UALWN
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:01 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 146):
You were participating in the forum at the same time Sipadan was bringing all this to the forum.

Oh yes. He pretended to be a psychiatrist, but all he was saying pointed to a total fraud.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 146):
several unnamed people with detailed knowledge of the investigation

It's actually easy to understand what the NYT reports, if you just tried: those unnamed people report that the psychological profiles, obviously run by (gasp!) psychologists, "do not suggest Mr. Zaharie could have taken the plane down or would have had a compelling reason for doing so." But you can keep ignoring this, because it does not fit your "truth."

Quoting tailskid (Reply 146):
Who dat? Jeff Wise? or maybe Mandala?

No: Sipadan.  
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:05 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 143):
Right. Instead, we have to trust anonymous you... and the Daily Mail...

Well you got lucky.

The story of Zahaeie's daughter saying that 'He wasn't the father I knew. He was lost and disturbed' was denied by the daughter (although the story was carried by the Mirror too http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...ght-mh370-pilots-emotional-3301270 .)

But I believe the others.
‘‘There is a rebel in each and everyone of us...................’’is cited in the Globe.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/worl.../L9SysfTgmlfsklq7TbKQgK/story.html

If you throw enough mud at the wall some of it has to stick.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:10 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 151):
If you throw enough mud at the wall some of it has to stick.

And that's a very accurate description of what you're trying to do with the captain.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:13 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 150):
But you can keep ignoring this, because it does not fit your "truth."

Doesn't that line apply to you more than to me?
You've been denying everything all along and now we've come to a point where most of the people posting here believe that the Zaharie theory is the most likely and the Inmarsat data is no longer under attack. In fact the attack on the Inmarsat conclusions has moved to the unrealistic and completely panned "spoof" theory.

You just won one point, but you've lost about 25 others in the last year.

[Edited 2015-03-06 20:17:26]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:16 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 152):
And that's a very accurate description of what you're trying to do with the captain.

I notice that you avoided answering post 116.
That's telling.
 
nudiebranch
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:07 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:21 am

UALWN.

Please do us the courtesy of putting forth another scenario that you find plausible. It's a simple task I'm offering you. You needn't believe it yourself, just find it to be plausible.

If you are able to produce such a scenario, then we could once again engage in a productive debate. However, the problem you face is that no such scenario exists. Good luck.

[Edited 2015-03-06 21:23:03]
 
UALWN
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:37 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 153):
Doesn't that line apply to you more than to me?

No, unlike you, I don't profess any blind adherence to any such "truth." Unlike you, I am open to consider all options, including, yes, the captain did it. Instead, you have repeatedly insulted the people who even dares consider other options than your pet theory. So, no, it does not apply to me, but it does to you.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 154):
That's telling.

What is telling? You keep rehashing the same story over and over again, with facts mixed up with half-truths and innuendo!

Quoting nudiebranch (Reply 155):
then we could once again engage in a productive debate

That's a rich, condescending tone from somebody who has amassed a grand total of 17 posts, none of them engaging in anything close to a productive debate.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:23 am

Combustive electrical malfunction occurs in cockpit pedestal cable harnesses, quickly knocking out multiple systems. Resulting smoke in cockpit causes crew to declare emergency (not received because of failed systems--they don't know they just lost their radios and transponder). They don oxygen masks and turn towards nearest airport. Aircraft heads back towards peninsula at high speed in the hope of landing ASAP, first towards Kota Bharu and after that runway is determined unusable, towards Penang. Smoke worsens, visibility is near zero, and task saturation ensues. Despite oxygen masks, carbon monoxide poisoning and the resulting hypoxia gradually sets in. Crew's decision-making is impaired, and they decide to turn up the Malacca straight away from populated areas to buy time before another landing attempt. Various systems are disabled and re-enabled (including the avionics that feed the satcom, causing the latter to lose HGA pointing for a spell) in an attempt to isolate the source of smoke. They finally have it under better control. There is no longer combustion and the cockpit smoke visibility is gradually getting better. But the crew is no longer coherent, and a first turn to the south is made to try returning to a suitable airport. The last cockpit crew member then succumbs to carbon monoxide poisoning and passes out. Aircraft flies to fuel exhaustion on last course set by severely impaired pilot.

Likely? Nope. Possible? I still think so.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:43 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 159):

The first indication of electrical fire is acid smoke, which is impossible to ignore, and impossible to not notice. The time of the first indication of failure would have been at the time the Captain already was on the radio and was about to transmit another message. The 777 power buses are triple redundant, there is no possible single fault that could knock out all radios let alone the transponder and HF ADS reporting. The aviate, navigate, communicate doctrine for an aircraft under positive control has included in it, the assumption that when leaving assigned altitude or heading, informing ATC is right up there with aviate. And in your scenario there is no difficulty with the aviate part anyway, the flight control systems are working ok. The navigate part is also little problem, this pilot is in his own back yard.

You can sell yourself on this possibility, but you can't sell me. This scenario fails at the starting gate for me.

BTW
Do you agree with the first hour of flight found in post 116?
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:54 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 160):
there is no possible single fault that could knock out all radios let alone the transponder and HF ADS reporting.

