Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)

Page 1 of 9  
There was a suprising number of planes in the air around Malaysia at 1 am local time.
------------- A pilot flying another plane who tried to contact the pilots in the cockpit of the Malaysia Airlines plane said he heard mumbled voices before contact was lost. -------------
So another theory: Something went wrong with the cabin air inside the plane. Either it lost pressurization (slowly) or recirculation wasn't working - causing buidup of carbon monoxide.
--------------- On October 25, 1999, a chartered Learjet 35 was scheduled to fly from Orlando, Florida to Dallas, Texas. Early in the flight the aircraft, which was cruising at altitude on autopilot, quickly lost cabin pressure. All on board were incapacitated due to hypoxia — a lack of oxygen. The aircraft failed to make the westward turn toward Dallas over north Florida. It continued flying over the southern and midwestern United States for almost four hours and 1,500 miles (2,400 km). The plane ran out of fuel and crashed into a field near Aberdeen, South Dakota after an uncontrolled descent. The four passengers on board were golf star Payne Stewart, his agents, Van Ardan and Robert Fraley, and Bruce Borland, a highly regarded golf architect with the Jack Nicklaus golf course design company.
The NTSB determined that:
The probable cause of this accident was incapacitation of the flight crew members as a result of their failure to receive supplemental oxygen following a loss of cabin pressurization, for undetermined reasons.
A possible explanation for the failure of the pilots to receive emergency oxygen is that their ability to think and act decisively was impaired because of hypoxia before they could don their oxygen masks. No definitive evidence exists that indicates the rate at which the accident flight lost its cabin pressure; therefore, the Safety Board evaluated conditions of both rapid and gradual depressurization.
If there had been a breach in the fuselage (even a small one that could not be visually detected by the in-flight observers) or a seal failure, the cabin could have depressurized gradually, rapidly, or even explosively. Research has shown that a period of as little as 8 seconds without supplemental oxygen following rapid depressurization to about 30,000 feet (9,100 m) may cause a drop in oxygen saturation that can significantly impair cognitive functioning and increase the amount of time required to complete complex tasks. ----------------
So either MH370 depressurized quickly - or slowly.
The pilots might have been able to put their masks on - or realize they needed to put their masks on.
Perhaps they did - but their supplemental oxygen supply didn't work.
Perhaps in their confused state, with or without functional masks, they started an emergency descent before they blacked out, causing the plane to smash into the ocean with the pilots incapacitated on the way down.
Note also that in the flight of the Lear Jet in 1999 that the pilots, even if they did don their masks, made no attempt at radio contact.
----------- 2005 Helios Airways Flight 522 crash
On August 14, 2005, a Helios Airways Boeing 737-300 crashed 40 km (25 mi) from Athens after running out of fuel. An investigation later concluded that an improper pressurization setting in the cockpit had caused the cabin pressure to drop, and resulted in the incapacitation of the passengers and crew. It was later determined that one of the flight attendants had used the bottled oxygen supply and his pilot's training to attempt to bring the plane down to a lower altitude. There were no survivors. -------------
I think this is looking more and more likely - that the pilots suffered a slow asphyxia or hypoxia, caused either by a fault in the airframe or the misapplication or failure of some valve or switch. The plane descended rapidly, either as the last semi-conscious act of the pilot(s) or because of a complete lack of pilot input to the controls.
This would be expected during the early phase of the flight, as it climbs to cruise altitude.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 10, 2014 11:51:20 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:

