Flight MH370: Malaysian radar, passenger phone contact, high-altitude hypoxia

Page 3 of 5  
news:f22a9b89-1f5e-4536-ad97-
<stuff snipped>

It's very easy sitting at our computers to imagine how easy it would be to send a mayday call but note how little time it took on the Valuejet flight to go from "passengers smell smoke" to impacting the Florida swamps at over 500mph nose first:
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
<<At 2:10 pm, Captain Candalyn Kubeck and First Officer Richard Hazen heard a loud bang in their headphones and noticed the plane was losing electrical power. Seconds later, flight attendant Mandy Summers entered the cockpit and advised the flight crew of a fire in the passenger cabin. Passengers' shouts of "fire, fire, fire" were recorded on the plane's cockpit voice recorder when the cockpit door was opened. Though the ValuJet flight attendant manual stated that the cockpit door should not be opened when smoke or other harmful gases might be present in the cabin, the intercom was disabled and there was no other way to inform the pilots of what was happening. The CDR indicated a progressive failure of the DC-9's electrical and flight control systems due to the spreading fire.>>
"Progressive failure" is the key here and I have no doubts it could easily appear that someone is switching off systems manually (and suspiciously) when in reality the fire is eating its way through the plane's electrical wiring.
One thing I've read over and over again is that the worst thing a pilot can face is an on-board fire. And they are *very* well aware of that fact and how little time they have to address the cause of the fire and attempt to extinguish it. I suspect the MH370 pilots were aware that at cruising altitude in the middle of the South China Sea that Malaysian ATC wasn't going to be able to do anything to help them extinguish the plane and there would probably be no survivors if they couldn't recover from whatever was going on.
<<Kubeck and Hazen immediately asked air traffic control for a return to Miami due to smoke in the cockpit and cabin, and were given instructions for a return to the airport. One minute later, Hazen requested the nearest available airport. Kubeck began to turn the plane left in preparation for the return to Miami.>> Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:13:42 pm. It rolled onto its side and crashed to the ground nose-first in the Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at a speed in excess of 507 miles per hour (816 km/h).>>
Smoke reported at 2:10 and less than four minutes later the plane was headed nose first in the swamp at maximum velocity.
What I gather from this incident is how very little time pilots have to fight a serious fire and while it seems such an easy thing to radio for help it a) may have been impossible if the fire had damaged the radio before anyone noticed and b) climbing to 45K feet in such a brief period of time tends to indicate the pilots were fully engaged with something - wrestling with hijackers or trying to put out a serious fire. We'll never know for sure unless the wreckage is found
FWIW, here's another factoid that could support Goodfellow's fire theory:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/could-lithium-ion-batteries-have-caused-a-fire-aboard-mh370-1.1741022
<<"When shipping lithium batteries it is not always clear which mode of transport will be used. Your shipment may end up on an aircraft, and an aircraft's fire suppression system may be unable to extinguish all types of lithium battery fire," Transport Canada says.>>
So there was a hazardous cargo on board the flight fully capable of starting a fire (a lithium battery fire on the ground took 40 minutes to put out in Boston). If it took that long for ground crews to extinguish that fire on the ground, it's very possible that such a fire in flight would have destroyed the plane.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 24, 2014 1:30:26 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Thanks for proving my points. They had a major fire.
A - They still declared an emergency, had multiple calls with ATC and were cleared for an emergency return to the airport.
B - That severe of a fire didn't leave the plane flying for 8 hours. It brought it down in minutes.
Same thing with Swiss Air.

You keep ignoring that this progressive failure just happened to occur right after they had been told by Malaysian ATC that they were no longer covering them and they were to contact Vietnam controllers, where they were at the limits of radar, over the water. In other words, at the ideal spot to deliberately go missing. And there is no indication of anything "progressive". Two minutes earlier, they had the "all right, good night" exchange and then the transponder stopped and no further voice communication was heard by ATC.

Is that what the ValueJet pilots did? Swiss Air pilots? Just hang a left turn, without regard for other air traffic that they could collide with? Gee, I smell smoke. Let's turn off the VHF radio, the transponders, ACARS, make a sharp turn in the middle of the night and fly into God knows what instead of making a 10 sec mayday call that could have cleared the airspace and made Kota Bahru, the closest airport ready for an emergency landing? Even if they had to ditch in the ocean, they would want ATC to know where they are so that rescue could find them. Those facts don't fit a fire very well, but they sure fit a deliberate dissapearance.

Bingo. And they didn't turn off the transponders either.

A - They still made the mayday call, as well as other communication with ATC. AFAIK, their transponders didn't turn off and they knew where to find the plane.
B - They crashed withing minutes, they didn't have a plane that continued to fly for an hour and a half over Malaysia, make precision turns that hit waypoints, and then finally align themselves perfectly with the air routes to India/Mid East and then, if the current theory is right, make yet another major course change to the southern Indian Ocean. Or northern arc for that matter. Either way, it did not stay on it's last radar contact heading. So, what about that? Someone put the waypoints into the plane to go to Kazakastan or southern Indian Ocean because the plane was on fire? The progressive failure made it do that, but left it flyable for 7 hours?

