Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Due to length part 42 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 43:
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 1 (by Longhornmaniac Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 2 (by LipeGIG Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 3 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 4 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 5 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 6 (by SA7700 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 7 (by SA7700 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 8 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 9 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 10 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 11 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 12 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 13 (by SA7700 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 14 (by SA7700 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 15 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 16 (by SA7700 Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 17 (by 777ER Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 18 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 19 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 20 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 21 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 22 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 23 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 24 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 25 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 26 (by SA7700 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 27 (by SA7700 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 28 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 29 (by SA7700 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 30 (by SA7700 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 31 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 32 (by ManuCH Mar 17 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 33 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 17 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 34 (by SA7700 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 35 (by SA7700 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 36 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 37 (by SA7700 Mar 19 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 38 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 19 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 39 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 40 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 21 2014 in Civil Aviation)

**********************************************************************************************

**** ADDITIONAL NEWS REPORTS ****

MH370: search for missing Malaysia Airlines plane extended to southern Indian Ocean

Najib's full press statement on MH370

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: What we know so far

MISSING MH370: Timeline

Flight MH370: Police focus on pilots as search for airliner goes on - live updates

Flight MH370: New timeline casts doubt on pilot deception theory

MISSING MH370: ACARS cannot be disabled

MISSING MH370: Search for missing aircraft above politics: Hishamuddin


***********************************************************************************************


SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR ALL OUR MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those onboard MH370; please keep science fiction theories and content related to past / current movies or possible future movie rights out of these threads. ****

**** PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT QUESTIONS AND SCENARIOS THAT HAS BEEN COVERED AND DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS THREADS AND WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE OR APPLY, IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, TOWARDS THIS CONVERSATION ANY LONGER. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER USERS AND KEEP THE FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS IN MIND WHEN POSTING IN THE FORUMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY RULE VIOLATIONS, PLEASE BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MODERATORS BY MAKING USE OF THE “SUGGEST DELETION FUNCTION”. ****

**** WHEN STATING FACTS, STATISTICS OR NEWSWORTHY BULLETINS, PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION. IF YOU ARE MERELY PROVIDING AN OPINION, PLEASE MENTION THIS IN YOUR POST. ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO AVOID ARGUMENTS BASED ON RUMORS OR MISINFORMATION

**** Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

**** [b]Also keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and not a chat room. If you would like to chat about this incident, kindly make use of the "Live Chat" option, which is available in the "forum drop-down menu". Messages of agreement such as "ME TOO", "I AGREE WITH X", ”YES” OR ”NO” have been found to waste time and space and are therefore to be avoided. A message consisting of only one or two lines of text is probably not worth posting. Do not make posts that contain only a smiley face, check mark, etc. Make sure the content of your post is relevant to the topic.

Enjoy the forums!

Regards and thanks for your co-operation,

SA7700

[Edited 2014-03-23 06:53:52]

Clarification on my last post. Just read the UK Telegraph ATC communications transcript of MH370 flight, and the FL350 double communications to ATC seems normal. Disregard the last paragraph of my previous post..no abnormalities there IMO.

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 281): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 279): Umm isn't it obvious it's not a real picture?

With the number of people on the internet that don't know/don't care/don't have clue how to verify/twitter/pinterest/news feeds, and the need to share ... it's likely that photo will become something like: WTC 9/11 American Airlines hoax picture

Quoting capri (Reply 274): so they can at least stop some theories/conspiracies going out of control

International Convention on Civil Aviation, Annex 13:

"OBJECTIVE OF THE INVESTIGATION

3.1 The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.

PROTECTION OF EVIDENCE, CUSTODY AND REMOVAL OF AIRCRAFT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE
OF OCCURRENCE

3.2 The State of Occurrence shall take all reasonable measures to protect the evidence and to maintain safe custody of the aircraft and its contents for such a period as may be necessary for the purposes of an investigation. Protection of evidence shall include the preservation, by photographic or other means of any evidence which might be removed, effaced, lost or destroyed. Safe custody shall include protection against further damage, access by unauthorized persons, pilfering and deterioration."

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 271): The problem with electrical fire is that it does not match the aircraft's behaviour. It went past the waypoint, turned to the right, then some minute(s) after that, turned back left almost 180 degrees, and continued for a long time, and turned again just before entering Indonesian airspace before finally making the turn to the final track to disappear. That sequence of events took about 40mins.

