Maybe Malaysia just doesn't care much about people leaving their borders?
There's more incentive to be careful about people on the way in through your border check.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Saturday March 08 2014, @08:16PM
But no matter - at least they won't set foot on your soil.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Urlax on Tuesday March 18 2014, @03:49PM
The only terrorist attack I can think of involving landmarks, was 9/11..
all 4 aircrafts departed from mainland USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:47PM
US authorities report that its very rare for even one stolen passport to be used, and two on the same flight is extremely rare.
I took it from the beginning as a terrorist attack, as it is the least astonishing thesis.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Appalbarry on Saturday March 08 2014, @08:14PM
US authorities report that its very rare for even one stolen passport to be used, and two on the same flight is extremely rare.
That is the sort of claim that sound highly dubious to me. Sort of the calming opposite of security theatre.
No really guys, don't even bother trying to use that stolen passport, because there's now way it would ever work.
More likely the US authorities are just embarrassed that it is actually really easy to use a stolen passport, and are trying to avoid the obvious: if they don't catch the person using it they would never know the passport was stolen.
(Score: 0) by frojack on Saturday March 08 2014, @08:36PM
Nobody said it would never work. (Stop adding your own slant to what was posted)
The exact quote from the NBC article [nbcnews.com] said
The stolen passports weren't from the US. It wasn't a US airline. It wasn't going from or going to the US. There is no reason for the US to be embarrassed. Stop trying to make this a US or TSA issue.
Smuggling into Bejing seems to be particularly unlikely. Flying with a stolen passport to Bejing seems even less likely. They aren't exactly some technological backwater country without a clue.
Terrorism is the only thing that make sense.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 08 2014, @11:02PM
Score one for the neocons.
Other things that make sense: two people wishing to leave Malaysia for better opportunity used stolen passports as part of that plan. The plane had mechanical trouble of some kind. Crashed.
Two people engaged in the lucrative smuggling trade used stolen passports. The plane had mechanical trouble of some kind. Crashed.
Almost all non-military plane crashes in history have been due to pilot error or mechanical problems. It seems that the appropriate knee-jerk reaction is along those lines. If the extraordinary claim that it was terrorism related is proven true, then it makes sense to believe that. TIll then, it's just proof that conditioning works great. Even on people.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:18AM
A plane does not "Crash" instantly from 40,000 feet without the time to make even one mayday call. Do you have any clue how long it would take to even FALL 7.5 miles?
From http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/rescue-effort s-under-way-1.503442 [nst.com.my]
You simply can't disable all radios in an aircraft at one time by anything other than a rather large explosion. They are automated, and located in different segments of the airplane, some in the tail, some in the cockpit, and all of them have battery backup. In addition there are several redundant SAR beacon radios on any such plane.
This plane did not have "mechanical trouble of some kind". It was on radar and flying normally, until all of a sudden it wasn't there any more. Pilot error can't make that happen.
Take your rose colored glasses off.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:29AM
You've never heard of Warp_drive?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:42AM
Electronic systems never crash. /sarcasm
Secondly, if the plane did disintegrate at 40k ft, why is there an oil slick? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/mal aysia/10684770/Oil-slick-spotted-in-sea-in-search- for-missing-Malaysian-plane.html [telegraph.co.uk] You would think the fuel would disperse far and wide from that level.
Again, you are jumping to conclusions. If the plane disappeared, then something was evidently very wrong with it. That could have been intentional sabotage. It could have been systems failures. The pilot could have put it in a nose dive himself. But jumping to the conclusion that it was terrorism without any real evidence, is exactly the kind of mindset our rulers desire. You should withhold judgment untill the facts are in because really, it could be anything. It could even have been a USAF jet shooting the plane down because of [insert any reason]. That would also explain the sudden disappearance. Is it reasonable to jump to that conclusion based on the current information? Obviously no. But it is likewise unreasonable to jump to the conclusion it was terrorism. That terrorism knee-jerk reaction? That's a sign that the terrorists have won, and by extension, the fascists in our own government get a win too.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 09 2014, @04:21AM
There is no evidence the oil is from the plane.
The pictures of that slick look like bunker fuel, brown and frothy, not jet fuel which is pretty much clear.
Even the NTSB thinks this was a bomb.A 2701720140309?irpc=932 [reuters.com]
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE
I don't change my opinion just because I don't want to admit that terrorism exists.
What kind of demented self delusional thinking is that? Doesn't the sand get in your eyes when you bury your head like that?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 09 2014, @04:56AM
> Even the NTSB thinks this was a bomb.
