Starglider
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

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

Tue May 12, 2015 9:09 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 198):
Let's be more imaginative. Except,of course,if there are things we ignore. But as it is,it is lacking in something, isn't it?


The factual information states: Deferred Defect 07 Nov 2013: From Daily Engineering Operations Report (DEOR) - Right engine consumes average 1.5T more fuel per/hour compared to left engine.

And:

Quote"
"The investigation estimated that the aircraft would have had 41,500 kg of fuel remaining after 41 minutes flying from KLIA to IGARI. Fuel burn and endurance will be discussed in the Final Report."

This could mean that if the fuel consumption of the right engine was left unchecked (due to an incapacitated crew) some time after 41 minutes of flight, this could have resulted in a fuel imbalance of approx. 10,000 kg for the remaining endurance of approx. 7 hrs. The left engine would have run for a considerably longer period than the right engine in this case.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Wed May 13, 2015 1:07 am

Quoting gzm (Reply 198):
You make it sound like the captain was the Lord of Darkness. It is a little eerie. Well, I do not think I believe it.

You continue to talk as if you rule the 'pilot did it' theory out 100% - that you don't believe it is possible.

Answer this: Are Andreas Lubitz, Auburn Calloway, Gamil El Batouti & co. not pilots that fall into you "Lord of Darkness" category? They are. Such sickos do exist.

Heck, the off duty flight engineer Auburn Calloway, who was jump-seating, tried to hack all three cockpit crew members to death during his failed pilot suicide attempt. You act like you believe pilots can't do sick things like the "Lord of Darkness" can and yet you seem to be very aware of GermanWings.

What do you believe happened? Only one chain of events happened with MH370 - so go ahead and present your MH370 chain of events...

Quoting gzm (Reply 193):
That plane is down and could have crashed anywhere like Germanwings in such tiny pieces that it will never be found. Months ago,after Air Asia, I suspected that a fourth crash was imminent but I dared not say it, so as to have four of them to form a cross of oppositions.

Here you acknowledge GermanWings and therefore Andreas Lubitz. Does Lubitz come under you "Lord of Darkness" category?

Where does MH370 fall into your "cross of oppositions" concerning recent aviation tragedies?
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
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

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

Wed May 13, 2015 8:16 am

I have my own opinion and my own reservations,otherwise there would be no discussion. By the way,777 jet, you are the moderator here aren't you? What have you done to Tailskid? Can you solve the problem of his disappearance? Only you could have done it. Zippo!
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Wed May 13, 2015 10:26 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 196):
The media keep running with Bailey's scenario. This came out about 30 mins ago:

Throw that rubbish out of the window please!

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 196):
Pretty dodgy reporting to say that "all pilots" believe that scenario...

Incorrect. Not all pilots.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 196):
Of course. But I believe if it was ditched successfully it would have mostly broken up into large pieces that would have sunk anyway. Even the smaller items that would usually float might have eventually been hammered by swells by the time the search moved to that area and also gone under.
Quoting oxymorph (Reply 197):
The general chorus of pilots here has been to steer the conversation away from the one and only sensical scenario.

There are non A.net pilots who disagree that the pilot did it.
The "Pilot did it" does not explain the satcom re-logon at 1825UTC, there is no sense in depowering the satcom and then repowering it again if your mission is to disappear into thin air. None. Nada.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 199):
But ... from various angles here on the thread we have heard, quite categorically, that this was not the case; in fact the aircraft had (only) the 49,100 kg of fuel in the tanks when it started the engines.

I used the timestamp at 0107 on the ACARS saying that it had 43800kgs.
Under LRC, the fuel would run out at 08:25
If he went at holding speed, the fuel would run out at 09:08... 09:08 is about as long as it would go... if someone wants to challenge that, I want data to support it. If anyone has data on green dot fuel burn at altitude, that would be welcomed.
The above times were the result of the use of the fuel burn numbers of the aircraft using the QRH performance in-flight at LRC and FL350, as well as holding fuel burn minus 5% allowance for racetrack pattern. All are used using progressive weight reduction method at 1 minute intervals.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Wed May 13, 2015 1:31 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 203):
If he went at holding speed, the fuel would run out at 09:08... 09:08 is about as long as it would go..

