Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[retell]

Your comments are out of order. You seem to have no idea how any business works. The aviation industry is very safe, very responsible and in some ways over regulated. Making modifications to any high tech piece of equipment like an aircraft is a VERY expensive business. This is not a case of going down to Radio Shack, getting a few components and making a new CVR or data recorder with a flash drive as the memory. All companies have to make risk management decisions and when there is no need for expenditure then they do not do it.

After the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster in which 165+ men died, people started doing risk analysis on the requirement for blast proof fire proof walls near the accommodation areas. I know one company that did this on some of their platforms and calculated that it would cost $12 Million to build these 'walls', but over a 20 year period the likely hood was that they would suffer accidents or injury resulting in personal claims against them for $7M as a result of fire or blast injury, so did they build the fire proof blast proof walls...NO. The bean counters save $5M by not building them. That is the way industry works.

Aviation is well regulated and after this incident then maybe EASA/FAA etc will recommend the development of solid state memory devices, but for you to slag off F430murci because his family did not spend money on something that is not a requirement is out of order. Why don't you mortgage yourself to the hilt and risk house, home, car, kids education etc and when all your money is on the line start spending money on your business that you do not need to, that the regulatory authority says you don't have to. But from your comments you are not the type of person that will take the burden of risk or know how to make risk orientated decisions so you will never be in that position so will never reap the rewards it brings to those bold enough to risk all to provide a service (in accordance with regulations) that you and everyone else wants to use.

Aviation is always improving and designing aircraft is no easy task. The technical design of the A380 or B787 will have commenced 20 years ago. It is not something done a few years back. Technical specs will have been drawn up using the best available technology....20 years ago and changing that stuff for the super dupa computers we have today will be a slow old process, and the owners of aircraft will do it when the regulatory authorities say that they have to.

So Gentleman Jim, we are only about 10 days away from when the pingers in the black box will start to fade and about 16 days from when they go silent

After the Air France accident , the investigation bureau recommended the airline industry

“make mandatory as quickly as possible, for aeroplanes making public transport flights with passengers over maritime or remote areas, triggering of data transmission to facilitate localisation as soon as an emergency situation is detected on board.”

But the airlines balked at the expense of installation (which one manufacturer put at less than $100,000 per aircraft) and the cost of transmitting and storing huge amounts of data.

This is $100,000 modification on a piece of equipment that cost over $200 million and the aircraft industry balked at it

So by now I've got just a one word comment in response to your little rant and rave on Wednesday 26th about not appreciating how to run a business- and that is bo**ocks ‘ !

And that includes the likes of your friend " F430murci " the airline tycoon who proclaims continued reliance on black box technology by the airline industry is perfectly fine.

You Gentleman Jim assert “ all companies have to make risk management decisions and when there is no need for expenditure then they do not do it” Please tell me, how do you determine when there is “ no need for expenditure “, when there are human emotions involved as with the relatives of those who suffer in these kinds of circumstances?

And in circumstances like MH370 how do you even begin to measure the monetary value of the damage to the reputation of the airline industry now that it shows they are so stingy and more concerned with protecting their cash flow than adhering even to the specific recommendations of safety bureaus following earlier crashes?

This is even more ironic considering CNN recently reported USA alone has budgeted $4 million for this search.

http://www.bristolpress.com/articles/2014/03/13/opinion/doc5320fac471a4f393920890.txt

How unnecessarily rude!

Ok, where do we start, how about some age old advice for you, sometimes it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

"After the Air France accident , the investigation bureau recommended the airline industry"

That little word that you really forgot to look at "recommended". Note that the accident investigation team 'recommended', they did not 'mandate'. Only the CAA's can mandate. If they would have 'mandated', it would have been done, no questions. Recommended means you don't have to, just as I would recommend you take your old car and pay to fit side impact and front air bags, 5 point harnesses and a carbon fibre roll cage. You don't have to, but I absolutely guarantee you that in the event of a crash with that most precious of cargo, your wife and children, it is extremely likely that you will all be safe and walk away from it. $20K will do it. Will you go out and do it? You don't have to, but come on there is not a more precious cargo in the world, why not?

