This is topic Missing Malaysia Airlines jet in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006973
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-16-2014, 11:20 PM:
I am thinking the CIA was involved and wanted someone on this flight or perhaps there is some sort of Bermuda triangle type thing going on, this missing plane really is a mystery.
But seriously, what the hell do you do with 250 passengers after you land?
Missing Malaysia Airlines jet may have flown under radar: investigators Read more: ]http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-jet-may-have-flown-under-radar-investigators-20140317- hvjlf.html#ixzz2wBrNsVR9
Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 dropped to altitudes as low as 1524 metres (5000 feet) using a dangerous flying technique called “terrain masking” to avoid radar in at least three countries, investigators believe.
The plane with 239 people on board also kept to commercial airline routes as it flew for more than seven hours after turning back from its scheduled flight path over the South China Sea, they believe.
As the focus of police investigators has swung back to the pilots, authorities have revealed that whoever spoke to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control minutes after the plane’s main communication system was disabled gave no clue that anything was wrong.
“All right, good night,” some-one in the cockpit had said calmly, seemingly to mislead ground control that anything was wrong.
Investigators believe that by following commercial routes the plane did not raise the suspicion of people monitoring radar of the countries it overflew.
Terrain masking is used by military pilots for stealth flights. Based on the estimated time in the air, authorities believe MH370 would have passed over two additional countries besides Malaysia, although it's not clear which ones.
Experts say flying a Boeing 777 in such a way would be dangerous, putting pressure on the 250 tonnes air frame and possibly causing those on board to be air sick.
The New Straits Times newspaper in Kuala Lumpur is quoting investigators as saying the “person who had control over the aircraft has a solid knowledge of avionics and navigation and left a clean track.”
It quotes investigation sources as confirming the plane flew low over Kelantan in peninsular Malaysia
The number of countries involved in the search for the plane has increased from 14 to 22 after new information revealed the plane’s last confirmed position was in one of two corridors, one stretching from the border of Central Asian countries Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to northern Thailand and a southern corridor stretching from Indonesia to the southern ocean.
Authorities in Kuala Lumpur insist they are giving no greater priority to either corridor and have appealed for countries to deploy more ships and planes to a vast expanse of water in the Indian Ocean west of Australia, where there is no land mass for thousands of square kilometres.
But it is understood investigators say it is more likely the plane is in the northern corridor where there are unstable governments, mountainous terrain and extremist groups.
Malaysia has asked countries to make data on their satellites available to assist the search but some have not because of sensitivities sharing information that involves national security.
Malaysia has also asked for more surveillance aircraft and ships, particularly in the southern corridor closer to Australia.
Malaysia’s defence minister Hishammuddin Hussein said the search has swung from mainly shallow seas in the South China Sea to “large tracts of land crossing 11 countries, as well as deep oceans.”
Experts are trying to nail down precisely how far the plane could have flown with the fuel on board but sources say the plane would have been close to running out at the time it was recorded in raw satellite data at 8.11am after departing Kuala Lumpur airport at 12.31am.
Malaysia Airlines has confirmed that no additional fuel than normal was loaded on to the plane in Kuala Lumpur.
It had enough fuel for the almost six hour flight from Kuala Lumpur plus 45 minutes of fuel to spare in case of diversion to another airport.
Investigators are factoring in that plane would have burnt more fuel flying in the denser lower air.
Erratic manoeuvres would also have eaten into the fuel’s reserves.
After a week of false leads, misinformation and confusion around one of the world’s most baffling aviation mysteries, authorities in Kuala Lumpur have calculated from Immarsat satellite data the plane sent out six “pings,” which are also known as electronic handshakes, after its communications equipment was deliberately disabled by some-one on board.
The seventh ping never came, indicating the plane either landed and the engine was shut off or it crashed.
Police have revealed that all of the passengers on board were found in initial checks to not have suspicious background, including two Iranians travelling on stolen passports.
But confirmation the plane veered far off course has intensified police probes into all those on board, as well as airport ground crew who came into contact with the plane before departure.
