patrick.net

corntrollio says

How would the cabin not be pressurized?

Either by accident or on purpose (i.e. if whoever disabled the communications next disabled the cabin pressure). If either unattended or piloted by someone suicidal, the plane might reach a maximum altitude somewhat out of spec, which might explain the reported 45,000 feet.

curious2 says

corntrollio says

How would the cabin not be pressurized?

Either by accident or on purpose (i.e. if whoever disabled the communications next disabled the cabin pressure).

Okay, so I'm going to humor you here. If that's really the case, and you're already at 35,000 feet, why do you need to rise to 45,000 feet? I'm pretty sure people would be unconscious in less than a minute at 35,000 feet already, so why do you need to risk the airframe to go higher?

Again, I'd also point out that these numbers make no sense. There's no way in hell the pilot or first officer descended 40,000 feet/minute. That's 454 miles/hour downward, for one thing. Second, you would probably be going past Mach 1 when you got there, which means not good things. Third, you would have to be very skilled to take yourself out of the dive without ripping wings off or having G-forces rip something else on your plane. You can do some crazy shit in a 777, but they aren't designed for things fighter pilots might be able to do.

bob2356 says

An airliner works very close to the edge of stall at cruise speeds and altiitudes. Aerodynamic stall speed gradually decreases with altitude, supersonic shock stalls speed decrease with altitude. At some point they overlap and the plane stalls. This is called coffin corner.

Agree, I'm familiar with the coffin corner concept.

bob2356 says

A pilot randomly setting speeds and altitudes would be playing a very dicey game. Flying at 5000 feet would guzzle fuel at a huge rate, jets are only efficient at high altitudes. Pressurization wouldn't be any problem at all. Concords flew at 55,000 feet every trip.

Agree on all accounts. Flying at 5000 feet would guzzle fuel a lot faster and you couldn't fly the full 5-7 hours or whatever these guys allegedly flew, but it would evade radar. It would be far simpler to do this, to evade detection, than to shadow another 777 for several hours.

Concorde was designed for those high elevations more so than a 777 -- I believe there were additional systems in place for higher altitude, e.g. the smaller windows plus additional air systems in case there was a cabin breach. I believe Concorde also pressurized lower -- more like 6000 feet, but I'd have to check to be sure. I believe the new 787/Dreamliner also pressurizes around 6000 feet. Concorde also was still required to meet the emergency descent requirements I referred to above.

Another thing I am wondering about. If the plane had exploded ala TWA 800 would early warning satellites have picked up the heat as a potential launch? If the plane crashed mid ocean might the sound of such a crash be detectable by SOSUS? I think the US has at least a small SOSUS by Diego Garcia. After the big quake of 2004 there was also talk of installing a more complete microphone network in the Indian ocean to better detect underwater earthquakes. If it was ever installed such a system might also be able to indicate where an airliner like this one went down.

curious2 says

If either unattended or piloted by someone suicidal, the plane might reach a maximum altitude somewhat out of spec, which might explain the reported 45,000 feet.

You added this text afterward.

How would the plane go to 45,000 feet unattended?

Also, why wouldn't a suicidal pilot just crash the plane into the ground/ocean at the first chance possible (again, Occam's Razor fail to suggest that they would fly around for several hours first).

On one site, some people were obsessed with the (im)possibility that the flight was going to Somalia. Why? Because there are pirates there? Mogadishu is too far, for one thing, but you'd also be crossing over Indian mainland territory if you went from somewhere near Port Blair (IXZ, where apparently the radar was off) to Mogadishu (MGQ).

corntrollio says

Okay, so I'm going to humor you here. If that's really the case, and you're already at 35,000 feet, why do you need to rise to 45,000 feet?

Those are the reported altitudes. If I had to guess why climb above normal cruising altitude, maybe it was to depressurize faster and create an upward pitch preventing anyone from rolling a drink cart through the cockpit door. Or, as one pilot wrote, it might be a damaged plane with no one controlling it. Either way, you aren't humoring me and I don't find the loss of a plane with 239 people particularly amusing. Neither of us was on the plane, so we don't know exactly what it did, let alone what it could have done. I would guess though that if the pilot was committing suicide by plane crash then he probably didn't have the normal level of concern for the airframe.

corntrollio says

How would the plane go to 45,000 feet unattended?

by accident.

corntrollio says

Also, why wouldn't a suicidal pilot just crash the plane into the ground/ocean at the first chance possible (again, Occam's Razor fail to suggest that they would fly around for several hours first).

