Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Thrill

China's state media says no evidence of hijack, terror attack on missing MH370 by Chinese passengers, Reuters reports.

unattendedbag

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Probably has been answered or addressed already, but how in this day and age is there some sort of device powered independently of the planes power system that can send out GPS/location information on planes?

After each and every air accident recommendations are made and changes take place in civil aviation. I can only hope that as a result of this incident that something like this can be installed in all planes so they can be monitored remotely and their history recorded.

sopretty

Thrill wrote: »

China's state media says no evidence of hijack, terror attack on missing MH370 by Chinese passengers, Reuters reports.

Eh....... we know that..........?

irishmover

unattendedbag wrote: »

After each and every air accident recommendations are made and changes take place in civil aviation. I can only hope that as a result of this incident that something like this can be installed in all planes so they can be monitored remotely and their history recorded.

From what Spacetime has posted RE: EGNOS it looks like this has been considered for a long time. Infact I remember reading a peer reviewed article on the uses of GNSS in Aviation which was published in the 90's whilst in Uni. I suppose it just doesn't happen overnight.

pclancy

Right from now on I'm scaling back my intense viewing of this thread and will concentrate on this one where updates only will be posted.

The conflict between regulars and other posters has been disappointing, especially after Andy_g and myself have put so much of our own time into trying (and sadly failing) to keep the thread on track. In my view anyone on Boards can jump into any thread they like and begin a discussion about any subject, but some people here obviously don't follow that view. The fact that a huge amount of complete trollop has been posted and various people have taken issue with others has obviously infuriated that, but I'm at a loss of what else to do here.

pidgeoneyes

Apologies if this has been asked, but did any warships or AWACS track a strange aircraft? And would it be made public if they had? (unlikely)

GTE

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Probably has been answered or addressed already, but how in this day and age is there some sort of device powered independently of the planes power system that can send out GPS/location information on planes?

If that system was to suffer a power issue which would eventually start a fire, then I would imagine there would be people wondering why, in this day and age, it was not routed through a circuit breaker system.

Terrontress

bbk wrote: »

If that system was to suffer a power issue which would eventually start a fire, then I would imagine there would be people wondering why, in this day and age, it was not routed through a circuit breaker system.

What is the likelihood of that?

I know the likelihood of what has happened is extremely low so I guess in learning from this incident, they'll either have to live with the likelihood of having a system which cannot be turned off or else live with the likelihood of a aircraft which can be made disappear.

Peanut

theKillerBite wrote: »

We can assume that most of these would have primary radar facilities, which would leave very little holes an aircraft could hide in.

Unless it was actually able to shadow SIA618 presumably, and then break off at some convenient point.

Happyman42

theKillerBite wrote: »

We can make a pretty good guess at the extent of the primary radar coverage. Here is a map of the airports that have runways long enough for a Boeing 777 can land at:



We can assume that most of these would have primary radar facilities, which would leave very little holes an aircraft could hide in.

Just a question here: Ruling out anything sinister, in the event of an accident how come one of those radars didn't track a descent into the sea?

Grandpa Hassan

Apologies if this has been posted already. It seems like the change of course was pre-programmed into the flight computer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?hp&_r=2

There was always the argument that the communication systems could have been knocked out through a fire or something, rather than being an intentional act. But I guess that the reprogramming of the flight computer is more concrete evidence that this was a deliberate act by one of the crew or someone else who knew the system

I am sure that someone who knows these things can elaborate on whether that is possible, or is more bad reporting by the NYT

MrCreosote

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just a question here: Ruling out anything sinister, in the event of an accident how come one of those radars didn't track a descent into the sea?

Vast areas of the sea aren't covered!

the_monkey

Presser on now ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26625473

pfurey101

I know this is boring but it is still very likely (and already posted a few pages back).

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

I know there have been more reports since then that could conflict with this article but as nothing appears to be definitive and very little has been confirmed and with so much speculation and conspiracy, maybe this is as good as anyone elses guess.

.jacksparrow.

A plane couldn't end up flying to space could it!?

Maximus Alexander

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

A plane couldn't end up flying to space could it!?

No.

SpaceTime

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

A plane couldn't end up flying to space could it!?

Definitely not.
The oxygen level at very high altitude would be so low that the engines wouldn't burn fuel properly.

I'm not 100% sure on the upper limits, but you could possibly cause both engines to fail attempting to do that.

Turbo fan engines on commercial aircraft only work within a certain range of altitude.

You'd need special engines like those used on military aircraft and spy planes to go higher than that.

Deep Thought

SpaceTime wrote: »

Definitely not.
The oxygen level at very high altitude would be so low that the engines wouldn't burn fuel properly.

I'm not 100% sure on the upper limits, but you could possibly cause both engines to fail attempting to do that.

