Missing Malaysian 777

[nookiebear]

Vietnamese aircraft spotted what they suspected was one of the doors belonging to the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 on Sunday, as troubling questions emerged about how two passengers managed to board the Boeing 777 using stolen passports.

The discovery comes as officials consider the possibility that the plane disintegrated mid-flight, a senior source told Reuters.

The state-run Thanh Nien newspaper cited Lt. Gen. Vo Van Tuan, deputy chief of staff of Vietnam's army, as saying searchers in a low-flying plane had spotted an object suspected of being a door from the missing jet. It was found in waters about 56 miles south of Tho Chu island, in the same area where oil slicks were spotted Saturday.

"From this object, hopefully (we) will find the missing plane," Tuan said. Thanh Nien said two ships from the maritime police were heading to the site.

An authority told Reuters that it was too dark to be certain the object was part of the missing plane, and that more aircraft would be dispatched to investigate the site in waters off southern Vietnam in the morning.

Rahman said that the search area has been increased to 50 nautical miles, from 20, and includes 34 aircraft and 40 ships. Aircraft are conducting 12-hour searches, until sundown, while ships are scheduled to continue the search throughout the night.

Meanwhile, Interpol says no country checked its database for information about stolen passports that were used to board the Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared with 239 people on board Saturday less than an hour after taking off from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, bound for Beijing.

In a sharply worded criticism of shortcomings of national passport controls, the Lyon, France-based international police body said information about the thefts of an Austrian passport in 2012 and an Italian passport last year was entered into its database after they were stolen in Thailand.

Interpol said in a statement it was investigating all other passports used to board the flight and was working to determine the "true identities" of the passengers who used the stolen passports.

"I can confirm that we have the visuals of these two people on CCTV," Malaysian Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said at a news conference late Sunday, adding that the footage was being examined. "We have intelligence agencies, both local and international, on board."

Hussein declined to give further details, saying it may jeopardize the investigation. Hussein said only two passengers had used stolen passports, and that earlier reports that the identities of two others were under investigation were not true.

European authorities on Saturday confirmed the names and nationalities of the two stolen passports: One was an Italian-issued document bearing the name Luigi Maraldi, the other Austrian under the name Christian Kozel. Police in Thailand said Maraldi's passport was stolen on the island of Phuket last July.

A telephone operator on a China-based KLM hotline on Sunday confirmed to The Associated Press that "Maraldi" and "Kozel" were both booked to leave Beijing on a KLM flight to Amsterdam on March 8. Maraldi was then to fly to Copenhagen, Denmark, on KLM on March 8, and Kozel to Frankfurt, Germany, on March 8.

She said since the pair booked the tickets through China Southern Airlines, she had no information on where they bought them. The ticket purchases reportedly took place almost simultaneously, and the tickets were numbered consecutively, according to the BBC.

A U.S. official told Fox News that a key priority is clarifying the status of the passports, whether they were lost or stolen, and determining through airport security screening and video who got on the flight under those names.

The statements came as officials said finding the wreckage of the flight is “the utmost priority."

“There is still no sign of the aircraft,” Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, director general of the Department of Civil Aviation, said during a news conference in Kuala Lumpur.

The U.S. Navy sent a warship, the USS Pickney, which was conducting training and maritime security operations off the South China Sea, and a surveillance plane. Singapore said it would send a submarine and a plane. China and Vietnam were sending aircraft to help in the search.

It is not uncommon for it to take several days to find the wreckage of an aircraft floating on the ocean. Locating and then recovering the flight data recorders, vital to any investigation, can take months or even years.

When pressed on reports of fake passports used by at least two passengers on board the flight and the possibility of a terrorist attack, Rahman re-stated that the priority is to find the aircraft and that any probe investigating a terror link is independent of the search mission. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has also said it is “too early to make any conclusive remarks.”

Earlier, Malaysia’s air force chief told reporters that military radar indicated that the plane may have turned from its flight route before losing contact.

Rodzali Daud didn't say which direction the plane might have taken when it apparently went off route.

"We are trying to make sense of this," he told a media conference. "The military radar indicated that the aircraft may have made a turn back and in some parts, this was corroborated by civilian radar."

Malaysia Airlines Chief Executive Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said pilots were supposed to inform the airline and traffic control authorities if the plane does start to return. "From what we have, there was no such distress signal or distress call per se, so we are equally puzzled," he said.

