boacvc10
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:31 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:25 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 91):
There are several portable ELT's, plus the ELT's with the rafts. Someone is likely to deploy one of those.

Did it sink before the ELT transmission could be monitored? I'm confused by what I read online:

From NOAA publication SARSAT comparison

Quote:

Average initial detection/alerting by orbiting satellites is
about 45 minutes.
o Average subsequent satellite passes every 60 minutes.
o Vessel/aircraft ID, point of contact information
provided with alerts allows rapid verification or
stand-down.
o Allows false alert follow -up to continuously improve
system integrity/reliability.
o Near instantaneous detection by geostationary
satellites. System provides world-wide coverage.
Up, up and Away!
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:36 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 99):
We can make a pretty good guess with the available data. It must have run for the predicted 2 minutes 40 seconds and then it got 9 seconds into the login before it died.

So it ran for about three minutes.

There is a 90 second pause in the log-on sequence after the initial 9 second sequence (compare to the 1825 Z logon sequence) so it can have ran additional 90 seconds.

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 100):
Did it sink before the ELT transmission could be monitored? I'm confused by what I read online

Agree the reference is confusing. The relevant quote is:

Quote:
Near instantaneous detection by geostationary satellites. System provides world-wide coverage.

It does not matter how much time it takes for orbiting satellites as there are geostationary satellites.

Obviously, the fixed ELT didn't activate either due to the nature of the crash (too violent, too soft) or the fixed ELT was disabled or non-functional.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:50 pm

[quote=Finn350,reply=59]I fully agree on that. Even the report implies somebody most likely re-configured aircraft electric buses at 1825 Z (SATCOM device booting up), turned south a few minutes later and set up auto-pilot. After that the report assumes no further human intervention.

Correct. This is the scenario implied, and is as such quite misleading. Inherent is a glaring contradiction. If you know it likely that a master hand is alive and well in the a/c, manning the controls at will and whim, then it seems illogical to assume "no further intervention".

Despite it "looking" as though there was no further intervention (and this could be the case), knowing that someone has every capability and reason to continue to intervene puts serious doubt into this assumption.

That we have not a shred of debris, nor any ELT signals, at least on the surface of things, seems to also suggest that it is more likely than not that there WAS further human intervention. It is a poor assumption, and perhaps a very costly one.

It strikes me as quite lazy and simplistic.

[Edited 2014-06-27 13:52:49]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:03 pm

There is nothing to add weight to either theory.
We simply don't know what went on after the turn south.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:10 pm

Quoting sipadan (Reply 102):
> After that the report assumes no further human intervention.

Correct. This is the scenario implied, and is as such quite misleading. Inherent is a glaring contradiction. If you know it likely that a master hand is alive and well in the a/c, manning the controls at will and whim, then it seems illogical to assume "no further intervention".

Nonesense. Analysis B&C specifically allow for "Heading changes allowed at each arc crossing" which clearly implies further intervention. Analysis C allows for "Groundspeed can change at each arc crossing".
Down with that sort of thing!
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:16 pm



Quote:
Quoting tailskid: There is nothing to add weight to either theory. We simply don't know what went on after the turn south.

Absence of debris is more consistent with a controlled ditching than an uncontrolled falling out of the sky...

[Edited 2014-06-27 15:17:13]
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:19 pm

Quoting sipadan (Reply 102):
Correct. This is the scenario implied, and is as such quite misleading. Inherent is a glaring contradiction. If you know it likely that a master hand is alive and well in the a/c, manning the controls at will and whim, then it seems illogical to assume "no further intervention".

In the scenario considered the plane is de-pressurized. Would the person in control of the plane re-pressurize the plane?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 103):
There is nothing to add weight to either theory.

If one of the theories you suggest is a mechanical failure theory, I haven't yet seen a plausible one which could explain the loss of transponder at 1722 Z and re-configuring the left AC bus at 1825 Z, over one hour later. I assume the Joint Investigation Team has not found a plausible mechanical failure theory either.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 104):

Nonesense. Analysis B&C specifically allow for "Heading changes allowed at each arc crossing" which clearly implies further intervention. Analysis C allows for "Groundspeed can change at each arc crossing".

Yes, they considered also other alternatives, but reached the following conclusion (p. 34):

Quote:
Given these observations, the final stages of the unresponsive crew/ hypoxia event type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction:
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:21 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 104):
> After that the report assumes no further human intervention.

Nonesense. Analysis B&C specifically allow for "Heading changes allowed at each arc crossing" which clearly implies further intervention. Analysis C allows for "Groundspeed can change at each arc crossing".

Such course and speed changes could result from changing winds and magnetic declination (and possible Coriolis effects   ) in certain navigational modes...
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:36 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 105):
Absence of debris is more consistent with a controlled ditching than an uncontrolled falling out of the sky...

