# The missing 777 Malaysian plane



## cave76 (Mar 20, 2014)

When when it ever be found? Or  not.

Here's a bit of news from today (Mar 20) 

_"two large objects bobbing in a remote part of the Indian Ocean were part of a possible debris field of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.
One of the objects spotted by satellite imagery had a dimension of 25 meters (82 feet) and the other one was smaller."_

Could those be parts of the wings, which  might float? And if they can, for how long?

But this statement struck me as funny:

_"while cautioning that the objects could also be seaborne debris along a key shipping route where containers periodically fall off cargo vessels."_ 

Australia: Malaysia Airlines Plane Search Finds Objects Possibly Related To Missing Jet


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 20, 2014)

Good thread there cave.

There are several theories floating around out there depending on whom you listen to.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 20, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Good thread there cave.
> 
> There are several theories floating around out there depending on whom you listen to.



I look forward to other theories from members here. Maybe that will redeem our collective brain power even if we can't figure out what that pesky tool is for that Step asked about? 

http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/f88/can-you-identify-this-tool-89025.html

How about this? That tool unlocks the transponder on the Triple 7?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 20, 2014)

Okay I will bite.

Terrorists hijacked the plane. They took control of the plane, decompressed the cabin and killed all the passengers, while they were relatively safe in the pilot bay.
Or they took the plane to 45,000' and allowed all to go to sleep (except them) forever. 

They then took the plane to a terrorist country, hid it in a airplane hanger and at this very moment are retrofitting it with many pounds of explosives for a big show. 

I am surprised someone hasn't blamed the President yet.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 20, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Okay I will bite.
> 
> Terrorists hijacked the plane. They took control of the plane, decompressed the cabin and killed all the passengers, while they were relatively safe in the pilot bay.
> Or they took the plane to 45,000' and allowed all to go to sleep (except them) forever.
> ...



Oh, they'll get around to that, I'm sure! After all, what's the fun of having a President if you can't blame him or her for all the woes in your life!

Oh, and your idea sounds almost as good as others floating around! Or better. Or the right one.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 20, 2014)

I actually heard this from the internet.  So who knows.  A mystery for sure.
Do you have a theory?


----------



## cave76 (Mar 20, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Do you have a theory?



Not yet---- I'm trying to keep an open mind and it's hard to if I have a theory! But I love dissecting and discussing theories.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 20, 2014)

cave76 said:


> When when it ever be found? Or not.
> 
> Here's a bit of news from today (Mar 20)
> 
> ...


 Adds a whole new dimension to the saying "It fell off the back of a lorry"


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 20, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> I actually heard this from the internet. So who knows. A mystery for sure.
> Do you have a theory?


The plane crashed and the crew and passengers escaped and found themselves in a lost Tibetan valley, cut off from the world and from time. (With apologies to James Hilton.)

Or perhaps 777 was abducted by Martian spheres. (Ok, I'm listening to a re-run of a 1950s BBC radio serial called "Journey Into Space")


----------



## taxlady (Mar 20, 2014)

They went through a wormhole. I saw that one.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 20, 2014)

Mad Cook said:


> Adds a whole new dimension to the saying "It fell off the back of a lorry"



Or "The Front Fell Off"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-QNAwUdHUQ


----------



## cave76 (Mar 20, 2014)

Here's a few theories about the loss of contact with air traffic controllers:

1. It lost contact with the air traffic controllers because the equipment at the air controllers facility was old and faulty. 

2. The air traffic controllers were busy posting selfies on Facebook

3. The controllers were drunk or stoned.

But the plane is still up there looking for some sober controllers who can land them safely---- in Roswell NM.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 20, 2014)

As I posted in another thread here I still believe the plane, crew, and passengers were abducted by aliens.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 21, 2014)

Local Bermuda Triangle area...


----------



## GB (Mar 21, 2014)

They have said those things they saw floating could not be anything from the plane. Anything that big from a plane would not be buoyant. The only things that would float would be much smaller like seat cushions. 

The best theory I have heard so far is that there was a fire in the cockpit. One procedure in that situation is to shut down everything. They turn everything off just so that is why the transponder was turned off. The 90 degree turn was due to the pilots turning towards the closest airstrip they could use for an emergency landing. The fire quickly grew and the pilots passed out or were overcome by the flames and the plane went into the ocean.

This is just one possible theory. I am sure I did not get all the details of it spot on. This theory came from another pilot so I am sure I missed some of the other details, but this very simple theory seemed to make a lot of sense to me. A lot more so than a black hole at least.

My personal view is that the plane is at the bottom of the ocean. I do not think it is terrorists or any other elaborate theory.


----------



## Rocket_J_Dawg (Mar 21, 2014)

I'm afraid the passengers and crew from Malaysia flight MH370 are with the passengers and crew of Northwest flight 2501.

Northwest Airlines Flight 2501 (DC4) | Michigan Shipwreck Research Association


----------



## cave76 (Mar 21, 2014)

A seemingly plausible explanation on Wired by a pilot.
It's fairly long and I couldn't decide what portion(s) to excerpt.

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 21, 2014)

GB said:


> They have said those things they saw floating could not be anything from the plane. Anything that big from a plane would not be buoyant. The only things that would float would be much smaller like seat cushions.



One person I heard commenting on that said it could be plane parts and other debris tangled together with cabling, etc. The satellite image didn't have a high enough resolution to be able to tell what it was.



GB said:


> The best theory I have heard so far is that there was a fire in the cockpit.



That one made sense to me, too, but other pilots are skeptical. This page includes a link to the original theory: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-missing-plane-fly-for-hours-after-deadly-fire-2014-3

Edit: The original theory is the same thing cave just posted.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 21, 2014)

@GG---- we must have been posting at the same time. (grin) Same theory, different media.


----------



## GB (Mar 21, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> One person I heard commenting on that said it could be plane parts and other debris tangled together with cabling, etc. The satellite image didn't have a high enough resolution to be able to tell what it was.


What they could tell from the imagery though was the size and the prevailing thought (from what I have read) is that something that big would not be able to be kept afloat like that just from being tangles in some debris. it is simply too much mass.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 21, 2014)

I agree that the satellite images are not parts from the plane.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 21, 2014)

He'll be the first to spot it...


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 21, 2014)

GB said:


> They have said those things they saw floating could not be anything from the plane. Anything that big from a plane would not be buoyant. The only things that would float would be much smaller like seat cushions.
> 
> The best theory I have heard so far is that there was a fire in the cockpit. One procedure in that situation is to shut down everything. They turn everything off just so that is why the transponder was turned off. The 90 degree turn was due to the pilots turning towards the closest airstrip they could use for an emergency landing. The fire quickly grew and the pilots passed out or were overcome by the flames and the plane went into the ocean.
> This is just one possible theory. I am sure I did not get all the details of it spot on. This theory came from another pilot so I am sure I missed some of the other details, but this very simple theory seemed to make a lot of sense to me. A lot more so than a black hole at least.
> My personal view is that the plane is at the bottom of the ocean. I do not think it is terrorists or any other elaborate theory.



