Malaysia Airlines loses contact with plane carrying 239 people

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with a plane with 239 aboard enroute from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The airline said in a statement early Saturday it was attempting to locate the Boeing 777 after it lost contact with Subang Air Traffic Control at 2:40 a.m. It was scheduled to land in Beijing at 6:30 a.m.

China's state-run news agency Xinhua reported the plane was lost in airspace controlled by Vietnam, and did not make contact with Chinese air traffic controllers.

The plane is carrying 227 passengers, including two infants, and 12 crew members. The airline said it is working with authorities to locate the plane.

Boeing said on its Twitter account it is monitoring the situation, and "our thoughts are with everyone on board."



http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03...ing-23-people/









Malaysian jet probe sharpens focus on passengers, crew as new clues emerge


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03...-indian-ocean/

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

They actually found pieces (including a seat cushion) of the air france flight the very next day.

Right.

It just took them 2 years to recover the black box.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Right.

It just took them 2 years to recover the black box.

in a search area that was only 80 miles in diameter.

MH370 is over 100,000 square miles.

[GloryDayz]

This thread has the potential to be the longest thread in CP history.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Right.

It just took them 2 years to recover the black box.

Hefs point is whats actually bugging me... it may have taken forever to find the black box on the Brazil to France flight, but they were atleast finding wreckage soon afterwards.

This deal hasn't yielded a single, solitary scrap of evidence.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by scott free

Hefs point is whats actually bugging me... it may have taken forever to find the black box on the Brazil to France flight, but they were atleast finding wreckage soon afterwards.

This deal hasn't yielded a single, solitary scrap of evidence.

The area being searched is literally 1500 times larger than the area they were searching during the Air France disaster...

[AussieChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Do I think they landed softly? Not at all. Just saying it's possible to land in water soft enough that people can survive it.

Even in the middle of the Indian Ocean? The Hudson's water is almost still and there's emergency services everywhere. Not so much in the middle of the ocean.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by AussieChiefsFan

Even in the middle of the Indian Ocean? The Hudson's water is almost still and there's emergency services everywhere. Not so much in the middle of the ocean.

I don't think he means 'survive' as in 'being rescued'. I think he means that passengers could have been alive on the ocean's surface after a water landing. I think that's certainly possible, but only if the pilot decided that he wanted to live. If you're coasting down and getting to landing speeds 50 feet above the water to do a water landing when you run out of fuel, you could put it down. It's been done. If you're still cruising at 30,000 feet when you run out of fuel, I think you could still do it, but it's going to be more difficult.

But is it possible that passengers survived long enough to get into rafts? I would think so. I doubt that it happened, but it's possible.

[AussieChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I don't think he means 'survive' as in 'being rescued'. I think he means that passengers could have been alive on the ocean's surface after a water landing. I think that's certainly possible, but only if the pilot decided that he wanted to live. If you're coasting down and getting to landing speeds 50 feet above the water to do a water landing when you run out of fuel, you could put it down. It's been done. If you're still cruising at 30,000 feet when you run out of fuel, I think you could still do it, but it's going to be more difficult.

But is it possible that passengers survived long enough to get into rafts? I would think so. I doubt that it happened, but it's possible.

True. But even still, aren't the waters of the south Indian ocean some of the roughest in the world? It'd be real tough to even waterland, I reckon.

[Smed1065]

Lesson is they have no clue, unless its same then its drugs, sorry, should have been.

tHEY ARE are always right ... etc... Its ok that half do no realize, until it's too slated

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Flying's not so bad. Crashing is the part that's bad.

[durtyrute]

So, when do we get to kill people. When things like this happen, we wreck shit. So, let us wreckith it.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I don't think he means 'survive' as in 'being rescued'. I think he means that passengers could have been alive on the ocean's surface after a water landing. I think that's certainly possible, but only if the pilot decided that he wanted to live. If you're coasting down and getting to landing speeds 50 feet above the water to do a water landing when you run out of fuel, you could put it down. It's been done. If you're still cruising at 30,000 feet when you run out of fuel, I think you could still do it, but it's going to be more difficult.

But is it possible that passengers survived long enough to get into rafts? I would think so. I doubt that it happened, but it's possible.

Correct. Surviving the crash itself <> surviving for a month in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

[BlackHelicopters]

There are no survivors

[Chief Roundup]

Wondering what new regulations this incident is going to cause.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Smed1065

Lesson is they have no clue, unless its same then its drugs, sorry, should have been.

tHEY ARE are always right ... etc... Its ok that half do no realize, until it's too slated

Ahh, good ol' Smed. His posts make even TommyKat go