Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

mickmackey1

pfurey101 wrote: »

As mentioned earlier by someone else

It was the poster before you actually :pac:

pfurey101

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It was the poster before you actually :pac:

And waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy before Happyman42.

Looks like a snap moment with Happyman42

Jawgap

The 'tyre fire' theory seems to be gaining some credibility.....

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3

Over the past 10 days, investigators and observers have come up with ever-more elaborate theories for what might have happened to Malaysia Airways Flight 370.

What was originally assumed to have been a tragic mid-air explosion or mechanical problem soon bloomed into a criminal investigation of a meticulously planned hijacking, commandeering, or otherwise stealing of a fully loaded commercial 777 in mid-air.

Shortly after takeoff, as Malaysia 370 was flying out over the ocean, smoke began filling the cockpit, perhaps from a tire on the front landing gear that had ignited on takeoff.

The flight’s captain immediately did exactly what he had been trained to do: Find the closest airport and turn the plane toward it so he could land.
The closest appropriate airport was called Pulau Langkawi. It had a massive 13,000-foot runway. The captain programmed the destination into the flight computer. The auto-pilot turned the plane west and put it on a course right for the runway (the same heading the plane turned to)

The captain and co-pilot tried to find the source of the smoke and fire, but it soon filled the cockpit and overwhelmed them (a tire fire would do this). It also shorted out cockpit systems one by one, including the transponder. The pilots passed out or died.

With no one awake to instruct the auto-pilot to land, the plane kept flying on its last programmed course… right over Pulau Langkawi and out over the Indian Ocean. Eventually, 6 or 7 hours after the incident, it ran out of fuel and crashed.

Gator

Id agree with the fire as the most logical solution...however, other things are coming to light...

from some agency in the maldives

I've never seen a jet flying so low over our island before. We've seen seaplanes, but I'm sure that this was not one of those. I could even make out the doors on the plane clearly.

It's not just me either, several other residents have reported seeing the exact same thing. Some people got out of their houses to see what was causing the tremendous noise too.



Also another tangent about a billion dollars of diamonds being on board....not really feeling that one to be honest

KoolKid

Jawgap wrote: »

The 'tyre fire' theory seems to be gaining some credibility.....

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3

It fits a lot of the facts but would the auto pilot have taken the plane to a higher altitude?

Growler!!!

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wish people would get over that fact and quit harping on. These are 'discussion' forums after all.


The question is, how closely would primary radar be observed late at night and if an aircraft flying on a recognised route at a normal height would have attracted anything more than a precursory look.

Indeed they are discussion forums, where all sides are equally welcome to discuss the subject. But just because I don't believe the conspiracy theory and offer an informed alternative to debunk it is not "harping on"

How closely would a primary radar be observed? I can't answer that nor can anybody without being there. But if the operator was watching 2 targets become 1 would it not alert their senses? Would the operator see 1 target hanging around in one area apparently waiting until the 2nd target arrives? Both aircraft were travelling in excess of 250 knots. The timing would have to be absolutely perfect to pop up and shadow another aircraft. Again these are commercial aircraft, not known for their acceleration and high performance manoeuvring.

Jawgap

KoolKid wrote: »

It fits a lot of the facts but would the auto pilot have taken the plane to a higher altitude?

Someone with a bit more aviation knowledge than me would have to answer that.

Presumably if one of the pilots dialled in a higher altitude, the autopilot would take plane there.

The question is probably - in a situation as described by the theory would it be standard procedure to gain altitude? The formulator of the theory seems to predicate it on the basis of the skipper being very experienced - would this be something an experienced pilot would do?

sopretty

Jawgap wrote: »

Someone with a bit more aviation knowledge than me would have to answer that.

Presumably if one of the pilots dialled in a higher altitude, the autopilot would take plane there.

The question is probably - in a situation as described by the theory would it be standard procedure to gain altitude? The formulator of the theory seems to predicate it on the basis of the skipper being very experienced - would this be something an experienced pilot would do?

Are the reports about the various altitudes confirmed yet? There is so much information and mis-information, it's hard to figure out what is confirmed and what is not!