Malaysia’s police chief Khalid Abu Bakar said some foreign intelligence agencies have yet to respond to requests to check whether anyone on board had links to terrorist or extremist groups.
The psychological and personal backgrounds of all on board are also being scrutinised.
Police have searched the homes of both the senior pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 52, and co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid, 27, and taken away computers and other items.
They have seized a flight simulator in Mr Zaharie’s home and reassembled it at a police complex where it is being forensically examined by experts.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-17-2014, 02:00 PM:
Yes, the CIA wants someone on the flight so they orchestrate a plan that will bring worldwide attention to it. They did the same damn thing when they wanted Bob killed back in 2001. They couldn't just quietly kill him, no. They had to make it look like a giant terrorist attack. But that's no surprise as these are the same people who forced Kubrik to fake the moon landing at gunpoint.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-17-2014, 02:38 PM:
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-17-2014, 02:44 PM:
Quick, somebody call Malaysia -- Mark found it!
I saw one of the endless "theory" shows on some news channel where they speculated some bad guy could have shut off the cabin pressurization, leading to everyone on the plnne just going to sleep and eventually dying for lack of oxygen without knowing what hit'em. And then eventually just going down in the ocean.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-17-2014, 02:55 PM:
It's pretty funny how I've been hearing a lot of this metallic rustling and crinkling going on the past few days: the sound of thousands of conspiracy theorists donning their tin foil hats.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-17-2014, 03:12 PM:
It reminds me of the last Anchorman movie where the prompter told Ron to "speculate on who's driving that car."
When you have nothing to report but have airtime to fill, just start speculating. I guess "The search continues. There is nothing new to report" isn't sufficient.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-17-2014, 03:25 PM:
Right, and be sure to have plenty of snacks in the green room for the "experts" who start coming out of the woodwork.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-17-2014, 03:56 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's pretty funny how I've been hearing a lot of this metallic rustling and crinkling going on the past few days: the sound of thousands of conspiracy theorists donning their tin foil hats.
Giggle.
The utter incompetence of the Malaysian authorities has surely provided double portions of TFH food, though. I mean, when the chief of their frickin' air force goes on Twitter and asks if anyone can help him to find the plane, that says it all.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-17-2014, 04:00 PM:
If that photo was legit it would have been covered by National News or at least the Enquirer. It's a satellite picture but I think someone found a shipwreck. Depth at that location is less then 200' and waters are pretty clear. It's about 20 miles due south of where they lost contact with the plane's transponder.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-17-2014, 04:56 PM:
Fodder for "Ancient Aliens". I can just see old wire hair postulating now. 'When asked if it were possibly an alien abduction, 9 out of 10 ancient alien theorists say a resounding yes'.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-17-2014, 05:26 PM:
Pretty clear what happened here.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-17-2014, 05:39 PM:
Bobby, nothing wrong with tin foil hats, as some conspiracy theories have later been proven true.
conspiracy theories
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-17-2014, 06:38 PM:
The problem with conspiracy theories is that although the vast majority end up being disproved, a few are vindicated, as you point out. Therefore, the theorist can cite a few of the correct ones as evidence for the real possibility that theirs is, too. So round and round we go in circles.
I think the most recent high profile example is AF447 - during the two years it took them to find the plane, speculation as to what brought it down ranged from Al Queda to Hugo Chavez testing a new secret weapon. The cause turned out essentially to be plain vanilla pilot error (albeit with several toppings, the main ones being the pitot tube failure and the 40,000 foot high thunderstorm).
In this case, all the known facts and speculative possibilities flowing from them that fit with a hijacking fit equally with a Payne Stewart-type accident (all on board incapacitated, plane flew on until it ran out of fuel, then crashed). In particular, if the Malaysian authorities were so incompetent that they couldn't track the plane over their airspace after it was hijacked, then they were equally incapable of tracking it after it flew out of control because of an accident.
