Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

jasonb

Zzippy wrote: »

Apparently sims can be used to practise landing at unfamiliar airports, hence the speculation - the pilot could have been using it to practise landing at a strip he'd never seen before

Yes, they can, but it's not much use in the real world when it comes down to it. Even with the best photo-realistic scenery add-ons etc., it still is so far removed from real-world flying that it just wouldn't make that much of a difference.

As Five Lamps says, for a non-pilot, or someone learning to fly, the SIMs are great (I used one myself) as you get used to the controls / cockpits / procedures etc. However, while the SIM helps with all that, it doesn't do much at all for helping you with the experience of actually flying, looking out the window, judging things by eye etc. And for an active Airline Pilot, who can sit in the Cockpit of a 777 whenever he wants, he's not really going to 'learn' anything from a SIM, apart from maybe just keeping his memory checklists etc. up to date in his head.

So I'd imagine the SIM was just a pleasure thing for him. Of course, we've no way of knowing yet (nothing new there as far as this whole incident goes), and maybe, just maybe, he was the cause of all this, and maybe, just maybe, he was the kind of person who triple-checked everything and used the SIM to help plan for this. But until I hear proof, I'd prefer to think he was a professional who did his best to handle whatever situation he found himself in. I believe he deserves that courtesy until we hear different...

J

wil

sopretty wrote: »

That's what they said, local FBI agents, didn't you know they are everywhere.
It's the stuff they sometimes say that you have to watch out for, slips and doublespeak will keep you better informed.
Damn, you're trying to get me discussing it again:o

dees99

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That makes no sense.

Why would "Al Qaeda" (or any other generic terrorist group) take a plane full of passengers that they know will attract huge attention from the world's militaries and media to use as a flying bomb?

If all they want to do is terrorise China, there'd be hundreds of better ways that wouldn't require nearly as much planning or work as intricately flying a 777 full of pax under the radar to a remote landing strip.

Because they WANT to attract the worlds media. So show the world what they are capable of!! Maxim impact. The underpants bomber was supposed to blow a hole in the plane which would have meant the passengers and world had time to feel terror before the impact.

And they already have the attention of the worlds military but they have done a pretty good job of dodging them so far haven't they?

sopretty

wil wrote: »

That's what they said, local FBI agents, didn't you know they are everywhere.
It's the stuff they sometimes say that you have to watch out for, slips and doublespeak will keep you better informed.
Damn, you're trying to get me discussing it again:o

They said they have been working with the FBI since day 1 - this was in response to a question from a journalist as to whether it was true that they had refused help from a team from the FBI.

MuffinsDa

jasonb wrote: »

. And for an active Airline Pilot, who can sit in the Cockpit of a 777 whenever he wants, he's not really going to 'learn' anything from a SIM, apart from maybe just keeping his memory checklists etc. up to date in his head.
J

I repeat my question here, what if he wanted to try things that he couldn't do when sitting in the cockpit of a real 777 or a proper Simulator?

He would know all about the plane, so he won't use it to LEARN things. He COULD (I'm not saying he DID, but I don't like blindly discounting ideas that MAY be relevant) use it for practicing stuff that can't be done in real life or on a proper simulator as it would have either killed him or left a big audit trace / log. No?

(sorry for the capitalisations above, but one really needs to pay attention to nuances of the language here, otherwise the next poster will twist my words and will say that I said all pilots with home sims are terrorists which is far from what I say here!)

wil

sopretty wrote: »

They said they have been working with the FBI since day 1 - this was in response to a question from a journalist as to whether it was true that they had refused help from a team from the FBI.

I think it was Nishusswhatshisname said that quite the opposite of refusing, they had contacted local FBI for assistance.

Could have been bluff or blunder.

jasonb

MuffinsDa wrote: »

I repeat my question here, what if he wanted to try things that he couldn't do when sitting in the cockpit of a real 777 or a proper Simulator?

He would know all about the plane, so he won't use it to LEARN things. He COULD (I'm not saying he DID, but I don't like blindly discounting ideas that MAY be relevant) use it for practicing stuff that can't be done in real life or on a proper simulator as it would have either killed him or left a big audit trace / log. No?

(sorry for the capitalisations above, but one really needs to pay attention to nuances of the language here, otherwise the next poster will twist my words and will say that I said all pilots with home sims are terrorists which is far from what I say here!)

Don't worry MuffinsDa, I don't think you're assuming all people with a Flight SIM are terrorists!

Yes, he could use a Flight Sim to practise landing at an airfield he wouldn't normally land at, for example. However, the point I'm making is that I don't think that practice would be helpful in the real world. If the aircraft has landed at some remote airfield (and I'm saying remote because I assume it would have been spotted at a non-remote one) then I would imagine (and I'm open to correction here) it would be a manual landing, with no instrumentation (ILS etc.). And that kind of 'flying by the seat of your pants' stuff just isn't done well in a SIM, as you're too aware that you're still sitting in your room, looking at a screen.

I guess when it comes down to it, I'm saying that the stuff a SIM is good at (replicating controls / cockpits etc.) isn't stuff that would, in general, need to be practised by an experienced Pilot. But then, as you say, maybe he did use it to practise, we just don't know yet.

