Mar 16, 2014, 5:32 am
Last edit by: JDiver
This is ARCHIVE WEEK #1 (8 - 14 March UTC) of older posts from the original thread, MH 370 KUL-PEK Missing: now Search and Recovery [PLEASE SEE WIKI].
THIS THREAD HAS BEEN LOCKED.
MH 370 KUL-PEK Missing: 8 - 14 Mar 2014 UTC - ARCHIVE WEEK #1
Mar 13, 2014, 2:49 pm
#3256
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Programs: Costco Club
Posts: 1,155
Mar 13, 2014, 2:51 pm
#3257
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 61
Can the FDR and CVR be disabled or tampered with by anyone on the plane?
Mar 13, 2014, 2:52 pm
#3258
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: USA
Programs: Former DL PM, current level: tin
Posts: 301
She is often interviewed as an "Aviation Expert" because of her stint at DOT and having a pilot license.
When she is introduced on news programs, it's usually as "former DOT IG", but it is NOT prominently also stated that she is now a litigator, representing families in aviation crashes. In her comments to NPR, as well as on CNN yesterday, she seemed to emphasize mechanical problems, maintenance issues, etc., which coincidentally are all things that could result in a lawsuit. Gee, what a surprise.
Given that, I personally do not consider her anything close to an objective "expert".
When she is introduced on news programs, it's usually as "former DOT IG", but it is NOT prominently also stated that she is now a litigator, representing families in aviation crashes. In her comments to NPR, as well as on CNN yesterday, she seemed to emphasize mechanical problems, maintenance issues, etc., which coincidentally are all things that could result in a lawsuit. Gee, what a surprise.
Given that, I personally do not consider her anything close to an objective "expert".
Mar 13, 2014, 2:53 pm
#3259
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,605
Well, satellites don't pick up VHF signals broadcast from planes towards the ground...if VHF communication is iffy beyond a couple hundred miles laterally, I'm not sure how a satellite thousands of miles up is going to hear it. Although who knows what the NSA has access to.
Mar 13, 2014, 2:54 pm
#3261
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY, USA
Programs: SPG GL, AA GL
Posts: 2,591
From Andy Pasztor's interview at 1:45
"It is possible it actually landed for some period - perhaps a short period - during those additional four hours"
The fact that this statement was additionally clarified with "perhaps a short period" is striking to me. If I were wildly guessing at outcomes, I would not clarify like that. To me, those words, "Perhaps a short period", sound data based.
"It is possible it actually landed for some period - perhaps a short period - during those additional four hours"
The fact that this statement was additionally clarified with "perhaps a short period" is striking to me. If I were wildly guessing at outcomes, I would not clarify like that. To me, those words, "Perhaps a short period", sound data based.
Mar 13, 2014, 2:55 pm
#3262
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Programs: Costco Club
Posts: 1,155
Mar 13, 2014, 2:55 pm
#3263
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MAN
Programs: FB Gold
Posts: 291
IIRC there was some confusion about the place name... was it Nanning China or Na... something with a similar name somewhere else.
Mar 13, 2014, 3:01 pm
#3267
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1
found this
i found this online they reckon its near the parcel islands
Mar 13, 2014, 3:02 pm
#3268
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
It would be easier to believe the press reports if they hadn't been wrong/ill-informed/repeating stale speculation with every major story they publish.
I have not yet seen them break one real newsworthy story. Every time they "break" something, it turns out to be a mischaracterization or blowing up some small twist of a word into something much bigger than it is.
Case in point: "US official has an 'indication' that it crashed in the Indian ocean" which everyone in the press is acting like is a big new scoop and MH370 was for sure way off course and crashed past Andaman Islands.
I'd bet dollar to donuts what the US official is referring to is the radar track of an unidentified object that the Malaysians picked up, which was announced two days ago. The US official is just confirming that this might indicate that MH370 was off course. In short: not news.
I have not yet seen them break one real newsworthy story. Every time they "break" something, it turns out to be a mischaracterization or blowing up some small twist of a word into something much bigger than it is.
Case in point: "US official has an 'indication' that it crashed in the Indian ocean" which everyone in the press is acting like is a big new scoop and MH370 was for sure way off course and crashed past Andaman Islands.
I'd bet dollar to donuts what the US official is referring to is the radar track of an unidentified object that the Malaysians picked up, which was announced two days ago. The US official is just confirming that this might indicate that MH370 was off course. In short: not news.
You ARE, however, guilty of the same speculation you complain about, when you attempt and write this new development all off as the "unidentified radar tracks".
Sounds to me like you have an axe to grind with the US news media establishment. I'd suggest taking those feelings to OMNI as this is far from the most appropriate place...
Mar 13, 2014, 3:02 pm
#3269
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BDL/HPN/JFK/FLL
Programs: DL Diamond Ham Sandwich
Posts: 1,051
Mar 13, 2014, 3:03 pm
#3270
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MAN
Programs: FB Gold
Posts: 291
I must be going crazy from thinking about this.
Andy seems to be well placed with information, and he is suggesting the possibility that the plane landed and took off again during the 4 hour period of time where we have the supposed engine data.
Further, Andy seems to be suggesting that we may know the duration of its time on the ground.
It strikes me that the latter statement, i.e. that we know the duration of the time in the landed state, would give credence to the former statement, i.e. that we think it landed for a period of time.
edited to add: Words get said for a reason; why does Andy add "Perhaps a short period"?
Andy seems to be well placed with information, and he is suggesting the possibility that the plane landed and took off again during the 4 hour period of time where we have the supposed engine data.
Further, Andy seems to be suggesting that we may know the duration of its time on the ground.
It strikes me that the latter statement, i.e. that we know the duration of the time in the landed state, would give credence to the former statement, i.e. that we think it landed for a period of time.
edited to add: Words get said for a reason; why does Andy add "Perhaps a short period"?
So that would give them the "appears to have landed" and the time between that and next takeoff.