# Flight MH370



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Now this latest bit of news is VERY worrying but maybe offers hope for the relatives.

Begs the question why this has taken so long to come out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26591056


----------



## thenewguy (Oct 4, 2012)

Something very strange going on here. It would seem they've known about this for some time but are still continued the charade of making a pointless search in the wrong area. Makes you wonder who's pulling the strings in Malaysia and who exactly was on that plane. :?


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

This is pure conjecture but you might find they didn't want to let in that they knew.

It's is all very odd though.


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

I firmly believe that the plane is still intact somewhere and all the passengers are now being held hostage. Once the governments have wasted millions and finally given up the search someone will come forward and start making demands.

Just my 2p worth.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

jamman said:


> Now this latest bit of news is VERY worrying but maybe offers hope for the relatives.
> Begs the question why this has taken so long to come out.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26591056


Why wasn't an automatic distress/hijack signal sent?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

In the past few hours they have been searching the pilots home. Most of the communications systems were deliberately switched off but they forgot the telemetry from the engines. Certainly a distress button could have been pressed if a hijacker had been hammering on the cabin door. It would appear that the decisions were taken in the cockpit.


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

If it is on the ground in one piece, and they seem to think it flew over the Indian Ocean,it could well be in Somalia. I suppose they could hide amongst other planes, so as the spy satellites can't find it. After all they cannot trace it, because all the transponder beams have been switched off.


----------



## spike (Dec 26, 2013)

Certainly is a bit of a mystery.

I think it is a hi-jacking of kind (by a pilot) which went wrong, and has crashed elsewhere.

There is a reason why so many countries are "helping" on the search, they wanna know whats going on too


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

I think it is highly unlikely that the yanks don't know where it is since they are tracking everything that moves all over the world,, be that a mobile phone signal ,ships and aeroplanes,, I suppose, as said, this will give a glimmer of hope to the relatives,,, strange world we live in now...
ps,, there was a report in a newspaper during the week that the co pilot had given some valueabels to his son or someone with some message about " if anything happens on this flight ",,, mm plot thickens.


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

It's clearly some kind of hijack that either went wrong and has crashed somewhere or has landed somewhere for ransom and we don't know of it yet. The second scenario is unlikely but who knows. The operation to find the plane has been a bit of a farce and you can only feel for the families of those involved. The fact that they release a statement saying the plane crashed at a certain time and then have Rolls Royce contradict them saying they have 8 hours of further telemetry from the plane post 'crash' is worrying.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

yes,, first of all they denied the rolls Royce report but now it seems to be true, they denied days ago that they had searched the pilots home, smacks of the lies and deceptions which we are getting more and more used to in the new world..


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

It could be that the authorities are only just finding things out themselves and don't know where the plane is, or it could be that they wanted any potential hijacker to believe they were not being tracked. The press releases they are giving could well be carefully managed whilst something is going on which we don't know about and perhaps that they don't want the hijackers to know about either. I expect someone will have an answer soon - unless it has crashed into the sea in an unknown position.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

so whatever happened to the report from the guy working on the oil rig that he saw a burning plane crashing into the ocean a thousand miles to the east of the reported crash site... was he silenced or was he just a crank,, no one said


----------



## spike (Dec 26, 2013)

roddy said:


> so whatever happened to the report from the guy working on the oil rig that he saw a burning plane crashing into the ocean a thousand miles to the east of the reported crash site... was he silenced or was he just a crank,, no one said


people think they see all sorts, and once a idea is thought up, people believe it


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

mmm,ok,, and how often have you thot you have seen a burning plane crash into the sea ??


----------



## TJS (May 6, 2002)

The international transponder code (4 numbers) for hi jack is 7500. It takes seconds to input. If there is a communication problem the code is 7600

Complete failure plus back up systems is very rare, maybe no possible. Easy to shut down by a trained engineer or the pilots

Personally, I think the authorities know where it is. Politically sensitivities need to be addressed


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

It just does not make any since at all, they can track the people on board with there mobile phones, on or off as long as the battery is in. Anywhere in the world.
ATC around the world uses radar even if they turned of the tracker..IF and no squawk code. The plane the size of a 777 would be picked up easily on a radar.

It truly is unbeliever able.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Nyxx said:


> It just does not make any since at all, they can track the people on board with there mobile phones, on or off as long as the battery is in. Anywhere in the world.
> ATC around the world uses radar even if they turned of the tracker..IF and no squawk code. The plane the size of a 777 would be picked up easily on a radar.
> 
> It truly is unbeliever able.


Interesting comment about tracking mobile phones when turned off.

When a phone is powered down the real time clock continues to function and the charging circuit if powered externally but there is no power fed to the modem and the operating system required to engage in network signalling. It's easy enough to verify if you monitor your battery current - transmitting back to the GSM network consumes a high current to run the transmit power amplifier.

There is the possibility that some spyware application code could be put on a phone that intercepts and mimics the phone's off state in appearance but continues to run, fooling the user. However, it would have to be installed on a suspects phone first.

Two interesting letters in response to this from Samsung and Nokia: 
https://www.privacyinternational.org/si ... _reply.pdf
https://www.privacyinternational.org/si ... _reply.pdf


----------



## BaueruTc (Aug 21, 2011)

Callum-TT said:


> I firmly believe that the plane is still intact somewhere and all the passengers are now being held hostage. Once the governments have wasted millions and finally given up the search someone will come forward and start making demands.
> 
> Just my 2p worth.


I very much doubt it. 777 is a huge aircraft, One of the biggest passenger jets in service at the moment. I very much doubt it could have landed at any old airfield without anyone noticing.


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

BaueruTc said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> > I firmly believe that the plane is still intact somewhere and all the passengers are now being held hostage. Once the governments have wasted millions and finally given up the search someone will come forward and start making demands.
> ...


In some of these corners of the world you can't guarantee that.


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

If they do have it hidden I want them on my side when we play hide and seek


----------



## tonksy26 (Jan 31, 2011)

BaueruTc said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> > I firmly believe that the plane is still intact somewhere and all the passengers are now being held hostage. Once the governments have wasted millions and finally given up the search someone will come forward and start making demands.
> ...


If organised well enough it could easily have been landed on a unused overgrown runway in the middle of nowhere. There are many around the uk that never get used anymore and are overgrown so never mind in the likes of Thailand/Kazakhstan. The plane did reportedly had several hours of fuel left.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

the latest story is that it was tracked down nearly to W Australia... no doubt they landed it on bondi beach ,,in the dark


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

roddy said:


> the latest story is that it was tracked down nearly to W Australia... no doubt they landed it on bondi beach ,,in the dark


Bondi is east coast


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

Yes 3 thousand miles away


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

well i know that ,, but who said that they stopped at perth :wink:


----------



## BaueruTc (Aug 21, 2011)

tonksy26 said:


> BaueruTc said:
> 
> 
> > Callum-TT said:
> ...