A problem there is that they may have spent the bulk of their effort looking for debris in the wrong places. If the plane came down hundreds of miles from the Ocean Shield search area, the ocean currents where it came down were most likely different from those projected earlier. Thus any debris might have been a thousand miles from where they looked.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:40 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 106):
If one of the theories you suggest is a mechanical failure theory......

I am 100% convinced that Zaharie did this intentionally.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:09 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 107):
Such course and speed changes could result from changing winds and magnetic declination (and possible Coriolis effects   ) in certain navigational modes...

OK - then change "implies further intervention" to "allows for further intervention". Same difference.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:11 pm

I am referring to a post by 7BOEING7 in part #67;

Quote:
If you're looking to stay aloft for as long as possible without going anywhere (max endurance) I would suggest flaps up holding speed. Depending on initial aircraft weight the lowest fuel flow/hr starts at about 15,000' and climbs to 30,000 as the weight decreases.


I found the following data for 777-200ER Trent892 (to be verified):
Cruise
W=200,000kg FL390 Mach=.84 Tot FF=6,108kg.hr
W=180,000kg FL410 Mack=.94 Tot FF=5,550kg.hr

Holding Flaps up
W=200,000kg FL200 KIAS=216kts Tot FF=5,260kg.hr
W=180,000kg FL250 KIAS=209kts Tot FF=4,700kg.hr (becomes 5,140kg/hr at 5,000ft)

Holding Flaps 1 (Note: table limited to FL200)
W=200,000kg FL200 KIAS=196kts Tot FF=5,620kg.hr
W=180,000kg FL200 KIAS=189kts Tot FF=5,050kg.hr (becomes 5,410kg/hr at 5,000ft)

Flaps 5: I do not have any data but obviously one could fly slower while burning more fuel per hour.

What I draw from the comparative data above is that staying aloft for the longest time can be achieved by going either fast at high altitude or real slow at medium altitudes. If we do not choose the minimum fuel flow altitude, it looks like one can fly real slow and low while burning approximately the same amount of fuel per hour as at cruise.

IMO that observation opens up other scenarios not in the Southern Indian Ocean(SIO) but obviously SIO remains the leading candidate per the ATSB report.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:17 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 105):
Absence of debris is more consistent with a controlled ditching than an uncontrolled falling out of the sky...

Absence of debris is more consistent with a very large, trash-strewn ocean far from shores and shipping lanes that was not searched until nearly 2 weeks after impact, where storms occurred and winds and currents drove floating debris even further offshore over an enormous drift area, half the size of the United States. That's the simplest and most plausible explanation for the lack of debris.

Anybody who views the lack of debris as evidence of a controlled ditching is confusing absence of evidence (we found no debris) with evidence of absence (there were no debris).
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:29 am

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 104):
Nonesense. Analysis B&C specifically allow for "Heading changes allowed at each arc crossing" which clearly implies further intervention. Analysis C allows for "Groundspeed can change at each arc crossing".

Rubbish. Either a crew are incapacitated, or they are not. I submit that Zaharie was not. Also, it was Finn350 that said that said that the report "assumes no further intervention". Here is an example of how in a sense the ATSB is misleading to the layman. Evidenced from the Sunday Times, as drawn from the report:

"The incapacitation theory suggests that MH370’s pilots managed to reset the plane’s autopilot on to a southerly heading in a desperate effort to get back towards Malaysia for an emergency landing, but became too incapacitated to complete it — causing their plane to keep flying south until the fuel ran out."

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 111):
IMO that observation opens up other scenarios not in the Southern Indian Ocean(SIO) but obviously SIO remains the leading candidate per the ATSB report.

Exactly. Stating the obvious, there are a number of things that are just not quite adding up.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 103):
We simply don't know what went on after the turn south.

Yeah...but neither does anyone. I believe this can be resolved to a fair degree of certainty. We are missing something. The clue is there to be found, IMO.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:40 am

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 110):
OK - then change "implies further intervention" to "allows for further intervention". Same difference.

No, it's not. And, furthermore, and most importantly, the report DOES ASSUME no further intervention...hence the assumptions.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:15 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 113):

Evidenced from the Sunday Times, as drawn from the report:
"The incapacitation theory suggests that MH370’s pilots managed to reset the plane’s autopilot on to a southerly heading in a desperate effort to get back towards Malaysia for an emergency landing, but became too incapacitated to complete it — causing their plane to keep flying south until the fuel ran out."

Wow. That's nothing but the purest invention out of thin air.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:32 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 114):
No, it's not. And, furthermore, and most importantly, the report DOES ASSUME no further intervention...hence the assumptions.

No it doesn't. The assumptions are spelled out in the document.You're making stuff up. The assumptions are listed from p24 on in detail. You are lying.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:39 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 113):
Evidenced from the Sunday Times, as drawn from the report:

"The incapacitation theory suggests that MH370’s pilots managed to reset the plane’s autopilot on to a southerly heading in a desperate effort to get back towards Malaysia for an emergency landing, but became too incapacitated to complete it — causing their plane to keep flying south until the fuel ran out."

