Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[3NUMBAS]

Why are Americans obsessed with missing plane?

By MARGIE MASON | Associated Press – Mon, Apr 21, 2014

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-americans-obsessed-missing-plane-080927426.html#HTIZ4Tt

But why did interest remain so high in the U.S. when the story lost steam elsewhere? It dropped from most Australian front pages and websites weeks ago, despite the search being coordinated off its western coast. CNN International, CNN's overseas network, tapered its coverage when other big news broke, such as the crisis in Ukraine and the Oscar Pistorius trial in South Africa. But CNN in the U.S. continued its heavy focus on the plane.

Even in China, where two-thirds of the passengers were from, reports never ran nonstop on TV and the clamor on social media also died down.

But Americans yearned for more.

Many found it impossible to believe that a modern Boeing 777 carrying 239 people could just vanish without a trace in an age where an iPhone can be tracked just about anywhere.

Part of the obsession may also revolve around the country's gotta-know-now mentality and its social media addiction that gets fed 24/7 by the latest breaking news, raw footage or photos going viral on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Since the plane disappeared, it has consistently been one of the top five most-read stories on The Associated Press' mobile app.

[hawker9000]

Once a plane is in a hangar, it just needs a quick coat of paint and a new sticker job and it can hide in plane sight. See what I did there.

No, I don't think so. Intelligence agencies, Boeing, and actual '777 owner/operators, working together could easily correlate data and identify any "odd one out".. Buying, owning, and operating a 777 isn't like buying a used chevy (nor is stealing one...).

While you could definitely not get away with hiding a 777 in plain sight for very long, paint job or no paintjob, I don't discount the possibility that with payments to the right people, a 777 might be routed and hidden clandestinely for some time. But I think that possibility grows more remote with each passing day. (Govts & their intel services know how to pay for information and have pretty deep pockets, too.)

[tigermonkey]

theres that item about the big undersea shock off vietnam but not a quake

Links ?

[tigermonkey]

The fact that an airline is doing it, and Immigration maybe isn't, will surely embarrass several governments into action I think. Expect longer queues at Swampy coming soon.

AirAsia to enhance aviation security with Interpol checks

14 May, 2014

Budget airline AirAsia says it will become the first carrier to check its passengers' passports against Interpol's database of stolen and lost travel documents.

The Kuala Lumpur-based airline said on Tuesday it will begin implementing the screening this month as part of its effort to enhance aviation security in the aftermath of the disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines jet on March 8.

http://www.travelweekly.com.au/news/airasia-to-do-interpol-checks?

A good move by Air Asia, and probably not entirely unrelated to the Thai Immigration announcement of the tightening of arrivals of aliens on a visa-exempt basis, which will begin on August 12. Thailand has announced that they will deny entry to those using repeat visa-exempt entries who cannot prove that they are tourists. This is proclaimed to be a move against criminals entering Thailand, as well as ending visa-exempt abuses.

However, the bottom line is that the airline bears the brunt of the responsibility, since they can be fined and made to take the passenger back to their point of origin, if the passenger is refused entry. .Air Asia could be greatly harmed by this action.

[Carmine6]

Why are Americans obsessed with missing plane?

By MARGIE MASON | Associated Press – Mon, Apr 21, 2014

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-americans-obsessed-missing-plane-080927426.html#HTIZ4Tt

But why did interest remain so high in the U.S. when the story lost steam elsewhere? It dropped from most Australian front pages and websites weeks ago, despite the search being coordinated off its western coast. CNN International, CNN's overseas network, tapered its coverage when other big news broke, such as the crisis in Ukraine and the Oscar Pistorius trial in South Africa. But CNN in the U.S. continued its heavy focus on the plane.

Even in China, where two-thirds of the passengers were from, reports never ran nonstop on TV and the clamor on social media also died down.

But Americans yearned for more.

Many found it impossible to believe that a modern Boeing 777 carrying 239 people could just vanish without a trace in an age where an iPhone can be tracked just about anywhere.

