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 51 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 52:

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)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 44 (by SA7700 Mar 23 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 45 (by SA7700 Mar 25 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 46 (by SA7700 Mar 25 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 47 (by SA7700 Mar 27 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 48 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 29 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 49 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 31 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 50 (by wilco737 Apr 2 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 51 (by wilco737 Apr 6 2014 in Civil Aviation)



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

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


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).

**** 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

From Rara in the previous thread:

Quote: If the batteries are dead, we can pretty much give up every hope of ever finding the plane.

I wouldn't say that. We found AF447 long after the pingers died. We had a reasonably good idea of where the plane would be, and who knows how tight the search grid is now? Assuming these are the pingers, we have at least narrowed it down to a much much smaller (although still large) area. Maybe the pingers will completely die and it will take another 2 years, but the fact that they've detected pingers is a very good sign

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1): but the fact that they've detected pingers is a very good sign

Let's hope that they indeed detected the pingers and it was not a false alarm. If it was a false alarm then they are back to finding where the haystack is which would mean that chances of finding the aircraft are pretty slim.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1): From Rara in the previous thread: Quote:If the batteries are dead, we can pretty much give up every hope of ever finding the plane. I wouldn't say that. We found AF447 long after the pingers died. We had a reasonably good idea of where the plane would be, and who knows how tight the search grid is now?

Another point - we don't know if the batteries are dead. We know we are past the 30 day minimum performance standard, and that the batteries were due to be routinely replaced due to age in a couple months.

We do not know the state of the actual batteries - how long they might hold their charge.

------------------------------------------

Regarding a post late in the previous thread about an aircraft landing relatively intact - the poster sites the US landing in the Hudson.

That aircraft was not relatively intact. The rear pressure bulkhead was fractured, and half of it lost. More than the amount of breakage of the rear pressure bulkhead on the Asiana B777.

There was substantial damage to the aft lower fuselage, including broken frames and aircraft skin torn off.

There was a substantial amount of floating debris from that aircraft which came out of the cargo bays, either through the sprung open cargo doors or through the holes in the fuselage.

The book is for the pilots to make a 3G touchdown in the water. That plane hit with a little over 12G according to the NTSB.

The plane was a bent, warped, twisted write off from the water impact damage, even before considering any damage due to sinking and water immersion.

------------------------------------------

Regarding the possibility of the pingers being several hundred KM apart.

It is conceivable that the impact could have separated the CVR and FDR from their mounting positions - and one of them might have tangled with something which floated away. Surprising things float after a crash. We saw most of a galley floating after AF447.

However, I agree the possibility is extremely remote - on the order of me winning the lottery tonight.

Not impossible, but I would be greatly surprised if it is true.

Re the landing in the Hudson...

The plane was a bent, warped, twisted write off from the water impact damage, even before considering any damage due to sinking and water immersion.


So that made it a good landing, (since all the PAX were able to "walk away") but not a great landing. (since the A/C was not re-usable).

Mark

Two points.

First, call me a skeptic, but not finding one piece of floating passenger related item from the plane anywhere makes me wonder. Not even one aircraft related item, be it wreckage or pax in this reduced search area or in the entire search needs to be reviewed.

Second, if indeed, the plane is found in this narrowed area, then, as many have speculated, it is probably intact or close to whole and not broken apart. Otherwise, we would have found something related to the aircraft by now.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3): Another point - we don't know if the batteries are dead. We know we are past the 30 day minimum performance standard, and that the batteries were due to be routinely replaced due to age in a couple months. We do not know the state of the actual batteries - how long they might hold their charge.

I bet the battery and beacon manufacturers will have a very good idea. They will have masses of test data establishing how long the beacons emit a ping and how that degrades with time. Will they have done the same tests with batteries due for renewal in 2 months? I don't know but if they have, they can probably predict for how many days pings should continue to be emitted (and, I guess, at what strength).

[Edited 2014-04-08 09:20:30]

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 5): First, call me a skeptic, but not finding one piece of floating passenger related item from the plane anywhere makes me wonder. Not even one aircraft related item, be it wreckage or pax in this reduced search area or in the entire search needs to be reviewed. Second, if indeed, the plane is found in this narrowed area, then, as many have speculated, it is probably intact or close to whole and not broken apart. Otherwise, we would have found something related to the aircraft by now.

1) The ocean is messy.

2) The ocean is messy.

As an addendum, the ocean is big.

And messy.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3): Regarding a post late in the previous thread about an aircraft landing relatively intact - the poster sites the US landing in the Hudson. That aircraft was not relatively intact. The rear pressure bulkhead was fractured,

So in case of the Hudson, if the door did not open, the fracture will allow water to enter the plane but not enough to allow container boxes out . . . anyone recall any bulk cargo coming out of the A320? as we said . . . relatively . . .  

bt

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 7): 1) The ocean is messy. 2) The ocean is messy. As an addendum, the ocean is big. And messy.