Please don't use the medias interpretation of the report as evidence of the intent of the report - it's irrelevant. Quote from the report directly, and debate it. The Sunday Times is from the NI stable that had people pissing on the dead in Hillsborough - something we're currently discovering was utter, and malicious, nonsense.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14497
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:51 am

While the Malaysian government leaders may be dithering as to the search, clearly the Australian and Chinese governments are continuing to using the best available information and to keep doing searches for the possible location of the remains of this a/c. The Aussies out of a certain amount of humanity, the Chinese as to many of those aboard were PRC citizens and want to located any possible human remains to give them a proper burial to satisfy their customs.

The Malaysians have a conflict of interest in finding the a/c and most importantly it's recorders as may remove the ability to blame the situation on Boeing or USA based component suppliers, or a terror act, rather than one of its citizens 'going rogue'.

The basic suggestion in the recent preliminary reports by the Australian government of the path of the a/c after a certain point on 'automatic' and all on board asphyxiated by a certain point is very careful not to blame the pilot or Boeing or others. That is the right and proper way to do an investigation. You want the info and make some reasonable guesses as to what happened, follow those guesses and hopefully you will find the a/c's remains to figure out what happened, why and how to reduce such risks in the future.

If this had happened to an airliner from Europe or North America, you know our governments would spend whatever it takes to seek and recover such an aircraft's remainst, look at the effort done with TWA 800 to recover it's remains (although it was in relatively shallow water vs. this a/c.)
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:54 am

I've drawn the ping rings in Google Earth and shown plots for two speeds: 340kts and 440 kts.

They are shown as white arcs and I've only included the part of the arcs that the plane may have passed through.
(They may look odd but they are copied from the Inmarsat ping rings that Duncan Steel was so kind to post as a KML file. The arc segments are accurate.) note: the ping rings are derived purely from the BTO data, no BFO data was involved in their calculation.

18:29 ring plots along an east - west axis and is seen near the northwestern end of the Malacca Strait.
The 19:41 ring has two points marked on it the leftmost is 340nm from the first ping ring, the second point is 440nm from the first ping ring. A similar pattern exists for all the rings. The last ring is the 00:11 ring, I didn't plot the actual seventh ring as it would have produced more clutter than information.

The alignment and spacing of the rings shows the difficulty in plotting the course of the plane from the available data.
This view was helpful for me to understand the ping rings vs the plots; I hope it will be for others here.

Edit: I forgot to plot the last 340kt point, it wound up along the last arc about 100 nm from waypoint IKASA.

Note that the Inmarsat hotspot and Duncan Steel's points have lines from POVUS to those two points.
Those are great circle courses. So we can see that the Inmarsat data doesn't indicate great circle courses at steady speed. That leaves me confused, I couldn't imagine anything except a GC course for the southern leg.

http://imageshack.com/a/img840/5565/5y0z.jpg

[Edited 2014-06-27 21:16:02]
 
hivue
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:20 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 113):
I believe this can be resolved to a fair degree of certainty. We are missing something.

Yes, the wreckage.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 113):
The clue is there to be found, IMO

But it's in several thousand meters of water.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
bluesky9
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:02 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 97):
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 91):
[LTC8K6]
What happens if you do a controlled ditching with the passengers and cabin crew still alive? Seems like that's very unlikely. There are several portable ELT's, plus the ELT's with the rafts. Someone is likely to deploy one of those.

[7BOEING7]
Mystery of MH370 wouldn't have been a mystery.


Yes good points.

Assuming the worst case that the A/C was depressurized at altitude, the pilot(s) and some pax may have been asleep/hypoxic. Recall that recently a teenager survived an unpressurized flight from US to Hawaii in the wheel well. Then on MH370, after the engines flamed out, if there was someone alive at the controls they would probably not wake until it was too late (see other hypoxia accidents). Even so, if the ditching was controlled [as LTC8K6 said] there most likely would have been some pax that could have deployed the life rafts and consequently ELTs. In addition the automatic ELT was also not deployed.

On balance everything points away from a controlled (or successful) ditching. If the ditching was uncontrolled, it would likely be a high energy impact and therefore it is likely that there was debris. The fact that no debris has been found could be due to either; (i) the huge size of the search area (see the ATSB report for comparisons with size of other countries) and the extremely difficult conditions [most likely], or (ii) the A/C did not go down in the search area.

In any case, a high energy impact would mean that the hydrophone analysis could be very useful as a completely independent method of calculating or refining the impact location. The Chagos (UK controlled) hydrophone data could be crucial to this line of inquiry. It is strange they have not proactively provided this data to the inquiry.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:32 am

There does seem to be a 'scenario' that fits most if not all the known facts.