If there was a fire, and they lost the electronics, the plane would have crashed right then.  This plane cannot fly without power.  A loss of the electrical/electronics would be the disaster in itself.
The plane supposedly flew on for several hours.  If this is the case, there had to be a functional electronic system.  Speculating on my part GB.

Like you, I have to go with the obvious. They are all dead and the plane resides on the bottom of the ocean. Hoping to find these poor souls is not going to happen (I wish I believed in miracles).


----------



## GB (Mar 21, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> If there was a fire, and they lost the electronics, the plane would have crashed right then.  This plane cannot fly without power.


That theory came from a certified pilot. He said it is standard operating procedure to throw all the breakers when there is a fire so I must assume that the plane can fly that way and would not just crash. However the other part of his theory was that the pilots were quickly overcome by the fire/smoke/heat whatever, so that it flew for hours is kind of a wrench in that idea.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 21, 2014)

GB said:


> That theory came from a certified pilot. He said it is standard operating procedure to throw all the breakers when there is a fire so I must assume that the plane can fly that way and would not just crash. However the other part of his theory was that the pilots were quickly overcome by the fire/smoke/heat whatever, so that it flew for hours is kind of a wrench in that idea.





Here's an excerpt from the link I posted:



> Other pilots aren't convinced, though. In an interview with Business Insider, Michael G. Fortune, a retired pilot who now works as an aviation consultant and expert witness, said pilots preparing to change destination "would have communicated their emergency and intentions to turn around, as well as ask for assistance and direct routing to a suitable airport from the air traffic controllers very quickly."
> 
> Goodfellow [author of the original theory] also wrote: "in the case of fire the first response [is] to pull all the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one."
> 
> ...



There's a training video on the page that shows how the mask works.

And here's a comprehensive Q&A: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/world/asia/missing-plane-q-and-a/


----------



## GB (Mar 21, 2014)

I don't dispute that other pilots have said that scenario is unlikely. There is at least one living pilot who has said it is a valid theory thought so if one thinks it is valid then it is not out of the realm of possibility that they pilots on this flight would have handled it the same way this one pilot would have.

As to the masks, how do we know that if there was a fire in the cockpit that the masks were not affected?

I am not saying this is what I really think happened, but I do think something like this is much more likely then a black hole or a hijacking at this point.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 21, 2014)

GB said:


> I don't dispute that other pilots have said that scenario is unlikely. There is at least one living pilot who has said it is a valid theory thought so if one thinks it is valid then it is not out of the realm of possibility that they pilots on this flight would have handled it the same way this one pilot would have.
> 
> As to the masks, how do we know that if there was a fire in the cockpit that the masks were not affected?
> 
> I am not saying this is what I really think happened, but I do think something like this is much more likely then a black hole or a hijacking at this point.



I certainly don't have a better theory  Definitely not a black hole, and probably not a hijacking. I just wanted to point out that, while it makes sense to us, who have no direct knowledge of such things, people who are specifically trained in the subject have doubts. I do think that, unfortunately, the plane is likely at the bottom of the ocean and the families may never have answers to what happened to their loved ones. That's got to be hard to live with.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 21, 2014)

It's a rare occurrence to find a theory or scientific fact written by an 'expert' that isn't denied by other 'experts'. 

Example:

_" He [Johnson] spent years examining the studies of flat and round Earth theories and proposed evidence of a conspiracy against flat-Earth: "The idea of a spinning globe is only a conspiracy of error that Moses, Columbus, and FDR all fought…" His article was published in the magazine *Science Digest, 1980*. It goes on to state, "If it is a sphere, the surface of a large body of water must be curved. The Johnsons have checked the surfaces of Lake Tahoe and the Salton Sea without detecting any curvature."_

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 21, 2014)

cave76 said:


> It's a rare occurrence to find a theory or scientific fact written by an 'expert' that isn't denied by other 'experts'.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



Ha ha ha! So funny. So why do we listen to them, quote them, etc.? No good reason, I guess. So I have to wonder why you bother asking these off-topic questions at all.


----------



## Addie (Mar 21, 2014)

And to think I missed all this because anytime word of this plane starts to show up on my TV, I quickly change the channel. And I don't have to strain my brain thinking up theories.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 21, 2014)

cave76 said:


> Or "The Front Fell Off"
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-QNAwUdHUQ


In the UK when someone says something "fell off the back of a lorry" they mean that it was helped off by a less than honest truck driver - in other words "nicked", "pinched" or just plain stolen.


----------



## GB (Mar 21, 2014)

It means the same in the US Mad Cook.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 21, 2014)

cave76 said:


> Here's a few theories about the loss of contact with air traffic controllers:
> 
> 1. It lost contact with the air traffic controllers because the equipment at the air controllers facility was old and faulty.
> 
> ...


Re theory #1, it was said on the news a couple of days ago that the Malaysian air traffic equipment is new and state of the art


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 21, 2014)

The BBC news today said that the last report of sightings in the southern Indian Ocean was actually some days ago and wasn't announced until the reports had been looked into and checked (presumably to make sure the source was what it said it was and the reports were not a hoax),


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 21, 2014)

GB said:


> It means the same in the US Mad Cook.


Oops, sorry. Did I sound patronising? Slang doesn't always cross the ocean very well..


----------



## GB (Mar 21, 2014)

Nope you didn't sound patronizing at all. Just as you didn't know it meant the same in the US, I had no idea it meant that in the UK. We have both learned something today


----------



## cave76 (Mar 21, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> So why do we listen to them, quote them, etc.? No good reason, I guess. So I have to wonder why you bother asking these off-topic questions at all.



I listen to them, quote them because they're there, just like Mallory and Mt Everest. 

I bother to ask off topic questions because that's how my mind works.

And here *you* are, too, asking questions about my questions.
Welcome.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 21, 2014)

Mad Cook said:


> Re theory #1, it was said on the news a couple of days ago that the Malaysian air traffic equipment is new and state of the art



Oh Oh!  You know what happens when things are upgraded---- just like happened here at DC a few days ago. (But I was just making a joke about the equipment and other reasons---- perhaps I hadn't made that clear.)


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 21, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I bother to ask off topic questions because that's how my mind works.



My point is that this is a cooking forum but you seem to be more interested in non-cooking topics. And you like to provoke rather than discuss. 

And I think making jokes about the loss of the Malaysian plane is exceedingly insensitive.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 22, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> My point is that this is a cooking forum but you seem to be more interested in non-cooking topics. And you like to provoke rather than discuss.
> 
> And I think making jokes about the loss of the Malaysian plane is exceedingly insensitive.



Noted. I'm sorry you have that opinion of me.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 22, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> And I think making jokes about the loss of the Malaysian plane is exceedingly insensitive.


Perhaps the alternative is to weep.

I used to think that laughing in the face of adversity (whether your own or someone else's) was an English - well, British - trait. A safety valve, like all those silly films with Will Hay, George Formby et al, during the 2nd WW, making fun of serious aspects of the war. As the New York Times put it in a review of one of the latter's films in October 1940 "....the Britisher's......"thumbs up" attitude in the face of ...... danger". Perhaps it's catching on elsewhere.

And perhaps joking about something unpleasant happening to someone else is relief that it wasn't us it happened to.


