Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

14445474950219

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭irishmover


    kona wrote: »
    A 320 crashed just before af447 due to ice forming jamming the aoa. Caused by using pressurised water to clean the aircraft . Aircraft just dived.

    I thought I read about something like that before. Was it cruising or climbing at the time though?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    kona wrote: »
    A 320 crashed just before af447 due to ice forming jamming the aoa. Caused by using pressurised water to clean the aircraft . Aircraft just dived.

    that was that new zealand plane i think, was a lease and was doing its reacceptance flight.

    crashed off the coast of france, but the majority of the reason for the crash was the flight crew were too "busy" testing and too low, to come out of the descent....

    the blockages didnt help, but the crew were the main reason to blame there unfortunately. they had been denied scope to carry out tests, but did them anyway, their final test proved fatal as they didnt know how to react when the plane didnt respond as they wanted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭kona


    irishmover wrote: »
    I thought I read about something like that before. Was it cruising or climbing at the time though?

    Was on a re delivery flight to air nz. Was in cruise, long enough to freeze the water behind the aoa.

    It's just a example of what can happen to aircraft , I posted some others such as comet disaster, air china 747 , Japan 747, that a320, af447, there was a Turkish airlines dc10 too. There's a few disasters when aircraft just fell from the sky , alohah 737 is another good example but the crew saved that situation. There's a united 747 too that almost met a similar fate.

    All those air crash investigations are on YouTube or downloadable , would be worth watching if anybody wants a idea of how aircraft can disintegrate.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭irishmover


    Basically it is a possibility but would be highly unlikely in this situation given the other facts.

    Cheers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    There's something I've just picked up on now in one of the articles someone kindly linked:

    One of the most eerie rumors came after a few relatives said they were able to call the cellphones of their loved ones or find them on a Chinese instant messenger service called QQ that indicated that their phones were still somehow online.

    A migrant worker in the room said that several other workers from his company were on the plane, including his brother-in-law. Among them, the QQ accounts of three still showed that they were online, he said Sunday afternoon.


    It's from this article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/vanished-malaysia-airlines-flight-leaves-relatives-with-anger-and-phantom-phone-calls/2014/03/10/fdb78642-a862-11e3-b61e-8051b8b52d06_story.html


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭yeahimhere


    weisses wrote: »
    For anyone interested in helping with the search




    http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014


    That's my afternoon sorted

    Would be something if the plane was found by a "Boardsie"

    Good luck

    Have you been able to load a map? I'm assuming the volume of visitors must be quite high as nothing's loading for me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    if that above rumour is true, it would make sense, but why has this been withheld for so long is baffling.

    does anybody know what caused that cockpit fire mentioned a few times already (Egypt i think)....wasnt that a 777 also?

    if the plane did fall apart mid air, would suggest that it is possible that the wreckage is scattered everywhere, hence why they cant find it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 375 ✭✭brennarr


    sopretty wrote: »
    There's something I've just picked up on now in one of the articles someone kindly linked:

    One of the most eerie rumors came after a few relatives said they were able to call the cellphones of their loved ones or find them on a Chinese instant messenger service called QQ that indicated that their phones were still somehow online.

    A migrant worker in the room said that several other workers from his company were on the plane, including his brother-in-law. Among them, the QQ accounts of three still showed that they were online, he said Sunday afternoon.

    It's from this article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/vanished-malaysia-airlines-flight-leaves-relatives-with-anger-and-phantom-phone-calls/2014/03/10/fdb78642-a862-11e3-b61e-8051b8b52d06_story.html

    With battery life on phones these days, I'm sure the battery would be dead at this stage. My phone barely lasts a day.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    fr336 wrote: »
    Why would it take so long for this to come to public attention?

    It was said a few days ago.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,928 ✭✭✭cml387


    Jack1985 wrote: »
    The position reports is not correct, final pax information is sent from ACARS to to the operations side of the airline, weather i.e. winds aloft is transmitted to ACARS from operations and into the FMS via an ''Uplink''.
    ACARS does report position information, and indeed part of the last messages from the Air France aircraft were accurate position reports.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    brennarr wrote: »
    With battery life on phones these days, I'm sure the battery would be dead at this stage. My phone barely lasts a day.