Part of the obsession may also revolve around the country's gotta-know-now mentality and its social media addiction that gets fed 24/7 by the latest breaking news, raw footage or photos going viral on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Since the plane disappeared, it has consistently been one of the top five most-read stories on The Associated Press' mobile app.

That's CNN that focused on it, not "Americans." CNN is barely holding off MSNBC on cable these days. Also that article was 3 weeks ago so I doubt they are still on it so much. I also don't think it was covered much on NBC, ABC, CBS.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/05/13/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-may-12-2014/263596/

[canuckamuck]

Once a plane is in a hangar, it just needs a quick coat of paint and a new sticker job and it can hide in plane sight. See what I did there.

No, I don't think so. Intelligence agencies, Boeing, and actual '777 owner/operators, working together could easily correlate data and identify any "odd one out".. Buying, owning, and operating a 777 isn't like buying a used chevy (nor is stealing one...).

While you could definitely not get away with hiding a 777 in plain sight for very long, paint job or no paintjob, I don't discount the possibility that with payments to the right people, a 777 might be routed and hidden clandestinely for some time. But I think that possibility grows more remote with each passing day. (Govts & their intel services know how to pay for information and have pretty deep pockets, too.)

Who said anything about buying, owing, operating? If it is on the ground, it is parked and disguised, and almost certainly in a hangar. You don't think they would be out doing joyrides do you? I am talking about some remote Afghani or other Islamist controlled airstrip. Or else something like Diego Garcia. Not an international airport. And even then there are only two scenarios. The plane either has one flight left, or it is being torn down and scrapped.

Edited May 14, 2014 by canuckamuck

[tigermonkey]

Ocean Shield is now back in the 'search area', and trying to resume the ocean floor search with Bluefin-21. Ocean Shield had resupplied and changed crews in Australia, before returning to the 'search area'. While in port, the software in Bluefin-21 was updated.

http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/may/mr044.aspx

About 2 hours after Bluefin was deployed, it was brought back on board due to "communications problems", and has not yet been redeployed. More and more, one has to wonder about the quality of the scans being done by Bluefin - software was updated and now it doesn't work at all. Is it just possible that aside from not being able to go deep enough that Bluefin has never been capable of getting the job done. There is no history of Bluefin getting the job done in any other venue. Is MH370 down there and Bluefin-21 simply missed it ?

[Chicog]

A good move by Air Asia, and probably not entirely unrelated to the Thai Immigration announcement of the tightening of arrivals of aliens on a visa-exempt basis, which will begin on August 12. Thailand has announced that they will deny entry to those using repeat visa-exempt entries who cannot prove that they are tourists. This is proclaimed to be a move against criminals entering Thailand, as well as ending visa-exempt abuses.

However, the bottom line is that the airline bears the brunt of the responsibility, since they can be fined and made to take the passenger back to their point of origin, if the passenger is refused entry. .Air Asia could be greatly harmed by this action.

I think it's entirely unrelated since they are doing it across their network.

Interpol's I-Checkit system will be deployed across all of AirAsia's international operations, covering 600 flights daily.

And anything that helps them refuse boarding to people who might not qualify for immigration will surely help them, not harm them?

[Chicog]

PanARMENIAN.Net - The search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 hit a fresh snag on Thursday, May 15, after it was found the underwater drone at the heart of the operation had been damaged, forcing what could be another lengthy delay, Reuters reported.

<snip>

Parts to repair the Bluefin drone, on loan from the U.S. Navy for less than three more weeks, will not arrive in Australia until Sunday and it will take several days to reach the search area once repairs are completed.

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/178890/?

[tigermonkey]

A good move by Air Asia, and probably not entirely unrelated to the Thai Immigration announcement of the tightening of arrivals of aliens on a visa-exempt basis, which will begin on August 12. Thailand has announced that they will deny entry to those using repeat visa-exempt entries who cannot prove that they are tourists. This is proclaimed to be a move against criminals entering Thailand, as well as ending visa-exempt abuses.