Your wisdom is as big as the ocean, but, you didn't read my second point.  

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 9): Your wisdom is as big as the ocean, but, you didn't read my second point.

Hahahah. Yeah, thanks :P

I did read the second part of your post... it's not guaranteed that any part of the aircraft will float. Any big part, anyway. Yes, random things from the cabin may float, as the other poster mentioned even the damn galley floated in AF447, so did the stab - but that was lucky. It doesn't necessarily have to be intact for you to not be able to find floating debris in a very big and very messy ocean, 30 days after the fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence itself. The most credible evidence so far has been the SATCOM ping analysis and the 2hr+ hearing of what appears to be 2 ULBs. So, we know it went down in the ocean. We can bet our lives on that. But just because floating junk hasn't come up, well, just means we haven't seen it yet or it didn't float to begin with.

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 5): First, call me a skeptic, but not finding one piece of floating passenger related item from the plane anywhere makes me wonder.

At this time, over a month later, there should not be any floating debris near the wreckage. I'm sure at some point some debris will be found on the coast of Australia or Madagascar or Chile which is eventually identified as being from this plane. http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/wind-driven-surface.htm

They are still finding debris on the US Oregon and Washington coasts from the tsunami in Japan which damaged the reactors.

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/JTMD_ERMA_January.pdf

Quoting MarkAK (Reply 4): So that made it a good landing, (since all the PAX were able to "walk away") but not a great landing. (since the A/C was not re-usable).

I call it a great landing -   

Because the data shows after the bird strike, the plane had almost zero chance of survival and the crew and pax only a very slim chance of survival. The landing itself was pretty good given the circumstances. In the case of the Gimli Glider and the Air Transat dead stick landings - those pilots came in fast and high and also hit the ground hard.

I can't complain about dead stick pilots conserving altitude and speed as much as possible. What made the US Airways landing a great one was not the touchdown in the water, almost all airline pilots should have been able to make that landing.

It was Capt Sully's quick assessment of the situation and decision to go for the water landing. Had he delayed a half-minute later - it would not have been possible. The aircraft would have gone down on land in a populated area, with almost certainly large numbers of injuries and fatalities.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 8): anyone recall any bulk cargo coming out of the A320? as we said . . . relatively

There were a few hundred pounds of floating luggage, seat cushions, cabin debris picked up by the boats in the Hudson and turned in to the police. A lot of that came out of the belly of the aircraft through the fractures in the fuselage.

Some of the helicopter shots the day of the ditching showed a debris trail floating away from the wreckage. With so many small boats on hand, most if it was picked up quickly. I also assume they were expecting to find people floating away in the water, luckily there were none.

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 5): First, call me a skeptic, but not finding one piece of floating passenger related item from the plane anywhere makes me wonder. Not even one aircraft related item, be it wreckage or pax in this reduced search area or in the entire search needs to be reviewed.

Cyclone Gillian moved through this general area on the 22nd and 23rd. If there was a floating debris field, the hurricane likely scattered it.

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 5): First, call me a skeptic, but not finding one piece of floating passenger related item from the plane anywhere makes me wonder. Not even one aircraft related item, be it wreckage or pax in this reduced search area or in the entire search needs to be reviewed. Second, if indeed, the plane is found in this narrowed area, then, as many have speculated, it is probably intact or close to whole and not broken apart. Otherwise, we would have found something related to the aircraft by now.

Yeah, I am in the skeptic club too. The ping sound should be straight forward to hear but it seems like the planes track is too far north and like you said, no debris. I realize the currents, large search area etc. but there is a lot of surveillance in that area now. You would think someone would see or pick up something. I definitely take the Aussies at their word if they said they heard something but it seems unlikely that they got to the pingers just hours before they died.

I would suggest caution re. locating the pingers particularly when some appear adamant about making peremptory statements on whether or not specific hypotheses are valid.

Collectively on this thread I think we do not know too much about the behavior and observables related to a pinger at end of life and at great depths. I am afraid that for the expert investigators, this might be somewhat new territory as well, at least in actual practice, that may lead to unusual circumstances. For instance, there might be a deep sound channel.at great depth that may act as an acoustic waveguide due to a pair of cooperative temperature gradients and yield low attenuation.

Before dismissing the Chinese report outright, may be we should explore that issue again:
- are investigators in charge indeed asking for a detailed report about the Chinese observations?
- what instrument did they use? (indeed a key question to determine how to integrate their report into the overall search strategy)
- are Teledyne ping locators known to yield false positive?
- due to what acoustic sources? marine mammals, man made?
- if so, how long do false positives typically last?
- is there a code of conduct that any nation wishing to participate in a SAR operation must sign before being allowed to deploy their assets in the search zone and increase the background noise, like being allowed to penetrate but not contaminate a crime scene (unfortunately I think I can answer that one myself!)