To conceal the suicide, which must be concealed in order to collect on life insurance and avoid blame.

curious2 says

Those are the reported altitudes.

No, those are rumored numbers from an unconfirmed source. The rest of your argument depends on a shitty CNN article that makes a lot of random conjectures based on this rumored data that can't be confirmed.

curious2 says

To conceal the suicide, which must be concealed in order to collect on life insurance and avoid blame.

Well, the pilot was separated or divorced already, so I'm not sure why he would want his wife/ex-wife to collect. He did have a few kids already, so maybe he would want them to collect. I'm not sure about the heirs of the first officer.

Again, this seems far-fetched and convenient. This is not usually how suicidal people think. The movies have really shaped a lot of people's views on suicide in a way that doesn't really comport well with reality, at least according to studies that have been done.

In addition, you're assuming that the *intentional* action of disabling the transponder and other electronic systems would somehow escape the insurance company's investigation team? And then flying in the wrong direction incompetently would somehow cause it to be an "accident"? No insurance company would pay the life insurance claim until they had a lot more answers, and you're not answering any questions that need to be answered by this simplistic not well-thought-out explanation.

curious2 says

I don't find the loss of a plane with 239 people particularly amusing.

Nice attempt to appeal to emotion, but it doesn't make your tinfoil-hat theories any more plausible. This is going on all over the place -- there are even people trying to suggest the flight landed on Diego Garcia. Do they know what's on Diego Garcia?

curious2 says

"There is an axiom in Malaysian politics: Eventually everything comes back to Anwar Ibrahim. So, the longer that the fumbling and inept investigation into the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has gone on, the more certain it became that it would somehow boomerang to the leader of the country’s democratic opposition."

Agree that there's a lot of Third World nonsense going on here by the Malaysian government. They can't even get their own stories straight.

corntrollio says

your argument...you're assuming...your tinfoil-hat theories

OK, I'm through with you. The reported numbers aren't my "argument" or "tinfoil-hat theories;" if you don't believe them you can go harangue the networks and investigators and pilots who have published subject to fact-checking. On my screen, you're just an anonymous commenter, maybe a 12yo in mom's basement, which is beginning to seem more likely, in fact if I must choose a theory I'll go with that. I've made few if any assumptions, being very careful to consider alternatives published by experienced authors working under their own names. Go harangue them if you must.

Problem is getting out when the market is going down.

My pal on Maui had excellent timing, putting his custom house on the market in late 2005:

my email to him was "Good time to sell!", LOL

but it still took two whole years of lowering the price to entice a buyer.

Original listing price was $1.3M IIRC.

curious2 says

if you don't believe them you can go harangue the networks and investigators and pilots who have published subject to fact-checking

Again, your main "evidence" is a CNN article based on one non-Boeing pilot's musings based on unconfirmed data. Hard to call it solid. Even your source says the data doesn't make sense, although not directly:

Though these oscillations are larger than I might expect, it would be a natural behavior for the airplane to fly relatively large but gentle pitch oscillations.

Large gentle pitch oscillations are inconsistent with the alleged data that it dropped quickly. What he's saying is that an unattended plane could make *gentle* changes of those altitudes, but not sudden ones, as the alleged data claims.

If you really think that CNN article is "fact-checked," I don't know what to tell you. There are a lot of random theories being thrown around in a lot of news stories that have been "fact-checked" and I bet there are even more in the shitty cable-news broadcasts by completely uninformed people.

As I stated earlier, you could already depressurize people plenty at 35,000 feet, and in about a minute probably. Do you need the additional 45 seconds that 45,000 feet might get you to ensure people are unconscious? If the cockpit doors are bolted as tightly as people say, I'm not sure why you would. In any case, oxygen masks would come down, and the oxygen would flow for at least 15-20 mins or maybe as much as 30 mins. Why would you come right back down to 23,000 feet then and so suddenly?

jojo says

A REIT would be better if you absolutely need exposure to this asset class for a shorter time horizon.

HCN (Health Care) is the best bet. As the boomer sell they still need a place to live and get help.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

The toppling of the pro-Russian regime was a consequence of CIA and other U.S. government backing for the opposition and the protesters.

What a steaming pile of crap.