Systems that are electrically redundant are not always physically segregated, especially for ancillary systems that are not flight-critical. I do not know enough about the physical and electrical layout of the wire harnesses that run between the cockpit pedestal and the electronics equipment bay to declare that such an event is impossible.

Aviating, navigating or communicating in a cockpit filled with smoke is no picnic, even if everything is "working OK"
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:14 am

Boeing knows what they are doing. They certainly had fore planning on routing redundant power buses so that they aren't next to each other. That's industry standard even outside of aviation. Here is a link to the top level power distribution chart for a 777 if you spend a little time with it it is decipherable.

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg...7cd50039a2ae7?convert_to_webp=true
You can see how the electrical redundancies exist, and I am sure a huge amount of thought went into the physical layout.
Has any Boeing product ever had complete electrical failure in flight?

This Captain Hardy guy commented on this subject just today.
"The 777 has many back-up systems for its electrics, says Landells, so even if all fail, there's a battery connected to the captain's instruments and one of the radios, so a call could have been made. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31736835

And keep in mind that for your scenario, the electrical system has to be mostly functioning including cabin air pressure (along with the flight computers and actuators.
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:17 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 153):
now we've come to a point where most of the people posting here believe that the Zaharie theory is the most likely

I could perhaps agree with you that it's the least unlikely theory ...
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3614
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:54 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 153):

Last time I checked MH370 had two pilots on board, both perfectly capable of flying it anywhere in the planet within aircraft's range with that fuel load. There's no reason why the other pilot couldn't have done it.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
Rara
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:18 am

Quoting pvjin (Reply 162):
Last time I checked MH370 had two pilots on board, both perfectly capable of flying it anywhere in the planet within aircraft's range with that fuel load. There's no reason why the other pilot couldn't have done it.

Apparently the other guy didn't post a sacrifice-themed poem to Facebook, which all but exonerates him in the eyes of some people.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:34 am

There is no question, the Captain COULD HAVE done it.
There is also no question (albeit is it plausible..??) that it COULD HAVE been a weird and mysterious chain of events and technical failures that eventually led to the disappearance of MH370 over the SIO.
There is a third possibility, though. For that we have to delve a little deeper.

The world as we know it has entered a ‘New Cold War’; or else the old cold war has been put back on the boil.
Hand in hand with a cold war go the inevitable spy-games.
Everyone can work out for themselves who are the ‘white-hats’ and who is the black.

The third possibility then, in these kind of games, is that one side wanted something which the other side did not want them to have. Or there could be all sorts of other reasons of that nature; i.e. motives that are of serious importance to them, known only to those involved in that spy-world.
The two sides have fought it out amongst themselves and one side won.
MH370 disappeared in the process.
And if there were spies on board 9M-MRO, they almost certainly would not have gone down with the aircraft.

Would we, the general public get to know about this?
No way; the spy-agencies (no matter which country) would do everything in their power to prevent that.
We would be fed false-flag type of information.

Would various governments be at liberty to tell the public at least some of the truth?
No way; the spy-agencies (no matter which side or country) would do everything in their power to prevent that.

Hijacking, spoofing SatCom data, making a jetliner disappear would all just be another day at the office in that kind of world. Then again, two airliners, from the same airline, coming to grief in such a short succession is too fishy.
Or is it?
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:29 pm

A few days after the disappearance of MH370 a Greek aviation expert appeared on Greek TV -the same person who headed the investigation of Helios crash in 2005- to offer his opinion.He flatly declared that he thought the plane must have been hijacked and taken north.He was criticized and hasn't appeared again on TV.
There is something I still do not understand: If it is equally possible that the plane took a northern route or a southern route then why do we keep repeating here that the plane went south? Why do we prefer that? Has anything changed?
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:02 pm



Quoting gzm (Reply 165):
If it is equally possible that the plane took a northern route or a southern route then why do we keep repeating here that the plane went south? Why do we prefer that?

Initial analysis by Inmarsat of the satcom signals resulted in two arcs of probability, symmetrical about the equator. Further analysis in the following days narrowed it down to the southern arc.

[Edited 2015-03-07 09:04:48]

[Edited 2015-03-07 09:05:54]
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:10 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 157):
Combustive electrical malfunction occurs in cockpit pedestal cable harnesses, quickly knocking out multiple systems.

There are multiple harnesses going from the control panels located in the aisle stand down to their respective black boxes. The harnesses are not all tied together and there is minimal electrical power involved as we're talking about control heads not radio transmitters.And as TAILSKID mentioned, you're going to smell it long before major damage is done.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3480
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:37 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 165):
If it is equally possible that the plane took a northern route or a southern route

But it's not. It was well established probably 50 threads ago(!) that it is almost *im*possible that it went anywhere but south. This is a conclusion, based on the data, that many engineers and other people with more knowledge than most people here possess came to independently a long time ago.

There is one piece of data that shows "equal" arcs to the north and south. But there are other pieces of data too. You can't take that one piece of data in isolation. It's kind of like trying to determine if a car went left or right at a traffic light. Sure, if you know nothing else, you can say it's a 50% chance the car went either way. But if you see dirt that has been disturbed in the exact shape of tire tracks on the road going to the right, but not to the left, then it becomes fairly easy to say the car went to the right.