Yes but your forgetting the fact that a 777 is a huge plane, dwarfs your regular Easy Jet 319's or Ryanair 737's. If it had landed at an old airfield then it would need a long runway and then there is the fact of a hanger large enough to hide a 777. Not going to be many places that are going to be able to tick those boxes. And again landing a 777 without anyone noticing the plane on approach/finals to a disused airfield. The noise of the thing alone would draw far to much attention. All it would take is one person to hear/see something so i very much doubt that the plane has landed at an airfield.

Then there are the passengers. Most would have mobiles i doubt hijackers would be able to get every mobile off every person on board. Maybe no signal but most would have gps. I am sure if it came to it then the governments could tap into simple things like Apples find my phone to locate the gps signals.


----------



## SalsredTT (Jan 8, 2011)

Read somewhere that there was something like 650 airstrips within the search area that are big enough - a serious needle in a haystack.


----------



## BaueruTc (Aug 21, 2011)

SalsredTT said:


> Read somewhere that there was something like 650 airstrips within the search area that are big enough - a serious needle in a haystack.


Not really. Would not take long to get satellites checking them all out tbh. Plus out of that lot how many of them are isolated enough for it to land unnoticed and then have a hanger big enough to hide a 777?


----------



## SalsredTT (Jan 8, 2011)

Very true. I feel for the relatives - this whole drawn out affair must be awful for them.

I find it just extraordinary that something that size with that many people can just disappear.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

if it has landed anywhere other than in an ocean , and maybe even that then the yanks will know exactly where it is,,, watch this space :wink:


----------



## J•RED (Feb 10, 2013)

If it has been taken then all I know someone somewhere has a very large long range missile!


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

no no,, even the yanks have learned a bit since the days of John Wayne . :wink:


----------



## bigdodge (Apr 22, 2012)

Here is a new one I just heard - being taken by Aliens.
For one I don't believe it crashed in the sea, there would be pieces all over and satellite would pick them up plus the x amount of planes and boats searching. How about a deliberate "gentle" landing in the sea. I would imagine some breakage as well. But what would be the point of this? So it means it could be on land somewhere!!


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

aliens,, do you mean americans ???


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Of the two potential corridors they've identified, I have a feeling it's going to have gone down in the Southern Indian Ocean. The chances of it landing anywhere to the north seem pretty slim, seeing as all the countries up there aren't the sorts of places to ignore an unidentified plane popping up on their military radar.


----------



## bigdodge (Apr 22, 2012)

This could be used in another 911 type of attack but having said that if they are going to do it the longer they stall the least likely they will pull it off as chances are it will be found soon, we hope.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

I don't believe the pilot was on a suicide mission, when his fellow pilot went to the loo and he then could have locked the door and taken over the plane, if he wanted to take the plane down he would have done it then, or do a 911, well that did not happen.
He pulled the fuse's and the tracker and turned of his ident code. Why? at the same time he turned the plane 90% ish on a new heading, again not the actions on someone wanting to take the plane down.

Now what I also do not believe is that no one knows where it is, the USA spend billions on stealth aircraft, why? now tell me know one can see a 777 basically the size of jumbo. No one seeing that flying around on radar? pull the other one.

Also, some close to 300 mobile phones on that plane, that can be tracked so easily these day.

What's happens? no idea, it's all very odd, personally I believe it could have been shot down by the military, it's the only thing that would explain it.
A plane heading into someone's air space, no ident from plane, pilot not responding etc. Now no one wants to say they did it?

Or it's landed some where out the way but no idea why. Also no idea why a pilot would take the plane into an airspace to be shot down unless it was going to be another 911. But he was heading out to see no heading for a huge city!

Truly it does not make any since at all.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

only techy with that mate is that they reckon,, or at least are saying , that last message came from co pilot,, not poss if he was locked in the toilet :lol:


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

He locked the captain out. There is a captain and co pilot. Or better to call him a first officer. They are both pilots :roll:

Or he could have killed him?

Did you engage your brain before that reply? It really was dim at best.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

ok yes, q poss,, but it doesn't really matter now because apparently someone called Courtney Love ( now thats a name ) knows where it is and although she admits that she is not an " expert " ( sic :wink: ) presumably she will be revealing all later( mmm that would be nice  )


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

You need help.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Nyxx said:


> He locked the captain out. There is a captain and co pilot. Or better to call him a first officer. They are both pilots :roll:
> 
> Or he could have killed him?
> 
> Did you engage your brain before that reply? It really was dim at best.


perhaps you better make up you mind here,, so far you have covered just about every poss scenario, ( except courtnry love ) so how bright do you think that makes you ?? [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Am discussing possibility's unlike your Utley useless ramblings.


----------



## Fizzleh (Jan 22, 2014)

I blame it on snakes...

Failing that, terrorists have taken the plane, stripped it out, and will then be using it for a terrorist attack in the next couple months or so.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Nyxx said:


> Am discussing possibility's unlike your Utley useless ramblings.


oh I beg your pardon,, I didn't realize that you had some serious inside information,, I thot you were just rambling your self !! :lol:


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

roddy said:


> only techy with that mate is that they reckon,, or at least are saying , that last message came from co pilot,, not poss if he was locked in the toilet :lol:


I think this sum up things perfectly. The use of the word pilot must have been to much for you to understand. :lol: or you did not know there are two pilots up front?
Not anywhere did I say the First officer/Co pilot was locked in the toilet, I said that he the First officer/Co pilot could have locked the other pilot out at that point, if the pilot(captain) had left the cockpit to go to the toilet.

Think you better have a lay down


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

that's ok,, I am not going to argue details with you about it since i, like most other people, don't have a clue what happened,, but you obviously consider your self some sort of expert,, you and courtney love... :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Nyxx said:


> I don't believe the pilot was on a suicide mission, when his fellow pilot went to the loo and he then could have locked the door and taken over the plane, if he wanted to take the plane down he would have done it then, or do a 911, well that did not happen.
> He pulled the fuse's and the tracker and turned of his ident code. Why? at the same time he turned the plane 90% ish on a new heading, again not the actions on someone wanting to take the plane down.
> 
> Now what I also do not believe is that no one knows where it is, the USA spend billions on stealth aircraft, why? now tell me know one can see a 777 basically the size of jumbo. No one seeing that flying around on radar? pull the other one.
> ...


Radar doesn't cover the entire globe, and neither do mobile phone cell towers (not to mention the difficulty getting a phone signal at altitude and speed even if you happened to pass a tower). If the plane flew out over the Indian Ocean then its unlikely there will be any way of tracking it, other than getting it's last 2 hours of data from the FDR, if they ever find it.

Although it's pretty unbelievable, the most likely explanation is that one of the pilots committed suicide and took everyone with him. If he just locked the other pilot out of the cockpit, then I would assume they'd have broken the door down during the hours that followed, so he either killed him in the cockpit, or locked him out then depressurised the cabin and took it up to 45000ft to finish everyone off. He then took it far out to sea to finish the job and hide the evidence.