Former NTSB board member participates in 24-hour news cycle hype machine is not "NTSB thinks this was a bomb."
> I don't change my opinion just because I don't want to admit that terrorism exists.
What kind of demented self-delusional thinking does it to take to say that?
Setting up strawmen to win the argument is the same thing as conceding you are wrong.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 09 2014, @05:22AM
Nor is there any evidence it is terrorism.
Right now what we know is that a plane went down. We don't know why, we don't know what caused it. Jumping to conclusions like you are doing is stupid. Plain old stupid.
Anyway, if it turns out to be terrorism, then it is. If it turns out to be a major cascading systems failure, then that's what it is. If it turns out to be John Chricton wormholing his way back to earth -- that'd be tragically awesome. But right now, all we know is the plane crashed.
(Score: 1) by Taco Cowboy on Sunday March 09 2014, @07:33AM
You forgot that this plane has been maintained by Malaysian technicians inside Malaysia.
It may be a Boeing 777, but if the maintenance hasn't been done properly, how would you know it would still be functioning ?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by combatserver on Sunday March 09 2014, @08:33AM
Take your rose colored glasses off.
Ok. Let me try one out for size.
US wants a certain Chinese national assassinated, TOA discovers that the Chinese national has reservations on flight MH370 and sets Spec/Ops to target. Using previously stolen passports of ambiguous and non-related individuals, Spec/Ops purchases two tickets on same flight under the assumed names. Two operatives then check one bag each at Kuala Lumpur, head to the boarding area but stop at the restrooms long enough to miss boarding, then simply leave.
Somewhere over the South China Sea at 40,000 ft, a jammer in one suitcase activates and stomps all outbound signals, followed shortly by detonation of the bomb in the second suitcase.
I hope I can change this later...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @10:49AM
For that reason it's often a policy for a plane to not leave with the passenger's bags but without the passenger.
But different places have different policies:a viation/read.main/1845096/ [airliners.net]a syjet-plane-takes-leaving-29-passengers-stranded-S panish-airport.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449448/E
The policy changed in some places because it's supposedly not so simple to sneak explosives in bags nowadays- since they are supposedly all scanned.
But this guy managed to get snakes on a plane (in Malaysia too) - he got caught only because his bag burst open: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11203 270 [bbc.co.uk]
So how good is their screening really?
(Score: 1) by mrbluze on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:09PM
This is why I like soylent news. Very interesting!
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 2, Informative) by AnythingGoes on Sunday March 09 2014, @04:37PM
That does not work ever since the PanAm bombing over Lockerbie - if a passenger does not show up, the checked-in luggage is offloaded from the plane.
On the other hand, if the 2 operatives are willing to suicide and they have some kind of undetectable explosive (Dan Brown's AntiMatter, in Angel and Demons) - that might be possible..
(Score: 1) by snap2grid on Monday March 10 2014, @09:22AM
Air France flight 447 pretty much did exactly that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @01:13AM
Terrorism is the only thing that make sense.
Any second now the terrorist group involved will claim responsibility. Aaaany second now. They're just making sure the plane really blew up before they say anything. It really could have crashed on their own and if they recover the wreck and their guy's body is in the toilet trying to put toothpaste in his shoe, boy wouldn't that be embarrassing!
I guess it's possible that the entire terrorist group was on board the flight and they all thought someone else was going to be responsible for the press release.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dj245 on Saturday March 08 2014, @09:48PM
US authorities report that its very rare for even one stolen passport to be used, and two on the same flight is extremely rare.
I took it from the beginning as a terrorist attack, as it is the least astonishing thesis.
If so, it is one of the most pointless terrorist attacks in recent memory. I hadn't even heard of it until this story. Terrorism is supposed to be about terrorizing people and making them fearful of going about their daily business. A secondary objective is to make your enemy spend huge sums of money trying to find needles in haystacks. Nobody seems to have claimed responsibility and we have no idea why or how the plane crashed. I am exactly 0% more fearful than before, since no terrorist organization is waving their sabres around about this flight and it could very well have been a sleeping pilot or blocked pitot tubes. In that regard, the underwear bomber and shoe bombers were 100x more successful, even though they both completely failed to give someone so much as a paper cut.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khchung on Sunday March 09 2014, @02:06AM
Very rare for it to be found that one stolen passport being used in a flight.
How could they know how many stolen passports were used if nobody noticed it?
