From a PR POV they should have been talking about this as a salvage operation over a week ago, instead they left it wide open and the media went nuts. It would have been ok to admit they didn't know where they were salvaging it from, that wouldn't have sounded any more clueless than they do now.
From a PR POV they should have been talking about this as a salvage operation over a week ago, instead they left it wide open and the media went nuts. It would have been ok to admit they didn't know where they were salvaging it from, that wouldn't have sounded any more clueless than they do now.
Okay ... so over a week ago, they should have said they didn't know where the plane was or what had happened to it, but hey ... all the passengers must be dead!
The authorities really can't win, can they? Some people have been complaining that they haven't been pen enough with information. Now, people are complaining that they have revealed too much.
The authorities really can't win, can they? Some people have been complaining that they haven't been pen enough with information. Now, people are complaining that they have revealed too much.
IMO until they had actual clear facts they should have kept their mouths shut.
I think the only reason Inmarsat can't track all flights (fitted with a pinger) right now is that they don't have enough satellites. MH370 made most of it's flight where only one satellite could see it hence thhe vagueness of location. I think they have 3 but if there were 6 then that would be enough to get almost total coverage. Also the pingers might as well ping their GPS location since it's so easy to do.
GPS isn't generally used in aviation because really it's a US military thing and they reserve the right to turn it off if they feel the need.
Something will come out of this, and a universal plane tracker system, inaccessible to those on board, seems a likely option.
Well I firmly disagree, until you know the plane and all the people on board are sunk, crashed etc. You have hope and I think inspiring hope and uniting people in hope is much better and realistic than instantly presuming the worst.
How is it more realistic, or better, to 'hope' that everyone is going to be found alive, when the strong likelihood is that the opposite is the case?
"It is with great sadness we can confirm United Kingdom satellite data has proven beyond reasonable doubt that flight MH370 crashed into the Indian Ocean"
Hmmm...
I have to say, the moment we turn up having some unexpected technical capability I always think we're being used to announce by proxy by the USA. I know it sounds crazy, but I still have a tiny nagging doubt about Diego Garcia.
Okay ... so over a week ago, they should have said they didn't know where the plane was or what had happened to it, but hey ... all the passengers must be dead!
Great PR!
Great Post.
hope against hope vs uncertainty... they should have waited until they had hard evidence.
I didn't see that particular piece, but the two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The turn may have been deliberate, but it doesn't follow that it was wrong to turn. For example, if there had been an in-flight emergency, the right thing to do could have been to head for the nearest potential landing site.
Quite. There's a significant difference between concluding it was turned deliberately (which is highly probable) and concluding the reasons for that action.
Yes I know and I have read all of that. But in the latest incident in Malaysia I read about a woman whose daughter managed to get a text out of the aircraft to her to say the plane was in difficulty (and got told off for doing so) and the poor woman heard nothing else for 30 minutes before she got word she was safe. I find it hard to believe out of 239 people nobody got a text out, my son sends about 3 texts a minute in normal life and I would imagine he and other teenagers would immediately text.
How could they send texts if they were not within range of their service provider? They would have been something like 7 miles up in the air and hundreds of miles from the nearest phone mast.
I have to say, the moment we turn up having some unexpected technical capability I always think we're being used to announce by proxy by the USA. I know it sounds crazy, but I still have a tiny nagging doubt about Diego Garcia.
Okay ... so over a week ago, they should have said they didn't know where the plane was or what had happened to it, but hey ... all the passengers must be dead!
Great PR!
In terms of damage-limitation, it's better PR than how they're currently going about it, yes. Let's remember, they still don't know what happened to it, but have made the long overdue expect-the-worst announcement anyway.
The authorities really can't win, can they? Some people have been complaining that they haven't been pen enough with information. Now, people are complaining that they have revealed too much.
They do have clear facts. Otherwise they wouldn't have made this announcement. Why don't you believe the calculations that Inmarsat have made?
But do they?
I’m a bit confused as to what they’ve actually announced.
They’ve said the last position they saw the jet on the satellite was in the middle of the Indian Ocean with no nearby landing spots, and then it disappeared.
What I’ve read had said that relatives must ‘assume the plane is lost’ (haven’t we known that for 2 weeks anyway?) and that there are no survivors.
I think a statement like this can only be made if debris is found and confirmed to be from the jet (as happened in the Air France investigation) but this doesn’t seem to be the case?
In terms of damage-limitation, it's better PR than how they're currently going about it, yes. Let's remember, they still don't know what happened to it, but have made the long overdue expect-the-worst announcement anyway.
Damage limitation? Pff, did you see those people in Beijing? Didn't look limitated to me. Only ever give out information when the information is fact and that is damage limitation.
