Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

pfurey101

More good info from the pilots rumour network (I have added a few comments in italics):

Member: Interested_Party

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 12

May I please just clarify from one who operates the equipment commercially and has flown for 35 years:

- With the sole exception of the 'handshake' pings no information has come from the aircraft. The only other information on the flight may be the primary radar information and the accuracy and interpretation may be suspect.
- The transponder may have been turned off or may have failed but there is no way of knowing which.
- Pilots cannot turn off the ACARS from the flight deck. If you doubt this ask one who flies a B777 or perhaps explain why I am wrong? [This was later debated, but a series of keystrokes can disable it...but you need to know your 777]
- There was no position, altitude or speed information transmitted to the ground after the incident. The only way that may happen is through the transponder (off/failed) or CPDLC. CPDLC would not have been used on this sector as KL and Vietnam do not use it.
- The 'ACARS' does not transmit any flight plan information that the pilots may have programed into the FMC. CPDLC does so through the ACARS but CPDLC was not used. There is no way of knowing what was in the plan or changes. [This was also debated and mentioned that a lot of pilots have learnt a lot about ADS/ACARS since this tragedy. ACARS reporting can be customised but an ACARS contract can be set up so that a Waypoint Change triggers an ACARS event report].

All of these theories of hijack/interference/crew involvement appear to be based on information that the aircraft did not and could not transmit. They came from officials listening to pilots, misunderstanding and trying to look important by telling the media inaccurate information and the media then happily published it.

MuffinsDa

from : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/21/mh370-search-for-missing-plane-resumes-at-daybreak-live

It emerged during the press conference that the plane was carrying lithium ion batteries that can be unstable at altitude leading potentially to a fire.

Tea 1000

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Asked and answered numerous times in this thread already. Pilots must have the ability to isolate and shut down every piece of electrical equipment as a short circuit/fire could ensue. No doubt if there was such a tracking device installed that pilots had no access to and it were to catch fire bringing down an aircraft we would have people complaining how stupid it is to have equipment on board the pilots can't control.

But there are systems already that they can't control. Isn't part of the ACARS unswitchoffable apart from direct access to the engine pod? Isn't that where the pings were coming from? Also, it's not impossible to have a fireproof system in place.

Tenger wrote: »

The issue with this situation is what happens if the transmitter has a problem inflight and the flight crew cannot disable electrical supply to it? How can the flight crew perform a diagnostic on this transmitter? Does it cause interference with other systems? How much does this weight and what other systems need to be moved to allow it to be fitted onboard?

As for the loss of power battery set-up....is the battery self contained with its own fire suppression system? How long till it kicks in? (as aircraft lose power all the time when on the ground...lines disconnect, APU doesn't start as planned etc)

This transmitter idea isn't wrong, however as it is, the current system allow investigators to find aircraft quite quickly in 95% of air crashes. AF447 is the only other incident that springs to mind where the aircraft was lost for so long? Even then such a transmitter would not have helped underwater (depth, signal strength, cold water and battery life)
So it is not really needed.

But there's no need to have something that's overly complicated. A satellite phone for example is a handheld sized device that can enable two-way communication. You could have a device like this in a sealed box that was airtight so that even if it did combust it would just melt and quench without damage to surrounding electronics. You would just need two wires in and one out. The two in would be to charge the battery. The one out could be for the antenna.
The pilots would be able to kill power going in, but given that the device could be in a sealed fireproof box it should keep working for hours afterwards reporting position. That's not a far-fetched piece of kit to come up with in fairness. What weight would a fireproof box around 10cm cubed be? 3kgs tops? Just put it as part of a maintenance schedule to open and check for failures and replace the batteries. In fairness, with the millions of phones in the world, not too many of them catch fire. There are incidents, but as a % very few.

Tea 1000

MuffinsDa wrote: »

from : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/21/mh370-search-for-missing-plane-resumes-at-daybreak-live

It emerged during the press conference that the plane was carrying lithium ion batteries that can be unstable at altitude leading potentially to a fire.

Sure every mobile phone and laptop on board every plane has a lithium ion battery.

SteelyDanJalapeno

from : http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-daybreak-live

It emerged during the press conference that the plane was carrying lithium ion batteries that can be unstable at altitude leading potentially to a fire.

Maximus Alexander

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Sure every mobile phone and laptop on board every plane has a lithium ion battery.