    It seems bizarre though that a phone (or 3!) would show up as being online, if it was actually blown to smithereens? Whatever about the Asian phones giving a ringing signal even when a phone might be off, it's less easy to explain a phone connecting to internet while off?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,507 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    if that above rumour is true, it would make sense, but why has this been withheld for so long is baffling.

    does anybody know what caused that cockpit fire mentioned a few times already (Egypt i think)....wasnt that a 777 also?

    if the plane did fall apart mid air, would suggest that it is possible that the wreckage is scattered everywhere, hence why they cant find it.

    It remains unknown what caused it but Oxygen cylinders fueled it thats why it was devastating to the aircraft. Fully agree with the later part of your post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 822 ✭✭✭zetalambda


    Anyone think they may have been sucked into one of those black hole thingy's?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,507 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    cml387 wrote: »
    ACARS does report position information, and indeed part of the last messages from the Air France aircraft were accurate position reports.

    Yikes apologies you are fully correct. :)

    The only thing is though, that the last position report remains its off-radar time position.
    zetalambda wrote: »
    Anyone think they may have been sucked into one of those black hole thingy's?

    No.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    the_monkey wrote: »
    I watched that documentary on the Air France 447 plane last night,
    fascinating but creeped me out .

    I lay awake last night thinking about those few minutes of descent - must have been absolute hell.

    Yeah, I watched that too a few days ago.

    I know almost nothing about aviation but even I know that the nose should be pitched down in the event of a stall to increase lift. Therefore, it is almost incomprehensible that the first officer kept pulling back. It is a horrible example of the psychological effects of confusion.

    I hope that such extreme pilot error isn't the cause here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Jack1985 wrote: »
    Yikes apologies you are fully correct. :)




    Tigerandahalf is gonna make you pay! :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,507 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    sopretty wrote: »
    Tigerandahalf is gonna make you pay! :P

    Ssshhhh :p, no still though it couldn't have given out updated radar positions because it went offline the same-time as it went off radar which indeed is verry puzzling!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭kona


    irishmover wrote: »
    Basically it is a possibility but would be highly unlikely in this situation given the other facts.

    Cheers.

    Which the aoa? I'd agree, the others with massive structural failure? I'd say very likely.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 821 ✭✭✭eatmyshorts


    Jack1985 wrote: »
    eatmyshorts I pm'd you yesterday in relation to the discussion of information related to the 777 as you are a pilot who flies such aircraft, any reason as to why you couldn't reply to the information?

    Regards. :)
    Message received. Was on a flight early this morning and just got into the hotel this afternoon. I've got an appointment with a couple of pints so I'll get back to you. But in short, yes, your theory has merits.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,507 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    Message received. Was on a flight early this morning and just got into the hotel this afternoon. I've got an appointment with a couple of pints so I'll get back to you. But in short, yes, your theory has merits.

    Cheers look forward to discussing it! :)
    Which the aoa?

    AoA - Angle of Attack


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,928 ✭✭✭cml387


    Well the ACRS point is a red herring because it failed along with all the other transmitting equipment.

    The worrying thing is that assuming the aircraft is found, the dfdr and cvr may have no useuful information if there was such a general power failure.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭kona


    Jack1985 wrote: »

    AoA - Angle of Attack

    Cheers I'm aware of what aoa is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭irishmover


    kona wrote: »
    Which the aoa? I'd agree, the others with massive structural failure? I'd say very likely.

    Yeh you had edited your post long after I posted. I ofcourse was referring to the AoA :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,507 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    kona wrote: »
    Cheers I'm aware of what aoa is.

    Excuse me I'm actually asleep, how I confused that with you asking what it was is beyond me.. apologies!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,364 ✭✭✭jasonb


    Yeah, I watched that too a few days ago.

    I know almost nothing about aviation but even I know that the nose should be pitched down in the event of a stall to increase lift. Therefore, it is almost incomprehensible that the first officer kept pulling back. It is a horrible example of the psychological effects of confusion.

    I hope that such extreme pilot error isn't the cause here.

