User avatar
American 767
Topic Author
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:03 pm

Part 78 was getting too long with over 200 replies so I made a new thread to continue the discussion:

Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78 (by American 767 Mar 25 2015 in Civil Aviation)

SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR ALL OUR MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those on board MH370; please keep science fiction theories and content related to past / current movies or possible future movie rights out of these threads. ****

**** PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT QUESTIONS AND SCENARIOS THAT HAS BEEN COVERED AND DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS THREADS AND WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE OR APPLY, IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, TOWARDS THIS CONVERSATION ANY LONGER. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER USERS AND KEEP THE FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS IN MIND WHEN POSTING IN THE FORUMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY RULE VIOLATIONS, PLEASE BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MODERATORS BY MAKING USE OF THE SUGGEST DELETION FUNCTION.
****

**** WHEN STATING FACTS, STATISTICS OR NEWSWORTHY BULLETINS, PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION. IF YOU ARE MERELY PROVIDING AN OPINION, PLEASE MENTION THIS IN YOUR POST. ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO AVOID ARGUMENTS BASED ON RUMORS OR MISINFORMATION

**** Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

**** Also keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and not a chat room. If you would like to chat about this incident, kindly make use of the "Live Chat" option, which is available in the "forum drop-down menu". Messages of agreement such as "ME TOO", "I AGREE WITH X", YES OR NO have been found to waste time and space and are therefore to be avoided. A message consisting of only one or two lines of text is probably not worth posting. Do not make posts that contain only a smiley face, check mark, etc. Make sure the content of your post is relevant to the topic.

American 767
Ben Soriano
 
Starglider
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:47 pm

Quoting 777 Jet:

"If it was that low and they could make out the door outline they must have also been able to make out how many engines it had... The engines are much bigger than the doors...

How many engines did they see hanging from each wing?

Was the plane a 2-holer or a 4-holer?"

This depends on the viewing angle, field of view, and speed of the passing plane if such details were noticeable within the time-frame available to witnesses on the island, likely less familiar with large aircraft.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:45 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 223):
number of engines is a very visible difference between types.

It sure is, which is why knowing how many engines the plane the Islanders saw had might be useful.

Showing them pics of the FitsAir DC-8 and the MH 777 and asking a few questions wouldn't hurt, as well as letting them listen to the relevant engine noises.

It would be even better if they were willing to be hooked up to a polygraph  

Having said that, the DC-8 might not have even been in the area or flying at all at that time...

Quoting Starglider (Reply 213):
Quoting Starglider (Reply 213):
Some witness mentioned that it flew so low that a door outline was visible.

Quoting 777Jet: If it was that low and they could make out the door outline they must have also been able to make out how many engines it had... The engines are much bigger than the doors...

How many engines did they see hanging from each wing?

Was the plane a 2-holer or a 4-holer?
Quoting Starglider (Reply 1):
This depends on the viewing angle, field of view, and speed of the passing plane if such details were noticeable within the time-frame available to witnesses on the island, likely less familiar with large aircraft.

If it flew so low that "a door outline was visible" then I would have expected the engines to be visible too, especially if a few different people saw it from different locations...
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
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:27 am

To continue the discussion regarding the loss of Mode S transponder...

Looking at Factual Information Figure 1.9B - ATC/Mode S Transponder Power System on page 41, transponders get flight parameters from ADIRU GP BUS 3 installed in the Left AIMS Cabinet and SAARU GP BUS 3 installed in the Right AIMS Cabinet.

There are four circuit breakers for each AIMS Cabinet on the overhead panel. What if those CBs are pulled, or at least the CBs that provide current for ADIRU and SAARU respectively? If all the CBs pulled we apparently lose the following functions:
- Thrust controls
- Flight management functions
- Communications
- Primary Flight Displays
- Flight Data Recorder System
- Aircraft Conditioning System
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:50 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 2):
If it flew so low that "a door outline was visible" then I would have expected the engines to be visible too, especially if a few different people saw it from different locations...

If it flew so low, than the large blue letters "Malaysia" on the side of the plane would be easy to read.
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:56 pm

That airplane just has to be MH370...Let's make no concessions,no compromises,no calculations. An hour or more of endurance in terms of fuel is negligible. To this day researchers are not even sure exactly how much fuel there was in the Electra of Amelia Earhart, it is a matter of debate. So in my opinion,it was not a coincidence.There was no other mystery aircraft in the region, if we are to believe the South Indian Ocean theory....On the other hand, the mysterious sighting reported by the rig worker and a lady on a yacht, also has to be conclusively explained and not conveniently rejected if we are ever to understand what happened that night....
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:14 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 5):
An hour or more of endurance in terms of fuel is negligible.

Are you serious?

Quoting gzm (Reply 5):
To this day researchers are not even sure exactly how much fuel there was in the Electra of Amelia Earhart

But the Factual Information report states precisely how much fuel was on MH370. There is no combination of speed / altitude that would have kept it flying for 56 additional minutes. Period.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:50 pm

You know what I mean.If we go on like this we will never solve the riddle.We keep going round in circles.We have to change something.

[Edited 2015-04-07 10:13:51]
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:05 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 7):

You know what I mean.If we go on like this we will never solve the riddle.We keep doing round in circles.We have to change something.

