Quoting SSTeve (Reply 246):

I was able to pull up the satellite at the time of flight mh370 with wundermap and it indicated all clear. Not sure the radar data for wundermap at that time was working. There was some clouds to the west of the Riau islands. I read something about a report of lightning in the area of mh370 but could not recall it.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 249): do you all really think they can find this plane?

Offhand, asetiadi, I'd say that there's only a 30% chance at best?

Quoting EricR (Reply 232): However, they completely dismiss the most obvious, simplistic reason (someone intentionally took the plane off its intended flight path and attempted to avoid detection by turning in off the transponder and ceasing all communication with air traffic control with some type of nefarious intent).

Background checks of the people on board would by now have come up with something making this scenario likely. But as things stands now, nothing has come up that can explain why someone would commit suicide and at the same time kill all pax and crew. As Malaysian is a rather small airline, the crew might well know each other including FAs and pilots. This means that if this theory should be true, the person acting - if the person was part of the crew - would not only kill a number of unknown pax, but also people that the person - whoever it might be - might know quite well. Unless background checks come up with something rather substantial - and it hasn't - I consider this "obvious" reason to nothing but simplistic - that is if not impossible then highly unlikely.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 248): A sampled scan by cutting swaths farther apart may be more advantageous provided that the spacing between swaths is smaller than the estimated diameter of the debris field.

That is a very good suggestion.

I have seen the remains of jet aircraft (i.e. 2 seater) that have hit the ground at very high speed once the pieces are collected and laid out in their relative places for the investigation there are some still reasonably large bits, i.e. some around the size of a car door, but yes many pieces are quite small and some are never found. (It is a sombre experience.)

Also wonder whether they have a metal detector they could run over the search area, like those folks who search sunken ships.

It would be interesting to see what the scans from the Blue Fin 2 look like, will they release them?

On another point, I wonder whether we can add to the known facts that the cabin crew (&/or a locked out pilot) had the means to activate one or both of the ELTs in the cabin but did not (like the dog that didn't bark clue). This is a fact, from which different possible inferences might be drawn: i.) The cabin crew did not consider or realize there was an emergency, or ii) the cabin crew were incapacitated or restrained, or iii) they simply forgot they had this option....there might be others...

I don't believe the flying to 43K (if even possible) would take out all the cabin crew since they have O2 bottles that could last quite a while and even if they fell unconscious they could wake again on descent...(when they could attempt breaking down the cockpit door or try phoning or activate an ELT, then perhaps whoever has control starts the final climb to eliminate the opposition or perhaps that is when the bad guy(s) get in?)

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 180): Bottom line: if the military radar from Butterworth is reliable, the 18:30 Doppler event must have happened in the vicinity of MEKAR--not IGEBO or POV

This looks like good analysis. Certainly appears to be new information, i.e. a new fact.

On whether they will find the A/C, I thought this article was good.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl...air-flight-370-will-be-determined/

[Edited 2014-04-18 01:34:03]

[Edited 2014-04-18 01:40:43]

[Edited 2014-04-18 02:01:28]

Whats the update on the submarine search

Quoting hawk21m (Reply 254): Whats the update on the submarine search

As far as I know, a second 'successful' search. 'Successful' in the sense that they got there, did a search, and got back; 'un-successful' in that they didn't find anything useful.

[Edited 2014-04-18 04:54:37]

Further to that:-

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/r...locate-missing-mh370/1/356356.html

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 167): I guess I should not have called it "RP2" since you explicitly defined "RP2" as the 18:22 position, rather than the last radar detection. Sorry for the confusion.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 180): Dude, download the chart below, break out your dividers, and convince yourself that the last radar pings are further than 200 nm from Butterworth AB! The radar pings are the little red dots....

Typical examples of your reasoning...
Unfortunately, the only officially published radar contact from Butterworth is 295° / 200 nm.
You just assume - as usual quickly and wrongly - that the little red dots are in fact Flight 370 returns.
Has anybody said it ?
No, just your sensationalistic approach.
On the other hand, I plotted the contacts Finn350 published, and tried to work out whether they could fit with the facts that we have.
The results are, to say the least, showing that they would stretch any navigational possibilities a lot.

The same chart ping track is so suspect that it allows you to imagine a totally reverse course ( i.e from NW to SE ) .... what kind of sure-fire data could allow that ?
I calculated, to the half-mile precision the positions of both "radar contacts" in order to check my earlier navigation findings :
so, we have :
RP1 : N 05.55 / E 099.02 at 08:02 Z
RP2 : N 06.50 / E 097.25 at 18:22 Z
These exact coordinates are within a mile of my plotter-cum-divider derived coordinates.

I'm analysing the impact of various trajectories from IGARI to RP1 in order to validate- or not - a pilot navigation.
More later, then.