1. A fire in (or under) the flight-deck.

2. The pilots switch off as much of the electrics as possible (I believe that that is the recommended procedure in case of a cockpit fire) and also climb to 45,000 feet in the hope of 'starving the fire of oxygen.'

3. They also turn west and then south with a view to making an emergency landing.

4. The fire goes out but the pilots face asphyxiation from smoke/fumes/lack of oxygen - they head down towards 'oxygen height' (12,000 feet or less, as far as I know).

5. But it is too late - the fumes and/or lack of oxygen cause the pilots to lose consciousness.

6. The passengers (who only have very limited oxygen supplies, a few minutes only) are already unconscious or dead.

7. The autopilot goes on flying the aeroplane on its southward course until the fuel gives out.

PS This story suggests that cockpit fires are not unknown on the 777 (though thankfully this one was on the ground):-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-yield-clues-to-missing-plane.html

[Edited 2014-06-28 00:07:39]
 
bluesky9
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:15 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 122):
and also climb to 45,000 feet in the hope of 'starving the fire of oxygen.'

This is not part of any fire/smoke procedure that I have ever heard of.

In case of a fire one aim is to land the A/C as soon as possible, that means descending not climbing.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:24 am

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 117):

Quoting sipadan (Reply 113):
Evidenced from the Sunday Times, as drawn from the report:

"The incapacitation theory suggests that MH370’s pilots managed to reset the plane’s autopilot on to a southerly heading in a desperate effort to get back towards Malaysia for an emergency landing, but became too incapacitated to complete it — causing their plane to keep flying south until the fuel ran out."

Please don't use the medias interpretation of the report as evidence of the intent of the report - it's irrelevant. Quote from the report directly, and debate it. The Sunday Times is from the NI stable that had people pissing on the dead in Hillsborough - something we're currently discovering was utter, and malicious, nonsense.

And please stop taking my quotes out of context. Hacks tend to do this, so I suppose you must. Here is my quote:

Quoting sipadan (Reply 113):
Here is an example of how in a sense the ATSB is misleading to the layman. Evidenced from the Sunday Times, as drawn from the report:

Nowhere do I suggest that the Times interpretation is evidence of the INTENT of the report. I say, as per the Times quote, that in a sense it is misleading to the LAYMAN. We all have different levels of knowledge and sophistication in regard to these matters. The quote certainly DOES bear out my point.

That said, I agree that it is irrelevant, public perception aside. This was my point, which you distort. The only intent I see in the report is an honest attempt to best describe how they are where they are. We probably agree here.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 116):
No it doesn't. The assumptions are spelled out in the document.You're making stuff up. The assumptions are listed from p24 on in detail. You are lying.


Wrong again. Whilst the a, b, and c sets of assumptions are given, and purport to make allowance for (your words) such assumptions as GS and HDG changes at the arc crossings, the OVERRIDING assumption is one of unresponsiveness, which they make very clear. Anyways, we're going back and forth and detracting from the thread. Let's try (very much myself included) to stick to the more technical aspects and questions.


Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 121):
Even so, if the ditching was controlled [as LTC8K6 said] there most likely would have been some pax that could have deployed the life rafts and consequently ELTs. In addition the automatic ELT was also not deployed.

If the ditching was controlled, it is most likely that all the pax were already dead.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:37 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 113):
"The incapacitation theory suggests that MH370’s pilots managed to reset the plane’s autopilot on to a southerly heading in a desperate effort to get back towards Malaysia for an emergency landing, but became too incapacitated to complete it — causing their plane to keep flying south until the fuel ran out."
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 115):
Wow. That's nothing but the purest invention out of thin air.

No kidding. This was my point about the report. If the Times can say this, think of what conclusion the passively interested will draw.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 122):
This story suggests that cockpit fires are not unknown on the 777

Being the one and only known 777 cockpit fire in the 20 year history of the 777, it actually suggests the opposite, imo.

A cockpit fire on 9M-MRO is very unlikely, and should not be put near the top of any list of possible causes of this incident, imo.

At 12K feet over or near land, it's very possible that the panicked passenger's cell calls and texts would reach a tower and be transmitted. They would certainly know of this cockpit fire, and they would try to let their families know. Some might well have been successfully sent if the plane went that low.

Also, at ~18:25, or about 1 hour after IGARI, these incapacitated crew members apparently powered up the AC bus supplying the SDU, initiating a handshake with the system.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:19 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 122):

Also, the cabin crew has a generous oxygen supply. Their station supplies and portable bottles could possibly last for hours.

Plus, they are aware of the portable ELTs on board and the built in ELT.

If I were stuck on a plane to nowhere, I would try activating a couple of ELTs near the windows, or turn on the built in ELT if I can get to the switch in the cockpit.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:29 pm

So nothing went wrong and the aeroplane arrived safely at its destination, LTC8K6?