You will not solve anything by wishful thinking.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:48 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 5):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 6):
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 8):

What seems to be the problem is that most voices here on A.net no longer want to question the satellite data.
It has become fact, sacred; it can't be and should not be questioned.
And, yes, for all we know it could and may still be correct.

In that case, though, it must be explained what that unidentified aircraft was; what was it doing there?
Flying low like that is no la-di-da matter, at least not in this day and age of aviation; one should think.
The islanders who saw the airliner are described as:
"They are not dishonest ..." "They were not seeking attention .."
And yet, the Maldives National Defence Force issued a statement in March last year, ruling out any such aircraft movement over its space. That is an outright and direct contradiction.
To any A.netter, that direct contradiction should be unacceptable.

Most likely the investigators accepted the word of the authorities and never bothered to question the islanders for themselves; in the first rush of things that may have been reasonable. However, the investigators should have added two and two when they heard about the strong underwater sounds, which are said to have come from the direction of the Maldives.

What more ...
If we assume, for a minute, that it was MH370 over the Maldives, then, all the satellite data after 18:25 UTC would be false, have to be. In that case the generally accepted time of 08:19 for the final demise of 9M-MRO would also be false, or at least unknown. That time slot was arrived at by making the events fit the satellite data.
By now it has turned into virtual fact.
If the satellite data is false, it would require alltogether new calculations, taking into consideration fuel-saving speeds and whatever else to properly ascertain if it is physically possible for the unidentified aircraft to have been MH370.

Put differently ...
If the aircraft over the Maldives was definitely not MH370, then the satellite data would have to be assumed as correct.
But then, I ask, why is there this vehement resistance to anything that might have happened in the Maldives, to the point of ridiculing any mention of it?

And I agree with gzm that the other two sightings he mentioned should also still be investigated and properly explained to the public.

Edit: Phraseology

[Edited 2015-04-07 14:55:09]
 
motif1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:15 pm

YoungMans, the Maldives theory was considered by most everybody here and was deemed improbable due to amount of fuel on board. If you assume that MH370 was seen over the Maldives 8.5 hours after takeoff then you have to discard not only the satellite data but the available fuel which most consider a fact. The fuel amount is not only in the initial manifest (49100 kg) but also on the subsequent ACARS transmissions:

Quote:
The last position report transmitted via ACARS at 1707:29 UTC, 07 March 2014 [0107:29MYT, 08 March 2014] recorded remaining fuel of 43, 800 kg at 35,004 ft. altitude.
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:43 pm

Quoting motif1 (Reply 10):

I can't argue with that because I don't know what was possible with the available fuel.
But then, how do you explain the contradiction of what the islanders saw and what the Maldives Defence Force denied?

If the authorities deny one thing, is there a possibility that MH370 landed at Male, briefly, and refuelled there?
What I'm getting at is this:
In the absence of a clear explanation what the unidentified aircraft was, all sorts of scenarios would become possible.

And just to be clear, are you saying that there is simply no way for MH370 to have been airborne, for that distance, until the time the islanders saw an (their) aircraft? That would be vital information ...

Edit: From earlier threads I was under the impression that there are or were fuel-saver speeds that would allow for that kind of airborne time.

[Edited 2015-04-07 15:46:47]
 
motif1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:19 am

I don't have answers to these questions but I think that the Australians and the Chinese would have followed up if there was any merit. I am ready to dismiss the Maldivian sighting as a fabrication or confusion of some sort.

Having said that I wou also be interested to know if there is a theoretical possibility that the 777-200ER with that load of passengers, cargo and fuel could fly for 8.5 hours although I think some knowledgeable members have already stated that it was impossible.

M1
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:47 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 4):
If it flew so low, than the large blue letters "Malaysia" on the side of the plane would be easy to read.

I'm sure the locals would have understood what the large blue letters "Malaysia" read.

Quoting gzm (Reply 5):
That airplane just has to be MH370...

Case closed.

Quoting gzm (Reply 5):
On the other hand, the mysterious sighting reported by the rig worker and a lady on a yacht, also has to be conclusively explained and not conveniently rejected if we are ever to understand what happened that night....

The story from the lady on the yacht was the most laughable out of the three. I'd probably give the story from the Islanders the most time followed by the story from the oil rig worker. More that just one Islander supposedly saw the big plane and IMO they would be the least likely to tell a fib.   

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 9):
If the aircraft over the Maldives was definitely not MH370,

Have you contacted any of the operators of large white aircraft with red stripes in that area and asked if they had a big plane operating in that area, at that time, and on that day?

That wouldn't be too hard to do and might help you rule things in and out in regards to your pet scenario.

Quoting motif1 (Reply 12):
Having said that I wou also be interested to know if there is a theoretical possibility that the 777-200ER with that load of passengers, cargo and fuel could fly for 8.5 hours although I think some knowledgeable members have already stated that it was impossible.

You said: "that the 777-200ER"

If you are asking about 9M-MRO specifically when it was operating MH370, with the stated fuel load for MH370, the answer is most likely no. But I'll let others answer that as I'm not interested in crunching fuel burn numbers.