Except that theory is totally inconsistent with the known fact that the plan disappeared both from radar and ADS-B receivers suddenly off the coast of Kohta Bahru. In the case of the ADS-B, you have the plane making a final small turn to the right, just like other flights on other days, then the data stops. If the crew passed out, how do you explain that? Even if the pilot slumped over onto the controls, you'd have some evidence of the altitude, speed, etc changing before it disappeared.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Another mark in the wing failure category. When you bank, it shifts the load on the wing/fuselage connections and that's a very likely point of failure. Was it the right wing tip that had been previously damaged? I think so.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:39:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Yes it was, but if you're making a right turn, isn't slightly more force going to be on the left wing, not the right? And you'd think a lot more force would be on the wings during takeoff and climbing 2000 ft/min, than it would be when it's level and just making a 5 deg turn. But I agree with your overall assessment that the damage to the wing from the prior accident should be high on the list. Previously I was thinking of it from the standpoint that it was just a few feet of the wing that was ripped off and then repaired. If just that had come off, I would think the plane would likely fly for a long time, probably even able to make a landing. It didn't involve a control surface. But I hadn't thought about the possibility that you're suggesting, that the accident could have damaged where the wing spar attaches to the fuselage.
That would be something you would think Boeing could determine to some extent. They could estimate the force it took to tear off that wingtip and the resulting forces back at the base of the wing. If you think about it, that's a long wing. The force that it takes to rip off that wingtip is a lot and it's increased via leverage back to the attachement point. Some calculations and/or experiments on some scrapped similar wings should give an idea if the forces were in the range to do damage.
For some more stuff that you don't know what to make of, there are reports of 19+ families claiming they called cell phones of those on the plane and they were ringing for days after the disappearance. Again, the piece is poorly written, but it sounds like what they are saying is that the phones rang like the phone was active. But that's not clear, because they never clarify how many times it rings. Most cell phones will ring a couple times, even if it's off, before going into voice mail. Unfortunately, no one says how many times these phones were actually ringing. They even use the term that the families say they were "connected", whatever that means.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578020/Why-cellphones-missing-Malaysian-Airlines-passengers-ringing-Family-members-claim-loved-ones-smartphones-active.html
"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are still ringing according to reports
As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work. You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will still hear it "ring".
That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are calling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Probably, but you would think they would have had enough experience calling their friends and family to know how the cell phone behaves when it's off versus when it's on.

It rings, but not the same way. With the cell phones I've had with AT&T, Verizon and now Zact. If the phone is on it rings many times, then goes into voicemail. If it's not on it may ring a couple times and then go into voicemail or not ring at all and go directly into voicemail. Or if you have no voicemail, it says the phone is not in service. So, you would think these people would know the difference, but I agree, I wouldn't put much credence in it. I just tried it on my cell phone and when I call it on my regular line if the phone is off it rings 1.5 times, then goes into email. If the phone is on, I hear it ring 5 times and the cell phone rings 4 times. I think that difference is what these people are saying. They are even saying the phones behaved as if they were ringing the actual phone for a couple days, but then later stopped. But I agree it's more likely just confusion. Still you would hope that the authorities tried to trace the call routing in the days when the phones could have still been active. But I don't have much confidence in the way this thing has been handled.

Yes, but in my experience it behaves as discribed above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:22:53 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Is that here or when the other phone is in Malaysia?
At any rate the phone should be ain "airplane" mode which means you are off the air. It would be the same at 35,000 feet sipping a mai tai as it is on the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:36:45 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Let's say someone in Malaysia or China is used to calling their relatives cell phone in Malaysia or China. I would think they would know how the cell phone behaves when it's off, the battery is dead, etc vs how it behaves when it's on. And if it's off, it wouldn't matter whether the phone was still in Malaysia or in China, or on the moon would it? They appear to be saying that the phones ring like the phone is on and in contact with the cell network. But I agree there are few specifics, like the number of rings. Mine will ring for 1.5 rings before going to voicemail. It sounds like these people are saying the phones ring like they normally would, ie for quite a while. An airline official said they had the same experience. I agree it seems more likely it could be confusion, differences in phone systems, the people are in grief and desperately want to grasp at anything, who knows.

They should be, but with 239 people, it's very possible that some were on. And since they don't know where the plane went, there is some possibility that it could have crashed on land somewhere. But even then, you have a point, what's the probability of 20+ phones surving that?
But from what I've heard, all the misinformation, BS, it was flying for 2 hours when contact was lost, it was flying for 40 mins when contact was lost, etc, my best guess is that it went down off Kohta Bura right where we know the data ended. Something sudden, catastrophic, that resulted in the plane losing power to the transponders, going down mostly intact, near vertical, leaving little debris.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:55:26 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

If there was a phone pinging a cell tower, they would know where it was right away. We wouldn't be scouring a couple million square miles of land and sea.. I think the phone people could debunk this in 10 seconds but they do not want to be the Debbie Downer who says this "ringing" thing does not mean anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:31:48 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