Of course, there will always be people on the fringes saying the tire tracks are an optical illusion, they were there before the car got there, it was a chance wind that happened to shape the dirt into a pattern that looked like tire tracks on the right while simultaneously covering up the real tracks on the left, or whatever, but evidence is evidence. You have to consider all of it and see how it works together. If you're going to selectively discount evidence because it doesn't fit your own theory of what happened, then you're never going to find what you're looking for and you will invariably come to erroneous conclusions.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
markalot
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:07 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:01 pm

For the northern route to work someone had to fake the data, which was included in the theory posted earlier in the thread.

If you're confused by the yelling about that theory then the summary, if I may, is that the pilot being somehow involved and taking the southern route is the most likely of all the unlikely scenarios we have.  

In my opinion the northern explanation and data spoofing is worth looking into, but highly unlikely. As mandala's blog entry pointed out it's not likely at all, but the research involved into trying to explain how it could happen reveals some things that probably should be fixed.
M a r k
 
Reacher1812
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:33 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:02 pm

I know very little about anything to be honest but have followed these threads as best I can. Forgive me I've I've missed some.

When I first heard of the 7 hour flight of mh370 I immediately thought of the Greek ghost plane and wondered if something similar had happened. I guess a lot of the facts don't fit though, and I've started to lean towards the theory of "the captain did it". In order to completely rule out the ghost plane thing in my simple mind can someone give me a reason why the oxygen flare fire with subsequent decompression and autopilot to fuel exhaustion theory doesn't fit? I've read it on a couple of different sites and Im not knowledgeable enough to decide how plausible it is. But it certainly sounds good.

I guess I can't really buy it being the captain as it just seems too implausible to fly the thing into the SIO. Ditch it right away or fly it into a tall building maybe, but to just make it vanish, well, I don't quite buy it.

Thanks.
 
awthompson
Posts: 511
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:23 pm

Spacecadet

Well said. In your last paragraph you have described very well what a number of people on here are trying to do.
Nevertheless everyone is entitled to their own theory(ies) and will likely each one see it differently.

Members are being too hard on each other for having perhaps less well informed ideas or very unusual theories.

Can I also support Mandala for remaining an excellent contributor on this site and for putting up with some members who don't understand respect and have been quite severe. To those who have challenged him, if Mandala feels uneasy about all blame being put on the Captain, and puts out other challenging ideas, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. If such an incident happened to an airline from your country or a neighbouring country, you might do the same. Of course Mandala knows that if the aircraft is found and the truth comes out, then it has to be accepted whether it is unsavoury or not.

I might as well put my theories on record (again) when I am going to the bother to type this post:

I personally think it is somewhere around 90% likely that the Captain was the mastermind behind every detail of what happened and may have been (although not necessarily) alive right to the very end. I have no problem with this theory. Virtually all of the details fit (for me) and in the world we live in today, it does not shock me too much. I then give about a 10% (or less) probability to the possibility of an obscure technical series of events, fire or otherwise being behind what happened.
And yes, you've guessed it, I give almost zero probability to all of the other far fetched theories such as spying missions / espionage / intelligence agencies / remote or on board hijacking / shoot down to prevent suicide crash then cover up with no leaks / aircraft stolen to be later used for another sinister purpose / inside job / aliens / supernatural etc etc.

Will the aircraft be found? I hope and believe it might eventually be found. Unfortunately, if and when it is found, it may not give up all the answers so easily. First of all, the CVR will likely have recorded over the early part of the flight, if even it was recording at that point in the first place (it may have been completely disconnected along with many other items) and not restarted.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:32 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 69):
I brought up the failure to report in to HCMATCC because its so cut and dry, it was such a clear cut deviation, and came at the same time as the heading deviation and the transponder and ADS turnoff that no reasonable person would deny the fact that it (failed to) happened or its significance.

As yet, there is no evidence acceptable to an investigation or a court that the transponder and ADS were turned off, let alone why or by whom. There is only evidence that they stopped responding / transmitting.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 124):
The final report is Malaysia's to write which means Hishammuddin's to write.

Under Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation the NTSB is a required participant in the investigation (state of manufacture) and has the right under article 6.3 to have a dissenting report included in the final report.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 146):
"Psychological profiles of the pilot prepared after the disappearance of Flight 370 do not suggest Mr. Zaharie could have taken the plane down or would have had a compelling reason for doing so, several people with detailed knowledge of the investigation said. "

several unnamed people with detailed knowledge of the investigation" Not members of the investigating team, not Malaysian or ICAO or NTSB or even NYT editorial staff - just some unnamed people with detailed knowledge.

NYT goes to extraordinary lengths to fact check since the Jayson Blair affair led to resignation of several top editors. If the information came from ICAO or NTSB staff, this would not be acknowledged due to the restrictions imposed by articles 5.12 and 5.26 of Annex 13:

Article 5.12 "The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation ... c) medical or private information regarding persons involved in the accident or incident; ... e) opinions expressed in the analysis of information."

Article 5.26 "Accredited representatives and their advisers: ... b) shall not divulge information on the progress and the findings of the investigation without the express consent of the State conducting the investigation."

Quoting tailskid (Reply 138):
There is a lot more on Zaharie available if one wants to spend the time looking for it, but the personal stuff is not my interest. I think the Facebook stuff alone should be enough to dispel any confidence in that weakly worded NYT assessment.

