Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


  • Oh no, say it isn't so!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by James Bond View Post
      Just put the word out that there's a rare Pokemon out there and the wreckage will be found by Monday.

      Comment


      • July 27 Update

        Media reports about MH370 Captain's flight simulator
        On Friday 22 July 2016, there were several media reports regarding so called FBI investigation into the MH370 Captain's home flight simulator. Media coverage suggested the Captain had plotted a course to the southern Indian Ocean and that the disappearance of MH370 was a deliberate planned murder/suicide.

        This type of scenario is not new and has been reported in the media previously.

        The Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team has considered the information and it will be dealt with in its final report.

        To determine the search area, the ATSB has worked closely with international experts in satellite communications, aircraft systems, data modelling and accident investigation to form the Search Strategy Working Group. This includes specialists from the following organisations:

        Air Accidents Investigation Branch (UK);
        Boeing (USA);
        Defence Science and Technology Organisation (Australia);
        Department of Civil Aviation (Malaysia);
        Inmarsat (UK);
        National Transportation Safety Board (USA);
        Thales (UK).

        The simulator information shows only the possibility of planning. It does not reveal what happened on the night of the aircraft's disappearance, nor where the aircraft is located.

        For the purposes of defining the underwater search area, the relevant facts and analysis most closely match a scenario in which there was no pilot intervening in the latter stages of the flight.

        While the flight simulator data provides a piece of information, the best available evidence of the aircraft's location is based on what we know from the last satellite communications with the aircraft. The last satellite communication with the aircraft showed it was most likely in a high rate of descent in the area of what is known as the 7th arc. This is indeed the consensus of the Search Strategy Working Group.
        I don't remember them ever saying anything about the Simulator. They always dismissed the reports as inaccurate. Is this correct?
        AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

        Originally posted by orangehuggy
        the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

        Comment


        • Malaysian and Australian investigators examine the piece of aircraft debris found on Pemba Island off the coast of Tanzania. Source: ATSB


          AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

          Originally posted by orangehuggy
          the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

          Comment


          • An article on the BBC website is saying that an air crash investigator believes the plane had a controlled landing in the sea, based on erosion on the edges of recovered parts - saying the edges showed high pressure water erosion rather than snapped off, and that it would only be possible if it had been guided down. Additionally he says the recovered flaperon had been deployed for landing which couldn't have happened without someone extending it.

            Subsequently the programme director of the search says that if it was being piloted down to the sea in the final minutes it could potentially have been taken out of the expected search area (presumably only after the engines cut off or the triangulation of the transmission would have shown that?)

            Is this viable? To a layman like myself it sounds plausible that wing edges would show different signs of impact for a low speed 'controlled' crash vs plummetting downwards. But is it also possible that a plane could effectively glide itself into a low speed nearly level impact - as air speed increases as it loses altitude, the wings would start to produce lift and make it level out until speed drops again and it stalls and drops? Or does that sort of thing just not happen in the real world?

            Comment


            • SJWK,

              What one of the investigators (and the FBI) are suggesting is that the plane didn't glide ITSELF down, but that it was piloted in a glide to a 'smooth' landing. this glide could explain why no wreckage has been found in the target search area. This is becoming a political issue in Oz now as the investigator is saying we have spent tons of cash looking in the wrong area when the FBI and others have suspected for some time that the glide theory was an option

              Comment


              • Originally posted by vaztr View Post
                SJWK,

                What one of the investigators (and the FBI) are suggesting is that the plane didn't glide ITSELF down, but that it was piloted in a glide to a 'smooth' landing. this glide could explain why no wreckage has been found in the target search area. This is becoming a political issue in Oz now as the investigator is saying we have spent tons of cash looking in the wrong area when the FBI and others have suspected for some time that the glide theory was an option
                Oh yes, I realize that's what was being suggested - I was just wondering whether an unpiloted, uncontrolled descent resulting in a low-ish speed mostly level impact with water was possible, as another way of explaining the investigator's opinions about the damage to the wings and other debris. I'm guessing that it would be unlikely, assuming fuel exhaustion to one engine before the other would lead to one wing dropping and more of a spiral down than a flat glide to the surface - unless someone was controlling it?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by sjwk View Post
                  Oh yes, I realize that's what was being suggested - I was just wondering whether an unpiloted, uncontrolled descent resulting in a low-ish speed mostly level impact with water was possible, as another way of explaining the investigator's opinions about the damage to the wings and other debris. I'm guessing that it would be unlikely, assuming fuel exhaustion to one engine before the other would lead to one wing dropping and more of a spiral down than a flat glide to the surface - unless someone was controlling it?

