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

Page 3 of 9  


Assuming it didn't fly until it ran out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I admit that's the way they behave here but people are reading way too much into this:
<<That ringing sound to which we're so accustomed is actually a psychological trick, meant to keep us on the line while the network works to locate the other phone. "The ringing sound is generated by the originating carrier's switch while the network sets up the call," a spokesperson for CTIA-The Wireless Association told Mashable. "This keeps callers from abandoning the call when they hear no sound. The ringing sound has nothing to do with the actual 'ringing' of the called party's device," he added.>>
http://mashable.com/2014/03/11/why-malaysia-airlines-passengers-phones-ring/

Not much cell coverage or roaming in a jungle, either. Especially one remote enough to have a 777 crash in it and have no one notice . . .

Well, there might not be much contact *because* there's a language problem and hence not much to talk about. Whether language is the reason or not, there's not much apparent cooperation among search entities.

Latest I read is that for some reason, China is now retracting their satellite photo info - reasons unclear but I haven't checked Google for the last twenty minutes.
--

Bobby G.





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

main reason it sank so quickly was because they opened up the doors to let people out.
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Correct - 370 would have had a lot *more* time than Sully had to ditch. <g>
I doubt that if 370 DID ditch that people would have remained aboard without opening the doors to try to escape. But it's pretty unlikely they made a water landing late at night without instruments. I'm just trying to cover all contingencies that could account for very little surface wreckage, other than search incompetence. That's still my "go to" position.
Today's red herring is the data RollsRoyce says it was still collecting hours after many people think the plane crashed. This 777's going to have a lot of explaining to do when they finally find the wreckage. It took 2 years for them to find the AirFrance black boxes and "close" that case. Let's hope this isn't resolved in the same, slow painful way.
--
Bobby G.



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

Here's a new data point:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/faa-warned-cracking-corrosion-problem-boeing-777s-n50591
<<A cracking and corrosion problem on Boeing 777s that could lead to the mid-air break-up of the aircraft prompted a warning from air safety regulators weeks before the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, federal records show. The Federal Aviation Administration ordered checks on hundreds of U.S.-registered 777s after reports of cracking in the fuselage skin underneath a satellite antenna.
In an airworthiness directive, it said the extra checks were needed "to detect and correct cracking and corrosion in the fuselage skin, which could lead to rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane."
The directive, first drawn up in September, was approved in February and was due to take effect on April 9.>>
Sounds a little too much like Airbus/AirFrance being warned that the pitot tubes could freeze over and then taking their sweet time about replacing the units throughout the fleet.
Unfortunately as the planes age, all sorts of material failure modes raise their ugly heads.
--

Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:48:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Yes, I had seen that same report. Some more good questions that should be asked and answered, ie was this plane checked for that possible defect?
I've also seen where Boeing says that the plane was not part of their data logging that they offer airlines. Apparently the onboard ACRS? sends maintenance, performance data back, similar to Airbus that went down near Brazil. But Malaysian airlines chose not to participate in Boeings data collection, but Boeing says MA did use the system themselves. From what I've read, MA hasn't directly answered the question of when the last data from that was received, etc.
This is the most confused, screwed up investigation that I've ever seen. They've switched major parts of the story so many times now that the Malaysian officials need to hold a major press conference, release more information and clear things up. Of huge significance is on what exactly are they basing the ever changing story of the continued radar tracking of the plane after it dropped off ATC. They should just release the radar returns, at least to enough international experts, so that there is some more credibility to where the plane might have gone. At first thought, you'd think that the military probably doesn't want to disclose what they can or can't see on radar. But at this point I think it's obvious that you could fly a 777 over their airspace and they don't know WTF is going on, so it would seem releasing more descriptive information as to what exactly they have on radar would be better than looking like total idiots. Last I heard on this was that they were back to saying that all they had was some kind of radar data right after the last known ATC radar, that showed it "might have" changed direction. Yet the day before, two high ranking AF officials said that they tracked the plane all the way to the Straits of Malacca. Curiously, that would be about the two hour flight time that the airline, Malaysian officials all were giving out for two days.
I say the odds are still that it went down off Kota Bharu where contact was lost 40 mins into the flight from some sudden catastrophic event. I'm still suspicous of those two Iranians too, while it seems investigators are downplaying it as they were just two more illegal immigrants. We know a good bit about one, but I haven't seen anything about the other. And the guy who dropped them off at the airport says they only had only a backpack and two laptops? If you were going to Europe for good, wouldn't you have some real luggage? This guy knew the one guy from school, the other he didn't know at all. They stayed at his house overnight, yet he says he didn't ask them why they were in Malaysia? They got these fake passports from this mysterious guy "Ali" who I believe is Iranian? Wonder where they got the laptops from?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped about FAA 777 "crack" directive">

