Missing Malaysian Aircraft – is it possible…

Home Forum Chat Forum Missing Malaysian Aircraft – is it possible…

Viewing 45 posts - 451 through 495 (of 773 total)
  • Missing Malaysian Aircraft – is it possible…
  • mattrgee
    Member

    I’m surprised the data held on the black box is still only held on the black box and not on a remote server as well. If Rolls Royce can receive real time data about their engines from planes in the sky, why isn’t the data normally held on a black box periodically uploaded to a remote server? Sure there are going to times when the aircraft can’t transmit the data but storing and sending it later is far better than not sending it at all.

    bencooper
    Member

    I presume because the black boxes are very rarely used, and when they are it’s extremely unusual that they’re not found right away. They also need to keep recording right up until the end, which a transmitter system might not do.

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    If Rolls Royce can receive real time data about their engines from planes in the sky, why isn’t the data normally held on a black box periodically uploaded to a remote server?

    Because there are tens of thousands of flights worldwide every single day and the cost of implementing it outweighs the one case every decade where it might conceivably be of any use.

    cbike
    Member

    The 2 hr limit is because of pilots privacy concerns.

    Premier Icon Flaperon
    Subscriber

    Of course, if it is deliberate then chances are the CBs for the cockpit voice recorder and DFDR were pulled at the same time.

    pondo
    Member

    Can’t be done, can it?

    wobbliscott
    Member

    The cvr and dfdr run on an independent power supply. Even if the pilot can pull cb’s they will still run on via an independent power supply. It’s the whole point of these devices that they continue to operate right upto the point the plane crashes and cannot be turned off.

    Premier Icon Stuuey
    Subscriber

    Have they changed the cvr and fdr since 1997? As this guy switched them off. SilkAir185

    Premier Icon cobrakai
    Subscriber

    After hours of discussions at work (still winter schedules so quiet), the most plausible scenario we’ve came up with is this;

    The A/C has experience an electrical fire. As per the aviate/navigate/communicate rule, the pilots immediate reaction would be to isolate the cause and set course for the nearest diversion airfield, which for the pilot, would be a known airfield in Malaysia. In the confusion of dealing with the scenario and because communicate is last on the check list, power was shut down before the a May Day, or squawk change could be given to alert ATC to the problem. The pilots have been overcome with smoke on the flight has continued until it’s ran out if fuel.

    Being devils advocate I can pick holes in the scenario but balancing everything up this seems the most plausible. As for the hijack or unlawful interference scenario, we think it’s a lot of media hype and fantasy.

    My supervisor is ex-raf and through ex workmates still serving, he has been told that all the nations in the area have been very guarded with their radar information as they don’t want capabilities known. The Thais and the Vietnamese being the worst. This is why there was a lot if confusion early on and why instead of the Malaysian aviation authority taking the lead, it was very quickly given to ICAO to deal with as they have more authority.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    That scenario doesn’t fit at all with several known facts though, such as ACARS being turned off before the last radio comms and several changes of course being made after last contact.

    Why is the hijack or unlawful interference scenario fantasy when that does actually fit the known facts? Why the reluctance to accept that scenario?

    toys19
    Member

    such as ACARS being turned off before the last radio comms and several changes of course being made after last contact.

    This has been clarified and is not proven.

    Premier Icon Flaperon
    Subscriber

    The cvr and dfdr run on an independent power supply. Even if the pilot can pull cb’s they will still run on via an independent power supply. It’s the whole point of these devices that they continue to operate right upto the point the plane crashes and cannot be turned off.

    They can still be isolated – though a quick look at the AMM suggests that for the 777 that requires access to the E&E bay, making it a far more challenging job than switching off the ACARS or transponder.

    Certainly it’s an option to get a battery-backed CVR, but since it’s not mandated IFAIK I can’t imagine any airline paying extra for it.

    LHS
    Member

    If that scenario was true, i.e. they turned west upon having an electrical fire, why then did they turn south and end up in the middle of the indian ocean. If they were overcome, they would have ended up somewhere in the Arabian sea.

    Premier Icon cobrakai
    Subscriber

    Hey, I didn’t say this is what happened, but by deduction we found that this was a likely scenario, albeit with holes in it. As for the hijack scenario, there is a list of things such as cockpit access, ability to aviate, no demands etc which made us disregard this scenario quite quickly. Plus, the media have a track record of creating hysteria that turns out to be false.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    aracer – Member

    Why is the hijack or unlawful interference scenario fantasy when that does actually fit the known facts?

    Does it? Who’s claimed responsibility, who’s gained from it? Why hijack a plane then fly it off somewhere to crash where nobody can see it happen?