The main disagreement Backseater, and others, have with me, is the precision of the *loci*.
For the moment, let's just say that there must have been a turn towards the south, at some time... and considering that the airplane path couldn't have been much over Sumatra, that turn must have happened west of the island and around 18:30 Z.
Otherwise, me might as well reject - en bloc - all the NTSB, AAIB, BEA, Inmarsat, Boeing, Honeywell... analyses and remain very comfortably content with a criminal scenario.

That would mean the end of this thread.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 178): 7BOEING7 merely expressed his considered professional opinion that a cockpit fire that destroyed the ACARS and both pilots, while leaving the A/P intact, allowing the a/c to keep flying for another 7 hours is highly improbable. That's just common sense besides.

... but common sense only applies when you've considered all propositions... which you have not done.

Quoting abba (Reply 226): Does that mean that there are no other interfaces to the communication systems than those that are located on the pedestal area? In other words: If the pedestal area is indeed - for one reason or another - destroyed then there will be no other way to use the radios and other communication equipment on-board a T7?

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 227): Assuming the passengers don't have SATCOM, yes, but that's normal on most modern Boeing airplanes (can't speak for AB). Some have HF control heads in the overhead but the ACP's are still in the pedestal... ... So realistically a complete loss of communications due to an issue with the center pedestal, if it has happened at all is probably rarer than a pilot purposely crashing an airplane.

Thanks for doing the search, Abba.
Fine.
Let's then imagine a fire starting in the pedestal:
The origin could be a short / an arc... maybe caused by a spill... or former older spills that have gone through the wires.
All this wires are bundled together... the fire can affect the other circuits... smoke starts to form, fire ( doesn't need to be a big one ) spreads further into the wmaintenance overhead panel, which do not relate to the pedestal units.

So, my question is : how do you fight a fire in the pedestal ?
The only extinguishers we have on board the airplane are Halon bottles and on some airlines a water extinguisher.
In the cockpit, it's just a Halon extinguisher, which is not really recommended on electrical fires, but that's all you have got...
You could dose the pedestal with Halon, but what good would that do ? Not a lot, I guess ---> you have to open the pedestal...
Fine, to do so, you'd have to remove a panel - or more -, which is fixed by a set of screws...
Unfortunately, since 11 / 09 there is no screw driver and your dependable Swiss Knife is forbidden for security concerns...
Now, you're in a bit of a jam... Sooo...
The only way to open the pedestal is, I'm afraid, to break into it by using tha fire axe or the jemmy bar you have in the cockpit...

Whaaaaaat ?!!!?

I'm open to any other methods and solutions... Honestly.
Using the fire axe isn't going to do any good to the equipment there, is it ?
Finally ( this post is getting too long ), please bear in mind that all the systems are intact, as their boxes are somewhere else (the E&E compartment among others)... but there's no longer a possible control to them :
- No more Xponder
- No more VHF / HF COM
- No more Radar
- No more LNAV / VNAV
- No more ACARS or SATCOM as they are managed through the CDU
- No more lower EICAS in all probability but it doesn't affect a control of any sort.

Someone talked about redundancy ?

The A/P is a case in itself : with the CDUs, the FMC managed navigation and performance are lost : We are left with the basic controls ( on the glareshield ) of Heading / Vertical speed or Track / FPA ; Speed ; Altitude hold or capture... and very probably the Auto throttle.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 257):

Or ... a variation

Halon works by smothering the supply of oxygen to the fire - once you've emptied the bottle(s), you've got oxygen again. So what else might you do? How about popping the circuit breakers for everything on the pedestal?

Which leaves you with
- No more Xponder
- No more VHF / HF COM
- No more Radar
- No more LNAV / VNAV
- No more ACARS or SATCOM as they are managed through the CDU
- No more lower EICAS in all probability but it doesn't affect a control of any sort.

But as Pihero noted, you still have the A/P in degraded (basic) modes.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 242): Quoting unitedchicago (Reply 241): No, you'd have to know to go find the CBs. They are in the EE bay, which is accessed by a trap door in the floor behind the cockpit. It's in the forward galley, I believe.

On the 737 the CVR and FDR are not located in the EE bay. They can be accessed from the cabin, if you know where to look. I assume this is true for other Boeing aircraft. From a design standpoint it may be important to locate these two boxes away from all other systems to avoid collateral damage from electrical fires etc.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 227): So realistically a complete loss of communications due to an issue with the center pedestal, if it has happened at all is probably rarer than a pilot purposely crashing an airplane.

It is very unlikely that coffee or a cup of any other fluids (except maybe fuel or oil) could damage the center pedestal to a point of being unsusable.

The console consists primarily of switch boxes. These are low power boxes that does not contain enough energy to sustain an intensive electrical fire to destroy the console. The high powered equipment boxes are in the EE bay. Each of the boxes are more or less sealed and will prevent fluid from entering the inner electrical working components. At most any fluid may short a wire bundle that was not properly sealed or connected (another unlikely scenario).