Vietnamese air force planes spotted two large oil slicks late Saturday in the first sign that the aircraft had crashed. The slicks were each between 6 miles and 9 miles long, the Vietnamese government said in a statement.

But there was no confirmation that the slicks were related to the missing plane, but the statement said they were consistent with the kinds that would be produced by the two fuel tanks of a crashed jetliner.

The plane was carrying 227 passengers, including two infants and 12 crew members when it “lost all contact,” with Subang Air Traffic Control at 2:40 a.m., two hours into the flight, the airline said. The plane was expected to land in Beijing at 6:30 a.m. Saturday.

Around the time the plane vanished, the weather was fine and the plane was already at cruising altitude, making its disappearance all the more mysterious.

Just 9 percent of fatal accidents happen when a plane is at cruising altitude, according to a statistical summary of commercial jet accidents done by Boeing. The plane was last inspected 10 days ago and found to be "in proper condition," Ignatius Ong, CEO of Malaysia Airlines subsidiary Firefly airlines, said at a news conference.

The lack of a radio call "suggests something very sudden and very violent happened," said William Waldock, who teaches accident investigation at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz.

The plane "lost all contact and radar signal one minute before it entered Vietnam's air traffic control," Lt. Gen. Vo Van Tuan, deputy chief of staff of the Vietnamese army, said in a statement issued by the government.

U.S. officials said late Saturday that a team of safety experts had been dispatched to Southeast Asia to assist in the investigation. Officials from the National Transportation Safety Board told Fox News that the team, which includes investigators from the agency and technical experts from the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing, had been sent to the region despite the fact that the plane had not been located due to the lengthy travel time from the U.S. and the team's desire to be in a position to assist local authorities right away. The FBI is also assisting in the search.

Meanwhile, a former intelligence official told Fox News that the information about stolen passports from two adjacent European countries, combined with recent warnings for flights to the United States about the risk of possible shoe bomb attacks, is concerning.

The airline said onboard the plane, there were 152 passengers from China, 38 from Malaysia, seven from Indonesia, six from Australia, five from India and three from the U.S. and others from Indonesia, France, New Zealand, Canada, Ukraine, Russia, Taiwan and the Netherlands.

The U.S. State Department later confirmed in a statement that three Americans were aboard the jetliner.

In the United States, a friend confirmed to the Associated Press that an IBM executive from North Texas named Philip Wood had been aboard the jet. Freescale Semiconductor, a company based in Texas, also confirmed Saturday that 20 of its employees -- 12 from Malaysia and eight from China -- were passengers.

The airline says the plane's pilot is Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a 53-year-old who has been with the airline for over 30 years. The plane's first officer is Fariq Ab.Hamid, a 27-year-old who joined the airline in 2007. Both are Malaysians.

At Beijing's airport, authorities posted a notice asking relatives and friends of passengers to gather at a hotel about nine miles from the airport to wait for further information, and provided a shuttle bus service.

Malaysia Airlines has 15 Boeing 777-200 jets in its fleet of about 100 planes.

The 777 had not had a fatal crash in its 20-year history until the Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco in July 2013.

Fox News' Catherine Herridge and Dan Gallo, as well as The Associated Press contributed to this report.







  Print
  Email
  Share
 4495 Comments




inShare.17


Related Video





Stolen passports linked to missing Malaysia airline flight






Malaysia Airlines loses contact with jet



Related Images




Map shows where missing plane departed and scheduled to land.

Related StoriesStolen European passports on missing Malaysian airlines flightA look at the deadliest air disasters in world historyBoeing 777 considered one of the most popular, safest jets

   
Also on the Web   

[nookiebear]

Have they located it at last..........A Chinese ship has reported detecting a pinging on the right frequency in the right area........??

[DeputyDavid]

Not as of this moment.  Still scrambling to the location of the pings.  We should know something in next 24 hours or so.

[nookiebear]

Not as of this moment.  Still scrambling to the location of the pings.  We should know something in next 24 hours or so.

Time is running out as the battery is about to expire!

