Malaysia Airlines 777 - Missing

[slam525i]

I've always been curious about the whole smoking in an airliner thing. Safety videos make it sound like it's a huge fire hazard and yet I don't know of any aircraft lost due to a cigarette causing a fire. Maybe now that the smoking bans force people to smoke in toilets and toss their butts into the trash, it is a fire hazard.

Other than a lack of professionalism, and maybe disrepect for the rules, I don't think smoking an airline cockpit is a problem. (Pipers used to come with ashtrays built in. I can't imagine what you'd do if you dropped a cig in flight.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad smoking is banned in airliners. I just don't get why the media is all over this.

[CpnCrunch]

(Pipers used to come with ashtrays built in. I can't imagine what you'd do if you dropped a cig in flight.)

...which is kind of ironic, as pipers tend to have leaky fuel selectors - usually you'll get a good whiff of avgas when changing tanks.

[DanWEC]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/wo ... &referrer=

Today's news. This may have been posted in the previous 5 pages... I'll admit I havn't read back very closely.
The airplane, according to Malaysia's own military radar was radically off course, and flew as such for almost an hour before suddenly disappearing. Ridiculously, Malaysia's own govt disputes their military's claim.

So far, nothing adds up. The simplest reason for that is lack of proper info.
Pertinent information may very well being held back, and what's the only reason people hold back the truth?

RIP all.

[Eric Janson]

Malaysia's air force chief denied a media report that the military last tracked a missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner over the Strait of Malacca, far from where it last made contact with civilian air traffic control when it disappeared four days ago.

"I wish to state that I did not make any such statements," air force chief Rodzali Daud said in a statement on Wednesday.

Typical S-Asian response. You need to read it carefully and think about what is really being said.

The media report is not being denied - what is being denied is who made the report.

Translation:- "I am not responsible or accountable".

[complexintentions]

Yep. It's all about saving face and avoiding personal responsibility at all costs. It makes it hard to distinguish incompetence from cover-up.

Further to the complete electrical failure theory posited earlier, the B777 has triple redundant systems - either single engine or APU can provide full electrical load to the entire aircraft, all three gen drive units are rated exactly the same. (A certification requirement from when big twin ETOPS was new, and it was Boeing's first FBW machine). You can actually do a full autoland with just the APU running - if your gliding skills are up to it! As a backup to that, there is the RAT which will power enough items to keep flying without relying solely on standby instruments.

Not saying that complete electrical failure is impossible - at this point I'll consider just about anything - but that it is unlikely to the extent that it can be moved very far down the list of theories.

[Mr. North]

Looking for debris in what must be among he most polluted waters in the world. Whenever it rains in the South Pacific the storm drains gather all the water (and garbage) which is flushed right out to sea. I used to fly surveys down there and remember seeing all sorts of trash floating around. A real shame.

After encountering some sort of emergency the crew could have successfully ditched the aircraft in the ocean? If they managed to pull a Sullenberger, the aircraft would remain largely intact and sink. Aside from any surviving passengers there would be very little floating debris. Life rafts are highly visible but I suppose you'd have to be looking in the right spot to begin with.

More mysterious by the day...

[Old fella]

I certainly have no knowledge of S-A operations nor any airline for that matter but by reading/listening to the accounts, there sure seems to be plenty of ineptitude and incompetence IMHO.

[boeingboy]

After encountering some sort of emergency the crew could have successfully ditched the aircraft in the ocean? If they managed to pull a Sullenberger, the aircraft would remain largely intact and sink.

I suppose it's theoreticly possible - but in reality - pulling off a succesful water landing in the pitch black of night is impossible.

[Kokanee]

I know nothing about the 777 systems. Saw on one TV report that they had a "777 Captain" talking about this incident. He stated that there are 10 power generators on board the 777 that would have to fail to loose all power to the plane.

not sure how accurate this info is, but it was stated, and not on FOX news.

[boeingboy]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1202910/oil-r ... wn-report/

An oil rig worker thinks he saw the plane "going down". Interestingly enough - this is in the same general area that Chinese satalites found 3 large items floating in the water.