The bottom line is that we're simply not going to know unless and until the thing is found. Until then, the relatives of those on board are going through a horrible time and the rest of the world is having fun speculating about James Bond-style hollowed out mountains in Pakistan, etc. etc. etc.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-17-2014, 07:14 PM:
Mark
I saw the unaltered version of that photo earlier. The oil slicks to look authentic, and there does appear to be something large in the water there - be definitely nothing as clearly defined as that image shows. According to Google Earth, the water depth is about 290 feet there. I guess it's possible a plane sitting on the bottom of the ocean at that depth might be visible from the surface. It would probably depend on what kind of material is on the ocean floor.
There is a very small island about 4 miles north-east of those coordinates, but it's not one that a plane could land or or that people could easily climb up on.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 03-17-2014, 08:45 PM:
Seems a little Strange that the Head pilot had his own Flight Simulator right in his own Home. He has over 18,000 Hours Flight time experience; Co-Pilot had 2700 Hrs.
Perfect Plane for Terrorist to hijack. Latest Technology in Air Passenger Transportation. Load it up with Explosives and head for
the White House... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-17-2014, 09:42 PM:
Well if that was the case they'd get spotted on radar long before they ever got near the White House.
As for the flight simulator thing...I don't see anything weird about that. Maybe he just really likes flight. I work at a movie theater, but what do I often do in spare time after work? Watch a movie at the theater.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-17-2014, 10:23 PM:
Lots of pilots have some sort of desktop PCATDs (Personal Computer-based Aviation Training Device) at home. They are a very good way to stay proficient at instrument flying, as well as practicing the various flight deck flows that a given transport-category aircraft (or airline) requires. Under certain conditions, the time logged on such a device can be logged and counted towards the minimum time requirements mandated under ICAO rules and/or an air carrier's operations specifications.
Looks like Captain Shah put together a pretty nice PCATD: multiple flat panel displays and physical control modules, plus the s/w to produce the appearance of a 777's flight deck, as well as the navigation, terrain and airport databases needed to cover the routes that MH flies. Capt. Shah comes across to me as someone who is clearly into and loves his job - like most pilots that reach his level of experience.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-18-2014, 12:07 AM:
With the air defense systems now in place there's zero chance of any large aircraft like a passenger jet getting even remotely close to the white house. It's just not going to happen.
It would even be difficult to fly a small drone near the White House. Probably impossible to pilot a drone armed with any ordinance that could do significant damage. The only thing that has a chance against the White House is some kind of natural disaster, like a tornado.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-18-2014, 12:17 AM:
If the plane has been stolen by terrorists intent on using it as a flying weapon, it seems reasonable to speculate that they'll use it on a target that is either undefended (from aerial attack), or has defences that the terrorists believe that they can overcome. If they have succeeded in stealing an airliner in the middle of a commercial flight, it seems safe to assume that they stand a good chance of being able to fulfil the rest of their plan, unless the authorities find out what that plan is in time to stop them.
In other news, a friend commented in a phone call just now that because Captain Shah's political hero (Anwar Ibrahim) has just been convicted of sodomizing his brother, he must have decided to go one better and sodomize an entire airliner...
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-18-2014, 12:20 AM:
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-18-2014, 12:47 AM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
If the plane has been stolen by terrorists intent on using it as a flying weapon, it seems reasonable to speculate that they'll use it on a target that is either undefended (from aerial attack), or has defences that the terrorists believe that they can overcome. If they have succeeded in stealing an airliner in the middle of a commercial flight, it seems safe to assume that they stand a good chance of being able to fulfil the rest of their plan, unless the authorities find out what that plan is in time to stop them
I agree with you there Leo, it could be used as a weapon. Flying under 5000 feet will keep it off of radar although flying under 5000 feet will reduce your range on how far the plane can travel. It seems unlikely that the plane could possibly make it to mainland America flying at that level.
quote: Leo Enticknap
In other news, a friend commented in a phone call just now that because Captain Shah's political hero (Anwar Ibrahim) has just been convicted of sodomizing his brother, he must have decided to go one better and sodomize an entire airliner...