(Incidentally, I'm not knocking the B777 - I believe, as you probably do, that it's by far the best aeroplane currently flying).

[Edited 2014-06-28 08:04:34]
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:46 pm

Quote:
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 105):
Absence of debris is more consistent with a controlled ditching than an uncontrolled falling out of the sky...

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 112):
Absence of debris is more consistent with a very large, trash-strewn ocean far from shores and shipping lanes that was not searched until nearly 2 weeks after impact, where storms occurred and winds and currents drove floating debris even further offshore over an enormous drift area, half the size of the United States. That's the simplest and most plausible explanation for the lack of debris.

Anybody who views the lack of debris as evidence of a controlled ditching is confusing absence of evidence (we found no debris) with evidence of absence (there were no debris).

Well, there has been more than enough time now for something to wash up on a beach somewhere, either in Australia or Madagascar. Yet no positive results reported from beachcombers anywhere....
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:10 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 129):
Yet no positive results reported from beachcombers anywhere....

You will no doubt have seen the drift map in the ATSB report. It shows everything headed further offshore, certainly nowhere near Australia. Was even a single piece of debris from AF 447 ever washed ashore?
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:23 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 119):
I've drawn the ping rings in Google Earth and shown plots for two speeds: 340kts and 440 kts.

They are shown as white arcs and I've only included the part of the arcs that the plane may have passed through.
(They may look odd but they are copied from the Inmarsat ping rings that Duncan Steel was so kind to post as a KML file. The arc segments are accurate.) note: the ping rings are derived purely from the BTO data, no BFO data was involved in their calculation.

18:29 ring plots along an east - west axis and is seen near the northwestern end of the Malacca Strait.
The 19:41 ring has two points marked on it the leftmost is 340nm from the first ping ring, the second point is 440nm from the first ping ring. A similar pattern exists for all the rings. The last ring is the 00:11 ring, I didn't plot the actual seventh ring as it would have produced more clutter than information.

The alignment and spacing of the rings shows the difficulty in plotting the course of the plane from the available data.
This view was helpful for me to understand the ping rings vs the plots; I hope it will be for others here.

Edit: I forgot to plot the last 340kt point, it wound up along the last arc about 100 nm from waypoint IKASA.

Note that the Inmarsat hotspot and Duncan Steel's points have lines from POVUS to those two points.
Those are great circle courses. So we can see that the Inmarsat data doesn't indicate great circle courses at steady speed. That leaves me confused, I couldn't imagine anything except a GC course for the southern leg.

Nice picture, but in the future, could you click on the Google Earth View menu "Grid" item, as it will plot lat/long lines. This makes it a lot easier to overlay you diagram into one's own system, in order to verify your assumptions. Also, do you have a link for the kmz files for the ping rings?

As for GC paths, the only way these could be flown as far as I know is if waypoints are programmed into the LNAV system. (You should add at least the waypoints MUTMI and RUNUT, as I believe the DS paths go through RUNUT, albeit by accident.) Thus, GC paths that do not follow waypoints are inaccurate a priori. There are many other options available. If it was on HDG HOLD mode, prevailing cross winds, increasing magnetic variation, and Coriolis forces would all conspire to cause the track to curve to the left. Such curvy paths, however, require oddly low ground speeds. Also, we should not expect the ground speed to be constant, as even when flying waypoints, head and tail wind components will affect the ground speed.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:01 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 130):
You will no doubt have seen the drift map in the ATSB report. It shows everything headed further offshore, certainly nowhere near Australia. Was even a single piece of debris from AF 447 ever washed ashore?

That's a good question: I found one report--dunno if it was ever confirmed. Could have been a piece of a spacecraft:

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/arc...-wreckage-washes-up-at-hope-beach/

The other thing to keep in mind is that searchers were on top of the surface debris within a day or two, and collected all that that they could find, meaning perhaps not a lot was left over to float to a beach somewhere.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:05 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 131):
As for GC paths, the only way these could be flown as far as I know is if waypoints are programmed into the LNAV system.

My understanding is that new waypoints can be defined by latitude and longitude from the flight deck, so a GC path to any point on the globe is possible.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 131):
"Grid" item, as it will plot lat/long lines. This makes it a lot easier to overlay you diagram into one's own system, in order to verify your assumptions.

I'll keep that in mind for the future. If you're using GE you can cross check via the underwater terrain.

Steel's KML files are here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ezs6imv367w8xqb/AADqEhUIaO__UkCXLEIGDVwQa
I used the set that are 4 weeks old.

[Edited 2014-06-28 10:06:43]
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:06 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 122):
1. A fire in (or under) the flight-deck.

2. The pilots switch off as much of the electrics as possible (I believe that that is the recommended procedure in case of a cockpit fire) and also climb to 45,000 feet in the hope of 'starving the fire of oxygen.'