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 15): - are investigators in charge indeed asking for a detailed report about the Chinese observations?

Yes. The Chinese have apparently been reluctant to provide information directly t0 Malaysian and Australian authorities, preferring to release their information to the media instead.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 15): - what instrument did they use?

I've not seen anything indicating that, nor would I expect the Chinese to release such information. They are almost certainly using a piece of military developed technology which heard the pings.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 15): - is there a code of conduct that any nation wishing to participate in a SAR

No. These are international waters and only common courtesy would make a ship alter course to avoid the SAR area. The Chinese did receive diplomatic permission to bring a military aircraft into Australia to participate in the search. Australia could deny permission for that aircraft to operate from Australia if they feel the Chinese are creating problems with the search, and were prepared to deal with possible long range diplomatic / economic consequences.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12): seat cushions, cabin debris picked

From what photos I can find of the aircraft out of the water, I did not see any breakage in the upper portion of the fuselage.
I suspect the seat cushions and cabin debris floated out the doors. Maybe the cushions were used by the passengers as they exited?

Besides the seat cushions, the most likely things of quantities to make it to the surface would be the safety cards . . .
Life vests if not used would still be secured under the seat.

bt

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 11): It was Capt Sully's quick assessment of the situation and decision to go for the water landing. Had he delayed a half-minute later - it would not have been possible. The aircraft would have gone down on land in a populated area, with almost certainly large numbers of injuries and fatalities.

An often-overlooked point, very well said.

  

Those debris mostly came out the emergency exits opened, though some might have come from where the one frame broke loose and ripped up through the cabin floor, injuring a flight attendant as it opened a hole in the cabin floor.

The NTSB report describes the damage to the plane in detail.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 14): I definitely take the Aussies at their word if they said they heard something but it seems unlikely that they got to the pingers just hours before they died.

I'm wondering which specific part of that you find unlikely. To me, the fact that they can't find the signal anymore makes it *more* likely that these are actually the plane's ULB's. That would mean the batteries ran out more or less when they were predicted to. It would make it a lot *less* likely that these are some other kind of pinger, like an underwater cable locator.

However, it is still possible they're just listening in *just* the wrong places right now, and they will still actually hear the pings again. In that case, they'll have a better idea of the location.

Neither outcome is really bad news for the investigation.

It's kind of a lucky break that they heard those pings to begin with, but let's not forget that this was as a result of a constant narrowing down of the possible flight tracks through statistical analysis. It wasn't just random. They didn't just throw a dart at a map and say "welp, let's drop it there and see what happens." They put the listening devices down where their analysis told them the plane was most likely to be at that point in the investigation, and lo and behold they heard pings pretty much where they expected to. There was some luck involved in that nothing's a 100% probability right now, but it's not like the whole thing was due to random chance. Most of it was due to them knowing the best places to look.

I'm not sure if it's been posted here in the earlier threads or not, but there is video floating around of the actual pinger signal on a monitor showing a rolling spectrum analysis, and some of the guys watching it as it's pinging. It was pretty interesting and is clearly something. You can't tell from the video if it's from a plane's ULB, but it's not just some random acoustic event. It's a man-made pinger sending out a signal once per second.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 15): - are Teledyne ping locators known to yield false positive?

Yes indeed.

Applying my Bayesian reasoning on the basis of the data to hand, the prior must be high - given that two true positive several hundred kilometers apart seem unlikely (because dependent on fairly freak conditions).

However, the lack of any positives, whether true or false, over the last 24 hours, lowers that prior somewhat.

This entire event has to me been filled with too many coincidences. Nothing at all seems to add up or make sense.

1) The timing of the transponder going off -- way too coincidental in the timing that it went off

2) The reported course changes and the avoidance of the Indonesian Radar -- Again too coincidental

3) The satellite handshakes -- again too coincidental that this system stayed reporting to the point that they can get tracks

4) Detection of pings right at the 30 day mark in the constantly refined search area based off the coincidental satellite data.

Something just doesn't smell right to me in anyway.

If this was a pilot suicide why completely avoid the Indonesian Radar? It would have been much much easier to fly over Indonesia at 30K feet and pretend to be a dark plane and keep continuing west. Even if Indonesia sent up a fighter they sure as heck weren't going to shoot down an commercial airplane that is making not obvious threats. The 777 has way more range than any aircraft that they would have sent up to intercept. So in this scenario you just wait until you are out of their defense range and make course changes to crash the plane in the ocean in an area where no one expects. Dead plane following a straight course, the folks would look for it somewhere along that line, not somewhere else. Achieves the same result without the need to fly this crazy course around Indonesia.

