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

Page 7 of 9  
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:18:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

They had a very good idea where the Air France jet was. We still do not even have a real clue where 370 went down. They are chasing satellite pictures of junk in the water a couple weeks after the plane was lost and we are not even sure it is the right junk.
I bet, if they ever find this plane, it will be by accident while looking for something else decades from now. ... unless it does turn up wadded up against a mountain or the desert in South Asia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:55:42 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Yes, I agree they had a much better idea of the location in that case. But what I was responding to was the assertion that if they don't find the wreckage before the black box pingers stop, they will never find it. If they figure out where it likely is, they could still recover black boxes, wreckage, etc long after the pingers stop, just like Air France. And the pingers are of limited value in this case, as they aren't likely to reveal the location, unless by some miracle they get really lucky. I'm not even sure what assets they have listening for the pings. Clearly most of the assets are visual, the search planes in particular.

I think there is still a reasonable probability that they will find debris doing the search. But I agree it's also possible that someone will just come across something floating or washed up on a beach somewhere. Even that, if it happend months from now, would be a major step. We'd at least know for sure which general area it went down in and that it's not being outfitted with bombs in Pakistan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:16:18 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

The problem is, in a few months it might be found on the beach in Sumatra and ask more questions than it answers. These are ocean currents in pretty volatile waters, not a rail toad. Every day, expands the area you think it came from exponentially.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:18:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

This case is a lot different and I stand by what I said. If you don't believe me, so be it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 24, 2014 1:46:05 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:

That's real definitive. The pingers have typically not been involved with finding the crash site, only in helping find the black boxes after you know where the crash site is. Again, they only transmit 2 miles under water. The water in the search ares is 2 miles deep. You'd have to be right on top of it and the chances of doing that with the limited number of vessels that move at 20 MPH, in the huge area is slim to none. The Air France case isn't different in the aspect you're talking about. They didn't find the wreckage from the pingers and the pingers were long dead when they finally found the wreckage and the black boxes 2 years later. There is no reason that the same thing couldn't happen here, if they find floating wreckage tomorrow and start working backwards.
If they never have a good idea of where the wreckage is, then I agree, they may never find it, but the pingers going dead isn't the determining factor that makes it impossible, as proved by Air France.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

What's a "rail toad?"
--
Bobby G.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/24/2014 07:36 AM, Robert Green wrote:

A squashed mess on the track?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:36:10 -0400, "Robert Green"

He meant railroad. The plane and its parts won't move in a known path.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Thanks. Just wondering if it was related to the "under toad" made famous by the book/film "The World According to Garp."
http://wordspy.com/words/undertoad.asp
--
Bobby G.



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

I just cut to the chase for you. In the final analysis, externally imposed standards are the only ones that are effective. The desire to see journalists act "professionally" means that there's a) a standard defined and b) there's a way to enforce or cause journalists to adhere to that standard. That's how we insure professional behavior from doctors, lawyers and even massage therapists.
The competitive pressure of a free market dissolves away those standards in the face of the reality that day old news has no value. So, to get the "scoop" news organization now are willing to pay for interviews and accept statements from interviewees without attempting to vet them in any way.

I'm not sure there ever were the "standards" you're talking about. The kind of speculation you're talking about has always been with us, and it typically gets worse when there aren't any "real" facts to be had, as in the MH370 case. Read the new archives about Amelia Earhart. Different time but same sort of speculative coverage in the absence of verifiable facts.
It's important to remember this isn't a "top down" process. Now, more than ever, news organizations have a very good grasp on what their readers want to read - you see it with almost every news site's "most emailed" or "most read" feature. Newspapers before the internet very rarely knew what stories people read or passed on. Now they know with excruciating detail what interests people and what they want more of. You're just mad because it's not representative of what you want more of. (-:
There used to be rotary phones, men used to wear hats and there was a time when the web wasn't even a dream. Internal standards are still practiced by some, but not many, news organizations. They're the ones that have enough revenue to be able to afford that luxury. Not many can anymore.