Risk management, you will probably wait until the new car you save up for comes with that equipment fitted as standard.

In 1985 , a BA aircraft burned to the ground at Manchester Airport killing 54 passengers and crew. After the lengthy and rigorous investigation the CAA "recommended' that all aircraft are fitted with tail mounted camera's (as this would have shown the pilots instantly what their problem was, and would have saved many lives). So it was a recommendation! BA and many many other airlines did a cost analysis concerning the recommendation, as they always do. Now this, as some of you may think is not as simple as taping a webcam to the tail unit of an aircraft, it required extreme modification and had to be done in accordance with the multitude of safety regulations that are already in place to keep you the passenger safe. The consequence of an ill-conceived modification perhaps causing cracks in the tail plane would be catastrophic. BA discovered that it would cost around 100 million GBP to fit tail cameras to all their aircraft in the fleet, but they would probably only lose one every 20-30 years due to fire at a cost of maybe 30 million (a lot of money 30 years ago). SO the well predicted business decision was made, why bother fitting them? It doesnt make sense! I hear you all screaming as much as I screamed at the time, but THAT is business. Airlines are not there to do you favours, you do none for them after all. Airlines just like any other business in the world all share the same single mission statement. Nothing to do with 'provide the best air travel blah blah', simple - Our mission is to make money for share holders. They (almost every airline) do EVERYTHING in accordance with regulations. Why should they do something if it is not mandated, why do it if only recommended? I designed a training product for airlines and it was really difficult selling it to them even though it was proven to make airlines safer and more profitable. The regulatory bodies then made it mandatory, bam, thank you it made me a millionaire! If anything is mandatory it is done and paid for regardless of cost. With BA, they, like all airlines, simply waited until new aircraft they purchased came with tail mounted camera's as standard fit, a totaly business orientated decision.

Why did the Air France investigation team only 'recommend'? Well that is all they can do, and only ICAO, IATA and all the CAA's can mandate. Just like any CAA or regulatory body in the world of aviation, they are normally funded and paid for by the airlines themselves. The UK CAA is paid for by British Airways and the like NOT the Government, and they cannot simply INSIST that BA must pay 100 Million for a tail plane upgrade when it is only recommended, simple. A bit of a catch 22 really, the people you think are looking after your interests also have to look after the commercial interests of their sponsors - the airlines.

So back to YOUR rant. There is as you put it 'no need for expenditure', despite any amount of 'human emotions' attached UNLESS the expenditure is mandated. That is why I still maintain you have no idea how businesses function as you are completely naive in what you say. Now on a personal note, I agree with you totally from a personal moral and ethical viewpoint, that is why I could never run an airline, as it would go bankrupt very quickly.

Unless someone mandates the fitting of new equipment and memory drives etc etc after MH370 why should an airline pay 75 Million across it's fleet to install it? In the event of a disaster the insurance company will pay. The airline industry will take note and implement and in 5 years all new aircraft will have the equipment as standard fit. And remember, the airline industry is THE safest transport industry in the world, because of its meticulous standard of engineering, predictive component life-ing and it's incredibly professional employees in flight operations and engineering.

So to sum up, this is not ME asiantravel, it is the industry. I am not stingy, far from it, I am very generous and I am sure F430murci is also. When it comes to money NO airline in the world spends it on recommendations, they spend it on things that are under mandatory instruction, on legal compliance. And before you put fingers to keys and spout off another rude and ill-considered rant, read my post again carefully and really digest what I am saying.

MAS will survive whatever is coming it's way. The insurers will pay and the loyal customer base will remain. People who have never flown with them or maybe only once or twice economy will say "i'm never going to fly with them again', ah well. People like me who have flown first class with them and with almost every other airline know that their service at the front and in business is amongst the very best in the world and I will continue to fly with them. Whoever/whatever is responsible for this could have happened to any airline, the management and handling has been very poor, but that is not the people that matter in aviation, the ones that matter when you fly are the engineers, the cabin crew, the ops staff and the pilots.