----------



## GB (Mar 22, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> My point is that this is a cooking forum but you seem to be more interested in non-cooking topics. And you like to provoke rather than discuss.
> 
> And I think making jokes about the loss of the Malaysian plane is exceedingly insensitive.


Well our tagline is Discover cooking. Discuss life. That is exactly what Cave has done.

Everyone deals with tragedy differently. I don't think Cave was joking at the expense of anyone.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 22, 2014)

Still no sighting of plane or wreckage as of Mar 22 2014

_MH370 Malaysia plane: Australia vows indefinite search

Australia has vowed the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane will go on indefinitely, despite no sightings yet of wreckage in the Indian Ocean._

BBC News - MH370 Malaysia plane: Australia vows indefinite search


----------



## roadfix (Mar 22, 2014)

These jokes and insensitive comments here are downright mild compared to what's talked about on this event on other public forums I frequent.


----------



## Steve Kroll (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm somewhat in agreement with GotGarlic. I can't help but think that if this were an American or Canadian plane that went missing, there would be an outpouring of concern here and absolutely no one would be making light of it. But because it happened on the other side of the world, that somehow makes it fair game. There are still a lot of families out there with missing loved ones who I'm sure wouldn't enjoy seeing posts of this nature - whether on DC or somewhere else. Think of how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot.

Just because it happens on other forums doesn't necessarily make it okay.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 22, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> My point is that this is a cooking forum but you seem to be more interested in non-cooking topics. And you like to provoke rather than discuss.
> And I think making jokes about the loss of the Malaysian plane is exceedingly insensitive.



This is a public forum and as long as the TOS are respected and observed, cave can discuss anything.  This is "Off Topic" section.
Designed for "Off Topic" discussion.



cave76 said:


> Noted. I'm sorry you have that opinion of me.



Don't lose any sleep over the comments.  I like your threads and your posts.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 22, 2014)

Steve Kroll said:


> Just because it happens on other forums doesn't necessarily make it okay.



I absolutely agree.  
But on the other hand if people find these comments offensive the mods have every right to close, delete, or sanitize these threads.  I have no problem with that.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 22, 2014)

"Malaysia Airlines has confirmed that two Canadians were onboard a missing plane bound for Beijing."

Malaysia Airlines flight missing with 239 people, including 2 Canadians | CTV News

My heart felt sympathy goes out to the families of those two Canadians AND to the families of the other passengers.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 22, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Don't lose any sleep over the comments.



Don't worry, I don't. And thank you.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 22, 2014)

Humor in the face of tragedy is Human...This was told to me by an Alzheimer's Disease Victim:

"I love Alzheimer's, I get to hide my own Easter eggs"  also "I make new friends every day"...I know she heard these somewhere else, but it's her attitude towards her disease that makes her fun to be around.

My thoughts, prayers and good vibes go out to anyone experiencing tragedy, but the dark humor is my release valve for sorrow.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 23, 2014)

_"*First visual sighting
*
The first visual sighting of objects that might be linked to the plane boosted search operations on Sunday.
Australian officials said a wooden cargo pallet, along with belts or straps, was spotted Saturday in a remote stretch of the southern Indian Ocean that has become the focus of an intense international search in recent days."
_

Missing Malaysian jet MH370: New French satellite images | GulfNews.com


----------



## bakechef (Mar 23, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> Humor in the face of tragedy is Human...This was told to me by an Alzheimer's Disease Victim:
> 
> "I love Alzheimer's, I get to hide my own Easter eggs"  also "I make new friends every day"...I know she heard these somewhere else, but it's her attitude towards her disease that makes her fun to be around.
> 
> My thoughts, prayers and good vibes go out to anyone experiencing tragedy, but the dark humor is my release valve for sorrow.



I was raised this way.  I like the analogy of a "release valve".  When my grandmother had breast cancer and lost one breast, her nick name became "Lefty".  Doom and gloom doesn't seem healthy.  Finding humor in tragedy doesn't mean that we care less, it seems more self preservation.  If we don't allow some levity in tragic situations, it's easy to be consumed with sorrow.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 23, 2014)

I don't remember anyone making jokes about the Boston Marathon bombing. I think Steve is right - it's easier to joke about something that happened on the other side of the world.


----------



## bakechef (Mar 23, 2014)

It happens, it always happens.

There isn't any right or wrong here.  It's what is right or wrong to you.  Any time that you hang out in a public space, there will be opinions that differ from yours, and you will only make yourself frustrated trying to convince everyone to share your opinion.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 23, 2014)

bakechef said:


> It happens, it always happens.
> 
> There isn't any right or wrong here.  It's what is right or wrong to you.  Any time that you hang out in a public space, there will be opinions that differ from yours, and you will only make yourself frustrated trying to convince everyone to share your opinion.



I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just responding to comments in this thread.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 23, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> I don't remember anyone making jokes about the Boston Marathon bombing.


Neither did I on this forum but I did read people joking about it elsewhere.





GotGarlic said:


> I think Steve is right - it's easier to joke about something that happened on the other side of the world.


At least with me, I agree with this.  I generally tend not to joke about tragic events closer to home.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 23, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> I don't remember anyone making jokes about the Boston Marathon bombing.



It's to your credit that you didn't seek out or read any  of the 'jokes' brought on by that bombing. But they were made (and in the U.S.).


----------



## cave76 (Mar 23, 2014)

bakechef said:


> It happens, it always happens.
> 
> There isn't any right or wrong here.  It's what is right or wrong to you.  Any time that you hang out in a public space, there will be opinions that differ from yours, and you will only make yourself frustrated trying to convince everyone to share your opinion.



So true.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 23, 2014)

"A cracking and corrosion problem on Boeing 777s that could lead to the mid-air break-up of the aircraft prompted a warning from air safety regulators weeks before the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, federal records show."

"It warned that one operator of the jet “reported a 16-inch crack” in the skin of the fuselage on an airplane that was 14 years old with approximately 14,000 total flight cycles.”

The missing Malaysia Airlines jet, registration 9M-MRO, was 12 years old and had completed 7,525 cycles, the airline said.

It was not immediately clear if the airline had already begun to implement the extra checks as part of its maintenance routine. The airline said the missing aircraft was serviced on February 23, with further maintenance scheduled for June 19."

"The FAA directive on cracks applies to all Boeing 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and -777F series airplanes. *The missing jet is a 777-2H6/E*R."

FAA Warned of 'Cracking and Corrosion' Problem on Boeing 777s - NBC News


----------



## cave76 (Mar 23, 2014)

Yet another theory:

"While a cyberattack is believed to be among the less-likely scenarios being considered by investigators for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370, Boeing and the U.S. FAA have already initiated moves to prevent the hostile takeover of any 777 model by unauthorized access to critical systems and data networks from the passenger cabin.

Boeing declines to comment on specific aspects of the MH370 investigation, but company sources say the earlier vintage of the in-flight entertainment and other connectivity systems of the missing 777-200ER mean the potential threat from a cyberattack is thought to be negligible.

Even so, recently issued FAA special conditions—which became effective for the 777-200, -300 and -300ER in November—are designed to address a potential loophole in the safety standards, which has emerged with the recent development of onboard network systems that connect the increasingly sophisticated passenger services computers with those hosting previously isolated critical aircraft systems and data networks."