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    most planes (74%?) crash because of mechanical failure and in the absence of any hijack demands etc it would seem the most likely

    I suppose it could be a passenger who wanted to get to australia?

    either that or the Malaysian government are suppressing something really embarrassing – like the pilot protesting over the sodomy charges against the malaysian opposition leader the day before?

    whatever happened mustve been terrible for those on board and for their families

    user-removed
    Member

    The impact (of crashing a plane) on China is practically non-existence. Chinese will simply multiply.

    That’s actually left me almost speechless. Have a word with yourself.

    konabunny
    Member

    Surely…most planes (74%?) THAT crash DO SO because of mechanical failure and in the absence of any hijack demands etc it would seem the most likely

    jfletch
    Member

    Does it? Who’s claimed responsibility, who’s gained from it? Why hijack a plane then fly it off somewhere to crash where nobody can see it happen?

    I think the scenario goes something along the lines of the plane being hijacked with the desire of the hijackers to fly to Austraila for some reason. The pilots prevent this by saying, “nearly there” as they fly past and run out of fuel over the sea.

    Again full of holes though. Why would a pilot ditch in the sea if the hijackers wanted them to land safely in a Western country. Sure it’s a still a bad situation but better off maybe dead than definately dead. If the hijackers had control of the plane why did they not crash somewhere visibile.

    The only scenario that seems to hold water is the robbery scenario, something valuable in the hold so make the plane dissapear while half inching it. The issue with this is its very difficult to imagine anything valuable enough to go to this much trouble and it would be very very difficult to pull off. Any would something that valuable just be transported in the hold of a comercial jet?

    But one thing is for certain. If it was deliberate they picked a good area but made one mistake, the engine pinging the satelite and the plane being located using dopler shift!

    jfletch
    Member

    most planes (74%?) crash because of mechanical failure

    Citation needed. I thought most crashes were due to pilot error.

    LHS
    Member

    most planes (74%?) crash because of mechanical failure

    Could not be further from the truth.

    Most planes crash due to pilot error.

    i dont know a great deal at all about aviation, althought ive followed this from day with interest

    something that gets me and i cant understand at all is :

    if there was a fire/electrical problem, sure it couldnt have possibly flown for 8 hours plus? a burning plane would surely not last 8 hours? also that piece of equipment was proven to be turned off that stops giving readings of where abouts?

    but as above even if there was a problem with a fire etc surely they/somebody on board would have attempted to make contact via mobile or other wise? especially the flight crew???? the transponder thing was deliberately turned off according to the info we have read

    but more to the point above, how could a malfunction/fire on a plane keep flying for 8 hours to then suddenly crash?

    not buying that at all, even if they were gassed out, somebody especially cabin/flight crew could have alerted somebody! especially given it did a u turn on its usual flight path back over malaysia?

    i seriously think it was either hijacked or the pilot had issues, if it was hijacked then maybe they tried to force the pilot to fly it into somewhere else and he thought best to send it into the middle of nowhere to let it run out of fuel

    but seriously some form of fire/electrical malfunction/ how would a plane fly for 8 hours? i would have thought a fire would burn a plane in minutes and electrical fault would surely cause the plane to not be able to fly for a further 8 hours

    something definitely fishy about it

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    my bad according to this
    http://www.statisticbrain.com/airplane-crash-statistics/
    50% pilot error
    22% mechanical failure

    dantsw13
    Member

    I have to admit, as a 777 Longhaul pilot I am completely baffled as to how the a/c got from its last known position and track, to where it seems to have ended up.

    Premier Icon cobrakai
    Subscriber

    I’ll say it again, there is holes in my fire scenario but a small fire wouldn’t effect structural integrity but the fumes created could incapacitate. The Swiss flight over the North Atlantic was a case study at college (6 years ago so rusty on the detail) about team resource management. There was a fire above the cockpit. If you look at the search area it’s a nearly a reciprocal track of the outbound route to Beijing so IMO it’s been a conscious decision to about turn. This gives me the impression the captain took the decision as it was a left turn. If the pilot had been trying to isolate the root of the fire he will have systematically turned off the systems and may have not been able to turn them back on. This is the biggest flaw in our theory. I can’t believe the crew had no ability to communicate.

    toys19
    Member

    Dan, did it not just turn around after the last radar contact? (I personally am very sniffy about the whole thing, whilst I am not into conspiracy theories, my spidey sense is tingling. I am not at all convinced that it did go down to the southern indian ocean)

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    re the mobile phones

    apparently once out over the ocean there wouldve been no reception
    and especially so at cruising height, even over land

    still does seem odd that there was no way to send any message??