The reason I ask is that presumably, while the plane was still under Malaysian ATC, before things started to be switched off, is it relevant what altitudes it was flying at? Or if indeed, it was flying at random altitudes during the first 30-40 mins of the flight, would someone not have noticed?
And if it was proceeding/behaving normally during this time, from whence are these 'reports' coming from, and in particular, from what time and what location?

Moonstar

sopretty wrote: »

Yes, I'd imagine you'd need nerves of steel to shadow a plane for any significant length of time. For a few minutes maybe, but not for much longer. One wrong move..... :eek:

ETA - MH370 had its transponder turned off, so there's no way a plane could shadow it when you think about it. Well, not safely anyway! And presumably they couldn't keep in contact to co-ordinate via radio, as other sources could overhear?

Yes, the more I think of it, this couldn't be possible in my opinion.

The guy who came up with the "shadow" theory suggests that the above wouldn't have been a problem -

Some have raised the statement that TCAS doesn’t work if the transponder is disabled… this is only partially correct. Other planes TCAS would NOT see MH370 at all. MH370 would not actively query other planes as it’s transponder is off HOWEVER it could still listen to any transponder output from other planes that are actively transmitting. SQ68 would have been actively transmitting while in-range of Subang ATC center.
Even if TCAS on MH370 wasn’t working for some reason, an in-expensive portable ADS-B receiver paired with an iPad and Foreflight app would allow a pilot to receive the ADS-B output being transmitted by SQ68 at that time.

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

Happyman42

Growler!!! wrote: »

Indeed they are discussion forums, where all sides are equally welcome to discuss the subject. But just because I don't believe the conspiracy theory and offer an informed alternative to debunk it is not "harping on"

How closely would a primary radar be observed? I can't answer that nor can anybody without being there. But if the operator was watching 2 targets become 1 would it not alert their senses? Would the operator see 1 target hanging around in one area apparently waiting until the 2nd target arrives? Both aircraft were travelling in excess of 250 knots. The timing would have to be absolutely perfect to pop up and shadow another aircraft. Again these are commercial aircraft, not known for their acceleration and high performance manoeuvring.

I was asking a question about possibilities, when I offer a 'theory' be it conspiratorial or otherwise I will let you know.
How people on here became 'experts' without asking questions and satisfying themselves that they know everything, I cannot figure out. :rolleyes:

The proposer of the 'shadow' theory supposed that the plane fell in behind the other one in a radar black spot and was only doing it to get through more vigilant airspaces.
I note you also have no answers but questions. Perhaps we should wait until somebody who does know the answers comes along.

sopretty

Happyman42 wrote: »

Perhaps we should wait until somebody who does know the answers comes along.

I think they have all scuttled elsewhere as they have realised that there are limitations to their knowledge and they don't really like speculating any further on their limitations!

Woofstuff

Jawgap wrote: »

The 'tyre fire' theory seems to be gaining some credibility.....

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3

Hmmm, but the pilot said "Alright, good night" (at 1.19), two minutes before the transponder was turned off(at 1.21).

Seems unlikely for fire to develop and short out the transponder within two minutes?

Growler!!!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Perhaps we should wait until somebody who does know the answers comes along.

So you're going to stop posting? That's your choice:D

Happyman42

Growler!!! wrote: »

So you're going to stop posting?

No. I think those who have no interest in sharing knowledge should actually.

Growler!!!

Happyman42 wrote: »

No. I think those who have no interest in sharing knowledge should actually.

I fear those with the knowledge already have.

sopretty

Growler!!! wrote: »

I fear those with the knowledge already have.

It's a bit of a case of the lunatics having taken over the asylum! Or the blind leading the blind.

Ach, I think random speculation is about all anyone has left at this stage, in the vacuum of concrete facts coming from Malaysian authorities.

Wanderer2010

I dont get why all these people coming out of the woodwork saying they noticed a plane flying at very low altitude and heading off in a strange direction are only saying this NOW, 10 days after the incident. I would take such claims with a massive pinch of salt. In every investigation you have a few crazies who will make up anything just for attention. In a case this big, the number of crazies quadruples so its hard to take such accounts seriously.