I don't see why it can't match. Fires can spread gradually and crews can fight them while trying to land the airplane. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the crew remained able throughout the flight, and that the airplane was no longer controllable.

What I find noticeable is that the first Chinese satellite sighting near Vietnam, the Australian satellite sighting, and the recent Chinese sighting all deal with pieces of floating debris of almost exacting dimensions, yet it's hard to find a section of the 777 meeting those dimensions, and if there was, you would think it would just sink due to weight, unless a wing was largely intact and the empty fuel tanks had buoyancy effects. Whatever the case, it takes days for these finds to come out, because the above listed countries must sort through thousands of wiles of satellite photography, so I doubt the debris are any near where they were photographed. It's a wild goose chase of epic proportions.

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 2):

There will always be stupid people doing/saying stupid things. I don't think a disclaimer is gonna help that. At least the 9/11 one looks like real life... the MH one looks artsy and also, even the dumbest person can probably put two and two and realize that if we had a picture of MH370 ditching, we'd probably wouldn't have wasted over a week searching in obviously wrong areas.

Much freaking out over nothing

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5): I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the crew remained able throughout the flight, and that the airplane was no longer controllable.

I don't know fire can explain the comms going dead then the aircraft doing a 180º turn, then continued for about 35mins, then turned right by 70º, continued straight for about 20 mins, then turned right by about 80º then 5 mins later left again by about 80º then continuing into oblivion... The timeframe is too long to make it knock out the comms, still let the aircraft be under control, only to knock the crew and/or the controls out after an hour.
The location of the turns are also coincidentally very near waypoints that are near the FIR boundaries...

Unfortunately, the aircraft being under control, is the most likely scenario at the moment, and it is the easiest (although not easy) to comprehend given what we know.

Simple fire scenarios, simple hijack scenarios, simple decompression scenarios, I think can all be ruled out as it doesn't fit what happened. The complex scenarios such as "take-over" (complex hijack), or complex fire, are the two most likely... each have their huge missing pieces of the jigsaw though...  

So I guess this topic will continue at a rate of 2 a day (it did peak at 3 parts a day did it?)

From prior (now locked) thread:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 171): Pilot's unions would most likely never allow that. Some don't even like CVRs

I say good luck with that

After the publicized unauthorized cockpit visits alone, I would imagine video might be proposed for cockpits. This is already being proposed for railroad locomotives as well. No it's not popular, but I would think privacy is a secondary concern when you are in control of a common carrier mode of transportation.

Quoting fooflyboy (Reply 8): After the publicized unauthorized cockpit visits alone, I would imagine video might be proposed for cockpits. This is already being proposed for railroad locomotives as well. No it's not popular, but I would think privacy is in secondary concern when you are in control of a common carrier mode of transportation

And what do you think we would learn that isn't already captured by the CVR/DFDR? These "unauthorized" cockpit visits were dealt with by the airlines already and even if you do capture one on video the tapes are only reviewed if there's and incident and overwritten after a specified amount of time. With AF 447 we would have learned nothing more if a cockpit camera was present.

IIRC, both the PF and the PNF's instrument displays are captured in the recording as well as any discussions the pilots are having. It would only be a "feel good" regulation that wouldn't improve safety.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 7): The complex scenarios such as "take-over" (complex hijack), or complex fire, are the two most likely... each have their huge missing pieces of the jigsaw though...

And as time is going by these scenarios becomes less likely. People are not just doing a hijack out of the blue. Hijacking an aircraft these days takes a lot of planning and involves huge personal risk for the involved. They, therefore, must have some kind of motivation for doing such things - strong and extreme political views or religious ideas or some kind of nebulous combination of the two. And such things cannot be kept secret by the people involved!

We can for one very good reason not investigate very much what went on in the cockpit of flight MH370. However, we can look very carefully into the background of the people on board that flight. And I am absolutely sure that if there were potential terrorists or hijack'ers we would have known by now. I am even sure that we would have a good chance of knowing even if an undercover agent were on the passenger list.

Save for the early rumors of the captain's family problems - that has later been proven false - there has been silence on this front ever since the disappearance. And this lack of news is in my mind as important as a report would have been telling us that a group of terrorists flew on MH370.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 9): ith AF 447 we would have learned nothing more if a cockpit camera was present.