(Score: 1) by sjames on Sunday March 09 2014, @07:46AM
That may just mean it is rare for even one stolen passport to be detected.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday March 08 2014, @08:19PM
Depends on the government though.
I don't feel unsafe just because somebody is fleeing thought crime or whistle blowing or civil disobedience WRT drugs. Government seems to want the majority now for non violent crime. A tax evader isn't going to worry me that much. Not even a rapist.
Just what violent crimes are really left that are concerning on a plane? Those odds are now much lower.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by cmn32480 on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:01PM
Two stolen passports on the same missing flight points to something sinister, but if it was a terrorist attack, the typical MO is to put the plan down in as populated an area as possible to cause the maximum carnage, not to drop it in the middle of the ocean.
Plausible theory based on nothing but wild speculation: someone tried to take over the plane, and the crew/passengers fought back. The plane then ends up in the drink during the struggle. Plausibly similar to the events on Flight 93 from 9/11/2001.
A tragedy any way you slice it. And given the ocean depth near where it went down (approximately 50 fathoms if I am reading the charts right, http://www.charts.noaa.gov/NGAViewer/93010.shtml [noaa.gov]), getting back the flight data recorders is probably unlikely.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 1) by cmn32480 on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:04PM
Correction... the chart referenced about is NOT fathoms, but in meters. My apologies for the incorrect information.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 3, Informative) by Khyber on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:21PM
50 fathoms isn't that deep. That's only 300 feet. Easily in the range of any diver. Ditto if it were 50 meters, in which case it would be even easier to access.
Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sgleysti on Saturday March 08 2014, @11:55PM
Take a look at Wikipedia on Deep Diving [wikipedia.org]. I'm PADI certified, and I've only gone down to 16 meters / 52 feet. Nitrogen narcosis becomes a problem below 30m / 98ft. Below 66m / 217ft, even the oxygen level from compressed air becomes poisonous. Trimix or hydreliox will help solve such problems, but it goes to illustrate that a 300ft dive is technically challenging.
(Score: 1) by iWantToKeepAnon on Monday March 10 2014, @06:04PM
Yes, well ... I highly doubt they'll be sending down rec-divers on a recovery mission. This depth is easily in range for a tech-diver.
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:39PM
Your theory is not even plausible, I have to say. First of all, what cockpit crew would open the door under any circumstances nowadays? Not even if hijackers threaten to (and do) execute one passenger every minute. Second, any hijack attempt would immediately result in the crew putting the transponder to 7500. But this aircraft disappeared so suddenly that the only theories I've found to be plausible come from pilot forums. One is that the repair done to this aircraft after its wingtip made close contact with the rear of a parked A340 was bad. However, that was years ago and based on the pictures posted on pprune, so minor that even if the wingtip broke like that again, the plane would remain at least flyable enough for a distress call to be made. The other theory is that the software glitch in Boeing's ADIRU that caused a Qantas 777 to nose dive rapidly for a while in 2005 didn't fix whatever the precise problem was. The third is that something similar happened as to the Lauda Air 767 whose left thrust reverser suddenly deployed mid-air. The systems have some similarities - both are Boeing, after all, but one would think that the thrust reverser issue would at least not persist in a newer model. Those are the only theories I've come across so far that would explain the sudden disappearance. Malaysia Airlines probably know more since I would be very surprised if they haven't gotten some regular ACARS messages until it disappeared.
Probably the real reason is something entirely different but unlike SAA 295 or AF447, the ocean isn't very deep where this probably went down so the black boxes can probably be found. Some of the presumed crash area is even "shallow" enough for maximum depth professional divers (i.e. around 100 m). It is strange, though, that no eye witness reports have come in yet. There are a lot of fishing boats in the area and some oil rigs as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday March 08 2014, @08:13PM
Mechanical is the LEAST likely of all possible causes.
The 777 has had a stellar safety record.
None of those things you mention are germane and none of them would prevent a pilot tapping the mic button and calling mayday.
Thrust reverse problem was well over 20 years ago, known since August 1991, When Boeing gave an alert to airlines stating that over 1,600 late model 737s, 757s, 767s, and 747s were affected, and resulted in electronic changes to all aircraft as well as procedural changes that prevent thrust reverse deployment with wheels up.
The 777 was never affected by this issue, so the only similarity you cited is the only similarity that existed: The name of the manufacturer.
In this day and age, terrorism is the least unlikely answer.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08 2014, @10:08PM
I'm not saying it wasn't foul play, I, like you, have no idea what happened yet.