    One thing I found really interesting when I read up on AF447 was that the Stall Warning stopped several times due to conditions changing (I think one of them was the AoA being 'too' high, or something like that). Basically the Stall Warning was doing what it was designed to do, it was designed to stop under certain conditions, *even* if the aircraft is still stalled.

    So basically the Stall Warning stopped and started a good bit, it wasn't constant, even though the aircraft was constantly stalled. In the confusion that the pilots must have been experiencing, the Stall Warning stopping every now and then can't have helped, it would have led them to believe that they were doing something right, or at least that they weren't stalled. So the Stall Warning working as designed probably added to the confusion.

    As you say above, the number one thing to do in a stall is push the nose down, to un-stall the wings. That alone could probably have saved everyone on AF447, if it had been done in time. The Airline Industry does a lot of excellent work in learning from accidents, so I'm pretty confident that the Stall Warnings have probably been changed on the Airbus A320s to ensure it doesn't now stop even if the aircraft is still stalled, or if it's still like that, it's like that for a good reason and procedures have changed to enable Pilots to be more aware of it.

    When it comes down to it, Pilot Confusion can be a big factor, there are numerous crash reports that show if the pilot had done just one thing, the crash wouldn't have happened. Most crashes are about a chain of events, a chain of things going wrong; remove any link and the aircraft wouldn't have crashed. Of course, we've no idea what's happened with this flight yet, but I'd be very confident that over time the wreckage will be found and answers will come. But probably not fast enough for most media outlets / internet forums...

    J.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭kona


    cml387 wrote: »
    Well the ACRS point is a red herring because it failed along with all the other transmitting equipment.

    The worrying thing is that assuming the aircraft is found, the dfdr and cvr may have no useuful information if there was such a general power failure.

    I'd say they are powered on the dc ess bus, they will be powered by the batteries. You have 20mins on batteries and the rat will provide hydraulics and limited hydraulic and electrical power.
    The aircraft has prioritised systems when you lose power it will shed systems in order, usually galley first, then moves down the list.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭clintondaly


    The Aviation Herald Last Update: Tuesday, Mar 11th 2014 12:01Z

    An Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200, registration 9M-MRO performing flight MH-370 from Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) to Beijing (China) with 227 passengers and 12 crew, was enroute at FL350 about 40 minutes into the flight about 90nm northeast of Kota Bharu (Malaysia) over the Gulf of Thailand in contact with Subang Center (Malaysia) just about to be handed off to Ho Chi Minh Air Traffic Control Center (Vietnam) when radar and radio contact was lost at about 01:22L (17:22Z Mar 7th). Subang Air Traffic Control Center officially told the airline at around 02:40L (18:40Z Mar 7th) that the aircraft was missing. The aircraft would have run out of fuel by now, there have been no reports of the aircraft turning up on any airport in the region.

    On Mar 8th 2014 the airline confirmed on their website the aircraft is missing, a search and rescue operation has been initiated. Subang Air Traffic Control reported at 02:40 local Malaysian time, that radar and radio contact with the aircraft had been lost. The last radar position was N6.92 E103.58. There has been no distress call, no ELT or other signal was received from the aircraft. The focus is currently to locate the aircraft, as of 11:20Z Mar 8th search teams from Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam have failed to find any evidence of the aircraft. On Mar 9th 2014 14:43L (06:43Z) the airline added, that still no evidence of the aircraft has been found more than 24 hours after last contact with the aircraft and corrected the time of last contact with the aircraft to 1:30L. The airline stated, they are fearing for the worst, depending on where the aircraft will be found a command center will be set either at Khota Baru or Ho Chi Minh City.

    In a press conference the airline stated, the last contact with the aircraft had been about 120 miles (90nm) northeast of Kota Bharu (Malaysia), over the Gulf of Thailand. The aircraft was piloted by an experienced captain (53, 18,365 hours total) and a first officer (27, 2,763 hours total). The aircraft carried 154 Chinese citizens, 38 Malaysians, 7 Indonesians, 6 Australians, 5 Indian, 4 French, 3 citizens of USA, 2 New Zealanders, 2 Ukrainians, 2 Canadians, 1 Russian, 1 Italian, 1 Dutch and 1 Austrian.

