Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

sopretty

Captain Chaos wrote: »

From what I can gather it had around 5 hours fuel at the time it dropped off civilian radar screen but the very last satellite transmission was some hours after that so it would not have had much fuel if it was still flying at that stage.

And yet, they are scoping a further 5 hour search range?

fr336

How do you block user's posts on here? Is it possible?

Captain Chaos

sopretty wrote: »

What I'm assuming, until I'm corrected is the following:

Flight take-off 00.41
Satellite signal 08.11 (therefore, 7.5 hours of flight).

And they are now searching a 5 hour flight fuel area.

So, the plane must have had 12.5 hours worth of fuel on board?

Why were we told initially that the aircraft would contained only 7 hours worth of fuel?

Because it only needed 7-7.5 hours worth plus reserve, you don't fill a plane all the up if you don't have to.

There is a possibility that aircraft was on the ground somewhere at the last transmitted signal.

Captain Chaos

fr336 wrote: »

How do you block user's posts on here? Is it possible?

Yep you can use the ignore option for whoever you want. Click the user name of the user you want to ignore and add them to your list.

sopretty

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Because it only needed 7-7.5 hours worth plus reserve, you don't fill a plane all the up if you don't have to.

There is a possibility that aircraft was on the ground somewhere at the last transmitted signal.

Well, if you only need a certain amount plus reserve, why was it carrying more than that amount?

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Maybe you want to specify the type and extent of expert qualification you'd accept from someone giving an answer? Personally I wouldn't like to chance it. You've already told (/ implied )a current 777 captain you don't consider him to be any more an expert than the journos on sky news.

No, here is what I said.

Other than knowing the correct terminology and the mechanics of how an aircraft works (which can be understood by most people of average intelligence) what extra knowledge would a 'pilot' have of the possible explanation of this incident?
If anything, this incident is revealing exactly what aviation 'experts' don't know about the possibilities.

Which is quite different to what you are saying I said, please desist with the inflammatory stuff.

I'm merely asking those who claim to be expert (I have no reason to doubt them btw) based on what they know about the 'mechanics of how an aircraft works' would they care to comment on the possibility of the shadow plane theory.
The only thing that seems to render it implausible is that they would have no idea of how far in front the jet it was shadowing was. Do any experts think this could have been worked around?
The reason I ask is, if it was possible to get a jet to ground this way, would it not be safe to assume that this was how they where going to use it in the future in a possible attack etc.

Amirani

sopretty wrote: »

Well, if you only need a certain amount plus reserve, why was it carrying more than that amount?

That's at the pilot's discretion. It could be because of a number of factors, it's not uncommon to carry more than the normal reserve levels.

theKillerBite

sopretty wrote: »

What I'm assuming, until I'm corrected is the following:

Flight take-off 00.41
Satellite signal 08.11 (therefore, 7.5 hours of flight).

And they are now searching a 5 hour flight fuel area.

So, the plane must have had 12.5 hours worth of fuel on board?

Why were we told initially that the aircraft would contained only 7 hours worth of fuel?

But they are saying that the plane flew at flight levels ranging from 5,000 feet up to 45,000 feet. Well outside the optimum fuel performance efficiency ranges.

sopretty

theKillerBite wrote: »

But they are saying that the plane flew at flight levels ranging from 5,000 feet up to 45,000 feet. Well outside the optimum fuel performance efficiency ranges.

Which would mean that they possibly had even more than 12.5 hours worth of fuel on-board?

jamo2oo9

sopretty wrote: »

What I'm assuming, until I'm corrected is the following:

Flight take-off 00.41
Satellite signal 08.11 (therefore, 7.5 hours of flight).

And they are now searching a 5 hour flight fuel area.

So, the plane must have had 12.5 hours worth of fuel on board?

Why were we told initially that the aircraft would contained only 7 hours worth of fuel?

Where did you get the 12.5 hours of fuel from? Aircraft only needed 7hours of fuel to get to Beijing. Flight disappeared after 40mins in the air so it would have a little over 6 hours of fuel left.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, here is what I said.



Which is quite different to what you are saying I said, please desist with the inflammatory stuff.

I'm merely asking those who claim to be expert (I have no reason to doubt them btw) based on what they know about the 'mechanics of how an aircraft works' would they care to comment on the possibility of the shadow plane theory.
The only thing that seems to render it implausible is that they would have no idea of how far in front the jet it was shadowing was. Do any experts think this could have been worked around?
The reason I ask is, if it was possible to get a jet to ground this way, would it not be safe to assume that this was how they where going to use it in the future in a possible attack etc.

Hold on, you say
"what extra knowledge would a 'pilot' have of the possible explanation of this incident?",
And then ask for an explanation about a technical issue that crops up as part of a theory? Which is it?
Anyway, I'm not getting into it. The whole thing is turning into an annoying and repetitive roundabout, with multiple spats thrown in for good measure.

sopretty

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Where did you get the 12.5 hours of fuel from? Aircraft only needed 7hours of fuel to get to Beijing. Flight disappeared after 40mins in the air so it would have a little over 6 hours of fuel left.

