Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Mountainsandh

Pdoghue wrote: »

I'm just watching this Sky News news 'special' complete with background music.

Why doesn't someone in the media ask an obvious question, i.e., why can't the satellites produce a more high-res image?

In general, I find the media treatment of this story quite dozy in that they don't seem to be asking the right questions. Whether that is deliberate or not I am not sure.

There was this guy on the French news these past few days saying that he thinks the real pics, or at least other pics, are not being released, for some reason. Shortly after the publishing of this first statement of his, it was said French satellites had other pics.

I find it very hard to believe that there are no obvious, smaller debris floating about : torn plastic, seats and seat cushions, lifejackets (bright yellow ? !) ... Surely these should be strewn over the area, and on a plane that size, there's plenty ! The area if it is the spot should be littered with smaller floating bits, no ?

edit : I remember the French guy (will try find a link but it's in French) said with the satellite in question (whichever he was talking about, that was before French sat pics) you would have the accuracy to photograph or pinpoint a scooter/vespa on the ground.

edit : here is a link and a quote, too lazy to translate myself, Google Translate if you don't mind :

Satellite images kept secret? According to former captain Jean Serrat interviewed by TF1 (see video above), other satellite images are held by the authorities, but kept secret. "This satellite is able to shoot a scooter in a parking lot," he says. "Obviously, (images) have been filtered by the Australian Department of Defense and it has not given us the real photos."

http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/asie/vol-mh370-espoir-croissant-de-retrouver-l-avion-8387906.html
(grey haired and bearded fellow in the video down page)

pfurey101

A Summary of on board fire situations from a pilots network forum in response to all the fire theories. It has got plenty of kudos from other forum members:

Member - Albert Driver 23rd Mar 2014, 17:23:

Just when you thought you'd finally drowned it, the issue of fire just keeps on springing up

So, for the benefit of non-pilots, let's talk about fire - from the point of view of this former 747-400 commander's experience.

Cargo Fire:
The T7 is fully equipped with cargo fire detection and suppression for some 30 minutes or so (T7 drivers will fill in the number).
I've had a cargo fire warning. It rattles your eyeballs and soaks you with adrenaline. You can't ignore it. You do the drill and fire the bottles, put out a Mayday, ask for radar assistance, point the aircraft at a runway and get going down (in whichever order is appropriate, or all at once). It's just like we regularly practice in the sim. Mine turned out to be a false warning - but still......
In the position of MH370 there would have been radar assistance, a choice of runways within the fire suppression time available supported by the familiarity of being near base.
There is no way a cargo fire caused the loss of MH370, with no Mayday call, plenty of assistance available and time in hand to land.

Wheel bay fire:
If there had been a fire in the wheel bay the crew would have known about it from the sensors immediately after take-off. They would not have got as far as leaving departure control without asking for a return to land. Let's put this one to bed.

Flight-deck fire:
If a fire occurs behind a flight-deck instrument panel you know about it immediately. From experience, you smell it and see the smoke long before it takes hold. This type of fire can be difficult to deal with but there are extinguishers and axes/jemmies to hand. Oxygen masks on, Mayday, descent and diversion by the handling pilot while the other crew member(s) deal with the problem, is the response. There may be loss of some services depending on which panel is affected but at the end of the day the handling pilot can just take out the autopilot and fly the aeroplane, for which radar assistance resulting from that Mayday call is most helpful. Provided the fire is controlled to keep the smoke down and a runway is within reach there is no reason why a safe landing should not result.
For the reasons given for Cargo fire, a flight-deck fire did not cause the loss of MH370.

Electrics Compartment fire:
I've experienced smoke in the electrics bay. The compartment has a high airflow for cooling purposes and we smelt it on the flight-deck immediately, before there was any visible smoke. A quick check of the flight-deck panels, a zoom out into the cabin to check for smoke. a call to the galley-slaves to check the galley equipment - and it became immediately apparent where it must be coming from. In my case the appropriate CBs tripped themselves and the problem solved itself but in a more severe case it would be little different to the flight-deck fire case as above, except for some small extra difficulty of access (although our engineer was down there like a mole in a hole).
For the same reasons an electrics bay fire did not cause the loss of MH370.

