User avatar
777Jet
Topic Author
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:24 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 194):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 198):
Go through the private content on the FO's phone, such as messages, pics, etc.?

That's the first really new, fresh idea I've heard in weeks.

It almost sounds more probable than Faiq trying to make a call.

If the entire cell phone signal / re-attachment thing is true then I have long believed that it was as result of the Captain turning on the FO's phone to go through it for whatever reason (or to make it look like the FO was the last known person alive if a signal got out). Maybe he wanted to see the content of messages? Maybe he wanted to view the call log? Maybe he wanted to check out any 'interesting' pics the FO might have had in his phone? Who knows... But, I believe if the Captain did it, and the cell phone signal / re-attachment thing is true, it is because the Captain turned on the FO's phone - not because the FO was trying to make a call. That is just my opinion - my guess. If the Captain took care of the FO inside the cockpit then the FO's phone could only have been turned on by the Captain - by taking care of the FO in the cockpit it makes sense because then nobody on the other side of the cokpit door would have known what was going on - being late at night and dark outside, the Captain would not have needed to rush to take care of those on the other side of the door. Nobody would have been suspicious that anything was wrong if the FO was never locked out or in a position to raise an alarm. But... If the other hand played out and the Captain locked the FO out of the cockpit after telling him to go and get something, I still don't think the FO would have had his phone with him anyway. It should have been turned off and stowed - somewhere in the cockpit. I doubt the FO would have had his phone on him as it would have been no use. Regardless of how / where the FO might have been taken care of, I believe his phone was most likely always in the cockpit. IMHO if the Captain did it, and the cell phone signal / re-attachment thing is true, it is a result of the Captain playing around with the FO's phone after taking care of him.   
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
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:36 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 200):

That all makes sense to me.
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:45 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 200):
MHO if the Captain did it, and the cell phone signal / re-attachment thing is true, it is a result of the Captain playing around with the FO's phone after taking care of him.   

This was my initial reaction upon hearing about the possible cell tower ping . However, don't you think Z would have been fairly busy during this segment of the flight? And, taking care of Fariq in the cockpit would seem to add an element of unknown risk that was not necessary?

But you make some good points.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:55 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 202):
This was my initial reaction upon hearing about the possible cell tower ping . However, don't you think Z would have been fairly busy during this segment of the flight? And, taking care of Fariq in the cockpit would seem to add an element of unknown risk that was not necessary?

But you make some good points.

That wouldn't change, if he locked Fariq out and then grabbed his phone out of his flight bag which is stored in the flight deck. I'm sure Zaharie wouldn't have done anything physical, as you say that would be unnecessary, also rather uncouth for a man who is up there with the gods at that moment.
 
bond007
Posts: 4428
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:06 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 174):
Is this one of your Lawyer tricks - to pretend that you haven't been answered multiple times already? And to pretend that this is an honest request for information?

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I said please provide some sources that show this as fact.

If you want some quotes from those same sources:

‘‘He may have his own political views, but to bring down an airplane? That is out of the question. Not Zaharie.’’

Oh, what are we to believe ...lol

Not wasting my time on this anymore .....have fun!


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:46 am

Can't help feeling that we basically have only four possible 'scenarios,' up to the present time:-

1. Mechanical failure/crash.

2. Sudden extreme weather/crash.

3. Hijack/struggle/crash.

4. Captain suicide/crash.

I don't know which one will turn out to be true. Very possibly we will never know which one it was. Or the cause was something else, which we may never know about.

But I would ask people to stop (in my view, prematurely) blaming the captain. He was quite distinguished and well-regarded - it's not fair (especially where his family is concerned) for increasing numbers of people to go on instinctively blaming him, on the basis of 'zero' evidence?
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:00 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 186):
It could be possible that the debris would pass under Australia / New Zealand and end up deep in the South Pacific Ocean, heading towards South America or Antarctica...

Your reply brings up a good point and quite timely as well.
It is true that, a fair while back, much was made of the ocean gyre and that flotsam gets caught in it, never to get out. This was to the point where, here on A.net, it seemed to have been accepted as fact.
I let it go at the time, thinking that the comments came from people who are knowledgable in marine sciences.
A lot was also made of the point that even if various items might float in the beginning, they would, in time (days, weeks, months?), eventually sink. They don't!
The things that float, especially plastics and other synthetic materials will remain floating, and continue to do so, until they wash ashore somewhere.
That may take years and the particular item may be completely encrusted in barnacles, as I have seen it on Macquarie Island. That's why that kind of pollution is such a danger for the marine wild life, especially birds.

