Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

keith16

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Are you not told to put your own mask on first?

Yes. Only then should you attend to children and other PAX

wil

keith16 wrote: »

In fairness to eatmyshorts, and if he doesn't mind me speaking on his behalf for a moment, I think they types of posts that are annoying are the:

"they should have found it by now"
"planes are big and map on my screen is small, but not find?"
"my phone has google maps, why not plane?"
"look, the pilots are smiling in the photos and then plane crash, lyk if you cry"

There are of course many others like yourself who are willing to learn and accept or try to understand the reasons that this aircraft is still missing, and it is evident that eatmyshorts has been happy to help in this regard.

this is what twitter was designed for it would seem.:(

but in fairness to non pilots, its a little disingenuous to say anyone here is passing judgement.

This is a worldwide event that some of us may be closer to than you know, and there is so far a dearth of information to the extent it appears even world experts seem to be running with speculation.

Either someone is hiding something for reasons unknown or things are really that much out of hand that nobody really has a clue in this instance.
This would appear to be an unprecedented situation and as such is likely to attract all manner of wild speculation.

You have to expect some repetitive idiotic nonsense.
But please, with your knowledge and experience, ignore the nonsense and debunk the debunkable:)

Spanish Eyes

Colm R wrote: »

Does oxygen need to be electrically pumped in the event of depressurisation?

My theory is that there was a catastrophic electrical failure caused by depressurisation or the other way around, but crew did their utmost to land, first at KL, but failed to find it, and then in the sea.
A successful intact water landing, but then all were unconscious or too weak to get out.

and it just sunk intact and that's why there is no wreckage

thoughts?

It's a reasonable theory IMV. It's the lack of any communications or tracking etc. that totally puzzles me, unless the comms were knocked out along with the pressurisation.

Can that happen?

theKillerBite

kona wrote: »

Cop on there's two girls on the flight deck how do you know

A) they ain't travelling crew - the pilots picked them out of the queue because they were hot
the aircraft is in the air - see the below video & picture stills, you can see from the instruments that it was in flight - see 1:07min
C) could be related - no
D) actually asked to see the flight deck, if it was two fellas would you be as outraged? - i'm not outraged, I just think it shows poor professionalism that may have led to the crash

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/11/19/08/woman-remembers-cockpit-fun-with-missing-pilot

Spanish Eyes

keith16 wrote: »

Yes. Only then should you attend to children and other PAX

Just as well I don't have any kids so!

christy c

tegerman wrote: »

Is it possible for flight crew to disable the CVR and FDR?

Can an expert here say? I know they pull the circuit breakers after an incident to preserve the data, would this stop any further recordings ?

Growler!!!

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

But I believe the passengers only have access to oxygen for 20 mins. Is that right?

Yes that's nearly correct. 30 mins is the norm of diluted O2. The flight deck have the option of diluted O2 for depressurization purposes or 100% O2 in the case of smoke. The 30 mins is normally sufficient to allow decent to 10000 feet or so.

theKillerBite

fr336 wrote: »

I'm talking generally. There's been no solid proof in relation to that specific pilot that the situation was in the air at all.

It was mid air

sopretty

Guys and Girls, before yis boot me out of your forum again lol...

I know that, as aviation experts, you are more interested in the technicalities of what happened physically to the aircraft.

Being a non-aviation expert (aka, someone with not a clue about aircrafts, aviation, nor the technology involved), would it be fair to say that some of you are completely ignoring the Malaysian police inspector's press conference as to what they are apparently investigating?

They are not investigating technical failure. They have insinuated that they are investigating the notion that a crew or passenger member might have been on a suicide mission, but some of you seem to be focusing on the premise that there was some sort of technical failure?

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

sopretty wrote: »

They are not investigating technical failure. They have insinuated that they are investigating the notion that a crew or passenger member might have been on a suicide mission, but some of you seem to be focusing on the premise that there was some sort of technical failure?

I think its gone back to technical failure now due to the fact they are saying the playing may have turned around a flew a further 300+ Miles without any communication showing up.

sopretty

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

I think its gone back to technical failure now due to the fact they are saying the playing may have turned around a flew a further 300+ Miles without any communication showing up.

They knew this prior to the press conf?

bohsfan

Been following this thread for a few days now. Been very interesting to follow the various views/opinions on offer.

I don't believe the plane broke up immediately in mid-air as the loss from radar would suggest. If that happened I would have expected some kind of wreckage to have shown up near its last reported position by now.

From what I have seen and read I believe that the (little) evidence points at a catastrophic incident at cruising altitude that led to the pilots having to rapidly lose altitude (would explain dropping off tracking websites etc.) and try to set things up for an emergency landing.

Whatever event happened (and that's the key question) either took out the communication methods available to the flight crew or they were so busy trying to regain control of the plane that they didn't get out any comms.

This could have led them to be flying at a very low altitude while trying to return to a suitable airport, with them eventually losing the fight and the plane coming down with a shallow trajectory into the sea, lessening the debris field somewhat.