Oh yeah, think of the competitive advantage of saying nothing when your competitors provide stuff that people are interested in reading, even if it's supposition in the absence of hard facts (he says, sarcastically).
Since I first read this post I've been reading MH370 stories with an eye to whether news organizations make it clear that what they are reporting are not necessarily facts, but the best "guesses" we have available from the people in a position to know something about the situation. That's why I give reports like Chris Goodfellow's (that there was a fire) much greater creedence than some turkey in the Malaysian government. Goodfellow's a pilot who's "been there, done that" whereas a defense minister hasn't and worse, yet, probably has some pretty good reasons *not* to tell the whole truth.

There's still a long, long way to go before we hit bottom, but we're getting there.

No, it's not the journalists, it's the competitive pressures forced on them by external forces. It's a number of those, too. It's businessmen who have bought up newspapers, saddled them with debt and then bled them dry and left them to rot on the vine. It's the Internet, too, providing stiff competition for advertising and lowering the bar re: spreading rumors. Other factors have played a large role in the dissolution of large media organizations, too, but if you look at any of the major newspapers, the path to extinction has been a pretty standard one for all of them. As they all cut back on editorial staff, the product suffers. The right questions (is this news source credible?) don't get asked and the beat goes on.

http://www.google.com/search?q=jenney
You'll have to be more specific. I'm sorry, I don't get the reference and Google didn't help either.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 6:59:41 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

I agree with your general argument here. It's kind of a paradox in a way. I think the media has given this story far more attention than it deserves. CNN in particular. Some almost insignificant thing comes out like someone says a week into this that the plane made a "sharp turn to the left" when it first went off course, and they blow it into major breaking news. Then they finally admit that it's unclear if that means that it was a sudden, extreme bank turn, or just that it was a sharp change from it's original course. We knew the latter from day one, and even if was a steep bank turn, it's hardly major knews. Yet they had pilots demonstrating both in a flight simulator and they talked about if for hours.
I especially enjoyed that British buffoon they have in Australia, who's their aviation expert. About a week ago, when the Australian Prime Ministe r made an announcement while he was before pariament, he was so excited he must have wet his pants. He was saying that for anyone who understands Australian politics, there has to be major significance, that they've really found something that they know must be from the plane, or the PM wouldn't be saying that. Well, now as I suspected at the time, he was full of BS. It's just the PM should have known better to talk about finding something while he was before Parliament because it would be misinterpreted by buffoons like the CNN clown.
The paradox is that if you're interested in the latest on any of this, even I put on CNN to watch for 20 mins to see what's going on, because they've been covering it pretty much 24/7. You just have to be able to filter the BS from the facts, and sadly a lot of people can't do that.