Aye, but if they were being carried as cargo there could be a risk of thermal runaway depending on how they were stored and if any of them were defective. Lithium ion batteries are infamous for this.

martinsvi

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but what is the range of the ping emitted by the Flight Data Recorder (black box)?

please see my post about 170 pages ago in this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89413739

Bill G

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Aye, but if they were being carried as cargo there could be a risk of thermal runaway depending on how they were stored and if any of them were defective. Lithium ion batteries are infamous for this.

indeed they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_991

MuffinsDa

from the second link above:

According to Asiana, the crash of Flight 991 led to damages to the airline of about $190 million U.S. (200.4 billion won).[14] In 2012, the International Civil Aviation Organization considered applying new safety standards to air carriage of lithium batteries as a result of this crash and the crash of UPS Airlines Flight 6 in Dubai after a fire.[13]

pfurey101

Currently tracking and plotting on PlaneFinder (similar service to FlightRadar 24)



US Navy P8 returning to Perth after searching for ‪#‎MH370‬ http://planefinder.net/flight/RSCU74
These have a much larger range than the P3 Orions which returned 4 hours ago to Perth.

SpaceTime

Tenger wrote: »

The issue with this situation is what happens if the transmitter has a problem inflight and the flight crew cannot disable electrical supply to it? How can the flight crew perform a diagnostic on this transmitter? Does it cause interference with other systems? How much does this weight and what other systems need to be moved to allow it to be fitted onboard?

As for the loss of power battery set-up....is the battery self contained with its own fire suppression system? How long till it kicks in? (as aircraft lose power all the time when on the ground...lines disconnect, APU doesn't start as planned etc)

This transmitter idea isn't wrong, however as it is, the current system allow investigators to find aircraft quite quickly in 95% of air crashes. AF447 is the only other incident that springs to mind where the aircraft was lost for so long? Even then such a transmitter would not have helped underwater (depth, signal strength, cold water and battery life)
So it is not really needed.

Also modifying aircraft with even new antennae can be more dangerous than you think too. There have been unforeseen problems with this kind of thing in the past.

They don't like retrofitting things to aircraft, particularly externally.

Tea 1000

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Aye, but if they were being carried as cargo there could be a risk of thermal runaway depending on how they were stored and if any of them were defective. Lithium ion batteries are infamous for this.

Oh I know that alright, but it's a risk on any flight rather than just this one.

MuffinsDa

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Oh I know that alright, but it's a risk on any flight rather than just this one.

I'm not sure many passenger flights ferry a cargo of lithium batteries. It's not a laptop or iPhone battery here or there, it's a cargo - lots of them sitting in the hold together.

Regardless of it being a risk on other flights or not, it should be considered as a potential cause until proven otherwise.

fits

Honestly, right now, I don't believe we are ever going to find out what happened. I don't think the plane will be found.

sully2010

Here is a case of lithium batteries on two AF 777 falling into passenger seats and causing fires. When they are disturbed or bashed they are very volatile. I noticed DHL ask that all packaging containing lithium batteries are marked clearly so they can be loaded appropriately.

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/02/27/ped-battery-fires-on-777s-prompt-call-for-action/

sopretty

sully2010 wrote: »

Here is a case of lithium batteries on two AF 777 falling into passenger seats and causing fires. When they are disturbed or bashed they are very volatile. I noticed DHL ask that all packaging containing lithium batteries are marked clearly so they can be loaded appropriately.

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/02/27/ped-battery-fires-on-777s-prompt-call-for-action/

If there were several batteries and one went on fire, would they not all go on fire and cause a pretty big fire? I still can't get my head around the possibility that there was a fire serious enough to knock out systems, yet not serious enough to mean the plane would crash. Maybe it's possible, who knows!

Panda_Turtle

An Post wouldn't let me post a laptop or phone out of Ireland due to newish policies on lithium batteries

Paddywiggum

dees99 wrote: »

So that they could get a legitimate stamp on they're passport before they enter the EU. Also the fact that they got through in the first place might suggest its a known people smuggling route with either weak/bribed security officers.

There is no way it was a bomb or a hijacking. A group would have claimed responsibility almost straight away. The eyes of the whole world are watching now, its optimal prime time to claim they did it.

I'd say something went wrong, the pilot crash landed successfully on the sea. The plane filled with water and sank quickly, hence no debris. Survivors drowned or eaten? Any mid air explosion would drop a huge amount of debris.

Either that or its a UFO!

the above is your post from last week.

dees99 wrote: »

What if they have a future plan for the aircraft, one that involves an attack? Honestly now, would you believe they would still claim responsibility beforehand?

dees99 wrote: »

But surely if what at first ruled possible proves impossible, then surely what at first ruled impossible (ridiculous) must prove possible? Or is that just ridiculous as well? ��

in the space of a week you have gone from it definitely not being a hijacking to it definitely being one. To be honest i don't see any point in discussing this further.

lb1

Still nothing concrete from the search site. Until the plane is found the possibility of it being stored somewhere for a future terror attack remains a real possibility.

robbieVan

lb1 wrote: »

Still nothing concrete from the search site. Until the plane is found the possibility of it being stored somewhere for a future terror attack remains a real possibility.