Unless the fire is in the cabin, where you can use a fire extinguisher, there isn't much they can do to fight a fire, per your own example. Getting the plane on the ground as quickly as possible, is absolutely critical. And when you think you have a fire, the key step to doing that is to declare an emergency so you can go to the nearest airport. And just going there without informing ATC isn't a good idea, for obvious reasons.
and while it seems such an easy thing to radio for help

I agree it could have destroyed the airplane. I don't agree that it could have done so without a distress call. The cargo holds have:
smoke detectors fire detectors halon fire suppression system
There would have certainly been enough notice that something was wrong to get off a distress message. And if a fire was "progressively failing systems on the plane", how do you explain it continuing to not only fly, but to make precision hits of waypoints over the Straits of Malacca, align itself at 29K feet with the flight paths to India, etc an hour and a half later? How do you explain any of that, when there is an airport at Kota Bahru, which they were about 140 miles off shore from and could have been at in 20 minutes?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:f22a9b89-1f5e-4536-ad97-
<stuff snipped>

I challenge that last assertion:
http://www.askthepilot.com/malaysia-airlines-flight-370/ says:
<<Lack of a mayday call: No matter an aircraft's location, the crew is always in contact with both air traffic control and company ground staff. When flying in remote locations, however, this is often a more involved process than simply picking up a microphone and talking. Exactly how it's done depends on which equipment the plane is fitted with, and which ATC facility you're working with. Flying over open ocean, relaying even a simple message can be a multi-step process transmitted through FMS datalink or over high frequency radio.
***In an emergency, communicating with the ground is secondary to dealing with the problems at hand. ***
As the old adage goes: you aviate, navigate, and communicate - in that order. And so, the fact that no messages or distress signals were sent by the crew is not surprising or an indicator of anything specific.>>
Since they were at a hand-off point, communicating with ATC could have easily involved a change of frequencies - something that might be hard to do in a cabin filled with smoke.
The AskThePilot site also posted this little item which adds yet another layer of weirdness to this whole incident. Some people (5) believe the plane went into orbit and broke up!
<<As for some of the wackier ideas I've been hearing, my favorite is the one that goes like this: Would it be possible for the 777 to have climbed clear out of the atmosphere, so high that "it disintegrated," went into orbit, or otherwise became impossible to track or locate? In normal circumstances I wouldn't burden the rest of you with an answer to such nonsense, except that no fewer than five readers already have asked some version of this question. The answer is no. It is totally impossible for that to happen. At a certain altitude, a plane's engines will no longer provide enough power and the wings will no longer provide enough lift. The plane will no longer be able to sustain flight. All commercial passenger jets have maximum certified cruising altitudes below 50,000 feet or so. And even this altitude isn't always reachable. The maximum altitude at a given time depends on the plane' s weight, the air temperature and other factors. >>
While I certainly can't rule out a hijacking, there's no way to rule out a fire or other mechanical/electrical disaster in flight. At least not until the wreckage is found.`
--
Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 24, 2014 3:43:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Nonsense. They were in contact with Malaysian ATC on the normal VHF radio. They were not 1000 miles out in the middle of no where. Every pilot on TV has stated that all you have to do is push a button on the control yoke. And even the oxygen masks are outfitted with a microphone.

It depends what the emergency is and what it takes to solve it. Sure, if the plane is in a sudden stall, has gone violently out of control, then you're going to deal with that first. But there is no indication anything like that happened. And even if it did, it explains no mayday for maybe several minutes. It doesn't explain no mayday at all, ever, with the plane continuing to fly under control. It doesn't explain the transponders going off suddenly either.
CNN had a 777 instructor in a flight simulator. He demonstrated how he would do a max rate emergency descent from 35,000 to 10,000 in response to a sudden decompression, etc. He pointed out that while he was doing it, he'd be pressing the talk button on the yoke and informing ATC at the same time.

Oh BS. Per the above example, you can aviate and talk at the same time. Your own example of ValuJet, that had such a massive fire that it brought the plane down in just minutes managed to do all three. So did Swiss Air. And those fires/emergencies were so severe that they lead to the loss of the aircraft in minutes. This one flew on for 8 hours. It would have to be one hell of a magical fire. On the other hand, the known facts fit very well with a deliberate act.

What's the liklihood that a cockpit filled so rapidly with smoke that they could not change frequencies? And even if it did happen, they didn't have to change freqs. They had spoken perfectly fine just 2 mins before with Malaysian ATC they could just talk to them, which would be the best choice anyway. And further, in addition to the normal frequency, there is a universal emergency freq button right next to the pilot. One button push and you're on the intl emergency freq, instantly.

And yet you're looking to that website for good answers?