They talked about corrosion, too, and that's probably something that has a strong correlation to the conditions of the route the plane most often travels. They seem to correlate these defects strongly with age, but I'll bet the environmental conditions could either advance or retard when the corrosion might appear.

I've read about half a dozen conflicting stories about data logging both by Rolls, who made the engines, and Boeing and while the reports are interesting they seem at the moment to be fairly inconclusive at best and conflicting at worst. One thing that caught my eye was a story about how the two different reporting systems seem to have been switched off at separate times. A fire eating through the wiring can cause the same kind of symptoms, though, as it move along conduits and equipment bays.

They have zero credibility with me now. I'll concede that the plane may have been hijacked and could be *anywhere* its remaining fuel might take it. The problem with that scenario is that someone should have gotten a strong radar fix on it somewhere - other than the Malaysian authorities. I still think the search was so badly botched that it's where the transponder tracking stopped. The Chinese seem to have retracted their satellite photos according to something I just read so we're still in the "data collection" phase trying to evaluate what's likely from what's not.
What needs to happen is that fake "Transponder OFF" switches need to go into these cabins so that when someone tries to turn it off (why they even CAN be turned off is another issue) they send out an emergency beacon and light up flashing lights on the airplane roof that satellites might be able to track at night. The school buses around here can do that, why not a 777?

I think that's a remarkably strong concern to them. What bothers me more is that if they were so lax in checking passports, how well did they screen the luggage for explosives? Did they cut corners there, too? If it was a terrorist attack, there would most likely be more than two people to seize and maintain control of the plane and passengers. I would hope they are really screening the passenger manifest for questionable flyers.

I don't think any of their reports are credible anymore. Which leaves us with questions like why did the transponder fail just as the plane began to change course? I think from the Flight24 radar guys analysis (who don't have political considerations) we can be pretty sure that's an "unfiltered" fact. That's what leads me to think structural failure.
Wouldn't hijackers want to start off toward their destination as soon as possible? Hijacking or suicide crash dives are possibilities, but hijacking requires considerable sophistication and the newest information implies they would know how to turn off both transmitters. While we already know that terrorists have this level of sophistication (they did it on 9/11) why has no one taken credit?

We agree on that. I am pretty sure we saw wreckage (the door) but incompetent searchers lost it. When you saw it there wasn't much doubt what it was, unlike oil slicks and log rafts that were sighted.

Remember that Lockerbie's bomb was taken aboard by a woman who had no idea it was a bomb. Any passenger could have been duped into bringing a device onto the plane, or had a luggage switch pulled on them. I really wonder how well they screen for explosives.
The US said it detected no mid-air explosions but entire explosion could have been contained within the airplane, invisible to satellite surveillance and yet done enough damage (the way the Lockerbie bomb did) to sever cables and destroy electrical and comms equipment. It could have been the Uighurs (pronounced "Wheat germs <g>") and their intention was to crash the plane into a high profile target in Beijing.
Still, the simplest explanation is that it crashed where the Flight24 track ends and the wreckage has yet to be found. Given the less than stellar quality of information coming out of the concerned parties, I still lean toward incompetent searching that "cleared" an area that shouldn't have been. I just have a feeling one day soon we'll wake up to headlines "Crash site found!"
--
Bobby G.



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

It's not clear if the choice to not buy the data collection service from Boeing means that telemetry (to who? to where?) still takes place.
Presumably MA wouldn't need a telemetry link for such data, as they could simply pull the data off the planes manually when-ever they felt like it - since the planes are in their possession on a frequent basis.

The "off" switch is used routinely to turn off the transponder when planes are on the ground (parked, in hangars, etc) so that ATC screens are not cluttered by useless information.
It's a tough call as to how to make them automatic. I'd say that if an interlock can be reasonably well engineered, that if the plane's wheels are up, then the beacons are supplied by power that can't be turned off from the cockpit.

