|
Re: Malaysian 777
1 Attachment(s)
Aviator might be able to help here.... apparently that plane in the DM photo is the wrong shape for the missing plane.....
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 11179957)
One screw up in a car and you can be gone too, but people don't seem to have the same fear.
Aviation industry constantly quotes plane safety based on miles traveled. If you worked out the risk based on number of trips then the numbers change significantly in favour of cars. Deaths per billion KM Cars 3.1 planes 0.05 wow planes are so safe!!!!! Deaths per billion journeys Cars 40 planes 117 em say what now? |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by jwtimmon
(Post 11180012)
Aviation industry constantly quotes plane safety based on miles traveled.
If you worked out the risk based on number of trips then the numbers change significantly in favour of cars. Deaths per billion KM Cars 3.1 planes 0.05 wow planes are so safe!!!!! Deaths per billion journeys Cars 40 planes 117 em say what now? They appear to think it likely went down somewhere in the Southern Indian Ocean, as there hasn't been any evidence of it entering any countries air space. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysi...cean-1.2578164 I doubt it will ever be found at this point. |
Re: Malaysian 777
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety
I don't know about you but i take a lot more trips in cars than planes so I reckon I'm fairly safe in a plane. :) |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by Aviator
(Post 11179588)
If it did. Nobody seems to have a clue, ore at least letting on that they do. This seems as good a theory as any.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/ I'm putting my money on that explanation, pilot turned to make his way back to a safe runway He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer. Not my pic by the way http://i.imgur.com/txEaNxf.jpg |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by jwtimmon
(Post 11180066)
Thats the link I was referring to in a previous post
I'm putting my money on that explanation, pilot turned to make his way back to a safe runway Something happened to the crew to render them incapacitated and the plane continued on that heading until she ran out of fuel. Not my pic by the way http://i.imgur.com/txEaNxf.jpg Good map. But why did the plane climb to 45000 feet ? |
Re: Malaysian 777
The author of the linked article has come back with observations on the additional new data and 45,000 climb.
It's always possible that the pilots lost radio some time after saying good night but before they realised they were in trouble. Now let me deal with Diego's request for my present view in light of new evidence. We know there was a last voice transmission that from a pilot's point of view (POV) was entirely normal. The good night is customary on a hand -off to a new ATC control. The good night also indicates STRONGLY to me all was OK on the flight deck. Remember there are many ways a pilot can communicate distress - the hijack code or even a transponder code different by one digit from assigned would alert ATC that something was wrong. Every good pilot knows keying an SOS over the mike is always an option even three short clicks would raise an alert. So I conclude at that point of voice transmission all was perceived as well on the flight deck by the pilots. But things could have been in the process of going wrong unknown to the pilots - Evidently the ACARS went inoperative some time before. Disabling the ACARS is not easy as pointed out. This leads me to believe more in an electric or electric fire issue than a manual shutdown. I suggest the pilots were probably not aware it was not transmitting. The next event is the turn to the SW in what appears direct Langkawi. As I said in the first post the pilot probably had this in his head already. Someone said why didn't he go to KBR on north coast of Malaysia which was closer. That's a 6,000 foot runway and to put that plane down on a 6,000 foot strip at night uncertain of your aircraft's entire systems is not an option. I would expect the pilot would consider ditching before a 6,000 runway if still above maximum landing weight which he likely was. The safest runway in the region to make the approach was certainly Langkawi - no obstacles over water with a long flat approach. In my humble opinion this 18,000 hour pilot knew this instinctively. Reports of altitude fluctuations. Well given that this was not transponder generated data but primary radar at maybe 200 miles the azimuth readings can be affected by a lot of atmospherics and I would not have high confidence in this being totally reliable. But let's accept for a minute he might have ascended to 45,000 in a last ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen. It is an acceptable scenario in my opinion. At 45,000 it would be tough to keep this aircraft stable as the flight envelope is very narrow and loss of control in a stall is entirely possible. The aircraft is at the top of its operational ceiling. The reported rapid rates of descent could have been generated by a stall and recovery at 25,000. The pilot may even have been diving the aircraft to extinguish flames. All entirely possible. But going to 45,000 in a hijack scenario doesn't make any good sense to me. The question of the time the plane flew on. On departing Kuala he would have had fuel for Beijing and