So if in your rather rude words you still maintain I am speaking bo****ks that is fine, but I still maintain you do not appreciate how to run a business.

A guy who is a businessman and owns his own Citation jet should in theory be very good at business so how come he says what people like you are saying is wrong? I posted the link to his article earlier

Looking on my tablet this post , cannot read , either white text on grey background , and after select still unreadable

Send with Commodore 64

[boomerangutang]

I want back to look at some prior reports. The quotes below are from Britain's Guardian, March 20:

"US officials briefed reporters in recent days that the plane was first manually rerouted before that final verbal sign-off – again indicating foul play in the cockpit from someone with technical knowhow."

"A full disabling of the system requires circuits to be broken not only in the cockpit “but also in the electronics bay”. This bay is found beneath the flight deck, indicating that someone involved was at one point outside the cockpit."

source

[Asiantravel]

" but my family owned and run several airlines."

So this is why you are against spending money on implementing safety measures on aircraft?

To protect the family money. Not very nice

Your comments are out of order. You seem to have no idea how any business works. The aviation industry is very safe, very responsible and in some ways over regulated. Making modifications to any high tech piece of equipment like an aircraft is a VERY expensive business. This is not a case of going down to Radio Shack, getting a few components and making a new CVR or data recorder with a flash drive as the memory. All companies have to make risk management decisions and when there is no need for expenditure then they do not do it.

After the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster in which 165+ men died, people started doing risk analysis on the requirement for blast proof fire proof walls near the accommodation areas. I know one company that did this on some of their platforms and calculated that it would cost $12 Million to build these 'walls', but over a 20 year period the likely hood was that they would suffer accidents or injury resulting in personal claims against them for $7M as a result of fire or blast injury, so did they build the fire proof blast proof walls...NO. The bean counters save $5M by not building them. That is the way industry works.

Aviation is well regulated and after this incident then maybe EASA/FAA etc will recommend the development of solid state memory devices, but for you to slag off F430murci because his family did not spend money on something that is not a requirement is out of order. Why don't you mortgage yourself to the hilt and risk house, home, car, kids education etc and when all your money is on the line start spending money on your business that you do not need to, that the regulatory authority says you don't have to. But from your comments you are not the type of person that will take the burden of risk or know how to make risk orientated decisions so you will never be in that position so will never reap the rewards it brings to those bold enough to risk all to provide a service (in accordance with regulations) that you and everyone else wants to use.

Aviation is always improving and designing aircraft is no easy task. The technical design of the A380 or B787 will have commenced 20 years ago. It is not something done a few years back. Technical specs will have been drawn up using the best available technology....20 years ago and changing that stuff for the super dupa computers we have today will be a slow old process, and the owners of aircraft will do it when the regulatory authorities say that they have to.

So Gentleman Jim, we are only about 10 days away from when the pingers in the black box will start to fade and about 16 days from when they go silent

After the Air France accident , the investigation bureau recommended the airline industry

make mandatory as quickly as possible, for aeroplanes making public transport flights with passengers over maritime or remote areas, triggering of data transmission to facilitate localisation as soon as an emergency situation is detected on board.

But the airlines balked at the expense of installation (which one manufacturer put at less than $100,000 per aircraft) and the cost of transmitting and storing huge amounts of data.

This is $100,000 modification on a piece of equipment that cost over $200 million and the aircraft industry balked at it

So by now I've got just a one word comment in response to your little rant and rave on Wednesday 26th about not appreciating how to run a business- and that is bo**ocks !

And that includes the likes of your friend " F430murci " the airline tycoon who proclaims continued reliance on black box technology by the airline industry is perfectly fine.

You Gentleman Jim assert all companies have to make risk management decisions and when there is no need for expenditure then they do not do it Please tell me, how do you determine when there is no need for expenditure , when there are human emotions involved as with the relatives of those who suffer in these kinds of circumstances?

And in circumstances like MH370 how do you even begin to measure the monetary value of the damage to the reputation of the airline industry now that it shows they are so stingy and more concerned with protecting their cash flow than adhering even to the specific recommendations of safety bureaus following earlier crashes?