I wouldn't rule anything out. But the known facts so far fit very well with a deliberate act by either a pilot or someone else taking control of the plane. Almost nothing there fits the fire. The leading proponent of the fire idea is Les Abend on CNN. But just like you, he just talks about the few minutes after the loss of contact, as if that is all that's there. He ignores that an hour and a half later you have the plane making a zig-zag to waypoints over the Straits of Malacca, ending with it being perfectly aligned with the flight paths to India/Middle East. How exactly does your fire theory fit with that? Or that they went right by Kohta Bahru, where they could have landed, which was just 140 miles from the point of lost contact. Instead they go over to the Straits of Malacca and make precise, controlled moves there? That fits deliberate, it doesn't fit fire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:2eceab33-3021-44a3-b7de-
<stuff snipped>

I doubt their fire proves your point because each cabin fire is remarkably different. In the case above the intercom burned up. I am sure the radio circuitry could have burned up just as easily had the fire followed a different path. In fact, it could have easily been *any* electrical equipment that burned.

This proves my point, actually. The Valujet crew violated the "Aviate then navigate then communicate" rule and they ended up cratering in the swamp at 500mph. The MH370 *didn't* call and yet their plane stayed airborne for six more hours. Seconds count in a cockpit fire, and the relatively inexperienced crew (compared to Shah's logged flight hours)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/03/the-lessons-of-valujet-592/306534/
made the mistake of calling for help when there was absolutely *nothing* ATC could have done at that point to help them stay in the air.
Read the Atlantic article and you'll get a true sense of the sort of pandemonium that occurs when a plane catches fire.
The autopilot in the 777 was probably what kept the plane flying straight and level long after the crew and passengers had asphyxiated. This isn't wild speculation - it follows right along with what happened to golfer Payne Stewart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash
Why would a hijacker fly six hours into the middle of the Indian Ocean? Why has there been no claim by terrorists? There are some big, BIG holes in the hijack theory that I think you're overlooking.

And you keep ignoring the fact that such an event could easily be nothing more than a coincidence. If there's one thing accident reconstructionists learn it's that there are a lot of things that appear connected that really aren't as well as things that appear unconnected but really are.
There's no proof of nefarious acts any more than there's proof that there was a fire. You've chosen to base your theory on a lot of assertions and information from the notoriously inept Malaysian government who was looking for the plane in the wrong place for over a week. They have little or no credibility left.
The fire theory is finding new adherents:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/search-malaysia-airlines-flight-shifts-685-miles-cockpit-fire-eyed-article-1.1737952
<<Aviation experts say that a 'blowtorch' fire that scorched an Egyptair flight in 2011 could explain the disappearance of MH370 . . . The Egyptair blaze ignited just before departure when a short circuit caused pipes to explode in flames. The fierce blaze resulted in the Federal Administration Aviation ordering repairs to American aircraft, but it's uncertain if Malaysia Airlines did the same, The Telegraph reported.>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10711590/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370- Cairo-777-cockpit-fire-could-yield-clues-to-missing-plane.html
<< "In simple terms, this fault can cause a blowtorch type fire that will melt aluminium in a matter of seconds," said James Healy-Pratt, an aviation lawyer and qualified pilot. . . . There is growing belief that an on-board fire could explain what happened to the plane, rather than an act of terrorism . . . The Federal Aviation Authority in Washington and the European Aviation Safety Agency issued directives to airlines under their control . . . It required the oxygen hoses on the bulk of the 777 fleet to be replaced with an alternative which did not conduct electricity . . . "We believe that in due course, the crew will be regarded as heroes rather than villains, and we sincerely hope the Black Boxes will contain the data to back that up, and to prevent further needless loss of life," Mr Healy-Pratt added.>>

Read through the examples of how quickly Apollo 1 and Valujet incinerated and you're realize that two minutes can be a veritable eternity when dealing with a flash fire.
The pilot of the Egyptair flight noted above talked about how fast the cabin fire spread. This is something I know a little about because of my dad's work on nuclear subs. Like airplanes or space capsules, fires on subs (or in any similar closed space) are incredibly dangerous and can spread unbelievably quickly - exhausting all breathable air in the space.
Pilots, astronauts and submariners know they have very little time to save themselves in the event of a bad fire. Time and again they've said that it's not unusual for a pilot in very bad trouble to not radio in. There is a scenario that fits both our theories. Someone gains access to the cockpit with a container of something flammable which they spill over the controls and set on fire. Would a burning pilot's first concern be to phone home? Would he even be able to? Doubtful.
The Egyptair failure mentioned the possibility of oxygen hoses rupturing, which would really cause the flames to flash over the way they did on Apollo 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
To get a sense of how quickly an oxygen enhanced fire can burn, pay careful attention to how little time they had between detection of the fire and death:
6:30:54 The crew members were using the time to run through their checklist again, when a voltage transient was recorded at 6:30:54 (23:30:54 GMT).
6:31:04 (Ten seconds later) Chaffee exclaimed "Hey!", and scuffling sounds followed for two seconds. White then reported, "I've got a fire in the cockpit!". Some witnesses said that they saw White on the television monitors, reaching for the inner hatch release handle as flames in the cabin spread from left to right and licked the window. The final voice transmission is believed to have come from Chaffee.
6:31:10 Six seconds after White's report of a "fire in the cockpit", a voice cried out, "There's a bad fire!". The sound of the spacecraft's hull rupturing was heard immediately afterwards, followed by "I'm burning up!" and a scream.
At 6:31:21, the transmission then ended abruptly at only 17 seconds after the first report of fire
They had 17 seconds to react to save themselves. That's not a lot of time to phone home and chat with someone who's probably completely unable to help. That's why the mantra of "Aviate, navigate, communicate" is drilled into pilots. With very, VERY little time to react to a life and death situation, their primary concern is not to call in, but to keep the plane in the air. If you've got 17 seconds to save yourself, a 5 second transmission eats up almost 33% of the time you have left. Not a good investment if you want to stay alive.