Perhaps that is the motive.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 03-18-2014, 03:45 AM:
Even if the Plane got spotted by Radar doesn't mean anything. If these People had any type Nuclear Device on Board then shooting it down would still cause Massive Destruction. The Bomb dropped on Hiroshima(little Boy) was U235 Uranium which Countries like IRAN,North Korea,etc.already have. The Altitude that Little Boy Detonated was around 2000ft.A firecracker by today's Weapon's at only around 16 Kilotons look how many people were killed in the Original Detonation. Plus the 1000's later that died from Radiation Poisoning and lingering wounds.
I would be plenty worried if I were Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon. If these people were intelligent enough to be able to disable all forms of communication on a sophisticated Jet like this then they have People Knowledgable about Nuclear Fission.
Putting together a Guntype device like Little Boy doesn't need a Nuclear Physicist. All you need is weapons grade Uranium either U235 OR 238. They don't need Plutonium to make something that's bigger than what they dropped on Hiroshima.the amount of Fissonable material that was responsible for detonating that Bomb would fit in a small pill bottle with room to Spare.
They better hope this Plane Crashed in the Ocean because what could be coming down the line will make 9/11 look like a Lady Finger...
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-18-2014, 08:55 AM:
I just don't get all of the terrorism/comspiracy theories here.
The simplest and most logical explanation seems to be that something went wrong on the plane (fire? depressurization?) that incapacitated the passengers and pilots fairly quickly, and that the plane continued to fly with its automated systems until it either ran out of fuel or the automation failed.
The chances of being able to land a plane of that size and then hide it from the entire world for any length of time are just so small as to be hardly worth considering until/unless the (much) more likely explanation is disproven. Even if it were possible to land and hide the plane, it would still need to be serviced and refueled (by who?) if it were to be used in some sort of nefarious capacity. Again, the chances of that happening without someone finding out about it are fairly remote.
One thing that I don't fully understand: train locomotives have a dead-man's switch that needs to be pressed periodically in order to keep the train from automatically stopping to avoid the accidents that would result if the engineer became incapacitated. Do aircraft autopilot systems have this sort of system? Should they? An argument could be made that the aircraft should send a distress signal or possibly even land itself (if so equipped) if the crew were to become incapacitated. Or would this cause more problems that it would solve? One difference is that a train typically has one engineer and a conductor, while aircraft typically have two pilots and (on some aircraft) a flight engineer, so there is a built-in failsafe mechanism that does not exist on trains.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-18-2014, 10:22 AM:
I know of no autopilot that has something like the "dead man" pedal on a locomotive, but...
Autopilots can be disconnected by simply applying pressure on the yoke or control column - a few pounds of hand pressure applied against the autopilot's input forces will cause a disconnect. This can happen if/when the aircraft flies in turbulent air on autopilot - the autopilot will disconnect if it has to make large or rapid pitch trim or engine power changes. There are both audio and visual warnings issued when the autopilot disconnects - most pilot operating handbooks call for autopilots to be disconnected when flying in moderate or greater turbulence. So, not the same as a dead man switch.
In a jet the manual input control forces needed to fly the aircraft can quickly build up beyond the physical strength of one or two pilots, hence the need for quick autopilot disconnects.
With the level of automation available in today's jet transports, it is possible to fly a completely automated flight once the aircraft is in the air (still have to have a human drive the aircraft from the gate to the runway, set the takeoff power, and raise the landing gear and flaps). Navigation for the entire route is entered in the FMS beforehand, which takes care of tuning the nav radios and setting the desired headings and altitudes. Still need a human for the end of the trip though, for lowering the landing gear and flaps - the brakes and spoilers can be set for automated operation.
Autoland due to crew incapacitation? It is possible on the latest jet transports (still need a human to at least lower the landing gear though), but keeping all that automation serviced to the point where it could be used for such a very rare possibility would be very expensive. Heck, even something as simple as a movie theater can be automated to that extent, but not without a lot of additional expense - most theater operators would not do it. Aircraft operators face the same kinds of expenses and complications - it's still cheaper to have human crews.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-18-2014, 10:38 AM:
quote: Steve Matz
Putting together a Guntype device like Little Boy doesn't need a Nuclear Physicist. All you need is weapons grade Uranium either U235 OR 238.