The alternatives are just too far fetched I think. The level of coordination and planning needed to hijack the plane and arrange a suitable landing site, all whilst dodging the radar of some of the most militarised countries on the planet just doesn't seem possible (and you don't fly a 777 below radar at night over land without parking it in the side of a mountain).


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

No you made a reply that at best was a complete miss read of what I wrote., well we can all make mistakes but instead of seeing your blaring mistake you just carry one. Amazing really.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Spandex said:


> Radar doesn't cover the entire globe, and neither do mobile phone cell towers (not to mention the difficulty getting a phone signal at altitude and speed even if you happened to pass a tower). If the plane flew out over the Indian Ocean then its unlikely there will be any way of tracking it, other than getting it's last 2 hours of data from the FDR, if they ever find it.
> 
> Although it's pretty unbelievable, the most likely explanation is that one of the pilots committed suicide and took everyone with him. If he just locked the other pilot out of the cockpit, then I would assume they'd have broken the door down during the hours that followed, so he either killed him in the cockpit, or locked him out then depressurised the cabin and took it up to 45000ft to finish everyone off. He then took it far out to sea to finish the job and hide the evidence.
> 
> The alternatives are just too far fetched I think. The level of coordination and planning needed to hijack the plane and arrange a suitable landing site, all whilst dodging the radar of some of the most militarised countries on the planet just doesn't seem possible (and you don't fly a 777 below radar at night over land without parking it in the side of a mountain).


Yes some very good thoughts. Am not sure about radar over the Indian Ocean, they say there is none, but in this day and age with satellites I wonder. I think the super powers can see just about anything they like. But off course we don't know.

The idea of suicide has to be right up there I agree, but once the first officer had gained control of the 777, I find it odd that he wanted to turn tracking off to kill himself and all on board. Why not just take the plane down there and then? ofc we have no idea. But why would he then change course and fly of to then just kill everyone, odd. 
We all have no idea but it's sure is strange. I don't think any theory make since. Because it simple is so strange. why hide where your going? why take over the 777 to kill yourself and then fly for hours after you have control. If it was a kidnapping we would have heard by now I would have thought. Did he land at a remote airfield? not that hard in a 777 it can pull up very fast for the size it is. But what then?
All very strange.

One of the reason I find this so intresting is because it's a 777, my other hobby is flight sim'ing. Yes I know its a bit anorak'e. But if you have a very good PC spend a hell of a lot of money on controls and best to have two screens. 
The pilot had a sim of 777 at home, it would have been the same sim of the 777 that I use. It was made with Boeing and comes with all the real world manuals in PDF form. The Aircraft is so well simulated real world pilots use it for training.
You get it from here. You will have to take my word for it, the depth of this sim is unbelievable. The forums have training pilots saying just how good it is. It's a level D sim on a PC.
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/p ... 77LRF.html


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Yesterday I heard that the plane was being flown in between two standard flying heights - consistant with trying to avoid possible other aircraft whilst flying with no communication systems.

The latest I heard this morning was that both trackable systems ACARS/SATCOM which they previously said were deliberately swithched off because they are independent - they are now saying were switched off together and that there is a common potential failiure mode from the systems being linked. It seems the engine telemetry carrying on for five hours rules out being shot down as a cause.

The ping from INMARSAT was monitored and from the time to return puts the flight on these red lines:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Nyxx said:


> Yes some very good thoughts. Am not sure about radar over the Indian Ocean, they say there is none, but in this day and age with satellites I wonder. I think the super powers can see just about anything they like. But off course we don't know.
> 
> The idea of suicide has to be right up there I agree, but once the first officer had gained control of the 777, I find it odd that he wanted to turn tracking off to kill himself and all on board. Why not just take the plane down there and then? ofc we have no idea. But why would he then change course and fly of to then just kill everyone, odd.
> We all have no idea but it's sure is strange. I don't think any theory make since. Because it simple is so strange. why hide where your going? why take over the 777 to kill yourself and then fly for hours after you have control. If it was a kidnapping we would have heard by now I would have thought. Did he land at a remote airfield? not that hard in a 777 it can pull up very fast for the size it is. But what then?
> All very strange.


Radar has certain physical range limitations, so if there's no land on which to place your radar system, there will always be places you can't reach. Satellites simply don't have the ability to identify and track objects like this on a huge scale (otherwise they'd be used instead of radar).

A 777 still needs a runway over 2km long, so it's not going to be touching down in a field on a deserted island - and if whoever took it planned to take off again, they'd need a good enough runway to ensure nothing was damaged when landing.

So, why didn't the pilot just nose it into the ocean there and then? Well, I think when you're dealing with someone who's planning to kill hundreds of people in the course of taking their own life, you can't just apply normal thought processes to their behaviour. This would have to be someone on the edge, who wasn't thinking rationally anymore. They might have killed everyone on board (by depressurising) then spent the next few hours panicking and not really planning anything, until they eventually ran out of fuel. Who knows what would be going through their head.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

If the 777 went on that north route, I find it very hard to believe it would have not been on radar, the south route looks like a road to know where, paraded the pun.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> The ping from INMARSAT was monitored and from the time to return puts the flight on these red lines:


That's what makes me think it's now at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. If you follow that arc to the North, you're overflying a load of places that don't take kindly to unidentified aircraft popping up on their radar. No one would plan to covertly steal a plane, then plot a course over areas like that in the blind hope that no one noticed.

And, if you rule out the Northern arc, you're left with a flight to nowhere, which rules out any attempt to kidnap or steal. So, you're left with two possibilities. One is a hijacking that went wrong (hijackers got lost, or pilots managed to trick them - although most pilots would realise their best chance of keeping everyone alive was to allow the hijackers to land the plane somewhere). The second is pilot suicide.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Spandex said:


> Radar has certain physical range limitations, so if there's no land on which to place your radar system, there will always be places you can't reach. Satellites simply don't have the ability to identify and track objects like this on a huge scale (otherwise they'd be used instead of radar).
> 
> A 777 still needs a runway over 2km long, so it's not going to be touching down in a field on a deserted island - and if whoever took it planned to take off again, they'd need a good enough runway to ensure nothing was damaged when landing.
> 
> So, why didn't the pilot just nose it into the ocean there and then? Well, I think when you're dealing with someone who's planning to kill hundreds of people in the course of taking their own life, you can't just apply normal thought processes to their behaviour. This would have to be someone on the edge, who wasn't thinking rationally anymore. They might have killed everyone on board (by depressurising) then spent the next few hours panicking and not really planning anything, until they eventually ran out of fuel. Who knows what would be going through their head.


Well 7000ft runway is the operating distance but that's with a huge bargain for error built in, think of a 777 with full PAX and max fuel, it goes down the runway, hit's V1(the last chance to stop) breaks are set to RTO (reject take off) and it still can stop before the end of runway, flaps 30, low weight and auto breaks set to MAX is a hell of a lot sorter than that but if it had landed some where I think we would of known by now. Also I agree if it had landed on a small island getting it fuelled and out again is a different story. But can be done a surprising sort distance with low fuel and no or little PAX/Cargo. Fuel is the main weight on a plane that size.