I haven't taken the time to unravel the wording in this article to find out if the safeguards were taken BEFORE this particular plane took off or* is in the process *of having loopholes for all all types of triple 7s 

Boeing, FAA Cut 777 Cyber Vulnerability


----------



## GB (Mar 23, 2014)

My thoughts on what happened can be summed up in two words...Occam's razor.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 23, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> I don't remember anyone making jokes about the Boston Marathon bombing. I think Steve is right - it's easier to joke about something that happened on the other side of the world.



I heard many tasteless jokes after the bombing...maybe because we live way over here?  Dunno, but I won't repeat them.


----------



## GB (Mar 23, 2014)

I live just a few miles from where the bombing happened and heard enough jokes to fill a book so I am not really sure about the theory that its easier to joke about something on the other side of the world really works for me.


----------



## Addie (Mar 23, 2014)

bakechef said:


> I was raised this way.  I like the analogy of a "release valve".  When my grandmother had breast cancer and lost one breast, her nick name became "Lefty".  Doom and gloom doesn't seem healthy.  Finding humor in tragedy doesn't mean that we care less, it seems more self preservation.  If we don't allow some levity in tragic situations, it's easy to be consumed with sorrow.



BC, when my granddaughter's other grandmother had to have her toes amputated, her daughter got a toy tow truck, and a Barbie doll. She cut the toes off of Barbie and sat her on the back of the to(e)w truck. Her mother laughed every time she looked at it while she was in the hospital. When she was ready to leave, her doctor asked if he could have it. It sits in his office to this day. And it provides humor for other amputee patients.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 23, 2014)

GB said:


> My thoughts on what happened can be summed up in two words...Occam's razor.



I'm sure 
So, what IS the more obvious way?


----------



## GB (Mar 23, 2014)

Sorry that was more a comment on all the crazy theories. I just think it crashed and is at the bottom of the ocean as opposed to being hidden somewhere in an attempt to ransom it back or something crazy like that.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 23, 2014)

GB said:


> Sorry that was more a comment on all the crazy theories. I just think it crashed and is at the bottom of the ocean as opposed to being hidden somewhere in an attempt to ransom it back or something crazy like that.



No 'sorry' needed---- I was sure you were sorta kidding. But you were too fast for me because after I posted I had a better reply or a better one in keeping with the joking flavor------ but since I like the sound of my own fingers on the keyboard I'll say it anyway:

*To GB----- so you think a tiny razor blade could take down a huge plane?*

Cracked myself up, again!


----------



## GB (Mar 23, 2014)

Occam used an unusually large razor cave


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 23, 2014)

GB said:


> I live just a few miles from where the bombing happened and heard enough jokes to fill a book so I am not really sure about the theory that its easier to joke about something on the other side of the world really works for me.



I was talking about on this site.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 24, 2014)

It looks like they may have found the wreckage.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 24, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> It looks like they may have found the wreckage.



That's a_ 'may',_ as I'm sure is understood, but it's hopeful. 

It will sure be good (in a strange way) to know the real story. I'm afraid, though, that all the passengers are dead.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 24, 2014)

So, without any hard physical evidence (yet) the M government makes the announcement that the plane crashed into the ocean.  WTF?


----------



## cave76 (Mar 24, 2014)

roadfix said:


> So, without any hard physical evidence (yet) the M government makes the announcement that the plane crashed into the ocean.  WTF?



Yeah, strange  how crystal balls work! I'm fairly sure (just my non-expert opinion) that it HAS gone down into the ocean----- but.......


----------



## vitauta (Mar 25, 2014)

a mathematical explanation, using satellite signals, triangulation and the doppler effect to determine the missing plane's ultimate crash location in the indian ocean, seems sound and convincing to me. on a human level however, it satisfies no one.  all efforts toward securing the physical recovery of the missing craft should continue in earnest.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 25, 2014)

vitauta said:


> a mathematical explanation, using satellite signals, triangulation and the doppler effect to determine the missing plane's ultimate crash location in the indian ocean, seems sound and convincing to me. on a human level however, it satisfies no one.  all efforts toward securing the physical recovery of the missing craft should continue in earnest.



*I agree!*


----------



## roadfix (Mar 25, 2014)

I agree, academically, that's the area where it went down.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 25, 2014)

vitauta said:


> a mathematical explanation, using satellite signals, triangulation and the doppler effect to determine the missing plane's ultimate crash location in the indian ocean, seems sound and convincing to me. on a human level however, it satisfies no one.  all efforts toward securing the physical recovery of the missing craft should continue in earnest.



I tried to activate my "thanks" button, but some silly pop up screen came up instead!


----------



## CatPat (Mar 25, 2014)

I will believe this when they actually find the fuselage of the plane, the bodies, and the black boxes.

I've been following this story very closely, and my Uncle Nicu is a pilot. He has a small civilian jet, a Cessna Citation. We both agree of this and we are very skeptical.

I will say this; Uncle Nicu and I are very sure that from this, the FAA and the NTSB will issue directives worldwide of all Boeing planes having transponders that CANNOT be turned off, and possibly made inaccessible from the flight deck.

We will see, yes? I can't imagine the horror the families have endured. It makes me cry to even think of this. I can't read an article of this upon the news or see it on TV without tears. It makes me want to hug my friends and family very hard.

With love,
~Cat


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 25, 2014)

CatPat said:


> I will believe this when they actually find the fuselage of the plane, the bodies, and the black boxes...



I wasn't going to comment on this further but I have to answer this 

Check out this story: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/wor...a-airlines-plane-was-lost-20140325-hvme8.html

About finding the wreckage, my husband was an oceanographer and meteorologist in the US Navy; after that, he taught Earth science, meteorology, oceanography, and computer modeling and simulation for many years. He said the Southern Ocean (not the southern Indian Ocean), which surrounds Antarctica, is the most violently active area in the oceans. It's as if there are hurricanes there, everywhere, all the time. All the other oceans feed into it and there are no land masses in it (in the ocean itself) to slow down the currents and the height of the waves, which pack a lot of energy when they smash down onto the surface. 

The plane went down just west of Australia, although they can't be certain exactly where because they don't know the speed it was traveling or how much fuel it had left. But it was heading south and so would end up near the Southern Ocean; then currents would carry it into the Southern Ocean and the debris, whatever might float, would be scattered over hundreds of square miles within a few days. Over two weeks have passed already. That side of the world is moving into winter now, bringing more severe weather, which is already hampering search efforts.

If you have Google Earth installed, look it up. It's pretty amazing. Or look at images from here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Antarctica+and+Southern+Ocean

Sometimes circumstantial evidence is all that's available. I don't believe anything but bits and pieces will be found, if anything.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 25, 2014)

CatPat said:


> I0I will say this; Uncle Nicu and I are very sure that from this, the FAA and the NTSB will issue directives worldwide of all Boeing planes having transponders that CANNOT be turned off, and possibly made inaccessible from the flight deck.



The FAA and NTSB don't have the authority to do this. I'm sure there's some international agency that coordinates these things. And I've read that if there's an electrical fire, it's necessary for the pilots to be able to turn off everything that is electric. I don't know if that's true - can't remember where I read it.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 25, 2014)

Of course, anything electrical can automatically be switched to run off battery power, if cut off.  I'm sure these devices can be modified so they can never be killed.


