Missing Malaysia Air plane MH370 - Part 3

[KenAdams]

Thread 1

Thread 2

doh sorry

www.itproportal.com/2014/03/12/was-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-brought-down-by-a-cyber-attack/

Goldie thank you for taking your time to answer lots and lots of questions on these threads. It's really insightful to have someone who has knowledge of the field talking to us. No reasonable person expects you to endanger flight security by answering sensitive questions, and no-one reasonable expects you to be able to be able to know all the answers andbe able to speak in absolutes in regards to everything about this case as the perameters change daily.

Tiaramasu I fart in your general direction.

Another person chiming in to say that I think Goldie is marvellous and please come back!

The cyber hacking theory - I am fairly sure that you cannot just hack into an aircraft's system. There would need to be something deliberately placed into the system beforehand for that to work, I believe. Which could have been the case, of course, but which makes it all a little less scary.

Goldie

Thanks for your input on the threads, Always look forwards to after 5.30 when you turn up for your insights. Guess it wouldn't be MN without a few buns being flung on a thread, just a shame the one with the most expertise, skill in explaining technical stuff, and patience to go over the phone thing a dozen times was in the firing line. Hope you're back later.

Has this been linked? A pilot's opinion on what happened

pilot account

Living, that is interesting, especially as it could potentially tap into technology already developed by Boeing in relation to unmanned aircrafts.

Interesting theory here about fire in the cockpit and pilot trying to divert to nearest airport:

plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04

Sorry x post with Sauce

Psammead, I think you can, I found two aviation industry papers written in the last two years highlighting issues related to cyber security.

Whoever asked about sexism in engineering yes I experienced some on my degree course. Some positive (I.e. some tutors were definitely more open to helping out female students with queries), mostly negative.

The worst I experienced was when we had to do a practical course at an external college learning riveting, how to use lathes, CNC machining etc. Before we even started the guy taking the course said "I don't believe women should be on this course so don't expect any special treatment" [anger] Really I should have complained at the time, but I was only 18.

They had asked for our sizes in advance for boiler suits, but I got given an absolutely huge one. Now I'm 5'9" with a 34 inch inside leg and arms longer than my DH, so bigger than some of the guys on the course, so god knows what size it was. When I asked for one in the correct size I was told "it isn't a fashion show" until I pointed out that the sleeves were about 5 inches too long and a safety hazard.

Goldie, ignore the haters. We may have gone to the same Uni as I also did a 4 year aero eng degree.

De lurking to say I have been following this thread as the most informative out there. Goldie, I for one - and many other Mnetters - really appreciate your input, please don't leave because of a couple of
negative comments - they are in the minority. One thing that has been bothering me that perhaps you or someone can help with.
I can just about get my head around the idea that the tracking was disabled, lights turned off, flight path changed and the plane flown, undetected, to an unknown destination....but why has no-one come forward to say they heard the plane. If, as has been suggested, the plane was flying at low altitude to avoid radar someone would have heard a plane of that size passing overhead....also when/if it was landed
the reverse thrust noise would have been huge surely. Unless it has been landed on an unused airstrip in an extremely remote and unpopulated area the only explanation seems to be that it is in the ocean.

Another one really hoping Goldie comes back.

FGS. An aeronautical engineer with 20 years experience takes the time and trouble to come on here every night for over a week and very patiently answer our technical questions-and she gets hassle for it?

I'm sorry, but this is an area where specialist knowledge and experience trumps all the what ifs and conspiracy dreaming in the world. Goldie DOES know more than almost all of us. I'm sorry, but she does. Get over it, and appreciate her generosity in sharing her knowledge with us in a clear, non-patronising way.

Is it really so hard to just be nice?

Ah. I wondered how long it would be before the Dunning–Kruger effect surfaced.

Like others I have been specifically following these threads to read Goldie's insightful, knowledgable posts. It is fairly obvious she knows what she is talking about and isn't just speculating like most of the rest of us.

I bet she has had to put up with people questioning her ability all throughout her career simply because of her gender. I'm sure she doesn't need it on her time off too. Goldie, and thank you for all the information you gave up thread.

