R.I.P. MH370

[Jon the VGNerd 885]

While the investigation is still ongoing (unless it has ended), its final fate lies within the southern Indian Ocean, so we're assuming the worst that its passengers and the crew, along with the plane itself, did not survived. Here are the latest news. If this is true, then may the plane, and its passengers and crews, would reach a new heaven.

[Courageous Thunder Dash 7,824]

I don't know if I could call it just yet. 

[Serbon div 386]

That is the consequence of too much unnecessary electronics

R.I.P.

[Jon the VGNerd 885]

I don't know if I could call it just yet. 

 

True. However, most of us are assuming the worst. We don't know for certain, but it's a possibility.

[Serbon div 386]

 

 

True. However, most of us are assuming the worst. We don't know for certain, but it's a possibility.

Planes don't disappear just like that you know. Sadly, I don't believe anything else could have happened.

[Nine 707]

That is the consequence of too much unnecessary electronics

R.I.P.

What are you talking about? Even if the plane's fate is the result of an equipment failure and not sabotage, the systems aboard modern aircraft have mitigated many more would-be disasters.

[Serbon div 386]

 

 

What are you talking about? Even if the plane's fate is the result of an equipment failure and not sabotage, the systems aboard modern aircraft have mitigated many more would-be disasters.

I mean that The Boeing Company doesn't have a sense of simplicity, and allows many things to go wrong. Severely overpriced in my opinion.

 

But that's not the point...

[LittleRawr 679]

I'm still hoping that the plane would be found somewhere, and it's passengers safe. There's always a chance that they landed on an island somewhere. 

 

So until there's actual proof, I won't be giving up hope.

Edited March 24, 2014 by LittleRawr

[Nine 707]

I mean that The Boeing Company doesn't have a sense of simplicity, and allows many things to go wrong. Severely overpriced in my opinion.

 

But that's not the point...

If you meant that they don't have a "sense of simplicity" (?), that they allow many things to go wrong (?) and that their aircraft are overpriced (?), why did you just mention "unnecessary electronics"?

 

I'm not really fishing for an answer here. I just think it wasn't a very thoughtful remark in the first place.

[Treble Bolt 1,122]

Giving up is the worst thing we can do....you never know....

[Nine 707]

@@LittleRawr,

@@Treble Bolt,

 

Not to sound unduly grim, but we might consider at this point that there's such a thing as too much optimism. If these reports are accurate and conclusive enough to prompt the Malaysian prime minister to make a statement that the plane has crashed with no survivors, the most humane thing to do right now might be to just acknowledge it and let the tormented families begin the grieving process properly.

 

I think it's over.

[Treble Bolt 1,122]

I think so too...but because there is no completely conclusive evidence, you just never know...

[Serbon div 386]

 

 

If you meant that they don't have a "sense of simplicity"

That is general for things produced in the United States. It has a lot of unnecessary electronics that allow more room for errors.

[LittleRawr 679]

@@Nine,

 

I read somewhere that the phones of the passengers would still ring when called, not just say that 'This user's phone is switched off', etc.

 

And searches are still ongoing. 

[long gone 8,929]

Does anyone know when Boeing is going to get involved? Usually they get involved when one of their planes is down, or believed to be down.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Daring

[Nine 707]

That is general for things produced in the United States. It has a lot of unnecessary electronics that allow more room for errors.

So .. your point, if I'm following you, is that the US manufactures more complex equipment .. and that that's bad, because complex things can potentially fail in more ways?

 

Uh .. huh

 

Next time I'll book my flight on Rocket Chair Airlines.

 

 

@@Nine,

 

I read somewhere that the phones of the passengers would still ring when called, not just say that 'This user's phone is switched off', etc.

 

And searches are still ongoing. 

 

idk how phones work in an instance like this, but I might guess if they were outside the range of a tower that they don't register as being off because the devices just can't be found. Just a guess.

It still wouldn't negate the satellite data.

[LittleRawr 679]

 

 

dk how phones work in an instance like this, but I might guess if they were outside the range of a tower that they don't register as being off because the devices just can't be found. Just a guess.

 

In that case, they would say that the user can't be reached.

 

 

 

It still wouldn't negate the satellite data.

 

The data is still not completely certain.

 

 

i personally believe that the plane still has a chance of being found. 

[Nine 707]

The data is still not completely certain.

Well .. "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean completely certain, but it's effectively close enough.

If there are survivors, I hope they've got flint, steel, and a fishing rod or two.

[Yamato 1,348]

That is general for things produced in the United States. It has a lot of unnecessary electronics that allow more room for errors.

