MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 4

SA7700 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:19 pm

As part 3 is became quite long, it was locked for further contributions. Part 4 is now open for further discussion:

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B777-200ER missing enroute KUL-PEK (by Longhornmaniac Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 2 (by LipeGIG Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 3 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Regards,

SA7700

fallap · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:24 pm

As an aircraft technician (student) I'm somewhat surprised that you can make such an extensive repair to the wing. I thought a whole new wing would have been needed.

I departed PEK today 1335 local time on SU with quite some mixed feelings. I hope they'll find something soon, for the sake of the relatives:-(

dtfg · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:27 pm

Stolen Passports Prompt Terror Concerns in Missing Jet, Officials Say
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mis...s-missing-jet-officials-say-n47861

God I hope it is not another Lockerbie

surfpunk · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:29 pm

Quoting Fallap (Reply 1):
As an aircraft technician (student) I'm somewhat surprised that you can make such an extensive repair to the wing. I thought a whole new wing would have been needed.

I departed PEK today 1335 local time on SU with quite some mixed feelings. I hope they'll find something soon, for the sake of the relatives:-(

As a student technician, you should at least know that aircraft structures are a series of panels, sections and ribs, which make up the unit as a whole (in this case, the wing). Since these sections are riveted together, the affected section(s) can have the rivets drilled out from the damaged area, and have new component parts either fabricated at depot, or shipped from the manufacturer. I did this a lot on military aircraft when I was in the US Navy. Jet blast deflector plates on A-6 Intruders were especially common, and those we fabricated right in the shop.

flylonghaul · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:30 pm

According to FR24 today's MH370 is cruising at 49,800 feet
Demonstrates the accuracy of these sights somewhat.

And as I have just written this it has returned to FL370

SCQ83 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:30 pm

According to the WSJ:

Quote:
In a terse statement, the carrier said it ticketed one Chinese, two Ukrainians, an Austrian, an Italian, one Dutch person and a Malaysian for the flight.

The two passengers with stolen passports were among the only 7 PAX who were ticketed with China Southern instead of MAS.

[Edited 2014-03-08 09:34:48]

SpaceshipDC10 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:32 pm

This was published in thread 3 #186 by vfw614:

From AVHERALD: "Aviation sources in China report that radar data suggest a steep and sudden descent of the aircraft, during which the track of the aircraft changed from 024 degrees to 333 degrees. "

Has anyone read or found anything more about that suggestion ?

Chaostheory · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:36 pm

From the thread no. 3

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 30):
Yes, also if the 40 minutes of flight timeline is correct the aircraft would be reaching top of climb which is where you would expect a barometric pressure activated device to detonate.

The take-off weight of this flight was likely to be sub 230t. At 230t, it will take less than 20min for a GE90 777 to climb to FL350. A RR powered 777 will match or perhaps even better this.

mercure1 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:38 pm

Most of the news channels have plotted the G/C track from KUL-PEK. This is more likely the intended routing.
The 2nd image is the area where contact was apparently lost, near BITOD perhaps? This location is only 44min after takeoff time based on normal 777-200ER climb/cruise speeds.

IFR routing (probabilistic)

Zoomed in area of last contact

fallap · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:39 pm

Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 3):

I'm still new to this though

Aesma · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:39 pm

Quoting Fallap (Reply 1):
As an aircraft technician (student) I'm somewhat surprised that you can make such an extensive repair to the wing. I thought a whole new wing would have been needed.

Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 3):
As a student technician, you should at least know that aircraft structures are a series of panels, sections and ribs, which make up the unit as a whole (in this case, the wing). Since these sections are riveted together, the affected section(s) can have the rivets drilled out from the damaged area, and have new component parts either fabricated at depot, or shipped from the manufacturer. I did this a lot on military aircraft when I was in the US Navy. Jet blast deflector plates on A-6 Intruders were especially common, and those we fabricated right in the shop.

Yeah and if we go there replacing the wing is actually much more difficult (more attachment points, needs to "dry dock" the plane, etc.) and is likely to yield a poorer result, for a lot more money.

PHX787 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:41 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 6):

This was published in thread 3 #186 by vfw614:

From AVHERALD: "Aviation sources in China report that radar data suggest a steep and sudden descent of the aircraft, during which the track of the aircraft changed from 024 degrees to 333 degrees. "

Has anyone read or found anything more about that suggestion ?

To me this would be consistent with a sudden catastrophic anomaly on board.

alberchico · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:42 pm

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 5):
The two passengers with stolen passports were among the only 7 PAX who were ticketed with China Southern instead of MAS.

How often has that happened ? In this day and age with the security measures we have how could they not have been stopped ?

TreeHillRavens · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:42 pm

Quoting vfw614:
Looks as if three of the cabin crew were Chinese.