[urleft]

Ran across this bit:   

From a retired AF colonel, now a pilot for AA, flying the Boeing 777:
 
All,
 
Just a quick update with what I know about the Malaysia 777 disappearance. The Boeing 777 is the airplane that I fly. It is a great, safe airplane to fly. It has, for the most part, triple redundancy in most of its systems, so if one complete system breaks (not just parts of a system), there are usually 2 more to carry the load. Its also designed to be easy to employ so 3rd world pilots can successfully fly it. Sometimes, even that doesnt work…as the Asiana guys in San Fran showed us. A perfectly good airplane on a beautiful, sunny day…and they were able to crash it. It took some doing, but they were able to defeat a bunch of safety systems and get it to where the airplane would not help them and the pilots were too stupid/scared/unskilled/tired to save themselves.
 
There are many ways to fly the 777 and there are safety layers and redundancies built into the airplane. It is tough to screw up and the airplane will alert you in many ways (noises, alarms, bells and whistles, plus feed back thru the control yoke and rudder pedals and throttles. In some cases the airplanes throttles come alive if you are going to slow for a sustained period of time) All designed to help. But, its also non-intrusive. If you fly the airplane in the parameters it was designed for, you will never know these other things exist. The computers actually help you and the designers made it for the way pilots think and react. Very Nice.
 
Now to Malaysia. There are so many communication systems on the airplane. 3 VHF radios. 2 SatCom systems. 2 HF radio systems. Plus Transpoders and active, real time monitoring through CPDLC (Controller to Pilot Data Link Clearance) and ADS B(Air Data Service) through the SatCom systems and ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) thru the VHF, HF and SatCom systems. The air traffic controllers can tell where we are, speed, altitude, etc as well as what our computers and flight guidance system has set into our control panels. Big Brother for sure! However, most of these things can be turned off.
 
But, there are a few systems that can’t be turned off and one, as reported by the WSJ, is the engine monitoring system (not sure what the acronym for that is, but Im sure there is one….its aviation…there has to be an acronym!). The Malaysia airplane, like our 777-200s, use Rolls Royce Trent Engines (as a piece of trivia….Rolls Royce names their power plants after rivers….because they always keep on running!) Rolls Royce leases these engines to us and they monitor them all the time they are running. In fact, a few years back, one of our 777s developed a slow oil leak due to a partial equipment failure. It wasn’t bad enough to set off the airplanes alerting system, but RR was looking at it on their computers in England. They contacted our dispatch in Texas and company Dispatch sent a message to the crew via SatCom in the North Pacific, telling them that RR wanted them to closely monitor oil pressure and temp on the left engine. Also, during the descent, they were advised NOT to retard the affected engine throttle to idle…keep it at or above a certain rpm. Additionally they wanted the crew to turn on the engine anti ice system as it heats some of the engine components.
 
The crew did all of that and landed uneventfully, but after landing and during the taxi in the left engine shut itself down using its redundant, computerized operating system that has a logic tree that will not allow it to be shut down if the airplane is in the air…only on the ground. Pretty good tech. Anyway, the point was that RR monitors those engines 100% of the time they are operating. The WSJ reported that RR indicated the engines on the Malaysia 777 were running normally for 4 to 5 hours after the reported disappearance. Malaysia denies this. We shall see.
 
Parting shot. If you travel by air avoid the 3rd world airlines. Their operators and maintenance are substandard. Substandard when traveling by bus or boat isnt so bad if the engines quit there...You just stop on the water or by the side of the road. Not so in airplanes. My piece of advice….if traveling by air use 1st world airlines. So, that leaves USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe, Japan and just a few others. Avoid the rest….just my opinion. If you get a real deal on air fare from Air Jabooti…skip it. Oh, there are a lot of the developing countries that use expatriate pilots from the 1st world. Emirates and Air Jordan come to mind and are very safe. As is Cathay Pacific. Air Pakistan and Egypt Air…not so much. Do the research or just drop me a note. Ill give you my opinion. And don’t EVER get in an Airbus!!
 
That’s all!
 
(signed)

[nookiebear]

The last sentence just portrays what how biased Americans are..........I feel totally at ease when flying on A Boeing or an Airbus moreso when I look out of the window & see the donkeys are ROLLS ROYCE!

[urleft]

LOL, how biased (spelled correctly) Americans are, and then say you are totally at ease because of the RR engines, no bias on your part there.   

[KeithD]

I suggest you improve your reading skills. The first part of the sentence confirms that Nookie is totally at ease flying in a Boeing or an Airbus, irrespective of the engines fitted; so no bias there. He then goes on to elaborate that he is even more (moreso) at ease when Rolls Royce engines are fitted, engines that your AA pilot spoke in length about, praising their quality and the service from the company.. So nookie wasn't biased (spelt correctly) after all.