But... A fully loaded and fully fueled 777-200ER in general could potentially fly 7,725 nmi or 8,892 mi or 14,310 km at least depending on the wind so the 777-200ER in general has the potentioal to fly 16 hrs plus.
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
 
motif1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:15 am

I meant the MH370 777. Was it possible for it to fly for 8.5 hours?
Sorry for the confusion.

M1
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:07 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 9):
If the aircraft over the Maldives was definitely not MH370, then the satellite data would have to be assumed as correct.

No, the satellite data (and quite a lot of other data) would be proven wrong IF MH370 was over the Maledives. But it does not work the other way round. "Not seen over the Maledives" means nothing.

Did the islanders come up with some kind of picture of what they saw ? Something like an identikit picture maybe ? Just draw a little sketch is the easiest thing to do.

Quoting motif1 (Reply 14):

Not with the amount of fuel on board. Even less when going low and slow.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:13 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 11):
And just to be clear, are you saying that there is simply no way for MH370 to have been airborne, for that distance, until the time the islanders saw an (their) aircraft? That would be vital information ...

Distance is not the problem, time is!
The Maledives are only 1700-1800 nm from the last point of contact with MH370. If MH370 went over the Maledives, it would have been there a hours earlier. But it could not be in the air at the time of the reported sighting.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:59 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 15):
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 16):

You are quite right that the distance is not really the problem but the amount of fuel which MH370 was carrying. Specific fuel loads will ultimately allow for only a limited time in the air; and from what I gather, that time limit is fairly predictable and quite specific.
That means, if we go purely by the fuel figures, than it can not really have been MH370; or could it?

That means, we would have to look at everything with much greater precision and accuracy.
When, at what time for example, were those underwater sounds?
They are (only) reported as 'roughly fitting the time frame'.
Then there is the reported time of exactly 06:15 (Local) when the islanders are supposed to have seen the aircraft. Was that the time spot on, to the second, or was the actual sighting at 05:45 and it was 06:15 when they finally reached home to have a look at the clock.

Islanders live quite literally by different time frames than we Westeners do. It's also quite unrealistic to insist on exact description of the writing on the side of the aircraft and other details like that. We have no idea what exactly the islanders reported to the police or even to the journalist(s) who interviewed them for three days.

In any case, at least six of the islanders were interviewed by the police and, the way it is reported, it was a genuine sighting. In places like that, nothing much happens out of the ordinary, at least not all of a sudden and unannounced.
So a sighting like that will not go unnoticed.

Another thought is this ...
If the 'The Australian' reported this, then one would think that they too would or at least should have been aware of all this and question the fuel endurance. The article does not mention it.

As for 777Jet's suggestion, to contact the owner of the possible plane that was mentioned, you can do that, mate.
Just imagine ...
G'day, I'm from Airliners.Net!
Can you tell us please whether that was your plane over that island in the Maldives, at 06:15 on 8 March last year, or was that MH370; what do you say?
Guess what they are going to tell you?
You are right, they'll be more polite than that; they simply won't even bother.

But the 'The Australian' might.
After all, a reputable paper cannot or at least should not simply publish an article to raise people's interest, purely for the sake of it. If they report on something like that, it has to have substance.
Or else they, too, are no more than an ordinary tabloid paper.
By publishing that article, they have hinted (quite strongly) at the possibility for that sighting to be of MH370.

So here is the challenge to A.netters ...
We first have to establish more precisely the fuel consumption figures, i.e. MH370's endurance.
Once we have those figures, and if that indicates it is impossible for that sighting to have been MH370, then I'm quite prepared to write to 'The Australian'.
But first off I need that assistance with fairly accurate fuel consumption figures; in other words, are there fuel-saver modes that would have made it possible for MH370 to be in the air for that long.

And as much as this may be anathema to many here on the thread ...
If it was MH370 by some chance, over the Maldives at that time, then there is a possibility that everything after IGARI is wrong or at least questionable.

We'll reach Thread #200 then ....
 
motif1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:28 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
Islanders live quite literally by different time frames than we Westeners do. It's also quite unrealistic to insist on exact description of the writing on the side of the aircraft and other details like that. We have no idea what exactly the islanders reported to the police or even to the journalist(s) who interviewed them for three days.

The Main witness was an IT manager - not a primitive hunter-gatherer! I would expect that he would know the time, could tell a jet from a seaplane and also be able to fabricate the sighting. You should write to that newspaper and ask them about their investigation or lack thereof.

M1
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14559
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:29 am

One thing the Germanwings and this flight may have connections with is the 'rogue pilot' situation but also the difficulty in keeping out a pilot who may have a psychological problem that may keep them out of cockpit and not do a suicide by airliner.
Psychological testing and monitoring can be inaccurate, near impossible to do in many countries due to medical privacy laws and costs to do so. You also would have great difficulty to keep out a pilot with financial, personal, professional, general health, political beliefs and family problems that may cause them to kill themselves in a airliner crash, to bring attention for their problems.
This is something that needs to be discussed and figure out some way to limit the risks from these factors without causing other problems, false charges and unnecessary costs.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:19 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
We first have to establish more precisely the fuel consumption figures, i.e. MH370's endurance.