This is even more ironic considering CNN recently reported USA alone has budgeted $4 million for this search.

http://www.bristolpress.com/articles/2014/03/13/opinion/doc5320fac471a4f393920890.txt

Typical, make it personal and completey ignore the current technological limitations and pratical application issues which was the gravaman of what I was discussing. Some are so close minded and entrenched in "theories" or a desire to be angry and cast asperssions that they are imcapable of viewing anything objectively.

That a technology is in the works does not mean it is ready for implementation. By all means, don't fly if you believe flying is not safe because of current black box technology.

Airline travel is safe, but there are always people that find reasons to complain no matter what . . .

“ Some are so close minded “

This from the person who wrote in his own post # 2716 “They found Air France immediately after. They ultimately found the boxes. Good enough "

And will you still consider it to be “close minded “ if after another month they haven't found anything and still no one will know what happened and voices for a change in standards grow louder? Will it still be " Good enough " then ?

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 makes it clear: we need to rethink black boxes

" Your iPhone is more powerful than the evidence-collecting computers in the cockpit. Simple changes could mean faster answers for plane crashes"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/09/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box

Edited March 30, 2014 by Asiantravel

[EyesWideOpen]

I have said it before, and will say it again. No floating wreckage will be found in the massive Indian Ocean search....

I don't agree.

Time will tell..... :-) As you have pointed out in another post, to turn off the ACARS system

requires a knowledgeable person to actually descend down into the electronics bay on a lower

level and physically turn it off. This is a strong implication for pilot involvement. So to me this

still implies a flight to somewhere. All available evidence does NOT point to an on board fire

crippling the plane ,and turning it into a ghost plane flying on until it crashes.. In fact the last

known radar tracks show it flying slightly west. The search will be called off in about two weeks,

and this will go down as one of the great mysteries of the modern age....

Edited March 30, 2014 by EyesWideOpen

[Lite Beer]

MH370 search draws blank as Australia brings in ex-military chief
Greg WOOD
Agence France-Presse
PERTH, Australia

A new search area failed to yield an immediate breakthrough in the hunt for ill-fated Flight MH370 on Sunday, as Australia appointed its former military chief to help coordinate the operation in the Indian Ocean.

Debris spotted by aircraft and then picked up by ships combing the new search zone proved not to be from the Malaysian Airlines’ Boeing 777, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) said.

"It appeared to be fishing equipment and just rubbish on the (ocean’s) surface," an AMSA spokesman told AFP.

As the hunt resumed 1,850 kilometres (1,150 miles) west of Perth, Australia said former defence force chief Angus Houston would head a new unit to help in the search, which involves the militaries of seven nations -- Australia, China, Malaysia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and the United States.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that Houston would lead the new Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) based in Perth, "to coordinate the Australian government’s support for the search into MH370".

Houston, who was chief of the Australian Defence Force from 2005-2011, has been given a brief to coordinate the often delicate diplomatic contacts between participants in the international effort.

He will also make sure that families receive up-to-date information and travel assistance, including visa services, accommodation advice, interpreter services and counselling.

Describing Houston as "an individual of enormous experience and great skill who has already served his country with distinction," Abbott said his appointment was part of Australia’s commitment to learning the fate of the flight which disappeared with 239 people on board on March 8.

"This government won’t rest until we’ve done everything we reasonably can to get those families and to get the wider community of the world a little more peace and a little more insight into exactly what happened," he said.

International protocols mean Malaysia is officially in charge of the search operation, but Abbott made clear that Houston was available "to oversee the overall search and investigation effort" if asked.

"Should our (Australia’s) responsibilities increase as time goes by, there is no one better placed than Angus to coordinate and liaise, given the quite significant number of countries that all have a stake here," Abbott told reporters.

-- The Nation 2014-03-30

[Lite Beer]

MISSING MH370
Debris not part of missing flight, search continues

A picture made available Sunday shows Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) P-3K2 Orion Co-pilot Brett McKenzie looking at a hand-written list of other flights in the area searching for missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 over the southern Indian Ocean,

Sydney - Objects lifted from the Indian Ocean by ships Saturday were not part of the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, officials said Sunday.The Australian Maritime Safety Authority said items scooped from the sea by Chinese and Australian ships turned out to be fishing material or rubbish.