Several parts ago, at your suggestion, I posted a legal analysis of the evidentiary value of of the Facebook postings and other "evidence" you to which you referred. Your response was to question my credentials as a former law professor.


Since you appear to have a lot of time on your hands, you may wish to spend some of it reading the International Convention and a standard textbook on the law of evidence, such as McCormick, Evidence which discusses many cases in which black Americans were executed based on speculation that was later found to have no evidentiary basis.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:47 pm

The story of the arcs.

The (BTO) Burst Timing Offset data from Inmarsat's packets provided the amount of time it took for signals to reach the satellite from the plane, from that the distance between plane and satellite was knowable. This led to a circle being drawn around the satellite which had a radius equal to that distance. The part of this circle that touched the Earth was drawn on a map of the Earth and this represented the possible positions of the plane at the instant that particular packet was transmitted. The plane could have been anywhere along that arc at the time that packet was transmitted.

There was an area in the middle of this long arc which was near Malaysia that the plane could not have been, so that segment was removed which left two shorter arcs remaining: the northern part of the original long arc or the southern part of that long arc.

The reason why we know the plane flew south.

From above we know that plane was somewhere along the arcs. Just for the possibility of an occasion like this Inmarsat began logging the amount of Doppler shift for each packet and called this tidbit of information the BFO Burst Frequency Offset. If the satellite was stationary up there in its orbit above the earth the BFO would have only been able to provide a rough guess of how fast the plane was traveling, towards or away from the satellite. But because the satellite was not stationary, because it was traveling in a circle in the sky itself, the BFO varied with whether the satellite was traveling in (generally) the same direction as the plane or the opposite direction.

Because the Malacca Strait where the plane was known to have been when the Inmarsat data first began coming in lies north of the Equator the plane flying south would have to cross the Equator in its journey south. Now since the satellite sits (almost) directly above the Equator a plane flying a steady course across the Equator would have a unique effect on the BFO data because at one moment it would be flying toward the satellite and a moment later would be flying away from the satellite. This would provide a distinctive shift in the BFO data.

That shift was found in 9MMRO's BFO data, showing that the plane was on the southern arc.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:11 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 173):
The story of the arcs.

The complete story of the arcs has already been told in this journal article:

Chris Ashton, Alan Shuster Bruce, Gary Colledge and Mark Dickinson (2015). The Search for MH370. Journal of Navigation, 68, pp 1-22. doi:10.1017/S037346331400068X.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 160):
They certainly had fore planning on routing redundant power buses so that they aren't next to each other.

Wiring of all kinds, not just power busses, can inadvertently be physically co-located (especially in such confined spaces as cockpits and avionics bays) and create latent common failure modes. Consider this example: McDonnell Douglas engineers knew what they were doing when they built triple-redundant hydraulic systems into the DC-10, until hindsight taught us that there was an unforeseen failure mode that could take out all three (United 232). Redundancy is a deceptively complicated subject, and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of a failure just because a system was thought to be redundant.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 167):
The harnesses are not all tied together and there is minimal electrical power involved as we're talking about control heads not radio transmitters.

Maybe the failure was further down in the wire harnessing to the EE bay. Is there smoke detection down there? Could it have been smoldering for a long while before the fateful ATC handover?
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:43 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 174):
The complete story of the arcs has already been told in this journal article:

The "Story of the Arcs" has been told many times in many places, sometimes in extreme detail and a sometimes for the layman. If your intention is to provide another explanation for the uninformed you are providing a service I'm sure. But if your purpose is to heap yet another insult on me, I object.

Rather than just giving a link, I made an attempt to provide a very short and understandable synopsis for people who are curious but haven't yet come to understand why all the unbiased knowledgeable people accept the Inmarsat data and findings as valid. The lack of understanding and the acceptance of the satellite data by the uninformed remains the foundation for all the kook theories that unethical media outlets and hucksters are trying to promote; so I think that trying to reach the less technical persons with this information is a noble effort. Thus I'm trying.

I have listened and commented with courtesy and respect to your theories, why not give me the same due?
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:56 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 168):
There is one piece of data that shows "equal" arcs to the north and south. But there are other pieces of data too. You can't take that one piece of data in isolation. It's kind of like trying to determine if a car went left or right at a traffic light. Sure, if you know nothing else, you can say it's a 50% chance the car went either way. But if you see dirt that has been disturbed in the exact shape of tire tracks on the road going to the right, but not to the left, then it becomes fairly easy to say the car went to the right.

Of course, there will always be people on the fringes saying the tire tracks are an optical illusion, they were there before the car got there, it was a chance wind that happened to shape the dirt into a pattern that looked like tire tracks on the right while simultaneously covering up the real tracks on the left, or whatever, but evidence is evidence. You have to consider all of it and see how it works together. If you're going to selectively discount evidence because it doesn't fit your own theory of what happened, then you're never going to find what you're looking for and you will invariably come to erroneous conclusions.

Your analogy with car tire tracks is a good one ...
We can be absolutely sure that the tracks lead to the right only if we can see them for ourselves.
Since that is not possible, we've been given photos of those tracks. Qualified photographers and other experts have looked at those photos and have confirmed, yes, they are good photos and they show tire tracks to the right.
How easy is it in this day and age to manipulate or alter photos?