If there is a short and a small fire is started in the wiring (this would be the old wiring that was prone to fire which I believe is no longer used on any Boeing aircraft for a long time now) then pilot would smell the smoke long before the fire can even approach destroying the console.

As shown in the picture, the location of the switches provides enough separation that if a small fire disable one box, the other would be far enough to provide communication for a significant amount of time. While I do not know this exactly, but I suspect by design, the wire routing for the 3 com boxes would also be though different paths so damage to one bundle would not knock out the whole come system.

So yes I believe 7BOEING7 when he say that it is unlikely that the console can be destroyed so quickly as to knock out the com. The only scenario where I see a cup of fluid would destroy the console is if the fluid was some sort of fuel and was then lit on fire (by a short or a match).

I'm not sure about the console fire that was shown in the other photo. I would want to know what was the source of the fuel that fuel the fire.

bt

Quoting abba (Reply 252): Background checks of the people on board would by now have come up with something making this scenario likely. But as things stands now, nothing has come up that can explain why someone would commit suicide and at the same time kill all pax and crew. As Malaysian is a rather small airline, the crew might well know each other including FAs and pilots. This means that if this theory should be true, the person acting - if the person was part of the crew - would not only kill a number of unknown pax, but also people that the person - whoever it might be - might know quite well. Unless background checks come up with something rather substantial - and it hasn't - I consider this "obvious" reason to nothing but simplistic - that is if not impossible then highly unlikely.

This means absolutely nothing. Friends and family are often surprised when someone they know commits a serious crime. The common response often is "they were such a nice person" or "they could never have committed a crime like this". But this situation happens all the time.

Quoting abba (Reply 252): Background checks of the people on board would by now have come up with something making this scenario likely. But as things stands now, nothing has come up that can explain why someone would commit suicide and at the same time kill all pax and crew. As Malaysian is a rather small airline, the crew might well know each other including FAs and pilots. This means that if this theory should be true, the person acting - if the person was part of the crew - would not only kill a number of unknown pax, but also people that the person - whoever it might be - might know quite well. Unless background checks come up with something rather substantial - and it hasn't - I consider this "obvious" reason to nothing but simplistic - that is if not impossible then highly unlikely.

That Malaysian IS a small airline and the crew might well know each other would be, for some, an understandable reason to hold that "an act by a crew member" is possible. I think that "small airline" argument could go either way.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 259): I'm not sure about the console fire that was shown in the other photo. I would want to know what was the source of the fuel that fuel the fire.

Here's avherald excerpting from the final report:



Examination of the aircraft revealed that the fire originated near the first officer's oxygen mask supply tubing, which is located underneath the side console below the no. 3 right hand flight deck window. Oxygen from the flight crew oxygen system is suspected to have contributed to the fire's intensity and speed.

The cause of the fire could not be conclusively determined. It is not yet known whether the oxygen system breach occurred first, providing a flammable environment or whether the oxygen system breach occurred as a result of the fire.

Accident could be related to the following probable causes:

1. Electrical fault or short circuit resulted in electrical heating of flexible hoses in the flight crew oxygen system. (Electrical Short Circuits; contact between aircraft wiring and oxygen system components may be possible if multiple wire clamps are missing or fractured or if wires are incorrectly installed).

2. Exposure to Electrical Current


http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0 (with link to final repot)

Some questions have been in my mind and Phiero's reply 257 made me ask those questions:

1. Is there another location than cocpit, where failure could cause losing all communications at once?
2. Whera are all the antenna's located?
3. Are there back up antenna's / back up wiring for communication's?
4. Do the wire's for all communication methods run side by side in some area of aircraft?
5. What other wire's / hydraulic lines could be affected if there are some critical area's described above?

Losing all communications i mean:
- No more Xponder
- No more VHF / HF COM
- No more ACARS or SATCOM

Quoting kurtjeter (Reply 261): That Malaysian IS a small airline and the crew might well know each other would be, for some, an understandable reason to hold that "an act by a crew member" is possible. I think that "small airline" argument could go either way.

Do you mean something like an affair between one of the cabin crew and one of the pilots. One of the pilots terminates the affair and the crossed lover (he/she) poisons the pilots....?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 259): I'm not sure about the console fire that was shown in the other photo. I would want to know what was the source of the fuel that fuel the fire.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0

Oxygen fueled fire starting in the area of the F/O's oxygen mask.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 249):

I may be suffering from optimism, but I absolutely think they will find it. It's a matter of when, rather than if - for example, if they have to search every single centimeter of the last position circle that's in fuel range with a single Bluefin-type underwater autonomous vehicle, then you're looking at a multi-month, if not year-long, search.

There's too much riding on this for various geopolitical and technological reasons for it to just be left as missing.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 257): The only way to open the pedestal is, I'm afraid, to break into it by using tha fire axe or the jemmy bar you have in the cockpit... Whaaaaaat ?!!!? I'm open to any other methods and solutions... Honestly. Using the fire axe isn't going to do any good to the equipment there, is it ?

