Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

pfurey101

Whispered wrote: »

Thanks for that video. Probably a silly question but why was the decision made to fly around until morning then land on water? Were they too far from land?

It says that they needed to burn off more fuel during 8 mile lazy loops and I guess they also wanted more light. The pilot also ensured all passengers sat up the front - as it was a safer bet that the front section would stay afloat longer.

A remarkable video. Thanks smurfjed.

sully2010

Here's another example of a water landing by a Japan Airlines DC-8 in San Francisco bay. It landed 3 miles short of the runway.

I think its calm in this bay a lot of the time but its another good example of a commercial jet that stayed fully intact on landing in the water, more so than the A320 in the Hudson. With the landing gear down it seemed to absorb a lot of the impact. It was even repaired and put back into service.

Its possible MH370 could have landed intact in relatively calm water in full landing configuration. Is there calm enough water in the Indian ocean though?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VnAvH6z3-c

bajer101

The controlled, calm water landings are all well and good, but I just don't see this happening with MH370. Even if the pilot was in control until the very end, I don't think he would have any motivation to effect a smooth water landing in the middle of the Indian ocean. I reckon it was nose down and a quick ending regardless of the cause.

sully2010

bajer101 wrote: »

The controlled, calm water landings are all well and good, but I just don't see this happening with MH370. Even if the pilot was in control until the very end, I don't think he would have any motivation to effect a smooth water landing in the middle of the Indian ocean. I reckon it was nose down and a quick ending regardless of the cause.

If it was nose down more than a flaperon would be found by now imo. If he was in control until the end he was on a mission to never be found. If he wanted to nose down he would have off the coast of Malaysia or even on it as we have seen before.

smurfjed

I can understand the mindset of the A320 FO, he just selected descent and descended until the end. But I find it extremely strange that someone could sit in the cockpit for hours and just wait to run out of fuel, to me, the only sort of person that i could see doing such a thing would be sitting there reciting words from a holy book!

sully2010

smurfjed wrote: »

I can understand the mindset of the A320 FO, he just selected descent and descended until the end. But I find it extremely strange that someone could sit in the cockpit for hours and just wait to run out of fuel, to me, the only sort of person that i could see doing such a thing would be sitting there reciting words from a holy book!

It sure is strange and its only one theory out of many but its looking the most plausible. As we have seen its possible for unwell minds to slip through the net and become pilots.

mickmackey1

smurfjed wrote: »

to me, the only sort of person that i could see doing such a thing would be sitting there reciting words from a holy book!

yeah he should have just crashed it into a mountain right? :rolleyes:

mbur

smurfjed wrote: »

I can understand the mindset of the A320 FO, he just selected descent and descended until the end. But I find it extremely strange that someone could sit in the cockpit for hours and just wait to run out of fuel, to me, the only sort of person that i could see doing such a thing would be sitting there reciting words from a holy book!

One thing we can say about lads that fly aeroplanes is that they know the value of plenty of practise. Unlike the germanwings guy the pilots in the MH370 case don't seem to have rehearsed their final flight. This and a few other details lead me to a horrifying conclusion. If someone was controlling the final hours of that flight I don't believe that person was on board.

eatmyshorts

mbur wrote: »

One thing we can say about lads that fly aeroplanes is that they know the value of plenty of practise. Unlike the germanwings guy the pilots in the MH370 case don't seem to have rehearsed their final flight. This and a few other details lead me to a horrifying conclusion. If someone was controlling the final hours of that flight I don't believe that person was on board.

Wait until other pilot leaves flight deck.

Turn off transponder.

Disable ACARS SatCom and VHF functions.

Don oxygen mask.

Outflow valves to manual.

Open outflow valves.

Cabin depressurises slowly.

Deny access to flight deck.

Wait until pax oxygen system depletes (22 mins)

Turn off track and fly generally along FIR boundaries, to lower chance of raising suspicion.

When clear of radar range, resume normal cruise.

When everyone aboard dead due to hypoxia, re-pressurise aircraft and remove oxygen mask.

Fly on for as long as you like or until fuel exhaustion.

Ditch aircraft in sea.


It doesn't take any practice if you now what you're doing. Just a little pre-planning and forethought.

eatmyshorts

mbur wrote: »

. This and a few other details lead me to a horrifying conclusion. If someone was controlling the final hours of that flight I don't believe that person was on board.

What other details lead you to that conclusion?

There's no way anyone from the outside can override the flight controls on a 777.

smurfjed

Unfortunately EatMyShorts has posted what in my opinion is the most likely scenario, you could replace the 1st action with a swift swing of the fire axe.

Now I'm curious as to how mbur thinks that this aircraft was controlled from an external source. But if it was, wouldn't it have made more sense to crash into a military base to justify the action?

Happyman42

smurfjed wrote: »

But if it was, wouldn't it have made more sense to crash into a military base to justify the action?