Back to the real world ....
The public has been given a set of satellite data which tells us the aircraft has travelled south.
Experts, independent and otherwise, have looked at that data, and worked with it, and have confirmed that the data is good (as in quality). Further more, it was possible to use that data and calculate where the aircraft might have gone.
I'm sorry, that still does not guarantee that the data itself is true and correct.
And yet, almost everyone on A.net accepts carte blanche its veracity.
It must be true, then ....

Edit: How easy is it in this day and age to change data that was collected and collated on computers?

[Edited 2015-03-07 16:03:40]
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:03 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 175):

Why do you take additional information as a personal insult to your nobility? I hadn't noticed that particular article, and found it very informative, especially coming from a respected peer-reviewed journal.

[Edited 2015-03-07 16:04:15]
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:04 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 177):
Why do you take additional information as a personal insult to your nobility? I hadn't noticed that particular article, and found it very informative, especially coming from a respected peer-reviewed journal.

You should read this sentence from my post over and over again until you understand it.
Quoting tailskid (Reply 175):
If your intention is to provide another explanation for the uninformed you are providing a service I'm sure. But if your purpose is to heap yet another insult on me, I object.

When you use the phrase "from a respected peer-reviewed journal", it implies to me that you are at least one step removed from understanding the Inmarsat data yourself. There is no higher truth than truth itself. What was offered by me, and presumably what was offered by the site linked to, is an abbreviated overall description of the technology used to determine that the plane in question was headed in a southerly direction. There is nothing esoteric or debatable in the information either of us provided. So it really doesn't matter whether one of us is "peer-reviewed" or not. I believe that what I wrote could be helpful to a person wanting to learn what the Inmarsat premise is. I'm sure the site linked to did the same, the writer there presumably had the same motivation. We, (the writer of the information at the linked to site and myself) are presenting the same information for the same purpose in our own ways.

As a forty year reader of tech manuals and tech explanations I have developed an opinion that a common handicap of much tech writing is providing too much extraneous information packaged along with the points really being made. Hence my very brief two short paragraph, stand alone attempt at the explanation.

Now to address the first part of your question: "Why do you take additional information as a personal insult to your nobility? The answer is found in the question. Your "nobility" remark answers the very question you are sarcastically asking. I have always resented the constant stream of insults flowing from a certain segment of posters in this forum and WingedMigrator has in the past been among of those people. He has recently become a much more reasonable poster but I did see some of his old habits popping through in his sticking "already" in the "The complete story of the arcs has already been told" sentence. Had it come from another poster I might have noted it, but I wouldn't have said anything about it. In post 175 I tried to gently remind WingedMigrator that he is talking to a real human, not just a digital screen.

While WingedMigrator was one of the ones who applied insults on a fairly frequent basis here, he was by far not one of the worst. I could rate them all but that would probably violate site rules so I'll pass on that. But Mr. Kaiarahi you are certainly in the running for being the most insulting, most sarcastic poster in the MH370 thread when the number of posts are factored in. I invite anyone to look back at your history in this thread to verify what I am saying here - your rate of insult/sarcasm per post has to be in the 90% range, if not higher. It seems that the only times you posted here was when you had some bile to offer.

You have no room to criticize anyone else here for anything in this thread.

[Edited 2015-03-07 17:42:40]
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:42 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 174):
Maybe the failure was further down in the wire harnessing to the EE bay. Is there smoke detection down there? Could it have been smoldering for a long while before the fateful ATC handover?

There is a smoke detector in the EE bay and short of a bomb that knocked everything out, the cockpit would have failure/smoke indications before all communications failed.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:41 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 179):

I guess that New York Times article summed it up pretty well: "A rival theory in the early days after the plane’s disappearance, a midair equipment failure, falls apart for lack of a breakdown that could swiftly disable separate communications systems but still allow the plane to stay in the air and perform a long series of maneuvers."
 
764
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 6:34 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:54 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 180):
A rival theory in the early days after the plane’s disappearance, a midair equipment failure, falls apart for lack of a breakdown that could swiftly disable separate communications systems but still allow the plane to stay in the air and perform a long series of maneuvers

Actually, looking at the location of the antennae, it is not all that implausible. Many of them are located under the front cargo bay and a second cluster on top is (if I am not mistaken) connected to the flight deck via that first location. If something were to happen there - a fire or chemical corrosion or something - that could affect much of the aircraft's communication. There are two autonomous systems that would not be affected by a disturbance in that front section: SATCOM and ACARS. Flight controls would also not be directly affected.

Keep in mind that I base this on what I saw at BFI quite some time ago, so it may be very inaccurate.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:02 am

Quoting gzm (Reply 165):
A few days after the disappearance of MH370 a Greek aviation expert appeared on Greek TV -the same person who headed the investigation of Helios crash in 2005- to offer his opinion.He flatly declared that he thought the plane must have been hijacked and taken north.He was criticized and hasn't appeared again on TV.
There is something I still do not understand: If it is equally possible that the plane took a northern route or a southern route then why do we keep repeating here that the plane went south? Why do we prefer that? Has anything changed?