If it went North I think they said on the news there where some 600+ airport/strips it could have landed on.

I agree the pilot could have just lost the plot big time and who knows what he did if that was/is the case.

The plane did not get lost. With a pilot who is certified to fly a 777, that's impossible. At the point of turn of the flight plan. He did one of two thing.
He entered a new flight plan into the FMC or he simple used the heading select and changed course. The displays can show you where you are in the world and every airport within hundreds of miles over large water they use ETOPS reg's for fuel.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Nyxx said:


> The plane did not get lost. With a pilot who is certified to fly a 777, that's impossible. At the point of turn of the flight plan. He did one of two thing. He entered a new flight plan into the FMC or he simple used the heading select and changed course. The displays can show you where you are in the world and every airport within hundreds of miles over large water they use ETOPS reg's for fuel.


The pilot wouldn't get lost, but a hijacker might. Although I still think a hijack isn't a very likely explanation.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Agree if it was a hijack they would have got an alert out.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

An interesting theory on the Guardian site (originally from a pilot who posted on Google+):



> The left turn is the key here. This was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours ... We old pilots were always drilled to always know the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us and airports ahead of us. Always in our head. Always. Because if something happens you don't want to be thinking what are you going to do - you already know what you are going to do. Instinctively when I saw that left turn with a direct heading I knew he was heading for an airport. Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance ...
> 
> What I think happened is that they were overcome by smoke and the plane just continued on the heading probably on George (autopilot) until either fuel exhaustion or fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed.


Pilots are trained to prioritise in an emergency, and that can mean that declaring an emergency on the radio has to be delayed until they've dealt with the most pressing issues. If a fire developed quickly enough it might have overwhelmed them before they could contact ATC, but after they'd made their turn for the airport.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Very interesting, thanks for posting it Spandex
It does tick all the box's. 
Could the fire have turned of the tracker? We can presume so if it was on fire. 
The pilots do have there own isolated oxygen supply for this very thing. That's the only thing I find odd as putting them on would have been there first action with smoke in the cockpit.

Was it said that in that diction they are the deepest seas in the world?


----------



## spike (Dec 26, 2013)

Thats part of this article

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh ... ical-fire/


----------



## corradoman (Sep 11, 2010)

I say, Get columbo on the case :lol:


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

If you really want a man to get to the bottom of it, call jack bauer :wink:

@Spike
Funny how they post a photo of a 737 on a topic about a 777 :roll: 
Thanks for the link


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead (Aug 14, 2011)

I think the only place it could land where no one would say anything is North Korea - with their military set-up they certainly have runways long enough.

Though if the pilot or some maniac was looking to defect they'd also run the risk Kim Jong Un would order it shot down just to prove a point.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> I think the only place it could land where no one would say anything is North Korea - with their military set-up they certainly have runways long enough.
> 
> Though if the pilot or some maniac was looking to defect they'd also run the risk Kim Jong Un would order it shot down just to prove a point.


Unlikely, South Korea & the yanks will have good radar and satellite coverage of airspace in the area, plus of course PRC to the north...


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> I think the only place it could land where no one would say anything is North Korea - with their military set-up they certainly have runways long enough.
> 
> Though if the pilot or some maniac was looking to defect they'd also run the risk Kim Jong Un would order it shot down just to prove a point.


I presume you mean like the yankie doodle dandy did with the Iranian air liner


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Nyxx said:


> No you made a reply that at best was a complete miss read of what I wrote., well we can all make mistakes but instead of seeing your blaring mistake you just carry one. Amazing really.


again, sorry ,I did not realize that your computer game gave you some specialized knowledge,, :roll: perhaps you have been gaming with Courtney :lol:


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

At this stage everything has to be considered a possibility. Usually the 'pilot community' is agreed on what is within the realms of possibility and what is most likely, however all my colleagues i've spoken to have quite differing views ranging from the tragic to the farfetched. That's what makes MH370 so unusual.

The theory of an onboard fire is quite credible. A fire at altitude is the single greatest danger to an aircraft and its occupants. Rarely do they end well. It's quite conceivable that many of the 777's communication circuitry was destroyed as a result. It's worth reading up on UPS Flight 6. The plane was still able to fly yet the pilots were unable to configure for landing and navigate due to the fact due to thick smoke they were unable to see any of the controls in the cockpit. The plane could've continued limping on with autopilot engaged and an incapacitated flight crew until it ran out of fuel - see Helios Flight 522.

If this was the case then I'd expect the aircraft to be found on the final track and at a distance equal to the remaining fuel range onboard the aircraft. I'd also expect it to be visible and in many pieces due to the nature of how the autopilot in a Boeing works. Trying not to be too technical the aircraft would be in an altitude hold mode and the flight management computer controlling the thrust levers. When the fuel runs dry the autopilot will always prioritise the altitude over the speed and it will pitch up accordingly to avoid descending. Eventually it would hit the critical angle and 'stall'. This would lead to a high velocity impact resulting in a large breakup where buoyant items would remain on the surface.

If the aircraft was to land intact - in a Captain Sully on the Hudson kind of fashion then its conceivable it would be at the bottom of the ocean and may never be found. However a controlled ditching on the open sea is very very difficult - see Ethiopian Flight 961.

It's all very strange indeed. I just don't believe its possible to hide a Boeing 777 that the whole world is looking for. Even in the most questionable and corrupt nations.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

@Roddy


Nyxx said:


> I don't believe the pilot was on a suicide mission, when his fellow pilot went to the loo and he then could have locked the door and taken over the plane, if he wanted to take the plane down he would have done it then, or do a 911, well that did not happen.


Your replied


roddy said:


> only techy with that mate is that they reckon,, or at least are saying , that last message came from co pilot,, not poss if he was locked in the toilet :lol:


A few words come to mind, stunning you still cannot see what a moronic comment you made but you just refuse to see it and clutch onto any rubbish you can think of to mask it. Again showing this with your silly attempt to deflect from your first brain dead comment.
At you comment about the "game", again a huge assumption about something you have never looked at or into, just another huge jump to the wrong conclusion, put in over 100 hours in that "sim" read the 5000 pages of Boeing manuals and just may be you would know a bit more about a 777. instead of thinking it a "game"! Why do you think pilots training for there rating use it?
A level D sim cost millions and two- three thousand comp running a ton of addon with PMDG 777 can teach a training pilot 90% of the operations of that aircraft. So again you turn a sim into a game to made it sound like something you play on a xbox to belittle something to make you look a cleaver dick, well just remove the word "cleaver".


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

@jjosh
I think the problem is that after over a week and if it cam down in the middle of the ocean I dread to think how far away that wreckage could be now.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

strange,,,,, since the " information " which is being released changes every day subsequently making your scinarios more and more fanciful really how you can get so wound up about whither your "co- pilot " was locked out of the cockpit or locked in the toilet , to me it is much of a muchness .. :roll: still maybe that is the way of the annorack


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

Nyxx said:


> @jjosh
> I think the problem is that after over a week and if it cam down in the middle of the ocean I dread to think how far away that wreckage could be now.