Awful footage of the distraught relatives. Although they must have been realised by now the chances of survival was next to nil, but to have it confirmed is terrible
What investigators need to find out now is whether it was a hijacking gone wrong or if there was a catastrophic plane failure as this could have implications for all other 777s which, like Malaysian Airlines, had an excellent safety record.
Because strong likelihood is not fact. Show me some facts.. tell me where the plane is and what happened to it.
Facts;
1) the aircraft has been missing for more than two weeks
2) all credible evidence thus far suggests that it has crashed into an extremely remote area of the Indian Ocean
3) such a scenario makes the likelhood of anyone still being alive extremely low
A suggestion that the authorities should somehow foster hope in the relatives that people are going to be found alive would be utterly irresponsible.
How long is it supposed to go on for? If they find the wreckage, but don't find all the bodies, should they be holding out hope that those people are still alive somewhere?
How could they send texts if they were not within range of their service provider? They would have been something like 7 miles up in the air and hundreds of miles from the nearest phone mast.
This lack of phone calls/text does seem to be a mystery. Whilst this plane wasn't fitted a special satcom router it is known that people have made calls from planes in flight by connecting to groundstations as they flew over them. Given that MH370 flew right over Malaysia making its detour it's surprising none appear to have been made.
Anybody here made a call from a plane in flight this way?
Comments
The media goes nuts no matter what...
Okay ... so over a week ago, they should have said they didn't know where the plane was or what had happened to it, but hey ... all the passengers must be dead!
Great PR!
IMO until they had actual clear facts they should have kept their mouths shut.
GPS isn't generally used in aviation because really it's a US military thing and they reserve the right to turn it off if they feel the need.
Something will come out of this, and a universal plane tracker system, inaccessible to those on board, seems a likely option.
How is it more realistic, or better, to 'hope' that everyone is going to be found alive, when the strong likelihood is that the opposite is the case?
I have to say, the moment we turn up having some unexpected technical capability I always think we're being used to announce by proxy by the USA. I know it sounds crazy, but I still have a tiny nagging doubt about Diego Garcia.
Great Post.
hope against hope vs uncertainty... they should have waited until they had hard evidence.
Quite. There's a significant difference between concluding it was turned deliberately (which is highly probable) and concluding the reasons for that action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Surface_search
Perhaps a quicker announcement along the same lines might have been better this time?
(I have no opinion on whether it would or not).
But certainly there have been two weeks of wild theories and a lot of unhappy families.
Because strong likelihood is not fact. Show me some facts.. tell me where the plane is and what happened to it.
OK, I know you can't. So how is this farce today helpful to anyone?
How could they send texts if they were not within range of their service provider? They would have been something like 7 miles up in the air and hundreds of miles from the nearest phone mast.
They do have clear facts. Otherwise they wouldn't have made this announcement. Why don't you believe the calculations that Inmarsat have made?
BIB, is what I think.
In terms of damage-limitation, it's better PR than how they're currently going about it, yes. Let's remember, they still don't know what happened to it, but have made the long overdue expect-the-worst announcement anyway.
What clear facts? They've no clue where the plane is ... it may or may not be where they speculate it to be.
But do they?
I’m a bit confused as to what they’ve actually announced.
They’ve said the last position they saw the jet on the satellite was in the middle of the Indian Ocean with no nearby landing spots, and then it disappeared.
What I’ve read had said that relatives must ‘assume the plane is lost’ (haven’t we known that for 2 weeks anyway?) and that there are no survivors.
I think a statement like this can only be made if debris is found and confirmed to be from the jet (as happened in the Air France investigation) but this doesn’t seem to be the case?
Damage limitation? Pff, did you see those people in Beijing? Didn't look limitated to me. Only ever give out information when the information is fact and that is damage limitation.
What investigators need to find out now is whether it was a hijacking gone wrong or if there was a catastrophic plane failure as this could have implications for all other 777s which, like Malaysian Airlines, had an excellent safety record.
Facts;
1) the aircraft has been missing for more than two weeks
2) all credible evidence thus far suggests that it has crashed into an extremely remote area of the Indian Ocean
3) such a scenario makes the likelhood of anyone still being alive extremely low
A suggestion that the authorities should somehow foster hope in the relatives that people are going to be found alive would be utterly irresponsible.
How long is it supposed to go on for? If they find the wreckage, but don't find all the bodies, should they be holding out hope that those people are still alive somewhere?
I don't know, I don't fly and I don't pretend to know how texts are sent or received. All I am going on is this story, in the text the girl sent the text 3 hours into the flight and said they had been told to prepare for an emergency landing in water. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587692/Malaysian-Airline-flight-diverted-Hong-Kong-electrical-issue-search-missing-flight.html
Anybody here made a call from a plane in flight this way?