![]() |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11194742)
I think current ones already do, MH370 was built in 2002.
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by MarkG
(Post 11194745)
I've read pilots elsewhere saying the 2 hour limit isn't for technological reasons, but privacy. But I guess anyone can claim to be a pilot on the Internet :).
The old magnetic tape CVR would record on a 30 minute loop, newer SSD recorders record 2 hours on a loop. As a rule, the most relevant conversation, the 'oh shit' moments come immediately before the event, certainly within 2 hours. The FDR records aircraft systems parameters for up to 25 hours. Things going pear shaped in an aircraft can unfold over several hours, even several flights. Both are important, however the FDR data is more crucial than many hours of voice recordings to an investigation. |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by Aviator
(Post 11194775)
That's a new one! Not sure why what one said three hours ago is more private than what was said in the past 2 hours?
The old magnetic tape CVR would record on a 30 minute loop, newer SSD recorders record 2 hours on a loop. As a rule, the most relevant conversation, the 'oh shit' moments come immediately before the event, certainly within 2 hours. The FDR records aircraft systems parameters for up to 25 hours. Things going pear shaped in an aircraft can unfold over several hours, even several flights. Both are important, however the FDR data is more crucial than many hours of voice recordings to an investigation. |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by burks
(Post 11194795)
What about a hostage situ that lasts more than 2 hours? Wouldn't that mean that the initial hostage taking wouldn't be recorded?
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by MarkG
(Post 11194830)
Hijackings for hostages tend to last for days, though. Plus, if the hostages are released, they can tell everyone what happened.
This is a conspiracy theorists dream scenario ay? |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by Cabbagetown
(Post 11193926)
I think that there are too many theories and too few strong facts to say anything.
Hijacking by someone else doesn't make sense because the ACAR wouldn't have been disabled. The fire theory has too many holes in it. The eyewitness stories have been disproven by radar and satellite. |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by mandymoochops
(Post 11194120)
If he wanted to kill himself why fly all the way down there??? Thats what I don't get!
Oxygen masks don't last very long, because the idea is that you descend to below 15,000 feet. And this is assuming he didn't disable the system like he did with ACAR. |
Re: Malaysian 777
I think the captain did it.
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by ExKiwilass
(Post 11194929)
I think the captain did it.
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11194911)
Because he programmed the autopilot. The first waypoint is an airport on the Malaysian peninsula so it wouldn't have been a difficult route to program. Manual turn to the left, then turn right, turn left, turn left again out over the ocean. So if he took it up to 45,000 feet to asphyxiate them all, the plane would have carried on regardless. I suppose it is a bit odd to suffocate yourself rather than fly it into the ocean but my guess is that he wanted to make the plane recovery more difficult so there would always be a question mark. He couldn't fly it into the South China sea because it's too shallow and they would have figured it out and he couldn't deceive the first officer for very long so asphyxiation was apparently his chosen method.
Also, if it was intention to go down in water, then going down in the Indian Ocean also made more sense than Pacific because he could get there more covertly... going out to the Pacific would have meant navigating through way more "occupied" airspace, as they would be passing by Vietnam, Brunei, the "other half" of Malaysia, the Philippines, and possibly Taiwan... that's a much harder route. Looping back over the northern Malaysian island and then out to the Indian Ocean was a much more simple route to accomplish that goal... and (obviously) a greater chance of going undetected as flying through the airspace of other countries may have resulted in fighter jets or escort planes being dispatched. |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by SchnookoLoly
(Post 11194949)
Obviously I'm entirely speculating, but he also may have done it so that there would be a "point of no return", so to speak. There's no having second thoughts because he would have set it up to be a lost cause.
Also, if it was intention to go down in water, then going down in the Indian Ocean also made more sense than Pacific because he could get there more covertly... going out to the Pacific would have meant navigating through way more "occupied" airspace, as they would be passing by Vietnam, Brunei, the "other half" of Malaysia, the Philippines, and possibly Taiwan... that's a much harder route. Looping back over the northern Malaysian island and then out to the Indian Ocean was a much more simple route to accomplish that goal... and (obviously) a greater chance of going undetected as flying through the airspace of other countries may have resulted in fighter jets or escort planes being dispatched. |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11195034)
Sounds plausible enough. I just find it hard to believe a Malaysian pilot would be so callous to kill that many innocent people as part of his own suicide. I think there is more to it than a straight suicide, but do not know what. Certainly the 45000 climb is a key event. I wonder if the captain, being seemingly obsessive about flying, though he would try to take the plane as high as he could and then somehow list control or consciousness.
I hope it was something more accidental or something though... though in the scenario you laid out, the flipside is that it doesn't explain the very deliberate flight route the plane took. Before they knew it had gone so far south, one theory was that there was an electrical fire or something, and if that had occurred where the landing gear is, then the fumes from burning rubber could have taken everyone out. I almost LIKED that option because it just meant the whole thing was a horrible accident and not an intentional thing. But it's hard to ignore the very, very deliberate flight path, and chalk it up to anything other than very deliberate movements. And on that happy note, I am leaving work and going away for the weekend. |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by SchnookoLoly
(Post 11195048)
And on that happy note, I am leaving work and going away for the weekend. The idea that 'anyone' could do this and also whilst the passengers were aware or even vaguely aware of what was happening is more than disturbing. How is any family member going to come to terms with this? |
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by MillieF
(Post 11195254)
The idea that 'anyone' could do this and also whilst the passengers were aware or even vaguely aware of what was happening is more than disturbing.
|
Re: Malaysian 777
Originally Posted by MarkG
(Post 11195292)
The cockpit door may be reinforced, but not against 300 people beating on it for seven hours.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:21 am. |
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.