----------



## GB (Mar 25, 2014)

roadfix said:


> I'm sure these devices can be modified so they can never be killed.


Where there is a will there is a way. EMP would be one way.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 25, 2014)

roadfix said:


> Of course, anything electrical can automatically be switched to run off battery power, if cut off.  I'm sure these devices can be modified so they can never be killed.



No doubt. I know next to nothing about this stuff.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 25, 2014)

GB said:


> Where there is a will there is a way. EMP would be one way.


So, put it in a Faraday cage.


----------



## GB (Mar 25, 2014)

So you open the cage first then set off the EMP.


----------



## Rocket_J_Dawg (Mar 25, 2014)

roadfix said:


> Of course, anything electrical can automatically be switched to run off battery power, if cut off.  I'm sure these devices can be modified so they can never be killed.



When I was in the Air Force all electrical devices had to be shut off before we could commence refuelling. I found this on the internet.

"Basically everything that consumes power on a aircraft can potentially cause interference, short-circuts, or otherwise jeopardize the safety of flight and therefore must be switchable. Sometimes the switch is in the form a button, otherwise by a fuse.

There are several particular reasons that the transponder can be turned off.

If the transponder malfunctions, it may cause interruptions to all ATC surveillance in an area. There have been instances in the past that due to a fault in the transponder it was basically acting as a jammer.

In one particular incident it took a while before the aircraft that caused it was identified and after requesting the pilot to switch of the transponder, secondary surveillance was restored.

Another reason is that when the aircraft is at the gate, the transponder is switched of to reduce the amount of radio transmissions. 100 aircraft on the surface of a large airport can produce a massive Radio Frequency noise, which negatively affect radar systems. When taxiing, radar replies are useful for aircraft identification, hence the transponder is switched on at pushback or engine start."


----------



## cave76 (Mar 25, 2014)

taxlady said:


> So, put it in a Faraday cage.



I had to look up Faraday Cage. So THAT'S what that mesh is in my microwave oven! Now I've learned something new---- at least it's name, not how it works! That's over my head.

I just love discussions like this---- dribs and drabs keep dribbling through.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 25, 2014)

Rocket_J_Dawg said:


> When I was in the Air Force all electrical devices had to be shut off before we could commence refuelling. I found this on the internet.
> 
> "Basically everything that consumes power on a aircraft can potentially cause interference, short-circuts, or otherwise jeopardize the safety of flight and therefore must be switchable. Sometimes the switch is in the form a button, otherwise by a fuse.
> 
> ...



*Do you think that what was written in Aviation Week could be connected to plane crash? (I know nothing about this kind of 'stuff' so my question may be totally off topic.)*

Boeing, FAA Cut 777 Cyber Vulnerability


----------



## taxlady (Mar 25, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I had to look up Faraday Cage. So THAT'S what that mesh is in my microwave oven! Now I've learned something new---- at least it's name, not how it works! That's over my head.
> 
> I just love discussions like this---- dribs and drabs keep dribbling through.


Your car is a Faraday cage. So if you are inside your car, even if it got hit by lightening, provided you aren't touching the metal of the car, you won't be electrocuted by the lightening.


----------



## Rocket_J_Dawg (Mar 25, 2014)

cave76 said:


> *Do you think that what was written in Aviation Week could be connected to plane crash? (I know nothing about this kind of 'stuff' so my question may be totally off topic.)*
> 
> Boeing, FAA Cut 777 Cyber Vulnerability


  I don't believe so. I read the article you posted and yes it's maybe plausible, but I would think Boeing is smarter than to have their entertainment system interlinked with the nav system. However, one thing that has always made me think is, on all the flights we take every year, we have access to the GPS tracking on the consoles (or the tv's) of the planes position. It has always made me a bit uncomfortable. Maybe it's my prior career in the Air Force.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 26, 2014)

taxlady said:


> Your car is a Faraday cage. So if you are inside your car, even if it got hit by lightening, provided you aren't touching the metal of the car, you won't be electrocuted by the lightening.



That would be true to an extent if the car was made completely of metal and constructed in a way to allow electrons to move freely along the outside of the vehicle without penetrating the vehicle.
Most cars would fail this test miserably.
Faraday cages can do little if anything to protect from a direct lightning strike.

The only protection a car can provide from a direct lightning strike is the tires.  They insulate the vehicle from the ground and do not allow the current to pass through the vehicle frame.
There is also a small degree of physical protection from the heat itself.
But make no mistake.
If lightning were to hit your car directly and you are inside the car, the chance of death is very high.  The keyword is "direct strike".

I would rather be in a car during a lightning storm than being outside in it.  But given the choice and knowing the magnitude of a lightning strike, I would prefer to be inside my house away from any windows.

If the car was a good faraday cage, you would not be able to use your cell phone in it.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 26, 2014)

RB, I was taught, when I studied physics, that a car is a Faraday cage. Of course, that was a long time ago and there wasn't as much plastic in the cars. Maybe someone here who is more up to date on this stuff could verify or refute what RB wrote about Faraday cages and cars.


----------



## GB (Mar 26, 2014)

A Farady cage would would absolutely make it so your phone would not work in your car.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 26, 2014)

Okay, I Googled. It seems that a car is a partial Faraday cage. Also, cell phones work better when they are closer to the windows.

Vehicles and Lightning - National Lightning Safety Institute


----------



## cave76 (Mar 26, 2014)

Edward Snowden  had some Chinese lawyers put their cell phones in the fridge so, when meeting with him, there couldn't be any eavesdropping. 

But this guy proved Snowden wrong. OR there just weren't any cocktail shakers available at that meeting. 


Edward Snowden: Can a Refrigerator Function as a Faraday Cage? | MAKE

Full disclosure from the NYT piece referenced:
"Although not all fridges function this way, those constructed with more metal have the potential to serve this purpose."


----------



## Addie (Mar 26, 2014)

When we lived in Texas, we lived in a large trailer. One night there was a bad storm right overhead. A lightening strike hit the trailer. The next morning we went out to look. The whole side of the trailer starting at the top where the electrical was connected to the pole and all the way to the tires, was burnt and cut by the strike. Part of the tires were melted into the ground. I am still not sure what a Faraday Cage is, but I will assume we were in one that night. And I am forever grateful for those tires on that trailer.


----------



## GB (Mar 26, 2014)

Addie, first off, glad you were OK. That must have been very scary. 

Just because something protects you from a lightning strike does not make it a Faraday cage, so your assumption that you were in one is not necessarily true.


----------



## Addie (Mar 26, 2014)

GB said:


> Addie, first off, glad you were OK. That must have been very scary.
> 
> Just because something protects you from a lightning strike does not make it a Faraday cage, so your assumption that you were in one is not necessarily true.



Like I said, I am still not sure what a Faraday Cage is.


----------



## GB (Mar 26, 2014)

Addie said:


> Like I said, I am still not sure what a Faraday Cage is.


