Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Missing Malaysia Air plane MH370 - Part 3

960 replies

KenAdams · 17/03/2014 09:48

Thread 1

Thread 2

OP posts:
livingzuid · 18/03/2014 09:45

Oh god. Its not it's.

MerryMarigold · 18/03/2014 09:46

Snatch, there may be a point on that arc, where it didn't have to turn again. We don't know where it is on the arc. If they figured out where on the arc the plane would have gone if on auto pilot, they'd have a spot.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 18/03/2014 09:46

I wasn't thinking of Goldie per se, just I think the Malaysians said that 5,000 feet was a theory they weren't aware of and there was nothing in the evidence so far to point to it.

livingzuid · 18/03/2014 09:47

I don't think it was a fire in the cockpit. Why would the plane still have sent the pings for seven hours afterwards? Would it have just flown on?

If it also was a fire then the breakup of the plane would have been very different too. It wouldn't have been able to fly for 7 hours surely?

For me it doesn't add up. But then none of this does really.

livingzuid · 18/03/2014 09:48

Also for clueless people like me this is a really good diagram on the pinging. I hadn't seen it before so apologies if it has already been linked.

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26503141

ChaffinchOfDoom · 18/03/2014 09:48

Red I don't think everyone is accepting things unquestioningly.

Re Ledgerwood's theory re tailgating the Singapore flight, Goldie didn't say that it was categorically impossible BUT that, on the balance of probabilities, it was very unlikely & cited reasons why. I haven't completely dismissed it out of hand; improbable does not neccesarily mean impossible.

I find it a bit odd that you come on here to suggest the theory as though it was new information to the thread; clearly you missed the discussion of said theory on previous pages? If you're not RTFT, I'm not sure how you can justifiably come to your conclusions re Goldie's posts tbh except perhaps that your nose was perhaps put out of joint that you weren't in actual fact providing revelatory new information?

member you say what I was thinking far more eloquently than I could have Thanks
Goldie just ignore the ignoramuses ; agree this thread is very informative and generates interesting theories and questions
Living I agree with all of your words too
Smile

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 18/03/2014 09:49

I don't think that the heading and the arc intersect but I'm on my phone and can't check!!

livingzuid · 18/03/2014 09:49

Sorry doctrine X posted. I see what you mean.

livingzuid · 18/03/2014 09:50

Chaffinch Grin

ChaffinchOfDoom · 18/03/2014 09:52

in the pilot comment/theory piece about heading for a close airport; scroll right down past the comments for his newer hypothesis on the updated information -

theories evolving everywhere, so it seems Wink

meditrina · 18/03/2014 09:54

The Malaysian minister has just said, in diplomatic language, something I believe amounts to 'the Daily Mail and CNN are spouting rubbish'

HauntedNoddyCar · 18/03/2014 09:54

And actually even if Goldie was some 13 yr old with a copy of Aviation Weekly, spinning us a line, so what? Whether we solve the mystery or not makes no difference to anything. There are still 250 frightened families out there. We are fundamentally rubbernecking amateurs. The Malay govt isn't going to take any notice of us.

AnnabelleDarling · 18/03/2014 09:56

There's always one. Well done Tiara, you get the prize.

I hope you come back later Goldie, we are relying on you to make sense of it all

ChaffinchOfDoom · 18/03/2014 09:56

chris goodfellow ''Diego and all who have commented - thank you.

I wrote this post before the information regarding the engines continuing to run for approximately six hours and the fact it seems acars was shut down before the transponder.

The continued speculation of hijack and/or murder suicide and the latest this morning that there was a flight engineer on board that is being investigated does not do much to sway me in favour of foul play until I am presented with evidence of foul play.

My post received a lot of comments on Reddit as well if some of you wish to read those. www.reddit.com MH370.

Now let me deal with Diego's request for my present view in light of new evidence.

We know there was a last voice transmission that from a pilot's point of view (POV) was entirely normal. The good night is customary on a hand -off to a new ATC control. The good night also indicates STRONGLY to me all was OK on the flight deck. Remember there are many ways a pilot can communicate distress - the hijack code or even a transponder code different by one digit from assigned would alert ATC that something was wrong. Every good pilot knows keying an SOS over the mike is always an option even three short clicks would raise an alert.