The key to this scenario would be that the plane was able to travel some distance from it's last know location before coming down. This led to a couple of days of turned heads while rescue services looked in the wrong place, giving the debris sufficient time to disperse/sink.

Just my thinking given what I've read.

ProfessorPlum

Colm R wrote: »

Does oxygen need to be electrically pumped in the event of depressurisation?

My theory is that there was a catastrophic electrical failure caused by depressurisation or the other way around, but crew did their utmost to land, first at KL, but failed to find it, and then in the sea.
A successful intact water landing, but then all were unconscious or too weak to get out.

and it just sunk intact and that's why there is no wreckage

thoughts?

Oxygen is supplied under pressure - it doesn't need an electrical supply to be available.

There is a snowballs chance in hell of landing a 777 in open water, at night, and it remaining intact.

Tigerandahalf

I am surprised that the media there are not asking the necessary questions.

What sort of info was the ACARS sending and how often?
Can the ACARS be turned off by the crew or others?
What radios and other forms of communication did the pilots have access to?
Were there any parts that required recent maintenance or who repaired them?

Growler!!!

theKillerBite wrote: »

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/11/19/08/woman-remembers-cockpit-fun-with-missing-pilot

I know the above quote doesn't show the bits you added but you can't say it caused the crash.

There was a different captain on this flight with plenty of experience, in Asia the captains tend to be more the old style authoritative captains. As any flight crew on here will tell you the captain sets the tone on the flight deck. In this case looking at the other reports that he was very professional ( apparently practicing manoeuvres on flight sim ) somehow I don't think he would allow any unauthorised personnel on the flight deck.

theKillerBite

theKillerBite wrote: »

It was mid air

Killer, if you scroll down the link, to picture two, you can clearly see they are on the ground

to the right of the pic, you can see other vehicles, and to the left, it looks like someone in a bright safety jacket.

Spanish Eyes

Jake1 wrote: »

Killer, if you scroll down the link, to picture two, you can clearly see they are on the ground

to the right of the pic, you can see other vehicles, and to the left, it looks like someone in a bright safety jacket.

That pilot does not look comfortable in the situation at all.

I zoomed in on that second pic, they are for sure on the ground, to the left is two men in those safety jackets. Looks like two vehicles to the right

theKillerBite

Jake1 wrote: »

Killer, if you scroll down the link, to picture two, you can clearly see they are on the ground

to the right of the pic, you can see other vehicles, and to the left, it looks like someone in a bright safety jacket.

No, the girl said they were picked by the pilots from the terminal gate queue and asked if they wanted to be sit in the cockpit during the flight. They remained during in the cockpit for the entire flight (including take off and landing), taking pictures both on the ground and in mid air.

Watch the video - it clearly shows in-flight photos:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/11/19/08/woman-remembers-cockpit-fun-with-missing-pilot

Growler!!!

theKillerBite wrote: »

It was mid air

Look at the artificial horizon center screen. Indicates nose up about 5 degrees.
Airspeed indicator looks like it's near the barbers pole. That pic was taken in flight.

Low clouds outside the window.

Biggest indicator is the green script over the artificial horizon - auto pilot functions are armed and engaged. Cannot be armed on the ground:cool:

ninebeanrows

So it looks to me somebody deliberately turned off communications., unknown to the passengers. Perhaps a mutiny in the cockpit. Turned plane around and then something sudden and catastrophic happened rendering pax unconscious

ProfessorPlum

theKillerBite wrote: »

No, the girl said they were picked by the pilots from the terminal gate queue and asked if they wanted to be sit in the cockpit during the flight. They remained during in the cockpit for the entire flight (including take off and landing), taking pictures both on the ground and in mid air.

Watch the video - it clearly shows in-flight photos:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/11/19/08/woman-remembers-cockpit-fun-with-missing-pilot

Seriously, so what?
What has this got to do with the flight we're currently discussing? As Growler said, the ethos in the cockpit in Asia is very different to what we're used to in the west. It's very authoritarian. Captain says jump, F/O and everyone else says 'how high'. You can be damn sure it was the captain, not the F/O who invited those girls onto the flight deck, and as he was not the captain of the missing flight, it is irrelevant. It has no baring on the professionalism of the F/O involved in the missing flight. Drop it already.

theKillerBite

theKillerBite wrote: »

No, the girl said they were picked by the pilots from the terminal gate queue and asked if they wanted to be sit in the cockpit during the flight. They remained during in the cockpit for the entire flight (including take off and landing), taking pictures both on the ground and in mid air.

Watch the video - it clearly shows in-flight photos:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/11/19/08/woman-remembers-cockpit-fun-with-missing-pilot

is there a video of the women in the flight deck during flight? the videos on that link are, 1 regarding the moment the flight vanished, the other regarding the stolen passports. Not trying to be smart, by the way, I just cant see video on her in there during flight.