No, and they died almost immediately. They're not the poster boys for the alleged value of phoning home to ATC when there's an on-board fire. As I said before, it was a "where to find the bodies" transmission and did nothing whatsoever to save the people on the plane. Experienced pilots work to save the plane in the very few seconds they know they have in a bad cabin fire. If "phoning home" doesn't extract too much of a penalty, they'll do it, probably mostly out of instinct. But you'd be hard pressed to make a case for why a call to ATC would help them in any material way. FWIW, like the Challenger and Apollo 1 astronauts, nothing that any of them did was likely to have saved their lives. They were in deep kimshi from the moment the incidents began. But they followed fire protocols anyway.

Wow, you're reading an awful lot into very little positive information. Besides, all those events can be explained by a flash fire, perhaps oxygen fed, that was burning through systems at different rates. If Shah, with 18,000 hours flying, *knew* where a safe landing strip was, away from populated areas, why would he have to call to get information he already possessed?
He was quite some time away from making an actual landing in the middle of the ocean and appears to have had much bigger problems than obtaining clearance for a future event. But we just don't know because we have very little in the way of truly verifiable facts. We do know they've been scouring the passenger lists for known terrorists and Shah's flight simulator and they haven't appeared to come up with anything overly suspicious.

Yeah, they're expecting to make a safe water landing at night with perhaps half the cockpit controls on fire. I don't see that as a valid alternative if the cabin fire theory prevails. And if these hijackers were so astute, knowing how to shut off complex circuitry at precisely the right time, how come they appear to have died in the middle of nowhere like idiots?
There is a very rough fit to a lot of the pieces of the hijack theory. At least as many as there are that tend to support the fire theory and perhaps more. Either could have happened and no one at this point can prove which theory (or some other one) is correct. Especially with the many retractions and "corrections" that have come out of the Malaysian government.

You have no idea, nor can prove, whether the transponder failed, burned up, was shut off intentionally or was hit by a meteorite. But from the beginning, news reports just starting saying that "transponder was shut off" and everyone ran with it. Without a cockpit recording, either voice or data, or some hard evidence in the debris, no one can say why that transponder stopped transmitting.
I believe that you're making that assumption because of when it occurred during the flight (we're not really sure, from what I've read). A cockpit fire can disable the transponder but so can a pilot pulling busses to locate the source of a fire. Almost every fact you've considered as proof is equivocal. It could be explained away by some other cause. That doesn't make a compelling case.
Let's ask ourselves why someone who knew precisely all the right things to do at the right times and how to change way points, etc. would go through all that trouble and then fly straight and level to ditch in the ocean? Why would they fly under the radar, as has been claimed, if they were going to kill themselves anyway? Wouldn't terrorists gain by having the RMAF shoot down the jet? Would the RMAF shoot down the jet traveling over ocean in the middle of nowhere?
There are more things that don't make sense regarding a hijacking than they do a cabin fire. The plane had a lithium battery cargo and if there were substantial pressure changes in the cargo bay, they could have burst. Or they could have shorted.

They do it by assuming it's electrical in nature and pulling the circuit busses and reactivating them to see which is causing the fire. That's all they can do and there's apparently never enough time to do it without taking some WAGs about what equipment is actually burning. If this was an oxygen-fed fire, its ferocity can't really be imagined. Even things not normally very flammable combust in pure oxygen. The information about the Egyptair fire changes things dramatically in my mind.

I Googled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing#Passenger_airplane_water_ditchings
and while this source doesn't say it, I remember from Sully's landing that there have been either very few or no successful ditchings of jetliners in the ocean at night. They were at 35K feet. It was a long way to the ocean at night with the likelihood it would have to be a dead stick landing. Good luck with that.

You're postulating a lot of time to do things that really didn't need to be done at that very moment. He was still at 35K feet (the Valuejet flight got into trouble at 11K over land - very different animal) and any airport was a long way over the ocean. What help would ATC really be if the cabin was burning up in an oxygen-enhanced flash fire and he knew he probably didn't have enough time to pull and reactivate busses? He wouldn't waste a second of time dealing with a clearance issue at least 15 minutes away if the current emergency was a serious cabin fire. How much runway traffic would there be at 2AM?