Exactly, which is why I was mentioning that your assumption is not a sound one


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 27, 2014)

Addie said:


> When we lived in Texas, we lived in a large trailer. One night there was a bad storm right overhead. A lightening strike hit the trailer. The next morning we went out to look. The whole side of the trailer starting at the top where the electrical was connected to the pole and all the way to the tires, was burnt and cut by the strike. Part of the tires were melted into the ground. I am still not sure what a Faraday Cage is, but I will assume we were in one that night. And I am forever grateful for those tires on that trailer.



Glad you guys were okay.

Since the destruction started at the top of the electrical service, it is entirely possible you did not receive a direct strike. Since you are alive to tell us this, I must assume it was not a direct strike.
The lightning most likely hit the tallest structure in your immediate area. Could have been the pole that serves your dwelling.

This would be evident by the destruction of the electrical service entering the dwelling.
I am afraid that if the lightning had hit the trailer directly, the trailer most like would be destroyed.

Most strikes reported are not actually direct strikes. They are reports from people close by that feel and see the effect of the strike.
Those that live through this, in large part not directly hit by lightning.

Here ya go Addie.  A description of a Faraday cage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage


----------



## roadfix (Mar 30, 2014)

Wow, I didn't realize this about the 777.


----------



## Cheryl J (Mar 30, 2014)

I can't believe some of the banners that are put up on the news...


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Mar 30, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> That would be true to an extent if the car was made completely of metal and constructed in a way to allow electrons to move freely along the outside of the vehicle without penetrating the vehicle.
> Most cars would fail this test miserably.
> Faraday cages can do little if anything to protect from a direct lightning strike.
> 
> ...



You are confusing what happens to a car when it's struck by lightning and the definition of "Faraday cage." In fact when a car is struck by lightning it becomes charged and like charge repels like charge. When the charge builds up high enough it doesn't matter if there are window holes. Your car becomes increasingly distasteful to the lightning and it finds other leakage paths to dissipate in.

I used to work in a Faraday cage when I was a 2-way radio technician. It's basically a copper wire box. Any radio transmissions hit the wire screen ad build up a field that repels the radio waves rather than allowing them through.

Your cellphone works in a car because of the holes where the windows are. They don't generate enough energy to charge up the car and repel the electromagnetic waves.

A lightning bolt is basically a huge electric flow, enough to charge up your car. A cellphone emits weak electromagnetic waves, not strong enough to do anything to prevent escaping from your car.

I'm a professional electronic engineer, or was until I got put out to pasture.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Mar 30, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Okay I will bite.
> 
> Terrorists hijacked the plane. They took control of the plane, decompressed the cabin and killed all the passengers, while they were relatively safe in the pilot bay.
> Or they took the plane to 45,000' and allowed all to go to sleep (except them) forever.
> ...



I too believe terrorists are more likely than not.

However, the altitude readings are so unreliable as to be useless. They came from "skin paints" (the raw radar returns absent transponder data). The truth is that there is no trustworthy means to determine the altitude of the aircraft after the transponder was switched off.

Additionally, there would be no need to climb if the pilot wanted to kill all the passengers. Commercial aircraft travel at about 33,000 feet, far too high for a human to survive depressurization. The oxygen masks are set to drop when the cabin pressure altitude falls below 10,000 feet. But some airports (few, but enough) are above 10,000 feet, so the pilot has a switch to disable the 10,000 foot trigger, to be used at landing at the few airports above 10K feet. (The cabin pressure is routinely adjusted to the altitude of the destination airport during the final phases of the flight.)

A pilot could easily kill all the passengers by throwing the switch that turns off the automatic deployment of oxygen masks at 10,000 feet, and then simply depressurized the cabin. At 33,000 feet most of the people would be unconscious in minute or so, and dead a few minutes after.

No need to climb to a high altitude to kill all the passengers. Easily done at normal cruising altitude by anybody who knows how to fly the aircraft.

BTW I'm a licensed private pilot since the '70s although I've never flown an aircraft with an oxygen system.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Mar 30, 2014)

cave76 said:


> Here's a few theories about the loss of contact with air traffic controllers:
> 
> 1. It lost contact with the air traffic controllers because the equipment at the air controllers facility was old and faulty.
> 
> ...



They lost contact with air traffic control because they flew out of radio range. That was what the "goodnight" was all about. It's a code word ("goodday" and "goodnight"") meaning that I am leaving the frequency and expect no further communications on this frequency. It is used during a hand-over to another ATC facility or when going out of communications area.

Nothing unusual here.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Mar 30, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> If there was a fire, and they lost the electronics, the plane would have crashed right then.  This plane cannot fly without power.  A loss of the electrical/electronics would be the disaster in itself.
> The plane supposedly flew on for several hours.  If this is the case, there had to be a functional electronic system.  Speculating on my part GB.
> 
> Like you, I have to go with the obvious. They are all dead and the plane resides on the bottom of the ocean. Hoping to find these poor souls is not going to happen (I wish I believed in miracles).



Modern aircraft are equipped with multiply redundant systems. For example, the 777 is a "fly by wire" system where the control wheel in the cockpit is not connected to the flight surfaces (ailerons, elevators, rudder) except by data links. The system is triple redundant at all levels, and only one level is necessary to continue control of the aircraft.

All important instruments are duplicated on both sides of the cockpit and are powered by separate systems.

Aw shoot, I hate to keep claiming expertise, but I worked for 4-5 years for RCA Avionics which was purchased and became Sperry Avionics. I designed electronic engine instrument systems.

The aircraft could fly with many of the systems gone, although a total oxygen fire in the cockpit would do a pretty good job of taking down the aircraft very quickly.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 30, 2014)

I'm now leaning towards the terrorist theory.   Also makes for a good movie plot.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Mar 30, 2014)

GB said:


> That theory came from a certified pilot. He said it is standard operating procedure to throw all the breakers when there is a fire so I must assume that the plane can fly that way and would not just crash. However the other part of his theory was that the pilots were quickly overcome by the fire/smoke/heat whatever, so that it flew for hours is kind of a wrench in that idea.



I'm a certified private pilot and I had a mid-air electrical fire enroute between Van Nuys (CA) and Lancaster Fox Municipal Airport, at about 5,000-6,000 feet. As the cockpit filled with smoke I was amazed to see my hand hit the master switch on the circuit breaker panel and turn off everything! I did it without any conscious effort. I didn't even know I could do that. At the same time I opened the little door in the pilot's window to let the smoky air out.

The aircraft was a Piper Cherokee 140. The engine system is totally separate from the rest of the electric system except for the electric starters. It runs on avgas (140 octane IIRC) and has dual magnetos that provide spark to the cylinders to keep them running when all the electrics are switched off.

Long story short, I lived. I turned off all the individual circuit breakers except the radios, turned the master back on and after a few minutes of sniffing, no smell, I contacted Fox and informed them I was inbound and may come in without radio contact. After landing I inspected what I could and found nothing wrong. I turned on everything (on the ground) and nada.

I flew back to Van Nuys and landed, reported the problem to the rental FBO. They said, "Yeah, somebody else had that last week on the same aircraft." I never flew with them again.

Getting back to large transport aircraft, I'm pretty sure you could turn off enough stuff from the cockpit to crash the aircraft, if pointing it at the ground isn't sufficient.