Ten planes from Australia, Japan, China, Korea, United States and Malaysia were be engaged in the search in an area 1,850 kilometres west of Perth.Three Chinese and one Australian navy ship were already in the search area, to be joined today by a six more ships Sunday.

Two Australian ships due to arrive in the area by Tuesday were carrying a helicopter and US-made "black box" locator equipment.

It is a race against time to locate the voice and flight data recorders, because their batteries are set to run out on April 7.

Former Australian military chief retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston will lead a new joint agency coordination centre in Perth to over see the international search, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported.

His role will be to coordinate operations among the several nationsas well as keeping lines of communication open to families of the passengers, some of whom are expected to travel to Perth as the search continues.

-- The Nation 2014-03-30

[noddy77]

How much is this costing the Australian taxpayers and why are they doing it?

Its Malaysia's problem. If a Qantas plane dropped into their ocean I doubt they would be doing the same for the Australians.

Let's face it. There is no evidence its in the Indian Ocean.

[hawker9000]

Bad news. Disappointing news. I'm one of those that had early on been fearing this flight had gone north to Pakistan or somewhere and into the hands of terrorists, and was really hoping they'd find something in the south, anything, that would dispel that notion and (start to) put all this to rest. And I was finding the satellite "ping" analysis reasonably persuasive. But if nothing's found, and the battery window closes, what WILL we then be told?

[canman]

How much is this costing the Australian taxpayers and why are they doing it?

Its Malaysia's problem. If a Qantas plane dropped into their ocean I doubt they would be doing the same for the Australians.

Let's face it. There is no evidence its in the Indian Ocean.

Australia is searching because it is in their area of responsibility for SAR. Whether or not Malaysia would do the same is not a factor. There are also several search aircraft from China involved as well as from other countries, all running sorties out of Perth.

[loongdavid]

To Noddy77, because we are Australians and living on an island (the largest in the world) the sea is very much a part of our life. Furthermore, the fact we are highly involved with the search shows how much we value human life, unlike many other countries. Every year we are called upon to rescue some person who insists on sailing around the southern ocean solo in the flimsiest of yachts. This is what we do best.

[jayjayjayjay]

To Noddy. Your a sad and selfish human being to even pose the question, that's aside the point whether you are an Australian tax payer or not.

[Asiantravel]

How much is this costing the Australian taxpayers and why are they doing it?

Its Malaysia's problem. If a Qantas plane dropped into their ocean I doubt they would be doing the same for the Australians.

Let's face it. There is no evidence its in the Indian Ocean.

Australia is searching because it is in their area of responsibility for SAR. Whether or not Malaysia would do the same is not a factor. There are also several search aircraft from China involved as well as from other countries, all running sorties out of Perth.

It even sounds from this Independent article today that there could even be a tussle over the right to hold on to any wreckage and the venue for any consequent inquiry.

Canberra has reportedly sent a diplomatic note to the half-dozen countries involved in the search, reminding them that any wreckage recovered must be brought to Australia, at least initially.

The note is understood to have been directed primarily at China, whose nationals constituted two-thirds of the passengers and which has been under intense pressure from distraught relatives. There could be trouble ahead if China, which has five naval ships in or heading to the search zone, tries to muscle out Malaysia or Australia.

Even if wreckage is reassembled in Perth and an inquiry held there, Malaysia would, under international law, remain in charge.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/missing-malaysian-flight-mh370-promises-and-prayers--but-wait-goes-on-for-passengers-relatives-9223743.html

Edited March 30, 2014 by Asiantravel

[davidstipek]

Okay....

My Post yesterday was posted then later someone deleted it. I will post a Quote from the Flight Radar24 Website:

Thanks to Agent24 Integrity he was able to post but it Later WIERD as his post Vanished also...!!!

So copy this link as I am sure It will Vanish ALSO!!!!