Call it Crazy says

cloud15 says

I take your advice very seriously and would want to know more and prepare in advance .

That's your FIRST problem.....

Bullshit, I made money listening to his advise and many others on the board have the same experience.

lostand confused says

Russia has very little debt, huge surplus and still growing at close to 4-5% a year.

Russian companies are up to their ears in debt to foreign banks. Russia's exports are mostly oil and gas (~60%). They import pretty much everything else: food (for example up to 80% of beef is imported), pharmaceuticals, oil&gas equipment, textile&footwear, cars&trucks and parts, farm equipment and parts, aircraft and parts, etc. If slapped with real sanctions (ban on oil and gas exports, banking restrictions, ban on sensitive technology imports) Russia will fold like a cheap suit in 2-3 years, or even faster. Putin's popularity won't survive a drop in quality of life for average Russian. The fucker is bluffing.

Straw Man says

Russian companies are up to their ears in debt to foreign banks. Russia's
exports are mostly oil and gas (~60%). They import pretty much everything else:
food (for example up to 80% of beef is imported), pharmaceuticals, oil&gas
equipment, textile&footwear, cars&trucks and parts, farm equipment and
parts, aircraft and parts, etc. If slapped with real sanctions (ban on oil and
gas exports, banking restrictions, ban on sensitive technology imports) Russia
will fold like a cheap suit in 2-3 years, or even faster. Putin's popularity
won't survive a drop in quality of life for average Russian. The fucker is
bluffing.

America throws more people in jail than any nation on earth. maybe we need some of that freedom they are selling everywhere. Oh wait , they will probably bomb us in the name of freedom.

corntrollio says

Do you really think 45,000 would incapacitate people on the plane? I doubt depressurization would be a problem at that altitude, and more mundane concerns like thrust and stall would come into play (i.e. that the airplane might not be able to achieve or maintain that altitude at close to full load -- remember that this is a big loaded plane).

Former aerospace engineer, what you refer to is the flight envelope. It's a design chart. Yes the higher you go, the harder things get. As my Boomer BIL used to say though "crush depth is just a marking on the gauge". You don't know the precise limits of a particular airplane and loading until you hit the edge of them.

The 777 I think has Flight Envelope Protection which attempts to prevent the pilot from issuing commands that will get it to the edge of it's design envelope. So there's that.

However if you manage to depressurize the cabin you could kill everyone on board and not have to worry about them any more. Above 25,000 feet everyone without oxygen would be dead in minutes.

http://www.theairlinepilots.com/medical/decompressionandhypoxia.htm

Another possibility is some catastrophe took place, and the pilot(s) were so incapacitated by hypoxia that they were barely conscious and unable to effectively save themselves. Punch in a few commands to turn the plane, doze off.... wake up! do something more.... doze off again....

Ends like Helios 522:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

Feinstein used to be so stunning years ago,

I guess she is proof that...

..up till 40 you get the face your born with; after 40 you get the face you deserve!

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Flight 370 Theories

I have a theory.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wHP0q7-EIL0

zzyzzx says

jojo says

Those people in the pic have incredibly clean clothes (bright whites!) for having just been a plane crash. And the guy still has his tie on. Amazing!

There were a lot more questionable things in that show, like how the fat guy can remain fat, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/G-DShnvNNv0

Anyone check North Korea for it yet?

Wasn't there an AD coming out on the B777. Something about catastrophic airframe failure at or near the radom? Requiring inspections on all 777's? Due out April 9th?

An airframe failure would have rapidly depressurized the cabin and . . . Also causing massive electrical failures in the cockpit from 500 mph winds.

zzyzzx says

Anyone check North Korea for it yet?

NK can't have many airfields capable of handling a plane as large as a 777. Of those I'm sure we've had them under surveillance for some time.

bob2356 says

Google doesn't work on your browser? It took me less than 2 minutes to come up with the numbers. Or are you saying you refuse to believe anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived xenophobic philosophy.

If it's on internet it doesn't mean it's true.

FortWayne says

If it's on internet it doesn't mean it's true.

Willful ignorance is still ignorance. We're talking about something factual here that's not open to interpretation.

mark.anania1 says

Wasn't there an AD coming out on the B777. Something about catastrophic airframe failure at or near the radom? Requiring inspections on all 777's? Due out April 9th?