 

      Dude, a Boeing has no more electronics than an Airbus, and those are made in France. Think about it. Extra electronics means extra weight, extra weight means lower passenger capacity and lower fuel economy. If the Boeing gets less fuel economy and carries fewer passengers than the Airbus, is any airliner going to buy it? No. They wanna make money, and wasting fuel and passenger capacity is not a way to make money. Furthermore, Quantas operates a fleet comprised of Boeings and they maintain the highest safety record of any airliner. Also, many aircraft today are either incapable of flight of find it incredibly difficult without their electronic systems. When you're talking about the current generation of jet airliners, it really all comes down to pilots and maintenance. Things have far improved since the Dehavilland Comet and its exploding windows. They're all roughly the same as far as systems and shit go. Things are far less likely to go wrong now than they were back in, say, the '60's. Of course, when they do, given the carrying capacity of these new aircraft, they often go far more pear-shaped.

 

      Now the aircraft in question for this incident, the Boeing 777-200ER, is remarkably safe. In it's 20-years of service, only four airframes, including this one, have been "lost" (that's their word for crashed). Of these four losses, only two resulted in fatalities. One in San Francisco last year caused 3 fatalities, and this one caused 239. That works out to an average annual loss rate of 12 people per year. Compare this to the 1.2 million people per year attributed to automobiles. However, cars have gotten far safer, too, with the help of technology. There's a brilliant video up on YouTube in which a 2009 Chevrolet collides head-on with a 1959 Chevrolet. The '09 really fucks the '59 up... What I'm saying here is that these new "overcomplicated" machines are often far safer than their barebones ancestors. New failsafes and safety features have seen to that. But even failsafes can fail, and safety features and procedures can only help so much. There's probably never going to be a perfectly safe airliner, but they're certainly not getting more dangerous.

 

EDIT: made the formatting friendlier.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Bob Ross

[Yuna Crescent 142]

i really do hope that they still find something...i mean even if it did go underwater they'd still find something...wouldn't they?

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

That is the consequence of too much unnecessary electronics

 

There's no nice way to put this: you don't know what you're talking about.  I fly jets across vast stretches of ocean all the time.  The "unnecessary electronics" you refer to are built and used specifically to provide safer, more reliable navigation, reporting and coordination.  Flying across the ocean is safer now than it's ever been, largely thanks to the technologies available to us.  Zero out of 100 informed pilots (Delta, UPS, military transport, etc) would voluntarily go back to the days of ocean crossings with magnetic compasses, whiz wheels and stop watches.

 

EDIT: my jet is Boeing, too.  I trust its capabilities (and my ability to fully utilize its capabilities) with my life.  Daily.  For years.

Edited March 24, 2014 by NLR Information Minister

[PinkiePieJr 122]

I think one of the worst things about it, is the fact that I never even heard about this plane until a couple days ago XD

It's one of my problems I guess. Just don't really care about modern things that are going arround. 'Tis the consequences of living in fantasy I guess.

[Scootalove 10,689]

I don't think that the plane landed in the Indian Ocean, unless there is some evidence connecting to that. With all of the missteps that we had in terms of evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if it landed somewhere else.

[long gone 8,929]

That is general for things produced in the United States. It has a lot of unnecessary electronics that allow more room for errors.

Airbus planes rely entirely on fly-by-wire to fly and require very little pilot input. This led to the loss of Air France 447 back in 2009, as the plane got confused by ice building up on it, disconnected the autopilot and stalled before the pilots could appropriately react. To say that it's just Boeing with that problem is crazy talk.

 

Those "unnecessary electronics" are, as others have already explained, meant to try to improve safety. Of course, there are going to be safety concerns even with the newest aircraft, like the Boeing 787 or Airbus A350, and there will never be a perfectly safe vehicle of any sort, but they can at least try.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

I don't think that the plane landed in the Indian Ocean, unless there is some evidence connecting to that. With all of the missteps that we had in terms of evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if it landed somewhere else.

 

2 minutes of research yields these publicly available Takeoff and Landing Data (TOLD) spaghetti charts for the 777.  It gives us a bit of insight into what's technically possible, regarding that jet landing safely someplace.  Page 54 if you guys actually care to follow along.

 

Under optimal conditions (low fuel, dry runway on a cool day at/near sea level) a jet with that many passengers and their luggage needs just over 4,000 feet of runway to land.  If you put a pin on the map, denoting their last known location, then draw a circle representing the maximum range given their fuel (and the jetstream at the time), you can build a list of possible runways, highways, fields etc. that they MIGHT be able to land on.  That part of the world (except Australia) has a very high population density.

 

Bottom line: unless it landed in someplace like North Korea, there's no possible way for it to safely touch down without ANYBODY eventually reporting it.  It's a quarter billion dollar machine with more than 200 people on it.  If it was intact somewhere, people would notice.