[urleft]

And I suggest you mind you own business.  Nookie if fully capable of standing up for himself.  Just check out:  http://www.buriramexpats.com/forum/index.php/topic,2779.msg44731.html#msg44731


However, if you want to join as an antagonist, have at it. 

[KeithD]

Thank you for such a charming reply.

I wasn't so much defending nookie as merely pointing out the error of your statement. Clearly, accepting criticism isn't one of your strong points.

Perhaps you should check out your favourite font of all knowledge which appears to be Wikipedia ! Hopefully you will gain a better understanding there of how forums work.

Posting something on an open forum then telling people to mind their own business when they choose to reply, is both ill mannered and inappropriate.

antagonist - opponent, enemy (Wikipedia)  ....after only one slightly critical post? 

Clearly you have anger issues, which is worrying in a man who would choose to arm himself and  his family with deadly weapons.

[urleft]

Outstanding.  Another one.    On his 3rd post on the forum feels qualified to start correcting established members. 

Maybe you should participate on the forum a bit more that 2 posts before being critical of someone.  If you had more knowledge you would see where I have dished Wiki as an authoritative source, but being a your ignorance is blatant. 

Just FYI, I have ongoing banter with Nookie and Starman, you entered into it making you an antagonist. 
So you stuck you nose into situations that you were ignorant of the history.  Seems like you have busybody issues.   Gets back to my point, mind your own business.

And I defy you to find one instance on this forum where I dished anyone without being called out first.   It was not me that took a stance against you initially.  But now you are fair game. 


 

[KeithD]

Outstanding.  Another one.    On his 3rd post on the forum feels qualified to start correcting established members.
 
Why not?  Do people become more intelligent, wise or knowledgeable after making a few more posts? Not from where I'm standing. Is there a special  'established members' section where wise old sages like yourself, pass judgement on us minions?

Maybe you should participate on the forum a bit more that 2 posts before being critical of someone.

Why? Why can't people criticise another member on even their first post, if they feel it's justified? 

If you had more knowledge you would see where I have dished Wiki as an authoritative source, but being a your ignorance is blatant. 

Ignorance is assuming that just because I haven't posted here often, it obviously means that I haven't been reading the posts.

I find it strange that you say you have 'dished Wikipedia as an authoritative source', when you're currently using it as the basis for your argument as to who is British.

Just FYI, I have ongoing banter with Nookie and Starman, you entered into it making you an antagonist. 
So you stuck you nose into situations that you were ignorant of the history.  Seems like you have busybody issues.   Gets back to my point, mind your own business.

I merely chose to reply to a statement that you posted in a public forum. That is the purpose of forums and I am quite entitled to do that.

If you wish to have exclusive discussions with people then perhaps you should choose a different medium.

If you disliked my reply all you had to do was ignore it, instead you have chosen to make a mountain out of a molehill to soothe your ego.

And I defy you to find one instance on this forum where I dished anyone without being called out first.   It was not me that took a stance against you initially.  But now you are fair game. 

Why would I bother?   

I find it amazing that anyone would feel it necessary to take on such an aggressive attitude over one small criticism in a forum posting.

Let's see if I cant raise your blood pressure even higher.

[urleft]

The entire sad part of your post is your name.  My name is Keith, and I am proud of it.   

I have decided you are not worth meeting (note that I have met with Nookie per my effort)  I was at his Place in Feb 2014. 

But you, don't bother responding to my rib dinner invitations.  I don't care to meet you. 

[BillH52]

Speaking of RR . .
Mr. Allen Swift: Born: 1908Died 2010
This man owned and drove the same car for 82 YEARS.
Can you imagine even HAVING the same car for 82 years?
Mr. Allen Swift ( Springfield, MA ) received this 1928 Rolls-Royce Piccadilly-P 1 Roadster from his father, brand new - as a graduation gift in 1928.
He drove it, up until his death in 2010 at the age of 102.
He was the oldest, living owner of a car that was purchased new.
Just thought you'd like to see it.
It was donated to a Springfield museum after his death.
It has 1,070,000 miles on it, still runs like a Swiss watch, dead silent at any speed and is in perfect, cosmetic condition at 82 years of age. That's approximately 13,048 miles per year, 1,087 miles per month.

1,070,000! That's miles not kilometers

[Adam]