Although if there were a known fire in the pedestal and they were truly desperate to get at it, it's not beyond the realm of desperate thinking. Fire has a way sometimes of forcing radical choices upon one (from bitter personal experience).

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 259): If there is a short and a small fire is started in the wiring (this would be the old wiring that was prone to fire which I believe is no longer used on any Boeing aircraft for a long time now) then pilot would smell the smoke long before the fire can even approach destroying the console.

Sure. Under those circumstances, what should be the crew's first priority?

a) ascertain source of smell / smoke / fire and attempt to put it out by whatever means necessary
b) get on the radio and declare an emergency to someone who can't help them

Fire in the cockpit could also strongly motivate the crew to get out of their seats.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 269): Sure. Under those circumstances, what should be the crew's first priority?

This is not meant to be directly responsive to WingedMigrator's point, but here's Boeing and Airbus on an overview of fire, smoke, and fume checklists:

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/948.pdf

http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/smokeprocedures.pdf

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 83):

Well the Titanic was 270 metres long, lots of iron and thus magnetic anomalies. B772 is only 63 metres long and 60 meters wingspan, light construction ... and when broken in several parts... not easy job to find it.

After a month of reading this forum, I've come to a conclusion that we could very broadly identify a few groups :
the conspiracists
the crime novel buffs and Hollywood catastrophe movies fans
the techno geeks
the interested fence sitters
the aviation fans
the safety crowd
......
Of course, one poster could belong to several groups, but you see my point.
There is though one that has piqued my interest : The BDCS, for " Boeing Damage Control Squad ", whose sole purpose is to shoot down in flames the merest hint of a technical fault in the airplane.
Reading their profile, one would think that they should be perfectly able to partici^pate in a very meaningful manner, give us some insights on the workings of the aircraft systems, help us debunk the most outreageous scenari on , for instance the different navigation modes, the different A/P modes, trajectories, systems... etc...
But no, funnily enough : an avowed T7 pilot should have destroyed, right from the beginning, the rantings on Coriolis, inertial tracks... and so on... No.
On the other hand, rubbishing any attempt at leaving the *nefarious activity* suddenly sees the BDCS back with a dismissal, short and peremptory.
So, that's my conspiracy theory : are they under orders or are they acting ontheir faith for the perfection of their baby ?
That could also be my paranoia.
An example is above :

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 259): It is very unlikely that coffee or a cup of any other fluids (except maybe fuel or oil) could damage the center pedestal to a point of being unsusable.

Has anybody ever said that ?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 259): The console consists primarily of switch boxes. These are low power boxes that does not contain enough energy to sustain an intensive electrical fire to destroy the console.

The least is to provide a value for the voltage and the power they use... and they are not negligible.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 259): If there is a short and a small fire is started in the wiring (this would be the old wiring that was prone to fire which I believe is no longer used on any Boeing aircraft for a long time now) then pilot would smell the smoke long before the fire can even approach destroying the console.

Yes, of course, this is after all a modern airplane and unlikely to have *old wiring*... but it is also a particular airplane that's more than ten years old and have stationed a long time in a very warm / hot and very humid environment.
And what would that pilot with such an extraordinary sense of smell that he can identify, at night in a low light environment that there is a fire in the pedestal ?... what would he do, Fight the fire ? with what and how ? ( Funny we're going back to my previous questions )

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 259): it is unlikely that the console can be destroyed so quickly as to knock out the com. The only scenario where I see a cup of fluid would destroy the console is if the fluid was some sort of fuel and was then lit on fire (by a short or a match).

... and back to criminal intent.
Bravo !

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 262): http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0 Oxygen fueled fire starting in the area of the F/O's oxygen mask.

Yep pure oxygen is very dangerous. If it was an oxygen fire in the cockpit. The plane is not going to be on auto-pilot for long.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 257): The only way to open the pedestal is, I'm afraid, to break into it by using tha fire axe or the jemmy bar you have in the cockpit... Whaaaaaat ?!!!? I'm open to any other methods and solutions... Honestly.

Any mechanic may have more descriptions . . . but . . .

Those control panels on the consoles are typically mounted using 1/4 turns Dzus fasteners. Depending on the design, the 1/4 turn fastener can be manipulated using a phillips head or flat head screw driver. Sometimes internal hex head or even knurled head (finger release) are used. A folding multi-tool would probably be sufficient if you want to pull one of those box to look or fight the fire.

bt

Quoting Pihero (Reply 272): The least is to provide a value for the voltage and the power they use.

Typical aircraft voltage is 28V DC or 400 V AC (I'm not sure about the AC part). Most likely the voltage to control panel boxes are 28V. It's the current that's going to get you, and I do not believe there would be much current going to those boxes. From a design stand point, you design the gauge of the wiring to those boxes to handle the design current (reduce weight).