Ok:

Takeoff: 00.41
Disconnection from transponder: 01.27
Satellite signal received from aircraft: 08.11
Current search is for a range of 5 hours from the location at 08.11 as detected by satellite, NOT 5 HOURS FROM LOCATION AT 01.27.

Actually, I think I've figured it out, I sort of presumed the satellite signal was precise. But it could have been at any point in the arc they show in reports.

Aha moment!

Not so confused now!!!

Captain Chaos

theKillerBite wrote: »

But they are saying that the plane flew at flight levels ranging from 5,000 feet up to 45,000 feet. Well outside the optimum fuel performance efficiency ranges.

The listed service ceiling of the 772 as by Boeing is 43,100ft and it's not specified is that with an empty or fully loaded airframe and at what fuel state. It can reach 45,000ft if pushed and lightly loaded but it can't maintain it for any length of time.

Wanderer2010

If the pilot did decide to kill himself and bring everyone with him, he could have knocked out the co pilot and turned off the communications and headed for the deep blue Indian Ocean but how would that account for every single passenger and crew member being unaware? I get that, if you accept this theory, he was flying and low altitude to avoid radar detection and I also get that if he announced in his friendly and calm way "Sorry folks there is an issue with the entertainment system and wi-fi on board this flight and none will be operational", you of course are going to trust his word.

But....wouldnt the crew need to access the cockpit at some point to hand out food or get instructions etc, thats when the game would be up regarding his co pilot being knocked cold. What was going on with all the passengers and crew while he was bringing the plane down is what baffles me. Was that first record of him climbing to a dangerous height his way of killing everyone on board bar himself? Because if thats true then mystery solved right there.

BorneTobyWilde

Kay Burley is looking hot.

'temp wise''

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Hold on, you say
"what extra knowledge would a 'pilot' have of the possible explanation of this incident?",
And then ask for an explanation about a technical issue that crops up as part of a theory? Which is it?
Anyway, I'm not getting into it. The whole thing is turning into an annoying and repetitive roundabout, with multiple spats thrown in for good measure.

You said that I made a comparison with a pilot's knowledge and a journalists. I didn't.
The point I made is that no amount of expertise about the technicalities of flying has managed to explain what happened here yet. We know as much as we are going to know about this plane until it is found, as wreckage or intact.

And if the investigators are not 'speculating' about various hypotheses (including non aviation avenues like political motivations among crew and passengers) in an effort to figure out what happened then I will eat my hat.

Dacian

sopretty wrote: »

Which would mean that they possibly had even more than 12.5 hours worth of fuel on-board?

There is a record of the fuel uploaded before departure. It is used to calculate the flight plan (weight of aircraft/fuel/bags/passengers/cargo) In a European/Western environment this detail would be published...Malaysian is a lot less forthcoming with the media so its currently undisclosed.

I am going to assume they know an approximation of the fuel left at the point of last contact (0107) At this point you can map out the endurance.....non standard maneuvers would reduce that endurance.

adamski8

Connorzee wrote: »

It becomes a permanent fixture on this diagram with the 82 other planes that have "vanished"

http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-13/vanishing-planes-mapped-since-1948.html

Anyone what the two that were lost just south of ireland were?

sopretty

Dacian wrote: »

There is a record of the fuel uploaded before departure. It is used to calculate the flight plan (weight of aircraft/fuel/bags/passengers/cargo) In a European/Western environment this detail would be published...Malaysian is a lot less forthcoming with the media so its currently undisclosed.

I am going to assume they know an approximation of the fuel left at the point of last contact (0107) At this point you can map out the endurance.....non standard maneuvers would reduce that endurance.

Thanks a million for your reply!

I suppose I was misled by the media images, showing a straight line to a highlighted point in this arc, which I took to be the position at 08.11. Really though, have they no plotted point between the last transponder communicated location and the Satellite Arc potential locations? Would that not pin-point things?

My fascination with the fuel I guess, is that I would have thought it would be a measured and recorded amount. I'm just questioning the link between fuel/flight times and investigations into ground staff who had access to the flight i.e. I'm wondering whether the person who filled the fuel is being investigated.

Off to the conspiracy theories forum with me, before I'm ran completely!

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

You said that I made a comparison with a pilot's knowledge and a journalists. I didn't.
The point I made is that no amount of expertise about the technicalities of flying has managed to explain what happened here yet. We know as much as we are going to know about this plane until it is found, as wreckage or intact.

And if the investigators are not 'speculating' about various hypotheses (including non aviation avenues like political motivations among crew and passengers) in an effort to figure out what happened then I will eat my hat.