There were 5 Chinese crew, 5 Malay and 2 Indian. All are Malaysian, by the way.

awthompson · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:43 pm

Mine is still the most recent photo I can find of 9M-MRO (I took this at KUL on 28 Jan 2014.)

Here's the starboard wing zoomed in.

vfw614 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:44 pm

According to the WSJ article, there was also a group of 24 painters and calligraphers on board that was returning from an exhibition in Malaysia. All very sad indeed.

Steelyman · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:49 pm

Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 3):
As a student technician, you should at least know that aircraft structures are a series of panels, sections and ribs, which make up the unit as a whole (in this case, the wing). Since these sections are riveted together, the affected section(s) can have the rivets drilled out from the damaged area, and have new component parts either fabricated at depot, or shipped from the manufacturer. I did this a lot on military aircraft when I was in the US Navy. Jet blast deflector plates on A-6 Intruders were especially common, and those we fabricated right in the shop.

You're right, but don't forget that apart from the visible part of damage, there is an invisible part as well which could end up in a catastrophic fatigue later on. The stress of that damage have gone much further than what initially expected and IIRC a wing is a primary structure and therefore in these cases more attention should be paid.

I remember some cases of damage of fuselage structure but as long as the damage was done in a secondary structure and under certain parameters of size and deepness it were much less critical than in primary structures, which required a full change and extensive check of the even non damaged area...

surfpunk · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting Fallap (Reply 9):
I'm still new to this though

No worries. Good luck in your studies. And pay attention to bend allowances.

aviatorcraig · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:53 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 7):
From the thread no. 3
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 30):
Yes, also if the 40 minutes of flight timeline is correct the aircraft would be reaching top of climb which is where you would expect a barometric pressure activated device to detonate.

The take-off weight of this flight was likely to be sub 230t. At 230t, it will take less than 20min for a GE90 777 to climb to FL350. A RR powered 777 will match or perhaps even better this.

In one of the earlier parts of this thread, Zeke, who flies regularly in that area stated that it is usual to be held low by air traffic restrictions on this route during climb-out. This could explain an increased time to altitude.

surfpunk · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:54 pm

Quoting Steelyman (Reply 16):
You're right, but don't forget that apart from the visible part of damage, there is an invisible part as well which could end up in a catastrophic fatigue later on. The stress of that damage have gone much further than what initially expected and IIRC a wing is a primary structure and therefore in these cases more attention should be paid.

I remember some cases of damage of fuselage structure but as long as the damage was done in a secondary structure and under certain parameters of size and deepness it were much less critical than in primary structures, which required a full change and extensive check of the even non damaged area...

Very true. I was just explaining how it would be quite possible to replace the affected wing section, as opposed to having to replace the entire wing. I am almost 25 years separated from my airframe days in the Navy, and I never did make that a career in civil aviation, so I am by no means a professional.

tortugamon · Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Quoting Beta (Reply 257):
Assuming the wreckage will be found, and all the relevant mechanical parts are recovered, the question is: Who will provide the bulk of the technical investigation?

Malaysia will lead, China and US will do their own investigation while working with Malaysian authorities IMO.

Quoting Beta (Reply 257):
2. Malaysia/Singapore: Malaysia probably has jurisdiction over the investigation, but can they do it? I don't know if Malaysia is in better position than Vietnam to do this sort of thing.

There is no question they will lead the investigation. Any equipment that they need can be provided by compassionate governments. Just look at how many governments have sent aircraft and boats at this point Vietnam, Singapore, US, China, etc.

Quoting Beta (Reply 257):
The added bonus is the Brits would appear less "sensitive" to the PRC's pride.

The Brits certainly have a rockier past with China than the US does.

Quoting Beta (Reply 257):
5. US: no question about the equipments and experiences, and the willingness to aid. But probably a bit too "sensitive" to the Chinese.

China would not have a say on how involved the US is in this process and I am not even that sure it would be that big of a deal anyway. This wouldn't be the Chinese asking the US for help as the aircraft is US made the FAA will be heavily involved regardless and as the aircraft operates extensively in the US the FAA will be involved. I bet they are already en-route if not on-site.

tortugamon

edit: misspelling

[Edited 2014-03-08 10:32:55]

LH648 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:02 pm

UK will take part in investigation as well as plane had RR engines.

cfischaleck · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:03 pm

Quoting ajhYXE (Reply 22):
How much damage could an uncontained engine failure cause in a worst-case scenario (i.e. worse than UA232 or QF32)? Does it have potential to bring down an aircraft with little or no opportunity to recover?

It most probably has. A >100kg titanium part of an engine travelling faster than the speed of sound penetrating the fuselage at cruise altitude would cause an rapid decompression. Add the force of the air stream, an airframe could possibly break up.

tortugamon · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:04 pm

Quoting lh648 (Reply 21):
UK will take part in investigation as well as plane had RR engines.