But I suspect one of us has been watching too much tv drama and it is starting to affect the goggles they view the outside world with.
Perhas vehicles start to break down in new ways as they start to age? Someone pumped diesel instead or regular? Who knows?
(Score: 2) by bd on Saturday March 08 2014, @11:37PM
While a bomb seems quite probable given the rare probability of stolen passports used on the same international flight, it may also be a false lead.
It would have to have been a bomb, as otherwise, there would have been a distress call.
So, let's assume this was a terrorist organization. Why wouldn't they just use someone who has no flight restrictions? I mean, the main problem is getting the bomb aboard. Not finding a suicide bomber who is not on a terrorism watch-list. And why would they use two suicide bombers? This seems risky as you now have to be sure no one will look at the identities for two passengers. Couldn't they just be regular criminals using false passports on the wrong plane?
Historically, there are a lot of possible failure modes for airplanes where the avionics are immediately cut out, so nothing can be ruled out yet. Anything that involves immediate structural disintegration of the airframe would be my guess.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:32AM
It might have been a bomb with two "innocent" unlucky false passport carriers.
Simply disappearing from the air with no trace, no radar track, all radios and transponders going silent at once simply doesn't happen. Even if a rogue pilot locked the other pilot out of the airplane, he can't disable the GPS tracking system in the tail of the aircraft. That would have reported position and altitude all the way down from 40,000 feet.
Even a missile doesn't take a plane down that fast.
The only mechanism I can see would be a bomb.
That still leaves motive unexplained. Terrorism isn't necessary, but it makes the most sense.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bd on Sunday March 09 2014, @07:22AM
But if they are "innocents", why give them false passports? And why send _two_ bombers?
As far as I know the Vietnamese army tracked it by radar as it went down?!
Nevertheless, it _does_ sometimes happen. Not often, but it does. For example, TWA 800, China Airlines Flight 611, Lauda Air 004. The incident with the Quantas jet that lost an oxygen tank also would have experienced in-flight breakup, had the cracks gone a little bit further. Aloha Airlines 243 was a lucky one as well. Anything that occupies the pilots completely before the plane is not able to send a distress signal would come to mind. Of course it most likely won't be the same exact failure as in those flights. If it is a mechanical failure, it may be something new.
I'm not ruling out a bomb. It is a very likely scenario. But it is _not_ the only probable reason an aircraft disappears without a trace.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @07:37AM
Except that no terrorists have so far claimed responsibility (and state their demands or merely make crazy speeches etc). That's very strange for "conventional" terrorism. I would expect terrorists to say something by now if they are involved.
How about assassination? Perhaps someone (or more) on board has enemies willing and able to blow up a plane to kill them. That sort of scenario needs no announcement. And if there are other related parties still alive they'd get the message.
Or someone shot it down (won't be the first). Or it got hit by something in mid air (meteor would be very very unlikely tho).
Or it was some sort of "demo" e.g. if someone said I better do as they say or else you'll have an "MH 370" and if they actually do an MH 370 within a week, I'd be pretty convinced they were very serious (and seriously nuts).
(Score: 1) by sjames on Sunday March 09 2014, @08:04AM
Actually, a bomb isn't that likely. It would take a HUGE bomb to blow an aircraft that large to bits leaving no time to radio. It takes a lot to bring a modern aircraft down. A brick of C4 in the passenger cabin probably wouldn't get the job done. There have been cases where major parts of the fuselage rip off of the plane and it still lands more or less safely (except for the flight attendant that went out through the opening).
OTOH, an electrical arc inside a wing tank might well blow the plane to bits.
(Score: 2) by bd on Sunday March 09 2014, @09:54AM
Well, I think a bomb _is_ likely. It is just not the only possibility, and bombs have often been initially suspected, when the cause was later found to be something else.
What a bomb has to do, is punch a small hole into the pressurized hull. Then, the bigger your airframe is, the more air will have to go through that tiny hole, enlarging it. The factor that decides whether the plane stays (roughly) in one piece is how far the cracks in the fuselage propagate, and whether vital control lines are hurt. Of course, airplanes today are built so that cracks do not propagate over a certain length. Nevertheless, if they do complete a circle around the circumference of the hull, perhaps due to the force of the wind, your plane goes the way of the de Havilland Comet. It will disintegrate in a matter of seconds.
Actually, Aloha Airlines 243 was a very, very, lucky airplane. As was UA 811. The bomb on board of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie only punched a 50 cm hole into the fuselage.