However, the bottom line is that the airline bears the brunt of the responsibility, since they can be fined and made to take the passenger back to their point of origin, if the passenger is refused entry. .Air Asia could be greatly harmed by this action.

I think it's entirely unrelated since they are doing it across their network.

Interpol's I-Checkit system will be deployed across all of AirAsia's international operations, covering 600 flights daily.

And anything that helps them refuse boarding to people who might not qualify for immigration will surely help them, not harm them?

I made no claim of it being related - that claim belongs to Thai Immigration.

As I said, it is entirely to Air Asia's benefit. Air Asia could be harmed by the actions of Thai Immigration, but this move will counteract at least some of that.

IMHO opinion the anticipated action by Thai Immigration is totally unworkable, in that it expects airline chek-in agents to have access to all off the same resources as the Thai immigration Officer, such as the Interpol System, Thai Immigration black-lists and complete Thai Immigration history ( including that in previous passports)

[tigermonkey]

PanARMENIAN.Net - The search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 hit a fresh snag on Thursday, May 15, after it was found the underwater drone at the heart of the operation had been damaged, forcing what could be another lengthy delay, Reuters reported.

<snip>

Parts to repair the Bluefin drone, on loan from the U.S. Navy for less than three more weeks, will not arrive in Australia until Sunday and it will take several days to reach the search area once repairs are completed.

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/178890/?

Yes, as stated in my earlier post #4635. Thanks for the reaffirmation.

[Chicog]

I made no claim of it being related - that claim belongs to Thai Immigration.

Well actually you did: "A good move by Air Asia, and probably not entirely unrelated to the Thai Immigration announcement "

As I said, it is entirely to Air Asia's benefit. Air Asia could be harmed by the actions of Thai Immigration, but this move will counteract at least some of that.

IMHO opinion the anticipated action by Thai Immigration is totally unworkable, in that it expects airline chek-in agents to have access to all off the same resources as the Thai immigration Officer, such as the Interpol System, Thai Immigration black-lists and complete Thai Immigration history ( including that in previous passports)

From what I can see the biggest problems with the immigration changes are occurring at land border crossings; after all it's this route through which most of the visa runners go.

I cannot see how they are going to enforce the minutae through inbound airlines unless they tell people there is no more visa on arrival.

[tigermonkey]

I made no claim of it being related - that claim belongs to Thai Immigration.

Well actually you did: "A good move by Air Asia, and probably not entirely unrelated to the Thai Immigration announcement "

As I said, it is entirely to Air Asia's benefit. Air Asia could be harmed by the actions of Thai Immigration, but this move will counteract at least some of that.

IMHO opinion the anticipated action by Thai Immigration is totally unworkable, in that it expects airline chek-in agents to have access to all off the same resources as the Thai immigration Officer, such as the Interpol System, Thai Immigration black-lists and complete Thai Immigration history ( including that in previous passports)

From what I can see the biggest problems with the immigration changes are occurring at land border crossings; after all it's this route through which most of the visa runners go.

I cannot see how they are going to enforce the minutae through inbound airlines unless they tell people there is no more visa on arrival.

Thai Immigration have proclaimed that they will add in air arrivals to their new clampdown on visa-exempt arrivals effective August 12. As I said, the proposal is "totally unworkable" for air arrivals. They cannot unilaterally stop visa-exempt arrivals, since they are all as a result of international agreements. The best they can hope for is to perhaps go back to the old system of a maximum of 3 visa-exempt arrivals per 180 days, which is done by most countries.

[tigermonkey]

"Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong."

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/

A very interesting and technical article about the Inmarsat analysis and conclusions. The people involved in the article are heavyweights in this field, and in no way blowhards or publicity seekers. They do not seek to discredit Inmarsat but to try to understand their conclusions and arcs.

They have even added additional elements, such as doppler shift between the satellite and Inmarsat's Australian ground station, which actually made Inmarsat's results more credible. However, they still struggle to overcome many inconsistencies and reach the same conclusions as Inmarsat.

A very good read if you have the time to digest it all.

[F4UCorsair]

"Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong."

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/

A very interesting and technical article about the Inmarsat analysis and conclusions. The people involved in the article are heavyweights in this field, and in no way blowhards or publicity seekers. They do not seek to discredit Inmarsat but to try to understand their conclusions and arcs.

They have even added additional elements, such as doppler shift between the satellite and Inmarsat's Australian ground station, which actually made Inmarsat's results more credible. However, they still struggle to overcome many inconsistencies and reach the same conclusions as Inmarsat.

A very good read if you have the time to digest it all.

The guy from GeoTechnics claimed heavyweight status too, but couldn't find a WW2 sunken warship!!

There are a lot of pretenders in the world, all of them chasing their 15 minutes of fame....that may or may not be the case here, but people are who they tell others they are until proved otherwise.

[tigermonkey]

"Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong."

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/

A very interesting and technical article about the Inmarsat analysis and conclusions. The people involved in the article are heavyweights in this field, and in no way blowhards or publicity seekers. They do not seek to discredit Inmarsat but to try to understand their conclusions and arcs.

They have even added additional elements, such as doppler shift between the satellite and Inmarsat's Australian ground station, which actually made Inmarsat's results more credible. However, they still struggle to overcome many inconsistencies and reach the same conclusions as Inmarsat.

A very good read if you have the time to digest it all.

The guy from GeoTechnics claimed heavyweight status too, but couldn't find a WW2 sunken warship!!

There are a lot of pretenders in the world, all of them chasing their 15 minutes of fame....that may or may not be the case here, but people are who they tell others they are until proved otherwise.

Which one of the people involved in this is the "guy from Geotechnics" ? I can't find any linkage between any of them and Geotechnics. --- or did you just throw that in as a red herring?

Did you read the article ?

The Atlantic is a very serious, conservative 150 year old periodical that is not given to promoting someone's desire for 15 minutes of fame. If you don't want to read the article and comment on the contents.thereof, then leave it alone for those that do.

[tigermonkey]

Another day passes with almost no news. Ocean Shield is on its way back to Australia for repairs. As previously noted, Buefin-21 was pulled back in after only 2 hours due to communications issues. The Bluefin was damaged during that recovery process ( blamed on choppy seas) and repaired with spares on board Ocean Shileld. When relaunched, It was discovered that Bluefin's transponder was not working, and perhaps also that on Ocean Shield. Ocean Shield will meet the spare parts arriving by air from England, and hopefully repairs will be successful.

Meanwhile Zhukezhen a Chinese survey ship, remains in the search area mapping the sea bottom, to prepare for the private sonar search.

It's worth noting at this point that the area searched by Bluefin to-date does not include the areas close to the first-detected pulses (pings) on April 5 which were of longest duration ( 13 minutes and more than 2 hours). These areas are presumed to be greater than 5000 meters deep and as such, are beyond Bluefin's capabilities.

Edited May 16, 2014 by tigermonkey

[boomerangutang]

I have as many deep sea search vessels in my back yard as China has. In other words; zero.

China wants to be taken seriously on the world stage It's building up its armed forces at a frenetic rate, but doesn't have a functioning underwater probe? What happens if one day, they've got to search for something important under the waves. Is it going to ask a favor of Washington or London?

Or, Bob forbid, they've got to do a rescue operation on one of their disabled subs? ....or there's a problem at one of the oil rigs they're planning to set up all over the S. China sea, in other peoples' sovereign territory.

[F4UCorsair]

"Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong."

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/

A very interesting and technical article about the Inmarsat analysis and conclusions. The people involved in the article are heavyweights in this field, and in no way blowhards or publicity seekers. They do not seek to discredit Inmarsat but to try to understand their conclusions and arcs.

They have even added additional elements, such as doppler shift between the satellite and Inmarsat's Australian ground station, which actually made Inmarsat's results more credible. However, they still struggle to overcome many inconsistencies and reach the same conclusions as Inmarsat.

A very good read if you have the time to digest it all.

The guy from GeoTechnics claimed heavyweight status too, but couldn't find a WW2 sunken warship!!

There are a lot of pretenders in the world, all of them chasing their 15 minutes of fame....that may or may not be the case here, but people are who they tell others they are until proved otherwise.

Which one of the people involved in this is the "guy from Geotechnics" ? I can't find any linkage between any of them and Geotechnics. --- or did you just throw that in as a red herring?

Did you read the article ?

The Atlantic is a very serious, conservative 150 year old periodical that is not given to promoting someone's desire for 15 minutes of fame. If you don't want to read the article and comment on the contents.thereof, then leave it alone for those that do.

That's a hostile response tm.

I don't need, or want, to read the publication, but if that changes, I'll let you know.

Regardless of what I say/post, it doesn't, and never will, interfere with others desire to do so.

I wasn't commenting on the contents thereof, and I didn't say, or even infer, that the guy from GeoTechnics was part of the A team. He held himself out to be an expert, found metals in the Bay of Bengal that were compatible with the structure of an airliner, but was discredited by everybody from reputable scientists down to the office cleaner. HE was seeking 15 minutes of fame, and hasn't been heard from since.

Those who want to read the conservative 150 year old periodical may now do so without any interference from me, and without feeling guilt.

Edited May 16, 2014 by F4UCorsair

[ignis]

Guess they will find it one day, has not a Ship just be found lost 500 years ago ?

[draftvader]

Please read that article carefully. Inmarsat are a world leader in their field of satellite communications and really can be respected for what they have tried to do with the available data. All they have done wrong here is to offer to crunch the numbers on fairly sparse data. This is not a standard procedure for their people and is based off their staff's individual desires to help out. Inmarsat has presented their thoughts as being an option but has always maintained that the interpretation was based off minimal data and their results were best theory. Being that nothing else was forthcoming the governments and the media spun this out to a desperate public if only to keep them off their backs or raise their ratings. In short "we", the interested public, are partly to blame for the interpretation of this data and reliance on it.

I still find it amusing that if you flip the data it ends up West of Kunming on the border of China and Myanmar allowing the plane to have flown through a VERY low density primary radar area. This is the same Kunming that suffered the horrendous stabbing attack at the railway station a week or so before the plane disappeared. This was a separatist group that is (quite understandably when you are told, as an example, to live on Beijing time even if that means the sun doesn't rise until 1pm in the winter) annoyed with Beijing and trying to make a point. If you understand that this satellite sits on a "generally" geostationary orbit above the equator then you also know that there is still a chance the interpretation is good but suffers from the lack of positive or negative information.

This theory holds as much weight as any other and, without any evidence (as is the case), can be considered equally to all others (including Diego Garcia, Inmarsat analysis, Afghanistan or simply crashing).

In short we now know that we don't know anything at all. How frustrating, but alluring, is that?

[tigermonkey]

"Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong."

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/

A very interesting and technical article about the Inmarsat analysis and conclusions. The people involved in the article are heavyweights in this field, and in no way blowhards or publicity seekers. They do not seek to discredit Inmarsat but to try to understand their conclusions and arcs.

They have even added additional elements, such as doppler shift between the satellite and Inmarsat's Australian ground station, which actually made Inmarsat's results more credible. However, they still struggle to overcome many inconsistencies and reach the same conclusions as Inmarsat.

A very good read if you have the time to digest it all.

The guy from GeoTechnics claimed heavyweight status too, but couldn't find a WW2 sunken warship!!

There are a lot of pretenders in the world, all of them chasing their 15 minutes of fame....that may or may not be the case here, but people are who they tell others they are until proved otherwise.

Which one of the people involved in this is the "guy from Geotechnics" ? I can't find any linkage between any of them and Geotechnics. --- or did you just throw that in as a red herring?

Did you read the article ?

The Atlantic is a very serious, conservative 150 year old periodical that is not given to promoting someone's desire for 15 minutes of fame. If you don't want to read the article and comment on the contents.thereof, then leave it alone for those that do.

That's a hostile response tm.

I don't need, or want, to read the publication, but if that changes, I'll let you know.

Regardless of what I say/post, it doesn't, and never will, interfere with others desire to do so.

I wasn't commenting on the contents thereof, and I didn't say, or even infer, that the guy from GeoTechnics was part of the A team. He held himself out to be an expert, found metals in the Bay of Bengal that were compatible with the structure of an airliner, but was discredited by everybody from reputable scientists down to the office cleaner. HE was seeking 15 minutes of fame, and hasn't been heard from since.

Those who want to read the conservative 150 year old periodical may now do so without any interference from me, and without feeling guilt.

Sorry there was no intent to be "hostile"

[mcfester]

I haven't followed this for a couple of weeks, have they found anything conclusive yet?

Apart from the pingers they detected has there been any actual physical evidence, floating debris etc?

[tigermonkey]

I have as many deep sea search vessels in my back yard as China has. In other words; zero.

China wants to be taken seriously on the world stage It's building up its armed forces at a frenetic rate, but doesn't have a functioning underwater probe? What happens if one day, they've got to search for something important under the waves. Is it going to ask a favor of Washington or London?

Or, Bob forbid, they've got to do a rescue operation on one of their disabled subs? ....or there's a problem at one of the oil rigs they're planning to set up all over the S. China sea, in other peoples' sovereign territory.

Wrong. China has many. Among them are Quianlong, their deepest AUV at 6,000 meters and Jiaolong, their deepest manned submersible at more than 7,000 meters. There is also a large thriving industry of ROV manufacturers and suppliers supporting various underwater efforts, such as oil and gas.

[tigermonkey]

I haven't followed this for a couple of weeks, have they found anything conclusive yet?

Apart from the pingers they detected has there been any actual physical evidence, floating debris etc?

Nothing !! They are in the midst of negotiating with private contractors to take over the long term search.

[P45Mustang]

I have as many deep sea search vessels in my back yard as China has. In other words; zero.

China wants to be taken seriously on the world stage It's building up its armed forces at a frenetic rate, but doesn't have a functioning underwater probe? What happens if one day, they've got to search for something important under the waves. Is it going to ask a favor of Washington or London?

Or, Bob forbid, they've got to do a rescue operation on one of their disabled subs? ....or there's a problem at one of the oil rigs they're planning to set up all over the S. China sea, in other peoples' sovereign territory.

Wrong. China has many. Among them are Quianlong, their deepest AUV at 6,000 meters and Jiaolong, their deepest manned submersible at more than 7,000 meters. There is also a large thriving industry of ROV manufacturers and suppliers supporting various underwater efforts, such as oil and gas.

Possibly true. But China does have a long history of telling the people of China, and the outside world, what it wants them to hear, does it not?

Bluefin looks as though it is not up to the task. Why not ask China to help with it's kit?

Great PR for the PRC if they find it, plus closure for the bereaved.

[hawker9000]

Once a plane is in a hangar, it just needs a quick coat of paint and a new sticker job did it can hide in plane sight. See what I did there.

No, I don't think so. Intelligence agencies, Boeing, and actual '777 owner/operators, working together could easily correlate data and identify any "odd one out".. Buying, owning, and operating a 777 isn't like buying a used chevy (nor is stealing one...).

While you could definitely not get away with hiding a 777 in plain sight for very long, paint job or no paintjob, I don't discount the possibility that with payments to the right people, a 777 might be routed and hidden clandestinely for some time. But I think that possibility grows more remote with each passing day. (Govts & their intel services know how to pay for information and have pretty deep pockets, too.)