Look at Pihero's posts in the first dozen or so threads, where he calculated fuel burn for taxi, takeoff, climb and cruise. Unfortunately, he and other aviation professionals were shouted off this thread by someone who now appears to be banned.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
are there fuel-saver modes that would have made it possible for MH370 to be in the air for that long.

No. There's no combination of speed / altitude that could have kept it flying for that long.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 9):
What seems to be the problem is that most voices here on A.net no longer want to question the satellite data.
It has become fact, sacred; it can't be and should not be questioned.

Forget the satellite data. It couldn't have stayed in the air that long. Period.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:11 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
Then there is the reported time of exactly 06:15 (Local) when the islanders are supposed to have seen the aircraft. Was that the time spot on, to the second, or was the actual sighting at 05:45 and it was 06:15 when they finally reached home to have a look at the clock.

It may not have been 6:15 sharp, and they may not have looked at their watch at once. But what is known, and can be checked, is the time of daybreak. And that was reported as shortly after 6 a.m., 0610 iirc. The islanders would not see anything in the dark of the night.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
If the 'The Australian' reported this, then one would think that they too would or at least should have been aware of all this and question the fuel endurance. The article does not mention it.

Even quality papers have to fill the space between advertisments. The Ibitimes-article from March 2014 that i linked some pages earlier mentions to the question of timing and endurance. Please let us not forget that in the meantime some books have been written with quite obscure theories. Conspiracy sells. Also, large groups have a vested interest, beginning with the Malaysian government, the airlines operating a large number of 777s, and last not least the producers. I do believe, the industry really wants clarity in the end, but above all keep the public quiet and flying at first.

And sure, some in the industry would give his right arm for the knowledge how to fly 8,5 hours with fuel for max. 7,5 hours. That would be huge $$$$$ !
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:31 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
We first have to establish more precisely the fuel consumption figures, i.e. MH370's endurance.
Once we have those figures, and if that indicates it is impossible for that sighting to have been MH370, then I'm quite prepared to write to 'The Australian'.
But first off I need that assistance with fairly accurate fuel consumption figures; in other words, are there fuel-saver modes that would have made it possible for MH370 to be in the air for that long.

I've done the calculations... and did it again recently.
The aircraft in long range cruise mode and step climb could fly until 08:43, but this is from the Performance Dispatch section, and it includes a 23min descent. If we take out the descent, should be able to fly until 08:20 plus a few minutes. Nothing new there.

Now that's assuming the aircraft did step climbs to get as far as it could, not fly for as long as it could. But, assume it remained at Long Range Cruise at FL350 until fuel ran out, I ran through the performance in flight In Cruise Check, and with 01:07 with 43.8 tons and the ZFW as stated in the factual report, the airplane should have flown until 08:56, again with the descent taken out and replaced with flight till empty, it would last until 08:33, again nothing new there, the numbers aren't too far off.

BUT... if I use the in-cruise LRC fuel burn numbers instead... at FL350... the results is that the airplane would maintain FL350 until it runs out of fuel at 08:25... So again, nothing new there....

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 20):
No. There's no combination of speed / altitude that could have kept it flying for that long.

After you wrote the above, I decided to calculate how would I want to fly in the air for as long as possible, which may not be what have happened to MH370... BUT... out of curiousity...
If I use holding speed, and discount the additional 5% of fuel burn for racetrack pattern, ie, fly at flaps up holding speeds, at FL350... the fuel would run out at.... 09:08... Not sure what time (Malaysian time) did they claim to have seen the plane in Maldives.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:12 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
Not sure what time (Malaysian time) did they claim to have seen the plane in Maldives.

09:15. Closer than i thought, but still not enough
 
markalot
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:07 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:29 pm

Doesn't wind direction and speed need to be in any fuel calculation? I suspect this was done and just not mentioned above.   Was there an altitude that had a wind direction that would aid in the fuel consumption?
M a r k
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:38 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
As for 777Jet's suggestion, to contact the owner of the possible plane that was mentioned, you can do that, mate.

I have no reason to as I believe 9M-MRO is in a location consistent with the Inmarsat data  

I am also not the one with 'form' when it comes to doing that  
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
Just imagine ...
G'day, I'm from Airliners.Net!
Can you tell us please whether that was your plane over that island in the Maldives, at 06:15 on 8 March last year, or was that MH370; what do you say?

Just imagine if somebody from this site contacted Inmarsat, or one of the specific author's of the paper on the data, and asked if their data could be wrong... or asked if they could "guarantee" that the data is correct... yeah, just imagine...

Oh, wait...

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
Guess what they are going to tell you?

Probably the same thing anybody would tell you if you were as unprofessional as the sarcastic example you gave.

However, if you went about it professionally, who knows what kind of reply you might get - your guess would most likely be better than mine  
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
You are right, they'll be more polite than that; they simply won't even bother.

Are you sure?
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
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:42 pm

Quoting motif1 (Reply 14):
I meant the MH370 777. Was it possible for it to fly for 8.5 hours?
Sorry for the confusion.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 20):
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 17):
We first have to establish more precisely the fuel consumption figures, i.e. MH370's endurance.

Look at Pihero's posts in the first dozen or so threads, where he calculated fuel burn for taxi, takeoff, climb and cruise. Unfortunately, he and other aviation professionals were shouted off this thread by someone who now appears to be banned.

