^ This. He thinks for himself, has great imagination, and he doesn't react when poked repeatedly. More power to him
Well he's certainly got an active imagination....
'Contact lost' with Malaysia Airlines plane
- Thread starter Domo
- Start date
Well he's certainly got an active imagination....
As schizotypal as he is, that is not uncommon these days, I don't have a TV or read the newspapers they are pretty irrelevant in the days of the internet.
Could still be a malfunction, the crew could've become hypoxic as the pressure slowly dropped in the aircraft, hence the erratic flight behaviour, there was even an accident in Australia where the ATC were talking to the pilot whilst his brain was turning to mush as he was became hypoxic. clicky clicky
Care to back that claim up with some facts?
Because all the evidence I've seen so far points to the fact that there never was a Flight MH370.
It's impossible for a plane to just "disappear" with all the technology we have these days, so the only possible explanation is that it didn't exist in the first place.
This is all just an elaborate ploy to keep us in fear; fear of "terrorists", fear of the unknown.
See... I can do crazy too...
That would only apply in a situation like the Helios flight where the problem existed from takeoff.
It could have developed a problem in the air and slowly depressurised.
But the transponder was turned off before the normal communication, and the plane (supposedly) changed course shortly after the last communication, and then continued to make navigational changes hours later, that contradicts the idea that what happened was the result of slow depressurization. The plane is also equipped with an alarm for cabin pressurization.
Last edited:
I still keep wondering, why is a transponder even allowed to be turned off...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...-off-switch/v1lykvbYZC7XD81RQed4vN/story.html
^ Well that answers my question!
Still seems silly that it can be done. Would be a bit like being able to turn off the flight recorder. As for electrical problems, in this day and age I would expect some sort of failsafe circuit to exist that shuts things down automatically rather than having to rely on the pilot.
Still seems silly that it can be done. Would be a bit like being able to turn off the flight recorder. As for electrical problems, in this day and age I would expect some sort of failsafe circuit to exist that shuts things down automatically rather than having to rely on the pilot.
Last edited:
Yes, i agree that it's unlikely from the evidence available - but it cant be ruled out purely on the fact that they had already reached 35000ft safely.
If there was some kind of widespread electrical failure which took out the comms systems, i guess it's possible that the pressurisation alarm also failed?
If that was the case, the crew may not realise (a lack of oxygen doesnt induce faster breathing)
You can. Why is it silly that the ability exists to shut down faulty equipment? Let's face it, the pilots can do whatever the hell they want to the plane, why limit their ability to deal with problems that arise in-flight?
Failsafes don't always...
And sometimes a human can register something is odd before it trips a preset alarm.
Most systems on an aircraft have breakers, but they only trip when the current exceeds the limit for a set period, to have a system that can detect all forms of fault would require much more complexity and thus introduce a chance of new and additional faults.
For example if the crew smell hot/burning plastic they might want to try isolating the cause by turning off non essential things before a breaker trips (at which point potentially damage has been done to other systems if it's down to an overheating/intermittently shorting wire).
The system at the moment allows for the pilots to at least have a chance of dealing with a problem the aircraft designers may not have thought of, as has been demonstrated when a safety system (part of collision avoidance I think), over-rode the pilots of one of the newer Airbus designs during a flyby a few years back, and it crashed because the programmers hadn't thought to allow for that situation, and so it decided it knew better than the pilots (and in 99% of cases would have been right).
I think after that crash the design/programming was changed so the pilots got a specific warning what was happening (rather than a general one), and they got trained how to override it,
Also no matter what you do, if the pilot or someone with a detailed knowledge of the aircraft wants to do something to disable a system they probably can, even if it means physically damaging it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,305
- Location
- 2
Can we get back to the real business of CTs then ? 
Can we get back to the real business of CTs then ?
Aliens abducted it to give Shergar something to chase.
They will be putting fake wreckage in the sea later that they made out of Lego, and will put cloned dead bodies in a different sea to mess with everyone's heads.
Their fatal mistake will be not getting to colouring of one of the suitcases right. There will be a long drawn out argument over the effects of sea water on fabric colours, but eventually the truth will prevail due to this one oversight.
Is this really possible - to effectively hack the plane and remotely control it from the ground?
If so, then it could have shadowed Keith Ledgerwood's SIA68 theory (for example)...
Dunno how easy it would be to land though.