If excess current (something that would cause a significant electrical fire) would occur for some reason, the wire would melt long before the current reach the boxes and light them on fire.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 272): Yes, of course, this is after all a modern airplane and unlikely to have *old wiring*... but it is also a particular airplane that's more than ten years old and have stationed a long time in a very warm / hot and very humid environment.

Old wiring as in the wiring with shielding that caused the MD-11 crash. This was quite a few years ago so I suspect this plane will have wire with shielding that is less prone to fire and smoke.

bt

If there was an unprecedented mechanical failure situation aboard MH 370 and the pilots were alive without being able to successfully troubleshoot the issue at hand while circling, most likely they would have called their operations base for help (like how QF 32 did). But, i have a question - are engineers from the manufacturers available on some kind of a hotline that the airline's operations base and the pilots can utilize to help resolve that unprecedented situation for a successful outcome?
I am not suggesting that this would have been a possibility in the MH 370 case but i am trying to understand the extend of support available from the manufacturers to resolve an unprecedented in-flight emergency. During my stint at Boeing i had heard that such a support structure exists but never bothered to find out the intricacies nor did i learn how it works in the field or whether it has really been used in the past.
In the MH 370 context if the pilots were alive and were able to communicate would such help from Boeing have helped in any way?

[Edited 2014-04-18 11:16:54]

[Edited 2014-04-18 11:27:11]

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 274): If excess current (something that would cause a significant electrical fire) would occur for some reason, the wire would melt long before the current reach the boxes and light them on fire.

Agreed. But does it have to ignite the box to disable it ?
I don't think so.
But you still have lost the box.
And let us remember, these wires are bundled. the heat can spread to the whole bundle, or can't it ?
Am I right ? or am I wrong ?
by the way, the CDU will use 28v DC and use 75 watts. One box.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 274): 400 V AC (I'm not sure about the AC part)

It's normally 115 v / 400 hz, actually.

[Edited 2014-04-18 10:56:58]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 272): There is though one that has piqued my interest : The BDCS, for " Boeing Damage Control Squad ", whose sole purpose is to shoot down in flames the merest hint of a technical fault in the airplane.

I don't know exactly where I fall in your groups, but having followed this from the start I am open to some sort of technical fault causing or precipitating the loss of the plane. I'm no Boeing apologist, but I see the battery fire argument leading to a loss of comms as less plausible, but not totally implausible.

Whatever brought the plane down, i think likely involved the incapacitation of the passengers and/or cabin crew. If the plane was taken over by someone in a hostile manor leaving 200+ people alert and awake in the cabin for a flight several hours and thousands of miles from where they intended to go is a big liability.

Do the flight attendants usually know the cockpit door code? I assume if it's a digital keypad the pilots or anyone on the flight deck could change the code to keep the FAs out?

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 270): here's Boeing and Airbus on an overview of fire, smoke, and fume checklists:

Thanks, these are very interesting. The main point in both Airbus and Boeing checklists is that time is of the essence and not one second must be wasted to find the source of smoke/fire and eliminate it. The Airbus document is also interesting in that the only communication actions that it mentions are with cabin crew, for the purpose of finding and eliminating the source.

In light of all this, I don't find it particularly suspicious that there were no communications from the crew to ATC. If they had been fighting a smoke/fire event, that would have been the last thing on their minds.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 277): I see the battery fire argument leading to a loss of comms as less plausible, but not totally implausible.

AFAIK, the battery fire has never been envisaged here.

I am certainly not arrogant enough to say that the pedestal fumes / smoke / fire scenario is what happened.
It is just a pointer toward an explanation of the events leading to the loss of Flight 370, in other words it is just one possible scenario - which I haven't pushed to it's maximum extent.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 270): This is not meant to be directly responsive to WingedMigrator's point, but here's Boeing and Airbus on an overview of fire, smoke, and fume checklists: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/948.pdf http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/smokeprocedures.pdf

The papers aftgaffe has linked to above are certainly worth a good read : They talk about crew procedures, the philosophy behind and the recommendations.
They could be also an introduction on the T7 manual and the fire / smoke procedures particuliar to this type.
But that's for later.

For the moment, let's consider that fumes from an electric fire are very dangerous and moreover, Halon is a highly toxic stuff : in a confined environment - and what could be more confined than a flight deck ? - it could cause nausea, dizziness leading to loss of consciousness.
Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, that's what on board our airplanes !
( I bet someone will be talking about facemasks    )

Quoting Pihero (Reply 276): Quoting bikerthai (Reply 274): 400 V AC (I'm not sure about the AC part) It's normally 115 v / 400 hz, actually.

You can tell I'm not an Electrical Engineer  

Quoting Pihero (Reply 276): And let us remember, these wires are bundled. the heat can spread to the whole bundle, or can't it ? Am I right ? or am I wrong ?