The problem with Goodfellow's fire theory is that it doesn't conform at all to most of the facts we have. I don't just take someone's conclusio n because they are a pilot. We'll get to his pilot credentials later, but there are more commercial pilots in fact who are saying they too believe deliberate criminal human action was the likely cause. I've asked you these points before and I'll ask them again regarding what Goodfellow is claiming:
"When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he w as heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The ca ptain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot r idges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which a lso was closer."
When they made that left turn, the airport at Kota Bahru, with an 8000ft runway, perectly capable of landing a 777, was about 140 miles away. It's right on the coast. Yet they chose to fly a burning plane 175 miles farthe r, all the way across Malaysia to the other coast? He just picks that Palau Langkawi airport because it happens to be near where the plane went by, on the other side of Malaysi a. Oh, and note that the plane didn't land there, or pass close to it, instead it made a precise zig-zag to waypoints that left in perfectly aligned with the flight path to India/Middle East at 29,500 ft. It was on radar contact hundreds of miles past the airport he claims it was going to land at.
"When I heard this I immediately brought up Google Earth and searched for a irports in proximity to the track toward the southwest."
The question isn't to find airports 350 miles away from where the fire was detected that just happen to be along whatever flightpath it took. The question is where is the closest airport that can land the plane. That's Kota Bahru, about 150 miles. They could have landed there in 25 mins.
"What I think happened is the flight crew was overcome by smoke and the pla ne continued on the heading, probably on George (autopilot), until it ran o ut of fuel or the fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. You w ill find it along that route-looking elsewhere is pointless."
If it was on autopilot, then either it would maintain it's current heading and speed indefinitely or it would be following waypoints. We know it wasn't just on one heading, it made that precise zig-zag over the Straits, *after* it had passed the closest point it ever got to the airport he claims it was trying to land at. That left it aligned with the flight paths to India/ME. And unless Inmarsat is full of baloney, it made at least one major heading change again to get to the South Indian Ocean. So again, that is consistent with someone either flying it at the controls or else having entered those waypoints in the autopilot. How are either of those consistent with his fire theory?
"There was a well known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gea r fire on takeoff. Once going, a tire fire would produce horrific, incapaci tating smoke."
Tires are instrumented to flag pressure out of range, the brakes are instrumented to measure temperature, etc. It's hard to conceive that a properly inflated tire is going to catch fire or that even if it does, that they are not going to start seeing alarms go off indicating brakes over temp, tire deflating, etc. Along with this theory, I've heard "experts" claiming that the 777 was fully loaded with fuel, heavy on takeoff, etc. That is pure BS, it had less than half it's max fuel and was nowhere near max takeoff weight. But it feeds the "hot tire" theory, so let's just throw that BS in.
The plane is also outfitted with smoke/fire detection systems, halon fire systems to put out fires. The probability of a smoldering tire going unnoticed for 40 mins and then the first indication of that isn't a fire alarm, it's the sudden loss of transponders, all electrical systems, no mayday, whatever is about .000001% And the probability of said fire just happening to occur within a couple mins of being handed off from Malaysian ATC and never contacting Vietnam ATC, ie exactly at the poing where it's ideal to deliberatly make the plane disappear is about .0000000001%.
"Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire."
Says who? He's the first one I've heard ever say anything like that. Unless the cockpit itself is on fire, it's hard to imagine that the tiny amount of oxygen in those masks is going to make a difference to the alleged flaming tire. But, better to go unconscious I guess.
And who exactly is this Chris Goodfellow?
"Chris Goodfellow has 20 years experience as a Canadian Class-1 instrumente d-rated pilot for multi-engine planes. "
From that it appears that he is just a private pilot with a multi-engine IFR rating. Is he even jet rated? A commercial pilot? It's very possible that all he's flown is a small twin engine plane and he's never flown a commercial airliner.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:81baa3d6-c7c4-4e1e-964a-
<<I agree with your general argument here. It's kind of a paradox in a way. I think the media has given this story far more attention than it deserves. CNN in particular. Some almost insignificant thing comes out like someone says a week into this that the plane made a "sharp turn to the left" when it first went off course, and they blow it into major breaking news. Then they finally admit that it's unclear if that means that it was a sudden, extreme bank turn, or just that it was a sharp change from it's original course. We knew the latter from day one, and even if was a steep bank turn, it's hardly major knews. Yet they had pilots demonstrating both in a flight simulator and they talked about if for hours.>>
Editors love it when they can cover a story cheaply from afar by assembling talking heads and doing "gee whiz" stuff like showing people what a trainer does. Hopefully they're not giving would-be hijackers quick flying lessons or ideas. You've just illustrated why I am so suspicious of anything other than actual radar images, recorded transmission, passenger logs and the few other things like cargo manifests that aren't subject to "reinterpretation." I thought it was clear from the beginning that the MGov was concealing information, probably to keep their terrible air defense practices a secret. A contact that big that wasn't scheduled should have been investigated by jets. The MGov failed to do so many important things that I am now hard over in DIS-believing anything they say. I simply assume there's an ass-cover going on somewhere.
<<I especially enjoyed that British buffoon they have in Australia, who's their aviation expert. About a week ago, when the Australian Prime Minister made an announcement while he was before pariament, he was so excited he must have wet his pants. He was saying that for anyone who understands Australian politics, there has to be major significance, that they've really found something that they know must be from the plane, or the PM wouldn't be saying that. Well, now as I suspected at the time, he was full of BS. It's just the PM should have known better to talk about finding something while he was before Parliament because it would be misinterpreted by buffoons like the CNN clown.>>
You'll find that getting intelligent people to serve as talking heads, especially ones affiliated with professional organizations or companies is very difficult. There are always buffoons looking for their moment in the sun and many, many times the outcomes are laughable. I've seen Fox, PBS, ABC, CNN and more get skewered by the "expert" that really wasn't. Redskins owner Dan Snyder got foxed by someone claiming to be an Indian chief who was telling reporters he didn't find the team name offensive. Turns out he wasn't a real chief - that was just his nickname. Real expert witnesses get a *lot* of $ for their services in court. AFAIK, most news orgs don't pay for the occasional expert and they get what they pay for. (-:
<<The paradox is that if you're interested in the latest on any of this, even I put on CNN to watch for 20 mins to see what's going on, because they've been covering it pretty much 24/7. You just have to be able to filter the BS from the facts, and sadly a lot of people can't do that.>> I check Google News under the "Malaysia airline" topic heading every day and the coverage really waxes and wanes. Some days, nothing, other days, reams of stuff. It's almost always triggered by some new discovery that turns out to be nothing. Enough people are reading the stories to make the "most emailed list" and that generates even MORE coverage and the cycle feeds on itself.
People generally read/watch the news not so much to learn new things, but to reinforce whatever ideas they currently hold. If they hate Joe Schmoe, the first story they will pick to read in a newspaper will be anything that mentions Joe Schmoe in a negative light. Confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
We're both doing it now. You're selecting information which favors the hijack theory and I am selecting information that confirms to the fire theory. It's no surprise we're at an impasse. There's nothing that can be proved further without the wreckage and the cockpit recorders. If the wreck is deep enough, there might be bodies that reveal smoke inhalation, explosion damage, asphyxia and more. There might be enough of the cabin to be salvageable and that could tell us very quickly if there was a fire. Nothing short of that can. Even worse for the hijack theory is that the crucial moments when the plane turned are very likely to be written over *unless* a fire interrupted power to those devices as well. We're basically arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of pin. It's all blue sky hypothecation so we get to choose which theory we like the best.
> Since I first read this post I've been reading MH370 stories with an eye to