The fourth step in the checklist is to turn off the IFE and we know that the IFE was on at the 1825 handshake well into the off course excursion. "If practical" you turn off or pull circuit breakers once you have identified the source but nowhere is it written or trained to climb or depressurize to combat a fire in a passenger airplane.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 122):
4. The fire goes out but the pilots face asphyxiation from smoke/fumes/lack of oxygen - they head down towards 'oxygen height' (12,000 feet or less, as far as I know).

If the fire burned long enough to run the pilots out of oxygen the airplane wouldn't have flown for another several hours. Any time the smoke/fumes becomes the "greatest threat" you go to the smoke removal checklist and clear the air.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 122):
PS This story suggests that cockpit fires are not unknown on the 777 (though thankfully this one was on the ground):-

I wish people would quit calling forth the Egypt Air cockpit fire -- if that were to occur in flight the airplane would not have flown for another several hours.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:32 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 134):
If the fire burned long enough to run the pilots out of oxygen the airplane wouldn't have flown for another several hours.

Fair enough on the face of it, 7BOEING7.

But I'm getting a bit tired (after so many threads) of people saying (at length) what they think DIDN'T happen.

In the interests of keeping the debate going, I've 'stuck my neck out,' and said a bit about what I think might ACTUALLY have happened. Though, admittedly, my own flying experience was limited to sailplanes and Cessnas, so I'm no sort of 'expert,' and I'm probably wrong.

But I'd be obliged if more experienced guys like you (and others) would follow suit - and start saying what you think MIGHT have happened, rather than another twenty or more threads devoted to what probably DIDN'T happen?

[Edited 2014-06-28 10:35:39]
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:02 pm

Trawling for debris?

The planned extended SIO search would make complete sense if the SIO could be proven to be the right haystack to search for the needle. Only one piece of physical evidence from MH370 would bring its probability of being the right general area very close to 1.

I take it that both the satellite and aerial search were hoping to find debris of significant sizes e.g. the empennage as in the case of AF447. Their hopes were not met but maybe the odds were stacked against the SAR teams as too much time had already elapsed.

Has anyone studied the expected debris size distribution resulting from an a/c crash at sea and the debris flotability as a function of time. I am just guessing that after a few days and a storm or two, only objects with a density less than 1.02(?) will remain on the surface whereas those relying on random air pockets for buoyancy will now have sunk to the bottom. Picking up a pax credit card would be incontrovertible evidence, but CC do not seem to float!

According to the experts, the Indian Ocean garbage gyre seems to be more like a confetti type of pollution with zillions bits of plastic on the surface. Maybe an interesting and cheap way to look for recent sizeable debris would be to simply trawl some selected areas of the SIO with special fishing nets designed to gather surface objects (5cm mesh size ?) . Twin trawlers with the net deployed between them might be a possible method to comb a large swath at once. Several sample areas could be explored and analyzed for a tiny fraction of the deep ocean search budget.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:49 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 134):
I wish people would quit calling forth the Egypt Air cockpit fire -- if that were to occur in flight the airplane would not have flown for another several hours.

While I concede it is unlikely, it is not impossible. All the important bits for automated flight are below the cabin floor. The cockpit is a pilot interface and nothing in it is strictly necessary for automated flight. What does tend to argue against it is that (1) the satcom unit in the crown (where hot gasses would accumulate) continued operating, and (2) a crown breach by fire would have increased drag and fuel flow, thus reducing the flight time.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:25 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 137):

While I concede it is unlikely, it is not impossible. All the important bits for automated flight are below the cabin floor. The cockpit is a pilot interface and nothing in it is strictly necessary for automated flight. What does tend to argue against it is that (1) the satcom unit in the crown (where hot gasses would accumulate) continued operating, and (2) a crown breach by fire would have increased drag and fuel flow, thus reducing the flight time.

  

With a fire that intense and unchecked I believe the structural integrity of the cockpit would be compromised leading to a structural failure of the whole airplane. Also with a fire that intense even though the boxes in the electronics bay may not be affected the wires to the control columns, FMC's and MCP would probably short out sending who knows what commands to the autopilot and flight control boxes down below.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:14 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 129):
Well, there has been more than enough time now for something to wash up on a beach somewhere, either in Australia or Madagascar. Yet no positive results reported from beachcombers anywhere....

Not necessarily ....
The souvenir cup from the "5th of July Block Blast '95" on Johnston Island washed up at Macquarie Island in August or September 1996. In other words it appears to have taken more than a year to drift from the northern half of the Pacific ocean to the southern half.

Why would it take that long? My personal guess is that it went once around the world (solo), i.e. first around Cape Horn, then past Africa, bypass Australia and finally get south enough to arrive on Macquarie Island.

Looking at the globe, my guess would be that any debris off 9M-RMO is likely to first wash up somewhere in Tasmania or the most southern parts of Australia. After that, or maybe at the same time, Macquarie Island becomes a possibility.