I don't understand this theory at all, why go through all the trouble of stealing the plane and landing it somewhere when so many things could go wrong from easily being stopped at security at the airport right up to being shot down when in military airspace and everything in between.. when you can just go and buy a commercial jet for not too much

http://www.findaircraft.com/findaircraft/aircrafttypes.php?AircraftType=Boeing%20Commercial

SteelyDanJalapeno

robbieVan wrote: »

I don't understand this theory at all, why go through all the trouble of stealing the plane and landing it somewhere when so many things could go wrong from easily being stopped at security at the airport right up to being shot down when in military airspace and everything in between.. when you can just go and buy a commercial jet for not too much

http://www.findaircraft.com/findaircraft/aircrafttypes.php?AircraftType=Boeing%20Commercial

9 - 10 million is nothing to be sniffed at

Bill G

robbieVan wrote: »

I don't understand this theory at all, why go through all the trouble of stealing the plane and landing it somewhere when so many things could go wrong from easily being stopped at security at the airport right up to being shot down when in military airspace and everything in between.. when you can just go and buy a commercial jet for not too much

http://www.findaircraft.com/findaircraft/aircrafttypes.php?AircraftType=Boeing%20Commercial

Not to mention the fact you have to imprison/kill the 238 hostages, and then tanker in some 80 odd tonnes of fuel, and then fly back out through all those military airspaces again from your "secret base"? Makes no sense whatsoever.

robbieVan

TiltedBrain wrote: »

9 - 10 million is nothing to be sniffed at

There's cheaper than that first off and secondly are you serious?.. Do you think they went through this elaborate plan with a million flaws and a million things that could go wrong just to steal an airplane, WHEN THERE IS A HELL OF A LOT SIMPLER WAYS IF YOU REALLY WANTED A PLANE, somehow fly it undetected through closely guarded airspace, land it somewhere where no one notices or says anything about hearing it and hide it away in a big shed?! then kill off 250 pax and stop them all from using their phones etc etc etc .. really? that sounds fine to you? and everyone else who thinks that?

If I end up being wrong I'll eat my words and applaud the absolute insanity of it all

lb1

robbieVan wrote: »

I don't understand this theory at all, why go through all the trouble of stealing the plane and landing it somewhere when so many things could go wrong from easily being stopped at security at the airport right up to being shot down when in military airspace and everything in between.. when you can just go and buy a commercial jet for not too much

http://www.findaircraft.com/findaircraft/aircrafttypes.php?AircraftType=Boeing%20Commercial

Well a 777 reportedly costs 250 million dollars. Not the kind of money the average lowlife extremist would have in his arse pocket. Getting hold of a an airliner cannot be that easy or we would be having 9/11 style attacks every other week.

robbieVan

lb1 wrote: »

Well a 777 reportedly costs 250 million dollars. Not the kind of money the average lowlife extremist would have in his arse pocket. Getting hold of a an airliner cannot be that easy or we would be having 9/11 style attacks every other week.

A brand new one does, it would be shot down before it got very far, and now address the rest of my points about how stupid that idea is please? I really wanna see how someone thinks along these lines and how it seems possible in their head.

Take off the tinfoil hats or go to the AH thread, I really don't understand all the sensationalism

Bill G

lb1 wrote: »

Well a 777 reportedly costs 250 million dollars. Not the kind of money the average lowlife extremist would have in his arse pocket. Getting hold of a an airliner cannot be that easy or we would be having 9/11 style attacks every other week.

It's not the airplane that is hard to find, it's finding someone who can a) fly it competently and b) is willing to die for your cause

Happyman42

They are in the business of 'terror'. Understand that and you will understand why they might pull a stunt like this.

That is not to say that it was a hijack.

sopretty

My initial suspicion/hair-brained theory was that this was a test to see whether they could in theory fly a plane undetected; a sort of experiment or reconnaissance-mission if you like! As information has come out, that seems implausible. For a start, because they've caused worldwide commotion which will have the eyes of every military and aviation agency firmly trained on their radar screens now! One with a vivid imagination might speculate as to who might have a motive for finding this out or perhaps even exposing this, and come up with several ideas. None of which you would dare mention on here as you might be directed to the Looney Tunes forum!

lb1

robbieVan wrote: »

A brand new one does, it would be shot down before it got very far, and now address the rest of my points about how stupid that idea is please? I really wanna see how someone thinks along these lines and how it seems possible in their head.

Take off the tinfoil hats or go to the AH thread, I really don't understand all the sensationalism

Less of the tinfoil hat ****e.

I like everyone else has no idea what happened to the plane. All I am saying is that it is a possibility its been stolen of use in a terrorist attack.

robbieVan

Happyman42 wrote: »

They are in the business of 'terror'. Understand that and you will understand why they might pull a stunt like this.

That is not to say that it was a hijack.

You serious?.. have you totally missed the point here?.. of course they are capable of anything, I didn't say that, they would not be able to pull it off, that's the point