If you click on the link again, and scroll to pic two, (pic labeled :Shot taken by Miss Roo) , you can see that plane is on the ground. Do a copy paste, and then enlarge the pic, its as clear as bleedin daylight ) I cant do it, as Im a luddite


Just because this gal said she was in their during the flight, dosent mean it really happened.


news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/11/19/08/woman-remembers-cockpit-fun-with-missing-pilot

sopretty

Ok, latest dude on Sky (aviation expert of some description), saying that in his experience 'when it all quits at once, it's electrical'.

geneva geneva4444

For the sake of sanity, I really hope there is some break through tomorrow regarding the whereabouts of this aircraft, because all these pictures of the pilots with women in the cockpit is throwing people away from MH370. When news on cases like this dries up, people naturally start wandering towards conspiracy theories and dirt digging to keep themselves entertained.

One thing I find curious about this whole thing; I believe it's the Malaysian (open to correction) military that suggested that an aircraft showed up at 29,000ft on primary radar heading westbound. If this radar track is so definite, why is there still an ongoing search in the area where radar contact was initially lost from Subang ATC? Is it that they don't believe the military or what? The media have moved away from unlawful interference and back to major mechanical, technical, structural failure. Only one can be accurate, if the aircraft was west of Malaysia at FL290, it surely points to unlawful interference. The de-pressurization theory is somewhat plausible but with the amount of oxygen available, pilots have plenty of time to get the aircraft down to a safe level. It still doesn't sound right to me.

Mr Pseudonym

Dr.Tom wrote: »

There was a theory from an ex-pilot just on Sky News now. A guy with 30 years experience suggested they may have de-pressurised,set the heading for home and then ran out of fuel somewhere over the Indian ocean after they all passed out.....

Here is an interesting and detailed theory on what happened, which involves the elements mentioned in the post that I quote. In short: based on the FAA concerns over fuselage cracking, a slow depressurisation occurred; SATCOM antenna array disintegrated; disoriented, oxygen-deprived pilots changed course but did not consider sending VHF distress signals; all onboard unconscious as plane heads west, before then running out of fuel. This theory would allow for why relatives were able to get a ringing tone.

**apologies if already been posted

theKillerBite

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Seriously, so what?
What has this got to do with the flight we're currently discussing? As Growler said, the ethos in the cockpit in Asia is very different to what we're used to in the west. It's very authoritarian. Captain says jump, F/O and everyone else says 'how high'. You can be damn sure it was the captain, not the F/O who invited those girls onto the flight deck, and as he was not the captain of the missing flight, it is irrelevant. It has no baring on the professionalism of the F/O involved in the missing flight. Drop it already.

IDK inviting teenage girls into a cockpit during takeoff and landing, flirting with them mid flight, smoking, messaging them on their facebook page, asking them to hookup demonstrates a lack of professionalism don't you think??

sopretty

geneva geneva4444 wrote: »

For the sake of sanity, I really hope there is some break through tomorrow regarding the whereabouts of this aircraft, because all these pictures of the pilots with women in the cockpit is throwing people away from MH370. When news on cases like this dries up, people naturally start wandering towards conspiracy theories and dirt digging to keep themselves entertained.

One thing I find curious about this whole thing; I believe it's the Malaysian (open to correction) military that suggested that an aircraft showed up at 29,000ft on primary radar heading westbound. If this radar track is so definite, why is there still an ongoing search in the area where radar contact was initially lost from Subang ATC? Is it that they don't believe the military or what? The media have moved away from unlawful interference and back to major mechanical, technical, structural failure. Only one can be accurate, if the aircraft was west of Malaysia at FL290, it surely points to unlawful interference. The de-pressurization theory is somewhat plausible but with the amount of oxygen available, pilots have plenty of time to get the aircraft down to a safe level. It still doesn't sound right to me.

My interpretation of it is that they asked to look through primary radar feeds, routinely recorded (but not constantly monitored) by malaysian military and then found something which they believe to be the flight in question.

It's hard to interpret what we're hearing.

Colser

keith16 wrote: »

Come off it. So a few anonymous internet questions is the driving force behind a massive international search mission?

What are you expecting exactly? A machine has stopped working the way it was designed and you expect someone to have answers? Without any evidence? Evidence that is currently missing in an OCEAN?

I was referring to the amount of posts on this thread from amateurs Keith..Im well aware that our input isnt affecting the massive international search mission.
As regards expecting anyone to have answers I most certainly dont expect that and I also wasnt aware that it has been confirmed that the plane was definitely in the ocean as it has been queried/mentioned that they may have made land somehow/somewhere....my apologies if that was how my post came across....

wil

For me the biggest red herring so far was the Malaysia ATC report that it had gone off radar same time as ACARS (maybe) info ceased.
And that was taken as that.

It may have gone off one, but not the military and for 3 days it seems people were working blindly on that. I'm wondering why was that question not asked immediately.
If there was some issue with crew etc, suspected (and we can hope not), there could have been any amount of arscovering/procrastination going on.

When it comes to some, it's what's not being said that speaks volumes. If you ever read a My newspaper, they don't say loads.