One thing that may have changed from "A few days after the disappearance" is the developing confidence in the BFO calculations took some time to sink in. I believe it was in late March before the fact that the plane had turned south was accepted as fact by a majority of the boffins. Early on, the BFO information was not well understood.

You could go back to the early parts of this thread and check it out, that wouldn't be too hard to do. Then you could bring what you've found up here so we could add another tidbit of data to what's known.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6591
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:48 am

Just read the interim report...
- Page 52, 1825UTC logon initiated by aircraft and not groundstation.
- Page 53 point 4 reveals that the logon at 1825UTC has the aircraft earth station ID but not the flight number ID. (to me this suggests, that the 1825 logon, combined with the point from page 52, shows potential of electrical problems in the aircraft) (more on this on page 54 point 10b).
- Page 53 reveals that no evidence of satcom ever been deliberately logged off from the cockpit interface to log off the system.
- Page 53 point 8 reveals that entertainment system was setting up normal connections (should passengers require it) through the satcom.

The crew behaviour was checked out too...
Looks to me that this may be an electrical issue...

Yes, I know such a view will probably result in ad hominem attacks... nothing new about it...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
P206
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:30 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:03 am

It's been one year since the disappearance  
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:34 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 183):
- Page 52, 1825UTC logon initiated by aircraft and not groundstation.
Yes, we knew that from the time Inmarsat made the data log available.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 183):
- Page 53 point 4 reveals that the logon at 1825UTC has the aircraft earth station ID but not the flight number ID. (to me this suggests, that the 1825 logon, combined with the point from page 52, shows potential of electrical problems in the aircraft) (more on this on page 54 point 10b).

The login appears as a power on sequence as it always has. As I understand it, the pilot has to enter the flight number into the system as part of pre-flight. So if the sat com unit was freshly powered up, we wouldn't expect it to have the flight number in it until someone re- entered it. This is not a sign of electrical problems beyond the previously assumed powering off and on of the sat com unit.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 183):
- Page 53 reveals that no evidence of satcom ever been deliberately logged off from the cockpit interface to log off the system.

As we would expect, if its power had been abruptly cut off as when the bus powering it was shut down.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 183):
- Page 53 point 8 reveals that entertainment system was setting up normal connections (should passengers require it) through the satcom.

I would think it's programed to do that upon a power on sequence.

I see no sign of electrical failure from the above - other than a turnoff of power to the bus supplying the satcom unit. I see the fact that the entertainment system was setting up normal connections after the satcom link was restored as a pretty solid indication that it was powered off and on simultaneously with the AES which is a pretty solid indication that the sat com unit was shut down by the removal of power from the left AC bus - as that bus powers both the sat com unit and the entertainment system.

[Edited 2015-03-07 23:39:17]
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:56 am

The Malaysian ministry of transport has published its update on the status of the MH370 investigation, one year after the event.

Interim Statement
Factual Information

Lots of new material to discuss, including details about the crew and aircraft.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:18 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 173):
The (BTO) Burst Timing Offset data from Inmarsat's packets provided the amount of time it took for signals to reach the satellite from the plane, from that the distance between plane and satellite was knowable. This led to a circle being drawn around the satellite which had a radius equal to that distance. The part of this circle that touched the Earth was drawn on a map of the Earth and this represented the possible positions of the plane at the instant that particular packet was transmitted.

The BTO data leads to a *sphere* of a certain radius around the satellite. The circle where that sphere intersects the surface of the earth is where the arcs comes from (as you mentioned, other data eliminates* some places on the circle, leading to the arcs). There is also a certain amount of horizontal "smear", since we have to allow for the aircraft to be anywhere from ground level to whatever the maximum plausible altitude of a 777 is. The circle where the sphere around the satellite intersects the surface of the earth is going to be different than the one where the sphere intersects the earth's surface plus 35kft. And there will be additional "smear" determined by the accuracy and precision of the data (on the order of a mile for every 5us of timing uncertainly).


*For example, the westernmost parts of the circle would have been beyond the ability of the 777, as it would not have been fast enough to get there.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:55 am

Quoting rwessel (Reply 187):

You are absolutely correct. I tried to make my description as brief as possible, I was trying to keep it on the level of someone new to the concept. Maybe the sphere concept will be helpful for some. I think the altitude smear is unnecessary for an introductory lesson though.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 186):
Lots of new material to discuss
No kidding, this is dumping a lot of fuel on the fire. Right off I see something interesting.

This exchange may have had the effect of reducing the sense of urgency at the Vietnamese ATC

1804:39 KLATCC Okay reference to the...company Malaysian Airlines the aircraft is still flying somewhere over Cambodia.
1804:50 HCM ATCC Somewhere over Cambodia.
1804:51 KL ATCC Affirm.
1804:52 HCM ATCC That's mean not enter our FIR.

[Edited 2015-03-08 00:57:00]
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:50 am

Today marks one year since the greatest aviation mystery of all time began. Respect.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 176):
Back to the real world ....
The public has been given a set of satellite data which tells us the aircraft has travelled south.
Experts, independent and otherwise, have looked at that data, and worked with it, and have confirmed that the data is good (as in quality). Further more, it was possible to use that data and calculate where the aircraft might have gone.
I'm sorry, that still does not guarantee that the data itself is true and correct.
And yet, almost everyone on A.net accepts carte blanche its veracity.
It must be true, then ....