<The problem with Goodfellow's fire theory is that it doesn't conform at all to most of the facts we have.>
I contend we don't have many *real* facts but a lot of theories and suppositions masquerading as facts.
< I don't just take someone's conclusion because they are a pilot. We'll get to his pilot credentials later, but there are more commercial pilots in fact who are saying they too believe deliberate criminal human action was the likely cause.>
If I have to choose between a Malaysian Defense Minister's opinion about what happened v. a guy who's actually flown a plane, I'm going with the latter. Especially since the MDM has backtracked on so many things. That's my courtroom background. I consider him impeached and his testimony to be worthless. That makes it easy for me to dismiss any facts he proffers. Our difference lies in your willingness to accept some of his statements as factual, and they well may be. For me, he's in the realm of "if you say it, something ELSE has to back your claims."
<I've asked you these points before and I'll ask them again regarding what Goodfellow is claiming:>
<<"When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. 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.">>
<When they made that left turn, the airport at Kota Bahru, with an 8000ft runway, perectly capable of landing a 777, was about 140 miles away. It's right on the coast. Yet they chose to fly a burning plane 175 miles farther, all the way across Malaysia to the other coast? He just picks that Palau Langkawi airport because it happens to be near where the plane went by, on the other side of Malaysia.>
I think it was all over very quickly in that plane. That's especially if, as the EgyptAir fire suggests, they had an oxygen fed fire, perhaps started by the lithium battery cargo. It might have been an explosion in the cargo hold or it could have been an electrical fire. It wasn't until the Valuejet cockpit recorder was recovered that they could read the distinctive signs of an on-board explosion (a "bup" on the CVR and a sharp rise in internal air pressure).
We don't have any of that information but we do know an oxygen-fed fire can destroy a cabin within 17 seconds. My theory, which explains even your facts, is that the plane caught fire, the pilots tried to pull busses to kill the fire and to get it to safety but it was all over (for them, not the plane) in seconds. Once the on-board fire suppression system kicked, the people were already dead, and the plane stabilized and flew on auto-pilot until it ran out of gas and crashed.
<Oh, and note that the plane didn't land there, or pass close to it, instead it made a precise zig-zag to waypoints that left in perfectly aligned with the flight path to India/Middle East at 29,500 ft. It was on radar contact hundreds of miles>
This is all based on data from the Malaysian government, isn't it? Ptui! It's not worth anything because they've not been straight with the public on so many things. If that's what happened, who can say whether the auto-pilot did it? Didn't we see the same segment on CNN that explains how the AP would "fill in" way points if nothing was entered in time? The pilots could have mis-entered course data as the cabin filled with smoke or they behaved erratically as the oxygen ran out. Somewhere on YouTube there must be videos of people passing out from anoxia. They get *very* punchy before they pass out.
Maybe you can point me to way-point and radar data I find credible, but my last recollection was that the MGov recanted their claims about way points and the times of radio and transponder transmissions.
The MGov got enough stuff wrong enough times to be deemed very untrustworthy. The Inmarsat Doppler analysis, however, I find much more credible but I am not aware that it could discriminate motion finely enough to determine if the plane was "hitting standard waypoints." So my position is that the way point data is inconclusive at best. If someone *was* at the controls, why did it eventually just fly in a straight line into the middle of the Indian Ocean? That's big damn hole in the human intervention theory.
Those recorders are going to stop pinging soon - they're running out of time to find them. If they don't get them soon, it could easily take more than the two years it took to find AirFrance's BB's. At least they knew where that plane went down.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 4:19:56 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