You can see Web page at top of Video and Voice confirmation of where it was posted (I apologise for the missspelling if any... Just get Phone calls from Stateside on this issue... They informed me that the Long Post I made yesterday has disapeared....)

Here we go!

http://www.flightradar24.com/#2014-03-08/18:40/12x/MAS370/2d9dd5b?&_suid=1396169384218026835636104952193

YOU CAN CLICK ON MHS370 (Flight will turn red to ID) as it leaves Maylasia air space over Kuala Terengganu @ 1728 UTC (Time) towards Vietnam @ 1735 utc time Plane will turn and go crazy, then actually shows it continuing on flight path. Crossing Vietnam boarder @ 1809 UTC. and show flight path. midway over south china sea it goes crazy completely does a 360 turn. But then this site continues to follow towards Ho Chi Ming City @ 1835 UTC and onto Hong Kong air space @ 2050 UTC. This whole time it shows it Squaking @ 2161 and Radar F-ZG SZ1.

I hate to throw this in but if indeed it did disappear at 1735 UTC ....... Then how can radar continue to show it all the way to Beijing.....? I don't know I just know I went to Flight radar24 webpage, clicked on left side... Playback entered date 03/08/2014 and time 1650 UTC then waited for MHS370 to leave KL double clicked on plane as it was ID'd as MHS370 and info came u on left side. you can change playbck speed to x24 instead of the norm at x12 so it doesn't time out. and track it all the way to china....... Absolutly WEIRD!!!!

[canman]

How much is this costing the Australian taxpayers and why are they doing it?

Its Malaysia's problem. If a Qantas plane dropped into their ocean I doubt they would be doing the same for the Australians.

Let's face it. There is no evidence its in the Indian Ocean.

Australia is searching because it is in their area of responsibility for SAR. Whether or not Malaysia would do the same is not a factor. There are also several search aircraft from China involved as well as from other countries, all running sorties out of Perth.

It even sounds from this Independent article today that there could even be a tussle over the right to hold on to any wreckage and the venue for any consequent inquiry.

Canberra has reportedly sent a diplomatic note to the half-dozen countries involved in the search, reminding them that any wreckage recovered must be brought to Australia, at least initially.

The note is understood to have been directed primarily at China, whose nationals constituted two-thirds of the passengers and which has been under intense pressure from distraught relatives. There could be trouble ahead if China, which has five naval ships in or heading to the search zone, tries to muscle out Malaysia or Australia.

Even if wreckage is reassembled in Perth and an inquiry held there, Malaysia would, under international law, remain in charge.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/missing-malaysian-flight-mh370-promises-and-prayers--but-wait-goes-on-for-passengers-relatives-9223743.html

Thats an interesting one. Typically the flag state of the vessel taking onboard the salvage owns it. In practice this devolves to the company which owns the vessel.

[khaosai]

I have said it before, and will say it again. No floating wreckage will be found in the massive Indian Ocean search....

I don't agree.

Time will tell..... :-) As you have pointed out in another post, to turn off the ACARS system

requires a knowledgeable person to actually descend down into the electronics bay on a lower

level and physically turn it off. This is a strong implication for pilot involvement. So to me this

still implies a flight to somewhere. All available evidence does NOT point to an on board fire

crippling the plane ,and turning it into a ghost plane flying on until it crashes.. In fact the last

known radar tracks show it flying slightly west. The search will be called off in about two weeks,

and this will go down as one of the great mysteries of the modern age....

Hi,

Knowledge is required to disable the ACARS, but does not require going into the electronics bay to do so.

[RubbaJohnny]

GJ, we understand and appreciate your defense of the Captain's innocence until proven otherwise. But at the same our brains are capable of some predictive thought. If he is innocent perhaps he will be vindicated. But it is also possible, and this is becoming the primary theory, that in an act of monumental selfishness; This man who was responsible for the safety of all passengers; took judgement on planeload of paying customers, whose only choice in this was selecting the flight, and he stole everything they had and everything they would ever be. A pain multiplied upon the thousands who now mourn. and inflicted massive costs to so many affected agencies and countries.