It's explained rather easily. Fire suppression systems extinguished the fire too late to save the crew and the autopilot did the rest. Payne Stewart's already proved how a plane can just fly off into the sunset and crash. Almost everyone who's flown the 777's say they are designed to keep flying straight and level. Given how stingy the airlines are with CVR recording time, I'd say they miscalculated what it took to suppress a cargo or cabin fire and if the pilot was incapacitated, the toxic fumes killed everyone on the plane because he wouldn't be able to manually vent the toxic cabin fumes to the outside.
MH370 sure seems to have flown off into the middle of the ocean - unless you choose to believe that bogus way point stuff from the unreliable Malaysians and disregard the peer-reviewed Doppler analysis of Boeing, Inmarsat and JPL. The engine monitor data is far more likely to be correct than some new "fact" the Malaysian pull out of their exhaust port. To imagine that it made landfall without detection is stretching facts a little too thin for my taste.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well...
..may you live in interesting times.
--
nestork


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

I was looking at this: http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/16/satcom-acars-explained/
There should be an arch for each hour of ping from the satellite.
Wouldn't that give the heading of the plane?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:51:23 PM UTC-4, Metspitzer wrote:

I've been wondering where the other 6 arcs are too, why they haven't been released and why no one in the media has the brains to ask. You would think it would certainly help. We know where they think it was at 2:40AM from last contact with military radar. So, from there it would have to go to the first arc after that, then the next and so on. You would think it would help narrow it down and presumably that's what they've used to the extent they can. Maybe it lends credence to the southern path versus northern, but I haven't heard them say that it's based on analyzing the arcs. I'm also sick of all the media referring to those arcs as "corridors the plane could have flown in". They aren't corridors. They are just all the possible locations of the plane at 8:11AM. It didn't and wouldn't have flown in them, it only had to be on a point on one of them at 8:11AM. Yet I hear the media talking about how the one "corridor" passes the tip of Indonesia, so why didn't they see it going by, etc.
Another thing I would have done by now is to take another 777, just fly it from Australia to the end of that arc and have it there while it does it's handshake with the satellite. Then confirm that when you do the analysis of that handshake timing to the satellite, you come to the same conclusion, ie that the 777 is there on the arc in the southern Indian Ocean. The way so many things have been wrong, it would be good to know that something isn't wrong with the analysis of the sat data.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i wonder if a stowaway 1 or more were onboard? perhaps in the equiptement bay?
So they pop up and take over. I thin the plane was highjacked and is safely on the ground somewhere awaiting its next job for the new owners, a terrorist action:(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
all airliners should uplink all black box data including voice recordings to a satellite with all info sent to a data center in real time so no aircr aft is ever lost again. Extra points for some video feeds looking at engine s, ahead and to the rear, and one in the passenger cabin. Pilots should be able to view the videos from the cockpit in emergencies too
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/22/2014 9:36 PM, bob haller wrote:

the cost of flying, but well worth it, you think? Just think if only one life could be saved. And we need armed TSA agents, and cameras in that bathrooms, and everyone has to fly nude, and all clothing and stuff is stowed in the hold.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The US has spy sats that 10 years ago were suggested to read license plate numbers. Spy sats are generally in polar orbit, so they should cover the entire planet
So they should have been able to find aircraft wreckage by now:(
there may be a cover up involved, or more likely the aircraft was stolen, and its in a hangar hidden away somewhere, waiting for terrorist reuse someday........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They may be able to read the license plate of a car you point out but this is more like trying to find a particular license plate in a place bigger than Texas and you don't really know where to look. I am sure they have computers programmed to look for particular military assets but now they have to program it for junk and they are not even sure how is shaped.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:34:41 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I agree. And whatever max capability an NSA sat has, it doesn't mean it's in an orbit or can be moved to an orbit that covers the area in question. They'd have those over places like Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, etc. but I wouldn't assume they routinely cover everything or that they can even be redeployed to just anywhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Latest news is the Malaysian PM says that based on new data culled from the satellites that handshaked with the plane, it went down in the south part of the Indian Ocean, where there was no place it could have landed. It crashed and there were no survivors.
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-navy-sending-sensitive-equipment-to-aid-in-malaysia-airline-search/1877640.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:8e9daf9f-ede8-42b1-96fe-

The fact that it took this long to get special "ping hunter" hydrophones in place doesn't speak too well of the Malaysian government's handling of this affair. It's sad because the window within which the black boxes are still pinging is closing fast.
The CVD/FDR's and wreckage are the only things that can tell us (reliably) what happened on that flight. Of course, the plane could turn up somewhere if the "hijack to repurpose" theory was true, but I think the Inmarsat data's putting that possibility to bed forever. Maybe that was the eventual goal if the plane *was* hijacked but I don't think they pulled it off in any event. Why, then, fly such a long way to ditch in a remote ocean?
Was there valuable cargo on board that was insured? A lot of ships are sunk for insurance fraud, and many planes have been crashed deliberately so someone could collect on a life insurance policy. Say, for example, the plane was carrying millions in gold (allegedly) but someone switched lead for the gold. They would never want their deception discovered so a deep Indian Ocean grave would make sense.
Fraudsters who do this kind of crime with with ships sink them in very hard to get to places. In one case where a ship was allegedly loaded with expensive (and well-insured) machine parts, salvage divers from the insurers used a deep-diving submersible to get to the wreck where they discovered it was filled with rocks, not machine parts. I would bet that insurers with exposure in this case are already gearing up to do their own search because something's not quite right about flight MH370.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:14:09 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

It's unlikely to make much difference. The area that can be covered with a towed hydrophone in the remaining days is nothing compared to the huge area and not knowing where the plane went in.