Based on my own experience, I know that both the above assumptions cannot be fully correct.
Would anyone know whether any (quasi) scientific studies were conducted, to check this out in detail?
Such a study would probably not get financed anyway. The chances would be too great that the outcome might be a conclusion that, if there were floating debris off MH370, it could or should have washed ashore in very specific places.
If MH370 debris cannot be found in those places, then, in all likelihood, it would mean there wasn't any to begin with.

Having wintered at Macquarie Island (MI), I can confirm that debris is regularly collected on its West Coast. In some years as much as two, three cubic metres of the stuff, which is then sent to Australia. Most of that debris seems to be off fishing vessels, a fair portion of it is from places like Madagascar and Africa; and even from South America.

I believe you are correct in thinking that if there was floating debris, anything off 9M-MRO, it would first find its way to the south of Australia. Some of it might have already washed ashore in Tasmania.
Just because nothing has been found (yet) doesn't mean there is nothing.
The next chance for something to be found might well be in New Zealand, although, personally I cannot be sure about that. I am sure, though, that stuff can and does wash up at MI, which lies roughly half way between New Zealand and Antarctica.

How likely is it that things off the aircraft wash up on that island? I wouldn't know ....
Mind you, Tasmania is a fairly big island so it does provide a rather big stretch of coast line; and nothing was found there. MI on the other hand is only about 35 km long and lies a little to the north of the convergence; but, interestingly, lots of stuff washes up on its West Coast.
Rather than getting caught in a gyre, any such debris might follow the convergence. That is the fairly distinct line in the oceans, boundary actually, which separates the colder Antarctic waters from the more temperate waters to the north.

It is interesting in itself to note, that it was news-worthy to report that volunteers in Tasmania found nothing off MH370 as part of a clean-up campaign. There also don't seem to be any reports that anything of the aircraft was ever found on MI.
(Mind you, the latter is by means of the proverbial grape vine ...)

It is pretty sure though that no such debris would find its way to Antarctica. Even if it did touch on the outer edges of the pack ice, it would get drifted north again with the ice. And if debris did find its way there, by some really weird & wonderful chance, it would almost certainly never be found or noticed.
Apart from a few hundred people on a few stations dotted along the coast line, no one lives in Antarctica.


The news article referred to by 777Jet:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-say-wreckage-washed-area-now.html
 
exfss
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:54 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:35 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 205):
But I would ask people to stop (in my view, prematurely) blaming the captain. He was quite distinguished and well-regarded - it's not fair (especially where his family is concerned) for increasing numbers of people to go on instinctively blaming him, on the basis of 'zero' evidence?

Agreed !
Sometime I read as if someone was paid to push the blame on the captain, as so to cover something else.
I have never seen an investigator take facebook poetry as a base for a conclusion.
I have never seen an ingenior take part of a report and refute the rest because it does not suit his thoughts.
In fact I have never seen an ingenior talking about ''a truth'' if they cannot proove it solidly, because of pride of their work.

About the debris, if really someone wanted the plane to remain undiscovered, maybe he would try to ditch it into the indian ocean plastic vortex . It would make floating debris harder to find, and always moving.
No question is stupid.Only answers can be.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:42 pm

Quoting bond007 (Reply 204):
I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I said please provide some sources that show this as fact.

The quote you provided wasn't directed at you, please notice the "@Kaiarahi in post 179".
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:30 pm

Quoting exfss (Reply 207):
I have never seen an investigator take facebook poetry as a base for a conclusion.

It's hardly the base for a conclusion. Do I need to reming you of the intricate flight path that MH370 flew? The diversion that occurred right at hand over? The failure of Zahrarie to read back the frequency to KLATCC on the final hand over transmission? That he was in command of the aircraft? That his voice was the last one heard on the flight deck? Etc, etc...

The fb and social media posts only help to demonstrate motive...but you seem incapable of understanding this.

And, social media is used by investigators of crimes ALL THE TIME as evidence of intent. It provides investigators and prosecutors a treasure trove of insight and information into the motive and intent of the criminal. It is a VERY powerful law enforcement tool.         
 
exfss
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:54 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:38 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 209):
but you seem incapable of understanding this.