I'm pretty sure that bulletin doesn't apply to this plane. The bulletin is about a specific satellite antenna that may result in corrosion, and this plane doesn't have that antenna.

From California home sales to bonds?

jojo says

It IS indirectly pegged to the 10year. Gsr is correct.

Please tell me what school gave you a degree in finance. I don't believe it.

jojo says

It IS indirectly pegged to the 10year. Gsr is correct.

Holy crap.

If it is pegged, then explain why this is not a straight line:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=tqt&dbeta=1

Maybe you don't know the definition of the word "pegged."

jojo says

It IS indirectly pegged to the 10year. Gsr is correct

OK--please define exactly what "indirectly pegged" means.

jojo says

@bgamall

The honest answer is that no one knows. We have never in human history had a financial superstructure like this. My best guess is we experience something like Japan has for the last 20 years (we are already almost 10 years in and it seems similar to Japan after their crash in the early 90s). If a large bank fails and the trillions of dollars of derivatives, which net out to a far smaller value, become unhinged because a counter party collapses then we could see a depression.

@jojo Interesting. This does mirror the 1920s in many ways, also imperial France before the revolution. Thoughts on the above parallels?

tatupu70 says

The honest answer is that no one knows.

I think Tatupoo needs something he can relate to more in his day-to-day line of work. Poo, think of 'indirectly pegged' like if you mistakenly put the 'For Sale' sign in the backyard instead of the front yard. Sure, you are directly putting up the sign, but you have 'indirectly pegged' it in the wrong location.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

tatupu70 says

The honest answer is that no one knows.

I think Tatupoo needs something he can relate to more in his day-to-day line of work. Poo, think of 'indirectly pegged' like if you mistakenly put the 'For Sale' sign in the backyard instead of the front yard. Sure, you are directly putting up the sign, but you have 'indirectly pegged' it in the wrong location.

Please don't misquote me. That was jojo's post, not mine.

jojo says

tatupu70 says

OK--please define exactly what "indirectly pegged" means.

Read this:

jojo says

10-Year Treasury Note and Rate

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicydefinitions/p/10-Year-Treasury.htm

That doesn't answer my question. Can you not define the term that you used?

jojo says

and this:

How Bond Market Pricing Works

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/bonds/07/pricing_conventions.asp

Are you having trouble finding the definition? I would think that you could readily define it in your own words without having to link to anything.

jojo says

Figure it out yourself. I've already given you the links and all the info is there. I'm not your teacher.

So, in other words, you can't define your own terms. Because they are BS. Got it.

jojo says

I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you how the treasury yield curve works.

That's good. Becuase I didn't ask you how the treasury yield curve works. And that's because I already know.

I have a very specific question. What does "indirectly pegged" mean?

jojo says

Indirectly pegged means this:

"The 10-year Treasury note rate is the yield, or rate of return, you get for investing in this note. The rate is important because it is the benchmark rate that guides almost all other interest rates"

lol--are you kidding me? You have a degree in finance?

jojo says

Indirectly pegged means this:
"The 10-year Treasury note rate is the
yield, or rate of return, you get for investing in this note. The rate is
important because it is the benchmark rate that guides almost all other interest
rates"

"Indirectly pegged" = "guides almost all other interest rates." Got it.

While we are playing this game, from now on, when I say "Austrian,", I really mean "factually blind economically illiterate Fed cultist."

Just so we are clear.

tatupu70 says

You have a degree in finance?

"I have a degree in Finance" means "I got a C in algebra and Ron Paul really got me excited about Austrian economics, so I have been to mises.org."

jojo says

I can't help it if none of you understand how the treasury curve works

Now you are pissing me off, dipshit.

If you can explain to me the differnce between this:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=tqt&dbeta=1

Which is the exact relationship you are talking about - and is certainly not constant.

And this:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=tsc&dbeta=1

Which shows something that was ACTUALLY pegged from mid 1995 through 2004.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the yield curve.

There are many factors that affect corporate bond prices. Risk, alternative investment opportunities, time (the yield curve you talk about), and yes, the risk free rate (commonly accepted as the 10 year in general, but not for a 3 month corporate debt offering, as an example, why? Because the yield curve is not constant either.)

Something that is a "factor" in something else does not mean it is pegged, directly or indirectly. If something is Pegged it is a constant relationship, 1:1, it does not change. Corporate debt rates vs. the 10 year is a floating spread, as I have quite plainly shown.