Malaysia Airlines 777 - Missing

[flyinthebug]

Having said that, one of the pilots SPECULATED that the availability of oxygen at that altitude would
be scarce, and without an 02 mask available, the pilots MAY have been unable to respond as they
would have tried to resolve the immediate issue first (IE: via checklist) before calling ATC.

Smoke detectors? Warning lights? Apparently an electrical fire can spread quickly, and fill
the cabin with smoke very rapidly. Is it possible the pilot(s) did not have enough time to diagnose
the problem, and things escalated before they were able to communicate their trouble?

I completely agree with this part of your theory on why there was no communication from the aircraft. It is very possible that whatever was going on in that cockpit was far more important than making a call to ATC. Having lived through a crash I know the very LAST thing I thought of was making my mayday call. When things are going south fast and you have limited precise seconds to try to save your bacon, the last thing you are thinking of is communicating with someone on the ground who cant do a thing to help you in the moment.

I have no real speculation as to what caused this 777 to disappear but I do believe you and your peers were possibly accurate in speculating that is why ATC was never contacted. Maybe they just didn't have time? Regardless of the situation they were in.

[boeingboy]

Really?

So what is the likely hood that some fire spread so quick that it knocked them out, possibly melted through the fuse and put itself out so the plane could fly on normally for hours and hours????

No way that happened - not even remotely possible.

[flyinthebug]

Really?

So what is the likely hood that some fire spread so quick that it knocked them out, possibly melted through the fuse and put itself out so the plane could fly on normally for hours and hours????

No way that happened - not even remotely possible.

All I was commenting on is that communicating in any true emergency situation is very low on this list of priorities. None of us know what happened to that aircraft, so all I was suggesting is that there was no communication maybe because they were dealing with some other emergency situation.

You will note that I said and only quoted the communication theory that Learning2Fly posted, as I didn't agree with the fire theory. I do not agree that there was a fire nor that it was the cause of the lack of communication. I simply agree that if something went south all of a sudden in the cockpit (whatever the cause) that communicating is the last thing on your mind.

[boeingboy]

I simply agree that if something went south all of a sudden in the cockpit (whatever the cause) that communicating is the last thing on your mind.

To this i fully disagree - it is near the top of the list. In fact I cannot think of a single situation where ATC has not been contacted, no matter what the emergency. They are not only a lifeline - but they need to know what your doing and what you need.

It's true that you first respond to the situation - but first thing after is to contact ATC. In most cases these days, one crew member is flying the plane and the other is running the checklist. Short of a bomb or some other sudden catisrophic event, or in some case where the crew doesn't realise they are in trouble, ATC has and always would be contacted.

[Gino Under]

boeingboy

My first recommendation, based on your latest reply, would be to do more research.

There are many examples of flight crew not contacting ATC in an emergency but I won't bore you.
Adam Air immediately comes to mind. Interesting read.
There was the Avianca B707 crash in New York due to fuel starvation where the crew DID talk to ATC but never even used the term Emergency or even let on that they were critically low on fuel despite being asked to hold. THAT is also an interesting read.
The Helios B737 crew never said a word to ATC. They couldn't, mind you.

Your comment on the suddenness and severity of in-flight fire suggests a review of SR111. WRT MH370, you suggest no way that happened? Really?

Anyway.... Your comments are becoming suspect.

Gino Under

[boeingboy]

Gino,
What did I do to piss you off so royally? You really need to read my post a little closer instead of looking for a fight that isn't there.

There are many examples of flight crew not contacting ATC in an emergency but I won't bore you.
Adam Air immediately comes to mind. Interesting read.
There was the Avianca B707 crash in New York due to fuel starvation where the crew DID talk to ATC but never even used the term Emergency or even let on that they were critically low on fuel despite being asked to hold. THAT is also an interesting read.
The Helios B737 crew never said a word to ATC. They couldn't, mind you.

Actually - I'm quite familiar with all 3 of those accidents and if you read my post more carefully, you would have picked this up....

" or in some case where the crew doesn't realise they are in trouble"

Ala.... Helios, Air france and a few others

Your comment on the suddenness and severity of in-flight fire suggests a review of SR111. WRT MH370, you suggest no way that happened? Really?