I feel there is something much more to this story than anyone is ever going to publically know. The amount of "disinformation" that has come out, either intentionally or due to lack of competence, leads me to believe this.

--------------

For those who are wondering if the aircraft managed to ditch on the water and stay in one piece and then sank to the bottom, the airframe would be completely collapsed to the point of almost being a pancake. The pressure at the depths they are looking at is huge. The structure of the airframe probably would have suffered a catastrophic collapse at around 700 feet of depth, where the approximate pressure on the hull would be over 310 lbs per square inch. The pressure at the bottom where they think it is located is over 6,500 lbs per square inch. Depending on when an intact aircraft imploded on the sinking point would determine the level of the pancaking and whether it would be catastrophic enough that debris would escape from inside the cabin. Almost every aircraft crash in the ocean has broken up so you didn't have the effects of pressure differential on the debris. The only implosion that I am aware of that has been found is the USS Thresher. I had to listen to the recordings of her going down when I designed submarines. When it happened you knew it happened, but it is truly amazing what they were able to tell from the acoustic noises as she went down.

Quoting MSY-MSP (Reply 22): So in this scenario you just wait until you are out of their defense range and make course changes to crash the plane in the ocean in an area where no one expects. Dead plane following a straight course, the folks would look for it somewhere along that line, not somewhere else. Achieves the same result without the need to fly this crazy course around Indonesia.

Indonesia would have surely informed other nations, don't you think for example US forces in Diego Garcia wouldn't have sent an aircraft to intercept MH370 if they had heard there's a jetliner missing & an unidentified aircraft flying towards Indian Ocean?

Nah, avoiding radars makes perfect sense if the hijacker wanted to hide the evidence as well as possible. Thanks to those maneuvers to avoid radars without the satellite data (that the pilot obviously wasn't aware of) we wouldn't have even the slightest idea about where to search.

Quoting MSY-MSP (Reply 22): If this was a pilot suicide why completely avoid the Indonesian Radar? It would have been much much easier to fly over Indonesia at 30K feet and pretend to be a dark plane and keep continuing west. Even if Indonesia sent up a fighter they sure as heck weren't going to shoot down an commercial airplane that is making not obvious threats. The 777 has way more range than any aircraft that they would have sent up to intercept. So in this scenario you just wait until you are out of their defense range and make course changes to crash the plane in the ocean in an area where no one expects. Dead plane following a straight course, the folks would look for it somewhere along that line, not somewhere else. Achieves the same result without the need to fly this crazy course around Indonesia.

I think it likely that the 'pilot' wanted to disappear as comprehensively as possible, and to him, these strings of what we are calling 'coincidences', comprised a strategem felt to offer forth the optimal chance for success. Sure, one can second guess what might have been the most efficacious way to achieve this, but the fact remains that we sit here some 32 odd days later with the only remnant of the a/c being a ping (maybe?).

For example, if it had flown at FL300 per your example, I would suspect that Indonesia would have done everything within their capability to continue to track and investigate the a/c, regardless of range. Whereas, skirt Indo radar, and, even if detected, you are not in the Indo airspace proper, hence a lower level of alarm, IMO.

Quoting MSY-MSP (Reply 22): If this was a pilot suicide why completely avoid the Indonesian Radar?

Like with any other air defense system, there are contradicting reports about Indonesian PSR capability. Some suggest it is very robust and others suggest most of the radars won't even work and they are is the process of replacing. They just signed a contract with Thales in Jan '14.

Quoting MSY-MSP (Reply 22): This entire event has to me been filled with too many coincidences. Nothing at all seems to add up or make sense.

Allow me to disagree. Coincidences if they were a by-product of some random process or series of uncontrolled failures would indeed seem bizarre. But if you look at them as part of a plan designed to disappear without leaving a trace and prevent anyone from determining who has done it and why, it is as horrendous as it is brilliant. There are 4 phases for the party in control:

1. simulate a grave technical failure on-board through loss of comm gear, sharp turns, may be rapid level changes followed by a rapid descent.
Purpose: lead experts to think that they was an electrical/fire/... causing the a/c to crash at sea, east of Malaysia.
Step 1 worked: for how many days did SAR only search east of Malaysia?

2. cross westbound to the Straitt of Malacca. IMO at low altitude to avoid Malaysian and Thai radars, probably using some form of written/recorded instructions to navigate a very specific path.
Purpose: avoid any intercept
Step 2 worked. If radars had tracked the a/c, SAR would have immediately stopped searching east of Malaysia

3. escape to the Indian Ocean
Purpose: use a route and altitude minimizing the chance of being interpreted as a threat by Malaysia, Indonesia or Thailand
Step 3 worked but not perfectly. IMO the a/c flew first at minimum altitude over the Strait of Malacca and only climbed to cruise on radials 285-295 when west of but also far enough of Penang. The a/c was probably flying roughly parallel to or away from the countries involved. Did not look like a threat to any that might have been watching.
IMO not executed perfectly because the a/c climbed a bit too fast to join the airway with Butterworth and probably Hat Yai getting sporadic radar returns.