I can't see any scenario that is consistent with any of the passengers surviving. Perhaps crew in the cockpit...


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Mar 30, 2014)

Addie said:


> When we lived in Texas, we lived in a large trailer. One night there was a bad storm right overhead. A lightening strike hit the trailer. The next morning we went out to look. The whole side of the trailer starting at the top where the electrical was connected to the pole and all the way to the tires, was burnt and cut by the strike. Part of the tires were melted into the ground. I am still not sure what a Faraday Cage is, but I will assume we were in one that night. And I am forever grateful for those tires on that trailer.



Being surrounded by aluminum and insulated off the ground is what saved you.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Mar 30, 2014)

Okay to sum it up, my theories:

1. unexplained accident due to design of aircraft

2. intentional hijack by the pilot(s) or passenger(s) or both

2a. unsuccessful hijack resulted in a crash and destruction of the aircraft

3. successful highjack and rerouting to enemy airport to be used as a weapons delivery system at a later date. This is 2a above that succeeded.


----------



## Addie (Mar 30, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Glad you guys were okay.
> 
> Since the destruction started at the top of the electrical service, it is entirely possible you did not receive a direct strike. Since you are alive to tell us this, I must assume it was not a direct strike.
> The lightning most likely hit the tallest structure in your immediate area. Could have been the pole that serves your dwelling.
> ...



We didn't lose our electrical service. It didn't even interrupt television service. No one did except the house down on the corner that burnt down. So how do you explain the large burn through the metal all the way the whole length of the trailer down to the tires?


----------



## cave76 (Mar 31, 2014)

This is not going to make much difference, if any, to solving the mystery or where-abouts of the missing plane.

But WHY bother to correct it? Are they saving someones butt? And which version is the truth? 

*"Malaysia changes version of last words from missing flight's cockpit*
KUALA LUMPUR, April 1 Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:17pm EDT

(Reuters) - The last words spoken by one of the pilots of the missing Malaysian Airlines airliner to the control tower were "Good night Malaysian three seven zero", Malaysia's civil aviation authority said,* changing the previous account of the last message as a more casual "All right, good night*."" 

Malaysia changes version of last words from missing flight's cockpit | Reuters


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Mar 31, 2014)

You are right Cave, it matters not. The new version sounds a little more professional.

It appears to me that it is unlikely we will ever know what happened. Each day, each week makes it more unlikely this will be solved.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Apr 1, 2014)

Greg Who Cooks said:


> You are confusing what happens to a car when it's struck by lightning and the definition of "Faraday cage." In fact when a car is struck by lightning it becomes charged and like charge repels like charge. When the charge builds up high enough it doesn't matter if there are window holes. Your car becomes increasingly distasteful to the lightning and it finds other leakage paths to dissipate in.
> 
> I used to work in a Faraday cage when I was a 2-way radio technician. It's basically a copper wire box. Any radio transmissions hit the wire screen ad build up a field that repels the radio waves rather than allowing them through.
> 
> ...



My point was no matter a Faraday cage (I did not bring that into this conversation) or a bird cage.
A direct hit by lightning is in most every instance a death sentence. The key word is "direct strike".
A Faraday cage cannot do anything to protect in the event of a direct hit by lightning.




Addie said:


> We didn't lose our electrical service. It didn't even interrupt television service. No one did except the house down on the corner that burnt down. So how do you explain the large burn through the metal all the way the whole length of the trailer down to the tires?



Sounds unlikely you could receive this damage to the structure, yet have no interruption of TV and electricity.  
Heck we lose our picture when it snows.....LOL

Addie, no one can guess or assume what happened that night at your trailer home.
But we can accept as fact the lightning strike can destroy most anything in its path.  If it was burned, lightning traveled across the structure with no easy path to earth.  The trailer was off the ground, and possibly still on tires.
This insulates the structure from earth and gives the lightning no where to go.  Thus the burned sections you describe and the daisy chain effect you mention regarding the other structure that did burn down..
Like I said before. Had it hit your house directly, chance are good you would not be here with us to discuss this.


----------



## cave76 (Apr 1, 2014)

Greg Who Cooks said:


> You are right Cave, it matters not. The new version sounds a little more professional.
> 
> It appears to me that it is unlikely we will ever know what happened. Each day, each week makes it more unlikely this will be solved.



You're right on both counts----- It may be years before we even have a glimmer of hope of knowing what actually happened. Even then, it may be filtered through dozens of 'explanations' that could be right or wrong depending on the agency producing them.

And yes, it does sound more professional----- (says cave76, disingenuously and with skeptics hat firmly on. )

I feel sorry for the relatives and friends of the deceased (for it does sound like that's who they are although I will wish for a miracle)

Not only are those people grieving but they have to endure all the tugs and pulls of the media and the governments.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Apr 1, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> My point was no matter a Faraday cage (I did not bring that into this conversation) or a bird cage.
> A direct hit by lightning is in most every instance a death sentence. The key word is "direct strike"
> 
> A Faraday cage cannot do anything to protect in the event of a direct hit by lightning.



You are twice wrong. There are many examples of people being struck by lightning and living, although often with complications. A direct hit is not a good thing but it is not a death sentence.

A good Faraday cage would completely protect you although it would have to be constructed of a good enough conductor to not melt under the energy.

I recommend you do some reading to understand why this works.


----------



## Mad Cook (Apr 1, 2014)

Greg Who Cooks said:


> You are confusing what happens to a car when it's struck by lightning and the definition of "Faraday cage." In fact when a car is struck by lightning it becomes charged and like charge repels like charge. When the charge builds up high enough it doesn't matter if there are window holes. Your car becomes increasingly distasteful to the lightning and it finds other leakage paths to dissipate in.
> 
> I used to work in a Faraday cage when I was a 2-way radio technician. It's basically a copper wire box. Any radio transmissions hit the wire screen ad build up a field that repels the radio waves rather than allowing them through.
> 
> ...


////


----------



## Mad Cook (Apr 1, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> My point was no matter a Faraday cage (I did not bring that into this conversation) or a bird cage.
> A direct hit by lightning is in most every instance a death sentence. The key word is "direct strike".
> A Faraday cage cannot do anything to protect in the event of a direct hit by lightning.


That's interesting. I remember being told in school science, I think, that an aeroplane is an example of Faraday's cage which protects it in a lightning strike. Just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything that you are told at school.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Apr 2, 2014)

Mad Cook said:


> That's interesting. I remember being told in school science, I think, that an aeroplane is an example of Faraday's cage which protects it in a lightning strike. Just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything that you are told at school.



Lightning strikes in passenger aircraft were a common event until the advent of aircraft weather radar and are still not unheard of.

That is exactly why it is common for aircraft lightning strikes to cause no harm to the aircraft, or at least no serious harm.

The lightning hits the aircraft which immediately charges it up. Like charges repel like charges so the lightning finds the aircraft increasingly unsavory. The repulsion is sufficient to prevent the lightning from coming in the windows.

Often there may be a bit of melting where the first bolt strikes the aircraft. On occasion it can mess up radio gear since it has antennas poking out beyond the fuselage.

It is not good for an aircraft to be struck by lightning but it is not a death sentence.

