Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

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

  • The amount of fuel loaded on the flight would be a known amount to officials on the ground, as records of fuel uplift are kept.

    One pilot couldn't get a ridiculously large amount on without the other pilot knowing, and if he loaded 16hrs of fuel for an 8hr flight and didn't tell load control, I think the other pilot would be asking a few fairly pointed questions!

    At the end of the day the PIC carries ultimate responsibility for fuel on board, however the system is such that other people are aware of the fuel on board.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MCM View Post
      The amount of fuel loaded on the flight would be a known amount to officials on the ground, as records of fuel uplift are kept.

      One pilot couldn't get a ridiculously large amount on without the other pilot knowing, and if he loaded 16hrs of fuel for an 8hr flight and didn't tell load control, I think the other pilot would be asking a few fairly pointed questions!

      At the end of the day the PIC carries ultimate responsibility for fuel on board, however the system is such that other people are aware of the fuel on board.
      Well I think that effectively rules out any Antarctic runway theory then as the required fuel would be almost twice as much.

      I wonder if they are using the P-3's for their endurance rather than their detection capabilities, since thus far they seem to be relying solely on point-and shoot camera technology ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        You flying in a helicopter? I usually fly from the left seat when I am the Captain!
        Indeed.

        Anyone can fly and land the plane...

        ...but to taxi it requires borderline genius.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MCM View Post
          The amount of fuel loaded on the flight would be a known amount to officials on the ground, as records of fuel uplift are kept.

          One pilot couldn't get a ridiculously large amount on without the other pilot knowing, and if he loaded 16hrs of fuel for an 8hr flight and didn't tell load control, I think the other pilot would be asking a few fairly pointed questions!

          At the end of the day the PIC carries ultimate responsibility for fuel on board, however the system is such that other people are aware of the fuel on board.
          MCM - I'm not asking you to speculate here, but perhaps you can answer this question:

          The intended route to Beijing was 2733 mi as the crow flies. Assuming they took trip fuel plus required fixed and variable reserves plus a generous contingency (let's say the maximum you could take without risking the ire of management), and instead of flying the intended route fixed a heading at cruise and flew that until fuel exhaustion, approximately how far could you fly? I know you can't know winds, atmospheric conditions, flight level, power settings or GTOW so I am only asking for a general estimate. Assume FL and speed are calculated for maximum range.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            You flying in a helicopter? I usually fly from the left seat when I am the Captain!
            Hahaha now that is embarrassing. Yes the left hand seat... Almost did it again

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Well I think that effectively rules out any Antarctic runway theory then as the required fuel would be almost twice as much.

              I wonder if they are using the P-3's for their endurance rather than their detection capabilities, since thus far they seem to be relying solely on point-and shoot camera technology ...
              You clearly don't know the capabilities of P-3s, the Australian ones are designated AP-3Cs they went through a significant upgrade a number of years ago, their capability is quite significant.
              The Kiwi P3s were upgraded also but I don't think to the same level as the Australians.
              The Kiwi defence spokesman reported that they were identifying whales and sea life beneath the ocean waves.
              But at the end of the day visual identification of a floating piece of flight control would really only be able to confirmed by picking it up and looking at it. The aircraft are the fastest means of covering a large area quickly. Really the need more ships in the area but they take days to get there, but their search capability is much smaller.
              The other point is that the P-3 s can drop markers a sensors into the ocean at will not to mention their outstanding range.

              Comment


              • Have the Malaysians finally stopped trashing the pilots?

                After 16 days of trying to give their own spin to the few facts available about the pilots of Flight MH370, the authorities in Kuala Lumpur have changed the narrative in a significant way.

                First came the statement by officials Sunday that the Boeing 777’s change of course was programmed into its computers after, and not before, the last voice message from the cockpit was received. Now a later development, first reported by CNN, indicates that after the course change the airplane descended to 12,000 feet.

                The sourcing of these statements remains obscure, but the fact that they were made public suggests an acknowledgement that the timeline no longer supports the implied complicity of the pilots in some kind of criminal act. On the contrary, a picture is emerging of the pilots not only struggling to save the 777 but going through precisely the steps they should in an emergency….

                First, change to a heading that would take them to the nearest available runway in Vietnam and Malaysia able to handle the airplane;

                Second, precipitate fall in altitude from the cruise height of 36,000 feet that would be consistent with the pilots responding to the effects of either a loss of cabin pressure or the consequences of smoke or toxic fumes in the cabin—in those circumstances it would be essential to get down to below 10,000 feet. In the case of cabin pressure, it would be done to stabilize the cabin atmosphere and in the case of smoke, it would be urgent to get on the ground as fast as possible.

                New information shows the aircrew was trying to bring the Boeing 777 to safety, not commit mass murder as the Malaysian government implied.


                Been on the front page of Yahoo for a while now.

                More @ the link.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  The highest probability is that the flight went down where they claim it did. I realize that.

                  - Essentially there are two possible scenarios: Either no one was flying the plane and it simple flew on heading until fuel exhaustion OR it was being flown intentionally on that heading.

                  - If no one was flying it, there may have been a catastrophic mechanical issue like decompression or massive electrical failure (FBW engines, if electrically isolated from the cockpit, will continue at their present thrust) or perhaps a botched hijacking.