alternate probably Shanghai and 45 minutes. Say 8 hours. Maybe more. He burned 20-25% in first hour with takeoff, climb to cruise. So when the turn was made towards Langkawi he would have had six hours or more. This correlates nicely with the immarsat data pings being received until fuel exhaustion. The apparent now known continued flight until TTFE time to fuel exhaustion only actually confirms to me the crew were incapacitated and the flight continued on deep into the south Indian ocean. There really is no point in speculating further until more evidence surfaces but in the meantime it serves no purpose to malign the pilots who well may have been in an heroic struggle to save this aircraft from a fire or other serious mechanical issue and were overcome. I hope the investigation team looks at the maintenance records of the front gear tires - cycles, last pressure check and maintenance inspection. Captain or F/O as part of pre-flight looks at tires. Is there any video at the airport to support pre-flight walkaround? Any damage on pushback? A day after I wrote the original post a plane in the U.S. blew a tire in takeoff and the t/o was fortunately aborted with a burning tire. Hopefully - and I believe now it is a slim hope - the wreckage will be found and the FDR and VDR will be recovered and provide us with insight. Until facts prove otherwise, I would give the Captain the benefit of respect and professional courtesy. |
Re: Malaysian 777
I've never thought of DM as an accurate news source.
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Awesome map, thanks for posting that. :)
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by jwtimmon
(Post 11179335)
As posted above
The captain and co-pilot tried to find the source of the smoke and fire, but it soon filled the cockpit and overwhelmed them (a tire fire would do this). It also shorted out cockpit systems one by one, including the transponder. The pilots passed out or died. Or from my first link It was hijacked, almost certainly by one of the pilots. Also the ACAR ping indicates a further course change after crossing Malaysia to head south (or north), so clearly they weren't incapacitated, or at least the computer wasn't. They've worked out mathematically that it would have been in a 900km corridor off the west coast of Australia using the ACAR information so it didn't go over the Maldives. I do find it interesting that the oil rig guy said it was on fire and the people on the Maldives said they saw it though. |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11180622)
The ACAR info rules an electrical fire theory out pretty much because the last upload was 20 minutes or so prior to the last radio call. There was a new flight course programmed in before the last radio call. You wouldn't use a computer if there was a fire and you wouldn't radio in and not mention it. Plus the course change was 2 minutes after the last radio call.
It was hijacked, almost certainly by one of the pilots. Also the ACAR ping indicates a further course change after crossing Malaysia to head south (or north), so clearly they weren't incapacitated, or at least the computer wasn't. They've worked out mathematically that it would have been in a 900km corridor off the west coast of Australia using the ACAR information so it didn't go over the Maldives. I do find it interesting that the oil rig guy said it was on fire and the people on the Maldives said they saw it though. Good point. |
Re: Malaysian 777
The only thing I can think of is that the last radio call caused the fire, but it still doesn't make sense because you would have to have been psychic to program in a course correction before a fire started. And if the plane then turned after going over Malaysia, why program that if you planned on landing? Or the pilot wasn't incapacitated and manually turned the plane.
My personal view is that for whatever reason one of the pilots hijacked it and wanted to commit suicide but make it impossible to determine what had happened. So look into who has the most life insurance for example. And possibly part of the plan was to give clues to make it look like an accident, like a fire. But it didn't work because he obviously forgot about the ACAR probe from the satellite and the ACAR upload of the flight computer. I think the guy from New Zealand was wrong, because it's highly unlikely a plane would travel for hours with a fire onboard visible from that far away. |
Re: Malaysian 777
If there was a fire some kind of distress signal would have been sent.
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Not if it took out the comms. That's the assumption.
I just think a huge electrical fire that would take out all the generators, thereby killing the transponders and the radio and yet the plane flies on for hours is far less likely than a flaky pilot. |
Re: Malaysian 777
I
think the guy from New Zealand was wrong, because it's highly unlikely a plane would travel for hours with a fire onboard visible from that far away. Since the islanders say the plane they saw had it's landing lights on is it possible what the witness frrom the oil rig saw were those lights and not a fire? At approx half normal altitude and 90 degrees to it's normal path it would make sense for the pilot to have the lights on (if they worked) if he was going to try to land. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:28 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.