A Simple Explanation

I guess that you do not grasp the math here.

If your ONE lighted buoy box were 100 times easier to find than one flotation device then with over 300 flotation devices on board and countless lighter than water pieces of insulation, clothing, plastic, etc. were not found the addition of little blinking lights will not help. You still have not explained at all how something deliberately made to fall off when a plane falls into water can survive the plane to water impact. Remember the sparse evidence implies that this was not a speed reduced splash down like the ditching into the Hudson many years ago.

OK forget the LEDs, but (AFAIK), none of the "over 300 floatation devices" you mention has an RF location beacon.

And like many good ideas, mine (I've discovered) is not original:

"DRS Technologies has manufactured ejectable recorders since the 1960s, and they are installed on military F/A-18C, D, E and F model aircraft. The recorders eject from the plane automatically when triggered by an impact sensor or the use of an ejection seat. When ejected over water, the recorders then float until found."

source:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/12/ejectable-recorders-plane-crash-data-voice-black-boxes/6338397/

Where can i get one for my wife´s car?

Now if they each had a seawater activated battery and an IR LED, only on when its dark, a sea scan with an IR sensitive camera could pick them up from miles away AND relatively cheap.....

Maybe even a satellite could do it cheaper and quicker.....there are IR sensitive sats that can scan the whole earth in a day........

With the bad luck Boeing's been having, there'd be a recall for ejection seats going off unexpectedly. But at only a nickel, hey I'd sent a few people up on my own dime........ (A dime, That's two people right?)

I think you'd have a heck of a hickey on your noggin from the roof of the fuselage, LOL! ...and watch out for those jet engines - getting sucked into one of those will ruin your day if the fact that you're traveling at 590 mph doesn't getcha ;).

That's what I said earlier...and all the seat cushions have orange life vests under them. With 300 seat cushions and life vests floating, not to mention tons of insulation, one would think that they'd have spotted something by now if it went down in the ocean.

Good point, but I suspect that they can only search for "big bits".....just a thought!!

They're finding fishing net debris in the Indian Ocean. I doubt that the size of the debris is the problem. The problem is the size and conditions of the search area. Then there's also all of the other flotsam and jetsam not from this plane that they also find.

You mean they should make the black box out of cement????? How would they call it then, the grey box?

No, they'd paint it black first, then orange.

We're getting silly now. It must be all the CO we're breathing.

Ahh, breathing CO2reminds me the good old days when planes smelled like brothels because of the cigarette smoke! Braniff Boeings painted in pop-art colours by Andy Warhol, stewardesses wearing uniforms designed by Emilio Pucci

The obvious problem to me is any part easy to be stripped off from a crashing plane is likely to not survive the impact in the first place.

In order to be certified for flying pilots have to perform and approve regular training programs on flight simulators. My pilot friend (who is a guy that loves his job) just came back from his latest flight simulator course. During the dinner I mentioned in the OP, he told me how difficult it is to face complex and unexpected flight situations, and how little time there is to solve them on the only possible way. On his latest training session, after a normal take off, the instructors programmed the simulator to reproduce the events that caused the ditch of flight 447 from Air France in 2009. My friend, who had read a lot about it over the time said he got completely surprised by all the unexpected and complex events that happened within seconds, that included lots of contradictory information displayed by the instruments of the plane, tenths of warning lights blinking at the same time, automatic voice prompts from the plane to do the weirdest things, the computers of the Airbus taking command of the plane doing what should not be done...along with the feeling that something terribly wrong was happening. He said he managed to deal with this situation because some corner of his brain recalled Flight 447, leading him to do what had to be done only a few seconds before getting to the no return point.

As far as the floating debris that everyone seems to think should be easy to find...remember US Air flight 1549 that LANDED in the Hudson river? Was no debris in the river that I remember. IF somehow the plane actually LANDED in the ocean, and then SANK...no debris.

I still say GPS trackers on the plane would be a good, easy and inexpensive solution to tracking airliners. I did see one "expert" that said they were considering that for the "black box". Put it on the plane. You find the plane, and the box is either on it or close.

Knowing where the plane is/was, makes it a better case to get rescue personnel in the right area soonest.

I won't speculate on what happened here, because there are just too many variables, and not enough facts.

The Hudson was also a river not an ocean.

Ocean swells are quite a bit different, also with judging distance on touch down.