Feel free to speculate wildly on anything else, without a shred of evidence to support it.

Feel free to speculate wildly on anything else, without a shred of evidence to support it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:244e8aa7-068b-4a3a-80a5-

I'm just hoping that the searchers get as lucky as the passengers were unlucky but I agree it's not very likely after all the missteps in this search. The NTSB should have been running the show from day 1 because of their deep expertise in such matters but we were rebuffed. It must be very disturbing to professional aviation accident investigators to see time running out on the pingers because the Malaysia were to proud or afraid to ask for help.

Thanks, I will. I'm not a journalist so I have a right to speculate why anyone would hijack a plane to crash it in one of the hardest-to-get-to locations in the world. People commit crimes for gain or passion. If this was a crime and not an accident, where's the motive? We know that in the maritime industry, ship owners scuttle their own ships deliberately to recover insurance money. So while it's speculative, my thought are based on what's happened time and again in the shipping industry.
The reasoning behind my speculation is that the first bomb ever placed on an airplane was done to collect on a life insurance policy on a passenger. The deliberate sinking of ships to collect on insurance is something that's been going on for years at a fairly respectable clip. It's accelerated quite a bit because of the recession and the glut of ships that resulted from a decade of overbuilding. My reasoning is also based on how oddly the Malaysian government has been acting. They're hiding something - it seems pretty obvious.
If you want really out there speculation try:
http://conservativeread.com/flight-370-conspiracy-hijacked-ibm-engineer-successfully-dialed-out-of-diego-garcia/
<<IBM ENGINEER TAKEN FROM HIJACKED FLIGHT 370 GOT A SELFIE OUT TO THE INTERNET. This image, which appears black was posted as taken in a dark cell by an IBM engineer. The picture is black because the cell was too dark, but a critical piece of information was embedded in the Exif data, the coordinates to Diego Garcia, where the picture was taken. And it's real, this is NOT a hoax. The coordinates in the picture indicate that the photo was taken within 3 miles of what Google officially gives for Diego Garcia. It is NOT EXACTLY what comes up on Google. It is off a couple miles, so NO ONE GOOGLED THIS, thus helping to confirm it's authenticity. I don't know how big the island is, but if it has a runway, that certainly fits.>>
Makes me feel entirely grounded in *my* speculation. (-:

At least I am not basing my conclusions on reports from the Malaysian government who today admitted they didn't even get the last words of the flight crew correct.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/31/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/
How can anyone trust one single bit of the data they've put out?
Do you have any idea why hijackers who normally love to have as many press photos and reports of their handiwork as possible would direct the plane to one the remotest places on earth to crash it without taking credit or having anyone see it?
That's the part of the hijack theory that doesn't make sense.
Another pilot with 29 years of flying experience and time in 777's doesn't agree with the hijack theory:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/28/opinion/abend-pilots-flight-370/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
<<And to what end would one of the pilots want to seize a 777? Once again, would the purpose really be to run the airplane out of fuel in the middle of the Indian Ocean? How about suicide? Death by airplane seems farfetched in this case. Why wait till the middle of the ocean to make a statement? Why not attempt suicide immediately after takeoff ... or just prior to landing in Bejing?
Was human intervention involved? Absolutely. But my gut theory as a 30-year airline veteran is that human intervention was involved to save an airplane and its passengers in crisis, not to commit foul play.>>
That's my gut theory, too. Something very bad happened on that plane - perhaps an explosion or an oxygen-fed flash fire - resulting in the death of all aboard and the autopilot flying the plane into the middle of nowhere. That brings up the issue of design. Would an autopilot be "dumb" enough to fly the plane to an area with no place to land within the remaining fuel range? Maybe the CNN talking heads will tackle that question at some point.
--

Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:29:49 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Where was the motive beyond a suicide nut in Egypt Air, SilkAir, both of which were crashed into the ocean by suicidal pilots? Or the Ethiopian? 767 that was hijacked by two nuts that held a gun to the pilots heads and forced them to fly to Australia even though the pilots told them over and over that it only had enough fuel for a couple of hour flight in Africa? That went down in the ocean too.
We know that in the

You've truly gone totally mad now. There is no evidence consistent with a bomb. I agree that the Malaysians have handled this very poorly. But it's hardly evidence of a cover-up. A recent example is that they have no changed the wording of the final message from MA370. What good would it do to make asses of themselves over that? How would it further a "cover-up"? Same thing we the wrong info that the waypoints for the Straits had been entered mid-flight. What good would that do when they know there is a trail of evidence and it's not going to hold up? Or how about the Minister or Defense/Civil Aviation, who's leading this, turning around the other day and saying that they continue to hold the hope of finding survivors, after the Prime Minister had made a major speech saying the only conclusion is it went down with no survivors? Being dumb and incompetent explains it, no cover-up required.
And you do realize that NTSB, FAA, Boeing, FBI are all involved in this now too, right? You think if the Malaysians were deliberately lying, covering it up, that with all the leaks, you would not have sources telling reporters that something stinks?