Yes we should have restraint with accusation, but you can not stop speculation. Not when we are looking one of the worst crimes of the century. Forums are for discussion and it is through discussion and speculation that mysteries get solved. If this was an accident, very few will hold it against him.

We may never know

However the pilot may have been sick ,incapicitated by crime,illness or assailants,on-board or remote (poisoned ala Georgey Markov or radioactive drink inLondon)

While out of the cockpit the second pilot may have suffered same fate or been a aprticipant accomplice,I have no insight but feel it is premature to blame anyone yet.

As for the crime of the centrury it is egregious but 9/11 and the daily suffering inMyamanmar,and if you have been to Thailand you may recall the Tsunami with 5,000 Times more destrucution.

I understand the mystery invites speculation and theory but seems unjust to blacken anybody yet.

You just didn't read my post very well. I was saying it is possible. and looking more likely that the pilot has done this. I did not say it was fact. We can not accuse anyone at this point, although it is possible that he has done an unthinkable thing.

As for crime of the century. I said one of the worst crimes of the century, and I was not considering the daily activities of oppressive governments in that category, or natural disasters. A tsunami is not a crime, last time I checked.

The main point was that we should be free to discuss all possibilities. We have evidence enough for suspicion, but not enough to accuse.

Fair comment

[davidstipek]

Wow!!!

Nothing yet....

One clue to where its going to be is (If the cargo did indeed be a load of MANGOSTEENS.... They do float! Months before they will sink in fresh water, Salt water and Tempature will keep them floating longer... I would have people from Vietnam to Austrailia (along Arc of signal North and South keep a wary EYE to the Shorelines as they also would do for Oil Spills. If indeed the plane crashed... They (4 tons) will make it to the surface. Wind waves and Tides will dispurse to shorelines. If plane is not in Indian Ocean we will find fuel slick... If it indeed is where they think.. Tanks will be empty so if any... Very little will surface!

[EyesWideOpen]

I have said it before, and will say it again. No floating wreckage will be found in the massive Indian Ocean search....

I don't agree.

Time will tell..... :-) As you have pointed out in another post, to turn off the ACARS system

requires a knowledgeable person to actually descend down into the electronics bay on a lower

level and physically turn it off. This is a strong implication for pilot involvement. So to me this

still implies a flight to somewhere. All available evidence does NOT point to an on board fire

crippling the plane ,and turning it into a ghost plane flying on until it crashes.. In fact the last

known radar tracks show it flying slightly west. The search will be called off in about two weeks,

and this will go down as one of the great mysteries of the modern age....

Hi,

Knowledge is required to disable the ACARS, but does not require going into the electronics bay to do so.

Correct, my mistake. There was an early report saying the system had to be disable from a switch

in the electronics bay. Now information is that as you say, it is simply a circuit breaker in the cockpit.

[coma]

Every year we are called upon to rescue some person who insists on sailing around the southern ocean solo in the flimsiest of yachts.

What ? Like this you mean ??

A P3 Orion was on Sunday afternoon sent from the Indian Ocean search zone to look for a fishing boat in trouble about 3240km southwest of Perth and 650km north of the Antarctic mainland, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) said.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/30/20/10/plane-diverted-from-mh370-search

[noddy77]

To Noddy. Your a sad and selfish human being to even pose the question, that's aside the point whether you are an Australian tax payer or not.

To interpret my personality from my statement is a bit over the top.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

[noddy77]

To Noddy77, because we are Australians and living on an island (the largest in the world) the sea is very much a part of our life. Furthermore, the fact we are highly involved with the search shows how much we value human life, unlike many other countries. Every year we are called upon to rescue some person who insists on sailing around the southern ocean solo in the flimsiest of yachts. This is what we do best.

Can you tell me what Malaysia is doing?

[ignis]

Makes one wonder....... early on in this thread.....

Reports of UFO's over south Vietnam on the night of 7th, and a Guy on a oil rig seeing fire or bright light in the early hours of the 8th in the sky...... was it being beamed up ?

I'm with other here just cannot see why if they crashed why all things disabled/ switched off and loads of so say maneuvers and fly south to crash anyway.