Absolutely. RR will insist on it.

tortugamon

cjg225 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:05 pm

Looks like the US is sending the USS Pickney (a Burke-Class AEGIS Destroyer) and a P-3C from Kadena AB to assist in the search.

Cassi · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:05 pm

"The images of the wing damage don't appear to be far enough inboard from the tip to reach the main wing tank. "
(Reply 183)

Yes but it is still possible that a larger part of the wing was replaced during the repairs. Just by looking at the picture I assume that the entire, only partly damaged outer aileron was replaced.

zschocheimages · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:06 pm

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 5):
The two passengers with stolen passports were among the only 7 PAX who were ticketed with China Southern instead of MAS

I just read this in an article on Yahoo as well. While it probably doesn't mean anything, it does add fuel to the conspiracy theory fire.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):
Malysia will lead, China and US will do their own investigation while working with Malysian authorities IMO.

This is what I expect as well. Hopefully the investigators will arrive at the same conclusion, as opposed to the dissension between the US and Egyptians after MS 990.

Daybreak is in a few more hours in the region where the plane is missing. Hopefully the new day will bring some new information.

harim · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:06 pm

Probably irrelevant to the aircraft's disappearance - 2 passengers on-board were not the legitimate passport owners: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/m...using-stolen-passports-say-reports

To go to PRC with passport not belonging to the owner - generally falls in following categories:

1 - Person is travelling with knowledge of the Chinese authorities
2 - Person is travelling under sponsorship of an external agency (unlikely - a new password will be granted instead of a stolen one)
3 - A criminal (why?)

flyingturtle · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:10 pm

I've just thought about searching for the wreckage.

In the AF447 case, it was a towed sonar, with a lot of help from Bayesian statistics.

Here, with water depths of 50 to 80 meters, a sonar wouldn't be that helpful. Would they sweep the ocean using P-3 Orion aircraft using magnetic anomaly detectors?

David

CaliAtenza · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:12 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):
China would not have a say on how involved the US is in this process and I am not even that sure it would be that big of a deal anyway. This wouldn't be the Chinese asking the US for help as the aircraft is US made the FAA will be heavily involved regardless and as the aircraft operates extensively in the US the FAA will be involved. I bet they are already en-route if not on-site.

tortugamon

also US citizens were on board; wouldn't that trigger an automatic NTSB involvement?

David L · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:14 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 29):
Here, with water depths of 50 to 80 meters, a sonar wouldn't be that helpful.

I have to ask... why wouldn't it be helpful?

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 28):

802flyguy · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:14 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):

Malysia will lead, China and US will do their own investigation while working with Malaysian authorities IMO.

Is location of the crash in Vietnamese waters? If so, Vietnam wouldn't have primary control of the investigation, with involvement from Malaysia, the US, and the UK? If it was international waters, Malaysia authorities would take the lead.

LH648 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:15 pm

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 30):
also US citizens were on board; wouldn't that trigger an automatic NTSB involvement?

No. Origin of the aircraft will.

LH648 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:16 pm

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 32):
Is location of the crash in Vietnamese waters? If so, Vietnam wouldn't have primary control of the investigation, with involvement from Malaysia, the US, and the UK? If it was international waters, Malaysia authorities would take the lead.

Yes, it's true. But nobody know's where the aircraft is...

cjg225 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:16 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 29):
Here, with water depths of 50 to 80 meters, a sonar wouldn't be that helpful. Would they sweep the ocean using P-3 Orion aircraft using magnetic anomaly detectors?

How clear is the water? Might be able to see it. If it's resting in big enough pieces, in 50 meters of water the top of the fuselage would maybe be close enough to the surface to be visible.

I like the idea of the MAD array, though.

Kaiarahi · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:22 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 23):
Absolutely. RR will insist on it.

They don't need to - they have a right to participate under the International Convention on Civil Aviation. As does the U.S. (country of airframe manufacture).

cjg225 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:22 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 31):
I have to ask... why wouldn't it be helpful?

I'm not sure, either. I'd think sidescanning sonar would be plenty helpful, even at that depth. It's used at shallow depths for mapping channels for dredging.

dtfg · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:22 pm

Quoting harim (Reply 27):

Probably irrelevant to the aircraft's disappearance - 2 passengers on-board were not the legitimate passport owners: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/m...using-stolen-passports-say-reports

To go to PRC with passport not belonging to the owner - generally falls in following categories:

1 - Person is travelling with knowledge of the Chinese authorities
2 - Person is travelling under sponsorship of an external agency (unlikely - a new password will be granted instead of a stolen one)
3 - A criminal (why?)