Why do you want to discredit yourself by even posting such total rubbish?

That's very bad logic.

If you won't try to fit theories to whatever the reported known facts are, then you have nothing but pure conjecture. I agree that the Malaysians have done a terrible job at this. But they also have the NTSB, Boeing, FBI, FAA from the USA, and God knows who else from various other countries involved now. If they are total making up fiction, then surely someone would be leaking it, reporting it, etc. So, you have two choices, either use what we know and change theories if the facts change, or go totally off into the wilderness.

One possibility would be that it was a test run, to see if they can take control of a plane like that. Then at a later date, do it to 10 airplanes and direct them at targets. Testimony came out in the recent NYC trial that a decade ago Al-Qaeda had plans to do a test of blowing open a cockpit door and it even involved using a flight out of Malaysia. One could argue that by doing it, they would have tipped their hand. But so far, nothing much has apparently changed around the world that would prevent them from doing it again in the future, before wreckage, FDR, causes are determined, etc.

I've seen him on TV. He quickly went with the fire or mechanical failure. And none of the dummies on TV have brought up all the huge holes in it.
As to what purpose it would serve, he obviously either doesn't know about Egypt Air, Silk Air, the Ethiopian 767, etc or chooses to ignore it. Actually I think he does, but he's also an editor at Flying Magazine and I've come to the conclusion that he just won't consider or talk about a pilot being responsible period.

Where did Silk Air go down? Egypt Air? They both did it in the ocean. Is it that far fetched that another suicidal nut would choose to go one better and make it the biggest mystery since Emilia Earhart?

As I said, he won't even talk about the possibility of the pilot being responsible. And no one will ask him to account for all the data on record that is inconsistent with his theories, eg that it flew not to the nearest airport, but off into the Straits, still flying, making normal precise turns, leaving it aligned with flight path to India, flying another 6 hours, no mayday call, transponders, radios just happen to fail in the couple of mins when they are between one ATC and the next, etc. I'd like him to show us a similar catastrophic failure, consistent with what happened here, that resulted in the plane flying on for 7 hours, no transponders, etc. He can't. For the suicidal pilot we have at least two. We also have plenty of nutty hijacker cases. It remains a possibility, but from the facts on record, not anywhere near the probability that it was criminal. Which BTW is how the Malaysians say they are treating it as of today.

Except that again, it doesn't fit with the flight path. The autopilot works in one of two ways. Either it will follow a course of waypoints. Or it will maintain a heading, altitude and airspeed. If it's the former, someone had to put the route it took, to Australia, into it. If it's the latter, then the heading to the south had to have been entered after it was past radar contact, because when it left the Straits it was on a heading to India. Either of those points to deliberate human involvement.
That brings up the issue of design. Would an autopilot be "dumb" enough to

Of course it would. If you just set a heading, altitude, airspeed, it will maintain it until it runs out of fuel or runs into something, eg a mountain. That's how a basic autopilot works. That is what happened in the Stuart Payne case that you brought up. It's very different from what happened here. And you can certainly tell the plane to fly anywhere, using waypoints, or long/lat. It's not going to change that because it's low on fuel, that's up to the pilots.
I did do some of your work for you though. There are a couple of other possibilities I came up with, one of which is in your mechanical failure, or fire, etc category.
A - With the hijacking scenario, you keep asking, but why would it end up where it did? It's a legitimate question. One answer to that could be that you're assuming (and I was too until now), that the hijackers were successful in completing their mission. There is the possibility that they got control of the plane, ie forced the pilots. Maybe they told them they wanted to fly it to a target somewhere. And maybe the pilots at some point, decided to fight back, end it, whatever and it somehow resulted in the plane going on it's course with the pilots dead, or whatever and the hijackers unable to complete their mission.
B - With the mechanical problem theory, while I think it's a very long shot, suppose you just happened to have a mechanical problem that killed power to all the avionics for navigation, ie the flight display, nav computer, etc. And it killed the VHF radars, transponders, ACARS, etc. But it left the computer control of the aircraft, eg ailerons, rudder, etc OK. That would leave them in the middle of the ocean, at night. I'm almost certain these planes also have as a last resort a mechanical compass and artificial horizon. Using that, they could have made a left turn to try to go back to Kota Bahru. But without knowing exactly where they were, they would set some heading, then have to figure out where they were when over land. IDK what the weather was that night, except that it wasn't bad or considered as a possible cause. But was there a cloud layer? Did they descend at some point, trying to get below it, find Kota Bahru, realized they were off course, then climbed back up because of concern of mountains, etc?
That still doesn't explain how in the world they would wind up over the Straits and then fly on what must have been a pretty much straight course to Australia afterward. So, I say all those combined failures, winding up where they apparently did, it's low odds that was the cause. If we had more info and it was accurate on the exact flight path, altitudes, etc, it could help rule some of this in or out. One key thing is if it indeed did hit exact waypoints in the Straits. If it did, then you're 99.99% left with a suicidal pilot or a hijacker.
Another interesting thing. The Malaysians have said that all crew and passengers have been checked out and nothing found. They said that means they have asked the respective countries to check them out and all have replied back that they found no connection to terrorism, etc. But, how reliable is that? It means, for example, that they have to rely on the Iranians vetting those 2 Iranians. With CNN, instead of having 6 talking heads on TV 24/7, why don't they send a reporter to Iran to start asking some questions about who these 2 were, who this Ali guy is, etc?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(I took the liberty of renaming the thread
Re: Flight MH370: Malaysian radar, passenger phone contact, high-altitude hypoxia
to be more specific and adding "OT" to the subject line)
news:26349609-6378-440b-9825-