You seem to judge my understanding very condescendently.

What i understand is that the report did not took any of this facebook crap as a clue about the pilot.

So if you'd know me , you would understand that I dont take speculation as a proof...

[Edited 2015-03-24 08:47:06]
No question is stupid.Only answers can be.
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:23 pm

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 178):
As to hijacking based causes, I would suggest some serious issues with them.
First of all, likely you would need multiple - 3 to 5 persons to be involved. So far an examination of the passenger list seems to not bring out any obvious potential hijackers.

Hijackings can and have been carried out by single individuals. But yes, it could have involved multiple people as well, including people who were not on the aircraft.

As far as the investigation into the passengers goes, all I could find in the interim report is this on page 12:

Quote:
This investigation emphasised on the Captain, First Officer and the 10 cabin crew but did not include the passengers on board Flight MH370.

I'm assuming "this investigation" refers to the "Safety Investigation for MH370", which is the subject (and sub-title) of the interim report, and is not a limited reference to this particular sub-heading in the report (Section 1.5 - Personnel Information). With that assumption then, it's a reasonable inference that investigations of the passengers are being conducted separately from the safety investigation. A reasonable conclusion is that the investigation of the passengers is being conducted by police, and not safety, agencies, and that multiple investigations are going on, i.e. by different agencies in different countries.

The interim report did not make any negative declarations regarding the passengers, as it did with the crew, e.g. "There is also no evidence of recent or imminent significant financial transactions carried out" (page 20). That doesn't necessarily indicate that incriminating evidence was found, but at the least it indicates that the safety investigators do not have access to the full results of the police investigations.

There is no basis in the official record to make any conclusions about the likelihood, one way or the other, of one or more passengers being involved in a hijack attempt.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 178):
Likely one of more of the hijackers would have to have weapons or explosives that they somehow got past airport and airline security. Possible but difficult.
Likely the pilots would not cooperate with any first threats and likely would have did a hijacking message.
Some of the hijackers would need significant knowledge as to this particular aircraft model as well as the electronic, communications, recording and pressurization equipment to do what we believe occurred.

I agree. That's partly where my technically-disable-the-comms hypothesis comes from. I don't think anyone smuggled a weapon past airport security – that would be risky – but faking an explosive is possible (again, ask DB Cooper ). If the hack involved pre-flight access to the plane, then that points to a possible source for a weapon too.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 178):
Motive for the hijackers. Flying a plane till it ran out of fuel doesn't seem to make such sense unless accomplished by a lot of publicity. So far we have yet to hear of any such announcements.

Which is why I think the eventual end was unintentional and the result of a mistake or malfunction. The hijacker(s) would have had "significant knowledge" but not necessarily complete knowledge or the discipline and training to competently put it to use.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:47 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 177):
Thank you for providing this - the underlines here are mine.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 162):
Article 5.25:
"Participation in the investigation shall confer entitlement to participate in all aspects of the investigation, ... in particular to:
...
c) obtain witness information and suggest areas of questioning;
d) have full access to all relevant evidence as soon as possible;
e) receive copies of all pertinent documents;
...
h) participate in investigation progress meetings including deliberations related to analysis, findings, causes and safety recommendations"...

Article 6.3:
"If the State conducting the investigation receives comments ... it shall either amend the draft Report to include the substance of the comments received or, if desired by the State that provided comments, append the comments to the Report.

The first underline points out that either the NTSB, ATSB, BEA, AAIBs, NTSC or CAAC may suggest questions, I see no power there to order or demand that questions be asked of witnesses, nor do I see any power to directly ask questions by those participants. Their participation is clearly limited to being observers unless the party conducting the investigation wishes to bring them in as accessories.

The second underline clearly defines the fact that there is a "State conducting the investigation" and shows that the the State conducting the investigation, in this case Malaysia, is the one in control of what goes into the report and what gets tacked on at the end. We would have to assume that this gives them considerable negotiating power in resolving differences.

These provisions of the Convention have been subject to judicial interpretation and their meaning is well understood by investigative agencies around the world. I won't bother you with the legal details since you're impervious to them, but your interpretation is dead wrong.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 199):
Why wouldn't we use the parts of any reports that are 99.9% certain to be uncorrupted, such as the Comm logs and see whose argument makes the most sense?