Thanks for that ....
But ... Do I see this correctly:
At holding speed, the aircraft could not have been able to reach the area where they are now looking for it, or could it..??
If the aircraft did remain airborne for the additional time, then the 7th handshake would or should have fully gone through, i.e. properly not partially, wouldn't it ..??
Unless someone switched the Satcom 'OFF' again (in mid-sentence). Is that likely..??
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Wed May 13, 2015 3:24 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 201):
You continue to talk as if you rule the 'pilot did it' theory out 100% - that you don't believe it is possible.

I'd like to keep an open mind and not sweep things under the carpet as some have alleged. Finding the airplane would reveal what happened. If they find the plane and replayed the CVR and FDR and found that it was a deliberate act by the captain, then we knew that was what happened. But if the CVR and FDR pointed towards another problem, I do wonder if the "pilot did it" theorists can accept it or would they call "cover up" again?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 201):
What do you believe happened? Only one chain of events happened with MH370 - so go ahead and present your MH370 chain of events.

You know either way, pilot did it or not, coming up with a chain of events is hard.
The "Pilot did it" theorists cannot explain the logon at 1825, or why the satcom was switched off... Some, decided to ignore it completely.
The "it's an accident" theorists, cannot explain why the airplane went towards where it did for so long.

Either theories at the moment are grossly inadequately presented by those who have attempted it. Discussions aimed at bringing up the various theories into a more coherent and presentable chain of events, in order for both to get somewhere, has been booed down by extremists of both theories (as they do not want the other theory from gaining any ground)... which is, utterly sad... or disgusting...

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 205):
Unless someone switched the Satcom 'OFF' again (in mid-sentence). Is that likely..??

It remains as most likely the incomplete handshake was due to a power generation upset such as fuel exhaustion where the engine behaviour is subject to debate. It's not always a single cut off and the engine dies. The timing make sense too. If it wasn't fuel exhaustion, then this points to electrical issues with the airplane where power supply to the left main AC bus is problematic. This is consistent with the "accident theory", which points to the aircraft initiated logon at 1825UTC...

However, this does not solve why the airplane could have been flying where it did for so long (this is where the "Pilot did it theory" can explain why, but not the whole story).

At holding speed, the airplane could have reached the 7th ring but it won't be that far south, this would mean the path after 1830UTC or so, isn't a straight one, in order to be able to reach the each ping rings at the times they occured. The loss of 30 mins of time before fuel exhaustion really does depend on whether or not they were flying straight and level, or curved, or not maintaining a stable altitude... etc, etc.

At LRC, it would be roughly where they think it is (roughly being a loose term), and that the fuel running out at 0819 instead of 0825 probably means they were flying just slightly faster than LRC, which is nothing out of the ordinary.

The BFO data only shows that it's extremely unlikely that the airplane continued to the northwest. It cannot tell which direction it went other than did it go away from the equator, or towards the equator... not yet anyways. I certainly would like to know Inmarsat Eye's records of the flight, which should have included... wait for it... coordinates (standard format for GMDSS format, nearly identical to AMSS), which is likely what they're going to use with this new "free tracking service".
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Thu May 14, 2015 9:35 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 202):
By the way,777 jet, you are the moderator here aren't you?

No.

I did start two previous new / continuing threads, which anybody can do by the way.

Quoting gzm (Reply 202):
What have you done to Tailskid?

Nothing.

Quoting gzm (Reply 202):
Can you solve the problem of his disappearance?

I guess I could try, but I don't really care what happened.

I'm interested in the disappearance of MH370.

Quoting gzm (Reply 202):
Only you could have done it. Zippo!

Wrong.

I could have done it.

So could have you.

So could have anybody else.

That person could have even been responsible for their own disappearance.

Just like how the Captain of MH370 *could* have been responsible for the disappearance of the aircraft.