4. Fly to the middle of nowhere
Purpose: avoid any forensic analysis of the a/c
Step 4 should have worked but failed thanks to Inmarsat RTD and Doppler analysis of the supervisory messages sent by the GES. IMO very few people may have known about the hourly pings, even at Inmarsat, and the plan did not factor in that constraint.

That may not be what happened. But no supernatural coincidence is required with that scenario.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 20): I'm not sure if it's been posted here in the earlier threads or not, but there is video floating around of the actual pinger signal on a monitor showing a rolling spectrum analysis, and some of the guys watching it as it's pinging. It was pretty interesting and is clearly something. You can't tell from the video if it's from a plane's ULB, but it's not just some random acoustic event. It's a man-made pinger sending out a signal once per second.

I would say that the signal in the widely distributed photograph and video is definitely a pinger. However, I am wondering if that is the actual footage of the current search effort or some earlier stock footage? In the latter case they might not have as clear a signal as in the circulated photograph and video.

Well wherever they heard the pings from the blackbox is around about where the plane is plus the radius of how far the signal travels by how far the plane is down. If they send down ocean floor scanners where they caught the signals and search 30/40 miles radius in that area I don't think it will be long before they locate the wreckage. If these pings were from the plane itself.

You guys seem to rotate around how could this happen, big airplane, little ocean, no radar coverage, old technologies etc. . You are completely right that about everything and that optimisations should be initiated for something like this not to happen anymore (long search).

What about afterwards?

As an airline passenger, I don't care about a better radar coverage, longer pings or a new universal search and resque process. In case we have here again a suicide pilot, I see a serious problem for this business in general.

Until now I'm trying to give trust to the airplane standard, the quality of the pilot education system, to the accuracy of the ground technicians, and the financial situation of the airline (which will make its employees happy and good at what they are doing). Also, since 9/11, I must give full trust to the airport security standards and processes. When I managed to trust all of that blindly, I will buy a ticket and board the plane.

But now I have to start to hope that the pilot hasn't a bad day, or his wife didn't left him last night, or that his political friends didn't go to prison. Or he might kill me for that. Maybe most of the writers here are so flight fanatics that you won't care of that because flying is beautiful and if shit happens, it happens, but you have to know that 99.9999% of all flight passengers are not like you. When they will hear two, or three times in a serie of a few years, that hundreds of people perished because the pilot stood up that morning with the wrong foot, this will be desastreous for the business. Of any airline, even the ones who's plane never crashed.

And what system do you want to put in place, to know if the pilot didn't turn a switch in his brain this morning? There isn't. There won't be. The 99.9999% of flight passengers will know and think like that. Maybe also a reason, why the finding of the black boxes of MH370 will be of upmost importance, also for any business involved in commercial flight, and for any country. To know if it was suicide, or not.

Regards,
Alfons

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 26): Allow me to disagree. Coincidences if they were a by-product of some random process or series of uncontrolled failures would indeed seem bizarre. But if you look at them as part of a plan designed to disappear without leaving a trace and prevent anyone from determining who has done it and why, it is as horrendous as it is brilliant. There are 4 phases for the party in control:

Very nice analysis, I must say. Seems plausible to me in your approach. and I agree definitely a brilliant yet sick plan.

However, this seems to me to be way too much planning for a suicide. That is what I was postulating with the comment why not simply fly across Indonesia and look like a ghost plane and then once you are outside of their air defense range (i.e. when intercept aircraft have to turn back) then make the course change at some point along the straight course. Ends up with the same basic result other than folks aren't looking for it in the South China Sea. They are still looking somewhere in the Indian Ocean and it appears to authorities that the plane had a depressurization event or other catastrophic event that rendered the plane without proper navigation. This seems to me to be the easier approach for this. Because even if they knew the track across Indonesia you would still be able to create a huge area of uncertainty when the plane isn't found on the last known course.

So what I am saying is that the current information seems too much for a pilot suicide.

What I meant by the idea of too many coincidences refers to how many of them there seem to be. I can add logic to each of them, but at some point I am left scratching my head and saying "really this many of them". Not saying it is impossible, but it just seems to me that its too many of them. There has to be something more in the going on that we don't know that links them all together. The biggest one is why on the 30th day did they hear a ping. Could be blind luck, but something tells me there is more to this than we are being told. I believe there is more to the Imarsat data than has been explained. Either there is a secondary source of data that has been added to the Imarsat data or there is more in the handshake than they are letting on.

The coincidences go down in my opinion if there is more data behind them that links them than is currently publically known.