  

Several of the more knowledgeable members worked on those numbers in the earlier threads. All the numbers are there.
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
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:19 pm

Quoting markalot (Reply 24):
Doesn't wind direction and speed need to be in any fuel calculation?

Endurance is the same no matter what air mass you're flying in. Distance travelled is not, but that's not the issue here.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
Tahooma
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:17 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:57 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 27):
Endurance is the same no matter what air mass you're flying in. Distance travelled is not, but that's not the issue here.

I tried to follow your arguments on this and maybe i am wrong, but let me try to give an example from every days life:

Example:
Under common circumstances Car A burns 5 litres of fuel on 100 kilometers using cruise control.

Attempt1:
Driver 1 rides Car A with a constant speed of 100 Kilometers/hour and 5 litres in his tank and no wind.
Parameters:
Speed: 100km/h
Fuel: 5 litres.
Wind: no wind
Expected Result: Car A will drive for 1 hour, 100 kilometers.

Attempt2:
Driver 2 rides Car A with a constant speed of 100 Kilometers/hour and 5 litres in his tank and strong tailwind.
Parameters:
Speed: 100km/h
Fuel: 5 litres.
Wind: strong tailwind
Expected Result: Car A will drive for MORE than 100 Kilometers. As it is driving with constant speed, it will reach the 100 Kilometers Mark exactly after one hour. As it burns less Fuel (because of the tailwind), it can go on for some additional Time X.

Same the other way, strong headwinds cause a car going with cruise control to burn more fuel on same constant speed.
As the speed is constant it will reach the same distance in same time, but will have more or less distance it can go and therefore will last longer.

Thats what I experience when I go with my car on highways each day. I expect planes to react in a pretty similar way.
 
SoJo
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:29 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:15 pm

This thread is getting just like a fairy tale. So with that in mind, here is my theory... The witches (pilots) flying on their broom (777) left KL (Karma Land) and headed towards somewhere. Along the way the witches (pilots) were confronted by Tinkerbelle (unknown phenomenon) who waved her magic wand and the witches (pilots) had to land at RAAF Butterworth. Upon landing, they got everyone off the broom (777) and sent them to Penang and to a local br hotel. The broom (777) was then converted into a Kampong next to the old Bloodhound missile site. I like this theory but, you will get it nuked in no time. After all my hard work. So be it....   
RAF Abingdon 1967. I met Beverley from Blackburn. Fantastic!
 
aerodog
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:48 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:12 am

Not sure about the 777 but for many airplanes, LRC speed is not the same as the maximum endurance speed.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:56 am

Wind doesn't affect your endurance if you keep to a specific airspeed... your range is what gets affected.

Quoting Tahooma (Reply 28):
Expected Result: Car A will drive for MORE than 100 Kilometers. As it is driving with constant speed, it will reach the 100 Kilometers Mark exactly after one hour. As it burns less Fuel (because of the tailwind), it can go on for some additional Time X.

A car travels on groundspeed. An airplane travels with airspeed, not groundspeed.
If the airplane burns 6 tons an hour to travel at a true airspeed of 475 knots, and carries 37.9 tons of fuel, you will still have 6 hours and 19 minutes of flight regardless of the wind. The difference is in the distance you can go. If you want to go 3000NM, with a 25 knot headwind you'd need more fuel as you'd need to fly for over 7 hours to go the distance, and if you have the 25 knot tailwind you'd need only 5 hours and 42 minutes. But, your endurance for the fuel at 475 knots airspeed is still 6 hours 19 minutes.

Quoting aerodog (Reply 30):
Not sure about the 777 but for many airplanes, LRC speed is not the same as the maximum endurance speed.

This is true, unfortunately the manuals that I have for the 777 only show the LRC because I only have the QRH and the Performance Dispatch from the FCOM. If I have the Flight Planning and Performance Manual, then I can tell you what the maximum endurance speed is. That is why above I used the holding speed fuel burn (minus the 5% for racetrack pattern being thrown out if you want to go on that speed in a straight line)... but the difference at FL350 isn't great.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:25 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 20):
No. There's no combination of speed / altitude that could have kept it flying for that long.
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 25):
I have no reason to as I believe 9M-MRO is in a location consistent with the Inmarsat data

I thought the Immersat data confirmed the ARC it traveled along and was pinging on?

Has anyone considered whether this plane landed on some remote landing strip and then took off again at a later point that night? For whatever reason? The pilot had full control most likely and was running those simulations. He knew all the available airfields in the area. 2-3 hours on the ground at some abandoned strip might have given him time to hide the plane better then take off again for who knows where.
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:31 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 3):
To continue the discussion regarding the loss of Mode S transponder...

Looking at Factual Information Figure 1.9B - ATC/Mode S Transponder Power System on page 41, transponders get flight parameters from ADIRU GP BUS 3 installed in the Left AIMS Cabinet and SAARU GP BUS 3 installed in the Right AIMS Cabinet.

Also per that diagram, the identity code and control data originate in the transponder panel. The way it's drawn, it looks like a single unit, although the left/right functions might be completely separate from each other. But that could be a point (points?) to mess with the data the ATC radar uses as an indicator that mode S is active.