Still, I think whether the plane was bombed or it was some other malfunction is really not sure at this point. Reports say that the plane changed course back to the airport before going down. So the pilots maybe have retained some kind of control.
(Score: 1) by sjames on Sunday March 09 2014, @09:34PM
A bomb is _possible_, but I don't think likely, at least until we have evidence for it.
I'd just like to see more evidence before we have people running about deciding what fairly harmless but quite handy thing we are no longer allowed to carry on an airplane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @03:27PM
Tell that to the Air India 182 investigators. The flight seemed perfectly normal until the CVR just stopped and, similarly, ATC had no idea that anything was wrong until they needed to contact the flight. A very small bomb will do it, if placed right. The Lockerbie bombers were lucky since they couldn't affect placement but the bag happened to be placed just right to tear a hole in the fuselage, which then grew quickly when it was ripped open by drag. A slightly bigger explosive will cause what happened to Air India. The sudden pressure wave enlarges the fuselage enough to tear apart electrical cables making the aircraft "dark and quiet" immediately.
A missile would be different, however, since then there's no pressure wave inside. Missiles are designed to explode when they're close enough to the target (easier to design that way than to really hit the target). The shrapnel flying from the explosion then damages the aircraft enough to make it uncontrollable. However, a widebody passenger aircraft dies a much slower death than a fighter jet since it's quite possible that the cockpit crew are not hit by shrapnel themselves so they can still attempt to fly their wounded bird even though it's highly unlikely that they can land it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @11:38AM
Everything I stated is based on what I read on www.pprune.org, which is a forum for pilots and mechanics. The admins verify that those who say they are, really are because e.g. employment discussions are too important to be trolled. So if real pilots and mechanics bring up thrust reversers and ADIRU software in this case, it's much more worth considering than what a random poster here says, I'm sorry to say. Read the 39+ page thread on pprune yourself and draw your own conclusions.
The A330 had an equivalent safety record until AF447 and the Libyan A330 complete hull loss less than a year later. Did that suddenly change anything for the worse? And the A340 has a zero pax fatality record and is as old as the 777 but sold in fever numbers. But would you nevertheless consider its record better? My point is that air crashes are so rare that if you look at the industry in the west flying Airbus and Boeing, you can say that any aircraft has a "stellar safety record". Especially if you exclude the 737, which has had more crashes per miles flown than even some Russian designs. I still happily board them regularly but then again I would also want to fly an Ilyushin IL-62 at some point just because it's such a classic. I'm an aviation buff (would've tried to become a pilot if medical reasons hadn't prevented it) and to me "stellar safety record" is a pretty meaningless statement. The Concorde had a perfect record and one crash put it far below average. Would you have said after its one and only crash that it had a stellar record and that the cause had to be something else?
Plane-specific statistics are quite pointless and any reasonable speculation goes by overall statistics, thus pilot error is the most likely cause and mechanical failure second. In this particular case, mechanical failure might weigh slightly more because it happened during cruise when it presumably was flying on autopilot and the cockpit crew were just rolling their thumbs. The 1. aviate, 2. navigate and 3. communicate mantra also means that if whatever happened, happened fast they never got to 3 (and it did seem to happen fast). Depending on what level of ACARS traffic Malaysian pays for (it's a subscription service, after all) and how good the link was (the buffer sometimes gets huge), they might know more than they're saying. They do have a reputation as a reliable airline by regional standards, at least, so one would think they have at least some information.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @11:53AM
The only completed 777 accident investigation (British Airways 38) concluded that the cause was a design flaw. The entire flight was fully within the operating parameters but ice crystals nevertheless formed in the fuel tank and clogged up the fuel flow. Feel free to say that it has a "stellar safety record" but it doesn't mean that it's without some flaws. And sadly some of those are only discovered during an accident investigation.
The investigation of the Asiana 777 crash is still ongoing so I won't comment on that other than to say that even if the cause was determined to be pilot error, such a conclusion rarely means that some blame isn't placed on the aircraft design as well. It's almost always possible to improve the design to make such pilot errors less likely and the investigators usually make such recommendations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:17PM
Maybe there was a whistle blower on board.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:57PM
Your theory of a struggle seems unlikely.
In such an instance there is always enough time for the pilot to call in or call home (they all have a hf link to their company operations center). There is always time to twist a dial to squawk hijack.