Just my 2 cents worth

Quoting alfons (Reply 29): But now I have to start to hope that the pilot hasn't a bad day, or his wife didn't left him last night, or that his political friends didn't go to prison. Or he might kill me for that. Maybe most of the writers here are so flight fanatics that you won't care of that because flying is beautiful and if shit happens, it happens, but you have to know that 99.9999% of all flight passengers are not like you. When they will hear two, or three times in a serie of a few years, that hundreds of people perished because the pilot stood up that morning with the wrong foot, this will be desastreous for the business. Of any airline, even the ones who's plane never crashed.

I don't think this is as big a deal as you make it out to be. I challenge you to walk down the street and ask passers-by what they think of Adam Air 574, Silk Air 185, LAM 470, Egyptair 990, and I bet most people won't have a clue what you're talking about.

Quoting alfons (Reply 29): But now I have to start to hope that the pilot hasn't a bad day, or his wife didn't left him last night, or that his political friends didn't go to prison. Or he might kill me for that. Maybe most of the writers here are so flight fanatics that you won't care of that because flying is beautiful and if shit happens, it happens, but you have to know that 99.9999% of all flight passengers are not like you. When they will hear two, or three times in a serie of a few years, that hundreds of people perished because the pilot stood up that morning with the wrong foot, this will be desastreous for the business. Of any airline, even the ones who's plane never crashed. And what system do you want to put in place, to know if the pilot didn't turn a switch in his brain this morning? There isn't. There won't be. The 99.9999% of flight passengers will know and think like that. Maybe also a reason, why the finding of the black boxes of MH370 will be of upmost importance, also for any business involved in commercial flight, and for any country. To know if it was suicide, or not.

It is important to recognize that the fear you describe -- of being a victim of a person having a bad day -- is not limited to being a passenger on an airliner. Those of us who live in countries governed (mostly) by the rule of law have a perception that the barrier between civility and violence, between law and tyranny, is comfortingly thick. This is an illusion, for the order of society that gives you confidence in your safety and freedom lives on a razor's edge.

In about 1/2 hour I will leave work for home. On the ~20 miles drive today I am likely to encounter several thousands cars. I trust that not one of those drivers harbors malice in his heart sufficient to cause me harm.

Everytime I go to the supermarket, or shopping mall I trust that every other individual in that space and time with me will behave according to the norms we've established regardless of their life circumstances, and that I will be unharmed.

Then there are the times where I am with much larger numbers of people. Every Sunday I congregate in a single room with between 500 and 1000 people. Last Friday I attended a concert with 2900 other people. And for seven or eight Saturdays per year I gather with 100,000 of my closest friends in the greatest shrine in all of college football to watch my alma mater defeat whoever dares to confront my favorite team. In all of these cases I hope and expect that people around me will act in a manner that allows me to return home unharmed and with all of my property.

I see no difference between these situations (some of which are everyday occurrences) and a rogue airliner pilot who might take me and my fellow passengers to our untimely demise. You may choose to be more paranoid about the person in control of your airliner than you are about your fellow drivers, shoppers, churchgoers, concertgoers, or sports fans, but the statistics say your fear is misplaced.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 32): It is important to recognize that the fear you describe -- of being a victim of a person having a bad day -- is not limited to being a passenger on an airliner. Those of us who live in countries governed (mostly) by the rule of law have a perception that the barrier between civility and violence, between law and tyranny, is comfortingly thick. This is an illusion, for the order of society that gives you confidence in your safety and freedom lives on a razor's edge.

True.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 32): And for seven or eight Saturdays per year I gather with 100,000 of my closest friends in the greatest shrine in all of college football to watch my alma mater defeat whoever dares to confront my favorite team.

False.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 32): I don't think this is as big a deal as you make it out to be. I challenge you to walk down the street and ask passers-by what they think of Adam Air 574, Silk Air 185, LAM 470, Egyptair 990, and I bet most people won't have a clue what you're talking about.

You are completely right. I never knew of Adam Air 574 and all the others you mentioned before, except the Egyptair, where my awareness to such happenings started, even though with a perception of 'can happen'. But MH 370 has a different dimension. See its coverage it has, right now. We all talk about it, at work, inside the familiy, in school, everywhere. MH 370 won't be a game changer, but it will have created huge awareness, IF it was a suicide. Because the public perception of suicide is one that it's rarely prevented before the first try. It's also creating awareness of the media (commercial reasons) to bring it back more often, and a future suicidal event - which is hopefully going to be prevented - is going to break this subject matter free. Again, wishing the reason was something else, and g'd bless the ones who are no more, and hopefully it will be found soon for all the thousands of family members that are waiting.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 32): I see no difference between these situations (some of which are everyday occurrences) and a rogue airliner pilot who might take me and my fellow passengers to our untimely demise. You may choose to be more paranoid about the person in control of your airliner than you are about your fellow drivers, shoppers, churchgoers, concertgoers, or sports fans, but the statistics say your fear is misplaced.

one little difference ContnlEliteCMH. On the road, in a mall, outside, bus station, I can move, I'm (before it happens) a free person, and no one else decided for me to stay in a box hoping nothing will happen. Also, the perception on the ground is that you can survive it, even without a scratch. But in a sardine box on 12000 Meters, I'm from the beginning extradited to the wills of one or two pilots, which I don't even see.