In looking at how the different radar stations saw the initial incident, it appears different stations interpret it differently:

1720:31 - radar recording showed that MH370 passed through waypoint IGARI. (Page 2).

1720:33 - SSR and ADS-B radar position symbols disappeared from the radar display of HCM ATCC SSR and ADS-B. (Page 4).

1720:36 - the Mode S symbol of MH370 dropped off from radar display (at KL ATCC, I'm assuming). (Page 2).

1721:13 (three concurrent observations) -
Last secondary radar position symbol was recorded by KL ATCC radar. (Page 2).
The radar position symbol of A2157 disappeared from Thailand Radar. (Page 5).
Malaysia Military radar showed the radar return of MH370 turning right but almost immediately making a constant left turn to a South Westerly direction. (Page 3).

(All times UTC).

Assuming the KL, HCM and Thai stations were all looking at the same transmission source, there's a wide variation in how those systems interpreted the data. Taken with the statements that the transponder was "operating satisfactorily" and that "Military radar and radar sources from two other countries, namely Vietnam and Thailand, also captured the disappearance of the radar position symbol of MH370 at about the same time" (Page 2), it doesn't appear that the report is flagging an anomaly. It's as if the 40 second span between MH370 dropping off the HCM radar and it completely disappearing from the KL and Thai screens is unremarkable.

That's not the same as actually stating that everything was operating as designed, but it comes close. Maybe the 40 second span is just result of how different systems process the same data?
 
motif1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:21 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 32):


I thought the Immersat data confirmed the ARC it traveled along and was pinging on?

Has anyone considered whether this plane landed on some remote landing strip and then took off again at a later point that night? For whatever reason? The pilot had full control most likely and was running those simulations. He knew all the available airfields in the area. 2-3 hours on the ground at some abandoned strip might have given him time to hide the plane better then take off again for who knows where.

In this case the hourly satellite pings would have been disrupted.

M1
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:29 am

I listened to the audio recordings of the MH370 ATC communications again today, a few times, and it sounds as if there are more than just two different voices speaking from the MH370 cockpit. I have always felt that way after hearing the different tones / word choice / word order / accent / etc. After listening to the MH370 ATC audio has abybody else ever felt that there just might have been more than 2 people in the cockpit / using the radio that night?

Quoting SoJo (Reply 29):
The witches (pilots) flying on their broom (777)

Which one was the Wicked Witch of the West?

Quoting SoJo (Reply 29):
left KL (Karma Land) and headed towards somewhere.

Maybe that somewhere was the Land of Oz?

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 32):
I thought the Immersat data confirmed the ARC it traveled along and was pinging on?

It does for some. But for some it does not.

[Edited 2015-04-09 00:32:09]
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
 
Tahooma
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:17 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:27 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 31):
A car travels on groundspeed. An airplane travels with airspeed, not groundspeed.
If the airplane burns 6 tons an hour to travel at a true airspeed of 475 knots, and carries 37.9 tons of fuel, you will still have 6 hours and 19 minutes of flight regardless of the wind. The difference is in the distance you can go. If you want to go 3000NM, with a 25 knot headwind you'd need more fuel as you'd need to fly for over 7 hours to go the distance, and if you have the 25 knot tailwind you'd need only 5 hours and 42 minutes. But, your endurance for the fuel at 475 knots airspeed is still 6 hours 19 minutes.

Thx for the headsup.
Seems i mixed some speed concepts  
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:30 am

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 33):
Also per that diagram, the identity code and control data originate in the transponder panel. The way it's drawn, it looks like a single unit, although the left/right functions might be completely separate from each other. But that could be a point (points?) to mess with the data the ATC radar uses as an indicator that mode S is active.

Glad to see some reasonable thoughts about the technical aspects of the disappearance.

Yes, the ident code (4-digit transponder code) is selected on the transponder panel and it affects both the transponders. Changing the ident code would only change the ident code ATC sees in connection with the plane symbol. However, the 24-bit Mode S identifier is hardwired to the transponders themselves and cannot be changed from the flight deck.

As per the transponder installation manual, Mode S cannot be disabled from the transponder panel. If the transponder disables Mode S when it loses all the flight parameters, then Mode S could be potentially be disabled by pulliing flight computer circuit breakers on the overhead panel.
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:27 pm

In regards to Mode S and the transponder...what would the left ac bus tie being nipped result in?

If we presume MH370 was a deliberate act (we all know where I stand on the matter), then there IS one explanation that satisfies and results in what we now see before us...unless that data is somehow convoluted?
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:00 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 37):
If the transponder disables Mode S when it loses all the flight parameters, then Mode S could be potentially be disabled by pulliing flight computer circuit breakers on the overhead panel.

OK, let's assume that's true for the moment. Let's also assume that it was incidental to whatever actions were being taken – if the objective was to shut off the transponder (and the person doing it was in the cockpit), there was an easier way to do it.

We have some idea of what was shut off from the restart sequence about an hour later:

1822:12 - MH370 "disappeared abruptly" from Malaysian military radar. (Page 3).