If we really want to get into conspiracy theories, that was the basic premise of the 1980s Cold War novel The Fourth Protocol, in which Russian agents smuggle the components of a crude nuke into England, assemble them and try to detonate it near a US air base in Suffolk. Their aim was to try to make it look lke an accident for which the (right-wing, Conservative) government would take the blame and lose a forthcoming election to an extreme left Labour party, which would then turn the UK effectively into a Soviet satellite. The scary thing when the book came out was that several nuclear physicists who were interviewed about it believed that the science was essentially non-fiction. You would need some pretty esoteric and difficult-to-find ingredients (not just the fissile material, but the sphere and gun components would need rare metals to make), but once those components exist, then basically, if you're able to assemble a piece of flatpack Ikea furniture, you're able to assemble one of these nukes. The "fourth protocol" of the title was a clause in a top secret treaty between the Cold War powers in which they all agreed not to construct or deploy such a device (one that could be smuggled undetected across international borders and then assembled clandestinely).
quote: Paul Mayer
Autoland due to crew incapacitation? It is possible on the latest jet transports (still need a human to at least lower the landing gear though), but keeping all that automation serviced to the point where it could be used for such a very rare possibility would be very expensive.
And also, such a system would actually introduce security risks that currently don't exist, I'd have thought. We've heard all sorts of paranoid tinfoil hattery over the last few days about how a passenger might have hijacked the plane by hacking into the seatback TV system, or the CIA might have hijacked it by hacking the flight manamgement system wirelessly from an AWACS plane. AFAIK (and Paul, please correct me if I'm wrong), this is total BS, because the communications infrastructure through which such a hacking attempt would have to be routed simply don't exist. There is no data connection between the entertainment system and those which operate the plane's control surfaces, and no wireless data receiver on the FMC. The only way you can input anything to it is to physically be present in the cockpit and press buttons on it.
If you did introduce a system whereby an airliner could be radio controlled from the ground or another aircraft - and especially if such a system allowed this to be done against the pilots' wills - then the possibility at least exists that this system could be compromised and taken over by bad guys. If it doesn't exist, it can't.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-18-2014, 11:23 AM:
quote: Paul Mayer
(still need a human to at least lower the landing gear though)
I'm just curious, why does a human have to handle the landing gear when so much else can be automated? I would think they'd be able to build something in to make the landing gear deploy or stow automatically.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-18-2014, 11:59 AM:
quote: Scott Norwood
The simplest and most logical explanation seems to be that something went wrong on the plane (fire? depressurization?) that incapacitated the passengers and pilots fairly quickly, and that the plane continued to fly with its automated systems until it either ran out of fuel or the automation failed.
So what explains the tracking system being turned off then 14 minutes later the automated diagnostics turns off? And the plane flew for 7 hours after the tracking system was turned off yet nobody can find it on their radar?
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-18-2014, 12:13 PM:
I've been wondering why is it even possible to disable the position transponder? Is there any valid reason it shouldn't be on all the time?
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-18-2014, 12:44 PM:
The transponder can apparently interfere with radios/radars/whatever when the plane is parked at an airport.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-18-2014, 01:14 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
So what explains the tracking system being turned off then 14 minutes later the automated diagnostics turns off? And the plane flew for 7 hours after the tracking system was turned off yet nobody can find it on their radar?
Electrical problem, maybe?
Obviously, I don't know any more than anyone else about what actually happened, but the overly complicated conspiracy theories are getting annoying when simpler and more plausable explanations exist.
And I wasn't advocating remote-control capability for aircraft...just an autopilot that is capable of determining when the pilots are incapacitated and either sending an alert to the ground or landing the plane safely without the need for human intervention. If nothing else, it might save some lives on the ground by preventing a crash, even if the plane has to land on a runway with the landing gear up (can a large jet land with flaps up, though?). Presumably, this idea has been considered and rejected by people who are smarter than I, although I am curious as to why.
Interesting how turbulance could disable the autopilot on its own, though. That might negate the value of the above autopilot modification.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-18-2014, 03:58 PM:
quote: Frank Cox
The transponder can apparently interfere with radios/radars/whatever when the plane is parked at an airport.
