MH 777 missing - MH370 media statement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another theory. Another way to milk some dollars. She does not know anything, she is simply guessing and making assumptions without any evidence whatsoever to make a quick buck
 
MarkD said:
Another theory. Another way to milk some dollars. She does not know anything, she is simply guessing and making assumptions without any evidence whatsoever to make a quick buck
Click to expand...

A Very cynical view( a distrust of human integrity and sincerity) this is not a way to make a quick buck. The statement of yours " she does not know anything" underlines without doubt maybe ur own judgment about the knowledge a person like yourself, may possibly possess to be dishing it out. I am not sure why drRon would be liking such an opinion .......a person I highly respect in his views. It's a free world.
 
I'm sorry but the things that are postulated in that article don't fit the known facts.
first there were the pings and calculation of a track to the southern Indian ocean.
When that was known Oceanographers predicted that debris would be washed up on the East coast of Southern Africa.And it has.
I/m sorry but a severe decompression with a delirious First Officer at the controls somehow steering it to the Southern Indian ocean just doesn't stack up.
 
Check out the latest credit card signup bonus point offers
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

I am not going to go through the article point by point but must agree with MarkD here.

The article is full of assumptions, the first of which is that the Captain was not in the coughpit. The second being that there was an explosive decompression and the third that the First officer didn't do what is imbedded into a pilots head that securing oxygen supply is and must be the first item addressed.

The assumptions go on from there. Penang with 11,000 ft runway not sufficient and that 12,500 ft was needed etc etc.....

The whole article could be reworded as a theory but once again it would only be a theory.
 
drron said:
I'm sorry but the things that are postulated in that article don't fit the known facts.
first there were the pings and calculation of a track to the southern Indian ocean.
When that was known Oceanographers predicted that debris would be washed up on the East coast of Southern Africa.And it has.
I/m sorry but a severe decompression with a delirious First Officer at the controls somehow steering it to the Southern Indian ocean just doesn't stack up.
Click to expand...

I am sorry too, the article does not refute the known facts about calculated track from the pings or the washed up debris being washed up in specific places. ( I am not perfect and I might have missed it somewhere)

straitman said:
I am not going to go through the article point by point but must agree with MarkD here.

The article is full of assumptions, the first of which is that the Captain was not in the coughpit. The second being that there was an explosive decompression and the third that the First officer didn't do what is imbedded into a pilots head that securing oxygen supply is and must be the first item addressed.

The assumptions go on from there. Penang with 11,000 ft runway not sufficient and that 12,500 ft was needed etc etc.....

The whole article could be reworded as a theory but once again it would only be a theory.
Click to expand...

More sudden less explosive I think. Pilots are the weakest link in the human - coughpit interface first thing we get taught in crew coughpit resource management. I agree with on the assumptions and theories but it does have some merit. I have been thru hypoxia training several times twice in Oklahoma and once in Australia so weird is part of the job. Euphoria ..... I did not like it myself and knew something was not right. Others are not that lucky.

Thanks guys for the feedback I respect u both for that
 
Last edited:
CNN have come up with a theory-
CqupFdnWcAA_LH-.jpg
.

Who would have thought?:lol::lol::lol:
 
It's very much more involved and complicated then that. With empty fuel tanks being empty the aeroplane :mrgreen: Does become lighter. Shaking my head here shaking my head.
 
Last edited:
MarkD said:
Another theory. Another way to milk some dollars. She does not know anything, she is simply guessing and making assumptions without any evidence whatsoever to make a quick buck
Click to expand...

I have read her book. Whilst I don't believe that it was a pilot suicide, there's nothing new in her theories either. To be honest it was a waste of a few dollars.
 
Last edited:
andy2015 said:
How come you don't believe it to be pilot suicide?
Click to expand...

Firstly I've never read anything that makes me think either pilot fits the bill. It's a very convenient place to put the blame though.

And second...there are far too many other possible causes. Start with the fact that the aircraft had a large cargo of lithium batteries. The book mentioned has interesting theory, and is as likely as anything else. It's just that she has no solid info either.
 
Sounds like..."it was in the last place I looked".

From what I've read, there is no intention to continue the search, high probability or otherwise.
 
jb747 said:
Start with the fact that the aircraft had a large cargo of lithium batteries. The book mentioned has interesting theory, and is as likely as anything else. It's just that she has no solid info either.
Click to expand...