    I just cant see how thats possible a malfunction/fire could allow the plane to continue for the length of journey (8 hours ish), logically somebody on that plane could have made a distress call at some point, unless the passengers and rest of crew were totally unaware?? and it raises the point if it was a fire etc the passengers surely would have been told to buckle up or similar, and at this point one of them would have text somebody they love just incase worse case scenario? but no, it just flew and flew until the fuel ran out!?!

    the transponder thing was turned off deliberately according to facts we’ve been given, had this been on im assuming even over the remote parts of the indian ocean, they could have still made contact??? (can anyone verify that?)

    and if it was indeed turned off by malfunction etc etc, surely the pilot or crew given it was turned off over land area in malaysia, at some point a mobile phone would have had a signal to make a distress call worst case?!

    i guess if something dodgy with the pilot happened, then the crew (other than co-pilot), and passengers would have been totally unaware they were going off course? maybe then he flew it over the ocean knowing contact was not possible (even with mobiles at that point)

    very very very very strange

    Premier Icon cobrakai
    Subscriber

    Where do you fly from dan?

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    jfletch – Member

    The only scenario that seems to hold water is the robbery scenario, something valuable in the hold so make the plane dissapear while half inching it.

    So we’re agreed that it was definitely Bane?

    thegreatape
    Member

    at this point one of them would have text somebody they love just incase worse case scenario

    I don’t think we can draw too many conclusions from this – mobile phones don’t work everywhere!

    lemonysam
    Member

    The only scenario that seems to hold water is the robbery scenario, something valuable in the hold so make the plane dissapear while half inching it.

    I think you’re missing another highly plausible and sensible scenario:

    no conclusions nope – but given the plane did a uturn over malaysia for no reason what so ever (at present and the transponder was turned off just before), if it had been alight and on fire at that point (which you’d expect given thats where it suddenly diverted back on itself), the passengers would have been informed something was wrong surely?? or even if they were still unaware the pilot or similar would have been able to do so? even with a mobile, id have thought in those 8 hours flying, especially at the start of the u-turn they would have had some form of signal between 240 people to make an emergency call!

    and theres the co-pilot too, unless of course both of these people were under the influence of somebody else and instructed not to do anything

    its just very very fishy, i think theres already been to many variables to ever say this was just a disaster, and mechanical failure or smoke overcome everyone, if there was smoke and it continued for hours surely there was a fire, and fires spread, they dont last for 8 hours continuoulsly flying with god knows how much fuel in the tanks, surely they would have blown too

    again its baffled everyone really, and as its so baffling it probably suggests foul play somewhere, probably via a very very clever pilot who knew what he was doing

    pondo
    Member

    How does onboard fire + venting cabin pressure and climbing to starve it of oxygen + onboard oxygen runs out before they can safely descend = incapacitated crew/unconcious passengers/fire out, and a ghost flight to nowhere that disappears without trace?

    Just call me Columbo. 🙂

    Premier Icon imnotverygood
    Subscriber

    The thing the fire theory doesn’t take into account is the fact that contact was lost at the point of comms transfer between Malaysia & Vietnam. That timing may be coincidental, but if I was trying to make a plane vanish, that would be the best time to do it as there is going to be a longer period before anyone notices that they aren’t in contact. You’d have to be on the flight deck at this point waiting for this to happen. I think that is suspicious, but anyone who thinks that we are doing anything but guessing at this point is deluding themselves.

    dantsw13
    Member

    CobraKai – London.

    The Megashark is as likely as most of the other theories being spouted!!!!! Says it all really.

    jfletch
    Member

    How does onboard fire + venting cabin pressure and climbing to starve it of oxygen + onboard oxygen runs out before they can safely descend = incapacitated crew/unconcious passengers/fire out, and a ghost flight to nowhere that disappears without trace?

    Build in the turns after it had crossed Malaysia into that scenario (as confirmed by Thai and Malaysian miliatry radar).

    pondo
    Member

    Build in the turns after it had crossed Malaysia into that scenario (as confirmed by Thai and Malaysian miliatry radar).

    Oh, that was megashark.

    FunkyDunc
    Member

    I have wondered in general…

    What happens if both the Captain and Co Pilot both die on the flight deck whilst the door is locked?

    Does the cabin crew know the code for the door?

    Or does the aircraft just keep flying until it runs out out of fuel with lots of people trying to break the door down? Horrible way to go…

    toys19
    Member

    Does the cabin crew know the code for the door?

    They know how to get in, yes.

    pondo
    Member

    An instance of the cabin being accessed after the crew were incapacitated (Helios 522)-

    Clicky

    wrightyson
    Member

    Does that not make them a target for hijackers then? Open the door or I’m gonna cut your face off scenario?

    wrightyson
    Member

    Holy shit I’ve just read that link. What a way to die for the guy trying to save that flight! Gutting!

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    id hope if it was oxygen loss that the passengers were also all unconscious rather than awake for the entire flight

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber

    id hope if it was oxygen loss that the passengers were also all unconscious rather than awake for the entire flight

    Emergency supply only lasts long enough for a descent to below 10,000′, so if it stayed at cruising altitude they’d all be unconscious / dead.

Viewing 45 posts - 451 through 495 (of 773 total)

The topic ‘Missing Malaysian Aircraft – is it possible…’ is closed to new replies.