Those are good points. As for pilot suicide, it still seems a little odd that he didn't just nose dive soon after takeoff rather than flying until the plane ran out of fuel. Or, if he wanted to commit mass murder, to crash it into the Petronas Towers. Both pilots were certainly skilled enough to do that.
To me, heading out on a course to nowhere strongly suggests autopilot doing its thing until the fuel ran out.
The only problem I see with your statement is that you're concluding that Silk Air was a pilot suicide and using it to suggest a conclusion about MH370. But the conclusion you're referring to was an NTSB computer simulation theory that was NOT sustained in a court of law or supported by the Indonesian government. Here's what Wiki has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185 << SilkAir Flight 185 was a scheduled SilkAir passenger flight from Jakarta, Indonesia to Singapore, which crashed into the Musi River near Palembang in southern Sumatra, Indonesia on 19 December 1997, killing all 97 passengers and 7 crew members on board.
There was immense controversy as to the cause of the crash, which was investigated by two independent agencies.The Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) stated in its report that it could not determine a cause of the crash due to inconclusive evidence. The American National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) utilized computer modeling to conclude that the crash was the result of deliberate flight control inputs, most likely by the captain. The jury under the Superior Court in Los Angeles, which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB conclusions, decided that the crash was caused by a prominent issue inherent in other 737 crashes: a defective servo valve inside the Power Control Unit (PCU) which controls the aircraft's rudder, causing a rudder hard-over and a subsequent uncontrollable crash. The manufacturer of the aircraft's rudder controls and the families later reached an out of court settlement.>>
The trial supported the theory of some catastrophic defect in the airline, one that had caused previous crashes. The NTSB experts came to a different conclusion. The Indonesians took the position that the evidence was inconclusive for either theory. That's one reason I tend to look to previous incidents on airplanes rather than sketchy radar data and conspiracy theories about hijackings and pilots committing suicide.
I'll admit there are serious problems with the fire theory, but I still say absent discovering the wreck or some critical piece of debris, the likelihood of settling our debate is about as likely as them finding the cockpit recorders before they stop pinging.
EgyptAir 990 is a different story. Although that outcome is in dispute, too, the CVR tells a story that seems strongly to support deliberate pilot action. Unfortunately the 2 hour write-over limit inherent in the CVR (if ever found) will never tell us the same information about MH370.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
<<The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded the Captain excusing himself to go to the lavatory, followed thirty seconds later by the First Officer saying in Egyptian Arabic "Tawkalt ala Allah," which translates to "I rely on God." A minute later, the autopilot was disengaged, immediately followed by the First Officer again saying, "I rely on God." Three seconds later, the throttles for both engines were reduced to idle, and both elevators were moved three degrees nose down. The First Officer repeated "I rely on God" seven more times before the Captain suddenly asked repeatedly, "What's happening, what's happening?>>
Still not conclusive proof but very, very suspicious.
Another crash is seems to be very much pilot suicide:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528182/Did-pilot-deliberately-crash-Africa-airliner-killed-33- Black-box-recordings-rapid-descent-pilot-toilet-repeated-banging-cockpit-doo r.html
and is much more clearly a deliberate act by the pilot because of data from the CVR.
There's an excellent overview here of what we know so far based on a meeting of aviation experts:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/aviation-experts-give-their-opinions-on-what- could-have-occurred-on-board-m
says: << Aerosociety.com noted that one technical expert pointed out that for every plausible reason suggested above, there was at least one contradictory statement.
"If it was hypoxia, then who turned MH370 around?" "If it was a fire, then how did the aircraft continue flying?" "If it was the flight crew, then why did the cabin crew not intervene?"
The technical expert told the portal that perhaps more than one scenario occurred simultaneously, such as wiring fire and depressurisation.
However, one thing is for certain, until more evidence is found, nothing can be proved. - March 29, 2014.>>
--
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.