Yes. The bundle would be kaput. But any a good wire designer would have the three bundle routed from the three radio console to the radios using different paths so as damage to one bundle (via fire or expelled turbine blades) would not disable all communication.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 276): by the way, the CDU will use 28v DC and use 75 watts. One box.

Not enough to power an Easy Bake oven  

bt

Quoting Pihero (Reply 257): Unfortunately, the only officially published radar contact from Butterworth is 295° / 200 nm.

The official quote about a radar contact is AFAIK in the March 12th press conference in KL:
(the Guardian) 9:50am An aviation chief gave the coordinates for the last known radar sighting of the missing plane.
(Twitter: Military: 2.15am plot was 200 miles NW of Penang - cannot guarantee was MH370 - unidentified)

Notice that on March 12th, in many reports, the 200nm radar return is always associated with 02:15. Later, when the Butterworth AB radar plot appears at the Beijing conference, the 200nm radar return is time stamped at 02:22???

The most complete snapshot of the radar plot is the one provided by Finn350 in thread 44, post 77 shown again here:


In thread 54, I had surmised that the arrow in the upper left hand corner was probably incorrect because it is not coherent with the geometry of the whole plot. Reading again all the reports from March 12th, I think that the slide was probably doctored by the Malaysian (to safeguard "national security interests"?). Replacing "200nm" with "254nm" but keeping "02:22H" probably restores the original slide.

A central question is whether or not the Butterworth AB radar plot is evidence we can rely on. Whereas it is the basis for the low level flying scenario I have proposed, you apparently need to reject all radar returns on that plot in order to make your a/c fault scenario work. So, where does that plot come from? Should we suspect it to be a fake concocted by the RMAF? Did they track another unknown a/c? And if that plot is fake, does that make a lonely radar return at 200nm trustworthy?

Clearly, arguing pro or con will not bring a consensus now, it certainly did not before.

It would be great if you could just ring some of your BEA colleagues/friends and get an informal "corroborated" statement re. the Butterworth slide.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 253): It would be interesting to see what the scans from the Blue Fin 2 look like, will they release them?

The edge tech 2200 side scan sonar is integrated onto the Bluefin 21 in its 110/410 Khz dual frequency variant. As I understand it, with increased frequency comes increased "resolution" at the expense of swath width (height above ocean floor permitting).

One example of 410Khz SSS imagery of a submarine can be seen here
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03u166/media/u166sonar.html
It'll be quite the challenge if that is the equipment - of course the operator doesn't have to go with the off-the-shelf solution.

[Edited 2014-04-18 11:35:00]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 276): Agreed. But does it have to ignite the box to disable it ? I don't think so. But you still have lost the box. And let us remember, these wires are bundled. the heat can spread to the whole bundle, or can't it ?

Which is why I'd pop the breakers for everything on the pedestal. The remaining A/P modes will keep the plane stable while you're isolating / fighting the source. Same result - boxes are lost.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 275): But, i have a question - are engineers from the manufacturers available on some kind of a hotline that the airline's operations base and the pilots can utilize to help resolve that unprecedented situation for a successful outcome?

At Boeing there are two(?) engineering pilots for each model that can be called (they are not on call) should something come up -- I believe various engineering groups have people designated to call also.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 272): There is though one that has piqued my interest : The BDCS, for " Boeing Damage Control Squad ", whose sole purpose is to shoot down in flames the merest hint of a technical fault in the airplane.

Even though I'm retired Jim McN called me just last night to make sure I was doing an adequate job of crushing any talk of a mechanical malfunction -- RIGHT!!!!. I think Boeing would rather that none of their employees participated in any discussions on A.net.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 272): But no, funnily enough : an avowed T7 pilot should have destroyed, right from the beginning, the rantings on Coriolis, inertial tracks... and so on... No.

Last time I thought about Coriolis or inertial tracks was when I was one of the last two pilots to go through U S Navy navigation training 40+ years ago -- in the flying I did for the next 40+ years those words have no relationship to the job I did -- other people here with more knowledge of the subject were doing an excellent job.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 279): AFAIK, the battery fire has never been envisaged here.

My mistake for not being more clear. I was referring more to Kaiarahi's comments about laptop batteries catching fire. Less likely, but not impossible IMO.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 279): I am certainly not arrogant enough to say that the pedestal fumes / smoke / fire scenario is what happened. It is just a pointer toward an explanation of the events leading to the loss of Flight 370, in other words it is just one possible scenario - which I haven't pushed to it's maximum extent.

I've tried to keep an open mind about all scenarios that are either equipment or human driven and I think you have too. Just because I lean toward a scenario that is more human driven rather than equipment driven that doesn't mean I think the crew were to blame. Which, sometimes is where we (as in the forum) have in other incidents become too focused on the pilots. They may ultimately be to blame, but it's just as plausible that someone else who was not a crew member took over the flight.