BTW I found your scenario in the previous threads, which I will copy & paste below. My apologies for asking you to post your scenario - I had forgotten that you already did:

From thread 71, reply 51:

Quoting gzm (Reply 51):
That's why they picked that pilot to operate MH370. Backstage is the truth. In the "byzantine" operations going on backstage where all conspiracies take place. He was the perfect victim and they waited for the right moment. Let's change course, guys. MH370 happened for some other reason. Even in mystery novels the main suspect is never the culprit...

From thread 74, reply 207:

Quoting gzm (Reply 207):
There is a cover-up,I am sure but I do not know to what extent.

filler

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 203):
Throw that rubbish out of the window please!

I'm surprised the same stuff keeps getting published again and again and again.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 203):
Incorrect. Not all pilots.

  

To say "all pilots believe" undermines the credibility of the author / publisher.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 203):
There are non A.net pilots who disagree that the pilot did it.The "Pilot did it" does not explain the satcom re-logon at 1825UTC, there is no sense in depowering the satcom and then repowering it again if your mission is to disappear into thin air. None. Nada.

One reason is that the aircraft could have been carrying a lot more fuel than we know of; more than the Malaysian authorities want us to believe. The SatCom could have been intentionally switched off at a time that would be consistent with the expected fuel exhaustion time for the 'known fuel load' to make it look like that is when fuel ran out and therefore the crash sequence began. If the plane had a full fuel load at takeoff it could have continued much, much farther into the middle of nowhere. Just a wild idea...

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 205):
At holding speed, the aircraft could not have been able to reach the area where they are now looking for it, or could it..??If the aircraft did remain airborne for the additional time, then the 7th handshake would or should have fully gone through, i.e. properly not partially, wouldn't it ..??Unless someone switched the Satcom 'OFF' again (in mid-sentence). Is that likely..??

If the plane had much more fuel and the pilot was intending to fly as far away from civilization as possible to make the plane impossible to find then it would make sense for them to intentionally switch off the SatCom at a time consistent with the expected fuel exhaustion time (based on the fuel load paperwork) to make it look like that is when the crash sequence began (like I mentioned above).

If that plane had a full fuel load just imagine how much farther it could have flown.

I believe that it is possible that that plane could have been carrying much more fuel than reported. Unlikely, but possible.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 207):
I'd like to keep an open mind and not sweep things under the carpet as some have alleged. Finding the airplane would reveal what happened. If they find the plane and replayed the CVR and FDR and found that it was a deliberate act by the captain, then we knew that was what happened. But if the CVR and FDR pointed towards another problem, I do wonder if the "pilot did it" theorists can accept it or would they call "cover up" again?

I don't care what happened - I just want to know. It's that simple.

If the scenario that I thought was most likely (the Captain did it scenario) turns out to be wrong I couldn't care one bit.

It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong and as sure as night follows day, and day follows night, I will be wrong again.

I just want to know what happened - badly...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 207):
You know either way, pilot did it or not, coming up with a chain of events is hard.The "Pilot did it" theorists cannot explain the logon at 1825, or why the satcom was switched off... Some, decided to ignore it completely.

I gave a far fetched, but possible, explanation above.

I believe that it is possible that that plane had a lot more fuel than we think.

I believe if it was the Captain's intention to take that plane as far as he could then I have no doubt he would have known somebody, or had the necessary connections, or known a way, to get a full fuel load for that flight - either with or without the bean counters being aware.

If something like that happened we would most likely never hear about it because that would involve others and be a huge embarrassment for somebody.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 207):
The "it's an accident" theorists, cannot explain why the airplane went towards where it did for so long.

Hypoxia would help explain that under an accident scenario.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 207):
It remains as most likely the incomplete handshake was due to a power generation upset such as fuel exhaustion where the engine behaviour is subject to debate.

  

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 207):
However, this does not solve why the airplane could have been flying where it did for so long (this is where the "Pilot did it theory" can explain why, but not the whole story).

Again, hypoxia would fit under an accident scenario.

The plane then just flew on auto-pilot until the beginning of the end.

[Edited 2015-05-14 14:40:03]
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
Moose135
Posts: 3089
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

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

Thu May 14, 2015 10:06 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 202):
What have you done to Tailskid? Can you solve the problem of his disappearance?