    On Mar 11th 2014 the airline reported that the aircraft had accumulated 53,465 flight hours in 7,525 flight cycles since its delivery to Malaysia Airlines in 2002. The aircraft has last undergone maintenance on Feb 23rd 2014. All Malaysia Airlines aircraft are equipped with ACARS transmitting monitoring data automatically. However, no distress call and no information was relayed. The search area has been extended and includes the Strait of Malacca west of Malaysia looking at the possibility that the aircraft may have turned back and diverted to Subang (Malaysia).

    On Mar 8th 2014 search missions have been launched along the estimated flight track of the aircraft from Gulf of Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos to China (South China Sea).

    On Mar 8th 2014 at about noon local time Vietnamese search personnel reported they have detected an ELT signal about 20nm south of the coast of Ca Mau. Vietnam officials subsequently stated that they have not yet detected flight MH-370.

    On Mar 8th 2014 in the afternoon local time an Admiral of the Vietnamese Navy was understood to indicate that the crash site of the aircraft has been located about 130nm south of the Vietnamese Island Tho Chau (110nm southwest of main land Ca Mau), the Navy later said that the admiral only referred to the position of last radio/radar contact with the aircraft, the aircraft has not yet been found.

    On Mar 8th 2014 China reported that the aircraft did not enter Chinese airspace (editorial note: which effectively discounts rumours and false reports by a Malaysian outlet of the aircraft having landed in Nanning (China)).

    On Mar 8th 2014 Nanning Airport stated the aircraft did not arrive at the airport.

    On Mar 9th 2014 the NTSB reported that a go-team has been dispatched to Asia to assist with the investigation into the missing flight MH-370. The NTSB wrote: "Once the location of the airplane is determined, International Civil Aviation Organization protocols will determine which country will lead the investigation."

    In the evening of Mar 9th 2014 local time Malaysia's Transport Ministry reported, that no trace of the missing aircraft has been found at dawn Mar 9th after two days of search. The oil slicks as well as debris found so far are not related to the aircraft. Rumours like other crew establishing contact to the accident flight after radar contact was lost, phone contact to a mobile phone of one the passengers of the missing flight or the aircraft having landed in China or Vietnam, are false.

    In the night of Mar 9th 2014 Vietnam's Search and Rescue Control Center released a photo of a part floating in the Gulf of Thailand, that despite darkness was discovered by a Twin Otter Aircraft of Vietnam's Coast Guard at position N8.792 E103.374 about 31nm southsouthwest of Tho Chu (editorial note: 114nm north of the last radar contact position) and is believed to be a part of the aircraft. The Control Center stated, the part is definitely made of composite material. Forces will be dispatched to the part after daybreak Mar 10th 2014. Malaysia's Department of Civil Aviation said later that this part is unrelated to MH-370, it was not recovered.

    Hong Kong's Air Traffic Control Center reported on Mar 10th 2014 around 17:30L (09:30Z) that an airliner enroute on airway L642 reported via HF radio that they saw a large field of debris at position N9.72 E107.42 about 80nm southeast of Ho Chi Minh City, about 50nm off the south-eastern coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea and about 281nm northeast of the last known radar position. Ships have been dispatched to the reported debris field.

    On Mar 10th 2014 Vietnam's Search and Rescue Control Center confirmed receiving the report by Hong Kong's Air Traffic Control Center stating that a Hong Kong based airliner reported a large field of debris while enroute on airway L642. A Thai cargo ship in the area was asked for assistance and has set course to the area but did not find anything unusual so far. A second vessel asked for assistance did find some debris. Following this finding Vietnam's Maritime Search and Rescue Services (MRCC) dispatched a ship to the debris field.

    On Mar 10th 2014 Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department confirmed a Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Kuala Lumpur spotted large amount of debris while enroute off the coast of South East Vietnam.

    Vietnam's Search and Rescue Center later announced that the border guard vessel arriving at the position of the debris field did not find any objects. There were high winds and large waves, the debris possibly drifted away.