True, although it may not have drifted too far? (I know absolutely nothing about ocean currents). It could well be the case that the aircraft is never found nor reason for its disappearance uncovered.

Re. Flight Simulator (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about). If you get a PDF copy of the FCOM manuals and a decent add on package it's pretty damn accurate - a colleague had it on his PC during our type rating on the 737 and it was invaluable for private study to get ahead on the learning required!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

jjosh said:


> If this was the case then I'd expect the aircraft to be found on the final track and at a distance equal to the remaining fuel range onboard the aircraft. I'd also expect it to be visible and in many pieces due to the nature of how the autopilot in a Boeing works. Trying not to be too technical the aircraft would be in an altitude hold mode and the flight management computer controlling the thrust levers. When the fuel runs dry the autopilot will always prioritise the altitude over the speed and it will pitch up accordingly to avoid descending. Eventually it would hit the critical angle and 'stall'. This would lead to a high velocity impact resulting in a large breakup where buoyant items would remain on the surface.


If this were just a case of incapacitated crew (as in the Helios incident) then it's fair to expect the plane to fly slowly into the ocean on its original track. But with a fire affecting control systems, sensors and possibly control surfaces, it's possible it ended up on a different course entirely and could have flown until it broke up, or flown until it lost a control surface and nosed into the ocean. One thing that doesn't make sense though is that if a fire is severe enough to incapacitate the crew within minutes, how did the plane then carry on flying for so long afterwards.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

@Roddy
You just cannot make that jump to say "sorry, I read your comments wrong" if you had at any point that would from my point of view would have been the end of it. But..
No you have done it again !!!!!!!


roddy said:


> how you can get so wound up about whither your "co- pilot " was locked out of the cockpit


It really is getting embarrassing. read again for the last time


Nyxx said:


> I don't believe the pilot was on a suicide mission, *when his fellow pilot went to the loo and he then could have locked the door and taken over the plane*, if he wanted to take the plane down he would have done it then, or do a 911, well that did not happen.


Your replied


roddy said:


> *only techy with that mate is that they reckon,, or at least are saying , that last message came from co pilot,, not poss if he was locked in the toilet :lol*:


 :roll: :roll: 
Theory's are theory's and I also said in my firs post _"What's happens? no idea, it's all very odd,"_ but if you read on I think the Spandex post from the pilot made the most since of any theory so far. It well could be what happened.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

jjosh said:


> Re. Flight Simulator (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about). If you get a PDF copy of the FCOM manuals and a decent add on package it's pretty damn accurate - a colleague had it on his PC during our type rating on the 737 and it was invaluable for private study to get ahead on the learning required!


Yes Josh it comes with 2 FCOMS and all the other manuals. They come in PDF and print disabled because there copy right of Boeing. You can get round that. The 737 is the other PMDG modern product made with Boeing. It was so good they gave PMDG the right to use there tech data to make the 777. Boeing supplied every detail needed to make the sim right even down to the eclectic drain from a toilet light being turned on. That's the kind of detail that's in it.



Spandex said:


> If this were just a case of incapacitated crew (as in the Helios incident) then it's fair to expect the plane to fly slowly into the ocean on its original track. But with a fire affecting control systems, sensors and possibly control surfaces, it's possible it ended up on a different course entirely and could have flown until it broke up, or flown until it lost a control surface and nosed into the ocean. One thing that doesn't make sense though is that if a fire is severe enough to incapacitate the crew within minutes, how did the plane then carry on flying for so long afterwards.


It all very odd. Boeing goto huge lengths so fires cannot break out let alone bring one of there aircraft down.

The flight controls on a 777 have 2 hydraulic and 2 electric ones, that's a hell of a lot of redundancy. It only needs one of them to have control.


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

Spandex said:


> jjosh said:
> 
> 
> > If this was the case then I'd expect the aircraft to be found on the final track and at a distance equal to the remaining fuel range onboard the aircraft. I'd also expect it to be visible and in many pieces due to the nature of how the autopilot in a Boeing works. Trying not to be too technical the aircraft would be in an altitude hold mode and the flight management computer controlling the thrust levers. When the fuel runs dry the autopilot will always prioritise the altitude over the speed and it will pitch up accordingly to avoid descending. Eventually it would hit the critical angle and 'stall'. This would lead to a high velocity impact resulting in a large breakup where buoyant items would remain on the surface.
> ...


All fair points. One thing I would say is that usually the smoke is a greater problem than the fire itself. The smoke may have been enough to poison all on board but the fire may have been relatively slow to spread. It's all guesswork anyway so i'm not going to pour ridicule on anybody's theory until they find the aircraft.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

To give a little insight, here is the over head panel of a 777 and I have highlighted the flight controls panel/section.








If all power is lost and that's a huge "if" they can deploy the Ram air, thats a propeller that comes out under the aircraft and the wind drives the propeller and that in turn produces power to the cockpit to keep the minimum of instruments working.



jjosh said:


> It's all guesswork anyway so i'm not going to pour ridicule on anybody's theory until they find the aircraft.


Nobody knows yet 

The first thing the pilots would do with smoke in the cockpit is use there oxygen masks, with them on they would have time to try to work though the problem, but then the fire could have taken over. Who knows! Only the black box and recorders would give that info.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

jjosh said:


> All fair points. One thing I would say is that usually the smoke is a greater problem than the fire itself. The smoke may have been enough to poison all on board but the fire may have been relatively slow to spread. It's all guesswork anyway so i'm not going to pour ridicule on anybody's theory until they find the aircraft.


If the fire was severe enough to generate enough smoke to incapacitate the crew so quickly, I wouldn't expect the plane to carry on for hours afterwards though.

In all the cases I've worked on (and by 'worked on' I mean 'watched on Air Crash Investigation') the fire has resulted in the aircraft going down fairly quickly. Even with the UPS 6 crash, it went down when they attempted to land, 30 mins after they declared an emergency (so it's impossible to say how long it would have flown for on autopilot).


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Nyxx said:


> The first thing the pilots would do with smoke in the cockpit is use there oxygen masks, with them on they would have time to try to work though the problem, but then the fire could have taken over. Who knows! Only the black box and recorders would give that info.


Unfortunately the FDR will only have the last 2 hours of data, which may not tell us that much.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Sadly true :x 
Here is some idea of what they had. The 777 has a check list screen but its not just for normal ops, you can see in the top right corner, none normal.








when the plane deduced smoke/fire they would have had the screen look something like this SS from the FCOM








There is a screen like that for everything to help the pilots work though asap a problem and not have to work though paper check lists. Airbus how the same thing.

Its hard to believe a plane like that catching fire and bringing it down. Boeing as much as anyone will want to know what the hell went wrong.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

What surprises me is the lack of information bearing in mind modern technology. Now I am not a clever chap, but I know all flight systems have a secondary/back up system, so why is there not a transponder and secondary transponder on commercial aircraft transmitting data-bursts to satellites?