That assumes that those conducting the investigation listened to what those people were saying and actually looked into it. Given the way this whole thing has been mishandled, I have no confidence in that. For example, they didn't start the search in the area where the plane suddenly disappeared from normal ATC radar and data contact until 11 hours after. Three days into it, they announce that they have some indication that the plane may have turned back. Later that day, the chief of the AF and another military official tell the press that they have tracks showing it went all the way to the Straits of Malacca, ie all the way back across Malaysia. Not that it "might have" or that there is some evidence, they flat out said that's where it went and where contact ended. Whichoddly, is consistent with the very first reports that last contact was two hours after takeoff, and not 40 mins. A day later, they deny having said that and are now back to saying that all they ever said is that they think it may have turned back. They've refused to let other countries into the investigation that could help, other than to help search.
A new thing I read this AM, was a statement by the guy who the two Iranians spent the night before the flight with in Malaysia.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/day-malaysia-airline-passengers-stolen-passports/story?id "852454
He had gone to school and knew the 19 year old, but he didn't know the the 29 year old at all. He said they were on the phone a long time with someone, talking in Persian, and he heard one of them say, OK Ali. Ali was the name of the guy who allegedly provided the false passports. He said they were travelling light, one had a backpack, they both had laptops. Seems rather light for two people on their way to start new lives in Europe. No suitcases? He also said he didn't ask why they were in Malaysia, which seems very odd to me. Probably lying, even if it's just that he knew they were trying to get to Europe using fake passports, etc.
I'm still highly suspicous of these two. Not much is known about the older one, AFAIK. Not much is known about this "Ali" guy. It seems rather odd that officials seem to be mostly dismissing that angle of it and not for any really good reasons that I can see. One aspect is they keep saying the 19 year olds mother in Europe was waiting for him to come home and when he didn't arrive, she called police. They're touting that as evidence that it wasn't terrorism. Given what we've seen other terrorists do, I don't see why that's out of the norm. If he was a terrorist, was he supposed to call his mom and tell her what he planned to do? And AFAIK, no one has said anything about what the relationship was between these two guys. You would think 5 days in, if everything was Kosher, we'd be hearing more about them as it would be easy to find out, no?

I think part of that problem is which phone people? As you pointed out, how something works on one system in one country, could be different in another and we don't even know where the phone was supposed to be. We also don't know what records of calls that don't go through are kept. I wouldn't be surprised that they don't keep anything. So, if the investigators didn't take this seriously in the first couple days, may be impossible to conclude much now. Certainly if they had been on it when these folks claimed the phones were ringing, then the phone companies could have definitely told them something. And I can see those handling the investigation dismissing this, thinking they knew where the plane was and would just find it the usual way.
There is also the possibility that something more is going on here. IDK, either there is a hell of a lot of confusion, or maybe they are trying to cover something up. I tend to still think it's a combination of turf fights, stupidity, and confusion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

I am sure that at least the phones that were operating on China Mobile are now being scoured for any trace of terrorism. China's got to be worried that this is a terrorist attack aimed at them and we know they are very busy beavers when it comes to spying, hacking, etc.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:55:26 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net

In early 60's a satellite could read the headlines of a paper lying on the ground, so why is it so hard to NOT see this plane?
This region has to be one of the most monitored regions in the world.
Aren't there satellite imaging services that supply photos to the public?
From memory flying IFR, you are radar tracked from start to finish, where are those records? And from memory, alarms go off *IF* they lose track of your little blip.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:14:01 AM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:

I think it depends on what you're looking for and when you're looking. If you're focused to see ICBM launches, then maybe you don't see aircraft. But US intel has said that it has good coverage there, checked what it has and there is nothing they have that shows anything.

Yes, and a couple of them have websites where you can go look and help search. If you see something you can flag it and they will evaluate it. I tried many times, but couldn't get on, there are reports the sites crashed due to overload.