J.

notmymark

sopretty wrote: »

They said they have been working with the FBI since day 1 - this was in response to a question from a journalist as to whether it was true that they had refused help from a team from the FBI.

As it is an American made plane the NTSB would conduct an investigation for any accidents, etc. whereas the FBI take over in the case of air terrorism. Since there is a possibility of both in this particular case both organisations would be involved in the investigation.

cml387

MuffinsDa wrote: »

I repeat my question here, what if he wanted to try things that he couldn't do when sitting in the cockpit of a real 777 or a proper Simulator?

He would know all about the plane, so he won't use it to LEARN things. He COULD (I'm not saying he DID, but I don't like blindly discounting ideas that MAY be relevant) use it for practicing stuff that can't be done in real life or on a proper simulator as it would have either killed him or left a big audit trace / log. No?

(sorry for the capitalisations above, but one really needs to pay attention to nuances of the language here, otherwise the next poster will twist my words and will say that I said all pilots with home sims are terrorists which is far from what I say here!)

Captain Shah is too much of a professional to trust what a computer game would tell him about flight characteristics.

Even proper full motion sims shouldn't really be trusted to accurately portray the behaviour of an aircraft outside the normal flight envelope.

jasonb

cml387 wrote: »

Captain Shah is too much of a professional to trust what a computer game would tell him about flight characteristics.

Even proper full motion sims shouldn't really be trusted to accurately portray the behaviour of an aircraft outside the normal flight envelope.

A very good point, something I had just thought of myself and was going to post it. If he did decide to hijack the aircraft and land it somewhere, he'd be foolish to rely on the fact that he was able to land it there in what is, effectively, only a game!

J.

Happyman42

I think we just have to leave the investigators to investigate. It's the media who are hyping the significance of the Sim. Who knows, maybe he was taking a collaborator or collaborators through the motions with it. Has to be investigated and ruled out.
I think personally they where slow to investigate the crew in this incident actually.

sully2010

jasonb wrote: »

A very good point, something I had just thought of myself and was going to post it. If he did decide to hijack the aircraft and land it somewhere, he'd be foolish to rely on the fact that he was able to land it there in what is, effectively, only a game!

J.

Its not a game, its a simulator and it could well be used for practice for landing on pretty much any runway in the world. He doesnt need an ILS to land and practicing navigating there undetected and approaches to any runway could easily be done on his simulator and would be of huge assistance "IF" that's what he wanted to do.

Growler!!!

dees99 wrote: »

The pilots were not supposed to be working together that night. A different pilot rang in sick and the new younger pilot was on standby and was called up. So they couldn't have been a team.

When a satellite pings an aircraft it simply asks.. Are you there? The aircraft responds.. Yes. They cannot tell the location from that.

Ah that's clearer than what you initially posted. Being called off standby is a risk of the job:D, having said that has this been confirmed? If it has it then shows the Captain can be the only one with the plan to take over the aircraft.

I fear you didn't read what I posted. The excerpt below comes from Inmarsat themselves.

The purpose of the hourly "handshakes" is to allow the satellite to know the approximate location of the aircraft so that it can efficiently relay any messages. For this, the satellite needs to know the angle of the aircraft from the satellite.

Therefore they can approximate the position of the aircraft at 40 degrees from the satellite, that is why there is an arc which is shown on many of the news websites.

ProfessorPlum

sully2010 wrote: »

Its not a game, its a simulator and it could well be used for practice for landing on pretty much any runway in the world. He doesnt need an ILS to land and practicing navigating there undetected and approaches to any runway could easily be done on his simulator and would be of huge assistance "IF" that's what he wanted to do.

It's just a game. Really.

MuffinsDa

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

It's just a game. Really.

Say that to FAA or those willing to shell out $750 for just a game:
http://www.x-plane.com/store/pro-use/

notmymark

jasonb wrote: »

A very good point, something I had just thought of myself and was going to post it. If he did decide to hijack the aircraft and land it somewhere, he'd be foolish to rely on the fact that he was able to land it there in what is, effectively, only a game!

J.

I wouldn’t be so quick to disregard the flight simulator. Firstly flight simulators are far from games. The fact that the captain was an experienced professional has nothing to do with it. Some of the world’s most experience pilots use simulators. They can provide vital information to a pilot prior to his “mission”.

Of course no computer can substitute the real thing, but IF the captain hijacked the aircraft and in such an elaborate way only a fool of a pilot would not have run the route in a simulator beforehand.

Even flight characteristics aside, simulating the route, practice practice practice is the key to any successful mission.

Air investigations are incredibly detailed. The fact is that the captain and co-pilot are having their whole lives examined right now. Perhaps a simulator will tell investigators exactly where the plane is, perhaps it will tell them something about the captain’s character or flight habits or perhaps it will tell them nothing…. but they have to look

sully2010

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

It's just a game. Really.