I have no idea where this is going. Where did I say fire wasn't an issue - or couldn't happen quickly? I've said that from the beginning when people were suggesting they were droning around for hours trying to fight a fire. What part of this even remotely seems similar to SR111? As you seem to be so well versed in that accident - you well know the fire happened quick, ATC was contacted, electrical, instruments, and flight controls were affected, and the crew was incapacitated........but the plane crashed in short order. If MH370 was in the Gulf of Thailand in a million pieces, this could be a real possibility. But it chugged on for 7 hours, most likely on autopilot for the entire time, and certainly navigated. That didn't happen with a compromised (burnt) electrical system such as the relation to either SR111 or the Egypt air 777. Again read my post....

So what is the likely hood that some fire spread so quick that it knocked them out, possibly melted through the fuse and put itself out so the plane could fly on normally for hours and hours????

You really think it flew for 7 hours looking like this??? No way.

[Gino Under]

boeingboy

The unfortunate thing about the written word is that the reader might think there's a tone in what's written by the author. In this case, based again on your comments, I think you've done that.

I haven't (knowingly) written any confrontational rebuttals to your comments and I'm not looking for a fight with anyone over this topic. I haven't a clue what happened OR didn't happen. I'm speculating like everyone else but in my analysis all bets are off and anything is possible until we learn otherwise.

I'm certainly not pissed off at any of your comments or trying to goad you into a pissing contest. I could say a few things in disagreement with you as you could with me, but I simply gave you a variety of examples NOT intended to say or imply they are what could have happened to this flight OR did happen. Especially when talking about the communication aspect of it. You say you're familiar with my examples. Great. I only wasted my time offering them up as various examples of communications in aircraft accidents.

Your cockpit photo is nice but unlike yourself I don't know within the realm of possibilities whether or not something like that is possible or not (with regard to this flight). We don't have the evidence. Who's to says a cockpit fire damaged the flight deck to the extent you offer as evidence? There are variations to damage or the extent of damage. Including fire.
Like I said, it may warrant review of SR111 and that wasn't specifically aimed at you.

I'll re-read your posts.

Gino Under

[AirFrame]

It's true that you first respond to the situation - but first thing after is to contact ATC.

As Gino said... If "responding to the situation" takes longer than you have (I think 10-15 sec without supplemental O2 is all you'd have in a decompression?) you're never going to make that call. Say a window blew out in the cockpit for some odd, completely random reason (meteor? like the skydiver that was just about hit by one recently?), that would be rather disorienting on its own, and I could easily see it causing 10-15 seconds of complete confusion in the cockpit. Papers flying, in-flight meal scattered everywhere, coffee on your lap, whatever.

As for the cockpit photo, remember that the cockpit isn't a lifting surface...

[Old fella]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e17948774/

Another instant media arm chair expert, a 77 yr old one at that. Where in the name of Christ do they(media) drag these people up.

[B52]

Gino Under,
Thanks for putting it so politely.


What we know now is that the Malaysian Government has just revealed, that after MH370 "turned back"
the co-pilot attempted to make a call on his cell phone near Penang Island and at the same time, other voices in the Malaysian Government say if that was true we would have known about it.

"A pilot of the missing Malaysian airliner made a call on his mobile telephone after it had turned back from its scheduled flight path and was flying low near the island of Penang, according to a Malaysian government controlled newspaper." However, the NST is unable to ascertain who Fariq was trying to call

"""as sources chose not to divulge details of the investigation"""

http://www.nst.com.my

His call, however, ended abruptly, but not before contact was established with a telecommunications sub-station in the state.
Same story at
http://www.theage.com.au/world/mh370-se ... zqu2q.html

LATER - they corrected themselves and say that the phone "registered" but NO evidence that a call was attempted.






IMHO - That probably means some of the passenger's phones may have also registered. At least some of the passengers, and most likely the crew would have realized something was wrong with the 300 degree turn and massive change in altitude which probably caused others to try to use their phones.

That begs the question as to why it has taken over a month to without any data on any of the phones until now, we get info on just one phone's brief contact with a Penang tower?

The other test that is needed to be done is some practical airborne tests of cell phones at the same altitudes to see just how far away a phone can connect from.

Perhaps someone can comment on getting cell phone connections at altitude... Every time I've checked my phone at altitude, the rage is abysmal.

http://www.nst.com.my

boeingboy

The unfortunate thing about the written word is that the reader might think there's a tone in what's written by the author. In this case, based again on your comments, I think you've done that.

(rest deleted)


Gino Under

[boeingboy]

Before you get to carried away again, nowhere does it say he made a call. For all we know he could have turned on his phone to open a file with a flight plan on it, or to play candy crush. Who knows.....

A different set of sources close to the investigations told the NST that checks on Fariq's phone showed that connection to the phone had been "detached" before the plane took off.

