MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 18

Starlionblue · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:21 am

Quoting AY-MD11 (Reply 91):

If the plane was hijacked or the pilot/pilots was the hijacker then the engine data that show it flying for 4-5 hours,maybe they try to fool the investigators.
What if they landed somewhere and left the engines running for hours in ground. Does the engine data show the power/rpm too?

If it didn't it would be pretty useless to RR and MH I think.

Quoting hiflyer (Reply 93):
Aircraft was at 29.5 why 29.5? well it's below most commercial traffic and if you are not going for max range fairly fuel efficient and lowers your exposure to primary radar returns at long range just a bit.

As was mentioned before, 29500 is quite logical whether you are talking hijacking or mechanical problems with no comms, or at least the "500" bit is. Since it is not a designated flight level so you run much less risk of a mid-air.

[Edited 2014-03-13 00:21:40]

XFSUgimpLB41X · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:21 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 52):
I think the reporter has connections to Boeing, so that would be a logical place where he got the information.

Andy Paztor, the author, is probably the finest mainstream aviation reporter in the industry. I worked with him after the Colgan accident at his request via a friend who is connected. I respect virtually no reporter when it comes to aviation reporting except for Andy. He was able to communicate effectively with me at a technical and a big picture level. If he wrote this, I trust that he is down a valid path.

Next up... We have an airplane that lost comm and turned off its transponder right at the FIR boundary after the hand off. I hate to say it, but that screams pilot involvement. At a FIR handoff in VHF and radar contact, radar service is terminated via the previous agency, but you're right back in it with the next controlling agency. It's too much of a coincidence for a hand off then loss of contact without a check in without a rain of fire, metal, and people in that general area.

The plot has thickened greatly... I bet the NSA/CIA/and so on has been far up Boeing's rear end for a good bit now trying to figure this out.

CaliAtenza · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:21 am

Quoting hiflyer (Reply 93):

so lessee....RR says their motors turned for 4hrs after last contact per the WSJ. Hmmm
Aircraft was at 29.5 why 29.5? well it's below most commercial traffic and if you are not going for max range fairly fuel efficient and lowers your exposure to primary radar returns at long range just a bit.
Aircraft reportedly made course changes not on flight plan so pretty much leaves out incapacitated cockpit someone.
One other note...lot been said about minimal to near response to 'unknown targets' on radar not causing alarms...I would allow that perhaps because there is frequently unknown primary targets in the region....at night...
Still no word what, if anything, was onboard as cargo. Also no big public chatter of anyone of importance on the pax list.
As others have stated...too much not being said..

at this point i can imagine a special ops mission being planned (Delta Force, SEAL Team 6) to retake the plane if its found in some jungle somewhere. Crazy, that fiction might be actually not far from the truth.

[Edited 2014-03-13 00:24:04]

laxboeingman · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:21 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 92):
Trent" is the model name of this RR engine type. RR engines are typically named for rivers in Britain.

Sorry, but thank you. It is very late here, so I just realized it was Trent RRs. My bad and that was a stupid mistake on my part.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 83):
but is the exact fuel load known yet?

I do not believe it is.

LTC8K6 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:24 am

Quoting KIAS (Reply 86):

For the reasons as above, I would think MAS would use gatelink for the summaries, which uses a WLAN connection on the ground, rather than transmit via ACARS

Then it's very unlikely that a summary report was received from the RR engines, and my theory is ruled out.

Starlionblue · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:26 am

Quoting Airbus747 (Reply 95):
1) What is the likelihood of a sudden meteorological condition affecting flight systems and instruments (including the transponder) on this aircraft?
e.g. lightning strike or volcanic ash (there was an eruption a few weeks ago in Indonesia I reckon).
Could they have caused similar or worse conditions to British Airways Flight 9 or KLM Flight 867, maybe in a sequence e.g. starting by disabling the transponder, then other things (maybe even disabling flight crew)?

Astronomically unlikely. No weather forecasts or reports indicate anything and no other aircraft on the route around that time noticed anything.

Quoting Airbus747 (Reply 95):
2) Is there any chance for a massively powerful crash to virtually vaporize (and thus make fully disappear) any remaining part of the aircraft?

I don't think so. Even a massive explosion like TWA800 left large pieces intact. You'd need a truly massive bomb, or probably multiple bombs at different locations. Even then methinks you'd have pieces of stabilizer and wing left.