Since the advent of modern aircraft weather radar all commercial aircraft (and everybody else with a brain) avoids weather areas that may include the possibility of lightning strikes.

As far as I know the possibility of weather being involved in the missing 777 has never been mentioned even once in the media.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Apr 3, 2014)

Greg Who Cooks said:


> You are twice wrong. There are many examples of people being struck by lightning and living, although often with complications. A direct hit is not a good thing but it is not a death sentence.
> 
> A good Faraday cage would completely protect you although it would have to be constructed of a good enough conductor to not melt under the energy.
> 
> I recommend you do some reading to understand why this works.



I also have an electronic and electrical background.  
You have totally missed my point.
"A direct lightning strike is very likely to kill anyone directly struck"

Now we all know what a Faraday cage is now and we all know why an airplane can and will endure direct strikes.
But I dare you to take a direct hit and be able to tell me I am wrong three times.  2 times would be all you had left.

People that live through lightning strikes in most every instance were not struck directly. 
Being just in the proximity of the strike can cause severe burns and death.

I have done a good bit of study and work on lightning protection, grounding and bonding of electrical systems.  I know the force of lightning.  I have repaired and replaced many electrical systems due to lightning damage.  
I respect lightning and what it is capable of doing.  To minimize the devastation lightning produces is a serious mistake.
To live through lightning most always requires that you not be DIRECTLY hit by the lightning.



Mad Cook said:


> That's interesting. I remember being told in school science, I think, that an airplane is an example of Faraday's cage which protects it in a lightning strike. Just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything that you are told at school.



You were taught correctly. An airplane is a good Faraday cage inherently.  Just by its construction and the materials used to build an airplane.

Lightning striking a flying Faraday cage is probably the best place anyone could be when lightning strikes.
I know a pilot that told me he has been hit more than once with no issue other than a few burn marks on the fuselage.

There is a big difference being in a plane vs being in a solidly grounded (earthed) building or other structure.
There is a bigger difference being out in the open and having lightning strike.

Bottom line.
Lightning hits you directly, you die.  To live through a direct hit would be like winning the Power Ball Lottery.


----------



## taxlady (Apr 3, 2014)

This poor guy holds the Guinness Record for most lightening strikes survived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Sullivan#Seven_strikes


----------



## cave76 (Apr 3, 2014)

I was just going to ask if the discussion about 'people being killed/hit by lightning' was perhaps a matter of semantics: People having a lightning bolt *actually HIT THEM* or having lightning strike near them and received some sort of injury from that.

Then comes the Wiki record and it does seem as if that poor man actually was HIT by lightning, as least one or two times.

Now, I'm as confused as before. 

But I have to wonder about him:
" *Sullivan had the strength and courage to strike the bear with a tree branch.* He claimed that this was the twenty-second time he hit a bear with a stick in his lifetime.[2]"

HUH? To save some trout?  
I don't call that courage, myself.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Apr 4, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I was just going to ask if the discussion about 'people being killed/hit by lightning' was perhaps a matter of semantics: People having a lightning bolt *actually HIT THEM* or having lightning strike near them and received some sort of injury from that.
> 
> Then comes the Wiki record and it does seem as if that poor man actually was HIT by lightning, as least one or two times.
> 
> Now, I'm as confused as before.



Do not be confused.
Lightning is as deadly as any man made weapon and has the ability to kill.
Like I said before. A direct strike to a person will most likely kill this person.
A strike close by or being in the vicinity of a strike can also kill, severely burn and cause serious trauma from the explosiveness of the strike.

This is where science and peoples recounts of strikes are at at odds.

A lightning bolt can produce over 1 million volts and be hotter than the surface of the sun.
The lightning bolt also has a explosive effect that can destroy most anything in its path.

Knowing these two facts about lightning, it would be fool hardy to consider living through a direct strike.  Is it possible, maybe?  Lottery anyone?

But if you are directly hit (meaning the lightning actually hits you directly and passes through your body to earth, you are a goner).   

The burns and severe physical trauma alone would most likely kill, not counting the electrical force/charge the body could not withstand. Electrocution if you will.

IMO. People that have had multiple encounters with lightning and others who have survived to tell their tale were not direct recipients of lightning.
They were in the close vicinity or proximity of the strike and were injured.
Knowing the difference between a close call and a direct hit would be very hard to gage as those directly hit are not with us any longer to tell us about it.


----------



## Addie (Apr 4, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Do not be confused.
> Lightning is as deadly as any man made weapon and has the ability to kill.
> Like I said before. A direct strike to a person will most likely kill this person.
> A strike close by or being in the vicinity of a strike can also kill, severely burn and cause serious trauma from the explosiveness of the strike.
> ...


----------



## cave76 (Apr 4, 2014)

If no one has any objection ---- should I start another thread for lightning/Faraday cage discussion? I don't care one way or the other and I'm certainly the last person to object to this thread taking a turn away from the plane crash because I'm one of the worst offenders at 'high-jacking' a thread; mine AND others. 

(My mind takes strange turns and twists all the time.) 

*Anyone besides Addie  O.K. with that?* 

Looking at all the comments and then looking at Wiki and other sources continue to keep me confused, no offense to anyone here. I keep wondering if some of the 'records' of people surviving a lightning strike are obfuscated by a loose description of what 'direct' means.



"I don't know anything, but I do know that everything is interesting if you go into it deeply enough."
~Richard Feynman


----------



## roadfix (Apr 4, 2014)

time to move on....


----------



## cave76 (Apr 4, 2014)

roadfix said:


> .  .  .  .  .





Was that a  *yes or a no* as to whether you would prefer the subject of lightning and Faraday cages be moved to another thread?

I'm obfuscated by your comment.


----------



## roadfix (Apr 4, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I'm obfuscated by your comment.



obfuscated.  Now that's a new word for me.  Learned a new word today.


----------



## cave76 (Apr 4, 2014)

roadfix said:


> obfuscated.  Now that's a new word for me.  Learned a new word today.



 Good! But still no answer?? (Reminding you gently) Yay or nay on making a new thread about lightning?


----------



## roadfix (Apr 4, 2014)

cave......It's your thread, you're the boss, your call...


----------



## Roll_Bones (Apr 4, 2014)

Sorry about contributing to the derailment.

I must ask though.  Derailment is quite common in these parts, why the reminder in this thread and for this subject?

Subject closed on my end.


----------



## cave76 (Apr 4, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Sorry about contributing to the derailment.



No need to say sorry as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Apr 4, 2014)

cave76 said:


> No need to say sorry as far as I'm concerned.



Thanks Cave!


----------



## roadfix (Apr 4, 2014)

Another Malaysian Airliner thread I've been following eventually turned into a beer thread.  LOL...


----------



## cave76 (Apr 4, 2014)

roadfix said:


> Another Malaysian Airliner thread I've been following eventually turned into a beer thread.  LOL...



I'll drink to that!


----------



## Roll_Bones (Apr 7, 2014)

Anyone watch the special on TV last night?

It was on MSNBC.  I saw it very late or early this morning if you will. 1:00 AM EST.
Very good, if you have not followed the incident well and had any questions.
Basically brought people like me up to date on everything that has transpired since the plane disappeared.

I am certain it will air again.  Just check your TV listing if interested.


----------