Not a conspiracy theorist but playing devil's advocate here.
How do we know that that wasn't what it was trying to do and it was taken out?

To be clearer, is there any fact about this that definitely rules it out? Just wondering.

Maximus Alexander

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not a conspiracy theorist but playing devil's advocate here.
How do we know that that wasn't what it was trying to do and it was taken out?

To be clearer, is there any fact about this that definitely rules it out? Just wondering.

The fact that you can't take remote control of a commercial 777 surely?

Happyman42

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The fact that you can't take remote control of a commercial 777 surely?

Sorry, I meant the bit about it heading for a military base and being taken out.

pfurey101

mbur and happyman - did you see that program on C4 where they crashed a 727 by remote control.....if so, did you actually see the problems they had trying to modify the a/c and then to try and keep it under control from the chase a/c??

There is no way anyone on any device anywhere on the planet can hack into any aircraft primary/secondary flight guidance/control computers. I'd imagine it's easier to just get your own person on board to take over or use a missile or buy a drone.

I'd even guess that the deepest darkest dark ops people out there haven't anything workable.

mbur

pfurey101 wrote: »

mbur and happyman - did you see that program on C4 where they crashed a 727 by remote control.....if so, did you actually see the problems they had trying to modify the a/c and then to try and keep it under control from the chase a/c??

There is no way anyone on any device anywhere on the planet can hack into any aircraft primary/secondary flight guidance/control computers. I'd imagine it's easier to just get your own person on board to take over or use a missile or buy a drone.

I'd even guess that the deepest darkest dark ops people out there haven't anything workable.

I hope you are right. I wish you were right. There are plenty that will agree with you on that point. There are also a few voices who will point out that when it come to software and communications anything is possible as long as the channels are open. I'm not going to rehearse that argument here but I will say that the only way to prove that remote control is not possible is to open source the software and let everyone take a look at it. Can't see that happening any time soon.

But if you are right we have a huge problem to get over.

It is that the rogue pilot theory doesn't fit at all well with what is currently know about this flight. You would think that by now someone would have come up with some background info about either pilot that would have us all cringing. But so far nada. Look at 'similar' examples like Germanwings and Fedex 705. I'm sure there are more. In every proven case I'll bet you there is ample evidence of some underlying problem that became the protagonists motive.

Happyman42

pfurey101 wrote: »

mbur and happyman - did you see that program on C4 where they crashed a 727 by remote control.....if so, did you actually see the problems they had trying to modify the a/c and then to try and keep it under control from the chase a/c??

There is no way anyone on any device anywhere on the planet can hack into any aircraft primary/secondary flight guidance/control computers. I'd imagine it's easier to just get your own person on board to take over or use a missile or buy a drone.

I'd even guess that the deepest darkest dark ops people out there haven't anything workable.

Again, I am not suggesting it was done by remote control, I am talking about a rogue pilot.

I am just asking is there anything that officially or definitively rules out that it may have been trying to aim at a military base?

Fuzzy Clam

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, I am not suggesting it was done by remote control, I am talking about a rogue pilot.

I am just asking is there anything that officially or definitively rules out that it may have been trying to aim at a military base?

Since nobody knows the route the plane took, how can anything be ruled out?

Happyman42

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Since nobody knows the route the plane took, how can anything be ruled out?

cheers, that's all I wanted to know.

Galway K9

I was wondering if we could have a poll on this thread, to see what the common opinion of what happened to Flight MH370 knowing that the plane has crashed into the Indian Ocean.

postitnote

I don't think there would be a poll large enough to satisfy the conspiracy theorists though :-P

Synode

I doubt most people suspect anything other than pilot suicide

Galway K9

depressurization of cabin, Pilot took off auto-pilot, and pilot passed out, plane changed direction, flyed for sometime, and crashed?

smurfjed

Pilot took off auto-pilot

Correct procedure is to do the descent with the autopilot on. How did the aircraft change direction after the pilot died?

pfurey101

French confirmed ""avec certitude" Flaperon is from MH370

http://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/asie/boeing-disparu/vol-mh370-le-debris-d-avion-retrouve-a-la-reunion-fin-juillet-appartient-avec-certitude-au-boeing-de-la-malaysia-airlines_1068365.html

keno-daytrader

French prosecutors say 'with certainty' wing part found on Reunion Island in July came from missing flight MH370

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34145127

pfurey101

*Duplicate posting*

Busted Flat.

keno-daytrader wrote: »

French prosecutors say 'with certainty' wing part found on Reunion Island in July came from missing flight MH370

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34145127

Heads will roll on the guy in charge that missed that bit in the clean up.

keno-daytrader

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Heads will roll on the guy in charge that missed that bit in the clean up.

Huh??

JCX BXC

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Heads will roll on the guy in charge that missed that bit in the clean up.

Are you confusing this with MH17?