So I conclude at that point of voice transmission all was perceived as well on the flight deck by the pilots.

But things could have been in the process of going wrong unknown to the pilots -
Evidently the ACARS went inoperative some time before. Disabling the ACARS is not easy as pointed out. This leads me to believe more in an electric or electric fire issue than a manual shutdown. I suggest the pilots were probably not aware it was not transmitting.

The next event is the turn to the SW in what appears direct Langkawi.
As I said in the first post the pilot probably had this in his head already.
Someone said why didn't he go to KBR on north coast of Malaysia which was closer. That's a 6,000 foot runway and to put that plane down on a 6,000 foot strip at night uncertain of your aircraft's entire systems is not an option. I would expect the pilot would consider ditching before a 6,000 runway if still above maximum landing weight which he likely was.
The safest runway in the region to make the approach was certainly Langkawi - no obstacles over water with a long flat approach. In my humble opinion this 18,000 hour pilot knew this instinctively.

Reports of altitude fluctuations. Well given that this was not transponder generated data but primary radar at maybe 200 miles the azimuth readings can be affected by a lot of atmospherics and I would not have high confidence in this being totally reliable. But let's accept for a minute he might have ascended to 45,000 in a last ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen. It is an acceptable scenario in my opinion. At 45,000 it would be tough to keep this aircraft stable as the flight envelope is very narrow and loss of control in a stall is entirely possible. The aircraft is at the top of its operational ceiling. The reported rapid rates of descent could have been generated by a stall and recovery at 25,000. The pilot may even have been diving the aircraft to extinguish flames. All entirely possible.

But going to 45,000 in a hijack scenario doesn't make any good sense to me.

The question of the time the plane flew on.

On departing Kuala he would have had fuel for Beijing and alternate probably Shanghai and 45 minutes. Say 8 hours. Maybe more. He burned 20-25% in first hour with takeoff, climb to cruise. So when the turn was made towards Langkawi he would have had six hours or more. This correlates nicely with the immarsat data pings being received until fuel exhaustion.

The apparent now known continued flight until TTFE time to fuel exhaustion only actually confirms to me the crew were incapacitated and the flight continued on deep into the south Indian ocean.

There really is no point in speculating further until more evidence surfaces but in the meantime it serves no purpose to malign the pilots who well may have been in an heroic struggle to save this aircraft from a fire or other serious mechanical issue and were overcome.

I hope the investigation team looks at the maintenance records of the front gear tires - cycles, last pressure check and maintenance inspection. Captain or F/O as part of pre-flight looks at tires. Is there any video at the airport to support pre-flight walkaround? Any damage on pushback? A day after I wrote the original post a plane in the U.S. blew a tire in takeoff and the t/o was fortunately aborted with a burning tire.

Hopefully - and I believe now it is a slim hope - the wreckage will be found and the FDR and VDR will be recovered and provide us with insight. Until facts prove otherwise, I would give the Captain the benefit of respect and professional courtesy.''

ClifftopCafe · 18/03/2014 09:56

It was - in the pilot's theory posted by Sauce - not the fire as much as the smoke that caused the early problems so in theory it could have flown on without becoming a firebal? The fire starting due to smoldering wheels after take off - due to the unusually heavy load in his opinion. It was slow to take hold but caused a lot of smoke which overwhelmed the flight crew. Or something like that.

DowntonTrout · 18/03/2014 10:01

What about the turns at the waypoints? I see some one asked about those but it wasn't answered by Chris Goodfellow.

Dinosaursareextinct · 18/03/2014 10:02

I think I now agree with Clifftop that pilot suicide is the most likely theory. The chief pilot had we think just suffered 2 highly upsetting events - 1) his wife of many years, supported by the children, leaving him. 2) the politician he strongly supported being convicted on trumped up bigamy charges (we hear), thus confirming his worst fears about the corruption of the political system. And it is possible that there was a conflict with the co-pilot too.
It may seem a long way from that to bringing down a planeful of people. But that's what happened in the Silkair plane crash. In Silkair, the pilot had been a stunt pilot, and he took the plane up high, rolled it over and then plunged it into a river. In other words, he chose to end his life doing stunts. Similar to this pilot ending his life flying very high, very low, flying over the place where he grew up.

livingzuid · 18/03/2014 10:03

Hopefully - and I believe now it is a slim hope - the wreckage will be found and the FDR and VDR will be recovered and provide us with insight. Until facts prove otherwise, I would give the Captain the benefit of respect and professional courtesy.'

