jxd

You can't expect the flight attendant to call the cockpit and say "hey we're going off course". Also, the flight attendant might think it's just a re route instead of the plane going off course.

BA Humbug

<redacted>

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...s/7772sec3.pdf

Minimum landing requirement for a 772 by FAA (not physical minimum) under worst-case scenario (wet pavement, high altitude, landing weight) is less than 2500 m.

COA777

Regarding the theory that WSJ reports is being explored that the plane might have been intentionally diverted to an undisclosed location, possibly for potential use at a later time, one would think that a remote island would be out of the cards. After all, the 777 would likely need additional (and possibly significant amounts of) jet fuel before taking off again.

deant

Remember that a few days aho it was specifically stated that there were two bursts of data. One on take off and one during climb. I have a hard time believing that RR did not look at the data immediately. Also, Boeing would have also gotten the data and you know that they would have looked at the data.

aviator8

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...s/7772sec3.pdf

with a dry runway at sea level and a moderate load a 777 can land in under 5000 feet

Dr. HFH

Based on RGN and Boeing docs, a 777 can land at RGN. But that's not the issue. In order to believe that, you'd have to believe that the staff of an international airport is concealing the arrival of a 777, along with everyone in the general area who might have seen or heard it arrive, and one which is reported missing and the subject of an international, multi-nation search, as well.

Duke787

It's highly unlikely and very speculative (which I understand if this is deleted) but there is an Indian Air Force base on a tiny island called Car Nicobar which has a 9000 foot runway. That island is well within the radius in the small chain of islands west of Malaysia and Thailand

Presumably under that scenario an Indian Air Force base has fuel

The Wolf

I'm making an assumption based on your assumption, but if this indeed turns out to be a well-planned highjacking something like that would arranged beforehand as well.

hansyuwiwb

I would presume that the government of India would have said something if an air force base has gone under?

alanstarr

I would hardly label them as bad actors. Whoever did this would have orchestrated arguably the heist of the century (and probably all time) given the amounts of tracking devices, satellite coverage and military surveillance.

If anything, it looks like the pilot(s) themselves were involved in this masterplan. The Captain has a huge, swanky 777 sim at home. While you may say many pilots have sims at home, it still raises the possibility he was able to rehearse this a thousand times over during the past months or years.

If you look at the time when comms were switched off, flight path pattern, elevation etc, this is the job of a highly skilled and competent pilot.

Getting jet fuel would be hardly a issue for someone who could've done all the above.

jackal

OK, I get the first part, but it has been affirmed by several posters early on in this thread that this particular aircraft did not have satellite communications capability--VHF only.

rwm818

Yeah, people are getting their "m" & "ft" confused - for example IAD (my home airport) doesn't have any runway over 3500m! And accommodates 777s, 747s & even A380 (I think)

So I assume he meant ft!

BA Humbug

I think the (now edited) original post was a thinly veiled reference to a TV series on ABC with the premise of being stranded on a mysterious island.

I also don't believe this particular train of thought holds enough credibility to count as a plausible explanation of the missing flight.

alanstarr

I wouldn't dare guessing. But it is the most credible speculation (if there is such a thing) at this point in time.

Plus, if they were planning on intentionally crashing this somewhere in the world soon, they wouldn't care less about warranties and the likes of it.

Guava

Part of me hope this means the plane didn't crash and the pax were somewhere, held against their will but otherwise, unharmed.

If WSJ reporting is accurate, the engines only worked about 5 hours instead of the maximum 7.5 hours it could have flown, it would seem to me the likelihood the plane crashed due to fuel exhaustion is low even if the plane ended up flying at lower altitude than normal. So the 5 hours marks would pretty much rule out crash due to fuel exhaustion. If fuel exhaustion is not responsible for the disappearance and the plane continued to fly for an additional 4 hours after the initial disappearance and presumably in a determined direction - no distress call and no automated warning of anykind - then it would seem the most logical conclusion is some kind of human factor, possibly deliberate. Whether it's terrorism, hijacking or whatever, it is likely something deliberate and human as opposed to mechanical or electrical.