The next stop after that would be South America; probably in a years time.
Looking again at the globe, it probably is just as likely to wash up In Indonesia.
When? Who knows..; maybe in six months time or ten, ...whenever.

[Edited 2014-06-28 15:28:17]
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:34 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 128):
So nothing went wrong and the aeroplane arrived safely at its destination, LTC8K6?

Yes.

You'll note the suspicious lack of any sort of search of PEK for the missing plane. Not even with satellite photos.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:25 pm

What if RMAF had actually intercepted 9M-MRO?

I have played back ABC's Four Corners several times. The portion of the interview of the MInister of Defence shown below is as puzzling to me today as when I first heard it:

Quote:
HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: It was not hostile; it was commercial; it was from our airspace; we're not at war with anybody. Even if we sent them up, are you going to say that we're going to shoot it down?

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Well you said that, not me...

HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: No, I'm asking you.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: I could not possibly answer that…

HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: If you're not going to shoot it down, what's the point of sending it up?

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: To see where it's going.

HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: Well to see where it going, you need a fighter for that? If you're talking about military procedures, and if I did shoot it down, you'd be the first to say, how can you shoot down a commercial airline with twent- 14 nationals, half of them Chinese, I'd be in a worse position probably.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Why shoot it down though if it's not hostile?

HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: Well the Americans would.


Commentators and bloggers have essentially all assumed that either RMAF early warning network was not fully working that night or operators were sleeping on the job or nobody up the chain of command could make a decision quickly enough.

But what if RMAF had actually dispatched one or two of its jet fighters to meet a rogue 9M-MRO just east of Penang? They would have tried to make visual contact with whomever was at the controls. If a friendly contact could not be established, the fighter might have made a knife-edge maneuver to show that it was armed, then position itself in front of the T7 rocking its wings and flashing its lights to mean "follow me". Where to? Not to KL or any populated area near by. Up the Strait of Malacca through the restricted WMD-412A and WMD-413A. And bye bye.

Maybe Malaysian procedures to handle hijacked aircraft don't include the possibility of shooting it down. They might simply escort any rogue a/c out of their airspace. Let somebody else deal with the problem.

Obviously, that is all speculation at this point. Just trying to explain the information gap between 01:19 and 02:25 and the fact that Malaysian and foreign investigators do not seem willing to even begin to discuss what happened then.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:56 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 136):
Has anyone studied the expected debris size distribution resulting from an a/c crash at sea and the debris flotability as a function of time

Yes the USN for example has spent hundreds of million dollars since WW2 attempting to provide effective SAR response. They have procedures in place and computer software to analyze drift patterns. They have worked with the navies of many other countries in developing these skills.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 141):
Commentators and bloggers have essentially all assumed that either RMAF early warning network was not fully working that night or operators were sleeping on the job or nobody up the chain of command could make a decision quickly enough.

You're correct, Commentators and bloggers have spilled much ink posing these ill informed ideas. People with even a little knowledge of air defense practices understand that this was not the east/west German border circa 1980s and would consider it extremely suspicious if Malaysia had all the command and control, maintenance and logistics, along with a couple of manned fighters ready to go at Butterworth that evening.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 141):
Obviously, that is all speculation at this point. Just trying to explain the information gap between 01:19 and 02:25 and the fact that Malaysian and foreign investigators do not seem willing to even begin to discuss what happened then.
While the Malaysians have been lying and obfuscating events related to MH-370 from the night of its disappearance (including issuing phoney radar logs for the Chinese families), the Australian Final report is a case study of governmental openness; from what I can see, they have disclosed everything they know with the probable exception of data from inside Malaysia, which diplomacy requires them to keep confidential until the Malaysians themselves decide to release it to the public.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14395
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:40 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 46):

Today's reports in the papers has the ATSB ruling out the aircraft followed waypoints.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 71):

Placing the aircraft in an emergency electrical configuration in response to smoke from an unknown origin ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:55 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 143):

Placing the aircraft in an emergency electrical configuration in response to smoke from an unknown origin ?

So they powered it down near IGARI due to smoke. Okay.

Then power it back up again an hour later because they are alive and able to do so.

It does power up, and thus the SDU powers up and appears functional. No calls are made though.

A call to the plane a few minutes later is unanswered.

So who powered up the system? And why didn't they make or answer a call?
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:12 am

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 141):
Quote:
HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: It was not hostile; it was commercial; it was from our airspace; we're not at war with anybody. Even if we sent them up, are you going to say that we're going to shoot it down?

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Well you said that, not me...

HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: No, I'm asking you.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: I could not possibly answer that…

HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: If you're not going to shoot it down, what's the point of sending it up?

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: To see where it's going.

HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: Well to see where it going, you need a fighter for that? If you're talking about military procedures, and if I did shoot it down, you'd be the first to say, how can you shoot down a commercial airline with twent- 14 nationals, half of them Chinese, I'd be in a worse position probably.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Why shoot it down though if it's not hostile?

HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: Well the Americans would.



This is quite an interesting discourse. At the risk of reading to much into the exchange, I have a few thoughts, beginning with this:

CARO: Mr. Minister, what time did you become aware that MH370 was missing?

HUSSEIN: Uh, sometime that morning.

CARO: What time that morning?

Hussein : Does it matter?

Clearly Hussein does not want to reveal the time that morning. So, why??? Here are some interesting comments that if viewed in conjunction suggest something remarkable, perhaps.

In his "it was not hostile" comment, it FEELS like he is giving a portrayal of the event in present time, as if he was in the thick of it. He then says "even if we sent them up". This is a classic example of justification, but NOT with hindsight. Hindsight looks more like "well, I suppose we COULD have". He appears to be inadvertently describing a real time decision making process that HE went through!!!!

This is further supported by his direct challenge to CARO. He says "No, I'm asking you". This strikes me as further personalization and self-justification.

Continuing on, he says "If you're not going to shoot it down, what's the point of sending it up"? Again, this seems to suggest a more intimate knowledge of the situation than he would care to reveal. It sounds like a real time decision, made BY HIM.

The real kicker is to be found in his comment here: "Well to see where it going, you need a fighter for that? If you're talking about military procedures, and if I did shoot it down, you'd be the first to say, how can you shoot down a commercial airline with twent- 14 nationals, half of them Chinese, I'd be in a worse position probably".

Here he very clearly speaks in the first person. There is no "we" anymore. And the ruminating, self-absorbed "I'd be in a worse position today" wreaks of self-reflection. FWIW, I believe all this is indicative of someone who knew very early on that morning EXACTLY what he was dealing with. He knew Zaharie (all of UNMO knew of him), he knew of the court decision, and, as I'll point out again, Zaharie had a PARTICULAR dislike for this guy!!!! Somethings amiss...and I really don't buy the idea that all this obfuscation is an effort to cover up general incompetence and radar schematics.

And if any of this is to be believed, this cover up exceeds most reasonably considered scenarios.

And, he announced a few days ago he was stepping down from his transport min position (not defense). This is probably unrelated, but who knows.

[Edited 2014-06-29 18:16:15]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:16 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 145):
don't buy the idea that all this obfuscation is an effort to cover up general incompetence and radar schematics.

If you're alluding to me, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I think that the Malaysian fog bank over anything to do with that Friday night/Saturday morning is meant to cover up more that general incompetence. But I also know that speculation about what was being covered up is not welcome on any aviation forum that likes to host pilot's conversations. Speculating about why the Malaysian Government doesn't want the underlying facts about this event uncovered might involve closer examinations of Mr. Captain Zaharie himself. There are many many people posting here who don't want to see that happen.

However, I would like to again make the point that Gong Kedak and Butterworth air bases were closed that night. We know that because they weren't considered alternate runways for an in flight emergency. The only airports open in Malaysia that night were Kuala Lumpur and Langkawi; I know of nobody who has ever disputed this. No airport - no interceptor.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:23 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 146):
However, I would like to again make the point that Gong Kedak and Butterworth air bases were closed that night. We know that because they weren't considered alternate runways for an in flight emergency.

You actually found the schedule of the military base at Butterworth?
If training ops were in progress at Butterworth, wouldn't they close the base to any outside traffic?
Who knows, a jet fighter might even have been flying in the area as part of some training exercise.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:59 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 71):
So how did that happen?Was someone trying to make sure every comm possibility was powered down?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 143):
Placing the aircraft in an emergency electrical configuration in response to smoke from an unknown origin ?

No where in the checklist do you randomly depower radio equipment unless you know that the radio(s) are the source of the smoke/fumes. At the beginning of the checklist it warns you that you may have to land as soon as possible, halfway +/- through the checklist if smoke continues you execute a diversion (considering an immediate landing). Anytime the smoke/fumes becomes the greatest threat you switch to the Smoke or Fumes Removal checklist to clear the air. You follow checklists -- you don't adlib. If you really want to turn off all the radios you talk to somebody before you do.

And just a reminder, the IFE is the fourth item on the checklist so it would have been turned off almost immediately (at the initial turn point) and wouldn't have been back on for the 1825 handshake.

[Edited 2014-06-29 21:01:55]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 68

Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:13 am

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 147):
You actually found the schedule of the military base at Butterworth?
Pilots who fly that route have chimed in to say that Butterworth was not an optional landing spot that night because it was closed and its runway lights were off (along with the ILS.) I suppose there were NOTAMS or whatever the Malaysians do to alert the proper people of such things.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 147):
If training ops were in progress at Butterworth, wouldn't they close the base to any outside traffic?
Not to a mayday circumstance.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 147):
Who knows, a jet fighter might even have been flying in the area as part of some training exercise.

In that vein we can't rule out alien abduction I suppose.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos