Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Considering China's prominence/influence in the world, it's only a matter of time...Could terrorists now be going after China?
Considering China's prominence/influence in the world, it's only a matter of time...Could terrorists now be going after China?
Except you're wrong about the second time, too, and even a cursory study of the facts and basic logic will quickly expose the fallacy of your conclusion.
JKG
If it was all about oil, why was the Royal Navy doing the same role back in Nelson's day (when the only oil in demand was whale oil) as the US Navy is today?How so? Our oil companies' exploitation investments were sitting there not paying off because the sanctions we had against Sadam, and he wouldn't capitulate so we could lift them and get oil flowing out of those wells again making money; so we killed him. We supported him in the Iraq
Iran war; hell, we put him in power. Our wars for the last century have been about securing oil flow, even the War on Terror, that's all over oil money and the perceived damage it has caused to their society. Even the Cold War was a remnant of a grudge match over Caspian oil fields and keeping Seven Sisters investment out. Of course that restriction ended with the Cold War and now our foundation companies have all gotten in.
According to a former Mechanic buddy of mine, Malaysia is not known for excellent maintenance, specifically corrosion protection issues.
No aircraft that goes unmaintained/poorly maintained will last forever. Even the 747 has had large panels unzip due to Mx practice (taking several rows of seat with it into #3 - although the plane made it back).
My initial opinion, with the very limited data so far is either a structural failure (possibly a catastrophic unzip while in cruise configuration - although the 777 has an excellent safety record), or terrorism (bomb).
The challenge with either of those scenarios is the presence of a cohesive oil slick, it if came apart at FL350 I would not expect even 5 hrs of fuel for a trip-7 to create a noticeable slick - would seem to be more likely with an impact type accident but would then expect maybe some debris.
An AF447 type accident where they essentially flew it from FL410 to the ocean in a deep stall should not be possible in a Boeing product (different control laws).
It is really an interesting and tragic situation. Prayers to familes and friends.
'Gimp
Only one AFAIK. Military guys in waters they weren't supposed to be in and who couldn't tell the difference between an F14 and an A300. Brilliance all the way around.
Here is some information about Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, commander of MH370.
Who among us would not have enjoyed swapping stories with this pilot?
My initial opinion, with the very limited data so far is either a structural failure (possibly a catastrophic unzip while in cruise configuration - although the 777 has an excellent safety record), or terrorism (bomb).
The challenge with either of those scenarios is the presence of a cohesive oil slick, it if came apart at FL350 I would not expect even 5 hrs of fuel for a trip-7 to create a noticeable slick - would seem to be more likely with an impact type accident but would then expect maybe some debris.
Looks like he was a pretty good sh*t, I like his homemade sim. Might have to try that myself.
I'm sure you could do it on your I-phone or cockpit MFD now, but the impertinence associated with your stellar hindsight might still leave you sadly unenlightened.
I am a salty old Navy veteran and well remember the incident that downed Flight 655, tragically killing 290 pilgrims headed for Mecca.
Imagine you are A Reagan-era Captain of a Navy Cruiser with a robotic new "Star Trek" missile defense system. You, and all other Captains in this hostile zone who are equipped with this missile system are acting responsibly and keeping this system on "safety" so an international incident does not occur.
But an Exocet missile is fired from an Iranian F-14 and the cool new robot missile systems do not get switched on in time to save the lives of sailors killed on a sister ship, USNS Stark. Congress is not happy and they destroy the career of Captain Brindel of the Stark. Then Iran sets mines which severely damage the USNS Bridgeton and the USNS Samuel B. Roberts, killing even more Americans.
Navy Flag Command changes the rules of engagement. The robot missiles are set "with one in the breach and a finger on the trigger".
You are in a hostile zone and charged "First and foremost" with the safety of your crew. In a dark CIC, you are told the aircraft in question is a descending jet (it was climbing) and the ICC (on an intensely cluttered 12 in screen) says it is a military aircraft . High stress, life or death time. The trigger can't be "un-pulled", but you have also buried your dead.
Would you really have done a "better job" than Captain Rogers did?
You need to check your "facts" regarding the Stark and the capabilities of Iranian F-14s. So much for the claim of "old salt".
If you really are a 'salty old Navy veteran', then why on earth are you referring to those ships as USNS???I am a salty old Navy veteran and well remember the incident that downed Flight 655, tragically killing 290 pilgrims headed for Mecca.
Imagine you are A Reagan-era Captain of a Navy Cruiser with a robotic new "Star Trek" missile defense system. You, and all other Captains in this hostile zone who are equipped with this missile system are acting responsibly and keeping this system on "safety" so an international incident does not occur.