Think you need to do your homework there, Microsofts Flight Sims are not the only sims on the market as Muffins has just pointed out. That said a pilot could even use the microsoft version to practice if he wanted to.

jasonb

notmymark wrote: »

they have to look

I agree completely. Everything needs to be investigated. My main point is that we shouldn't jump the gun, which is admittedly hard to do with so few hard facts...

J.

ProfessorPlum

sully2010 wrote: »

Think you need to do your homework there, Microsofts Flight Sims are not the only sims on the market as Muffins has just pointed out. That said a pilot could even use the microsoft version to practice if he wanted to.

'Proper' flight simulators - the kind that you can run useful simulations in, cost millions of pounds/euros/dollars. Even then they are limited in their reliable simulation of landings, even normal landings in most cases. Introducing failures carries more complexity (and expense). Software is not available for every strip in the world. If it is, I'd say he would have better relying on an audiovisual briefing, freely available to flight crew.
I'd say it was his game.

But sure, it will be looked at.

notmymark

I was going to try and give my opinion (not based on much other than my personal experience and knowledge) of the most probable theories of what happened but to be honest this forum is just moving too fast for me to keep up….

I would just like to say now that the thing that is the most confusing about this whole case is that no single answer fits perfectly. Any of the major theories can answer some of the questions but none answer all. That really just points to the one key fact in any air accident / issue… how the pilots reacted to the situation. Until this is fully knows it is unlikely that we will ever be able to answer everything.

The final thing I would like draw attention to is just how air investigations of this scale are run and how secretive everything is kept until reports are issued. This is especially true in multi-nation investigations. Just keep in mind that we more than likely don’t have all the information the authorises have and any of the “facts” we do have are far from fact!!!

sully2010

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

'Proper' flight simulators - the kind that you can run useful simulations in, cost millions of pounds/euros/dollars. Even then they are limited in their reliable simulation of landings, even normal landings in most cases. Introducing failures carries more complexity (and expense). Software is not available for every strip in the world. If it is, I'd say he would have better relying on an audiovisual briefing, freely available to flight crew.
I'd say it was his game.

Fair enough your entitled to your opinion. Xplane has very real flight characteristics and has been endorsed by pilots. Software is available for any strip capable of landing a 777. At the end of the day its the pilots experience of 18000 hours that would land the the plane wherever he wanted to land it and using a simulator for a few dry runs would do harm whatsover.

notmymark

jasonb wrote: »

we shouldn't jump the gun

But that is where all the fun is
(not to make little of the situation, it’s potentially a disaster, and I have sympathy for anyone involved - but who can turn down a good mistory)

sopretty

I note that the only two countries who have failed to comply with a request for background info on the passengers from their countries are Russia and Ukraine. In fairness, I suppose they are somewhat preoccupied!!

"Hishammuddin Hussein also said the authorities had investigated almost all the passengers and crew of the plane, but had so far found no information of significance.

"We have received passengers' background checks from all countries apart from Ukraine and Russia," he told reporters. There were two Ukrainians and one Russian on the plane."

From this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26644085

sopretty

From CNN's live coverage now, their weather lady is explaining where this new search area is. She explained the currents around it but also the fact that the new search area is in a fairly calm spot in terms of currents. 'Almost in a doldrums' or something like that.

While this is promising in terms of knowing that they are refining a search, this new focus must be devastating to hear for the relatives.

Tenger

Happyman42 wrote: »

Was that confirmed? There where also reports of billions in gold bullion in the hold.
You would think they would know what was and wasn't in the hold at this stage.

'They' know exactly what was in the hold. 'They' are not telling the press. Now that doesn't mean there is any suspicion here..just that the Malay authorities do no subscribe to the Western fashion of giving every detail to the media.

Same thing with the fuel, 'they' know exactly how much fuel was onboard.

In regards to the investigators....at this point they will know what each pilot had to eat for breakfast the morning of the departure. They delve deep into Flight crew lives in every investigation.

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The worst part of the last couple of days is the slow realization that we may NEVER find out what happened..........the idea that a plane can vanish into thin air with so many unanswered questions would bring us back to pioneering times in the minds of many.

The search will never stop but if it was a mid air situation leading to flight deck loss of consciousness, followed by nose dive into the Indian Ocean...then yes. This aircraft may never be found.

sopretty

Oh good Lord - CNN are now quoting the Goodfellow's theory!

Sky News taken over with budget coverage.

jasonb

And I just got another reply on the 'Ask a Pliot' thread which said that if the course change entered into the Flight computer was the next waypoint, or the one after, then it could be in the ACARS data. So that could bring the 'it was pre-programmed before the last contact with ATC' report back on the table...

J.

mickmackey1

notmymark wrote: »

only a fool of a pilot would not have run the route in a simulator beforehand.

Not very clever to leave the evidence behind on a simulator though...

sopretty

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Not very clever to leave the evidence behind on a simulator though...

Which is why deleted files are relevant!

Maximus Alexander

sopretty wrote: »

Which is why deleted files are relevant!

I thought it was fairly common knowledge that files can't reliably be deleted.

IF the pilot was up to something and wanted to cover his tracks, the only way he could be certain of doing so would be to physically destroy his hard drive.