I think that would be a relatively easy thing to overcome. IMHO, No way should the crew be able to defeat the transponder in flight.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-18-2014, 04:25 PM:
Why do planes even have an off switch for crucial device? quote:
WASHINGTON — Ever since Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared, a fascinated public has asked: Why can somebody in the cockpit shut off the transponder?
It turns out there are several legitimate reasons why a pilot might want to shut off this key form of communication that allows air traffic controllers to identify and track airplanes.
Authorities believe that Flight 370′s transponder was intentionally shut off, delaying search and rescue efforts and helping to conceal the plane’s location – a mystery unsolved more than 10 days after the Boeing 777 vanished.
It’s rare for a pilot to turn off a transponder during flight, but occasionally there is cause.
- Sometimes a transponder malfunctions, giving out incorrect readings.
- The device could have an electrical short or catch on fire. Pilots would want to shut it down rather than risk a fire spreading to the rest of the cockpit or airplane.
- Pilots used to routinely turn off transponders on the ground at airports so as not to overwhelm air traffic controllers with so many signals in one location. That is increasingly less the case as pilots now use “moving map” displays that take the transponder data and show them the location of other planes on the ground, helping guide them around airports without mishaps.
“As long as there are pilots, they’ll be able to switch off systems,” said Andrew Thomas, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Transportation Security.
Airplanes have two transponders. There are two knobs in the cockpit – one on the right, the other on the left – that control one or the other. When one transponder is on, the other is normally in standby mode.
To turn off a transponder, a pilot turns a knob with multiple positions and selects the “off” setting. The second transponder doesn’t automatically activate if the first one is shut down – a knob would also have to be turned. In this case, it appears one transponder was turned off, and the second not activated.
Ross Aimer, a retired United Airlines pilot and former 777 instructor, said it is possible that one pilot could reach up and turn off the transponder without the other pilot seeing it, say if one was looking away or distracted.
If the plane was in contact with an air traffic controller, the controller would alert the pilots that the transponder signal had been lost. But, Aimer – now head of Aero Consulting Experts – said, if they were not in contact with an air traffic controller, a pilot might miss it if the other shut down the transponder.
In the case of the missing Malaysian plane, even pilots are a bit puzzled by somebody turning off the transponder.
John Gadzinski, a Boeing 737 captain, said that among fellow pilots “there is a raised eyebrow like Spock on `Star Trek’ – you just sit there and go, `why would anybody do that?’”
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-18-2014, 10:06 PM:
quote: Frank Cox
The transponder can apparently interfere with radios/radars/whatever when the plane is parked at an airport.
I read one article (sorry - in the blizzard of them following the MH370 disappearance, I can't remember or provide a link to the exact one) which said that another reason is that when an airliner is overflying very busy airspace, e.g. the approach and departure paths around a big airport, controllers will sometimes ask its pilot to switch off their squawk until they're clear of the area, to de-clutter their screens and make it easier for them to concentrate on taking care of the flights they're vectoring in and out.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 03-19-2014, 10:07 AM:
I'm surprised there's been very little mention of Lost and the Dharma Initiative in conjunction with this.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 03-19-2014, 10:57 AM:
You HAD to know this headline was coming sooner or later:
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-19-2014, 02:22 PM:
According to the same paper, the moon is a veritable aircraft junkyard - there's already a WWII bomber there, apparently. Oh, and Elvis Presley is alive and well, and living on Mars. Maybe that's why those Dutch people want to go there - to get his autograph.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-19-2014, 02:32 PM:
Heh heh, love the photo - somehow a missing 2-engined B-777-200 became a 4-engined something (proly an A-340-600). Love the yellow press...; ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-19-2014, 03:55 PM:
quote: Edward Havens
I'm surprised there's been very little mention of Lost and the Dharma Initiative in conjunction with this.
... or The Langoliers.
... or Non-Stop.
And all those other movies/series/books/stories about planes. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm actually pretty sure there will be an actual movie about or inspired by this whole incident in a year or 5.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2