But an Exocet missile is fired from an Iranian F-14 and the cool new robot missile systems do not get switched on in time to save the lives of sailors killed on a sister ship, USNS Stark. Congress is not happy and they destroy the career of Captain Brindel of the Stark. Then Iran sets mines which severely damage the USNS Bridgeton and the USNS Samuel B. Roberts, killing even more Americans.
Navy Flag Command changes the rules of engagement. The robot missiles are set "with one in the breach and a finger on the trigger".
You are in a hostile zone and charged "First and foremost" with the safety of your crew. In a dark CIC, you are told the aircraft in question is a descending jet (it was climbing) and the ICC (on an intensely cluttered 12 in screen) says it is a military aircraft . High stress, life or death time.
This statement is 100% untrue and shows your lack of understanding of the Aegis (and standard missile) weapon system.The trigger can't be "un-pulled"
'Out of control' might be a little extreme, but it is probably fair to say he was leaning a bit too far forward in the saddle. It has been said by some of his contemporaries that he was looking for a fight so to speak and that is what got him into the engagement with the Iranian gunboats.+1. The navy had a problem on their hands with that captain. If i recall correctly, there was another captain in the area who publicly spoke of the fact he was out of control!
Yes, KAL007 flew into airspace they had no permission to enter, and after 9/11 it's hard to argue the potential of an airliner being used as a weapon.
...
Of course KAL007 was flying straight and level at a normal altitude for a cruising airliner. In no way was it behaving like a physical threat to anything.
The Soviets shot it down as it was about to exit their airspace.
Not at all like 9/11.
I think the consensus on both sides now is that someone in Moscow thought it was a Rivet Joint.
Again, justifiable shoot. If KAL had not been there, they would not have been killed. The were in airspace denied them.
Just an idea, maybe take the ****ing match to another thread???
Latest on Malaysia is possible debris spotted and radar data may suggest a 180 prior to loss of signal.
'Gimp
Just an idea, maybe take the ****ing match to another thread???...
I agree, STFU.
And where in the world is this d@mn plane?!?
I'm sure I'm stating the obvious, but if that plane actually landed anywhere, we would have heard from them by now (whether it was mechanical failure related or terrorist related).
I would think if the plane broke up in flight, someone would have found at least a single piece of debris by now.
Maybe it was a Sully Sullenberger type landing in the water, but the plane sunk so fast there was no trace of it above the water?
I dunno, but there are at least 239 famillies that would really like some answers.
The wreckage and slick have been found, major maritime OP underway.
Zowie! I am IMPORTANT!!!Up to now, no one had earned a spot on my "ignore list".
That has changed.
really? I'm only going based on cnn.com but I haven't seen any reports of wreckage found...???
Zowie! I am IMPORTANT!!!
Glad my posts were deleted; shows what these clods think of the
1st Amend.
FTFY.Zowie! I am IMPOTENT!!!
Why would you think that numbers in a little book correlate with making mistakes? This morning my wife's nephew and I flew my B200 up to his weekend home to check on a reported broken water pipe. Taking the runway I forgot to turn on the strobes. Midway there he responded to a handoff for another aeroplane. Then I bounced the landing in an embarassing way. My nephew and I probably have >50,000 hours flight time between us. Yet we make "rookie mistakes" which are in fact just "mistakes" as all pilots make.They had combined captain and first officer flight time of over 20,000 hours, so pilot error would seem unlikely.
RIP
Why would you think that numbers in a little book correlate with making mistakes?
Because the evidence shows they do. Those particular "numbers in a little book" designate flight experience, which empirically does correlate with a much lower frequency of catastrophic error per unit of flight time.
Taking the runway I forgot to turn on the strobes.
Midway there he responded to a handoff for another aeroplane.
Then I bounced the landing in an embarassing way.
But since you're using words like "evidence" and "empirically", can you link to a study that clearly shows a correlation between total flight hours and catastrophic error?
Sure, here's one example:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/10/874.full
In comparison with pilots with less than 5,000 total flight hours at baseline, 5,000–9,999 total flight hours at baseline had a 57 percent lower risk of crash involvement (relative risk = 0.43, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.21, 0.87). However, an additional increase in total flight time was not associated with any further reduction in crash risk (figure 1).
Sure, here's one example:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/10/874.full
From what I can tell, that study says that pilots with 0-5,000 hours are more likely to be involved in a crash than those with 5,000-10,000 hours.
Actually the crash risk increases above 10,000 hours.
It is my understanding that there is a statistical danger zone from about 150-500 hours of flight time and above that, total experience does not seem to play a big factor in accidents.