    On Mar 11th 2014 Malaysia's Air Force reported their primary radar data suggest, the aircraft may have turned west over the Gulf of Thailand at about 1000 meters/3000 feet below the original flight level (editorial note: another possible interpretation could be: at 1000 meters of height compared to 10000 meters original level) and flown past the east coast near Khota Baru and the west coast of Malaysia near Kedah, the radar return was last seen at 02:40L near Pulau Perak in the Straits of Malacca, about 285nm westsouthwest of the last known (secondary) radar position. Local Police at Khota Bharu confirmed a number of locals reported lights and a low flying aircraft at Khota Bharu at an estimated height of 1000 meters/3000 feet.

    According to The Aviation Herald's radar data the aircraft was last regularly seen at 17:22Z (01:22L) at position N6.9 E103.6 about half way between Kuala Lumpur and Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) at FL350 over the Gulf of Thailand about 260nm northnortheast of Kuala Lumpur and 90nm northeast of Kota Bharu 40 minutes into the flight, followed by anomalies in the radar data of the aircraft over the next minute (the anomalies may be related to the aircraft but could also be caused by the aircraft leaving the range of the receiver).

    On Mar 8th 2014 aviation sources in China reported that radar data suggest a steep and sudden descent of the aircraft, during which the track of the aircraft changed from 024 degrees to 333 degrees. The aircraft was estimated to contact Ho Chi Minh Control Center (Vietnam) at 01:20L, but contact was never established.

    Italy's Foreign Ministry said, the Italian citizen is alive and was not on board of the aircraft other than the passenger manifest suggests, the man called his parents from Thailand. The foreign ministry later added, that the passport of the citizen had been recently stolen in Thailand.

    Austria's Foreign Ministry stated in the afternoon (European time) that the Austrian listed on the passenger manifest was not on board of the aircraft. The foreign ministry later added, that the passport of the Austrian citizen had been stolen about two years ago when the citizen was touring through Thailand.

    According to the states run Chinese news agency Xinhua Chinese police established that one of the Chinese passengers listed on the manifest never left China, is still at home and in possession of his passport, therefore was not on the accident flight. The passenger's passport had not been lost or stolen, the numbers on his passport and the passport number noted on the manifest are identical however.

    On Mar 11th 2014 Malay investigators reported a 19 year old Iranian was travelling on one of the false passports to join his family waiting for him in Germany. They were contacted by his mother admitting she knew her son was using a false passport.

    On Mar 10th 2014 Malaysia's Defense Ministry said, that as result of the verified discrepancies between passenger manifest and people on board of the aircraft, the Austrian and the Italian, the entire manifest is under scrutiny. At least 4 names are suspicious and are being investigated with the participation by the FBI from the USA.

    On Mar 9th 2014 China Southern Airlines, code share partner of Malaysia Airlines, reported that they sold a total of 7 tickets for the accident flight, amongst them the tickets for the Italian and the Austrian as well as one Dutch, one Malaysian, two Ukrainians and one Chinese.

    The field of debris spotted from the air on Mar 10th 2014:
    malaysia_b772_9m-mro_gulf_of_thailand_140308_2.jpg

    Part floating in Gulf of Thailand identified unrelated to MH-370 (Photo: Vietnamese Coast Guard):
    malaysia_b772_9m-mro_gulf_of_thailand_140308_1.jpg

    Infrared VISSR Satellite Image Mar 7th 18:00Z (Graphics: AVH/Meteosat):
    malaysia_b772_9m-mro_gulf_of_thailand_140308_sat_1800.jpg

    Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth):

    malaysia_b772_9m-mro_gulf_of_thailand_140308_map.jpg



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,507 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    Is the above a copy of the avherald?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    They are investigating

    1. Hijacking
    2. Sabotage
    3. Psychological problems of crew or passengers
    4. Personal problems of crew or passengers

    According to a press conference on Sky.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭fr336


    sopretty wrote: »
    They are looking at

    1. Hijacking
    2. Sabotage
    3. Psychological problems of crew or passengers
    4. Personal problems of crew or passengers

    According to a press conference on Sky.

    Interesting. All deliberate acts.


Advertisement