This has to be the height of intellectual dishonesty. Let's accept the parts of the report that support your lynching agenda and reject the rest as the corrupt report of 8 agencies, including the NTSB, AIIB, ATSB, BEA, NTSC and CAAC.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Topic Author
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:37 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 205):
Can't help feeling that we basically have only four possible 'scenarios,' up to the present time:-

1. Mechanical failure/crash.

2. Sudden extreme weather/crash.

3. Hijack/struggle/crash.

4. Captain suicide/crash.

I have ruled out scenario #2 on your list.

I rule in scenarios #1 (as long as that includes an electrical problem), #3 & of course #4.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 206):
Macquarie Island
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 206):
How likely is it that things off the aircraft wash up on that island?

If debris passed under / South of Australia and New Zealand and headed in that direction then I guess it is quite possible that some debris could end up on Macquarie Island (or Auckland Island or Campbell Island for that matter) - but I have no idea how long debris would be expected to take to get there from the impact area...

[Edited 2015-03-24 21:39:47]

[Edited 2015-03-24 21:41:37]
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
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:13 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 213):
If debris passed under / South of Australia and New Zealand and headed in that direction then I guess it is quite possible that some debris could end up on Macquarie Island (or Auckland Island or Campbell Island for that matter) - but I have no idea how long debris would be expected to take to get there from the impact area...

Your thoughts and questions on this makes one wonder how serious the authorities have been with their investigations.
Yes, it is and was the right thing to do and send out fleets of aircraft and surface vessels, for all of them to search the likely areas as thoroughly as they possibly can.
But soon there came a point where that was no longer feasible and, as we have seen, there were no positive results to speak of anyway. Ideally there should then have been other, additional means of searching and confirming ones theory, i.e. whether or not MH370 has ended in the SIO.
One of those means would have been to assemble a group of oceanographers and get them to determine, by way of computer modelling, which are the most likely places where debris off MH370 would or could have washed up and when.
I can well imagine that Macquarie Island (MI) would be one such place.
It would be interesting to know whether such a group was set up.

How long would it take for debris to get to MI ? Hard to say.
There is a map available through Wikipedia (URL #1) and it shows the general area of Heard Island. From this one can tell that it would almost be a direct line from the current search area to MI; of course debris wouldn't follow that, it would have its own course.

I believe that in those latitudes the currents (Circumpolar Current) run generally eastwards and in some areas at quite a speed, see URL #2. So our debris could easily 'scream' along at two knots but, of course, it wouldn't be in the shortest distance. Still, and totally guessing here, debris off MH370, if there was any, could have washed up on MI after about three to six months. The next stop, by now, may well be the southern regions of South America; or indeed, the pack ice region at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. No hope of finding it there, if it is the latter.

My guess would be that the Auckland Islands and Campbell Islands would be too far north.

It would be good to hear from someone on A.net who is an expert on ocean currents, especially the Southern Ocean.

URL #1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heard_I.../media/File:Kerguelen-Location.JPG
URL #2:
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1...imate-system/great-ocean-currents/
Edit:
There is another simple map, also on Wikipedia, depicting the Southern Ocean region.
MI lies between New Zealand and Antarctica, just above the blue shaded area.
My guess would be that, if there is debris off MH370, from where it has ended up in the SIO, any such debris would at first have travelled southward and eventually veer off to the east. MI would quite like be in the path of that travel.
That is if there was (any) debris off MH370.

And a point purely for interest:
Science tells us that the cleanest air on Earth is in fact on Macquarie Island.
The map pretty well indicates why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souther...a/File:Location_Southern_Ocean.svg

[Edited 2015-03-25 04:32:02]
 
User avatar
777Jet
Topic Author
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:28 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 214):
Your thoughts and questions on this makes one wonder how serious the authorities have been with their investigations.

And on that topic:

'Malaysia Airlines MH370: Aviation expert wants Australia to prove plane is in Indian Ocean'

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-ai...a-prove-plane-indian-ocean-1493391

Selected quotes:

""A military aviation technology expert has written to the Australian government to debunk its theory that missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is lying in the southern Indian Ocean.

In a letter exclusively obtained by IBTimes UK addressed to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop and Defence Minister David Johnston, Andre Milne, alleges the country's claims surrounding MH370 crashed into the southern Indian Ocean are false and amount to a "criminal act of fabrication of evidence".""