No, you are quite right. It was another poster who made the comparision. (was on my phone - difficult to navigate around the thread)

But I hope you get my drift. Why would anyone be bothered giving their time trying to explain stuff, and at the same time listen to some of the ****e put out here about them (don't need a secondary education, only got to be a pilot 'cos daddy paid for it etc). Nah.
Of course the investigation team will be investigating all avenues. That's what they do. (Some of them will be pilots too - no secondary education, daddy paid for it etc etc)

chinacup

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

If the pilot did decide to kill himself and bring everyone with him, he could have knocked out the co pilot and turned off the communications and headed for the deep blue Indian Ocean but how would that account for every single passenger and crew member being unaware? I get that, if you accept this theory, he was flying and low altitude to avoid radar detection and I also get that if he announced in his friendly and calm way "Sorry folks there is an issue with the entertainment system and wi-fi on board this flight and none will be operational", you of course are going to trust his word.

But....wouldnt the crew need to access the cockpit at some point to hand out food or get instructions etc, thats when the game would be up regarding his co pilot being knocked cold. What was going on with all the passengers and crew while he was bringing the plane down is what baffles me. Was that first record of him climbing to a dangerous height his way of killing everyone on board bar himself? Because if thats true then mystery solved right there.

Possibly sedatives used? Surprised noone has suggested that yet.

partyatmygaff

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

If the pilot did decide to kill himself and bring everyone with him, he could have knocked out the co pilot and turned off the communications and headed for the deep blue Indian Ocean but how would that account for every single passenger and crew member being unaware?

The plane flied west at night so it was likely dark for the whole duration of the flight. For the few passengers awake, telling apart land and ocean in the dark at high altitude isn't likely to be easy. Even if it was, unless the passengers had reason to be suspicious and knew their geography well, I doubt many would be be alarmed at not seeing land outside their window.

Looking at the end-result (for the plane at least), there are only two possibilities. It either landed on a remote airstrip somewhere or it's at the bottom of the ocean. Considering covertly landing and hiding a 777 isn't the easiest thing in the world, initially i'd think the latter is more likely.

That said, if the facts are as they seem and this plane managed to fly for a further 5 hours without anything amiss being detected by anyone, a covert landing sounds less and less impossible. The theory about it tailing and hiding in the radar signature of another westbound Signapore airlines flight sounds interesting.

tayto lover

adamski8 wrote: »

Anyone what the two that were lost just south of ireland were?

One of them could have been this one, the St Felim in 1968.
I remember it well. It was thought that a British missile could have hit it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aer_Lingus_Flight_712

bryangiggsy

I think a lot of passengers and all the cabin crew would notices a significant left turn a couple of hrs into the flight. Am sure questions would have been asked then.

sopretty

bryangiggsy wrote: »

I think a lot of passengers and all the cabin crew would notices a significant left turn a couple of hrs into the flight. Am sure questions would have been asked then.

People who had experience of this specific route maybe? Otherwise, no.
Perhaps some believable excuse was given to the cabin crew.

drunkmonkey

bryangiggsy wrote: »

I think a lot of passengers and all the cabin crew would notices a significant left turn a couple of hrs into the flight. Am sure questions would have been asked then.

Did the plane have the screen where you can see where the plane is?

How do you control 230 odd people, gas?

Really going for it now but what if it was the Taliban and they robbed the plane only to drive it into something once the dust settles..

Happyman42

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The theory about it tailing and hiding in the radar signature of another westbound Signapore airlines flight sounds interesting.

I find this interesting as well and understand that the only thing going against it as a theory, is the fact that the following plane would also not be able to pinpoint where the other plane was because it's transponder would be off.
The original theorist seemed to be accurate with his timings though.

Trying to find out exactly what separation would be needed to be seen as the same plane.

Could it be done by flying very close and above or below and having the other aircraft in sight...I don't know how difficult that would be.

What is also interesting is that if it could be done then it could explain how this aircraft was going to be used again.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

But I hope you get my drift. Why would anyone be bothered giving their time trying to explain stuff, and at the same time listen to some of the ****e put out here about them (don't need a secondary education, only got to be a pilot 'cos daddy paid for it etc). Nah.

Dare I say, don't be sensitive and ignore it?
It's what I would do if my expertise was called into question and in my line of work, I hear the same type of 'anybody could do that' nonsense all the time, believe me.

tharmor

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Did the plane have the screen where you can see where the plane is?

How do you control 230 odd people, gas?

Really going for it now but what if it was the Taliban and they robbed the plane only to drive it into something once the dust settles..

Most of the passengers would be sleeping....I think pilots passed out for whatever reason (cabin pressure, problem in aircraft,etc.) Trying to fix or change path they forgot to contact ground then they passed out n plane drifted on auto pilot for the said 5 hours somewhere....

BuilderPlumber

This plane scenario is a total mystery and one set to ignite the most bizarre conspiracy theories (only thing is one of them could be right!). Personally, there is some kind of cover up here as a plane like this just does not disappear. So, it has either crashed and the cause of the crash is negligence or an accidental shooting down of it (and this is being covered up) or else it has been hijacked (seemingly by either the pilot or copilot) and negotiations are ongoing (safe passage to another country may well be given and all onboard are stuck in some remote airport somewhere).