Perhaps not AF 447, but there are a great many accidents that could have been better understood or indeed completely solved if the investigators could see what was happening in the flight deck.
9/11 for instance, PSA 1771, PSA 182, Itavia 870, Helios 522, Hughes Airwest 706...

The list goes on.

[Edited 2014-03-22 12:16:58]

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 9): And what do you think we would learn that isn't already captured by the CVR/DFDR?

I think recording the entire flight instead of the last 2 hours only would tell us much more. Plus like it or not, there is a perception issue, which does count for something.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 9): even if you do capture one on video the tapes are only reviewed if there's and incident and overwritten after a specified amount of time.

Exactly. So no one chould be concerned about "privacy".

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 9): With AF 447 we would have learned nothing more if a cockpit camera was present.

But with MH370 we most likely would. (speculating of course)

Thanks for the reply canoecarrier.

Is the 777 equipped with CO detectors in the cockpit area? I would assume so, but if not, perhaps a small fire could have caused CO poisoning, which can lead to confusion, amongst other side-effects.

Probably very unlikely, but at this stage, you never know...

Quoting fooflyboy (Reply 12): Exactly. So no one chould be concerned about "privacy".

I think the privacy concerns are more about being watched for random reasons that don't have to do accidents/incidents. I think it's a valid concern but I'm pretty sure companies can't randomly pull CVRs so if they did the same for video, is there harm in that?

I am not sure what value video would add to the CVR recordings, as already mentioned, I believe information regarding the readings of various instruments is already recorded by the FDR.

One thing I am sure of though, even for seasoned investigators it must be pretty harrowing listening to the recordings and hearing people who know they're about to die, I hate to think what it would be like having to watch as well.

Quoting abba (Reply 10): there has been silence on this front ever since the disappearance. And this lack of news is in my mind as important as a report would have been telling us that a group of terrorists flew on MH370.

It might be important - but it could be important for exactly the opposite reason you think it is. (Do you not see the flipside of the authorities *not* saying they've checked all passengers and crew, and cleared them all?) Much of this type of speculation is like that - it works equally well both ways, and it's down to your own personal biases how you see it.

The actual evidence we have today is the same as the evidence we had several days ago - nothing has really changed.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 14): I think the privacy concerns are more about being watched for random reasons that don't have to do accidents/incidents.

You're probably right. It would make sense to be concerned about that I suppose. But I would hope that airlines would be more professionally managed and that abuse of monitoring systems would not occur.

I believe I read somewhere recently that the meter readers for our regional power utility have had cameras installed in their vehicles. I don't think I would like that. But the technology is so cheap now it's becoming ubiquitous. It's gonna be hard to justify excluding it from commercial aircraft IMO.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 15): I am not sure what value video would add to the CVR recordings, as already mentioned, I believe information regarding the readings of various instruments is already recorded by the FDR.

My point is for extending CVRs to record the entire flight. Video would just be a plus.

Quoting garpd (Reply 11): Perhaps not AF 447, but there are a great many accidents that could have been better understood or indeed completely solved if the investigators could see what was happening in the flight deck. 9/11 for instance, PSA 1771, PSA 182, Itavia 870, Helios 522, Hughes Airwest 706...

I think 9/11, PSA1771 and 182 as well as Helios 522 are all thoroughly understood -- could you provide some enlightenment as to what other benefit cameras would have provided except watching it on the evening news?

On the assumption that when MH370 started to run out of fuel and no one at the control:
.
Would the auto-pilot adjust for one engine running out of fuel before the other or disengage ?

If the loss of an engine due to fuel starvation (as happened in the Helios flight) and the auto is still on, and no one flying, would the a/c continue on it's original path but with difficulty ?

Would the a/c glide straight ahead on the last autopilot setting, doing a 'belly' landing, or stall and go into a flat spin (like I believe AF 447 did) or go into a steep dive ?

Would the a/c pitch nose down or tail down or go to left or right (depending on which engine cut out first) and crash 'pinwheel' style ?

The reasons I ask this is that depending on how the a/c was positioned when it hit the water could explain why large parts of the a/c breaking up and floating, which could explain the large pieces that satellites have seen could be parts of MH 379 a/c. An a/c's speed, pitch and roll position on impact can make a difference from a lot of large pieces (AF 447 with like a flat or near flat hitting the water) or small pieces (ValueJet in Florida which pretty much hit on it's nose).

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 19):

Yeah, thoroughly understood after years of investigating.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 19): except watching it on the evening news?

Can't answer your question, I'm open to hearing arguments for/against video, but they would NOT make it to the evening news. Try and find CVR recordings on the internet... there are very few because they are now not released to the public.

As long as every switch, dial, etc is monitored and we have voice recordings, I'm having a hard time thinking of how video would help. But if it would help in enough accidents and isn't prohibitively expensive*, then I would say go for it, granted the public would never see it and airlines couldn't just snoop in whenever they wanted**

*Money isn't everything, but it is something (a point I've made earlier.) Sometimes we deem that the airlines should pay for extra safety, but other times they would be overly burdened

**In aviation, I like the attitude a lot of the higher ups have... they often have the means to punish individuals but don't go investigating too much. There is a trust where safety issues (minor routine ones, not gross negligence ones) can be anonymously reported and corrected without having to slam pilots. Pilots are professionals, and all professionals will slip a bit, but ruining careers may not be needed, it may be as simple as telling them to cut it out because it's unsafe

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 20): Would the auto-pilot adjust for one engine running out of fuel before the other or disengage ?

I could be wrong (correct me if I am indeed wrong) but the autopilot and autothrottles should be able to continue. The initial engine out may mess with the trim needed enough to kick off the autopilot and the autopilot may be unable to keep high altitude/airspeed, but at least in the 737, autopilot is used to aid the pilot in single engine ops (but autothrottle is not used even though it can work, theoretically.) Keep in mind, it may be different airline to airline, maybe, but I think a lot of the procedures I'm talking about come from Boeing (and again, only talking about the 737)

[Edited 2014-03-22 13:00:37]

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 20): On the assumption that when MH370 started to run out of fuel and no one at the control: . Would the auto-pilot adjust for one engine running out of fuel before the other or disengage ? If the loss of an engine due to fuel starvation (as happened in the Helios flight) and the auto is still on, and no one flying, would the a/c continue on it's original path but with difficulty ? Would the a/c glide straight ahead on the last autopilot setting, doing a 'belly' landing, or stall and go into a flat spin (like I believe AF 447 did) or go into a steep dive ?

I am not a 777 pilot and you will have to take everything I say with a grain of salt, especially since it is based on secondary sources.

I remember reading that the 777 has a system called TAC, Thrust Asymmetry Compensation that will automatically compensate for a misbehaving engine if such a thing were to occur. In that scenario, if the designated heading/altitude can be maintained, I believe the autopilot should remain active but warnings will be delivered to the pilots. Once the heading/altitude cannot be maintained, the autopilot should disconnect. In that case, with no one at the controls, the aircraft will likely eventually roll just due to winds or otherwise descend rapidly into terrain, as no one is giving any authority to the control surfaces to keep the plane in a glide.

Again. Private pilot, not 777 pilot. But that's what I've read.

[Edited 2014-03-22 13:06:57]

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 23): I remember reading that the 777 has a system called TAC, Thrust Asymmetry Compensation that will automatically compensate for a misbehaving engine if such a thing were to occur

this is indeed the case, certainly on the later models (and my knowledge only extends to Frames built after 2009) !

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 20): Would the a/c glide straight ahead on the last autopilot setting, doing a 'belly' landing, or stall and go into a flat spin (like I believe AF 447 did) or go into a steep dive ?

The autopilot will attempt to stall the airplane. The stall protection system will kick in and push the nose over to prevent the stall, and will disconnect the autopilot in the process. At that point the airplane will be flying on its own - the autopilot will not reconnect. As there will be lots of nose-up trim from the autopilot's effort to maintain altitude as speed decreased, secondary stalls are likely as the airplane's longitudinal stability takes effect. But that won't last forever.

-Mir

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 7): Unfortunately, the aircraft being under control, is the most likely scenario at the moment, and it is the easiest (although not easy) to comprehend given what we know.