I don't believe I'm selecting data. I'm using the data that's out there, that has remained pretty much unchanged for the last 10 days or so. It all fits with either the pilots or a knowledgable hijacker being in control of the airplane. Pilot being the more likely of those, I'd say.
It's you who's ignoring very key and established pieces of information that don't fit with the fire theory. Examples:
They did not head to the nearest airport, Kota Bahru, which was just 25 mins away. Instead the plane flies across Malaysia to the Straits, does a zig-zag there and winds up on a heading consistent with the air routes of that area to India/Mid East.
The biggest "hole" I've heard in the nut pilot theory is that the plane didn't just crash in a sudden dive on it's usual flight path, but instead went off to the middle of nowhere. That can be accounted for by the fact that if you're nuts enough to commit suicide and take 240 people with you, then who knows what reasoning that person would have. Maybe they wanted it to remain a Amelia Earhart mystery to be talked about for 100 years. That's perfectly plausible in ny world.
It's no surprise we're at an impasse. There's nothing that can be

I disagree. We know very little about the dynamics in the pilots lives. There are reports that Shah's family moved out of his house just the day before. Another interview with someone who is supposed to know him, says that in the days before the flight he thought he was unfit to fly. There is another report out that he was related to the former deputy PM that was just convicted/sentenced hours before the flight. IDK where all that will bottom out, but the point is we don't know much about any of that at this point.
Same thing with the two mysterious Iranians. Soon as it looked like they were using stolen passports to get into Europe, everyone just lost interest, like they are just some Mexicans crossing the border into the USA. Have you heard anything from any of their friends, families, who the hell they and that guy Ali who disappeared are? That could lead somewhere. There are lots of avenues that could still provide useful information. Just because they were not in anyone's terrorist database doesn't mean they couldn't be that.
If the wreck

True for the CVR, the FDR will have data for the entire flight. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the fire theory fits with the behavior we already know the plane took. It made many turns, obviously flying in a controlled fashion, not a damaged, uncontrollable plane, an hour and a half after the alleged fire and then flew apparently perfectly fine to Australia.
We're basically

No, it's that I can fit a nut pilot or a hijact to the data that's available. The fire theory, almost nothing fits.