I'm just curious what probabilities you assign to the Inmarsat data either being:

Accurate v inaccurate?

and

Accurate v intentionally inaccurate?

Whilst I don't deny that the data *could* (I mean *could* as in - 'it is possible') be inaccurate, or worse, intentionally inaccurate, I believe it is far, far more probable and most likely IMHO that the data is accurate and the search is legit.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 179):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 174):
Maybe the failure was further down in the wire harnessing to the EE bay. Is there smoke detection down there? Could it have been smoldering for a long while before the fateful ATC handover?

There is a smoke detector in the EE bay and short of a bomb that knocked everything out, the cockpit would have failure/smoke indications before all communications failed.

So could the frequency change have started something???

What other issue of an 'electrical nature' could have happened right then during those few seconds - unless that was the exact moment in time when the cup of coffee was spilled  
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 183):
- Page 52, 1825UTC logon initiated by aircraft and not groundstation.

Thank you.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 183):
Just read the interim report...
- Page 52, 1825UTC logon initiated by aircraft and not groundstation.
- Page 53 point 4 reveals that the logon at 1825UTC has the aircraft earth station ID but not the flight number ID. (to me this suggests, that the 1825 logon, combined with the point from page 52, shows potential of electrical problems in the aircraft) (more on this on page 54 point 10b).
- Page 53 reveals that no evidence of satcom ever been deliberately logged off from the cockpit interface to log off the system.
- Page 53 point 8 reveals that entertainment system was setting up normal connections (should passengers require it) through the satcom.

The crew behaviour was checked out too...
Looks to me that this may be an electrical issue...

Yes, I know such a view will probably result in ad hominem attacks... nothing new about it...

Thank you for that info.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
FlyDeltaJetsATL
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:39 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:00 pm

This is my first post on this website after years of browsing.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the efforts of those who have kept the MH370 discussion going - especially those who have stated what they think happened to MH370 and why whilst at the same time keeping an open mind and considering / respecting the different ideas and thoughts of others. On the other hand, I pity anyone who believes that they have everything worked out 100% at this stage.

Thank you again for keeping the discussion going and helping MH370 remain in people's thoughts.
FLY DELTA JETS
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:23 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 189):
I'm just curious what probabilities you assign to the Inmarsat data either being:
Accurate v inaccurate?
and
Accurate v intentionally inaccurate?
Whilst I don't deny that the data *could* (I mean *could* as in - 'it is possible') be inaccurate, or worse, intentionally inaccurate, I believe it is far, far more probable and most likely IMHO that the data is accurate and the search is legit.

Interesting question ....
For starters, one cannot express this in so many percent correct and so many incorrect.
The first one, accurate v inaccurate, is simple.
The satellite data, as provided, is correct (has to be) if no one has interfered with it.
If the data has not been interfered with, it is a record of the communications with the aircraft.
And, as we all know, that data was then used by the various experts for calculations as to where the aircraft may have ended up.

As for the 'accurate v intentionally inaccurate', that is a different matter. The possibilities there are 50:50.
Either the data was interfered with somewhere down the line or it wasn't; it's as simple as either yes or no!
If the data was not interfered with, then, obviously, it is correct and accurate as received by the equipment.
If the data (all of it or some of it) was interfered with, then it cannot be accurate.
If this were to be the case, then the experts would have used inaccurate data for their calculations.
Which in turn would imply that the aircraft cannot be where they are searching.

So the real question is whether the data has been interfered with or not.
The answer to that, carte blanche here on A.net, seems to be that it wasn't.
And indeed, that may be accurate or it could possibly be inaccurate.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:24 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 188):
Right off I see something interesting.

I also noticed a couple of tidbits related to the captain:

"The Captain’s ability to handle stress at work and home was good. There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. There were no significant changes in his life style, interpersonal conflict or family stresses." (page 20)

"There were no behavioural signs of social isolation, change in habits or interest, self-neglect, drug or alcohol abuse of the Captain, First Officer and the Cabin Crew." (page 21)

"On studying the Captain’s behavioural pattern on CCTV recordings on the day of the flight and prior 3 flights there was no significant behavioural changes observed. On all the CCTV recordings the appearance was similar, i.e. well groomed and attired. The gait, posture, facial expressions and mannerism were his normal characteristics." (page 21)
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
FlyDeltaJetsATL
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:39 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 191):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 189):
I'm just curious what probabilities you assign to the Inmarsat data either being:
Accurate v inaccurate?
and
Accurate v intentionally inaccurate?
Whilst I don't deny that the data *could* (I mean *could* as in - 'it is possible') be inaccurate, or worse, intentionally inaccurate, I believe it is far, far more probable and most likely IMHO that the data is accurate and the search is legit.

Interesting question ....
For starters, one cannot express this in so many percent correct and so many incorrect.
The first one, accurate v inaccurate, is simple.
The satellite data, as provided, is correct (has to be) if no one has interfered with it.
If the data has not been interfered with, it is a record of the communications with the aircraft.
And, as we all know, that data was then used by the various experts for calculations as to where the aircraft may have ended up.