Quoting Airbus747 (Reply 95):
3) This forum seems to be a largely international community and I recall that during many previous incidents (or other major forum topics) there were at least a few contributions to the discussion by locals, people located close to the incident, people with contacts to the airline, etc.
Well, I haven't come across any comments from Malaysia so far... I simply would be interested to hear more about what the local aviation enthusiasts/experts/pilots/etc think - provided that we actually have any members from there!
So, if you are out there, what do you think is going on?

He's not Malaysian, but mandala499, an Indonesian, has vast experience in this region and industry. His posts are always worth reading.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 97):
Does anyone know what the applicable cutoff in flight time is for adding a third crew member. It seems like MH 370 might be pretty close to the threshold, not that that means anything in and of itself.

Depends on national regs but typically 8-10 hours flight time plus a few more for the total duty time.

[Edited 2014-03-13 00:28:38]

laxboeingman · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:28 am

Quoting JimJupiter (Reply 96):
You might want to spend more time carefully reading these threads.

You are right and I do. I did not expect to be on here this long and as I mentioned it is late for me.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 98):
It's almost as if you can't rule anything out.

I agree with that and my mind is opening even more to ideas that I thought were crazy two days ago.

aftgaffe · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:28 am

Didn't see this before from WSJ:

“The disappearance is officially now an accident and all information about this is strictly handled by investigators,” said another Rolls-Royce executive, citing rules by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency. The executive declined to be named.

"Officially now an accident."

KIAS · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:29 am

Quoting AY-MD11 (Reply 91):
What if they landed somewhere and left the engines running for hours in ground. Does the engine data show the power/rpm too?

They would know.

Engine sensors on the Trent 800 include:
- Inlet pressure / temp
- Shaft speeds
- Vibration
- Turbofan power ratio
- Gas temp
- HP / LP delivery pressure
- more...

[Edited 2014-03-13 00:30:34]

CaliAtenza · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:29 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 105):

Then it's very unlikely that a summary report was received from the RR engines, and my theory is ruled out.

so data was being sent after the transponder turned off, for about 4-5 hours, from the engines...but then that data stopped? Is that what the timeline is now?

LTC8K6 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:30 am

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 108):

"Officially now an accident."

I believe "now" should be "not".

Other accounts have it as "not an accident."

laxboeingman · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:30 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 105):

Quoting KIAS (Reply 86):

For the reasons as above, I would think MAS would use gatelink for the summaries, which uses a WLAN connection on the ground, rather than transmit via ACARS

Then it's very unlikely that a summary report was received from the RR engines, and my theory is ruled out.

If the plane was brought down in a remote area, but the area was home to a group that used WiFi, then it could be possible.

BoeingVista · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:30 am

Quoting hamiltondaniel (Reply 89):
He is claiming that he has insider information that the RR ACARS reports include an after-flight summary, implying the plane landed successfully. That goes a bit beyond "speculating."

It could as easily be that the final report was the fault condition of the engines running down through fuel exhaustion..

LTC8K6 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:31 am

Quoting laxboeingman (Reply 112):
If the plane was brought down in a remote area, but the area was home to a group that used WiFi, then it could be possible.

I doubt it would connect with any old wifi.

Perhaps if it can't connect via wifi, it reverts to the VHF link?

I dunno...

jcxroberts · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:32 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 61):
He has made several tweets about the purpose of whatever happened to the flight being "asset acquisition" of 20 employees of Freescale Semiconductor who were on the plane, i.e., hijack the plane, fly it somewhere, use those 20 to do...something...and then...hmm...

He's either suggesting: some nefarious fellows think Freescale doesn't make microchips but in fact makes superweapons so valuable that one should hijack an entire aircraft to force them into slave labor in a cave in the Tribal Regions...

Or, that Al Qaeda wants to expand into making transistor radios.

He thinks the plane landed in China.

Which reminds that the earliest report was that it landed in China. Then the report was retracted.

Freescale has a lot of classified work with DoD

He's clearly connected if you go through his twitter, but that doesn't make him right.

LTC8K6 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:33 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 113):
It could as easily be that the final report was the fault condition of the engines running down through fuel exhaustion..

Meaning a crash?

But the tone of the reports seems to be toward a landing somewhere.

aftgaffe · Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:33 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 111):
I believe "now" should be "not".

Other accounts have it as "not an accident."

The *not an accident* is what the WSJ originally reported but they corrected it to *accident*.

Top

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net