Bulletproof passport checking requires real-time data and protocal links to every conceivable authority in the world that can issue an opinion about any given passport, and the cost to "subscribe" or participate in such a network must have little or zero cost to end users (airlines, airports) if stakeholders (gov'ts, law enforcement, societies) want to experience 100% compliance everywhere.
And it must happen in a way that does not require humans to do more things than they do now (press more buttons, flip through more screens, etc) and a lack of data must not be interpreted as a "thumbs-down" which causes a holdup during checkin or boarding. The implimentation and day-to-day functioning of such a system requires talents and cooperation that extend far beyond the staff at any given airport or boarding gate.
To link the competency of such passport checking (which is a distributed human effort) to the competency of explosive checking (which is an effort soley performed by specific local humans at any given location) is not logical.

Hijack - implies taking control of the plane away from the pilots, with several possible intentions:
- (a) Direct or fly the plane safely to an alternate location that the hijackers could not otherwise travel to using legal means.
- (b) Direct of fly the plane safely to an alternate location to hold the plane and passengers hostage in exchange for some political or financial demand.
- (c) Direct or fly the plane into a target (a-la 9/11). In other words, to use the plane as a weapon against a hardened target for political or religious reasons.
For any of the above, it becomes a question as to how necessary it is to turn off the plane's various transmission sources to render it "invisible" from normal ground operations. Presumably the thinking is that any plane that has been hijacked anywhere in the world for any reason will be shot down as the primary response, so the best countermeasure for the hijacker is to make the plane as invisible as possible as soon as possible after the hijacking event has started.
We know (or we think we know) that the plane was not deemed to have been hijacked and thus not shot down by any gov't in the area. We think we know that the plane did not land at an alternate airport, and no ransom demand was made (or at least made public).
If the plane went down due to a struggle for control as a result of hijacking, we must conclude the initial stages of the hijacking was successful as it probably entailed turning off the identification beacon - something that would imply the hijackers had "comfortable control" of the plane. A struggle for control of the plane would have happened later - possibly hours later - presumably after passengers had come to a consensus about the situation, gathered their courage, forumated plan, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I wonder if there is any reason they couldn't share a circuit with the flight recorders since they already automatically turn off on the ground.

And the zero cost includes not only access but also pretty close to zero costs for airline personnel and equipment, and hassle. It would seem as though you would pretty much have to mandate it by ALL airlines from ALL terminals for it to possibly work. At least until the first time a person isn't let on an airplane because somebody somewhere transposed to digit or two on data entry.

hand purposes, the lack of a transponder would not make it all that invisible to the military folks and lack of transponder alone would probably bring out the fighters.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They certainly need some sort of protection and isolation from the plane's existing electrical system but I can understand Boeing's reluctance to add batteries to the plane for various reasons. This incident highlights the need to have a battery powered transponder or beacon that's armored and isolated and likely to still transmit information even if the engines fail catastrophically and the plane loses all power. Hint to aircraft designers: I think the terrorists have figured out how to defeat the current transponder schemes. Time for a design change to make it a little harder than it appears now to turn them off.
The remote telemetry systems are a start and I'm assuming that as new planes come on line, they'll have more features like this. Some insurer, remember, is on the hook for a lot of money because of this incident. Not sure how a battery powered transponder would prevent such a loss, but it certainly would reduce the enormous funds expended searching. Governments care about that cost (which I assume the Vietnamese are not happy about footing) and they're the ones that would be able to mandate changes to the current and clearly inadequate transponder system.

Good luck on that. It was an incredible feat of cooperation to get many of the smaller airports in the world to even CARE about screening passengers. You have to admit that we've not seen a lot of hijacking lately. I remember when growing up that it seemed there was a hijacker diverting a plane to Cuba on almost a monthly basis. Sometimes weekly around Christmas time. I think the Malaysian airports failure to check passports against Interpol is played out daily in airports across the world.

I suspect you've just revealed why the smaller airports don't check - because they have in the past and it turned out the passengers were not terrorists - like Sen Ted Kennedy. When that happens people get very angry and complain vociferously. The best way to avoid those sorts of confrontations, in the minds of airport security officials, is not to check anyone unless there's some other indicator that they are suspicious.