                  No, No and uh NO!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by sjwk View Post
                    An article on the BBC website is saying that an air crash investigator believes the plane had a controlled landing in the sea, based on erosion on the edges of recovered parts - saying the edges showed high pressure water erosion rather than snapped off, and that it would only be possible if it had been guided down. Additionally he says the recovered flaperon had been deployed for landing which couldn't have happened without someone extending it.
                    Hmmm. Statements like this from seasoned investigators puzzle me. I don' t know how old he was when he wrote the SA 111 report but maybe he's become a bit daft since then...

                    "Somebody was flying the airplane into the water. There is no other alternate theory that you can follow."
                    Really? No other alternative theory?

                    I would be very interested to know how he can determine the position of the flaperon when it detached. The actuators are clearly missing.

                    Even if the flaps were fully deployed, the flaperon would tend to retract just prior to landing.

                    The trailing edge damage could be due to high-speed water erosion or it could be due to floating about for over a year and getting tossed onto rocks. The trailing edge is the weakest part of the structure and probably bears the brunt of the impact when floating about in the sea.

                    So, how does he a) determine the position of the flaperon at the moment of detachment and b) determine that the damage is not post crash damage? Did 60 minutes really not think to ask these questions?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Hmmm. Statements like this from seasoned investigators puzzle me. I don' t know how old he was when he wrote the SA 111 report but maybe he's become a bit daft since then...



                      Really? No other alternative theory?

                      I would be very interested to know how he can determine the position of the flaperon when it detached. The actuators are clearly missing.

                      Even if the flaps were fully deployed, the flaperon would tend to retract just prior to landing.

                      The trailing edge damage could be due to high-speed water erosion or it could be due to floating about for over a year and getting tossed onto rocks. The trailing edge is the weakest part of the structure and probably bears the brunt of the impact when floating about in the sea.

                      So, how does he a) determine the position of the flaperon at the moment of detachment and b) determine that the damage is not post crash damage? Did 60 minutes really not think to ask these questions?


                      Because unlike you, he is an expert in his field! The statement you made that I changed to bold proves my point.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

                        Capt. Mustache dosn't think so...
                        AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

                        Originally posted by orangehuggy
                        the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by James Bond View Post

                          Captain "Mustache" is trying to set himself up for a job when he can no longer fly!

                          Comment


                          • Hey has anyone seen the current (September 2016) issue of Air & Space Smithsonian?

                            Starting on page 30 there's an article where the author goes on for several pages describing what hypoxia is, how it affects pilots, and some well-known aircraft accidents that were caused by decompression or failure to pressurize. Then right at the end she makes a rather weak case that that is what caused the MH370 accident. It does certainly seem like a possibility...

                            Edit: it appears "Capt. Mustache" posited hypoxia a few weeks ago: https://twitter.com/lesabend
                            Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                            Eric Law

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by James Bond View Post
                              For everyone's amusement, a couple of other tidbits from our hero's Twitter feed (re MH370):

                              "Hope other airline pilot(s) are helping(helped) to analyze all sim data.Would help define captain’s personality."
                              Are airline pilots trained to analyze people's personalities based on simulator data? While the whole concept seems pretty iffy, it seems a psychologist or similar person might be a better choice.

                              "The million dollar question is what caused the hypoxia if indeed that’s a plausible theory?"
                              I'm gonna go with "loss of pressurization" on this one.
                              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                              Eric Law

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X