Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is Missing

PanAsian said:

But there are still so many theories to explore! As a continuing mystery I hope one day someone figures it out or by chance it is discovered what happened. But a painstaking search like this without a high degree of confidence is futile and wasteful.

Click to expand...

I agree, and it is difficult for families not to "know", but it might be equally difficult for them to "know"??? its all hard, its just life, and those who fly seem to sense that it is dangerous, it very much is, very dangerous, we are just very good at managing risk, even a small single engine aircraft is inherently risky, just because we have a very good safety record, doesn't mean, that flying is inherently risk free??? does it.

Let me spell it out?
1. MH370
2. Air Asia
3. MH17
4. German Wings

Flying and the Airline Industry have undergone a quantum change, even the anecdotal suspicion that two of these aircraft, more importantly their passengers where killed by "suicidal" pilots??? something is "wrong"? no?

PanAsian said:

Note: I think you meant good *global* citizens rather than corporate citizens, LOL.

Click to expand...

I understand your point but the word used was intentional. The word "corporate" was to distinguish between individuals and a group of individuals which constitute a country and so in effect, corporate here was intended to reflect a country as an entity rather than individuals. It is not about corporate as a commercial enterprise.

PanAsian said:

I mostly agree with what you are saying except that I don't think there is enough information to pass judgement on China's participation or lack thereof, other than the lack of information regarding that.

What is unclear are:
- Has China contributed to the Phase 2 costs at all?
- Have they contributed to the actual Phase 2 searching?
- Is it common practice that whoever lost the most people, in this case China, has a seat at the table regardless of their contribution to SAR?
- Does China have a seat at the table? Reports only mention Australia and Malaysia negotiating, China could just be chiming in without being at the table.
- Is it common practice that wherever a plane is lost the local or nearest nation, in this case Australia, takes on the SAR?
- Has China offered to take on the Phase 2 or future financial burden?
- If they did, were they turned down?

Click to expand...

My comments are based on what was reported in the news rather than infer from what was not reported and drawing speculative views from it. In the end, judgement is based on what is more plausible rather not. For example, it is reported that the cost is shared equally between Australia and Malaysia but China wanted a seat at the table. Is it possible that China offered to share but was rejected because both Malaysia and Australia felt they did not need the funding? If you think this view is more plausible than not we do have very different views of basic logic and deduction.

Brumby said:

I understand your point but the word used was intentional. The word "corporate" was to distinguish between individuals and a group of individuals which constitute a country and so in effect, corporate here was intended to reflect a country as an entity rather than individuals. It is not about corporate as a commercial enterprise.

Click to expand...

I see.

Brumby said:

My comments are based on what was reported in the news rather than infer from what was not reported and drawing speculative views from it. In the end, judgement is based on what is more plausible rather not. For example, it is reported that the cost is shared equally between Australia and Malaysia but China wanted a seat at the table. Is it possible that China offered to share but was rejected because both Malaysia and Australia felt they did not need the funding? If you think this view is more plausible than not we do have very different views of basic logic and deduction.

Click to expand...

If you choose to ignore 6 out of 7 questions I raised regarding lack of information while presuming someone questioning a point means that person supports the opposite conclusion and presuming what was reported by a habitually unreliable press on sensitive topics must be the complete story then I agree we do have very different views of basic logic and deduction especially as to how much presumption it takes to make conclusions dubious.

PanAsian said:

If you choose to ignore 6 out of 7 questions I raised regarding lack of information while presuming someone questioning a point means that person supports the opposite conclusion and presuming what was reported by a habitually unreliable press on sensitive topics must be the complete story then I agree we do have very different views of basic logic and deduction especially as to how much presumption it takes to make conclusions dubious.

Click to expand...

I did not choose to ignore 6 out of the 7 points raised not because I am unable to reply to them but rather I think they are within the preview of what I would consider speculative in the absence of information. I made a general response and took one example from it to illustrate the point. Let's take your first three points in succession :

Has China contributed to the Phase 2 costs at all?
In dealing with this question, I am assuming phase 2 means the phase when an outside party was commissioned to continue with the search. In this respect, what is reported out there is that Malaysia and Australia was sharing the cost. By ordinary meaning of the word, it would mean that China is not contributing. If you wish to raise the possibility that China in some way has made contribution to this phase and the cost, I think the onus is on you to support that notion rather than to leave it as a possibility without any corresponding substantiation.

Have they contributed to the actual Phase 2 searching?
It is irrelevant because phase 2 is contracted out to a third party in which Malaysia and Australia are jointly paying for the services.