As for the 'accurate v intentionally inaccurate', that is a different matter. The possibilities there are 50:50.
Either the data was interfered with somewhere down the line or it wasn't; it's as simple as either yes or no!
If the data was not interfered with, then, obviously, it is correct and accurate as received by the equipment.
If the data (all of it or some of it) was interfered with, then it cannot be accurate.
If this were to be the case, then the experts would have used inaccurate data for their calculations.
Which in turn would imply that the aircraft cannot be where they are searching.

So the real question is whether the data has been interfered with or not.
The answer to that, carte blanche here on A.net, seems to be that it wasn't.
And indeed, that may be accurate or it could possibly be inaccurate.

I believe that the other member 777jet was asking you what probabilities you give the data possibilities.

I have followed your scenario, and that of all other members who post in this thread, for a long time and you seem to believe strongly that the data has been falsified / made up.

So what is your personal opinion on the data? You post as if you give the data a 90% or higher probability of being inaccurate / made up.

I personally believe that the data can be trusted and is not made up. So I would assign a probability of 100% to the data being accurate and a probability of 0% to the data being either wrong or intentionally wrong / made up.

Rather than just saying 'it's 50 / 50 because it is either one or the other and either one is possible', please tell me what probability you really give to the data being either right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate?

Thank you.
FLY DELTA JETS
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:04 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 183):
Just read the interim report...
- Page 52, 1825UTC logon initiated by aircraft and not groundstation.

That information has been in public domain since May 2014 when the Data Communications logs of MH370 were released.

Quote:
18:25 - Log-on request, initiated from aircraft terminal. This is the end of the link lost period that began at sometime between 17:07:48 and 18:03:41.

Source: http://www.dca.gov.my/mainpage/MH370%20Data%20Communication%20Logs.pdf (page 39)

That information led to theory that somebody was fiddling with the electrical configuration of the aircraft (namely disabling the left main AC bus). The new factual information released today provides quite a lot of information regarding this. For example, appendix 1.6E.4 Electrical Power explicitly states on page 10 of 28 that SATCOM is disabled when backup generators provide power. I think you can find quite a lot of useful information if you look carefully enough.
 
infinit
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:48 pm

Air Crash investigation (aka Mayday) covered this incident in its current season, Season 14 Episode 11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUiCQmrITo

This is quite a different episode from the rest of this long-running series in that it is the first speculative episode since this incident hasn't been solved.

Of course, the producers are cashing on what is the air incident that has garnered the most interest since 911 but as with the rest of the series, I think they've covered the theories quite well

What's with the female cabin crew uniforms though.. that's the SQ kebaya in lime green! :P
 
FlyDeltaJetsATL
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:39 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:57 pm

Quoting infinit (Reply 195):
I think they've covered the theories quite well

If I remember correctly they did not cover any theory which suggests that the Inmarsat data had been falsified.

That might say something about what the producers think of that theory.

I agree in that I believe that the most likely theories were discussed: Hi-jacking, Hypoxia, Fire (which I doubt), and the Captain.
FLY DELTA JETS
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:08 pm

"The locator beacon battery on the data recording black box had expired before Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 ever vanished shortly after leaving Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing, an interim report issued on the first anniversary of the tragedy revealed."

From a USA Today article http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...ear-since-mh370-vanished/24599625/

For us non-technical folks.

"One newly identified issue, that may have hampered the subsequent search, was the December 2012 expiration of the battery of the locator beacon for the data recorder, more than a year before the flight. The battery in the cockpit voice recorder's locator beacon was working, the report said."
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:09 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 179):
short of a bomb that knocked everything out

I don't recall reading anywhere about the crew oxygen cylinders being topped up just prior to the incident flight, an odd coincidence of timing. This is mentioned on p. 27 of the factual information report, and appears to be a routine maintenance operation performed every one or two months, depending on indicated pressure.

Allow me to grasp at another straw for a moment. Supposing this operation had been performed incorrectly, what could be the effect of an 1800 psi oxygen cylinder rupturing inside the EE bay while in flight?
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 75

Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:51 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 194):
For example, appendix 1.6E.4 Electrical Power explicitly states on page 10 of 28 that SATCOM is disabled when backup generators provide power. I think you can find quite a lot of useful information if you look carefully enough.

I haven't found anything new there, but then I've already dug into the electrical system quite a bit.

Where my investigation comes to a grinding halt is knowing exactly what systems lose power when the left AC bus is isolated. It's clear that the AES comes down as well as the left utility bus which apparently powers the sat phones, the entertainment systems, the flight deck door camera and the flight deck door locks; but that's all I can find so far because I haven't found a power distribution chart for the left utility bus. I also am not certain what state the bus tie relay would be in and if it can be disabled from the flight deck. If the left DC power supply loses power when the left AC bus goes down there may be some left seat auto-pilot or navigation system degradation.

I have asked here repeatedly, and I believe there are posters here who can gain access to this information, but nobody has come forth to say what all happens when the left AC bus is tripped.

This is the most information I've been able to come across so far:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...=/2-2009%20N786UA%20Appendices.pdf

If you have anything more on this subject please make it available to the rest of us.
I thank you in advance.

[Edited 2015-03-08 11:56:17]

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