I have a hard time imagining many scenarios where the flight crew or passengers are conscious as the plane continued flying the track it did for 7 or so hours without anyone noticing or attempting to do something. That sort of scenario also assumes the flight attendants were unaware or unable to affect what was going on as well. I can't think of any flight I've ever flown on as an airline employee or passenger where the cabin crew didn't speak to the pilots several times during a flight.

Quoting garpd (Reply 11): 9/11 for instance, PSA 1771, PSA 182, Itavia 870, Helios 522, Hughes Airwest 706...

As others have said, the causes of those accidents are well known without a camera. Even with a camera in the cockpit, 2 of the flight recorders on 9/11 were never found intact. I also think there's a basic misunderstanding of what data a modern CVR/DFDR collects now compared to what PSA 182 had on board in 1977. Not only in most cases is the memory digital now opposed to magnetic tape, modern recorders collect significantly more information. If the pilots let someone up front that shouldn't be there audio of that is recorded as well.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22): I could be wrong (correct me if I am indeed wrong) but the autopilot and autothrottles should be able to continue.

Perhaps Pihero or Mandala can shed some light on this, but if fuel starvation occurred shutting one or both engines down would the autopilot/throttle disconnect? Is there a safeguard in the system architecture similar to inconsistent speed readings in an Airbus that automatically disconnects the autopilot?

[Edited 2014-03-22 14:39:37]

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 7): I don't know fire can explain the comms going dead then the aircraft doing a 180º turn, then continued for about 35mins, then turned right by 70º, continued straight for about 20 mins, then turned right by about 80º then 5 mins later left again by about 80º then continuing into oblivion... The timeframe is too long to make it knock out the comms, still let the aircraft be under control, only to knock the crew and/or the controls out after an hour.

Your post is puzzling, as so far no one has provided any evidence of all these trajectories or manoeuvres.
The only known facts are :
- A straightforward navigation to IGARI... and then nothing.
As a matter of fact the last known position - from FlightRadar (!!!) was a turn to the left, consistent to a direct track to IGARI ( confirmed by the Mickey Mouse Chinese COM translation), and starting a turn to fintercept the course to BITOD and subsequent route points.

AFAIK, the rest of the so-called radar contacts heve never been proven to be Flight 370. Not one.

As far as the so-called waypoint following turns are concerned, it's just a load of rubbish : You know very well that we seldom fly over waypoints, thanks to that Japanese mathematician which devised the algorythms allowing us to smoothen turning trajectories... and frankly, considering the number opf waypoints in the area, chances are any aircraft would come close enough to some for a nincompoop to avertise a deliberatre flying... which other nincompoops in the media would pick up and advertise foul play...   
After forty seven years in aviation, I'm not buying that.
So, in fact, we only have one position, the one at which we lost Flight 370 and a route, derived from the NTSB / FAA *loci*, which, as a matter of pure miracle (???!!!), matches the former within a reasonable accuracy.

For many people, the term *FIRE* has a very emotional connotation, and as such, the idea of an electrical fire is awfully difficult to accept... We have to say here that electricity doesn't burn... but it can communicate enough heat to flammable materials for them to catch fire...materials which are almost non-existent in our electronics bays.(See on this subject the AAIB report on the N786UA incident at LHR ).
But electrical components in the presence of arcing could emit quantities of potentially highly toxic fumes, i.e smoke.

Taking into account all the above, is it really difficult to accept that an electrical fault - a shorted circuit, an arc - could have knocked down a particular bus, the one that powers among other things the transponder ?
Then, with the crew busy dealing with an *ELECTRICAL SMOKE* procedure which involvfes a series of isolating the different components of the system and disconnectiing / reconnecting the different buses, they did not / could not liaise with ATC...
What happens later looks more like an airplane flying on its own than on a planned / piloted trajectory.

The NTSB / FAA / Boeing computed trajectory does not make any sense otherwise... But I am open to any other scenario.

cat3ppr50, post # 273, thread #42 :
"The assertions that fire on the aircraft most likely caused this sequence of events IMO seems to be a major stretch, given the facts reported, if they are to be believed. That theory IMO demands throwing out all of the Malaysian military radar data, the satellite ping data, logic, etc. "
It's one of the posts that oppose the *smoke* scenario without giving it a modicum of thought. Or a counterproof. As I said : explain the logic behind the US - reproduced trajectory... It took me two hours to solve it, and I have a Navigator's certificate.
Second, people on this forum don't actually realise how stable an FBW aircraft is : I sat once in a 320 out of autopilot and watched it fly, on it's own, straight and level for more than 10 minutes before the F/O in training realised the situation : heading was held to the degree and altitude within 50 feet. We could have flown for ever in that condition. ( The F/O is unlikely to forget to check his FMA from then on).

