Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

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

  • Originally posted by B757300 View Post
    (...)I'd rather nothing than the mindless speculation I see on other forums or in the media.(...)
    You're absolutely right... and on that note a little quote from airliners.net "MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42", something that we luckily haven't had a need for so far:


    **** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those onboard 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
    I always knew that this here is the better, more professional crowd Glad to be a part of it - even if the circumstances are nothing to be happy about.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
      Not all of them. The parts that are less dense than water will float and the parts that are heavier will sink
      Meaning that the currents aren't going to carry them 1500 miles. If it is indeed a crash, and no one is sending out a message for why they made it crash, then what would this whole adventure be about? Hardly seems like equipment malfunction. If someone was peeved at the airline, carrying out secret sabotage doesn't make sense. Nor an attempt to embarrass Malaysia.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
        Meaning that the currents aren't going to carry them 1500 miles. If it is indeed a crash, and no one is sending out a message for why they made it crash, then what would this whole adventure be about? Hardly seems like equipment malfunction. If someone was peeved at the airline, carrying out secret sabotage doesn't make sense. Nor an attempt to embarrass Malaysia.
        Um... And why does that mean items which float do not get carried along with the ambient current???

        Ok 1500 is an unrealistic theoretical max due to average currents as the currents in that area are no constant nor linear.

        However, the pictures are of floating objects and they will certainly be far from the place they landed. Other objects like engines will be fairly close to the impact point and then there are a whole variety of objects that will sink at varying rates and will therefore be spread by the current.

        The assumption is that the aircraft broke up on contact with the water which is likely even if a careful ditching was attempted as sea conditions are rarely flat and at night almost impossible to gauge.

        Surprised we have yet seen close up shots of the items in the satellite photos.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          I saw that too. the question that came to mind is: The distances were increasing
          by how much?!

          If they can measure these distances and make this assessment they can also determine a general direction of flight (in either the northerly or southerly scenario) and begin to rule out large areas of possibility (for instance, it was not traveling within the arc itself). Its killing me how they ration out information to the press on this one.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
            I saw that too. the question that came to mind is: The distances were increasing
            by how much?!

            If they can measure these distances and make this assessment they can also determine a general direction of flight (in either the northerly or southerly scenario) and begin to rule out large areas of possibility (for instance, it was not traveling within the arc itself). Its killing me how they ration out information to the press on this one.
            There is a map here http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/20/mh370-total-recap/ that shows the arc locations based on the ping delay times. It also shows a possible route provided by the NTSB; presumably using an estimated airspeed and distance between arcs.

            The official Malaysia map is shown here (only the last ping arc). Of course the aircraft could have crashed later than the last ping but before the next programmed ping.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MCM View Post
              I can. Highly unlikely, but possible.
              Oh, come on MCM. Don't make us beg you. Would you care to elaborate?

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                Thank you.

                Man. Why doesn't AVHerald have this information? Or the mainstream press for that matter. It rules out quite a bit and seems to show where the highest probability is. For instance, the first two arcs are closest together and the others are increasingly distant. That either suggests a track more parallel to the longitudinal position of the satellite (more toward the poles) or an increase in speed when flying away from the satellite. If the distance between the arcs translates to an unusually slow speed when travelling away from the satellite, than the probability is that they were flying more parallel, etc. I think this is what the NTSB has concluded and the plot offshore from Perth is the most likely scenario. There are a few tiny landmasses out there but nothing you could conceivably land on (perhaps ditch next to but you wouldn't survive in those waters very long). It is most likely sitting at the ocean floor at considerable depth and may never be found.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Oh, come on MCM. Don't make us beg you. Would you care to elaborate?
                  I'll venture a guess...

                  ...there's a tendency to wire avionics together as a group...and as essential as they are to todays flight, they are still not quite as important as keeping powerplants blowing hot air and keeping the control surfaces flapping around...

                  ...so in spite of redundancy and backups, who says that you couldn't break or burn through the exact right groups of wires to kill the avionics while keeping the turbines turning?
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    ...so in spite of redundancy and backups, who says that you couldn't break or burn through the exact right groups of wires to kill the avionics while keeping the turbines turning?
                    The problem is not "killing the avionics and keep the turbines turning".

                    The problem is killing the ACARS, transponder and most radios at once, but keep the plane and the pilots well enough to keep maneuvering precisely through several waypoints that were not in the planned route, and then kill the pilots but keep the rest of the plane (including turbines, control surfaces and their actuators, autopilot, FMS and SATCOM working for 5 or 6 hours more.

                    I can't imagine that happening, and if MCM can, I wan to hear it.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • "Higher" Res Image from the Chinese Satellite
                      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


                      • Breaking News: aircraft has visually spotted debris, including wooden pallet

                        Edit: Not a RAAF a/c, civilian
                        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


                        • A wood pallet, that's real helpful.

                          Until a ship gets out there and someone can physically look at the items, it is all speculation.

                          Comment


                          • Malaysian Airlines today confirmed that flight MH370 had been carrying highly flammable lithium-ion batteries in its cargo hold, re-igniting speculation that a fire may have caused its disappearance.

                            The admission by CEO Ahmad Jauhari comes four days after he denied the aircraft was carrying any dangerous items and nearly two weeks after the plane went missing.

                            He said the authorities were investigating the cargo, but did not regard the batteries as hazardous - despite the law dictating they are classed as such - because they were packaged according to safety regulations.

                            The revelation has thrown the spotlight back on the theory that the Boeing 777 may have been overcome by a fire, rendering the crew and passengers unconscious after inhaling toxic fumes.

                            Lithium-ion batteries - which are used in mobile phones and laptops - have been responsible for a number of fires on planes and have even brought aircraft down in recent years.



                            I don't think it was a lithium-ion battery cargo fire. Those tend to rapidly destroy whatever aircraft they're on. If such a fire had occurred, the aircraft would have crashed fairly quickly, not only God knows how many hours later.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by B757300 View Post
                              A wood pallet, that's real helpful.
                              According to Malaysia Airlines, wooden pallets were part of the cargo.
                              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 B757300 View Post

                                I don't think it was a lithium-ion battery cargo fire.
                                A lithium-ion battery fire does not fit at all. Nor does a wooden pallet for that matter...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X