He's on a boat somewhere with WarrenPlatts looking for MH370...
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Fri May 15, 2015 11:32 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 206):
One reason is that the aircraft could have been carrying a lot more fuel than we know of; more than the Malaysian authorities want us to believe.

It's good to see that someone dares mentioning fuel, as in the quantities of it.
The possibility of fudged fuel figures should be seriously considered. Why?
Because of all the obfuscation & misinformation from all sorts of angles and directions, official and otherwise, and what might possibly be hidden behind it.

Consider this again ....
A while back we have had Australia's most reputable paper saying as much that MH370 was sighted over the Maldives.
Why would they do that?

More recently we had a pilot, with 26,000 hours 'under his belt', claiming that MH370 could have flown for another 50 minutes; and he says the sighting in the Maldives was at 08:00 AM, not 06:15 as generally reported.
Why would a pilot do that? Wouldn't his trade-honour prevent him from telling fibs to the public?
If he did have solid information, based on real facts, why bring it out in such an obfuscating manner?

Why would a Tim Clark risk his reputation and make the statements he has in his interview, a few months back?
What information does he have and how would he have obtained that?

Why would any of these three items appear in the news in the first place?
Have they got substance behind them, facts?
Or is our world so whacko by now that nothing can be trusted these days and the public has to guess as best as it can?

And yet it is the public that is expected to maintain faith in an industry, and pay the big $,$$$'s, where even a (presumably) well-experienced pilot can't be trusted.

So far there has been not one good explanation why we've had these three different angles and opinions.
Is just one a liar or do we have three of them? Which is the better lie?

One could become quite sarcastic about all this ....
If an unidentified airliner can mysteriously fly low over a Maldives island, and was observed doing so while the authorities deny such aircraft movements, is it possible then that MH370 may have had enough fuel to 'mysteriously' fly somewhere else altogether, other than the SIO..??
Who knows, maybe MH370 refuelled at some mysterious airport and then flew on, never to be seen again.
Can't have been MH370, of course, because of the very convenient satellite data.
And yet, it is happily acceptable that unidentified airliners can fly mysteriously around the world; and, apart from some villagers on a tropical island .... nobody knows.
Talk about UFO's ....

Seriously though ...
If there was only a small error in the fuel figures, deliberate or otherwise, then it is perfectly possible that it was MH370 which the Maldives villagers saw on that fateful day. The underwater high-energy noise from that direction could make sense too, then, as recorded by that university in Western Australia.

Is there something in all this that is hidden in plain sight ....?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Fri May 15, 2015 1:20 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
Why would a pilot do that? Wouldn't his trade-honour prevent him from telling fibs to the public?
If he did have solid information, based on real facts, why bring it out in such an obfuscating manner?

You need to go on one of the "competing forums" which I call the "pilot's slagfest" and you'd quickly see that racial biases, nationalist sentiments, everything, you name it, is there. In the safety environment of "no blame culture", the media and these kinds of forum unfortunately become the outlet to vent their inability to blame.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
Why would any of these three items appear in the news in the first place?

Coz the media is so desperate to fill the news. No kidding.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
Have they got substance behind them, facts?

If you can have an idiot like me appearing multiple times on global news media and even on documentaries, the answer is... do they have to?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
is it possible then that MH370 may have had enough fuel to 'mysteriously' fly somewhere else altogether, other than the SIO..??

If we ignore the satellite data, it could make it to Kazakhstan... could... doesn't mean it did. (And despite this, someone will slag me off for even suggesting it).

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
If there was only a small error in the fuel figures, deliberate or otherwise, then it is perfectly possible that it was

The timestamp at 0107 stated 43800kgs which was detected by the sensor in the aircraft and sent through ACARS... could that be forged data? Hey, if you want to go down that avenue, anything is possible.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Fri May 15, 2015 1:24 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
The possibility of fudged fuel figures should be seriously considered. Why?
Because of all the obfuscation & misinformation from all sorts of angles and directions, official and otherwise, and what might possibly be hidden behind it.

Add incompetence / corruption on the part of various entities in Malaysia to the list of reasons why the fuel numbers listed in the factual report might be off, way off.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
So far there has been not one good explanation why we've had these three different angles and opinions.
Is just one a liar or do we have three of them? Which is the better lie?

