- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:33 pm to TOKEN
when crossing to and from Canada or Mexico, they just look at them. When coming off of a cruise, they scan them.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:35 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
I have trouble with motive as to why the CIA would care about this random Malaysian flight.
You can't come up with any reasons that a missing 777 could alarm our intelligence?
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:40 pm to Topwater Trout
The deal about a 777 and a 737 is size? I mean, I am not a plane guy, so I don't know.
To me, it's just a bigger plane. But I am not sure how it is that big of a prize over other models.
To me, it's just a bigger plane. But I am not sure how it is that big of a prize over other models.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:48 pm to Traffic Circle
Idk but I'm guessing the 777 is larger, has longer range, and better technology. They say it can practically fly itself.
Regardless of it being a 777, 737, or other huge passenger plane the CIA and any other major intel agency would be interested in wtf happened to it.
Regardless of it being a 777, 737, or other huge passenger plane the CIA and any other major intel agency would be interested in wtf happened to it.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:52 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
You can't come up with any reasons that a missing 777 could alarm our intelligence?
You and I misinterpreted that statement. See his response to me earlier. He's saying that he isn't buying the nutjob theories about the CIA stealing the plane and taking it to Diego Garcia. If the CIA wanted a 777 they'd just call up Everett, WA and have one built.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:54 pm to MountainTiger
Oh good that makes more sense.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:01 pm to MountainTiger
quote:
He's saying that he isn't buying the nutjob theories about the CIA stealing the plane and taking it to Diego Garcia. If the CIA wanted a 777 they'd just call up Everett, WA and have one built.
Exactly, thanks for paying attention and explaining MT.
I only brought it up because it seems like the US bringing the plane to Diego Garcia is posted on twitter a lot by people in the Malaysian region.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:18 pm to Napoleon
quote:
when crossing to and from Canada or Mexico, they just look at them. When coming off of a cruise, they scan them.
What do you think they should be doing instead?
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:26 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
What do you think they should be doing instead
Scan them.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:33 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
What do you think they should be doing instead?
Did I imply anything was wrong, or was I responding to a post about Getting by with a stolen passport and using an example of US border entry?
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:39 pm to N2cars
quote:
Admittedly, their security isn't nearly as stringent as ours.
Seriously? Have you ever flown internationally? They were better at security internationally before 9/11 than we are now. They usually have a second set of security at each gate unlike us (and I think that is why they have video of them together through that point of security), and you are 100x's more likely to get patted down anywhere else in the world.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:55 pm to Kingpenm3
quote:
Seriously? Have you ever flown internationally? They were better at security internationally before 9/11 than we are now. They usually have a second set of security at each gate unlike us (and I think that is why they have video of them together through that point of security), and you are 100x's more likely to get patted down anywhere else in the world.
Agreed...although about half of the European countries I've been to don't do the secondary screening. Thought it was an inconvenience in the Middle East, but was glad they were doing it. Wish it was mandatory for all flights flying into the US that originate overseas.
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:04 pm to Kingpenm3
HK had 2nd level security. Didnt see any when I was in Tokyo
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:05 pm to Traffic Circle
Size and flying range, mainly
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:07 pm to Kingpenm3
quote:
Seriously? Have you ever flown internationally? They were better at security internationally before 9/11 than we are now. They usually have a second set of security at each gate unlike us (and I think that is why they have video of them together through that point of security), and you are 100x's more likely to get patted down anywhere else in the world.
The only time I've ever gone through secondary screening was when coming back into the United States. I've never had to do it when leaving the country but admittedly I haven't flown internationally that much.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:15 pm to MountainTiger
quote:
The only time I've ever gone through secondary screening was when coming back into the United States. I've never had to do it when leaving the country but admittedly I haven't flown internationally that much.
Haven't seen it in the US either but have seen it flying from one city in the Middle East to another, or once city in Europe to another...not just back to the US.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:17 pm to LSUKTR
If it went down in the ocean, is it possible the the USN knows exactly where it is or has heard it pinging? Maybe they will leak the location and let someone else "find" it so that our capabilities aren't disclosed.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:36 pm to notiger1997
quote:
quote:
Don't planes have sensors that, when they come into contact with salt water, sends the location to a satellite regardless of wether the transponder or acars is working?
What?
Maybe you missed the emergency locator transmitter tutorial about 150 pages back. The 777 has a pair of these
LINK
one in the front, one in the back. They have multi-axis G force sensors, the force of the plane hitting the water should have activated at least one of them in time to get a signal out. They have their own internal battery power. There is a network of 16 satellites in orbit that do nothing but listen for signals from ELTs, they are on all commercial ships and planes.
There is a particular model of Honeywell ELT that will release from a holder, float and start transmitting upon contact with water, I have not been able to determine if the 777s have this on board.
The flight data and voice recorders do start ping upon contact with water.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:42 pm to Traffic Circle
quote:
The deal about a 777 and a 737 is size? I mean, I am not a plane guy, so I don't know.
To me, it's just a bigger plane. But I am not sure how it is that big of a prize over other models.
The 777 can haul a lot more weight a longer distance than the 737, I think this model 777 is like 9500 miles vs. 3800 miles for a 737. One could hit the U.S. from Western Asia or the Middle East, the other can't.
Page 305 of 375
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News