Has never been a problem for me, I will keep flying and by the way I have a nice flight in a few days from Basel to Tel Aviv and looking for that. I just wanted to broach the issue of such events, which the industry will take much time to comfort the public that it's solved technically.

Quoting alfons (Reply 29): In case we have here again a suicide pilot, I see a serious problem for this business in general.

I don't see a problem for this business. In fact commercial aviation is still the safest mode of transport. How different is a pilot suicide different from the the driver of a commercial passenger bus commiting suicide by driving a fully occupied bus off a cliff or a bridge? Very few things can be made fool proof and idiot proof. If there is a suicidal pilot hell bent on destruction then nothing much can be done...not to say preventive measure cannot be taken but like someone else mentioned we operate on a certain level of trust in our daily lives.
If this one is indeed determined to be a pilot suicide and if more incidents happen then once possibility i see is that it may speed up the introduction of pilotless fully automated planes with pilots merely present as system monitors.

Quoting MSY-MSP (Reply 22):

Exactly! It seems really odd too.

- Also, they got two ping sessions. Why is "reaquiring" those so important. Why not home in based on the two sets? Two hour data seems like a lot to me to not be able to go forward.

- Was the Ocean Shield stationary when it picked up 2 hours of pinging?

- What led the Aussies to this spot? I thought they were followed the Chinese lead, which they deemed unreliable. Yet, they followed up on that lead, and then coincidentally started detecting the pings? Seems like happenstance!

- On top, all of this at the very limit of battery life should raise major eyebrows.

Quoting MarkAK (Reply 4): So that made it a good landing, (since all the PAX were able to "walk away") but not a great landing. (since the A/C was not re-usable).

After landing on water, could a large passenger jet be re-useable?

Quoting MSY-MSP (Reply 22): For those who are wondering if the aircraft managed to ditch on the water and stay in one piece and then sank to the bottom, the airframe would be completely collapsed to the point of almost being a pancake.

If the aircraft filled entirely with water before sinking, then there would not be quite so much crushing involved.

Quoting ExpatExp (Reply 44): Quoting MarkAK (Reply 4): So that made it a good landing, (since all the PAX were able to "walk away") but not a great landing. (since the A/C was not re-usable). After landing on water, could a large passenger jet be re-useable?

No. Too much work and cost involved, but some airlines have a history of spending more than planes are worth to maintain their perfect zero jet hull loss record. Maybe some bits and pieces of it could be used as spares at best. If any airline would attempt such a task it would be QF   

IMO the Hudson landing was a great landing. The correct decision was made during a time of stress and the landing was executed probably as good as it could have been (I think, from memory, the crew did not have time to do the entire ditching checklist and forgot to flick one switch that would have closed some vents or something that would have prevented water from getting in as fast - which is understandable). The plane looked to be going under fairly quickly though and if the water was deeper and it was not towed by rope to the banks I'm sure it would have completely gone under.

[Edited 2014-04-08 17:43:25]

[Edited 2014-04-08 17:44:39]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 23): Indonesia would have surely informed other nations, don't you think for example US forces in Diego Garcia wouldn't have sent an aircraft to intercept MH370 if they had heard there's a jetliner missing & an unidentified aircraft flying towards Indian Ocean?

US does not maintain any QRA at Diego Garcia. In fact they dont even routinely send fast jets to be based there. You'd be lucky if a KC135 was available to go "hunting" let alone a P3.

Quoting ExpatExp (Reply 44): After landing on water, could a large passenger jet be re-useable?

Yes. See, for example, JAL DC-8 flight 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_2

Quoting ExpatExp (Reply 44): After landing on water, could a large passenger jet be re-useable?

A Citation, OY-JET overran the runway and even continued to run in the water but was written off. Funny enough, the owner replaced it with an aircraft registered OY-WET...

I had never heard of a jet being reusable after taking a swim, but apparently I was unaware of the incident above.

[Edited 2014-04-08 18:12:45]

Quoting ExpatExp (Reply 44): If the aircraft filled entirely with water before sinking, then there would not be quite so much crushing involved.