                  - If it was being flown intentionally on that heading it was either a suicide mission or a destination was intended. The only destination that I can resolve from that last ping is YWKS (Wilkins Runway, Upper Peterson Glacier, Antarctica), a 10,499ft blue ice runway with PAPI and approach lighting. The approx. distance from waypoint IGREX to YWKS is 5359 mi. A B777 can easily fly this route if fueled for it. A B777 fueled only for Beijing cannot.

                  - MH-370 was not a full flight. The airline claims they were not tankering fuel. Thus far I have seen no figures for GTOW. If this was an organized plot of some kind and there was a way to surreptitiously take on more fuel than the trip required, they could have reached YWKS undetected, which is 70km from anything at all. As of March 8th, all scheduled flights there were finished for the season and the staff would have been gone. Some of the facitilites may still have been there however. The airstrip services an A319 from Hobart during the season, which ended in late February. They are plenty of problems with this theory, including the fact that personnel have been closing down YWKS for the season over the past two weeks, so if they landed there, they must have found a way to refuel and take off again. There's nowhere to hide a 777 out there.

                  I feel 99% certain that the flight crashed into the Indian Ocean as they claim it did. I just won't be convinced until I see some wreckage. Maybe tomorrow...

                  BTW - can someone tell me why a P-3 Orion cannot determine the nature of spotted debris or descend to take a clear zoom lens photo of it?
                  My theories are:
                  1) Mid air collision: the aircraft collided with something, destroying the cockpit and killing both or one pilot, just "a la" GOL Boeing 737 in Brazil.
                  2) A bad fire from the cargo compartment, disabling everything including hydraulics just "a la" VALUEJET DC-9 in the Everglades some years ago.
                  In both cases, the aircraft tries to go around and seek "oxygen altitude" finding out that everything is disabled including the hydraulics.
                  A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                  Comment


                  • It seems we are trying to play a game of Pin Ball and hit all the targets with one hit of the ball...

                    Comment


                    • Seems to me that there's a goodly few here postulating stupid, impossible and/or unlikely theories just so that one of them can crow "told you so" in the highly unlikely event of the official result proving them correct.
                      Rather sad really.

                      My feelings on the matter ?
                      It's either "murdercide" by hypoxia with the aircraft being sent to oblivion on autopilot (my personal first choice)
                      Or
                      Multiple system failures with loss of pressurisation and accidental hypoxia.

                      Unfortunately the first option fits the known facts especially if the latest "wreckage" finds turn out to be from the aircraft.
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • MCM - I'm not asking you to speculate here, but perhaps you can answer this question:

                        The intended route to Beijing was 2733 mi as the crow flies. Assuming they took trip fuel plus required fixed and variable reserves plus a generous contingency (let's say the maximum you could take without risking the ire of management), and instead of flying the intended route fixed a heading at cruise and flew that until fuel exhaustion, approximately how far could you fly? I know you can't know winds, atmospheric conditions, flight level, power settings or GTOW so I am only asking for a general estimate. Assume FL and speed are calculated for maximum range.
                        I'd love to be able to answer that question Evan, but I'd struggle to even start. It really, really depends on the company fuel policy, plus what sort of fuel their crews add as a matter of course, if indeed they do.

                        The wind effect is significant, and planned winds on the day for that route make a difference, as does the track miles vs crow flies distances. I could come up with a number, but it would be so far out it would be of no better value than you could guess.

                        If you really want a wild estimate, take their planned flight time, and add a couple of hours.

                        Comment


                        • It would seem reasonable with the new INMARSAT calculations that they will be able to determine speed. If they can also workout the altitude it was flying at then Boeing would surely be able to provide some reasonable estimates to its fuel exhaustion point based of what the Fuel data they would have.

                          Even if they com up with a few scenarios that will surely help

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Theoddkiwi View Post
                            Hahaha now that is embarrassing. Yes the left hand seat... Almost did it again


                            I guess it was from too many years of driving on the "wrong" side in your car!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MCM View Post
                              I'd love to be able to answer that question Evan, but I'd struggle to even start. It really, really depends on the company fuel policy, plus what sort of fuel their crews add as a matter of course, if indeed they do.

                              The wind effect is significant, and planned winds on the day for that route make a difference, as does the track miles vs crow flies distances. I could come up with a number, but it would be so far out it would be of no better value than you could guess.

                              If you really want a wild estimate, take their planned flight time, and add a couple of hours.

                              I am not sure how it works for you at your company MCM, and I surely do not know what the policy is at Malaysian. But at Atlas , it is my prerogative to "squirt" on a little extra if I deem it necessary for winds, weather or expected delays. Now when I say a little extra, I mean a couple of thousand kgs. If I asked for an additional 10000 kgs I would a, need a new weight and balance, b, have some explaining to do to the chief pilot and the director of flight operations.

                              Comment


                              • I am also very interested in what is being reported as 200 kgs of Li batteries in the belly. IATA regulations only permit 35 kgs and that is CAO (Cargo aircraft only). They are not permitted in passenger aircraft as cargo. Now that is not to say that the airline did not load them anyway, the freight forwarder misrepresented the cargo, etc. I am still thinking that these were laptop computers that are manufactured in Penang. There are many company's that assemble and ship from there including Dell. These would be listed on the cargo manifest as Li batteries and not laptop computers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X