Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 281): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 279): Umm isn't it obvious it's not a real picture? |
Quoting capri (Reply 274): so they can at least stop some theories/conspiracies going out of control |
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. |
Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 2): |
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. |
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 171): Pilot's unions would most likely never allow that. Some don't even like CVRs |
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 |
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... |
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 9): ith AF 447 we would have learned nothing more if a cockpit camera was present. |
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 9): And what do you think we would learn that isn't already captured by the CVR/DFDR? |
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. |
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 9): With AF 447 we would have learned nothing more if a cockpit camera was present. |
Quoting fooflyboy (Reply 12): Exactly. So no one chould be concerned about "privacy". |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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... |
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 19): except watching it on the evening news? |
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 20): Would the auto-pilot adjust for one engine running out of fuel before the other or disengage ? |
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 ? |
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 |
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 ? |
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. |
Quoting garpd (Reply 11): 9/11 for instance, PSA 1771, PSA 182, Itavia 870, Helios 522, Hughes Airwest 706... |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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). |
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? |
Quoting Mir (Reply 29): That's Airbus FBW. I don't believe that Boeing FBW does the same thing. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quoting Mir (Reply 25): |
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 33): |
Quoting Mir (Reply 29): That's Airbus FBW. I don't believe that Boeing FBW does the same thing. |
Quoting by738 (Reply 31): A fire but no ability to transmit a message in any shape or form ? I find that unlikely. |
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. |
Quoting by738 (Reply 31): A fire but no ability to transmit a message in any shape or form ? I find that unlikely. |
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? |
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. |
Quoting Pihero (Reply 27): AFAIK, the rest of the so-called radar contacts heve never been proven to be Flight 370. Not one. |
Quoting fooflyboy (Reply 17): But I would hope that airlines would be more professionally managed and that abuse of monitoring systems would not occur. |
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. |
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. |
Quoting SouthernBelle (Reply 43): Interesting, huh? |
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? |
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. |