Talking about lithium batteries, just got an email from Fedex and they have decided to publish a new specific variation in next year IATA DG regulation under FX-05. Not sure it will change much in case of a fire...but batteries will now need to be packed according to Group I packaging instead of Group II.

[TABLE="class: m_567273404436046401mobilepadded, width: 600"][TR][TD="class: m_567273404436046401mobile, width: 428, align: left"][TABLE="width: 100%"][TR][TD][TABLE="width: 100%"][TR][TD][TABLE="width: 100%"][TR][TD="class: m_567273404436046401intro, align: left"]FedEx Express policy change on lithium battery shipments (Effective January 1, 2017) (Updated)[/TD][/TR][TR="class: m_567273404436046401mobilepadded"][TD="align: left"]
TFpRAOeQtSTfE82G8b6OCedXgoSpfBejFAV_Z2feeZy9j0S_bqIX1OVzeqX7F4ur0E2yH40YFGAclzuc7UsXDAvOYKu0wiX8X_sHknt7oiIrImPk3KXxeno5RXjHntzt=s0-d-e1-ft
[/TD][/TR][/TABLE][/TD][/TR][/TABLE][/TD][/TR][/TABLE][/TD][TD="class: m_567273404436046401hideonmobile, width: 27, align: left"]
TFpRAOeQtSTfE82G8b6OCedXgoSpfBejFAV_Z2feeZy9j0S_bqIX1OVzeqX7F4ur0E2yH40YFGAclzuc7UsXDAvOYKu0wiX8X_sHknt7oiIrImPk3KXxeno5RXjHntzt=s0-d-e1-ft
[/TD][/TR][/TABLE][TABLE="class: m_567273404436046401mobile, width: 600"][TR][TD="class: m_567273404436046401hideonmobile, width: 145, align: left"]
TFpRAOeQtSTfE82G8b6OCedXgoSpfBejFAV_Z2feeZy9j0S_bqIX1OVzeqX7F4ur0E2yH40YFGAclzuc7UsXDAvOYKu0wiX8X_sHknt7oiIrImPk3KXxeno5RXjHntzt=s0-d-e1-ft
[/TD][TD="width: 428, align: left"][TABLE="width: 100%"][TR][TD][TABLE="width: 100%"][TR][TD][TABLE="class: m_567273404436046401mobilepadded, width: 100%"][TR][TD]Effective January 1, 2017, FedEx Express will no longer accept stand-alone lithium-metal batteries (categorized as UN 3090) or stand-alone lithium ion batteries (categorized as UN 3480) that have been prepared as IATA Section II shipments. Instead, shipments containing UN 3090 or UN 3480 lithium batteries must be offered as fully regulated IATA Section IA or IB shipments*, with a Shipper's Declaration for Dangerous Goods (DG) and all required Dangerous Goods markings and labeling.
UN 3090 and UN 3480 Section IA/IB are fully regulated Class 9 Dangerous Goods and classified as Inaccessible Dangerous Goods (IDG). FedEx Express service options are allowed for IDG*, and an IDG surcharge will apply.
Customers who ship lithium metal batteries (UN 3090) with FedEx must be pre-approved by FedEx Express to comply with the FedEx operator variations in IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. Customers who were previously approved by FedEx to be on the UN 3090 Section II list will automatically be placed on the UN 3090 Section IA/IB list*.
The new policy changes will not impact UN 3091 or UN 3481 (lithium metal/ion batteries contained in or packed with equipment).
When the mark/label is required, customers have the choice of using either the Lithium Battery Mark (Figure 7.1.C in the 58th edition of IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations), which goes into effect on January 1, 2017, or the existing Lithium Battery Handling Label (Figure 7.4.H in the 58th edition of IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations), which can continue to be used until December 31, 2018. As of January 1, 2019, only the Lithium Battery Mark (IATA Figure 7.1.C) can be used.
Please note that the UN number must be placed on the IATA Lithium Battery Mark (IATA Figure 7.1.C), whereas the UN number should be placed on the package adjacent to Lithium Battery Handling Label (IATA Figure 7.4.H). The process of placing the UN number adjacent to the Lithium Battery Handling Label (IATA Figure 7.4.H) will be a FedEx mandatory requirement as of July 1, 2017, as per FedEx variation 'FX-05' to the IATA DG Regulations 58th edition.[/TD][/TR][/TABLE][/TD][/TR][/TABLE][/TD][/TR][/TABLE][/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 25 more.
Total: 249 (members: 75, guests: 174)
Back
Top