The only thing that make sense is detonation near the cockpit door sufficient to separate the cockpit from the power supply and the exterior antennas. You don't even have to gain entrance to the cockpit. you just need a way to get an explosive on board, and that could be with a cleaning crew or any ground maintenance.
However I too believe it would have had to be terrorism.
With Islam being recognised as the state religion of Malaysia, just about any explanation not involving terrorism is going to be cut to ribbons by Occam's razor.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08 2014, @09:56PM
Please stop trying to be an armchair pundit from the land of racist bogeymen. No one alive knows the cause yet, so please just shut up and wait and listen. We'll know more soon enough.
Pranoia has a way of clouding an entire society's rational thought. It's a tradgedy.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:35AM
Where did I mention Race?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:50AM
He was using it as a proxy for religionism. "Stop being a Crusader" is the gist of it I think.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @10:45AM
Where the fuck do you see any mention of "race" in GP ?
Don't tell me you are one of those motherfucking Malays from Malaysia - only the Malays from Malaysia will yell "RACIST" (or in their own language "rasis") whenever anyone talk about Islam or Muslim or anything like that !!
And to those who mod you "insightful" they can go stuff themselves with pig shit !
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08 2014, @10:47PM
Why were these passports not reported as stolen in the two years since they were taken? I suspect the Austrian and Italian in question needed some extra cash while on vacation in Thailand and sold them onto the black market. The two people on the plane using the passports subsequently purchased them on black market because they either needed to sneak out of Malaysia or into China. The Austrian and Italian are only coming forward to report their missing passports now that their names are in the news.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:16AM
RTFA. "In Vienna, the Austrian foreign ministry said an Austrian listed among the passengers was safe and had reported his passport stolen two years ago while he was travelling in Thailand."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @01:03AM
That is a bit ambiguous. Did he go to the foreign ministry two years ago and report his passport stolen, or did he just report to the foreign ministry today that his passport was stolen two years ago?
(Score: 1) by Taco Cowboy on Sunday March 09 2014, @10:55AM
*knock* *knock*
Hello, anybody home ??
Do you know how to read ?
Do you have a brain ?
That guy was vacationing _in_Thailand_ when his passport was stolen.
Yes, that means that guy was still physically _inside_Thailand_ when he couldn't locate his passport.
So how did that guy manage to go back to his own country without a passport ?
I mean, if that guy did not report his passport stolen (presumably at his own country's embassy / consulate in Thailand) before he could get at least some documentation (maybe a temporary passport) before he could leave Thailand, right ?
RIGHT ???
In summary:
That guy HAD ALREADY MADE HIS REPORT TWO YEARS AGO when he was still in Thailand.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khchung on Sunday March 09 2014, @02:10AM
That's not plausible, cuz the pilots would have had time to call for help.
So far, no report of any call of trouble whatsoever from the pilots before the plane disappeared. Other pilots in the news commented whatever happened would likely be sudden and catastrophic, giving no time for the pilot to do anything.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Boxzy on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:32PM
Nothing, those traveling could just as easily be fugitive dissidents and the dead then become victims of state murder, not terrorism.
Go green, Go Soylent.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:37PM
Your point is well made, although I suspect it's a moot point to all those who have died and their relatives. An accident is hard enough to bear, anything more only makes it worse.
(Score: -1, Troll) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:37PM
The TSA not letting you onboard with liquids, creams or gels is no joke.
Nitroglycerine is made out of Fuming Nitric Acid, concentrated Sulfuric Acid and Glycerine.
Just premix the two acids and store then in a tightly shut glass or teflon bottle.
Glycerine is readily available at every drug store and many grocery stores. It's good for your skin and is a by-product of soap manufacture, so they cannot get rid of enough of it.
Concentrated Sulfuric Acid has many legitimate uses in Chemistry and Industry so you will not arouse suspicion if you buy it at any scientific supply shop.
Fuming Nitric Acid, while completely legal to sell and to possess, is just what you want to make a whole bunch of different kinds of high explosives. You will arouse suspicion if you purschase it, however you don't need much to blow a hole in the side of an airplane. It's chemical preparation has been well-documented for centuries.
However, fuming Nitric Acid is exceedingly dangerous. Open the bottle and let its aroma waft about the room, then a little while you will be coughing out bloody chunks from your lungs.
That's Nitric Oxide, what makes the smog in Los Angeles such a loverly shade of brown.
Take the train [amtrak.com] if you possibly can. If there is rail service where you need to go, it's quite a lot cheaper than air travel and you won't require an anal probe to get onboard.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday March 08 2014, @08:24PM
What ever suspicions you might trigger in the US has no bearing on what happens in Malaysia.