Growler!!!

sopretty wrote: »

It's a bit of a case of the lunatics having taken over the asylum! Or the blind leading the blind.

Ach, I think random speculation is about all anyone has left at this stage, in the vacuum of concrete facts coming from Malaysian authorities.

Very true, there's just so much information, it's hard to pick facts from fiction. The news agencies are putting forward more and more speculation from experts to fill the vacuum.

Happyman42

Growler!!! wrote: »

Very true, there's just so much information, it's hard to pick facts from fiction. The news agencies are putting forward more and more speculation from experts to fill the vacuum.

Nothing unusual about that when it's a mystery. Ever heard of JFK? By questioning what we know we can get to some sense of the truth or indeed what is NOT possible.

murphaph

Perhaps he climbed to try to starve all oxygen from a tyre bay fire.

sopretty

murphaph wrote: »

Perhaps he climbed to try to starve all oxygen from a tyre bay fire.

There is a window of 2 MINUTES ( i.e. between 1.19am and 1.21am) between when the FO communicated with ATC and when the transponder was turned off (the supposed 'last known location').

Again, I will ask, WHEN, i.e. at what time? and WHERE i.e. at what supposed location?, were these supposed random and significant changes in altitude supposed to have happened?

Personally, I think, if they can suggest that there were changes in altitude, then it was AFTER the 'last known location'. And that they have in fact got data of such changes AFTER the 'last known location'.

sopretty

From the updates thread, here's a link suggesting Thailand spotted flight after 'last known location'.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/thailand-gives-radar-data-10-days-after-plane-lost/2014/03/18/1eb2d682-ae9c-11e3-b8b3-44b1d1cd4c1f_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Apparently they only shared this recently with Malaysia. I no more believe this, than I believe that pixie heads took the plane. :rolleyes:

It was clear they knew where the plane had headed after the 'last known location' which they could only have known, if they had further information!

Jawgap

Commentary about the way CNN are coveting the incident.......

On CNN, the plane rises from misty clouds accompanied by an eerie background score while anchors offer intriguing details — some new, some days old — of the disappearance of Flight 370. The reports, broadcast continually, often are augmented by speculation — sometimes fevered, sometimes tempered — about where the flight might have come to rest. And viewers are eating it up.

pfurey101

Oh for the days from when the news facilities only reported the news and didn't try to make it up or be part of it themselves.

Propaganda excluded!

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Perhaps he climbed to try to starve all oxygen from a tyre bay fire.

Have been reading the fire theory blog and it seems to be as full of holes as all the other ones.
https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04

At least the experts seem to have stayed on that thread to discuss the ideas.

Growler!!!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have been reading the fire theory blog and it seems to be as full of holes as all the other ones.
https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04

At least the experts seem to have stayed on that thread to discuss the ideas.

Actually seems to be the best explanation I've heard yet. He even replies after new info comes to light. His explanation of the primary radar returns in regard to the apparent altitude gain and loss makes sense.

And I love your sly digs:D JFK:p

GTE

Terrontress wrote: »

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.

It would have to be a situation of living with a system which can be switched off for fire safety reasons as the first plane to go down because an electrical issue which could not be isolated before it got serious would be wondering why "they" decided to make the system always on.

The significance of what you speak of, living with the likelihood of an aircraft being able to disappear, will only be learned once the motivations behind the aircraft movements are established. This is something that this thread could never come close to doing, other than by chance. So we shall wait and hopefully find out.

Happyman42

Growler!!! wrote: »

Actually seems to be the best explanation I've heard yet. He even replies after new info comes to light. His explanation of the primary radar returns in regard to the apparent altitude gain and loss makes sense.

And I love your sly digs:D JFK:p

No digs, just genuinely disappointed in this forum's undoubted experts. There a few still major holes in his theory, it wasn't necessarily the nearest airport, doesn't adequately explain why no distress call and also the selectivity of the fire. It may be the answer, still questions to be answered for me.

Dubl07

Dubl07 wrote: »

If a cinema can block cellphone signals inside a certain radius, can't a similar device be employed on a plane?

Time thinks it can.

expectationlost

ok so he says the plane went https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04 "deep into the south Indian ocean"