1825:27 - SATCOM Log-On, initiated from the aircraft terminal. (Page 54).
1825:34 – SATCOM Log-On, successfully completed. (Page 54)
Note: no flight ID was sent during logon, ACARS traffic did not resume.
1827:03 – The IFE sets up a Data-3 ground connection (X.25 circuit) over SATCOM for an SMS/e-mail application. (Page 55).
1828:05 – The IFE sets up a Data-3 ground connection (X.25 circuit) over SATCOM for a BITE application. (Page 55).
Note: no data was transmitted via either connection.

1839:52 – Ground to Air Telephony Call Placed. (Page 55).
1840:56 – unanswered Ground to Air telephony call was cleared by the calling party. (Page 55).

It looks like...

1. The Satcom unit was powered off, and then turned back on.
2. ACARS function was powered off separately.
3. The source of the flight ID was powered off separately or otherwise disconnected.

The IFE also came back up. Would that have been because it or the CPMU interface was powered down, or because it was on the whole time and the restart of the satcom triggered the reconnection? It took about a minute and a half for the email interface to reestablish, and another minute for BITE.

Someone doing this from the cockpit might see priority #1 as shutting down any means of communication outside of his control: ACARS, transponder, IFE email and BITE.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:17 pm

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 39):
Someone doing this from the cockpit might see priority #1 as shutting down any means of communication outside of his control: ACARS, transponder, IFE email and BITE.

But then, we're back to a question from a while back... How did he shut down the satcom? Unpower the left main AC bus? Unpower both main AC buses... that'll do nicely... kill Satcom and IFE at the same time. To kill satcom only, gets too complicated and involves him leaving the flight deck.

But then, am still bothered by the loss of mode S from the transponder. And haven't looked at the manuals again for that...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
cpqi
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:21 pm

It comes back to the old question on this issue. Is it really really possible to make a plane of this size completely disappear in this way. I hate to imagine a conspiracy mainly because it begs the question "What happened to the passengers ?"
I hate turbulence
 
speedbird128
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:30 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:25 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 35):
has abybody else ever felt that there just might have been more than 2 people in the cockpit / using the radio that night?

Hundreds of times every shift I hear different voices responding to the same callsign. It's not a rule that only one pilot may do R/T.

I don't get the armchair judgment over this issue. It's completely normal. Even the not using callsign. I have that EVERY SINGLE SHIFT. Sloppy R/T is a fact of life.
A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:16 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 40):
Unpower both main AC buses... that'll do nicely... kill Satcom and IFE at the same time.

Is the reboot time for the IFE (~ 2 and a half minutes total) and the way it happened in two stages consistent with simply turning those breakers back on?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 40):
But then, am still bothered by the loss of mode S from the transponder. And haven't looked at the manuals again for that...

It's not just the loss of mode S, if I'm reading the timeline correctly. The first drop off was from the HCM radar 3 seconds before that, and both SSR and ADS-B were lost at the same time (given that ADS-B could have been riding on mode S).

I take SSR to mean the same as "secondary radar position symbol" and "radar position symbol". If that's correct, then it would seem that there was only one "event" and the three radar centers all saw it differently and/or processed it differently over the span of 40 seconds. Or, there were two events, the first causing mode S to drop from the KL radar and SSR and ADS-B to drop from HCM radar, and the second causing the loss of the transponder symbol on KL and Thai radar.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:47 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 40):
But then, we're back to a question from a while back... How did he shut down the satcom? Unpower the left main AC bus? Unpower both main AC buses... that'll do nicely... kill Satcom and IFE at the same time. To kill satcom only, gets too complicated and involves him leaving the flight deck.

That is why I consider the failed hi-jack scenario one of the more likely scenarios. I can't see a logical reason why the Captain (or anybody acting alone for that matter) would want to unnecessarily complicate things or take the extra risk of leaving the cockpit, especially at time when another crew member could still be alive in the cabin on portable oxygen even after an earlier intentional depressurization.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 40):
But then, am still bothered by the loss of mode S from the transponder.

Likewise.

Quoting cpqi (Reply 41):
It comes back to the old question on this issue. Is it really really possible to make a plane of this size completely disappear in this way.

Sadly, MH370 is proof that a very big, safe, expensive, technologically advanced plane with 239 SOB can go missing nowadays.

Quoting cpqi (Reply 41):
I hate to imagine a conspiracy mainly because it begs the question "What happened to the passengers ?"

I hope, especially for the NOK, that we find out what happened one day.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 42):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 35):
has abybody else ever felt that there just might have been more than 2 people in the cockpit / using the radio that night?

Hundreds of times every shift I hear different voices responding to the same callsign. It's not a rule that only one pilot may do R/T.

I never implied that there was a rule that "only one pilot may do R/T".

The first part of my sentence that you quoted asked: "has abybody else ever felt that there just might have been more than 2 people in the cockpit"

Zaharie and Fariq were the two pilots on MH370 so I would only expect to hear two different voices / accents.

But after listening to all of the ATC audio (from at the gate in KUL until the last transmission near IGARI) I believe there could have been more than just the two different / expected voices of Zaharie and Fariq; I believe there *might* have been a third different voice comming from the MH370 cockpit which would NOT be normal.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 42):
I don't get the armchair judgment over this issue. It's completely normal.

Not if there was a third voice reporting to ATC from a cockpit in which there were supposed to only be two people.

