Malaysia Airlines loses contact with plane en route to Beijing with 239 aboard
CBS/REUTERSMarch 7, 2014, 8:12 PM
A Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 239 people from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing went missing over the South China Sea on Saturday, prompting China to send ships to scour the water for possible wreckage.
The airline, speaking several hours after the plane had been due to land in the Chinese capital, said it was still too early so say whether the aircraft had crashed. It said there had been no distress signal and it cited early speculation that the plane may have landed in Nanming in southern China.
As news of the disappearance filtered through to distraught friends and relatives who had been waiting for the flight to arrive in Beijing, Malaysia Airline said it was still investigating and took no questions at a brief news conference.
“Our team is currently calling the next-of-kin of passengers and crew,” the airlines’ group chief executive officer, Ahmad Jauhari Yahya, said in a statement. “Focus of the airline is to work with the emergency responders and authorities and mobilize its full support.”
“Our thoughts and prayers are with all affected passengers and crew and their family members,” he said.
like a twilight zone episode
Do yourselves and family a big favor.
Fly on US FLAG Carriers.
hummm , my experience with most US airlines would suggest different
With respect to safety and pilot training, the third world airlines remain a lot more dangerous.
(Unless this was an act of sabotage or terrorism)
A few recent examples of the HIGHEST tech aircraft flown by LOW skill pilots
Asiana in California where the pilots just flew it into the ground.
Air France that departed from Brazil and went into the ocean. The pilots were CLUELESS and unable to hold airspeed/attitude/altitude..
If you are referring to ‘cabin service, then some of these Asian airlines know how to treat passengers better, but if you have fine dining and a comfortable seat, it sucks if the boob up front flies it into the ground killing you. At least you had a nice last meal.
There is no explanation for a Boeing 777-200 crashing unless its pilot error or sabotage.
terrorism?
A Boeing 777-200 doesn’t just fall out of the sky when at cruise altitude.
Unless the news reports forgot to tell us about a massive line of thunderstorms there aren’t too many other explanations.
South Korea and France are third world? And regarding Asiana, pilot error is still not confirmed…callous comments aside condemning European and Asian pilots as incompetent, there have also been tragedies due to pilot error in “first world” countries… and recently as well….this tragedy is terrible regardless…
You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
The more speak about something you know NOTHING about makes you look even dumber.
The MORONS at Asiana flew the plane INTO the ground. The DUMMIES relied upon a system that was NOT engaged to fly the plane!
The flew the plane BELOW VREF (since you are CLUELESS i’ll explain its Vref=the speed at 1.3x VSO (=STALL in LANDING configuration) which is required on approach to keep a plane from STALLING (=wing stall=no fly= CRASH)
A student pilot does a better job.
Now stick to your comments about something you might have a CLUE about.
And yes.. South Korea and France ARE THIRD WORLD in the aviation business.
https://www.weather.com/news/san-francisco-asiana-plane-crash-investigation-20131212 I do apologize… based on the attached you are wholly correct…I was there when the SF tragedy happened and there was a lot of flack on facts… you obviously know your stuff big time … but tell us why you also disparage the French system…and with the Swissair tragedy, it is the same issue?
The Air France pilots were totally incompetent. It was a failure of the pitot static system heat which rendered their airspeed indicators unusable. This a basic instrument and the failure of such is no big deal. Its part of training for an instrument rating! Being inexperienced ‘stick and rudder pilots’ (like the old timers) they were WRONG interpreting the instrument indications and put the aircraft into an unrecoverable ‘deep stall’ at an altitude of (high 30,000 feet range if I recall). They were in an area of turbulence which is typical when flying around a squall line. But they screwed up having a lack of BASIC instrument flying skills. Its typical of newer pilots who I refer to as ‘computer operators’ rather than ‘stick and rudder’ pilots. Unfortunately when you are unfamiliar with basic flying characteristics of an aircraft you don’t get to go home at the end of the day.
Which Swissair are you referring to?
If you are referring to Swissair in Nova Scotia… they had smoke in the cockpit. An EXTREMELY dangerous situation. Lessons learned from that particular crash are many. The pilots, while most likely following ‘procedures and checklists’ in anticipation of solving a problem missed the opportunity to change the outcome. They OVERFLEW a suitable landing site (airport) and continued over the ocean, while, unknown to them, the smoke in the cockpit was from a fire of some sort that they were unable to isolate by pulling a circuit breaker and it overwhelmed them and they crashed.
AT THE TIME, they most likely followed the ‘accepted protocol’. AFTER that accident it has been changed in most training curriculm to GET THE PLANE ON THE GROUND and do NOT RESET circuit breakers after they pop again.
Unfortunately in aviation, we must learn from OTHERS mistakes.
This crew did what was the accepted practice at that time.
Just like before 9-11. Accepted practice was to not try and disarm the hijackers. things unfortunately change after people die.
Regarding Swissair, the one you stated, the Nova Scotia accident… how do you see pilots for the so considered global top tier airlines? Singapore Air, JAL, ANA, Emirates, Cathay, Korean Air, BA, Virgin, Lufthansa are considered the “it” airlines? You’re throwing icewater on how people see airlines….I gather you are stick and rudder 101, which is a dying breed… to the detriment of everyone… please share some more of your observations….thanks
to# 12, I could go on forever about this, but if you want to be safe, fly a US Flag carrier or perhaps one from the UK. Many of the foreign carriers do hire ex-pat (US pilots) to babysit their own citizens in the cockpit. One of the MAIN issues is ‘cultural differences’. Whereas a US carrier must use and practice CRM (Cockpit resource management, in which the copilot (first officer) is an INTEGRAL part of the crew), many of the foreign airlines relegate that position as a ‘seat warmer’, and subservient to the ‘captain’ who is the ‘commander’ with ‘authority’ and ‘whose actions must not be questioned’. As such, the copilot watches the captain make mistakes and is afraid to intervene. (It happened here in the Colgan crash in Rochester-I could go on forever about the ‘commuter planes here too!)
Getting on an airliner is safer than driving your car to the food store.
If you want to ‘stack the deck’ in your favor:
Fly US Major Airlines/Flag carriers (be wary of ‘code sharing’ with foreign airlines where you buy a ticket from a us airline and the flight is operated by a foreign airline OR a US “commuter partner’.
If you must fly a foreign airline, be very careful with your choice of carriers.
Stay the heck off Aeroflot.
Don’t fly on a day with massive thunderstorms @ the departure or destination airport.
Sit back and enjoy the flight.
The pilots up front think they’re the best in the world so they DO want to get there safely as well as their passengers.