Your post is nothing but self aggrandizement and useless blather. Nobody else has the slightest clue about what actually happened, and you've already nailed it down to an explicit formula? Unbefuckinglievable.
I suspect you've attracted your 15 seconds of attention, but the NSA filters already know what bridge you live under, and are laughing their asses off.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:53AM
Sweet. My first foe. You sound a lot like fear mongering toadie for the Feds.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hankwang on Saturday March 08 2014, @09:56PM
The chemical reaction forming nitroglycerine is exothermic and prone to runaway [wikipedia.org] unless the glycerine is added gradually while the mixture is cooled actively. And then you have to separate the liquid nitroglycerine from the acid mixture. Not very practical. Also, the high nitrogen and sulfur content in the acid mixture may show up on the X-ray detectors as being different from typical beverages consisting of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon atoms.
I'm not sure whether the X-ray scanners for hand luggage actually contain something for elemental analysis; here's a manufacturer of equipment for airport security checks that sells a device to analyze the content of bottles [smithsdetection.com] without opening them.
Presumably, the risk of liquid explosives has to do with acetone peroxide [wikipedia.org] which can be synthesized from materials that are much easier to acquire, but which also needs either a lot of patience (diluted chemicals) or active cooling with ice (high-concentration chemicals). Neither is very practical to execute in a cramped airplane bathroom.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 1) by Ken_g6 on Saturday March 08 2014, @10:30PM
I dunno, that didn't work out too well in England. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:24AM
Nor Madrid [wikipedia.org] (another Islam-inspired attack).
But still, rail travel is a much better option in terms of fossil fuel usage. And terrorism is a highly insignificant risk.
(Score: 1) by rufty on Saturday March 08 2014, @10:56PM
Yet.
(Score: 1) by sjames on Sunday March 09 2014, @08:11AM
You're exaggerating fuming nitric acid. We used to use it in high school chemistry. If you try to actually make nitroglycerin in the lav (without a heat source to get it started no less), you will most likely create quite a clamor and do yourself in, but the plane would most likely just make an emergency landing.
If you don't keep the temperature under control you will get a partial yield which will explode and cover you in nitric and sulfuric acid.
(Score: -1, Troll) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:44PM
My wallet was stolen a while back. I figured whoever took a wallet from a homeless man probably needed my driver's license more than I did.
ID gets stolen all the time. It's not hard at all to wander around looking for someone who looks much like yourself, lift their wallet then use their ID, perhaps with the aid of a haircut, growing your beard Just So or investing in a pair of Ray-Bans.
So I expect that now, when we check in at the airline counter, we're going to have to wait around while ten billion dollars worth of "Cover Oregon" style cost-overrun software by Larry Ellison &co figures out whether your ID is legit.
All that would be required to keep a lid on this would be to require the passenger to sign something. Like "I certify that my passport isn't stolen, signed Michael David Crawford".
However I myself can forge signatures. The reason I don't is that I'm such a nice guy.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by McGruber on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:54PM
Here is a tribute page to Malaysia Airlines Captain Zaharie Shah, showing just how passionate he was about flying:
http://www.sharelor.net/1/post/2014/03/tribute-who -exactly-is-malaysia-airlines-captain-zaharie-shah -of-mh370.html [sharelor.net]
He flew radio-control airplanes, built an X-sim simulator in his home and had his own Youtube channel.
(Score: 1) by GoonDu on Sunday March 09 2014, @04:47AM
And here I was thinking that perhaps psychological problems with the pilots would be a factor and Malaysian Airlines wanted to keep the fact that they sent a psychologically distressed pilot out on a job. Now, I'm glad that was out of the picture.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Saturday March 08 2014, @08:22PM
Serial number on a passport, preferably in the RFID chip that they probably have. If your passport is stolen it's on the "hot sheet" just like a stolen car, and you can't do anything with it. They should scan the passports when boarding any international flight. Either that, or we could hire a bazillion people to inspect our footwear. OK, they probably don't do that in Malaysia; but you get the idea. I could understand the guys getting on board if they had just stolen the passports. It takes time for people to realize it's gone, then report it, then for it to get into the system properly. Two years? Ridiculous. They say aviation policy is written in blood. Looks like it's time to write some new policy...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday March 08 2014, @09:08PM
A stolen passport is just one of the things you need to get on a plane in most countries. You typically also need other matching identification. You almost always need some form of picture ID.