I read there is concern about clutter when on the ground, 100 aircraft at LHR all transmitting they are stationary and this is why a pilot can turn off/disable the current systems. However surely using GPS a program can determine if an aircraft ha moved in a set amount of time (say 5 mins) and if it has moved more than a set distance (say 5 miles) send a data burst (Containing the aircraft unique ID, Lat-Long, Speed & Altitude) to a satellite system. With a battery back up system and a secondary transponder, it should be possible to keep track of a moving aircraft at all times. Then when something like this happens a search area is known and the appropriate search can take place.

The practicalities of the above are well beyond me, but I am sure they are not beyond those of a good avionics type engineer.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think there are two issues. Firstly, the cost involved with forcing airlines to add additional tracking systems is probably disproportionate to the risk of something like this happening - bear in mind, it's not actually that common for aircraft to simply disappear - that being said, I think additional tracking/telemetry systems will become more common over time. Secondly, these systems can be disabled for a reason - If there's an emergency, pilots need to be able to cut power to systems that might be causing the problem. Having stuff you can't switch off might just end up being a liability...


----------



## Nilesong (Jan 19, 2009)

Found it.....


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Interesting to read today in the Telegraph that a large part of flights manifest(cargo) was unaccounted for.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Spandex said:


> I think there are two issues. Firstly, the cost involved with forcing airlines to add additional tracking systems is probably disproportionate to the risk of something like this happening - bear in mind, it's not actually that common for aircraft to simply disappear - that being said, I think additional tracking/telemetry systems will become more common over time. Secondly, these systems can be disabled for a reason - If there's an emergency, pilots need to be able to cut power to systems that might be causing the problem. Having stuff you can't switch off might just end up being a liability...


The whole point of what I said is power is used to keep independent batteries charged, the pilot cuts the power, the charger stops and the system runs off it's own dedicated batteries only for several hours. My basic mind says all that is required is a basic GPS (my secondary, basic, boat GPS runs for hours off 2 x AA batteries and gives me position, speed, direction and altitude), an Inmarsat/Thurya phone/modem and a bit of software taking data from one and transmitting it from the other (an iPad/Android Tablet /Laptop could be programmed do that). The whole system (without the drain of a screen) should only require the power from a laptop battery and give 10+ hours life transmitting a data string every 5 minutes


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

The daily sport ... the ultimate in poor, bad and sick taste.

On the net, there are loads of (conspiracy) theories over the planes disappearance. A couple of the more plausible theories, imo:

1 - The apparent ascent in height above the 777's maximum operating window, followed by an uneven rapid descent, picked up by ground radar, could be an indication of the pilot trying to deal with a rapid de-pressurisation, systems failure, or fire. The turn back to the west put it in the direction of Langkawi island and its airport, which would have been the nearest place to land. May be it was too late and the pilots became incapacitated with the plane then flying on by itself. This theory doesn't tie up with the planes last calculated place on the arcs, based on the last ACARS satellite ping though.

2 - There was a 'cargo of significant interest' (Nuclear or Biological) on the plane, which the Yanks didn't want to reach China. Rumours are the plane was going to be diverted to another airport, instead of Beijing. Instead, somehow it, and its 'significant' cargo, were diverted out across the Indian Ocean to Diego Garcia, possibly with the collusion of the Pilot. Some theories say that the plane flew west along a known commercial route, in the shadow of another airliner, to avoid radar detection.

?????


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mighTy Tee said:


> The whole point of what I said is power is used to keep independent batteries charged, the pilot cuts the power, the charger stops and the system runs off it's own dedicated batteries only for several hours. My basic mind says all that is required is a basic GPS (my secondary, basic, boat GPS runs for hours off 2 x AA batteries and gives me position, speed, direction and altitude), an Inmarsat/Thurya phone/modem and a bit of software taking data from one and transmitting it from the other (an iPad/Android Tablet /Laptop could be programmed do that). The whole system (without the drain of a screen) should only require the power from a laptop battery and give 10+ hours life transmitting a data string every 5 minutes


It's not about power consumption though. It's a safety thing. If there's an electrical fault in the GPS tracking system that could be causing heat/smoke/fire they need to be able to pull the breaker and isolate it.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Spandex said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point of what I said is power is used to keep independent batteries charged, the pilot cuts the power, the charger stops and the system runs off it's own dedicated batteries only for several hours. My basic mind says all that is required is a basic GPS (my secondary, basic, boat GPS runs for hours off 2 x AA batteries and gives me position, speed, direction and altitude), an Inmarsat/Thurya phone/modem and a bit of software taking data from one and transmitting it from the other (an iPad/Android Tablet /Laptop could be programmed do that). The whole system (without the drain of a screen) should only require the power from a laptop battery and give 10+ hours life transmitting a data string every 5 minutes
> ...


Low voltage and strategic location WILL get around this. The GPS requires low volts and a few mA, likewise the Thurya/Inmarsat modem and the dedicated processor (referred to above as a laptop) packaged correctly (i.e. external charging circuit and in a sealed fire proof case) there is near zero/smoke risk. Any good avionics/electronic company could produce a prototype very quickly and with duplication should 1 unit fail there is back up.


----------



## TTMBTT (Jul 22, 2010)

PaulS said:


> The daily sport ... the ultimate in poor, bad and sick taste.
> 
> On the net, there are loads of (conspiracy) theories over the planes disappearance. A couple of the more plausible theories, imo:
> 
> ...


Diego Garcia, approx flying time? From last known position of MH370


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mighTy Tee said:


> Low voltage and strategic location WILL get around this. The GPS requires low volts and a few mA, likewise the Thurya/Inmarsat modem and the dedicated processor (referred to above as a laptop) packaged correctly (i.e. external charging circuit and in a sealed fire proof case) there is near zero/smoke risk. Any good avionics/electronic company could produce a prototype very quickly and with duplication should 1 unit fail there is back up.


I don't think it's that simple, but regardless I don't really understand what problem it solves, other than the exact scenario of MH370. Normally the only time a tracking system like this would be disabled is by hijackers, and hijacked planes don't disapear (that's kind of the whole point of hijacking).


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

TTMBTT said:


> Diego Garcia, approx flying time? From last known position of MH370


Just over 2,100 miles from KL, so around 4-6 hours?


----------



## corradoman (Sep 11, 2010)

They have found some debris now


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Spandex said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> > Low voltage and strategic location WILL get around this. The GPS requires low volts and a few mA, likewise the Thurya/Inmarsat modem and the dedicated processor (referred to above as a laptop) packaged correctly (i.e. external charging circuit and in a sealed fire proof case) there is near zero/smoke risk. Any good avionics/electronic company could produce a prototype very quickly and with duplication should 1 unit fail there is back up.
> ...