The data that is almost 100% certain is that the flight was on normal radar, normal ADS-B, until 40 mins, when it was off Kohta Baru, over water between Malaysia and Vietnam. AT that point it made a slight ~5 deg turn to the right, which is what that flight does at that waypoint every other day. That's where the normal data end. The other bizarre thing here is that for two days, Malaysian Airlines and I think Malaysian officials, said that they lost contact with the plane 2 hours into the flight. That first day, I quickly could see that something didn't make sense. At two hours, on the normal route the plane would be well over the middle of Vietnam.
Three days into it, Malaysian AF officials said they had some evidence to suggest that it turned back toward land just after it disappeared from normal ATC and that this was confirmed by civilian radar. They then expanded the search area back toward Malaysia and over to the other side of Malaysia. Fourth day, the media reported that the head of the AF and another high level AF officer told them that they had tracked the plane flying at a lower altitude all the way across Malaysia again, headed northeast to the Straits of Malacca where contact was lost. Curiously, that would be at about the two hour point.... Fifth day, AF denies ever saying they tracked it over to the Straits of Malacca, only that they had some evidence that it might have turned back toward land from the point where data stopped at 40 mins.
The problem is that if it was still flying, then it was doing so with the transponders turned off. So, instead of getting a strong return signal, that also has the altitude, heading, squak code, etc, all they would see would be a basic radar blip. How far their radar coverage extends, what they should or shouldn't be able to see at the point where the plane contact ended, by civilian and military etc, no one has said. Good questions, and you would think reporters would be asking.
To add to that confusion, on the day the plane was lost, right after making that slight turn, it would have normally been in contact with and under the control of Vietnam ATC. They said the first day that they lost contact with it between the airspace over Ca Mau which is southern tip area of Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh, which would have put it at about 1.5 hours into it's flight. But then next day they said it disappeared a minute before it would have entered their airspace, ie near where the data ended, ie 40 min point.
So... your guess is as good as mine. I'm leaning towards it's in the water near where the data ended and everyone is just all screwed up. I'd say it's time to start showing the radar returns that they have. I can understand why the military might not want to fully divulge what they can and can't see. But in this case I don't see how it could get worse. It looks like you can fly a 777 across Malaysia and they don't know WTF is going on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Definitely. It's been put forth as a reason why they are being standoffish about help from the US or China.

Oh, I have faith that it could and will get worse. (-: The Chinese are getting pretty pissed.

Or a fleet of bombers . . . I think that's what they are trying to keep from the world, particularly anyone they think might harbor ill intentions - the fact they appear to have only limited control of their own airspace.
Here's a quote from the NYT about why pilots might not have radioed in to report a disaster:
<<Pilots have a mantra for setting priorities in an emergency: aviate, navigate, communicate. The first priority is to fly the airplane. Telling air traffic controllers on the ground what is going on comes third, since doing so is unlikely to instantly yield any help with the crisis in the cockpit, whatever it may be. If the pilots are fighting to keep the plane aloft, they may not have time to use the radio.>>
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

DSPS look for IR plumes indicating launch. They don't track aircraft.

Ask, and ye shall receive.
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

Flying IFR over the continental US, you're generally under someone's radar umbrella. Over ocean and in less advanced parts of the world, not so much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Seems there's no one home. Couldn't even read the page source.
Something's not quite right... - Tomnod www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014 - Cached Something's not quite right... Tomnod is experiencing technical difficulties. We apologize. We're poking our servers with pointy sticks to figure out what's wrong.
Says Google when entering the URL in the search box.
--
Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

I got the same error last night.
Then I renamed my HOSTS file, closed the browser and tried again - and it worked.
There was something in my HOSTS file that prevented the page from operating correctly.
I spent about 1/2 hour looking at images of dark blue water and clouds. Scanned about 400 grid locations - didn't see anything man-made (no boats, nothing). Each grid image seemed to be about 2000 x 1000 ft, and anything 10 x 10 ft would be easily distinguishable, possibly something 5 x 5. About 10 to 15% of the imagery was obscured by clouds. I eventually got bored and left the site.
What I would have liked to have seen was a graphic showing me the area I was looking at in terms of where the beacon signal was lost off the coast of Malaysia.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

They could only "see" that well at places they were specifically aimed at. Also, this was a night flight, further reducing detectability. The US does have satelites capable of detecting explosions and from what I read, those detectors did NOT go off. That tends to support either massive structural failure or some weird act on the part of the crew.

But hi-rez satelite cameras are usually aimed at points of interest like Chinese military installations.

Malaysia isn't cooperating very fully with anyone. Countries in that neck of the woods are very wary of disclosing the capabilities of their tracking radars. It's one of the reasons flight KAL007 was shot down when it overflew Russian air space. The Russians believed it was an attempt by the West to find out their level of response and readiness to deal with an aerial incursion.
I'm sure that the Malaysian government is not anxious to have either the Chinese or Americans getting up into their air defense business. From what we've seen, they aren't exactly "on top" of things in the radar and plane tracking department. That's not stuff you want a potential enemy to know.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

I doubt it's very far from where it was all along - where the searchers missed it. If there was substantial enough floating wreckage, it will still be there or at least the currents will be predictable enough to figure out where it drifted to.
As for radar trails heading off in different directions, they get bogies on radar all the time. Who knows if they were tracking an errant weather balloon or just a radar ghost re: the turn-around radar traces.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:49 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

out of service" or "customer not available" message. If the phones are under water or wet they fail and also give an out of service message,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.