Unlikely, that it would be in one piece and then fill completely with water before sinking. It is probable that it could be in one piece and partially fill with water, but at some point it would lose its positive buoyancy and sink, from that point on it is a rock heading for the bottom. If it sank completely level the wings would offer some resistance to the sinking. However, it is likely that in that scenario it would either be nose or tail heavy and sink that way. Regardless, the "sink rate" of the airframe as it filled with water would be faster than the rate at which the water came in until such time as the hull collapsed. Thresher had a leak that filled the boat fast, but still not fast enough to prevent the implosion. You would have a large amount of trapped air in the airframe once it went below the waves that it would eventually implode. The only scenario where it fills completely with water before sinking requires that the aircraft not be in one piece or with a very large hole in it near the top of the airframe.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 47): Quoting flyenthu (Reply 39): - Was the Ocean Shield stationary when it picked up 2 hours of pinging? AFAIK the Ocean Shield was moving. It lost the signal, turned back and reacquired for a shorter time.

From what I heard it was moving at 5 km/ph on the same heading. It first heard the signal for about 2 hrs 20 mins. It picked up the signal for a second time, after turning around for the return leg, and heard it for 13 mins. Keep in mind that they say it takes 3 hours to do a complete turn with the length of the cable being towed to have it lined up properly. They also stated that it is POSSIBLE, that the Ocean Shield and Chinese ship heard the same signal.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 51): From what I heard it was moving at 5 km/ph on the same heading. It first heard the signal for about 2 hrs 20 mins. It picked up the signal for a second time, after turning around for the return leg, and heard it for 13 mins. Keep in mind that they say it takes 3 hours to do a complete turn with the length of the cable being towed to have it lined up properly. They also stated that it is POSSIBLE, that the Ocean Shield and Chinese ship heard the same signal.

If it was moving at 5km/hr for 2 hours, then won't there be enough points to triangulate? Then, they detected a second 13-15 min ping at another location. With depth data, ping frequency, distance traversed on ocean surface, and a second location of the 13-15 min ping, I would think there are sufficient data for estimation. They are probably doing the math on this. This seems more info than the inmarsat. No?

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 52): If it was moving at 5km/hr for 2 hours, then won't there be enough points to triangulate? Then, they detected a second 13-15 min ping at another location. With depth data, ping frequency, distance traversed on ocean surface, and a second location of the 13-15 min ping, I would think there are sufficient data for estimation. They are probably doing the math on this. This seems more info than the inmarsat. No?

For estimation, surely. Best would be a ~10km radius search area underwater wherever the signal was strongest, I imagine.

But sound does travel in somewhat unpredictable ways in nature, so stronger level doesn't necessarily mean closer to the source... but it's a good start. If they really heard the ULBs, that is. It seems likely that they did, but that would be such an incredible stroke of luck, especially so close to the end of their certified minimum operating life.

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 39): - Also, they got two ping sessions. Why is "reaquiring" those so important. Why not home in based on the two sets? Two hour data seems like a lot to me to not be able to go forward.

The technology to find the underwater ping is not easily directional. The ship has to steam across the signal, turn and try to steam back across the signal on another course. Measuring time and course, they are able to determine a rough direction to the FDR/CVR. They then have to go to another position and try to reacquire the signal.

When Swiss Air 111 crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia in 1998, the authorities knew where the aircraft impacted the water within a km. The first SAR assets were on the scene within a couple hours.

Even with the pingers active it took three days to locate and recover the FDR and another five days to locate and recover the CVR. (Both stopped recording 5 min and 37 seconds before the crash because they lost power - possibly from the breakers being pulled in the cockpit as the pilots tried to stop the electrical fire.)

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 39): - Was the Ocean Shield stationary when it picked up 2 hours of pinging?

That type device requires the ship to be steaming at slow speed - likely 5 kts or less.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 46): US does not maintain any QRA at Diego Garcia. In fact they dont even routinely send fast jets to be based there.

  

Some people just can't seem to believe the truth.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 54): Both stopped recording 5 min and 37 seconds before the crash because they lost power - possibly from the breakers being pulled in the cockpit as the pilots tried to stop the electrical fire.)

That sounds ominous in the MH370 case. Someone can turn off the DFDR?
But why? An essential piece of safety equipment that uses low power and is fused could create an electrical fire???
Next are we going to talk about spontaneous combustion?
Sorry but I am utterly puzzled.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 26):

I've been in general belief of what's mentioned in this post since around 3/25

His flight path also explains a lot

1. Fly to "roaring 40s" so SAR would be difficult

2. Run out all fuel so minimize chance of explosion or oil slick

3. Gradually land into ocean then let it sink to minimize floatable objects

4. Avoid any land mass past Penang so zero chance of cell phone communication in case a pax is still alive

5. Do it at red eye flight so pax are tired and not paying attention to gradual changes of altitude or flight path

6. Do it at night so no satellite could even take a picture of the event

7. Fly 4+ hours after Banda aceh so the last 2 hours of recording will offer zero useful information to the critical events in the first hour or so