If there was an attempted hi-jacking before IGARI and the hi-jackers knew their stuff and wanted to maintain normal radio contact until IGARI then who knows what could have happened, especially if the crew refused to answer one or two transmissions until they were forced...

[Edited 2015-04-09 16:55:07]
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
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:15 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 44):
If there was an attempted hi-jacking before IGARI and the hi-jackers knew their stuff and wanted to maintain normal radio contact until IGARI then who knows what could have happened, especially if the crew refused to answer one or two transmissions until they were forced...

Come on mate. No red flags on manifest, no motive, no demands, no plane, no security concerns, no squawk, and a probable flight path to the abyss...literally. I could go on about why some 007's DID NOT steal M9MRO, and why it makes no sense to anyone living in reality (oh, that sounded harsh), but I suspect you well understand this already...

Ah, I see. You're predicating this on the operative word 'failed'. Quite a flight path these 'failures' took, only to have their evil plans thwarted by the dynamic duo of Fariq and Z at 18:25.   
 
FlyDeltaJetsATL
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:39 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:33 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 44):
Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 42):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 35):
has abybody else ever felt that there just might have been more than 2 people in the cockpit / using the radio that night?

Hundreds of times every shift I hear different voices responding to the same callsign. It's not a rule that only one pilot may do R/T.

I never implied that there was a rule that "only one pilot may do R/T".

The first part of my sentence that you quoted asked: "has abybody else ever felt that there just might have been more than 2 people in the cockpit"

Zaharie and Fariq were the two pilots on MH370 so I would only expect to hear two different voices / accents.

But after listening to all of the ATC audio (from at the gate in KUL until the last transmission near IGARI) I believe there could have been more than just the two different / expected voices of Zaharie and Fariq; I believe there *might* have been a third different voice comming from the MH370 cockpit which would NOT be normal.

777jet: I can totally understand what you mean when you question how many different voices / people were talking to ATC from the cockpit of MH370.

During the ground communications, there is the young voice of the First Officer.

However, the following three communications from MH370 neither appear to be spoken by the same person's voice nor by the voice of the First Officer:


'12:50:09 (MAS 370) Flight level three five zero, Malaysian three seven zero.'

'01:01:14 (MAS 370) Malaysian three seven zero, maintaining level three five zero.'

'01:07:55 (MAS 370) Malaysian... three seven zero maintaining level three five zero.'


Between the ground communications spoken by the first officer and the above FL350 communications I also feel that it is possible that a third person might have jumped on the radio for whatever reason; a third person that should not have been there. A hi-jacking is a possibility.
FLY DELTA JETS
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:42 am

Why do civil/military radar systems not warn/inform operators when a plane goes "dark" and keeps on going when it still is within primary radar coverage. I'm guessing unless someone is paying attention to the system it won't do this which is an easy explanation why ATC/Mil radar ops just ignored everything. You would think after 9/11 planes dropping transponders would be a concern for ATC/military radar operations. Obviously the primary radar return is less accurate but you can at least give the operator a possible list of planes the unidentified one might be based on its previous position (If you catch a plane dropping from secondary radar within range of primary it should have been an easy task to match up the track automatically).
 
FlyDeltaJetsATL
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:39 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:52 am

Oxymorph:

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
No red flags on manifest

There were also no "red flags", to use your term, on the Captain / First Officer according to the factual report but since you prefer to use FaceBook as evidence I will not even try to argue against that type of logic.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
no motive

Something in the secretive cargo? The twenty or so tech firm employees?

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
no demands

Hard to make demands from 20,000 feet below the surface of the Southern Indian Ocean.

I believe reception is not too good down there but I may be wrong.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
no squawk

Hi-jackers would not squawk 7500 and if the pilots had a Smith & Wesson against the side of their head neither would they.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
why it makes no sense to anyone living in reality (oh, that sounded harsh),

Were you not the member that was exposed as living a double reality posting under multiple user names? If so it is a bit ironic to use such language. Not that anybody would take you seriously anyway.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
Ah, I see. You're predicating this on the operative word 'failed'. Quite a flight path these 'failures' took, only to have their evil plans thwarted by the dynamic duo of Fariq and Z at 18:25.

The path to 1825 looks 99.99% intentional to me, but the path after that to the Southern Indian Ocean could be consistent with the result of a failed hi-jacking flight on auto-pilot, as well as one of the pilots taking the plane amongst other scenarios. But to suggest that there is 100% certainty that the Captain did it and there are no other possibilities such as a failed hi-jacking / accident borders on insane.

Good night.


Edited for spelling.

[Edited 2015-04-09 17:53:38]
FLY DELTA JETS
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:54 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 46):
'12:50:09 (MAS 370) Flight level three five zero, Malaysian three seven zero.'

'01:01:14 (MAS 370) Malaysian three seven zero, maintaining level three five zero.'

'01:07:55 (MAS 370) Malaysian... three seven zero maintaining level three five zero.'


Between the ground communications spoken by the first officer and the above FL350 communications I also feel that it is possible that a third person might have jumped on the radio for whatever reason; a third person that should not have been there. A hi-jacking is a possibility.

The factual report identifies all of these transmissions as being from the PIC...Zaharie. Can we put this to rest?

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