Here is a video of all that is known, up to today, of this flight, including a video. As it is BBC News, they do not speculate, just the full facts as known at this time.

I found it very interesting that the plane apparently made several unplanned changes of course, avoiding some countries, as though it was being "flown" by a human being.

This disproves, to me personally anyway, most of the "theories" about CO for example.....

Make your own judgements:-

bbc news world-Asia 01042014

easily the best collection of "fact" I've seen, thanks so much Andy

I agree with Fredski, this is a good collection of known facts without any speculation clouding a discussion. I am surprised that the time and location stamp of the "goodnight" radio contact was not included. The two turns shown in the BBC video do agree somewhat with a possible intended landing at the airport that Lyn's link provides. Judging by the distances traveled and the time stamps from the report, the second turn was about an hour after the first turn.

a human was flying that plane an made those turns and any altitude changes...Im still in the hijack camp

I'm still in the hijack camp too. Whoever hijacked it could have subsequently cut off the oxygen supply to the cabin from the cockpit also. The next logical question would be why? There could be many reasons for someone to hijack a plane; including ransom demands (not looking like that is the reason), escape from impending personal threat, smuggling of payload and planned assassination or kidnapping of someone on the plane (we know little to nothing about the passengers). I think it was hijacked and later crashed or is in hiding somewhere in some sort of black operation related to politics or organized crime. Maybe someone else knows the amount of fuel the plane was carrying for the originally intended trip and the corresponding distance possible for that 777 to travel. That's my Sherlock Holmes theory based upon known data at this point.

It was carrying enough fuel to get it to the scene of the crash, somewhere in the Indian Ocean.

You can't steal a plane that large without someone seeing it.

Even if it landed in a middle eastern desert? (I do agree that it most likely crashed too).

I don't think it could get to the middle east undetected.

Also jets gobble fuel at lower altitudes, so flying "under" the radar isn't likely.

You need at least 7,000 feet of good runway to get one of these on the ground in one piece. Airports that big just aren't that plentiful. And SOMEONE would see-and-tell.

Then there's the issue of finding 50,000 gallons of jet fuel to re-fuel it. That puts the take off roll at 10,000 feet. Less if empty and pushed to the limit.

All pure speculation on my part. Fuel/runway are pretty close to specs.

This story if kind of old, but it says that a 777 needs 5000 ft. of straight flat ground to land and 9000 ft. to take off, but that it could land in a desert. It also pinpoints all the places it could conceivably have landed. (I guess I'm not as novel in my ideas as I thought, lol). It couldn't make it to Iran, for example, but perhaps to an area in S.E. Asia that has Muslim sympathies? Or possibly somewhere else for a completely different reason???

www.businessinsider.com/runways-where-malaysia-plane-could-land-2014-3

I think a desert landing is remotely possible, but highly improbable for a half million pound aircraft with 14 tires.

I've had my macho 4 wheel drive truck stuck in sand enough to know how sticky it can be. I live in the AZ desert. It would NEVER get off the sand, ever. The engines would self destruct due to sand ingestion long before it moved even 100 yards, if it moved at all.

Like I really know for sure................................

I never like to say never, but the sat pings have proved to most people, me included, that the aircraft flew into the southern Indian Ocean, one of the loneliest bits of water on this planet. Nowhere on land.

The only ones that really like it down there are round the world sailors who like the "roaring 40's" as the winds revolve there with little or no land to stop them, eg. great, fast sailing!!! With gigantic waves.....

This video below shows this Guy is moving like a train, on a big yacht with only 2 square meters of sail!!! A little over 2 square yards!!!!

See that on this video for example:-

Sailing around the world solo by roaring forties. Alain Kalita.

I would suspect there was a set reason for an aircraft to go there.......even if it was only ignorance!!!

You said:- "I'm still in the hijack camp!"

I hope not, we need you here!!!!!

Joking apart, I am still of the Hijack or "rogue pilot" opinion....certainly whoever flew this plane (if that was true) knew more than the average person about what to turn off and how to fly.......keeping a modern jet in the air while making course changes......not simple?

Same as the 9/11 training school?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The personal greeting that SHOULD NOT be made on an aircraft:- " Hi Jack!"....

Say "Hi John" instead.......