If you're going to discard the basic facts, eg, that if made a left turn, flew at various altitudes, wound up aligned perfectly with the flight paths to India over the Straits, etc, then what's better? Just make up stuff and chuck out what's out there and call it a fire? Good grief.

Sure, a guy who apparently is only a private pilot with an IFR rating. Apparently no jet experience, no commercial flying experience. Use him as an authority on a 777 commericial flight. I've already seen commercial pilots debunk his nonsense, starting with his claim that the crew would not put on oxygen masks if they had a fire.
Especially since the MDM has backtracked on so many things. That's

Fine, so then you don't have any facts to base anything on, so why all the fire nonsense, if it's not based on anything based in fact?
Our

In the case of the left turn, flying not to the nearest airport, but to the Straits and last seen on the flight paths to India, that has been seen by NTSB and the US manufacturer of the radar eqpt. Thailand also reported seeing the plane on it's radar. You would surely think that if it was bogus, someone would be saying it by now. So, no what? Just chuck that and stick to the fire theory because some guy with private pilots license says so? I don't think that guy even bothered to follow the facts as they've emerged. He just ignored what we know and went with almost pure speculation.

No response that your "fire" source is so dumb that he didn't even know that the nearest airport was Kota Bahru? Instead, he looks where the plane winded up, the Straits, finds an airport that's somewhat near there, and says "I instantly knew they were headed to that airport" Sure, fly the flamning plane, 175 miles farther. And then no indication at all that they even where headed exactly to that airport, it's just in that general area. What an idiot that guy is.

Then the plane would be off Kota Bahru. It would not be flying, making precision turns, over the straits, and then yet at least another left turn to get to Australia. Good grief. There are only two ways for that to happen. Either someone was flying it by hand or those waypoints were in the autopilot. Either one points to a nut pilot or hijack, not a fire. Unless it was a magical fire that managed to result not only in loss of VHF radio, ACARS, transponder, etc, just at the point in flight where it would be idea to go missing, but also so magical that it somehow made the plane fly 8 more hours, making precise turns.
It wasn't until the Valuejet

They knew it was a fire because the pilots made a mayday call, like any sane pilots would do in that situation. SwissAir did the same thing. There's probably one a week somewhere in the world, where they smell smoke, think they see smoke and make a call to ATC to head to the nearest airport. And if it was the sudden raging inferno in the cockpit, which you've also advanced, that killed everyone, then the plane would be in the ocean off Kota Bahru, not Australia.
Most bizarre of all is your attempt to blame the ValuJEt crash on them making a mayday call. Read the NTSB report. The fire resulted in destruction of the flight control systems and left the plane uncontrollable. Those pilots did everything right, starting with the mayday call.

There we have it, the inferno theory again, that leaves the plane making precise manuvers, aligning with the flight paths, etc an hour and a half later and flying to Australia. Good grief.
My theory, which explains even your

And how the hell is it that the autopilot took it to the Straits, made a precise zig=zag there, aligning with paths to India? And how did the autopilot make the reported altitude changes along the way? And then how did the autopilot take it to Australia? Answer: No way, unless someone put those waypoints into it. Is that what you'd do in a fire? Enter bizarre waypoints instead of doing the simple, obvious thing, which is declare an emergency and ask for immediate vectors to the nearest airport? You could do the latter with a 15 sec push of the mike button on the controls. It's what every other pilot does. You don't have to screw with the autopilot and enter a route to Australia.