Who said anything about buying, owing, operating? If it is on the ground, it is parked and disguised, and almost certainly in a hangar. You don't think they would be out doing joyrides do you? I am talking about some remote Afghani or other Islamist controlled airstrip. Or else something like Diego Garcia. Not an international airport. And even then there are only two scenarios. The plane either has one flight left, or it is being torn down and scrapped.

You should've read my entire post.

Again, no chance of hiding a 777 "in plain sight" simply by painting it. I SAID you MIGHT get away with hiding it in a hangar somewhere for AWHILE, but eventually word would leak out. Fewer than 1200 in existence, and I'll bet Boeing knows the owner and operator of every single one. If one turned up somewhere with a bogus registration no. painted on it, or a duplicate r-no., or NO r-no., it would stand out like a sore thumb.

Strip one down in order to part it out? Well, I guess that's possible. 'Much of a black market for 777 parts these days?

Edited May 16, 2014 by hawker9000

[Gulfsailor]

Once a plane is in a hangar, it just needs a quick coat of paint and a new sticker job did it can hide in plane sight. See what I did there.

No, I don't think so. Intelligence agencies, Boeing, and actual '777 owner/operators, working together could easily correlate data and identify any "odd one out".. Buying, owning, and operating a 777 isn't like buying a used chevy (nor is stealing one...).

While you could definitely not get away with hiding a 777 in plain sight for very long, paint job or no paintjob, I don't discount the possibility that with payments to the right people, a 777 might be routed and hidden clandestinely for some time. But I think that possibility grows more remote with each passing day. (Govts & their intel services know how to pay for information and have pretty deep pockets, too.)

Who said anything about buying, owing, operating? If it is on the ground, it is parked and disguised, and almost certainly in a hangar. You don't think they would be out doing joyrides do you? I am talking about some remote Afghani or other Islamist controlled airstrip. Or else something like Diego Garcia. Not an international airport. And even then there are only two scenarios. The plane either has one flight left, or it is being torn down and scrapped.

You should've read my entire post.

Again, no chance of hiding a 777 "in plain sight" simply by painting it. I SAID you MIGHT get away with hiding it in a hangar somewhere for AWHILE, but eventually word would leak out. Fewer than 1200 in existence, and I'll bet Boeing knows the owner and operator of every single one. If one turned up somewhere with a bogus registration no. painted on it, or a duplicate r-no., or NO r-no., it would stand out like a sore thumb.

Strip one down in order to part it out? Well, I guess that's possible. 'Much of a black market for 777 parts these days?

It all depends on the price of the parts. I would be happy to fork out a few thousand baht for one of the RR engines. A great way to get rid of all the leaves in the garden!

[boomerangutang]

I have as many deep sea search vessels in my back yard as China has. In other words; zero.

China wants to be taken seriously on the world stage It's building up its armed forces at a frenetic rate, but doesn't have a functioning underwater probe? What happens if one day, they've got to search for something important under the waves. Is it going to ask a favor of Washington or London?

Or, Bob forbid, they've got to do a rescue operation on one of their disabled subs? ....or there's a problem at one of the oil rigs they're planning to set up all over the S. China sea, in other peoples' sovereign territory.

Wrong. China has many. Among them are Quianlong, their deepest AUV at 6,000 meters and Jiaolong, their deepest manned submersible at more than 7,000 meters. There is also a large thriving industry of ROV manufacturers and suppliers supporting various underwater efforts, such as oil and gas.

Possibly true. But China does have a long history of telling the people of China, and the outside world, what it wants them to hear, does it not?

Bluefin looks as though it is not up to the task. Why not ask China to help with it's kit?

Great PR for the PRC if they find it, plus closure for the bereaved.

Ok, I probably should have inserted the word 'operational' before 'deep sea search vessels' in my missive above. China lost the most people in the missing plane, and has apparently been livid all along. If they have any operational deep sea vessels that can be of assistance, why aren't they in use?

[P45Mustang]

Exactly what I was wondering.