Cabin fire:
Causes can be many. I've experienced a small furnishings fire (caused by an illegal cigarette we think). Smoke identified the source long before fire took hold. The cabin crew were on to it straight away with more extinguishers carried to the scene than I thought existed on the aircraft!
I've also had an electrical cabin fire. That was more difficult to locate as the smoke was distributed by the recirc fans. It eventually scorched a side panel revealing itself and the cabin crew pounced upon it relishing, it seemed, the opportunity to use the axe to get to it! We were already on approach by then but I'm confident that had we been in the middle of the Atlantic we would have dealt with it just as safely.

Incendiary devices:
In the cargo hold it becomes just another cargo fire, unless it is also an explosive device, in which case case the aircraft either breaks up (which we know MH370 did not do initially) or it may cause a decompression as well as a fire. In the latter case the fire suppression systems would likely be rendered inoperative or ineffective - clearly a more critical case. But pilots practice loss of cabin pressurisation drills frequently. If this had happened and the aircraft survived the initial explosion and the emergency descent they were still within range of a runway and they would have declared an emergency. Pilots do not forget to put on oxygen masks. In this case you just need a closer runway - and MH370 had one.
In the cabin, it's just a bigger fire. Trust me, the cabin crew will be there with extinguishers within seconds. There are more than enough extinguishers around.
If it is also an explosive device then we are back to the cargo hold explosion situation as above. The cabin crew may be stunned and react slowly but the flight crew will descend the aircraft and declare an emergency. There is no evidence that happened in this case.

The point I am making is that all fires on aircraft can be dealt with by the crew. There is ample equipment on board and sufficient crew members trained to use it. The problem is not in dealing with the initial fire but whether there is a runway close enough to use while the fire remains suppressed. That is what causes hull losses due to fire in flight. In the case of MH370 there was a choice of places to go and a radar controller to talk to and get help from.

Happyman42

Have the Guardian quit their live blog...can't find it, for an update on today's search, which I presume has been fruitless?

sopretty

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have the Guardian quit their live blog...can't find it, for an update on today's search, which I presume has been fruitless?

No significant updates that I've seen today. Just the Chinese sightings of possible debris being investigated, some updates on the planes/ships being deployed to the area and a rumour of a further sighting of possible debris 550km (or miles?) away from other sightings, coming from French satellites.
Aussie pilot (very young guy!) is the only one I've seen giving any thing resembling an update today.

Zcott

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have the Guardian quit their live blog...can't find it, for an update on today's search, which I presume has been fruitless?

I think it's 'on pause'.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/22/mh370-search-continues-as-australian-pm-vows-to-find-wreckage--live-updates?view=desktop#block-532e703ee4b0356d1758428f

Happyman42

Zcott wrote: »

I think it's 'on pause'.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/22/mh370-search-continues-as-australian-pm-vows-to-find-wreckage--live-updates?view=desktop#block-532e703ee4b0356d1758428f

Many thanks...found it quite handy and reliable. Will make sure to bookmark it now!

Iwannahurl

MALAYSIA’S continuing refusal to share the cargo manifest for Flight MH370 with an Australian-led search and rescue operation will hamper the effort to find the missing aircraft, an aviation expert says.

Strategic Aviation Solutions chairman Neil Hansford said it also suggests Malaysian authorities are not being fully transparent about what the Boeing 777-200ER, which disappeared on March 8 an hour into a journey from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, was carrying.

“To me, there is no reason why they wouldn’t declare the cargo manifest unless you’ve got something to hide,” he said.

“There is no reason you wouldn’t have given it to AMSA (the Australian Maritime Safety Authority) on the first day of the search.”

AMSA has requested a cargo manifest for Flight M370 from Malaysia Airlines.

The manifest is expected to give the search operation a better idea in identifying objects they spot in the Indian Ocean if they indeed came from the missing plane.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/malaysias-unwillingness-to-release-the-full-cargo-manifest-from-missing-flight-mh370-will-hamper-the-search-effort/story-e6frg6n6-1226863022091

wil

pclancy wrote: »

Oh Dear. How on earth would they even have 3G or GPRS up there to send a photo in the first place?