Hear hear.

JonathanGirl · 18/03/2014 10:04

I am new to thses threads, but have been following the news with interest.

I was hoping some knowledgeable people could answer some questions - sorry if they are really stupid questions or have been answered in the very first thread! I have skimmed this one but haven't read every post.

I just really want to understand how air traffic control "see" and communicate with planes. So...

I get that ACARS transmits info about plane's location, speed etc to air traffic control, and that it only does it every half hour. And that the last transmission on this flight was to Malaysian air traffic control at 1.07. But that they also spoke to the pilot/co-pilot at 1.20 when they were leaving Malaysian airspace. And that the ACARS at 1.37 never came, so it must have been switched off in that half hour. Is that correct?

So my questions are -
Presumably they couldn't see that the ACARS had turned off. Does this mean the plane didn't disappear on their screens but just continued showing it as travelling on the same course that was shown on the 1.07 ACARS?
(Presumably this means that the plane could have actually changed course at 1.08)
When the 1.37 report didn't come, did the plane still show as if it was travelling the same course, or was there some sort of warning on screen at that point?

Did the Vietnamese air traffic control (or whatever country it was supposed to be crossing over into) "see" the plane on their screens (based on the information from the 1.07 Acars) or would they not be able to "see" it until they had an ACARS report actually in their airspace? Do the screens of what they can see overlap with other countries? Presumably they would have known when the next ACARS report was due?

Would Vietnamese Air Traffic control have expected the flight to make contact straight away it was in their airspace? What would they have done when it didn't? Why did they ask another plane to contact MH370 and how is it that the other plane was able to make contact when air traffic control couldn't? Is it because MH370 was never in Vietnamese airspace, so couldn't be contacted by them - would Malaysian air traffic control theoretically have been able to contact them instead if they were over Malaysia having turned back?

Anyway as I said, sorry if those are stupid questions, just trying to understand how it could disappear in the gap between changing over into different countries' airspace - to me that is the main thing that makes it all seem deliberately planned and as though it couldn't be an accident; just too much of a coincidence.

TunipTheUnconquerable · 18/03/2014 10:05

Has the pilot's wife leaving actually been confirmed? The only place I've seen it is in the Daily Mail.

ChaffinchOfDoom · 18/03/2014 10:08

do we know his wife was leaving him? I thought the report a bit ambiguous - bearing in mind he was on a long flight probably with an overnight stopover in Beijing it could have meant she was going away to stay with someone while he was away, IYSWIM

yggdrasil · 18/03/2014 10:08

I'm not a fan of the pilot suicide thing.

I don't think that we're clear about his wife leaving, I thought that was another Fail rumour. Its not been confirmed, iirc, and I'm sure I've seen something saying it was a mistake and she hadn't left.

I also don't think that the political thing is likely to be significant. It can't have come as a significant surprise to anyone involved in Malaysian politics. My understanding is that Anwar Ibrahim's party was very mainstream, maybe like the Democrats or Labour (obviously the politics of the country are very different). But we are not talking about a guy who supported a fringe group. I can't see that the outcome of the hearing would be actually surprising.

Also, I'm guessing, pilots are well screened for psychological problems, instability, etc.

But finally...why on earth faff about for 7 hours flying the plane about, turning the ACAS off etc? Why not just do a nosedive into the sea after leaving the airport?

ChaffinchOfDoom · 18/03/2014 10:09

great minds, turnip Grin

werenotreallyhere · 18/03/2014 10:09

I was watching the press conference the other day (I think Saturday), and some asked (I think) the transport minister, and he said no, no one had left and he knew nothing about that, there was then a lot of loud talking whilst the media discussed it which then had to be hushed for the next question

yggdrasil · 18/03/2014 10:10

yes, I read that his wife and children had left the house the day before.

That's all I think anyone has.

Which tbh sounds to me like they were going on holiday or something.

Or maybe they just popped out to the shops or something. Its a weird rumour tbh.

I honestly would have thought that if they were leaving leaving it would be known by now.