It would be hard to beat Hishammuddin when it comes to lies.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
If an unidentified airliner can mysteriously fly low over a Maldives island, and was observed doing so while the authorities deny such aircraft movements, is it possible then that MH370 may have had enough fuel to 'mysteriously' fly somewhere else altogether, other than the SIO..??

Of course it is possible.

It would not surprise me one bit if 9M-MRO -(aka MH370)- had full fuel tanks and flew much farther in both time and distance than what people believe based on the fuel load information & Inmarsat data.

However, depending on the time 9M-MRO really flew for and the direction it headed, it could have been airborne well after sunrise where ever it was. I wonder if there are indeed satellite images of it flying along...???

I have a feeling that the plane will never be found. I really hope I'm wrong. I'd love it if one day people will be able to say: "777Jet, MH370 has now been found. You were wrong". I really want the plane found. I want to know what happened. I just have a feeling that the plane won't be found - at least during my lifetime.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
Who knows, maybe MH370 refuelled at some mysterious airport and then flew on, never to be seen again.

Maybe it didn't need to re-fuel because it had full tanks to begin with.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 208):
Can't have been MH370, of course, because of the very convenient satellite data.

As for the satellite data; I trust it more that the fuel numbers provided by Malaysia at the very end of the day.

I believe there is a slim chance that the final ping could somehow have been the result of the SatCom being switched off / power cut intentionally at the time the person flying the plane knew would have been consistent with the expected fuel exhaustion time based on the recorded / written / documented fuel load numbers - numbers that might have been wrong either intentionally or otherwise. Having said that, I really hope the final ping was really due to fuel exhaustion, and that the plane is somewhere near where the ships are looking and will be found.

One final thought...

Whilst I wish that the MH370 incident never happened, I really wish that there was a different Captain or an entire different cockpit crew on the flight - a crew in which nothing exists that suggest that they might have done it...
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 May 15, 2015 1:46 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 210):
Whilst I wish that the MH370 incident never happened, I really wish that there was a different Captain or an entire different cockpit crew on the flight - a crew in which nothing exists that suggest that they might have done it...

Agreed. But setting aside just WHO Zaharie was, the conclusion that the disappearance of the a/c was due to an deliberate act by one of the crew, in the absence of ANY exonerating information, is still inescapable.

All the other scenarios just fall flat on their face.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Fri May 15, 2015 2:01 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 209):
The timestamp at 0107 stated 43800kgs which was detected by the sensor in the aircraft and sent through ACARS... could that be forged data? Hey, if you want to go down that avenue, anything is possible.

I forgot that that info was sent through ACARS.

Therefore those fuel numbers should be correct, unless, of course, the ACARS data was forged 

I guess only forged ACARS data could result in incorrect fuel numbers at that time - unless the sensors were faulty which I really doubt, especially given that the number sent via ACARS are consistent with what fuel would have been expected at that time based on the fuel load at takeoff in the report less the expected fuel used before 0107.

Hopefully the plane is where they are looking and is found soon, and, moreover, is recoverable...

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 211):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 210):
Whilst I wish that the MH370 incident never happened, I really wish that there was a different Captain or an entire different cockpit crew on the flight - a crew in which nothing exists that suggest that they might have done it...

Agreed. But setting aside just WHO Zaharie was, the conclusion that the disappearance of the a/c was due to an deliberate act by one of the crew, in the absence of ANY exonerating information, is still inescapable.

All the other scenarios just fall flat on their face.

I still like to entertain the idea that the Captain, who I still think is the most likely culprit, is actually a victim of something else such as a failed hi-jacking, an accident leading to hypoxia, or whatever else. I don't care if my prediction is wrong; I just want the plane to be found and the cause to be discovered... This has gone on for too long - way too long... Unbelievable...
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
American 767
Topic Author
Posts: 4505
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

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

Fri May 15, 2015 2:30 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 212):
way too long...

Over a year.


Thread now archived.
Please click on this link to continue:

Malaysia Airlines B772 KUL-PEK Missing - Part 80 (by American 767 May 15 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Ben Soriano
Ben Soriano

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