Terrible that this stuff gets past some kind of sanity check before being published.

4G of course
I'm almost surprised there hasn't been more of this type, people must be too busy coming up with new theories.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have the Guardian quit their live blog...can't find it, for an update on today's search, which I presume has been fruitless?

Don't know about Guardian. But you could check here..
Tomorrows search is already starting and todays finished about lunchtime.

LordSutch

sopretty wrote: »

No significant updates that I've seen today.

I just learned this evening that the plane dropped to 12000 ft shortly after it turned left.

Mountainsandh

so would the subsequent climb be an over reaction from a less experienced pilot ?

This little video is worth watching, although it's in French

But I'll tell you the gist of it, and the images will do the rest : it's about satellites, and it simply says that stationary satellites, at 36k km are not the most precise, but civil and military orbiting satellites, at 2000 km, are very precise. Civil can identify a suitcase type object, while military can identify down to 10cm objects. So we are mostly shown stationary satellite images, but countries can also discreetly peruse and analyse pics from their military satellites, then pass on more or less anonymously the bits they think might be interesting to the concerned governments/to the public.

So I would guess for example that the French military satellite whose pics we haven't been shown must have seen pretty definite objects for the Australian to share their optimism.

The video is here : http://videos.tf1.fr/jt-we/2014/vol-mh370-que-peuvent-vraiment-traquer-les-satellites-8387865.html

edit : please note, "PUB : 9 seconds" does NOT mean you have to head to the pub in 9 seconds

re edit : watched it again, it also says Europe is participating in the searches with 4 orbiting satellites, these can be programmed 24 hours in advance.

wil

Mountainsandh wrote: »

...
So I would guess for example that the French military satellite whose pics we haven't been shown must have seen pretty definite objects for the Australian to share their optimism.
......
.

I wondered why we hadn't seen these new images, but it appears they may not be the usual photos per se, and they are from 850 km north of the current search area.

NST
While Malaysian authorities initially said the latest data came in the form of images, France's foreign ministry clarified this, saying it came in the form of "satellite-generated radar echoes".
A radar echo is an electronic signal that contains information about the location and distance of the object which bounces the signal back.

cuterob

If they are holding back satellite images you would have to presume that the images are very obviously pieces of an airplane right?.. they just don't want to release them in case of the 0.1% chance that it isn't MH370 and everyone has already assumed it's faith just to turn out it wasn't it and give families more hope again

NicoleL88

http://kdvr.com/2014/03/23/new-leads-paint-a-different-picture-of-flight-370s-movements/

Mellor

spurious wrote: »

...who remembered his ex was supposed to have been on that flight. Sure I don't even know what country most of my exes are in, much less what flights they are or are not supposed to be taking.

An ex that he hasn't spoken to in months. :rolleyes:
So how exactly did he know she was on that flight. Fake story is terrible.

We examined the Flight 370 and found that the aircraft is designed with 3-3-3 seating, including screen monitors on the back of every seat. This will lead us to believe that this image is in fact ‘real’. Jake shared with us his Gmail account and even showed us where the email was sent from and that it was sent just off the coast of Malaysia.

If we lean on this image being the first surfacing from a passenger who boarded Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, when was this taken and why was it taken? Analyzing Jake’s Gmail account, the image was sent to Jake on March 9th, 2014 at 4:35 Pacific time. According to Jake, there is no explanation to why his ex-girlfriend would send him a picture of the flight. “We haven’t talked in a while. The last time we chatted was 5 months ago, besides that, she comments & likes my pictures on Facebook and that’s just it”, Jake says.

homerjay2005

objects identified and it appears to be significant, ships on route to investigate.

seems that finally they have found something.

pfurey101

homerjay2005 wrote: »

objects identified and it appears to be significant, ships on route to investigate.

seems that finally they have found something.