Is it common practice that whoever lost the most people, in this case China, has a seat at the table regardless of their contribution to SAR?
I don't know what is common practice especially when you have a missing plane which is unprecedented in history. What I would think the leading driver in cases like this is what constitutes important actions commensurate with vested interest. Given that China lost a disproportionate high share of its citizen in the accident it has significant vested interest. Australia has already extended its goodwill in phase 1 and carried it through to phase 2. Morally in my view it has gone above and beyond its international obligations. In the case of China, whilst I do not have any problem with China having a seat at the table with phase 2 given the background, I do question why China is not picking up a share of the phase 2 cost simply from the standpoint of the nexus between moral obligations and vested benefits.

Brumby said:

I did not choose to ignore 6 out of the 7 points raised not because I am unable to reply to them but rather I think they are within the preview of what I would consider speculative in the absence of information. I made a general response and took one example from it to illustrate the point. Let's take your first three points in succession :

Has China contributed to the Phase 2 costs at all?
In dealing with this question, I am assuming phase 2 means the phase when an outside party was commissioned to continue with the search. In this respect, what is reported out there is that Malaysia and Australia was sharing the cost. By ordinary meaning of the word, it would mean that China is not contributing. If you wish to raise the possibility that China in some way has made contribution to this phase and the cost, I think the onus is on you to support that notion rather than to leave it as a possibility without any corresponding substantiation.

Have they contributed to the actual Phase 2 searching?
It is irrelevant because phase 2 is contracted out to a third party in which Malaysia and Australia are jointly paying for the services.

Is it common practice that whoever lost the most people, in this case China, has a seat at the table regardless of their contribution to SAR?
I don't know what is common practice especially when you have a missing plane which is unprecedented in history. What I would think the leading driver in cases like this is what constitutes important actions commensurate with vested interest. Given that China lost a disproportionate high share of its citizen in the accident it has significant vested interest. Australia has already extended its goodwill in phase 1 and carried it through to phase 2. Morally in my view it has gone above and beyond its international obligations. In the case of China, whilst I do not have any problem with China having a seat at the table with phase 2 given the background, I do question why China is not picking up a share of the phase 2 cost simply from the standpoint of the nexus between moral obligations and vested benefits.

Click to expand...

I think you are being presumptuous twice over by claiming that merely pointing out a lack of information is the equivalent of being speculative, and also equating pointing out a lack of information for one conclusion to being automatic support for another. I don't claim to know one way or the other.

I completely agree with your line of thinking based on moral obligations, vested benefits, and only what the English language press reports. However there are probably rules, guidelines, and/or common practices in handling such situations that we are unaware of. And given the English language press' pattern of skewing stories against China and China's own pattern of lack of transparency we probably don't know the actual extent and nature of China's involvement or non-involvement.

Not sure how the ocean currents work in the Indian Ocean but if this is a piece of MH370 it seems like it travelled further than from point A to point B to get to Madagascar .

AssassinsMace said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Not sure how the ocean currents work in the Indian Ocean but if this is a piece of MH370 it seems like it travelled further than from point A to point B to get to Madagascar .

Click to expand...

Mysterious plane wreckage sparks MH370 speculation


A mysterious piece of plane debris washed up on the French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion on Wednesday, prompting some speculation it could be part of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

The two-metre (six-foot) long piece of wreckage, which seemed to be part of a wing, was found by people cleaning up a beach.

"It was covered in shells, so one would say it had been in the water a long time," said one witness.

French air transport officials have already opened a probe to investigate where the wreckage could have come from.

Xavier Tytelman, an expert in aviation security, said it could not be ruled out that the wreckage belonged to MH370, which vanished without trace in March last year.

No part of the wreckage has ever been found in one of aviation's great mysteries and Malaysian authorities in January declared that all on board were presumed dead.

The plane vanished at night over the South China Sea after turning away from its north-bound route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board.

Tytelman noted that local media photos showed "incredible similarities between a #B777 flaperon and the debris found," referring to a Boeing 777 -- the type of plane that disappeared.


A policeman and a gendarme stand next to a piece of debris from an unidentified aircraft found in th …

He also noted a reference on the wreckage: BB670.

"This code is not a plane's registration number, nor serial number. However... it's clear that this reference would allow a quick identification. In a few days, we will have a definitive answer," Tytelman said.

Boeing said in a statement it remained "committed to supporting the MH370 investigation and the search for the airplane".

"We continue to share our technical expertise and analysis. Our goal, along with the entire global aviation industry, continues to be not only to find the airplane, but also to determine what happened –- and why," said the US aviation giant.

- Mystery breeds wild theories -

An Australian-led operation has scoured more than 50,000 square kilometres (19,000 square miles) of the seafloor, about 60 percent of a search zone in the Indian Ocean that was determined via expert analysis of signals from MH370 that were detected by a satellite.