And it was newly reported that one Russian guy appeared on the name list was NOT the passport owner. The owner also lost his passport before, and was not on board MH370.

[Edited 2014-03-08 10:23:54]

flyingturtle · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:24 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 31):
I have to ask... why wouldn't it be helpful?

The same reason why a ground-based radar will cover a smaller part of the airspace compared to an airborne radar.

Measured in degrees (from the sonar's viewpoint), the sonar will cover the same amount of seafloor, but measured in square meters of sea floor, the coverage is much better when the sonar operates high above the seafloor.

David

[Edited 2014-03-08 10:25:57]

acabgd · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:26 pm

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 35):
How clear is the water? Might be able to see it

Probably not very clear in those parts of the world, yet with the seabed being so shallow there should be plenty of floating debris. A 777 is not that small, containing thousands of floating parts which should show up on the surface.

KDTWflyer · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:28 pm

I did notice that the oil slick reports are referenced to be 87 miles south of Thổ Chu Island which means the approximate lat/long is 8° 0'4.48"N / 103°31'50.67"E per Google Earth and the water there is only about 100 feet deep also per Google Earth which means the recovery of debris should be rather straightforward I would think. Sad stuff indeed. Thoughts and prayers go out to the families involved.

cjg225 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:28 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 39):

But a MAD array will have the same problem, won't it? They're effective in a very narrow field, I believe. I guess the benefit is that you can cover the area much faster with an aircraft, but a MAD array won't tell you what something is. Sidescanning sonar can image it for you.

rampart · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:29 pm

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 28):

I don't mean to be rude, but this has been brought up first approx. 600 posts earlier in Part 2 and since been discussed ad nauseam.

I agree, but perhaps the moderators, starting the new thread, or the first poster in the new thread, could post a quick 5 bullet points of the items most discussed in the previous thread(s).

-Rampart

LH648 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:31 pm

Quoting dtfg (Reply 38):
And it was newly reported that one Russian guy appeared on the name list was NOT the passport owner. The owner also lost his passport before, and was not on board MH370.

Russian embassy in Malaysia officially confirmed Russian citizen onboard. But they did it hours after the initial reports, so I don't know how they were able to confirm this...

cjg225 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:31 pm

Quoting rampart (Reply 43):
I agree, but perhaps the moderators, starting the new thread, or the first poster in the new thread, could post a quick 5 bullet points of the items most discussed in the previous thread(s).

I actually think that's a really good idea for these quick-developing threads.

David L · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:31 pm

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 37):
I'm not sure, either. I'd think sidescanning sonar would be plenty helpful, even at that depth. It's used at shallow depths for mapping channels for dredging.

I confess I was thinking more about detecting the signal from the DFDR rather than looking for wreckage. As I recall, one of the problems in detecting any wreckage or the signals from the DFDR of AF447 was that the sea floor was quite "mountainous". I guess the most difficult scenario would be looking in shallow waters with a "mountainous" sea floor. That's probably where MAD et al might earn its keep.

vfw614 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:32 pm

Quoting dtfg (Reply 38):
And it was newly reported that one Russian guy appeared on the name list was NOT the passport owner. The owner also lost his passport before, and was not on board MH370.

Can you provide a link to that source? There was only one Russian on board, and he was, unlike the fake Austrian and fake Italian passenger not one of the seven pax ticketed by CZ.

LH648 · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:33 pm

Quoting holzmann (Reply 44):
Regarding the false identities/passports. Could it be that China brought it down to ensure foreign operatives didn't make it into China.

Stir the pot a bit...

China taking down aircraft with 239 on board in Malaysian airspace not to let two spies in the country instead of just arresting them on arrival? Yes, sure. Thats how you deal with this.

[Edited 2014-03-08 10:35:01]

sassiciai · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:34 pm

I think that this event is of course a tragedy and deserves our sympathy, concern, and condolences to those directly affected

But here we are approaching 1000 posts, with very little additional information than that available at the start of the first thread! Plane down, various timing alternatives postulated, crash site not found, no explanation.

I'm sorry to say, but I find threads on this site concerning any fresh catastrophe to be dominated by posts that are superficial, grief-ridden, and full of all sorts of conjecture. It is not very respectful of those directly affected to pay lip service to their suffering, then dive into all weird and wonderful speculation as to what happened. It actually saddens me when I read most of these threads

I enjoy a.net when it is mainly fact-based, with debate and discussion over the facts and what might evolve. Maybe we could all restrict posts here to new facts that emerge, before more endless speculation - which could be had in a thread for that purpose - "How could airliners crash from FL350 at night?" , not to do with the actual disappearance of this MH370 flight and its impact on those directly involved

wxmeddler · Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:34 pm

Looks like the US Navy is already ahead of you guys with the P-3 MAD idea:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-na...ends-destroyer-help-plane-search-0

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net