Too funny, Andy! I hope I never run into a friend called Jack on a plane, LOL!
I agree that whoever was flying the plane was knowledgeable and you are right that 911 proved that someone can learn how to maneuver a jet in the air with a lot less training than a seasoned pilot. Landing a jet is a lot more difficult. If it were hijacked and safely landed, whoever was at the helm would have to be a trained 777 pilot, I would imagine, especially if it landed in a desert, make-shift air strip or road. It most likely did crash into the ocean. It just seems odd that all that floating debris hasn't been found yet.

You write a great post, thanks.

Dilbert had once a similar "happening"!!!

I bet many of us here are thinking along those lines......eventually we may even learn what actually happened.

If I hijack a plane for X reasons, I would like the entire world to be aware of it: before ditching I would shout a political / religious message over the radio.

if that plane reappears you might get your wish in the form of a flying bomb

Yes, you are right! Besides to that, it would be a triumphant return, cause you would be remembered for ever and ever (by the good and the bad guys).

until wreckage washes up on a shore somewhere or is pulled from the ocean I'm still in the hijack camp, but I gave up on all the souls that were on board(-hijackers)

And to think this whole ordeal and all this expense and suffering could have been avoided if only the Malaysian military had its head screwed on right and dispatched a fighter to find out why 370 went dark and was heading out to sea.

I think when its all said and done there will be an entire chain of spots in the sequence where this could have turned out to be a different story, including your valid point

Its the one thing that drives me crazy about this Fredski. What kind of human being just sits and watches 240 people fly off into one of the most remote and inaccessible place on the planet. What kind of people would do that?

This is the take away lesson and it needs to be repeated loudly and often so that all those little 19th century countries get a clue. There are reasons for the proceedures and practices that we have established. It saves lives!

Due to your bad grammar/punctuation, the meaning of the first sentence can be taken two ways.....one good one bad......for Fredski!!

Any thoughts on this, anyone? Smacks of hoax, to me, but....

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/must-go-viral-blockbuster-this-is-accurate-and-now-100-percent-confirmed-hijacked-ibm-engineer-successfully-dialed-out-of-diego-garcia/

give me a break

These things usually get exposed pretty quickly, but I haven't spotted a rebuttal yet (maybe no-one can be bothered).

The rebuttal will only come when (or if) the aircraft is found.

I would really like for all the passengers to be safe somewhere..........but its most unlikely....

Must say, the more I read it, the worse it sounds.

Why People Believe In Conspiracy Theories

Can we please get a little Occam's Razor? Just a little?

If the US government wanted a 777 for some purpose (the claim, based only on the lengthy URL provided, is that the plane landed at Diego Garcia), then "they" would buy one, or steal an empty one. "They" wouldn't take a foreign-owned airplane full of foreign passengers out of the air.

Do I really need to continue to poke holes in that drivel?

Lynn, please note that my post was in response to the link posted to the article claiming that people who believe in conspiracy theories are mentally compromised, not the Diego Garcia link. I never implied in any way that the U.S. government needed to hijack a 777. My point was simply that conspiracies do and have occurred throughout history (all over the globe) and to state that everyone who believes in conspiracy is a lunatic is ridiculous. If a theory is unfounded, then I prefer to dissect it logically and legitimately instead of dismissing it by personally attacking its supporters in order to suppress it. Those are the type of tactics used in spreading propaganda and dirty politics ;).

What you say is fair and I apologize for assuming you were stupid enough to actually speak in favor of that particular conspiracy theory.

The SciAm article I linked explains why far too many people believe modern fairy tales, not why more intelligent people believe merely unlikely conspiracy theories. I think it's useful to discuss and analyze the insanity of those believing the former type. Fortunatley, they are few in number on this site.

You are SOOOO right!!

But, you have to remember that "simpler" folk than you or I, simply WANT to believe in such conspiracies. It is a factor of reduced IQ, not low, shall we say just average......

The same people that buy and read the Sunday papers about landing on the moon conspiracies, area 51 etc etc etc.....

Neither you or I, nor many of the people here, can change that.....so we would be wasting our time in trying....even though you are RIGHT!!!

Don't forget that Millions of $$$$$$ are made each year selling such "conspiracy" stories......you can't stand in the way of such a business.....

Have a great day.