But, as you point out there are equipment driven scenarios that could have caused this as well.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 276): And let us remember, these wires are bundled. the heat can spread to the whole bundle, or can't it ? Am I right ? or am I wrong ?

Yes the wires are bundled but each box on the pedestal is bundled separately from every other box to its source. The only chance for an issue with one progressing to another would be where they are touching. Since they all don't touch each other you wouldn't lose everything at once. It might be progressive to a certain extent but with the emphasis on smoke/smells these days you'd be headed to an airport and communicating.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 285): But, as you point out there are equipment driven scenarios that could have caused this as well.

And let's not forget, they're not either/or propositions. AF447 had an equipment issue that should have been perfectly manageable by the flight crew if they'd flown the correct procedure - but they didn't and it wasn't.

Nor have I forgotten all the allegations about the crew on those threads - they were out partying the night before, the FO/PNF was having an affair with the FO/PF's wife, the captain was humping his girlfriend in the crew rest - many of them put forward by some of the posters on these threads who seem to emerge only when there's an accident and make no effort to understand technical aspects, even when they're explained by experienced aviation professionals.

Nor have I forgotten Erebus. For years, it was thought the pilots had made a gross error - until it emerged that NZ had changed the pre-programed flight track and omitted to inform the flight crew.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 281): Replacing "200nm" with "254nm" but keeping "02:22H" probably restores the original slide.

So hold on a minute, this slide shows conclusively what you would like it to say, instead of what it actually says?

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 286): you'd be headed to an airport and communicating

You'd be headed to an airport, yes, but not necessarily communicating. You'd have far more important and pressing tasks to carry out in order to find and eliminate the source. Not that I would presume to tell you how to handle a smoke/fire emergency on a 777.

When considering scenarios where the pilots smash the central pedestal with a fire ax, keep in mind the time constraints. The last verbal communication from the aircraft was at 17:19:29 Z 'Good Night Malaysian Three Seven Zero'. Last ADS-B data from the aircraft was collected at 17:21:03 Z (source: http://theaviationist.com/tag/ads-b/). That leaves about 90 seconds for the pilots to become aware of smoke and fire and then start smashing the central pedestal. As the approach for the fire fighting would be quite novel, I am not sure they would take such drastic measures so early in the fire fighting.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 289): As the approach for the fire fighting would be quite novel, I am not sure they would take such drastic measures so early in the fire fighting.

They might prefer more traditional methods for isolating the source, such as pulling circuit breakers.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 288): Quoting BackSeater (Reply 281): Replacing "200nm" with "254nm" but keeping "02:22H" probably restores the original slide. So hold on a minute, this slide shows conclusively what you would like it to say, instead of what it actually says?

I am not trying to make the slide say what I would like it to say. It can say whatever as long as it is internally coherent.

As the slide stands, it contains a lot of extremely concrete and critical data plus two explanatory blocks for the reader. The slide is geometrically coherent but only if you modify the upper left hand block:
- you can change the time to 02:15H, keep 200nm, but then you must also change the arrow.
- you can keep the time as 02:22H, change 200 into 254, and keep the arrow.

Take your pick.
Either way, it has been fudged. Pardon me, it contains an honest mistake made by the typist!

Quoting EricR (Reply 260): This means absolutely nothing.

You are absolutely and completely wrong

Quoting EricR (Reply 260): Friends and family are often surprised when someone they know commits a serious crime

No. Rarely. I have had to do the funeral of quite a few - more than I like. There might well be facts that the friends and family don't know about. But after the fact - when they hear (usually and unfortunately) - from the bank or the doctor, they understand why. No one commit suicide without a very good reason that will be known to all close to the person within a week.

I guarantee.

55 Threads, 40+ days, LOADS of speculation, the wildest of theories, some great & knowledable discussions, some serious wisdom, and a few members that at least try keeping it all sane!

yet worst of all, 55 threads on, 239 SOB still mIssing and we are no smarter than on day 1! Mindbogingly sad!

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 291): As the slide stands, it contains a lot of extremely concrete and critical data plus two explanatory blocks for the reader. The slide is geometrically coherent but only if you modify the upper left hand block: - you can change the time to 02:15H, keep 200nm, but then you must also change the arrow. - you can keep the time as 02:22H, change 200 into 254, and keep the arrow.

I believe the plot to be real, but there is some confusion how to interpret the timings, especially as Inmarsat example 400 kn southern track (which is believed to be the correct one) indicate a turn south north of Sumatra.

Here is yet another slide from another forum where they have overlaid the radar echoes on a larger map at 18:22 Z. MH370 is near EK343 and ahead of it. This probably led to theories about MH370 following another airplane.

I'm not licenced on the B777, but in all planes I have been working on the avionics part of the center pedestal is part of the avionics cooling system. This means that air gets blown through it and sucked out by the avionics cooling exhaust fan. There is usually a smoke detector in the exhaust ducts to warn of an electric fire in the avionics equipment. You can feel the air (and dust) blowing out of the pedestal when you remove a panel while the plane is powered.