"This is usually the result of the phone being switched off. At one point, however, when the airplane was airborne, between waypoint Igari and the spot near Penang (just before it went missing from radar), the line was 'reattached'.

"A 'reattachment' does not necessarily mean that a call was made. It can also be the result of the phone being switched on again," the sources said.

[Brock Landers]

Is it possible that if an electrical fire disabled the transponder that it also disabled the radios and they were unable to make a mayday call? Maybe the pilot pulled his cellphone out as a last resort to make some sort of contact with the ground.

[Learning2Fly]

I often wonder why some people get so wound up over a post when you specifically state: Suggestion; Theory; "Does not account for all"

Even IF the above was the case, it still does not explain several anomalies in this story.

Is it possible that an electrical "fire", can heat the wire so badly that it either:
a. - melts the wire, burns through some insulation (which is fire resistant/retardant) and then simply smolders (most smoke)
b. - blows out several breakers (beyond reset), or fusible links (cannot be reset)
c. - did not burn a hole in the fuselage, but damaged oxygen pressure lines, damaged essential bus(ses), filled cabin with smoke/no 02 available.
d. - other

Yet again, either one of the above, or a combination of many does not explain the BS that the mass media has been spewing.

The news has done a great job of mis-representing the system, screwing up the information, and confusing us with false facts:

The plane turned right; The plane turned left
It ascended; it descended
Engine data transmitted; ran out of fuel
Plane would have crashed tail first; difficult to maintain altitude without fuel
Debris found; debris not found
Pings located; pings not located
Tracked by RADAR; fell off RADAR; Military RADAR
SATCOM
Eyewitness accounts
etc., etc.

This is the perfect smoke screen to keep us guessing, and fighting.

My thoughts are:
- the plane has already been found
- someone is covering up an issue
- the data will be scrubbed
- news of plane found will surface
- BS report will follow

There, I said it. Like it, or leave it.

[frozen solid]

Is it possible that an electrical "fire", can heat the wire so badly that it either:
a. - melts the wire, burns through some insulation (which is fire resistant/retardant) and then simply smolders (most smoke)
b. - blows out several breakers (beyond reset), or fusible links (cannot be reset)
c. - did not burn a hole in the fuselage, but damaged oxygen pressure lines, damaged essential bus(ses), filled cabin with smoke/no 02 available.
d. - other

I'm not sure I'm following the main thrust of your post, other than I think we can all agree with you that a combination of sensationalist and irresponsible reporting along with the pseudo-science that is running rampant all over social media these days, is almost guaranteed to make sure anyone not immediately connected to the investigation will never understand just what the frack is going on at all until they find the goddamned thing;

but I can answer one of your questions. An electrical fault CAN start one hell of a fire.

[Eric Janson]

Yet again, either one of the above, or a combination of many does not explain the BS that the mass media has been spewing.

The news has done a great job of mis-representing the system, screwing up the information, and confusing us with false facts:

The plane turned right; The plane turned left
It ascended; it descended
Engine data transmitted; ran out of fuel
Plane would have crashed tail first; difficult to maintain altitude without fuel
Debris found; debris not found
Pings located; pings not located
Tracked by RADAR; fell off RADAR; Military RADAR
SATCOM
Eyewitness accounts
etc., etc.

This is the perfect smoke screen to keep us guessing, and fighting.

My thoughts are:
- the plane has already been found
- someone is covering up an issue
- the data will be scrubbed
- news of plane found will surface
- BS report will follow

There, I said it. Like it, or leave it.

@Learning2Fly

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion - it is rather curious that you are engaging in exactly the same speculation you are complaining about.

The media have done a terrible job of reporting - frequently trying to make a story out of something that isn't a story.

There is nothing that suggests the aircraft is anywhere other than in the area where they are searching. I'm hoping they find something soon to put a stop to all the bizarre conspiracy theories.

I don't buy the coverup. The problem is people are looking at this from a Western point of view. Malaysia is an Eastern culture and things are done very differently than in the West.

The way they have handled this makes perfect sense from their perspective. Within their culture it is not acceptable to blame anyone - during the first few days everyone was frantically running for cover. Within this culture if you make a decision you are responsible so the default option is always to do nothing - then you can't be blamed.

They are still busy trying to distance themselves from any accountability - read the local English language newspapers for more perspective.

As for their military radar operators - my educated guess is that they were all asleep. Don't expect the Malaysians to make that public - this whole thing is a huge loss of face for them.

Nothing sinister about the way the Malaysians have acted - just another day in S Asia.

As far the rest - I'll give you AF447 as an example. They found the aircraft, performed an investigation and published a very detailed report. No coverups.