Mysweetprince, I'm sure I read somewhere that people have come forward to say they saw/heard a low flying jet.

MySweet, the flying at 5000 feet has been denied by the Malaysians, I think (as in there's no evidence) - it's one way to avoid radar which is why it was proposed.

I think if it's on land, it's on remote land, but I think it's probably in the sea.

The only news I can see this morning is that this thread has been hijacked by personal attacks and bitchy comments.

Nobody takes Goldie's comments as the absolute expert opinion on what has happened, but what she has done has provide clear, concise information from the viewpoint of being qualified and working in her field. She has also given opinions and most likely scenarios which have then been dismissed because of more information coming out.

As world governments, with all the technology available do not seem to know what happened I don't think anyone thought Goldie had THE definitive answers. But I, for one, was bloody grateful for her input, patience and willingness to explain, in lay mans terms, how things work on planes and why, some of the mor bizarre theories were unlikely.

As Goldie is the most knowledgable about that side of things she has been held up as our "expert". But someone always has to come along and spoil it don't they.

Thanks for your time, input and considered opinion Goldie, lots of us appreciate it. Don't let the buggers get you down.

That pilot viewpoint is extremely plausible from my (layman's) viewpoint; I do now think something akin to this happened.

I really, really think that if the plane was taken for nefarious purposes, we would have heard something by now.

Sauce, but the plane turned again after that left turn to get onto one of the north/south arcs?

"What I think happened is that they were overcome by smoke and the plane just continued on the heading probably on George (autopilot) until either fuel exhaustion or fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. I said four days ago you will find it along that route - looking elsewhere was pointless. "

Tiara, I gave my considered opinion on cyberjacking last night. So maybe your question has been answered.

Anyone with half a brain would know that if Goldie works in the techie side of aviation then she will know a lot more than she is able to put on a public forum. She would be stupid to spill all she knows. And she has been careful.

Theorizing on the human choices that were made is just that. Goldie can and has advised whether scenarios presented are technically feasible ie landing a 777 on a WW2 jungle landing strip etc. She isn't saying that hasn't happened. Don't confuse the two.

I have enjoyed reading her posts. They're interesting. I hope she left the house rather than the thread. You could always start your own thread.

That pilot viewpoint does make some sense, but would it explain altitude changes? Have the altitude changes been confirmed? They have also not published where all the 'pings' went off, so it's hard to say if it would fit with an auto-pilot route. It would certainly make sense to search that route though.

doctrine think goldie said the fuel burnoff flying at 5,000 feet would be huge. So it's range would be a whole lot shorter.

Which, if that is what happened, then it could have made it easily to Indonesia or somewhere further up but to still be pinging for 7 hours or so afterwards I think would put paid to that. It wouldn't have had the fuel to stay up that long in my highly unexpert opinion.

TBH if she HAD definitive answers...well that would be a little worrying, wouldn't it? The entire world is wondering what happened, and entire governments, with access to far more info than we have through the news are assessing and reassessing theories-and probably mistakenly spending billions searching in the wrong place.

And someone is sniping because Goldie, who has access to probably only slightly more info than we do, has changed her mind as to the best theory?

Sauceforthwgander & other poster thank you for posting that link: an experienced pilot's take on what happened.

I would be interested in Goldie's take on that. What do others think ?

It sounds the most plausible theory I have heard to date!

To summarise: the plane was heavy and take off put a strain on the wheel causing a slow fire in the tyre/ landing gear. The pilot closed everything down trying to isolate where the fire might have originated (thinking a wire fire). Smoke was the problem - filling the cockpit smoke hoods & oxygen masks could only give limited protection.

The pilot said the left turn was key; the pilot was looking for an airport & was headed for Langkawi. (The pilot commentating said he immediately thought to check for the nearest airport - going back a longer route over high terrain ).Aviate first & communicate second. The plane 'went dark' (radio contact etc lost) due to fire. Sadly the pilot didn't make it.

Unless there is more information Govts haven't released surely this is plausible?