Jan

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 294): believe the plot to be real, but there is some confusion how to interpret the timings,

I agree. But the timings are probably on the original plot as illegible tags.
What is Malaysia waiting to make them available? Yes, I know, they have to be "corroborated".
Two ways to do that:
- look at the Hat Yai radar returns (that radar should have somewhat erratic but very similar radar returns)
- wait for the DFDR to be recovered.
In the mean time...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 257): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 180): Dude, download the chart below, break out your dividers, and convince yourself that the last radar pings are further than 200 nm from Butterworth AB! The radar pings are the little red dots.... Typical examples of your reasoning... Unfortunately, the only officially published radar contact from Butterworth is 295° / 200 nm. You just assume - as usual quickly and wrongly - that the little red dots are in fact Flight 370 returns. Has anybody said it ? No, just your sensationalistic approach. On the other hand, I plotted the contacts Finn350 published, and tried to work out whether they could fit with the facts that we have. The results are, to say the least, showing that they would stretch any navigational possibilities a lot. The same chart ping track is so suspect that it allows you to imagine a totally reverse course ( i.e from NW to SE ) .... what kind of sure-fire data could allow that ? I calculated, to the half-mile precision the positions of both "radar contacts" in order to check my earlier navigation findings : so, we have : RP1 : N 05.55 / E 099.02 at 08:02 Z RP2 : N 06.50 / E 097.25 at 18:22 Z These exact coordinates are within a mile of my plotter-cum-divider derived coordinates. I'm analysing the impact of various trajectories from IGARI to RP1 in order to validate- or not - a pilot navigation. More later, then. The main disagreement Backseater, and others, have with me, is the precision of the *loci*. For the moment, let's just say that there must have been a turn towards the south, at some time... and considering that the airplane path couldn't have been much over Sumatra, that turn must have happened west of the island and around 18:30 Z. Otherwise, me might as well reject - en bloc - all the NTSB, AAIB, BEA, Inmarsat, Boeing, Honeywell... analyses and remain very comfortably content with a criminal scenario. That would mean the end of this thread.

Wrong again. The 195R/200nm radar range from Butterworth is simply false. It cannot be true. If you'll look at the slide, the line from the caption points to the last radar contact a few miles to the west of MEKAR. This position, 6.566667°N/96.383333°E is at 286°T / 248.4 nm from Butterworth according to SkyVector.

And by the way, your "RP2" is at a bearing from Butterworth AB of more like 288° rather that 295°. See chart below.

I'm assuming the time--18:22 is true. Therefore, if the crossing of Pulau Perak at 18:02 is to be believed, that's a distance of 162 nm from Pulau Perak to the last radar ping just to the west of MERAK, yielding a ground speed of 486 knots.

The subsequent Doppler event starts at 18:25 and ends at 18:29, according to Duncan Steel's analysis. Thus, assuming a ground speed of 486 knots, the big BFO at 18:25 corresponds to a turn at NILAM. Assuming it continues on route P627 (NILAM SANOB IGEBO POVUS BEDAX), the a/c would cross the 18:29 "ping ring" at precisely 18:29.

So, navigationally, everything works out perfectly. If you back track at 486 knots, then the a/c should have passed IGARI at about 17:24--pretty darn close to estimate. Going forward, a turn at NILAM onto route P627 is consistent with both the Doppler and the transmission time latency to the Inmarsat satellite. The main turn to the south must have happened later, probably at BEDAX.

Meanwhile, the radar data itself shows an a/c on a track consisting of PENANG VAMPI MEKAR. The radar track of the last leg (VAMPI MEKAR) perfectly straddles route N571. The last couple of radar pings are consistent with a slight course adjustment to NILAM.

In other words, the radar data combined with the Inmarsat data indicate an a/c following a complex waypoint path, specifically: IGARI VENLI VPG (Penang) VAMPI MEKAR NILAM SANOB IGEBO POVUS BEDAX.

Quoting abba (Reply 292): You are absolutely and completely wrong

No he's not. Look, I work in a law enforcement job where I deal with people who commit violent crimes and others who are suicidal. I see this stuff every day. It is an absolute fact that some of these folks are living a life that their friends and family are completely unaware of.

In most cases, violent behavior (including suicide) is a predictable outcome that people who know the subject are not surprised by. In some cases, however, that behavior is totally unexpected and friends and family are utterly surprised and left in disbelief.

Human behavior is highly variable. It is complete foolishness to suggest these things are so predictable. They are not.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 297): And by the way, your "RP2" is at a bearing from Butterworth AB of more like 288° rather that 295°. See chart below.

Looking at your figure: what if the 295° heading is not a heading from Butterworth AB but the plane's heading at 18:22 Z? However, it seems that does not match either.

[Edited 2014-04-18 13:04:50]