From Avherald:"Late Mar 12th 2014 China's State Administration of Science (SASTIND) reported, they discovered three large objects sized 13x18, 14x19 and 24x22 meters at position N6.7 E105.63 (121nm eastsoutheast of the last known secondary radar position), all three objects within a radius of 20km (11nm) and published the satellite images, taken on Mar 9th 2014 at 11:00 Beijing time (03:00Z), see below. SASTIND stated they are committed to provide further search services to locate flight MH-370."

[boeingboy]

...

[pdw]

The oil rig guy's report of the burning object " (plane ?) "sounds like it is an accurate azimuth position to consider for this tragedy.

[Mr. North]

After encountering some sort of emergency the crew could have successfully ditched the aircraft in the ocean? If they managed to pull a Sullenberger, the aircraft would remain largely intact and sink.

I suppose it's theoreticly possible - but in reality - pulling off a succesful water landing in the pitch black of night is impossible.

Right you are, slim chance of that happening.

[bmc]

Good summary out of Singapore:

http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-sto ... d-confusio

[B52]

Wow, Lots of great posts.
The maps are useful.

Now Boeing have come clean on several 777's having up to and including 40-centimetre cracks in the upper fuselage after installation of a large satellite
antenna that required the equivalent of a large window in the top of the
rear fuselage.

The comet's crashed for similar inexplicable reasons until that stress fracture
was determined as he cause.

There is now at least one reliable and credible witness, a Kiwi working on an oil rig
off the coast of Vietnam who provided highly accurate information that is most
probably the only witness who has come forward.

The odds are that there are many other witnesses who have NOT been contacted
and who will probably come forward in the coming days.

The location of where the transponder went off is the most probable
location of the wreckage however the lack of any debris in the ocean raises
all sorts of other wild theories that it flew off into yonder.

What matters now is, where there an repairs done to this 777 and
did the engineers find anything that might have relevance?

That questions does not appear to have been answered and
its not uncommon for Airlines to deny any and all liability until
someone drags their faces to it.

It's amazing that Boeing have taken this long to come clean
and or to tell us, what could happen to a 777 if that
400mm crack got longer....

It's pretty obvious, the 777 would come undone like a split in a
long balloon and disintegrate at about the same rate.

That would still leave the question as to why, a debris field has not
been found.

Bearing in mind the incredible amount of debris that cannot sink
and the disorganization with this search, it's entirely likely that
the incompetence and disorganization has resulted in the debris
area being missed and or kept out of the news.

What is interesting is that they don't want to admit that the ladies
were in the cockpit.

That should not be a surprise.
That conduct has been going for a nearly a century.


There appears to be a consensus that "face saving" is apparent.

Absent the above,

Does anyone else think that they may have found the debris and are
keeping it hushed up as to save face?

[B52]

The sudden course reversal and or primary radar track at a lower altitude
does not appear credible and does not add up.

It makes you wonder how that story started.

The chinese sat view location appears to be where
it might be if it disintegrated upon losing transponder.

[swordfish]

There seems to be discrepancies between the Flightaware times and the media-reported times:

• 1. Flightaware reports the first fix at 9:43 MST - I cannot reconcile that time (MST). Actually the fix at that time is 19 miles SOUTH of KUL. So calculated takeoff time > 09:38 MST.
  2. Canadian broadcast media, and CNBC reports it took off at 12:21 a.m. LMT
  3. CNN reports that it took off at 12:41 a.m. LMT
  4. According to Flightaware, it reaches Top Of Climb at 10:01 MST; this is 18 minutes after the first FA-reported fix, and is the last FA fix.
  5. According to Flightaware, it's doing 468 kt after leveling off (and 472 prior to leveling off - managed flight obviously).
  6. Contact is lost with the plane "about 45 minutes" after takeoff, after being handed off from KUL centre - i.e. about 10:30 MST - i.e. 29 minutes after leveling off or about 226 miles from TOC, or almost at the south end of Vietnam. There appears to be some concurrence with that time.
  7. This is nowhere near the spot the media reports the last contact with the aircraft was, 148 miles from the TOC.

What am I missing here??

All miles in nautical.

[GyvAir]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB2 ... s_Page_One
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... 2I&cad=rja

U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.

The investigators believe the plane flew for a total of five hours based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.

Why would it take 5 days for such information to surface? Or is this just another red herring?