Talk about your unintended consequences. Yet I think that hijackers might (credibly) believe that no one but the Russians (and perhaps the PLA) would shoot down a passenger jet. There was a lot of talk about how the US should have shot down the remaining hijacked planes once the WTC had been hit. Aside from the delay in getting a pilot scrambled and authorized to shoot down a passenger jet, it's very likely that a pilot just couldn't do it. Shades of the film/novel "Failsafe." Does such a terrible order come with a suicide kit for the pilot who obeys the shoot down order?
Unlike the fears the motivated the Sov pilot who shot down KAL007, we typically don't have firing squads standing by to execute pilots who fail to carry out such missions. Since every plane can be turned into an unwilling guided missile, they should all have self-destruct systems like missiles do so a plane can be brought down remotely. A sort of in-the-sky "On Star" system. <sarcasm alert>
--
Bobby G.




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

I can't disagree with that, but it seems to me like there's a logical fallacy when authorities present such an argument.
Dunno it's proper name, but I think of it as "The Wild Elephant Whistle."
Guy's walking around Manhattan at lunch time blowing this whistle over-and-over again.
Somebody trying to enjoy their lunch asks "Why on earth are your blowing that whistle?".
Guy replies: "To keep the wild elephants away."
Somebody says "That's crazy. The nearest wild elephants are thousands of miles away."
Guy replies: "See!... It works!"
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/14/2014 4:07 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Careful; someone will tell the old one about the rape whistle.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per (PeteCresswell):

Still don't have a name, but the phrase that keeps coming up is "Correlation is not causation".
--
Pete Cresswell

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

Got it.
"cum hoc ergo propter hoc", aka "false cause"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
--
Pete Cresswell

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

"As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false."
IOW, that knife cuts both ways!
--
Bobby G.



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

Good point.
--
Pete Cresswell

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

Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt! (-:
--
Bobby G.




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

I remember a Gahan Wilson cartoon of the same ilk. A man is standing at a street corner with a huge gun. His wife is standing with them and they're both standing next to a dead elephant. Smoke is pouring out of the barrel of a huge elephant gun. She says "I'll never laugh at you for carrying that thing around again!"
That said, I have to believe that it's much, much harder to hijack a plane these days for a number of reasons. Passenger education (people used to be told to leave the hijackers alone), better search techniques (both equipment and personnel-wise), no-fly lists, cabin door locks, transponders, etc.
--
Bobby G.


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

IMHO that alone made the 911 scenario a one-trick pony. I don't think the strategy lasted even an hour because when the people on the plane over Pennsylvania found out what was up, they rushed the hijackers.
OTOH, one of the possibilities I heard cited for MH370 was that whoever hijacked the plane ascended to 40,000+ feet for the purpose of killing the passengers (I guess, by reducing pressure/oxygen in the passenger area to 40,000+ feet)
--
Pete Cresswell

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

Yes, I've said that before and agree completely. For years the advice was to cooperate with hijackers to prevent a plane crash. That advice stopped when it became clear some hijackers were determined to do just that - crash the plane. The passengers on MH370 were probably mostly asleep and had no idea they were off course (it was dark) or hijacked, if that was the case.
Ironically, once the hijackers are in the cabin and lock the door, the reinforcement of the cabin door and frame will make it hard for the passengers to get into the cabin and do anything about it. There's clearly evidence that at least one pilot has had people in the cabin before.

I'm pretty sure in a 777 the oxygen masks descend automatically when the pressure drops to a certain point in the cabin. I assume the designers thought the pilots might be too busy dealing with whatever caused the depressurization to deal with it manually.
If someone did steal that plane, it would certainly be the crime of the century. Will it go to a chop shop? I can't imagine some other country could repaint the plane and begin using it, not if the engines phone home every hour. I'd certainly be sending people to every landing strip/airport capable of landing such a plane within its flight range to "look around." Could be the Uighurs, but since they mostly stab people to death (or so it seems) I don't see them as having the technical skills to pull off stealing a modern jetliner. But then again, I didn't think the 9/11 hijackers could do what they did.
If it crashed in the ocean, enough stuff will float that eventually some of it will reach shore somewhere. It is one of the greatest *true* mystery stories I've ever heard of. It's like trying to prove a murder was committed without the body.
--
Bobby G.



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.