Delbert

I think if one looks deep enough human error is probably manifest in just about everything; we design the things, build the things, design procedures to operate the things and human hands drive the things - not to mention to make money in the process. It's the number 1 computer that's behind everything. As for no reason to kill, you or I might not see a reason. Doubtless a highjack is like setting out on any endeavour, success is not guaranteed.

Not just my view but also the TV interviewee I mentioned in my reply #49. To repeat: I recall him suggesting that even if they were half asleep, they should've acted within minutes of the plane failing to contact the next air traffic control. I can't recall his expertise, but he was introduced as someone with a particular proficiency in aviation. Unfortunately I can't find any video record of the interview on the net. As for my view that you appear to imply is reeking in hindsight, my position is and was the same as the interviewee above. To the point that I consider it to be the blindingly obvious - I recall muttering at the time of the interview: at last. I'm sorry once again, but it cannot be the case that a passenger aircraft can wander off in a direction in complete contradiction to its flight plan with no action taken by the controlling authorities. The plane may well have been experiencing a malfunction whereby judicious and appropriate intervention being helpful. But the various agents did nothing. Absolutely outrageous.

Well, to go over it again, they failed to contact the next in line air traffic control, turned off or experienced a communication malfunction and then changed course by nearly 180 degrees. Those actions alone should, within minutes, have raised an alarm. Not to mention then being picked up by military radar. I'm sorry yet again, but if that's considered not too alarming and not sufficiently dramatic to warrant action (action at the time), then I hesitate to contemplate possible similar scenarios. And as for what I think you inferred about resources being wasted on such events, how much in resources have they spent thus far in searching, and how much will be spent until the thing is located? Remembering it appears that they haven't even found hair nor hide of the plane thus far. And it seems the only hint they have about it possibly being under the ocean is some calculations on engine pings - apparently the black box pings have been shown to be false. And the truth is they probably don't know for anything like a reasonable certainty it is under the ocean! Unless it somehow landed cleanly on the ocean, I would've thought there should be some wreckage. Having run out of fuel and on glide, would autopilot be able to land it on water, such that it remained in one piece and then sunk?

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're saying. I'm sure there are numerous instances of non IFF where no action is justifiable; but would they be from an aircraft flying in completely the wrong direction and incommunicado? Somehow I think not. I presume from your comments that a substantial passenger plane flying in completely the wrong direction with all communication switched off, wasn't sufficiently serious a situation to require investigation. Investigation that is from visual interrogation from another aircraft in close escort and possible semaphore communication should cockpit activity be observed. I'm trying to imagine or visualise how much worse the situation would need to be for you to justify investigation. I think we should leave it at that and agree to disagree.

It seems to me you're missing the point, the aircraft apparently didn't respond to IFF. Perhaps it can be ascertained from my comments I'm prepared to consider all possibilities, but a missile launch from said aircraft! I think that's delving into the highs of hyperbole. As you say, naval vessels can be sunk, but have you considered land based objects can be destroyed - I'm sure we don't have to run over, itemise, all the possible land based consequences. Not considered a risk? Now that's an interesting position. We notice an aircraft, indeed, a substantial flying machine not responding to standard responses, in fact completely incommunicado, so it's acceptable to take the view it's not considered a risk!! I suggest we would've had no idea of the risk factor. Russian roulette can be a fatal game to play. I'm sorry, but it's not responding for a reason. As I think we all know, communication apparatus could've failed due an inflight emergency or it could've been deliberately turned off. The plane may have diverted because of the emergency or for a criminal - not to mention terrorist or suicidal - reason. But whatever, it seems to me the situation required investigation, which in view of the absence of communication, the scrambling of jets.

Someone I know is a naval officer, and when on board ship they are constantly monitoring and 'pinging' planes for confirmation of friend or foe. From what I understand, what should've happened is upon leaving one air traffic control and being not acquired by the next control within minutes, communication between the two controls about the lack of contact should've taken place. And with the remaining lack of contact emergency reacquisition procedure activated. And so on from there. And as for the military seeing a plane on radar, indeed, a plane incommunicado without the 'pings' I mentioned above, action should've been taken. I'm just trying to visualise the situation: I say old chap I've got this unidentified and unidentifiable plane thing in my screen. Is it doing much? No, just flying due west. Some while later: Oh look, everything's okay now because it's disappeared off screen. A total shambles.