Edit : For those wanting facts and possibilities, Kaiarahi posted a link to instances of *FIRE* ( this time including some real ones) caused by Lithium batteries in personal electronics :here
It's worth exploring, IMO.

[Edited 2014-03-22 15:13:50]

Quoting abba (Reply 10): And as time is going by these scenarios becomes less likely. People are not just doing a hijack out of the blue. Hijacking an aircraft these days takes a lot of planning and involves huge personal risk for the involved. They, therefore, must have some kind of motivation for doing such things - strong and extreme political views or religious ideas or some kind of nebulous combination of the two. And such things cannot be kept secret by the people involved!

Except their primary target were not exactly to hijack a Malasyain aircraft full of a bunch of nationalities, but being this a secondary one. Then they should be very very silent until they reached their real target. AFTER THAT, I agree with you.

Quoting abba (Reply 10): . And I am absolutely sure that if there were potential terrorists or hijack'ers we would have known by now. I am even sure that we would have a good chance of knowing even if an undercover agent were on the passenger list.

In the same way, let alone I don't think all terrorists in this world are already known by authorities, even if they knew the ones in the aircraft but suspected this was only a step in the plot, they better should keep it in secret too.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27): Second, people on this forum don't actually realise how stable an FBW aircraft is : I sat once in a 320 out of autopilot and watched it fly, on it's own, straight and level for more than 10 minutes before the F/O in training realised the situation : heading was held to the degree and altitude within 50 feet. We could have flown for ever in that condition. ( The F/O is unlikely to forget to check his FMA from then on).

That's Airbus FBW. I don't believe that Boeing FBW does the same thing.

-Mir

I'm also sadly starting to think more about the fire scenario, even with all of the problems making it fit the facts.

But just to go back to the hijack possibility, yes, we don't have a claim by any group, a ransom made public, or any destination reached, however, what if as I have suggested earlier in the threads their plan was not successful, ie. they were overpowered or something else went wrong to render their plan impossible.

Another sad situation is that with no CVR of that part of the flight (unless the CVR circuit breaker was pulled earlier in the scenario - not sure if that is even possible?) then we will never know exactly what went on in the first few hours of the flight.

A fire but no ability to transmit a message in any shape or form ? I find that unlikely.

Not sure if this has been asked before. . .but has cell phone/camcorder video ever been pulled from passengers after a crash? Would solid state media even survive a crash (on land or water)?

Obviously this would not help in a sudden crash, but maybe during a possible hijacking, or long term mechanical problem, would we be able to recover any video taken by the passengers?

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 19): I think 9/11, PSA1771 and 182 as well as Helios 522 are all thoroughly understood -- could you provide some enlightenment as to what other benefit cameras would have provided except watching it on the evening news?

Actually there are definitely questions about Helios 522, with recent re-appraisals of the evidence pointing quite strongly to the pressurisation system being in AUTO and not Manual as the initial investigation concluded. This would obviously have major implications for the accident if true, shifting the cause of the accident from human factors (flight crew failing to pressurise the cabin) to mechanical issues (pressurisation fault, although if this were the case the crew still continued the climb following a Cabin ALT alarm).

Quoting Mir (Reply 29): That's Airbus FBW. I don't believe that Boeing FBW does the same thing.

Yup, at least on the 777. 787 is another story but the 777's FBW doesn't maintain stability to the same degree that the Airbus system does

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27): The only known facts are : - A straightforward navigation to IGARI... and then nothing.

Quoting by738 (Reply 31): A fire but no ability to transmit a message in any shape or form ? I find that unlikely.

So can anyone come up with some minimum set of concurrent failures that would be required to get the plane from Pihero's "only known facts" to a spectre airplane no longer controlled by humans flying off on autopilot to the far southern Indian ocean? (BTW, I'm not criticizing anyone's point of view, just trying to figure out how things could have happened. Airline travel has become so reliable these days that accidents generally are the result of weird circumstances.)

