Malaysian Airliner missing?

Hope for a safe ending to this.
 
Flight has been missing over three hours. Hope it's just a comm problem.
 
From their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/malaysiaairlines

Statement By Our Group Chief Executive Officer, Ahmad Jauhari Yahya on MH370 Incident. Released at 9.05am/8 Mar 2014 MY Local Time

We deeply regret that we have lost all contacts with flight MH370 which departed Kuala Lumpur at 12.41 am earlier this morning bound for Beijing.

The aircraft was scheduled to land at Beijing International Airport at 6.30am local Beijing time.

Subang Air Traffic Control reported that it lost contact at 2.40am (local Malaysia time) today.

Flight MH370 was operated on a Boeing B777-200 aircraft.

The flight was carrying a total number of 239 passengers and crew – comprising 227 passengers (including 2 infants), 12 crew members. The passengers were of 13 different nationalities.


Malaysia Airlines is currently working with the authorities who have activated their Search and Rescue team to locate the aircraft.

Our team is currently calling the next-of-kin of passengers and crew.

Focus of the airline is to work with the emergency responders and authorities and mobilize its full support.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all affected passengers and crew and their family members.

The airline will provide regular updates on the situation.

The public may contact +603 7884 1234. For media queries, kindly contact +603 8777 5698/ +603 8787 1276.
 
The plane would have run out of fuel by now. Reports that it was near China border when contact was lost. AvHerald has comment that it dropped suddenly and swiftly. If airline is mentioning "search and rescue" then this is more than a comms problem.
 
wsuffa said:
The plane would have run out of fuel by now. Reports that it was near China border when contact was lost. AvHerald has comment that it dropped suddenly and swiftly. If airline is mentioning "search and rescue" then this is more than a comms problem.
Click to expand...

I hope for a good ending, but the reality is that it's likely a search and recovery mission.:( Very sad.
 
One of his missiles tracked right through a well traveled jet route just days ago... Its plausible
 
Some of the Asian airlines have been pushing for a Relief CoPilot position that uses individuals with no actual flying time, just sim time. Wonder if this was one of those deals ?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Some of the Asian airlines have been pushing for a Relief CoPilot position that uses individuals with no actual flying time, just sim time. Wonder if this was one of those deals ?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they need....a third person in the cockpit with no idea how to fly.
 
wsuffa said:
The plane would have run out of fuel by now. Reports that it was near China border when contact was lost. AvHerald has comment that it dropped suddenly and swiftly. If airline is mentioning "search and rescue" then this is more than a comms problem.
Click to expand...

If it did crash all of a sudden, I am beginning to feel this accident mirrors the Air France Flight 447 where the plane fell out of the sky. Do you think it has to do with the way Asian pilots are trained? Like the Asiana accident at San Francisco?
 
Most of this doesn't add up. The flightaware track ends over land. Flights on previous days didn't end the track until reaching China - which it appears flightaware can not get info for. The posted news report says ATC lost contact 2.5 hours in but that would put the plane further down the road. Obviously this would not be the first time the news got it wrong.

I suspect it is some form of terrorism.
 
Engine said:
Most of this doesn't add up. The flightaware track ends over land. Flights on previous days didn't end the track until reaching China - which it appears flightaware can not get info for. The posted news report says ATC lost contact 2.5 hours in but that would put the plane further down the road. Obviously this would not be the first time the news got it wrong.

I suspect it is some form of terrorism.
Click to expand...

The statements from the company infer that all aboard were lost. I agree with your sentiments - someone knows what's going on an isn't telling.
 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-03/08/c_133170651.htm

"HANOI, March 8 (Xinhua) -- A Vietnamese official of search and rescue said Saturday that the signal of the missing Malaysia Airlines plane has been detected, local media reported.

The official told local VNExpress that the signal of the plane carrying 239 people has been detected at some 120 nautical miles southwest of Vietnam's southernmost Ca Mau province."

That would put the signal somewhere in the Gulf of Thailand.
 
Confirmed? I read that they landed safely in Nanning China.

(UNOFFICIAL) AFTER Malaysia Airlines released its statement at 9.05am, we were alerted at 9.45am that Flight MH370 had resurfaced and landed safely in Nanming, China. Early reports indicated that the aircraft had experienced a cockpit electronics malfunction, a reliable source told Malaysian Digest.
 
UPDATE [12:37]: Tuoi Tre, a leading daily in Vietnam, reports that the Vietnamese Navy has confirmed the plane crashed into the ocean. According to Navy Admiral Ngo Van Phat, Commander of the Region 5, military radar recorded that the plane crashed into the sea at a location 153 miles South of Phu Quoc island.


Down in the gulf of Thailand it sounds like.
 
They had combined captain and first officer flight time of over 20,000 hours, so pilot error would seem unlikely.

RIP
 
Engine said:
Most of this doesn't add up. The flightaware track ends over land. Flights on previous days didn't end the track until reaching China - which it appears flightaware can not get info for. The posted news report says ATC lost contact 2.5 hours in but that would put the plane further down the road. Obviously this would not be the first time the news got it wrong.

I suspect it is some form of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Flight Aware tracks are often incomplete or erroneous, no conclusions can be made from them.
 
Doggtyred said:
We had the Russians dead to rights on KAL 007... we sent them nasty mail and called them names...
Click to expand...

:confused: How did 'we' have them dead to rights on a Korean flagged flight?
BTW, we have also shot down airliners.
 
Henning said:
BTW, we have also shot down airliners.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That isn't really true, but it was not the Navy's finest hour.
Click to expand...

Well....

Almost every source on the internet states something like:

According to the United States Government, the crew incorrectly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter
Click to expand...

So that seems to be the "official" story. Is there an "unofficial" one that you can share without being nicknamed "snowden"? ;)
 
timwinters said:
Well....

Almost every source on the internet states something like:



So that seems to be the "official" story. Is there an "unofficial" one that you can share without being nicknamed "snowden"? ;)
Click to expand...
There is a little bit more to the story.

The US was engaged in hostilities with Iran (the Tanker Wars) at the time. VINCENNES was involved in a running gun battle with IR patrol boats. And was expecting further action from the Iranians. The Airbus took off from a joint use (military/civil) airport and followed a standard comair profile. It was being monitored/tracked due to the origin point and the fact that it was going to overfly the cruiser. As standard procedure, the cruiser attempted to hail the Airbus on IAD (121.5) which was probably not being monitored on the airliner.

Now, as the Airbus continued to climb toward VINCENNES and the ship was still dealing with the patrol boats, people got sloppy in CIC. Internal comms/procedures...etc. Someone on the CIC tape called out 'he's descending!' No track number....nothing. Just that statement. And that statement combined with the track visually heading toward the cruiser and due to the close proximity, the CO ordered the engagement.

It was later determined that the track display readout on the Air Warfare operators screen had swapped to a US fighter jet that was descending to land on the CVN. In other words, he looked at the visual display of the Airbus while reading the speed and altitude information of a different contact that was 'hooked'. Had the CIC watchstanders followed proper procedure and used track numbers in their transmissions regarding contacts, they would have caught the error.

So, yes, as far as the internet is concerned, they 'mistook' an Airbus for an IR F-14, but as with most things, there is a bit more to the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top