However the four search vessels towing 10-kilometre cables fitted with sophisticated sonar systems that scan the seabed have turned up little except shipping containers and a previously uncharted shipwreck.

Rough weather, the pitch-black extreme depths of up to 4,000 metres, and the rugged nature of the previously unmapped seafloor have made for a slow, frustrating search.

Angry next of kin have criticised Malaysia's handling of the plane's disappearance, and have questioned the choice to focus the search on the southern Indian Ocean.

With the search proving fruitless, speculation on the fate of the plane remains focused primarily on a possible mechanical or structural failure, a hijacking or terror plot, or rogue pilot action.

However nothing has emerged to substantiate any of these scenarios.

The lack of solid information has sustained a flow of conspiracy theories, with books, documentaries and a thriving online debate positing a range of possibilities.

These include suggestions that the plane was commandeered to be used as a "flying bomb" headed for US military installations on the Diego Garcia atoll, and was shot down by the Americans. The United States has dismissed this.



Back to bottling my Grenache

Miragedriver said:

Mysterious plane wreckage sparks MH370 speculation

A mysterious piece of plane debris washed up on the French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion on Wednesday, prompting some speculation it could be part of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

The two-metre (six-foot) long piece of wreckage, which seemed to be part of a wing, was found by people cleaning up a beach.

"It was covered in shells, so one would say it had been in the water a long time," said one witness.

French air transport officials have already opened a probe to investigate where the wreckage could have come from.

Xavier Tytelman, an expert in aviation security, said it could not be ruled out that the wreckage belonged to MH370, which vanished without trace in March last year.

No part of the wreckage has ever been found in one of aviation's great mysteries and Malaysian authorities in January declared that all on board were presumed dead.

The plane vanished at night over the South China Sea after turning away from its north-bound route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board.

Tytelman noted that local media photos showed "incredible similarities between a #B777 flaperon and the debris found," referring to a Boeing 777 -- the type of plane that disappeared.

A policeman and a gendarme stand next to a piece of debris from an unidentified aircraft found in th …

He also noted a reference on the wreckage: BB670.

"This code is not a plane's registration number, nor serial number. However... it's clear that this reference would allow a quick identification. In a few days, we will have a definitive answer," Tytelman said.

Boeing said in a statement it remained "committed to supporting the MH370 investigation and the search for the airplane".

"We continue to share our technical expertise and analysis. Our goal, along with the entire global aviation industry, continues to be not only to find the airplane, but also to determine what happened –- and why," said the US aviation giant.

- Mystery breeds wild theories -

An Australian-led operation has scoured more than 50,000 square kilometres (19,000 square miles) of the seafloor, about 60 percent of a search zone in the Indian Ocean that was determined via expert analysis of signals from MH370 that were detected by a satellite.

However the four search vessels towing 10-kilometre cables fitted with sophisticated sonar systems that scan the seabed have turned up little except shipping containers and a previously uncharted shipwreck.

Rough weather, the pitch-black extreme depths of up to 4,000 metres, and the rugged nature of the previously unmapped seafloor have made for a slow, frustrating search.

Angry next of kin have criticised Malaysia's handling of the plane's disappearance, and have questioned the choice to focus the search on the southern Indian Ocean.

With the search proving fruitless, speculation on the fate of the plane remains focused primarily on a possible mechanical or structural failure, a hijacking or terror plot, or rogue pilot action.

However nothing has emerged to substantiate any of these scenarios.

The lack of solid information has sustained a flow of conspiracy theories, with books, documentaries and a thriving online debate positing a range of possibilities.

These include suggestions that the plane was commandeered to be used as a "flying bomb" headed for US military installations on the Diego Garcia atoll, and was shot down by the Americans. The United States has dismissed this.



Back to bottling my Grenache

Click to expand...

Very interesting my dear Watson!

The piece of potential wreckage from MH370 was found on Reunion Island east of Madagascar. This morning there are reports of a suit case also being found.

Just day before yesterday my wife and I were talking about it and how weird it was that after all of this time nothing had been found or washed up on any coasts or islands...well, perhaps now it has.

Here's a video and more pics:

Jeff Head said:

The piece of potential wreckage from MH370 was found on Reunion Island east of Madagascar. This morning there are reports of a suit case also being found.

Just day before yesterday my wife and I were talking about it and how weird it was that after all of this time nothing had been found or washed up on any coasts or islands...well, perhaps now it has.]

Click to expand...

there ya go, those don't just float around? No doubt the first piece of the puzzle, and now as they backtrack with float times and tides the search area has just moved and narrowed, may or may not find anything else given the black hole ocean depths?