Sure, better to make up the fire theory and then make up whatever you need to go with it. If you're not going to use what data there is then you can just make up any crap, which is what your pilot reference guy apparently did too. The flight radar data referenced above has been seen by NTSB, the radar manufacturer. IDK who all else. It's also consistent with Inmarsat. Are they lying? Good grief. Either use what's available and reasonably vetted at this point, or else you have *nothing* but wild conjecture.

It doesn't matter if the autopilot did it or the pilots hand flew it. It didn't go to the nearest airport. It didn't go near the nearest airport. Even if the autopilot was flying it, who put the flight waypoints to the Straits, to Australia into the autopilot? Martians? Magical fire that rages throught the plane, taking out radios, transponders, ACARS, and just damaging the autopilot so that it now has some bizarre route and flies it? That's probable, more probable than one of the pilots did it? Good grief, you're making less sense every post.
Didn't we see the same segment on CNN that explains how the AP

IDK what you saw. I never saw any such thing or anyone ever talk about an autopilot putting in waypoints to the straits, to Australia, etc on it's own. That's pretty nutty.
The pilots could

If they had just contacted ATC with the radio that was working perfectly fine 2 mins before, they could have just dialed the autopilot knob to a heading, which is far simpler than entering waypoints to Australia. And it does have the benefit of clearing out the airspace ahead of you so you don't run into a 747 at night. About now it's time for the old:
aviate navigate communicate
Except in your world, you just apparently go back and forth between 1 and 2, totally ignoring 3. And in #1, I guess aviating doesn't include making sure you don't fly into a 747 on your course choice of your own. And even #2, they wouldn't have to navigate if they issued a mayday call and request for vectoring to Kota Bahru. In 15 secs they'd have a response to turn left, heading 275, any flight level, your discretion. Then they turn the autopilot knob to 275. Seems a lot simpler, safer, and easier than entering coordinates to the straits and then onto australia.
Somewhere on YouTube there must be

It's probably a video of the pilot with the fire theory while he was writing that nonsense.

AFAIK, they only recanted that they knew the waypoints had been entered into the autopilot a considerable time before the plane first made it's left turn and went missing. There is no excuse for that confusion, they should have known one way of the other.
What more radar data do you need or want? The plane could have landed at Kota Bahru. It flew to the Straits. It was headed toward India. It wound up at Australia. How does a fire, everyone dead, the autopilot did it explain even that? Of course it doesn't. But the nut pilot theory fits just fine.
Here's a good description of some of what came out:
http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/missing-mas-plane/story/radar-data-suggests-missing-malaysia-airlines-mh370-flown-deli
http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/03/heres-every-mh370-theory-weve-considered-so-far/359355/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-malaysia-airlines-radar-exclusive-idUSBREA2D0DG20140314

Why in the world is that a big hole? A nutty pilot has taken at least two similar planes and put them into the ocean, committing suicide, killing everyone aboard. Who says another one couldn't choose to put it into the hardest spot to ever figure out, to leave the world with a mystery? As far as flying a straight line, AFAIK, no one has said what route they think it flew after last radar contact was lost over the Straits. They only have circles of where it could be once an hour. It's probably pretty much a straight line, but so what? Nut pilot could be sitting there, getting loaded on scotch, popping pills, praying to Allah or jerking off, or have killed himself already with the plane on autopilotwhat. What difference does a straight line make?