[JesseFrank]

To Noddy. Your a sad and selfish human being to even pose the question, that's aside the point whether you are an Australian tax payer or not.

Well, after all this sounds every day more as the biggest cover up ever, and I don't think taxpayers should be considered to pay for that .

[Smiles]

How much is this costing the Australian taxpayers and why are they doing it?

Its Malaysia's problem. If a Qantas plane dropped into their ocean I doubt they would be doing the same for the Australians.

Let's face it. There is no evidence its in the Indian Ocean.

A simple compassion ground from the government and people involved is enough to be involve in the search for the missing plane.

There are no soild evidence yet - that the plane is in the Indian Ocean. That's why many country is putting in their share of efforts to help.

I know it cost alot of Australian taxpayers money in this operation. But money aside , why can't people have some feelings for other human beings?

So many lives are missing from the plane. So, spare some thoughts and don't whinge on wasting taxpayers money.

There are other ways to save cost.

[Ace of Pop]

Noddy does have a Point. China would only make a half hearted gesture ,if at all , if was Quantas, and no Chinease nationals on board.

[Ace of Pop]

Ive foud that Folks who say nevermind the Cost,pay nohting anyway,and are on Ozz or Euro benefits.

[Scott]

This link to CNN might give you some information on costs:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/03/28/exp-erin-sot-foreman-malaysia-airlines-plane-rising-search-cost.cnn&hpt=hp_t1&from_homepage=yes&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

[balo]

Wow!!!

Nothing yet....

One clue to where its going to be is (If the cargo did indeed be a load of MANGOSTEENS.... They do float! Months before they will sink in fresh water, Salt water and Tempature will keep them floating longer... I would have people from Vietnam to Austrailia (along Arc of signal North and South keep a wary EYE to the Shorelines as they also would do for Oil Spills. If indeed the plane crashed... They (4 tons) will make it to the surface. Wind waves and Tides will dispurse to shorelines. If plane is not in Indian Ocean we will find fuel slick... If it indeed is where they think.. Tanks will be empty so if any... Very little will surface!

Who knows were the Mangosteens are right now, for all we know they've ended up in a market in Afghanistan.

Sent from my SM-P601 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[lopburi3]

To Noddy77, because we are Australians and living on an island (the largest in the world) the sea is very much a part of our life. Furthermore, the fact we are highly involved with the search shows how much we value human life, unlike many other countries. Every year we are called upon to rescue some person who insists on sailing around the southern ocean solo in the flimsiest of yachts. This is what we do best.

As a child who was always told our language cousions were living on the continent of Australia was kind of taken aback by this idea that Australians are living on the largest island in the world. What your government says is

The continent of Australia is referred to as an island because it is surrounded by ocean. However, Australia is actually made up of more than 8,000 islands, including the island state of Tasmania.

http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-islands

[RubbaJohnny]

To Noddy77, because we are Australians and living on an island (the largest in the world) the sea is very much a part of our life. Furthermore, the fact we are highly involved with the search shows how much we value human life, unlike many other countries. Every year we are called upon to rescue some person who insists on sailing around the southern ocean solo in the flimsiest of yachts. This is what we do best.

As a child who was always told our language cousions were living on the continent of Australia was kind of taken aback by this idea that Australians are living on the largest island in the world. What your government says is

The continent of Australia is referred to as an island because it is surrounded by ocean. However, Australia is actually made up of more than 8,000 islands, including the island state of Tasmania.

http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-islands

It's all arbitrary like whether OZ is on top of the planet.If arriving on a UFO what would distinguish Greenland from Oz or Antarctica,apart from the language of course

Rank Landmass Area

(km²) Area

(sq mi) Country or countries 1 Afro-Eurasia 84,400,000 32,500,000 Various 2 Americas 42,300,000 16,400,000 Various 3 Antarctica 14,000,000 5,400,000 None (various countries have territorial claims) 4 Australia 7,600,000 2,900,000 Australia

A fourth raanked blob full of first rate people,imaginne how much help locals gave,no insurance scam left unturned ?