Or maybe not ??

mike65

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have the Guardian quit their live blog...can't find it, for an update on today's search, which I presume has been fruitless?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/mh370-chinese-plane-spots-white-objects-live-updates

homerjay2005

the most logical explanation here is the one put forward originally by a former BA pilot - cabin decompression, the course was turned before pilots and all passengers then passed out. it continued on its course, ran of fuel and then crashed.

what doesnt add up however is why the transponder was turned off and why no contact, they surely had 10-15 mins worth of oxygen and if they descended, would have had more.

is it possible that the captain wanted to commit suicide, but wasnt fully willing to experience the crash, so decompressed the plane to knock everybody out, turned off the coms so the plane wouldnt be tracked and then passed out?

thats the only plausible thing i can see here, UNLESS some of the reports about turning, acars/transponder turned off are untrue.

pfurey101 wrote: »

Or maybe not ??

????

Sky reporting that the pilots normally come off the flights and give a statement, but this morning they didnt. a few minutes later, a phone call was made to the Malaysian PM by Australian PM.

Maximus Alexander

homerjay2005 wrote: »

is it possible that the captain wanted to commit suicide, but wasnt fully willing to experience the crash, so decompressed the plane to knock everybody out, turned off the coms so the plane wouldnt be tracked and then passed out?

If this were the case, what would be the point in trying to 'hide' the plane? If the aircraft was decompressed and everyone was unconscious, tracking the plane would not make any difference - there's nothing that could be done to save the flight.

I think it's pretty unfair to be directing (theoretical) blame towards the captain at this point, when we have no clue what actually happened.

Mellor

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Sky reporting that the pilots normally come off the flights and give a statement, but this morning they didnt. a few minutes later, a phone call was made to the Malaysian PM by Australian PM.

Malay transport minister confirmed it on the news there.


Tony Abbot (Oz PM) said this;

'The crew on board the Orion reported seeing two objects, the first a grey or green circular object and the second an orange rectangular object,' he told parliament on Monday evening.

The HMAS Success is in the area and attempting to recover the objects.

They are different to the pieces spotted by a Chinese plane earlier in the day.

Mr Abbott said a US Navy Poseidon, a second Royal Australian Orion and a Japanese Orion are also en route to the search area.

'I caution again ... that we don't know whether any of these objects are from MH370, they could be flotsom,' he told parliament.

Red Pepper

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the most logical explanation here is the one put forward originally by a former BA pilot - cabin decompression, the course was turned before pilots and all passengers then passed out. it continued on its course, ran of fuel and then crashed.

what doesnt add up however is why the transponder was turned off and why no contact, they surely had 10-15 mins worth of oxygen and if they descended, would have had more.

Could an electronics problem have disabled the transponder too?

Tenger

Red Pepper wrote: »

Could an electronics problem have disabled the transponder too?

Quite possible. An early theory was that a electrical fire caused the comms blackout and that the crew were overcome by either fumes or subsequent decompression as they dealt with the fire and tried to divert.


An Egyptair B77 was ruined 18-24 months ago by an electrical fire below the cockpit which burned a hole in the fuselage. This happened on the ground but a similar inflight fire could cause smoke, fumes and decompression. Flight deck smoke hoods are designed to be used in both smoke and decompression.

Red Pepper

Tenger wrote: »

Quite possible. An early theory was that a electrical fire caused the comms blackout and that the crew were overcome by either fumes or subsequent decompression as they dealt with the fire and tried to divert.


An Egyptair B77 was ruined 18-24 months ago by an electrical fire below the cockpit which burned a hole in the fuselage. This happened on the ground but a similar inflight fire could cause smoke, fumes and decompression. Flight deck smoke hoods are designed to be used in both smoke and decompression.

Ok then that's what happened in my opinion - Plane starts off normal, incident on board wipes out communications over Gulf of Thailand. Pilots descend and turn back for KLIA. Crew passes out. Plane continues on autopilot until it runs out of fuel and crashes in Southern Indian Ocean. No foul play involved.

Big question is, would the plane "mechanics" still be capable of flying on autopilot until the fuel ran out despite the other communications issues. If the debris is confirmed, then apparently yes (imo).