What does it solve? 
The exact last position of MH370. 
The exact last position of AF447. 
The exact last position (if the technology had been available back then) Air India 182
The exact last position(if the plane hadnt been delayed and it was over the Atlantic as expected by the terrorists and the technology had been available back then) PanAm 103

Four very good examples (without having to do any research, so I am sure there are many more) in the last 30 years.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Breaking news this morning is that a debris field had been found in the Indian ocean near Perth by spotter plane radar detecting multiple objects, following a commercial satellite picking up objects, the largest of which was 24m four days ago. This puts the plane on the extreme limit of it's fuel supply if confirmed.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mighTy Tee said:


> Four very good examples (without having to do any research, so I am sure there are many more) in the last 30 years.


Those are examples where a tracking device would help. They're not (apart from MH370, possibly) examples where removing the ability of the pilot to disable the system would help.

I don't disagree that tracking systems would be useful, I just said they're going to be expensive to retrofit to hundreds of old planes. I do disagree that they need to be impossible to disable by the pilots though.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Spandex said:


> I do disagree that they need to be impossible to disable by the pilots though.


Why? This means any rogue pilot (or anyone with a reasonable amount of the correct cockpit knowledge) can turn off the tracking. It has to be tamper proof.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Thanks for the HU John,

About powering a tracking systems, I don't know how much power they take. But it will be really small compared to everything else.. If there is a lose of power, not very likely but in extreme cases, the RAM air is deployed and that can power the basic systems needed. If they use low power I see no reason why they should be able to turn them off. But we are taking extremes here.

If this turns out to be a fire and the pilots did not turn off the tracking then we could well see secondary trackers on aircraft that ground crew/maintenance crew can access only in the tail perhaps!
Aircraft are all about back up systems so perhaps this will lead to another back up.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)




----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mighTy Tee said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > I do disagree that they need to be impossible to disable by the pilots though.
> ...


But now we're back to my original comment - what problem does this solve? How many cases do we have of this happening?

Terrorists and hijackers don't fly out to sea to crash, so they're tracked by radar. Pilots on planes which have emergencies don't disable safety systems for no reason. So we're left with the rare situation where a pilot switches off all the tracking systems and heads hundreds of miles away from radar stations. So far, we don't even know if that's happened with MH370, and I don't know of any other cases like this.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Spandex said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


And this would have been solved with a GPS/Satellite tracking system by now - it would have solved this mystery 12 days ago.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know if the pilot(s) disabled any systems, or if they were disabled by a fire or other fault. So, you're suggesting changes to safety systems based on one scenario which may never have actually happened on a commercial airliner.

Put it like this. Over the many years of commercial flight, they've not felt the need to change the current systems so that they can't be disabled - that should tell us something.


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

Out of interest, if a plane is flying over empty flat ocean, how low would it have to be flying to 'drop' beneath any land based radar that would otherwise register it?


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Since there is a lot of talk about the transponder I thought I would just show you it and how easy it is to turn off.

This is the view from the Captain's seat looking down between his and the FO seats
Look to the right side and you will see 1200 in as the ATC transponder code.









Here is a close up, on the ground before push back you are given a code and you put the Transponder to standby. When cleared for take off before entering the run way you set it to TA/RA, that's for the TCAS I wont bore you with that. But as you can see it's a very easy thing to do, was it turned off? Will we ever know?


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

phope said:


> Out of interest, if a plane is flying over empty flat ocean, how low would it have to be flying to 'drop' beneath any land based radar that would otherwise register it?


About 500ft should do it.
Has a 777 ever flown that low, even in testing over the sea, I would think not, can it? Well if you where to ever fly along way that low the sea would be the place to do it. Could the 777 do it? in theory yes. In the SS below there is a screen that has nothing on it, when set up that is your map, one each side of the plane, because you cannot see the captain screen from that SS, but look to the left and you see a TERR button the captain screen for the map is below you can just see TRK, with that TERR/terrain ON it would show any land in a range from 10-640 miles you can see the dial above the ARPT/DATA to set the range you want to see, so you will not be running into any islands. 
Would you want do to this, No.
The last know heading was 211 HDG.
Below this panel is sort of like the "manual" way to fly. The 777 flys from a flight plan entered into the FMC and follows its. But if the Pilots what to over right this for any reason but does not want to enter into the FMC, all they have to do is use the Speed control IAS/indicated air speed(left) heading control (Centre) and far right Altitude. The VS is for controlling the vertical speed manually, if lets say your at 30,000 ft you can use the VS to descend or climb at a given rate e.g 1000ft per minute. That's the very basics. The plane is still on AP (auto pilot) but is doing just what you command it do due.


----------



## Spaceman10 (Nov 15, 2011)

Hi dave

Very interesting mate

Really good photos too.

Lets hope they find it very soon for all the family's

Phil


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

It's actually not a specific altitude. The real factor is the curvature of the earth, rather than any technical limitation in radar range. So, the altitude is dependant on the distance. That's why this plane could disappear without flying that low.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Spandex said:


> Put it like this. Over the many years of commercial flight, they've not felt the need to change the current systems so that they can't be disabled - that should tell us something.


If you ever what the "Aircraft Investigation" type documentaries about aircraft crashes you will see so many things (often very basic common sense things) that are implemented after an incident/crash.

Just because it has always been done a certain way doesn't mean it it correct. In this case the technology is relatively new (last 20 years) but could easily implemented. Maybe the experts will review the facts and decide that this sort of technology should be fitted to airliners over the next few years? Anybody's guess.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

To quote an aviation expert being interviewed on BBC Newsnight

"It is time to have mandatory tracking devices on board......."

8)


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Spandex said:


> It's actually not a specific altitude. The real factor is the curvature of the earth, rather than any technical limitation in radar range. So, the altitude is dependant on the distance. That's why this plane could disappear without flying that low.


That's correct but you can get under you just have to be very low, some airport have ground radar, I think JFK has it. But it's just for ground opps


mighTy Tee said:


> To quote an aviation expert being interviewed on BBC Newsnight
> 
> "It is time to have mandatory tracking devices on board......."


Would not surprise me at all.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mighTy Tee said:


> To quote an aviation expert being interviewed on BBC Newsnight
> 
> "It is time to have mandatory tracking devices on board......."
> 
> 8)


Nothing about making them so they can't be disabled? :wink:

If you read my first reply I said they would probably start fitting them on new planes. I've never said tracking devices are pointless (because I understand when they would be useful). I just don't think having the ability to pull the fuse on them is a problem.


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

Spandex said:


> It's actually not a specific altitude. The real factor is the curvature of the earth, rather than any technical limitation in radar range. So, the altitude is dependant on the distance. That's why this plane could disappear without flying that low.


The reason I asked was that there was speculative mention of a low flying plane seen over the Maldives and this has been reported from several sources. Given that the Maldives are very flat islands in the Indian Ocean, I wasn't sure how low radar would track an incoming plane, particularly one that might not be in a standard flight path :?:

Very little seems to make sense with this whole incident


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Nyxx said:


> Since there is a lot of talk about the transponder I thought I would just show you it and how easy it is to turn off.
> 
> This is the view from the Captain's seat looking down between his and the FO seats
> Look to the right side and you will see 1200 in as the ATC transponder code.
> ...