Turbo fan engines on commercial aircraft only work within a certain range of altitude.

You'd need special engines like those used on military aircraft and spy planes to go higher than that.

I Hope the OP was being cynical...

Deep Thought

pclancy wrote: »

but I'm at a loss of what else to do here.

Close the Thread

Deep Thought

So, if it landed somewhere else...What of the 239 PAX ?

No phones ? no device to contact the outer world ?

pugsnotdrugs13

Deep Thought wrote: »

Close the Thread

I don't think so, because although amoung the speculation, there is a lot of good technical information posted here about the specific topic, which could turn the "Ask an airline pilot" thread to s***

MuffinsDa

Deep Thought wrote: »

So, if it landed somewhere else...What of the 239 PAX ?

No phones ? no device to contact the outer world ?

Just to answer that, there isn't global coverage for mobile phone, it could be in a very remote desert....

Has the theory that Billie Vincent put forward been discussed here? (fire in cargo due to hazardous material, killing electrics, pilots trying to turn back and then turning unconscious, plane continuing on course and eventually crashing ...). It is a relatively good, simple explanation, but if it was a fire as bad as that it wouldn't have flown too far away.

On the issue of possible landings:
Most people focus on standards (safe) runways length. But what is the absolute minimum that one can land on , if they weren't bother with reusing the plane!
Also, is it possible to land on any terrain other than a proper runway without killing everyone or catching fire?

stooge

Question: If a pilot programmes in a waypoint into the autpilot, what happens when the plane gets to that waypoint and there are no further waypoints programmed? Does it go around in circles at tha waypoint or continue on the same bearing?

Thinking that the fire scenario is entirely plausiable:
1. Pilot signs off to ATC 1.19am
2. Fire onboard, comms down, sets course for Palau Langkawi via autopilot
3. Between arriving at Palau Lankawi, the fire renders everyone unconcious/dead
4. Plane continues on course until fuel runs out and it crashes

Alternatively, would it be possible that the pilot landed the plane in the ocean (like US Airways 1549)? Plane stayed afloat for 4/5 hours, but then sank = no debris.

murphaph

Deep Thought wrote: »

So, if it landed somewhere else...What of the 239 PAX ?

No phones ? no device to contact the outer world ?

I have no idea what happened to the plane but people have killed more than 239 people in one go in the past. The plane is presumably worth several million dollars and I'm sure there's a black market for plane parts. I don't know, I tend to believe the plane has crashed somewhere in the ocean but how to handle 239 passengers wouldn't be a reason for the plane not being parked up somewhere if the stakes are high enough.

mickdw

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Just to answer that, there isn't global coverage for mobile phone, it could be in a very remote desert....

Has the theory that Billie Vincent put forward been discussed here? (fire in cargo due to hazardous material, killing electrics, pilots trying to turn back and then turning unconscious, plane continuing on course and eventually crashing ...). It is a relatively good, simple explanation, but if it was a fire as bad as that it wouldn't have flown too far away.

On the issue of possible landings:
Most people focus on standards (safe) runways length. But what is the absolute minimum that one can land on , if they weren't bother with reusing the plane!
Also, is it possible to land on any terrain other than a proper runway without killing everyone or catching fire?

With a reasonably functioning aircraft that could come in at proper landing speeds , I'm sure you would get away with landing on an alternative surface if you were not concerned with taking off again/writing off the aircraft. We have seen BA 777 land short onto grass without breaking up. We saw the San Francisco crash which unbelievably didn't suffer a complete break up.

SpaceTime

Deep Thought wrote: »

I Hope the OP was being cynical...

Not necessarily! You're assuming people know a lot more about aviation than is necessarily the case.

Dublin Red Devil

I think it's pretty clear now that the plane was either hijacked by a passenger who know what they were doing. Or it was hijacked by the pilot himself.

I don't believe the plane went down. It probably landed somewhere.

The passengers probably are all dead

SpaceTime

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear now that the plane was either hijacked by a passenger who know what they were doing. Or it was hijacked by the pilot himself.

I don't believe the plane went down. It probably landed somewhere.

The passengers probably are all dead

Very little is clear about this. That's two of a large number of theories at this stage.

The only one thing we are clear about is that nothing about this case is clear!

There is no evidence that it's landed at this stage. At least nothing in the public domain.

pugsnotdrugs13

Imagine if this was all a distraction to bring a strong number of US FBI and many organisations to investigate the incident, while planning a real terrorist attack on America. :O


It's a long shot :L

pfurey101

Deep Thought wrote: »

So, if it landed somewhere else...What of the 239 PAX ?

No phones ? no device to contact the outer world ?

Try getting 100% mobile cover when travelling from Glencar to Birr.