Tea 1000

How many communication systems are on board? The main radio (excuse the blunt terminology!) that they use to communicate normally to ATC, is there a back-up radio in case that fails or is there a seperate captain and FO radio on seperate switches for failure redundancy? And isn't there the text based system or is that defunct now?
I'd assume they're not on the same circuit.

homerjay2005

how on earth would a plane with a fire, continue to fly for 6-7 hours?


there was 21 minutes between one event and the next - turning off transponder and Acars.

Red Pepper

homerjay2005 wrote: »

how on earth would a plane with a fire, continue to fly for 6-7 hours?

there was 21 minutes between one event and the next - turning off transponder and Acars.

who said there was a fire?

ProfessorPlum

homerjay2005 wrote: »

how on earth would a plane with a fire, continue to fly for 6-7 hours?


there was 21 minutes between one event and the next - turning off transponder and Acars.

Who said there was 21 minutes between turning off ACARS and transponder? The only reliable time fix was for the loss of transponder data - the ACARS could have been lost anytime between the last transmission and the next scheduled one, 30 minutes later.

To answer another question, there would usually be 3 VHF radios, two HF radios and 2 SATCOM channels.
The ACARS transmits via either the VHF or SATCOM.

Tea 1000

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Who said there was 21 minutes between turning off ACARS and transponder? The only reliable time fix was for the loss of transponder data - the ACARS could have been lost anytime between the last transmission and the next scheduled one, 30 minutes later.

To answer another question, there would usually be 3 VHF radios, two HF radios and 2 SATCOM channels.
The ACARS transmits via either the VHF or SATCOM.

OK, so ACARS would possibly be on the same circuit as one of the radios?
It's just hard to imagine why there was no communication attempt, what could take out many systems and yet leave enough in place for the pilots to be able to head to new waypoints (assuming it was done to land somewhere because of the assumed emergency situation), and be able to adjust flight level to the 12,000 feet that seems to be what the plane was at at some point.


http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/03/23/MAS-plane-ducks-nepal/

Don't know if that story was posted here or not, but in that particular incident, the pilots seemed to have a fairly lax attitude to reporting problems to ATC. It might raise questions for Malaysia Airlines practices and pilot training, I assume from IATA or some similar body? Or is there such a procedure for airlines if there is a questionable action following an incident?

lintdrummer

Tea 1000 wrote: »

OK, so ACARS would possibly be on the same circuit as one of the radios?
It's just hard to imagine why there was no communication attempt, what could take out many systems and yet leave enough in place for the pilots to be able to head to new waypoints (assuming it was done to land somewhere because of the assumed emergency situation), and be able to adjust flight level to the 12,000 feet that seems to be what the plane was at at some point.

I don't think 'same circuit' is the right way to think of it, they would possibly share an antenna but they are separate units. Losing ACARS would not automatically mean loss of VHF communications if that's what you are implying.

There are so many variables here that it's impossible to say what happened until we have facts and evidence.

Speculation is pointless but for arguments sake let me propose that it's entirely possible the pilots were concentrating solely on the fault at hand before quickly becoming disorientated and perhaps incapacitated before getting an opportunity to use the radios.

brandon_flowers

I assume what they have found in the Indian Ocean to be parts of MH370 as I fully believe it is in the water and not landed in someones back yard being painted in the new Air Al-Qaeda livery.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/17/world/asia/search-for-flight-370.html?ref=world&_r=0

Using the above timeline how plausible is this scenario? Given that I am not fully aware of what does and doesn't run on a UPS system in an aircraft.

Pilots get a fire warning in the cockpit at 1.20
Go through checklists for fire which involves pulling circuit breakers including those running transponders/comms
Input new waypoints to return to KUL (assuming nav is running on a UPS)
Pilots try to communicate but systems are off due to pulling circuit breakers
Fire damage causes decompression during or just before descent
Fire runs out of fuel (tyres, cables or whatever could have burning)
Autopilot continues to fly for another 7 hours until engine fuel is gone (no idea if autopilot also runs on a UPS)

I guess one piece of info that would be very nice to have is what was the altitude was between Malacca Straits and the Southern Indian Ocean.