 Please don't! :wink:


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Spandex said:


> It's actually not a specific altitude. The real factor is the curvature of the earth, rather than any technical limitation in radar range. So, the altitude is dependant on the distance. That's why this plane could disappear without flying that low.


 IIRC 200 miles at 20,000' but they fly higher so a bit further? ***_See below._


phope said:


> The reason I asked was that there was speculative mention of a low flying plane seen over the Maldives and this has been reported from several sources. Given that the Maldives are very flat islands in the Indian Ocean, I wasn't sure how low radar would track an incoming plane, particularly one that might not be in a standard flight path :?: Very little seems to make sense with this whole incident


 Radar works down to the height of local buildings and hills etc. So min height is set by ATC.

*** _Weren't far off?_
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 125AAgehZq


----------



## Desmodave996 (Jun 2, 2013)

Having spoken to one of the underwriters on risk for this aircraft, their main thought at the moment is the aircraft depressurising and crashing to the sea being the most likely, they have started making payments though

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Skeee said:


> So min height is set by ATC


The only time ATC set a min is landing in bad weather and even that is not fully correct, the nornal min in the UK is 200ft radio not baro, but every airport can be diffrent and that's why on the charts for every airport that have a min in radio and baro.

ATC will clear a aircraft down to safe height but aircraft like a 777 use STAR's and all height contraights are built in. The only time ATC will give a min to a airliner is a vectored approach.

Airspace is a different matter.

Having said all that a 777 and the like can land is 0 vis, they can use Auto Land, it land and even keeps it self down the Center line it only turns of when the pilot uses the breaks or turns AP off but the normal way is to break and that's turns AP off. It's a full auto land aircraft.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

What's the new about the cargo manifest?


----------



## J•RED (Feb 10, 2013)

Nyxx said:


> What the new about the cargo manifest?


Interesting why they kept it quiet.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Does seem odd that they kept quiet about a load of correctly packed batteries. I'd have thought it's pretty unlikely they'd have spontaneously caught fire. Lithium ion/polymer batteries can be dangerous in use, and especially when charging, but in storage they're fairly inert unless something damages them.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

The first deviation from route, and turn to the west has been confirmed by Malaysian and Vietnamese radar and discussed frequently, but very little seems to have been said about the later turns to the north and then north west, at the Vampi and Gival way-points, after the plane flew over the Malaysian peninsular, and possible reasons for this. If the plane was suffering a serious mechanical failure, it's unlikely that it would have followed these way-points so closely. If it was being deliberately diverted why take this route to the North west? Unless it was shadowing another plane to hide? Much has been mentioned about the last satellite ping that was received from the plane, but what about the previous hourly pings that were received? Can any sort of routing be devised from these? If the planes last known direction was to the north-west and Andaman islands, how did it end up in the Southern Indian Ocean many hours later? Could it have got as far as Somalia or Yemen? It seems to me that a lot of effort was put into making the aircraft invisible before flying it across the Malaysian Peninsular and out to the North West. Why would you then divert due south? A Highly sophisticated High Jack that went wrong? Or very determined Pilot suicide?


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

I suppose that by now everybody , like myself , is hoping that they have been hijacked as that is about the only way that any of them are still going to be alive,, but I seriously doubt if any of the "pirates " from Somalia , eg., have the specialised knowledge to carry out such a technically advanced attempt.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Confirmed down in the India Ocean apparently (based on more Inmarsat analysis).


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

14:00:BREAKING NEWS Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak says "with great sadness" data now confirms that the aircraft's last position was in the Indian Ocean south of Perth.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

this is very sad / bad news :?


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

More satellite images, or actual wreckage?

All the Malaysian Government have said is that further analysis of the Inmarsat data 'confirms' its last position in the Indian Ocean south of Perth.

I can't see how they can confirm it went down there, until some actual wreckage from the plane is picked up.

Hopefully some more information on the ping analysis, and how the route was determined will be released.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

as you say,, no actual wreckage,, but it seems that the authorities are pretty sure .


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I guess there's nowhere for it to land out there, so if they've confirmed its last known location and they know how much fuel it had then unfortunately there's only one conclusion.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

'Confirmation' of the planes last position is based on further analysis of the Inmarsat ping time round trip delays, and the Doppler effect, by the AAIB. Do Satellite companies really record all aircraft ping data, to such a high level of resolution, that would allow a Doppler analysis to be carried out?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

PaulS said:


> 'Confirmation' of the planes last position is based on further analysis of the Inmarsat ping time round trip delays, and the Doppler effect, by the AAIB. Do Satellite companies really record all aircraft ping data, to such a high level of resolution, that would allow a Doppler analysis to be carried out?


I did read something about that (before todays news) where it seemed to imply they recorded frequency info from the messages which would allow a Doppler calculation.

I guess it's a simple thing to measure, but I don't know why they keep that sort of info.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

There is still hope, I see this as an assumption of the planes last position, not a confirmation, unless physical debris is found.

Apparently other aircraft in the area (or ping responses from them) were factored into the equations. I have no experience in Aviation comms, but it seems strange that they had enough real time data recording in place such that they can extrapolate Doppler effect from the (tiny?) pings and work out the location. You would kind of expect this on the Ground radar and Transponder network, but on ACARS? May be it all depends on packet size and bit rates.

Surely the relatives of those on board are asking these questions, as well as more details on the secondary waypoint changes, but few hard facts seem to be coming out. It could still have gone on the other arc.

ETA: Creditable explanation on BBC news from Inmarsat - last known position modelled on historical data from previous MH370 flights, plus some new analysis not used in avation before.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Sorry about the language :?

"No hope. Malaysia announces the the crash of flight MH370 2000 miles south east of Perth into the Indian ocean"

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek#/beitrag ... %A4rz-2014


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

I don't know why sky showed pictures of the breaving relatives on tonight's news, there going though hell and it really does not need to be shown to us. 
People in that state need there family and friendly not the worlds media sticking cameras in there faces.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Because its news for them Dave, 500 condemned to death in egypt.....no news but grieving families big news. Syria is forgotten now, they have flogged it to death in the news so this is latest one for 24 hr coverage haha


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Syria has dipped from the news because it is now obvious to everyone that we should be ashamed of supporting the group of international terrorists which the west created and not proud of our actions,,, millions of civilians , killed, maimed and displaced and large sections of the country unliveable


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

the search operation on hold due to bad weather for a couple of days


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

There seems to be some confusion on the news about a ping that's been detected. I've heard "37.5kHz" (ultrasonic) and also "37.5Hz" (obviously an error), comments that the operators couldn't be sure what they heard without recording it and others saying people can't hear that high :roll:

It refers to a water activated ping beacon fitted to the plane with a 30 day life pinging once per second at 37.5 kHz, detectable at 1-2 kilometres from the surface and perhaps up to 4-5 kilometres in good conditions. There's also a louder pinger (not sure wich is fitted) that can be detected perhaps 6-7 kilometres in good conditions. It must depend on your detection equipment too. It's been detected by the Chinese for 90 seconds and now the Australians.


----------