I agree that some theories are ridiculous; however, it is lack of information and mistrust that lead to conspiracy theories in the first place. 14th century Occum's razor is a fine principle in that if simplicity provides a feasible explanation, then in some cases, it is best applied in the interest of economy (while maybe not providing the correct answer). In this 21st century world of geopolitical, technological, economic and legal complexity, is it wise to apply Occum's razor so soon, especially when some variables of the equation don't seem to make sense (ie: where is all the debris) and the disappearance or deaths of so many are involved? Would the original post explain the lack of debris if there was a fire aboard that was sustained for a long enough period of time to incinerate everything inside the fuselage or would the plane have crashed before such a fire could do that? I am certainly no expert on that one. I must disagree; however, that low IQ or mental instability should be ascribed to theorists, no matter how offending or unbelievable their theories may seem, unless and until the theory is disproved logically.

I never understood that it was a conspiracy, I just thought we wanted to increase coffee consumption in the New World!!

tea was the drink of the day when Yanks weren't disguising themselves as Indians

I did not say a "LOW IQ" as you appear to have understood, I said "NOT LOW" - slight difference......read it again!!!!!! SLOWLY!!!

I wrote:- "It is a factor of reduced IQ, not low, shall we say just average......"

Now people who only understand half of a post, or the opposite of what it actually says MAY be those with a low IQ.......Just a thought!!!!

Average means MOST of the population but not all of those on CR4!!!

Wikipedia says here:-

Intelligence_quotient

By this definition, approximately 95 percent of the population scores an IQ between 70 and 130, which is within two standard deviations of the mean.

Did you know that?

I've only been tested once as a kid.........128

Andy, Andy, Andy, LOL! We can play the semantics game (or perhaps it is a language barrier?), but that is pretty silly, don't you think? I believe what you were stating is that you are too intelligent to believe conspiracy stories and that those who do must have a lower intelligent quotient, correct? BTW, I'm not sure what "reduced" IQ is, unless one's IQ drops from a previously higher number (ie: from a closed head injury or some other form of brain damage)? - Thus my assumption that you meant a lower IQ. Forgive my interpretation. I don't claim to be Einstein, but I do see value in logic and prefer to remain open minded until the facts are all in ;). That is all I am saying. BTW, did you know that Steven Hawking believes in intelligent life outside of our earth? I hope I'm not missing something in the haste of my busy day.

May we include people who go for alternative medicine, or those who learn Reiki during a weekend and start "curing" cancer patients the next monday?

Of course!!

Wild story making........

About as good a theory as them flying into a time vortex!

I don't really like the "pilot Hijack" theory. I tend to want to believe that the crew gave their lives in an heroic attempt to save the plane and its passengers.

But I am still a little concerned. I looked at pictures of the captain over that last couple of years. In the most recent ones it seems to me at least, that the right side of his face seems a bit frozen. That would, to my mind, indicate a stroke had occurred.

I know from experience that strokes are devastating and almost always hidden by other issues. You usually don't "know" you've had one except for the lingering after effects. Unless of course it was the "big one". It can also cause drastic personality changes that may not immediately surface or be noticed.

This is just an observation. I do not want this in any way to be a taken as blaming the crew, who as I stated at the outset, I believe were true heros.

as someone who has survived a brain hemorrhage and 3 brain surgeries and lives with a paralyzed left side I utterly reject your suggestion.

Fredski, I don't discount your objection. I feel you sir. I too suffered a stroke two years ago and was not aware it had occurred for over a year although the subtle changes in my function had been noticed by my spouse who finally got me to go check it out.

Boy was I surprised.

I've been away for a couple of days and just back to pick up the thread to find the plane that is still missing.

Every now and again, when I run out of sensible ideas, I have a break from vertical thinking and (with my son) go into a session of ridiculous ideas. Sometimes the emerging ideas, as stupid as they are, trigger a line of thought that could lead to a sensible solution.

Such as, it was a plot by a couple of pilots to steal the aeroplane to start their own airline company. in it together with them a plane full of staff.

Please don't respond with reasons why the idea is wrong. I know it is. The exercise is to compound the idea to make it even more ridiculous.

We were always taught that when you speculate everything is fair game otherwise you risk cutting off possible lines of explanation. Plus raw speculation, as noted, often turns up valid ideas for exploration.

It called scientific method if I remember right.

You can't discount anything when you know nothing. I live in a very strange world where thing go wonky so fast it makes my head spin. People go off the chain all the time for no apparent reason. Things go wrong even with our best efforts. And unfortunately we are learning that even today, everthing that happens can't always be logically explained.

Thats just the condition of the world we live in. Right or wrong it is what it is.