[Edited 2014-03-22 16:58:09]

[Edited 2014-03-22 16:58:41]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27): Your post is puzzling, as so far no one has provided any evidence of all these trajectories or manoeuvres. The only known facts are : - A straightforward navigation to IGARI... and then nothing. As a matter of fact the last known position - from Flight Radar (!!!) was a turn to the left, consistent to a direct track to IGARI ( confirmed by the Mickey Mouse Chinese COM translation), and starting a turn to intercept the course to BITOD and subsequent route points.

Coming from an airline pilot your comments automatically demand respect.
The turn back by MH370 just after IGARI, postulated from primary radar tracks however fragmentary, does have another possible corroboration. Assuming that the subsequent ‘pings’ recorded by the Inmarsat IOR satellite are definitively tied to the aircraft and prove it to being still powered up, if the flight hadn’t turned back, then surely Inmarsat would have recorded pings from the flight on its POR satellite as the confirmed flight path was already on the cusp of entering the range of this next satellite?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27): So, in fact, we only have one position, the one at which we lost Flight 370 and a route, derived from the NTSB / FAA *loci*, which, as a matter of pure miracle (???!!!), matches the former within a reasonable accuracy.

The other turns in the Straits of Malacca supposedly from primary radar data seem more difficult to construct a reason for.
There are two identical solutions to the path across the IOR satellite range based on loci, assuming of course straight line flight at normal cruising speed. The ‘other one’ to the NW straight across India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan into Kazakhstan seems to have been rejected because of the reported absence of primary radar tracks. A case of the absence of evidence versus the evidence of absence?

It is striking that the last possible ‘primary radar evidenced’ turn to the NW at GIVAL (recorded as heading 308 degrees on the website http://skyvector.com/) is extremely close to the heading of the NW track of the loci. http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2.../mh370/images/9/9a/Final_map_2.jpg
It is seductive to conceive the plane as being with an incapacitated crew and under the autopilot after the turn at GIVAL.

Apparently quite a lot more 'debris' is being found at the moment. Too early to say, though, whether any of it relates to MH370.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-2...ay-be-fruitful-abbott-says/5339334

Quoting Mir (Reply 25):

Thank you for the explanation. Probably academic though. It would only help to know this if they can figure out where it ran out of fuel.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 33):

Doubtful. The crew had all the information necessary to understand what was happening including the cabin pressure reading on the overhead panel. They got task focussed and misinterpreted the warning. A warning which is audible in the CVR recording. A camera wouldn't change our interpretation of what happened.

Quoting Mir (Reply 29): That's Airbus FBW. I don't believe that Boeing FBW does the same thing.

See the T7 flight controls and you'll be surprised. If anything, because of C* which includes speed stability - which the 'Bus doesn't have, it should be more stable.

Quoting by738 (Reply 31): A fire but no ability to transmit a message in any shape or form ? I find that unlikely.

Basics of airmanship : Aviate... navigate... Communicate...
Why should I call somebody who couldn't help me when I'm busy dealing with what has become a full-fledged emergency ?

Quoting awthompson (Reply 30): I'm also sadly starting to think more about the fire scenario, even with all of the problems making it fit the facts.

There are two ways of dealing with a mystery : trying to make the theory fit the facts... or trying to match the facts with one's theory.
One of these two ways is wrong. Which one ? I don't know, but it's not mine   

Quoting by738 (Reply 31): A fire but no ability to transmit a message in any shape or form ? I find that unlikely.

There is precedent for that, with a sudden fire in the cockpit of a 777-200 in Cairo. The crew was unable to call for help from the cockpit.

Quoting hivue (Reply 34): So can anyone come up with some minimum set of concurrent failures that would be required to get the plane from Pihero's "only known facts" to a spectre airplane no longer controlled by humans flying off on autopilot to the far southern Indian ocean?

I doubt that even 777-rated pilots could figure this one out. It requires knowledge of the physical layout of avionics boxes and the configuration of all the wiring that connects the various systems together throughout the airframe. This is an extremely complex issue. Also, we don't know that the autopilot was active when it supposedly flew south, nor do we know that the crew was incapacitated.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 26): I can't think of any flight I've ever flown on as an airline employee or passenger where the cabin crew didn't speak to the pilots several times during a flight.