They aren't going to find them via pinging. More likely you'd win the Mega millions jackpot, because as you point out, the potential area to search is huge and the process is slow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

There was a news item in the NY Times today that had some interesting things to say, some of which both of us had already noted (fair use excerpt below):
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/world/asia/new-search-plan-for- malaysia-airlines-flight-370-is-based-on-farther-controlled-flying.html
<<Investigators have concluded that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which veered off course and disappeared on March 8, was probably not seriously damaged in the air and remained in controlled flight for hours after contact with it was lost, until it ran out of fuel over the southern Indian Ocean . . . The altitude readings from the radar now appear to have been inaccurate, officials said . . . Initial reports about the radar readings suggested that along the way, the plane soared as high as 45,000 feet . . . But a comprehensive international review has found that the Malaysian radar equipment had not been calibrated with enough precision to draw any conclusions about the aircraft's true altitude. "The primary radar data pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable," said Angus Houston, the retired head of the Australian military who is now coordinating the search . . . he said he doubted whether anyone could prove that the plane had soared and swooped the way the initial reports suggested . . . Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, agreed with Mr. Houston. "There's nothing reliable about height," . . . Other officials involved in the crash investigation have suggested that either of the plane's pilots might have commandeered the aircraft in order to commit suicide, or that smoke from a fire in the fuselage might have overcome the pilots and passengers but left the engines and autopilot working normally . . . Some investigators are convinced that one of the pilots was involved . . . But others say that the evidence suggesting pilot involvement is inconclusive and contradictory . . . the dismissal of the radar altitude data prompted a change in the focus of the search . . .The specifics are still being finalized, but the new search zone is likely to be a band roughly 400 miles long and about 60 miles wide, straddling the arc . . . The width of the band is based on a crucial assumption: that when it ran out of fuel, the plane was being flown by its autopilot.>>
Another article I read dismissed "pilot suicide" as being seriously out of character with suicidal behavior (as in taking 5 hours to commit it) and with previous incidents of pilot suicide. Meanwhile, "soft" forensic evidence is probably being nibbled away by crabs and other undersea scavengers. If they find the craft, there's still no guarantee the wreck will tell us much more than we already know. At least it will settle our disagreement about a fire in the cabin, but the remaining evidence may never tell us, if there was no fire, precisely what *did* happen.
--

Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:e4aa3ac2-

Just one more reason to go back to "training" and put primary control back in the hands of people and use automation and computer control as backup.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:47:20 PM UTC-4, Guv Bob wrote:

Not sure what that means. Primary control always has been and continues to be in the hands of the pilots. And no evidence from anything I've seen related to 370 that indicates that has anything to do with whatever happened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/25/2014 12:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Not sure what you mean either. This is a quote from the NTSB report: The Asiana flight crew "over-relied on automated systems that they did not fully understand," he said.
The South Korea-based airline said the pilot and co-pilot reasonably believed the automatic throttle would keep the plane flying fast enough to land safely,
They assumed the throttle would be adjusted by automation, but that did not happen. It the automation was not there to begin with, they would have known to adjust as required. I was taught to keep the speed up on approach on my first ever landing. These guys knew that too, but relied on automation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 2:50:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What I'm saying is that the thread is about Malaysian Air 370, which went missing not the Asiana flight that crashed at SFO. The post GuvBob replied to was about MH370. If Asiana is what he's talking about, which he did not say, it has nothing to do with 370 and I'm not a mind reader.

Maybe, or they could have just as well have still flown it into the ditch. When there is confusion in the cockpit and no one is paying proper attention, that has happened plenty of times too.
I was taught to keep the speed up on

The fundamental mistake would seem to be not paying attention to the most basic flight rules, ie no one watching airspeed on approach. Maybe it's more likely to happen if you set the autothrottle, but it's no excuse. And I can find you wrecks where if the plane was just put on autopilot, or had the autothrottle engaged instead of the pilot flying it into the ground, everything would have been fine too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/25/2014 3:06 PM, trader_4 wrote:

have added to the confusion.

Yes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:49:05 -0400, "Robert Green"

ran out of fuel, the plane was being flown by its autopilot, which was unable to control the plane when the engines stopped. In that case, the plane would have stalled and fallen quickly into the ocean. If a skilled pilot was conscious and still at the controls, however, the plane could have glided more than 100 miles before it hit the water.

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

Site Timeline

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.