[Learning2Fly]

Thanks Eric.

I'm not complaining about the speculation, I'm complaining about the people that are complaining about the speculation when it is known
we are clearly speculating.

I'm not familiar with AF447, but I'll check it out some time.

Have you researched TWA800 by chance? That's one of a few stinky reports I've checked out.

[boeingboy]

Is it possible that if an electrical fire disabled the transponder that it also disabled the radios and they were unable to make a mayday call? Maybe the pilot pulled his cellphone out as a last resort to make some sort of contact with the ground.

Is it possible that an electrical "fire", can heat the wire so badly that it either:
a. - melts the wire, burns through some insulation (which is fire resistant/retardant) and then simply smolders (most smoke)
b. - blows out several breakers (beyond reset), or fusible links (cannot be reset)
c. - did not burn a hole in the fuselage, but damaged oxygen pressure lines, damaged essential bus(ses), filled cabin with smoke/no 02 available.
d. - other

No.

[Learning2Fly]

No.

Why?

[Eric Janson]

No.

With all due respect a wiring loom fire could certainly cut power to multiple systems. Wiring loom fires are not unheard of.

You can also research "Kaptan wiring" - I don't know if this is used in the 777.

If you get a chance have a look in your Boeing's E&E compartment.


I am familiar with an event where metal work done on the cabin floor caused metal filings to fall onto a wiring loom located below. Over the course of time these particles frayed the wiring insulation. This resulted in a short and a wiring loom fire. Fortunately this happened on the ground.

There was also an event involving Qantas where water entered the E&E compartment. Very sobering reading.

[mdscientist61]

Could they have had a bird-strike at that altitude in the middle of the night? Maybe with a large bird like a hawk or an albatross or a vulture or some other large heavy high-flying species which is active at night? What if on top of a hypothetical bird strike, their oxygen system was not properly maintained (having seen previous comments about maintenance perhaps not being what it really could be), so that the O2 would run out fairly quickly. If this alleged bird strike damaged the front of the fuselage, causing cabin pressure to drop, but without harming the engines or flying surfaces, then maybe they could have begun the process of making a turn and setting the autopilot, but not fully completing what they started before their O2 ran out prematurely? Then could the aircraft fly on AP to the site where they are searching today? Just wondering what could explain the hours of apparently stable flight from the place where they turned to the location where the search is now underway in a scenario where there was no nefarious actions by any crew member.

[Meddler]

It would have to have been the Felix bahmgartner of vultures .

[Old fella]

It would have to have been the Felix bahmgartner of vultures .

Pressurised one at that...........

[boeingboy]

Is it possible that an electrical "fire", can heat the wire so badly that it either:
a. - melts the wire, burns through some insulation (which is fire resistant/retardant) and then simply smolders (most smoke)
b. - blows out several breakers (beyond reset), or fusible links (cannot be reset)
c. - did not burn a hole in the fuselage, but damaged oxygen pressure lines, damaged essential bus(ses), filled cabin with smoke/no 02 available.
d. - other



a - A fire that starts is not likely going to put itself out, and if it did - to create the amount of smoke you would need to incapacitate the crew you would have major wiring damage...probably to most of the aircrafts systems.
b - it could - but fire is not selective. A lot of these wild theories are suggesting a very selective fire that picks only certain systems.
c - this one is not even remotely possible. It doesn't need to melt a hole in the fuse - but that is what happened because the O2 turns a small fire into a raging blowtorch that will incinerate and start fire to anything within a number of feet of the O2 leak. Its was hot enough to melt aluminum (approx 600 degrees) for gods sake.
d - Again - people seem to think a fire started and it took out the comm and xponder. Again - fire is not selective. The boxes and wire buldles are all together, your going to loose more systems than just that. Look at every other infligh fire incident. If it was small enough and put out by the crew that it was that selective - they land at the nearest airport. The fire was out and the smoke is cleared.

[boeingboy]

If you get a chance have a look in your Boeing's E&E compartment.

I have - have you?

Yes - I am familliar with Kapton wiring, wire loom debris, etc...

Again - your talking about a very picky fire. Now go look in your Boeing or Airbus's E&E bay. All your boxes and wiring bundles run in the same area. Now try to imagine a fire only affecting 2 or 3 systems.....

[ehbuddy]

Oil Rig worker say's he saw an aircraft on fire heading Eastbound. Still smells like a shoot down to me and a huge cover up.

Guys with fake passports and the aircraft changing direction soon after departure. Seems like an old story from 2001.