""In conclusion, his letter states: "Failure to refute and disqualify my submission validates my allegation that your claim MH370 exited Malaysian airspace to crash in the Indian Ocean is not only an Artificial Incursion Theory but a criminal act of fabrication of evidence."

Milne has since complained to Interpol to investigate what he claims to be a "clear violation of the protocols of Chicago Convention Section 25 International Civil Aviation Organ (ICAO) of the United Nations.""

""When asked where he thinks MH370 is located, Milne replied: "It is premature and utterly irresponsible to talk about any theory without having any physical evidence."""

"""If it comes out in public that the aircraft is where GeoResonance said it was then you can also add insurance fraud to all the other charges against the parties involved," Milne said.""



I only found this article, which was written on March 24, just now whilst searching for 'MH370 news'. All I can says is that there are some wild and interesting ideas / questions in that article - it makes for an interesting read if nothing else...
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
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:12 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 215):
I only found this article, which was written on March 24, just now whilst searching for 'MH370 news'. All I can says is that there are some wild and interesting ideas / questions in that article - it makes for an interesting read if nothing else...

And it'll be interesting what our Ministers have to say, if they will say anything.
 
motif1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:47 pm

Wrong thread ... sorry

[Edited 2015-03-25 08:51:23]
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:50 pm

He's banging on about engine telemetry that Rolls Royce receives...

Quote:
a document of verifiable facts that explains why the multiple broadcast signal receives network Rolls Royce uses was not angulated to calculate the event of Incident Two being final trajectory arc drop to impact point.

The quote from the Rolls Royce spokesman sums up everything that's been said about it...

Quote:
Bill Sullivan, a spokesman for Rolls-Royce, said there was no other data was transmitted from their engines after the ACARS (Aircraft and Communications Addressing and Reporting System) ceased transmission. "We concur with the findings of the report regarding our engines," he said.

I haven't read anything in the past year or so that indicates 1. ACARS was functioning after 1707 UTC or 2. there's an alternate transmission path, other than through ACARS, for the engine data to take. Is there any info that refutes the no ACARS, no engine data conclusion?

There's no mention of this guy's credentials. He might be a "military aviation technology expert", but his writing style doesn't give much confidence. There're no nations called "The People's Republic of Thailand" or "England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales", at least none operating military radar in the area .

He also uses the term "semi arc". I googled that and got astrology references.
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:04 pm

Someone just posted this on the Germanwings thread:

Quoting daryl1866 (Reply 163):
Just to make people aware if there was a sudden decompression in the cockpit, the cockpit door would automatically open.

There are two pressure sensors in the cockpit which sense a differential pressure between flight deck and cabin. Should a differential pressure occur the three "latches" which prevent cockpit door from being opened would be automatically de-energised. Differential pressure would force cockpit door open.

Is it true? Is there a similar feature on a B777?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:49 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 215):
And on that topic:

'Malaysia Airlines MH370: Aviation expert wants Australia to prove plane is in Indian Ocean'

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-ai...93391

The article had my attention, until I saw the references to GeoResonance. And then I began to wonder if this guy isn't a paid hack for GeoResonance.

Weren't that firm's claims debunked a long time ago?
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:16 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 215):
And on that topic:

The guy is a complete fraud, he doesn't even rise to a Jeff Wise level of charlatan. And he hasn't even followed the MH370 story. MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS, so Inmarsat surely isn't hiding anything there.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:31 pm

This is from the Germanwings thread, it gives an explanation on what happens at high altitude when cabin pressure is lost. This helps explain what happened to the passengers and cabin crew aboard MH370 IMO.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 42):
When the pressure drops, the problem isn't actually getting oxygen into your lungs (well that is also a problem, but less immediate) but rather the diffusion of oxygen into your bloodstream. In low pressure, i.e at high alt, you will not get enough oxygen diffusing, and will pass out quickly, far quicker than holding your breath at sea level. You cannot compare the two. Braindeath will occur not long after passing out. So yes, death will not happen that quickly, but unconsciousness (which has exactly the same implications when applied to the pilots) will occur very quickly.
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 4504
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77

Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:19 pm

Thread now archived.

Please click on this link to continue:

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

May all the victims rest in peace.

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