Did the Malaysian Air 777's get cockpit door upgrades post 9/11? If so then the cockpit doors are lockable from the inside and are bullet proof. What would you have been able to do from the other side of that door?

I've never been so disheartened and disappointed by the media, politicians, technology and humanity in my life.
Failure on SO MANY LEVELS.
I've stopped watching the news, especially CNN. They've been trying to latch on to ANYTHING and running with it.
It's so bad that REAL BREAKING NEWS won't be until they stop broadcasting Breaking News alerts/banners.

http://planefinder.net/ showing vh-vhd heading out to the Southern Indian Ocean right now

Quoting Pihero (Reply 27): AFAIK, the rest of the so-called radar contacts heve never been proven to be Flight 370. Not one.

Have you not seen the newest radar data? I think it's very interesting.

It shows MH370 flying from waypoint VAMPI to MEKAR:

Here is the data with a map.

and just the map: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-NYs43PKigHo/Uy3XB2QQ4-I/AAAAAAABEPo/ZjoZ7BJyjGI/w1129-h926-no/LastRadar.jpg


And therefore, as you can easily see, here's exactly the waypoints he was still using.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=6.324034189...RI:A.WM.WMKL:F.WM.VAMPI:F.WM.MEKAR

Three points:
1. Was technically headed back towards the satellite still.
2. I think *if* he was taking the southern arc, he was going to turn south just beyond that point, to avoid Indonesia.
3. More importantly, this invalidates the GIVAL waypoint and this map http://mothership.sg/v2/wp-content/u...ds/2014/03/mh370-diverted-path.jpg and all those supposed turns everyone is mentioning. It seems a lot more calm, and calculated.



But I'll tell you one thing- there's just NO WAY he was "looking for a runway" with this new data. Interesting, huh?

[Edited 2014-03-22 17:35:36]

[Edited 2014-03-22 17:58:47]

Quoting fooflyboy (Reply 17): But I would hope that airlines would be more professionally managed and that abuse of monitoring systems would not occur.

The same was said of the NSA's ability to monitor personal cell phones and computers. That didn't end well obviously.
Power corrupts, remember? There will always be a need for privacy as it's the very cornerstone of freedom. Convicts have no privacy, free people do and need to exercise it at every available moment lest it be wrested from them while their heads are turned.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 39): Also, we don't know that the autopilot was active when it supposedly flew south, nor do we know that the crew was incapacitated.

I understand that (Pihero mentioned all we really "know"). I'm just taking one of the many theories that have been floated (a much better one than, e.g., it landed in Pakistan as far as I'm concerned) and wanting to see what it might require to make that theory fact. The same process could be applied to other theories.

I wish I had a nickel for every program I've written that didn't do what I wanted it to, but after I saw exactly how it misbehaved it suddenly became pretty obvious what the likely sequence of events was.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 44): There will always be a need for privacy as it's the very cornerstone of freedom. Convicts have no privacy, free people do and need to exercise it at every available moment lest it be wrested from them while their heads are turned.

I'm pretty sure people in most workplaces are able to be monitored by their employers. Recorded even. I could be mistaken, but I believe that to be the case.

Quoting SouthernBelle (Reply 43): Interesting, huh?

More than interesting, SouthernBelle - on the face of it that (especially the last turn) blows my 'incapacitated pilots' theory out of the water!  

Not doubting your sincerity, but what's the source/provenance of that diagram?

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 48): More than interesting, SouthernBelle - on the face of it that (especially the last turn) blows my 'incapacitated pilots' theory out of the water! Not doubting your sincerity, but what's the source/provenance of that diagram?

Right, it's always good to look at sources! Here's the original page, in Chinese:

http://photo.china.com.cn/news/2014-03/21/content_31863360.htm

and a Google Translate version:

http://translate.google.com/translat...014-03%2F21%2Fcontent_31863360.htm


Doesn't look made up to me. Your take?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 47): I'm pretty sure people in most workplaces are able to be monitored by their employers. Recorded even. I could be mistaken, but I believe that to be the case.

With the exception of our employees in Washington D.C. The employers (you and I) and in the dark. Yep, I'm tired of being treated as if I have done something wrong, and I am almost completely certain pilots feel the same way. Lets please not get too comfortable with the idea that we can know everything about everyone else just because it's possible, that's a very slippery slope my fellow American.