[Rudy]

Apparently this is the range the plane could have flown from it's last known position. To add fuel to the conspiracy theories there were 20 employees of a US microchip maker on-board. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... UB20140310

[Rudy]

A Malaysia Airlines spokesman today contested reports that Rolls Royce received bursts of engine information from missing flight MH370, insisting that the data link was severed the same moment the plane dropped off civilian radar.

[flyinthebug]

CTV news is now reporting that the aircraft could have been flying for up to 4 hours after it went off radar. Apparently the engines were sending data for 4 hours after the last radar contact, and they had an "aviation expert" advised that seems to be the case? My question is why cant they CONFIRM this information? Either the engines were sending data or they weren't? The size of the search area has (obviously) dramatically increased.
This just keeps getting stranger by the hour.

[YYZSaabGuy]

CTV news is now reporting that the aircraft could have been flying for up to 4 hours after it went off radar. Apparently the engines were sending data for 4 hours after the last radar contact, and they had an "aviation expert" confirm that seems to be the case? My question is why cant they CONFIRM this information? Either the engines were sending data or they weren't? The size of the search area has (obviously) dramatically increased.
This just keeps getting stranger by the hour.

It does indeed. Here http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... reno64-wsj is a pretty good summary from the Wall Street Journal; I've excerpted the engine-related content below. Some fairly circumspect comments from Rolls-Royce reps, and an unattributed "The engine data is being analyzed" (presumably by Rolls-Royce?) comment toward the end:

"The engines' onboard monitoring system is provided by their manufacturer, Rolls-Royce RR.LN -0.87% PLC, and it periodically sends bursts of data about engine health, operations and aircraft movements to facilities on the ground.

"We continue to monitor the situation and to offer Malaysia Airlines our support," a Rolls-Royce representative said Wednesday, declining further comment.

"The disappearance is officially now an accident and all information about this is strictly handled by investigators," said a Rolls-Royce executive who declined to be named, citing rules of the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency.

As part of its maintenance agreements, Malaysia Airlines transmits its engine data live to Rolls-Royce for analysis. The system compiles data from inside the 777's two Trent 800 engines and transmits snapshots of performance, as well as the altitude and speed of the jet.

Those snippets are compiled and transmitted in 30-minute increments, said one person familiar with the system. According to Rolls-Royce's website, the data is processed automatically "so that subtle changes in condition from one flight to another can be detected."

The engine data is being analyzed to help determine the flight path of the plane after the transponders stopped working. The jet was originally headed for China, and its last verified position was half way across the Gulf of Thailand."

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I looked at the plane's track on Flightradar24. This is what it shows:
The aircraft was level at 35,000 feet, tracking 25 degrees, doing a GS of 472kts. At 1720Z (March 7th) the altitude went from 35,000 to 0, as though the mode C had been turned off. Vertical speed remained at 0. At the same time, the ground track changed from 25 to 40 degrees. The GS remained about the same. At 1722Z the tag just vanished.

[B52]

There is wealth of info posted here but how much isMike Mckay on the oil rig off the coast of vietnam saw the explosion but how much is really relevant?

Mike McKay so far is the sole, the only, credible and reliable witness who claims
to be an oil rig worker on an oil rig off the coast of vietnam.

Assuming he is not a sick practical joke, and no one from the press has spoken to him, YET
We are forced to assume that he is that only reliable and credible witness.

His observation is incorrect in "distance" due to optical illusions.
His bearing is probably correct in a rage of 45 miles along the flight path.
That is where the wreckage started to sink after a six mile fall.

The floating debris and sinking debris were subject to ocean currents of around 50 miles a day in a variety of directions with depth.

That means the debris could have traveled 500 miles and most probably not in a straight line.

Why is it that the press have not spoken to Mike McKay?

[boeingboy]

Did you actually read his email? He said the plane appeared to be in one piece. There is nothing to say that what he saw was even a plane or what really happened. Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate.

There is nothing to say that this plane came apart in mid air. Again - if it did you would have a massive debris trail.

What I am finding strange is the amount of confusion in this case. It's over here - no its over there - no it was out there - it flew for hours - it flew for min - it sent data - no it didn't...........WTF???? I dont understand how you can have so many different people OFFICIALLY saying so many radically different things.