It seems to be all over the main news reports and so I didn't think it necessary, anyway this link from the UK BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26503141 I'm sorry, but I can't understand your position. The thing diverted from planned course, turned off communication or it experienced breakdown, and then flew back over land. In view of things these days, what other excuse does one need to scramble jets? As I think I've said previously: say if a passenger plane left here in the UK to fly to the US, and then upon leaving air traffic control location transducers failed or were switched off and turned around and flew back over the UK, it seems to me that jets would've been scrambled with the likelihood of a hot line to number 10 seeking permission to shoot it down. And as for turning back consequent to some sort of emergency system problem or breakdown, all the more reason to intercept it with scrambled jets, I'd say.

All the reports I've read indicate that they had the thing on radar. Are you saying that if a commercial plane left American airspace (say on the way to UK), communication failed and it turned around and flew back over the US, jets would not have been scrambled? I'm sorry, but you must be joking.

So, the black box 'pings' were a mirage - apparently produced by their own ships! Noticed a interviewee commenting on the TV today suggesting that even if the various bodies involved were even half asleep, action would've been taken within minutes following the non acquisition by the Vietnamese air traffic control after leaving Malaysian control. For me, and as I think I mentioned somewhere else on this forum, upon the reported acquisition by the Malaysian military radar of an unidentified substantial flying object, why weren't jets scrambled? A complete shambles, if you ask me.

Seem to recall someone suggesting such disappearance wasn't just a game changer, but a world changer. Presumably the world changer suggestion was made should a scenario or cause cannot be established.

I used the word doubtless following my suggestion about fumes from those lithium-ion batteries. Which I think is not an unreasonable conclusion following possible toxic fumes from such. If the crew and passengers weren't incapacitated, I'd have thought the plane may have performed a more circuitous path consequential to possible human conflict. Anyway, I only offered a possible scenario. The fly in my suggestion, I have thought, is the apparent absence of a mayday call before, during or immediately after the apparent change of direction. Not having time to put out a mayday would seem to be an objection to my suggestion and perhaps point more to a hijacking. But it seems a strange hijacking to fly in an apparent straight line uninterrupted and not deflected by the consequence of conflict.

As for what happened, if it was a technical failure it seems a remarkable coincidence to have occurred just at the point of maximum confusion between one air traffic control and another. For me there maybe a fair possibility those lithium-ion batteries reported to be in the cargo hold produced smoke or fire causing flight crew to switch things off and turn back. Toxic fumes then pervaded the craft, which doubtless incapacitated everyone on board, leaving the plane to continue on autopilot. There, that's my thoughts - I await to be shown to be wrong But if that's the case and in view of the trouble the 787 Dreamliner had with those batteries, how or why on earth could they allow the things to be in the cargo hold of an aircraft?

Doubtless that's one of the scenarios on the long list. Frankly and as said, I find it difficult to believe there was no military intervention with, what was then, an unidentified aircraft with transponders turned off having turned around and flying back over land. Perhaps a similar situation here in the UK might be visualised, whereby an aircraft turned around and flew back over land with transponders turned off instead of continuing on its journey. Doubtless Typhoons would scrambled with a direct line to the PM's office requesting orders whether or not to shoot the thing down. A friend of mine with a son on the navy says they are 'pinging' aircraft all the time for friend or foe.

Just read a newspaper report this morning that MH370 was carrying a consignment lithium-ion batteries in its hold.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the reports and the apparent scenario of what seems to have happened. MH370 reportedly turned around and headed back over land. This aircraft then being wildly off course with transponders switched off and not responding to traffic control was apparently tracked by the military, so why weren't fighter jets scrambled to intercept? If nothing else, it seems a big hole in their defence system.