Whether all foreign airports check passports on departure is unknown. Passports are checked upon arrival at the destination, but not so much on departure. On boarding an international flight to the EU, my wife was reminded that she would require a Passport on arrival in Britain, and also upon return, but the passport was never checked on departure from the US.
Both Italy and Austria use RFID [rfid-shield.com] chips in their passports since 2006. Both were stolen in Thailand two years ago, and both were issued new passports since.
But that doesn't mean they would be subject to electronic departure scan on leaving Malaysia, probably only a cursory look at date and photo and a quick exit stamp.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday March 08 2014, @09:33PM
I think there are likely to be two almost immediate repercusions on this. Senior heads are going to role in Malaysia and *everyone* can expect their passports (and other ID) to undergo a lot more scrutiny from now on.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday March 08 2014, @09:57PM
Boarder controls are more concerned with ENTRY, but exit is not that big of a concern for most countries.
If two people with passports stolen about the same time in Thailand, were involved, why would it be inconceivable that there were a third or a fourth involved? Someone at the gate, someone in baggage handling, maybe someone in the plane cleaning crew.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by AnythingGoes on Saturday March 08 2014, @10:18PM
Actually exit is a big concern in many countries. After all, the guy trying to flee without paying all required taxes, or fleeing arresst warrants must be caught, so many countries have stringent exit controls too (especially for citizens)
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:15AM
> If two people with passports stolen about the same time in Thailand
The passports were lost ~6 months apart [boston.com] -- the first two years ago and the second a year and a half ago.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AnonTechie on Saturday March 08 2014, @09:10PM
So far, I have heard only speculation ... it would be nice to deal with facts !!! In any case, it is a terrible tragedy.
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 08 2014, @11:15PM
It is sad that your post is at the bottom of the page here because it is the most important one I've seen.
Guys, it is only speculation. Nobody knows shit at this point.
This narrative that terrorists stole two passports to blow up a plane without claiming any responsibility for it is pushing the boundaries of credulity.
With what we know so far, it seems a lot more likely that any of a dozen-plus possible errors resulted in the reporters getting the story at least half wrong and probably completely wrong.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 09 2014, @04:26AM
NTSB chief disagrees with you.A 2701720140309?irpc=932 [reuters.com]
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 09 2014, @04:48AM
> NTSB chief disagrees with you.
Uggh. What is wrong with you? Are you drunk?
"John Goglia, a former board member of the National Transportation Safety Board"
Not the NTSB chief.
Not even a former NTSB chief.
Furthermore, he goes on to make the same bullshit speculations that assume the passport story is 100% accurate.
So no, he's not disagreeing with me. He's just participating in the hype that the news sites are pushing because they have nothing else to talk about.
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Sunday March 09 2014, @05:00AM
And there'll be loads of time for speculation because it'll take a while to locate the wreckage then then even longer before we know why it went down. Now, however it turns out that there 4 passengers traveling with stolen passports and they had purchased consecutive tickets.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Sunday March 09 2014, @07:18AM
Even if the speculations are correct, I find incredible that there was no time to send even ONE distress message. It is "very, very rare" for an aircraft such as Boeing 777-200 ER to lose contact completely without any previous indication of problems. As per current information, the flight had already reached cruising altitude of 10,700 metres but that online flight data suggested it had experienced a very rapid loss of height and change in the direction it was heading.
Malaysia Airlines did have an incident in August 2005 with a 777 flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. While flying 11,580 metres above the Indian Ocean, the plane's software incorrectly measured speed and acceleration, causing the plane to suddenly shoot up 915 metres. The pilot disengaged the autopilot and descended and landed safely back in Perth. A software update was quickly made on planes around the world.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/malay sia-airlines-experts-surprised-at-disappearance-of -very-safe-boeing-777 [theguardian.com]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 09 2014, @01:43PM
Jesus fucking christ! What is wrong with you people?
As of 5 minutes before now (hours after your post). [theguardian.com]
It is still only 2 "stolen passports" not 4 and only those two had consecutive ticket numbers.
(Score: 2) by nobbis on Sunday March 09 2014, @07:01AM
ticket 1 [cloudfront.net] ticket 2 [cloudfront.net] booking info [netease.com]
Also although some papers are reporting debris has been seen, South China Morning Post [scmp.com] I have seen comments that these are lights from Vietnamese farms.
It's easy to look up when your mind's in the gutter
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09 2014, @12:09PM
Presbytarians or Episcopalians testing their new prayer device...